F00028:

that's a nice switch

I said it before, I'll say it again:

sigh... nl xtians are all alike. methods may differ: self righteous indignation, putting words in people's mouths, false accusations, false claims, fabrications, etc but once I see y'all congregating and patting each other on the back, I know y'all been stumped!

Dude, answer the simple question. I didn't switch, you keep biting your tongue - it appears English is not your first language. How was the Book revealed to Mohammed Oh!. You are yet to tell us where the original Bible is since the one we have is corrupt. You are yet to tell us HOW god informed Mohammed about the Torah and Zabur. You said it was revealed but later said god INFORMED Mohammed. Oya - the ball is in your court. How did god inform Mohammed?

you see that's your problem: you are dishonest.
and of course english isn't my mother tongue but I know enough of it to always tell.

alexis:
You are yet to tell us where the original Bible is since the one we have is corrupt.

when/ where have I ever made mention of any "original bible"?
Jeremiah says you scriptures are corrupt! ask him where it is.

alexis: You are yet to tell us HOW god informed Mohammed about the Torah and Zabur. You said it was revealed but later said god INFORMED Mohammed.

when/where did I first say the Torah and/or the Zabur were revealed" to the Prophet Muhammad?

stop putting words in my mouth. I know you can't help it, but at least make the effort

you see that's your problem: you are dishonest.
and of course english isn't my mother tongue but I know enough of it to always tell.

Dishonest? You don't say.

when/ where have I ever made mention of any "original bible"?
Jeremiah says you scriptures are corrupt! ask him where it is.

I asked you basic questions and when you answer, I am not sure if you know what you type. For example, I asked you

alexis - DO YOU CLAIM THE BIBLE WE HAVE TODAY IS CORRUPT OR NOT?

F00028 - OF COURSE I THINK IT IS and so does Jeremiah.

You didn't use the word ORIGINAL BIBLE, I did. You claimed/claim the Bible we have today is corrupt, I asked where is the original since you confirmed a corrupt version. If something is fake/corrupted, then there should be an original or un-corrupted one. That is all I asked you and YOU HAVEN'T ANSWERED

when/where did I first say the Torah and/or the Zabur were revealed" to the Prophet Muhammad?

Again, here is the dialog

Question1: alexis - The TORAH and ZABUR, where did your prophet get them from

Answer1: F00028 - the Prophet didn't get them. The Torah was given to Moses, the Zabur was given to David (peace be upon them). God sees it fit to inform him of the contents

Question2: alexis - How did this God inform the prophet of the Torah and Zabur? History said the prophet was unlearned and an illiterate and couldn't read. How did he come about them?

Answer2: F00028 - Same way he revealed to him the Quran

It was at this point I stated you said the Torah & Zabur was revealed to Mohammed. You said I LIED and you MEANT that god INFORMED him of both books. You had ALREADY said god informed in your 1st answer and when I asked HOW, you said it was revealed. I take it perhaps you didn't get my question.

Moving forward - HOW DID god INFORM PROPHET MOHAMMED ABOUT THE TORAH AND ZABUR?. Again, the question is HOW, what meduim did god use to inform him? I hope the question is clear now before you claim that I am dishonest and lie . We already know that god INFORMED him, you have made that clear.

stop putting words in my mouth. I know you can't help it, but at least make the effort

All the words that have been said are yours, if I am mis-quoting you then please clarify. I await the answer to the 2 questions I asked

F00028:


when/ where have I ever made mention of any "original bible"?
Jeremiah says you scriptures are corrupt! ask him where it is.

You know that Jeremiah is of the OLD prophets. So which scripture did He says is corrupt?
Did Daniel, Christ read from the Book of Jeremiah and also believed in an uncorrupt Torah?. Or are you saying God couldn't reveal this to Daniel?
or again are you saying that Daniel did not understand Jeremiah 8:8 to mean that the text of the Law was corrupted??
Is God not capable of preserving the Torah? if man tempered with it, were there no ways to reveal it or correct it?
If you claim the scriptures are corrupt, why then do you still take words from this corrupt book

Plesae answer those few questions.

Luke 4:17 The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:
18 "The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed 19 to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor." Luke 4:20 Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him, On this day, this prophecy was fulfilled:

Luke 4:21 and he began by saying to them, "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing."

and also, can you tell us what the entire Quran consisted of?

plappville:
You know that Jeremiah is of the OLD prophets. So which scripture did He says is corrupt?

The answer to your question is in your next question.

dear plappville, are you trying to get to the truth or are you just trying to trip me?

plappville: Did Daniel, Christ read from the Book of Jeremiah and also believed in an uncorrupt Torah?. Or are you saying God couldn't reveal this to Daniel?

or again are you saying that Daniel did not understand Jeremiah 8:8 to mean that the text of the Law was corrupted??

“…the only evidence of what verses that Daniel read from the Book of Jeremiah are Jeremiah 25:11, 12 and 29:10 where God predicts that Israel would be taken into captivity to Babylon for 70 years.”

plappville: Is God not capable of preserving the Torah? If man tempered with it, were there no ways to reveal it or correct it?

of course HE can but the fact that HE didn’t should tell you something!

the Torah was not to be eternal. it was for a specific people for a specific period of time. it expired with the coming of God’s final revelation, the Quran.

plappville: If you claim the scriptures are corrupt, why then do you still take words from this corrupt book

it's because I am talking to you. if I was talking to an atheist I wouldn’t try to prove anything to him/her with the bible, would I?

the fact of the matter is Jermiah 8:8 is clear that the pens of the scribes have corrupted the scriptures. by bring other verses of the bible to show the scriptures are not corrupt, all you are doing is bring up another contradiction in the bible.

if jermiah 8:8 is true, then the bible is corrupt. if jeremiah 8:8 is an interpolation and it’s in your bible, then the bible is still corrupt. you really can’t win with Jeremiah 8:8.

plappville: and also, can you tell us what the entire Quran consisted of?

the Quran is Almighty God’s final revelation to mankind. it containing guidance to the whole of mankind for every facet of his existence. revealed 1400 years ago, containing truths about this world that only its Creator would know. things that only now mankind is beginning to see for himself.

F00028:
The answer to your question is in your next question.

dear plappville, are you trying to get to the truth or are you just trying to trip me?



“…the only evidence of what verses that Daniel read from the Book of Jeremiah are Jeremiah 25:11, 12 and 29:10 where God predicts that Israel would be taken into captivity to Babylon for 70 years.”

[b]of course HE can but the fact that HE didn’t should tell you something! [/b]the Torah was not to be eternal. it was for a specific people for a specific period of time. it expired with the coming of God’s final revelation, the Quran. it's because I am talking to you. if I was talking to an atheist I wouldn’t try to prove anything to him/her with the bible, would I? the fact of the matter is Jermiah 8:8 is clear that the pens of the scribes have corrupted the scriptures. by bring other verses of the bible to show the scriptures are not corrupt, all you are doing is bring up another contradiction in the bible.

if jermiah 8:8 is true, then the bible is corrupt. if jeremiah 8:8 is an interpolation and it’s in your bible, then the bible is still corrupt. you really can’t win with Jeremiah 8:8.

I can just laugh at you, Islamic scholars has been refuted severally, are you knew to this? God's law was dead and was not used until Muhammed came isn't this sound foolish to you??
Let me help you out. Read this with open mind then you will never speak of Jeremiah 8:8 anymore.

Understanding Jeremiah 8:8
Jeremiah, chapter 8 states:7 Even the stork in the sky knows her appointed seasons, and the dove, the swift and the thrush observe the time of their migration. But my people do not know the requirements of the LORD.
8 How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?

9 The wise will be put to shame; they will be dismayed and trapped. Since they have rejected the word of the LORD, what kind of wisdom do they have?

For all Bible study (as for studying any other book) it is important to look at the context of each passage we want to understand. The above verses are part of Jeremiah's "Temple Address" in Jeremiah 7:1-10:25.

1 This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord: 2 "Stand at the gate of the Lord's house and there proclaim this message:

" 'Hear the word of the Lord, all you people of Judah who come through these gates to worship the Lord. 3 This is what the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel, says: Reform your ways and your actions, and I will let you live in this place. 4 Do not trust in deceptive words and say, "This is the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord!" 5 If you really change your ways and your actions and deal with each other justly, 6 if you do not oppress the alien, the fatherless or the widow and do not shed innocent blood in this place, and if you do not follow other gods to your own harm, 7 then I will let you live in this place, in the land I gave your forefathers for ever and ever. 8 But look, you are trusting in deceptive words that are worthless.

9 " 'Will you steal and murder, commit adultery and perjury,[a] burn incense to Baal and follow other gods you have not known, 10 and then come and stand before me in this house, which bears my Name, and say, "We are safe"—safe to do all these detestable things?

25 From the time your forefathers left Egypt until now, day after day, again and again I sent you my servants the prophets. 26 But they did not listen to me or pay attention. They were stiff-necked and did more evil than their forefathers.'
The first important clue is to note that God through the prophet Jeremiah states in verse 7: "my people do not KNOW the requirements of the LORD". He does NOT say that they do not HAVE them. Then in verse 8 he takes up the the false security of the people who claim that they have the law as if the mere possession of the law will benefit them in any way if they do not obey it and if they distort it with their false interpretations. Let us look at the next three verses from the passage in question, since Jeremiah himself explains what this "lying pen" is all about.

10 Therefore I will give their wives to other men and their fields to new owners. From the least to the greatest, all are greedy for gain; prophets and priests alike, all practice deceit. 11 They dress the wound of my people as though it were not serious. "Peace, peace," they say, when there is no peace.
12 Are they ashamed of their loathsome conduct? No, they have no shame at all; they do not even know how to blush. So they will fall among the fallen; they will be brought down when they are punished, says the LORD.

