(Disclaimer: This transcript is auto-generated and may contain mistakes.)

Hey everybody, Pastor Steven Anderson here from Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, Arizona. And this video is to respond to the Muslim guy who's pointing out the differences between the Bible and the Quran. The first thing he makes a big deal about is that the Quran doesn't have any contradictions in it. And he says, you know, if you can point out one contradiction, I'll stop being a Muslim right now. We have made the challenge here on video to everybody. Find me one contradiction, I'll leave Islam in front of you. Find me one. But this is filled with contradictions. But the thing that's so dumb about this is that it's not impressive at all that a book written by one person in one place in one language doesn't have any contradictions in it. That's kind of meaningless. The thing about the Bible is that the Bible is written by almost 39 authors over the course of 1600 years in three different languages. And yet it all cohesively combines together with the same message. And the Bible not having contradictions is impressive. But one book written by one guy isn't impressive at all. I mean, he makes a big deal about the fact that, you know, it was written in Arabic. We read it in Arabic, it's transmitted in Arabic. The Quran, what language do you read it in? You yourself? In me, Arabic. Arabic? Yes. What language does the Prophet ﷺ speak? Arabic. What language was the Quran first compiled in? Arabic. What language is the Musafatman that all our Qurans are based off? It's in? Arabic. Well, you know, I've got another book here. This is A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens. Okay, and it doesn't have any contradictions in it. No contradictions in this book right here. And what language was it revealed in, my friend? It was revealed in English. It was revealed in England. You're reading it in English. So what? Who cares? Like, that's not impressive for a guy to write a book that doesn't contradict itself. And the thing about this book is that this is actually a good book. The difference between this and the Quran is that this is actually worth reading. This is actually considered great literature by people of all different backgrounds, whereas no one outside of Islam thinks that the Quran is good literature because it's not even a good book. It's not even an entertaining read. It's, in fact, one of the most boring books that I've ever read in my life. But anyway, another mistake that this guy makes is that, you know, he claims that the New Testament was not originally written in Greek. The original writings were in Aramaic of Jesus' followers, peace be upon him. The oldest scriptures of the Bible today are in Greek, not in Aramaic. The Bible, the original Bible was Aramaic. That is true. And of course, this is just complete and utter nonsense. But a lot of other groups will try to make these claims as well, like a lot of the Judaizers or the Black Hebrew Israelites or something like that. But just stop and think about this, OK? He's claiming that the New Testament was originally written in Aramaic. But yet, why would the Apostle Paul write an epistle to the Thessalonians in Aramaic when Aramaic is not a language that was spoken in Thessalonica? OK, in Thessalonica, they speak Greek, the epistle to the Romans, the epistle to the Colossians, to the Philippians. OK, these are all places in the Greek speaking world. Even though, obviously, the language of the Roman Empire is technically Latin, Greek was actually a more important language in the Roman Empire. Even in Rome itself, Greek was actually the more important language at the time that the New Testament was written. And so, obviously, when you're writing to most excellent Theophilus in the Gospel of Luke and in the Book of Acts, you're not writing to a guy named Theophilus in Aramaic. You're writing to a Greek speaking audience in Greek. So, obviously, these epistles that Paul wrote to Greek speaking cities were written in Greek. Theophilus is being written to in Greek. The Book of Revelation is sent to the seven churches in Asia. OK, and in Asia Minor at that time, it was a Greek speaking place. And I've done a whole sermon on that called Greek, the Language of the New Testament, where I prove that beyond any shadow of a doubt. Six ways to say this is just a dumb, ignorant statement to say, oh, well, the New Testament was originally written in Aramaic. It's nonsense. There's no evidence for it. Christ came unto his own and his own received him not. And so the gospel went mainly to the Gentiles. OK, so the next thing that I want to point out is that he starts going through the supposed contradictions and he brings up the genealogies in Matthew versus Luke, that they're different. So here, Joseph is no longer the son of Jacob. He's the son of Heli. These are obviously two totally different genealogies because they're genealogies of two different people. And this is what this Muslim fails to understand, is that in Matthew, we have the genealogy of Joseph and in Luke, we have the genealogy of Mary. OK, notice the difference in language in Matthew chapter one. It says Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called the Christ. Well, the word begat is actually talking about fathering a child, whereas in Luke chapter three, the wording that's used is that Jesus was as it was supposed, right, as was supposed the son of Joseph. So he's not actually the son of Joseph, who is the son, quote unquote, of Heli and on and on. So if you actually get the context here, in Matthew chapter one, Jesus is being portrayed as the king of the Jews. So therefore, he's the son of David, the son of Abraham, David being the king, Abraham being the father of the Jews. And so Jesus, king of the Jews, we have Joseph's patrilineal descent through Abraham and David. And that is what the significance of that genealogy is. The significance in Luke, it doesn't go back to just David and Abraham. It actually goes all the way back to Adam. Luke chapter three, the genealogy goes back to Adam, because this is about the humanity of Christ. And because it's about the humanity of Christ, it's the genealogy of Mary, since Mary is obviously the human mother of Jesus, his biological actual mother, okay. Whereas in Matthew chapter one, it's the husband of Mary, Jacob. Now the reason that it says Jacob is the son of Heli, who is the son of whoever is because he's the son in law. And so it's not a word like beget, that's actually talking about begetting a child. It's just connecting Joseph with this family because he married into this family. And it's anybody who's actually studied the book of Luke and understands that Jesus portrayed in the book of Luke as the son of man. And it's a very human look at the life of Jesus and humanity of Christ is emphasized, which is why the genealogy goes back to Adam, the first man showing his human lineage on his mother's side. So there's no contradiction there, unless someone just doesn't