October 20, 2005

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 at 602 -973 -4602 or toll -free across the

United States. It's 1 -877 -753 -3341. And now, with today's topic, here is

James White. Good afternoon. Welcome to The Dividing Line. On a

Thursday afternoon, we continue, of course, with our review of the

Sam Shamoon -Shabir -Ali debate. We are in the second of the MP3s.

I was noticing, looking at the third, that for some reason, the download

I had, there was a lot of empty space at the end of it. I'm not sure exactly what that means until we get there, but it's going to be a little shorter section.

So I think we are getting close to at least being halfway through the debate so far.

It is interesting, the emails we continue to get and the fact that we know that there are a number of folks listening who are of the

Islamic faith, and I hope that some at least are listening with an open heart and open mind to understand the errors and the kinds of argumentation that are being offered by Mr.

Ali. We were about three minutes and 30 seconds into the second of the

MP3s. You may look at the blog and download the debate for yourself. If you don't want to hear it just in bits and pieces,

I'd like to listen to all of it. There are a number of other debates available as well that Sam Shamoon has done.

So we continue with this particular debate. As I recall, Mr. Ali was in his rebuttal period, but getting,

I think, fairly close to the end of that rebuttal period, and then there is going to be a cross -examination period.

There's audience questions, so on and so forth, so lots more to come. So let's pick up with where we left off.

On our behalf, and that's why we emphasize, not my will, Father, your will be done.

And the Father answered, no, son, this is what we must do for this day, and Christ willfully die. Okay, that's actually, of course,

Sam who is continuing his response at that point in time. I was fairly certain where we were, but you never know.

That doesn't sound familiar to me, so I'm double -checking, and that's why. I did it again.

No, no, well, why doesn't that say, ah, this stupid machine. Anyways, my mistake, that was part of number three, even though I had number two outlined, it defaulted to number three.

So that's twice we've done that. I'll now go back to the right one. Now we have a vision into the future, and we'll get there eventually.

But I thought for sure we were in Shabir Ali's statements. Let's try this again here. I want people to think about the issues.

I want to have a debate where Sam will come here, and he will recognize something like that, of course, between a woman having blood in her breasts.

Now, without a context, you're probably wondering, what on earth was that all about? But if you listened to the previous portion, as we pointed out before,

Shabir Ali is presenting extremely poor arguments against the

Bible. He says that the passage in Ezekiel, that referred to the idolatry of the people of Israel, and the nature of that idolatry, that it was giving gratuitous references to sexuality, which it was not.

We've already demonstrated that that was not the case, and that this type of argumentation is facile, and extremely poor and weak.

But he continues on with it, and that's what he's making references to. So if Sam can come up and recognize that...

Now, isn't that odd? He will only debate if Sam will agree with his false dichotomy, and his ignorance of the

Old Testament text. That's an odd basis upon which to say, well, I will debate if you will agree with my misreadings of the biblical text.

That's a very strange way of doing things. Now, let's make sure everybody understands what's being said here.

So, once again, Mr. Shabir Ali talks about doing scholarly debates, but he himself is not a scholar, and he does not handle scholarly material very well at all.

This is a rather glaring example of that. He has just made reference to the fact that the current edition of the

Nestle -Aland Greek text is the 27th edition. The 28th edition is already available in some portions on the web, but that's the next one that's coming up.

And so, notice the conjugation, the conjunction, I should say, of the statement here.

Well, notice the Nestle -Aland text is in the 27th edition with the statement, and it's still being edited and changed.

That is a completely fallacious connection that is being made.

The fact that you have new editions of the Nestle -Aland text has to do with what?

It has to do with the expanding knowledge that we have of an ever more ancient testimony to the text of the

New Testament. The same thing would be true of the Quran if Islam would adopt a meaningful, and I'm talking about Islamic nations here,

I realize that there are Islamic scholars who live in free countries who would like to study the ancient text of the

Quran and make emendations and changes. They can't live in Islamic countries because, quite simply, they would be imprisoned or probably killed.

