Does the Name of Muhammad Appear in Song of Solomon 5:16?

Alpha & Omega Ministries

Subscribe

Download

Share

00

00:01

Dr. White was here last time we dealt with this issue, or we were just beginning to deal with this particular issue before you departed,

00:18

I think. Yeah, we've actually covered it a couple of times, and I've discussed it. I know when

00:23

I was on with Sam Shamoon, we went through this fairly clearly. I debated Shabir Ali on this subject in London, and that is the claim that Muhammad is found in the

00:35

Bible, which most Christians are not aware of, and they're surprised when you mention it to them, but which

00:42

I have been discovering more and more as I'm continuing my studies of Islam and have even since I was here last time, it certainly has struck me that this is a central theme in Muhammad's own understanding of his prophethood.

00:58

And so if it is untrue that Muhammad is found in the

01:05

Bible, if the Bible actually has no reference whatsoever to this Arabian prophet, then the

01:11

Quran itself, which in a number of different threads makes this assertion, would have to be demonstrated not to be the word of God at that point.

01:21

And so there's a reason why Muslims have worked so hard,

01:27

I think, of Ahmad Didat, and in fact the last time I was here, we played clips, the very same clips from Ahmad Didat, we played here on ABM back in August in responding to his claims concerning Muhammad in the

01:44

New Testament. We played those clips and responded to them, the very same ones that are going to appear in a video that we're going to look at this evening, because evidently

01:54

I guess someone ran across the ABN videos on YouTube and contacted you.

02:00

Yes, as a matter of fact, I hope that we have at least one Muslim, I'm sure we've got a lot of viewers, but one

02:06

Muslim viewer named Khalid, and he sent me an email through ABN here and essentially, and I'm waiting for my computer to come up, but to summarize his question, he asserted in his email, don't you realize that the

02:21

Bible, there is proof, there is proof that the Bible mentions

02:27

Muhammad, absolutely, there's no doubt about it. And he directed me by YouTube to a link that he said is going to demonstrate this and you need to watch it, don't you?

02:38

And before that, actually, he was, I won't read all of his email because it's not all germane to the topic tonight, but nevertheless, he was kind of talking about why is it that you at ABN want to attack

02:49

Islam as opposed to the Jews? After all, it's the Jews that crucified Jesus and, you know, we, the

02:58

Jews do not believe or honor Jesus, we honor Jesus, and don't you know that Jesus is even mentioned in your own scriptures?

03:08

Right, or that Muhammad is mentioned. I'm sorry, thank you. I'm saying that Muhammad is mentioned, and this is in capital letters, you know, it's like this is absolute, definite, you know, can't you get it through your thick skull, you know, that kind of thing at least coming through in the email, although he was very kind in some of his greetings.

03:24

And you know, we have to assume that this is someone who is sincere,

03:29

I mean, how many Christians could address the issue of the claim that Muhammad is mentioned in the

03:36

Bible or have listened carefully to what the Muslims say? In fact, I want to mention something, you know, at the beginning of this video, we're going to show it,

03:45

I keep mentioning it, but we're going to show it here in just a moment. At the beginning of this video, people like Jimmy Swaggart are shown, and they're making statements about Muhammad's not found the

03:56

Bible and things like that. Now, I would imagine that was probably from his debate with Ahmed Dida, which was...

04:01

Which was what, in the 80s? Oh, it was quite some time ago, yeah, it was in the 80s, and it was a painful thing to listen to.

04:08

I mean, that's as enjoyable as chewing on aluminum foil, but most

04:14

Muslims have seen that debate. They haven't seen Josh McDowell's debate with Ahmed Dida, but they've seen that one.

04:20

It just struck me a little bit, I'm sure that you said the gentleman's name was Khalid? Khalid.

04:26

Khalid. I would imagine that Khalid probably hasn't spoken with Christians who have taken the time to thoroughly examine what the

04:35

Muslims are saying, but there are those of us who seek to show respect for others by listening carefully to what it is that they believe and accurately trying to, as best we can.

04:49

We may fail at times, but trying as best we can to accurately represent what they believe. I wanted to give an illustration of this.

04:57

This is one of the books that I've brought with me on my trip, just for reading in my own study. This is an explanation of Muhammad ibn

05:04

Wahab's Kitab al -Tawheed, which is one of the important Islamic works that helped to almost in a reformation of Islamic monotheism.

05:16

I'm listening to a, I think it's 16 hour, I think it's a 16 hour series of lectures from Sheikh Yasir Qadhi on this particular book.

05:28

I'm reading the book that his class was listening to and listening to the class lectures on this subject, which is not specifically on Christianity, obviously.

05:36

It's not necessarily apologetic. The point is to be able to understand what

05:41

Muslims believe, why they believe it, so as to have better interaction with them. I hope that Khalid will listen to our response to this material.

05:50

First of all, that Khalid will understand this is nothing new to us. This is not new material. As I said, the very same section from Ahmadiyya that is found in this material, we respond to this.

06:04

I showed this material in my debate, as I recall, with Shabir Ali.

06:10

If I didn't, I added it in very shortly thereafter. We are very, very familiar with these things and I hope

06:16

Khalid will have an open ear and an open mind and an open heart. I abjure you, please sir, consider one thing, apply the same standards to Christianity that you do to Islam and vice versa.

06:31

Don't use double standards. For example, Brother Joseph, do you know what a

06:36

Mushahadeen is? Mushahadeen. A person who engages in Jihad. Oh yes, yes,

06:42

Mujahadeen. Mushahadeen. Yes. Who are the Mushrikeen?

