The Qur’an Cannot Be A Text of Divine Origin

[محمد سني 1989]

You are right when you said this subject took more than enough so I will try to make my answer brief , since your response did not actually directly relate to what I said so it will be short

Quote

Can Interpretation in this instance refer to the scribes own false interpretations of the true scripture? Obviously, it has to as we know the true Torah existed in the Ark... And to verify the True Torah we also have the twelve faithful copies distributed to the twelve tribes. Any comparison would show what had been falsified by the scribes in question. That is why, whichever way you cut it, and however you interpret your "evidence" from "Christian scholars"... The fact remains you need to prove that these scribes altered not only the thirteenth Torah scroll kept in the Ark, but also the other twelve identical copies in the possession of the twelve tribes.

So it all comes back to what you said about the testifying of the torah , which I have answered already

By the way No they did not alter the original Torah written by the hand of Moses peace be upon him nor the one in the ark that is the muslim belief but through time they did make false copies of the writtings and especially after the Ark was lost when nebocanusur (sorry for the miss spell) , they started writting what they liked not what was the truth

My point being is that if you are right in the testifying of the torah in the ark say , then your example would be flaud and only limited to before the babylonian captivity period since the ark was lost after that !!!!!

Quote

They would then have to convince all the people who knew the contents of the True Scroll that it had not been changed or to follow the false teachings they had instigated by their lying pens!!!! I find that hypothesis unlikely... For that reason I believe that Jeremiah was NOT implying the scribes were guilty of altering the writing in the original Torah.. But were distributing their own WRITTEN interpretations and leading people astray by their false teachings.

Again they were making false copies of the original

However they would not have to make a lot of convincing to the Israelites. History shows us that even after the israelites crossed the red sea and saw all of god's miracles and proofs , they still worshipped the golden calf and they kept on going to paganism every chance they had until prophet Jerimiah came so that would not be something unbelievable from the israelites at that time

Quote

I'm sorry but is this what you believe is an acceptable answer to my question? And you wonder why I missed it????? A brush off followed by a question!!!!!! What on earth do you think the Torah testifies to if not it's self? When you say Ark, I take it to mean the Torah scroll held within the Ark. Seeing as the Ark is the receptacle to house the Torah scroll among other things.

This is a smokescreen answer with all do respect . You chose not to answer my ligitemate question :

Why did it not testify against the writers of the dead sea scrolls and the Sumeritans !!!!!????

plus your argument is based upon the ark which was lost at the babylonian invasion , so what about after !!???

Quote

Really.. You think it proves your point? Well, that's fine for you. I don't believe it does but your mind is made up and set on this issue. If you wish to take the view of some Bible scholars over the Bible itself that's ok for you but not for me. Do you take the view of Islamic scholars on the Quran before your own? Maybe that is how you do things, but Christians do not need scholars to tell us what the Bible means it's clear enough a child can understand it. That does not mean there is no need of scholars... Of course there is, as theologians who make it their life's work of study to gain a deeper understanding will always offer a different point of view. Yet, we should be cautious that that it is still their opinion and we can all offer an opinion on any subject under the sun. Doesn't make us always right though. I feel you are getting bogged down in this question of the "Christian scholars" opinions on Jeremiah 8:8.. At the expense of reading the actual text in its proper context for yourself. Unfortunately I have found myself sucked into this useless exercise and am being asked to justify the opinions of "scholars"!!! When I don't really care that much for their opinion either way... And I know they mean even less to you. So what are we doing here?

This is your response to the fact that pulpits objection actually was for the case of the manipulation of the literal writtings not against it !!!!

Why do you take it as an attack !!!

I find what you are saying here is actually kind of an attempt to shut an eye on the truth, and use just one eye. I mean it is clear that you are willing to take your own opinion over the opinion of experts!!!! But what amazes me more is you asserting that your opinion is the opinion of the bible , I mean this is clearly not true!!

If we take the passage at face value we will see phrases such as the lying pen , scribes and I think that would have been enough

Quote

and I'll repeat my answer.... 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. Also further elaborated on this in the point above.

