Continued Response to Sheikh Awal

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line

The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence

Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix reformed

Baptist Church This is a live program and we invite your participation. If you'd like to talk with dr.

White call now It's 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll -free across the

United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five Three three three four one and now with today's topic.

Here is James white And good afternoon. Welcome to the dividing line Thursday afternoon before I jump back into my responses to shake a wall

Especially since I've I I am maybe I'm just being very very Optimistic but I got some indication that he may be watching these responses

So if that's the case, we're gonna press on because we don't have much time left because in fact we have this week and let's see then

We've got next week and then the 15th and that's it. And the 16th is when I head for for Detroit So but before we do that,

I was just informed that we had a Skype contact request that was most interesting and I have no way of knowing

There we go. I wondered how they're gonna work that out. We've got some real great technical stuff going on in the studio audience right now, but We got a

Skype request who is it who is it from there? Mr. Pierce Skype requests from Dale McAlpine and it says hello.

Dr. James appreciate your ministry Must be sick of hearing that by now Dale McAlpine here the guy who was arrested in England for preaching that homosexuality is a sin.

Thanks for the ad All right, well Dale I didn't know you had any idea who

I was I certainly do know who you are you're rather famous these days, but As I as I I think

I mentioned on the program That kind of thing is going to happen more often in the future

Everybody knew those charges would be dropped the whole reason they did it the whole reason they did it was intimidation and that kind of intimidation is going to be something that we are simply going to have to learn how to deal with and so Dale keep us speaking the truth out there and It's it's an amazing thing when

Western cultures are willing to arrest people for speaking out loud what was accepted as absolutely a

Given morally in those societies only a matter of decades before Those who practice these things

Want to silence anyone who would point to their sin and that's that's just what's happening.

All right There you go. I found that quite interesting as we fired up Skype for the program this afternoon

Some of the contacts that you get very quickly this evening. I am going to be

Lord willing putting together a new video and I'm not sure when I'm gonna be able to get it up, hopefully tomorrow morning and Just letting you know,

I think it's going to be quite interesting Do you think it is going to be?

Quite interesting so you might want to be looking for that now the last time that we looked at Some of shaker walls materials.

We were looking at the rebuttal period from a debate that he did in 2009 I ordered some

DVDs from a website somewhere and One of them was a debate with Reverend Leon now

I'm not sure what happened when I tried to burn the audio because they didn't end up with the opening statements or something

I'm not sure exactly what happened But yet as it may I have what sounds like a question -answer period here that I found quite interesting

And then as I said, I have this radio program. We'll be looking at those two. We'll see how far we can get with these

Especially this first question that was asked and we may need to I've cranked the volume full in here

This isn't really strong. Well, we'll find out when I start playing it But this first question I thought was was very very interesting and I want to make sure that a full answer is given to it

Because it is asked by a Muslim So let's let's listen to a question audience question from a debate with Reverend Leon and shake a wall

I do not know when this took place, but let's listen in Authenticity, our

Muslim community has been asking our Christian brothers to show us the authenticity and the origin

For a long time and I see we're still pretty much looking for an answer Okay, now

I just stop right there he's saying you know, we've been asking for you folks to defend the the authenticity and origin of Christianity for a long time and Basically saying you haven't done that now again.

I didn't hear the rest of the debate. So I'm a little bit in the dark, but It's interesting

How he understands this in what comes after this this is helpful in in my opinion in Understanding the

Islamic mindset. Listen, listen to the actual question Now notice it's not even quoted correctly and I mean if I were to quote from the

Quran and and and Conflate different verses different ayahs put them together and so on and so forth

I'm not that doesn't show a whole lot of having done in -depth study and when it comes to the contrast between The amount of material that is available for study of the

New Testament compared to the Quran not even close I mean, I have an entire shelf of John commentaries in my library

Good John commentaries not just the bad ones. There's lots of bad ones too, but good John commentaries FF Bruce and Leon Morris and and things like that in John so that would

That that's somewhat discouraging to hear that. But again, let's listen to the question here about John 1 1

Earlier statement of philosophy that John himself copied from other texts

Greek philosophy I don't know the scholar the Greek philosophist Okay, so basically the question has been asked

I've heard that John is Taking this from Greek philosophy and Could you expound upon this

Now If I had been asked that question My immediate response would have gone along these lines well, certainly the

Greek term logos is used in Greek philosophy and There are all sorts of discussions of that in various resources in various commentaries so on so forth, but before that before that You would have to deal with the

Old Testament context and that is the word appears over and over and over again in The Old Testament the word word

God's word which is exalted and so on so forth The Old Testament backgrounds have to be looked at first Now certainly logos is used in Greek philosophy, but it was in here it was a rational principle