06:47

Yeah, well it depends who you ask, but it's the polytheists. Some would say us. Exactly, but what makes someone a

06:56

Mushrikeen? He commits shirk. Okay, so in both of those incidents, we have shirk as the root word, and then the one who does it is a

07:07

Mu and then the root, Mushrikeen, exactly, becomes the noun, Jihad, Mujahideen, the one who does

07:16

Jihad. Now that's going to be important because there's something very similar in the evidence that Khalid has found to be so impressive, is use the same standard.

07:34

Could you look at the term Mushrikeen and make any sense out of someone who tries to make a connection into another language outside of Arabic, not of the root shirk, but of Mushrikeen?

07:51

If you made some type of a connection to someone named Mushrikeen in another language, in French or something like that, the person speaking

08:00

Arabic would go, wait a minute. Don't you know that means to shirk your duty? Exactly, exactly, in English or something like that.

08:07

They go, no, no, no, no, the root is shirk, the Mu there is part of the parcipial form, and you just don't understand the original language.

08:15

Well, that's exactly what we have going on in this situation, too. So I think it would be good for us to take a look at the video.

08:23

I'm going to have to be able to see the video over there actually to start it, if we could put it on the screen so that I can see it.

08:31

This is a video, it's available on YouTube, and it has very high quality.

08:40

I mean, I was impressed the first, at least first five or six minutes, as you and I both noted, got toward the end, and we had a bunch of dancing

08:48

Jewish people that I wasn't really sure. It got weird toward the end, but at least for the first five or six minutes, it was looking pretty good.

08:55

Well, I want to ask you real quickly, I don't have it written down, but there is at least one particular passage in the

09:00

Qur 'an where it talks about Jesus speaking of Ahmed to come.

09:07

Yes, that's 7 -157. So this would be in the Qur 'an, the Muslims who are looking for Muhammad in the

09:16

Bible, this would be one of those verses or the main verses. Let me read the two of them. There's two of them that are very, very important.

09:22

Yes. Surah 61 -6 says, and remember, Jesus, son of Mary said, O children of Israel, I am the apostle of Allah sent to you, confirming the law which came before me and giving glad tidings of an apostle to come after me, whose name shall be

09:37

Ahmed. Ahmed. There's Ahmed. So put into the very mouth of Jesus the assertion that they're going to be, he is going, he's announced glad tidings of an apostle to come after me, whose name shall be

09:52

Ahmed. And it doesn't say Muhammad, actually, it says Ahmed. It says Ahmed. And then you have

09:57

Surah 7 -157, those who follow the apostle, the unlettered prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own scriptures in the law and the gospel, which is why they don't just go with the

10:11

Deuteronomy 18 passage or the Song of Solomon passage, but they also try to find Muhammad in the

10:18

Gospel of John, specifically in John 14 and 16, in the Parakletas, which they try to turn into.

10:25

We'll look at those as well, but they're forced to this. They're forced to this by the authority of the

10:32

Quran. And as long as a person believes that these words are absolutely true and will not test these words to see if they are true, if you start with the assumption that they're true, this is why people can look at the clearest refutation of this information and yet continue to believe it.

10:49

Even when on any other standard, you just wouldn't go there. You just wouldn't do it. So if there's,

10:57

I haven't seen the video come up yet, so we need the guys in the control room to give me the video. There we are. And unfortunately, since I'm past about 45 years of age now,

11:06

I have to be able to put the glasses on to see what's over there now. Let's take a look at this video.

11:13

Very well produced. Let's see what it says. Upon every close scrutiny of the alleged references to Mohammed in the

11:26

Bible as a prophet, they absolutely have no relation to the prophet of Mohammed. No prophesy is coming.

11:33

Mohammed is not mentioned in the Old Testament, anywhere from Genesis to the

11:41

Revelation. Mohammed is God's true master. That's a joke. Lo, we inspire thee as we inspired

12:16

Noah and the prophets after him, as we inspired Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the tribes and Jesus and Job and Jonah and Aaron and Solomon, and as we imparted unto

12:32

David the Psalms. The verse we've just heard is from Chapter 4 of the

12:49

Quran. In the verse, God is affirming to humanity that Mohammed is indeed the recipient of a divine guidance, just as Noah, Abraham, and the rest of the prophets.

13:01

However, some Christians and Jews today don't believe that Mohammed was a prophet and the covenant that God made with Abraham.

13:09

And since the Quran is not their book of authority, in this video I'm going to show you that the book you're holding in your hands contains the name of the seal of prophethood, the prophet

13:19

Mohammed. As known, the

13:26

Old Testament was preserved in the Hebrew language in the 5th chapter of the Shir Hashirim, which is one of the five

13:33

Majlis or sacred scrolls that are part of the Hebrew Bible, or for short the

13:39

Song of Solomon, as Christians know it today. That chapter is discussing someone.

13:46

Jews will say it is discussing Solomon, while Christians will say it is discussing Jesus. Considering this is the

13:53

Songs of Solomon, it would seem logical that it is discussing Solomon. The verses, describing this mystery man, have the narrator speech conjugated in the feminine, meaning it is a woman who is describing this man.

14:08

So it is possible that it is one of Solomon's wives discussing her husband Solomon. However, Christians assert that Jesus is being discussed, and that the chapter is describing a man who was not yet alive at that point.

14:22

A prophecy. Let's see if we can stop right there. I want to stop right there and then go back to it.

