Here is a comparison of how Ahmed Deedat (a Muslim scholar) and Jimmy Swaggart (a Christian televangelist) argue for the question, “Is the Bible God’s Word?”, including strengths and critiques.
What each side says
| Who | Claim(s) / Position about the Bible being the Word of God |
|---|---|
| Jimmy Swaggart | He affirms that the Bible is God’s inspired, infallible, and authoritative written Word. Jimmy Swaggart Ministries+1 He emphasizes that it was written through prophets and apostles over centuries, yet maintaining authority and divine inspiration. Jimmy Swaggart Ministries+1 |
| Ahmed Deedat | He argues that the Bible has human error, inconsistencies, translation issues, editorial changes, etc., and therefore it cannot be fully the Word of God as claimed in Christian tradition. He questions internal contradictions, the translation of key original-language terms (e.g. Greek in the New Testament) and textual history. The Muslim Times+4Islam House+4answering-islam.org+4 Also, Deedat holds the Quran to be the preserved Word of God, in contrast. islamawareness.net+2The Muslim Times+2 |
Key arguments used
Here are some of the arguments from each side:
- Swaggart’s arguments tend to be based on Christian tradition, appeals to prophetic authorship, belief in divine inspiration, internal consistency (from his point of view), the spiritual efficacy of Scripture, etc.
- Deedat’s arguments include analysis of the manuscript tradition (how texts were transmitted), translation discrepancies, textual variants, alleged contradictions, and the idea that what Christians claim about certain passages may depend on interpretive or translational bias.
- Deedat also often points out that believers sometimes treat translations or human editorial decisions as though they were divinely dictated, and critiques that.
Strengths and Weaknesses
| Side | Strengths | Potential Weaknesses / Criticisms |
|---|---|---|
| Jimmy Swaggart / Christian side | <ul><li> Consistent with Christian theological tradition (orthodox Christian belief, early church, etc.) </li><li> Points to internal claims in the Bible about itself (prophets speaking, apostles, etc.) </li><li> Testimony of many Christians across history that the Bible changes lives and functions spiritually as if divine. </li></ul> | <ul><li> Needs to address textual variants, translation issues, and historical-critical scholarship that show changes or differences between manuscripts. </li><li> The question of “inerrancy” or “infallibility” depends heavily on how one defines those terms. Does it include minor errors, scientific/historical discrepancies, etc.? </li><li> The reliance on faith/tradition can mean some claims are not as objectively verifiable. </li></ul> |
| Ahmed Deedat / Islamic critique | <ul><li> Raises important questions about textual integrity, translation, human authorship—that Christians often acknowledge these issues in scholarship. </li><li> Points to specific examples of what he regards as discrepancies or weaknesses in how some Christian claims are defended. </li><li> Encourages consistency in how terms are translated, and challenges assumptions. </li></ul> | <ul><li> Some claims may overstate the degree of error or use questionable translations or interpretations themselves. </li><li> The Quranic claim of perfect preservation is itself a faith claim; Deedat presupposes certain Islamic beliefs. </li><li> Sometimes arguments may depend on particular translations or manuscripts, and not all scholars agree with Deedat’s handling of Greek/Hebrew etc. </li></ul> |
Conclusion
- Jimmy Swaggart’s position: Yes, the Bible is the Word of God in an authoritative, infallible sense.
- Ahmed Deedat’s position: He challenges that claim, emphasizing human involvement, errors, transmission issues, translation uncertainties; in his view, the Bible cannot be fully the Word of God as Christians claim.
Which side you find more convincing depends on what you believe about revelation, what counts as “error,” how you interpret evidence, and whether you accept Christian or Islamic presuppositions (or neither).