Is the Bible the Word of God?

The following presentation is a production of Alpha and Omega Ministries, Inc. and is protected by copyright

laws of the United States and its international treaties.

Copying or distribution of this production without the expressed written permission of Alpha and Omega Ministries, Inc.

is prohibited.

The debate is presented by the Center of Religious Debate here at Calvary Church,

and we welcome you.

Tonight's participants are both accomplished debaters, both have experience

debating the topics, and both are here to debate in a good spirit of open

debate.

I would first like to introduce to you, representing the affirmative position of the

topic, Is the Bible We Have Today the Word of God?

Dr. James White, the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, a Christian apologetics organization.

He is the author of more than 20 books, a professor, an accomplished debater, and has

engaged in more than 95 moderated public debates.

He is also an elder of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church, and you can visit his website at

aomin .org, that's a -o -m -i -n dot o -r -g.

Representing the negative is Sheikh Awal.

Sheikh Ahmed Mohamed Awal is a scholar of Islamic science, comparative religion, and

logic, and a student of Sheikh Ahmad Didat.

He is the founder and director of Zaitun Dawa Institute, a think tank research center with headquarters

in Seattle, Washington, and branches in New York, Atlanta, and Africa.

The center specializes in propagation of Islam to people of different faiths through the medium of science and comparative

analysis.

Sheikh Ahmed Mohamed Awal is a product of Kaduna Polytechnic College of Environmental Studies.

He has a degree in engineering surveying.

He is also a graduate of Kano State College of Irrigation and Surveying.

Sheikh Awal has debated many Christian theologians both in the United States and in Africa.

He has lectured in colleges, universities, and symposiums.

He travels all over the United States and does programs in prisons and radio stations about Islam.

Sheikh Awal has written two books, Islam and Science Volume 1 and Islam and Christianity

Volume 1.

He resides in Kent, Washington.

Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome our participants.

Tonight's topic is the Bible we have today.

The word of God is a fundamental question asked of both the Christian and the Muslim.

The linchpin of our faith rests upon the truth of this question.

Tonight we are not here to present to you a one -sided argument, but to present to you two positions on both

sides of this question.

It is not our judgment to pass on to you, but for you to come to a conclusion for yourself.

As the evidence is presented from both sides, may you take that and seek God with a humble mind

and heart and ask for him to reveal to you the truth.

Our format is as follows.

You have a 20 -minute opening statement for each participant, followed by a 12 -minute rebuttal.

We will then take a five -minute intermission.

At that point, we are asking you to please take some of the slips that are in the pew in front of you that say memo on them and

write down any questions you have for either one of our participants.

Following the intermission, we will return for a five -minute rebuttal and then a 15 -minute

cross -examination by both participants.

We will then have a seven -minute closing argument for each, and then we will take the time that is remaining

and evenly distribute it among the participants for Q &A.

With that, I thank you once again for coming and participating.

We ask you to please remain silent and hold all applause during the debate so as not to interrupt the speakers.

I introduce to you Dr. James White for his opening statement.

Well, thank you very much, and good evening.

Thank you for being here.

I have been looking forward to this opportunity for quite some time, and I hope you will be blessed as we discuss this

question, is the Bible that we possess today the Word of God?

Specifically, I would like to respond to a comment that Sheikha Wall made in a debate in 2009 when

he said, I would have proved 100 that the Bible has been mutilated, mutilated beyond

recognition.

There are many Muslims who believe that the Bible we possess today has been grossly

tampered with and altered from what was originally written by the followers of Jesus so long ago.

Our discussion this evening, our debate this evening, will be to look at the facts of that matter and to establish that

when you open your Bible today and you read from the book of Romans, you read from the book of Matthew, what you are

reading is a clear and accurate rendering of what the original followers of Jesus themselves

actually wrote and what God has desired for us to have to this very day.

Now, we must think clearly and accurately about the subject this evening because there is so much

misinformation that is available out there.

The Bible was written over 1 ,500 years by 40 different authors in two

major languages, Hebrew and Greek, and one minor language, Aramaic.

There are about 12 chapters grand total in the Aramaic language.

That is a long period of time, many authors, much changed over those 1 ,500

years as far as the world, its history, so on and so forth, and the Bible covers all of that period.

Now, it's very important to understand the Bible in its original languages must be distinguished from

all later translations, references to the NIV, the New King

James Version, the New American Standard Bible, et cetera, are to translations.

They are not to the Bible.

Just as one could refer to translations of the Koran, such as those of Yusuf Ali, Muhammad Piktal,

Assad, Maududi, et cetera, and other translations that are out there, these do not amount to

different Korans any more than the New American Standard Bible is a different Bible than the

English Standard Bible.

Remember, English did not exist when the Bible was written, and therefore, we must distinguish the

original language texts from the English texts we have today.

Right there on my desk, I have the Greek Bible, the Hebrew Bible in one volume together,

and if we're going to make allegations of corruption concerning the Bible, it must be proven from the

original languages in the exact same way that I would seek to prove any changes in the Koran, not on the basis

of a translation, but on the basis of the Arabic original.

Now the standard text of the Old Testament is called the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia.

This is the Hebrew text, which is studied in both Jewish and Christian contexts around the

world today.

The standard text of the New Testament is the Nestle -Aland United Bible Societies text.

Currently, the Nestle -Aland text is in the 27th edition.

The 28th is actually completed, but has not yet been printed.

Portions of it are available online.

These are available to us this evening in the debate to examine and to look at in

regards to our subject.

Now once again, thinking clearly and accurately, fair and scholarly discussion must be

clear as to what kind of corruption is being alleged.

What kind of corruption?

What do I mean?

Well, most of the time in the Islamic context, we are talking about textual issues,

textual changes, changes to the actual Hebrew and Greek texts in which the Bible

was originally written.

So those are the textual issues, and I will spend most of my time on that particular subject this evening.

But we also have historical issues.

Historical issues, issues in regards to what took place historically.

Is the Bible accurate in its recording of history?

Things like that.

Those would be historical issues.

Thirdly, we have theological issues, questions regarding the consistency of the theological presentation of

the Scripture.

Frequently, these focus upon differences between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, fulfillment themes in the Lord Jesus

Christ, fulfilling the prophecies of the Old Testament, fulfilling the foreshadowing of the law.

Issues such as this, these would all be found in theological issues.

And finally, we have translational issues, and these would go to differences in translation

between modern English translations.

But again, those really wouldn't be allegations of corruption of the Bible so much as they would be allegations that

possibly the original language text is not clear enough to indicate its actual meaning or something along those lines.

But again, we would have the exact same issues to raise in regards to the Quran because the many differences that exist

between the translations that have been provided in the English there as well.

So these would be the areas we would want to be very specific.

If we're going to make allegations of corruption, we need to be specific as to what areas we are referring to.

Let's look at the textual issues because that seems to be the primary area.

The text of the Old Testament has been transmitted in its earliest portions, especially in the Torah, for

over 3 ,000 years, over twice as long as the Quran.

It was the particular possession of the Jewish people until the coming of the Messiah, after which it, along with

the New Testament, became much more widely distributed as the Christian people took those scriptures primarily in Greek

translation and then in Latin translation all around the world.

That's the Old Testament.

The Jewish scriptures, the Tanakh, the Torah, the Nevi 'im, and the Ketuvim were written over the course of nearly 1

,000 years, coming together into a single whole about 250 years before the time

of Christ.

Now the New Testament, in contrast to that, was written over a much shorter period of time, only about

20 to 40 years by about eight authors.

Most scholars believe the Epistles of Paul and others were written prior to the Gospels

themselves, although there would have been some overlapping in the earliest dating of the Gospels

themselves with the Epistles of Paul.

Now the New Testament books were written by multiple authors.

They were written to multiple audiences from multiple locations.

They were copied widely and passed amongst the most primitive communities.

This is extremely important.

This multifocality of the text means that the text could never be controlled by any one person or

group.

There was never such a thing as a Christian Uthman who created a final version and hence could

impact the meaning of that final version.

The New Testament did not circulate in its most primitive forms as a body of text,

one body of text.

It circulated as individual letters, epistles, and books.

And hence the idea of controlling them, editing them, inserting doctrines, taking doctrines out simply

is historically untenable.

And any accusations of that kind of changing will have to be examined in the light of history

itself.

There is no reason to see any of the New Testament books as having been written after the

first century.

All liberal arguments about later dates for some New Testament books are based upon theoretical reconstructions

of early church context.

For example, those people who would say the pastoral epistles are non -Pauline and come from the beginning of the second century

do so on the basis of personal theories that they have created regarding the form of the early

church that would indicate that those pastoral epistles reflect a later form of the early church.

But how do they know what the early church looked like?

It's all theoretical.

Rather than going to the historical evidence themselves, they create theories and then alter the historical evidence to fit

their theories.

It is something that we have to deal with all the time.

Now the period from AD 60 to AD 313 was one of persecution of the Christian

faith by the Roman Empire.

Possessing and reproducing the Christian scriptures became a crime.

Christianity was a religio illicita, an illegal religion.

Rome destroyed thousands of texts of the Old and New Testaments that were in possession

of the Christian people.

But Rome could not get to all of them.

Here for example on the screen you see P52.

P52 from around AD 100 to 150.

It comes from John chapter 18.

Now if you had gone to seminary in the late 1800s in Tübingen, Germany, you would have been

told that scholarship had concluded that the Gospel of John could not have been written prior to 175

AD.

I think God has a sense of humor in that he preserved this little credit card sized piece of

manuscript which comes from 50 years before that to demonstrate that often scholars get it all wrong.

This indeed is from John chapter 18, the interview between Jesus and

Pilate where Pilate asks that great question, what is truth?

Here we have one of the earliest fragments and it's from the Gospel of John, the very Gospel that gives us the

clearest, most consistent from beginning to end testimony that Jesus Christ is the

divine Son of God of any of the Gospels in our possession and it is the most clearly

testified Gospel that we have.

Here is another Gospel text, P66, which likewise contains the Gospel of John.

This comes from around AD 150 to 200.

We have at least 12 manuscripts coming from the 2nd century.

As Bart Ehrman said in my debate with him a couple of years ago, the New Testament is the earliest attested

book of antiquity.

There is absolutely no question about that.

The Quran is not a work of antiquity, it's medieval in its origination.

That's why it would not be included in that discussion.

Here is manuscript P101 from the 3rd century containing the Trinitarian passage of Jesus'

baptism and his identification as the Son of God.

I note this in particular due to the prevalence of the mythological belief that Jesus was the

divine Son of God and that the doctrine of the Trinity was made up by Constantine at the Council of Nicaea in AD

325.

Such ideas are popular in fictional works like the Da Vinci Code, but they find absolutely no

place in serious historical study.

No one who has ever studied the Council of Nicaea and the material that was written prior to the Council of

Nicaea would ever come up with such a conclusion.

Here is a graphic showing those 12 manuscripts from the 2nd century

that give us portions of the entirety of the New Testament.

We can examine these and they clearly demonstrate that our faith is built upon texts that are very

primitive in their origination.

Here is another primitive text.

This is Codex Sinaiticus.

Codex Sinaiticus was written between 325 and 350 AD.

That's the 4th century, not the 12th century.

Codex Sinaiticus is in Greek and contains both the Old and New Testaments

and is a tremendous treasure.

And the reason I mention it is right here is a scan directly off of all

of Codex Sinaiticus is now available online Matthew 17, verses 22 through 23.

The Son of Man is going to be delivered into the hands of men and they will kill him and he will be raised on the third day.

There that is from the beginning of the 4th century from Codex Sinaiticus, the

crucifixion and the deity of Christ in the most primitive documents.

And the New Testament has the earliest and widest attestation of any ancient document.

