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

And greetings, welcome to The Dividing Line. I remembered just toward the end of my getting ready here to grab the study cut on,

I forgot to call Ace Bookbinding. I wrote him an email this morning, thankfully. 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, here's, here's the section we were looking at yesterday.

And I just want to compare the Sahih International with the new study Quran translation.

The paper in this is really thin. 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 woe unto those who write the book with their hands, then say, this is from God, that they may sell it for a paltry price.

So woe unto them for what their hands have written and woe unto 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. Let's see here.

Well, let's, I haven't read 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, 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. But my goal today is to finish responding to Hamza Tzortzis and to Adnan Rashid and maybe get to Wael Ibrahim as well, a disembodied hand providing some tea over here because we're late getting started.

I got to turn my little, got to turn my little tea warmer thingy bobby on here. So it stays, it's still not really all that warm at the end, but it's better than nothing.

Anyway, 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 shared with Adnan really my heart as to why

I do what I do. So I hope that he sees this. Haven't met Hamza yet, but I hope to. I really, really want to set up some debates in London again, spend some time there, want to get up to Scotland once again.

And I don't know, maybe the only way I may be able to work that out is a really long trip to South Africa this year, like a week in London and then two weeks in South Africa.

I mean, that would be the longest I've ever been out. But anyway, we'll see what happens. I really hope that you guys, and I'm sure you've been referred to this.

I hope that as you hear me responding to you, you hear me responding to someone as someone.

In fact, I was going to mention this. Let me let me mention this to everybody. Do you have, do you have the video put up in the small screen?

I hope when you see these guys, 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 Tzortzis, for Wa 'el

Ibrahim. Pray for these individuals. Pray that, that God in his manifold grace will reveal 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.

Even when I say, Adnan, you're dead wrong. You're just wrong. 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 want to especially encourage the Christians in the audience, pray for these men.

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 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 and 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 Gua 'il 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 pondered 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.

C 7 1 3 7 made 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 could on, um, see this as functioning in the central way that a non and most of my, uh, most of the, of the men with whom

I have interacted have taken Surah 2 79. 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 pondered 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 cut on, you have the assertion that Muhammad is prophesied in the scriptures.

So a seven one seven 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 the new

Testament texts. None of this would work because, uh, would they actually be set?

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 that 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 of the coming of Muhammad and that the parakletos was originally periklutos, 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, 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 and 16.

In fact, the gospel of John is the earliest documented of the new Testament books along before Muhammad. So none of it works.

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

Injil 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. Cause I mentioned, what do you do?

You know, all the only T I've ever made, I'm fairly new to the T thing. The only T I've ever made is with T bags.

So someone sends me this loose leaf T and I'm like, well, I 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

T. 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 T thing right now, but in time you will become a T -pologist. Well, I can become a

T -pologist for this. This is, uh, cause I don't drink coffee folks. I, I, I'm sorry.

My dear daughter did everything in her power. And I have too. No, you didn't do everything in your power.

You did not try to get you to drink. You wouldn't come here. 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, no, no, no. It's eating to see summer tried. I mean, she actually, well, she, 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 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

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 voice

So Anyhow 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 think gentlemen you need to I Would like to see and I haven't seen this

This is called the the global Dawa movement here. All right global global Dawa movement

The glow a Glow a the global Dawa movement show. All right, so here's my challenge for you guys 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 this Um But if someone doesn't tell me I'm not necessarily gonna 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 to 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 to 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'm interested in what

Ibn Kathir says. I'm but even Break out of your narrow confines

Did did Muqadda address it? Oh Muqadda he he didn't necessarily follow the the later

Standards of isn't odd citations. Oh, yeah. Yeah, that's because he's so much earlier see amongst

Christians. That's what makes Clement of Rome if the name was even Clement he was in Rome, but 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 books and pawned 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 look at that Already we had gotten past that point

Adnan's now going to the the scientific 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 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 a fair reading of earlier sources within 200 years of Muhammad but what is absolutely certain

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 interpretations and the reading the text

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 it's our al -haq in 1864 and It's its eventual wild popularity

Has taken what was for a while to? fairly even Streams and one has almost completely taken over the other to where the vast majority of Muslims now believe in the corruption of scripture

Primarily where they know it or not because of its our al -haq so So there you go.

