Modern Day Debate: Jay Dyer Vs Waleed Naeem - The Bible Or the Quran?

Summary

Jay'sAnalysis – Modern Day Debate: Jay Dyer vs. Waleed Naeem – The Bible or the Quran? (August 2, 2026)

---

Episode Overview

In this lively and intense debate, author and Orthodox Christian apologist Jay Dyer faces Muslim apologist and Quran-only proponent Waleed Naeem for a head-to-head discussion on the topic: “The Bible or the Quran: Which is God’s Revelation to All Mankind?” The two participants discuss the issues of scriptural preservation, authority, authorship, theological consistency, and the nature of revelation, with each seeking to critique and defend the religious text they champion. The format includes opening statements, open dialogue, and a Q&A session.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Opening Statements

Waleed Naeem (B) [04:30–23:20]

• Textual Integrity and Preservation
  • The Bible is a disputed library of many books, authors, and doctrines, lacking a stable canon ("The Bible is not just one book. It is a compendium of different authors, different narratives, different emphasis, and even different doctrines." [04:45]).
  • Different Christian sects accept different books, and the Bible itself doesn't define its own canon.
  • The Quran, he argues, is unique in its preservation — a single, globally accepted text with only minor pronunciation variations across sects ("The Quran does not suffer the same fate. It has a remarkable textual integrity, save for few variations in pronunciation..." [05:30]).
• Consistency of Message
  • The Quran maintains a single message throughout: worship one God, do righteous deeds, be rewarded in the afterlife.
  • In contrast, he characterizes the Old Testament as focused on ethnic Israel and particularity, while the New Testament shifts radically to universal salvation and new doctrines.
• Anonymous Authorship and Contradictions
  • Claims foundational books (Pentateuch, Gospels) are not authored by those traditionally attributed, citing internal evidence and narrative inconsistencies.
  • Paul, he claims, introduces doctrines at odds with both Old Testament and Jesus’ own message, especially justification by faith alone and the concept of total depravity.
• Claim of Quran as Corrective Revelation
  • Quran claims to confirm and correct previous scriptures (Quran 5:48, 16:6, 27:76, 2:79 quoted).
  • Asserts that the Bible's contradictions, inaccessibility, and corruption justify the need for the Quran as “a holy, preserved, and perfect filter.” ([20:42])

Jay Dyer (C) [23:55–46:16]

• Critique of Naeem’s Hermeneutic
  • Points out that Naeem’s Quran-only approach is a radical minority view in Islam and lacks support from the broader Islamic tradition ("He comes from a Quran only tradition…maybe 10,000 people in the world" [24:42]).
  • Argues that hadith literature is considered essential by the vast majority of Muslims precisely because the Quran is not self-interpreting or 'clear' in the sense Naeem claims.
• Questioning Preservation Claims
  • Challenges the narrative of perfect Quranic preservation, noting early transmission variations and the canonization process under Caliph Uthman ("Uthman was not a prophet ... I want to know how we're supposed to know that the correct number of the surahs actually exists in the scriptures..." [25:20]).
  • Questions the epistemic foundation for claiming certainty about the Quranic canon and preservation.
• Parity With Biblical Criticisms
  • Argues that the criticisms Naeem levels at the Bible (textual diversity, canon disputes, need for tradition beyond the text) are equally applicable to Islam/Quran.
  • Points out that all revealed religions have textual histories, disputes, and interpretive traditions.
• Theological Continuity
  • Defends against accusations of Old and New Testament contradiction, stressing typological fulfillment (i.e., "types and shadows") and Christological reading of Old Testament passages ("Genesis 12, 15, 17, 22… for us those are literally all about the Messiah..." [52:54]).
  • Defends Paul’s teachings as consistent with the broader Christian tradition and cautions against reading Protestant sola scriptura assumptions into Orthodoxy.
• Quranic Endorsement of Previous Scriptures
  • Shows that, at least on some readings, the Quran itself seems to refer to Torah and Gospel as genuine revelations during Muhammad’s time, calling into question mass corruption claims ([36:38]).

---

2. Open Dialogue / Back-and-Forth (Summary of Major Exchanges) [46:51–113:59]

a. Canon, Preservation, and Epistemology

• Naeem repeatedly challenges Dyer to “find a Quran with a different number of surahs” as proof of its unique preservation ([60:04], [70:01]).
• Dyer rebuts that arguments from silence and empirical consensus do not justify epistemic certainty; error can be preserved just as well as truth ([65:22], [71:02], [74:05]).
• Both debate what counts as a valid standard for knowing and justifying religious truth:
  • Dyer: “What’s the epistemic principle that tells you your faith is justified?” ([80:38])
  • Naeem: “I have faith that it wasn't messed up a thousand years ago...based on a truckload of empirical evidence.” ([80:57])
• On authorship, Naeem claims the Quran speaks as God throughout; Dyer notes Naeem cannot know the identity of its scribes and this critique also impacts Quranic claims as it does the Bible ([119:21]–[121:00]).

b. Contradiction/Continuity Between Old & New Testaments

• Naeem: The Old Testament and New Testament are “completely different religious frameworks” ([48:12]); the focus shifts from exclusive tribal real estate (OT) to spiritual universalism (NT).
• Dyer: Old Testament is Christological in shadow and prophecy, culminating in Christ. Points to typology, messianic prophecies, and covenant fulfillment ([48:25], [56:06], [94:34]).
• On Jesus’ sacrifice: Dyer claims it fulfills OT prophecies and types (Passover, Melchizedek, suffering servant), while Naeem sees this as foreign/historically unpreceded ([97:01]–[102:43]).

c. The Authority of Hadith and Interpretation

• Dyer questions how a Quran-only approach can justify knowledge of the correct text without tradition/hadith ([25:20], [83:17]).
• Naeem maintains that the hadith and tafsir are later corruptions; the Quran “is clear” and the true revelation ([69:11], [81:25]).
• Dyer: If the Quran is clear, why do almost all Muslims rely on hadith? ([36:06], [41:45])

d. The Gospel and Revelation

• Dispute over whether the New Testament teaches that the gospel was “revealed to Jesus”; Dyer says instead, Christ is the revelation ([113:08]).
• Naeem: “Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. That is the holy and divine revelation in the message…” ([114:11])
• Dyer pushes for textual evidence of a ‘revelation to’ (not ‘of’) Jesus – "The revelation is of him, not to him…" ([112:57])

---

3. Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Jay Dyer, on Naeem’s method:
  “You’re undercutting your own argument…that’s why it doesn’t work.” [137:04]
• Waleed Naeem, on the Bible’s canon:
  “The Bible itself doesn’t exist. It’s an open concept in the first place. So, yeah, I don’t accept that.” [123:04]
• Jay Dyer, on epistemology:
  “Error can be preserved. Thank you.” [135:08]
• Waleed Naeem, on preservation:
  "Find a different text out there than the one that exists … Even Muslims who kill each other, who are fighting each other, they all have the same Quran."[73:31]
• Jay Dyer, summarizing:
  “The Bible just is true because I have faith in it and there’s evidences and my epistemic principle is the Bible itself because it’s clear—you would not accept that.” [83:55]
• Waleed Naeem, on continuity vs. transformation:
  “If a new message that comes later on is emphasizing something that is hardly even emphasized in the old one, that is a transformation. That is not a continuation.” [52:26]
• Jay Dyer, on the Old and New Testament continuity:
  “For us, Genesis 12, 15, 17, 22… those are literally all about the Messiah…If you read Galatians, it’s literally just about Jesus…So the whole Old Testament is about the kingdom.” [52:54]

---

4. Audience Questions & Interaction [115:36–138:24]

Preservation & Variant Readings

• Naeem distinguishes between variants in pronunciation (Hafs vs. Warsh, etc.) and actual textual variants, maintaining there are no meaningful differences affecting theology ([115:36]).
• Dyer and audience question the logic of argument from absence; whether preservation alone proves authenticity.
• Waleed concedes: “Error can be preserved. Just because something is preserved doesn’t necessarily mean it’s true.” ([135:09]).

Authorship and Testimony

• Challenge to Naeem regarding single authorship, recording, and reliance on scribes without traditional sources ([119:42]).
• Dyer draws parallel with biblical transmission challenges ([120:03]).

Theological Distinctions

• Ongoing dispute about what counts as “evidence,” faith vs. empirical verification, and the limits of human knowledge.
• Both agree that at some level, faith is necessary, but differ sharply on what evidence is ‘reasonable.’

---

Timestamped Highlights

• Opening Introductions — 02:44
• Waleed’s Opening Statement — 04:30–23:20
• Jay’s Opening Statement — 23:55–46:16
• Open Dialogue Begins — 46:43
• Preservation and Argument from Silence Clash — 60:01–74:09
• Hermeneutics, Typology, and Pauline Arguments — 47:02–58:37, 94:34–103:53
• Epistemology and “Course of History” Arguments — 80:38–84:53, 132:20
• Audience Q&A — 115:36–138:24
• Notable Quote on Preservation — 135:09

---

Tone & Style

• Jay Dyer: Witty, sometimes sardonic, probing, philosophical, and consistently epistemologically focused on paradigms, typology, and logical consistency.
• Waleed Naeem: Confident, rapid-fire, structured, emphasizes empirical observation and plain reading, appeals to common sense and accessibility.

---

Conclusion

This episode delivers a rigorous, sometimes heated, but illuminating exchange on the fundamental differences between the Bible and Quran as authoritative revelation. Both debaters highlight the complexity of scriptural history, interpretation, and the standards by which certainty—or reasonable faith—is possible. The debate ultimately exposes the deep paradigm differences in how each tradition approaches text, history, and faith, and showcases the importance (and limits) of rational argument in matters of religious commitment.

---

For listeners seeking:

• Points on preservation, see [04:30, 24:42, 70:01, 73:31]
• Old vs. New Testament continuity arguments, see [48:25–57:15, 94:34–103:53]
• Epistemic justification clashes, see [80:38, 83:17, 132:20]
• Specific Q&A on variant Qurans and textual criticism, see [115:36–119:21, 135:03–138:24]
• Notable philosophical/epistemological exchanges, see [83:55, 132:00, 135:04]

Transcript

[A]

This episode sponsored by We Feed Raw. Have you ever actually looked at the label on your dog's food? Most dog food labels are a long list of things that don't look like food powders, starches, additives used to hold ultra processed kibble together at We Feed Raw, the label looks very different. High quality meat, nutrient rich organs, complete and balanced nutrition formulated by PhD nutrition experts. No fillers, no artificial preservatives, just real ingredients that support your dog's whole body health. That's why many pet parents see real changes after switching to WeFeedraw's fresh meals. If you want to feed your dog one of the healthiest diets possible, We Feed Raw makes it simple. Visit wefeedraw.com to get started and see today's best offer. If the world were like a sleep number mattress, everything would adapt for your comfort. Your coffee would never get cold, your flight would always be on time and your mattress would always respond to you and your unique sleep needs. Sleep number mattresses are designed to respond to your body and shift with your changing life, helping you fall asleep faster and stay asleep longer. To experience a whole new world of comfort, visit a sleep number store or go to sleepnumber.com sleep number to a

[B]

good life Sleep no, we don't know who inscribed it but God.

[C]

But you said that we don't know who inscribed it with the gospels.

[B]

No, I'm saying I don't know who authored the Old Testament and specifically the authoring is inscribing. Authoring is different. I can say something. I can say a book and then somebody else can write it down faithfully or not.

[C]

So we don't know. And we don't know. Just read it. And all of my arguments are there.

[B]

I believe you can read things and understand them. I believe that you can see and witness things and that is sufficient enough. But you guys don't believe in that. Or at least you don't. Jay Just because something is preserved doesn't necessarily mean it's true.

[C]

Are the talent yeah. Thank you.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

Thank you.

[A]

Thank you.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

Hold it argument the entire time about the Quran.

[D]

Thank you.

[B]

I'm. I'm no.

[D]

Special thanks to our sponsor Maine First Project. Fighting to put Mainers first. Check out main first project.org Huge thanks to Revival of the Anointed's Rule Equipping Christians to fight for Biblical Values through policy victories. Check out revivetheroar.org I'm thrilled to be with you here for debatecon8. We are going to jump into it fast but I do have to say we are incredibly grateful as it is the speakers who make this as fun as it is. So we are thrilled to have our speakers here tonight. We're thrilled to have you guys here tonight.

[C]

And.

[D]

And I'm going to start by introducing our speakers and we're going to jump right into this debate, starting first. Waleed Naim is a Muslim apologist and debater known for confidently defending Islam and engaging Christianity's most challenging theological objections. Please join me in welcoming Waleed Naim, Also in the right corner. Our next speaker is an author and cultural commentator known for his extraordinary intellectual range, sharp wit, and formidable debating style. He's also appeared on prominent platforms, including Tucker Carlson and Tim Cast, irl. Please join me in welcoming Jay Dyer. With that, we are indeed jumping right into it. I have the timer set for you for your opening statement of 20 minutes. Will lead. The floor is all yours.

[B]

Testing, one, two, Testing. All right, perfect. So you let me know when the time has started and I'm good to go.

[D]

Just a reminder to keep that mic pointed at you at all times.

[C]

Yep.

[D]

Ready on your first word.

[B]