Its immediate and widespread distribution absolutely precludes any kind of editing and

any purposeful controlled corruption.

Insertion of doctrines, excision of teachings requires centralized control when speaking of a body of

text like the New Testament, but this is exactly what could never have happened with the New Testament.

Now if Sheikha Wall wishes to allege textual corruption this evening, we have with us the best textual

critical data.

For example, on the screen you can see the Nessiolan 27th edition in electronic form.

You have the Greek text on the one side.

You have the text of variations, the manuscripts, what they read and everything else is provided to you right

there on the right hand side as well.

We likewise have the CNTTS software available this evening as well as full

transcriptions of Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus and all the papyri sitting on my computer.

Any questions of corruption we can simply look up the data themselves.

We live in a wonderful day when it comes to that.

Let me give you an example even though my time is fleeting.

This is Romans chapter 5 verse 1.

Let me blow it up for you so you can see what it is.

Right there we have the term ecumen.

Ecumen is the subjunctive form of ecumen which is the actual normal reading.

In fact, let me show you what that looks like in a Greek text.

There's what it looks like in the Greek text.

You can see over on the left hand side ecumen is the reading of that text, but down below it lists

ecumen and it gives you the manuscripts that have that reading.

You see Christians are wide open about our texts.

We publish this kind of information and we don't hide it from anybody.

We provide this kind of information and we discuss all this information, all of our critical commentaries and in the

proper exegesis of the text of the script.

However, where is the critical edition of the Quran?

You see, we must remember that any handwritten document that has been passed down through time has experienced

textual corruption.

For example, if we look at Surah 2, 222 and we compare the

Fawq's palimpsest manuscript with the modern Uthmanic Quran, in the top line you have

Fawq's palimpsest manuscript.

Below you have the reading that we found in any of the Arabic Qurans that any of our Muslim friends here this evening would be carrying.

And if you can read the Arabic language, you will see that there are changes of words, changes of word

order, changes of grammatical termination and form, changes in the editing

of the text very clearly.

What we have here historically is an effort upon a later redactor to remove

from the text of the Quran the influences of a certain man by the name of Ibn Masud.

Ibn Masud's readings were different in places than those of the Uthmanic recension.

And for quite some time we have evidence of the continuing presence of Ibn Masud's readings in the

historical text of the Quran.

And so we need to keep this in mind.

All of us, anyone who has ancient texts, has to examine those texts in the light

of history.

Which is better, to have one edited text where you've removed all of this, or to have one

text with thousands of copies of it so you can reconstruct the original and you don't have to

rely upon an editor and hope that he got it all right?

That is one of the questions that we have when we discuss this issue.

Now, very quickly, historical issues, often allegations are made relating to secular history.

In each of these instances we simply ask that the Bible's testimony be treated fairly and not presumed guilty

until proven innocent, just as Muslims ask for any such questions

relating to the Quran.

In regards to theological issues, theological accusations of corruption required one to allow the Bible to define its own

teaching and theology.

Demanding the Bible teach in accordance to the external criterion is irrational.

Muslims often import Quranic standards into their reading of the Bible, not realizing that logically the Bible,

even by the Quran's own testimony, was sent down prior to the Quran.

Islamic theology is definitely stuck with an anachronism as seen in Surah Al -Maidah, verses 44 and

following, where we read, for example, Let the people of the Gospel, Yalal Injil, judge by what Allah

hath revealed therein.

If any do fail to judge by the light of what Allah hath revealed, they are no better than those who rebel.

I simply ask our Muslim friends, how could anyone hearing those words when they are recited by

Muhammad judge by what was contained in the Injil if they no longer had

the Injil?

I've been waiting for an answer for that for a long time.

I'm hoping to hear a contextually based one this evening.

Now it is child's play to atomize the text of the Bible, tear it to shreds, and then by ignoring its author's

intentions, turn it into a mishmash of self -contradiction.

Anybody can do that.

Just go on any atheist web board.

It's done every day.

It takes serious work and study to interpret any ancient text in its original context and language

honestly and fairly.

It takes work and it takes time.

The greatest evidence of the Bible's inspiration is its transcendent harmony, a harmony not found in

simplistic surface -level reading, but a harmony found in the deep and consistent themes that run

from Genesis to Revelation, but it takes time to see those.

Here we enter into issues regarding translational issues, relaying to the accurate contextual and

understandable rendering of the meanings of ancient languages, a task faced by both Christians and

Muslims in the handling of their sacred texts.

And so again, if there are any translational questions that are raised, we can simply look to the original languages and

test English translations thereby.

So here is my challenge, my challenge to Sheikh Awal this evening.

He said that I would have proved 100 percent that the Bible has been mutilated, mutilated beyond

recognition.

Well, to do that, we have to prove this with scholarly textual

data, not mere accusations, but citations of the recognized scholarly material in regards

to the text of the New Testament.

Prove this with scholarly textual data.

Prove this with careful and accurate handling of the text and the context,

not doing things like citing Paul in his Corinthian literature,

where he says that he has no command of the Lord, that is, no tradition from the Gospels of Jesus about what we should do

about women who are left by their unbelieving husbands or spouses, and say, oh, you see,

Paul was just giving his own personal opinion.

That's not accurate handling.

That's not dealing with the text in context.

We need careful and accurate handling of the text and the context, and we

likewise need to prove this with meaningful historical documentation in regards to the

allegations of corruption.

That and only that is what will fulfill a challenge in this evening of a scholarly

debate to show respect to you, the audience, to handle the information properly, and to

honor God and the truth, al -haq.

The only way you can define truth is by consistency, and that's what we need to do this evening.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Dr. White.

Sheikh Awal, you may present your 20 -minute opening statement.

The narrator, Dr. White, and the audience, I greet you all with the universal

greetings of Islam, and that is, as -salamu alaykum wa rahmatullah wa barakatuh.

When translated, it means, may peace and blessings of Allah, or God, be upon you all.

This is the greetings of Moses, Isaiah, Nehemiah, John the Baptist.

All the prophets use the same greetings.

May peace and blessings of God be upon you, and that's exactly what I'm saying to you.

Now, the topic at hand is the Bible, the Word of God.

Dr. White has flowery presented his talks on this

topic.

The Bible consists of, actually, a collection of 60 books for the

Protestants and 73 books for the Roman Catholics, including, as you know, the Apocrypha, the

seven doubtful books, which you call the Apocrypha.

Meanwhile, the Catholics retain these seven books.

They believe in it, but the Protestants don't believe in it.

Yet, each and every one of them is claiming to have the Holy Ghost, which inspired them.

The books were chosen after a long huddling and fighting by the councils of both Nicaea and

that of the Carthage in 397.

That is more than 300 years after Christ left the earth.

Now, beside the fact that the original Bible and the modern Bible are in different languages,

one of the major problems is that the original manuscripts does

not exist anymore.

Furthermore, the manuscripts which we do have are not exactly what was originally written.

In other words, it's not the same.

Now, what is left to us today are copies of copies which have been copied as it manifested from the

different versions that we have today available.

Among other things, the Jehovah's Witnesses say they have found

50 ,000 errors in the Bible.

They awake, you know, the booklet that they disperse awake.

It says they have 1957 awake.

They say they have 50 ,000 errors in the Bible.

And these 50 ,000 errors in the Bible is manifested in the fact that in the book of, in the Revised Standard

Version in the Preface, no, the second paragraph, actually mentioned that the

King James Version of the Bible have so many grave defects and that these defects

are so many and so serious as to call for a revision.

That's what the Revised Standard Version is saying, that the King James Version that we have have so many grave defects

and that these defects are so many and so serious as to call for a revision.

And so, therefore, it was actually, you know, revised, what that means.

Now, today, over 24 ,000 manuscripts that we have of the New Testament, in fact,

no two of them are identical.

The difference in them indicate the numerous addition and alterations, some accidental, some

deliberate, were made by various authors and auditors and copies.

Now, the most learned Christian theologians will tell you that most of the biblical authors are unknown.

So most of them, it's always unknown.

So the four Gospels are examples of books which did not carry the names of their actual

authors.

Example, if you read the book of Martin, chapter 9, verse 9, it says, while he,

Jesus, was going out on the way, he saw a man named Martin sitting on the

taskmaster's table, and he said, follow me, and Martin rose and followed him.

Now, if Martin wrote this book, it would have been while Jesus Christ was going out on the way, he saw me sitting down,

and he said, follow me, and I rose and followed him.

So this is written by a third person.

And then again, the book of Luke.

Actually, Luke is not telling us that he received this revelation of his books through the Holy

Spirit.

He didn't say that.

He said, whilst many have written this book, in other words, he's talking about Mark,

Matthew, you know, writing their own books to him, there's a lot of mistake in them to him.

He said, I feel it seems good to me also to write to you an orderly account,

most excellent your philosopher.

So now, here Luke is telling us that whatever he's writing, he feels good on his parts.

He was not claiming to have Holy Spirit that directed him.

He said it seems good to him to write something more orderly and more accurate than

those that have been written.

So here we can see Luke not claiming to have been inspired by God Almighty.

And in the book of John, the last paragraph, the last book, the last verse,

the last paragraph, it says, and we believe that the apostle who wrote this book is speaking the

truth, and we believe in what he wrote.

You see, someone else is saying something about the book of John.

So actually, it's not the John that is making this statement.

It is somebody else that's making this statement.

Now, many biblical authors are almost unanimously agreed that none of the gospel

writers were either actual disciples of Jesus or even eyewitnesses to his ministries.

And the example that could be cited in the New Testament is the book of Mark.

Mark really was not one of the disciples of Jesus.

Luke is not a disciple of Jesus.

And we don't know which John.

We have a lot of Johns.

We don't know which John is actually being spoken about.

Now, arguably, if the Bible were really the work of a perfect, all -powerful, and loving God, one would

reasonably expect it to be consistent in every respect, clear and concise throughout,

as compared to anything that could possibly be conceived by human intellect alone.

And, for example, like I've been saying, the word Christianity, for instance, is an import.

Somebody imported that to be part of the Bible.

And then this morning, I was saying that the Bible also is not in the Bible.

And the Bible never mentioned...

I didn't see that it says it's in the Bible.

And the first place or the first time that the Christians were actually called Christians is in the

book of Acts, Chapter 11, Verse 26, when it says,.

And the disciples of Jesus were first called Christians in Antioch.

They were first called Christians in Antioch.

So I don't know who gave them the name Christian.

But certainly Christ never called his followers or those who follow him Christians.

It came at a later time.

It is something that came long after Christ left the earth.

Now, while some apologies seems to have... seems to offer some sort of explanation for nearly any biblical

problems that can be uncovered.

Now, such explanation should be unnecessary.

Why?

Because the point is not that whether some explanation can be conceived, but rather that a perfect, all

-powerful, and all -knowing God should do a much better job in producing a

book like that.

Certainly, certain narrations in the Bible calls to question.

As I'm reading the Bible, I've seen a lot of narrations, a lot of verses, a lot of words that come to question

as to how could this be from God Almighty.

The God Almighty participated, for example, in a wrestling

with one of his creators, Jacob.

This can be found in the book of Genesis 32, I believe, that Genesis, that God Almighty had, you know, a

wrestling, fighting with Jacob, things like this.

We don't agree.

And I don't think this definitely is the Word of God.

And eventually, God Almighty, actually, Jacob was victorious

during that fight.

So things like that, we don't agree with it at all.

And it is unacceptable.

Number two, like in Genesis 6, verse 5,.

And the Lord repented, and the Lord repented that he created man, and it

pains him in his heart.

Things like this, we know definitely the Lord couldn't repent.

God Almighty knows everything from the beginning until the end.

So how could God Almighty repent on what he intended to do to mankind?