All right, let's get back to the text here. We had just mentioned 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 The Gravity or Compelling nature of the evidence for the variation.

So in other words It 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

Huyas or monogamous Theos And but it's it's major because it has major Theological impact and it's also major in that the

Textual data is extremely important The Kami Ohanian first John 5 7 is not a major textual variant in that.

It's not it's it's not possibly original But it's major only because of what has been made of it historically over just over the past 500 years

It wasn't major before then So when you hear someone talking 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 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 textual variant because Christians are open about the history of their text because we we publish critical editions of the

Greek New Testament This is actually 27th edition we're up to 28th edition of the

Messiaen text and you can look it up and you can see all the notes at the bottom of the page and 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

Wish I had something like that for the Quran 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

Taking high quality digital photography of all these manuscripts Some of which could end up, you know, especially if they happen to be housed in Middle East could end up disappearing

You know Isis doesn't care Isis will destroy anything Isis destroys everything gets the hands -on

So 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 I'm serious.

I'm absolutely serious. What's that? 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 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 it's 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 prerogative of The adulterous has been added the story is very famous that an adulterous or what they would argue these chunks don't have any

Theological they do implications. They do now that I would not argue that Hamza I would argue that No doctrine of the faith is

Determined by either text by a stretch the imagination Because there is no dogma of the faith something you must believe

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 Theological content in the sense of Didactic teaching or or things like that So, yeah, we would argue that Neither one of these impacts

Christian teaching that's true, but I know that there are there you know certain groups in the mountains of West Virginia that think the long -graining of marks really important because they handle snakes drink poison

So but I Don't think that those groups should be made to define, you know things for us very well

You know what yeah, let's let's let's go ahead we're gonna do something really unusual here

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 know. 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 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 .a

Omin 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

Reformed 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 You'll find it in the reformed theology section of our bookstore at a omen 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 laypeople 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.

They cannot be ignored Order your copy of the Roman Catholic controversy by going to our website at a omen 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 I Had gotten

I had missed a call right before the program started really important had to get it back Through a curve there, but I appreciate it and I got good news when

I made the phone call which makes me happy. Yay Did you notice I decided to dress up for the show today?

No, I'm not doing that. I'm not doing I'm not doing the pro I'm not speaking tonight I'm this is this is a completely

I did this for the dividing line audience 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 of adulterous

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 I'm not

I I know you don't have time to do this But if you were interested

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 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

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 a lot of fines what the penalty of sin is

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 But then

Paul did not say and therefore we don't worry about the law in 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 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 It's not some simplistic.

Well, it's by grace or by law no, I you need to You need to recognize 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 That some translations, I think the New English 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 into 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 by Evan Cobb, you know about Abdullah Ibn Masood You you know how often they are referenced in the early

Tafsir literature of the Quran 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 six hundred 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 naming that Jesus Was crucified then he rose from the dead therefore

Christianity is true So don't 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 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

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

Directions You know, I mean you go out of Jerusalem you come into Jerusalem when going to Bethany Bethany is just outside Jerusalem Wow, 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 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 But furthermore,

I think that you recognize that for us to sit here and say well, you know, the

Bible is 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 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 to 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 2nd century and his name is

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 press -biter?

Was it John? 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 There is as you may know

A book that I thought was sitting right there But I guess it's not called

Jesus and the eyewitnesses which argues actually as part of its thesis that The John who writes the

Gospels Gospel 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

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 it 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 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 it's not 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, all the reasons Makoto 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 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 got 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've 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.

It 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 recollection is that you have

Maybe you've accepted it's wrong and recognized it was a bad argument I don't know but I'm talking about the passage in Paul where he says now not now

I not the Lord say to you and Muslim after Muslim I've heard about the

Dean's show and you know, just all sorts of webcasts and stuff Saying see this shows that this is not inspired.