That's the nature of the religion that we're dealing with. And so, they would like to do that. They would like to have a critical text that would look at the

Sa 'ana manuscripts, that would look at the various glimpses, very slight glimpses that we can get either from citations from early

Muslims where their citations differ from what Uthman came up with or those tantalizing views of pre -Uthmanian manuscripts of the

Quran. As more of those would be found and collated, that information would come up.

And, of course, the result would be major emendations to the text of the Quran itself.

In contrast to that, Christian scholars rejoice to find earlier manuscripts than we have right now.

We would love to find... I've always had great interest in 7Q5, the

Qumran fragment, and whether it does or does not reflect the Gospel of Mark and that that could be an extremely early manuscript.

And the early papyri, and I've told the stories of seeing manuscript P72, a page of manuscript

P72, back in 1993 up in Denver and how exciting that was and so on and so forth.

We just have completely different perspectives on how you do the study of the earliest texts of your scriptures.

And so, the fact that there is a 27th edition and be a 28th edition, it does not mean that people are sitting around going, well, we need to change the text of the

Bible. We are going to amend the text of the Bible. We're going to change the text of the Bible so it teaches more about the deity of Christ or some other type of thing.

And that, of course, is the idea that's communicated about what was just said, but it's a false idea. It has no basis in reality and anyone who understands the collation, why, for example, you went from the 26th edition to the 27th edition, the new papyri that were collated and added to the notes and et cetera, all those things like that, understands that that's not the case and it's not, well, we need to add some references to the deity of Christ or some absurd thing like that.

You know that. It keeps changing. Whereas the Koran, on the other hand, has been preserved by Muslims right from the very start.

Wow, really. Did you catch that? Why did Uthman burn the editions of the

Koran, the collations of the Koran that disagreed with his version? Well, because preservation failed, which means you have to believe that Uthman was the one led by Allah to have the sure knowledge of what the

Koran is. You have to believe, since it's all you've got left as far as anything you can really come up with, that's what you have to believe.

You know, I know folks like that in the Christian realm. They're called

King James only advocates. What is the difference there? You know, the

King James only person says there's one translation that is inspired and errant and it's the

King James version of the Bible and now the Muslim says well it's the Uthman's version of the

Koran is the one that is inspired and that's basically because it's what the

King James guy wants to believe and it's what the Muslim has to believe because he's got nothing else that he can possibly get to because of what happened so long ago.

People may not know the full extent of the Koran people may make mistakes as they copy and I think that would mean nothing as long as you don't know the textual history of the

Bible. Okay, so there have been textual copying errors. Why was

Shabir Ali standing up there telling people that the Bible is still being changed and now when he's talking about the

Koran he says it's handwritten there's going to be copyist errors. Hello? Let's use the same standard here could we try that just once?

Let's try to apply the same standard in both situations and if you do the majority of his argumentation simply collapses.

Right in front of Stan there The book entitled The Text of the New Testament is

Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration by Bruce Metzger giving you all the textual history of how errors occur.

Now, we'll back up a second. It almost sounds to me like he refers to Metzger's text and then tries to apply that to the textual transmission of the

Koran and then tries to make the argument well, you know, Uthman all the people who knew it all agreed and Sam's already demonstrated that's not the case they didn't all agree that he's read surahs that other people had and so on and so forth but it almost sounds like instead of recognizing that what

Metzger and Alland and others say about the tenacity of the New Testament text and stuff like that is relevant to the

New Testament and refutes his arguments against that he takes that and applies it to the

Koran even though that's not what the book's about at least that sounds like what he was just doing it's sort of hard to figure out how that would work wow, now there is a

King James only argument that is exactly remember, if you've not read the

King James only controversy, I referred to some King James only advocates who who go after the inclusion of textual notes in modern translations you've seen those notes some early manuscripts say this, that in the

New King James version it'll give you the NU text versus the

TR and majority text and stuff like that when majority text and the TR differ from one another which is about 1800 places actually and they go after putting that information there, you shouldn't have that information it might confuse you so we don't want you to be confused, so we'll just give you one version so there'll be no confusion obviously that is really attractive to certain people they don't want the tough issues of dealing with an ancient text and the means by which ancient texts are transmitted over time they don't want to deal with textual variations so look, let's get rid of all that just give me one that I can understand that I can say this is it and I don't have to do any thinking the problem is, once somebody hands that to you they, not that text they are your ultimate authority it's not the