And it pains him in his heart that he created mankind.

In other words, God is not all -knowing.

He didn't know that he's going to create human beings and they're going to go against his laws.

You know, so therefore, God repented.

That definitely does not sound like the Word of God.

Now, in the Book of Exodus, Chapter 31, verse 17, it says,.

And God created the heaven and earth in six days, and on the seventh day he rested, and he was refreshed.

Also, this definitely, God couldn't speak like that.

And God rested on the seventh day after his creation.

For the six days, he rested.

The same thing was made in the Quran.

The Quran said,

It is Allah who created the heaven and earth in six days, and there is no weariness in him and there is no tiredness

in him.

By looking at this, definitely you would come to the conclusion that this is definitely not how God sounds and it is not the Word of

God.

It is something that was inserted.

And then we have in the Book of Jonah, Chapter 3, verse 10, also where it simply said,

And God repented upon the evil that he intended to do to mankind.

I don't know what kind of God is that that repented on the evil that he intended to do to mankind.

And a lot of things, you know, I believe in textual.

You know, the Bible itself, like we say, we have to believe in the Bible.

What does the Bible entail?

The Word of God.

The moment you read the Word of God, you know definitely this must be the Word of God.

And if there is the Word of any human beings, you know these are the Word of human beings.

In Islam, we are trained to, you know, see clearly and to differentiate the Word of God and the Word of

men.

And so definitely by us reading this part of this verse in the Bible, it definitely tells us

that the Bible definitely have been written by someone other than God.

At least some part of the Bible.

We believe in Islam the Bible contains the Word of God.

It also contains the Word of the Prophet and other, you know, messengers of God.

It also contains the words of historians and other other writings that is not supposed to be in

there but you place all these things in the book and you say we have to believe it to be the Word of God.

We say, yes, the Bible is the Word of God but we have to explain the Bible is not the Word of God because we have to see.

You have to do some seeing and see which one is actually the Word of God.

Now, what happened to Prophet Lot?

It is so baffling to the Muslims.

In fact, it is baffling to any mind.

If you read those words carefully and analyze it, you could definitely tell that something is wrong somewhere.

In that, God Almighty who is all perfect and He chose messengers and prophets to be, you know,

vehicle of righteousness.

They are the ones that are supposed to teach us how to follow God Almighty yet we find a lot of, you know, write

-ups that are in the Bible that is meant for these messengers of God Almighty and it definitely doesn't make, you know, any,

it doesn't click.

Example, in the book of Genesis 19, verse 30.

Genesis 19, verse 30 tells us on how after God Almighty overturned Sodom and Gomorrah,

Lot and his two daughters dwell in the cave or somewhere and then we don't know what

happened.

All of a sudden, what we read is that one of the daughters, she gave her father,

Lot's wine to drink when he had this wine then he had intercourse with her and they produced

children, the Moabites and Ammonites and the younger also, the following day they gave her a wine also to drink.

Now, things like this we don't accept it to be the word of God and I would not write this in my

book neither would you write that in your book revealing such words to a prophet of God and

so we say we call to question this kind of words.

Again, we see the same thing in the book of Genesis 32, verse 22.

This is what happened between Ruben and his father, his father's wife.

We know what happened there.

Sometimes, I don't feel ease reading them because, you know, I'm not comfortable reading them but that's

just the way it is in the Bible.

It says, and Ruben went upstairs where his father is up and then he went to,

you know, he had a relationship with one of his father's wives.

Definitely, I'm not comfortable saying this way, like I said, with all due respect but these are some of the things that we see in the Bible and we

begin to realize that God Almighty would not reveal such words in the Bible.

The same thing, again, like I said, happened in Genesis 38, verse 15.

Genesis 38, verse 15, something that happened between Judah and his daughter -in -law.

It's a long story.

Genesis 38, verse 15, it tells you how Judah and his daughter -in -law as you see on the line,

you know, they had a relationship and they had two and she was pregnant.

Tamar.

She's the wife of his sons but somehow along the way she had a relationship with her father -in -law and they

have twins, Zari and Fari.

And this Zari and Fari as you read in the book of Matthew, chapter 1, verse 1, it tells you the genosis of Jesus Christ all the way down

up to Mary.

One of the sons of this, you know, in sex is

sexual relations between two people that are too closely related to even get married.

So this is what happened and then eventually she had the children and these children are on to become the great -grandfathers of Jesus

Christ.

We said, no, this definitely is not going to cut.

We don't think this is, you know, Islamically and logically something is wrong with

the Bible.

Maybe somebody inserted this information in there just like the Quran said that the books have been changed.

The Bible itself also mentioned that the books have been changed.

And in 2 Samuel we see David and Bathsheba.

We know what happened.

Like I said, I'm not comfortable making this statement but this is what is in there and this is definitely what is making us to say, no,

this could not be the word of God Almighty because David here who is supposed to be a messenger of God who is supposed to

be you know, the king who is supposed to be someone that is very close to God Almighty eventually had this

relationship with, you know, Uriah's wife Bathsheba and eventually

David committed voyeurism we call that and then again murder

eventually because he had Uriah killed and he, you know, took over the wife and that is something that we

don't accept in Islam.

And again in 2 Samuel chapter 31 13 verse 1 we have David's son Ammon

one of the sons of David Ammon you know had a relationship with his sister Tamar again

I'm not going to go into details but I'm just giving you know an overview this definitely does not cut in Islam or

in any book of God Almighty why would God reveal this information to us?

And then again we have in the book of Matthew 15 21 this Matthew 15 21 it is something

that happened between Jesus Christ and a woman of Canaanites you know her

daughter is possessed with the devil in Matthew chapter 15 verse 21 her daughter is possessed with the demons

this lady so she saw Jesus Christ walking and she ran to him and she she fall you know

in front of him she said good master my daughter is possessed with the demons please heal her.

Actually he didn't say a word to her you know and she came to the other side she kneeled down the Bible says she kneeled down on him and

she said master my daughter is possessed with the demons with the devil.

She have this type of something that's bothering her daughter so she asked Jesus to intervene and heal her daughter

and he didn't say a word.

So finally he rose up and he began to walk and she was crying following him asking him to heal her daughter and

he didn't say a word.

And then finally I think one of the disciples asked him to master heal her for she is crying on the earth another way

do her something you know she's crying she's making a scene and he turned around and he said you know I am not

sent but onto the lost ship of the house of Israel.

It is not good to take the children's bread and give it to a dog like her calling her a dog

and

she

said master even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from the master's table.

And Jesus said woman great is thy fate.

Let them you want to eat the crumbs.

Go ahead and eat the crumbs.

But me I'm not going to give you the bread because the bread is meant for the children of Israel.

So me looking at this word and with critical eye I come to conclusion without any doubt

that this could not be from the lips of Jesus.

Jesus couldn't have speak like that.

It might be something you know that crept into the mainstays.

And so we have George Bernard Shaw.

George Bernard Shaw lived in the I think in the 18th century in England somewhere he

wrote a book.

The name of the book is the genuine Islam.

Now in that book he said that you should not let your children have

access to the Bible.

Why.

Because this information that I've just read as George Bernard Shaw read them he realized that you know

he made some statement.

I'm not going to make those kind of statement.

But George Bernard Shaw he said do not let your children have access to it.

The concept of God is radically different from that of the Bible dealing

with the messengers of God and apostles of God.

The Bible have painted you know the prophets of God messengers of God.

You know making them doing things that is so repulsive that you and I would not do yet.

God almighty chose these people to be vehicle of righteousness like I said.

But eventually we see them falling down.

And so this definitely is not accepted in Islam.

Ezekiel chapter 9 verse 5.

And the Lord said go through the city and smite them.

Let not your eyes spare them.

Neither have you pity on them slay them utterly old and young both males and little children

and women.

Well this is what the Bible said.

You know God is all merciful most gracious.

How could this word come from the word of God.

And then God almighty revealed this in the book of Ezekiel.

And we have the book of Numbers chapter 1 verse 12 all the way down.

As you read the Lord commanded Moses.

And he said and slay them all all the men.

And they took all women as captives and their little ones.

And they took the spoils of all the cattle and their goods.

And they burned their city wherein they live.

And they set fire to all their castles and where they live.

Then Moses said have you saved all the women alive.

Now kill every male among the little ones and kill every woman who has known

a man by lying with him.

But all the young girls who have not known a man by lying with them keep them alive for yourself.

I don't understand why God almighty would make such a statement.

But yet we have it.

This is what the Bible recorded Joshua chapter 6 verse 16 and Joshua said the Lord has given you.

The city of the Canaanites.

They utterly destroyed them in the city both men and young.

Yes.

Alright well I'll save the rest so hopefully I'll continue when I come to present my article.

Thank you Sheikh Dr. White.

12 minute rebuttal.

Thank you very much.

I'll try to get each to the point that Sheikh Awal has raised in regards to the apocrypha.

The apocryphal books were never accepted by the Jewish people as the inspired word of God.

And in fact there was a long tradition of Christian scholarship all the way through to the council of Trent in the 1500's that

rejected the apocryphal scripture.

Sheikh Awal said the council of Nicaea chose the Canaan.

The council of Nicaea never said a word about the Canaan.

That is a common myth.

I would challenge Sheikh Awal to give us a single historical reference in primary form to

anything from the council of Nicaea about the Canaan scripture.

There is nothing.

The Awake magazine was talking about translational issues in English.

That's why they produced their own perversion of the Bible called the New World Translation.

And again Sheikh Awal is not differentiating between textual and translational issues.

He is going back and forth between issues regarding the text of the Bible and that of the translation of the Bible.

He said no two manuscripts are identical.

That is exactly true because they are all hand written.

No two manuscripts of the Quran are identical either if you actually examine them.

And on my table I have the top copy manuscript.

Compare it with the London manuscript.

Compare it with the Paris manuscript.

And you will find textual variation.

That is the essence of hand written documents.

That is just simply what we have to deal with.

Sheikh Awal frequently quotes Matthew 9 .9.

And he says that this could not have been written by Matthew because if it had then Matthew would have said he saw me.

Why?

I've always wanted Sheikh Awal's opponents to ask why?

Are there not many examples of people in the past who wrote books that included themselves in it that they didn't use

the first person.

Why couldn't Matthew writing for a wider audience refer to his own conversion in the third person?

I've never heard an explanation for that.

I would like to hear an explanation for that.

He said that Luke just simply said that it felt good to him.

Actually it says it seemed right to him to study these things out and to give to Theophilus the exact truth.

He interviewed people he laid out the exact truth.

That's what the prologue of Luke is talking about.

Luke was in no way shape or form denying that the Holy Spirit of God is inspiring him

because he simply did homework in the provision of the information the historical information

that he used.

Likewise the conclusion of John had no problem whatsoever that the community that received it gave their testimony to it.

The Holy Spirit of God is not limited in any way shape or form in that way.

Then he said that we should not have to explain alleged errors in the Bible.

If it was really the word of God then why does Sheikh Awal have to answer all the questions people ask about the Quran.

Why was there just a debate on that subject that required Sheikh Awal to give all sorts of answers about problems that we as

Christians find in the Quran.

We need to use the same standard for both sides.

If you're going to use an argument that refutes the Bible and it refutes the Quran as well.

Well that's self -refuting.

If to say we have to provide answers when people are confused about what the Bible says might it be to

their own ignorance of the Bible.

Is that something wrong with the text of the Bible itself.

I don't think so.

He referred to Genesis 6 -5 and God's Naham as if God didn't know what was going to happen.

The problem is the God of the Bible actually interacts with his own creation.

And even though he did in fact decree the exact form of what takes place in this world that does

not mean that he is separated from his world and does not experience his

passion for his people his sorrow over their sin and his joy in their repentance.

