The Qur’an Cannot Be A Text of Divine Origin

آخـــر الـــمـــشـــاركــــات


مـواقـع شـقــيـقـة
شبكة الفرقان الإسلامية شبكة سبيل الإسلام شبكة كلمة سواء الدعوية منتديات حراس العقيدة
البشارة الإسلامية منتديات طريق الإيمان منتدى التوحيد مكتبة المهتدون
موقع الشيخ احمد ديدات تليفزيون الحقيقة شبكة برسوميات المرصد الإسلامي لمقاومة التنصير
غرفة الحوار الإسلامي المسيحي مكافح الشبهات شبكة الحقيقة الإسلامية موقع الدعوة الإسلامية
شبكة البهائية فى الميزان شبكة الأحمدية فى الميزان مركز براهين شبكة ضد الإلحاد

يرجى عدم تناول موضوعات سياسية حتى لا تتعرض العضوية للحظر

 

       

         

 

    

 

 

    

 

The Qur’an Cannot Be A Text of Divine Origin

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 55

Thread: The Qur’an Cannot Be A Text of Divine Origin

  1. #41
    pandora's Avatar
    pandora is offline member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    712
    Religion
    Christianity
    Gender
    Female
    Last Activity
    08-12-2014
    At
    07:22 PM

    Default

    Quote
    YET again , my discussion with you all these months isn't about evidence with or against corruption , it's about the ABSURD claim that "Islam doesn't say the Bible is distorted" , it's about you FORCING your opinion - based on nothing - on our book
    Truly I'm not trying to force anything on anyone. And please don't ever call me Mistress!!!! And you don't need to repeat swearing and bad language in posts to me either. I apologise if I have by trying your patience I have caused you to say such. Best to leave it for now. I am not in the right frame of mind to answer any queries..

    peace to you.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    947
    Last Activity
    09-12-2016
    At
    06:15 PM

    Default

    Quote
    Quote Originally Posted by pandora View Post
    [/FONT][/COLOR]
    Regarding "Hebrew Literature" .. You are joking here right? Not all Hebrew literature was considered the inspired word of God... Early Jewish
    Apocrypha also had its place in society but was NOT considered inspired or part of the Jewish canon. You understand that literature is written but you do not seem to understand that NOT all literature is inspired by God!! I am sometimes inspired by the world around me to write poetry... Should I claim God directly inspired me to write poetry?? If I did claim thus is my poetry of divine origin???



    You are joking right !!!??? you have to be not serious

    We are talking about a christian scholar interpriting a passage in the OT!!!

    What else would the phrase hebrew literiture mean in the context of his interpritation other than the OT

    unbelievable excuses !!!!!

    This interpritation has nothing to do with Jewish apocrypha or the talmud and midrash !!!!

    Quote
    Quote Originally Posted by pandora

    Quote
    Quote Originally Posted by pandora
    Writing out copies of the Law... Writing out false copies of the Law.. Copies... does NOT imply the original is in any way changed.
    Finally now we agree on another thing

    Quote
    Quote Originally Posted by pandora


    how does it not make sense to you? Let me give you an example of what I'm trying to get you to understand here..

    The Bible in my church is ancient and revered.. We do not handle it..(we have our own Bibles for that purpose) Passages, parables and teachings are read to us as part of our worship.. I can listen intently and later interpret the verse or whatever and may come to a different understanding of it.. I could think well ..it could also mean this or that, I could then write a copy of my interpretation and distribute it to others saying really you are in error this is the real meaning of this or that verse.. I ask you to think here and apply your logic.. In doing this have I in anyway changed what is originally written in the Bible in my Church? I may lead some people astray with my false interpretation.. Those who did not know or care for the true Bible could be swayed... Especially if my interpretation is more agreeable to them. But as long as the true Bible stays in my church my corruption of the text is easy to see as being a false interpretation... If one doubted that the Church Bible had not also been changed by myself then they would only need to check any of the hundreds of other Bibles in the locality to see the falseness of my efforts. I would be guilty of being a lying scribe.. Thankfully there are always those guided by God to point out my errors. So.. In conclusion.. No matter how many copies falsely made by lying scribes and distributed as Gods word by false prophets and teachers the true word of God will always remain unchanged. Your article from Gills exposition of the entire Bible and the article I posted basically say the same. You just don't see it.

    As a librarian with access to archives I know and understand the importance that is placed on historical documents.. Even church records going back to the 17th century are handled rarely and under strict conditions.. How much more so do you think this would be with the Torah which for the Jewish people is sacred?


    First the statement in red is based upon that the manipulation was based on understanding of the text which is false , as pulpit commentary and Gill's exposition states clearly that it is an actual manipulation of the written text !!!!

    As for the strict policy well you are wrong , do some research about for example the story of the adultress woman found in John 8 , this story as agreed upon by all historians and all biblical scholars was added in to the new testament in the fifth century !!!!!
    Another example is the dead sea scrolls which contains multiple varriations with the current OT including books that were not taken into account
    One final example is the Sumerian OT whcih contains also multiple varriations with the OT even in the first five books

    Quote
    Quote Originally Posted by pandora
    Neither do yours.. (With all due respect) what do you think a Christian interpreter of the Bible is for heavens sake?? Do you think they have special powers or something? Do Islamic scholars have special powers? Or like scholars the world over spend years studying a particular field to best understand it. Even among scholars opinions differ
    .
    I am not talking about one or two scholars , I am talking about the major concensus of the biblical interpritors , there is a difference.