What exactly is it that these scribes are doing? If you read the larger context you will see clearly that the scribes, priests and prophets are telling the people that everything is okay, that the Law is being kept, and that there will be peace because "God is with us", His people. But they are lying. It doesn't say their lying pens are making the Torah into a lie by altering its text. It says they are writing things that are false as though they came from God's law and teaching them to the people

A scribe in that time wasn't so much a copyist as a teacher and expounder. These lying teachers are telling the people "peace, peace" although the true prophet tells them there is no peace and will be no peace. God has announced His judgment on Jerusalem for its idolatery and disobedience. The enemies are coming and God will NOT help. This verse has nothing to do with altering the books, it has to do with teaching false practices and giving false prophecies and saying these are based on the Lord's law. The law of God which clearly speaks of punishement for sin is disregarded and the people are told about the promises of God's goodness -- which are in the Law too, but each has its conditions.

What is the reason for this false security? Verse 10 identifies the the people (including the scribes, priests and "prophets" as greedy for gain. But the people will only gladly pay them for good news or better the lies of "favorable horoscopes" and not for the true messages of judgment and calls to repentance coming from God's eternal word. So, because of greed they trade the truth of God's word for the gains that come from the lies of false promises.

In chapter 7:1-29 Jeremiah announces God's judgment against Jerusalem because of their sin and disobedience. The people in Jerusalem are kept in false security that nobody would be able to touch them because this is the place of God's Temple and surely God would miraculously rescue them as He has done previously (see e.g 36 Then the angel of the Lord went forth, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians a hundred and fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they were all dead corpses.)
Jeremiah delivers God's word against this false security in 7:4-15.

The "lying pen of the scribes" is guilty not of changing the text of the law, but of false application of it. They are giving the wrong interpreation out of personal greed and because they fear men more than God. In effect, Jeremiah says that they don't "have" the Law because they don't KEEP the Law. It is not the physical presence of the Law or of the Temple that will avert God's wrath, but only obedience to his word. They did not corrupt the physical text of it, but they "handled" it falsely as 8:8 says. If the text they were working with hadn't been the Law anymore, then they could not have been accused of mishandling it.

"Having" the Law is no advantage whatsoever if you don't obey it. The endresult is the same as if you don't even have it. This is the consistent message of the Bible in many, many places.

For example you might have a detailed look at a similar address of judgment against the scribes by Jesus in Matthew 23. Let me explicitely quote a few verses here. Jesus starts out his harsh words of condemnation (taking up nearly all of chapter 23) with:

Matthew 23: 2 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat.
3 So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

Jesus would never have told the people to listen to the teachers of the Law if the very law they were teaching had not been unchanged and as pure as it was given by God. No, textual corruption was not an issue at all. It is always the question of how we react and what we do with the law that we know.

And there is another passage in 2 Timothy 2, using very similar words as those in Jeremiah:
15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.

One can "handle" the word of God correctly or falsely, but there is no question that the false interpretations and preaching will affect the EXISTENCE of the word in its true form. False teaching will earn the displeasure of God, but there are others who also have the word and will speak up. Like Jeremiah in his time is sent to speak because the scribes teach lies and say that they are the true word of God. And like the true disciples in the early church against the heretics.

[size=16pt]Arguing from the passage in Jeremiah 8 that the Torah is corrupted in its text would be going against the testimony of Jesus, against the testimony of the whole of God's prophets, and is an argument from silence, since it does not say so at all. The context makes it fully clear that this speaks about false interpretation and application of the word of God.[/size]

But there is still one more piece of evidence from the book of Jeremiah. Indeed this same incident of his temple address is reported again in Jeremiah 26, where we read:

4 Say to them, 'This is what the LORD says: If you do not listen to me and follow my law, which I have set before you,
5 and if you do not listen to the words of my servants the prophets, whom I have sent to you again and again (though you have not listened)
6 then I will make this house like Shiloh and this city an object of cursing among all the nations of the earth.'

Obviously, God admonishes the people to obey his law which he has set before them. This would not be possible and indeed were a ridiculous command if the law were not with them so that they can indeed read and know and obey it. Both, the law of God [the Torah given through Moses], and the words brought by the many other prophets of God, like Isaiah some generations earlier and Jeremiah himself at this time.

This is confirmation from the book of Jeremiah itself, even from the very same incident of the temple address, that the evidence above has been read correctly. The earlier passage in Jeremiah 8 is in most Bibles set in verse form which shows that the Hebrew is written in poetry. The summary statement about the temple address in chapter 26 is written in prose. We all know that in poetry there is often a greater license employed of words which are not meant literal but which are used to achieve a dramatic effect. And for the effect on the life of the people these false teachings are the same as not having the law at all. That why it is so serious. But that doesn't mean it has actually disappeared "physically". Chapter 26 makes it clear that it is still available and if the people will heed Jeremiah's preaching they indeed CAN go back and read it and obey it.

Further evidence: In Nehemia, chapter 8 we find that Ezra reads the Law to the people of Israel for a whole week, day after day. For example in verses 8, 13-14, and 18 it states:

They read from the Book of the Law of God, making it clear and giving the meaning so that the people could understand what was being read...
... On the second day ... they gathered around Ezra the scribe to give attention to the words of the Law.
They found written in the Law, which the LORD had commanded through Moses, that ...
Day after day, from the first day to the last, Ezra read from the Book of the Law of God. ...

This is in about 430 B.C. about 180 years after Jeremiah's temple address which took place in 609 or 608 B.C., the first year of the reign of king Jehoiakim (see Jeremiah 26:1).
Furthermore, at about the same time the prophet Malachi lives and preaches. In Malachi 4:4 we also read that God admonishes his people:

malachi 4:4 Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments.
[size=16pt]All this clearly testifies to the existence of the Law of God given through Moses at this time.[/size]

http://www.answering-islam.org/BibleCom/jer8-8.html

Muslims always find ways to validate thier religion. They just can't keep off the corrupt book, they have no understanding of the Scripture.

ochukoccna: @ logicboy,
Great thead you started
Non the less its a waste of time&effort because the fundamentals you addressed in Islam been violent have spiritual and not logical nor humanistic underpinnings
Below is what God says in the bible (a Being& a book you do not subscribe to) about Ishmael whom moslems trace their lineage to. That's why its not just Christians versus them but Jews,Hindus,Bhuddists etc they WILL NEVER co-exist peacefully with
As a yoruba proverb says,the venom of snakes reside in their progeny
As the bible says,his (Ishmael) hand will be against EVERYone&EVERYone's hand WILL be against him
Judge for yourself but there can NEVER BE PEACE with Ishmael's offspring upon planet Earth

NKJV
Gen 16:11 And the Angel of the LORD said to her: "Behold, you are with child, and you shall bear a son. You shall call his name Ishmael, because the LORD has heard your affliction.
Gen 16:12 He shall be a wild man; his hand shall be against every man, and every man's hand against him. and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren."

NIV version
Gen 16:11 The angel of the LORD also said to her: "You are now with child and you will have a son. You shall name him Ishmael, for the LORD has heard of your misery.
Gen 16:12 He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers."

Where is Lagosshia when you need him most. I will assist with some of his posts:

eviticus 26:29
You will eat the flesh of your
sons and the flesh of your
daughters.
Deuteronomy 28:53
Because of the suffering that your
enemy will inflict on you during
the siege, you will eat the fruit
of the womb, the flesh of the sons
and daughters the LORD your God
has given you.
Deuteronomy 28:56-57
The most gentle and sensitive
woman among you?so sensitive and
gentle that she would not venture
to touch the ground with the sole
of her foot?will begrudge the
husband she loves and her own son
or daughter the afterbirth from
her womb and the children she
bears. For she intends to eat them
secretly during the siege and in
the distress that your enemy will
inflict on you in your cities.
2 Kings 6:29
So we cooked my son and ate him.
The next day I said to her, 'Give
up your son so we may eat him,'
but she had hidden him."
Jeremiah 19:9
I will make them eat the flesh of
their sons and daughters, and they
will eat one another's flesh
during the stress of the siege
imposed on them by the enemies who
seek their lives.'
Lamentations 2:20
"Look, O LORD, and consider: Whom
have you ever treated like this?
Should women eat their offspring,
the children they have cared for?
Should priest and prophet be
killed in the sanctuary of the
Lord?
Lamentations 4:10
With their own hands compassionate
women have cooked their own
children, who became their food
when my people were destroyed.
Ezekiel 5:10
Therefore in your midst fathers
will eat their children, and
children will eat their fathers. I
will inflict punishment on you and
will scatter all your survivors to
the winds.
and ofcourse we know that up to
this day Christians themselves
still practice symbolic
cannibalism by eating Jesus'
body (communion) and driniking
his blood!!!

F00028:


the Quran is Almighty God’s final revelation to mankind. it containing guidance to the whole of mankind for every facet of his existence. revealed 1400 years ago, containing truths about this world that only its Creator would know. things that only now mankind is beginning to see for himself.

What a deep joke...the Kuran almighty God words? So, Muhammed followers didn't see things for themselves? let me enlighten you small. Do you know that historical data found show that Muslims corrupted the Quran? Even though it was not divine at the first place . For instance, if you look at the Hadith u will find that Uthman burned copies of the kuran in order to standardize what he believed was the official text, even though some of Muhammad’s closest followers were in disagreement with him. In the following narration, Ibn Abbas mentioned some verses that were left out in the readings of the Quran:

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

'Umar said, Ubai was the best of us in the recitation (of the Qur'an) yet we leave some of what he recites.' Ubai says, 'I have taken it from the mouth of Allah's Apostle and will not leave for anything whatever.' But Allah said: None of Our revelations do we abrogate or cause to be forgotten but We substitute something better or similar (2.106)" (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 61, Number 527)

Narrated Ibn Abbas:

Umar said, "Our best Qur'an reciter is Ubai and our best judge is 'Ali; and in spite of this, we leave some of the statements of Ubai because Ubai says, 'I do not leave anything that I have heard from Allah's Apostle while Allah: "Whatever verse (Revelations) do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten but We bring a better one or similar to it." (2.106) (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number


These missing verses cannot be referring to abrogated parts of the Quran which were no longer essential since even the abrogated verses were included within the text.
You have failed, because you weren't able to tell me what the entire kuran consist of, instead ranting by saying it's the final word of God. a thing you can't prove.

