My response is that Mr. Khan is obviously no great Bible expert if he says this obviously false thing!
First of all, this person says that the Quran consists of God’s word verbatim. This is mere rhetoric. Anyone can say anything they want, but without evidence, it is a worthless statement. I say that the Gettysburg Address is God’s word verbatim. I say that the Book of Mormon is God’s word verbatim. I say that the Microsoft owner’s manual is God’s word verbatim. (obviously, I am being facetious here to make a point) Simply saying something does not make it true. Does Mr. Khan have any evidence to back up this claim? No! Otherwise he would offer some. This is a baseless claim–one which should be rejected outright unless Mr. Khan can offer evidence that the Quran is inspired.
Then he goes after the Bible, but in doing so, he reveals the hypocrisy of his statements. What the Quran does not have, the Bible has. Not only that, but Mr. Khan proves that he is well aware that the Quran lacks evidence for inspiration. He proves this by, not giving evidence the Quran is inspired, but by making weak and baseless attacks on the evidence for the Bible being inspired. I want you to see what is going on here. Muslims literally have no proof of inspiration of the Quran, but they are well aware of the massive evidence for the Bible’s inspiration, so, rather than present their evidence (because they have none), all they can do is try to defeat the evidence for biblical inspiration.
The problem is that this attempt falls completely flat. I have read Isaiah 53 with many dozens of people, and asked these people who it was about. This includes atheists and non-Christians. It never fails. ALL of them know who it is so obviously about. It is about the person we know of as Jesus of Nazareth. It is obviously and unmistakable a prophecy of the person we know of as Jesus. I have heard a video recently by a Christian who interviewed dozens of Jews in Jerusalem who Isaiah 53 was talking about. All, or nearly all, responded that it was about Jesus. Just read Isaiah 53 for yourself. Who else could it be about? “He was despised and rejected by men.” “Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering.” “But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities.” “He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth. He was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.” “He was assigned a grave… with the rich (singular) in his death.” “After he has suffered, he will see the light of life and be satisfied.” (a reference to the resurrection) Muslims can say what they want, but it is no “misinterpretation” to say that this is a prophecy about Jesus! Then there is Daniel 9:24-25, which is also rather obviously and unambiguously about Jesus of Nazareth. He came to Jerusalem “your holy city.” He put an end to sin, atoned for wickedness, brought in everlasting righteousness, and was the anointed Messiah. Also, he died in Jerusalem in about AD 30, as prophesied in Daniel 9:25 (four hundred and ninety years after the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem, as mentioned in Ezra 7, in the 7th year of Artaxerxes, or 458 BC). What is the “misinterpretation” that Khan is talking about? Does he have a better interpretation? Who is Daniel talking about?
We could go on. When we see the messianic prophecy in Psalm 22:16-17 in which we see that David (or his descendant in this case) will be pierced by hands and feet, and that his garments will be gambled over. Does Mr. Khan have a better interpretation than the obvious–that this is about Jesus? Or what about the thirty pieces of silver in Zechariah 11:12 or the riding into Jerusalem on a colt, the foal of a donkey in Zechariah 9:9. Does Mr. Khan have a better interpretation than that this is about Jesus? To be honest, I think it would be better if Muslim critics were to stop pointing out the rather obvious evidence that Jesus was in fact killed by crucifixion and that he is the Messiah. Like they say, “Thou protest too much.” If you want to call these rather obvious references to Jesus “misinterpretations,” and then not offer believable alternative interpretations, it seems to me that this does not even amount to an argument.
Then Mr. Khan makes such an obviously false statement, that it makes me wonder if this so-called “Bible expert” has even read the entire Old Testament. He has the nerve to say that the main purpose of the prophets of the Old Testament is as future-tellers (or possibly he is saying that Christians believe this is their principle purpose). I have never met a single Christian who believed that the principle role of the prophets was to tell the future. Or put it this way, whether it is Khan or a Christian who might possibly believe this, then they ought to read the prophets. The principle message of the prophets is that there is one God, that God is YHWH, and that people need to repent of their sins, obey God, and behave righteously. Less than 5% of Old Testament prophecy is future-telling, as all Christians who read the Old Testament know.
But, indisputably, there is future-telling by the prophets in the Old Testament, which even Mr. Khan appears to recognize. And there is no inspired future-telling in the Quran. Why? Could it be because it is not inspired, and therefore, its writer did not have the ability to know the future? Let the reader decide. But there certainly is much future-telling in the Bible, even though this is not the principle content of the Old Testament. God challenges the non-believer (including the Muslim) with these words: “Tell us, you idols, what is going to happen. Tell us what the former things were… Or declare to us the things to come, tell us what the future holds, so we may know you are gods.” (Isaiah 41:22) I say, tell us, Muhammad, if you are a true prophet, what the future holds. Or there is Isaiah 44:7. “Who then is like m? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and lay out before me what has happened… and what is yet to come–yes, let them foretell what will come.” This God does repeatedly in the Book of Isaiah, such as in Isaiah 7:14, Isaiah 9:1-6, Isaiah 45:1 and many more unambiguous fore-tellings, none of which are found in any other claimed religious writings.
These Muslim critics perversely reveal that they are well aware of the biblical evidence for inspiration when they claim that the Bible does not have forth-telling as a means to counteract some of the evidence for the inspiration of the Bible, when they have none of their own. Mr. Khan, your rhetoric and your apparent limited understanding of the Bible reveal, not evidence to disbelieve the Bible, but reason to believe that the Bible is inspired by God. Thanks for helping people come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God.