    When some author writes an article to change and twist the interpritations of a clear passage ; a change which contradicts all the previous established meaning of the clear text , just in order to avoid muslim objections on the bible!!!! That my dear friend is a bias interpritation which makes it false !!!!!

    Quote
    Quote Originally Posted by pandora

    [QUOTE ]WRONG , both the Quran and hadeeth teach that there are false prophets and will be also in the future.

    Check your facts before stating your claims
    I stand corrected.. However does the Quran not tell you to believe the Prophets?

    [/QUOTE]

    I do not inderstand your question but I will respond by saying that both the Quran and Hadeeth acknowledge the possibility of their being people who are lying when they claim to be prophets

    Quote
    Quote Originally Posted by pandora
    What I really see as sad is your unwillingness to understand anything... Even when we cite sources that both essentially make the same claim you feel the need to disgree.
    You obviously did not understand what I said !!!! very sad

    Quote
    Quote Originally Posted by pandora
    It's almost to the point of disagreeing for the point of it. Claims of the muslims!!!! Like we should be worried about what claims muslims make about Christianity or the Bible or the person of Christ Jesus. Sorry.. To disappoint, we are not unduly concerned. There is nothing constructive you have added here at all and it's for that reason I don't feel this is worth pursuing any further
    My God you are so desperate , the fact that you go to such methods !!!!

    You revert to defaming the other part in order to ignore the response !!

    Sorry to disappoint you but You have proved nothing !!! nor have you debunked anything!!!!

    I mean hebrew literiture applies to jewish appocrypha in this passage !!!! Really another claim which you cannot back up

    Gill's exposition and pulpit commentary and the other christian interpritors do not matter !!!!

    Words of god means interpritation of the words !!!!

    Really this is the bases of your arguments !!!

    As a librarian you should have known better , but you answered in such a way which really was not fair to your own argument
    I am sorry to say but it was you who refuted your own argument.


    Peace unto you may god guide you to the truth
    نقره لتكبير أو تصغير الصورة ونقرتين لعرض الصورة في صفحة مستقلة بحجمها الطبيعي

  3. #43
    pandora's Avatar
    pandora is offline member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    712
    Religion
    Christianity
    Gender
    Female
    Last Activity
    08-12-2014
    At
    07:22 PM

    Default

    Quote
    This interpritation has nothing to do with Jewish apocrypha or the talmud and midrash
    I didn't say it did.. Read my post I said not all early Jewish literature was considered inspired by God, and gave the apocrypha as an example. I was making a general point.

    Quote
    As for the strict policy well you are wrong , do some research about for example the story of the adultress woman found in John 8 , this story as agreed upon by all historians
    I'm sorry but why are you bringing the Gospels into the equation? We are talking of the Jewish Torah are we not... Christians know quite well what was added to the Gospels and can give a pretty good idea of when it occurred. That's why your post about the ending of Mark which seems to have perturbed you some what has not been addressed.. It's old news.

    Quote
    I am not talking about one or two scholars , I am talking about the major concensus of the biblical interpritors , there is a difference.

    When some author writes an article to change and twist the interpritations of a clear passage ; a change which contradicts all the previous established meaning of the clear text , just in order to avoid muslim objections on the bible!!!! That my dear friend is a bias interpritation which makes it false !!!!!
    numbers are immaterial unless you are simply going to go with the consensus of opinion I guess. Allow me to share another observation on books with you... All books or articles written to an audience are can never be truly unbiased... The author will always have his/her agenda. Target audience..profit.. Or simply making a name for themselves on the stage of academia. You will obviously favour articles which support your view, it's clear from an earlier post you made in relation to the linage of the prophet of Islam where you gave some websites for reference.. You said two were from Christian sources.. They were not. I can only guess in your quest to prove your point you chose what you thought were Christian and yay.. Point proven. Nada.. You do the same with Bible verses.. Using them out of context when you feel they prove your point.. Yet Nada.. They do not... And so do nothing to prove your point, except maybe to fellow muslims.

    Quote
    You revert to defaming the other part in order to ignore the response !!


    Sorry to disappoint you but You have proved nothing !!! nor have you debunked anything!!!!


    I mean hebrew literiture applies to jewish appocrypha in this passage !!!! Really another claim which you cannot back up


    Gill's exposition and pulpit commentary and the other christian interpritors do not matter !!!!


    Words of god means interpritation of the words !!!!


    Really this is the bases of your arguments !!!


    As a librarian you should have known better , but you answered in such a way which really was not fair to your own argument
    I am sorry to say but it was you who refuted your own argument.


    Peace unto you may god guide you to the truth
    you have pretty much misunderstood everything I have posted. I think we are done here.. Don't you?

