Continued Response to Adnan Rashid and Hamza Tzortzis on the Reliability of the Bible (and Qur'an)

Greetings. Welcome to the dividing line. I uh remembered just toward the end of my getting ready here to grab the study cut on. I forgot to call a smoke bunny. I wrote an email this morning thankfully um so i haven't heard back from him yet.

Still looking forward to holding that thing up and making you all very jealous. But i wanted to. I just now uh here's here's the section we were looking at uh yesterday and i just want to compare the sahih international with the new study quran translation.

The paper in this is really thin. Um and when they meet those who believe they say we believe. And when they are alone with one another they say do you speak to them of what god has unveiled to you that they may thereby dispute with you before your lord.

Do you not understand. Do they not know that god knows what they hide and what they disclose. And among them are the illiterate who know nothing of the book but hearsay and they only conjecture. So one of those who write the book with their hands then say this is from god that they may sell it for a paltry price.

So own to them for what their hands have written in one of them for what they earn. And they say the fire will not touch us save for days numbered. Say have you made a covenant with god for god should not fail to keep his covenant etc etc etc.

Uh let's see here. Well let's haven't read the the note. We'll find out together. Greetings. By the way we're just sort of we're picking up where we left off yesterday. We're reviewing a um there is one person who can call if you want and we'll we'll talk you know who you are.

I won't say anything more than that. And if you don't know who you are don't bother calling uh but my goal today is to finish responding to Hamza Tsortzis and to um Adnan Rashid and maybe get to Wael Ibrahim as well.

A disembodied hand providing some tea over here because we were late getting started i gotta turn my little gotta turn my little tea warmer thingy bobby on here uh so it stays at least it's still not really all that warm at the end but it's better than nothing anyway.

Um so the goal is to i want to respond to these gentlemen for what they have said and you know i really hope i really honestly honestly hope now Adnan should know this because Adnan and i have talked about this i've i've shared with Adnan um really my heart as to why i do what i do.

So i hope he sees this haven't met Hamza yet but i i hope to um i really really want to set up some debates in in London again uh spend some time there uh want to get up to uh Scotland once again and i don't know maybe only way i may be able to work that out is a really long trip to South Africa this year uh like a week in London and then two weeks in South Africa.

I mean that would be the longest ever been out but anyway we'll see what happens. Um i really hope that you guys and i'm sure you've been referred to this um i hope that as you hear me responding to you you hear me responding to someone as someone in fact i i was going to mention this let me let me mention this everybody um do you have do you have the video uh put put up in the small screen.

Um i hope when you see these guys my my desire would be that if you are a regular watcher or listener to this program whatever we call it videocast webcast podcast what. Um my desire would be that your first reaction response to seeing Adnan to seeing Hamza whoever it might be Wa 'el Ibrahim whoever is a response of concern care and prayer for these individuals.

I want the audience of this program to be known as people who pray for those who have not bowed the knee to Jesus Christ and have not received the grace of God in Jesus Christ. I want to ask you to pray specifically for Adnan Rashid and Hamza Tsortzis uh for Wa 'el Ibrahim.

Uh pray for these individuals. Pray that that God in his manifold grace will reveal the the light of the glory of the gospel in Jesus Christ to these men. And i hope that you gentlemen realize i pray for you and that that will always be the context in which you listen to my response.

You might say Adnan you're dead wrong. You're just wrong. Um if you know that i'm praying for you maybe you can hear that in a way that you wouldn't hear otherwise. So i i want to especially encourage the Christians in the audience pray for these men.

Um pray that they will come to to understand the truth the gospel of Jesus Christ. That's why we are here. And so that's why we're doing what we're doing. So there is a note um on verse 79. Now remember what Adnan said.

The Quran is clearly teaching the entire corruption of the Bible entire not in the sense of complete but everything's been impacted and and human thoughts have been put in. So on. So forth let's see what.

I've not read it. I've not read this. Um 279. Although woe is an ordinary Arabic word used throughout the Quran as a cry of distress it is also interpreted here by some as a proper name for an infernal valley in hell based on the following hadith disputed by some such as the commentator ibn kathir gua 'il is a valley in hell into which the disbeliever will fall for 40 autumns before reaching its bottom.

Or it is a mountain of hell of blood and pus. Yay. In which case. So woe unto those them could be read for them. There will be whale brothers. It is the word that will be uttered by the punished. And it will be the cry of the disbelievers in hell.