14:29

A couple of things to correct at this point. Yes, it's true, this is a woman speaking.

14:37

But the only presentation that is made in the video is that the only

14:42

Christian view is that this is about Jesus. There are Christian interpreters who have seen the

14:49

Song of Solomon as a whole, as a parable of the relationship of Christ to his church.

14:57

There are a number of people who have seen that. The New Testament writers do not make that connection, but I am not going to argue against that.

15:07

But what I am going to say is that there are a lot of other Christians who have not seen it that way, and have not seen that necessarily what is being said specifically in Song of Solomon 5 .16

15:19

is specifically about Jesus as some prophetic quote -unquote mystery man.

15:25

So there's this insertion of this idea of some mystery man. The fundamental meaning of the text, as we will look at it, it's going to be on here on the screen in just a moment, in the video we'll look at it again afterwards.

15:37

The fundamental meaning, however, is of a woman speaking of, we would assume, her husband, her probably kingly husband in this case, probably it was indeed

15:47

Solomon. And there is a description of him, that his mouth is full of sweetness and he is altogether desirable is the standard translation of this text.

16:01

There are two terms that are used here that are adjectives. They're functioning as adjectives in the

16:07

Hebrew language. They talk about his mouth being full of sweetness and that he, her beloved one, is wholly desirable.

16:18

And that's the key term we're about to see focused upon here. But you'll notice it's sort of setting up and maybe just out of ignorance,

16:25

I can't necessarily say what the intentions are or whether even the people who put this together have ever heard a meaningful response to it.

16:32

But it seems like the idea is, well, there's some mystery man here and now we can find a way of shoehorning

16:40

Muhammad into that. There's no mystery man here at all. It's very straightforward who's being discussed.

16:46

Whether there's some future fulfillment, well, you have to provide some kind of basis for that.

16:52

But wanted to correct that right off the bat. And can I just ask you a couple questions to clarify for me as well for the audience?

16:58

We have here, I mean, most of this book is talking about this particular, almost the whole book is talking about this particular relationship.

17:06

Yes. This word here in 5 .16, it's not repeated verse after verse after verse.

17:12

Oh, no, no. She's continually talking about the same person. But we just find this one word in this one verse in a book that talk about debate of meaning and application of particular parts of scripture.

17:25

That's in every religion. But in the Bible, Song of Solomon is perhaps one of the most debated within Christianity of exactly is there allegorical interpretation?

17:38

Is there spiritual meaning here, application? And, you know, you look at it, we see

17:44

Deuteronomy 18 that we'll talk about perhaps in the next show that Muslims like to use. Well, now here we have a specific prophecy about someone to come in the future.

17:52

And it's found in history. You can establish historical meanings at that particular time. But this has,

17:59

I mean, you know, you teach in seminary. I mean, the type of literature here is by no means prophetic whatsoever.

18:08

No, and not only that, but it doesn't fulfill even the Quran's own statement because think about those who follow the apostle, the unlettered prophet whom they find mentioned in their own scriptures in the law and the gospel.

18:19

Nobody reading this would have ever, ever found Muhammad in any way, shape or form as we're about to see.

18:26

But let's go ahead and let the video finish up here because you can see the presentation. Yes. Let's continue on.

18:39

In reading the English translation of Song of Songs 516, it finishes the description by saying he is altogether lovely but what most people don't know is that the name of that man was given in the original

18:52

Medjulat. Here is verse 16 and how it is written in ancient Hebrew before introducing the vowels in the 8th century from the

19:01

Hebrew Bible on scripturetext .com Here is the word in question.

19:13

Stop it and look at it right there. Don't switch back to me. Stay there on the video. They dropped the ending of the word.

19:21

It's not Mahmad which is what you have there. It's Mahmadim. Now they mention the plural ending a little bit later on but when they pull this down here there's two things they're going to do.

19:31

They leave the ending and they're calling this a name. This is not a name. This is an adjective.

19:37

It is a descriptive adjective with a mem preformative at the beginning of it.

19:43

The root of that word is Hamad. It is not Hamad and they don't recognize the difference between the hey and the chet in the

19:53

Hebrew language at this point. They sort of blur those two together so you can end up with Hamad or Ahmed or something close to that so it's close enough to Mahmad.

20:03

Technicians, give us the video full screen please and leave it like that. You can still see it's just fading out above that but you can see the plural ending has been lobbed off in what they have brought down and expanded out so it's

20:15

Mahmadim Mahmadim is what is up above and that is a plural but it is a plural with a mem preformative it is describing wholly desirable just as before that there's another root that is used in the plural with a mem preformative which means full of sweetness and so these are functioning as adjectives as descriptive words and they never explain that this is a name no it's not a name the name is the beloved, that's the only name that's found there this is not a name, this is a description and so they're actually trying to make an adjective function as a name and going well see

20:54

Mahmad, Mahmadim they're the same thing no they're not because Hamad is the same root we will let the video finish but Hamad is the exact same root that is found in the 10th commandment you shall not

21:11

Hamad, covet that's the same root same word this is a word that is found throughout the

21:19

Old Testament so one of two things has to happen either the Muslim who tries to use this argumentation has to say well this is the only use of Hamad in the

21:30

Hebrew Old Testament that actually has to do with Mahmad because it has the preformative on it and now you're doing the same thing that someone would say well a

21:40

Mushrikim is different than someone who commits shirk because you have to have the M at the front what?