It wasn't a person the logos of Greek philosophy is Non -personal and so John fills the logos with personality and meaning

But he does so by drawing from the Old Testament the Old Testament background provides

The the the meat of The use the term logos and I want to make sure they understand

John 1 1 and John 1 14 both important texts, but John 1 1 says in the beginning was the word and When you look at the original language the form of the verb that is used there is in the imperfect it's the imperfect form of I mean and And so it's not the heiress which is used of everything else in the prologue when there was a man who came from God whose name is

John. Well, that's that's again. It's a it's gonna my it's in the heiress It means he came into existence at a point in time and and everything is created came into existence a point in time

But in John 1 1 he specifically avoids using any verb that talks about Something being created or coming into existence in the beginning was the word as far back as you push the beginning

The word already exists in the beginning was the word that's John 1 1 a John 1 1

B and the word was with God Same verb was this is an eternal relationship, but this is a relationship between the logos and God That's where you get the personality there.

This is this is a person they are face to face. There's personal communication There's personal relationship and in the third clause and the word was as to his nature deity

The placement of the of the term the OS the anarthritis preverbal Predicate nominative, etc, etc

Putting it where it is emphasizes the nature not identification but nature the word was as to his nature deity and So you have three things said about the logos in John 1 1 the logos is eternal the logos has

Eternally existed in personal relationship with God who's going to be identified in verse 18 as the father and Then the word is as to his nature deity

Then it is that word then that becomes flesh there in verse 14 John switches from I me

To again a top because there was a point at time When the word became flesh the word has not eternally been flesh the word entered into flesh at a point in time so there is

What I would want to communicate on the prologue of John at least those two sections Let's listen to what actually ended up being said

In this this particular situation. It was I'm not really certain what was said, but but listen

But there's a vast difference between saying that John utilizes language that Greeks would understand but see that he is filling it with more meaning and saying he plagiarized something

But here's this is important think think with me for just a moment I know we're getting into some technical things here, but think with me for just a moment

There are all sorts of things in the Quran That we can demonstrate

Were being used by the authors at that time that had a pre -existence before the

Quran The companions in the cave for example The companions in the cave is a well -known story that pre -existed the

Quran So it seems that the mindset on the part of the

Muslim asking this question is if well If if John uses any language that Greek philosophers had used then that means this can't be the

Word of God So in other words God Could not give a revelation that would actually be relevant to anybody

He couldn't use language that they've already used Not only is that doesn't make any sense, but it's also self -contradictory to the

The fact that the Muslim has to deal with the fact that there are stories lots of stories lots of references in the

Quran That pre -existed the Quran Now I would say there's more of a problem for the

Muslim at that point because the Muslim is saying this was written in Arabic from eternity past This is this is not

John writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in human language So as to communicate a message for all all peoples at all times

No, this is this is Allah speaking is what is what the Quran supposed to be. So I There's a little bit of difference there, but just keeping that in mind

No, the word did not become God The word became flesh the word eternally been

God So so it does bother me on one level and and I know that the Christians do this

All the time with the Quran You know, I just finished just a few moments ago recording to mp3 a new translation of the

Quran Using my Kindle to listen to it yet once again while writing and This morning

I was listening to surahs 23 through 30 while writing and When I got back

I got out my Quran and I checked things I looked things up now

I realize you know, that's I'm pretty weird along those lines, but you know there needs to be You got to check things out, you know, you got to do some serious research

And if you can there is a play of Greek words between what is God and what's not God or what's divine

Now that was interesting he says there's a Greek play of words between what is God and what is not God I Wonder what he's referring to there

Is he referring to what I was referring to in regards to the verbs between a in the imperfect form by me and again

It's all again. Am I I doubt it. I There there be a better possibility

That he's heard something about what the Jehovah's Witnesses do And the word was a God is over.

Yeah, I don't know. I I can't I can't tell Yeah, so there you hear

It always helps to sort of ask one question of the questioner because his real his real assumptions are gonna come out a little bit

Later on and there you saw his real is real assumption. Okay? Okay, so if I can respond there

First of all now, this is Reverend Leon. I don't know whoever Leon is. I have no Earthly idea whoever

Leon is. Okay. I can't tell you anything about him. Nothing But this is this is

Reverend Leon as I understand it long before This is philosophical Activity took place that you're speaking of long before that This was noted according to the

Greek According to the Greek, okay I'm not sure what he means there.