That would require God to be dispassionate and disconnected from his universe which he has not chosen to be.

Yes the Quran does misunderstand the book of Exodus when it said that God rested.

The writer of the Quran is ignorant of the Old Testament and does not understand that God was saying

that in the context of exhorting his people and providing to them an example of rest on the Sabbath day

it nowhere suggests that God was tired from the creation of the universe.

Instead God is providing to his people that example which he does over and over again.

Now Sheikha Wall's misunderstandings of the Bible do not make the Bible any less than God's word.

If we can provide meaningful contextual fair answers using the same standards that Sheikha

Wall would demand for the Quran for all of the questions that he raises and I believe that we can.

Then what is left of his argumentation of the Bible we have today is not the word of God.

Now we have the majority of Sheikha Wall's time was taken noting the fact

that the Quran is ashamed of the honesty of the Bible

in it's documenting the lives of the people of sinful men in the past.

First of all it's assuming that only very righteous men would be chosen to be prophets.

Where does that come from?

That's not a biblical thing.

That's not a biblical standard.

Where does that come from?

That's anachronistic.

That's being read back into the text as saying well I just don't like that.

The Bible is honest in the fact that God deals with sinners.

Well you know something folks if he didn't deal with sinners he wouldn't be dealing with any one of us.

And I suggest to you that anyone who can look into his own heart and not see the thoughts of lust and

violence and everything else that dwell in that heart and recognize that people of old thankfully were used by

God despite the fact that they encountered that kind of sin in their life means that we're not looking very closely at our own hearts.

Alright so for example David and Bathsheba I find it fascinating.

I just went through the Quran again just over the past couple of weeks in preparation for this debate.

I read through the Quran again.

And I always smile when I get to the part where the Quran talks about David and Nathan.

Did you know the Quran talks about David and Nathan.

Nathan comes to David.

David repents.

But in the Quran you have no earthy idea why you don't know what Nathan comes.

It's clearly dependent upon the biblical story.

But it's just taken out the reality of what David did now Sheikha Wall says.

I just don't think that's the word of God.

Well Sheikha Wall I think it is.

So.

How do we respond.

We ask ourselves a question.

If we both believe that Jesus was a prophet of God and Christians all believe Jesus was a prophet of God.

We just don't believe that he was merely Irazul.

If Jesus was a prophet of God did Jesus correct the Old Testament.

Did Jesus come along and say well you know what we have today really isn't what was originally written all that terrible

stuff about the prophets and Solomon and David.

And what happened.

No in fact it's interesting.

Most of the examples that Sheikha Wall took came from the book of Genesis.

And yet it's that very book of Genesis that Jesus referred to when people came to him

asking about marriage and he specifically identified that book as the very words

of God delivered through Moses and he held men accountable for that.

Now we know exactly what was in the book of Genesis in the days of Jesus.

We have the Dead Sea Scrolls.

So Jesus who you believe was a prophet said the book of Genesis is the very word of God

and Sheikha Wall has just said well I don't like what's in the book of Genesis.

Well take that up with God and Jesus.

It does not make it anything less than the word of God.

Then we had.

Well I don't like how Jesus treated the Syrophoenician woman.

He called her a dog.

No he didn't.

He quoted a standard Jewish proverb that she would have been well aware of to bring forth from her the

very confession of faith that she brought forth Jesus responded to her in such a way

that by her persistence she allowed that confession of

faith to be made and again Jesus how many times did Jesus refer to the faithfulness of

people outside the people of Israel as an example of the faithlessness

of the people of Israel.

By the way it is a gross misuse of the text of the New Testament to say that Jesus was only

the Jewish Messiah by taking one text where Jesus during his ministry sent his

apostles only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel is to ignore that very same text going on to say

that the disciples of Jesus Christ would go to all the world and preach the gospel to every nation

and that that gospel was for all the world that is part and parcel of the biblical testimony and

then we have briefly toward the end a reference to God sending an angel to slay all of the men in

the city.

Yes, the Bible had said back in Deuteronomy 28 29 and the curses and

blessings of when the covenant people of God broke the covenant they made with God that this

is what was going to happen.

And even though God showed tremendous patience in sending prophet after prophet after prophet

finally the time of judgment came and it was a just judgment.

How is that not the word of God?

Is it not the case that the Quran says that all those who believe in the deity of Christ will go to

hellfire?

How is that the word of God and this isn't?

Where's the consistency?

That's what I want to know.

Now, as I mentioned, if you're going to allege corruption in the text of the Bible, you need to go

to the text of the Bible and not just assume it.

Sheikha Wall says, well, I think this was put in later.

Sheikha Wall, you have to prove that.

We have these early manuscripts.

Explain to us how editing could take place of these early manuscripts without showing evidence

in the manuscript tradition.

And what I've started to do ever since my debate with Shabir Ali at Biola University in 2006 has

become my tradition to give to my Islamic opponents in dialogue and debate

a gift.

And what I have here is the NET NA27 Diglot.

This is a critical edition of the Greek New Testament with all the textual data, the manuscripts in the back, the

dating of the manuscripts, where they're found, what they contain, everything is right here in one volume and I would like to give

this as a gift to Sheikha Wall.

But now that you have it, you've got to use it.

And so in the rest of our debate, I would like to say, if I were to say that

certain elements of the Quranic text were later additions, it would be

absolutely fair of you to demand I provide examples.

Is that not, to the Muslims in the audience, if I were to tell you that there are certain elements of the Quranic

text that were added later, would you not be rightly in your, within your rights to say, give me evidence?

For example, I put on the screen, I showed you the Fogg's Palimpsest manuscript of the Quran and the difference in its Ibn Masud reading with that of the

Ibn Masud reading with Monach reading.

I gave you that material.

And so my assertion to you is that if you are going to say, well, that's a later addition,

you need to prove it.

You need to provide the textual evidence.

You need to answer the fundamental scholarly questions.

That's how we engage in scholarly debate.

That's what I hope we'll have the rest of this evening.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Dr. White.

Shake a while.

You may rebuttal for 12 minutes.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Dr. White, for the wonderful book that you've given me.

And I will check it out.

I take my word.

I will look at it.

Okay, concerning certain talks that Dr. just made, that

Osman standardized the Quran, in other words, he's trying to allude to the fact that the Quran has so many

variations and that we have different Qurans.

Well, what happened really about Osman if the doctor would put the record straight that

in Islam to burn Islamic artifact, to burn like the Quran,

Arabic writing the Quran is common.

We don't throw it away like that out of respect for the Quranic text all the time.

I burn Quran all the time.

So if my books, my library get torn, I'm going to do with it.

I'm not going to put sellotape.

It's not going to hold.

But the Quranic etiquette is to burn it.

Burn it or you dig a hole and bury it.

So what Osman did by burning the Quran to standardize them

all.

He put all the Quran became one.

It is already in their mind.

They cannot forget.

They are good in memory, memorization.

It is still a tradition of the Muslims today.

We memorize to preserve our books because most of the people that were the first audience when Muhammad came,

they were not, most of them are not literate, you know.

Most of them are illiterate.

And so God Almighty has given them the ability to be able to memorize the Quran and that is what the

tradition of Islam have given us from the time of Muhammad up to today.

Memorization is a key in Islam and that is how the Quran was preserved.

Now, when we talk about translation that we have Yusuf Ali, Dari Abadi, Ahmad Piktor.

Well, these are translations.

These are not the Quran as it is.

Like I said, the Quran given to Muhammad as it is in Arabic.

That is the Quran that we call the word of God.

Every other translation is not representing the actual word of God.

It's translation as each and every writer or any, you know, journalist have the right to translate the Quran from

Arabic into any other language.

You have that independent right to do that.

But that doesn't mean what he wrote.

It could be, you know, a translation but not a version.

But when we say a version, we mean certain like I give you an example, the book of the Catholics.

73 books with 7 apocrypha.

They call it a good book.

You could say you don't believe in that.

They say they don't believe in your own too.

So each and every one of you is claiming to have received that inspiration from God.

They claim to have received it through inspiration.

It is part of the canon.

You say it's not part of the canon.

So which spirit is actually, you know, motivating them to have it?

And so, do you write books through homework by interviewing them?

Now I'm going to give you some of the reasons, the reason why we have doubts as to what the

Bible holds to be the word of God.

For example, in 2 Thessalonians, chapter 4, verse 9, you know, it says, it is this

second Timothy 4, verse 4 and 9 is actually a letter, not meant

to be the word of God.

If you analyze this word carefully, it is only a letter given to Timothy by Paul.

Listen to what it says.

It says, for example, he said, do your

utmost best.

In other words, do diligently, oh, Timothy, to come shortly unto me, all speaking to Timothy.

He said, the clothes that I left are trousers with couples.

When you are coming, please bring it with you, and the books also, and especially the

parchment.

You can see clearly this is a letter that Paul is writing to Timothy.

This is not inspired word of God.

This is a personal statement by Paul and then eventually it crept into the text, it become the word of God.

And then we have, you know, in 1

Corinthians chapter 9, verse 19, Paul said, I made myself a slave so that

I might win more people.

I made myself a slave so that I might win more people into Christendom.

To the Jew, I became a Jew in order to win them.

Now, to those under the law, I became under the law, though I am not under the law, that I might

win them.

To those outside the law, I became as one outside the law, not being without the law towards God, but

under the law of Christ.

Now, as you read this script, definitely it is telling you that Paul is imploring

a technique, a cunning technique to win people into, why would you, why don't you give them the word as it

is?

Give it straight to them, the word of God.

If that's the word of God, tell them straight ahead.

But we don't believe in you becoming a Jew, in other words, you have to lie to them, is that what it is?

I'm not saying that, but that's how it sounds.

To the gentile, I tried to become a gentile so I would win them.

To the Jew, now give them the word of God, let them decide if it's okay with them, not through this kind of

lie.

Well, when Jesus said, like the doctor just brought it out, when Jesus said, go ye into all the nations, proving that Christ came for the

whole of mankind.

Yes, he said, go ye into all the nations, but this nation is the 12 tribes of Israel.

Because he said, you wouldn't have gone through all this nation until I come back to you.

In other words, before they were able to go through the dying tribe of Israel, he would have come back to them.

And the disciples should be waiting for him to come back So, he's not talking about the whole world, he's talking about the whole,

I mean, the nations of Israel.

If he came for the whole of mankind, definitely he have to show some example.

Go outside Israel and preach.

Right away, Muhammad have so many disciples from Arab.

They have Persian, they have some people from Africa, they have the Arabs, different people to show that he came for the whole of mankind.

But actually, Christ came for the people of Israel and it is clearly stated in the book of Matthew chapter 10

verse 5.

These 12, Jesus sent them and he commanded them by saying, go ye not into any way of the Gentiles, but go

ye rather unto the Lord's ship of the house of Israel, for I am not sent but unto the Lord's ship of the house of Israel.

So, in other words, the house of Israel, he's sent only to the house of Israel.

Now, if I want to know how did Jesus live with his wife, how am I going to know?

He's limited to some capacity.

We believe in him, but he's limited.

If he came for the whole of mankind, he should have married, then I would find inspiration.

How did he live with his children?

I would do that.

How did he live with his wife?

I would do that.

He didn't have the chance to become a king or a prophet like Mohammed did, like Moses did.

He didn't have the chance to do all of that.

He's always in the hiding, meaning he's limited.

So, I cannot see how did Jesus deal with the nations around him.

How did he deal with them?

How did he set up his government?

I'm not going to learn all this from Jesus Christ.

Why?

Because he's limited.

That's why he mentioned in the book of John chapter 16, verse 7, John chapter 16, verse 12, that I have many things to tell

you, but you can't understand it now.