21:46

it shows a complete ignorance of the original languages or you're going to have to say oh yeah every time the

21:51

Hamad appears that's actually about Mahmad so thou shalt not covet there's all sorts of negative and positive uses here that we will look at in a moment but the point is the video does not show an understanding of the languages and when you're trying to take what sounds like something from one language and drag it into another language that is transparently fallacious argumentation that can be used to prove anything whatsoever absolutely anything whatsoever you can't make that kind of argumentation so let's continue with the video here this word is made of four letters

22:35

Mem Het Mem Dalet leave it there it says this word is made up of four letters no it's not, that's a

22:50

Mem preformative and so if they were going to say it's made up of four letters they should have brought the entire word down and it would have been made of six letters because you'd have an

22:59

Em at the end so you either have to go with the root which is Hamad or you have to go with the whole one they're obviously now trying to massage this information to make it sound like Mahmad and make it look like Mahmad that's very very clear now when reading the word as it is written in its original form with no vowels it can be read as Mahmad which is the name of the

23:24

Muslim prophet or as Memad with no A after the H now notice what they're doing they are confusing the

23:31

Het with the Hey, that's not Mah -HA -mad it's Mahmad, that is a

23:37

Hey there, not a Het explain the difference to our lay persons there's two Hebrew letters that the

23:44

Hey would be the Ha right, and the Het has a much stronger, and it's a completely different letter, completely different roots different sound, etc.

23:53

but they're playing on the fact that normally in transliteration it's sort of like you know that the proper pronunciation is

24:02

Sharia but that Eh sound is so difficult for English speakers to do it almost always comes across as Sharia and so it would be like making a connection where you have an

24:14

Eh and an Ah sound in Arabic when they're completely different roots, it's the same thing they're playing games with us at this point let's go back to it guys there we go according to Ben Yehuda's Hebrew -English dictionary it is correctly pronounced as Mahmad not

24:32

Memad so how we're going to know for sure if it's pronounced as Mahmad the

24:40

Muslim prophet, or as Memad a random Hebrew word the only way is to give the verse to a

24:46

Rabbi now that is not the only way to find it as if the Rabbi is the final authority in all things or something like that but again, notice what they're doing they're taking a

24:57

Mem preformative they have taken the grammatical ending off, they've now created a new random word as most people should know and this is the same in Arabic as well your roots are almost always triliteral three letters, the same thing in the

25:12

Hebrew language and so now you've created a four letter word as if, well you know does this have some meaning into itself no one would ever suggest that it does this is not meaningful argumentation at all, but if we don't get to the end of this we're going to have to go into the next part say to him, please read here is the song of songs 516 and how it is read by a

25:34

Rabbi from a Hebrew -Jewish site please notice, the im in Hebrew is a plural of respect ...

26:03

and it goes on from there and again you know, all this beautiful music and all the rest of this stuff but this is when

26:26

I debated Shabir Ali on the issue of is Mohammed prophesied in the

26:31

Bible Shabir is considered to be by most people the best that the

26:37

Muslims have to present today some conservative Muslims find him a little bit too liberal actually but he's very well read very sharp, and what

26:50

I found to be interesting was he did not present the song of Solomon he did not present this text in his opening statement, so when

27:01

I got up knowing that he had in the past I went ahead and addressed it because I felt, well, if he's done it in the past, then it makes sense, and what

27:16

I what I did is I took the time to look up some examples of actually the full with the mem preformative use of and I pointed out that in 1st

27:30

Kings 26 if this is Mohammed in Song of Solomon in 1st

27:36

Kings 20 verse 6 is Mohammed taken away from a house in 1st Kings 20 verse 6 if not, why not, because you have the same term used there, is

27:46

Mohammed destroyed by fire in 2nd Chronicles 36 19 exactly the same word and did

27:53

Mohammed become a ruin in Isaiah 64 10, if you're going to make this kind of argumentation then you have to be consistent, why is it in this one place just because it sounds like Mohammed it actually isn't, but it sounds like Mohammed, why this one place why not these other places, which would then turn

28:11

Mohammed into a ruin or something like that and then I demonstrated the foolishness of this by noting that there is a

28:19

Hebrew term Shabar now my opponent was named Shabir now

28:24

I was going to come up with some way of doing this but Joseph is too much of a biblical name to begin with, so I really couldn't you were safe,

28:31

I couldn't come up with anything but Shabir would be the same three letters as Shabar in the

28:40

Hebrew language, and I pointed out that in Psalm 105 16 it says, and he called for a famine upon the land he broke the whole staff of bread, and I pointed out that there had been many famines in the past in London much bread is made in London too all the bakeries found in London, therefore since a term that sounds like Shabir appears in this text translated as he broke then clearly

29:09

Psalm 105 16 is a prophecy of Shabir Ali coming to London must be, well actually it has nothing to do with it at all obviously, and we recognize that in the same way, turning an adjective an adjectival noun found in the

29:25

Song of Solomon that has a specific meaning it means an object of desire with a mem preformative in the plural which means he is wholly desirable what does that have to do with someone who lived in the 6th century how is that even prophetic, it's not prophetic it's descriptive it's descriptive of a situation at that time it has a clear meaning and to take

29:54

Arabic and what a word sounds like in Arabic, and bring that in, ignoring the difference between two letters in the original anyways ignoring the root and then putting a mem, doing all that kind of stuff that is the kind of argumentation that is used to prove anything it is beneath any truth seeker, and I would say to Khaled Khaled, if you believe that that video you were shown is a truthful video, compare what we've said, look at the

30:27

Hebrew, take the time to get hold of my debate with Shabir Ali on these subjects, I discussed this in that debate, he didn't try to defend it, but we also went through all the other texts at that time as we will later in this program, or in the later program this evening, look at these things

30:43

Khaled, because there is no validity to the argumentation whatsoever Amen, thank you

30:50

Dr. White and we're going to take this issue back up right after the break, Jesus or Muhammad with Dr. James White, our topic tonight for this show and the next live show that starts at 9pm

31:01

Eastern, is talking about Muhammad being found in the Bible and as Dr.