This next source states that there isn’t a single Muslim that could say for certain that they have the entire kuran preserved since there wasn’t anyone that could definitely tell what the entire kuran consisted of:

It is reported from Ismail ibn Ibrahim from Ayyub from Naafi from Ibn Umar who said:[size=16pt] "Let none of you say ‘I have acquired the whole of the Qur'an'. How does he know what all of it is when much of the Qur'an has disappeared? Rather let him say 'I have acquired what has survived.’”[/size] (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p. 524).

Allah authentic visions, revelations are missing in action and you not having knowledge of this?

Mind you, these are Islamic sources and the alleged reported words of those closest to Muhammad who boldly admitted that the Quran is not entirely intact since some of it’s contents are missing. British Scholar Sir Norman Anderson stated:

"So, although it is true that today the Kufan text of Hafs is accepted almost everywhere in the Muslim world, the claim commonly made by Muslims that they have ipsissima verba of what Muhammad actually said, without any variant readings, rests upon an ignorance of the facts of history." (Anderson, Islam in the Modern World [Leicester: Apollos, 1990], p. 47; bold emphasis ours) Do we have more to say on this matter?

AbuHanifa: Where is Lagosshia when you need him most. I will assist with some of his posts:

LagosShia cannot change History....He only ends up his arguments with insults. The OP is more responsible than LagosShia.

@plappville, now you please read this with an open mind:


It is very clear from the text that the scribes have corrupted the Law (first 5 books of the Old Testament). How did they corrupt it? With their mouths by giving false interpretations? No! They did so with their "pens". Meaning they altered the text of the Law. How else could a pen corrupt something

Following are some arguments that Christians put forward to try to show that the verse does not say that the Law has not been corrupted.

The "lying pens of the scribes" means that
the scribes wrote misinterpretations of the Law and not actually altered the text of the Law

If scribes wrote misinterpretations of the
Law then why would people go and read
them? Notice that in verse 7 is says that
they don't know the requirements of the
Law. If they wanted to know the requirements of the Law, why go and read what the scribes have written when they could easily go to the supposedly uncorrupted text of the Law when it was available. Everything is there.

Notice how the verse says that they don't
have the Law. If the Law was truly there
in an uncorrupted form then that means
that they had it.

Some Christians tend to argue that "not
having the Law" means that they don'
truly abide by it. However, verse 7 states
that they don't know the requirements
because the lying pen of the scribes have
handled the Law falsely (verse 8 ). People
should have easily went to see what is
written in the Law to know the
requirements of God and not listen to the
scribes. But they couldn't because the
scribes corrupted the Law and therefore
people could not have known the true
requirements because they would not
have been able to distinguish between the
corrupted and uncorrupted verses of the
Law.

Jeremiah 26:4 says that God still
commanded them to follow the Law. How
could this be if the Law has been
corrupted?

This does not necessarily have to be
referring to the Law of Moses. It's
possible it could be referring to the
revelations that God had sent down to
Jeremiah. e.g.. Jeremiah Chapter 7 and 36
In Nehemiah, chapter 8 we find that Ezra
reads the Law to the people of Israel for a
whole week, day after day. For example in
verses 8, 13-14, and 18. This is in about
430 B.C. about 180 years after Jeremiah's
temple address which took place in 609 or
608 B.C., the first year of the reign of king
Jehoiakim (see Jeremiah 26:1). In Malachi
4:4, God tells the people to follow the
Law.
This is irrelevant because Christians are
assuming that these books of Nehemiah
and Malachi are truly from God. Maybe
they were following the same corrupted
Law that Christians are following today.
This proves nothing.

Daniel Chapter 9 shows that Daniel read
from the Book of Jeremiah and also
believed in an uncorrupt Torah. This
shows that Daniel did not understand
Jeremiah 8:8 to mean that the text of the
Law was corrupted

First of all the only evidence of what
verses that Daniel read from the Book of
Jeremiah are Jeremiah 25:11, 12 and 29:10
where God predicts that Israel would be
taken into captivity to Babylon for 70
years. This does not prove that he read
the whole book of Jeremiah.
Even if there was proof that he read the
whole book of Jeremiah that does not
mean anything. Daniel could have easily
misunderstood the passage just like how
Christians are today. Maybe he twisted
around its true meaning just like how
Christians do today because he they don't
want to admit that their scripture is
corrupted.

God could have restored the Torah just
like how he did with Jeremiah's own
revelations in Jeremiah 36:1-7, 20-32,
27-32

Irrelevant, because Jeremiah 8:8 does not
say that God restored the Law. Yes he
could have done it. God could do
anything. But the verse didn't say that.
Jesus gave authority to the Law in the
Gospels
How do you know that Jesus even read
Jeremiah 8:8? How do you know that
Jesus truly gave authority to the Law?
Because your Gospel says so? How do you
know that the Gospel writers truly quoted
Jesus' true words? This will get into a
discussion of the authority of the Gospels
so lets not go there. However, you cannot
use the Bible to prove the Bible has not
been corrupted. This is just circular
reasoning.

Even your own Quran says that Jesus
came to confirm the Law

The Gospel was given to Prophet Jesus to
confirm what remained intact from the
Torah; and the Glorious Quran was given
to Prophet Mohamed (saws) to confirm
what remained intact from the Gospel
and The Law!

Is God not able to preserve the Torah?

He is able to but just because he allowed
it to become corrupted does not
undermine His power. It could have been
God's divine plan for it to have been
corrupted because the Law was probably
only meant to be followed for a particular
point in time unlike the Holy Quran which
is the final revelation of God and has
remained intact and preserved and is
meant to be followed for all time since it
has been revealed.

Conclusion
Jeremiah 8:8 is explicitly clear when it
states that the Law has been corrupted.
We are not even sure if Jeremiah is really
the true author of this book. We don't
have any evidence to confirm if he wrote
the whole book. So even if Christians try
to come up and show verses from the
book of Jeremiah that give authority to
the Law then that would just simply be
contradicting Jeremiah 8:8. Maybe others
added to the book to try and cover it up.
Only God knows best. Maybe Christians
might criticize me for saying that
Jeremiah is not reliable yet I use Jeremiah
8:8 to prove that the Bible is corrupt. Well
either Jeremiah 8:8 is a true verse and the
Bible is corrupted or Jeremiah 8:8 is a
corrupted verse but it is in your Bible so
your Bible is still corrupted! However, do
not expect a subjective Christian to
believe the implications of Jeremiah 8:8,
they would simply dismiss it. However,
use it for those truth seeking and
objective Christians.

http://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/argument_of_jeremiah_8.htm

F00028:It is very clear from the text that the scribes have corrupted the Law (first 5 books of the Old Testament). How did they corrupt it? With their mouths by giving false interpretations? No! They did so with their "pens". Meaning they altered the text of the Law. How else could a pen corrupt something

Hahahaha, Bassam Zawadi has been refuted correctly, there is no cough of him again on this issue. See it:

Even the stork in the sky knows her appointed seasons, and the dove, the swift and the thrush observe the time of their migration. But my people do not know the requirements of the LORD. "`How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely? the wise will be put to shame; they will be dismayed and trapped. SINCE THEY HAVE REJECTED THE WORD OF THE LORD, WHAT KIND OF WISDOM DO THEY HAVE? Jeremiah 8:8-9

Even the stork in the heavens knows her times; and the turtledove, swallow, and crane keep the time of their coming; but my people know not the ordinance of the LORD. "How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie. The wise men shall be put to shame, they shall be dismayed and taken; lo, THEY HAVE REJECTED THE WORD OF THE LORD, and what wisdom is in them? Jeremiah 8:8-9 RSV

One who looks at the immediate context will see that God poses a question to show why the false scribes cannot claim to be wise, and in verse 9 he answers that question by saying BECAUSE THEY REJECTED THE WORD OF THE LORD (HIS LAW). In light of such rejection, WHAT TYPE OF WISDOM COULD THEY CLAIM TO HAVE? We see that there is no mention that these scribes corrupted the Bible. If verse 8 was claiming that the law was corrupted then why is God calling it his word in verse 9? This is something Mr. Zawadi has failed to address.

F00028: Jeremiah 26:4 says that God still
commanded them to follow the Law. How
could this be if the Law has been
corrupted?

God will not command His children to follow a corrupt law, He will not allow such, this is where Zawadi's argument remained blind..

Read the bold yourself...assumption is baseless....: I will post verse that proved that when God talk about the prophets, This include Moses bro...don't be decieved by Zawadi.

[size=14pt]This does not necessarily have to be
referring to the Law of Moses.[/size] It's
possible it could be referring to the
revelations that God had sent down to
Jeremiah. e.g.. Jeremiah Chapter 7 and 36
In Nehemiah, chapter 8 we find that Ezra
reads the Law to the people of Israel for a
whole week, day after day. For example in
verses 8, 13-14, and 18. This is in about
430 B.C. about 180 years after Jeremiah's
temple address which took place in 609 or
608 B.C., the first year of the reign of king
Jehoiakim (see Jeremiah 26:1). In Malachi
4:4, God tells the people to follow the
Law.