It is he's saying the logos pre -existed the philosophical activity Well, obviously it

I mean it's asserting that logos eternally existed But that isn't relevant to the question that the guy asked so that means that it had to come from a different source

It did not come from philosophy, but philosophy says a lot of things Not really following that either, okay, there are a lot of documentation out here in the world that has proliferated

Proliferated the Horizon in terms of humanities horizon as far as literary knowledge a lot of information out there

And so we cannot always go with everything that is said that's why I said believe not every spirit

That's why the scripture says believe not every spirit every person because every person is not credible.

Their sources may not be credible This person you say claims John wrote this.

How do we know that that is true? What is the? documentation I Think what he was meaning to try to say there maybe was to cast some doubt on whether actually there was a

Greek use of logos or something. I I don't know. I I Didn't follow this real well

Okay, it may have been a

Yeah, and it may have been many statements out there because many people have said many things

During the same time that even the scriptures were being compiled by God now clearly

Reverend Leon has no earthly idea that logos is a term that is common in Greek philosophy prior to The time of the

New Testament, and so I think it would have been better for him to simply say well I didn't know that I can't answer that which would you know?

But according to the Bible so There are and I might say this as well when it comes to Shaitan Shaitan is very cunning

He creates counterfeits because he knows that there will be a hunger and a thirst for righteousness

The question is who is filling that righteousness? That's a non -answer, okay, let's just let's just face it the no answer was offered at this point and Hopefully the response that I gave would have been a full answer, but no answer was was given at this point

Okay Okay now in beginning Okay, I'm trying to listen as carefully as you are

I will try to repeat what I was Okay Questions on circumcision so far

Now this is probably one of those many many many examples We could offer why

I don't like audience questions because people don't know how to ask questions This is a statement.

This sounds like at least right at this point It sounds to me like a Christian who's trying to make the point that Sacrifices and circumcision were fulfilled in Christ Not just simply done away with that they had pointed to Christ and they're fulfilled in him

I think that's what's going on here. I think You When you're a minute and a half in and you're just now getting your question, this is what

I would try to avoid Live audience questions Yeah, make folks write them down on cards and then people go through them so you can get rid of the ones you know about why do you wear such ugly ties and stuff like that and Get to the ones that are actually relevant and You can actually accomplish something with audience questions when you put out a live mic give it up I Okay, now this is

Sheikha wall Responding and I I don't know how I respond because I don't really know what the guy was saying

He says something about you know, God wants to get us back and and something I I don't know but maybe because he could see him or maybe because they had talked for I don't know

He had a better idea of what he was what he was saying What you just said is your own on this uncle.

I'm talking about what Jesus actually said If we could analyze what Jesus said, there would be no problem I'm standing here for one or two hours.

I'm giving you quotations and verses. What's the matter says? What's the matter says? Contrary to what others say, what others say.

If we can stick to what Jesus said Now he's saying if we could if we could stick to what

Jesus said Well, you know This is this is a common problem amongst

Muslims Muslims will denigrate the authority of Paul certainly

Sheikha wall does even though Paul was a Apostle of Jesus Christ and There was there's no evidence that the earliest generations of Muslims viewed

Paul the way that modern Muslims do and in fact there's evidence against that which

I've mentioned before on the program, but The idea this is this is sort of you know, we've talked about this another subject this is a little bit like hyper red letterism

If it's red letters, then it's it's it's more inspired Part of this comes from a misunderstanding of the

Quranic text or a misunderstanding of the Quranic author Who thinks that they're the that the the scriptures have been given to Jesus and and misunderstands the the

New Testament context and things like that, but this is the mindset and that is if it's in red, it's more authoritative than if it's in black and We need to be prepared to explain that all scripture is the anus toss and Not just simply that which is in the the red letters

It's only about what somebody else say, but Jesus himself said the master is greater than the servant

So I'm not talking about what Paul said Now I again

I I'm not sure what happened maybe you know, I didn't actually watch the TVD Maybe it has some skips in or something.

I don't know but that skipped from from what Sheikha wall was saying to another audience question

So he's saying our God is Abraham's God You all have changes remember this is the

Quran no excesses in your religion This whole Trinity thing is excesses and remember if you recall

I don't know two years ago when I debated Sheikh Jalal al -Balrub And he was saying, you know

He started going through various issues about the training is look give your give your confession

Give your creed as Abraham and Noah and he goes through these Old Testament people Again rejecting the point where you have the revelation of the

Trinity which is where between the Old and New Testaments that's where the doctrine of the

Trinity is revealed in the Incarnation of the Son and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit the New Testament then becomes the record of that But that's not where the revelation takes place.

It took place in history in time in God's activity That's when the doctrine of Everly of the

Trinity is actually revealed and So you just have to reject that and say we need to go back

It's always stepping back into the old ways Instead of here. God has revealed himself in the fullest way in Jesus Christ in the

Incarnation of the Son and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit But that's too much we want to go back and in essence that's what

Islam is saying go back Go back unwilling to accept that tremendous revelation.