31:06

White has pointed out in Surah 7, 157, Surah 61, 6, in Islam there is this need to find

31:13

Muhammad prophesied mentioned, foretold somewhere in the Bible, and in particular by the way, it says in it's in 7, 157 in the

31:23

Torah, or in the Angeal, as a matter of fact, Song of Solomons, technically, is not in the

31:29

Torah or the Angeal so they're kind of missing it on that but I'm going to give it back to Dr.

31:37

White, I think you want to show maybe a little bit more of the video? Yeah, let's just see what a little bit more of the video is, because there is a section where they mention specifically

31:47

Ahmed Didat and his argumentation on this, and like I said, we had played a portion of this, let's just pick up another minute or so ...

32:36

I managed to find it Oh, I see what you mean Yeah, because the AVN thing is right over top of the the control on my things,

32:43

I'm not sure where it is. I was shooting in the dark there, but notice how, and this was something that Joseph mentioned when we were listening to it.

32:51

They even took the quotation from the Jewish rabbi, and they cut the pronunciation, so all you hear is

33:01

Mahmud, and you don't hear Mahmudim. You're taking the ending off, and still you're not recognizing the difference between the hey and the chet in the pronunciation of the words, so it's obviously meant to have a particular impact on the reader who can't check these things out for themselves, and it is interesting, at the end of this, they go to some convert or something that's talking to Jewish rabbis, and well, the

33:31

Jewish rabbis know that Mahmud is a prophet, and stuff like this. I'm like, really, they know that? Is that Yahya Snow, that guy on the end?

33:39

I have no idea who that is. I think it might be. He's like an Irish fellow. David Wood has interacted with him, maybe debated him or something.

33:46

I have no idea who he is, but it is interesting, but then you've got this music going, and oh, this great discovery has taken place, and it's all meant,

33:58

I suppose we should take a lesson from it, that you shouldn't believe everything you see, that the emotional impact of music and video,

34:12

I think about the Da Vinci Code that came out a few years ago, and I remember

34:17

I went to see it as soon as it opened, because I had been lecturing about its errors for a long, long time, and I remember at the end hearing some women down front just so emotionally impacted by this pure fiction.

34:34

It's utter fiction, and in fact, when it talks about history, it's the opposite of the reality of history.

34:40

It's just ridiculously bad stuff, but because your favorite actors are up there, and it's on the big screen, and you've got music, and you've got the camera angles, and all the rest of this stuff, how many people have made eternal decisions based upon such foolishness as that?

34:58

We really should recognize that discernment is a Christian characteristic.

35:04

We are to be discerning people. When it says to be sober -minded, the term sober normally in our thinking has to do with not being drunk with wine or something like that, but sober -minded is someone who is serious in the way in which they think, and I don't know if you've seen this,

35:27

Brother Joseph, but the Muslims on YouTube love to grab hold of the worst examples of the worst forms of just the wildest kind of behavior, laughing revivals and things like that.

35:41

I remember one blasphemous video that a Muslim put up. It was blasphemous for two reasons.

35:47

It was blasphemous, first of all, for the heresy that it was repeating as far as just this foolishness about the

35:56

Holy Spirit, but then it was blasphemous by saying, if this is what the Holy Spirit is, you better try to stay away from the

36:01

Holy Spirit because look what it does to people. So one blasphemy was leading to the other blasphemy, but they produce this kind of stuff, and they recognize that this is a good tool to use to, in essence, come after Christians, but they need to realize that a sound biblical

36:21

Christian is a person who takes all of what the New Testament says in consideration, and that New Testament tells us that we are to be discerning, we are to be stable in our thinking, we are to examine things and hold fast that which is good.

36:37

The kind of emotionalism that marks this kind of presentation shouldn't impact a

36:45

Christian. A Christian who might be ignorant of these things should go, well, that's very interesting, I'm gonna need to look into that, not, oh no, oh, what am

36:54

I gonna do? And there are people who respond like that, and it's frightening that that is the case, but that music is doing that, but let's finish up because I wanna get to the

37:04

Ahmad Didat part. Yes. As well as an online translation, we're going to copy our

37:10

Hebrew word of the. See, what they do here is they use an online translator. Now, online translators can be very helpful, but they can also make a real mess of things in the process, too, and notice what this online translator does.

37:22

Song of songs directly from the Jewish site. It's the same site where you can hear the rabbi reading the verse in Hebrew.

37:30

All links are in the description. So we're going to copy the word and paste it and ask, please translate.

37:36

Are they going to translate the meaning of the name of that person? As the Bible translators did, which is the praise and the lovely.

37:45

Now, notice what they put in there, they did not, I can barely see it there, but that's not

37:50

Machmadim. No, it is not. That's Machmad. Yeah. Which is, I don't believe, ever appears in that form in the

37:58

Old Testament. I don't think that it does. I don't know. Are they going to keep the name as it is? Well, see it yourself.

