Assalamu alaikum,
Transcribing sheikh Ahmed Deedat is a great job. If anyone has transcribed any of the other videos of him please email me {
[email protected]}.
I would pay for it.
Here is the transcription of the debate between sheikh Ahmed Deedat and Jimmy Swaggart.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The link to the video that is used for this transcription is:
The link to the transcription is:
http://goo.gl/dxVWEH
The is the whole debate if you want to copy it from here:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deedat’s American tour.
Baton Rouge.
University of Louisiana
Ahmad Deedat, Jimmy Swaggart
Is the Bible God’s word?
(Prelude to the debate:
The Islamic student association of Louisiana sent us an urgent S.O.S for a debate with a reverent jimmy Swaggart. Our Mr. Ahmed Deedat immediately accepted it and it was proposed that each speaker should speak for 60 minutes. The reply from jimmy Swaggart’s ministry was that they wanted each speaker to have 20 minutes only. We were disappointed, as a subject like “Is the Bible God’s Word?” cannot be dealt with fairly in such a short space of time. (As you audience will judge for yourselves in what follows). However, it was settled for 40 minutes each, after our organizers had done some hard bargaining. Surprisingly the viewers will see that at the end of 30 minutes jimmy Swaggart clearly states that he has only covered one third of his case. We do not know what to make of this from a person who in his own words has been preaching to vast audiences for so many years. Our Mr. ached Deedat could have gone on for many more minutes establishing his contention that the bible is not the word of God. If jimmy Swaggart thought that by limiting the time he would be scoring points then you the viewers be the judge…)
Speaker:
Assalamw Alaikum. Peace be upon you. Bismillah Al-Rahman Al-Rahim. In the name of Allah, God, the Most Gracious. Brothers and sisters, and friends. I will give you the format today. Reverend Jimmy Swaggart will begin. He will address us for thirty minutes, and then Brother Ahmad Deedat will speak for forty minutes. And finally, Reverend Jimmy Swaggart will come back to the podium to address us for another ten minutes. We thought this would be fair and just, and they both have agreed. After that time you (the audience) will have your opportunity to raise your questions to these speakers. You will have one hour for questions and answers. Again, the debate “Is the Bible the word of God?” Let us, Muslims and Christians, be on our behavior. May Allah, the Almighty, bless us. I bring you the Reverend Jimmy Swaggart.
Jimmy Swaggart:
Thank you so very very much. I am so very happy to be here tonight, and even though this debate or these addresses are given by our Muslim friends, still, this distinguished scholar from the world of Islam Mr. Ahmad Deedat has come to be with us in our town, and I just met Mr. Deedat this afternoon, just a few minutes I should say this evening. And he is one of the types of gentlemen that you meet and you like him instantly. And I want all of the Christians here in the course, and know that you Muslim would join in with us, and this does not count on my thirty minutes. I want us to give Mr. Deedat a big hand of welcome of friend ship to our city of Baton Rouge. He is a scholar, and I am not a Bible scholar, even though, I am an advert Bible student. He was teasing my wife and I before we came on and said “Islam Allows four wives.” He just corrected me and said “Up to four”. I said “well, Mr. Deedat, Christianity only allows us one, so I had to get the best on the first shot.” I am honored to be here tonight, very pleased to have this opportunity to speak a few words in respect to that which we believe to be the word of Almighty God. I want to say something just before we get started. I have not known too very much about Islam. I do not say that with any type of pride, but I have to be honest. In the last few months, I have studied Islam somewhat that I’ll admit that I have just scratched the surface. Back some, I think it must have been about two years ago now) I made a derogatory statement over television about the Quran. If you were not listening that particular week, I am never gonna tell you what it was. But I apologize to that and I have never done accesses, and I will not do it again, because I feel that it was not the right thing to do. And up to there, I made study (a little bit) as I mentioned a moment ago, and I’ve learned that Muslims are some of the most hospitable people on the face of the earth. And I’ve learned that you are extremely, totally, dedicated and serious about your faith. In other words, it is not just a sham with you, you mean business 4:10. And as our distinguished moderator said a moment ago, “the two most powerful religious influences in the world today are Christianity and Islam.” And I want to say at the outset that every true Christian loves the Muslim people, and I mean that with all of my heart. I have learned to respect the Quran. I have learned to respect the Muslims. I do not believe that Quran is the word of God. I do not believe that Mohammad was God’s prophet. But I do respect your belief, I do respect your faith, I do respect your sincerity.
I am in time again I have, before vast television audiences, I have held up this Bible or one like it, and I am sure most of you have seen me do it. I have do it through television to one hundred forty countries of the world, and I have stated “this is the word of Almighty God,” I have stated that there is no other word of God, and we live, die, sink, or swim on this book. I believe that, and I believe that with all of my heart, But, of course, saying that is really cheap. Those type of words do not really cost that much. And I want to start this out tonight by quoting a passage of scripture that Mr. Deedat and I might disagree somewhat over. But, which is one of the dearest passage in the word of God to the world of Christendom found in (John 3:16 for God so loved the world that He gave his only unique son. That whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting live).
16 for God so loved the word that He gave His only begotten son that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life] [From the Bible in brother Swaggart’s hand] and I want to use that as the basis for this simple statement that I would attempt to make tonight. I would ask us to bow our heads as we ask God’s blessings upon this 9:47 heavenly father. As we come to thee, we ask that you would help all of us here to conduct ourselves as I know we shall by your help and your grace and the way that you would desire that we do so. That every word may be for thy glory. That we may say only what you would desire in the way that you would desire. And I will ask you all in the holy and precious name of Jesus, and everyone said as Christians “Amen and Amen.”
There is no Christian that will say that God wrote the Bible. God didn’t write the Bible. To be frank with you, the only thing that I know of that God did write was the Ten Commandments on stone for Moses. That was kept in the Decalogue in the Arch of the covenant for many, many centuries. But God never wrote the word of God (Bible): man wrote it. The Bible meaning a library of books. Man wrote it as man was (According to Simon Peter) inspired by the Holy Spirit. Peter said, “Holy men adults wrote as they were moved upon, breathed upon by God to write that which came from God.” God used their personalities, he used their character, he used their concentration to him, he even used their idiosyncrasies at times, but he used men so that his great plan for this planet, for all of humanity could be placed in man’s simple words so that man could comprehend it, and man could understand.
There is no book on the face of the earth that has the textual criticism that this book has had 2 sort of feel insignificant when I stand here attempting to speak about the Bible, when I realize that some of the world’s eminent scholars have critically looked at every single text over and over and over again, sparing no expense, no time, no effort ascertain it was what it said it was. I have read the bible many, many many times, and others such as I have read it many more times, much more educated than I could ever be, understanding both Hebrew and Greek. The first passages of the bible were written about 3500 years ago. To my knowledge, it is the oldest book of revelation on the face of the entire earth. We believe that Moses wrote what is called the Pentateuch, those first five books with the exception possibly of the last few verses in Deuteronomy. And he could have even written that because we believe that God (and I know that Islam believes) that God is so powerful that he could have revealed to Moses how he would die, and exactly how his funeral would be conducted. That would have been no problem to God. Whether He wrote it or whether Joshua wrote it, it was written about 3500 years ago. And the entirety of the word of God, as so many of you know, written by forty men over a space and period of time of about sixteen to eighteen hundred years, with the last book being written roughly one hundred years after the death and the resurrection and ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ, written by the Apostle John.
Now, it has been critically looked at more, so as I mention that any book on the face of the earth. It is very interesting to know that Yousuf Ali in his widely used English translation of the Quran twice cites “Sir Fredrick Kiniam as a renowned authority. Kiniam formally the principal curator of the British Museum was one of the world’s greatest authorities on textual criticism of ancient works.” So I want to say that again, “Kiniam was one of the world’s greatest authorities on textual criticism of ancient works.” Concerning the textual reliability of the bible he concluded that, “The Christian can take the whole bible in his hand and say, without fear or hesitation that he holds in his hand the true word of God.”
[Note: Yousuf Al does not quote this in his commentary.]
Concerning the Lord Jesus Christ, Harvard professor Simon Grimley, who together with Supreme Court Justice Joseph Storey, was credited with the rise of the Harvard Law School to its eminent position. He abandoned his agnosticism only after months of careful study and hard searching recognized as America’s greatest authority on legal evidence. Grimley found himself logically forced to conclude after lengthy and critical examination that the literal and historical death, burial and resurrection of Christ as the son of God in payment of our sins was established by undeniable and overwhelming evidence. One of the most brilliant, legal men on the face of the earth. In full agreement, professor Thomas Arnold, who holds or held the chair of modern history at Oxford wrote, he said, “ I have been used for many years to study the history of other times, and to examine the weigh and the evidence of those who had written about them; and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort to the understanding of a fair and inquirer, than the great sign that Gad has given us, that Christ dies and rose again from the dead,” which is proclaimed in the word of God. No one ever said that he would die and come back from the dead as Jesus Christ did.