Okay. In the name of God, the entirely merciful and the especially merciful. The Quran or the Bible? Which one is God's revelation for all mankind? All praise to God, the Lord of the worlds. I'm just going to let you know that I will speak a little bit fast, and also I'm not going to fully quote my verses. I'll leave the references on the screen for the audience to see, and they'll have to do their own homework because I don't have time to read through all of it. And also quickly, I just want to say salaam to mama, to my dear wife, to my child, and to all my beloved friends who are watching this at home. So the first thing I want to dive into is the weaknesses of the biblical text. Compared to the Quran, the Bible is not just one book. It is a compendium of different authors, different authors, with different narratives, different emphasis, and even different doctrines. The Bible itself is an open concept. Different sects keep and omit certain books. The Bible itself does not define what the Bible is. So when Christians say the Bible teaches X, Y or Z, they are assuming a concept which does not exist. That is the concept that there is indeed a set number of books that is the Bible and isn't the Bible. They are really referring to a disputable, open concept library context compiled, recompiled, and redacted over history by many men who never knew or even anticipated each other and tried to treat that all as one thing. The Quran does not suffer the same fate. It has a remarkable textual integrity, save for few variations in pronunciation. The same skeletal root text exists across all sects. And it's interesting because the Quran also promises that God would be its protector. We read in chapter 15, verse 9 on the screen, indeed it is we who sent down the Quran and indeed we will be its guardian. Every other religious tradition has disputed texts. The Bible, the Bhagavad Gita, the Upanishads, the Buddhist sutras. Naturally this is the case because different sects want to promote their own theologies and start writing things with their own hands, claiming inspiration. The Quran is the only massly transmitted worldwide scripture that has a multitude of sects that claim to believe it and has been completely untampered with by all those varying sects. The fact that the Quran is a uniquely stable amongst the world texts and the course of history has shown the promise in Chapter 15 of Preservation to be true. Shows strong indication that it is indeed unique amongst all the scriptures and very well could be the Word of God. So my question for my opponent is this. If God were to leave behind a revelation for all mankind to follow, don't you think he would leave behind a preserved, stable, closed system text that is not open to dispute? The next point that deserves discussion is the complete contradictions throughout the Bible going on with my first point. Naturally this heavily disputed work in progress known as the Bible has many contradictions and I'm not even going to get into minor contradictions like the exact details of Jesus crucifixion, how chronicles contradict certain facts in the Pentateuch when it's re quoting them. That would be too easy. The Old Testament. These are foundational level theological contradictions. The Old Testament, when you read it, it largely deals with this ethnic God who demands exclusive worship by his ethnic people, Israel. The primary focus is a real estate contract for the land of Palestine. And there is no concept of a faith alone salvation. Then we get into the New Testament and suddenly we have the Son of God figure who carries a comparable divinity to Yahweh, who we must pray and baptize in the. The primary focus now is not a real estate contract for the land of Palestine, but rather the Kingdom of heaven which is open to all men. The Old Testament God is tribal and largely concerned with the life of this world. So the promise is basically so long as my people obey me, I will give them earthly sons, I will give them dominance. This is the overarching Theme then the New Testament God is largely concerned with the life to come, which is never explicitly mentioned in the Old Testament, certainly not emphasized like it is in the New Testament, which would have been a very important thing to mention. If I'm storing up deeds in the hereafter and I'm going to see it on the other side, that would have been a very important thing to mention for thousands of years of prophecy. And it's about selling your goods and chasing the kingdom of heaven. And that this promise is open to all men. One is an exclusive God that demands exclusive worship of his name by his people and law keeping. The other is a God who has another name to be worshipped alongside his, who loved all nations so much that he gave His Son as a free gift of salvation for all nations who put their faith in him, no works required for salvation. These are completely different religious systems. Christians try to reconcile them, but you can't. You are going to have to choose to favor one or the other. The Quran again does not suffer the same fate again because it has single authorship. It has the exact same message all throughout, which is worship one God, do righteous deeds and inherit paradise. Or if you reject God, you get cast into hellfire for all eternity. And the references are on the screen for you if you wish to look into that. You may not like the Quran, you may not agree with it, but you cannot deny its completely consistent message all the way through. Certainly more so than the Bible. So my question for my opponent is today, if God did leave a revelation for all mankind behind, don't you think it would have emphasized the same doctrines and taught and emphasized it all throughout the same exact belief system? The next thing we have to get into is anonymous authorship in the Bible. We are told that Moses authored the first five books with inspiration from God, but that it was Moses who penned them down and that eyewitnesses authored the Gospels. And this is just not true. We can prove this. And again, the references are on the screen. You can look into this yourself. Genesis 12:6 implies the author lived in a time the Canaanites were not in the land, but the Canaanites were not cleared out till Joshua came along. Genesis 36 implies the author lived during a time Israel had kings. Deuteronomy 34, it records a Moses death in the past tense. There's so many repeat narratives throughout the Old Testament. Like the story of, let's see right here, of Jacob's name being changed to Israel. It's told twice with different narratives. The story of Abraham's Abram at the time, his wife being married by the king is told three times in three different ways. Three times in three different ways means three different authors. And then, you know, skipping down, we get to the anonymous gospels. It is church tradition to say that they are authored by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, but nothing in them suggests that. So an example of this how these are not eyewitnesses of Jesus. We have Matthew 4, verses 1 through 13. The famous story of Jesus being tempted in the wilderness. Jesus did not have disciples at that time. He was alone in the wilderness or when heaven opened up and it said, this is my son in whom I am well pleased. Again, Jesus did not have disciples at that time. He was a child. This is a biography of Jesus, but this is not an eyewitness account. It doesn't even pretend to be. Yeah, Matthew could not have seen heaven open up on Jesus when he was a child, nor could he have seen the conversation Jesus had with the devil in the wilderness. The Qur' an again does not suffer the same fate. It is the same author all the way through. It is the perspective of God speaking to the believers and sometimes to the Prophet Muhammad. If we are talking about a book from God, which is the debate of today or tonight, it in fact is the only book that speaks in that way. God talking to mankind directly. Not recounting a past event of a group of people and the dealings with their ethnic God, but rather God speaking directly to you in the evocative and to the prophet he has inspired. So my question is, if we don't know who wrote the Pentateuch, which is the foundations of the Old Testament, and we don't know who wrote the Gospels, the foundation of the Jesus movement in the New Testament, then why should I hang my coat on anything in your Bible at all? The next thing that deserves mention is the problems with Paul. In line with the fact that the Bible is so contradictory, we get to Paul, its most difficult contributor. Paul taught ideas completely at odds with both the Old Testament and even what Jesus says in the dubious gospels we have today. Again, I don't have time for all the passages, but you can read them. Matthew 5. Jesus clearly taught that you need to work to inherit the kingdom of heaven. Not this faith alone. Salvation. Absolutely not. You can go through Matthew 5, but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall in no case enter the kingdom of heaven. But he that doeth the will of my Father. Therefore, whoever heareth these sayings of mine, and do with them, and so on and so forth, so on and so forth, then we're going to get down to this. So in Jesus in the Old Testament, there is no mention of this doctrine of total depravity, which is what Paul taught, or the hopelessness of trying to work for your salvation. 0 mention of this Pauline distinction of having faith without works of the law, which is foundational to Paul's message. And Paul says in Galatians 2, 16, knowing that a man is not justified by works of the law, but by faith of Jesus, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by works of the law. For the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. This is over and over the quintessential feature of Paul's message. The faith alone. Salvation gospel is in direct contradiction with Jesus in the Gospels. Moreover, Paul's teaching of total depravity contradicts everything else we have read in the Bible. The Bible clearly acknowledges that righteous men have existed. So Paul teaches there is not. In Romans 3, there is none righteous. No, not one. There is none that understand it. There's none that seeketh after God. They're all gone out of their way. They are all together become unprofitable. There is none that do it good. No, not one. Therefore, by deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified. Then we go into Genesis 4. 7. Interestingly, conspicuously enough, it says, if thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? And if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door, and unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him. Isaiah 55, 7. Let the wicked forsake his way, the unrighteous man his thoughts, and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. Ezekiel 33, 10:16. I'm going to skip down. But it says, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn ye from your evil ways, for why will ye die, O house of Israel? There is no total depravity here. And then, of course, the famous passages in Ezekiel 18:10. 18:20. My mistake. Sorry. The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The Son shall not bear the iniquity of the Father, neither shall the Father bear the iniquity of the Son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wickedness that shall be upon him. Listen, there is no denying it. This faith alone not justified. By the law, no righteous man has ever existed. We all inherit original guilt and sin from Adam. This whole system is completely foreign to the rest of the Bible, including even the Gospels in the condition they are in today. You can only start with Paul and try to force read it into the Old Testament. Start with your conclusions and work backwards. You will never find the Pauline system native or indigenous to the Old Testament or the Gospels. Therefore, the question I pose is if Paul contradicts so much of the Old Testament and even the words of Jesus in the Gospel, and he is by far the most prolific author of the whole New Testament, more than all the other authors combined are certainly comparable. Why should I trust anything in the New Testament at all if its most prominent author is teaching a completely different religious system that was never heard of for thousands of years if the world

[A]

were like a Sleep number mattress, everything would adapt for your comfort. Your coffee would never get cold, your FL would always be on time and your mattress would always respond to you and your unique sleep needs. Sleep number mattresses are designed to respond to your body and shift with your changing life, helping you fall asleep faster and stay asleep longer. To experience a whole new world of comfort, visit a sleep number store or go to sleepnumber.com sleep number to a good life sleep. If the world were like a sleep number mattress, everything would adapt for your comfort. Your coffee would never get cold, your flight would always be on time and your mattress would always respond to you and your unique sleep needs. Sleep number mattresses are designed to respond to your body and shift with your changing life, helping you fall asleep faster and stay asleep longer. To experience a whole new world of comfort, visit a sleep number store or go to sleepnumber.com sleep number to a

[B]

good life sleep and lastly, I want to get into this so Christians, they treat the Bible as if it is a revelation for all mankind, but it doesn't even treat itself like that. Specifically the Old Testament. The Old Testament is the vast majority of your Bible. It takes up the bulk. And let's be real, whatever people wrote that Old Testament never had you or me in mind. 21st century non Israelite people. There's so much and I don't mean this to be disrespectful, but I have to be honest, there's so much clutter and baggage that clearly meant a lot to some people back in that geography and time but mean nothing now. We all just skip over that when we're reading. We are debating tonight what book is God's revelation to all mankind. Christians Treat the Bible as if it is a revelation for all mankind. But does it even present itself in that way? The Old Testament does not represent itself as God's revelation to mankind. That is God speaking to humanity. It is simply histories and narratives of an ethnic God chiding his ethnic people and promising them the land of Palestine. That kind of narrative doesn't even consider the rest of mankind. Endless people's names, place names, peoples that are never developed on places that do not exist anymore and nobody really knows anything about. It's kind of like if any of you have any familiarity with the Hindu religions, the Mahabharata. The Mahabharata is known as the great legendary epic of India. And reading it is like getting your head dunked into ancient India. It wasn't written for us. It was written for a different people at a different time, in a different culture. And the Old Testament reads in the exact same way as the Mahabharata, except the Middle Eastern version. Endless. Yeah. As I was saying, it is genuinely inaccessible. Then we get into the New Testament. The Gospels also do not present themselves as a revelation to all mankind. They are cobbled together. Stories of this incredible man named Jesus and some of the things he said and taught. Again, not a revelation of God for mankind, but stories and legends of this particular man. Then we get into Paul. Did he present his works as God's revelation to all mankind? No way. His work is simply him writing letters of encouragement, faith and instruction to the various churches around him. Christians, again, they treat the Bible as if it is like a text message from God to all mankind. They'll tell you, read your Bible, read your Bible. But the Bible itself doesn't even present itself in that way. All we have is an ethnic geographical epic, stories of an incredible man and letters being sent to churches. None of the writers in the Bible had me in mind. Again, the Quran is very different. It reads like God directly speaking to you, directly speaking to mankind. Say this, say that in Arabic. It isn't cluttered with all this meaningless historical baggage or cultural motifs. It doesn't read like getting your head dunked in the ancient Middle East. It is accessible, readable, and it transcends all cultures and speaks directly to mankind in the evocative style. Exactly what we would expect if God did truly reveal a book for all mankind to read and cherish forever. If it is going to be for all human history, then it must transcend and go beyond any specific time period in its message and style. Let me make it clear. My argument is not the Bible is racist, therefore it's bad.

[C]

No.

[B]

My argument is the Bible isn't even written for me, so why would I accept it as the message that God requires me to follow? Wouldn't it be more natural to incline towards the world scripture that is actually addressing me? So my question is this. If the Bible is truly the word of God meant for me to follow today, why do none of its many authors address me at all? Would God want me to follow a message that isn't even directed to me? All of these problems naturally lead into the Quranic mission. That is why God revealed this final revelation to clear up the errors, lies and confusions that men have put in. And we Read in chapter 5 verse 48 God says that we have revealed to you the book in truth, confirming what that which is before it of the Scripture and as a guardian over it, Muhammad so judge between them by what God has revealed and do not follow their inclinations away from the truth. And then chapter 16 verse 6 it reads again that we have not revealed to you the book except except for you to make clear to them that wherein they differed more verses from the Quran. Chapter 27 verse 76 the Quran relates to the children of Israel most of that over which they differ.279 so woe to those who write the scripture with their own hands. And they say this is from God in order to exchange it for a small price. Chapter 2 verse 106 Cause and God talks about different proofs being caused to be forgotten and God replaces it with a better one. And interestingly enough, Even in Jeremiah 8:8 we have this assumption or this idea of people writing false scriptures with their hand. But behold, the false pen of the scribes had wrought falsely so distortions in the textual corpus. Therefore the Muslim position that the Bible is corrupt and needs to be filtered by the Quran is not an ad hoc position that has been made up in the last few decades to deal with the so called Islamic dilemma, but rather directly anticipated by the Quran as one of its main functions. To clear up the confusion and corruption wrought by men in matters of religion. Therefore, seeing the confusing, contradicting, jarring and inaccessible state the Bible is in today, most people can't even read it from COVID to cover because of how inaccessible this cries out for something to come by and clear all of this mess up. And that is exactly what the Quran claims as its mission. The very state the Bible is in today. Confusion, contradiction, inaccessibility. I'm not even going to get into this. The degeneracy ascribed to the prophets of God gives full Justification to the mission of the Quran. It cries out for a holy, preserved and perfect filter. All praise to God, the Lord of the worlds.

[D]

Thank you very much for that opening statement. We will transition over to J. Dyer's opening statement now. Then we'll continue our debate on the Bible or the Quran which is God's revelation to mankind. I've got the timer set for you Jay. So on your first word I will start the timer.

[C]

I hope you all appreciate. I wore my dad core ball shorts because I wanted to be ballsy in this debate. Thank you to Naimir for if you pay just close attention you might catch a little side glance there. So these guys over here, thank you for that and also thank you to chat GPT. Peace be upon him for that opening statement. That was pretty obvious to what was going on. I'm. I'm making jokes dude. If you're going to speak during my. Do I get to speak during his time? All right, so we're talking about revelation of course, we heard some interesting stories there. But he didn't tell you the story about the origin of the Quran. And I will talk about divine revelation

[D]

if you're able to just move the mic a little bit closer, sir.

[C]

I will talk about divine revelation from our perspective. But I do want to talk about all the data that he left out in regard in regards to his own position which never told you about the Uthmanic recensions. If you talk about the origins of the Quran. We actually don't know the origins of the Quran in terms of the seventh century. There are some traditions that relate to later stories in some of the hadiths about what happened now what's funny. And he also didn't tell you this. He comes from a Quran only tradition which is according to some estimates that I saw online, really only a few thousand, maybe 10,000 people in the world that are known. So he's giving you the impression that he's part of this overall community that's the history and the world Nation of Islam or I don't mean the cult nation of Islam, but I'm saying the. The nation of Islam in terms of religion when the majority 99% of the Islamic world calls him a heretic. So he's actually undercutting his whole case by acting like the Quran is extremely clear and specific and perspicuous when he himself doesn't think this because almost all of the Muslim world is confused by the Quran and they need all of the hadiths and the hadith science that goes into rating of the various hadiths in terms of which ones are sound and which ones are not. But he rejects all that. Now there's so many fallacies that I heard, so many problems in this, in this discussion that I want to highlight everything that he outlined about the problems of textual criticism or the history of the text in terms of the Bible and church history and the old testament. It's 10 times worse for his position since there were no clear, unanimous traditions about the text at the time of Muhammad. It's actually the generations after Muhammad, particularly a figure named Uthman who decided sort of arbitrarily to pick Zayd's version. And Zayd's version is interesting because we don't know exactly why that would be the one chosen. In fact, because of this dispute between Muslims in Syria and in Iraq, there were multiple variants, there were variants about the numbers as well of the surahs. So I'm going to be asking him questions as well. Since Uthman was not a prophet, was not ordained as a prophet, I want to know how we're supposed to know that the correct number of the surahs actually exists in the scriptures, because the Quran itself doesn't tell us that, just like the Bible doesn't tell us what books go into the Bible. And I want to thank the excellent refutation of Protestant Sola scriptura that he did. So when the Protestant that you're here to debate comes, let me know, because I would agree with you on most of those critiques. You should have done some research about what our position is because it's not justification by faith alone. It's not any of the basic evangelical Protestant doctrines that Chat GBT told you about. So most of what we know about the Quran, again, historically speaking, is a cobbled together collection that's about 30 years after the actual time of Muhammad himself. Muhammad, as you probably know, was not able to read and write. And so he is not the one that's actually doing the writing or recording the message of God. It's actually later generations and most scholars will admit. And again, he likes to appeal to liberal scholarship. Of course, liberal scholarship is no friend to the Quran either. They will all date these things very late and point out all the tremendous amounts of skepticism that go into figuring out exactly what happened in, in these centuries. Muhammad died in 632 and thus there was no written Quran. But Abu Bakr was the caliph of that time. Zaid, as we said, had a written copy, we're told. But this written copy was hidden under a bed of one of Muhammad's wives for 20 years. But just trust us, it's there, it's good, it's the whole thing. I promise.

[A]

If the world were like a sleep number mattress, everything would adapt for your comfort. Your coffee would never get cold, your flight would always be on time and your mattress would always respond to you and your unique sleep needs. Sleep number mattresses are designed to respond to your body and shift with your changing life, helping you fall asleep faster and stay asleep longer. To experience a whole new world of comfort, visit a sleep number store or go to sleep number.com sleep number to a good life sleep.

[B]

The snack wrap plus Caesar sauce equals extra crispy chicken caesary Greatness sounds delicious.