This is Paul speaking on his own No has absolutely positively nothing whatsoever

To do with inspiration or anything else When you read it in context Previous this

Paul has said now The Lord said and he's talking about marriage and he's drawing directly from the

Gospel tradition itself and the Gospels record where Jesus specifically said these things about marriage

But then Paul has been asked questions that Jesus did not address in the gospel tradition. And so all

Paul is saying is I Not the Lord. I'm not drawing this in the gospel tradition, but as an apostle of Jesus Christ I am saying the following we have no problem with that being the

Anustos God -breathed We have no problem with Paul saying bring the cloaks and the parchments.

It's gonna get cold. I want to be able to write stuff I can't be the Word of God. Why not?

You see our view of Scripture is significantly higher because Adnan Hamza When I haven't had a chance to teach

Greek specifically for a while I've taught a lot of classes that involve teaching

Greek, but recently but I used to get to teach First year

Greek in seminary a lot. So I would take people through mounts his grammar teach them how to read it and then we would do an exegesis class afterwards now when you get done with the first semester in seminary, which is really way too fast, but Always bugged me because I felt like I was teaching people to hate

Greek rather than love Greek but I did my best to not do that and I I'm I'm very very pleased to point out that There are students of mine who have now earned their

PhDs in New Testament and they learn Greek from me and that's that makes me feel really really good, but When you get somebody to the end of first year

Greek you do not then jump into the book of Hebrews and Expect them to be able to read this

You don't do Luke. You don't do acts It's to come it's too complicated the vocabulary.

Oh my goodness Hebrews vocabulary and the syntactical stuff Luke acts

Hebrews very Classical Greek very hard level ten nine ten on a scale of ten

You go back to you go back first John almost everybody Cut their teeth their first translation in the

New Testament here in first John and Pretty much anybody can just sit here the one not loving

Does not know God or is not knowing God Because God is love in this love of God has been manifest in us us plural because his son the only begotten the monogamy

God Sent into the world in order that we might live through him

As long as you don't Greek, you know, but first John just straight through just read it like you read a newspaper

Its vocabulary is simple. Its grammar is simple. Its syntax is simple not gonna use first Peter that way participial

Peter That's second year or maybe Philippians very frequently after first John the point is

There's on on a scale of 1 to 10 in the New Testament. You've got level 10 All the way down to I'd say level 2

I'd put first shot about level 2 and everything in between I can tell when

I'm reading Paul over against reading Luke you bet or John mark

You can tell when you spent time with them you can tell their style and they're different styles and they're all the honest us

We're all God breathe So, what does that mean? Well, that means that God is so great

God is so powerful That even in his divine decree as he forms and fashions very fabric of time

He made me the way I am the same way. He made you the way you are And he made

Paul the way Paul was and mark the way mark was Knowing them in that way as a part of his sovereign decree not some silly middle knowledge

But as a part of his sovereign decree He is able to use these men in the situation they were in in their life experiences in their very speech and To recognize a lot of us we speak differently than we write

God knows them that well because he made them that way He is able to use them in their historical context in their very words to give us exactly what he

Wanted to give us as his word. God's Word is so is so much deeper than God sitting there with an mp3 recorder

So much deeper and Guys, I just don't see any evidence that the author of the

Quran had any earthly idea That that is what Christians believed and that that's what the

New Testament reveals I still see any evidence of it is and I'm not trying to close my eyes to it.

I Just don't see any evidence of it. So the point is Our view of inspiration

I think is a much higher view of inspiration because it uses It's it's what

Peter said men spoke from God as they were carried along By the

Holy Spirit That's a beautiful picture it's a beautiful picture

But I don't see you guys understanding it. You seem to object to other things

Rather than the reality which John is it so they don't know Second he is the one who attributed the

Gospel of Matthew to a man called Matthew Okay, and he even stated that it was in his opinion

Written in Hebrew and that's the claim. So this is a now let's let's let's talk a little bit about this real quickly

Do you really think do you really think I'm even gonna get this done between now and 1230? Now in the end of the month, huh?