Quran that is his ultimate authority, it's Uthman unfortunately Uthman's dead so got a problem there that's the same thing with King James only advocates

King James only advocates basically you're stuck with Erasmus and then the King James translators themselves as your final authority you can't trace it back before then there's no manuscript that reads exactly like the textual choices made by the

King James advocates King James translators, I'm sorry so that becomes your ultimate authority once you say

I'm not going to do that work you do it for me, they become your ultimate authority and that's exactly what's going on here so I find that rather interesting myself

What's wrong with that? If Christians had a text which is approved by the well now that's very interesting if Christians had a text that was okayed by the disciples of Jesus, the disciples of Jesus said this is it, they would defend that well, probably true if there was such a thing, the problem is the

New Testament wasn't written by Jesus it was written by the disciples and it was written in a wide geographical range over a much longer period of time and so even at that, remember what we're looking at is the collation of memorized sayings of Muhammad memorized presentations of Muhammad, of the content of the

Quran there's a tremendous amount of opportunity right there, since it's clearly stated these were memorized contrast that with the letter to the

Romans the letter to the Romans is a physical document that is then copied it's not, well, we have here written down 30 years around 80

AD we have here four different witnesses of a sermon that Paul preached while in Rome and they've written down what they remember of what

Paul said that would be the parallel, but that's not what Romans is

Romans is a physical letter that was sent to the church at Rome and read there and copied from there big difference, very very big difference in how the two documents come into existence now again, that is nothing more than a

King James only argument and it's just as bad, just as false and has just as little historical foundation to it just because someone decades down the road standardized a text and said this is it doesn't make it representational of the original all you can say is when

Shabir Ali holds up that Arabic text of the Quran all he can say is

I believe that this accurately represents what Shabir Ali thought the Quran should be that's all he can do he can stand up there and say it's the word of God, it's the word of God, you can't do this that's what the

King James only guy says I hold up the King James version of the Bible, it's the word of God and you can't hold up your English translation and say the same thing now what

Sam Shimon can do is he can hold up the Nessie Olin text and say I believe that this is the word of God and that there is not a single original reading that has been left out of what this book contains but I will admit the fact that there are textual variants in their times we have to study it, but the original is there, it has not been lost it has not been changed, and if you'd like to look at specific ones and try to make a case that this is in any way shape or form supportive of your primary thesis, which by the way

I hope you've noticed hasn't really been touched here and that is that these changes and emendations were purposeful and they were a corruption in the first century by the apostles themselves who wrote those original gospels a perversion of the original message of Jesus, because there's a huge difference, massive difference between arguing about textual variants which are in vast majority of the cases,

I'd say 98 % of the time are simply scribal errors over against the idea of the intentional corruption of the text by the original authors themselves, introducing for example the whole idea of Jesus being the son of God, those are two completely different things and yet they're being thrown together into one pile as if they are the same thing, and they are not the same thing.

That's what I call audience participation Yes, we do! Well, you know

Shabir Ali brought this upon himself because he's the one who decided to attack the Bible and to use his standards to say, well,

I don't like what the Bible says about X, Y, or Z, well okay, the problem is that now leaves you open to people saying the same thing, oh wait a minute, if you're going to say the

Bible has these gratuitous references to sex and therefore it's not the word of God well, let's talk about what the

Quran says about beating your wife let's compare what the Quran says with the biblical message of what marriage actually is, and there isn't even close to a comparison at that point really, the

Quran is a backwards step a long backwards step away from the depth of the message of the

New Testament on many, many, many issues, and this is just one of them, so the audience participation there was sort of interesting

Okay, now I almost fell off my bike when I first heard this one, okay

I'm like, now wait a minute, no one could possibly make this argument

Revelation 14 144 ,000 okay, you might want to turn there just so you can get the idea