If this is what you mean by Testifying then :

Again what proof do you have that the current Torah is the same as the one in the Ark !!??? and not the one say the Sumeritans have

What about the period after the loss of the Ark!!!!??

Quote

Not that much difference, the end result is the same.. Weather Jesus was GIVEN the Torah or HAD the Torah. Either way we know Jesus knew the Torah, as He taught from it.. Which I said already.. Jesus would not have taught from the Torah if it were corrupt, also Jesus said He came to confirm the Torah Law.. he would not confirm something he knew was false. So then you have to prove Jesus either did not know the Torah was corrupt... Unlikely. Or did not care... Even more unlikely.

And how do you know that Jesus peace be upon him taught your version of the Torah !!???

Quote

if you wish to discuss the Q Gospel start another thread. I would be happy to discuss it with you there, although it may be short as there is not much to speak of. If you wish to discuss the Apocrypha or Deuterocanonical books start another thread. We could maybe talk of how some Bible Apocryphal stories found there way into the Quran... But I'm guessing that would be better another time another forum.. Not this one.

Happy to

And we could talk also about how pagan Roman and Hindu influences found their way in the new testament

Quote

So much has been posted I will have to request if you can repost the two articles you feel agree or disagree.. I have neither the time or inclination to troll through previous posts.. As I said before not easy task on my device.. I will have another look at them. If you really feel the opinions of "scholars" and Bible commentaries are more important than what the actual Bible has to say on the matter. For me.. It's totally unimportant, everyone is entitled to hold an opinion... but I don't want you to be throwing your toys out of the pram and accusing me of not answering deliberately... lol

You have said nothing in the previous post to prove that they were in agreement, on the contrary you stood firm and you even elluded to the idea that the opinion of these scholars are sometimes not important!!!

Quote

nope... Not at all. However, your proof has to at least offer a realistic alternative version that what I already see I have. Maybe, I do not stress as much importance as you yourself do on the matter of Scholars. Besides in regards to the Bible commentaries I really do not see they claim what you believe they do. If you understood the wider context of Jeremiah you would see this, I'm guessing you don't so you will come to a different conclusion to mine.

Actually I do understand the context of Jerimiah and the fact that what you added in pulpit's commentary turned out to be backing up my claim shows that you did not read what pulpit actually said or even understood it. Your claim is based on an author of an article in a christian- muslim debate link which happened to go against some of the scholarly interpritation and also against the simple reading of the passage!!!

Quote

Whats to say? There could have been!!!! Well really this is supposition on behalf of the author. What is one to comment on supposition? You are the one who demands proof for the minutiae of any claim.. Maybe you should email the author and ask him if he would care to elaborate by what he meant by this claim.. Then we have ... Perhaps!!! Well sure Perhaps the scribes were indeed writers of false prophecies.. Perhaps they were something else. Claims of this nature you should clearly see is the authors opinion. Why on earth you want "proof" of a persons opinion on something from a third party... (Myself) is beyond me.

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 34:13

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 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

Quote

IMHO ... What I take from ,,. What the scribes turned into a lie was that Law of which they had just boasted that they were the possessors ... Is the scribes boasted they had the law, they in their arrogance knew the law... And took it upon themselves to interpret that Law as to their own agendas. Thereby turning the law into a lie... later in Jeremiah 26:4 God still commanded them to follow the Law. How could this be if the Law itself had been corrupted? It's clear to me the scribes are not been charged with wholesale corruption of the Torah itself... But of distributing false copies of their own interpretations.

.

Again I see your personal opinion (what you take from) turning the clear phrase that the scribes turned into a lie was that law of which they had just boasted that they were the possessors into interpriting the law according to their will !!! I mean it is clear that there is a certain twist in interprating the text which exists

Jerimiah 26: 4

It is talking about the true law not the one these false writers were writting, the passage never said that all copies were now corrupt !!! Rather Jrimiah warned fro these false writers

peace