    Peace unto you also.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    947
    Last Activity
    09-12-2016
    At
    06:15 PM

    Default

    Quote
    Quote Originally Posted by pandora View Post
    I didn't say it did.. Read my post I said not all early Jewish literature was considered inspired by God, and gave the apocrypha as an example. I was making a general point.
    Clearly you haven't since your response was based on explaining that the phrase hebrew literuture which pulpit used could have reffered to non OT documents like talmud , midrash or the apocryphatic texts , which is not true at all since its within the context of explaining the passage , pulpit used it to refer to the OT

    Quote
    Quote Originally Posted by pandora
    I'm sorry but why are you bringing the Gospels into the equation? We are talking of the Jewish Torah are we not... Christians know quite well what was added to the Gospels and can give a pretty good idea of when it occurred. That's why your post about the ending of Mark which seems to have perturbed you some what has not been addressed.. It's old news.
    WRONG pandora!!!!! WRONG

    Either you have ignored my response or just quickly skimmed to it , I have already mentioned two other examples relating to the OT
    more importantly you said the bible so need to play such games


    Quote
    Quote Originally Posted by pandora
    numbers are immaterial unless you are simply going to go with the consensus of opinion I guess. Allow me to share another observation on books with you... All books or articles written to an audience are can never be truly unbiased... The author will always have his/her agenda. Target audience..profit.. Or simply making a name for themselves on the stage of academia
    WRONG!!! .....AGAIN pandora

    Yet again you have proved to everybody that you are avoiding admitting the truth and trying to twist and manipulate the basic understanding

    The christian commentray sources which I have cited are just two examples of CHRISTIAN INTERPRITATION , which all have the same opinion about the passage , the fact that a christian author of an article ON A MUSLIM-CHRISTIAN DEBATE website would defer shows either a personal opinion to avoid admitting what the muslim claim or just simply being dishonest !!!!

    So again you are trying to avoid the bias in the article you copied and pasted by holding on to the technicality that all articles and books are bias!!!!!

    BTW I already cited many jewish and christian sources which shows that the prophet and his followers were from Ishmael here:

    how can I proof that?
    Quote
    Quote Originally Posted by pandora
    you have pretty much misunderstood everything I have posted. I think we are done here.. Don't you?
    Tell that to yourself

    peace
    Last edited by محمد سني 1989; 07-09-2014 at 04:37 AM.
    نقره لتكبير أو تصغير الصورة ونقرتين لعرض الصورة في صفحة مستقلة بحجمها الطبيعي

  5. #45
    نصير الدين's Avatar
    نصير الدين is offline عضو مميز
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    478
    Religion
    الإسلام
    Last Activity
    03-10-2016
    At
    07:07 PM

    Default

    Quote
    And you don't need to repeat swearing and bad language in posts to me either
    I lost my temper there . Sorry .

  6. #46
    pandora's Avatar
    pandora is offline member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    712
    Religion
    Christianity
    Gender
    Female
    Last Activity
    08-12-2014
    At
    07:22 PM

    Default

    Quote
    Quote Originally Posted by نصير الدين View Post
    I lost my temper there . Sorry .
    Apology accepted. Thank you.

    peace.

  7. #47
    pandora's Avatar
    pandora is offline member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    712
    Religion
    Christianity
    Gender
    Female
    Last Activity
    08-12-2014
    At
    07:22 PM

    Default

    Quote
    Quote Originally Posted by محمد سني 1989 View Post
    Clearly you haven't since your response was based on explaining that the phrase hebrew literuture which pulpit used could have reffered to non OT documents like talmud , midrash or the apocryphatic texts , which is not true at all since its within the context of explaining the passage , pulpit used it to refer to the OT
    No.. Sorry, it it is you who is wrong. My response was not based on the phrase regarding Hebrew literature, I simply mentioned in passing the fact that not all early Jewish literature was considered divine in nature. As Jeremiah 8:8 is dealing with the OT, then obviously the text in question is divine. You would do well to read up on the context of Jeremiah and who and what he is addressing. If you read more of pulpit commentary instead of just skimming off what you thought suited your purpose then you would have had a clearer picture. Please read below and bear in mind the example I gave you... If I myself interpreted a verse from my church Bible and changed it from the original meaning..

    Before his death, Moses wrote 13 Torah Scrolls. Twelve of these were distributed to each of the 12 Tribes. The 13th was placed in the Ark of the Covenant (with the Tablets). If anyone would come and attempt to rewrite or falsify the Torah, the one in the Ark would “testify” against him. (Likewise, if he had access to the scroll in the Ark and tried to falsify it, the distributed copies would “testify” against him.)

    Based on the methodology above how do you suppose the scribes were able to corrupt the words of the Torah without such a deception being discovered? It seems far more likely that the dishonest scribes Jeremiah talks of here were guilty of ignoring the law in the Torah and teaching the people their own false interpretations. Subsequent prophets taught from the Torah, Jesus Himself taught from the Torah and said He had come to fulfil its laws. Do you think they were ignorant of the Torah Law being corrupted? You must decide if the lying scribes were greater than the prophets who followed them, the prophets who were guided by God... In whom I would place my faith that they would know truth from falsehood. Unless you are claiming all subsequent prophets after Jeremiah and also the Lord Jesus were complicit and knowingly taught from a corrupt Torah. I do hope you do not believe such a scenario!!

    Quote
    WRONG pandora!!!!! WRONG

    Either you have ignored my response or just quickly skimmed to it , I have already mentioned two other examples relating to the OT
    more importantly you said the bible so need to play such games
    I do wish you would stop with the shouting and such bold statements that I am always wrong in whatever I say.. For sure the law of averages I must surely get something right sometimes!!!! You have consistently demonstrated IMHO a lack of knowledge in Christianity yet you behave as if you're some kind of expert. Friend... Arrogance is not becoming, I feel it is you who skim over my posts because you evidently don't understand what I say. Believe me I read your replies intently.. Usually more than once in order to be clear what point you are making, because it may be clear to you.. But not always as clear to me. Honestly.. I am not playing games here.