That's where the real issue lies Was all inspiration from God was

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, these authors, not prophets. Were they inspired directly from God?

We as Muslims, we say no. But you say in the book of Timothy, there needs to be a re -proof of doctrine.

Now evidently there have been some discussion concerning All Scripture is inspired of God, 2nd

Timothy 3 .16 And you just heard him say we know we don't believe Matthew, Mark, and Luke are inspired.

Well, this of course raises the whole issue once again of Surah 5 and The fact this is a development beyond Quranic revelation.

This makes Surah 5 make no sense. How can the

Alal and Jill, the people of the gospel, judge by what's contained therein if they don't possess it?

How can they judge? I have heard some incredibly convoluted responses to that.

But none that I can take in any serious fashion as having any merit. We say

God's word itself from the first letter until the last letter is flawless and perfect.

I didn't say there needs to be a re -proof of doctrine. I said 1 Timothy says, All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, do it for yourself.

And it is profitable for doctrine, for re -proof, correction, and instruction in life.

I understand that. We say God's word needs no re -proof. God's word needs no re -proof?

That's just misunderstanding what Paul said in that text. What Paul said in that text was that the man of God is going to have to engage in particular activities within the ministry of the church.

And one of the things he has to do is he's going to have to offer re -proof. He's going to have to re -prove people who have wandered from the truth.

Correction, training in righteousness. These are things that the minister has to do and he can go to the word of God for that.

He doesn't have to go someplace else for that. So I think the person asking the question here just doesn't understand what the word re -proof means.

Or at least how it's being used there. We're going to take a break. We've got a Skype call and then we'll go back immediately after that to our discussion of this particular portion of the debate.

And we'll be right back. Pulpit crimes.

The criminal mishandling of God's word may be James White's most provocative book yet. White sets out to examine numerous crimes being committed in pulpits throughout our land every week as he seeks to leave no stone unturned.

Based firmly upon the bedrock of scripture, one crime after another is laid bare for all to see. The pulpit is to be a place where God speaks from his word.

What has happened to this sacred duty in our day? The charges are as follows. Prostitution.

Using the gospel for financial gain. Pandering to pluralism. Cowardice under fire.

Felonious eisegesis. Entertainment without a license. And cross -dressing. Ignoring God's ordinance regarding the roles of men and women.

Is a pulpit crime occurring in your town? Get Pulpit Crimes in the bookstore at AOMEN .org.

The Trinity is a basic teaching of the Christian faith. It defines God's essence and describes how he relates to us.

James White's book, The Forgotten Trinity, is a concise, understandable explanation of what the Trinity is and why it matters.

It refutes cultic distortions of God, as well as showing how a grasp of this significant teaching leads to renewed worship and deeper understanding of what it means to be a

Christian. And amid today's emphasis on the renewing work of the Holy Spirit, The Forgotten Trinity is a balanced look at all three persons of the

Trinity. Dr. John MacArthur, Senior Pastor of Grace Community Church, says, James White's lucid presentation will help layperson and pastor alike.

Highly recommended. You can order The Forgotten Trinity by going to our website at AOMEN .org.

Hello everyone, this is Rich Pierce. In a day and age where the gospel is being twisted into a man -centered self -help program, the need for a no -nonsense presentation of the gospel has never been greater.

I am convinced that a great many go to church every Sunday, yet they have never been confronted with their sin.

Alpha and Omega Ministries is dedicated to presenting the gospel in a clear and concise manner, making no excuses.

Man is sinful and God is holy. That sinful man is in need of a perfect Savior, and Jesus Christ is that perfect Savior.

We are to come before the Holy God with an empty hand of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Alpha and Omega takes that message to every group that we deal with, while equipping the body of Christ as well.

Support Alpha and Omega Ministries and help us to reach even more with the pure message of God's glorious grace.

Thank you. This portion of the dividing line has been made possible by the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church.

The Apostle Paul spoke of the importance of solemnly testifying of the gospel of the grace of God. The proclamation of God's truth is the most important element of his worship in his church.

The elders and people of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church invite you to worship with them this coming

Lord's Day. The morning Bible study begins at 9 .30 a .m., and the worship service is at 10 .45.

Evening services are at 6 .30 p .m. on Sunday, and the Wednesday night prayer meeting is at 7 .00.

The Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church is located at 3805 North 12th Street in Phoenix. You can call for further information at 602 -26 -GRACE.

If you're unable to attend, you can still participate with your computer and real audio at PRBC .org,

where the ministry extends around the world through the archives of sermons and Bible study lessons available 24 hours a day.

