Here you are taking part of what he said and ignoring the rest :
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 34:13that "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 offi
on the contrary of what you are saying , Gill clearly mentions that it is absurd to think that they were perhaps writers of false prophecies is not true
Then he asserts that they were changed the law by writting