    Quote
    WRONG!!! .....AGAIN pandora

    Yet again you have proved to everybody that you are avoiding admitting the truth and trying to twist and manipulate the basic understanding

    The christian commentray sources which I have cited are just two examples of CHRISTIAN INTERPRITATION , which all have the same opinion about the passage , the fact that a christian author of an article ON A MUSLIM-CHRISTIAN DEBATE website would defer shows either a personal opinion to avoid admitting what the muslim claim or just simply being dishonest !!!!

    So again you are trying to avoid the bias in the article you copied and pasted by holding on to the technicality that all articles and books are bias!!!!!
    honestly.. What is this truth I am avoiding? I stated unequivocally that the article I posted on Jeremiah 8 and the articles you posted from pulpit commentary and Gills Bible etc.. Were for all intents and purposes in agreement. It is YOU who seem unable to see that. And please don't you ever imply that I am being dishonest!! It's bad enough being shouted at, having to read bad language and being called mistress without my honesty and integrity being called into question. Am I in dialogue with adults here or are you children??? If you do not see the context of author bias when it comes to works of literature then I am not sure where to go from here.

    Quote
    BTW I already cited many jewish and christian sources which shows that the prophet and his followers were from Ishmael here:

    how can I proof that?
    jolly good.


    Quote
    Tell that to yourself

    peace
    Right.. I will.

    Peace unto you.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    947
    Last Activity
    09-12-2016
    At
    06:15 PM

    Default

    Quote
    Quote Originally Posted by pandora View Post
    No.. Sorry, it it is you who is wrong. My response was not based on the phrase regarding Hebrew literature, I simply mentioned in passing the fact that not all early Jewish literature was considered divine in nature. As Jeremiah 8:8 is dealing with the OT, then obviously the text in question is divine.
    That was the whole point , so they were manipulating the writtings NOT the interpritation!!!!

    Plus if you did not mean that it was about other texts and it was about OT then why argue!!!!! and why say this :

    Quote
    Quote Originally Posted by pandora

    Regarding "Hebrew Literature" .. You are joking here right? Not all Hebrew literature was considered the inspired word of God... Early Jewish
    Apocrypha also had its place in society but was NOT considered inspired or part of the Jewish canon. You understand that literature is written but you do not seem to understand that NOT all literature is inspired by God!! I am sometimes inspired by the world around me to write poetry... Should I claim God directly inspired me to write poetry?? If I did claim thus is my poetry of divine origin???
    I mean what is the point now with such statements , I already was talking about what pulpit said !!! so why do you need to mention this ??

    Quote
    Quote Originally Posted by pandora

    . If you read more of pulpit commentary instead of just skimming off what you thought suited your purpose then you would have had a clearer picture. Please read below and bear in mind the example I gave you... If I myself interpreted a verse from my church Bible and changed it from the original meaning..

    Before his death, Moses wrote 13 Torah Scrolls. Twelve of these were distributed to each of the 12 Tribes. The 13th was placed in the Ark of the Covenant (with the Tablets). If anyone would come and attempt to rewrite or falsify the Torah, the one in the Ark would “testify” against him. (Likewise, if he had access to the scroll in the Ark and tried to falsify it, the distributed copies would “testify” against him.)

    Based on the methodology above how do you suppose the scribes were able to corrupt the words of the Torah without such a deception being discovered? It seems far more likely that the dishonest scribes Jeremiah talks of here were guilty of ignoring the law in the Torah and teaching the people their own false interpretations.
    It is interesting that you are accusing me of misinterpriting pulpit while I gave you all of what pulpit said , yet you still did not answer and claimed his opinion here is just circumstantial differentiation ; a simple difference in the opinion which is wrong , added to what Gill said here :

    Lo, certainly ... - Rather, Verily, lo! the lying pen "of the scribes" hath made it - the Law - into a lie. The mention of "scribes" in this place is a crucial point in the argument whether or not the Pentateuch or Torah is the old law-book of the Jews, or a fabrication which gradually grew up, but was not received as authoritative until after the return from the captivity. It is not until the time of Josiah 2 Chronicles 34:13 that "scribes" are mentioned except as political officers; here, however, they are students of the Torah. The Torah must have existed in writing before there could have been an order of men whose special business it was to study it; and therefore to explain this verse by saying that perhaps the scribes were writers of false prophecies written in imitation of the true, is to lose the whole gist of the passage. What the scribes turned into a lie was that Law of which they had just boasted that they were the possessors. Moreover, the scribes undeniably became possessed of preponderating influence during the exile: and on the return from Babylon were powerful enough to prevent the restoration of the kingly office
    Barne's Notes on the bible

    As for what you mentioned of testifying :

    Again this is the writers view and the bible never said that the ark would testify against its !!!

    Did it testify against the sumeritans or the writers of the dead sea scroll ???



    Quote
    Quote Originally Posted by pandora
    . Do you think they were ignorant of the Torah Law being corrupted? You must decide if the lying scribes were greater than the prophets who followed them, the prophets who were guided by God... In whom I would place my faith that they would know truth from falsehood. Unless you are claiming all subsequent prophets after Jeremiah and also the Lord Jesus were complicit and knowingly taught from a corrupt Torah. I do hope you do not believe such a scenario!!
    I already discussed many times , in short Jesus had the original Torah and gospel with him





    Quote
    Quote Originally Posted by pandora
    You have consistently demonstrated IMHO a lack of knowledge in Christianity yet you behave as if you're some kind of expert.
    This is coming from the person who could not answer, explain and also contradicts the trinity doctrine in christianity !!!!!