[C]

Caesar sauce at McDonald's for a limited time. Not only do we not know if this is the right copy, it could maybe this was somebody's diary under their bed. We don't know, right? It's all arbitrary. There's another problem and that is that most scholars believe that there were not specific dot and vowel indicators at that time for Arabic for correct pronunciation. So just having clear texts would not necessarily tell us the right pronunciation. And again, if you're speaking to a lot of people who are hearing things orally, we wouldn't necessarily know if they're actually understanding correctly the vowels and so forth, how they're being pronounced to get the right terminology and the right meaning. He comes to texts, as many Muslims do, with a very simple sort of surface, self evidence type of view. That's why I'm going to ask him some epistemic questions about how he has certitude about who this God is in terms of which surahs make up that text. Because he's not going to be able to tell me. He has no way, no epistemic criteria to actually say how he knows that he has the correct version of the Quran. It's all just simply assumed. Now you heard the arguments that he gave. It was a whole bunch of things like, well, look at the way that God speaks in it. I mean, he speaks like it's a clear revelation. So clearly. A clear revelation would speak clearly, right? Isn't that clear? That's all begging the question, that doesn't tell us anything. Con men, religious grifters have for centuries, from millennia, use all kinds of tricks like saying, well, it's clear, it's obvious, it's simple. This is another fallacy. The appearance of something being simple does not have anything to do with it being true or false. You can have simple errors, you can have simple mistakes, you can also have complex errors and complex mistakes. So the entire argument that the Bible is difficult for me so therefore God is not in it and it's not true, is a fallacy. It's stupid, it's silly. These are terrible arguments. Now moving on, I want to get into the issue of the text themselves. We have a lot of statements in the Quran itself. And again, remember this is a person who as far as I'm aware, does not believe in any of the traditions, any of the Hadith. So he's a Quran only Muslim. That means that he believes, he's committed to the view that the Quran is a perfect revelation. Again, even though the Quran in many, many instances, many, many verses doesn't actually identify exactly who the reference are, who the person is, sometimes prophet is used and it's just assumed that it's talking about Muhammad. Now most of the Islamic world later on thought well, you know what, we got to have some traditions because there is actually some unclear passages. For example, who is this prophet? Is it? Do we know that in every case prophet refers to Muhammad? Because sometimes there's passages that speak of Old Testament prophets. How do we know which one is talking about? Now you could say, well the context tells you. Yeah, but again this is begging the question because without an interpretive framework we don't know that we have the right context. Even so this whole idea that texts are self authenticating, self propelling or something like that, this is a very old Protestant idea. And it's also a tradition, I think that comes out of his whole, his whole religious ethos that the majority of his religious ethos rejects. Most of them do not believe that the, the Quran is clear. They actually need the Hadith. So if it's clear, then why are you the 0.01% minority against the rest of the Islamic world? Now moving on, we have many passages in the Quran that speak of a view of the Old testament which is 100% contradictory to everything he said about the Old Testament. You notice he relegated it to the typical sort of liberal, higher critical perspective that this was just a time bound revelation to a bunch of desert Jews and they were, you know, nasty individuals who just wanted real estate and this kind of stuff. Are you aware that in many passages in the first ten surahs, the Quran itself backs up many of those Old Testament stories. So to undercut the entire history of the Jews, including the stories of David and the stories of Moses and others would undercut the very thing that you said is a limited Canaanite or excuse me, a Limited Hebrew jingoistic religion. It makes no sense. We are told, for example, in Quran 2 it says, although they used to pray for victory by means of the Prophet over the polytheists, when they gave, when they were, when they came, when then came to them a book from Allah, they recognized and they confirmed the scriptures that they had in their hands. And then they rejected it. So may Allah's condemnation be upon the disbelievers. This is speaking of the Jews. This is speaking of people in the ancient Old Testament times who had a revelation from God, but they rejected what they had in their hands. Nothing about a recension, nothing about revisions of the text. And the funny thing is, it's total projection because everything that he says about recensions of old text is literally the very thing he did in his opening statement. Again refuting Protestants using higher criticism. We are told, for example, in Quran 2, and I want to go to this one because this is an important one 75 to 79, this is the passage where we talk about supposedly Bible corruption. And this is used constantly, we're told over and over and over that. And he used it of course, in his opening statement that they distorted the texts. Well, it turns out when we actually read what it says, it does not say they distorted the text. It says that they heard the words and distorted the meaning. Now we're told elsewhere the same corruption is by illiterate persons. I don't know about you, but I don't think illiterate people can corrupt a text. If you can't read, you can't corrupt it. You can corrupt what you heard and that's what it says. Now many of the early Islamic scholars of the first and second generations, I don't know if he accepts or rejects those people, probably not. But they had a very consistent position that Allah's word cannot be changed or corrupted if God speaks. And if you think about the idea that some Muslims have of the tablet or the eternal Quran, it's no different really than having a version of the divine decree, right? If God speaks something, it cannot be undone, it can't be destroyed. The argument of the Quran in these passages is saying that it's possible for people to hear it and misunderstand it, but they cannot corrupt that text in my view, or that Torah or that Injeel. Now I'm not saying that the Quran is true. I'm saying that the Quran at this very point, which he tried to make a case for the Quran is the very thing that refutes the Quran. There are Many, many more passages that we have to get to. Let's look at for example in Quran 10:94. Well, let's start with 289. Although they prayed for victory, we had the book within their hands. Okay? So Allah gave this book. Remember, Allah's words cannot be changed. And that's also in the Quran in 278 and 79. I'm going to read you the passage so that you can see. How much time do I have left?

[B]

Okay.

[C]

Among those are the illiterate. They know nothing about the scripture except lies, so they wishfully speculate. Notice the illiterate is the context. He, he didn't tell you that verse 78 says the illiterate. He, he just read the second verse after that which says they say and distort the scriptures that this is from Allah. But it's not people distorting the scriptures in terms of the text. It's the illiterate people distorting what they hear. We Read in Quran 3:48, Allah will teach him writing wisdom, Torah and Gospel or in jail. Now if Allah is the one that taught Torah and Torah is what they had between their hands, if Esau had Torah in his hands and that's what he was to learn from, then it can't be corrupted. Mary wondered 3:47 and 48 My Lord, how can I have a child when no man has touched me? The angel replied, so will it be. Allah creates what he wills. When he decrees the matter, he says that it is so. Allah will teach him writing and wisdom, Torah and gospel. So to say that Torah is corrupted, which is what he explicitly said about the Mosaic passages in the Old Testament, just literally reciting, like Bart Ehrman level higher criticism is to also deny his own book. So the people of the gospel in 547 judge by what Allah has revealed in it. Those who do not judge by what Allah has revealed are truly the rebellious. Now this is a passage that I would argue is again, it's a little ambiguous. Let the people of the gospel, that is the Christians in seventh century here, judge what Allah has revealed in it. Is the it the gospel. Well if it's the gospel, then I'm judging the new supposed revelation from Muhammad on the basis of what came before. How could I do that if it's all been corrupted? It would make no sense. But if what I'm judging is a revelation of the new revelation, that's the new revelation. So I judge the gospel by what's new because again this is indefinite here, then it refutes him because it's not clear. And thus we have to have some kind of interpretive matrix or network or framework or paradigm to understand all of these ambiguous phrases. And thus it doesn't make sense to be a Quran only Muslim because it is not quote, perfectly explained as Quran 6, 1, 14 and 15 claim about itself. Again, this alone is another contradiction to his point. If the Quran is a perfect explanation, then why do 99.9% of the Islamic world believe in hadiths, Whether it's the Sunni tradition or the Shia who have their own hadiths. So he's again totally misrepresenting his position as if he represents all Islam. Again, they almost all would call him a heretic. Now if we go to 5, 46 and 47, it says then in the footsteps of the prophets, we sent Jesus, son of Mary. Jesus confirmed the Torah revealed before him. So what a lot of these guys don't understand is that we possess today. And even the liberal scholars will admit this. In the Christian tradition, in the Western tradition, we possess thousands of manuscripts from the first, second, third, fourth and fifth centuries. There are various textual traditions, that's true, but we don't believe in sola scriptura. And most of his argumentation was actually premised on a position of sola scriptura. We actually believe that tradition is necessary. But being a Quran only Muslim, you could see why he has a problem with the idea of tradition. He rejects his own traditions which are also necessary even in his own history. For us, the Bible is not a self authenticating book that doesn't make any sense. There's no such thing as that, nor does he possess that. In fact, what Jesus in his own day was supposed to confirm the teachings of Allah by was the Torah that Jesus had. Guess what? We have Torahs that exist before the seventh century and the Torahs that we possess. And many of the textual traditions are very similar or identical to the Jewish Torahs. Christians can still read a Jewish Torah and understand the Messianic prophecies in them. Now for him, none of this is possible because it's all been corrupted. But he has no epistemic measure to know what is the corrupted texts and what are the non corrupted texts. For example, many passages and stories in the Torah are and in the historical books as well. And in David's Psalms, etc. They're repeated in the Quran. So. So there's all kinds of things that he's not aware of apparently that are in the Old Testament. I don't think he's actually read it because he would know that if he had, that are also part of the Quranic tradition. So by him saying that the Quran, that the Old Testament is full of inexplicable, mysterious, pointless teachings which make no sense and can't be from God, he's undercut giant portions of the first 10 surahs of the Quran which repeat those things. This is so crazy. We gave Jesus the gospel containing guidance and light, confirming what was revealed in Torah. Okay, that's at Jesus's time. Remember the other passage says that what they have between their hands. So it does. There's no way if you believe the Quran to say that what came before was all corrupted.

[A]

If the world were like a sleep number mattress, everything would adapt for your comfort. Your coffee would never get cold, your flight would always be on time and your mattress would would always respond to you and your unique sleep needs. Sleep number mattresses are designed to respond to your body and shift with your changing life, helping you fall asleep faster and stay asleep longer. To experience a whole new world of comfort, visit a sleep number store or go to sleepnumber.com sleep number to a good life sleep if the world were like a sleep number mattress, everything would adapt for your comfort. Your coffee would never get cold, your flight would always be on time and your mattress would always respond to you and your unique sleep needs. Sleep number mattresses are designed to respond to your body and shift with your changing life, helping you fall asleep faster and stay asleep longer. To experience a whole new world of comfort, visit a sleep number store or go to sleepnumber.com sleep number to a

[C]

good life sleep moving on. 9:32. They wish to extinguish Allah's light with their mouths. But Allah will not allow his light to be. Excuse me. Allah will only allow his light to be perfected, even to the dismay of the unbelievers. Oh wait. Except for all the light throughout the Old Testament which Allah allowed to be corrupted according to him. So the light of Allah himself according to him cannot be corrupted. 932 his whole opening statement was gigantic. Portions of all his revelation were corrupted. Makes no sense. Moving on, I want to talk about confusion between how much, 02:20. Let's move on. I'm going to skip over here to many of his claims. So first of all he said the fact that it's difficult shows that it can't be from God. That's a fallacy. It's called a psychological report. That's simply telling us something about you that you don't Understand it has absolutely nothing to do with whether it's true or false. So fallacy of psychological report. He says it's, it's not God's revelation for man, all of mankind. I mean again, total lack of familiarity with multiple passages. Matthew 28 says Jesus says go out, baptize the nations and preach the Gospel to them. Paul himself went on countless missionary journeys to spread the Gospel. That's the entirety of the Book of Acts. So the idea that Paul and Jesus are out of accord and they never taught a message for all of mankind is preposterous. In fact, countless prophecies in the Old Testament are about when the Messiah comes, the Gentiles will have the Gospel and the covenant opened up to them. This is described explicitly in Luke 21, Matthew 24. So this idea is preposterous. He said all kinds of crazy stuff like the Old Testament doesn't teach the afterlife or doesn't really talk about it. No, David says many times over, if I keep your law, I will dwell with you forever. He says about Jesus himself. A famous prophecy, Matthew 110. The prophecy is about Christ's eternal Melchizedekian priesthood. Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool. You are a priest forever. According to the order of Melchizedek. There are tons and tons of passages all throughout the Old Testament that teach eternal life. And that's precisely what Jesus argued to the Pharisees. So notice he made the Pharisee argument or the Sadducee argument. I should say that the Old Testament doesn't teach eternal life and he hinges that argument on Abraham who worshiped him in John 5 through 9 and believed in him. Abraham is not dead, Moses is not dead. They are alive to God. So this idea is preposterous. Jesus makes this very argument. Most of his arguments were also Marcionite arguments. The first heresy that the Church dealt with that there's an evil God of the Old Testament and a righteous God in the New Testament. No, there are many, many, many passages. In fact, most of the Gospel citations that Jesus is having in the arguments with the Pharisees are the Old Testament showing continuity with the same God of the New Testament that God is his father. Notice that Allah is not the same God as Jesus. God either. Because the Quran says Allah has no sons, he does not beget, he is not a father. Well, Jesus says countless times over throughout the Gospels that God is his father, that Yahweh is his father. In fact, Deuteronomy says many times over God is a father to Israel.

[D]

So this I'll give you a chance to wrap up that last sentence last.

[C]

I will just point out that when he said faith and works, that is another misunderstanding. The orthodox position, as Paul says in Galatians 5, 6, is that the only faith that saves is the one that works through love. So Paul and Jesus teach the same gospel and time.

[D]

Thank you very much for that opening as well, Jay. We are going to jump into the open dialogue, gentlemen. So I do want to allow this to be organic and lively and at the same time within reason. Otherwise I will have to jump in to moderate. And then folks, want to remind you in the audience, please do a favor, allow the debaters to do the debating. And with that, gentlemen, I've got the timer set for you. The next hour is yours for open dialogue.

[C]

It gets to where it's one sided. Can we get a timer back and forth at some point if that happens?

[D]

Okay, definitely.

[C]

Go ahead if you want to start.

[B]

Okay. Yeah. So the first thing I want to bring up is how do you reconcile the fact that in different parts of the Bible it teaches a completely different religion with a different emphasis?

[C]

Yeah, again, that's a fallacy. To assume that because there's three versions of a story that there's three different authors. That was one of the fallacies I didn't get to. That's a non sequitur.

[B]

I wasn't talking about different authors. I was saying entirely different.

[C]

Say that you argue that.

[B]

No, the argument I'm making right now is that completely different religious framework when you read the Old Testament.

[C]

Yeah, simply not.

[B]

What was that?

[C]

It's simply not a different religious framework. That's your misunderstanding.

[B]

All right. All right. So what is the main emphasis of Jesus in the New Testament?

[C]

There is not one main emphasis. In fact, even in the Beatitudes, which is probably the closest thing to that, he talks about all kinds of stuff.

[B]

Okay. Would you say the kingdom of heaven of Jesus is a primary emphasis of his? One of the many.

[C]

It's one of the many.

[B]

Okay. Is the kingdom of heaven a primary emphasis throughout the Old Old Testament? Throughout the Old Testament?

[C]

Well, the oldest has a different focus, but it wouldn't follow from a different focus that it's a different religion.

[B]

So the main emphasis or one of the quintessential features of Jesus message is not at all a quintessential feature of thousands of years of prophecy.

[C]

Well, given that the Old Testament's quintessential message is the coming Messiah, they're going to be looking forward to the kingdom that he brings, which is a spiritual kingdom.

[B]

Right, so these are completely different religious frameworks.

[C]

No, that's again, you haven't demonstrated that

[B]

if I, if I pick up my Old Testament, I am not going to get this main emphasis here of the kingdom of heaven, storing up deeds in the hereafter. That's not what's going to come to me. But when I read the New Testament, that's the main message. These are different religions, man.

[C]

On the contrary, most of the Psalms are actually about the life of the Messiah himself, His death, burial and resurrection, and thus his kingdom. In fact, I cited to you one of the most famous, most cited Psalms in the New Testament, Psalm 110, which is about an eternal priesthood of the Son of God, like unto the priesthood of the Old Testament, which is a type fulfillment relationship. So the fact that you don't understand types is not an argument against the religion of orthodox Christianity.

[B]

So essentially your position is that regarding the kingdom of heaven, God was essentially giving us types and shadows and sort of teasing us, teasing us, teasing us and then finally giving us the full revelation later on.

[C]

It's not teasing. It's a pedagogical device for an ancient world.

[B]

Could you explain that to me?

[C]

Yeah. Pedagogy means teaching. So it's a teaching device for people who at that time were engaged in a lot of warfare. They were dealing with intense pagan religions that surrounded them. And so God spoke to them in ways that they could understand. We call it anthropomorphic, an anthropomorphic move. So for example, God allows the Old Testament Jews to have for a time period a temple with animal sacrifices as a way to combat human sacrifice around them. But that was a temporal thing. Did you know that David himself in the psalms, in Psalm 50 or 51, depending upon which Bible, even himself says that God doesn't ultimately desire goats and bulls. So there's a temporal significance to those. And the entire book of Hebrews lines up with what David says in Psalm 50, 51 about it being a type fulfillment.

[B]

Okay, so I'm actually genuinely curious about this. So we see in the New Testament again there's a major emphasis on the kingdom of heaven. This major emphasis on is not there in the Old Testament. At what point would you say a religious framework is not or is not a continuation but a usurpation of something? It's a changing of the doctrine. When would you say that that would happen?

[A]

If the world were like a sleep number mattress, everything would adapt for your comfort. Your coffee would never get cold, your flight would always be on time and your mattress would always remain respond to you and your unique sleep needs. Sleep number mattresses are designed to respond to your body and shift with your changing life, helping you fall asleep faster and stay asleep longer. To experience a whole new world of comfort, visit a Sleep number store or go to sleepnumber.com sleep number to a Good life Sleep if the world were like a Sleep number mattress, everything would adapt for your comfort. Your coffee would never get cold, your flight would always be on time and your mattress would always respond to you and your unique sleep needs. Sleep number mattresses are designed to respond to your body and shift with your changing life, helping you fall asleep faster and stay asleep longer. To experience a whole new world of comfort, visit a Sleep number store or go to sleepnumber.com sleep number to a

[C]

good life Sleep well Again, this is based on a equivocation, because something might be able to change or be abrogated even in your own religion, which doesn't count as a different religion. You think Allah abrogated things, but you don't think that necessitates a different religion. So I don't see why that would be a problem for me in my religion to say that when the Messiah comes, if he instituted temporal laws, he decides that those are then fulfilled. Because our view is that Jesus gave the Torah, Jesus gave the law at Mount Sinai. So, for example, circumcision, it didn't exist before Abraham. But you were talking about works of the law and how to be justified. The whole reason Paul says that men are justified by faith apart from the works of law is that he's using examples of people like Abraham who were righteous before they were circumcised. It's not saying that you don't do any works, because in Galatians 5 he says you have to be doing work, faith working through love to be saved. So the works of the law are not any works. They are specific Judaic temporal commands that even the Jews didn't think. For all the religions, you're taking this over the hills.