38:07

Muhammad! Oh, there he is! With the music. Dun, dun, dun, dun, dun, dun, dun. It's Muhammad.

38:13

It's almost like Johnny's is coming after us here. Here we go, here we go. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.

38:20

Whoa, I just saw something I had not seen before. Put it back up there.

38:25

Put it back up there. I've got it. I've got to back this up just a little bit here. One of the greatest scholars or something? Yeah, okay, yeah, all right.

38:32

Let's look and see what this says again. Okay. Let's, because I think it just said something about a great biblical scholar.

38:38

Oh, yeah. There he comes, okay. One of the, oh, my thing didn't disappear fast enough.

38:45

You have to pause it when. Oh, I saw it. One of the world's greatest scholars. One of the world's greatest biblical scholars. Folks. Yeah, sure.

38:52

Let me tell you something. Ahmed Didat was one of the world's greatest showman. Yes. He was not a biblical scholar of any rank whatsoever.

39:04

If you want to have evidence of that, let me point you to my own

39:13

YouTube page. I'll go ahead and mention that. Yeah, please do. Dr. Oakley's 1689 is my

39:19

YouTube, Nick. I have 499 videos. Okay. And I think what I'll ask the guys to do is give me tonight's discussion of this and I'll make it number 500.

39:28

How's that? That sounds wonderful. That'd be a good 500th video for my YouTube channel. Celebrate. Celebration, yes.

39:35

But I have spent a fair amount of time going through Ahmed Didat's presentations and demonstrating the man not only was not one of the world's greatest biblical scholars, he did not know the original languages at all.

39:50

His discussion of John 1, 1, for example, demonstrates he does not even know the difference between the nominative and accusative forms in the

39:58

Greek language, which is something you learn in first year Greek. This man was not a biblical scholar.

40:04

He was a great showman. He would spend 20 minutes demonstrating stuff that was not in dispute so as to prove one point, and unfortunately the point would be wrong, but by the time you got through 20 minutes, you forgot what the point was anyways.

40:17

I mean, that was his methodology of presentation. And so to see that,

40:23

I had somehow missed that when going through it today. One of the world's greatest biblical scholars. Sorry, that does not work at all.

40:31

Let's see what Ahmed Didat had to say. And there it is right there.

40:39

You have moved, your name should be retained.

40:48

Mr. Black is Mr. Black, though he's white. You have no right to translate names of people.

40:57

But they have been doing that. Muhammad did, they translated as all people love him.

41:03

But the word Muhammad is there in the Hebrew language. All right, let's stop here.

41:19

Dun, dun, dun, dun, yeah, yeah. I could actually play that for you and you could actually hear it a little bit easier because I have it in my presentation.

41:24

The exact same section with a greater context to it. And no Jaws music. And no

41:29

Jaws music with it either. Yeah, here comes dun, dun, dun, dun, dun. It is somewhat humorous, but that presentation, again,

41:39

Didat is confusing. There is no way that anyone who knows the language is gonna say, oh no, this is definitely a proper noun, a proper name that is being used here.

41:51

This is, again, just fallacious argumentation.

41:57

I can understand why Khalid would accept it. Because if you haven't heard the other side, if you haven't heard from someone who actually can read the language, and if you really do believe that Ahmed Didat was one of the greatest biblical scholars of all time, then

42:12

I can understand why you'd believe these things. But check these things out. Check out what is being said.

42:18

When you check it out, you discover that it simply is not true. Dr. White, just so the lay people and those who aren't familiar with your terminology, for example, the meme is a performative.

42:30

Okay, what you're saying, the meme, in the beginning of this word, Mahmadin, the meme is actually a grammatical device.

42:41

It is not a part of the root. Not a part of the root. Exactly, it's not a part of the root. In order to make Muhammad, you've got to have the meme to be part of the word.

42:48

This is like, for example, and this isn't the same thing, but in Arabic, we add like, if I say, you know, aheb, aheb means

42:57

I love. But if I say taheb, that means you love. So I'm adding the tah in the front.

43:03

Tah is not part of the root. It's not part of the word. It is second person, second person singular.

43:10

Here, this meme is simply making it nomative. Even though it is, even though this is a noun instead of a, it's functioning noun and verbal, but there are a whole list.

43:22

Gesenius's Hebrew grammar has a whole list. I checked it out today. It was the same grammar I learned

43:28

Hebrew in, well, I won't mention how many years ago now. It's starting to get into the distant past back there, but that was the same grammar that we used.

43:38

And there's a whole list of nouns that take that. Mictal, mactal, there's a whole series of different ways and verbal forms that can carry different meanings, in essence, with those terms.

43:54

The point is, it is not a part of the root. And to keep it on and then cut the end off, you might as well do things with English words where you cut off ing at the end to try to make it sound different and connect it with something in French or German.

44:12

There isn't any connection there. It's bogus argumentation, and it takes us back to the other texts that Muslims have attempted to use over the years to identify

44:23

Muhammad in the scriptures. None of them work either, and if none of them work, then Khalid and others have to ask themselves a question.

44:30

How central is this to Muhammad's thinking? How central is this to the claims of the

44:38

Quran to be the word of God? If Muhammad is not identified in that way, what does that mean?

44:43

Well, of course, as you pointed out so many times, inconsistency is a sign of a failed argument. You said that very quickly, and I'm very impressed that you're able to say it that quickly.