    Quote
    Quote Originally Posted by pandora
    Friend... Arrogance is not becoming, I feel it is you who skim over my posts because you evidently don't understand what I say
    Really because it seems you are having a hard time keeping up



    Quote
    Quote Originally Posted by pandora
    honestly.. What is this truth I am avoiding? I stated unequivocally that the article I posted on Jeremiah 8 and the articles you posted from pulpit commentary and Gills Bible etc.. Were for all intents and purposes in agreement.
    NOPE they do not

    Quote
    Quote Originally Posted by pandora
    It is YOU who seem unable to see that. And please don't you ever imply that I am being dishonest!
    Wrong on both accounts , Show me were gill and pulpit did not say that the literal words were not manipulated and it was the meaning
    Show me where I called you or elluded to you being dishonest !!???

    Complaining too much about anything and everything is what makes a person childish . Remember that.

    Peace
    نقره لتكبير أو تصغير الصورة ونقرتين لعرض الصورة في صفحة مستقلة بحجمها الطبيعي

  9. #49
    pandora's Avatar
    pandora is offline member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    712
    Religion
    Christianity
    Gender
    Female
    Last Activity
    08-12-2014
    At
    07:22 PM

    Default

    Quote
    Quote Originally Posted by محمد سني 1989 View Post
    That was the whole point , so they were manipulating the writtings NOT the interpritation!!!!
    could you explain please what meaning do you take between "writings" and "interpretation"? How you define what is meant by these words?

    Quote
    Plus if you did not mean that it was about other texts and it was about OT then why argue!!!!! and why say this :
    I was simply trying to give you a greater perspective, in the hope it would make things clearer. But I see you are a very literal person who maybe does not think "outside the box" that much.

    Quote
    I mean what is the point now with such statements , I already was talking about what pulpit said !!! so why do you need to mention this ?

    ***Before his death, Moses wrote 13 Torah Scrolls. Twelve of these were distributed to each of the 12 Tribes. The 13th was placed in the Ark of the Covenant (with the Tablets). If anyone would come and attempt to rewrite or falsify the Torah, the one in the Ark would “testify” against him. (Likewise, if he had access to the scroll in the Ark and tried to falsify it, the distributed copies would “testify” against him.)

    Based on the methodology above how do you suppose the scribes were able to corrupt the words of the Torah without such a deception being discovered? It seems far more likely that the dishonest scribes Jeremiah talks of here were guilty of ignoring the law in the Torah and teaching the people their own false interpretations.
    I was asking you a question here.. I know you like to avoid my questions whenever you can. I highlighted the question.. To make it easier to see. Would you like to answer it?

    Quote
    It is interesting that you are accusing me of misinterpriting pulpit while I gave you all of what pulpit said , yet you still did not answer and claimed his opinion here is just circumstantial differentiation ; a simple difference in the opinion which is wrong , added to what Gill said here :

    Lo, certainly ... - Rather, Verily, lo! the lying pen "of the scribes" hath made it - the Law - into a lie. The mention of "scribes" in this place is a crucial point in the argument whether or not the Pentateuch or Torah is the old law-book of the Jews, or a fabrication which gradually grew up, but was not received as authoritative until after the return from the captivity. It is not until the time of Josiah 2 Chronicles 34:13 that "scribes" are mentioned except as political officers; here, however, they are students of the Torah. The Torah must have existed in writing before there could have been an order of men whose special business it was to study it; and therefore to explain this verse by saying that perhaps the scribes were writers of false prophecies written in imitation of the true, is to lose the whole gist of the passage. What the scribes turned into a lie was that Law of which they had just boasted that they were the possessors. Moreover, the scribes undeniably became possessed of preponderating influence during the exile: and on the return from Babylon were powerful enough to prevent the restoration of the kingly office
    Barne's Notes on the bible
    i did not accuse you of anything. I said you did not use the whole article, and so missed out some of the context.... The article in its entirety gives references to other verses to give greater context making it clearer to understand. The highlighted coloured section is what you used from Pulpit.