[D]

If you're able to move your mic just a little bit closer.

[C]

Jay okay, I'm just giving you the explanation.

[B]

So, okay, my position is this, that if a new message that comes later on is emphasizing something that is hardly even emphasized in the old one, that is a transformation. That is not a continuation. That's a transformation. Because then you could actually say that about anything. I could take a Guru Granth Sahib, or I could take a Bhagavad Gita and I could staple it to the end of a Bible and say, that's a continuation, but at what point does it become a usurpation? I would say when the emphasis changes.

[C]

I understand your argument, but the problem is that you're misunderstanding how christological the Old Testament actually is. Again, for example, for us, Genesis 12, 15, 17, 22, these are all the covenants that God makes with Abraham. For a Jew, that specifically just refers to Judaism. For us, those are literally all about the Messiah. Why? Because the promise says that to the seed of Abraham, this seed will open up the worship of the God of Israel to all of the Gentile nations. So the worship of the God of Israel will be from the sand of the sea. It will be like the sand of the seashore. It will be everywhere. He says all the tribes and nations and tongues of the earth will have members that enter into this covenant. So. So I'm just giving an example of something that you might think is supremely Judaic. The Mosaic. Excuse me, the Abrahamic covenant. And for us, if you read Galatians, it's literally just about Jesus. So the same with the animal sacrifices. Those are all about the kingdom. And I'm not trying to monopolize the time. You can say whatever you want after this. Last thing I want to say is when we say kingdom of God, we actually believe that that is the Divine Liturgy. So if you go to Orthodox Church to the Divine Liturgy, we believe that is. Is the heaven that's now on earth. So the type of the temple and the synagogue is fulfilled in the Divine Liturgy of the Orthodox Church. That's the type fulfillment that is the kingdom. So for us, all of that stuff is literally about the kingdom. So the whole Old Testament is about the kingdom.

[B]

Okay, I'm actually genuinely curious about that. So the Orthodox believe Jesus has already returned because the kingdom is here.

[C]

No, no, we believe that there's two returns. I'm. Excuse me, there's two comings.

[B]

Jesus comes back twice.

[C]

Right. And this is why for the. For example, there's so many passages that speak of a suffering Messiah in the Old Testament. For example, in Isaiah, the famous Isaiah 53, 54, you know, Jesus coming humiliation on a donkey in Zechariah. For us, those are his humiliation. And then the kingdom is where he reigns when he ascended. So for us, in the Book of Acts, he ascended at the beginning of the Book of Acts. And as we said, Psalm 110, sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool. David says, since David died, it has to be about the Son of David. David wasn't a priest after the order of Melchizedek. The only person who could fit that bill is the Messiah. So he reigns in his church, which is his kingdom. I'll give you one last passage. Daniel 2 says that when the Messiah is born, this is the famous messianic prophecy. Even according to the Jews, the empire, the kingdom under which that Messiah is born, will eventually permeate and convert that entire kingdom to his kingdom. So this is a famous messianic. Even Jews think this is a messianic passage. We're saying when Jesus came under the Romans, that empire eventually got permeated and became the tree that all the birds nest in. That's one of the images of the kingdom in the Old Testament, but there's many.

[B]

Okay, so I just, I didn't get a clear answer for this. So I'm just saying. And I know the orthodox, they don't believe in faith alone, but I believe Paul absolutely taught that. So. So this faith alone, salvific kingdom of heaven, sell your possessions, chase after the kingdom of heaven. This belief system, do you think that it is a native and indigenous thing to the Old Testament? And if so, where do you think?

[C]

Yeah, the orthodox position is that anybody who is ever saved, whether it's Noah, Abraham, Moses, they all are saved because they put faith in the coming Messiah. The only difference is that we look back and we, we already know who he is. They were looking forward to his coming, and certainly we would say that Isaiah.

[B]

Could you repeat that? Sorry. So they looked forward to his coming and that was the how they received salvation.

[C]

They look forward to him, but they actually directly knew him. For example, we believe in God appearing in many of these theophanies. And since God the Father according to Jesus in John 5 is never seen, no one has seen God the Father at any time. He says to the Pharisees, then the only appearing or face that could have been seen is the Son of God, who was there eating with Abraham, who was there eating with Moses on top of the mountain in Exodus. And thus the theophanies. These are just one of dozens of examples. We believe that's actually Jesus. And you can see this, for example, Justin Martyr when he debates with trifle the Jew in 150. He's making all these same arguments that we make that the Old Testament itself teaches that it was actually Jesus that was present in all these situations because it's in the Gospel of John many times over.

[B]

Okay, so bringing us back to the

[C]

point, I want What I'm saying is they're saved because they knew Jesus.

[B]

Okay, I missed that part in the Old Testament that these men were saved because they anticipated the coming of the

[C]

Messiah, but they also at times ate with him and knew him personally.

[B]

Yeah, I, I missed that part in the Old Testament.

[C]

They're all over the Old Testament.

[B]

Yeah, no, that, that me having faith in the future Messiah, that this would be what earns me my salvation. I missed that part. I understand that Christians argue for theophanies and whatnot, but that that is the program of salvation.

[C]

Again, I missed that. So in Romans 4, for example, Paul does not choose Abraham's point of salvation to be when he's first called in Genesis 12. In Romans 4, Paul cites Genesis 15, which is three chapters after Abraham has already been doing good works. So I'm giving you example of where Paul doesn't teach justification by faith alone because if he did teach that he should have and ought to have chosen Genesis 12, but he didn't. He chose Genesis 15, which shows that Paul and Orthodox, we don't conceive of salvation as a single one point in time. There's a conversion, there's a lifelong process of salvation, and ultimately salvation is persevering into the end in the resurrection. That's salvation.

[B]

No, I understand the Orthodox, they have a theology, but I don't see it as a native to the entire Bible. I don't see any theology as native to the entire Bible. Contradicts.

[C]

Well, I mean, you can assert that, but I mean, your own Quran says all of these same stories or many of these same stories are legit. So I don't understand how you think that this is a mysterious, unknown desert religion and like giant portions of this are in the first 10 surahs.

[B]

Okay, let me, let me clarify my position on the Quran with respect to the previous scriptures. So what we have today in the Bible, I don't believe these are scriptures. So no, basically. Okay, it's kind of like not. These aren't photographs of the original revelations that were given to Moses and Jesus. It's not a photograph of it. It's like a drawing of a drawing of a drawing with various creative artistic interpretation put in throughout the process. So I'll just. So finishing my analogy. So if I were to draw a drawing of a drawing of a drawing of you, it would bear some analogy, perhaps a strong analogy to Jay Dyer, but it would be inaccurate in finer details. That is what we have today with the Bible. Absolutely.

[C]

Okay, so, but when the Quran repeats many of these Stories correctly within just for example, the first 10 surahs. How would that line up with your claim that this religion makes no sense? It's unclear. It doesn't speak to all man. It's almost indecipherable.

[B]

If I took a photograph of you and there were certain aspects that matched the drawing of a drawing of a drawing of you, doesn't mean everything in that drawing is accurate, but it just means that that specific part lined up.

[C]

How do you know what parts are the ones that are legit and what aren't? What epistemic criteria?

[B]

The Quran is the guardian. It says it's the Muhammad.

[C]

Okay, but how do you know that the Quran contains the correct perfect number of the suras?

[B]

Right. So in.

[A]

Right.

[B]

Right now we don't see anywhere. Show me in any single Islamic institution the existing of a different amount of surahs that the Qura the Muslims are reciting. It doesn't.

[C]

Well, the fact that that's an argument from silence. I'm just asking you what epistemic principle you have that you know. And you and your argument. Is that an argument from silence? Because no Islamic institutes have said.

[B]

No, no, I'm, I'm saying this. It doesn't require any faith in any historian. Just look.

[C]

Then why are you citing them?

[B]

No, I'm not cite. Actually, God is my witness. I didn't read no historian. These are all arguments. I came up with that. No, you. Why are you citing historians? You just said why are you citing historians? Now you're just telling me that you can tell I have. Don't read historian. So you're just trying to do this little psychological debate.

[C]

Okay, yeah.

[B]

You're trying to abandon it now you were trying to do this.

[C]

No, I'm gonna go back to the argument because you're not answering.

[B]

We can go back to the argument. That doesn't matter. My point is this. You can look around and see the state of the Bible today. Protestants have different Catholics.

[C]

But then you just look around and

[B]

see the Bible independently. You don't, you don't have to assume.

[D]

You understand.

[C]

I can.

[B]

You understand?

[C]

If you can make a fallacy, I can too. So can I just say, just look around at the scholarship of the atheists.

[B]

No, no, no, no, no, no. I'm saying, okay, prove, prove my observation wrong here. When I look at every single Islam,

[C]

I have to prove your observation wrong. How is that?

[B]

Contradict it. Contradict it. Show me where I'm seeing things that are wrong.

[C]

Okay, you understand that in a debate I can do that exact Same thing.

[B]

Do it. No problem. The floor is yours.

[C]

Okay. Prove my arguments wrong, Prove my observations wrong.

[B]

That's what I'm showing you right now. The Quran.

[C]

I'm showing you why that's not an argument.

[B]

The Quran has a unique level of preservation.

[C]

Us starting the position in question doesn't make it true.

[B]

Okay, can you show me any Islamic sect around that reads a different register of surahs and verses than the one that is in mass circulation?

[C]

Well, how about all of the Islamic sects that are 99 of Islam that say you're completely a heretic?

[B]

That is a total. We can deal with that. I can deal with why I reject Hadith afterwards. But can you answer?

[C]

I'm saying that they all, they all say that you don't even have a correct understanding of the Quran without the Hadith.

[B]

I can deal with that. No problem. But I want to answer this point point directly. Can you show me any Qurans in circulation today that has a different surah and verse?

[C]

But that's an argument from silence. Because if, if Uthman burned all of the variants and there are no more variants, that just assumes the thing in question that there are no variants. Because today there's not any Islamic scholars that doubt it, by the way. I think there probably are Islamic scholars that doubt it because there's probably liberal Islamic scholars. So again, what's the measure that tells me the Islamic scholar that I look to. Because you believe that 99% of the Islamic scholars who are not Quran only are also liberal or some form of corrupted heretic. Why should I listen to them?

[B]

I believe that the corruptions and the distortions that have entered in the religion of Islam is not Quranic. It comes from Hadith and Tafsir.

[C]

I know.

[B]

That's the problem.

[C]

So why would you listen to them telling you about the Quran?

[B]

I'm not listening to them.

[C]

I literally just cited the Islamic scholars.

[B]

No, no, no.

[C]

What do you mean?

[B]

This is an independent empirical observation. Go to a Shia mosque, go to a Sunni mosque, go to a Quran, go to anywhere.

[C]

Why am I supposed to listen to heretics?

[B]

You. I'm saying there is no other Quran that exists.

[C]

But why am I supposed to believe that's true? Based on your epistemic principle, you don't

[B]

have to listen to heretics. Go. Go find a different Quran.

[C]

But you're telling me to listen to heretics.

[B]

Go find a different Quran. Can you can.

[C]

You're not understanding the argument.

[B]

I can. I can bring for you multiple Bibles with multiple different books. Can you do the same with Quran.

[C]

You're not under. You're not telling me what the epistemic principle is to know that you just keep asserting the position. And I'm saying that doesn't tell me how I know that that's correct. Because this group agrees with me. Well, I could find all kinds of people that agree with me. And that's just an appeal to consensus or an appeal to authority fallacy.

[B]

I genuinely don't think you're understanding my point.

[C]

How is it not an appeal to consensus slash authority fallacy?

[B]

I'm saying that you can see this with your eyes. I don't need to appeal.

[C]

You think that reality is reality, bro.

[B]

When she said I don't dance now, I make money move. That was a mission statement for a whole new generation.

[A]

Respect. But that's not the Mount Rushmore. Listen, Cash rules everything around me. When that line dropped, it changed the whole hustle. The greatest tracks are never finished. They're just debated forever. Introducing the Sprite living track list. 50 tracks that shape the culture from six decades of hip hop. Scan the QR code on a Sprite or Sprite zero sugar to see the full breakdown. Obey your thirst, Sprite. If the world were like a sleep number mattress, everything would adapt for your comfort. Your coffee would never get cold, your flight would always be on time and your mattress would always respond to you and your unique sleep needs. Sleep number mattresses are designed to respond to your body and shift with your changing life, helping you fall asleep faster and stay asleep longer. To experience a whole new world of comfort, visit a sleep number store or go to sleepnumber.com sleep number to a

[C]

good life sleep part 2 my listen, listen, listen, listen.

[B]

My my.

[C]

Alti jump us Muhammad Alti jump.

[B]

My argument is not because the Sunnis or this scholar said it, therefore it's true. I'm saying I cannot find a different Quran out there.

[C]

That's an argument from silence, which is a fallacy.

[B]

Explain to me exactly how it's a fasci. Where did my logic misstep?

[C]

There's a fallacy called the argument from silence, which is if I were to say I can't find any orthodox Christians that actually really refute my position. So orthodox Christianity is true. God's not you by that.

[B]

Well, I'm challenging you to prove me wrong. Find me.

[C]

I don't have to because it's a bad argument.

[B]

So the point is this. What I'm trying to highlight here is that somehow, some way, history and God who guides history, we believe God is in Control of all things. God, who guided history, has afforded the Quran a unique level of preservation. Not afforded.

[C]

Did he not preserve the Torah?

[B]

No.

[C]

So Allah's words can be changed?

[B]

No. Read the verse. Bring up the exact verse to me. We'll go through it together.

[C]

Well, I mean, did Jesus have a

[B]

Torah that he looked to God, taught him the Torah?

[C]

Which is what? Not the Torah that he had?

[B]

God.

[C]

Is it what he had in his hands?

[B]

God taught the Torah.

[C]

Is it what he had in his hands?

[B]

He came to confirm. When the Quran talks about previous scriptures, it is not affirming any anonymous texts that are in your possession today, like your. What's called the Torah today, like your gospels, it is affirming a legacy of prophets. So the Quran is. Hey, you guys had Jesus.

[C]

What Torah did Jesus have?

[B]

Jesus had. There was probably a different Torah at the time of the day.

[C]

But you don't know.

[B]

Probably.

[C]

Yeah. Yeah, probably. So you don't know. So another argument.

[B]

So, so, so can I.

[C]

Can I say I make more. I'm gonna make arguments.

[B]

Can I say one thing? I listen.

[C]

There is no scholars who refuted me. Show me one.

[B]

No, I don't.

[C]

Show me one.

[B]

I don't.

[C]

Show me a scholar. That's repeated. There's not one.

[B]

So I don't have answers to every single last historian.

[C]

You haven't given any answers?

[D]

No.

[B]

No. So.

[C]

So try one.

[B]

This is true. This is true. A lot of what we accept about ancient history undoubtedly is a matter of faith. It is. For example. For example, you believe. You believe in the story of Samson. You know, I'm just giving an example here. You believe in the story of Samson, that there was a guy who slayed a thousand philistines with a donkey's jawbone. Right. You believe in that story? Yeah. Do you believe in that because you empirically verified it yourself, or you accept the testimony of scripture based on faith?

[C]

Well, I actually have arguments that back up why I believe it. And they're not arguments based on fallacies of argument of silence, right?

[B]

No. So you. You believe that? Did you empirically go verify from silence? Explain that to me.

[C]

What do you even say again?

[B]

You're acting. You're like this punkish thing, like argument from silence. Argument from silence fallacy.

[C]

How much. I'm sorry, if you're not aware of that, but that's actually the way a debate works, is that when people make bad chess moves, you call it out and you say you can't make that move. So it's not my fault that you didn't learn the fallacies before coming to the debate. That's on you. But again, what's the argument here?

[B]

That.

[C]

Because I just see it.

[B]

No, I'm trying to establish a point with you. That much of what we accept on ancient history is a matter of faith. But we need to see why we have faith in a specific testimony or the other. Why do we have faith in the Bible or the Quran or a specific scholar or whatever we start impugning and.

[C]

Right. And I keep looking for the principle that you have that tells you when you know something is false religious teaching. When you know that it's true religious teaching. And I gave you many examples and I even said he's going to do a everything in the Bible or excuse me, everything in the Quran is self authenticating and self interpreting. So I challenge the epistemic principle. And your solutions that you've offered are all not answers to the epistemic question. How do I know what is the correct interpretation of the Quran versus the false? When we look at the Old Testament for example, and you said, well, you just look with your eyes. But people can misinterpret. Because you believe that 99 of the Islamic world has misinterpreted the Quran. Correct?