I'm working on it But this stuff's important. I mean, it's really important stuff

All right, Papias Papias. All right Um Matthew Mark Luke and John is there

Is the only source we have for this Papias now is Papias an early source? For the four

Gospels. Yes. Oh, I didn't bring it in let me I'm gonna have to refer you to Adnan did

I You know what you guys could do for me. That would be helpful I mean, I'm honest here and I'm not

I'm putting you in charge of doing this for me I Started as you know Adnan I started back in 2006 the

Tradition of giving a gift normally a book Bible some type of text To my

Muslim debate opponents and I Do mean this as a sign of respect and I do mean it as a sign of wanting to give you

Information that obviously my hope and prayer for you is that you would come to know the truth of Jesus Christ.

I Could really use a list of what I've given to each one of you because I haven't kept one

Yeah, I'm definitely afraid of giving you all the same thing. I've already given it to you once So at least like I'm not if you and I arrange another debate

Let's say we work something out to where I can I can do some debates in Have to rewind all the videos

That would be the other way to do it, wouldn't it? Yeah, yeah. Yeah, what which book was that?

Can I tell by the spine, you know, sometimes I mentioned, you know Like I know I've given William Webster's book on on the

Messianic prophecies of Jesus I Know I've given a couple of you guys But it may have been down South Africa Michael Kruger's work on the

Canon. Yeah Maybe even more like three years

Yeah, I guess that's been around I don't have it in here right now. We actually make it available on the website, but If I haven't given it to you and Hamsa, you know,

I haven't met So this would be something that I would highly recommend for you as well Get it read

Michael Kruger's he's got really two books out right now on the subject of the

Canon. I'm pretty certain though That a lot of this stuff if you go to Michael Kruger's blog

It's KRU G ER I know that in his blog articles.

I know that in his books He has addressed these issues of the early formation of the

Canon the testimonies Oh Maybe somebody in channel could help me with this

He also co -authored a book and the name of his co -author is completely escaping me right now

About the early New Testament text. It's a really really good book

But I don't think it's in here I think it's in the other room

I guess I could probably look it up online. Look up Kruger on on Amazon and there's another book

That he co -authored Yes, yes and Who?

Charles Hill Charles Hill not a overly complex name Charles Hill does some great stuff

Take some time you guys I'm talking to you.

Honestly here you should Jeff Durbin just messaged me on Facebook monergism .com

Legacy. Yeah, there's lectures Canon Michael J Kruger. So monergism .com look up look up Michael Kruger.

Thanks Jeff That's the lecture series he gave he will address the issues of papias and Ignatius Irenaeus Clement what we can get from the didache

From a lot of the apostolic fathers much more in -depth than I can go into right now and If I don't speed up, we're never even gonna finish this but I'm honestly saying to you guys

And I'm not you and I sat at lunch and we talked about this and I told you what drives me to try to be consistent and what

I'm looking for in the hearts and the behaviors and the attitudes of Muslims on the other side,

I would think that you guys Should be significantly less interested in the liberal

Compromising unbelievers who call themselves Christians than in the consistent believing confessing

Christians Because on your own side what scholars do you look to?

To those who consistently believe and are consistent in their profession of faith, right?

So why is it that the main people you quote are not those from our side? You don't even I'll be honest with you.

Most of you guys don't show much interest In a Michael Kruger or a hill or these people who who plainly?

Believe what they believe and stand firm not by ignoring what other people are saying But by going in -depth in response to what other people are saying

Wouldn't it wouldn't it be more? consistent for you guys To be reading their stuff.

So you're reading the best the other side has to offer Right, that's how

I that's how I would see it. That's what I try to do So, there you go, let's uh,

I direct you so happiest Interesting source there's

There's all sorts of questions about exactly what we know of Pappius the means by which his words are are come to us

You know manuscript evidence There's there's issues regarding creating a critical text of the

Apostolic Fathers the apologists There's a lot that goes into this particular area

Adnan But I would just have to challenge the idea

That Pappius is our only source or that any other source after Pappius is drawing the same lines

Only through that one particular source The names of Matthew Mark Luke and John are not canonical

But there is solid reason to accept the earliest traditions even outside of Pappius as to who these writers were and I directed the monergism lectures

Go to his blog. I'm sure his blog probably has links to all these things to go to Michael Kruger's blog

Charles Hill and Once you get these books as you as you guys know, I'm not telling you something

You don't know but for and there's someone in channel mentioning an extra X another very good source on today's

Kastenberger and And that is a book that I I know I've given but I think it was

I think I gave it to Yusuf Ismail in in South Africa and Maybe to some some of the other gentlemen that I've debated down there

But I highly recommend The heresy of orthodoxy if you've

I've given Three or four of those away in some of my debates. Maybe I'm not I've given one to you.