    How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain.
    Verse 8. - How do ye say, We are wise? Jeremiah is evidently addressing the priests and the prophets, whom he so constantly described as among the chief causes of Judah's ruin (comp. Ver. 10; Jeremiah 2:8, 26; Jeremiah 4:9; Jeremiah 5:31), and who, in Isaiah's day, regarded it as an unwarrantable assumption on the part of that prophet to pretend to instruct them in their duty (Isaiah 28:9). The law of the Lord is with us. "With us;" i.e. in our hands and mouths. (comp. Psalm 1:16). The word torah, commonly rendered" Law," is ambiguous, and a difference of opinion as to the meaning of this verse is inevitable. Some think these self-styled "wise" men reject Jeremiah's counsels on the ground that they already have the divinely given Law in a written form (comp. Romans 2:17-20), and that the Divine revelation is complete. Others that torah here, as often elsewhere in the prophets (e.g. Isaiah 1:10; Isaiah 8:16; Isaiah 42:4), simply means "instruction," or "direction," and describes the authoritative counsel given orally by the priests (Deuteronomy 17:11) and prophets to those who consulted them on points of ritual and practice respectively. The usage of Jeremiah himself favors the latter view (see Jeremiah 2:8; Jeremiah 18:18; and especially Jeremiah 26:4, 5, where "to walk in my Torah" is parallel to "to hearken to the words of my servants the prophets." The context equally points in this direction. The most natural interpretation, then, is this: The opponents of Jeremiah bade him keep his exhortations to himself, seeing that they themselves were wise and the divinely appointed teachers of the people. To this Jeremiah replies, not (as the Authorized Version renders) Lo, certainly in vain made he it, etc.; but, Yea, behold I for a lie hath it wrought - the lying pen of the scribes (so Authorized Version, margin). Soferim (scribes) is the term proper to all those who practiced the art of writing (sefer); it included, therefore, presumably at least, most, if not all, of the priests and prophets of whom Jeremiah speaks. There are indications enough that the Hebrew literature was not entirely confined to those whom we look up to as the inspired writers, and it is perfectly credible that the formalist priests and false prophets should have availed themselves of the pen as a means of giving greater currency to their teaching. Jeremiah warns his hearers to distrust a literature which is in the set-vice of false religious principles - a warning which prophets in the wider sense of the term ('The Liberty of Prophesyings') still have but too much occasion to repeat, tit is right, however, to mention another grammatically possible rendering, which is adopted by those who suppose torah in the preceding clause to mean the Mosaic Law: "Yea, behold, the lying pen of the scribes hath made (it) into a lie;" i.e. the professional interpreters of the Scriptures called scribes have, by their groundless comments and inferences, made the Scriptures (especially the noblest part, the Law) into a lie, so that it has ceased to represent the Divine will and teaching. The objections to this are:

    (1) the necessity of supplying an object to the verb - the object would hardly have been omitted where its emission renders the meaning of the clause so doubtful;
    (2) that this view attributes to the word soferim a meaning which only became prevalent in the time of Ezra (comp. Ezra 7:6, 11).]

    [QUOTE]As for what you mentioned of testifying :

    Again this is the writers view and the bible never said that the ark would testify against its !!!

    Did it testify against the sumeritans or the writers of the dead sea scroll ???[QUOTE]

    The Ark is believed to contain the Tablets of Stone on which the Ten Commandments were inscribed... And among other things the first Torah scroll as written by Moses.. Which is what we have been talking about.. So this Torah scroll testifies to the truth of all other copies made. What proof do you have of the claim you make in regards to this Torah Scroll being corrupted by the lying scribes?

    Quote
    I already discussed many times , in short Jesus had the original Torah and gospel with him
    Really this is your belief. The Torah was not "given" to Jesus... It was already in existence, Jesus taught from it, I do not believe He would have done so if He knew it was corrupted. The basis of your claim lies with the belief that this Torah is not the same as the one was given to Moses. If Jesus did not believe the Torah was anything other than the original Torah he would not have used it. The Torah in the possession of the Jews is the same today as it was then... Or do they claim otherwise?? So when do you suppose this corruption happened? You may see this as unimportant.. As you say the Quran says it's corrupt so therefore it is.. However, it is vitally important. Any court of law would demand proof of not only where, but when and by whom the corruption occurred. So without the same standard of proof such claims remain what they are ..unsubstantiated.

    As I said before Jesus did not bring a message .. HE was the message. There is no proof in existence of any "Gospel" other than what we have today contained in the New Testament. If there had been another Gospel as given to Jesus there would surely be some shred of evidence in support of this fact.

    Quote
    This is coming from the person who could not answer, explain and also contradicts the trinity doctrine in christianity !!!!!
    I beg your pardon? What's this got to do with the point in hand??

    Quote
    Really because it seems you are having a hard time keeping up
    lol... Keeping up with what? Your confusing posts? I confess even with the level of repetition your point is not always clear.

    Quote
    NOPE they do not
    Yep... They do.

    Quote
    Wrong on both accounts , Show me were gill and pulpit did not say that the literal words were not manipulated and it was the meaning
    Show me where I called you or elluded to you being dishonest !!???
    its there in the explanations!!! Maybe it is not possible for your eyes to see this.

    ****The christian commentray sources which I have cited are just two examples of CHRISTIAN INTERPRITATION , which all have the same opinion about the passage , the fact that a christian author of an article ON A MUSLIM-CHRISTIAN DEBATE website would defer shows either a personal opinion to avoid admitting what the muslim claim or just simply being dishonest !!!!


    So again you are trying to avoid the bias in the article you copied and pasted by holding on to the technicality that all articles and books are bias!!!!!****

    from this you said it appeared to me that you were making a comparison with my remark on the author bias in articles that I was dishonestly attempting to defer opinion rather agree with you. If I am mistaken in this assumption, then please accept my sincere apology.
    However, my personal honesty and integrity will not allow myself to agree with something that you say or any scholarly article "Christian" or otherwise, if I do not see the truth in it.

    Quote
    Complaining too much about anything and everything is what makes a person childish . Remember that.