44:52

I've got it. You've got it down, that's good. In a sense, I'm becoming a disciple here. No, God forbid, but really, we're

44:58

Christ's disciples. But nevertheless, we've got a lot to learn from this, man. I'm so glad you're here for the next show as well as the next couple days.

45:05

You know, this idea that, okay, we're gonna find Muhammad in Song of Solomon. First of all, it's not the law.

45:11

It's not the Torah. It's not the angel. On top of that, Muslims like to pick on Song of Solomon for having all this erotic language.

45:17

And then on top of that, they say, well, you know, the Bible's been corrupted anyways. So which one are you gonna choose?

45:23

It all depends on what part of discussion you're having at that point in time. If you are pressing forward the claims of Christ in the

45:31

Gospel of John, well, it's been corrupted. If they're trying to press forward the claims of Muhammad, then all of a sudden, somehow, that one particular text has survived corruption.

45:43

Through all this time, and it is a matter of picking and choosing. And to me, as I have dialogued with Muslims over the past number of years, it is this inability to give a consistent response that does not involve the use of double standards that to me completely vitiates the

46:06

Islamic attack upon the Christian faith. And this Islamic attack is not just because there are some Muslims out there that like to be argumentative, and there are, obviously.

46:15

It is necessary, in light of the original documents of the religion, that the

46:23

Muslim cannot be neutral about Christian claims. I mean, when you think about it, when you think about what

46:29

Surah 112 says, lem yellad wa lem yullad, he neither begets nor is he begotten. If all of Christianity, at least believing

46:38

Christianity, not fake secular Christianity, if believing Christianity says, our central affirmation is that Jesus Christ is the divine son of God, not the offspring of some

46:49

God and a wife in eternity or something like that. But if we affirm that Jesus Christ is son of God in surah tal

46:58

Iqlas, and you know what Iqlas means? Sincerity, purity, that's what Iqlas means.

47:04

Well, if that's the sincere, pure essence of Islamic monotheism is a

47:10

Unitarianism that denies what we believe about the relationship of the father and the son, they have to attack what we believe.

47:17

To be a faithful Muslim requires you to deny what the faithful Christian believes.

47:24

And that's what's such a tragedy about what's going on in Pakistan right now. I'm sure you're well aware of the blasphemy laws and the use of these blasphemy laws to accuse innocent people.

47:37

And to, in this situation right now, we have a sister in the Lord. Azia Bibi. Exactly, who the president of Afghanistan wants to pardon her, but now the

47:49

Taliban has said, you do that and we'll kill you. And they've now put out, I think, a 500 ,000 rupee bounty on her head to anyone who will kill her.

47:58

For what? For doing what any believing Christian would have to do in confessing that Jesus Christ is the son of God.

48:06

And if Muhammad said, no, that's wrong, well, then you have to say Muhammad was not a true prophet. Does that count as blasphemy?

48:12

Sure does in Pakistan. This kind of twisted thinking, and it is twisted thinking, results in such violence.

48:22

And we know that there are Muslims outside of Pakistan, obviously, who try to argue against these things, but on the grounds of what?

48:31

Yeah. What basis they have to argue? I know that there are Hadith that they say, well, if you're not in an

48:38

Islamic country, but what about those who are in the Islamic countries? Where is the outcry against Pakistan's blasphemy law that is so obviously used simply to bring false accusations against people?

48:50

How do you fit that type of thing together? I don't know how they do it, yeah. Well, very quickly, we have,

48:57

I believe, a Muslim caller, this last caller was Christian, and now I think we have a

49:02

Muslim caller who would like to take her right now. Welcome, you're on the air, dear caller, with Jesus or Muhammad.

49:08

Yeah, hi, yes, I am a Muslim. Welcome. And on your subject, is

49:14

Muhammad in the Bible? Yeah. I mean, I don't have internet access right now for me to look in some history books, but Muhammad is not in the

49:24

Bible because he was revealed later on. He was revealed later on after the two other religions,

49:34

Christianity and Judaism, had failed mankind. Okay. When was that, and in what writings would we find him?

49:44

Why would you find him? He was revealed later on. I wish, my

49:49

Comcast internet is not working. Right now, throughout

49:55

Michigan. I want to go on air and not have any - Okay, okay, Dr. White would like to ask you a question or address this issue,

50:03

Dr. White. Please understand, we agree with you that Muhammad would not be in the

50:09

Bible because, obviously, Muhammad dies in 632. The New Testament is completely written by either

50:15

A .D. 70 or shortly thereafterwards, so there was a almost 600 -year difference. The problem is the

50:22

Quran says he is, so as a Muslim, you have to believe he is. Let me read you what the

50:27

Quran says. Surah 61, six, and remember, Jesus, the son of Mary said, O children of Israel, I am the apostle of Allah sent to you, confirming the law which came before me and giving glad tidings of an apostle to come after me whose name shall be

50:43

Ahmed. So the Quran says that Jesus actually prophesied about Muhammad and said that there would be one who would come after him.

50:53

And then Surah 7, 157 in the Quran says, those who follow the apostle, the unlettered prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own scriptures in the law and the gospel.

51:06

So the Quran itself says that in the law and the gospel, the Torah and the

51:12

Injil, which is the, at least the five books of Moses and then the gospel in the

51:17

New Testament, that we, the people of the book, find Muhammad mentioned in our own scriptures.

51:25

That's what we're disputing, is that the Quran makes that claim, but the Quran is wrong.

51:32

That's our point. So maybe since that was at the beginning of the program, maybe you didn't catch that part.

51:38

I just came on. Right. The Quran is wrong because you said that.