However, when he, the spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all truth.

For he shall not speak from himself, but whatsoever shall he speak, so shall he be told.

And he will declare unto you all things that are to come, and he will glorify me.

That's the physical human being he's talking about here.

You could call him the holy spirit.

You could say that.

Yes, but if you analyze the verse carefully, it is a conditional clause there.

If I don't go, he won't come.

It is expedient that I go away.

If I don't go, he won't come.

If I go, he will come.

And you say it's the holy spirit.

And I'm saying the spirit was there with him when he said, when I send you to the mission of healing, it is not

you that do the healing, it is the spirit in you.

He said, receive you the holy spirit.

He said, I by the power of God, I by the spirit of God, the spirit was there with him, but he's talking about

the special spirit.

It is expedient that I go away.

If I don't go, he won't come.

Meaning that spirit is not there.

If I go, he will come.

And that answer to this can also be found in first John chapter four verse one.

He said, beloved, believe not every spirit, but try them and see if they are of God, because there are so

many false prophets who have gone out onto the way.

The spirit that confessing that Jesus Christ came in flesh and he's the Messiah, that

spirit is the one we're talking about.

That is the one that we should believe.

And Muhammad asked us to believe.

Over 1 .6 billion Muslims on the face of the earth believe in Jesus.

Believe that he is the Messiah of God.

We don't need any pastor or reverend to tell me that Christ is the Messiah.

We believe 100 % that he is the Messiah of God.

And the Bible said that first John four verse one said that the prophet or the spirit who came, who come and tell you

that Christ is a flesh, he came in flesh, that he is the Messiah, that spirit or that prophet

is from God.

And Muhammad said Muhammad is from God because in this verse he used spirit and prophet synonymously.

Try the spirit and see if they are of God because there are so many false prophets.

So a false prophet is a false spirit.

And a true spirit, and a true prophet is a true spirit.

Just like we see in the book of John chapter three verse six when he talks about spirits, different spirits.

So if you are here, if somebody talks about you, Dr. White and Muhammad Awal would be here, you know,

jiving, you know, doing things and jumping.

Would you believe that?

I don't think you would believe that because you'd be saying what do you mean these people are godly people?

Why are they coming here and start jiving?

Now if that's what brought you here that you are fleshy, you are here for fleshy, you know, motivation, you are

motivated as a flesh, but if you are here to receive the word of God, the language of the Bible is you are spirit.

So this spirit of truth is a physical human being.

Like I said, if you go to Medina today, in Medina, where Muhammad's tomb was there, it says,

There's no deity worship but one and God Almighty alone.

And that Muhammad who is a true prophet, spirited, this epitaph was given to him by the

Arabs long before he became a messenger of God Almighty, long before.

So the spirit of truth is actually talking about Muhammad.

If you say it's not Muhammad, then it means this passage, there's contradiction in this passage again.

And I don't know how you would reconcile this.

And then the doctor mentioned about that in

Islam, like there's one verse in the Quran,

No, you know, like may petition be on those who call Jesus the son of God.

He's only a messenger of God.

And that the only sin that God has forgiven you in Islam is

associating partners with God Almighty to associate partner with God Almighty.

You would not be forgiving.

But if you repent before you die, you are forgiven in Islam.

We don't, you know, Jesus cannot be like he's God at the same time, the son of God at the same time, he is

a flesh God.

At the same time, we want a clear cut monotheism, clear monotheism.

Islam, the moment you begin to divide God, you know, he loses that kind of essence.

The first commandment here is that the Lord, our God, the Lord is one.

And that is exactly what Muslims said.

That is exactly what Jesus said.

Jesus didn't come with any new doctrine.

He came to follow the laws of Moses and the other prophet.

And if you say he didn't follow that, that means there is contradiction.

Then that means we find contradiction in the Bible.

Why do I have to say that?

Book of Matthew 517.

He said, do not think that I have come to destroy the law of Moses and the prophet.

I have come to fulfill.

And whosoever do the law of Moses and teach someone so will become great in the kingdom of God.

But whosoever cancel the law of Moses and teach someone how to cancel it will become least.

In other words, he came to fulfill.

And that fulfillment is written large.

Where do we find that?

Again, in the book of Jeremiah chapter 18 verse 20.

When Jeremiah said, you know, no one will die for you.

Whatever you do is what you're going to get.

Yeah.

Alhamdulillah.

Thank you very much, Sheikh.

Ladies and gentlemen, at this time, we will now take a five -minute intermission.

If you could please exit out the sides if you're sitting in front of the cameras so as not to disturb the recording

equipment.

And when you return to your seats, please come up the outside aisles as well.

Thank you very much.

As Sahih al -Bukhari records for us, was found with only one man.

Only one man remembered a portion of Surah al -Tawbah.

Why is that?

I would refer you to the apocryphal debates that I've done with representatives of the Roman Catholic faith in regards to that particular

issue.

We have a fundamental disagreement with our Muslim friends as to what constitutes the Word

of God.

We have absolutely no problem whatsoever that an epistle written by Paul to Timothy is the Word of God,

including the personal elements in it.

God has always communicated with his people in their lives.

There's all sorts of personal stuff in the Psalms.

There's all sorts of things the psalmist is experiencing in his life.

And God has always communicated that way.

And again, the prophet Jesus accepted those things as the Word of God.

Where is the consistency in the standard here?

Then we have the allegation that Paul was being deceptive, that he was lying to people because of his willingness to limit his own personal

freedom so as to promulgate the Gospel.

That's not deception, that's being a servant of the Gospel.

That's being willing to sacrifice freedoms that you have so as to not provide a stumbling block to

somebody else to hear the Gospel.

That's all it is.

It has nothing to do with whether that is the Word of God or not.

Then Sheikha Wall said something very odd.

He said that when Jesus said, Go in all the nations, that the nations is a nation, the twelve tribes of Israel.

No, that is not even slightly substantiatable from the text.

Look at Matthew chapter 28, and there Jesus's words are, Panta ta ethne,

all the nations, which any Jewish reader, I challenge Sheikha Wall to show me one example

from any Jewish reader, and where that phraseology is used of only the people of Israel.

The ethne are the people outside of Israel.

I don't know of any biblical scholar that would substantiate the reading that Sheikha Wall gave of that text in any way.

He said, Jesus did not become a king.

Oh, yes, he did.

And the fact that we are sitting here this evening, 2000 years later, as subjects and servants of his kingdom,

demonstrates that he did.

But as he said to Pilate, my kingdom is not of this world.

He is the king in the heart of Israel.

He is the king in the heart of every single person who's bowed the knee to his name and called him Lord.

I would love to do an entire debate on the assertion that the parakletos,

the paraclete of John 14 and 16 is Muhammad.

It is impossible.

The promise is that the Holy Spirit would be in those disciples, not somebody 600 years later.

If you want to create a massive contradiction in the text, then try to turn the Holy Spirit and the

immediate fulfillment of that promise in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

After the sun returns to heaven, try to turn that into a prophecy of Muhammad.

There, you can really turn the Bible on its head.

Then we had a quotation from first John say, Hey, Muhammad, Muhammad led people to believe in Jesus, not the Jesus

of first John.

The Jesus of first John is the divine son of God, the creator of all things who died upon Calvary's tree and rose

again the third day for our sins.

Muhammad says he's not the son of God.

He's the son of God.

Sir.

Dolly Klaus, the third issue is that I'm yelling while I'm yielded.

He does not beget nor is he begotten.

And sir, for 157 denies the crucifixion.

And so unfortunately, Muhammad is described perfectly in the Bible in first John as an

antichrist, one who stands against the Christian faith, not one who is leading people to believe

in Jesus.

Then it is interesting to note that shake a wall said, well, I don't believe the Bible's word of God because God repents in it.

In fact, I don't believe Allah repents in the Quran.

So why isn't that the word of God?

We have to have consistency in the standards.

See what I've been doing now for a number of years and debating Islamic leaders is looking for the.

Consistent Muslim, the Muslim that will use the same standards for the Quran as they use for the new Testament.

And so far I have not found that person, but I'm going to keep searching and keep doing these debates till I find that

person.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Dr. White.

Sure.

Shake.

You may offer another five minute rebuttal.

All right.

Dr. White just mentioned.

Something that is so foreign, so new to me.

You know, I've read the Quran many, many times and I haven't seen somewhere in the

Quran where God repented.

That is, I don't know, man.

You might want to show it to me.

John chapter one, verse one, in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and it become flesh and this and that.

Well, if you say in the beginning was the word and the word was with God, we don't have any problem.

But when you say the word becomes God and the, you know, and the word is God's, if you take off,

take away the S, Islam will accept it because all the words that comes is from God Almighty.

Like in Genesis, you know, when let there be this, let there be light.

These are the words of God, but these words are his.

But how can his words become, you know, physical human?

Like in my DVDs, in my series, in my audios, I have my talks.

These talks are not mine, they are my words.

So the word of Allah is separate from Allah himself.

So how could you call the word that I have made and put in the cassette tape or videotape, I am

that word?

We don't accept that in the Quran.

Again, yes, doctor, we believe that John 14, 16

and John 16, 7 and John 16, 12 and first John chapter one, we believe that.

We also believe in, you know, John chapter one, verse 19, when this, you know, people, Levi came to us,

John the Baptist, you know, if you are the prophets, I mean, if you are the Christ, he said no.

If you are Elijah, he said no.

If you are not Elijah, you are not that prophet.

Who are you?

Are you that prophet?

So we said that prophet is Muhammad.

That is another topic again, which I cannot expound right now.

Well, when I'm talking about, I said Jesus Christ is not a king.

He wasn't, he wasn't a king.

I don't mean like, you know, uh, a title king.

Yes.

You call him a king.

Masha Allah.

We don't have any problem with that.

But I said, Christ says he did not come for the whole of mankind.

He didn't establish himself like I'm the king.

I have my ministers.

This are my court.

Like David did, like Solomon did.

He never did all these things.

It was just a title.

He's a king of Israel.

We don't have, Islam don't have any problem with Jesus at all.

But then to say, well, you don't believe in Jesus because you don't believe that he died.

The Quran said he died in the crash of the fall.

It said, which he quoted, they did not kill him and did not crucify him.

That's what we believe.

He wasn't killed and he wasn't crucified.

The Quran went on to say, which he didn't quote, it was made to appear to them so.

Why was it made to appear to them so?

Because those who write the book are full of doubts.

Who?

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

They are the ones that write about, about the Christ's description, about his death and everything.

The Quran said, they don't have the exact knowledge of what happened.

Why?

Because they only follow conjecture.

Because when they went to the upper room, they didn't know what happened.

When they came to arrest them, they didn't know what happened.

So they went to the upper room.

They ran away.

So Christ came to the upper room and he said, in Hebrew, instead of them to say, they were afraid and

terrified.

He said, why do thoughts arouse in your heart and mind?

It is I myself.

Why do thoughts arouse, you know, in your heart and mind?

It is I myself.

Handle me and see.

For a spirit, meaning any spirit.

For a spirit have no flesh and bones as you see me have.

And they touched him and felt him.

And they were overjoyed.

Now they believe it's him himself.

Because at the back of their mind, anyone that died and come out must be spiritually alive.

You could see the form but it's not, you know, you cannot touch it, you cannot grasp it with, but you could see the form instantaneously

like a silhouette.

So they were surprised.

But when he said, touch me and see.

For a spirit have no flesh and bones.

That's what we are talking about.

That Christ definitely did not die on the cross.

Again, like you said, it's a different topic.

We can arrange for that.

I'm all for it.

Crucifixion, fact or fiction or any of that topic, we can talk about that.

Again, I'm still on my gun.

When Jesus said, go into all the nations.

It is so clearly stated.