    Peace
    note taken... lol.. I am an exceptionally patient person as a rule.. But at times you do try my patience sorely. I will try harder not to complain if you try not to shout at me so much.. Then we can both be adult. Pax.

    peace unto you.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    947
    Last Activity
    09-12-2016
    At
    06:15 PM

    Default

    Quote
    Quote Originally Posted by pandora View Post
    could you explain please what meaning do you take between "writings" and "interpretation"? How you define what is meant by these words?
    Writting meaning the bible the scripture, interpritation meaning the meaning of the passages in the bible not the literal writting


    Quote
    Quote Originally Posted by pandora
    I was simply trying to give you a greater perspective, in the hope it would make things clearer. But I see you are a very literal person who maybe does not think "outside the box" that much.
    It had nothing to do with our discussion , thats why it confused me , but my mistake then


    Quote
    Quote Originally Posted by pandora
    I was asking you a question here.. I know you like to avoid my questions whenever you can. I highlighted the question.. To make it easier to see. Would you like to answer it?
    Already answered but you chose to ignore :

    Quote
    Quote Originally Posted by محمد سني 1989

    As for what you mentioned of testifying :

    Again this is the writers view and the bible never said that the ark would testify against its !!!

    Did it testify against the sumeritans or the writers of the dead sea scroll ???




    Quote
    Quote Originally Posted by pandora
    i did not accuse you of anything. I said you did not use the whole article, and so missed out some of the context.... The article in its entirety gives references to other verses to give greater context making it clearer to understand. The highlighted coloured section is what you used from Pulpit.


    How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain.
    Verse 8. - How do ye say, We are wise? Jeremiah is evidently addressing the priests and the prophets, whom he so constantly described as among the chief causes of Judah's ruin (comp. Ver. 10; Jeremiah 2:8, 26; Jeremiah 4:9; Jeremiah 5:31), and who, in Isaiah's day, regarded it as an unwarrantable assumption on the part of that prophet to pretend to instruct them in their duty (Isaiah 28:9). The law of the Lord is with us. "With us;" i.e. in our hands and mouths. (comp. Psalm 1:16). The word torah, commonly rendered" Law," is ambiguous, and a difference of opinion as to the meaning of this verse is inevitable. Some think these self-styled "wise" men reject Jeremiah's counsels on the ground that they already have the divinely given Law in a written form (comp. Romans 2:17-20), and that the Divine revelation is complete. Others that torah here, as often elsewhere in the prophets (e.g. Isaiah 1:10; Isaiah 8:16; Isaiah 42:4), simply means "instruction," or "direction," and describes the authoritative counsel given orally by the priests (Deuteronomy 17:11) and prophets to those who consulted them on points of ritual and practice respectively. The usage of Jeremiah himself favors the latter view (see Jeremiah 2:8; Jeremiah 18:18; and especially Jeremiah 26:4, 5, where "to walk in my Torah" is parallel to "to hearken to the words of my servants the prophets." The context equally points in this direction. The most natural interpretation, then, is this: The opponents of Jeremiah bade him keep his exhortations to himself, seeing that they themselves were wise and the divinely appointed teachers of the people. To this Jeremiah replies, not (as the Authorized Version renders) Lo, certainly in vain made he it, etc.; but, Yea, behold I for a lie hath it wrought - the lying pen of the scribes (so Authorized Version, margin). Soferim (scribes) is the term proper to all those who practiced the art of writing (sefer); it included, therefore, presumably at least, most, if not all, of the priests and prophets of whom Jeremiah speaks. There are indications enough that the Hebrew literature was not entirely confined to those whom we look up to as the inspired writers, and it is perfectly credible that the formalist priests and false prophets should have availed themselves of the pen as a means of giving greater currency to their teaching. Jeremiah warns his hearers to distrust a literature which is in the set-vice of false religious principles - a warning which prophets in the wider sense of the term ('The Liberty of Prophesyings') still have but too much occasion to repeat, tit is right, however, to mention another grammatically possible rendering, which is adopted by those who suppose torah in the preceding clause to mean the Mosaic Law: "Yea, behold, the lying pen of the scribes hath made (it) into a lie;" i.e. the professional interpreters of the Scriptures called scribes have, by their groundless comments and inferences, made the Scriptures (especially the noblest part, the Law) into a lie, so that it has ceased to represent the Divine will and teaching. The objections to this are:

    (1) the necessity of supplying an object to the verb - the object would hardly have been omitted where its emission renders the meaning of the clause so doubtful;
    (2) that this view attributes to the word soferim a meaning which only became prevalent in the time of Ezra (comp. Ezra 7:6, 11).]
    Explanation of the highlited (red) sentences

    The objection was not to the idea that the manipulation to the torah was to its writting rather to the idea that the meaning of the word torah in the context meant the Mosiac law , the passage states this idea as an alternative view depicted by the word However.
    The word litteriture in the first suggestion actually refers to literal writtings

    Sorry pandora but this actually proves my point, this was the reason why I did not include it because it already proves my point NOT yours

    [QUOTE=pandora]


    [QUOTE]As for what you mentioned of testifying :

    Again this is the writers view and the bible never said that the ark would testify against its !!!

    Did it testify against the sumeritans or the writers of the dead sea scroll ???
    Quote

    The Ark is believed to contain the Tablets of Stone on which the Ten Commandments were inscribed... And among other things the first Torah scroll as written by Moses.. Which is what we have been talking about.. So this Torah scroll testifies to the truth of all other copies made. What proof do you have of the claim you make in regards to this Torah Scroll being corrupted by the lying scribes?
    You are using circular fallacy !!!

    This was an answer to this part of your statement yet you used it and rephrased your response !!!!

    I will repeat my answer and question again :

    Quote
    Quote Originally Posted by محمد سني 1989
    Again this is the writers view and the bible never said that the ark would testify against its !!!

    Did it testify against the sumeritans or the writers of the dead sea scroll ???
    This brings up a second question ?