And welcome back to the dividing line. On a Thursday afternoon, we are going to take a quick Skype call here and talk with Tom.

Hi, Tom. How's it going, Dr. White? Doing well. How are you? I'm very well.

Before I ask my question, I'd just like to say that I appreciate your ministry to Muslims very much, in as much as I myself was at one time a

Muslim. And I find that what you're doing has helped to answer my questions before I became a

Christian and even now. Really? Well, that's great to hear. Thank you, Tom. All right.

So my question is like this. I have a friend, and he is a

Muslim. And he has been made aware of the situation that has happened with Dr.

Caner. And I'm a fairly new

Christian, and I'm not really able to answer a lot of his questions myself.

So I often point him to other Christian apologists.

But in his view, all Christian apologists have now been completely discredited. So I was going to ask you how

I might be able to deal with him concerning that.

Well, I think that there is at least one Christian apologist that hasn't been discredited, and that's the one who's been taking all the heat for having brought this to people's attention.

I don't know how I could be discredited by fairly and honestly asking the questions that I've asked of Eric and Caner and investing the time for absolutely no profit whatsoever,

I assure you. I'm not sure how I get painted with that brush.

In fact, I've had Muslims write and thank me for standing up and doing the right thing in this situation.

So if you're talking, I guess the first question

I would ask is when you're saying dealing with the situation, do you mean dealing with the gullibility that many

Christians have been shown to have in this situation? The fact that clearly there are people who just want to hear certain things about Islam and they don't really check things out?

Or just the idea that someone could have gotten away with this for so many years claimed to be something he wasn't, including babbling on in words that are not even

Arabic? Or is it a combination of all of that? Well, I actually have directed him to your website, and I've actually printed off a couple of things that I found on the

Internet and given to him. And he seems to have discredited you for attending whatever seminary that you went to.

Well, has he looked at any of the debates that I've done with Shabir Ali or anyone else?

He has looked at the debate that you did with Shabir Ali. I think it was in May in 2006.

Right, right. Well, there's nothing you can do about someone who's just simply going to say, well,

I'm not going to listen to anybody. I mean, irrationality is irrationality. So I don't know how you respond to any of that.

Anyone who's not willing to listen to what someone's done or examine the arguments simply because they don't like the school they went to, well, that would be like my dismissing

Princeton as a very liberal place now. So I guess I can just dismiss Bart Ehrman because he went to Princeton?

I mean, I don't know how that actually works in someone's minds, but there's not much

I can do about that. I have been very, very consistent not only in the arguments that I've been presenting on Islam but very, very consistent in providing a response to what

Ergin Kanner has done and the claims he's made. And if someone can't look at that and see that consistency and move on from there,

I don't know if there is anything you can do for someone like that. You can present the facts, but I don't know what else you can possibly do.

Okay. Thank you very much, Dr. White. Thank you very much, Tom. Thank you. God bless. Well, that's a sad thing to hear that someone would say, well, you earned over a number of years a degree that has allowed you to engage leading atheists,

Muslims, Mormons, Oneness Pentecostals, and many others.

But therefore, I'm going to ignore all of that because it doesn't have the approval of the

Association of Theological Schools, which almost nobody out there has any idea what that has to do with anyways.

You throw your hands up in the air and go, well, okay. If you want to do that, there's nothing

I can do about it. But we press on from there. I feel sorry for anybody like that, and if I ever had a chance to talk to them,

I would try to reason with them. But reasoning doesn't seem to be the issue there. I'm going to skip over to this next section because it's easier to understand.

It just sounds better to me. There aren't any audience questions here.

This was a radio program I mentioned to you last time, a radio program with Shay Kawal. And so hopefully the sound quality will be better.

Let's put it that way. And the fellow is going to be asking him a question concerning comparing the

Bible and the Quran. So let's take a look at it. Let's start off with this because in our area here, like I said earlier, 95 % of our listeners are non -Muslim.

And I know your specialty is within the Bible and the Quran. Why don't you tell us the difference you see in your studies between the

Bible and the Quran, the makeup of it. Alhamdulillah rabbil alameen. See, I'll begin with what the

Quran has said. In the Quran Allah said, وَلَتَجِدَنَّ أَكْرَبَهُمْ مَوَدَّ لِلَّذِينَ آمَنُوا أَلَّذِينَ كَالُوا إِنَّ مَصَارَى ذَلِكَ بِأَنَّ مِنْهُمْ كِسِّسِينَ وَرُهُبَانًا وَأَنَّهُمْ لَا إِسْتَكْرُونَ

The Quran said, the nearest in love to the Muslims are those who call themselves the

Christians. This is because the people who are humble, who are not arrogant and have renounced the world.