[B]

Yeah, they have misinterpreted through their Hadith based lens. The Quran is very clear and easy to understand.

[C]

Then why? Why has all of Islam been so corrupted for so, so many years?

[B]

Hadith. Hadith.

[C]

But why did they fall into this corruption when the Quran was so clear? Because most people, were they not looking with their eyes?

[B]

Because most people, they're misguided. Most people don't follow God. Most people have a disease in their heart.

[C]

That's just telling me your position. I'm asking you why am I supposed to accept that?

[B]

Except what?

[C]

Why should I accept your 1% sect of Islam when all the rest of the scholars don't? Even the very scholars you appeal to think that you even have the basics.

[B]

So basically why should you accept my Quran alone? Hadith teeth rejection.

[C]

Yeah. What's the good argument for your epistemic?

[B]

Chapter 45, verse 6. Go right there.

[C]

The Quran is the thing in question. So I want to know what the right measure is to know that I'm supposed to accept that you have the correct number. You asked what's the correct number of suras.

[B]

You asked me the correct number of suras is the only number of suras that I've seen in existence around the world. 114.

[C]

But why? Because there's not a different position. How do I know that Usman chose the correct number of surahs.

[B]

I'm saying the course of history has shown the Quran to clearly.

[C]

How do I know that saying course of history because it happened is therefore true?

[B]

So because it happened, prove my statement.

[C]

You're asking me to prove.

[B]

Pull up a Quran.

[C]

That's an argument from silence. Don't you.

[B]

Because you can.

[C]

That's a fallacy.

[B]

Because I can bring you three different Bibles with three different numbers of.

[C]

You understand you cannot do that with the Quran. You understand that your answer. If you can say that in a debate, I can just say the exact same thing back to you and it doesn't work. That's why it's a fallacy. It's an argument from silence.

[B]

Reformulate that argument back to me so I can.

[C]

That's like me saying prove my entire position is false. You can't.

[B]

No, I'm not saying that.

[C]

That's literally what you said. You just said. No, you said prove it.

[B]

Wrong. No. Okay, I'm saying this. It's like saying. Okay, this is an empirical thing. If there were. I'm challenging that if there were another Quran out there, we could be able to bring it forth.

[C]

It doesn't matter if there's another Quran out there. Because if I reject the entire history of Islamic preservation narrative or even if I agree that it's preserved, error can be preserved. That doesn't tell me that it is the right number of surahs because it exists with these number of surahs. Thus, you're just begging the question.

[B]

Okay, so do you not find it at the very least interesting that the Quran which is the fake book, it's not the true word of God that we cannot find any different versions?

[C]

I find the Lord of Rings interesting, but that has nothing to do with others. True.

[B]

So come on.

[C]

Okay, no, that's actually illustrating absurdity of your argument.

[B]

No, no. Is that not something interesting to you? The fake book has been afforded more information than the real book, which I like. Authentic revelation.

[C]

Mystery Science Theater is interesting. But what does that have to do with anything?

[B]

So that's not even. Okay, fine. The fact that the fake book has more preservation. This is not.

[C]

You haven't demonstrated that.

[B]

This is not noteworthy of consideration. You're not arguing in good faith.

[C]

No.

[B]

Not arguing.

[D]

No.

[C]

You're not understanding the episode.

[B]

You're not arguing. You're doing.

[C]

You're doing.

[B]

You're doing this performative thing. You're peacocking.

[C]

Do you understand what an epistemic argument

[B]

you're trying to Have a genuine discussion and get to the heart of the matter. You're not trying to look like you're

[C]

about to do a rap battle, bro.

[B]

I can see that. I can see that.

[C]

Do you know what epistemology is?

[B]

I know about that. What?

[C]

What is it?

[B]

How we justify knowledge. Right.

[C]

So I'm asking you in good faith. I'm just illustrating it with jokes. The answers, why they're not good. I'm trying to figure out what's the epistemic principle that I'm supposed to rely on to know that the correct number of surahs is in the book.

[B]

Find another Quran that has.

[C]

That is not a valid argument and I've explained 10 times why. Do you understand why?

[B]

No, explain it to me. It seems very sensible to me.

[C]

It's an argument from silence. Because the fact that even if it's the case, and I don't even know if it is the case, that all of today's existing Qurans only have that number of surahs, that doesn't tell me that Uthman was correct in his decision.

[B]

Okay, so overall, I'm seeing this again when I look around. I cannot just. So, okay, fine.

[C]

Just saying to look around and it's clear is a really bad argument.

[B]

I can't disprove it. I can't disprove it. I have tried might and main to disprove the veracity and the integrity and I couldn't disprove it.

[C]

This is an argument. Again, the fact that you haven't done your. Your homework or have done your homework has nothing to do with whether that's an argument in a debate. So I'm supposed to accept that the Quran has the correct number of suras because you didn't disprove it?

[B]

Find a different text out there than the one that exists in every. Even Muslims who kill each other, who are fighting each other, they all have the same Quran is different.

[C]

People kill themselves. The wrong. What does it have to do with it?

[B]

This has nothing to do with my point. Is this okay? A text as significant as the Quran, which many people have laid claim to, if there was an ability to edit it, people would have. You know what? Everything else is different in the different Muslim sects. Their interpretation again, another commentary, their hadith. Every text they have is different except for the Quran.

[C]

It's an argument.

[B]

It is a marvel of history. It is unique amongst the world scriptures.

[C]

Again, you can reassert your position 100 times over. None of those things actually get you to epistemic justification for the good reasons I'm supposed to have to accept the Quran so you understand every time you answer and you say, I can't find another example. Well, have you read all of the books?

[B]

Every Quran that I have seen has been the exact same.

[C]

Are you limited in your empirical investigation?

[B]

You want to know what's interesting? You want to know what's interesting? There's one guy in the world who tried to actually edit the number of verses in the Quran. He's an alleged Quran alone or by the name of Rashad Khalifa. He tried to take out two verses of the Quran, the last two verses of chapter nine, and he even included them in his translation. But then he put a little commentary saying they're not from God. But then you know what happened to him? He got stabbed to death in his mosque. That's what happens when that just tells

[C]

me that your religion isn't violent. Yeah. They can't actually argue the position.

[B]

Anybody?

[C]

I'm not sure why that's a story.

[A]

No, that's actually.

[C]

Thank you for arguing.

[B]

No, I'm saying, I'm saying this. Anyone who tries to mess with the Quran is going to get in big trouble. Anyone? Because God's divine protection is over it. But not the Bible. Not the Bible.

[C]

So, I mean, these are strong arguments right here.

[B]

Incredible arguments. Yeah.

[C]

So again, I mean, I just. If you understand what an argument from silence is and why it's a fallacy, the fact that you haven't found another Quran or that there's not another person pushing a Quran and one dude one time got stabbed. I just don't understand why that is a justification for why I ought to accept Quran only ism.

[B]

Okay, I got a question for you then.

[C]

So this is a two quote quiz.

[D]

No.

[A]

No.

[B]

So your argument from silence, you're going to say I'm doing an argument from silence. Do you believe in transgenderism? That men can become women and women can become men?

[C]

No.

[B]

Why?

[A]

If the world were like a sleep number mattress, everything would adapt for your comfort. Your coffee would never get cold. Your flight would always, always be on time. And your mattress would always respond to you and your unique sleep needs. Sleep number mattresses are designed to respond to your body and shift with your changing life, helping you fall asleep faster and stay asleep longer. To experience a whole new world of comfort, visit a sleep number store or go to sleepnumber.com sleep number to a good life sleep.

[B]

When she said, I don't dance now. I make money moves. That was a mission statement for a whole new generation.

[A]

Respect. But that's not the Mount Rushmore. Listen. Cash rules everything around me. When that line dropped, it changed the whole hustle. The greatest tracks are never finished. They're just debated forever. Introducing the sprite living tracklist. 50 tracks that shape the culture from six decades of hip hop. Scan the QR code on a Sprite or Sprite zero sugar to see the full breakdown. Obey your thirst, Sprite.

[B]

Why?

[C]

For many reasons. It's biologically, logically, philosophically, it's all. It's impossible.

[B]

Why? Why is it. By the way, I don't obviously believe in transgenders. I'm just trying to test your logic. I'm just trying to test your logic here. Why?

[C]

Because it's, again, fundamentally impossible.

[B]

How?

[C]

How was it impossible?

[B]

Well, you've never seen a man turn into a woman or a woman turn to a man, right? That's what I would say to somebody. I've never seen that happen.

[C]

Yeah, but you made an argument and

[B]

I could just say, hey, it's an argument for science. It's an argument for science. You never.

[C]

You know, that's not. No, it's. It's a. Two different types of things. So this is an apple orange fallacy, because you're comparing something that is a logical fallacy with something that is literally an empirical observation that you can never know. You can never know.

[B]

I'm literally talking about empirical observations. The empirical observation, the empirical observation a man cannot become a woman and the empirical observation that there is no other 114 surahs. Quran's out there.

[C]

The difference is that it's logically impossible for a man to become a woman. It is not logically impossible to say that because you've never seen a Quran with different surahs, that. That's how you know the Quran has the same correct surahs.

[B]

So by that very same logic, it would not be a sound argument to say, hey, I don't believe men can become women and women can become men, because I've never seen it in my life.

[C]

1.

[B]

I've never seen a single example. Is that a fair argument?

[C]

One is a logical impossibility and the other one is an argument based on empiricism that makes a leap. That is a non sequitur leap. You can't say that the Quran is true because I've never seen a different collection of surahs. It doesn't follow.

[B]

I just want to know, is that a fair argument? Let's. Let's say. Let's say your son. Let's say you had a son. Let's say you Had a son.

[C]

How can you logically demonstrate that because you haven't seen a different Quran with a different list or number of surahs that that tells you that today's Quran is the correct number?

[B]

I see that. This religious scripture is unique. So. Okay, yeah, yeah, right, right.

[C]

All kinds of things, bro.

[B]

I'm unique. Okay?

[C]

I am unique in this world.

[B]

I am a man. No, no. And I am me.

[C]

I understand, bro.

[B]

I understand what you're saying. Okay. I understand what you're saying. Right? So, okay, fine. There's no way for me to, like, empirically prove right now.

[C]

Thank you.

[B]

That a thousand years ago somebody didn't mess with the Quran and somehow it's standardized. I can't prove that. Right, right, right, right, right, right. But the fact that there is no other Quran in circulation today. I have faith in the testimony of the Quran when it says it's preserved because I see evidence of it. You can't prove it. Like you can't prove tomorrow your wife won't cheat on you. You can't prove that somebody's not going to come out of this audience and just jump on the stage and start dancing. You can't prove any of these things, but you can have a reasonable level of faith. Anyways. You can't. You can't prove it. You can't prove any of these things, but you can have a reasonable faith beyond any.

[C]

Is it logically impossible that I could dance on stage?

[B]

I said, somebody from the audience coming

[C]

or anybody, Me, anybody. Is it logical?

[B]

Okay, okay. Let's use a different example. All right? I'm just making up an example on the spot.

[C]

No, I'm just.

[B]

Okay, that's somebody in the audience.

[C]

I'm going with your example.

[B]

Okay, okay. Somebody in the audience is going to come up on the stage and start doing a handstand or do a quadruple back flip. Now, we don't know somebody could come up and do that, but we can have a reasonable level of faith to say that's probably not going to happen. It's the same thing with the Quran thousand years ago. Maybe somebody messed with it. Maybe. Who knows? But I have faith in what it says because I can see there's no different ones in circulation. That's my point.

[C]

Right. But the question was about the epistemic justification for the criteria for what you know is the thing that tells you that the Quran has the correct list of surahs. So when you say that. Well, ultimately, it's just my faith that it's been preserved. You just.

[B]

I Didn't just say that. But okay, go ahead, go ahead. I didn't just say it's my faith. I say I have faith that it wasn't messed up a thousand years ago and some time I didn't know. But that faith is based on a truckload of empirical evidence.

[C]

But you're missing the point, which is that empirical evidence and data by its very nature is limited, so it can only get you so far in discussions. And the question that I'm asking you is more of a fundamental sort of paradigm kind of question.

[B]

Epistemological. Yeah.

[C]

So, okay, so I'm asking what's the epistemic criteria? And if you appeal to empirical systems, sense data, again, you're back in the loop because this is a question that's about the principle itself.

[A]

I see.

[B]

Okay. So you and I fundamentally have a different epistemology. Yes. I believe that so long as I am not drunk or I am not high, or that my senses are generally reliable for determining and intuiting the world around me. Do you share that epistemological assumption with me or no?

[C]

I do believe that the senses are generally reliable, but they don't function to prove these types of abstract sort of paradigm level questions. By the very nature of the question,

[B]

you can't prove abstract level, paradigm level questions. At some point when you're talking about these types of broad things, did something happen thousands and thousands of years ago? Did somebody mess with the Quran and then it ended up getting standard? You, nobody can prove or disprove you

[C]

just, that's your assumption.

[B]

You're assuming that at the end of day, the, the day.

[C]

How do you, how do you know that? You choose.

[B]

Okay, well show it to me.

[C]

Well, I mean that gets into transcendental argumentation and presuppositional argumentation, but that's a different type of topic than what we're debating. But again, my point in the opening statement, I already said he's going to appeal to the text as being self evident and clear. And I'm going to call that into question because it's. None of the text is going to tell me how he knows that the correct number of surahs was put into the Quran in the days of Uthman. And so ultimately his justification was. Well, I have faith in that. And there's some evidences that there's no Qurans that exist without other numbers of sorrows. But if Uthman limited what would go into it in his day, then what does that, that, that doesn't prove anything except the thing in question, right?

[B]

Hadith rumors don't mean anything to me at all. Hadith rumors don't mean anything to me.

[C]

But that's even worse for you because how do you know? How do you. So if it's not the Uthman story, then how do you know you have the right. Because that's the earliest record of what decades later.

[B]

The course of history has shown an incredible level.

[C]

That's an effective fallacy.

[B]

That's it.

[C]

To just appeal to a generic course

[B]

of history, to appeal to history is

[C]

a fallacy to prove an epistemic position. Yes. How so how can you saying history proves my epistemic principle.

[B]

I'm saying that history shows really good evidence to believe the Quran is preserved.

[C]

How does history prove the epistemic principle?

[B]

Kind of going into circles. We're kind of going in circles here. Now, do you have any questions for me that you want to ask?

[C]

That'd be like saying that. I mean, again, would you accept if I said the Bible just is true because I have faith in it and there's evidences and my epistemic principle is the Bible itself Because it's clear you

[B]

would not accept that there are independent ways of verifying whether that faith is well placed or not.

[C]

And I'm challenging.

[B]

So I would. Okay, I would ask that question to you.

[D]

I.

[B]

Why do you genuinely believe the Bible is the word of God? I actually want to know.

[C]

There's many reasons. There are philosophical reasons, there are textual reasons, historical reasons. All of those things can play into my worldview. But I didn't hinge my argument on a empirical justification for a non empirical principle.

[B]

Okay, so how did.

[C]

Oh, let me ask. So this does history. When you say I look at history in the course of history, how does history tell you that you have the correct epistemic principle for the Quran? That's the disconnect.

[B]

How does history tell me I have the correct epistemic principle for the Quran? I read the Quran, the Quran says, okay, no thank you, not done my sentence. I read the Quran and then it says it's preserved. I don't just accept it based on that. It says it's preserved. Then I look around. Can I dispute that in any way? No, I can't. But every other text I can.

[C]

So that's very interesting to repeat the very things that we called into question 40 minutes ago.

[B]

Okay, so we're not going to get anywhere with this point. I want to genuinely. Okay, what is when I say, why do you believe the Bible is the word of God? What's the first Thing that came to your mind, like the big one. I want to know

[C]

the first argument because we're at the point of sort of philosophical questions would be transcendental argumentation. So I think the Trinity is proven by the transcendental argument, but I didn't want to go in that because it's not on the topic.

[B]

Okay, well, I mean, could you run me through it quickly?

[C]

Sure. I mean, as we've illustrated in this discussion so far, I think that when you have a, an empirical based approach to theology and religion, you get sort of stuck in epistemic types of questions that beg the question when you try to explain why people ought to believe your view of this or that religious text. So I'm just playing a human skeptic and using Hume's arguments against why those things don't count as justification. I'm not a human, but I'm saying that it's a paradigm level question because you haven't questioned your assumptions about why you believe the Quran. All I'm doing is giving arguments. And by the way, you notice you used liberal textual scholars about the Bible. So hopefully you don't have a problem with me using liberal atheist skeptic arguments about.

[B]

No, no, no. Let me make it clear. I have not read these liberal scholars. I'm not interested in using them because I understand your own. I don't.

[C]

Your opening statement was full of those types.

[B]

I don't, I don't agree with.

[C]

So you did get it from chat gbd because you didn't read them?