When confronted with an obvious kryptonite response to his argument Mr. Zawadi must now revert to the typical Islamic misinformation by claiming “oh well, it doesn’t actually refer to the Law of Moses”. So let’s assume that he believes that it was referring to the revelations God sent down to Jeremiah, this is still going to work against Mr. Zawadi, for the very verse he tries to use in his defense, Jeremiah 26:4, backfires against him:

Jeremiah 26 4 Say to them, 'This is what the LORD says: If you do not listen to me and follow my law, which I have set before you,
5[size=14pt] and if you do not listen to the words of my servants the prophets, whom I have sent to you again and again [/size](though you have not listened)
6 then I will make this house like Shiloh and this city an object of cursing among all the nations of the earth.

As you can clearly see, this passage mentions that:

1. You must follow the law, which God sent down WHICH WAS BEFORE JEREMIAH (eliminating any chance that this only refers to Jeremiah since many prophets came before him).
2. You must listen to the words of God’s servant’s the prophets, which God had sent over and over again.

So based on this passage, the law God was referring to is that which preceded Jeremiah and the words of the prophets refers to the message that God sent Israel throughout their history, calling them to repent and turn back to the law in order to avoid its wrath. Mr. Zawadi’s entire argument crumbles before our very eyes and his explanation falls flat on his face.

Again, see how Mr ZAWADI atricle misled you:

F00028:[size=14pt]This does not necessarily have to be
referring to the Law of Moses.[/size]

malachi 4:4 Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments.
This same corrupt law is to be remembered?...get knowledge and stop running around ZAWADI'S ARTICLES.

Jesus also instructed His disciple to put in practice this corrupt law?Matthew 23: 2 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat.
3 So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

Do you know what it means by "MOSES SEAT"? when you sit on that seat, you have no right to interpret the scrolls, you just read what is in it to the hearing of the people. That is why Jesus told his disciple, "So you must obey them and do everything they tell you." But once they are no longer siting on the seat, they do things different from what they read in the scroll. So this Book was not tempered with, hence, Jesus wouldn't use it likewise other prophets before Him.


In Nehemiah, chapter 8 we find that Ezra reads the Law to the people of Israel for a whole week, day after day. For example in verses 8, 13-14, and 18. This is in about 430 B.C. about 180 years after Jeremiah's temple address which took place in 609 or 608 B.C., the first year of the reign of king Jehoiakim (see Jeremiah 26:1). In Malachi 4:4, God tells the people to follow the Law.

Again mr ZAWADI says:

F00028: This is irrelevant because Christians are
assuming that these books of Nehemiah
and Malachi are truly from God. Maybe
they were following the same corrupted
Law that Christians are following today.
This proves nothing.

Actually Mr. Zawadi is wrong again. Let’s reiterate what he said earlier:
He said: Jeremiah 26:4 says that God still commanded them to follow the Law. How could this be if the Law has been corrupted?

Mr ZAWADI: This does not necessarily have to be referring to the Law of Moses. It's possible it could be referring to the revelations that God had sent down to Jeremiah. e.g.. Jeremiah Chapter 7 and 36

But what does Jeremiah 26:4-6 say:If you do not listen to me and follow MY LAW, WHICH I HAVE SET BEFORE YOU, AND if you do not listen to the words of MY SERVANTS THE PROPHETS, whom I have sent to you again and again (though you have not listened)

As you can see, both the law AND THE WORDS OF THE PROPHETS were considered equal in God’s eyes, therefore prophets like Ezra and Malachi wouldn’t be following a corrupted law, and their words would be the very words of God himself. Also Mr. Zawadi doesn’t explain to us how this is irrelevant, because apparently he doesn’t know. Claiming that Christians are assuming that Nehemiah and Malachi are from God as the grounds to reject their testimony as irrelevant IS BASED ON HIS ASSUMPTION THAT JEREMIAH IS FROM GOD AND NEHEMIAH AND MALACHI AREN’T FROM GOD. In other words, he accepts Jeremiah 8:8 as God’s word, as trustworthy enough to prove that the law was corrupted. Yet, when other writers and prophets prove him wrong, or show that he has no clue what he is talking about, since that verse doesn’t say that the text of the Law was corrupted, he then rejects their testimony on the basis that they are not prophets and their views are therefore not necessarily true!

If Mr. Zawadi wants to reject Christian thinking because of their assumption, how can he answer our supposed assumption WITH ANOTHER ASSUMPTION? He has committed the fallacy of begging the question, calling Christian thinking irrelevant without proving it irrelevant other than assuming that Jeremiah 8:8 is more trustworthy than all the other verses in the Bible, and even more reliable than the rest of the statements of Jeremiah that happen to explain what Jeremiah 8:8 does and does not mean! That's like answering a question with another question.

I will come to you with the rest refuting when am chanced, becareful of ZAWADI'S Articles. Im just loving this because He contradict and confused himself.

Has F00028 totally ignored me

@Plappville
Zawadi makes a valid point: Jeremiah says they corrupted the law with their "pen" not with their mouths e.g by false interpretations, false readings,etc

and he's right, if it was just a question of misinterpretation or false reading why not simply go to the pure text and ignore the scribes?

however Jeremiah 8:7. tells you they don't know and Jeremiah 8:8 tells you why i.e the "lying pen" of the scribes has altered the text?

and please note by bringing up other portions of the bible that command following the same law Jeremiah has declared corrupt actually does not resolve the issue rather it complicates it for you.

for the question arises: " why would God let one prophet command observance of a law that another prophet has declared corrupted?"


ps: I have not forgotten your post about the Qur'an. I will reply it.

F00028: @Plappville
Zawadi makes a valid point: Jeremiah says they corrupted the law with their "pen" not with their mouths e.g by false interpretations, false readings,etc

and he's right, if it was just a question of misinterpretation or false reading why not simply go to the pure text and ignore the scribes?

however Jeremiah 8:7. tells you they don't know and Jeremiah 8:8 tells you why i.e the "lying pen" of the scribes has altered the text?

and please note by bringing up other portions of the bible that command following the same law Jeremiah has declared corrupt actually does not resolve the issue rather it complicates it for you.

for the question arises: " why would God let one prophet command observance of a law that another prophet has declared corrupted?"


ps: I have not forgotten your post about the Qur'an. I will reply it.

God would not allowed suche because it was not the case. Like i have said before, Arguing from the passage in Jeremiah 8 that the Torah is corrupted in its text would be going against the testimony of Jesus, against the testimony of the whole of God's prophets, and is an argument from silence, since it does not say so at all. The context makes it fully clear that this speaks about false interpretation and application of the word of God.

For your Quranic reply, take ur time bro..I continue from DANIEL.

F00028: Daniel Chapter 9 shows that Daniel read from the Book of Jeremiah and also believed in an uncorrupt Torah. This shows that Daniel did not understand Jeremiah 8:8 to mean that the text of the Law was corrupted.

First of all the only evidence of what verses that Daniel read from the Book of Jeremiah are Jeremiah 25:11, 12 and 29:10 where God predicts that Israel would be taken into captivity to Babylon for 70 years. This does not prove that he read the whole book of Jeremiah.
Even if there was proof that he read the whole book of Jeremiah that does not mean anything. Daniel could have easily misunderstood the passage just like how Christians are today. Maybe he twisted around its true meaning just like how Christians do today because he they don't want to admit that their scripture is corrupted.

It is very apparent that Mr. Zawadi is obviously arguing with nothing but hot air. Logically if he concludes that:
Because Daniel read parts of the law about the 70 years captivity in Babylon it doesn’t prove that he read the whole book.
It can logically be concluded also that: Because Daniel didn’t read the whole book, that THE WHOLE BOOK WASN’T IN EXISTENCE.

F00028: God could have restored the Torah just like how he did with Jeremiah's own revelations in Jeremiah 36:1-7, 20-32, 27-32
Irrelevant, because Jeremiah 8:8 does not say that God restored the Law. Yes he could have done it. God could do anything. But the verse didn't say that.

God didn’t need to restore the Torah since it wasn’t corrupted and was already perfect as the prophet David explicitly taught:
THE LAW OF THE LORD IS PERFECT, reviving the soul. The statutes of the LORD are TRUSTWORTHY, making wise the simple. Psalm 19:7

According to the Quran, David was given his revelations and wisdom by Allah himself:

"Before this, We wrote in the Psalms (al-Zaburi), after THE REMINDER (Zhikri): `My servants, the righteous, shall inherit the earth.'" Surah 21:105

"Then if they reject thee, so were rejected messengers before thee, who came with Clear Signs, The Scriptures (Zuburi), and the Book of Enlightenment." S. 3:184

"Without doubt it is (announced) IN the revealed Books of former peoples (Zubu-ril-'awwaliin)." S. 26:196

"Are your Unbelievers, (O Quraish), better than they? Or have ye an immunity IN the Sacred Books (Zubur)?" S. 54:43

"And if they reject thee, so did their predecessors, to whom came their messengers with Clear Signs, Scriptures (Zuburi), and the Book illuminating." S. 35:25

Finally, the following citation demonstrates that there were Muslims who had no problem in accepting all of the OT Psalms as revelation:

Then Allah, may He be glorified and honored, revealed to Da'ud (David), the Psalms, that is al-zabur, which are ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY in number and IN THE HANDS OF THE JEWS AND CHRISTIANS. (Abu 'l-Faraj Muhammad ibn Ishaq al-Nadim, The Fihrist - A 10th Century AD Survey of Islamic Culture, edited and translated by Bayard Dodge [Great Books of the Islamic World, Inc., Columbia University Press, 1970], p. 43; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Although this source erroneously attributes all 150 Psalms to David, this nonetheless demonstrates that some Muslims wholeheartedly embraced and accepted all of the OT Psalms as God's revealed Word.

Hence, not only does the Quran say that Allah personally wrote the Psalms, but it also says that the Psalms were given to other Prophets besides David!! Therefore, since Zawadi believes that the law was corrupted, and yet since David believed that the law was perfect and flawless, then he has basically shown that the Quran is wrong and corrupted as well! Amazing! If David says that the law of God is perfect and then the Quran claims that Allah wrote the Psalms through David then this means that both Allah and the Quran are liars based on Mr. Zawadi’s fantastic research!