I don't know but Heresy of orthodoxy really really good stuff there, too

Take some time to be dealing with these things because I think it would at the very least broaden your your apologetic

Knowledge at the very least Contestant you're saying the whole of biblical

Christianity concerning the importance of the attribution of the gospel the attribution of the gospels It lies on one testimony.

That's right from the early 2nd century and his name is happiest So you're saying well, how can we trust it? That's right.

And when we talk about you know, this is another issue all together Yeah, we have categories. Yes. Quran is out of the question.

Sure. It's out of the question. Okay, there's no doubt even the most hostile Polymises yes who are writing against Islam They have to accept and in the light of recent scholarship that the

Quran definitely come from the time of Muhammad Peace be upon him. So the law is from right with regards to the

Gospels. No, no, no, no, just it is just there's all sorts of questions here and You know just simply making that statement wouldn't it be a lot easier to Give some documentation.

I mean if it is that obvious then How about giving some documentation?

I? mean that because And and I'm not you you really need to spend some time you keep quoting

Metzger, but you don't understand Metzger I told you this years ago Take some time to come to understand what it was that you mocked in our debate in London and That is the idea

That a the free transmission of the text is different than the controlled transmission of the text

Because until you come to to wrestle with this You're not even really engaging

With those of us that are Really seriously talking about this you may be engaging with some

Christians don't understand the history of their own text I like that but you're not really engaging with those of us that that are serious about the history of our text the control of the transmission

The othmanic revision you I would have a lot more respect

For what you're saying here Adnan If you and I know it's it's a limited period of time, okay,

I'll give you that but still You're you're making assertions when you know that there are serious questions without even

Providing in the way you make your claim a Recognition that you know what the issues are and you've got solid grounds for saying what you're saying

You know, I think what you mean when you're talking about recent discoveries is the small number of fragments it's it's funny

Y 'all will dismiss p52 Because it's such a small fragment, but you'll take a piece of parchment or two from a single sirah

And invest it with a huge amount of weight. I Don't have any problem with the idea of the

Quran coming from the time of Muhammad But there are lots of questions concerning the creation of Even if you

Accept the the standard Islamic story don't you see there are lots of questions about the initial collation?

lots of questions about What came from memory what was written on the shoulder of a camel?

Why were there ayahs ayat that were were not? Discovered for 20 years

What about the possibility of the loss of Portions of the

Quran at the Battle of Yalmama that was a concern it's a concern expressed within the

Islamic sources themselves and Simply dismissing them Makes those of us who are listening to your criticism of our text go

You know, you seem to want us to be much more serious about our text than you are about your text which is 600 years younger much smaller and yet in that early period we we don't have

We don't we don't have the kind of material we'd expect to have It raises again lots of issues it is highly problematic to attribute these

Gospels and the teachings to Jesus to Isa al -islam. We don't know whether Jesus ever taught these things.

These are right highly problematic on what basis On what on what basis

I mean, this is where you need to start dealing with with the solid evidence that the

New Testament documents Matthew Mark that the Gospels were written by people who lived in Palestine in the first century

There is solid evidence of that their knowledge of place names their knowledge of geography their knowledge of the mechanisms that people of that day used the the fact that the

Names that were digging out of the ground in graves Match in proportion the very names used in the

New Testament in the Gospels themselves Which would not be the case if these were made up someplace else you've got to be dealing with these things guys this

This it's this is where this is where you're at. Your weakest really is you're just you're you're throwing some firebombs out there, but You're not really making serious arguments here, this is this this is disappointing

This is disappointing These accounts happened even these accounts were written.