Otherwise, I would call that a contradiction.

Why did I say that?

Because didn't he tell them don't go to anywhere?

Do not go to the city of the Samaritans.

No, no, no, no, the Gentiles are going rather onto the lost ship of the house of

Israel.

For I am not sent but onto the lost of Israel.

How many times he said that?

How many times he mentioned that?

Then all of a sudden, we hear him going into all.

They try to make it look like going into all the world, going into all the nations and on and on.

And that's the name of no, this is not what it is.

It is actually, you know, he was actually sent for the people of Israel.

And that is exactly what Jesus came to do.

Thank you, Sheikha Wall.

All right.

Thank you.

Ladies and gentlemen, Dr. White will now offer 15 minutes of cross -examination.

All right.

Thank you very much, Sheikha Wall.

My question, immediately, I want to follow up with what you were just saying.

Can you give us any historical use of the phrase pontata ethne,.

Unto all the nations, that would, that would substantiate your usage that that is

referring to going to the Jewish people?

Okay.

Um, the see, you could use flowery words and everything, but what I'm

trying to tell you is this, that, uh, Christ, when he came to this world,

he was sent specific.

He came with a message.

And that message is specific for the Bani Israel, for the children of Israel, as the Quran mentioned, and the

Bible supported that, that he came for the Israelites alone.

And his doings as he walked on earth, all his doings and education didn't show that he came for the whole of mankind.

So you can't, you know, you can't give us.

Any references that substantiate that interpretation.

Well, Matthew 10, 5 said that he came for the 12th tribe of Israel.

Right.

But that's a different question, sir.

Can you find any use of pontata ethne, the nations, in any Jewish source, contemporaries

from the New Testament that means the Jews?

So if Jesus said going into all the.

Nations, all what he was saying, like I said, is going into the nation of Israel.

Okay.

Because if we use that and put it together with Matthew 10, 5, it makes sense.

Okay.

So your assumption then is that Matthew 10 is for all time, even though

Matthew himself then provides the later statement that they are to go into all the

nations and baptize them.

And you can't give us any interpretation of that that is other than how Christians understood it.

Well, if we, if we believe in that verse that you just said, that Matthew said going into all the nation, I mean,

going into all the world, then that means we have contradiction because he told them clearly do not go to the Gentiles.

So if he said, how could I, how could all of a sudden somebody say go to all the nations?

He said he came for the Israelites alone.

You just said that all the disciples were in the upper rooms.

They didn't know what happened.

Why do you reject John's testimony that he was at the foot of the cross?

Well, the book of Mark chapter 14, verse 50 said during the most critical time of the life of Christ, all his

disciples forsook him and fled.

All his disciples forsook him and fled.

So why couldn't John go back as John says he did?

Well, the Bible didn't say all.

Mark said all his disciples forsook him and fled.

Okay, so if we all fled this room, none of us could ever come back?

Well, the Bible, well, it didn't say that.

It does.

John said that he was at the foot of the cross, that he had fled and he was at the foot of the cross.

Why can't both of those be true statements?

Right.

The Bible mentions so many John's.

We have some who say that the apostle John, the one that Jesus loved or the other one who's not an apostle.

How many John's do we have who are the disciple of Jesus?

So we don't know which John actually.

Is it this John who is the disciple of Jesus or some other John?

We don't know that.

We don't know that.

So when John himself says he was at the foot of the cross, quotes what happens and then speaks in the

resurrection narratives as being in the upper room, you just reject his testimony or you're.

Just not familiar with his testimony?

No, Dr. White, because in the last phrase of the book of John, it says we

believe in this gospel because we believe in the apostle who wrote it.

In other words, it is not that John that you are thinking or somebody is thinking, it is not that John

who is actually may not have been the one that supposed to have gone into the cross and see.

It's somebody else.

Who's talking about the John.

So I don't know who John you're talking about.

Well, you just quoted from John 1, 1, but you did not quote it correctly.

It says in the meeting was the word and the word was with God and the word was God.

Then I think you skipped down to verse 14 where it said the word became flesh and dwelt among us.

But then you said the word is God's and if you would take off the S we'd accept it.

Where, where, yeah, where do you find God's in John 1?

Yeah.

In the beginning, you know, and the word became flesh and the word was God's.

Isn't that the question?

No.

And the word, the word was God's.

Those were with.

Is it that in your book?

No, it's not.

No.

I say us ain't hollow.

I ain't hollow.

God's means and the word was God.

It's describing the nature.

Okay.

And the word I turned upside down and the word was God.

That's what we don't believe in.

If it is the word was God's, excuse me, that's what we got with an apostrophe.

Yes.

Yeah.

At least all the worst was God's.

Because you know what cool is say all the word of God said is God.

So we believe in that one.

So the question I would have is why do you believe John 1426 and apply it to Muhammad while you

reject John one one simply because you reject his theology?

Well, because the ground tell us that in the Bible we have the word of God in the Bible.

We have the spoken word of the prophet in the Bible.

We have the word of the historians in the Bible.

We have the word of, you know, other types of literature also in the Bible.

So as we are trained in the Quran, if we hear the word of God, we know this word is from God almighty because

we why is that not anachronistic?

Why is that not looking backwards?

In other words, this text, John one one existed

600 years prior to Muhammad.

And I am told as a member of the Allah and Jill in Asura five

to judge by what is contained therein.

Why should I not judge Muhammad by John one one and find that his teaching is

lacking?

Yes.

The Quran also asked us, look out the other guitar any time they come with anything, ask them,

tell them to look into their books because there is light in their book.

We are not rejecting the whole word of Jesus.

The whole need to submit.

We are not rejecting that all.

We believe there is a word of God inside.

We also believe that.

There are certain words that are not in there.

So we have to pick and choose.

We have to see.

We have to see and see which one is the word of God.

We just know the word of God.

If you were standing in the group that was there the first day

when Muhammad recited Surah five forty four through forty eight approximately search online

and you were you heard him say Oh people of the book judge.

I'm sorry people of the gospel judged by what is contained therein.

Do you believe that we know exactly what the word of God in jail contained ten

years before Muhammad was born.

So why all I know you know the word of Allah in the Quran is

two strips away.

Like I said again we believe in the word that God gave you to Jesus.

The Quran also said the books have been changed.

Where is the Quran say that?

It's in the Quran.

Where is the Quran say that?

It's in the Quran.

Oh wait a minute.

You know you think that has to do with

the with the Christian scripture.

So what on to those who write the books with their own hand.

And then they say it's from Allah.

Right.

So what does that have to do with the NGOs and the Torah which were not all there sent down by God.

What is the Quran talking about the

Jews and the Christians.

So God said well on to those who write the books with their own hands so that they will if it makes a benefit out of it.

So this is referring to the Quran and the.

Injil and the Torah.

So the Quran tells me to judge by what's in the Injil, but then the Quran tells me that the

Injil has been corrupt at the same.

Time.

How am I supposed to judge?

Well, the Quran also says, we send down, let me explain with the Arabic, we send down the book to you O

Muhammad in truth, confirming the books that came before it.

The Quran is here to confirm.

In other words, the Quran is a watcher over guiding other books into safety.

Meaning, if you see any word that is not considered with the Quran, then that is not from Allah.

Can you show me any pre -Quranic use of Muhammad that says corrector rather than.

Guard?

Look, like I said, it's a watcher.

Some translators say.

Guiding, some translators watch over.

But not corrector.

Can you show me any.

Evidence that means to correct or change?

That is why I say the Quran, Arabic, which we have,

one word can give you so many, like Iqra, to read, to recite, to proclaim, to repeat.

It makes all the senses.

So, some use it as a watcher.

Some say a guide.

Some say it is to guide other books into safety because they are not safe.

Some words have crept in.

So the Quran is guiding other books.

Into safety.

I understand that, but you cannot provide me with lexical, lame Arabic lexicon.

I have it, you have it, I would assume.

Does it give you a pre -Quranic.

Use of Muhammad that means correct?

I didn't bring my lexical Arabic to English.

I didn't.

Bring it here.

No, I have it on my computer, but other than that, but you're not familiar with it.

If you have it, then you can.

Alright, that's fine.

That's fine.

I did want to ask you a question.

Why was it that in Sahih al -Bukhari 6519510, the

concern that was expressed to Abu Bakr after the Battle of Yamama, was that a

large portion of the Quran could be lost.

I believe the term there is kathir.

A large portion of the Quran could be lost if they did not act to collect it from palm

stalks, white stones, and the memory of the Quran.

Is that not a correct?

Yes, I believe it is right.

Okay.

Why would there be a fear of the loss of a large portion of the Quran if, in fact, it

already had been memorized by a large number of.

People, especially in light of the fact that that same portion of Sahih al -Bukhari specifically says that at least

one ayah of Surah al -Tawbah was only found with one man?

I think it was Ghazami al -Ansari, if I recall correctly.

Okay.

After the Battle of Yamama, there is a lot of Muslims, most of them have

memorized the Quran.

Some is written on the shoulder blade of an animal, the scapula blade, you know, the skin, you know, low -lasting quality material.

Now, when they realized that the hufas, those who commit the

Quran to memory, are dying through wars.

They didn't say they all died.

They are dying.

They realized that.

So, look, why don't we preserve it right away?

Because if we allow ourselves for all these hufas to be, you know, eventually might have been killed in the war,

we would lose the Quran.

These are the hufas.

Some of them were killed, but those who were alive, they are the ones that were charged to preserve the

Quran.

Right.

So, but why was there a fear that a large portion of it could be lost if it was already in existence amongst the people?

That is the fear.

No.

It's in their memory.

Like I said, it's in their memory that memorized the Quran.

There is that fear that if the war keep going, we would lose a large chunk of the Quran.

So, the best thing to do right now is to preserve it.

And that is where Usman came in, you know, eventually the Zayid, you know, they put it together.

And Zayid, it's not like he's the only one that have the Quran in memory.

He was charged with that only.

Allah, the messenger could have chosen anyone, but he chose.

You know, Zayid.

Could you comment briefly on the statement of Ibn Abi Dawud in Kitab al -Masahif, page 23, where he

says, many of the passages of the Quran that were sent down were known by those who died in the day of Yamama, but they were not known by those

who survived them, nor were they written down, nor had Abu Bakr, Umar, or Usman by that time collected the Quran, nor were

they found with even one person after them.

Could you comment on that statement?

Well, Zayid, we know Zayid is hufas, and that he memorized the

Quran in.

Total.

We know Sayyidina Ali also memorized the Quran.

Usman himself is a person who memorized the Quran.

So, there is no fear, actually.

Ibn Masud?

Ibn Masud is also someone who memorized the Quran.

And so, these people, they're like, they're four runs of the, so to speak, people

who can actually preserve the Quran.

But Ibn Masud was alive.

Zayid was alive.

Usman was alive.

And they have the Quran in memory.

So, the fear of Quran being lost actually is there.

So, let's put it.

Together.

Otherwise, it won't happen.

But there are still people who have the Quran memorized.

And so, that fear really is just there.

They panic, but they can still preserve the Quran.

Going back to one of your statements, you seem to have a problem with the idea that Jesus was born from a line of

sinners, which, of course, in the Christian perspective, since all have sinned, that would sort of be necessary.

Isn't it true that Muhammad's father was a khafir, that Allah refused to allow him to pray for him

because he died on Shirk?

He was a mushrikeen.

Well, I was.

Surprised that he didn't even say his name is Abdullah.

You know, so how come?

That was the argument.

How come Abdullah is the servant of Allah, and that's Muhammad's name?

So, you know, then that means they are worshipping Allah.

Some people make it look like Allah.

The Arab Christians are here, and they know, they know, they know that Allah is there.

The word Allah is used with them, and they know.