F00028: Jesus gave authority to the Law in the Gospels

How do you know that Jesus even read Jeremiah 8:8? How do you know that Jesus truly gave authority to the Law? Because your Gospel says so? How do you know that the Gospel writers truly quoted Jesus' true words? This will get into a discussion of the authority of the Gospels so lets not go there. However, you cannot use the Bible to prove the Bible has not been corrupted. This is just circular reasoning.

Mr. Zawadi’s argument becomes more humorous by the second. He claims that:

However, you cannot use the Bible to prove the Bible has not been corrupted. This is just circular reasoning.

Now since he is such a master of logical fallacies, it apparently never occurred to him that on the flip side:
You cannot use the Bible to prove that the Bible is corrupted for this would also be circular reasoning.
Why is it okay to use the Bible in his argument, but then call the very same reasoning circular if used by Christians to prove the exact opposite? If Mr. Zawadi objects to this then why does he say in his conclusion below:

Well either Jeremiah 8:8 is a true verse and the Bible is corrupted or Jeremiah 8:8 is a corrupted verse but it is in your Bible so your Bible is still corrupted!

It is obvious that he is using a circular argument by using the Bible against the Bible, but won’t allow Christians to use the Bible on behalf of the Bible. Mr. Zawadi seems to be ignorant of the fact that Bible ISN’T ONE BOOK, but a collection of many books brought together from over a span of 3000 years as one authoritative source from God. Hence, it isn’t circular reasoning to use the Bible in defense of the Bible for in history as well as scientific study, different sources validating the same information is considered sufficient evidence.

F00028: Even your own Quran says that Jesus came to confirm the Law

The Gospel was given to Prophet Jesus to confirm what remained intact from the Torah; and the Glorious Quran was given to Prophet Mohamed (saws) to confirm what remained intact from the Gospel and The Law!

Let’s look at what Jesus had to say about the law:

"I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." Matthew 5:18

Jesus claimed that the Torah as it exists would not pass away until all was fulfilled. Zawadi obviously may have a problem with this and may claim that since it comes from the Gospel it proves nothing. But the problem for him is that he has no Islamic source whatsoever from the time of Jesus that says something different. So basically Zawadi wants us to accept Muhammad and the Quran as more authentic sources of information on the life of Jesus, even though they came 600 years after Christ, and discard the documents that came from the first century period right around the time Christ actually lived!

Let us now move on to the meaning of Jeremiah 8:8. After all, if Jeremiah 8:8 does not mean that the text of the Torah had been corrupted what then did Jeremiah mean by the statement that the lying pens of the scribes have falsified it? A careful reading of the context leads us to believe that Jeremiah was referring to the written commentaries of the scribes whereby they falsely interpreted the law of God, leading people astray by their traditions. A similar situation arose between Jesus and the scribes and Pharisees:

"Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 'Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!' Jesus replied, 'And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?... Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: 'these people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.'" Matthew 15:1-3,6b-9

In a similar fashion, Jeremiah was rebuking the scribes for their traditions that were leading the people to reject the word of God. This can be seen from the passage that immediately follows verse 8:

"The wise will be put to shame; they will be dismayed and trapped. Since they have REJECTED the word of the LORD, what kind of wisdom do they have.” Jeremiah 8:9

As we said earlier, it is pretty hard to reject God’s word if that word was no longer available! Thus, we see no
evidence whatsoever that Jeremiah believed that the text of the Law had been corrupted.
Since Zawadi has been trying to quote the Bible to prove that it is corrupted, it is time for us to return the favor. Here is what Zawadi’s false book says about its own text:

[size=14pt]"Like as We sent down on the dividers Those who made the Quran INTO SHREDS. So, by your Lord, We would most certainly question them all, As to what they did." S. 15:90-93 Shakir[/size]

Since he believes that the Quran is the word of God then he should obviously have no problem with the Quran claiming that there were those WHO SHREDDED IT! Islamic scholar Alphonse Mingana made the following interesting comments regarding these verses:

[size=16pt]"Finally, if we understand correctly the following verse of Suratul-Hijr (xv. 90-91): 'As we sent down upon (punished) the dividers (of the Scripture?) who broke up the Koran into parts,' we are tempted to state that even when the Prophet was alive, some changes were noticed in the recital of certain verses of his sacred book. There is nothing very surprising in this fact, since Muhammad could not read or write, and was at the mercy of friends for the writing of his revelations, or, more frequently, of some mercenary amanuenses." (Mingana, "Three Ancient Korans", The Origins of the Koran - Classic Essays on Islam's Holy Book, ed. by Ibn Warraq [Prometheus Books, Amherst NY, 1998], p. 84; bold emphasis ours)[/size]

Need we say more? to be continue..

alexis: Has F00028 totally ignored me

Hahahahaha.....He is busy with mr ZAWADI's site, don't u mind, He will soon reply u.

F00028 Is God not able to preserve the Torah?
He is able to but just because he allowed it to become corrupted does not undermine His power. It could have been God's divine plan for it to have been corrupted because the Law was probably only meant to be followed for a particular point in time unlike the Holy Quran which is the final revelation of God and has remained intact and preserved and is meant to be followed for all time since it has been revealed.

Since Zawadi believes that the Quran is the word of God, and remains intact for all time, then he needs to explain this to us:

Say: Have you considered if it is from Allah, and you disbelieve in it, and a witness from among the children of Israel has borne witness of one like it (mithlihi), so he believed, while you are big with pride; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people ... And before it the Book of Musa was a guide and a mercy: and this is a Book VERIFYING (it) IN the Arabic language that it may warn those who are unjust and as good news for the doers of good. S. 46:10, 12 Shakir

One of the greatest Muslim commentators Ibn Kathir wrote regarding the above:

<(at the same time), a witness from among the Children of Israel has testified to something similar>

meaning, ‘the previous Scriptures that were revealed to the Prophets before me all testify to its truthfulness and authenticity. They have prophesied, well in advance, about things similar to that which this Qur’an informs of.’ Concerning Allah’s statement ...

<and believed>

‘this person who testified to its truthfulness from the Children of Israel, due to his realization that it was the truth.’

<while you rejected (the truth)!>

‘whereas you have arrogantly refused to follow it.’ Masruq said: "That witness believed in his Prophet and Book, while you disbelieved in your Prophet and Book." (Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged) Volume 9 (Surat Al-Jathiyah to the end of Surat Al-Munafiqun), First Edition: September 2000, pp. 52-53; cf. online edition)

The late Christian scholar of Islam Sir William Muir wrote about the Quran’s view of God’s true word:

A Jew, either residing in the vicinity of Mecca, or having visited it perhaps from Medina or elsewhere,—at any rate known at Mecca,—is quoted to the people of Mecca as bearing testimony to the correspondence of the Corân with the Jewish Scriptures, and accordingly believing in it. "Does not this," says Mahomet, "prove the divine inspiration of the Corân, and yet ye proudly reject it?"

So Baidhâwi,— على مثله مثل القران وهو ما في التوراة من المعاني المصدقة القرآن المطابقة له أو مثل ذالك وهو كونه من عندالله فآمن أي بالقرآن لما رائي من خبر الوحي مطابقاً للحق


"To the like-thereof, i. e. like the Corân, and the meaning is that the contents of the Tourât (Pentateuch) by their purport attest the Corân, as corresponding therewith, or resembling it;—and thus prove its being from God. And believed, that is, in the Corân, when he (the Jew) saw the intimations of Inspiration corresponding with the truth." (Sir William Muir, The Corân: Its Composition and Teaching, p. 84; bold emphasis ours)

Note the structure of the argument: because he assumed the divine origin of the Torah, the author of the Quran argued that since his Quran is "like the Torah" this therefore proves that it is of divine origin as well. In this context at least, the Quran seeks to derive proof for its inspiration from the authority of the Torah. In light of this, how can Zawadi remain a Muslim when he believes that the Torah was corrupted before or around the time of Jeremiah whereas his false prophet Muhammad believed the contrary, going so far as to claim that his Quran is actually a verification of it in Arabic?

In fact, using Zawadi’s logic would further prove that the Quran is also a corrupted text since it is nothing more than an Arabic version of a text that had been falsified by the lying pen of the scribes!

[size=16pt]Conclusion[/size]

Zawadi: Jeremiah 8:8 is explicitly clear when it states that the Law has been corrupted. We are not even sure if Jeremiah is really the true author of this book. We don't have any evidence to confirm if he wrote the whole book. So even if Christians try to come up and show verses from the book of Jeremiah that give authority to the Law then that would just simply be contradicting Jeremiah 8:8. Maybe others added to the book to try and cover it up. Only God knows best. Maybe Christians might criticize me for saying that Jeremiah is not reliable yet I use Jeremiah 8:8 to prove that the Bible is corrupt. Well either Jeremiah 8:8 is a true verse and the Bible is corrupted or Jeremiah 8:8 is a corrupted verse but it is in your Bible so your Bible is still corrupted! However, do not expect a subjective Christian to believe the implications of Jeremiah 8:8, they would simply dismiss it. However, use it for those truth seeking and objective Christians.