The exegetes give an account of some jews who wrote something down and pawned it off on the ignorant arabs for a small profit. Another account links this verse with the alteration of the prophecies for telling the coming of coming of muhammad c7 157 meaning the description of the prophet in their book was altered so that they would be described so that they would describe something else.

That's it. Wow. So doesn't seem like the editors of the study quran um see this as functioning in the central way that anon and most of my uh most of the of the men with whom i have interacted have taken surah 279.

Um in fact the majority of the note is about this. Woe uh woe unto those. And then the exegetes give an account of some jews who wrote something down and pawned it off on the ignorant arabs for a small profit that wouldn't have anything to do with the bible.

The only one that would have something to do with the bible. Another account links this verse with the alteration of the prophecies for telling the coming of muhammad. Well not that that's really strange to me.

Um twice in the quran you have the assertion that muhammad is prophesied in scriptures. Sorry 717 is specifically cited here. Um. But if they were altered then why would there be texts that muslims can refer to today.

Well i guess i suppose they could argue um that. Well see none of these. None of these could possibly work on the part of any muslim who has has a meaningful accurate knowledge of the history of the transmission of new testament text.

None of this would work because would they actually be saying why would someone have altered the prophecies of the coming of muhammad before muhammad came. If there were alterations of the text after muhammad came in response to muhammad's claim to be a prophet then given the state of the manuscripts of the new testament we would know we would be able to detect it because we have manuscripts that were written hundreds of years before muhammad.

Complete manuscripts they were written 200 years before muhammad. So if for example there are there are muslims who claim that um john 14 and 16 are prophecies the coming of muhammad and that the parakletas was originally periclutas which mean which would be a a greek term that at least would have a connection to ahmed and hence from ahmed exalted one through to uh muhammad.

So um. But the problem is there are no manuscripts before muhammad anywhere. There are no manuscripts anywhere period that read that way. And we have lots of manuscripts of john 14 16. In fact the gospel of john is the earliest documented of the new testament books long before muhammad.

So none of it works it no matter no matter which direction you go history just slaps this upside the head. And i can see how surah 279 would be understood in the first way that there were ignorant jews who had written books and pondered off on the ignorant arabs uh as being divine revelation.

Okay. But none of that has anything to do with the bible has nothing to do with the angel has nothing to do with the torah. And for some reason all these scholars uh in the study quran didn't uh didn't come up with uh with adnan's interpretation.

Did you see the disembodied hand. Oh that's still hot. Yeah that's that's still hot now. By the way by the way before we get back into this how many boxes were out there. There were like four five boxes when rich went by the post office box filled with um t paraphernalia.

T paraphernalia. There's even there's even a t submarine that you can put because i mentioned. What do you do. You know all the only tea i've ever made. I'm fairly new to the tea thing. The only tea i've ever made is with tea bags.

So someone sends me this loose leaf tea. And i'm like what do. Well it's funny my kids uh that and that. And summer gave me a thing where you put it in there and then you can just lift this whole thing out and you're left with the mug and you've got your tea.

So i already had one of those got for christmas hadn't even opened it yet. And then all these boxes arrive with all sorts of things you can stick in of different shapes and sizes and and just all sorts of things.

So you're new to the tea thing right now. But in time you will become a teapologist. Well i can become a teapologist for this. This is uh because i don't drink coffee. Folks. I i'm sorry my dear daughter did everything in her power.

Oh and i have too. No you didn't do everything in your power. You did not tried to get you to drink. You would. No no no no no no i don't. I don't remember you ever trying to get me to drink. Well i still talk to the hand and the ears aren't listening.

No no no no no no. It's eating. To see. Summer tried. I mean she actually. Well she she's got a little more influence with you. No no she was at like 22 or 23. She was a manager of a starbucks. I mean she really got into the starbucks thing for a long time there and she knows her coffee really well.

And and so she found all sorts of innovative ways to hide the taste of coffee. It's sort of like my wife she says she drinks coffee. Do you have any idea how many different kinds of creamers with different flavors there are.

My my i can't find there's no place for me to put anything in my refrigerator for all the different creamers that my wife uses. She doesn't drink coffee. If i took the coffee out she wouldn't notice it.

Because.

She's just drinking cream. I drink it that way too but i would notice the absence. Yeah definitely.

Anyway so summer did everything she could to hide the taste of coffee and so but you know we live in phoenix. I'm not a big hot drink drinker. It we normally don't want to be putting heat into our body.

We want to be getting heat out of our body. So anyways this is good for the good for the the the voice. Um so anyhow. Um jeff turbin jeff turbin. Yeah jeff durbin tagged you in a post. Well great. I'll have to look at that once we're done here.