So now the Muslims have been. By the way, just in case you're wondering, that's what

Arabic sounds like. Not the TBN version that Eric Garner provides.

For example, did you hear him say Nasada? Nasada means that those are the Christians he was just referring to.

And that's actually what it sounds like in case you were wondering. Friend with the Christians for quite a long time.

Remember when Muhammad s .a .w. was having a problem with his own people in Mecca when he started Islam.

He asked them to go to the Christian monk. There was a Christian, you know, a king.

Go there, he's a just ruler and everything. So the Muslims and the Christians are actually the same people.

And the Messenger Muhammad s .a .w. said, on the Day of Judgment when they rise up, he will be very near to Jesus Christ.

Because this is his nearest prophet. It's after him, it's like a baton. He ran and gave it to me, so Jesus gave him the baton.

So now the Muslims and the Christians are the same people. But it is very unfortunately that there's a lot of misconception and a lot of mishaps that have gone through between these two religions that's actually causing some kind of discord.

But it's about time that we have to clarify some of the things that are in. And the Bible has mentioned a lot about Islam.

Now remember, notice two things. From the Islamic perspective, the things that divide us are excesses on our part.

They're not teachings of Jesus. And we've already listened to Jesus' teachings being ignored at so many different points, even to the point of saying, well, you know, anything after Matthew 3 wasn't in those great codices and having those off by 700 years, things like that.

But from the Islamic perspective, if we would just not believe these excesses.

Now obviously from the Christian perspective, which comes before Islam, these are not excesses, these are definitions.

These are the very things that make the Christian faith what the Christian faith is. They are non -negotiables.

I've told the story of the imam in Indonesia, who thought he had come up with a great idea.

We would have peace between Muslims and Christians. If you just realize that Muslims are offended when you ascribe a son to God, and therefore if you just stop ascribing a son to God, everybody would be at peace.

In other words, stop believing that Jesus is the son of God. So in other words, stop being

Christians. If you stop being Christians, then we'd all get along. Well, he really thought he'd stumbled onto something there.

And obviously he hadn't, but it does illustrate the mindset that is involved here.

So hopefully we'll be dealing with that. Let me ask you this now. You know,

I get a lot of questions from people asking, and these are Bible studies.

They say, now we have so many books in our book that make up our book, our Bible. How is the

Quran? Is the Quran made up of different sources and different versions? Alhamdulillah, all praise belongs to God Almighty.

The Quran actually, the word Quran means reciter or reading. That which you read and drive inspiration, drive guidance from.

We don't have two Qurans. We have one Quran. The Quran, as it was revealed to the messenger

Muhammad some 1428 years ago, is the same Quran that we have. We might have different translations from Arabic into English.

Different journalists, different writers, each and every one of them have the right to translate the Arabic word as he wants to any other language.

That is not the Quran. It is the meaning of the Quran, the nearest. But the Quran, as it is revealed to Muhammad, the

Quran in Arabic is what we have, and it cannot be changed. Now, again, keep that in mind and think back, if you can, to the preceding discussions, where we have seen

Sheikh Awal say, I've got 28 different Bibles. And then he starts talking about what?

Translations. He clearly understands that if you have

Yusuf Ali and Piktal and Maududi and the various translations of the

Quran in English, those are just simply English translations. The Quran exists in Arabic. Does he not see that that's the exact same thing in regards to the

Bible, that we should be talking about the Greek and Hebrew texts and not this concept of translations?

But even then, we're not going into discussions we've had in the past right now regarding Ibn Masud and the readings he had in the

Quran and Ubay ibn Ka 'b and the number of different surahs and all the rest of that stuff.

The evidence from the earliest tafsirs of the different readings and the rasms and stuff like that.

Not even going into all that, there would be reason to do that. But just on this level, many

Muslims will understand, oh, yes, we have different English translations of the Quran, but those are not really the

Quran, okay? We have different English translations of the Bible, but those are not really the Bible. They need to understand that there's a direct parallel at that point.

It's the same Quran that we have today. But when we come to the Bible, it's the word of God.

We believe the Bible was given, the book was given to Moses, the Torah, the five books of Moses, and the book was given to Jesus, the

Injil. In Greek, we say evangel, meaning good news. Now, these are books of guidance, but the question we ask today is that the book of Jesus is not with us here today.

Now, the book of Jesus is not with us here today. Now, what is the assumption that every

Muslim is, well, almost every Muslim is operating on is that the author of the

Quran understood the difference between the idea of a book being given to Jesus and what the

New Testament was. I have no reason to believe that, none. And I don't think there's any way to make that work.