Now some mention about the many versions of the bible. Really, that is an incorrect statement. There is only one version of the bible. There are many translations. Our scholars argue constantly over various translations. King James Version, as we use that term, as I mentioned incorrectly, is really a translation. [Version incorrect???] Others have been put out, they were critical of the King James, even to the point of laboring incessantly to derive the Old Testament from the Hebrew in which it was written, minus a few verses in Aramaic, and the New Testament in Greek. Translations, some are incorrect, we think. I personally like the King James. [Begotten son: from the King James Version. Unique son: Jimmy Swaggart’s Version]. However, the Quran has been translated as well into many languages. There have been different translations of the Quran in English, in South African, and Deedat can correct me if I am wrong. I think it was 1978, the Quran, one particular translation was released that was argued over, and I think demanded that it be pulled from the market. So, the scholars of the Quran have the same problem trying to pull one language over into another that we have in Christendom. That is not easy. In some languages there is even no word for what you are trying to say. So, it is very, very difficult to at times come up with the perfect word to fit what was written in the ancient Hebrew or the ancient Greek, Corinth Greek. There are some twenty-four thousand manuscripts of the word of God, of the New Testament alone, I should say, that date back before 350 A.D. the original statement, or signature or autograph of the word of God does not exist. As I mentioned, the first one was printed on vellum or clay tablets some 3500 years ago. They perished from overuse and from being put on material that had little lasting quality, at least not that long. But at any rate, some 24000 copies have been made. And scholarship tells us, when it concerns the ancient books of quantity it at least ten copies are in existence, you don’t have to have the original to guarantee the original. And when one considers that there are 24000 copies, and there are some variance in the copies we admit. But, basically the text is not changed. There are some books, a number of them called Apocrypha that has not been included in the Protestant bible. The Catholics included in theirs for reasons of their won. And the reason we do not include those so called books in the bible is simply because we believe they were not inspired. When you start to study them, there are ample reasons to show why they are not inspired. Now, Islam tells us that they believe in Torah and the Injil, but this is not the Torah or the Injil; it is a corrupted text. And if it is a corrupted text, then our faith is vain. If it is a corrupted text, then this thatI hold in my hand is not the word of God. Then, multiplied, multiplicitism, multitudes, millions of Christians have believed in vain, lived in vain and died in vain. They tell us that those original books give by God. -Torah, the Old Testament, Injil, the New Testament- were lost. And I don’t think anyone can tell us where they were lost, when they were lost or how they were lost. I guess I would ask this question: if God gave those two original books - The Torah and the Injil - they were God’s words as Quran says they were, and I think any steadied Muslim would guarantee that the Quran does say that there were books given by God Almighty other than the Quran- the Torah and the Injil. Will have God gave those books, could not God have preserved them. We Christians believe that God is omnipotent. Islam believes that God is omnipotent. And if God is omnipotent, He could have preserved those books without them being lost. Mohammed referred to these books quite a number in the Quran and in other holy books, that were written. I submit to you tonight that the Old Testament that I hold in my hand was the same Old Testament the Jews had in the day and time of Mohammed [the new King James Version]. It has not changed. The Injil or the New Testament that I hold in my hand is the same that the church had in the day and the time of Mohammed. God did preserve it. Our faith is not in vain. I believe tonight that I can prove that it is not in vain. I am positive that all Muslims here know it, but after the death of Mohammed there were quite a number of versions of the Quran that were proverbially floating around. And instructions were given by Muslim doctors of religion that Caliph Othman was to standardize the text. I wonder how many Muslims know that. Not long after Mohammed died. Because there were numerous texts of the Quran in existence. Now we are not studying the Quran tonight, but I just want to through this in. All of these contained a host of variant readings. And during his reign reports were brought to him that in various parts in Syria, Armenia and Iraq Muslims were reciting the Quran in a way different to that in which those in Arabia were reciting it. [Reciting]. Othman immediately called for the manuscript of the Quran, which was in possession of Hafsa, if I pronounce her name correctly, one of the wives of Mohammed, and the daughter of Omar, and ordered Zaid Ibn Thabit and three others to make copies of the text and to correct it wherever necessary. To correct it wherever necessary. When these were complete, we read that Othman took drastic action regarding the other manuscripts of the Quran inexistence. Othman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they have copied in order that all the other Quranic materials whether written or fragmenterial manuscripts or whole copies to be burned. If they were not contradictory, I wonder that why he ordered that they be burned. The only one that has ever ordered the bible to be burned were those that hated it. I wonder if it is explained how many passages in the Quran – and it is a beautiful book. Literarily it is unequal – but how many stories were plagiarized from Jewish fables and folklore. I wonder. I want to look for a moment at the alleged contradictions or variations found in the word of God. And from this I will prove to you that this is the word. (II Samuel: 24:4: The Numbering: And again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, go, number Israel and Judah.) (I Chronicles: 21:1: The Numbering: And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.)
It mentions that God provoked David, II Samuel; Satan provoked David – I Chronicles. It seems like a contradiction of course. Anyone that studies the word of God Knows that God is said to do things often times that he only allows to be done. To be honest, there is evidence in the Quran that the same thing was done by God. I want to say that again: there is no contradiction here. God often times, in the Old Testament especially, is placed in a position of being responsible for something when He only allows it to be done, and in reality He is responsible in effect when you think of that.
(I Kings 4:26 and Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand sand horsemen). It speaks of forty thousand stall: Solomon’s grandeur. (II Chronicles 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horse and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in chariot cities and with the King at Jerusalem). Four thousand stall relating the same incident and we would have to think “isn’t that a contradiction? It is.” [Difference is 36000]. Plain, pure and simple. It relates the same story. There are several incidents in the word of God stating the same identical thing in various different ways where one account will be given and the number will be slightly changed. [Is this a slight change?]. And another account will be given, it will say two thousand, and in second Chronicles or first Chronicles three thousand or whatever. In Saint John 8: 1-11 tells the story that the woman takes adultery. Some say it was not in the original text. It is an imposition. It is corruption. However, Volker, the Jerusalem Syrian, Metanoia, the epioptic and the early Church fathers say that it was in the early manuscript and those manuscripts, they were manuscripts and they contained them.
There is some lettering in the word of God like (II King 19:1-17) and (Isaiah 37: 1-18) that is identical. The chapters are identical word for word. Why? If God gave it, what? He had repeated himself? Why not? Jesus repeated himself at times. In the Quran in (Surah 32:5, As-Sajda) it mentions a thousand years and in (Surah 70:4, Al-Marij) it mentions fifty-thousand years. A day as a thousand years and a day as a fifty-thousand is a contradiction. [Definitely Not! The Quran is speaking divine, allegorical, cosmic language. Unlike the contradictory counting of the physical stalls of horses in the bible.] Here is what I am telling you. If this was a corrupted text, if it was an impostor, if it was fraudulent, don’t you think the frauds would have removed these alleged contradictions from the word of God. Have you ever stopped to think about that? They left it there. Laboriously, stating over the text to make certain they put it exactly as the manuscript said it, translated from the Hebrew and the Greek. So what happened? If it is the word of God, why would those contradictions be there? Well, it is a little bit simple. They didn’t have Xerox copies in those days, they didn’t have computers; they had to copy them by hand. And copyists sometimes mad mistakes. And I think that our brothers in Islam will agree with that. In the genealogy in Matthew and Luke – in Matthew it gives Joseph’s genealogy and in Luke it gives Mary’s genealogy. In the temple in Jerusalem if there had been anything wrong with – I am running out of time, Ok – If there had been anything wrong with genealogy of Christ, they would have pointed out, immediately, but they did not. This book is a book of history. It tells the given account of thousands of details concerning tons and people, and not one spade full of archaeological dirt has ever disproved one single word in it. Millions of tons of dirt and ruins have been removed and not one single archaeological spade has ever disproved one word in it. Secondly, it is a book of prophecy, thousands, and thousands of prophecies, and they come true. I want to close with this one thing. I have got about three minutes. And I only got about 1/3 of what I was trying to say. [We virtually begged Jimmy Swaggart to speak for 60 minutes]. I have never met this man before this evening. I read his little book that he wrote. Mr. Deedat I will admit I was a little bit taken aback. I expected a little more courtesy, and I – I don’t mean our meeting today, I mean the little booklet – and I was grieved and sad. Saturday night I went to our church to pray. I started to pray about this meeting, and I believe that Lord spoke to my heart. You are older than I am, and I will show you the respect that you are aged and your scholarship most definitely deserves. The Lord I believe spoke to my heart and said. (((You tell this distinguished gentleman, there was another man 2000 years ago Saul who didn’t like Christians, and I think you know the story. Saul met Jesus on the road to Damascus as one out of due time, and Jesus asked him “Why do you kick against the goods?”)
(Acts 9:5: And he said, who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutes: it is hard for thee
to kick against the pricks). And I believe our heavenly father asked me to ask you why do you- and I say it with reverence and respect- kick against the greatest prophet, the son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ. He said you tell Mr. Deedat- if it was God that spoke to me – I love him very very much. For I am a God of Love, and tell him if he will his heart to me, I will fill the loneliness and the ache and the void within his heart, and I will give him a love for Muslim people that he has never known before in all of his life. And I will close this little 1/3 finished statement by saying, we love you, and God loves you, and God bless you.
Speaker: Now, brother Ahmed Deedat.
Ahmed Deedat:
Authubillahi mina Al-Shaitan Al-Rajim, Bismillahi Al-Rahman, Al-Rahim. (Al-Baqara: 79) (Then woe to those who write the book with their own hands, and then say “This is from God, to traffic with it for a miserable price! Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.) Sadaqa Allah, Sadaqa Allahu Al-Athim. Mr. r Chairman and brethren, though I wanted to go straight to the subject, the plea that brother Swaggart had made, forces me to make a confession of faith. And that is we Muslims happen to be the only non-Christian faith which makes an article of faith for its followers to believe in Jesus. No Muslim is a Muslim if he does not believe in Jesus. We believe that Jesus Christ was one of the mightiest messengers of God. We believe that he was the Messiah, we believe in his miraculous birth, which many modern Christians reject today. We believe that he gave life to the dead by God’s permission, and he healed those born blind and lepers by God’s permission. We are going together. The only parting of the ways, the only real difference between the Muslim and the Christian is that we say that he is not God the Almighty in human form. He is not God incarnate, and he is not the begotten son of God. Metaphorically, we are all the children of God, the good and the bad. And Jesus would be closer to being the son of God than any of us because he would be more faithful to God than any of us can ever be. From that point of view we would agree that he is more preeminently the son of God. But not as the Christians say that he is the only begotten son of God, begotten not made, not in that sense.