No doubt. They were written in the late first century or early second century There's no doubt. Are they reliable enough?

That's the problem their attribution to Jesus. Is it is that attribution reliable? There is no evidence for that.

This was there is no evidence for that You do realize that if you were to make the same

Argumentation there's there's no evidence for anything Muhammad ever said, right?

I mean if you're gonna be fair, I Mean, come on. Don't give me the s not chain stuff.

You and I both know every hadith ever pawned upon people and a large majority of hadith that have ever been produced have been rejected by The scholars of hadith but every one of them had an s not chain didn't it that doesn't mean anything

It's anachronistic a historical and so now if you're gonna if you're gonna say Well, yeah, you know, okay their first century documents, but you know, wait, there's just no evidence that it has anything to do with Jesus And then hold up a book that has quotes from Jesus in it

From 600 years later without a single shred of historical connection to Jesus at all to the first century of Palestine at all zip zero nada and that plainly contains

Apocryphal statements from books That are tainted by Gnosticism and that were written hundreds of years later

And yet this book takes them as if they were the very words of Jesus Speaking from his cradle

Arabic infancy gospel didn't happen a historical it's right here talk about uneven scales

Talk about uneven scales You guys sit there and go well, yeah That actually happened.

Why because the Quran says so Okay, and that completely invalidates your argument here because I can simply say

Well anything in the Gospels happened because the Bible says so Can't go any farther than that.

There we there we go. There there there is there's the end of that conversation God said

I believe it that settles it for me, you know, okay I understand the theological application of that but we're talking you're making you're making arguments here

That are acid to your own position. You don't seem to realize it and see

When I make arguments that I know are acid to my position I make sure to carry them

Very carefully in glass containers and apply them very specifically to the position that I am dealing with So that I don't get it on my position not hypocritically

But because I'm trying to be consistent and that's why a lot of people get angry at me because I don't use their arguments because I My first and foremost concern is

I can't use an argument against you that's gonna refute me and I think a lot of folks who've gotten mad at me recently.

Are you getting soft on Islam? I never find them doing shows like this. I Don't find them opening up Greek New Testaments and talking about textual history and doing something because they can't do it

They don't do it. So it's easy for them to make arguments Because they're not gonna have to worry

About doing the tough work of actually defending the

Christian scriptures against similar argumentation But I think you guys should know that's what makes my arguments challenging to you

Is because I'm trying to be consistent I'm trying to be consistent right now you're disappointing me here

Adnan document written by a man, what about what they saw How do we know they are eyewitnesses if we don't know who they are first of all if we don't know who they are

How do we know whether they are eyewitnesses or not? If we know for example a companion of Jesus Matthew for example who was a companion right or any other companion for that matter if you take

Judas for example Okay, he was an eyewitness if we had a gospel of Judas Which is traceable back to Judas through oral transmission or some kind of manuscript found from the period

Yes, then we can have we have some grounds. So we don't have that. Oh, no, we don't have that. That's a weird place to stop

Hey, it's Adnan's shoulder and Hamza's Hamza works out, doesn't he? Anyway, it's meant in a positive way.

I was once a weightlifter anyway What do you mean we don't have that It's exactly what we have remember

Your book is 600 years younger so I can sit here

I can fire up keynote I can Put up p46 and p45 and p72 and p75 and everything else.

What what are you laughing at? Oh, no, I'm not laughing. I'm just listening to what he's saying And he's saying, you know, we don't know who these people were right and then he starts talking about Matthew We know that Matthew was a companion of Jesus.

It's like well, how do you know? No Yeah, you gotta look at the book that you're sitting there saying it. We don't know They're right there in talk about Judas We know the

Judas was a companion of Jesus and we know all about Judas, right? Well, wait a minute. How do you know?

That's right And you see one of the things and see one of the things that this does raise that I do want to mention here

How far have I gotten? I've only got six minutes left We're doing a program tomorrow, we're doing a program tomorrow.