As I said, you go to Surah 5, you follow the argument in Surah 5, and the point is that the

Injil is what the Christians have. Now, why do you assume that the author of the

Quran understood the nature of the New Testament? He never quotes from it. He doesn't have any direct access to it.

It hadn't been translated in Arabic at this point in time, at least not all of it, maybe some portions someplace, but we don't have any evidence of that.

So, my understanding is that the writer of the

Quran clearly understands the Injil, the gospel, to be the

Christian scriptures. And he exhorts the Christians to look at the

Christian scriptures because they will be consistent with what he's saying. Well, they're not. They're not consistent.

That's the problem. And that's why, starting hundreds of years later, Muslims, once they discovered this, had to start attacking the validity of those scriptures and their transmission over time.

With all sincerity, you know, it is not here with us today. What we have today is the book according to Matthew, according to Luke, according to John, according to…

And if you carefully sit down and analyze according to it, it means somebody else is saying this.

If Matthew wrote it, it would have been the book of Matthew. Matthew who? Who's Matthew? We don't know who's Matthew.

Again, this is a regular argument that he makes, but he's got to come up with a whole lot better reasoning than just simply saying, well, since Matthew refers to himself in the third person, he narrates his own conversion, and he doesn't use first person, that means he couldn't have written this.

Kata does not mean this is somebody else. That particular preposition is normative when you're talking about the author.

I mean, there'd be numerous other examples in ancient Greek literature of that. So this just doesn't follow from what he's saying.

The first name, just like when I give you a check, and you go to the bank to cash it, the cashier's not going to cash it for you because it's

Matthew. Matthew who? Now, and Muhammad who?

Obviously, the use of names for surnames and family names in the

West today is irrelevant to the situation then. I mean, even

Arabic usage is using a single name, bin your father's name or a tribal name or something like that.

That's even different. I mean, if you tried to cash a check with Ubay ibn

Kab, Ubay, the son of Kab, they're going to go, and your last name is?

So I'm sorry, that illustration just does not manage to make it across the geographical and cultural boundaries, shall we say.

According to Matthew, it's a weak argument. It means somebody else says something. According to him, somebody else wrote it.

And so we know a book was given to Jesus, and that is the book that we believe in, that was revealed to Jesus.

As he walked on earth, he taught and counseled. The Bible said, and Jesus went to Jericho, and he preached the gospel, and he went to Jerusalem, and he preached the gospel.

The question is, which Bible was he preaching? Matthew, Matthew, Luke, and John? There was a Bible that he was preaching.

So there you have the idea that in preaching the gospel, he was preaching from a book we no longer have, except we know what the gospel is from how?

From the recording of it in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. And it was the gospels, plural, were referred to as the singular gospel by Christians.

You have to differentiate between the gospel as a message found throughout the

New Testament and the gospel contained in the gospels, the story of Jesus, etc.,

etc. So there's assumptions being made here. There's no reason, no warrant for those assumptions to be made.

Because in the book of Luke, chapter 15, verse 16, Jesus said, If you renounce yourself and your children and your mother and your everything for my sake and for the sake of this gospel, eternal life is yours.

And what was that gospel? Repent, believe in the one that God has sent, and that's

Jesus Christ. And yet, interestingly enough, in the Quran, when Jesus speaks, that's not his message. He becomes merely an arguer for monotheism and sort of the prophethood of Muhammad.

But that's not the same message. I wonder why the message has changed. That means there was a gospel at the time of Jesus.

If you renounce yourself and your family and your brothers for my sake and for the sake of this gospel, which gospel?

This gospel that was with him. So now we know there was a gospel at the time of Jesus. That was the gospel that Islam is talking about.

And also we find in the book of Luke, again, chapter 19, verse 30, where Jesus said,

Go into all the nations and preach the gospel. Which gospel? There was a gospel at the time of Jesus.

That was the gospel that we believe in. Notice he's saying that's the gospel we believe in, even though we've never seen it.

And it's not the gospel in the Koran. So how do they know what this gospel is?

Very clearly, the writers were not intending to communicate this interpretation at all.

They were intending to communicate the fact that the gospel was the spoken, preached message of Jesus, which is exactly what they are communicating in its various forms and the parables and all the teaching of Jesus, the

Sermon on the Mount, and all of that is the gospel message that Jesus proclaimed. That was their intention to use their words in another way, directly contrary to their own intention, is not the appropriate way to go.

The Koran did not say we have a gospel according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. These books were written. The book of Matthew was written.

Mark was first written. How does he know that? I mean,

I know it's very, you know, Mark in priority is very common, but to just state it as a fact like that, how is he aware of that?

Over 85 years after Jesus Christ left the earth. 85 years after Jesus Christ left the earth would be 115 for Mark.