Jeremiah 8:8 backfires on Mr. Zawadi, and Islam in a much more harmful way, than Zawadi could even imagine. As for the Law of God being corrupted, here is what the Quran has to say:

[size=14pt]Shall I seek other than Allah for judge, when He it is Who hath revealed unto you (this) Scripture, fully explained? Those unto whom We gave the Scripture (aforetime) know that it is revealed from thy Lord in truth. So be not thou (O Muhammad) of the waverers. Perfected is the Word of thy Lord in truth and justice. THERE IS NAUGHT THAT CAN CHANGE HIS WORDS. He is the Hearer, the Knower. S. 6:114-115 Pickthall
[/size]

If the Quran is the word of God, and it claims that nobody can change God’s words and the Law of God was originally God’s word, how can Mr. Zawadi contradict his very own Quran and claim otherwise? He has just made Allah a liar! Returning to the Quran, we read:

"All food was lawful to the Children of Israel except what Israel made unlawful for itself[b] before the Torah[/b] was revealed. Say, 'BRING the Torah and READ it, if you are men of truth.' If any, after this, invent a lie and attribute it to God, they are indeed transgressors." S. 3:93-94

They measured not God with a true measure when they said, ‘God has not sent down aught on any mortal.’ Say: ‘Who sent down the Book that Moses brought as a light and a guidance to men? YOU PUT IT INTO PARCHMENTS, REVEALING THEM, and hiding much; and you were taught that you knew not, you and your fathers.’ Then leave them alone, playing their game of plunging. This is a Book We have sent down, blessed[b] AND CONFIRMING THAT WHICH WAS BEFORE IT…[/b] S. 6:91-92 A.J. Arberry

It is quite clear from these passages that the original Torah and the uncorrupted Book of Moses were in the possession of the people of Muhammad’s time. If they were corrupted in the time of Jeremiah then we must conclude that Muhammad mistakenly believed that a corrupt law was actually the very one that God gave to Moses, thereby proving that Muhammad was a false prophet since a true prophet would have known better. In light of the foregoing there really is no need to elaborate further on this apart from saying that Mr. Zawadi has given us another dagger to stab his false religion with!

http://answer-islam.org/argument_of_jeremiah_8.html

plappville:

Hahahahaha.....He is busy with mr ZAWADI's site, don't u mind, He will soon reply u.

I want to know HOW god revealed the Torah and Zabur to prophet Mohammed.

plappville:
...In the following narration, Ibn Abbas mentioned some verses that were left out in the readings of the Quran:

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

'Umar said, Ubai was the best of us in the recitation (of the Qur'an) yet we leave some of what he recites.' Ubai says, 'I have taken it from the mouth of Allah's Apostle and will not leave for anything whatever.' But Allah said: None of Our revelations do we abrogate or cause to be forgotten but We substitute something better or similar (2.106)" (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 61, Number 527)

Narrated Ibn Abbas:

Umar said, "Our best Qur'an reciter is Ubai and our best judge is 'Ali; and in spite of this, we leave some of the statements of Ubai because Ubai says, 'I do not leave anything that I have heard from Allah's Apostle while Allah: "Whatever verse (Revelations) do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten but We bring a better one or similar to it." (2.106) (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number

that's because they've been abrogated. God's words at the end if the same hadith you quoted settles it regardless of how Ubai feels.

plappville:
These missing verses cannot be referring to abrogated parts of the Quran which were no longer essential since even the abrogated verses were included within the text.

not all

plappville: This next source states that there isn’t a single Muslim that could say for certain that they have the entire kuran preserved since there wasn’t anyone that could definitely tell what the entire kuran consisted of:

It is reported from Ismail ibn Ibrahim from Ayyub from Naafi from Ibn Umar who said:[size=16pt] "Let none of you say ‘I have acquired the whole of the Qur'an'. How does he know what all of it is when much of the Qur'an has disappeared? Rather let him say 'I have acquired what has survived.’”[/size] (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p. 524).

here's what sam shaoun didn't tell you:

Not only are the meanings people of his club try to superimpose on this
narration totally wrong, this translation is
also misleading. We shall first clarify the real
meanings of this narration and then give its
rightful translation supported with due
reasoning.
2- The true meanings of the narration
To every ardent student of the Qur’anic
sciences it is known that there were many
verses first revealed as part of the Qur’an and
later abrogated. We have discussed the
essence of the idea of abrogation earlier.
Al-Suyuti brings this narration in the section of
his work is titled as; “Section forty-seven: About
the Abrogating and the Abrogated.” [1]
Likewise it is in the section about abrogation in
another work of al-Suyuti. [2]
In Abu ‘Ubayd’s (d. 228 A.H.) work, from
which al-Suyuti quotes this, it is the first
narration in the chapter titled; “[About] what all
was abrogated from the Qur’an after revelation
and is not put in the Masahif.” [3]
Most important is the narration quoted by Hafiz
Ibn Hajr (d. 852 A.H.) which compliments and
fixes the meaning of the report we are
discussing. Ibn Hajr writes;
ﻭﻗﺪ ﺃﺧﺮﺝ ﺑﻦ ﺍﻟﻀﺮﻳﺲ ﻣﻦ ﺣﺪﻳﺚ ﺑﻦ ﻋﻤﺮ ﺃﻧﻪ ﻛﺎﻥ
ﻳﻜﺮﻩ ﺃﻥ ﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺍﻟﺮﺟﻞ ﻗﺮﺃﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺁﻥ ﻛﻠﻪ ﻭﻳﻘﻮﻝ ﺇﻥ
ﻣﻨﻪ ﻗﺮﺁﻧﺎ ﻗﺪ ﺭﻓﻊ
Ibn al-Dhurays has narrated a report of Ibn
Umar that he used to dislike the person
who said, ‘I have recited the whole of the
Qur’an.’ He (Ibn Umar) used to say, ‘But
(the reality is) a part of the Qur’an has
been abrogated.’ [4]
This report seals the fact that Ibn Umar’s
statement simply refers to what was abrogated
from the Qur’an.
.
Abu Bakr ibn Tayyib Al-Baqilani (d. 403 A.H.) in
his amazing work al-Intisar li’l-Qur’an (In
Defence of the Qur’an), quotes another
narration on the similar lines and then explains
the two together. He writes;
ﻭﻧﺤﻮُ ﺭﻭﺍﻳﺔِ ﻋﺒﺪُ ﺍﻟﻠﻪ ﺑﻦُ ﻋﺒﺎﺱِ ﻋﻦ ﺃﺑﻲ ﺃﻧﻪ ﺳﻤﻌﻪ
ﻭﻗﺪ ﻗﺎﻝ ﻟﻪ ﺭﺟﻞ : "ﻳﺎ ﺃﺑﺎ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺬﺭ ﺇﻧﻲ ﻗﺪ ﺟﻤﻌﺖ
ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺁﻥ، ﻓﻘﺎﻝ ﻟﻪ : ﻣﺎ ﻳﺪﺭﻳﻚَ ﻟﻌﻠﻪ ﻗﺪ ﺳﻘﻂَ ﻗﺮﺁﻥ ﻛﺜﻴﺮ
ﻓﻤﺎ ﻭُﺟﺪ ﺑﻌﺪ ."
And similar is the report of Abdullah bin
‘Abbas from Ubay, that he heard a man
said to him; ‘O Abu al-Munzar verily I have
gathered (i.e. memorized) the whole of the
Qur’an.’ He (Ubay) said to him, ‘He does not
know (what the whole of it was) because so
much of the Qur’an was abrogated and it
was not found afterwards.’ [5]
And then explaining it he writes;
“And it is not possible for anyone to claim
that he has learnt (all) what was revealed
as Qur’an- the abrogating part of it and the
abrogated. And their words ‘it was not found
afterwards’ (underscore) that we do not find
in our day one who has memorized all that
was abrogated and whose recitation was
given up. And this is something which was
bound to happen.” [6]
3. Nothing has been lost of what the
Prophet left of the Qur’an
Narrated 'Abdul 'Aziz bin Rufai': Shaddad bin
Ma'qil and I entered upon Ibn 'Abbas.
Shaddad bin Ma'qil asked him, "Did the
Prophet leave anything (besides the
Qur'an)?" He replied. "He did not leave
anything except what is between the two
bindings (of the Qur'an)." Then we visited
Muhammad bin Al-Hanafiyya and asked him
(the same question). He replied, "The
Prophet did not leave except what is
between the bindings (of the Qur'an)." [7]
This hadith is categorical evidence that nothing
was lost of the Qur’an because all that the Holy
Prophet- peace and blessings of Allah be upon
him- left for his people is what was put
between the two bindings.
Hafiz Ibn Hajr writes;
“And this chapter is made to refute those
who assume that a lot from the Qur’an was
lost with the death of those who knew
it.” [8]
Al-‘Ayni (d. 855 A.H.) also makes exactly the
same point. [9]
Shahabuddin al-Alusi’s (d. 1270 A.H.)
comment helps understand the entire issue;
“Verily they (i.e. people of sunnah) have
agreed on there being no loss in the Qur’an
as is continuously reported like we today
find between the two bindings. Yes during
the time of (Abu Bakr) al-Sidiq the part
which was not reported continuously and
was (rather) abrogated was dropped (out
of the official Mushaf) … and to this relates
that which is reported by Abu ‘Ubayd from
Ibn `Umar, who said: ‘None of you should
say that he has taken the whole of the
Qur’an; how could he know what all of it
was! A lot of the Qur’an has passed him by!
Let him say instead: ‘I have taken of the
Qur’an that which became apparent.” [10]
The above mentioned narration of Sahih
Bukhari is very significant. One of the two who
said “The Prophet left nothing except what is
between the two bindings” was Ibn Abbas and
in the narration quoted by Al-Baqilani we find
him reporting and listening to the comment of
his teacher Ubayy bin Ka’b which is same as
that of Ibn Umar. Connecting the dots we make
out that he understood Ubay did not mean to
say that some part of the Qur’an that the
Prophet had left for the Ummah might have
been missed and could not be found anymore
by the person claiming to have memorized the
whole of it. It rather shows that Ibn Abbas fully
knew that what Ubay referred to was
something exclusive to what the Prophet had
left for the Ummah as eternal guidance (i.e. it
was the abrogated part). And we have already
seen that the narration of Ibn ‘Umar quoted by
Ibn Hajr on the authority of Ibn al-Dhurays
makes the same point very plainly.
Another significant observation about Bukhari’s
narration is that the two who testified for the
Qur’anic preservation are Ibn ‘Abbas, the
cousin of ‘Ali bin Talib, and Muhammad bin Al-
Hanafiyya, the son of ‘Ali bin Abi Talib- may
Allah be pleased with them all. Their testimony
is quite sufficient to lay to rest any amount of
rant by some extreme Shiites who make
speculative allegations of Qur’an being
tampered to remove verses in favor of ‘Ali, may
Allah be pleased with him. Had this been the
case these two close relatives of ‘Ali would have
not failed to make a mention of it.
4- Two objections/queries answered
Having explained the narration let us now turn
to two possible questions/queries.
4.1 Why Ibn Umar referred the abrogated
verses as Qur’an?
Before finding the answer to this question let
us have another look at the narration of Ibn al-
Dhurays;
“Ibn Umar used to dislike the person who
said, ‘I have recited the whole of the
Qur’an.’ He (Ibn Umar) used to say, ‘But
(the reality is) a part of the Qur’an has
been abrogated.”
Very much like our explanation to the narration
we are discussing, this report shows that Ibn
‘Umar referred to the abrogated verses as
Qur’an. With the clarity in its last words this
narration takes away all the rhetoric power of
the question and reduces it to a mere query
having no ability whatsoever to cast doubts on
the validity of the explanation offered.
Coming back; Dr. Sa’d bin ‘Abdullah al-
Humayyid commenting to this narration in his
research on Sunan Sa’id bin Mansur says;
“And it appears from the words of Ibn
‘Umar that in his opinion even the
abrogated verses could also be called
Qur’an after their being abrogated or (they
could be so called) by the way what they
once were.” [11]
This is understandable given the fact that
Qur’an is nothing but the word of Allah and
abrogated verses though no more required to
be learnt or followed were nevertheless revered
due to their divine origin. In this regard there
is, however, one important difference between
Ibn ‘Umar and the people of later generation
like us. As there is no authority of continuous
(mutawatir) reports, we cannot be as certain as
him about some abrogated-in-recitation words’
once being a part of the Qur’an. We may
however refer to them as such for academic
purposes on the basis of lesser proofs. But for
Ibn ‘Umar this was not the condition as he
must have listened to some verses from the
Prophet in person for which he later learnt that
they were abrogated. Therefore, he for himself
was too particular about the words that
emanated from the Almighty as part of the
Qur’an though abrogated afterwards.
Further, it also has an indication of an attitude
of extreme care on such matters that involves
goodness on one part because this can in a way
lead to self-glorification. One might see it akin
to the following hadith;
Narrated Abu Bakrah: The Prophet (may peace
be upon him) said: “One of you should not
say: I fasted the whole of Ramadan, and I
prayed during the night in the whole of
Ramadan. I do not know whether he
disliked the self-praise; or he (the narrator)
said: ‘He must have slept a little and taken
rest’.” [12]
We can see that even though it is natural that
one who would fast as such for the whole
month of Ramadan, will break the fasts at night
and will also sleep besides standing in late-night
prayers, yet an out of the way step is taken in
instructing not to make such a claim. The fact
that narration of Ibn ‘Umar is in essence similar
to this and involves the idea of claim as well; it
can help us appreciate the real message in the
words of Ibn ‘Umar- may Allah be pleased with
him.
4.2 Was “much” of the Qur’an abrogated?
We know the actual text involves the words
“qur’an kathir” therefore one may tend to
translate it as “much of the Qur’an” with stress
on “much.” In fact Sam Shamoun does that
and asks “what kind of revelation is this that
MUCH (not some) of it consists of verses that
have been abrogated?” This may appear to be a
very strong point but actually speaks of the lack
of proper understanding of the
language, something that Sam has been guilty
of in all his papers.
The Arabic word “kathir” does not mean
“much” in the comparative sense. In the
comparative sense it can even be used to mean
less than what it is compared to as shown
below. Same is the case with abrogation that
we are discussing. The abrogated part of the
Qur'an was definitely less than what remains.
A simple proof for this assertion is the narration
in which Sa’d bin Waqqas asked the Prophet-
may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon
him- about the share of his wealth that he
might give away in charity while he feared to
die. Sa’d bin Abi Waqqas himself narrated his
dialogue with the Holy Prophet –may Allah
bless him- on the subject;
ﻗُﻠْﺖُ : ﻳَﺎ ﺭَﺳُﻮﻝَ ﺍﻟﻠَّﻪِ، ﺃُﻭﺻِﻲ ﺑِﻤَﺎﻟِﻲ ﻛُﻠِّﻪِ؟ ﻗَﺎﻝَ : »ﻻَ « ،
ﻗُﻠْﺖُ : ﻓَﺎﻟﺸَّﻄْﺮُ، ﻗَﺎﻝَ : » ﻻَ « ، ﻗُﻠْﺖُ : ﺍﻟﺜُّﻠُﺚُ، ﻗَﺎﻝَ :
ﻓَﺎﻟﺜُّﻠُﺚُ، ﻭَﺍﻟﺜُّﻠُﺚُ ﻛَﺜِﻴﺮٌ
“I said; ‘Should I give two-thirds of my
property in charity?' He said, 'No.' I asked,
'Half?' He said, 'No.' then he added, 'One-
third, and even one-third is much ( wal-
thuluthu kathir ).” [13]
The translator of Sahih Muslim puts the same
as;
“He (the Holy Prophet) said: (Yes), one-
third, and one-third is quite substantial
( wal-thuluthu kathir ).” [14]
Certainly one-third is not “much” in the
comparative sense of being more than the rest
and no person of reason can ever claim that.
Just like two thousand years of theological
hammering has failed to find logic for “one in
three and three in one,” likewise no amount of
effort can ever show that “one-third” is “much”
in the comparative sense.
Ibn ‘Umar- may Allah be pleased with him-
only aimed to highlight the fact that verses of
the Qur'an were abrogated and no one should
say that they have memorized the whole of the
Qur'an (including those verses) as it rests in the
guarded tables with Allah. The Qur'an that we
have between the two covers today, the Qur'an
given to us by the messenger of God, collected
by Abu Bakr and Uthman, is the Qur'an that
Allah revealed and decreed to remain as the
guiding message for humanity till the Day of
Judgment, without any addition, subtraction or
alteration.
5- Summary and Conclusion
Ibn Umar- may Allah be pleased with him- only
referred to the abrogated part of the Qur’an
and his comment in no way suggests of even a
single letter of the Qur’an being lost.
Ibn ‘Umar’s other narration quoted by Ibn Hajr
on the authority of Ibn al-Dhurays plainly
establishes this meaning.
Abu ‘Ubayd and Al-Suyuti have both placed the
narration in the sections about abrogated
verses which shows they also understood it
likewise. Comments of Al-Baqilani and Al-Alusi
also support the same.
The word “kathir” does not mean “much” in the
comparative sense.
The rightful translation of the meanings of this
narration is;
ﻋﻦ ﺍﺑﻦ ﻋﻤﺮ، ﻗﺎﻝ : ﻻ ﻳﻘﻮﻟﻦ ﺃﺣﺪﻛﻢ ﻗﺪ ﺃﺧﺬﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺁﻥ
ﻛﻠﻪ ﻭﻣﺎ ﻳﺪﺭﻳﻪ ﻣﺎ ﻛﻠﻪ؟ ﻗﺪ ﺫﻫﺐ ﻣﻨﻪ ﻗﺮﺁﻥ ﻛﺜﻴﺮ،
ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻟﻴﻘﻞ : ﻗﺪ ﺃﺧﺬﺕ ﻣﻨﻪ ﻣﺎ ﻇﻬﺮ ﻣﻨﻪ
Ibn `Umar, who said: ‘None of you should
say that he has taken the whole of the
Qur’an; how could he know what all of it
was (before some of it being abrogated)!
Substantial part of the Qur’an has passed
him by (due to abrogation)! Let him say
instead: ‘I have taken of the Qur’an that
which (remained and) became apparent
(after abrogation).”

F00028: The rightful translation of the meanings of this
narration is;
ﻋﻦ ﺍﺑﻦ ﻋﻤﺮ، ﻗﺎﻝ : ﻻ ﻳﻘﻮﻟﻦ ﺃﺣﺪﻛﻢ ﻗﺪ ﺃﺧﺬﺕ ﺍﻟﻘﺮﺁﻥ
ﻛﻠﻪ ﻭﻣﺎ ﻳﺪﺭﻳﻪ ﻣﺎ ﻛﻠﻪ؟ ﻗﺪ ﺫﻫﺐ ﻣﻨﻪ ﻗﺮﺁﻥ ﻛﺜﻴﺮ،
ﻭﻟﻜﻦ ﻟﻴﻘﻞ : ﻗﺪ ﺃﺧﺬﺕ ﻣﻨﻪ ﻣﺎ ﻇﻬﺮ ﻣﻨﻪ
Ibn `Umar, who said: ‘None of you should
say that he has taken the whole of the
Qur’an; how could he know what all of it
was (before some of it being abrogated)!
Substantial part of the Qur’an has passed
him by (due to abrogation)! Let him say
instead: ‘I have taken of the Qur’an that
which (remained and) became apparent
(after abrogation).”

Now it hurts you so much that you now have to put the fault on translation? Did you care looking at other translations in Jeremiah 8:8 before jubilating
thinking you have put a hock in the throat of those with the Bible? Well, i have nothing positive with the quran after all, i know it is not a confirmed book. There are so many proofs.
But, everyone has His opinion. You believed it for a reason, good for you, vise/versa. This exposition of the quran is so plain!
You mistook Jeremiah 8:8 out of context not minding the consiquencses, JEREMIAH himself made it plain what he meant.
In Jeremiah 26: 4-6 we are told that the Law still exists and should be followed:

"Say to them, ‘This is what the LORD says: If you do not listen to me and follow MY LAW, which I have set before you, and if you do not listen to the words of my servants the prophets, whom I have sent to you again and again (though you have not listened) then I will make this house like Shiloh and this city an object of cursing among all the nations of the earth.’"( Jeremiah 26:4-6)

Hence if the Mosaic Law still exists and should be followed, how can it be corrupted? And Interestingly a few decades later Daniel the prophet reads the book of Jeremiah: Ezra Jesus read it, but you follow Zawadi to say they didn't read it or that they read the corrupted book? This is crazy, how can God pretend/lie to His prophets?
Infact, Wazadi must be dreaming, He exposes the Koran the more with his weak and assumptious arguments.