Sorry. I'm gonna get back to why I'll Abraham I'm gonna do it. I Really am

One of the things this raises though that I haven't really discussed in the program before that I think is very important Many scholars have recognized and I would like to challenge us because I think this is true many scholars have recognized

That the author of the Quran the way that the

Quran addresses its audience Especially when addressing

Biblical topics topics about prophets when it's addressing the same stories

Joseph David the author of the Quran assumes and Hence makes necessary on the part of the readers and listeners of the

Quran a Certain level of knowledge of the Bible itself.

It assumes it it assumes it Now that raises all sorts of difficult issues for example in the

Quran the prophet Nathan comes to David and He still rebukes

David, but the sin of David's been removed The only way you can even understand this is to know what happened in the biblical narrative

But out of many a Muslim will say well the prophets would never do it David did The point is the

Quran is a dependent text, how can it be a muhammadan a Guardian when it's dependent

For so much of its context upon what came before it Now there are other places where it has no context at all, which is another issue.

But yeah We have exactly what Hamza said we don't have I Can I can pull up these manuscripts

I can show them to you. They come from the second century You can't show me manuscripts of similar documents

Where there's been some kind of massive change where it's completely different story.

So just as you finding even a few ayat of Surat Al -Maidah from AD 705 would be a vitally important find relevant to the transmission of the text of Surat Al -Maidah in the same way p52 p72 p75 p46 p45

All demonstrate That the New Testament text

Has been transmitted to us via multiple lines, which is very very important And that that's what it originally said even even

Bart Ehrman Recognizes we know what the New Testament originally said we're just we're just we're just playing with details

Even he recognizes that you guys need to recognize the same thing. I Think it's just again even scales

No Luke was a physician of Paul He was a companion of Paul and it is Paul who taught

Luke what he wrote and this is what's claimed, right? then Except that Luke says otherwise, doesn't he?

So upon what basis? Would you accept if I just simply?

Assert guilt on the part of the original author of the

Quran Rather than demonstrating why Luke says he did study

He used documentation. He interviewed people The funny thing is you guys will use that as evidence that it's not inspired

Hopefully what I said earlier will explain to you That's not inconsistent with us. We you can study and what you write is still inspired if God wants it to be inspired

But why do you just automatically assume that Luke is lying

That's not this, you know Was a disciple of Peter it is claimed.

Okay, so all these facts are claims made by Later authorities later scholars in the second century.

The earliest testimony we have of these attributions is from Papias and One man and how does he justify that testimony?

Well, he states that this is what my view is and that's it. That's it Yeah, that's it. Yeah, that's it.

Okay What The I don't know where you've gotten this assumption that All later people had access to Papias What how do you know that Where are you getting this?

Maybe you've got a source. I'd like to see what the source is You know, sometimes you guys grab hold of some sources that You might want to look a little closer at And and you end up saying things, you know, there you go,

I'm being corrected appropriately Nathan that the word the name of Nathan does not appear in the

Quran. I realize that but the story of what happened with David Repenting is in the

Quran. You just don't have the all the reasons for it. Nathan's name doesn't appear but that whole event is behind This way the author of the

Quran Had heard about what happened with David and Nathan but because of this later idea that we need to Clean up the prophets and And this is this is primarily an

Arab thing it's it it can be traced to the

Culture of that time And I think it has to do with with Muhammad and his claims to being a prophet and To some of the arguments that were used against him

But certainly in Mecca Medina the character of the Prophet was central to the authority of that Prophet statement.

Well That doesn't translate back to ancient Israel, but the author of the

Quran assumed that it did Again, because he does not have direct firsthand access. What it demonstrates is the author of the

Quran had heard these stories orally that explains why the story of Lot and Sodom Gamorrah Ends up being told multiple different ways.

That's how Nathan can disappear, but Nathan's still there because There is a rebuke of David, but now sudden the whole thing of that Sheba disappears it's it's oral stuff and it's oral stuff that has been filtered through a

Cultural lens. So thank you for pointing that out. I am aware of that but it what it shows us again is the

The Fact that what we have in the Quran We're told written on the tablet in heaven an eternity past See Modern Muslim scholars in the

West recognize There's there's much more to it than that. There there is a clear obvious Cultural Aspect to what ends up in the

Quran and it It comes from the Arab 7th century and what they thought was important and what they thought was

Was and it ends up in the text of the Quran. How can that be if it was written in eternity past?