Let's get back to this. Because i want to get it done today. So there's 279 i'm sorry you know i i think gentlemen you need to i would like to see and i haven't seen this. This is called the the global dawah movement here all right.

Global global dawah movement. Um the gloa gloa the global dawah movement show all right. So here's my challenge for you guys uh and let me know when you do this. Because how did i even know about this one.

I forget what it was. Oh yeah i remember it now. It was a muslim apologist that asked me to look at um but if someone doesn't tell me i'm not necessarily going to know i don't i do not have the time to be tracking a lot of these things down.

I depend on people on twitter and facebook and stuff falls through the cracks. So if you produce this let me know i want to see a program where you guys engage in meaningful exegesis of surah 2 say start with about 75 is 75.

Follow the context through and demonstrate from the quran and from go ahead and use the early tafsir. I i i'm interested in what ibn kathir says. I'm but even break out of your narrow confines. Uh did uh did mucadal address it.

Oh mucadal. He he didn't necessarily follow the the later standards of isnad citations like yeah that's because he's so much earlier see amongst christians. That's what makes uh clement of rome. If the name was even clement he was in rome.

But uh clement and ignatius. That's what makes these sources so important is because they're so early. There are some extremely important early tafsir sources that later generations just sort of tried to bury because they developed a theology and a mechanism later on that those early sources didn't follow.

Well that's what makes them so valuable. So i'd like to see a program where you you demonstrate and document that surah 279 clearly because that's what you said clearly unambiguously teaches the corruption of the bible.

And what that means is you will have to demonstrate the impossibility or at least the high unlikelihood of even the reading mentioned in the footnote of the study quran that this is about jews who wrote uh books and pawn them off on ignorant arabs as being scripture which would have nothing to do whatsoever with paul or anything else.

Right. All right. So hadn't had the study quran there to to look at that already. We had gotten past that point. Adnan's now going to the the scientific um evidence of the corruption of the new testament.

Yeah tim in in twitter asked a question that i don't know if there's a definitive answer to what is the earliest islamic source that without a doubt claim that our scriptures are corrupted depends on who you talk to.

Um and it really depends on even how you interpret some of the islamic sources. There will be some that will say it's 10th century. Some will say no uh a fair reading of earlier sources within 200 years of muhammad.

But what is absolutely certain um is well i think it's absolutely certain that the majority view in the early centuries was not of the corruption of the text but the corruption of the interpretation and the reading of the text.

Um but what's what's indisputable is that the two perspectives existed side by side all the way up to the modern period. And they still do in one sense but as i've mentioned many times the publication of its rl hawk in 1864 and its its eventual wild popularity has taken what was for a while two fairly even streams and one has almost completely taken over the other to where the the vast majority of muslims now believe in the corruption of primarily where they know it or not because of its rl hawk.

So uh so there you go. All right. Let's get back to the text here. Uh we had just mentioned uh they had just mentioned the two major major in the sense of size not major in the sense of see when you talk about a textual variant in the new testament and you use the term major that could be major as in how many verses.

Or it can be major as in um the gravity or uh compelling nature of the evidence for the variation. So in other words uh you sort of have to define which one you're referring to major as in you know i think john 118 is a major textual variant whether it reads monogamous huias or monogamous theos.

Um and but it's it's major because it has major uh theological impact. And it's also major in that the textual data is extremely important. The kami ohani in first john 5 7 is not a major textual variant.

In that it's not. It's just not possibly original but it's major only because of what has been made of it historically over just over the past 500 years. Uh it wasn't major before then. So when you hear someone talk about a major textual variant you might want to see if in the context they define what they mean by that sometimes we don't sometimes use use terminology.

But a textual variant can be major in different senses and in different ways. Uh so that's important. So adnan and hamza have mentioned the longer ending of mark mark 16 9 through 20 and again as i pointed out how do they even know this is a textual variant.

Because christians are open about the history of their text because we we publish critical editions of the greek new testament. Uh this is actually the 27th edition we're up to 28th edition of the messiah all in text and you can look it up and you can see all the notes at the bottom of the page and uh the references to the manuscripts and of course all this is sitting in accordance and logos and bible works and olive tree and and all these incredible programs that we have available to us today.