Coming to the subject, the subject is “IS the Bible God’s word?” and brother Swaggart has given us to understand that translations and versions are one and the same thing. We Muslims we have a number of translations of the Quran even into the English language. Different people, Yusuf Ali, Marmaduke Pickhall, Daryabadi and so on. We have these translations by different people. And their translation means a difference in the choice of words. Choice of words in translating a certain phrase from Arabic into English. Choice of words. Versions are quite a different thing. Look, here, I have in my hand this Bible, which brother Swaggart as well as many Protestants do not accept as the word of God. [Holy Bible: Douay Version]. This is the Roman Catholic Version of the Bible, the Douay or Rheims version of the bible. This Bible was 73 books. This is an encyclopedia of 73 books, 7 more books than one which brother Swaggart takes oath om- the King James Version. This is the King James Version. He takes oath by it. In his Evangelist Magazine December, 1985, somebody questioned brother Swaggart about the Bible being the word of God. And he says (word of God (and I refer to the King James Version).) In your the Evangelist, of December 1985. King James Version has thrown out these 7 extra books. Thrown out. In other words, those 7 extra books the Protestants do not accept as the word of God. You use certain technical terms like Apocrypha, which the masses of Christendom do not know what is this Apocrypha. Apocrypha means doubtful, weak, not deserved to be in the book of God, such as the Protestants threw it out as a fabrication. These seven books are thrown out from here. So, this version the Christians Protestants will not accept as the word of God. Am I correct? This is not the word of God. So, we put it aside. I agree with you. What you tell me I accept. You say it is not the word of God; I say I agree with you, and I accept, and I put it aside. Now, you tell me that this is the word of God. The King James Version, with 66 books. This was first published in 1611 by order of his majesty King James, [The Holy Bible: Containing the Old and New Testament, translated out of the original tongues, and the authorized King James Version], whose name is still bears today. Authorized Version, authorized by who? Not God Almighty, by King James. He authorized it. Not God Almighty. Now, it goes back to the ancient manuscripts. What is ancient? He says four to six hundred years after Jesus, is ancient now. We have access to the most ancient manuscripts, and this translation here, a version, the RSV, the Revised Standard Version- goes to the most ancient manuscripts. They date from two to three hundred years after Jesus. So, closer to the source, they ....... authentic any document would be. Closer to the source. This is common sense. If in the time of Jesus this was written, and he had signed it, autographed it, no question asked. This is two figures hundred years after, this is four to six hundred years after. So, they publish this translation published in your own country here, as well as in Britain, Canada. All of them simultaneously produced this bible. And we are told, some tributes are being paid to this translation. It says here, "Church of England Newspaper" says that the finest version which has been produced in the present century. "Time Literary Supplement" Says "A completely fresh translation by scholars of the highest eminence, fullest use of the resources of modern scholarship." "Life and Work" another publication says, (The well-loved characteristics of the Authorized Version combined with a new accuracy of translation). And "The Times" of UK (England says, “The most accurate and close rendering of the original." They-these publishers of this bible- the one who got it about first in 1952 they pay going tributes to the King James Version, and I would be disrespectful or fail in my duty if I didn't read those tributes out to you. Why brother Swaggart loves it and I, myself? In every quotation that I will give I will be quoting from the King James Version. I love the language. Only that now they are doing away with certain terms and expressions. It is not suiting the Christians of the time today. Like for example the quotation my brother Swaggart ended with, where Paul on the Damascus road, the persecutor of the early Christians going to Damascus, and he sees a vision, in which Jesus Christ appears to him and speaks him in the Hebrew language: ( Acts 9:5 Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? Why kickest thyself against the pricks?) This is the exact quotation from the King James Version, which brother Swaggart, I don't know why, he hinges the word goad. I have been asking the Christians what is goad, and nobody knows what is goad. I say why do you change the words. It is pricks, it should be said “pricks.” It should be said "pricks". This is the original language of King James Version. But now he is talking about goads. I haven't heard that word before in my life. It is a new word. It is a new terminology coming out. Changing the words, the translation. I am still not taking exception to that goads. So, they say about the King James Version. The revisers of the Revised Standard Version - thirty-two scholars of the highest eminence backed by fifty cooperating demonstrations - that ("the King James Version has with good reason been termed "the noblest monument of English Prose." Its revisers in 1881 expressed admiration for "its simplicity, its dignity, its power, its happy turns of expression…. The music of its cadences, and the felicities of its rhythm.” It entered as no other book has, into the making of the personal character and the public institutions of the English speaking people. We owe to it an incalculable debt.”) The English speaking people, the Americans, the Canadians, the British and people like me who have adopted English as our mother tongue. I speak English better than any other language, not as good as brother Swaggart, but English happens to be my mother tongue because I dream in English and I swear in English. That makes it my mother tongue, according to the psychologists. Now, it is the tribute. If somebody paid such a tribute to the Quran, I can’t imagine a Muslim scholar bettering it. Now, prepare for the shock! I said prepare for the shock! From these thirty-two scholars of the highest eminence backed by fifty cooperating demonstrations. They say “Yet the King James Version has grave defects and that these defects are so many and so serious as to call for revision of the English translation.” These are not my words. They revised it. And in the revision, the King pin of the Evangelist, the preacher, the hot gospeller, the bible thumper (John 3:16) – no single preacher is worth the name if can’t clinch the deal with (John 3:16). (John 3:16 for God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son). My brother Swaggart changed the word “begotten” to “unique” this is not from the King James Version. The King James Version says “begotten”. Heard brother Swaggart on T.V or video this morning. There he is speaking to a group, as if it was his own church group – you know giving some lessons on Babylon. It was that or another one – he used the word “begotten” this morning. And in eight hours time, he changed it to “unique”. I am asking are you ashamed of the word “begotten”? That Jesus was His only begotten son? And brother Swaggart in one of these thirty books – that I had to purchase in South Africa before coming, these are his books, more than thirty I purchased, and I went through each and every one of them, I had to. I wanted to know what my brother is talking about. What does he really believe? Because generally when you speak to a Christian, every Christian happens to be unique, absolutely unique. As soon as you corner him in some way, he says “but I don’t believe in that.” And every one of these thousand million, everyone I meet, he is unique, everyone is unique. He belongs to the Church of England, but he doesn’t believe, you know, what the Church of England teaches. He belongs to the Roman Catholic Church, but he doesn’t really believe what the Roman Catholic Church teaches. Everyone is unique. So, I said now what does he say in black and white? And in black and white I found that he uses (John 3:16) and in his quotation in his books he says “begotten”. Tonight he said unique. [(John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave His only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.)] Can you see the reason? It is obvious. The Muslims have been taking exceptions to these terms. In the Holy Quran we are told (Al-Ikhlas: 4), that God Almighty He does not beget, and he is not begotten. (Al-Ikhlas: 4), and there is nothing like unto Him. Then, in very strong terms the Quran condemns this Idea that God got a son because begetting is an animal act, it belongs to lower animal functions of sex, and we are not to attribute such a quality to God. As the Christian says in his Catechism. He says, “Jesus is the only begotten son, begotten not made.” And I have been asking Christians, “Please explain what are you really trying to emphasize when you say begotten not made? What are you really trying to tell me?” And believe me in forty years no English man worth the name has opened his mouth to me to explain to me what this word means “begotten”. It had to be and American, he was on a visit to Durban, and he came on a guide to our mosque, and I happened to be a guide. And discussing it came up I said what does it mean, what are you are trying to tell me. What does it mean to say begotten not made. He said it means this – this American tells me – it means Sired by God. I said “what!!!” He said, “No, no, no, I don’t say that. This is what it means.” And believe me that is what it means. “Begotten not made” means Sired by God. I say is that what you believe God did? He says that “no no I didn’t say that. This is what it means.” So, the Muslim has taken strong exception to such an expression about God. That God begot a son. It is according to your language. Your Catechism. The Roman Catholic Catechism, the Anglican Catechism, the Methodist Catechism, the Lutheran Catechism. You accept this, this statement “begotten not made”. He says not like Adam. Adam was made by God. Every dog, pig and donkey was made by God. As such metaphorically, he is the father of everything. He says no “Jesus is not like that he is begotten not made.” I said please explain, and no explanation. So, this was something that we Muslims took exception to, and the thirty-two scholars of the highest eminence backed by fifty cooperating demonstrations they threw it out. To appease us? Did the Muslims threaten you that “look if you don’t take that word out of the bible, we won’t supply you oil”? Did they do that? The Arabs? Did they tell you “no oil, if you don’t take this word out of the bible”? Why did you take it out? Because it was an interpolation, it was not the word of God. The bible you carrying it has this interpolation. And you said this morning, I heard the tape, you said, “Even one word, if it is not supposed to be there is there, the whole book should be thrown away.” ,the whole book. But it is not only one word. There are chunks and chunks of it, according to your revisers. And brother Swaggart tells me in one of his books that if you want to know anything factual, knowledge on any subject, you go to the experts. And he gives an example that if you want to know something about geology, you go to the geologist. If you want to know about the Bible, where do you go? Go to the barber? To the shoemaker? No, you go to the bible experts, the bible scholars. And they are telling you that this is a fabrication. Then, the Trinity, Fathers and the Holy Ghost. Brother Swaggart also at verbatim from (I John 5:7) where it says ( For there are three bear record in heaven, the Father, the word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one.) If he gives me time and says “which book?” I can open it and show it to you which book. At verbatim, his quotation. I said “but it is not in my bible.” Is this not the word if God? In my bible it is not there [The Revised Standard Version]. Why is it not there? Because your scholars, thirty-two scholars of the highest eminence backed by fifty cooperating demonstrations, bible scholars, they say that this is another fabrication, another interpolation. So, they also threw it out without any ceremony. So, two, and I give you the ascension. Brother Swaggart quotes in his book [Water Baptism] [Mark 16:16] another place [Mark 16:19]. I say it is not in my bible. I didn’t print this. The Jews didn’t print it. The Hindus didn’t print it. You Christians, you produced this book, and you are telling me this is the most up-to-date bible going to the most ancient manuscripts. So, I looked up for (Mark 16) I see it ends at verse eight. Nine to twenty is missing. [Not one word, but verses and verses are taken out!] Did I take it out? The Muslims took it out? No! Thirty-two scholars of the highest eminence backed by fifty cooperating demonstrations, they thought it fit that this is another fabrication imposed upon Christendom. And they also threw it out. It is not in my bible; therefore, it is not the word of God. If this is the word of God, then that is not the word of God. But, I pick another bible. Look at this. Look at these two, brother Swaggart, identical. Look at them, I see back again, inside. What was thrown out? The ascension. The only two places in the gospels- in the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John – there are only two places where ascension in mentioned. (Mark 16:19) (Luke 24:51) thrown out of this version, thrown out as fabrication, ascension. And yet these bibles, each and every one of them tells us that Jesus when he went into Jerusalem, he rode a donkey into Jerusalem. (Matthew 21:7” and they sat him thereon.” (The donkey)) Mark says he rode the donkey into Jerusalem. (Mark 11:7 “and he sat upon him.” (The donkey)). Luke says he rode the donkey into Jerusalem. (Luke 19:35 and they set Jesus thereon.” (The donkey)). John says that he rode the donkey into Jerusalem. (John 12:14 “Jesus …..sat thereon.” (the donkey) ). Look God Almighty didn’t miss that out, His son riding the donkey into Jerusalem. Every Tom, Dick and Harry were riding donkeys into Jerusalem. That he didn’t forget. But the ascension is not mentioned not once, and where it is mentioned is now thrown out. But I buy another bible, identical bible. Look, printed by the same printers, look it is there again. What was thrown out, they put is back again. How it come? How it come? What games are you people playing? Look at this! Back again. This is the 1971 version, back again. The ordinary people, the poor people, they don’t know what is going on, what games being played? Who knows? You read the preface, but he won’t tell his congregation what is he reading. In the preface, we are told that individuals, two Church demonstrations, they stampeded them; they forced them that they should put it back. If not, they are going to preach against this book. They say don’t buy this, buy the King James Version, the most up-to-date bible going back to the most ancient manuscripts. No, no, no, don’t touch that. This is the safer one, because it has everything that you want to preach to catch the fish. It is easier to catch the fish with this than with this. The bait, you know, like Dale Kanilgy he tells us in his book. He says how to gain friends and influence people? He says I like strawberry and cream. I think most Americans do. But, he says when I go fishing I put a worm to catch the fish, not that I love worms, but this is what the fish loves. So, I put worm. So, now if you want to catch fish, you’ve got to use the right bait. Ascension is now “restored to the text” says the preface. Why? Not God told them so. God doesn’t speak freely to those scholars as freely as he happened to speak, as brother claimed, with him. Again and again you read that God comes to him. [The Balanced Faith Life by Jimmy Swaggart]. Speaks to him and says, “Son, again “son” which he didn’t address “his own son” Jesus, He never called him son. He speaks in the third person. He says “This is my son in whom I well please.” But to brother Swaggart He says “my son, my son.” Not so freely. I say look this is not the word of God. They say that the church groups by the meantime this was being discovered that they made a net profit of fifteen million dollars on this version, before they could remove it. Fifteen million! [
Incest,
pornography,
Alcohol,
Homosexuality,
Sodom and Gomorrah] brother Swaggart has written some beautiful books. Beautiful books, and I can’t imagine myself doing any better. Beautiful writings. Incest, he says the dark stain on our society. It has reached epidemic proportion. Incest. In my country, the whites of South Africa according to statistics, 8%of “all white people they commit incest. 8%, one in every twelve committing incest. I don’t know what is the percentage here. But brother Swaggart tells us that it has epidemic proportions in your mighty country, America. And he gives examples from the holy bible. That there are ten cases of incest in the holy bible. I didn’t know that. I knew that in the first book of the bible, Genesis, there were four cases. Brother Swaggart’s book enlightened me. I got the fifth one in the first book. As if this is a text on incest to tell you what are the types of incest you can commit? In a book of God! Ten cases of incest! And I am told that the type of food you eat, you eat junky food you become junky. You read junky stuff, your mind becomes junky. It is these types of things you read. Can’t you see that we are getting programmed? Whatever you see, whatever you read, we are getting programmed. You read about incest, incest, incest: father with daughters, son with his mother, father-in-law with his daughter-in-law, brother with his sister!! What is this! Ten cases of incest! You read about incest, incest, incest. Little wonder that it has reached epidemic proportion. You see Dr. Vernon Jones, an American psychologist of great repute; he carried out experiments on groups of school children to whom certain stories were being read. And he said, “These stories make certain slight but permanent changes in character even in the narrow classroom situation.” The type of stories that you read, the type of stories that they read, the things that they see that is the type of mentality they are going to have. So, I say book of God! Why would God Almighty go out of his way in his holy book to reveal to you ten cases of incest coupled? Ten cases, so I say, therefore, my dear brothers and sisters, this is not the word of God.