[B]

No, no, I got it from my own experience with reading the Bible.

[C]

So your own experience taught you the liberal hierarchical arguments?

[B]

Years and years. I don't hang it based on the authority of these liberal scholars. I don't agree with what these Sunnis do. They don't argue in good faith when they're going to quote a liberal scholar on his authority and then the same guys will say things against the Quran. I'm saying from independent verification. I read the Bible cover to cover and I had no clear idea what the message. What is the Bible even about?

[C]

That's just.

[B]

What is it even about?

[C]

It's another fallacy, a psychological report that it wasn't clear to you. So that sounds like more of a you problem than an actual argument.

[B]

Okay, really? So I read the Quran.

[C]

It doesn't make sense.

[B]

Okay.

[C]

Would you accept me saying that?

[B]

Right. Okay. What about it didn't make sense to you? I genuinely want to know. No, I can tell you exactly what didn't make sense to me.

[C]

Illustrating why? That's not a good argument, man.

[B]

Yeah, listen, I. Okay, not that you guys are gonna care anyways, but I wanted to be a Christian for a very long time. I really, really did. Hundred percent. I take my Lord as a witness. But I couldn't because I cannot face God on the day of judgment. I read the Bible and I read the Quran and I'm like, I cannot deny this as scripture very clearly. This is continuing the religion of Moses and Jesus because ultimately this Islamic and Christian debate, it boils down to who was the inspired writer? Was it Muhammad or was it Paul?

[C]

That's really.

[B]

What if it's Paul, then it's Christian.

[C]

Well, but Muhammad didn't write. Right?

[B]

You know what I mean.

[C]

Well, no, I don't. Because. Because this is actually a problem for your. Let me actually write anything because he's illiterate, but he wrote this down, right?

[B]

You're picking up my word. The epistles. The epistle.

[C]

It's a debate. You would pick up my words.

[B]

Okay, the epistle. The epistles are the Quran. Which texts are divinely revealed and inspired. That's really what the debate boils down to. If the epistles are divinely real, Christians are correct. If the Quran is divinely revealed, then epistles are wrong, Christians are wrong. And now actually I genuinely want to know, on what basis do you accept the epistles of Paul as a continuation of the religion of Moses and Jesus and not the Quran?

[A]

If the world were like a sleep number mattress, everything would adapt for your comfort. Your coffee would never get cold, your flight would always be on time and your mattress would always respond to you and your unique sleep needs. Sleep number mattresses are designed to respond to your body and shift with your changing life, helping you fall asleep faster and stay asleep longer. To experience a whole new world of comfort, visit a sleep number store or go to sleepnumber.com sleep number to a good life sleep. If the world were like a sleep number mattress, everything would adapt for your comfort. Your coffee would never get cold, your flight would always be on time and your mattress would always respond to you and your unique sleep needs. Sleep number mattresses are designed to respond to your body and shift with your changing life, helping you fall asleep faster and stay asleep longer. To experience a whole new world of comfort, visit a sleep number store or go to sleepnumber.com sleep number to a good life sleep.

[C]

I mean, I think they. It's the only way to interpret the religion of the Old Testament is with the fulfillment of Christianity. So I see it through the lens just like. And you understand this concept with the lens because you critique the Hadith people. Right.

[D]

Okay.

[C]

You believe the Hadith people misinterpret the Quran through the lens of Hadith.

[B]

Yes.

[C]

So in our position, we admit that, yes, we have a lens of the New Testament and of, you know, the teaching of the church as the lens of. For the Old Testament. But we don't think that's inconsistent because everybody has a lens that they're going to read all the text through. So just saying that we have this lens or. Or highlighting it is not. It's.

[B]

It's.

[C]

Everybody has the same thing. That's what I'm hitting at.

[B]

You took it over the hills and far away. I want to know on what basis do you accept the Epistles as a continuation of the religion of Moses?

[C]

I told you because my presuppositional commitments as an orthodox Christian are to read the Old and New Testament in a harmonious way. Not just because I chose it, but because I was eventually convinced of it over many years of reading both of those.

[B]

Okay, so. But I mean, anybody can do that with anything. You can take two texts.

[C]

Well, that's. Force isn't really relevant to the debate.

[B]

Force, force, harmony on anything. So, okay, when I.

[C]

Well, no, I didn't say when harmony.

[B]

When disharmony exists. You can pretend that harmony is there, but disharmony exists. You're gonna have to either choose one or the other. That's what Christians do. They mainly side with the Gospel of John and Paul in neglect the rest of the old.

[C]

You assume that that's not the Orthodox. No, it not. That's not the orthodox approach to the text. We don't take only Paul and the Gospels or something like that. We constantly always read all of the Bible. In fact, in the Orthodox liturgy, you are cycling through the entire biblical text throughout the liturgical year. So completely not true. I don't know. And what would that have to do with anything anyway, in terms of proving which one's correct or not? You haven't demonstrated when I responded to all of your challenges, that there is actually this discontinuity. Because I give you many examples showing continuity. So you have an assumption. Assumption of discontinuity. And every time I give a proof of continuity, you're just simply going to say, no, no, no, I don't believe that. You're just, you know, forcing it onto the text or whatever. That's why the debate is actually a commitment to two different paradigms. That's why I'm critiquing the assumption of your paradigm, which I'm happy to answer again. Messianic prophecies. There's dozens and dozens and dozens of Messianic prophecies. I'll give you an example. The Jews themselves, when they go to all of the Messianic passages that they believe are about the Messiah. Now, they obviously don't think it's Jesus, but they admit that most of these passages that orthodox Christians also believe are Messianic prophecies. We agree on many of them being Messianic. We don't agree who it is. But what I'm saying is that that shows us that there is a widespread bunch of Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament. Isaiah, as an example, has dozens of instances. I would say maybe, I'm just guessing, maybe 24, a couple dozen instances of passages and chapters that discuss that when the Messiah comes, one of those signs would be Gentile nations converting to the God of Israel. The reason that's a powerful example of a prophetic demonstration is because in Isaiah's day, when Israelites were being carried into Babylonian captivity, it would have seemed impossible to Israelites, to Jews, to think, how will all of these wicked Gentiles all around us, how would they ever convert to worshiping Yahweh? That's insane. And in the tradition of both Jews and Christians, I think it's the Jewish tradition as well. Isaiah was killed for this and for other things he said. Like in Isaiah 6, where he says he saw Yahweh because the Jews were saying, apparently you can't do that. Yet it's still in Isaiah 6. We think that's about Christ. But regardless, this is an example of many, many, many instances that one of the signs of the Messiah would be Gentiles converting and worshiping the God of Yahweh or the God Yahweh, the God of Israelites. Lo and behold, in the first, second, third, fourth century, the Roman Empire begins to be permeated with. And for the last 2000 years, millions and millions and millions of Gentiles throughout the world have worshiped and called upon the name of the God of Israel.

[B]

Okay, so I don't necessarily have a problem with Messianic prophecies. I believe that Jesus is the Messiah. But, okay, what I'm trying to get at here is this. I've seen a lot of these Messianic prophecies. I'm not very convinced. I think Christians misapply them. But either way, my point is this. When we're talking about this Son of God, God man being tortured and killed for my sins and this blood washing away my sins. Is this a native religion to the Old Testament?

[C]

Is that, Is it a native religion to the Old Testament?

[B]

Is it native and indigenous to the Old Testament? And if not, sure.

[C]

For example.

[B]

Yeah, okay, yeah, sorry, go ahead.

[C]

For example, if you go back to Abraham, in Genesis, we read that Abraham built an altar and called upon the name of Yahweh. When we get to Moses, we read that Moses instituted a temple with an altar to call upon Yahweh. We are told later on that there will be a time when there will be an altar. This is what Isaiah says in one of his prophecies, set up in Egypt and Syria and Egypt and Israel will all have an altar where they call upon Yahweh. We read later on in Isaiah, towards the end of it that there will be Gentile priests calling upon Yahweh. But this would mystify and blow the minds of the Jews at that time. Because how could there be a Gentile priest, right? But for believing Jews, they understood and knew that when the Messiah comes, there will be an opening up of the covenant and we will begin to see the Syrians and the Egyptians and the enemies of God's people. And this happens throughout the Roman Empire in the first three, four, five, six centuries of Christianity. They build altars and they begin to worship Yahweh in the type of Eucharistic worship that Jesus describes in the Last Supper. So those are examples of the continuation. The Eucharist is the fulfillment of those blood sacrifices. It puts an end to all of those because we are participating in the worship of God and in his own uncreated energies in our perspective. So I'm just giving another example of how in Isaiah you have predictions of altars and priests amongst Gentiles which would again be crazy to many of the Old Testament unbelieving Jews. They would think that's insane, that's not possible. And yet when the Messiah comes, even if you reject it, you have, for example, in the Gospel of John, when I'm raised up, all nations will look to me. Mary says in her Magnificat, the prophecy, she says, all generations will call me blessed. Even the most liberal scholar that dates that Gospel of Luke very late. You still have to admit that's a pretty crazy prophecy. How would they know with this little tiny sect of Judaism splitting off of it? How would they know that all generations would call Mary the Theotokos, the Mother of God? That's, that's. Those are examples of Things that are not generic messianic prophecies, they're hyper specific, that have been fulfilled in multiple generations of the Roman Empire.

[B]

Okay, so the orthodox position is that Jesus dying on the cross for our sins, that this is a ultimate continuation and fulfilling of the Old Testament rites of sacrifice.

[C]

Correct.

[B]

Okay, so now can you show me anywhere? I have a hard time accepting that. And the reason for that is, can you show me anywhere in the Old Testament where a sacrifice was done? Okay, so when we go to the Old Testament, sacrifices were done with the priest who washed, who put on the holy garments and he was in the most sanctified state. And then he would take an animal, then he would slay it simply, and then that would be it. Can you show me how this idea of Jesus, pagan Roman savages taking this human and spitting on him, torturing him, flaying him, that this is at all a continuation of the Old Testament model of holy sacrifice? How in the world is that?

[C]

Because of all the prophecies that he would die on a tree, that he would be humiliated, that he would undergo death. Isaiah 53, I mean the suffering servant passages that. For example, the Jews. Let's give an example of Jews. Jews believe in two different Messiahs. They believe because of the Talmud, right? Because there are these passages that speak of Messiah undergoing suffering and death. And there's also passages of a, of a reigning, you know, conquering Messiah. So Talmudic Jews have the idea of Messiah Ben Joseph and Messiah been David. That's their way to explain around the passages. That seems to be a problem with, on the one hand, Messiah has all of these death, burial, resurrection motifs. Let me give an example of the book of Psalms. Many, many times throughout the Psalms, David describes this life, persecution, death, descent into Hades and then resurrection motif. It's in dozens of the Psalms. Right. The New Testament sets the pattern for us. This is our paradigm for interpreting those Psalms because of the new many places, for example, where Paul and Jesus cite those psalms about Jesus, those are predictions of the life, death, burial, resurrection and ascension of Christ. Again, Psalm 110 is a great example. It's the most cited psalm in the New Testament. So point being, Jesus is not just a conquering, you know, Judaic king like they wanted in terms of the Zealots at the time of Christ. They wanted the Davidic kingdom to be set up, overthrow the Roman, you know, dominance that they had. Jesus came and said, that's for later. But for right now, many things have to be fulfilled that have not yet been fulfilled, such as all of these dozens of passages back to Genesis 12, 15, 17, 22, with Abraham of all of the nations being opened up to the covenant to come in. That's what Luke 21 says. Jesus says, you will see all the Gentiles coming in. And he says in Matthew 21:43, he says, the Jews, the original sons of the kingdom, will be tossed out because they rejected me. This is the whole parable of the landowner. So Jesus is the servant who's rejected, but he's also the Messiah because it's a suffering servant and a messiah. It's both of those things. So the Romans unknowingly fulfilled the prophecies by crucifying him, and then he resurrects to destroy their power. And that's why within three centuries, how was Rome destroyed? Not through wars and swords like the zealots wanted. Rome was Destroyed as Daniel2 predicted, by becoming the kingdom of the Messiah. Becoming orthodox Christians.

[B]

Okay, so you can't point to me any passage in the Old Testament where a sacrifice which is honored by Yahweh is carried out by the hands of pagans.

[A]

If the world were like a sleep number mattress, everything would adapt for your comfort. Your coffee would never get cold, your flight would always be on time, and your mattress would always respond to you and your unique sleep needs. Sleep number mattresses are designed to respond to your body and shift with your changing life, helping you fall asleep faster and stay asleep longer. To experience a whole new world of comfort, visit a sleep number store or go to sleepnumber.com sleep number to a good life sleep.

[D]

Hear that?

[C]

That's now crispy and McCrispy strips meeting creamy Caesar sauce sounds extra crispy. Caesar sauce at McDonald's for a limited time.

[B]

Because last time I checked, only priests do it. Holy and sanctified priests.

[C]

The death of the Messiah was according to the gospel of John, both the Romans and the Jews. So Caiaphas, the high priest, is assigned the blame for handing Jesus over. But there's nothing about the predictions of the Messiah that say that he can't be crucified by the Romans.

[B]

No, no. I'm saying one quick thing.

[D]

I'm going to jump in really quick is Jay, if you can pull your mic just slightly closer, then will eat if you can pull your mic just slightly away from your mouth and that should balance you guys out.

[B]

All right, cool. No problem. Yeah. No, so what I'm saying is that

[C]

I get what you're saying. Go ahead.

[B]

Yeah. So the original point you made Jesus sacrifice is pursuant to the Old Testament model, but I've never seen an Old Testament sacrifice model of pagans carrying it out and shedding the blood with their hands.

[C]

Right, so the, the reason for that is that Jesus is not a priest after the Levitical priesthood. Jesus is a priest according to the Melchizedekian priesthood. So if you read Genesis 15:16, 14:50, 16, you'll hear, you'll read about the story of Melchizedek, you'll read about Abraham tithing till Melchizedek. The reason this matters, and this is why Psalm 110 says thou art a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek, is because Christ's priesthood is superior to the Aaronic priesthood. So it is not the Levitical priesthood. We do think that there are types in the Levitical priesthood, but it doesn't mean that every single thing that Jesus does will be identical to every single thing that a Levitical high priest did.

[B]

Okay, so I just want to be clear. You really think this Son of God bleeding on the cross, that this is a faithful continuation of the religion of Moses?

[C]

All of the religion of Moses is about the Son of God bleeding on the cross? Absolutely. Okay, for example, the Passover. In the Passover story, the Jews take an undefiled perfect lamb. None of his bones are broken. They sacrifice that and they eat that in a family covenantal meal. For us, Jesus, according to the Gospel of John, very clearly is that Passover, his death happens at Passover. And just like the feast of the Passover is succeeded by the feast of Pentecost, which is the in gathering or the feast of weeks. So likewise, Jesus sends the Holy Spirit at the feast of Pentecost in the Book of Acts, exactly as the Jewish feasts line up. So I'm saying even the Jewish feasts themselves, the Jewish liturgical cycle points to the very things that we're talking about.

[B]

Okay, so engorging yourself on human flesh and blood is a feature of the Old Testament.

[C]

We are not cannibals. So we're not eating a dead dude. We are eating the deified flesh.

[B]

Flesh, even memorial.

[C]

The God man.

[B]

Is it literal to you? Is it memorial to you?

[C]

It's a real. It's a real presence.

[B]

Okay, that's features in the Old Testament religion. A real presence of a man being engorged.

[C]

No, the Old Testament is a type. So the sacraments of the Old Testament are foreshadowing. They do not contain the grace that the New Testament sacraments possess. So for example, in the Old Testament, when you mentioned going to a priest, what you would do, depending upon the type of sacrifice in the book of Leviticus is if you had committed this or this sin, you would bring a certain animal to be sacrificed, it would be cooked, and you would sometimes share the meal with the priest. So all of those things, this is why we believe Jesus is doing in the upper room, the Lord's Supper. It's the Passover for us. It's the true passover. If you read. I know you don't agree with it, but I'm just saying if you read the Book of Hebrews, the entirety of Paul's Epistle, we think it's Paul's Epistle by tradition. The book of Hebrews is about this whole point, how all of the priesthood, whether it's the Levitical priests, the Melchizedekian priesthood, the animal sacrifices, the Levitical washings, circumcision. In our religion, we believe that, for example, circumcision is a type of baptism. And it makes sense for us that if Jesus is going to open the covenant up to the Gentiles and if women and men will be baptized to be converted, this is a type of a Levitical washing that is the fulfillment of all the Old Testament Levitical washing. So again, every one of the things that we, that we refer to in terms of the Mosaic ceremonies, whether it's the washings or whether it's the temple, all of those things are explained many, many times over in the New Testament to be pointing to the work of Christ on the cross, not just the death, but also the resurrection to bring an end to death. That was the point of the death penalt. Resurrection was to give the church and his people power over death for the resurrection.