That wasn't my question.

My question was, if you have a problem with Jesus' progenitors having engaged in sin, and yet Muhammad's

own father was a mushrikeen, that Allah forbid him to pray for him.

No.

Are you using the same standard for your own faith that you're using for the Christian faith?

You know, the Arabs at the time of Muhammad, before the Quran started

coming to him, they know about God Almighty.

They know about God Almighty.

They know that God existed.

They worshipped the God of Abraham also.

So, they know who is Allah.

They know who is Abdullah.

It is all part and parcel of their language.

So, these people have, you know, they are deviating It's like the Jews.

It's the history of the Jewish also.

Eventually, they'll be going away, and God will send them a new messenger to bring them back to life, and on and on and on.

But his father actually wasn't like, I'm a Muslim, Muhammad taught Islam.

Islam came after his father, and they fall into the category, only Allah will judge them.

Most of the Muslims say, only Allah will judge these people.

One last question here in the last minute.

You have often said the Council of Nicaea had something to do with the canon of scripture.

Can you give me anything from the Council of Nicaea to substantiate that assertion?

Well, we know according to, you know, the readings and the

research that we made, we believe that in 325 AD, King

Constantine invited Athanasius and Arius,

among others.

But sir, Athanasius wasn't a bishop in 325, he became a bishop in 328, he was a deacon in 325, he was not invited by Constantine.

So, your historical source is what?

Some arguments, some argue that he was there.

Who?

Well, in...

No, no, not questioning he was there, he was not a bishop, but who, what source do you have, a scholarly source that says the

Council of Nicaea had anything to do with the canon of scripture?

They did, they are the ones that come together and...

Where?

What sources?

And put it together.

What sources, sir?

Well, it is in the history of Christendom.

What history?

All the time.

No, it's not, sir.

I teach church history, and that's completely untrue, so I'm just asking for the specifics.

There is one, Reverend T. Dume.

Thank you very much, gentlemen.

In one of his write -ups, he mentioned about the fact that, you know, Athanasius and Arius are those

who can sit down with that.

Thank you, Sheikh.

Sheikh, you now have 15 minutes to cross -examine Dr. White.

Okay.

All right.

Mr. White, in Luke 2 .21, it mentions, this is to

establish the fact that the Bible is actually the word of God.

And you've been asking me to see if I could bring any contradiction or anything that is not consistent with each other.

We find in Luke 2 .21 where when he was eight days old, Christ, he was circumcised and

named by the angel Jesus.

And yet we find in the book of Galatians, chapter 5, verse 2, Paul is saying that, but I, Paul, I'm telling you,

whosoever is circumcised will not, you know, will fall down from grace.

How could that be?

Jesus Christ is circumcised.

All the prophets were circumcised.

Jesus Christ is circumcised, following the law of Moses.

How come, you know, Paul actually canceled the circumcision?

Why would he do that?

It's a very simple misapprehension of the text that I've heard you repeat many, many times, Sheikh Awal.

It's a simple matter of context.

It's allowing context to stand.

Jesus was a Jew born under the law and therefore he was circumcised.

In the book of Galatians, Paul is talking about the fact that under the new covenant, circumcision avails nothing in obtaining

the grace of God.

And that it is not required for Gentiles to become Jews to experience the grace of God.

Therefore, when the Judaizers were coming along and contradicting the apostolic teaching of faith in Jesus Christ, and saying, no,

faith in Christ is not enough, you first have to be circumcised, enter into the covenant people of the Old Testament before you

can then experience the New Testament, that is what Paul is saying.

And his specific teaching is that circumcision has been fulfilled in regeneration, in the

spirit coming and regenerating us and making us new creatures in Jesus Christ.

It's a simple matter of allowing Paul to speak for Paul, sir.

You have misrepresented him many, many times in your public talks that I've listened to on that subject.

I would highly recommend that you read Paul more closely.

Well, Mr. White, well, that is your assumption, because we found Jesus Christ,

based on what you just said, Matthew 5, 17, he said, do not think that I've come to destroy the law of Moses and the prophet, I've come to

fulfill.

So, to fulfill is to do it and to teach those who will come after him to do it.

No, sir, you've completely misunderstood the meaning of fulfill as Jesus himself defined it.

He didn't cancel it, he came to fulfill it, and if he fulfilled it, his followers should follow him too.

So how come, you know?

Sir, you've completely missed not only the message of Matthew, but the message of Jesus being recorded by Matthew.

When Matthew 5, 17 says he's not come to destroy, he's come to fulfill.

What does it mean to fulfill?

What does it mean to complete that?

The entire message of the New Testament is that Jesus has fulfilled all righteousness.

He has fulfilled the righteousness that you and I could not fulfill in our place.

And that is why when we are united with him, we have a perfect righteousness that we could never have of our own.

So, I just allow Matthew to speak for Matthew, I do not arbitrarily cut him off.

That is your interpretation.

But you're giving your interpretation, and your interpretation is not derived from the text, it's derived from the Quran.

I'm only saying what he said, he himself.

He said, do not think, look at the words carefully, that I have come to destroy.

In other words, I've come to fulfill.

I'm not come to tell you don't do the law of Moses.

What happened in Matthew 19, 16?

A man came to Christ.

He's a good master.

What good thing must I do to enter eternal life?

And what did he say?

Why do you call me good for?

The only one that is good is the Father.

He does not say the Father, sir.

He says there is only one who is good.

You have misquoted that a number of times.

No, it's not misquoted.

I'm just, you know...

No, because Jesus is pointing out that he doesn't know who he's dealing with.

This is a description of deity to Jesus that you're missing.

So he asked them, the only one that is good is the Father in heaven.

He does not say the only one that is good is the Father in heaven, sir.

What did he say?

There is only one who is good.

Well, it's the same thing.

No, it's not the same thing.

Because he's identifying himself as being good, sir.

No, no, no.

The only one that is good is the Father in heaven.

In other words, he's rejecting that goodness.

So you're having to add words to the text.

Even though he is good.

We know Christ is good.

We know he's good to the letter.

But he's saying, out of fear of God, you know, humble, humility.

And then he said, the only way that you would get to eternal life is to fulfill the law and the commandment.

Didn't he say that?

No, he did not.

No, sir.

I have never heard you complete...

I have never heard you...

I have never heard you accurately represent that story.

Because every time you have told the story, you stop before the end of the encounter.

At the end of the encounter, the man says, I've done all these things from my youth up.

And Jesus' response is, one thing you lack.

Sell all that you possess, and what?

And what, Sheikha Wall?

Come, follow me.

I understand that part.

Is that the Mosaic Law, sir?

Yes.

Where is the Mosaic Law to say to sell all you possess?

Shema Yisrael, Adonai Elohim, Adonai Yehud.

Didn't he say that one first?

He said that.

So how is Shema Yisrael?

The Lord, our God, the Lord is one.

Yes.

If you want to do that, and then, you know, thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not commit adultery.

He has found some of the Ten Commandments.

You are actually connecting two different stories together, but it doesn't matter.

It's part of the commandment.

Actually, what he was teaching there, no matter how you try to address it, he's teaching that you have to follow the Law of Moses.

No, he's not, sir.

What is he saying?

He is pointing out that this man who has come to him, who said he has fulfilled that

law, had not fulfilled that law, because he then says, one thing you lack.

And he identifies the fact that this man has idols, his personal possessions.

So when he says, sell all that you have, he's demonstrating that while he thought he had fulfilled the second half of the

Decalogue, he had actually violated the first half.

He was committing shirk.

He had idols.

They were his possessions, and Jesus identified the fact that he was self -righteous.

You simply missed that text every time you used it, sir.

No, I didn't, Mr. White.

It is just a matter of principle.

Christ is telling them, plain and simple statement, that the only way you get to heaven is to follow the Law of Moses.

Did he say the Law of Moses in that text?

You don't have to come and see the Law of Moses, but what he was telling him to do is to follow the Ten Commandments of

Moses.

No, that's not what he said, sir.

I asked the audience, read the text.

I think it's very plain.

When Christ says, Shema Yisrael, isn't it the first commandment?

Shema Yisrael, Yahweh Elohim, Yahweh HaKadosh.

So how could Jesus pick one commandment and leave the rest of the commandments?

If you follow one commandment, you have to follow the whole commandment.

Actually, he said that there were two.

The two greatest commandments.

The first commandment is to Shema, then love your neighbor as yourself.

And he said that those summarize the Law.

That's fine.

Which one of us has ever done that perfectly?

That's why we need a Savior, sir.

Which Savior?

Someone to die for us?

Is that what you mean?

Yes, sir.

Well, but the book of Ezekiel didn't say that.

What Jesus said he came to fulfill.

Actually, in the book of Ezekiel, you've also misrepresented repeatedly.

Because you ignore the fact that the saying that Ezekiel 18 is referring to is the fact that the people of Israel are

saying, we don't need to repent because of that saying.

The fathers eat sour grapes and our teeth have been set on edge.

So they're saying, look, we're suffering because of what our parents did.

There's no reason for us to repent.

And Ezekiel says to them, no.

If you will do righteousness, you will be accepted of God.

If you do sin, you will be...

That's all Ezekiel is dealing with.

You ignore the fact that Ezekiel comes after the Mosaic law that gave us the sacrifices which point to their

fulfillment in Jesus Christ.

You're cutting the Bible up, Sheikhawa, in a way I would never do to the people.

No, Mr. White.

But this law and the commandment that Jesus Christ has fulfilled, including

circumcision, which we find people have canceled it.

Now you try to make it look like, okay, Paul, it's okay to cancel it.

Paul has canceled so many things, which Jesus Christ said, do not cancel.

And he canceled that.

In the book of Genesis 17, it talks about this circumcision.

It's very important in the Hebraic law.

And Jesus did it.

All of them did it.

So how come nobody who's supposed to follow Jesus do it?

Paul has canceled it.

Because we accept the fact that, interestingly enough, early Muslims also believed that

Bulus was sent by God.

Ibn Kathir tells us that in the interpretation of Surah 37, there were early Muslims who recognized and believed

that the three messengers sent to the city there in that Surah, one of them was Bulus, who was

Paul.

I'm not trying to argue that point.

The point is that this later attack upon Paul is not represented in the Quran.

Where does the Quran ever say anything about the Apostle Paul?

Where does the Hadith ever tell you that the Apostle Paul was a false teacher who promoted shirk?

In the Quran, we were told that the gospel was given to Jesus himself.

The gospel was given to Jesus.

The Quran didn't tell us the gospel was given to Paul.

So when Jesus says something, we measure it by what Paul said.

And if you analyze it closely, you can see that what Jesus said is different, and what Paul said is different.

I totally disagree.

Totally disagree.

I do not believe that that would be substantiated from any meaningful interpretation of the text.

That would use the same standard you use in interpreting the Quran, in interpreting the New Testament.

You don't allow for those same standards.

No.

Inconsistency is a sign of a failed argument.

Okay.

Mr. White, would you like to comment on this verse, like John 5, verse 4?

That's the King James Version.

It says this whole verse was expunged from the Revised Standard Version.

John 5, verse 4 is part of a major textual variant.

It is not found in any of the earliest manuscripts of the New Testament, which is why it is noted in

all critical editions of the Greek New Testament, including the one sitting to your right -hand side, and

is recognized as a later edition.

So that's why there is a lot of discrepancy in the King James Version.

The King James Version was based upon the Textus Receptus, which was the work of Desiderius Erasmus beginning in 1516.

In fact, the King James was based upon seven primary Greek texts, the five editions of Erasmus, the

1555 of Stephanus, and the 1598 of Baza.

However, all of those were based upon about six manuscripts.

Our manuscripts today are many more than were available to them at that particular period in time.

