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.

Reviewing the Shamoon-Ali Debate and the Textual Criticism Issue

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 3 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.

And so we continue with this particular debate. And 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 he emphasized, 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.

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 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. 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, that 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, 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.

Wow, really? Did you catch that? Why did Uthman burn the editions of the Quran, the collations of the Quran, 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 Quran 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? 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 Uthman's version of the Quran, 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.

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 Quran, he says, oh, well, you know, 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. 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 Quran, and then tries to make the argument, well, you know, Uthman, you know, 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 Ahlan 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 Quran, 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 go after the inclusion of textual notes in modern translations.

You've seen those notes, some early manuscripts say this, that, and the New King James version, it'll give you the NA text, or the NU text, versus the TR, and majority text, and stuff like that, when the 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 there, 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 translators. 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. 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 A .D., 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.

Remember, 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, and 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 Nestle-Aland 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 there at 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 the 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.

...actually converting to what makes sense, or something that's in the position of women in Israel...

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, many, many issues, and this is just one of them.

But the audience participation there was sort of interesting. Okay, now, I almost fell off my bike when I first heard this one. 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, etc., etc. So you have the 144 ,000, these special people who are chosen in this special context in Revelation 14.

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. If you didn't catch that, what it said was, Revelation 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 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 the argument that's being presented. So, again, I'm sorry, but Shabir Ali is not a scholar. In fact, he doesn't even know the Bible very well at all. 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, well, 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 I quote a Muslim that doesn't believe in the inerrancy of the Quran, will you accept that? If you want to 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.

What about your interpretation of it? It's speaking about the fact that you can say that falsehood has been deliberately put into it.

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.

How do you know that? Because if you believe just from that, we find out what we're saying, and we also see where they're wrong. It's tempting. No, it means forgiving. Just check the dictionary. How dare they have to wear modern dictionaries?

It doesn't say that he changed his mind, or that it made him sorry, or he grieved in his heart. So you have to understand the difference between the two statements, and then we'll look at more debates.

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.

Okay, 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 Qur 'an 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 Shimon will get to respond to a bunch of that right after this break.

Such a rarity today, so many stars, strong and true, and quickly fall away.

Calvinism, Reformed Theology, and The Potter's Freedom

What is Dr. Norman Geisler warning the Christian community about in his book, Chosen but Free, A New Cult, Secularism, False Prophecy Scenarios? No, Dr. Geisler is sounding the alarm about a system of beliefs commonly called Calvinism.

He insists that this belief system is theologically inconsistent, philosophically insufficient, and morally repugnant. In his book, The Potter's Freedom, James White replies to Dr. Geisler,. But The Potter's Freedom is much more than just a reply.

It is a defense of the very principles upon which the Protestant Reformation was founded. Indeed, it is a defense of the very Gospel itself. In a style that both scholars and laymen alike can appreciate, James White masterfully counters the evidence against so-called extreme Calvinism, defines what the Reformed faith actually is, and concludes that the Gospel preached by the Reformers is the very one taught in the pages of Scripture.

The Potter's Freedom, a defense of the Reformation, and a rebuttal to Norman Geisler's Chosen 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.

Homosexuality, Biblical Teaching, and Revisionist Arguments

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.

Sam Shamoon’s Response and the Debate over Revelation 7, the Quran, and Authority

And welcome back to the Dividing Line. We now get the opportunity of hearing Sam Shamoon's response to Shabir Ali. At least I think so. Well, let's see what comes up next.

It's kind of disappointing to hear. He says that the Hadith I quoted is sweet? No. I challenge you. Secondly, he talks about Revelation 14 and he's quoting the Jehovah Witness argument. It's like me quoting Nation of Islam against him.

It's speaking of 144 ,000 of Israel who were specifically chosen for a task. But if you go back after mentioning the 144 ,000, this is what you conveniently forgot. Revelation 7 verse 9 all the way to 10.

After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count from every nation, tribe, people, and language standing before the throne in front of the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands and they cried out in a loud voice, Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne and to the Lamb.

Secondly, he talks about God and what it means. I didn't give this interpretation. One of your premier Muslim commentators, Ibn Kathir, said that God means swelling breasts. And then you try to say, well, it's a distinction and a different meaning from Ezekiel.

You're exactly right. Whereas Ezekiel is metaphorical and spiritual. Talking about Judah and Samaria's apostasy and idolatry. Here Allah is speaking literally, you're going to have sex with me in paradise.

Something you need to deal with. And then again he puts to me a Bible from some scholars and he says this is binding on me. On Jeremiah 8. It's the same as if I quote Rashid Khalifa, his translation of the Quran.

A Muslim who says that Surah chapter 9, verse 128 and 129 was added. That's your Muslim. That's not me. What we must do is examine the light of these statements in light of their presuppositions. The people that he's quoting most often are anti-supernaturalists.

In fact, I've documented in my response to his website that the very criteria they use against the Bible, I've had a field day against the Quran to show it's not the word of God. Go to answering-islam .org and see it for yourself.

All the latest rebuttals against Shabir Ali are online. And I challenge you, respond. And we'll respond back. And if you want to debate the beauty of Christ, let's debate it not in 10 minutes, but on a red herring about why three cannot be one.

And you also misinform the audience about what we believe about God. We all believe in three pairs. We believe in one being eternally existent in three persons. Whether you understand it, that's your problem, not ours.

It's revelation. We accept it. Because God is a triumphant being. And let's debate the issue. And let's be honest. And let's be fair. Let's debate it's Muhammad the prophet, which I've challenged you before.

And now, publicly, let's face the challenge. And let's hold it in an academic setting. With more time in the rebuttals, not 10 minutes, 5 minutes, so you can drop your points and end up last and give the impression that you won the debate.

That doesn't work. Every one of you. Go back to answering-islam .org and read the contents of the passages. Read the articles. Go do your homework. And I agree with Shabir. Here, it's not about winning or losing the debate.

It's about stimulating you to go search the truth. And you'll see where the truth lies. And I have no doubt you worship Jesus as your Lord and Savior. ...the truth of the Bible. And therefore, Muslims should not criticize the Bible.

Muslims should not say that anything is wrong with the Bible. What we have shown instead is, in fact, although the truth is there, there are some issues that please doubt the vision that is there in the Bible.

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 Koran 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 Koran, 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. 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 Koran, 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? If somebody wants to find out what really is the Word of God, you would just read the two texts together, and see that the moral teaching which is there...

So, the Koran doesn't add anything? It only takes away?

That's an odd admission. The Koran does not prove which is there. The Word of man that is crept into it, or Jesus, just included pure Word of God.

So, where there's a difference, and the Koran is not as full as the Bible in according 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.

I'm 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? 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.

Yes. Yes. Exactly. That's your misunderstanding of the text.

Therefore, we will have to lay this passage on one side, because, tested by the rest of the New Testament, it is not a correct statement of Christian ethics.

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?

You're about to find out. If authoritative, it's not correct.

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 Koran, he would reject. Double standard. The hypocrisy goes on. You might shake your head.

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.

For example, our friend in this chapter 6, mating with the daughters of men and producing the giants of old.

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 clown all day and play on a harp all day? I mean, that's actually a 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 with a harp all day. Blah, blah, blah, blah. In defense of the idea of having children in the afterlife. That exact same argumentation.

Very odd that that's the case. But anyways, I'd mention it.

There will be sex in paradise. There will be resisted. Pleasure will remain, but not the pain. It is true that come to that age where the breasts have swollen, as opposed to a young girl who does not have that, it is the word in Arabic depicting this level of age, of growth, of puberty, of teenagerhood, and that is what is promised for men in paradise.