Um wish i had something like that for the quran. We we ended the last program with my saying you guys should be out front raising money raising money. I've i've i've sat on my own program and we are a non-profit ministry dependent upon the the the gifts of people who support us and said you should also keep in mind the center for the study of new testament manuscripts dan wallace and the guys csntm who are going around and are uh taking high quality digital photography of all these manuscripts uh some of which could end up you know especially if they happen to be housed in middle east could end up disappearing.

Uh you know isis doesn't care. Isis will destroy anything. Isis destroys everything gets the hands on. Um so uh they're out there doing that. You all should be some of the first people out there saying we need to do the same thing.

We need to have a critical edition of the quran. We need to have all these. We need to know where all the textual variants are. We need a catalog of every variant mentioned in any of the early tafsir literature for the first 500 years of the islamic period.

Right. I'll look forward to seeing y 'all doing that. Uh i'm serious i'm absolutely serious. What's what you should be doing. If you're not doing it then i would say with all due respect we take our scriptures more seriously.

And you take yours because if you place your scriptures into a fantasy mythology mythological it floated down from heaven on a cloud type idea and don't recognize its own history. If you don't recognize how important it is that there that the sunni shia the origins of the sunni shia split are right at the same period of time as the origins of many of the textual variants in the quran.

If you don't see that then you're not dealing with your text in an honest fashion. And that means you're not respecting it. We respect our text when we produce volumes like this this shows respect. I know they're king james only us to say the other words.

They're confused. They're wrong. They've been refuted. Let's not worry about that. We're showing respect for the text because we want to know what was originally written not what a school district in egypt thought was originally written.

Which is what you've got in the 1924 version of your text. Just shouldn't ought to be just shouldn't ought to be. I mean even even when my tr only guys my tr only friends point to this at least this is you know about 500 years old.

Not quite but close at least it's got some a little age to it unlike uh the 1924 less than 100 years. Really wow. Anyway think about it think about it all right. We jump back into the text. Finally how far 26 minutes.

16 verse 9 to 20 is an added chunk it doesn't exist in the earliest manuscripts. It is an added chunk likewise the gospel of john chapter 7 verse 53 to chapter 8 verse 11 this entire chunk the parocopy of uh the adulterous has been added.

The story is very famous that an adult trust of what they would argue these chunks don't have any theological they do implications they do now.

I would not argue that uh hamza i would argue that no doctrine of the faith is determined by either text by any stretch the imagination. Um because there is no dogma of the faith something you must believe um that is dependent upon any one particular text and it is quite true that these two particular texts which are the only two texts of this size don't have a whole lot of um theological content in the sense of didactic teaching or or things like that.

Um so yeah we would argue that neither one of these impacts christian teaching. That's true. But i know that there are there are you know certain groups in the mountains of west virginia that think the long graining of mark's really important because they handle snakes and drink poison.

Uh so but i i don't think that those groups should be made to define you know things uh for us very well. Um you know what. Yeah let's let's let's go ahead. We're gonna do something um really unusual here.

Um we we used to do this as just i don't know we just sort of did it because we were supposed to do it i don't i don't know we haven't taken breaks during the program for i don't know a couple years we used to do it regularly and we need to take a break today for just a couple of moments and then we'll be right back so normally we'd have like bumper music and all sorts of stuff like that but we weren't prepared for any of that.

So we're gonna bump the bumper and just take a quick break and we'll be right back right after this. Answering those who.

Claim that only the king james version is the word of god. James white in his book the king james only controversy examines allegations that modern translators conspired to corrupt scripture and lead believers away from true christian faith in a readable and responsible style.

Author james white traces the development of bible translations old and new and investigates the differences between new versions and the authorized version of 1611. You can order your copy of james white's book the king james only controversy by going to our website at www .aomin .org.

What is dr norman.

Geisler warning the christian community about in his book chosen but free a new cult secularism false prophecy. Scenarios. No. Dr geisler is sounding the alarm about a system of beliefs commonly called calvinism.

He insists that this belief system is theologically inconsistent philosophically insufficient and morally repugnant. In his book the potter's freedom james white replies to dr geisler. But the potter's freedom is much more than just a reply.

It is a defense of the very principles upon which the protestant reformation was founded. Indeed it is a defense of the very gospel itself in a style that both scholars and laymen alike can appreciate.

James white masterfully counters the evidence against so-called extreme calvinism defines what the reform faith actually is and concludes that the gospel preached by the reformers is the very one taught in the pages of scripture.

The potter's freedom a defense of the reformation and a rebuttal to norman geisler's chosen but free. You'll find it in the reform theology section of our bookstore at aomin .org.