So would you say that it is in error that it contained this

5, 4, this book, John, that it doesn't contain, it's not in the NIV?

Well, it's a shame that you didn't read my book, The King James Only Controversy, which goes well into depth on all of these issues.

But I would identify John 5, verse 4 as a later edition.

The only reason I wouldn't use the term error or the King James at that point is that they simply were not aware of this data.

There's a vast difference between being ignorant of something because your sources are not sufficient to do that and then making the

wrong decision when you actually have the data in front of you.

So, you know, well, it's in the King James Version.

So in other words, the King James Version, millions of people believe in it.

So are they believing in something that is not supposed to be in the text?

Well, when you say millions of people believe in it, once again, the Bible is what was originally written by the apostles.

You're talking about an English translation.

And I go around, anybody who was at the church I spoke at this morning will tell you that twice this morning I taught

Christians about how to understand the history of their text, how to recognize the difference between the

Greek and the English translation and the fact that we need to do our homework so that we are accurate students of the Word of God.

Okay, then you would also have to, you know, accept, you know, that the fact that

the Bible that you have today in English that you don't have side -by -side, because most of the majority of the people, you know, they don't have it side -by

-side.

You might have it, but most of the people don't have it side -by -side.

So most of the people don't have this book that you have.

This is widely available at any Christian bookstore.

Anybody can get it, and there are all sorts of parallel texts that have the English and the Greek side

-by -side.

Most of the people don't have this book that you have, even though it's there.

I'm not sure what most of the people have, sir.

I've never done a study, but you can walk into any Christian bookstore today and find, excuse me,

but you can walk into any Christian bookstore today and find parallel texts for sale that have both the Greek and the

English right there on the page.

That is not uncommon at all.

Why is it that in the book of Romans, chapter 10, verse 9, it talks about, you know, if

you believe in your heart and confess to your lips that Christ is raised from the dead, you know,

you are saved.

In other words, you have salvation.

But then we have in the book of Matthew, chapter 15, verse 8, it says these people, they worship me with their lips.

Their heart is father for me.

How could that be?

An amazing mixture of contexts that have absolutely nothing to do with them.

One of the worst handling of the biblical text I've ever seen.

I'll be perfectly honest with you.

Every time I've heard you say that, I'm just amazed because Matthew, chapter 15 is parallel to Mark, chapter 7.

Jesus is rebuking the Pharisees because they added their traditions to the word of God.

Their traditions in that specific instance had to do with the Corban rule where they allowed you to dedicate your

possessions to the temples.

You did not have to support your parents.

This is actually found in the Jewish traditional writings in the Talmud and the Mishnah.

And so when Jesus says that they, by their traditions, they are nullifying the word of God, he's talking about the written traditions of the

Jewish people.

It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the profession of faith that the Apostle Paul says

in confessing Jesus Christ because that's exactly what Jesus said was God's will for us in John 6, 29.

So there is no connection whatsoever between those two texts.

Well, Mr. White, you could just give a flowery word for that.

What do you mean by flowery words?

I just gave you a contextual interpretation that anyone in the audience here could go look for themselves.

And see if I'm accurately using the text.

Because in support with that same argument, in Matthew 7, 21, where he said, not

all those who call thee Lord, Lord, will enter heaven, but those who do the will of God in heaven, they will enter heaven.

So that will of God, what is that will of God?

The will of God, of course, as Jesus explains right there, is not only to call him God, but to do what he commands.

And so there will be many people who will profess faith in Jesus Christ, but it is a false faith.

And as such, Jesus will say, I never knew you.

Depart from me, you who work lawlessness.

And by the way, the word lawlessness in there does not mean worship me for nothing.

It means iniquity.

There is no Greek source in the world that substantiates the assertion you made about that.

None.

You know, it's like shirk.

No, sir.

Well, because if you, if you, the only sin in Islam, and in most cases, even

Judaism to some extent, that you attribute partners with Allah.

And that is iniquity.

That is, that is the greatest sin.

That is, that is the greatest sin that you can ever do to attribute to God Almighty that he have partners.

Okay.

But sir, the fact remains that the, the, the term itself does not mean what you say

it means.

On a neon, can you show me any Greek lexicon in the world that says on a neon means you

worship me for nothing?

Well, iniquity.

On a neon is the Greek term that is used.

Can you show me any source anywhere in the world that defines it the way you've always used it?

Mr. White, I know that iniquity is to do something that is, you know, going against the grain of the established law.

I mean, you do something that doesn't make sense, certain, certain that I'm not going to accept it.

In other words, the only one that's supposed to worship is God Almighty.

Other than that, whatever you do, it is not accepted.

Simple.

We're out of time.

Thank you, Sheikh.

Gentlemen, thank you both for the stimulating exchange.

We appreciate the crossfire.

Now we will have a time of closing arguments from both participants.

Dr. White will now offer a seven -minute closing argument.

Once again, I would like to thank you very much for being here this evening and participating.

I hope that you heard me say to you, you have some work to do.

I want you to get the tapes, I want you to get the videotapes, and I want you to go to every text we have cited and see

who's being consistent.

See who is handling the text in a consistent way.

I am seeking, since I have begun my study of Islam, I am but a student of Islam, but I am seeking to handle

the Islamic sources carefully and truthfully in a way that is honoring to truth.

That's why I've begun to learn the Arabic language, that's why I've obtained the sources that I've obtained, because I

believe it's absolutely necessary for me, as a Christian scholar, to be truthful in how I handle the text.

I want to handle it carefully.

But I do not believe that the standard of meaningful exegesis that honors the text of the Quran

has been applied to the text of either the Old or the New Testament this evening.

I would invite all of you to do the homework that is necessary to find out who is speaking the truth this evening.

Normally, Sheikh Nawal begins the citation for the Quran about truth prevailing, truth becoming known.

Al -Haqq, one of the 99 names of Allah.

But you cannot define truth without speaking of consistency.

And if you have to use one standard of argumentation for somebody else's religion and a different standard for defense

of your own, you've got a problem.

This evening, the question has been, is the Bible we possess today the Word of God?

And I have emphasized to you the fact that the Bible we possess today is not an English translation.

The Bible we possess today is right down there on my table.

And in fact, I'm going to drive the poor video man crazy for a moment.

Drag all this stuff here on the plane.

I'm going to show it to you.

Here's the Bible.

Greek and Hebrew.

If you're going to allege corruption, this is what you need to go to.

And every time I ask Sheikh Nawal for specific scholarly citations in regards to this, he says he did

not provide them.

He gave us his interpretations based upon Quranic presuppositions, but he did not give us

interpretation of this text.

And if you're going to allege corruption, this is what you have to go to.

Now, we talked about John 5, 4.

But we also talked about Surah 2, 222.

Each of us has to explain the history of our text.

I believe the Christians can very clearly and very honestly explain the history of their

text.

But here I have something else that I brought.

This is the top copy manuscript of the Quran.

This is one of the most ancient editions of the Ithmanic Quran.

However, this is produced within the past few years.

This was produced in Turkey.

It was produced by Islamic scholars.

May I point out something to you?

These are charts of textual variance between the major codices of the Quran

produced by Muslim scholars, verifiable by looking at the

high -quality images of the Quran itself.

Now, here's the question.

If John 5, 4 means the Bible is corrupt, then those charts mean the Quran is corrupt, right?

If we use the same standard, yes?

Now, when someone looks at John 5, 4, I can look to my critical edition of the Greek New Testament and I can

look up the manuscripts that contain it and do not contain it.

I think very clearly it was a marginal note explaining what the actual text was saying because the angel coming

down and stirring the waters that was then included in a later manuscript because, thankfully, Christian scribes tend to be very

conservative.

They found something in the margin, they included it.

That's a good thing.

That means we haven't lost any of the originals.

But what can I do with the Quran?

There is no critical edition of the Quran.

There are Muslim scholars who'd like to see it in the West, but there is no critical edition of the Quran.

Our Muslim friends here this evening who have an Arabic Quran in their possession have a 1924 Egyptian printing.

Who made that the standard?

There are differences between it and other printings.

Why shouldn't we take Ibn Masud?

Why shouldn't we take Lubay Ibn Ka 'b?

Lubay Ibn Ka 'b had a different number of surahs.

Ibn Masud had different readings.

Why do we not take them?

You can't go to the Islamic sources and do the kind of textual study that you can do with the New

Testament.

And I say to you, that's vitally important in the evaluation of the truth

claims of Christianity and Islam.

The fact that I have 5 ,761 catalog manuscripts of the New Testament,

averaging 200 pages each for 1 .3 million pages of handwritten text, not including the translations

into Coptic, Moharic, Latin, and other languages, allows me to recognize textual

variation and to examine it and find the original amongst the variants.

It's still there.

But when you burn the sources you use to create the Ithmanic Codex, you destroy

that possibility.

And so I simply ask my Muslim friends, think about that.

Why don't you hear your Muslim scholars talking about that?

They should be, if they were applying the same standards, especially in

their apologetics to their own texts that they're applying to the Bible.

Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument.

Who uses the same standards?

Even the Qur 'an says, have just weights.

Have just standards.

And we need to do that this evening as well.

Has the Bible been corrupted?

No, God has preserved it for us.

He's done it in a way that wasn't like the Muslims believe the Qur 'an was preserved by just

one version protected by the sword.

He did it by having those manuscripts go all over the known world via persecution

so that no one man or group of men could ever change those words.

Insert doctrines, take doctrines out.

It could never have happened.

We've seen that from the evidence this evening.

Thank you very much for being here.

Thank you very much, Dr. White.

Sheikh Awal, you now have seven minutes for your closing arguments.

All right.

Well, Dr. White just mentioned that the Qur 'an in the last word as he mentioned that the Qur

'an was championed by ways of persecution.

That definitely did not happen.

We have so many intellectuals, men who have studied the Qur 'an from different points of view.

They have come to conclusion as to the Qur 'an among other things, I've given you the words of George

Bernard Shaw who wrote in his book The Genuine Islam.

He said, and then Thomas Carlyle in his book Heroes and Hero Worship.

He said, the lies and the zeal that have been heaped upon the man Muhammad it is a disgrace to his alone that

a human being, a man single -handedly in the desert will wield a sword on his right hand and the Qur

'an on his left hand.

Subduing man to accept this Qur 'an is one of the biggest lies the West have ever perpetrated on the

man Muhammad.

And he said this is the most misinformed and misunderstood religion in the West that the

early missionaries have done a wonderful job by portraying the Qur 'an and Muhammad as something that

has been forced upon mankind today.

And he again went on to ask, well if that is the case today, Islam is one of the fastest growing religions in the world.

People from different corners are accepting Islam despite the fact that it's going through all this, you know, a lot of things have been said about Islam.

And that is one of the miracles and that is one of the power of Allah that eventually, which doctors also

know, Allah said, He

is Allah who sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth to supersede each and every religion.

Now, Qur 'an, the reason why you don't find so many manuscripts here and there like the Bible, you know, you have to dig

ground, find here in the cave, this and that, is because the Qur 'an happened, it came in a full -blown history.

We know where Muhammad was born, we know how long he lived in this earth, we know when he died, we know who

collected the Qur 'an, we know who do everything.

But in the case of Jesus, we don't have clear -cut information.

Today, if you go to Jerusalem, you find different groups of religion,

each one and everyone is claiming this is where he was born, this is where the nativity took place.

We don't have all these facts.

So people depend on artifacts here and there.

But Muhammad actually was, the Qur 'an came in a full -blown history.

So we know everything has been preserved, like I said, preserved in the memory of the Muslims.

And Sayyidina Uthman did not actually burn the Qur 'an or the Qurans.

They standardized the Qur 'an in such that each and every one of the Muslims in future will follow one