The first five books, supposed to be the books of Moses: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. These revisers, scholars of the highest eminence they are telling us today that Moses didn’t write the books. He didn’t write the books. He is not the author. The author, Genesis author, “the first book of Moses.” Exodus, “second book of Moses”; Leviticus, “third book of Moses”; Numbers, “fourth book of Moses”; Deuteronomy, “fifth book of Moses”. I am asking, why the inverted commas? What for? Why these inverted commas? They are telling you in diplomatic, psychological way that these are not our words, we don’t believe so, but the common man, the laity, the preacher, the bible thumpers, the hot gospellers, this is that they believe, that these are the books of Moses, but Moses didn’t write them. We don’t believe that these are his works, so we put them in inverted commas. This is not the book of Moses, there are more than 700 times in these five books you read the expression “The Lord said unto Moses” and “Moses said unto the Lord” and “The Lord said unto Moses” and “Moses said unto the Lord”. Neither the Lord said this, nor did Moses write it. English, this is your language. This is written in the third person, not by God, not by Moses. If Moses wrote it, he would have said, “The Lord said unto me” and “I said unto the Lord”. Or the Lord says “I said unto Moses” and” Moses said unto me”. This is in the third person and somebody else is writing about these things. It is not the word of God, and it is not even the word of Moses. With regard to the obituary, I found out some Jewish scholars, that Jewish prophets didn’t write their obituaries. Before dying, he says,” on my tomb stone you put these words, epitaphs.” Jews didn’t do that. In the book of Deuteronomy it says, my brother admits that it could be the word of Joshua, but they are supposed to be the books of Moses, how does Joshua fit in? He says, “and there Moses dies in the land of Moab,” “died” in the past tense! – “over against Bethpoer and no man knoweth his sepulcher unto this day.” “And Moses was” – he “was” – “A hundred and twenty years old when he died.” Of course, God can do anything. God can do anything. In an explanation about the contradictions in the bible whether Satan provoked David or the Lord provoked David, he said look, we attribute it to God, that though the devil did it, you say God did it on that basis, would we appear to concede God had those six million Jews incinerated because Hitler did it you say because God intended it. This is what He wants him to do so; God is responsible for the message of incarnation of six million Jews! Or even 600000 or even 6000 is dramatic enough. If Hitler did it, would you say God did it? Are you going to blame God for that? You are going to exonerate Hitler and the Nazi party because you say God did it?! No, reverend Swaggart we don’t think like that. If criminal does such and such a thing, we say it is his action, his responsibility. We don’t say God did it because all the power comes from God. But God has given you the free will to think and to see right from wrong. So, if you do wrong, you are responsible. You can’t hold God responsible, so either David was provoked by Satan or by the Lord. And Satan and the Lord are not synonymous terms in any religion. They are opposite. Satan and God Almighty are opposite things. Pornography, very strong. Brother Swaggart is very strong in his condemnation and I know him. Pornography, any type, whether in written form, whether in picture or in films. It is a horrible thing. In his book, brother Swaggart gives you his research, his study. Number one, he says when you read or you see these things, it acts like a drug, like marijuana opium, or heroine or alcohol; it acts like a drug. You see these things, chemical action take place. And I agree with brother Swaggart, chemical action take place. You know, so, you read about pornography, your mind is getting used to that, escalating takes place. These are his terms. It is the first time I am learning these terms. And you must, then, play the role, act out the role. This is how this sickness and disease overpowers man. He is strong in his condemnation. He is closest to my government in South Africa, because if I take some of the magazines that I can buy at Kennedy airport or Hithro or anywhere, if I take it to my country. I will go to jail for two years. This is my country in South Africa. You know it has this – in the other side of the picture- but as far as religion goes, as far as religiosity goes they are very very staunch Christians. But that country of mine banned portions of the bibl. There was a pamphlet in circulation with extracts, nine extracts from the holy bible (Ezekiel 23). And somebody stood to the censorship ball; he said “look at this.” What is this? So, they made a decree that this pamphlet is banned. Not knowing that these are words from holy bible, these were extracts from holy bible. From the book Ezekiel, chapter twenty-three. I dare any preacher read it to his congregation. I dare any Evangelist to read it to his mother, his sister, his daughter, or even to his fiancée, if she is good woman. Ezekiel, chapter 23. The whoredom of the two sisters – Alolah and Anolibah. The language, the language so Lewd. My government banned it and there were two ministries of the church on the board, when they banned it, but they didn’t know they were banning an extract from holy bible. My government is so staunch that they banned
Lady Chatterly’s lover. It is a novel.