115 A .D. for Mark. Okay, now we're making the liberals look conservative with our dating here.

This is similar to Robert Price, pushing the authorship of the gospels into the second century.

I'm confused. Was he not referring to Mark or was that John? I thought he had said

Mark. So 65, that puts it, now he's putting

Matthew in 95, but it puts Mark first. It would have to be earlier than that. 120 years.

So that's 150. Now we have P52, which is from around 110.

So we have a copy of John, a portion of John, written 40 years before the book was written itself.

I got to admit, that one's a little bit entertaining. Che Guevara, you need to look into P52.

P52 actually dates from, I think you can argue pretty strongly for 110.

125, okay, fine. 150 is as late as you can go, and so you'd have to say that P52 is actually part of the original.

John is the earliest attested in the papyri of the gospels. So you can see the duration.

None of these books was present in his lifetime. No, no, no, not at all. No, of course, they were written after his lifetime, because they contained the story of his lifetime.

Not at all. What was present at him was the gospel that he was preaching. And he said, look, take this gospel, and he blessed it, and preached the gospel.

That was the gospel. Not Matthew, not Luke, and John. Now, if there was some magical book that no one's ever seen, called the gospel, that was given just to Jesus, who failed?

Did Jesus fail to get the proper disciples and followers?

What was wrong with the disciples? That they would fail to communicate Jesus' message? That they would allow someone like Paul to come along and destroy everything?

I mean, there's really a very strong anti -Christian bias when you think about it in this kind of rhetoric.

There has to be. I mean, when your sacred book identifies the Christian belief in the

Trinity as a blasphemy, you can only say so many nice things up to that point.

And this, of course, is why many times we've raised the issue of the

Quranic statements that the followers of Jesus, the true followers of Jesus, Allah promises to make them victorious over the unbelievers until the

Day of Judgment. And yet, this whole theory would say, don't think so. They lost.

Completely lost this book that allegedly Jesus was carrying around and reading from while he was preaching.

So where's the gospel now? That was what the Bible writers today have said. These books are nowhere to be found.

These books are nowhere to be found. And the biggest example that you can find is the book of Matthew. Now, again, if these books are nowhere to be found, then someone,

I'm going to ask Sheikha Wall, of course, we're debating the deity of Christ, not this. I'd like to debate these issues with him as well.

Hopefully we can, maybe in August or something like that in New York. But I'm going to ask him a question.

How could anyone be expected in the days of Muhammad to answer the question, to do what

Surah 5, 47, 48 says? People of the gospel, judge by what is contained therein.

The only antecedent is the gospel. We know exactly what the people of the gospel had in the days of Muhammad.

We know exactly what Bible they read from. So explain to me

Surah 5, 47, 48. If the gospel is gone, it no longer exists, then that section makes no sense.

Now, if you want to say there's a section of the Quran that makes no sense, that's up to you. But, again, this is not the early view of the

Muslims. Chapter 9, verse 9. Watch what happened there. Matthew 9, 9. It reads, While he,

Jesus, was going out on the way, he saw a man sitting on a task -collector's table, and he said to him,

Follow me. And Matthew rose and followed him. This is not written by Matthew. This is written by somebody else.

If Matthew wrote it, it would have been, While he, Jesus, was going out on the way, he saw me sitting down, and he said,

Follow me. And I followed him. So, again, I just have to challenge

Sheikh Awal on this point. Upon what basis do you assert that a writer has to switch to the first person when writing a discussion of even his own conversion?

Especially, what if he doesn't want to make himself the central issue? What if he doesn't want to insert himself into that? Why can't he do that?

Why does this demonstrate that Matthew had nothing to do with it? I don't understand it, and it needs to be substantiated.

Maybe he's just made this argument so many times and never had Christians come up with a response or to challenge it that he's never thought it through.

I don't know. We will find out when we have the opportunity of debating coming up here in just a matter of weeks.

I hope you'll be praying toward that. I think we still have the link up to where you can help us with the costs involved.

I got the tickets yesterday. I got to get the rental car and so on and so forth.

I think the hotel's been taken care of. But then there's this little thing called food and things like that.

So help us to make this available. Thanks for listening to The Vying Line. We'll be back, Lord willing, on Tuesday right here.

See you then. God bless. I believe we're standing at the crossroads.

Let this moment slip away. We must contend for the faith above us fought for.

We need a new Reformation day. Saturday times, legend, it's time to make a stand.

The Dividing Line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega Ministries.

If you'd like to contact us, call us at 602 -973 -4602 or write us at PO Box 37106,

Phoenix, Arizona, 85069. You can also find us on the World Wide Web at aomin .org,

that's A -O -M -I -N dot O -R -G, where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books, tapes, debates, and tracks.