51:44

Let me read it to you again so you can, because if you haven't seen this, make sure to write this down.

51:50

If you've got your Quran nearby, take a look at it. But in Surah 7, Aya 157, it says, those who follow the apostle, the unlettered prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own scriptures in the law and the gospel.

52:08

And so it is a, in fact, if you wanted to, I would be happy to send you the

52:16

DVDs of my debate with Muslim apologist Shabir Ali. He's very, very well known.

52:23

And he defended the idea that the Old and New Testaments do, in fact, mention

52:29

Muhammad. And I obviously defended the thesis that they do not.

52:35

So it is a Muslim belief. We're not misrepresenting Islam at this point. Yes, yes. We do believe that, that it was revealed that there will come a prophet.

52:47

But for you to say, I mean, so you don't believe it for what reason? You don't believe that it was written?

52:55

You don't believe that it was? I do not believe that Muhammad is prophesied in either the

53:01

Old or the New Testament. None of the texts that have ever been brought forward. Realize the

53:06

Quran doesn't give us a reference to the Bible because the author of the Quran didn't understand the Bible or even possess the

53:12

Bible. The author of the Quran is God. Well, that's what you believe. But the point is, if Allah is the author of the

53:21

Quran, then why can we not find any references to Muhammad in the Bible when the

53:27

Quran says they're there? Because Allah thought when he brought down Judaism and Christianity, that they would have been the religions of mankind.

53:41

But with your alterations and your disbelieving, he had brought down the last religion, which was

53:50

Islam. Actually, the end of religion. Okay, but that doesn't - Which everyone should abide by because it is a thorough religion from every aspect.

53:59

Oh, okay, Fred, Fred, let me just interrupt you just for a second. Let me just ask you one question, dear friend.

54:05

Why are you calling in and defending your point of view? What do you want us to believe?

54:10

What do you want us to believe? Yeah, why are you calling us tonight? If Muhammad is in the Bible. Right. I just came on,

54:18

I just - Okay, you told us in the beginning of your conversation that you do not believe that Muhammad is in the

54:25

Bible. Dr. White just showed you that the Quran says Muhammad is in the Bible.

54:30

So what are you trying to tell us? I didn't understand. Yes, he is in the Bible. Oh, so you've changed your position now?

54:38

No, I know that he's in the Bible, that he was named Ahmed. He was in the Bible.

54:43

He was in the Bible warning, warning the disbelievers. There will come a time when a prophet will come down after he saw all the idiocracies going on with the religion.

54:59

Okay, but when you first called in, you said that Muhammad wouldn't be in the Bible because he was revealed after the

55:06

Bible was written. But now it seems that you're agreeing with the Quran. The problem is where?

55:13

We've seen that it's not Song of Solomon. Deuteronomy chapter 18 has to be about a

55:20

Jewish person, not an Arabic person. John 14 and 16 is specifically about the person of the

55:28

Holy Spirit of God who will dwell in believers, and specifically in the disciples, which couldn't have anything to do with what happened 600 years later.

55:36

So if you say that there is a prophecy of Muhammad in the Bible, where is it?

55:42

Where is it? Because you have New Testament, you guys changed. Oh, okay, ah, ah, ah, there we go.

55:51

Periodically. Okay, actually. Okay, listen to Dr. White, please. I can demonstrate to you that that is not the case.

55:58

That is not the case historically and factually, but even if that were the case, remember what the

56:04

Quran itself said. It said, who they find mentioned in their own scriptures.

56:11

He's talking about the people of his own day. We know exactly what the Bible looked like in the days of Muhammad.

56:17

There's no question about that. We have copies of it. I can show you entire copies of the entirety of the Bible that predate

56:22

Muhammad by 300 years. So the point is, in those copies of the scriptures that would have been in existence in the day of Muhammad, where is

56:32

Muhammad prophesied? You can't say, well, it was taken out because we know what scriptures

56:37

Muhammad's audience would have been listening to, what they would have been reading. The Jews took it out out of fear, out of fear for their religion.

56:45

The Jews took it out. Okay, thank you so much for your call. I'm sorry, we're running short on time, but ultimately, what's your message?

56:54

We should accept Islam? Is that what you'd like to tell us tonight? We should accept Islam. It's the thorough, most complete religion with no new testaments where you're manually writing words of God.

57:09

Okay. Our book has been unpunched. Okay. It has been punched word for word.

57:14

It has never been punched. Ma 'am, could I just point out to you that there are no two

57:21

Mus 'hafs or manuscripts of the Quran in the first 300 years of its history that agree perfectly with one another, and that's a fact that Islamic scholars recognize.

57:33

Could I point out to you that there have been variations because it was written down that Uthman, your third caliph, had to edit all those things to produce a finalized version, burning the materials that he used, and even after that,

57:45

Ibn Masud rejected that version and would not give up his own Mus 'haf. Ma 'am, I just ask you to take some time to look into what it is you're stating because the reality is the

57:58

New Testament will survive that examination. I don't believe that the Quran can.

58:04

I have taken that time to do that kind of study. I would invite you to do the same thing because honestly, the difference between our religions, when you say yours is a complete religion,

58:15

I know what you mean by that, but may I suggest to you that what Islam lacks is what is rejected from the

58:22

New Testament, and that is a mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, who took on human flesh to give himself voluntarily as the perfect sacrifice for the sins of God's people, and by faith in him, we can have peace with God, not because of anything we have done, but because of the perfection of the work that he has done in our behalf.