    Quote
    Quote Originally Posted by pandora
    What is your proof that the current torah is the same as the one in the ark!!??
    Did I even say it was given to him ???? NO pandora I did not

    Do not put words on my mouth this is what I said :

    Quote
    Quote Originally Posted by pandora

    I already discussed many times , in short Jesus had the original Torah and gospel with him
    There is a difference between had and given so do not put words on my mouth

    Quote
    Quote Originally Posted by pandora
    Really this is your belief. The Torah was not "given" to Jesus...As I said before Jesus did not bring a message .. HE was the message. There is no proof in existence of any "Gospel" other than what we have today contained in the New Testament. If there had been another Gospel as given to Jesus there would surely be some shred of evidence in support of this fact.
    LOL there already is . The wide scholarly view is that the anonamous writer of Mark is supposed to have copied from a certain gospel , this gospel is called the Q gospel . I cannot go into much detail but you can do some research about it

    By the way there are many gospels that were written in the first 4 centuries of the bible : the gospel of james, the gospel of judas , the gospel of Mary magdalene, the apocalyptic gospel of peter , the infancy gospels in its multitude , ......etc

    Your statement must be rephraised to there were no other gospels in the first 70-90 years of christianity

    Quote
    Quote Originally Posted by pandora
    I beg your pardon? What's this got to do with the point in hand??
    This was an honest response to what you said here :

    Quote
    Quote Originally Posted by pandora
    You have consistently demonstrated IMHO a lack of knowledge in Christianity yet you behave as if you're some kind of expert.
    Quote
    Quote Originally Posted by pandora
    lol... Keeping up with what? Your confusing posts? I confess even with the level of repetition your point is not always clear.
    LOL are you confusing websites !!!! get back to reality .



    Quote
    Quote Originally Posted by pandora
    Yep... They do.
    Nope they don't . Or else show where they do agree with the writer of the article

    Quote
    Quote Originally Posted by pandora
    its there in the explanations!!! Maybe it is not possible for your eyes to see this.
    Then show it to me , everything you say now are just claims . Quote it to me if you think so and not just avoiding my demand of proof !!! Second time you avoid such demand



    Quote
    Quote Originally Posted by pandora
    ****The christian commentray sources which I have cited are just two examples of CHRISTIAN INTERPRITATION , which all have the same opinion about the passage , the fact that a christian author of an article ON A MUSLIM-CHRISTIAN DEBATE website would defer shows either a personal opinion to avoid admitting what the muslim claim or just simply being dishonest !!!!


    So again you are trying to avoid the bias in the article you copied and pasted by holding on to the technicality that all articles and books are bias!!!!!****

    from this you said it appeared to me that you were making a comparison with my remark on the author bias in articles that I was dishonestly attempting to defer opinion rather agree with you. If I am mistaken in this assumption, then please accept my sincere apology.
    Appology accepted since my remark was on the author not you

    I was simply explaining my opinion on the article and its writer

    Quote
    Quote Originally Posted by pandora
    However, my personal honesty and integrity will not allow myself to agree with something that you say or any scholarly article "Christian" or otherwise, if I do not see the truth in it.
    What it seems to me you are saying is that you will not accept any proof of my claims unless it agrees with your assumptions, even if they were the concensus of christian scholars !!!!!! If this indeed is the situation then you choose your own feelings and convictions over the truth and I think this is were the debate in this thread ends!!!


    BTW You did not answer what was written on Gill's exposition

    Quote
    Quote Originally Posted by محمد سني 1989
    It is interesting that you are accusing me of misinterpriting pulpit while I gave you all of what pulpit said , yet you still did not answer and claimed his opinion here is just circumstantial differentiation ; a simple difference in the opinion which is wrong , added to what Gill said here :

    Lo, certainly ... - Rather, Verily, lo! the lying pen "of the scribes" hath made it - the Law - into a lie. The mention of "scribes" in this place is a crucial point in the argument whether or not the Pentateuch or Torah is the old law-book of the Jews, or a fabrication which gradually grew up, but was not received as authoritative until after the return from the captivity. It is not until the time of Josiah
    2 Chronicles 34:13
    that "scribes" are mentioned except as political officers; here, however, they are students of the Torah.
    The Torah must have existed in writing before
    there could have been an order of men whose special business it was to study it; and therefore to explain this verse by saying that perhaps the scribes were writers of false prophecies written in imitation of the true, is to lose the whole gist of the passage.
    What the scribes turned into a lie was that Law of which they had just boasted that they were the possessors
    . Moreover, the scribes undeniably became possessed of preponderating influence during the exile: and on the return from Babylon were powerful enough to prevent the restoration of the kingly office

    Barne's Notes on the bible
    Although you actually quoted it you never really addressed it
    نقره لتكبير أو تصغير الصورة ونقرتين لعرض الصورة في صفحة مستقلة بحجمها الطبيعي

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6 LastLast

The Qur’an Cannot Be A Text of Divine Origin

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. WHICH TEXT IS RIGHT
    By m.n in forum English Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 23-03-2012, 03:42 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 15-11-2010, 12:29 AM
  3. The name Christianity its origin and meaning
    By عبد الرحمن احمد عبد الرحمن in forum English Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-05-2006, 03:32 PM
  4. On The Origin of Calamity
    By modeblues in forum English Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-04-2006, 01:12 AM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 28-10-2005, 04:06 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

The Qur’an Cannot Be A Text of Divine Origin

The Qur’an Cannot Be A Text of Divine Origin