According to your Quran, God didn’t need to restore the Torah since it wasn’t corrupted and was already perfect as the prophet David explicitly taught:

THE LAW OF THE LORD IS PERFECT, reviving the soul. The statutes of the LORD are TRUSTWORTHY, making wise the simple. Psalm 19:7

This alone is a big blow to Zawadi's weak claim, He made the Quran contradicts itself..

alexis:

I want to know HOW god revealed the Torah and Zabur to prophet Mohammed.

Euhh, you should know despirate Muslims will always do all they can, to prove points where there is none. What was not possible with the Torah was possible with the Quran. They claim the bible/torah is Gods word but part of it is corrupt. Yet, thesame quran claim God' word is prefect and trustworthy....How does this Discribe God to them, i dont know. Allah is a liar, false contradicting god with much confusion.

plappville:

Euhh, you should know despirate Muslims will always do all they can, to prove points where there is none. What was not possible with the Torah was possible with the Quran. They claim the bible/torah is Gods word but part of it is corrupt. Yet, thesame quran claim God' word is prefect and trustworthy....How does this Discribe God to them, i dont know. Allah is a liar, false contradicting god with much confusion.

He said God INFORMED Mohammed, I asked him HOW and as at NOW, he hasn't answered. If part of the Bible is corrupt, the only way to CONFIRM that is to give us the one that is not corrupt. THERE IS NO MUSLIM ALIVE OR DEAD THAT IS/WAS ABLE TO PRODUCE THE SO CALLED UN-CORRUPT BIBLE.

plappville:
Now it hurts you so much that you now have to put the fault on translation? Did you care looking at other translations in Jeremiah 8:8 before jubilating

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
" 'How can you say that you are wise and
that you have the LORD's teachings? The
scribes have used their pens to turn
these teachings into lies.

New Living Translation (©2007)
"'How can you say, "We are wise
because we have the word of the LORD,"
when your teachers have twisted it by
writing lies?

New American Standard Bible(©1995)
"How can you say, 'We are wise, And the
law of the LORD is with us'? But behold,
the lying pen of the scribes Has made it
into a lie.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
(©2009)
"How can you claim, 'We are wise; the
law of the LORD is with us? In fact, the
lying pen of scribes has produced
falsehood.

International Standard Version(©2012)
How can you say, 'We're wise, and the
Law of the LORD is with us,' when, in
fact, the deceitful pen of the scribe has
made it into something that deceives.

plappville:
You mistook Jeremiah 8:8 out of context not minding the consiquencses, JEREMIAH himself made it plain what he meant.
In Jeremiah 26: 4-6 we are told that the Law still exists and should be followed...

the problem is still there: if he says lies have been written into the law and then he says follow the law.

plappville: According to your Quran, God didn’t need to restore the Torah since it wasn’t corrupted and was already perfect...

God didn't need to restore the Torah period! His last revelation supersedes it

@plappville
then roman catholic bible has 73 books while that of protestants has only 66 books. did the catholics corrupt the bible by adding or have the protestants by subtracting ?

F00028:

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
" 'How can you say that you are wise and
that you have the LORD's teachings? The
scribes have used their pens to turn
these teachings into lies.

New Living Translation (©2007)
"'How can you say, "We are wise
because we have the word of the LORD,"
when your teachers have twisted it by
writing lies?

New American Standard Bible(©1995)
"How can you say, 'We are wise, And the
law of the LORD is with us'? But behold,
the lying pen of the scribes Has made it
into a lie.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
(©2009)
"How can you claim, 'We are wise; the
law of the LORD is with us? In fact, the
lying pen of scribes has produced
falsehood.

International Standard Version(©2012)
How can you say, 'We're wise, and the
Law of the LORD is with us,' when, in
fact, the deceitful pen of the scribe has
made it into something that deceives.


the problem is still there: if he says lies have been written into the law and then he says follow the law.


God didn't need to restore the Torah period! His last revelation supersedes it

Muhammed and You muslims are the ones with problem, the prophets and servants did had any.
According to the Scripture, they used it. The meaning of the pen of the scribes has nothing to do with changing what was penned down by God.

If God cannot restore His word and allows His prophets/servants to practice it, then He is not a God at the first place. Hence the bible cannot lie, Muhammed is the false prophet according to the bible. He is the one that came to curse damage to the word of God, He is the one who have decieved many.

F00028: @plappville
then roman catholic bible has 73 books while that of protestants has only 66 books. did the catholics corrupt the bible by adding or have the protestants by subtracting ?

I see you still ignore the dirty in your nose and tend to clean up someone's own.

’Ibn Umar al–Khattab explicitly admits, The Quran is not a complete book, there are missing piece. You know nothing, these are Muhammed's companions.

"Let no one of you say that he has acquired the entire Qur’an for how does he know that it is all? Much of the Qur’an has been lost, thus let him say, ‘I have acquired of it what is available"’ (Suyuti: Itqan, part 3, page 72).

What about A’isha? (also page 72) adds to the story of ibn Umar and says,

[size=14pt]"During the time of the prophet, the chapter of the Parties used to be two hundred verses when read.
When Uthman edited the copies of the Qur’an, only the current (verses) were recorded" (73 verses).[/size]

The same statement is made by Ubay ibn Ka’b, one of the great companions. On page 72, part 3, the Suyuti says:

"This famous companion asked one of the Muslims, ‘How many verses in the chapter of the Parties?’ He said, ‘Seventy-two or seventy-three verses.’ He (Ubay) told him, ‘It used to be almost equal to the chapter of the Cow (about 286 verses) and included the verse of the stoning.’ The man asked, ‘What is the verse of the stoning?’ He said, ‘If an old man or woman committed adultery, stone them to death."’

This same story and same dialogue which took place between the companion and one of the Muslims is recorded by Ibn Hazm (volume 8, part 11, pages 234 and 235). Then Ibn Hazm said,

"’Ali Ibn Abi Talib said this has a reliable chain of authority (The Sweetest [Al Mohalla] vol. 8.)."

The Zamakh-shari also cited it in his book, "al-Kash-Shaf’ (part 3, page 518).

These are unquestionable statements made by the pillars of the Islamic religion who transmitted Muhammad’s sayings and biography, "The Tradition", and who interpreted the Qur’an— among them Ibn ’Umar, A’isha, Ubay Ibn Ka’b and ’Ali Ibn Abi Talib. Ibn ’Umar states that a large part of the Qur’an was missed. A’isha and Ubay Ibn Ka’b assert that dozens of verses from the "Chapter of the Parties" have been lost. ’Ali confirms that, too. In regard to this particular verse, the following incident is recorded in "The Itqan" by Suyuti (part 1, page 168),

"During the collection of the Qur’an, people used to come to Zayd Ibn Thabit (with the verses they memorized). He shunned recording any verse unless two witnesses attested to it. The last verse of chapter of Repentance was found only with Khuzayma Ibn Thabit. Zayd said, ‘Record it because the apostle of God made the testimony of Khuzayma equal to the testimony of two men.’ ’Umar came with the verse of the stoning but it was not recorded because he was the only witness to it."

One can only wonder and ask, "Does ’Umar need another witness to agree with him? Would he lie to God and the Qur’an? Because of that, ’Umar said after that, "If it were not that people would say, "Umar has added to the book of God’, I would have recorded the verse of the stoning" (part 3, page 75 of the Itqan). Refer also to skiek Kishk’s book (part 3, page 64). Another confession by A’isha:

One can only wonder and ask, "Does ’Umar need another witness to agree with him? Would he lie to God and the Qur’an? Because of that, ’Umar said after that, "If it were not that people would say, "Umar has added to the book of God’, I would have recorded the verse of the stoning" (part 3, page 75 of the Itqan). Refer also to skiek Kishk’s book (part 3, page 64). Another confession by A’isha:

How come a Domesticated Animal can do so much damage by Eating the Kuranic Verses and Allah just sit and watch it?

Oh yeah........the quran is complete..

[size=16pt]It is reported from Ismail ibn Ibrahim from Ayyub from Naafi from Ibn Umar who said: "Let none of you say ‘I have acquired the whole of the Qur'an'. How does he know what all of it is when much of the Qur'an has disappeared? Rather let him say 'I have acquired what has survived.’” (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p. 524).
[/size]

it was a very simple question.

F00028: @plappville
then roman catholic bible has 73 books while that of protestants has only 66 books. did the catholics corrupt the bible by adding or have the protestants by subtracting ?

but you just went into a rant about the Qur'an.

here let me put it this way:
if tomorrow someone says, "dear plappville, am convinced and am putting down the Qur'an. give me the uncorrupted word of God"
which bible are you going to give him/her?

F00028: it was a very simple question.

but you just went into a rant about the Qur'an.

here let me put it this way:
if tomorrow someone says, "dear plappville, am convinced and am putting down the Qur'an. give me the uncorrupted word of God"
which bible are you going to give him/her?

You claim the present Bible is corrupt so it's up to you to give us the one that is not CORRUPTED. Give us the one that Allah used when he INFORMED Mohammed. We are still waiting on HOW he informed him; whether he REVEALED it to him or whether he wrote it down for him.

@Alexis, me too i have been waiting oh...But in actual fact, we will wait forever because no one can produce such...If their scholars have not been able to produce such, then he definitely cannot do so...