Then I looked, and behold, on Mount Zion stood the Lamb with Him, 144 ,000, who had His name and His Father's name written on their foreheads, and I heard a voice from heaven like the roar of many waters like the sound of loud thunder, and the voice

I heard was like the sound of harpists playing on their harps and they were singing a new song before the throne before the living creatures and before the elders no one could learn that song except the 144 ,000 who had been redeemed from the earth it is these who have not defiled themselves with women for they are virgins, it is these who follow the

Lamb wherever He goes these have been redeemed from mankind as firstfruits for God and Lamb, and in their mouth no lie was found, for they are blameless et cetera, et cetera, so you have the 144 ,000 these special people who are chosen in this special context in Revelation chapter 14 okay?

so, keep that in mind and now you're going to hear a refutation, the

Quran talks about beating your wife, but look at what the Bible says that women will not enter

Paradise okay, if you didn't catch that, what he said was

Revelation chapter 14 shows that women will not enter Paradise evidently because he thinks only the 144 ,000 will enter

Paradise, sounds like he ran into a Jehovah's Witness some day on a bad day and since these have not defiled themselves with women, that is, they are men then women will not enter

Paradise that's that's the argument that's being presented so, again, it's

I'm sorry but Shabir Ali is not a scholar and in fact, he doesn't even know the Bible very well at all and Revelation 7 hello, the great crowd before the throne hello, no man can number my goodness, what is and Mr.

Ali if you think you do I'm sorry, you do not now,

I don't know what verse he's talking about if he's talking about Revelation 14, no, I don't reject it, I just interpret it in its own context and allow it to interpret itself rather than just being rather silly about it again, if that's the best they have to throw out there it's pretty sad that's interesting

I would like to know exactly what his standards are for an authentic source if I were to say well, you know what,

Shabir Ali all you ever do is quote liberals who don't believe in the inerrancy of Scripture if you quote, if I quote a

Muslim that doesn't believe in the inerrancy of the Quran will you accept that? if you won't accept that, why would you quote people who don't believe in the inerrancy of the

Bible? is that fair? is that even? is that proper?

again, simple use of double standards now, again, we looked at this last time we looked at the text we saw what it meant and now, we just heard a complaint about the sources

Sam uses about the Quran and now he turns around and quotes from the Bible in living

English as if it's a scholarly source I'm sorry, but does he not see the tremendous double standards that he's operating by?

my goodness, he can't possibly think that anyone who knows anything about the Christian faith is going to be going wow, that's a compelling argument when he keeps just turning the sources it doesn't matter what sources he's using as long as it fits his paradigm he's going to use it whether he's completely contradicted himself or not no, no, it is your interpretation it is your false interpretation it's your interpretation based upon ignorance of the context and it's your interpretation based upon taking one particular understanding of the

Quran, making that your final authority you think the Quran says the Bible's corrupted therefore it is, and that's it anything that fits that's great if it doesn't fit that, then it's not a proper source etc.

etc. again so you have to agree that certain

Hebrew words mean other things than they actually mean and that the

Bible actually says that God was mistaken in making man rather than recognizing what it actually says and that's the only reason he would debate anything else

I don't even know how to understand that that doesn't even begin to make any sense again, repeating some of the previous stuff that we've already addressed

I guess that there was when it talked about God resting or God being refreshed that's an error in the

Bible because the Quran doesn't say that as if you read that in an anthropomorphic fashion or something like that so again, you just really have to wonder at times who is he trying to convince?

he's certainly not convincing me he's not convincing anybody who knows the word, so who is he trying to convince? is it just his side?

why do that? I really don't understand that so anyways, we're going to take our break and then be back because Sam Shamoon will get to respond to a bunch of that right after this break

What is Dr. Norman Geisler warning the Christian community about in his book Chosen But Free? A New Cult?