understand the context and doesn't understand the Bible. The next one that's brought up is just this obscure passage about how, you know, there's a difference between the book of the kings versus the book of the chronicles, where one of them talks about this many valiant men who drew sword, and this one talks about a different number. So now we went from 800,000 to 101,100,000 of Israel, and 500,000 to 470. Obviously, this has to do with the fact that these books are written by different authors at different times. And there is more than one way to count. Okay. So you know, for example, one of them says that they were valiant men who drew sword, another one just says they're men who drew sword, you know, one of them could be referring to different levels of service. You know, for example, you know, if we wanted to know how many troops there are in the US military, there'd be all different ways of counting that, you know, do you count the reserves? Do you count, you know, this branch or that branch to count the National Guard? You know, what about people that are not on active duty? What about people that are retired? So there could be all different ways to count here. So this is a total nothing burger, because of the fact that one of them is counting a different way than the other. It's that simple. So you know, you might include these guys in the group of valiant men who drew sword, and leave them out in this other group, and so forth. Another one that he brings up is about Michal, the daughter of Saul, and about how it says that she had no child till the day of her death. Then he pulls out a place where it talks about her having five children. And he thinks this is a contradiction. Therefore, Michal, the daughter of Saul had no children to the day of her death. Michal, the daughter of Saul. So not like there's a different Michal, because they'll be like, oh, different one, no, no. She had no children till she died. Okay. And he thinks this is a contradiction, again, just because he doesn't know the story. Because in the Bible story, David's wife Michal is given to another man, and she has five children with that other man, okay, then she eventually is given back to King David. And when she's back with King David, they get in this big fight, and he totally tells her off. And when he tells her off, the Bible tells us that as a result of that, she had no child until the day she died. It's saying from that point on. It's not saying that she didn't have any other kids with this other dude previously. It's saying that because of her strife with David, she's not going to have any children until the day that she dies from that point forward. So he's misreading and misunderstanding the text. The whole significance there is that because Michal is of Saul's lineage, and King David is starting a new separate dynasty, God did not want there to be children that were half from Saul's lineage and half from David's lineage. He wanted to replace Saul's kingdom with David's kingdom, not having this hybrid kingdom where it's, you know, Saul's daughter and David having offspring that would sit on the throne. He wanted Saul's line to end, and there's a ton of reasons for that symbolically, because of course, Saul pictures the Old Testament, he pictures Israel, and David pictures the New Testament, he pictures Christianity. And so, you know, there are all kinds of reasons we could go into why he didn't want there to be a product of that union between David and Michal. But again, it's not saying that she never had any kids before that. It's saying she didn't have any kids from that point forward, because the significance is that she didn't have kids with David. Okay, so that was just a misunderstanding on his part. If someone, for example, is not a Muslim, what's the difference between this book and that book? Excellent question. Because this is a general question. Very good question. Let me just give you my difference between the Quran and the Bible, is that the Bible is actually a great book. You know, obviously, it's the Word of God. Obviously, it's absolute truth. And it is, you know, perfect in every way. But the Quran is just a lame, stupid, worthless book that's not even worth reading. That's why nobody reads it unless they're a Muslim and most Muslims haven't even read it. And you know, he brings up how it has to be in Arabic. Well, here's the thing, most Muslims don't speak Arabic, because the greatest number of Muslims in this world are in places like Indonesia, Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh, where they don't even speak Arabic. So whereas the Bible not only do Christians actually read the Bible, even non Christians read the Bible, because the Bible is considered great literature, even by non believers, because it's just an awesome book, any way you look at it. It's actually fun and enjoyable to read, not to mention always being right about every subject. The Quran is worthless as literature. It's boring. It's not enjoyed by anyone outside of Islam. And they claim it's only good in the original Arabic and it's ruined in translation. Well, you know, the difference with the Bible is that the Bible has been translated into all kinds of languages, and it's every bit as good in translation. You know, the Bible is just as good reading it in the King James Version as reading it in the original Greek and Hebrew. And so we don't have to hide behind a foreign language, you know, we don't care whether we're talking to people in Spanish, or German or English or whatever, you know, we can point them to Scripture and see the magnificence of Scripture in any language. And it actually means something that there's no contradiction, because it's written by, you know, almost 30 some authors over the course of 1600 years. I mean, that is actually significant, unlike the Quran, which is just one bozo who screws up every Bible story that he mentions in the Quran, and writes a boring, lame book. And it's such a great and Islam is such a great religion. That's why people have to be forced to believe in it. Okay. I mean, look at all these countries that have 97% Muslim 98% of us, do you really think that 98% of the people in that country just happened to want to be a Muslim? No, it's a it's a religion that's enforced on people. And whenever Muslims are in charge in a country, they don't allow their people to convert away from Islam, they don't allow you to proselyte Muslims and and and expose them to Christianity and preach the gospel to them. And if they leave Islam, they are punished, in many cases, even by death. And so Islam is a satanic, evil perverted religion, started by a guy who is a literal pedophile, Mohammed, who literally married a nine year old, the stinking pervert who's burning in hell right now. And his book just totally sucks. So there's no comparison between it and the Bible. You know, I'd rather read the Bible any day of the week than the boring, stupid, lame, worthless Quran that was written by a pedophile. God bless you. Have a great day.