Lady Chatterley’s lover. It had one offensive word. Four letter word, one word for which they banned for twenty years, but now they have grown big, they are mature now, they allowed it; they have decensored it. They have withdrawn that order against the book. But nine extracts for the holy bible. Is that a book of God which you are ashamed to read to you audience?! I dare my brother, I dare him to read this pamphlet I have it here ready. He doesn’t have to open the book. Here! All those words in read I Said with your usual charismatic language with the usual actions. I would love to see brother Swaggart, I feel ashamed to bribe him. I say look brother Swaggart if you can read it to the audience; I will give you a hundred dollars. What is a hundred dollars to brother Swaggart? When I am reading his book on Roman Catholicism, that he needs two hundred and ninety-one thousand dollars a day to keep his head above water. I calculated, a hundred and six million a year just to keep above water. And in Evangelist of December 1985, he is aspiring, I wish him luck, he is aspiring to one million dollars a day. He needs one million dollars a day. I say good luck to him. Bur now, if I said I will give you a thousand, brother Swaggart I give you a thousand. You know I can’t tempt hi I know. In his usual spirited way I hope and I pray that he has the courage, the guts, which all the preachers in my experience have not had. Read it, read it to your audience and (Ezekiel 13), if you can’t, I can tell you that it is not the word of God. Bible is not the word of God. Here the son mentions man was made. It was for my books,
Is the bible God’s words? I had some ten thousand sent to this city, and I think they are available; I don’t know whether they are being given out here. I had instructed them. Give to everybody. Let them go home, and look at it for themselves and read for themselves and make up their own mind. In this book, contradictions. The Quran tells us (An-Nisa: 82) (do not they consider the Quran with care, had it been form anyone other than Allah, you would have found in it many discrepancies, man contradictions). The Quran is not involved this evening, but this is what the Quran says that if this is not the word of God, that will be free from contradictions. Like for example, the example that brother gave, I repeat that. I said look it says in one of the books Solomon 4 thousand stalls of horses; another one says he had 40 thousand stalls of horses. And four and forty is only the difference of a zero. You say. I say, you know my cousins, the Jews, they didn’t know the zero when they wrote the book. They didn’t know. It is my Arab brothers who found it from my fathers in India and they shared to the world. Zero, the Jews didn’t know. They wrote in in words. Four – F- o- u - r - four, in Hebrew of course. Forty f-o-r-t-y - forty. I say now who made the mistake. God or the writers? And they were not safe; we are told that they were not saved from mistakes. Mrs. Ellen G. White, the cultist, the “prophetess” of the seventh day Adventist movement. In her bible commentary she says, she has no motive to lie. She believes in the bible to be the inspired word of God. And yet she says, (the bible we read today is the word of many copyists who have in most instances done their work with marvelous accuracy. But copyists have not been infallible, and God most evidently has not seen it to preserve them altogether from error in transcribing.) In other words, this is his business, God’s business. If He wants to see it fit, if He wants to do a thing, he does it: if he doesn’t, he says go to hell. It is your business. God didn’t see fit to preserve them from making errors in transcribing. (In the following pages of commentary, Mrs. White testifies further “I saw that God has especially guarded the bible.) I am asking from what? (Yet when copies of it were few, learned men had in some instances changed the words) in the original manuscripts. They changed the words ( thinking that they were making it plain, when in reality they were mystifying that which was plain by causing it to lean their established views, which were governed by tradition) like the Jehovah’s witnesses. They have produced a translation called the New Way Translation. The Orthodox, you don’t accept that. Why don’t you? Because they have their own lean. According to their own ideas they are changing the words, the same thing that the Protestants did. They were people that believed that Jesus was God, so they said now, they changed the words. So, we say this has been going on from the very beginning. The boast about 24000 manuscripts. Brother Swaggart you know no two are identical. Your scholars say out of those 24000 that you are boasting about no two are identical. Then how do you come to know that this is the word of God and this is not out of the 24000? On the very face of it, when you open the book, the Injil and the Torah, you are talking about, Matthew begins in your version – the King James Version, he says “The Gospel according to Saint Matthew,” “The Gospel according to Saint Mark,” “The Gospel according to Saint Luke, “The Gospel according to Saint John,” I am asking what is the according, according, according? What is this according to? Why according to? I have got brother Swaggart’s book. He says
Homosexuality, its cause and its cure. By Jimmy Swaggart or just Jimmy Swaggart. Why in a book of God “according to, according to, according to, according to”? You know why? Because Mathew didn’t sign his name, Luke didn’t sign his name, John didn’t sign his name. These are assumed anonymous books. Anonymous books attributed to God. I say this is not the Injil. Even in your Arabic translation of these books, Arabic translation, it says (انجيل ماثيو), (انجيل يوحنا), (انجيل مرقص), (انجيل لوقا) means the Gospel of Mathew, Injil is used. The one we believe in is (انجيل عيسا), “The Gospel of Jesus”, what he preached. That is what we believe in that is from God. When you look at these books – Mathew, Mark etc. – that these are the books of Mathew, Mark, Luke we believe in the Gospel of Jesus, the one that he preached. We are told by Mathew that he went to a certain place, and he preached the gospel, Mark says he went to another place, and he preached the gospel. Luke says he went to a certain place, and he preached the gospel. John says he went to another place, and he preached the gospel. I say did he have a book under his arm? Did he have a book under his arm? No, whatever he preached was from God. That is what we believe in. if you can produce a document called (انجيل عيسا), the Gospel of Jesus, we would be very happy to give recognition to find out and verify whether it is from God, and I accept it as such. But what you have is Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. And J.B Phillips, a prebendary of Chichester cathedral in England, a page servant of the Anglican Church, when writing about Mathew in his preface he says “ early tradition ascribed this gospel to apostle Mathew” early tradition! That is what people said “but scholars nowadays almost all reject this view.” Which scholars? Jewish scholars? Hindu scholars? Muslims scholars? No, Christian scholars of the highest eminence backed by fifty cooperating demonstrations. They say that Mathew didn’t write Mathew. They say. He said “the author whom we may still conveniently call Mathew” why conveniently? Professor Phillips is telling you the first book of (the New Testament: 9: 9); (the New Testament: 5: 17); I am wasting your time and minds too. So, I say (Mathew: 9:9), (Mathew 5:7) conveniently. I am using the term Mathew. He says “he author whom we may still conveniently call Mathew has plainly drawn “the mysterious cue” that stands for the German word “Quelle” means sources, “which might have been a collection of oral traditions. He has used Mark’s gospel freely.” In the language of the school teacher, he was copying whole sale from Mark. Mathew, an eye witness and an ear witness to the happenings? With Jesus? One of his disciplines, his apostle? He goes and copies a ten year old boy who was not there. Does it make a sense to you? A man with an eye witness and ear witness, a companion of Jesus, he goes and copies a en year old boy who was not there. Does it make a sense to you? And you say this is the word of God? The genealogy, between Mathew and Luke. We are given sixty-six grandfathers and fathers of Jesus. In a genealogy of sixty-six fathers and grandfathers, except for one name, no two names are identical. Separate lists, everyone is a different name. Brother Swaggart says one is the genealogy of Mary and one of Jesus. I say why of Mary? Does the nook say that? No, the book says this is the genealogy of Jesus Christ. The other one ends with Jesus Christ; there is no Mary inside. Sixty-six names, no two names are alike except one. And the father of Jesus Christ, allegedly, God Almighty, is not there. Can you imagine God Almighty dictating the genealogy of “His son” and yet He leaves Himself out? He is going out of His way to dictate two genealogies with sixty-six names, and He is not in it. He is not there. I am asking what does he try to tell you? What does he really try to tell you when His name is not there? And a man who had no genealogy, we believe, no genealogy. He was born miraculously without any male intervention. You give him sixty-six fathers and grandfathers, and you say this is God Almighty dictate it.
We Muslims brother Swaggart, we take strong exceptions to this type of handling of this mighty messenger of God. We say he was a mighty messenger of God. He was born miraculously. The Holy Quran testifies to that. It has made a thousand millions Muslims in the world today without any kind of proof from the Christians to believe that Jesus Christ was born miraculously, and he was the Messiah, he was the word that God bestowed upon Mary. I will be dealing with the subject tomorrow night as “Mohammed, the natural successor to Christ” and I will be open to further questions besides the questions this evening. So, with these words Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I am very very grateful to be community here of creating such an opportunity for me to share the platform with the greatest charismatic speaker in the world today Brother Jimmy Swaggart. I think it is a privilege and honor for me. Thank you.
Speaker:
And, now, for ten minutes; Reverend Jimmy Swaggart.
Jimmy Swaggart:
I looked at the Bible that Mr. Deedat has, and from the Quran Surah, what do we call chapter, sixty-two and five, it says “as the likeness of the ass carrying books is the donkey is unaware of the value of load on its back so some men are ignorant of the spiritual treasure they hold in their hands.”
What does the bible produce? That is the Iron clad evidence, what it produces. I was in Africa a short time ago, and I was with a group of minsters, and I was being introduced to them and speaking to them. And I asked – I didn’t ask him – but he was asked “how did you become a minster of the gospel of Jesus Christ?” you see that Jesus cannot be the Messiah, and a great prophet and a liar at the same time. [The subject is “Is the Bible God’s word?”] He is either who he said he was or is a liar. And he is not a liar. Amen. He said this is the way I became the minster of the gospel. He says one of my closest friends was a Christian. We are getting incessantly over Islam and Christianity. One day the young Christian said there is a demon possessed man. In Saint John – I am sorry – in saint (Mark16:17) it says (in my name they will cast out devils). This is a book of power. Amen. Millions upon millions have been healed by the power of God. By invoking that mighty name of Jesus. Millions have been changed instantly from the worst bondages that hell could ever produce such as he mentioned. By the power of the word of Almighty God. I remind you that no dead book can produce those types of result. You can go in our church and over we have people there were former alcoholics, drug addicts, very bondage that hell could ---------------------- and I know your religions of Islam believes in hell, but tonight they are free by the power of Almighty God. Set free in the mighty name of Lord Jesus Christ. The gospel of Jesus Christ produces result. It breaks the bondages of sin. It fills the empty heart. He said we went I went with him; he was going to pray for this man, demon possessed. A maniac. He said when we arrived he was frothing at the mouth. He said I’ve never seen anything like it. And he said my friend prayed for him with no visible results. And he went to get another minister and I was left alone with this maniac. And he said I think I will pray for him myself. And he said he prayed in the name of Mohammed “come out of him”. I asked him “what happened?” nothing. He prayed several times in the name of Mohammed “come out of him.” Nothing. [It is blasphemy for a Muslim to pray in the name of Mohammed]. And I do not mean that disrespectfully of Mohammed. He could have prayed in the name of Abraham or Moses, and it would have done no better. He could have prayed in the name of Paul, Peter and it would have done no better. So, standing there alone, he says I think I try it, my Christian friend has said it, I don’t believe it but I am gonna try it. He laid his hand on him, “in the name of Jesus Christ come out of him.” He said brother Swaggart before my eyes he was delivered by the power of Almighty God. I know that you don’t deny the miracles of Jesus, but I remind you as I close this a dead man cannot produce miracles. I want to say it again dead man cannot produce miracles. Jesus Christ is alive. [The subject is “Is the Bible God’s word?”]. I’ve got two minutes. He said “come out to me all that you labour and the heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you ad learn of me for I am making lonely in heart, and you shall find rest into your souls. One day very soon.” You see, he is promised to come every single prophesy in this book that is supposed to be fulfilled has been fulfilled. Amen. The others that have not yet been fulfilled will be fulfilled. There is a hunger in the heart of every person for God. Only Jesus Christ can fill that hunger because God is love. He loves you. This book says he is. He loves you in spite of the sin and the inequity. He loves you and he wants to make himself real to you. He is not distant, far away, unapproachable. But through Jesus Christ you can approach Him and Love Him, and worship Him; and He will love you because his book says that he does. Thank you.
Speaker:
let’s acknowledge both these fine gentlemen, let’s acknowledge both of them.
[Abdul Aziz Esha, from Dubai, UAE].
[Dr. Khalid Abdul Mohammed from Chicago]
[This is the end of the debate]
[For the question and answers’ session obtain V 34 “Questions and Answers” A review of the complete encounter between Deedat and Swaggart]
[Questions and Answers Swaggart and Deedat]
Speaker:
Gentlemen, now it is your opportunity to which is passing out the sheets of paper. Any question that you have please address it to either reverend Jimmy Swaggart or Brother Ahmed Deedat.
Ahmed Deedat, does the glorious Quran exist in its original and pure form? And where the originals in fact burnt?