[B]

Okay, I want to know. It kind of brings it back to the beginning. At what point does a religious framework stop being a continuation and start being a usurpation of the message?

[C]

I think if you were to look at examples of, you know, Islam is a great example because it's a copy and paste of Christianity that came before it.

[B]

No, no. I mean, okay, so what would be the criteria through which you would determine, hey, this religious framework is not a continuation but a usurpation. What frame, what criteria? The criteria I'm putting forth is, the emphasis is completely.

[C]

I got you. I would say if there are fundamental contradictions, which I think is what you were trying to go for, for in sort of the opening line of argumentation, if there were fundamental contradictions, then yes, it would be a different religion. For example, Allah has no sons. Jesus many times over calls God his Father, so Jesus is not worshiping Allah. So that would be a fundamental contradiction.

[B]

Wait, no, but you're implying that your Bible is the ultimate standard. The Quran says that Jesus never claimed to be the Son of God. Now we have this obviously in your corrupt Bible today in your gospels.

[C]

And what did the Quran, but what were the principles that you knew? Which one's corrupt and not.

[B]

When it talks about the Injeel, the Quran, this is not an opinion, this is a fact. It talks about that which was given directly to Jesus, period. What we have today.

[C]

And you think that's a book that came down like a scroll?

[B]

It was some kind of revelation that was given to Jesus.

[C]

How do you know that that's what happened? Because before that you understand that everybody. I know you don't agree with it, but would you agree that from the time of say the, you know, first century up until Muhammad, do you, would you admit that the Christian and Jewish world, even though they disagree with it, that's not what they understood? Injeel?

[B]

To me, no, I wouldn't agree with that.

[C]

Okay, can you give an example of anybody prior to Muhammad. Hold on. Can you give an example of anybody prior to Muhammad who thought that the Injeel is a scroll that floated down to Jesus?

[B]

Not a scroll necessarily. I'm saying, whatever it is, I'll use your own New Testament as an example.

[C]

What's up fools? Main event Jay USO here from the wwe. When it's just me between matches, it's day one ish. And that means it's Chumba time. With hundreds of casino style games and new titles arriving weekly, there's always something fresh to try at Chumba Casino. The daily boost make it even more fun and had me bout to get em all during my downtime. Ready for a fun way to chill out and enjoy a few minutes for yourself?

[B]

Let's Chomba. No purchase necessary. VGW Group Voidware prohibited by law. CTS and C's 21+ sponsored by Chumba Casino.

[C]

Meet Keith Loving dad, Board game champ Bus driving pro. I drive 65,000 miles in my bus each year. If people knew what I know, lives could be saved.

[A]

Like how?

[C]

There are some things I simply and can't see on my route. The other day a car tried to sneak past me and ends up right in my blind spot. I turn slowly so accident avoided. But no car should be in the blind spot for 40,000pound bus. It's our roads. It's our safety.

[B]

Visit www.sharetheroadsafely.gov so predominantly in the New Testament with Jesus, what is referred to as the gospel, what he's preaching, that's the gospel, this divine heavenly. So we won't disagree on that. Right. The divine heavenly message that was given to Jesus, that was the gospel, right?

[C]

Yeah. That's according to what we believe our

[B]

paradigm and according to how the Quran describes it. There was a gospel given to Jesus in the New Testament. There's a gospel that Jesus is preaching

[C]

but you believe that it is a specific thing that came down to Christ. And I'm asking you that's not what we believe at all. And I'm saying can you give an example of anybody prior to Muhammad who believed anything like what you're saying? The injeel is just, just one person.

[B]

I'm not saying whether it's textual or not. God knows best.

[C]

I'm saying are there any examples of anybody who had your view prior to Muhammad? Because this seems very fundamental, your New Testament. I'm saying where does the New Testament describe it as a book or a revelation to Jesus?

[B]

The gospel is where a revelation to Jesus.

[C]

No it's not. In fact you thought, you thought Jesus baptism was when he was a baby. That's not Jesus baptism.

[B]

The divine, remember that. The divine.

[C]

I don't think you know the Bible at all. So where, where does the Bible describe it as a revelation to Jesus? The divine message, where is this described?

[B]

It refers to what Jesus is preaching as the Gospel.

[C]

Give me an example of the gospel or the angel is a revelation to Jesus. Because that's what you said.

[B]

Let's pull it up right now. I mean you don't believe that. You don't believe that the Bible, the New Testament.

[C]

Where does the New Testament teach that? That the gospel or the angel is a revelation to Jesus? This would be impossible in our theology.

[B]

Was Jesus preaching the gospel?

[C]

Where does it say it was a revelation to Jesus? That was your claim.

[B]

I'm getting you to that point. Was Jesus preaching the gospel or not?

[C]

Well now wait a minute. Now you're going to start changing what

[B]

you're avoiding answering the question. No.

[C]

You specifically answering the question?

[B]

No.

[C]

You specifically said it's a revelation to Jesus.

[B]

Did you say that it was a revelation given to Jesus? Yes.

[C]

Okay, show me that.

[B]

I'm getting you to that point.

[C]

No, I want you. How are we asking me? You want me to prove your argument?

[B]

I'm gonna force you to admit it through using your own New Testament.

[C]

It's a claim about what the New Testament teaches. How are you going to force me to admit it. Where is the any statement that it's a revelation to Jesus?

[B]

I'm talking to a Christian right now.

[C]

Just show me in the text.

[B]

So you can't even direct.

[C]

So you can't do it.

[B]

I'll pull it up right now.

[C]

Please do.

[B]

Okay, I'm just saying. Did Jesus pull it up? Dude, Did Jesus preach the gospel?

[C]

Where does the New Testament say that it's a revelation to Jesus? Pull it up. The entire New Testament teaches that Jesus is the revelation. Jesus is omniscient. In our theology, there are no new facts that Jesus learned. Paul says the gospel is a revelation of Jesus Christ. There is no idea that it's a revelation to Jesus Christ.

[D]

Got about a minute and a half.

[C]

You notice, by the way, I didn't Google in the midst of any of the questioning.

[B]

No, I just knock. I'm literally getting you to you. I'm. Dude, I'm literally getting you to the point right here.

[C]

No, you're getting me to get away from the point. That nailed you down.

[B]

No, dude. Did Jesus.

[C]

Where is this verse?

[B]

Dude, just show one the kingdom of heaven. That's the gospel. That's the message.

[C]

What does that have to do with this?

[B]

That's the gospel, bro.

[C]

Bro, I'm sorry. You messed up. It's not my fault.

[B]

That's the gospel.

[C]

None of this answers the objection.

[B]

You're a Christian. Did Jesus preach the gospel?

[C]

Where is the verse that says that

[B]

you don't believe Jesus preached the gospel?

[C]

Where is the verse that says it's a revelation to Jesus?

[B]

The kingdom of heaven. That is the. That is divine revelation. That.

[C]

Where does it say it's a revelation to Jesus? Even if I granted that, where did

[B]

he learn about the kingdom of heaven? Did he make that stuff up? No, it's divine revelation. It's what God had revealed to him.

[C]

Where does it say that? Because that's your claim.

[B]

You don't believe the kingdom of heaven is divine revelation?

[C]

I don't believe that any new facts came to Jesus because he's divine. The revelation is of him, not to him. Do you understand those prepositions?

[B]

So Jesus didn't preach the gospel.

[C]

You understand the difference between of and to.

[B]

Jesus didn't preach the gospel?

[C]

That is not answering the objection.

[B]

Unbelievable.

[C]

I'm sorry that you messed up, dude.

[B]

Unbelievable, dude. Literally, the kingdom of heaven that Jesus preached. That was the gospel. And that was.

[C]

Is there a difference between oven too?

[B]

He was. Explain to me. Yeah, they're different prepositions.

[C]

Paul says the gospel is a revelation of. Of Jesus Christ. You said it was a revelation to Jesus Christ because that's your whole NGL argument that it was given.

[A]

Right.

[B]

And in the, in the New Testament

[C]

this means that your Quran is false because it assumes that Jesus was not omniscient. And I'm saying from our branches point, there is no revelation to Jesus because he knew all things.

[B]

Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Is that the gospel?

[D]

We've run out of time. I'm going to give you the last word. We'll lead. If it's a quick and pithy response, go ahead.

[B]

Okay. Simply repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. Is that the gospel?

[C]

Where does that prove your claim?

[B]

Because that's in the New Testament. I just quoted that right now your claim. Repent for the.

[C]

Specifically said the revelation is to Jesus Christ.

[B]

Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. That is the holy and divine revelation in the message, the repentance in the kingdom of heaven. I'm talking, I'm talking to a Christian who couldn't even affirm that Jesus is preaching the gospel. That's the first time I've ever had that in my life.

[D]

We do have to jump into the Q and A, but want to say thank you for our speakers. It's been an amazing open dialogue. Very exciting.

[B]

It's

[D]

a stellar opening debate so far and I'm sure it'll get even better as we do go into the Q and A. We'll have you line up on the left side in this inner aisle and also want to say a huge thank you to our sponsors, including Uncensored America Main First Project, Revival of the Anointed and Arch Apologetics. Check out their links in the description box. We are grateful that they believe in fair debates. And then if you come up right here next to me, I'll actually hold the mic if you can do me a favor. Want to remind you it's fair. You're not going to like every speaker, but we do ask that you respect every speaker. As these guys going on stage and doing these debates, it takes a lot of guts. And so we really do appreciate them being here. So we do want to show them the proper amount of respect. And then also one question at a time. No, two questions. Ready for you.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

Okay. You said there was only one Quran in the world. Well, the Hof's version in Surah 37:12 says you wonder while they mock. But in the Halaf version it says

[C]

I wonder why they mock.

[B]

So which is the correct version? Right. So right now you're confusing variations in pronunciation with different Qurans. That's what you're confusing right now. So actually, your. Your criticism is not specifically engineered against the Quran. Your criticism is simply of ancient Semitic texts in general. Ancient Semitic texts were written in consonantal form, which does leave a little bit of room on how you pronounce the vowels. So right now, you're not criticizing the Quran. You're literally criticizing just ancient texts. And, okay, can you find me one verse in the Quran of these different pronunciations of the Quran that gives you a significant theological difference? You can't. You can't. And, you know, I want to say one more thing quickly. This is interesting. This is the Christian's response to when Muslims point out all the different Bibles that are out there. Oh, well, you got variations in pronunciation instead of. It was said to them. It was they. It was told to them these little, Little different things. And this is your response to the different Bibles that we bring up. Thank you for proving the Quran is preserved. That's the best you got?

[D]

Like, have you come right up here just to the. So you're in the camera view.

[B]

So you proclaim the Quran is true.

[D]

Is that correct?

[B]

Okay, so in the Quran in 4:1:19 Quran, it says that Satan will tempt you and that Allah, Allah's creation, you would not be corrupted. So are your tattoos a corruption of yourself? So, yeah, I don't promote tattoos at all. I was younger when I got those, and I pray that God forgives me for those. But, yeah, I definitely don't promote them. Yeah.

[C]

Thank you.

[D]

Thank you.

[B]

Christ is king.

[D]

Right up here to sit here in the camera view.

[B]

Given that burning is a progressive destruction,

[D]

destroying.

[C]

And Tommy Robinson has burned Qurans before, destroying surah after surah, progressively, why is he rich rather than stabbed to death in a mosque?

[B]

So are you. I just want to know. You're asking, did, like, why didn't anything bad happen to Tommy Robbins? Could you clarify, like, the previous case

[C]

where you told the story of the person who tried to remove the two surahs?

[B]

I think it was in chapter nine.

[C]

And you ended it with, he was stabbed to death in a mosque. If the destruction of the surahs from these Qurans and burning being the destruction of them in this case, why is Tommy Robinson very successful rather after he's burned these crowns rather than had this divine retribution to him?

[B]

Okay, so firstly, I would respond to that. He wasn't changing the Quran. He was desecrating and blaspheming the Quran. Still no less of a crime. So just wait and see what God does to him. That's all I can say.

[C]

Can I also say you're judging, you're

[B]

judging a four quarter game based on the first and second quarter.

[C]

I say real quick that if you did come, if you're going to leave after the Q and A, I will be at the book table. If you guys want to get copies of Esther Hollywood signs, you can get books for me 100%.

[D]

And that table is just out here right when you walk out. And James will give you the next question.

[A]

Yes.

[C]

So you had mentioned how one of your arguments for the Quran being valid was that it comes from one author and then that one of your arguments against the Bible is that it has multiple authors. So I'm assuming, is it correct that you're depending all of your spiritual understanding from one witness and who wrote the Quran to be that one witness?

[B]

Okay. No, no. So what I'm saying, I'm not saying that the Quran, well, it does come from one author. My point is this. The perspective of the Quran is not jumbled. It's not from Prophet Muhammad, it's from God. But all throughout, from the beginning to the end, you can read it. You don't have to take my word for it. You see, it's God speaking to people directly, directly in the evocative. I'm saying it doesn't have a jarring narrative.

[C]

Do we know who recorded it? In your view, without hadith, in your

[B]

view, do we know who recorded the Quran? All the Quran says is it was inscribed by faithful, pious and righteous scribes.

[C]

Okay, but you appealed to broad history, so I'm curious from broad history who recorded it?

[B]

No, we don't know. We don't know the names of these scribes in the Quran.

[C]

No, but wasn't that an argument against the Bible authors?

[B]

What?

[C]

That we don't know the authors?

[B]

No, I'm, I'm. No, no, no, no, I'm, I'm. There's a difference. There's a difference. I'm saying there's a dis, there's a disconnect with how Christian.

[C]

Christian is your argument, dude.

[B]

No, no. Christians present the first five books as something that comes from Moses and we can prove that it doesn't. Who wrote down the Quran? It doesn't change the author of it though. Nobody ever presented it as anything other

[C]

than that we don't know the authors. So that's.

[B]

We don't know. We don't know who inscribed it. But God is said that we don't

[C]

Know who inscribed it with the Gospels?

[B]

No, I'm saying I don't know who authored the Old Testament.

[C]

And specifically, authoring is inscribing.

[B]

Authoring is different. I can say something. I can say a book, and then somebody else can write it down faithfully or not.

[C]

So we don't know. And we don't know.

[B]

I don't know who originated the Old Testament, but I know who originated the Quran. It's speaking as God.

[C]

But you just said a minute ago you don't know who.

[B]

I don't know who wrote it down, copied and propagated.

[C]

Right.

[B]

No, I don't know exactly who copied and propagated.

[C]

That argument doesn't work against the Bible. Thank you.

[B]

I'm not. I'm literally saying I don't know where the Old Testament originated from. I can tell you where the Quran originated from, but not who propagated it.

[D]

We're gonna go to the next question.

[B]

Okay. So you present the New Testament as teaching faith alone, theology.

[D]

But St. Paul, who you appeal to,

[B]

says, work out your salvation with fear and trembling. And all of the churches that trace

[D]

the apostles, the Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox,

[C]

the Oriental Orthodox, they all agree faith alone is wrong.

[D]

And the Protestants who promote it came 1500 years later. So why do you think something that the New Testament teaches, something that most

[C]

Christians throughout history have firmly rejected?

[B]

Protestants were more faithful to what Paul actually said. Romans 3:28. Therefore, we conclude that a man is justified by faith without deeds of the law. Now, to him that worketh is a reward not reckoned of grace. This is just very clear.

[C]

How do you demonstrate that they're more faithful without just assuming the thing in question?

[B]

Read Paul. He talks about faith a little

[C]

bit.

[B]

I. I believe that you can just read it.

[C]

And all of my arguments are there.

[B]

I believe you can read things and understand them. I believe that you can see and witness things, and that is sufficient enough. But you guys don't believe in that. Or at least you don't.

[D]

Jay, go to the next question.

[C]

I was curious on your position on the canon of Scripture. It seemed that, you know, that you think that Christians have this issue where we don't know what books belong in our Bible. If we don't know that, what exactly are you critiquing? I just want to understand your position a little better.

[B]

Okay, so basically, the main critique that I'm saying is that the Bible is an open concept. It is not as stable of a text as the Quran. That's why we see not just fringe, but massive groups with different Bibles all over the world, but we don't see that with the Quran. That's mainly my point.

[C]

Criticize that if we don't know what it is.

[B]

Elaborate the question for me.

[C]

Well, I mean, if we can't agree on what books are a part of the actual Bible, what is this thing that you're calling the Bible? How can you critique that?

[B]

So in, even in my presentation, I, I made it clear. The Bible, I'm just using that colloquially because that's the word we use to not jar the conversation. But the Bible itself doesn't exist. It's an open concept in the first place. So, yeah, I don't accept that.

[C]

Yeah, critique something that doesn't exist.