More than any time in the past roman catholics and evangelicals are working together. They are standing shoulder to shoulder against social evils they are joining across denominational boundaries in renewal movements and many evangelicals are finding the history tradition and grandeur of the roman catholic church.

Appealing this newfound rapport has caused many evangelical leaders and lay people to question the age-old disagreements that have divided protestants and catholics. Aren't we all saying the same thing in a different language.

James white's book the roman catholic controversy is an absorbing look at current views of tradition in scripture the papacy the mass purgatorian indulgences and marian doctrine. James white points out the crucial differences that remain regarding the christian life and the heart of the gospel itself that cannot be ignored.

Order your copy of the roman catholic controversy by.

Going to our website at aomin .org so transparency here folks. I need to make a phone call and i turn my microphone off to make sure that we had gotten that covered. So um i had gotten. I had missed a call right before the program started.

Really important had to get it back threw a curve there but i appreciate it. And i got good news when i made the phone call which makes me happy. Yay. Uh did you know. So i decided to start dress up for the show today.

No i'm not doing i'm not doing i'm not doing the i'm not speaking tonight. I'm this is this is a completely i did this for the dividing line audience. Uh wearing of a tie. It's actually my son. My son gave me this tie for christmas and so i decided you know what i'm gonna i'm gonna wear it.

So there you go all right. That's taken care of. I've drunk some tea. We're ready to go. Let's get back to adnan and hamza.

I used theologically for example the parochial of adulterous um is used to make a point that jesus did not apply the jewish law. Okay you understand. So when paul said that the jewish law no longer applies to christians they don't have to follow it strictly rather grace alone is.

Enough. Okay now that that's interesting. You're you're you're you're you're you're over on this side. Yeah there you go. Um uh i'm not i i know you don't have time to do this but if you were interested uh the series that i'm preaching right now available on sermon audio might be of some use to you if you had the time to listen to it to have a little better understanding of a meaningful um balanced.

And and i i'm not holding you accountable for this because i'll be honest with you out on the streets of london i bet you've heard every kind of goofy statement from christians about the law. I get it.

But assuming you'd actually like to know what serious christians say about these issues rather than just people who haven't really studied their faith a whole lot um there's a lot more to for example paul and the law than you seem to understand.

I mean even in a text where paul is saying that law keeping does not justify before god romans chapter 3 he then finishes that section by saying we establish the law. How do we establish the law. Because the law defines what sin is.

The law defines what the penalty of sin is. Um and the law defines what what penalty had to be paid by jesus christ so the righteousness of god might be maintained in giving us peace with him in giving us the righteousness of god.

Um but then paul did not say. And therefore we don't worry about the law. And when he went to the corinthians if you look at any of the vice lists they come straight out of the moral law of god from the old testament.

Uh he holds the corinthians accountable. For they should have known that someone who had his own father's wife there was an instance of incest should have known that that was that was wrong for christians.

Why. Because god's law says so. So it's not some simplistic. Well it's by grace or by law. No i you need to you need to recognize there's there's a lot more to it than that a lot more to it than that.

That i'm not sure you're.

Familiar with is this sacrifice on the cross is enough for our salvation so we don't have to follow that jewish law anymore. So this particular incident which is in the gospel of john and it doesn't exist in the earliest manuscripts is used for that particular theological point but they may.

Now it doesn't exist in your earliest manuscripts. Exactly so. Isn't it right adnan. That it should be put in brackets. It should be noted uh that some translations. I i think the new english uh version the net i'm sorry new english translation is going to remove it from the text.

The percocet adultery. Isn't that a good thing. Do we have any questions about john 752. How about john 8 12. No. So we know that this is a story. And when you say it was inserted in the bible what do you mean by that.

What you're saying is certain later manuscripts included it. But does that mean it was quote-unquote inserted in the bible. That there was. That someone was trying to do something sneaky. And if we're aware of it today then how would you be aware.

If there was something that had been inserted into the text of the quran how would you know there are allegations that happening. You you know about ubay ibn kabh. You know about abdullah ibn masood. You you know how often they are referenced in the early tafsir literature of the quran.

You're you're aware of this. How would you know given the state of the manuscript evidence. And remember can i argue please given how much younger the quran is than the new testament 600 years. And given how much smaller the quran is barely half the size of new testament.

You should have much better you this. You should have something better than this fuller than this more complete than this. Shouldn't you. Why don't you questions. For my friends a fine there could be some.

Differences here and there even if major theological differences. But the crux of the matter is that this book the bible is a historical document. If we have historical eyewitness accounts that our theology is true namely that jesus was crucified then he rose from the dead therefore christianity is true.

