Quote
Quote Originally Posted by محمد سني 1989 View Post
Writting meaning the bible the scripture, interpritation meaning the meaning of the passages in the bible not the literal writting
Can writing also refer to unbiblical scripture in this instance? Well.. Obviously it has to as we know the scribes stood accused by Jeremiah of writing false accounts of scripture. Ergo if they were false they were unbiblical. 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. 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.

Quote
Already answered but you chose to ignore :

****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 ???****

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.


Quote
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
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?

Quote
I will repeat my answer and question again :

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 ???
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.

Quote
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 :
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
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.

Quote
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
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.

Quote
Nope they don't . Or else show where they do agree with the writer of the article

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
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

Quote
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!!!
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.

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

***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***

Although you actually quoted it you never really addressed it
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.

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.

I really can't think that there is anything to say further on this matter. I know as is your way you will counter attack saying I have not answered or I have ignored questions.... I do not feel this is the case. I have made my position clear on this text and have tried to explain why it is clear to me. It's your choice to accept what I say as my view which differs from yours but that I may have grounds .. At least by my own reasonings for my belief on this matter. You can stick to your own version you are comfortable with.. Doesn't matter either way really. I do feel however to continue labouring over this same point is becoming counter productive. I think the time may have come to respectfully agree to disagree on this matter. I leave it with you.

Peace unto you.