Ahmed Deedat:
There is an Othmanic Quran, you know Caliph Othman. Brother Swaggart mentioned something about variant readings, that Othman had those variant readings burnt. And to give an example from his own speech: if somebody was short-handing, taking down notes of brother Swaggart’s speech, he mentioned a number of names, he was actually mutilating them. We forgive him because when he says Ottman or something like that instead of saying Othman. He said something about Omar, which sounds most horrible, we are not taking exception to that because you are not used to read our names. But the person who is taking shorthand, and you reproduce that, you will never be able to connect that you are talking about Othman, the third caliph of Islam, or you are talking about Omar, the second caliph of Islam. Hafsa, you pronounced it correctly. So, in that case, if I was going through the notes for publication, brother Swaggart’s speech, you expect me to leave it as it is, you know the mutilated spelling of Othman which is not Ottman. We say Othman, you say Ottman, and I say look it is Othman. Won’t I do that? So, what happened is this: the books, the Hebrew scripture as well as the Arabic scripture were written originally without the vowel points, without the vowel. Hebrew without vowels, Arabic without vowels. To a native of the language it was quite easy to understand what was being said. But to an outsider without the vowels you can’t make the proper pronunciation. Like, for example in English, if it was written without vowels, that “he man is sleeping on the bed,” the “bed” would be written “bd.” You know it should be “bed” it is not “bid” it is not “bod” it is not “bad” it is not “bud” “bd” stands for “bed”. You know, your senses of the language make you to substitute the vowels in your mind. “bd” stands short for “bed.” The Arab knew that and the Jew knew that. But as soon as it went to foreign nations, the person doesn’t know how to pronounce. Like the word “Alhamdulillah rabil alamin” which means “praise be to God, the cherisher and sustainer of the worlds.” Written without vowels how are you going to pronounce? “Alhamdo, Ilhamdo, olhamdo??” how?? So, different nations, as soon as they started accepting Islam, the way they heard it, they started pronouncing it, they started writing it. Mutilating the language, like English. Some of my people, the pronounce divorce as /daivo:s/. iron as /airon/. What are you going to do? Our spelling between the English of the Englishman and the English of the American your spelling varies. But fortunately the sound, pronunciation is not varied. That produces different in the pronunciation. You say no, you will have to change it. So, those variant reading of the various pronunciations, they said look the revelation was given in the dialect of the Quraish, the family, the tribe of Mohammed, and that pronunciation should be preserved. So, every other pronunciation with different vowel points he said “eliminate them.” And that one was done by Othman is preserved in the museum, in the Topkapi museum in Istanbul. That is in Turkey.
Speaker:
Brother Swaggart, please explain to me how in Revelation there are supposed to be one hundred and forty-four thousand who are supposed to enter heaven and all of them are Jews from the twelve tribes. What happens to the gentiles like us?
Jimmy Swaggart:
Is that your question? The hundred and forty-four thousand as mentioned in the book of revelation as brother said has to do with the Jewish people. Twelve thousand from each tribe has nothing to do with gentiles. And those twelve thousand are chosen from each tribe during the great tribulation period because they are the one that accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as their personal saviour. And so they are raptured up into heaven. It has nothing to do with the salvation of millions that have come to the lord; it has nothing to do with gentiles. It just speaks about those one hundred forty-four thousand. And it also states that whosoever calls upon the name of the lord shall be saved. So any gentile that would call in the name of the lord will be saved as well. I trust that answers the question.
Speaker:
Brother Ahmed, Jesus said (The lord our God is one lord, and you shall love the God, your lord, with all your heart. Mark 12: 29-30) Muslims agree with Christians that there is only one God, but how do Muslims love God without a change of heart?
Ahmed Deedat:
The change of heart, look at the Muslims. Look at them. Jesus said, “By their fruits ye shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles.” He said “every good tree will bear good fruit, and every evil tree will bear evil fruit.” Here is the test. The fruits. Islam has created the biggest society of tee-totals in the world. There are some one thousand million Muslims in the world and almost as a whole they are tee-totals. They don’t imbibe alcohol. Here is the fruit. My own particular race, the most racist people on earth, you know, the Hindus of India, the …….. Hindus, the ……….. My nation, and you see the same nation, the most racist nation on earth becomes one who accepts the black and the white, the rich and the poor in his brotherhood. It changed. With all those claims that are being made for Christianity; Jesus Christ transforming people’s lives. You know, the old new goes out of you, and the new you comes into you. I say, my dear brothers and sisters, this mighty nation of America, according to brother Swaggart, eleven million drunkards. That is what he says. Eleven million drunkards, and and forty-four million heavy drinkers. Your nation. And brother Swaggart says I see no difference between them. It means fifty-five million. He considers them to be drunkards. The only difference is that he is not going far enough. In Islam, we say even when you are a social drinker. The holy Quran says – but before that – the prophet Mohammad said “whatever intoxicates in greater quantity is forbidden even in smaller quantity. No excuse for a nip or a tot. Out! The holy Quran says (Al-Maeda: 90 O, you who believe, more certainly intoxicants and gambling) – brother Swaggart in his book on gambling says fifty-four billion a year you are squandering on gambling – (and fortune-telling and idol worship are abominations of Satan’s handiwork, shun such abominations that you may prosper). And wine barrels were emptied in the streets of Medina, never to be refilled. This is the fruit. This is the fruit of his teaching. With two thousand years of preaching look at it! You have these powers of miracle working. Christ gives live. He heals the sick; Mohammad couldn’t; in the name of Mohammad they couldn’t do it. I say my brother, you don’t read the scripture. Jesus Christ, he said, “for there shall arise many false Christ’s and false prophets, who will show you great signs and wonders, insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.” If false Christ can do that, if false Christ can perform miracles, if false prophets can perform miracles, then I say “is this a test?” of your faith? No! Then, Jesus Christ tells those who are doing this miraculous work, he is telling you in the gospel of Saint Mathew, “On that day” – on the last day, on the day of judgement – “many will come to me on that day saying, Lord! Lord! Did we not prophesize in thy name, and in thy name cast out devils, and in thy name do many mighty works?” – In you name! In the name of Jesus!! Didn’t we do all these thing; didn’t we do all that? He says yes, he says then “I will profess onto the, I never knew you. Depart from me ye that work inequity.” I say Yes, explain. You! He won’t tell the Jews depart from me, forsake, get away, I don’t know you, he won’t tell the Hindus get away from me, or the atheist get away from me, he will tell you! I want to know why?? Why would he tell you? I don’t even know you, get out. I say Look! These are not the test. John the Baptist, according to Jesus, one of the mightiest messengers of God, Jesus says, “among those born of women, there has not risen another greater than john the Baptist,” and yet, he performed no miracles. Did he? Show me, what did he do? What miracles? No! Miracle is not the test. But the greater miracle is without any miracles you transform nations. Nations are transformed. One thousand million people they don’t imbibe alcohol because of the dictates of Mohammad.
Speaker:
Mr. Swaggart, what will happen to Muslims who believe in Jesus, but do not receive him as lord, as the son of God when they die?
Jimmy Swaggart:
The bible tells us that there is no other salvation under heaven other than by the lord Jesus Christ. Believing in Jesus that he is a miracle worker, that he is a prophet, that he is a great teacher is not enough. You have to accept where he did Calvary cross for your soul to be saved. Man labours under a terrible bondage of sin as a result of the fall. Sin is not just an act that you commit. It is not even a force. It is a nature. You cannot control that nature by cutting of a man’s hand. You have to get to his heart. If all the Muslims in the world are true and happy what they have, why do hundreds and thousands of them watch my telecast? [They also watch Dallas, Dynasty, Hollywood Wives with “religious regularity”]. Secondly, true Christians don’t drink either. What man must have is a change of heart. You don’t deal it from the exterior. It comes from the inside. Only Jesus Christ can do that. Not drinking alcohol is not enough. Just not gambling is not enough. Just keeping rules is not enough. Christianity is really not a religion. It is not a series of dos and don’ts. You cannot earn your salvation. He paid it at Calvary’s cross totally and completely. We accept him, and then the nature of sin is broken. The person does not drink because he fears his hand will be cut off or his toes or his nose or whatever. But he doesn’t drink because his desire is taken away, except Jesus Christ as your personal saviour, and the gospel to the whole world, not to just to select you. For God so loved the world, and incidentally, the word begotten also means to produce, sir. God produced His son.
Speaker:
Ahmed Deedat, does the holy Quran states that the holy Injil is guidance for all mankind?
Ahmed Deedat:
No, the holy Quran doesn’t say that the Injil is the guidance for mankind, nor does the bible say that. You see, Jesus Christ, when he sent out his disciples on the mission of preaching and healing, he instructed them, he says, (Mathew 10: 5-6 Go he not into the way of the gentiles and into any city of the Samaritans. Enter ye not, but go ye rather onto the lordship of the house of Israel). I want to know, where the Americans and the Anglo-Saxons fit in as the Jews, the house of Israel. Then, he is telling a Greek woman coming to him, wanting her daughter to be healed. So, he turns his face away. She goes on the other side, and she won’t let him go. So, the disciples say help her. This woman is persistent. You know, like drowning man clutching at straws, drowning women do the same. (Heal her child). So, Jesus says, (I am not sent but onto to the lordship of the house of Israel), the Jews. So, they say help her. Jesus says, (do not throw the bread of the children to the dogs). Who are the dogs? The gentiles! You and me. Every other human being other than the Jews are dogs and pigs according to Jesus, or according to your scripture. He says, Jesus says, (do not throw that which is holy to the dogs. Do not throw perils before swine lest they turn and rend you). Who are the dogs and who are the swine? The gentiles. He says do not throw the bread of the children to the dogs. The woman is in desperation; her child’s life is at stake. She says, (master, even the dogs have crumbs from their master’s tables). So, he says, (give her the crumbs). This is the scripture. Unfortunately, the scripture is not being quoted. The scripture quotes what Jesus said. I would like to hear what Jesus said. Jesus said – not about the supposed idea that you just believe, and you will be saved- he said, (verily, verily I say unto you except your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and the Pharisees you shall by no mean enter the kingdom of heaven). There is no heaven for you unless you are better than the Jew, and I ask him, how can you be better than the Jews without keeping the laws and the commandments? You answer that.
Speaker:
Mr. Swaggart, form Mr. Deedat’s proof that the bible you hold in your hand is not God’s word. What proof can you proof that he is wrong? I need proof not just belief.
Jimmy Swaggart:
I believe I have proven it beyond the shadow of the doubt tonight that the word of God is true. I don’t know what more proof that anyone would need. You can read the bible and not believe it. But the lord told us to believe it. And we would receive its many many benefits. If one does not want to believe, irrespective of the proofs that prove that is shown one still will not believe, the lord said to one particular individual, if one came back from the dead – he was telling the story of the arrant- in the sixteenth chapter of Luke. And the rich man said, send someone from the dead to warn my brothers. If one came from the dead, he wouldn’t believe that if he doesn’t believe the prophets that are already there. So, there is no proof that one can give for unbelief because it will not believe. That is the reason that he said, and I once again quote my favourite verse (for God so loved he world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life). [Begotten. Now Swaggart is reverting to begotten instead of unique. Why?] And I will close with one more statement. Sir, I am proof that this is real, for he has saved my soul.