[B]

That's, that's the whole point that I'm critiquing this concept of the Bible, that I'm going to take this arbitrary, arbitrary collection of books and make it seem like it's teaching one thing. That's the whole concept I'm, I'm going against, which is the Christian religion. They got to treat the whole thing as one. Right.

[C]

But notice there were no verses that say the revelation was to Jesus in the New Testament.

[B]

Kingdom of heaven. Jesus preached the kingdom of heaven. Repent for the kingdom of heaven.

[C]

Does that say that it's a revelation to Jesus?

[B]

That's a revelation, man.

[C]

Jesus is preaching that. That doesn't mean it's a revelation to him.

[B]

God revealed it.

[C]

That's what he taught it. But where is that?

[B]

You don't believe the kingdom of heaven is knowledge from God. Revelation from God.

[C]

Jesus is a divine person. He does not learn new facts. He doesn't get new data.

[B]

Right, you're just, you're just assuming you're true.

[C]

No, but I'm saying that. That's why I'm arguing that. So I need you to show me where he got this revelation from God.

[D]

I'll give you the last word, we'll lead, and then we'll go to the next person.

[B]

Yeah, if you simply believe the repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand, that is the Gospel Jesus was preaching.

[C]

Where does it say that Jesus got that revelation from God?

[B]

It doesn't say that in the New Testament.

[C]

So that was the whole question. So it doesn't say.

[B]

So we're fundamentally sitting on different assumptions. You're sitting on the New Testament.

[C]

But you are. 20 minutes. You said for 20 minutes. It's in the New Testament. It's not. Thank you for admitting it's not.

[D]

Well, if you have a response, I want to give you one Otherwise we'll go to the.

[B]

Repeat that point again. Repeat that point.

[C]

You said for the last 20 minutes that it is in the New Testament and now you've admitted that it's not. Thank you.

[B]

I did not. What? What did I say was in and not in the New Testament?

[C]

Is it a revelation to Jesus? And I'm saying there is no statement anywhere that the gospel was revealed to Jesus. That's the Islamic position. We don't believe that. So I'm needing you to show me where that is. Because you said that's in the New Testament.

[B]

Repent for the kingdom of heaven.

[C]

That is not a revelation to Jesus. That's what he's preaching.

[B]

Yeah, that's what he's preaching. That comes from God.

[C]

He is God. So just saying that he preached that doesn't show me that he learned a new.

[B]

Obviously he's not God. He doesn't know the day or the hour.

[C]

I know you think that, but he

[B]

doesn't know the day or the hour.

[C]

No passage that shows that.

[B]

So if he's a human is a

[C]

revelation that Jesus learned he's not God.

[B]

Because Jesus doesn't know the day of the hour. That means he had this divine.

[C]

Didn't you think?

[B]

Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

[D]

Did you have to transition us?

[C]

Didn't you?

[D]

I do have to do. Just get more questions in. Well, ready for you Apollos?

[C]

Yeah, for sure. Wally. Honestly, your whole case is basically about the Quran being super clear and the

[B]

Old Testament not prophesying Jesus. Then you should be able to clearly show me where Muhammad is prophesied in

[C]

the Torah and Injeel. Oh yeah, that's right. See, at least us Christians have our prophecies today.

[B]

A corrupted Islamic prophecy isn't a clear prophecy.

[D]

Prophecy.

[B]

There's that passage in Deuteronomy. I'm trying to pull it up right now. Let me see here.

[C]

You're talking about the chapter where it says that God is a father to Israel in the exact same chapter.

[B]

Deuteronomy. One moment. Yeah. Yes. Okay, here's the thing.

[C]

There's Deuteronomy 18.

[B]

I don't believe the Old Testament is consistent with itself. There's a scatter shot of prophecies throughout the Old Testament.

[C]

None of it's accurate until I find.

[B]

Find a verse. I have it. Deuteronomy 18. 18.

[C]

Yeah. So does. Is that chapter corrupted because it calls God Father? Is his God Father in that chapter? Is he a father?

[B]

I'm. I'm saying there are all kinds of forecasts. In the Old Testament, various people, ambiguous forecasts which various people try to put in their pocket. Jews try to put it in their pocket for the funny Messiah.

[C]

The funny thing is like the most ambiguous prophecy of Muhammad Muslims try to

[B]

put in their pocket for Muhammad. I don't hang my argumentation on that.

[C]

So it's not a prophecy.

[B]

There's too many vague prophecies in the Old Testament. That's not.

[C]

Is that a prophecy of Muhammad in

[B]

Duran, it could very well be. God knows best.

[C]

But you don't know.

[B]

Yeah, God knows best because I don't hang my hat on the Bible.

[D]

We're going to move to the next question. Jacob, we're ready for you.

[C]

Going back to the argument of silence discussion you two were having earlier, I was wondering why instead of supporting your own claims during this debate, you seem to constantly demand Jesus disprove them for you simply because you didn't know what an argument for silence was. Exactly.

[B]

Explain, explain that to me. So I was simply asking, you know. No, I was, I was simply saying. No, I was simply saying. I was simply saying I've made a statement. The Quran shows a unique level of historical preservation. Can you bring forth anything that even remotely challenges that? Because I can do that for the Bible. But you can't do that for the Quran. Again, that's my whole point.

[C]

Argument from silence.

[B]

Argument from history.

[D]

We're going to go to the next

[B]

argument from empirical observation.

[D]

Next question.

[C]

If your stance is through your own empirical sense data, you have found truth and it's fair to say you only have 0.01% of all known universal sense data. How can you trust any conclusion you have now won't be different from tomorrow when you learn more sense data. Tomorrow or the next day. Or the next day or the next day.

[B]

0.001%. Where did you.

[C]

Yeah, so you only have. Well, how much universal knowledge do you have?

[B]

I don't have universal knowledge. But how are you making any universal claim? But, but I do have knowledge over the things that I see and experience.

[C]

But you can learn something again tomorrow, right?

[B]

So it' what are you trying to get at?

[C]

And you learn new facts tomorrow, right?

[B]

No problem. So if somebody.

[C]

So you can have something to contradict yourself tomorrow.

[D]

Yeah.

[B]

Okay. So somebody brings, if somebody brings forward a sect tomorrow, a large sketch that I happen to not see that bring a different number of surahs and verses in the Quran, I would accept. Yeah, the Quran doesn't have unique preservation, just bring it forward.

[C]

So every day you could have a different opinion A different argument?

[B]

No, because the reality doesn't change. So what you see does not change.

[C]

So reality is reality. Yeah, reality is just reality.

[B]

Yeah, reality is reality.

[C]

Thank you.

[D]

Absolutely.

[C]

Well, Al T jump has joined us.

[D]

We're ready for your question. It can come right up here.

[C]

Hey guys, thanks for the time. I think there's a little confusion over empirical versus observational evidence. So I was curious if Jay could perhaps steel man some of the history of the Quran, because I don't know it. I'm completely blind to the origins of the Quran or who the writers were. You kind of touched on it and you wanted to clarify. Can you clarify what's the best argument you've heard for the history of the Quran?

[A]

I don't know it.

[C]

I'd love to hear more. Well, I gave a statement in the opening statement about the generalization of Uthman, resending the text and choosing Zayd's text. And the argument was, how do we know that that was the correct decision? We're trusting that Uthman made this correct decision. Now, that's from the Hadiths and the tradition that he doesn't adhere to. So from my vantage point, it's an even stronger argument against him to ask him. Well then if you reject that tradition, how do you even know in your case as a Quran only Muslim, that the correct number of surahs is there because you're rejecting the earliest you know, which is decades after the recording. In terms of the Hadiths or maybe a century or two, how do you know that you have the right surahs today? And his whole argument was the course of history.

[B]

Okay, I actually think this deserves clarification. So the Hadith mainstream story that probably all of you have read of how the Quran has been preserved, it was written on leather and donkey bone and scraps. And then eventually Uthman gathered all these scraps together and burn all the copies. That is the Hadith story. That is not what the Quran says. The Quran says specifically it was written on parchment by scribes. So that's the Quran. It calls up a kitab, which means a book. It's not scattered pieces all over. So this Hadith rumor that there was all these pieces in Uthman did that. I don't accept that. Based on the Quran's own statement, wouldn't

[C]

your position require that the Quran itself tell you the correct number of suras?

[B]

No, it wouldn't.

[C]

Why? How do you. So how do you know that the right ones are in there?

[B]

I'm saying again, the same answer that I repeated to you over.

[C]

If the Quran doesn't tell you, how do you know?

[B]

I'm not saying it needs to tell me the exact number of sources.

[C]

Why not? I'm saying why didn't it, why didn't, why didn't Allah make it clear?

[B]

I don't know.

[C]

I don't see anything clear. I, I was it perfectly clear.

[B]

I don't see any other Qurans in circulation.

[C]

That's an argument from silence, as we've seen for two hours.

[B]

That's a strong empirical evidence to the Quran.

[C]

No, it's not. It's a fallacy. A fallacy can't be a strong empirical evidence.

[B]

You're just saying that it's a fallacy. It's not a fallacy, man.

[C]

Guys, arguments from silence are no longer fallacies.

[B]

No, no, no, no.

[C]

Feel free to argue as you list because they're no longer. So you're telling me that it's so you say in logic, it's not a fallacy. That's what you're saying.

[B]

That's not what I'm saying.

[C]

That is what you said.

[B]

Different versions, Upanishads, different versions, Bibles, different versions Quran, same across the board. Pretty interesting. That's what I'm saying.

[C]

But I'm asking you how that tells me that you know the right suras and the fact that, well, there's a bunch of Qurans out here that I've empirically verified have those surahs, but that doesn't, as the guy asked previously, maybe tomorrow another one appears with more or less.

[D]

I have to give Will E the last chance just because he was asked the original question. And then we got to go the next person.

[B]

Okay, just going off of what Jay said or what the gentleman said over there, either. Yeah, yeah. So again, I'm simply saying, okay, in order to believe anything is preserved, whether it's the orthodox faith, whether it's the Bible, the Quran, Bhagavad Gita, there has to be an element of faith. But your faith can be justified based on outside evidence. So the fact that I don't see Qurans in circulation, that's a justification.

[C]

But can error be preserved?

[B]

We do say that again.

[C]

Can error be preserved?

[D]

We do have to go to the next question, guys.

[B]

Error by definition means not preserved.

[C]

Can it be preserved? Sure. Can you believe the Bhagavad Gitas have been preserved? They're error, right?

[B]

An error by definition means something that's distorted. It's not preserved.

[C]

So the Bhagavad Gita. So the Bhagavad Gita hasn't been preserved from ancient times.

[D]

Do have to go to the next question.

[B]

Preserved.

[C]

It has been preserved. It's one of the oldest texts. It's erroneous.

[B]

There's all different versions and circulations amongst.

[C]

This guy thinks that preservation itself is that it's not erroneous.

[D]

We're gonna go to the next question, Daniel.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

So along the lines of arguments of silence, let's say a man is stranded on an island and a Bible washes a store. Does that mean that the Quran doesn't exist and the Bible is the ultimate revelation from God?

[B]

A man is stranded on an island and a Bible washes up on shore.

[D]

Well.

[B]

And he has no access to anything else? Well, the Bible would be the best that he has so far. Right. So I don't know what you're trying to get at with that.

[A]

Well, he can't.

[C]

There's no Quran around him. So he has, like, no perception of a Quran, Tim. It doesn't exist. So, you know, you can't really show him a Quran because there's not one near him.

[B]

You believe you just concocted a fantasy universe where no Qurans or no Bibles. The fact is we live in a world with history, with these texts around. I'm talking about the world as it is, not a hypothetical example of where only a Bible existed. That's just a different universe altogether.

[C]

He didn't say that only the Bible existed. He said that just happens to be a Bible that washes up on shore. How is that a fantasy world?

[B]

Well, depends. In that world, does the Quran exist? Does the Bible. Is it the same world as us?

[C]

Well, you believe the Bible is in error and it has been preserved. Correct with errors.

[B]

It hasn't been preserved.

[C]

Do I have a Bible today that matches up to the first, second or fourth, fifth century?

[B]

You have various competing manuscripts.

[C]

So have the errors been preserved?

[B]

The errors. An error by definition is not preserved. It's a distortion.

[C]

This is so silly. So the Bhagavad Gita is one of the oldest texts that are out there by every scholar. Everybody in this room, I think, unless you're Hindu, believes that. Those are fallacious, idolatrous texts. They teach error. They have been preserved. There is not. This is why it's a fallacy to think that because something has been preserved, it is therefore true.

[B]

Okay. Okay.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

So a factually incorrect statement can be preserved.

[D]

Thank you.

[C]

So error can be preserved. Thank you.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Okay. I thought you're talking about distortion. Okay, that's different. That's no problem. Just a distortion can be preserved. Just. Just because something is preserved doesn't necessarily mean it's true.

[C]

Are the talent. Yeah. Thank you.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

Thank you. Thank you.

[B]

Yeah.

[C]

Argument the entire time about the Quran.

[D]

Thank you.

[B]

I'm. I'm. No, I'm saying that a book which has so much interest in it, like the Bible, like the Quran, the fact that it hasn't been touched is an interesting piece of evidence because everybody wants a piece of it. Every Muslim sect around the world wants the Quran to say their theology and their view, but none of them could get their hands on it, despite the interest. That's my point. If you don't find that interesting. I don't know what to say.

[D]

A certain Alex Orthodoxy asks who's sponsoring this debate. Alex orthodoxy asked for Waleed. You said most Muslims and Muslim institutions accept the list of surahs. So you don't question the list of surahs. Most Muslims and Muslim institutions accept the hadiths too, but you reject the hadiths. You're inconsistent. And Jay showed that tonight. Gigi's ez. What a. Okay, we'll give you a chance to respond to that question slash comment.

[B]

Okay, so basically he's saying that there's. That I'm accepting the Muslim consensus. I'm not accepting the Muslim consensus. I'm saying that again. Just do something to prove me wrong. Bring me a Quran with a different number of surahs and verses. That's all I'm saying.

[C]

But you did argue the Muslim consensus earlier. So what are you talking about?

[B]

What do you mean?

[C]

You argued that the scholars are in consensus about the surahs. And I'm like. But you don't accept that consensus about the hadiths.

[B]

That's not what I'm hanging my hat on. I'm hanging my hat on the fact that I have looked high and low and not found a different.

[C]

But that doesn't prove that. So in other words, you undercut your own argument. That's why it doesn't work.

[B]

How am I undercutting my own argument? I'm literally just pointing to a historical observation.

[C]

Because the choice.

[B]

That's it.

[C]

But that's not all you did. You cited the Islamic scholars to prove one position when all of those Islamic scholars reject your fundamental position.

[B]

I'm saying the distortions that have happened in the Islamic religion are outside of the Quran. And that's. That's evidenced by everything they have is different.

[C]

Why would you.

[B]

Except for the Quran. So one thing they have in common.

[C]

So why would you Interesting. Then why would you listen to them about the surahs? That's the point.

[B]

I'm not listening to them.

[C]

I brought them in as an argument.

[B]

Bring me forward according Quran. That's different, man. That's the challenge.

[C]

What does that have to do with you bringing them in as an argument?

[B]

I'm not bringing them in as an argument.

[C]

Yes you did. You had a whole argument that the scholars admit my position.

[B]

You don't. You don't need to accept what Muslims say to see that the Quran is not been edited around the world for different sex purposes. You don't need to accept what a Muslim says.

[C]

But that's.

[B]

You don't need to accept that.

[C]

Then I don't have to listen to the scholars.

[B]

I literally said you don't need to accept what the scholars say to them.

[C]

Why don't you bring them in?

[B]

It's an independent line of irrelevant argument. It's an independent line of reasoning.

[C]

But I don't have to listen to them. So they're irrelevant in argumentation.

[B]

You don't have to listen to them. Correct.

[C]

Thank you.

[B]

Okay, go ahead. Bring me a Quran.

[C]

You're undercutting your own arguments.

[B]

Bring me a Quran to prove me wrong.

[D]

This is probably our opportunity to wrap up. This has been an amazing debate. Thank you very much, gentlemen. Special thanks to our sponsors, Maine First Project, Revival of the Anointed's Rule, Uncensored America. Patrick O', Neill, Arkapologetics, Yonaguni International Cuisine and SDA. Special thanks to our sponsor, Maine First Project. Fighting to put Mainers first. Check out MaineFirstProject.org Huge thanks to Revival of the Anointed's Rule. Equipping Christians to fight for biblical values through policy victories. Check out revivetheroar.org Special thanks to our sponsor, Uncensored America. Want to host a controversial speaker on your college campus? Start a chapter now on your campus at UncensoredAmerica us huge thanks to our sponsor, Apologetics ARC. Check out their app today by downloading it first. Peter 3:15 says always be ready to give a defense. Huge thank you to our sponsor, Yonaguni International Cuisine of Aguadilla, Puerto Rico. Check them out on your next trip. Special thanks to our sage sponsor sda.