Secularism? False Prophecy Scenarios? No, Dr. Geisler is sounding the alarm about a system of beliefs commonly called

Calvinism He insists that this belief system is theologically inconsistent philosophically insufficient and morally repugnant

In his book, The Pottish Freedom, James White replies to Dr. Geisler But the Pottish Freedom is much more than just a reply

It is a defense of the very principles upon which the Protestant Reformation was founded Indeed, it is a defense of the very gospel itself

In a style that both scholars and laymen alike can appreciate, James White masterfully counters the evidence against so -called extreme

Calvinism defines what the Reformed faith actually is and concludes that the gospel preached by the

Reformers is the very one taught in the pages of Scripture The Pottish Freedom, a defense of the

Reformation and a rebuttal to Norman Geisler's Chosen But Free You'll find it in the Reformed Theology section of our bookstore at aomin .org

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 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

Under the guise of tolerance, modern culture grants alternative lifestyle status to homosexuality

Even more disturbing, some within the church attempt to revise and distort Christian teaching on this behavior

In their book, The Same -Sex Controversy, James White and Jeff Neal write for all who want to better understand the

Bible's teaching on the subject explaining and defending the foundational Bible passages that deal with homosexuality including

Genesis, Leviticus, and Romans Expanding on these scriptures, they refute the revisionist arguments, including the claim that Christians today need not adhere to the law

In a straightforward and loving manner they appeal to those caught up in a homosexual lifestyle to repent and to return to God's plan for His people

The Same -Sex Controversy, Defending and Clarifying the Bible's Message about Homosexuality Get your copy in the bookstore at aomin .org

Now I'd like to say

I would really like to hear Shabir Ali answer the specific passages that Sam raised and the arguments that he raised

They've gone unanswered in toto. Instead he has assumed his position, assumed that the

Quran teaches the corruption of the Bible and has tried to prove that from various sundry sources

But if you allowed Sam's points to be made, then what would be contradictory here?

It would be the Quran not the Bible that would be in contradiction So he dismisses that, doesn't answer those passages, and then just goes with his presupposition.

I'd like to hear those things answered sometime. I don't get the feeling that we're going to in this debate anyways. For example, when the

Bible talks about Solomon disbelieving, have you realized that Solomon was not a disbeliever?

So, is that an assertion that it didn't happen? Is that an assertion that Lot's daughters didn't do what they did?

That's not an accurate representation of what unregenerate women do? You better believe it is!

So, why does it make the Quran the word of God that it's embarrassed to deal with the world as it is?

How is that the word of God? Who made that standard up? Now, the

Quran will confirm So the

Quran doesn't add anything? It only takes away? That's an odd admission. So, where there's a difference and the

Quran is not as full as the Bible in recording history, that just must be a human accretion. Even though we then can't prove that, we just simply make that assertion because, well, because that's what we believe,

I guess. Sorry if I don't find that overly compelling.

Actually, his assertion was that you,

Mr. Shabir Ali, had questioned the validity of the citation that he gave.

Evidently, I would assume it had something to do with what collection of the hadith we're looking at or something like that. And he referred people to the full context, which would include the background information on what collection of the hadith it was, etc.

etc. in the refutations that he posted to your material. That's what he was referring to. That would be like my saying,

I provided the full bibliographical information on this particular citation, footnote, number, blah, blah, blah, on page, blah, blah, blah, book, blah, blah, blah.

That's sort of the same thing, except, obviously, the web's a little bit easier to use that way.

But that's seemingly what was being discussed there. How is that relevant? In fact, what we have in debate here, it is,

I think, pointless to say, well, I have the information somewhere else. When you come to a case, you have to bring your evidence and present it here.

Except, the problem is, it's Ali who simply throws out standards without providing any substantiation of them.

He's the one that makes the assertion that that hadith citation is not authoritative. That means it's up to him to prove it.

He just threw it out there and is now reversing the weight of evidence and saying, you need to prove that my standards are incorrect.

Again, the double standard utilization is just absolutely amazing. Now, guess who that's a citation of?

I love, again, here's going to be another wonderful example of Shabir Ali using whatever you can find.

Find yourself a liberal and quote him. But, if Sam cites a liberal

Muslim, then Sam is wrong to do so. See how the double standard works? Who might you think gave the quote that Shabir Ali just read?

Ah, you're about to find out. William Barclay.