Speaker:
Ahmed Deedat, could you quote and give the reference from the glorious Quran stating the holy Injil has been corrupted. And if not, then tell us when it was corrupted, by whom and where exactly is the change?
Ahmed Deedat:
Mr. Chairman and my dear brethren, you see I started this talk of mine, with some incantation, some recitation. I was not trying to mesmerize or hypnotize you. I was actually uttering the words from the Quran instructing us, telling us, informing us that the scriptures that the Christians are talking about, the bible, is their own creation. I repeat what I have said; I repeat and I will give you the translation. In the name of God, most gracious, most merciful. (Al-Baqara: 79, owe to them, who write the book with their own hands, then say this is from God, that they may benefit from it some small reward) – Like the fifteen million dollars, net profit they made on the RSV. Fifteen million is very small compared to eternity, compared to God’s goodness, his salvation. It is nothing, fifteen million – (so, owe to them what their hands do write, and owe to them for what they earn). In other words, I was proving to you all along, actually, I was giving you all a commentary of that Quranic verse, without going into details because I knew time was at a premium. Originally, we have agreed to a format of an hour each and for some mysterious reasons I was robbed of twenty minutes, so I had to cut short everything. I had so much more to give, which I am now reserving for tomorrow night. So, the thing is this now. This was actually a commentary of the situation that this book is written with their own hands. You add in and you take out. You add in and you delete. Look, this is proof enough. The book that you have in your hand is a proof that the books have been changed. You have been changing them, and out of the two thousand manuscripts I say no two are identical. That is a challenge: no two of those manuscripts are identical.
Speaker:
Mr. Swaggart, is there anywhere in the Old Testament that says that Prophet Mohammed will come after Jesus? Thank you.
Jimmy Swaggart:
Most of the religions try to find the bible in somewhere in their teachings in their beliefs, and so does the Quran: it tries to say that it is mentioned in the bible or Mohammed is mentioned in the bible. But, Mohammed is not mentioned in the Old Testament. I know you are referring to the book of Deuteronomy, but he is not mentioned. That passage is referring to the lord Jesus Christ totally and completely. Muhammad is not mentioned anywhere from Genesis to revelation. Period. [No! Mohammed is mentioned by name in the original Hebrew in the song of Solomon 5:16]
Speaker:
Ahmed, what the Muslims have to say about the fact that people are healed in Jesus’s name?
Ahmed Deedat:
I have no hesitation is accepting this phenomena that it can happen, but these things are happening in Hinduism. People are performing miracles in Islam people are performing miracles. You see, in the name of a false god you can perform miracles. Jesus Christ told that woman, if you remember, you know the woman who had bleeding sickness, …….., seven years, no healing. And she, while Jesus was passing by, she touched the helm of his garments, and she was instantly healed. And Jesus felt that something was drawn out of him. He looks at the woman and says (woman, it is thy faith that healeth thee). Her faith, that she had the faith that by touching him she gets healed. It is your faith. So, in other words a faith in a false god can also perform miracles. Jesus said so. (for there shall arise many false prophets and false Christ’s who will show you great signs and wonders, if it were possible to deceive the very elect). Even the disciples of Jesus can be deceived with such miracles. So, miracle is no proof at all whether the person is genuine or not.
Speaker:
Mr. Jimmy Swaggart, why didn’t the Old Testament mention that Jesus is the son of God? If yes, read it to me please.
Jimmy Swaggart:
In (Izaiah 7: 14 therefore the lord himself shall give you a sign; behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel). And “Immanuel” means “God with us.” Thank you sir. [Immanuel mean God with us not the son of God].
Speaker:
Ahmed Deedat, who would deny that if God has preserved his word, the Torah etc., and the holy Injil in the past, he is able to preserve it always.
Ahmed Deedat:
What I was proving the whole night was that the books have not been preserved. And now you are begging the question. The books have not been preserved. If it were preserved give me the word of recognition. I say what is preserved there? The things that are there have created all the mischief. The type of the book that you are reading as a pornography. I say read it. My brother, look, he had ten minutes, he had more than enough time to read that little chapter of Ezekiel. I said I dare anybody to read to his congregation. And I tell you I dare you will not read it. Reason? Because it is not the word of God. If it was the word of God, you wouldn’t be ashamed of it. If God almighty was not ashamed to reveal the details of the whoredom of the two sisters, I am asking why should you be ashamed? Are you holier than God? That is the indication. You are so holy that you dare not utter the word, but God almighty uttered it. You are holier than God? I say no. the thing is it is not from God. You see the scriptures have been changed. And the Torah he is speaking the about is not the Old Testament. You are telling us that the bible was written by forty different authors. Look, forty different people wrote the book. When we say we believe, we believe in the Torah, means the revelation that God gave to Moses. He didn’t send a book down. Brother Swaggart admits that the only thing that was written by God was those tablets. And those tablets Moses destroyed them. He threw them, and they broke to pieces. These other five books, if they were written on tablets of stones, you need a skyscraper size museum to hold the stones. Where did Moses keep them? Genesis, Exodus, Numbers and Deuteronomy where did he keep them, those tablets of stone? No, we say these are not the books of Moses. Moses would have no reason to belittle his brother prophet, Lot, that he committed incest with his daughters. What for? That Reuben, one of the sons of Jacob, committed incest with his mother. What for? The Juda, the father of Jewish race, from whom we get the word Juda, from whom we get the word Judaism, he had cohabited with his daughter-in-law by the roadside while he was on his way to t Timnath. He sees this woman sitting by the wayside. And you know he goes up to her and says (allow me to come in unto thee). She says (what wilt thou give me?). And he says (I will give you a kid from the flock). She says (what guarantee that thou wilt give it?). He says (what guarantee do you want?). She says (thy signet, and thy bracelets, and thy staff). And the old man gave to her, and he cohabited with his daughter-in-law, and begot twins: Pharez and Zarah. And they are put now in the Genealogy of Jesus. The children of incest are the great grandfathers of Jesus Christ. (Mathew 1:1 this is the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the son Abraham, the son David, Abraham begat Isaac; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat Judas and his brethren; and Judas begat Pharez and Zarah of Thamar) who are these? Look at the cross-reference. It tells you (Genesis: 38) you find there that there is a father-in-law cohabiting with a daughter-in-law, who bears these children of incest, and they are honored to become the great grandfathers of Jesus Christ. I want to know how does this come into the book of God? How does this come into the genealogy of a man who had no genealogy?
Speaker:
For Mr. Swaggart, please address the request of doctor Deedat to read certain passages from the bible. I think he means the passages that brother Ahmed Deedat challenged you to read in his presentation.
Jimmy Swaggart:
[He scans through Ezekiel 23 from the New International Version]. Mr. Deedat has the problem of answering questions that never were asked. (Ezekiel: 23:1-15) [He has opted to read from the King James Version instead of the New International Version that was handed to him]. How much more you want me to go all the way? Now wait a minute! Verse 19? (Ezekiel: 23: 19-20). Ok wait a minute; I want my hundred dollars now. All Muslims are truthful.
Ahmed Deedat:
All that I have, all that I have is yours.
Jimmy Swaggart:
Here is the hundred dollars. That man got a pocket full of money. If he takes all that money to South Africa, he is going to worsen the US debt. I don’t know what kind of programs you have here in Islam, but I am going to give his hundred dollars to whatever you have here to help pay for this auditorium tonight.
Speaker:
Mr. defeat, you made a statement that Islam believes in the virgin birth of Christ, but God does not beget nor was he begotten (Luke: 1: 34-35) explains the birth of Christ as the holy spirit overshadowing Mary, and the power of the most high poured upon her. How do you explain this?
Ahmed Deedat:
You see brother Swaggart has suggested, during his talk, that the Quran is a copy, a plagiarism, of stories from the bible. Now, let me give this example here, a comparison between what is told in the scripture and what is told in the Quran about the birth of Jesus, if I may. In the name of God the most gracious, the most merciful. (Aal-e-Imran: 42 behold, the angels said or Mary, that God almighty has chosen thee, purified thee, chosen thee above the women of all nation). This is the honor that is given to Mary, the mother of Jesus, in the holy Quran, that she is a woman chosen above the woman of all nations. (Aal-e-Imran: 43-44 O Mary, Worship thy Lord devoutly. Prostrate thyself and bow down to prayer with those that bow down. This is part of the tidings of the things unseen which we reveal to thee o Muhammad by inspiration. You were not with them when they cast lots with arrows, as to which of them should be charged with the care of Mary, nor were thou with them when they disputed the point). I will not go into the full story, but if I may, I will have to do it tomorrow night. But the verses continue. (Aal-e-Imran: 45-46 behold, the angels said o Mary, that God almighty gives you glad tidings of a word from Him; his name will be the messiah [translated Christ] Jesus the son of Mary, holding honor in this world and the hereafter, and in the company of those nearest to God). What the Christians would say “sitting on the right hand of God, not physically, not geographically, but in stature, in spirituality, in the company of those nearest to God. And he shall speak to the people in childhood and maturity, and he shall be of the company of the righteous). When this good news is given to Mary about the birth of the holy son, she says (Aal-e-Imran: 47 she says o my lord how shall I have a son when no man has touched me?) the angels say in reply (even though Allah creates what he wills. Whenever He decrees a matter, He merely says be and it is). This is the Muslim concept of the birth of Jesus. For God took a Jesus without the human father just like that. To create a million Jesuses, without father, without mother, just like that. The biblical version in comparison, I have been suggesting to reverend Duncas, the head of the bible society in Johannesburg, I had to go there to buy an Indonesian bible in Johannesburg, and he called me for tea, seeing this funny head gear of mind and this beard that I was interested in bibles. He called me into his office, and I explained this to him, which was something Nobel to him, something amazing to him, that I was speaking from my book. He said, look this and the bible appears to be the same. I said yes, on the face of it. On the face of it we are both trying to say the same thing. Jesus was created by a special miracle, but I said when you compare them closely the difference between the Quran and the bible is chalk and cheese. I don’t know whether the Americans understand this expression “chalk and cheese.” The Canadians did not because they did not know chalk, the know crayon. Crayon and cheese. These are not the same thing. Chalk and cheese are poles apart, worlds apart. The Quran says for God to create, He merely wills it, and the thing comes into being. The bible says (and the Holy Ghost) – same question, how can this thing be when no man has touched me, or I know not a man, meaning sexually. The bible says (and the Holy Ghost will come upon thee, and the power of the most high will overshadow thee). This gives that picture to the atheist and the agnostic to beat you with. How did the Holy Ghost come on Mary? How did the almighty overshadow her? Like a man doing to his wife? How? No, we know it does not mean that. But the language of the two. You know the Quranic language is for god to create, He wills it and the thing comes into being. The biblical language is earthly. I say between the two, I am asking reverend Duncan, which version would you be prepared to give to your daughter: the Quranic version of the birth of Jesus or the biblical version. And believe me he bowed his head in shame; he said I would prefer the Quranic version to my daughter.