So they don't play the kind of divine book card. They play the.

Historical card. So how do we dismantle that now. Hamza. That's interesting. Um because i would i would probably help you dismantle that because that's that's a liberal perspective that i think you and i both recognize is pretty much incoherent.

Um i know there are people who say well you know let's just start with the bible as a generally reliable historical document. Now i think one of the reasons you guys don't do this is because i don't see how the quran is a historical document in the first place like i said in the last program there's nothing in the quran that even comes close to what you have in acts what you have in any of the gospels.

As to geographical names place names patronyms um directions you know i mean you go out of jerusalem. You come into jerusalem when going to bethany. Bethany is just outside jerusalem while we we do studies in archaeology and lo and behold that's exactly the way it is.

So other than you know a few references to you know the direction between mecca and medina and uh you know a few things about the battle of badr and the battle of trench and stuff like that. You just you don't have the same kind of material in the quran there's entire sections where it just goes on and on and on about monotheism and things related to that and there's there's no historical connection whatsoever.

So i think one of the reasons you don't go there is because it's really not a strong argument for you. Um but furthermore i think that you recognize that for us to sit here and say well you know the bible's generally reliable and that lead us leads us to this that leads us to that a generally reliable historical document is insufficient to establish that jesus christ was god in the flesh.

Generally reliable historical documents do not establish such amazing things as the resurrection. Now i think the resurrection is placed in history. It's a historical event. But it's a historical event that requires a supernatural worldview to even begin to believe that it took place in history.

So i get why you would say this doesn't seem like an overly compelling argument. I agree and it's not how christians have argued down the centuries either. It's a fairly modern type thing. Two issues here.

First of all when you say these are historical.

Books. No doubt they were written historically by someone that is clear. The point is who wrote them is the question. Okay we have one testimony from the early second century and his name is uh papias of hierapolis.

There is one man who has attributed all these four gospels to four individuals. He is the one who's saying the gospel of john is written by a man called john. To this day the christians or christian scholars christian scholarship is not unanimous on the point as to who wrote the gospel of john.

Which john are we talking about. Is it john the son of zebedee. Is it john the presbyter. Or is it john uh the apostle. Who is it. Well actually you conflated two people there.

But there are a minority a small number of christian scholars who would who do raise the issue of whether the john of history is john the presbyter or john the apostle. Um there is uh as you may know um a book that i thought was sitting right there guess it's not uh called jesus and the eyewitnesses uh which argues actually as part of its thesis that the john who writes the gospels gospel um that that john is a resident of jerusalem probably son of the woman who owned the upper room and is different than john the apostle who's john the son of zebedee.

Now it's an interesting theory and i do get concerned by folks who will kick someone out of the kingdom of heaven for adopting that theory. Um most christians have never heard of it but okay i understand the arguments.

I don't adopt it myself but i'm not gonna i'm not gonna say that someone's you know gonna be in hellfire for it which is sort of what isis does with a lot of things but that's another issue. Um however you guys need to recognize that one of your arguments that you you you naturally default to is not a good argument and it's the we need to know the name address and phone number of every writer of scripture argument.

It is painfully obvious that jesus who you believe was a prophet did not subscribe to the later islamic development and it was a it was a development that took place after the period of the quran by the way of developing isnad chains that somehow we need to know that the person who narrated this particular event we need to know exactly who it was.

Well as you know one of the reasons muqattal is is not what was attacked by later generations because he didn't that was not a standard in his day. And so he cannot be faulted for not using a standard that didn't exist in his day.

That's that's ridiculous in the same way this standard that you all have come up with 750 800 850 years after uh the time of christ. How can it's. It's so anachronistic to read that back and say well you don't know who wrote hebrews.

So you have some theories but that's not what makes something inspired. And that again is one of the major differences between us and how we've our scriptures. We do not view that the person writing it that their personhood their character is what makes something scripture.

That's why we view prophets so differently than you do we we have. I believe i'll say it honestly with all due respect a much higher view of scripture. I really do believe that we do because we view you know you all look at paul's statement.

Well you all maybe you guys don't. I hope you don't. I hope you've learned that this is just a really bad argument. But i'm trying to think i cannot think of a single muslim that i've ever heard mentioned this text that didn't blow it that didn't have it wrong.

So i hope you guys don't do this. I don't remember adnan. Maybe in our conversations you have mentioned this. I think you have my my recollection is that you have maybe you've accepted it's wrong and recognized it was a bad argument.