Well, congratulations. I had to read William Barclay when I was in Bible college. You know what?

There are times I got an insight from here, an insight from there. But most of the time, it was like, oh, here we go again.

Obviously, no foundation on a high view of scripture upon which to deal. Anyone who took the same view of the

Quran, he would reject. Double standard, the hypocrisy goes on. Oh, that's what all

Christians do. I wonder how many

Christians would even have a clue who William Barclay was, actually. I find that hard to believe. How many errors can you cram into one thing?

I mean, obviously, and Sam's going to get to this, Jesus addressed this very, very specifically.

And gave us our answers. But you do get to see the very earthly nature of the afterlife in Islamic thought in this type of assertion.

And again, I just can't help, maybe it's just because of my background. I'm not trying to draw inappropriate parallels.

But there's another group that would argue identically there. And that other group are the

Mormons. And I've had missionaries who have stood there and said, what do you think you're going to do in heaven?

Float around a harp all day? Float around a clown all day and play on a harp all day? I mean, that's

I actually, in fact, if I'm recalling correctly, thinking, thinking, thinking, yeah,

I would say that was at the north gate of the temple in Salt Lake City. I remember the conversation.

And that's exactly what the person said. And they laughed in the same way. Ha ha ha ha ha. You know, that's very funny.

You just go float around a clown and play on a harp all day. Blah blah blah blah. In defense of the idea of having children in the afterlife.

Exact same argumentation. Very odd that that's the case. But anyways, thought I'd mention it. There will be sex in paradise.

There will be food in paradise. There will be happiness in a different existence. There will not be the same existence here where there is a total quill and where there are negative effects that come from it.

The pleasure will remain but not the pain. Now what about Joseph said that.

It is true that these men

Again, you know, Mr. Ali, if you're going to present some, at least read it in context.

At least try. You've already been corrected on this. It's about the idolatry of Israel.

It's about the sexual practices of that idolatry. Why can't you get that? I don't understand.

This constant misrepresentation. I don't get it. No, I don't think so?

That's the in -depth refutation of God dealing with the idolatry of the people of Israel No, I don't think so?

That gives you an idea of what's really going on here. Now here we get into the cross -examination

Again, not cross -examination so much as it is questions from the audience. Those can always be pretty wild but I think they both get opportunities of talking so there's a little bit of cross -examination, so on and so forth.

I see that Sam is experiencing what every debater experiences.

And that is Shabir Ali in a way reminds me a little bit of Jerry Matitix.

Jerry Matitix talks real fast he throws a bunch of stuff out there and then sits back knowing that there's no way even if you talk as fast as he did that you're going to actually be able to respond to everything he threw out because it takes longer to correct an error than it does to enunciate an error.

So, if people do that kind of thing there's not much you can do about it.

You have to at that point pick and choose what you're going to respond to and you know that the less honest or the people with less integrity, shall we say, who listen to the debate are going to only pick up on the things you didn't respond to as if you can't respond to them rather than recognizing the reality of what debates are all about and the fact that you have frequently less time or only equal time and you can't get to everything that someone throws out especially when they don't bother to provide any substantiation of their assertions.

Should we rely on human reasoning to determine the divine word of God?

I think that's probably a question in regards to textual criticism. Of course, then you'd have to say, and Uthman used, what?

And then go on from there, but let's see what Sam says. It's ironic, as we're running out of time here, that what you just heard was the same clash that you hear between a presuppositionalist and an evidentialist.

Between a Reformed theologian and an Arminian theologian, I couldn't help but think of William Lane Craig saying, well, there's good reason to think that God exists.

And that's exactly what Shabir Ali was just saying over against someone like Greg Bonson who was saying, there is no doubt that God exists.

In fact, if the Christian God doesn't exist, we can't be having this conversation right now. Interesting that there would be that kind of a contrast between the two.

Well, anyway, we are 26 minutes and 48 seconds into the second MP3. I will someday figure out that that MP3 has to be at the top of the list for it to be the one

I've queued up. And we will continue on Tuesday with The Dividing Line. See you then. God bless. Tuesday morning at 11 a .m.