Speakers:
What did you mean by the term “unique’?
Jimmy Swaggart:
After I answer this, I propose that if it is not out of order, that we make this the last question. We’ve been here two and half hours. O I am sorry, very good, fine. They are paying him by the hour; they are not paying me at all. But I got a hundred dollars though. In the Greek translation- let me change it- in the original translation the word unique simply meaning different in any that there had ever been. There has never been one like the son of God is unique. And there has never been one like Mary that produces the son of God as he eloquently explained just a moment ago. It just simply means that there was never one before him like that. There will never be one after him like that. He was unique as God’s only son manifested in the flesh incidentally. We Christians don’t believe in gods. We don’t believe that god is married lives in an apartment in heaven and has many children. We don’t and teach such foolishness as that. We believe that out of love God almighty could condescend it to come down here on this planet and live among men. And to walk and talk among men. And in human form the incarnation to die on Calvary’s cross as the perfect son offering for mankind. Man helpless to save himself, and he did just that, and he told the people. You kill this body and in three days, I will raise it up again. Once again he was unique in that. He was unique in the prophesies, he was unique in his birth, he was unique in his life, he was unique in his miracles, he was unique in his ministry, he was unique in his death, he was unique in his resurrection, he was unique in his ascension. And when he comes back, he will be unique in his coming again.
Speaker:
Mr. Deedat, we have invited you to our Christian nation to debate the topic “Is the Bible the Word of God?” will you now show the courage to invite reverend Swaggart to debate you once again on the same topic in the city of Mecca. And if not, why?
Ahmed Deedat:
You see, if the questioner has asked are you prepared to debate brother Swaggart in the United States in the different cities. I said I am prepared now to offer ten thousand dollars for each meeting in places like the Madison Square Garden, in New York, venues of that kind, ten thousand dollars per meeting, four meetings in the United States: forty thousand dollars. But the questioner is asking whether I would be prepared to invite him to Mecca. Now, I don’t rule Mecca, number one. Number two, if you want to get into Mecca you need a Visa. When I had to come to the United States, your government forced me to get a visa. And I went through the process of acquiring that visa, and I am here. You see, I wanted to go to the old Zambia, you know when Zambia became independent. I wanted to go to Zambia, and at that time Smith was ruling this southern Rule Asia. So, they gave me visa forms. And I had to sign at the back that I do not recognize the illegitimate smith regime before they give me a visa. I had to, I wanted to go. So, I had to sign the document that I do not recognize the illegitimate Smith regime in southern Rule Asia. Same similarly, if I have to come to the United States, I fulfil you terms and conditions. Whatever you tell me I am prepared to go through with it; I get the visa. Without that no visa in Canada, no visa here, no visa for people in South Africa. You have to fulfil the conditions. Now, there is a condition attached to you visiting Mecca, and that condition is that you declare with your lips “lailaha illa Allah, Muhammad Rasul Allah.” The meaning is that I believe that there is but one God, no fathers and Holy Ghost, not Jesus as God, I believe in the one and only God, Allah, which is His name, and Muhammad is the last and final messenger of God. You fill that condition you are welcome to come to Mecca.
Speaker:
Mr. Swaggart, according to your argument, the King James Version of the holy bible is necessary for salvation, can we then surmise that anyone who uses bible or another bible will burn in hell, such as Muslims, Buddhists, Catholics, Jews etc.
Jimmy Swaggart:
I have never said, never believed that you have to believe in the King James Version to be saved that is foolishness. And before answering the question, if you won’t let me come to Mecca, let me go on television over there. Mr. Deedat mentioned the Douay Version of the bible. Sir we do believe in the Douay Version of the bible, translation let’s put it that way. We do not accept those spurious books that were mentioned but we do believe in the Douay translation. We feel it is a good translation. No one has to believe in a particular translation of the bible to be saved. You do have to believe in the word of God to be saved. And once again the word of God says there is none other name under heaven. It also tells us that we are saved by faith. Not by works lest any man should boast. We are saved by the faith in the lord Jesus Christ. And I don’t care where that word is. If the word of God – do you have a Quran over there sir? – And I was openly bought one, Ok. Any word of God that is in this book if you believe it pertaining to salvation you will be saved. You follow what I am saying. If the word of God pertaining to salvation, pertaining to being redeemed, pertaining to be saved, if it is written on the side of a wall some way, to be frank with you, it is written on our heart. That is what the bible tells us. You can memorize this book and worship it, and it won’t save you. It has no power to save you. But the word of God, if that heard to, and that means accepting Jesus Christ as one’s own personal saviour. If that is in the Quran, you can be saved.
Speaker:
Mr. Deedat, how does the Muslims account for different versions of the Quran? Does this make all of the versions lies as you claimed the bible is?
Ahmed Deedat:
I repeat, there is no such thing as different versions of the Quran. I said there are translations, yours are versions. Brother Swaggart in the previous questioning he answered that look; there are seven spurious books in the Douay Version. Seven spurious which he rejects. So, it is a version. There are seven books out of this which he is not prepared to accept as the word of God. Whereas every Quran in the world translated as it is God’s word. Translated, and we have a choice of words, but they are not versions. This is aversion, this is a version. Chunks ad chunks are thrown out from what is in here. Different versions. I hope you understand my English. I don’t know how how simpler I can put it to you. Things are varying. What are in here seven books, not in here. What is in here, not in there. What is in here, it is taken out from there again. Can you see? It is a version. I hope, I don’t know!!!
Speaker:
Reverend jimmy Swaggart, what is trinity?
Jimmy Swaggart:
We believe the word of God teaches that there is one God. Not two, five, ten, twelve, fifteen. One God, manifested in three persons. Three different personalities. We believe there is a heavenly father, we believe there is God the son, and we believe the Holy Ghost, as Mr. Deedat mentioned that came upon Mary, is also God. They are indivisible, meaning they agree perfectly. They are one in unity. The never disagree, they never have disagreed. We believe that when you get to heaven, if you get there, Jesus Christ, the son of God will be seated according to the word of God by the right hand of the father. And, well actually, maintain that throne forever, basically. That is what we mean by trinity in a short nutshell.
Speaker:
We have time exactly for two more questions. Mr. Deedat, do you believe in the Holy Ghost? Why? Or why not?
Ahmed Deedat:
You see, the idea of the Holy Ghost in Christendom is that He is one in a trinity. Where the Christian says that the father is God, the son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, but they are not three gods but one god. In his catechism he continues that the father is almighty, the son is almighty, and the Holy Ghost is almighty, but they are not three almighties but one almighty. It continues, your catechism. He says the father is a person, the son is a person, and the Holy Ghost is a person – that is what brother Swaggart says in his book- person, person, person, but not three persons but one person. I am asking what language are you speaking? I am asking is that English? By God, it is gibberish; it is not English. You see, he said person, person, person, but not three persons but one person. I say brother Swaggart, you and your two other brothers let’s say that you are three identical triplets, and we can’t make the difference out between the three of you. They are all identical; we can’t make out the difference. If one of you commits murder, can you hand the other? You say no. I as asking why not? So, you tell me that he is a different person. I say right! What makes him different? His personality. So, the father, you know imagination, the human mind, you can’t help. When you use words, they conjure up mental pictures. When you say in the name of the father, you have a certain mental picture of that old father Christmas, Santa Claus, millions and million times bigger than man, but something like a man, sitting on some planet, dangling to the foot stool, the heavens as his canopy, the loving father in heaven. When you say god the son, I am asking are thinking of a prize bull or a Volkswagen? No, you are thinking of a handsome young man, blonde hair, blue eyes, handsome features, something like what is seen in the King of Kings, Jesus of Nazareth, you know On the Day of Triumph, where Jeffery Hunter was acting, handsome young man, blonde hair, blue eyes, handsome features, nice beard, not with the Polly nose, with the crooked nose, that make other pictures come to your mind, you know Shakespeare made Shylock famous, he says shylock, shylock, no. you see, so, you are thinking of somebody like an Englishman, or a nomadic, or a German type, with the straight nose, the son. The Holy Ghost, something that came like a dove when Jesus was baptizes in the river Jordan by john the Baptist, or something that came in flame in the Pirate Penticton coast. I say the picture is not very vivid, but the picture is there. Three distinct mental pictures. And how so hard you try, you can never superimpose these three pictures and create one. They will ever be three in your mind. But when I ask you how many pictures you see, you say one. You are lying to me, brothers and sisters you are lying to me.
Speaker:
Actually, we have got three minutes. Mr. Swaggart, this question is from the management. Do you give us permission to anyone interested in obtaining a copy of this event? Number one. Number two, why didn’t you allow televising this event? And number three, we have offered this opportunity to televise this event in Mecca, but it was refused.
Jimmy Swaggart:
Shame on you, you did misquote me. I did not say that God is a person, the son is a person, the Holy Ghost is a person, and they are one person. I didn’t say that. I said there is one God, not one person. [This is what is written in your book on page 9]. It seems to me that they are televising it. I see one, two, three, four, five cameras. You said they are not televising it? They are televising it. Aren’t they? I am a little confused. I don’t understand.
Speaker:
Do you give us permission for anyone interested to obtain a copy of this event? A video?
Jimmy Swaggart:
Yes. We will certainly do that providing that you do not edit the tapes. You see, I know a little bit about television. You can make anyone say just about anything you want them to say by chopping it up. We are experts at that Mr. Deedat. And I would trust this man. Are you looking at me sir? I trust you? But, I don’t trust the whole world that I do not see. And we ask to sign a statement if you want to televise it and take it with you. Do whatever you want to do with it, providing that you tell us where you are going to edit it? And how you are going to cut it. I think that is only fair. We would not want to take anything he said, and chop it up and make him to seem to say something that he did not say, that wouldn’t be right and fair. And I thank that we’ve been just about as Christians as anyone can ever be.
[Abdul Aziz Eshaq from Dubai U.A.E].
-------------------------------------------------------------------------