Well, there's all sorts of stuff that raises all sorts of questions about that, you know For me, I'll be honest with you the stuff about Zaynab bin jash

Wow, I mean that's just so clear that this is

Earthly very very earthly in a really repulsive way to be pretty honest with you, um

But anyway, but yes Nathan's name does not appear in the Quran, but what happened with Nathan is there but it gets edited changed over time

And you still you end up wondering why sorry is it did any of the early church fathers even agree on a caramelized gospel text

No, okay. Did any of the religious fathers believe on it? Can I say again, please take the time

Hamza? You know, I don't remember I may have brought something for you

Unbelievable, and you didn't get it because you didn't show up. I May have actually brought one of those books.

I think I did I think I gave it to somebody else because I didn't couldn't give it to you and I think I had some other debates

And so yeah, I think that's what I did Who knows you may have you may have missed a free Michael Kruger book

But I highly recommend it to you to take the time But again even scales

A little by Evan Cobb, I'll build it up in Masood interesting evidence from the

Christian al -kindi That demonstrates that the Muslim sources that sort of mentioned those different number of surahs and things like that That knowledge existed outside of the

Muslim community and is transmitted Amongst the Christians as well because I'll Kendi knew about it

Interesting stuff interesting stuff if you live if you see the list of canonized, what is canonicity first of all canonicity means an accepted list of books

That's what can I guess canon actually means a yardstick or a standard or a criteria against which you judge documents, okay, and when some document has been accepted as authoritative or Authentic it is considered to be

To be canonized or an integral part of the canon, okay, so the list of this canon varied from Place to place from time to time from person to person.

So when you pick up early Church Fathers such as origin such as Ignatius is one of them such as Clement of Alexandria Such as Tertullian all of these people their authoritative books

Differed or their lists of books Differed from each other. Okay, what about the different churches now now hold on now hold on when you say they differed from each other

You mean in completeness? very rarely Was there the acceptance you what you what you will find in?

the apostolic period and in amongst the apologists There are a small number

Epistle of Barnabas type thing. That's not the gospel of Barnabas. I hope you guys never ever ever ever

Saying about the gospel. I hope you guys correct your fellow Muslims about Abusing that one.

That's a whopper. That's that's bad, but there were certain books that gained a

Following in a particular geographical area and if that writer was in that geographical area

Like the Epistle of Barnabas Shepherd of Hermas Almost that's almost all of them.

There really is that really are almost no others Maybe just a couple of small works that we have

You'll have some differences there But the vast jury differences are books that people didn't know

Justin murder For example had almost no knowledge back can't even document a knowledge of Paul Paul's writings

They weren't producing canon lists They weren't trying to say these are the canonical works because that wasn't an issue in their in their day

The Bible of the New Testament Church was the Greek Septuagint So and I hope we don't have to get into the apocryphal stuff

I hope you've taken the time to listen to some of our debates on the subject the apocrypha I've run out of time again on a jumbo

How much how hey, I'm down to 441 That that that that's that's somewhat better And we got we've got tomorrow

If I can't get through 441 and then get back to what ale that's a bad thing.

Very bad thing and I should not be able to I should not be able to drink my tea anymore until I get better at time management

There's a motivation. Haha anyways Hey to the audience

Thank you for your patience, I realized some of these programs

Go into all sorts of things, but you know what? That's why we do what we do and I think most of the people who listen to this program

That's why you listen is you want to hear you want to see that we can We can put the best the other side has right up on the screen and go back and forth and we can go into those areas and we can give a reasoned defense and and do so at the same time as saying the

Adnan hums up we pray for you and We desire you to know the truth and we look forward to opportunities of interacting with you respectfully in the future

That's why we do what we do and we're gonna be back tomorrow afternoon here to do the dividing line one more time before I head back east and We're gonna finish this thing.

We're gonna finish this thing unless We don't