FooManChoo

quote:

---

It's almost like they actually read the Old Testament and didn't grasp that it was written by rapey Bronze Age savages.

---

Rape is actually condemned by the Bible.

It’s a good start, but the entire thing needs to be outlawed as a terrorist organization.

You can’t make peace with a people who believe the best outcome in life is to kill others for their ideology.

Well, Democrats are generally immoral according to God's law, so that would make sense that they are trying to remove restrictions on sin.

Giving someone free room and board for 20 years is not justice for murder. He ought to be executed.

The good news is that God’s justice is perfect.

quote:

---

No Foo, this is simple. A rabbi/scribe writing words on a goat skin and claiming it is from God is “scripture”. You’re being obtuse, as usual.

---

It doesn't matter what they call it. You've missed the point entirely. The verse is speaking to what was happening in that day, not what may have happened several centuries prior.

You're arguing that the Quran, itself, teaches that the Christians and Jews did not have authentic "Scripture", but were using a corrupted text. I'm explaining to you that you are as bad at reading the Quran as you are at reading the Bible, because the Quran isn't speaking about what the Jews and Christians considered settled Scripture at all, and that was the only thing that matters in this argument.

A rabbi writing on goat skin in Medina in the 600's AD and saying it is the word of God is not the same thing as what you are arguing about the Quran saying that settled Scripture was corrupted.

quote:

---

Ok so you are grasping at straws. The Quran author had access and knowledge to the Jews in Medina. He/they didn’t have knowledge of the Jews in Cordoba or Rome or Babylon. They were writing based on the only Jewish community they knew. Quit being a dumbass.

---

Again you missed the point and are changing the subject, because you can't refute the truth.

You are moving from "what does the text say" to "what did the author know", and you are actually strengthening my argument. My exegesis was pointing out what the text was saying, namely that a group of Jews in Medina were coming up with their own opinions and misleading the ignorant lay people with them. That's what the Quran is criticizing, not the historical Jewish (or Christian) Scriptures. You're trying to pivot rather than address the point at hand.

In addition, your bad interpretation further strengthens my argument even if it were true that it was speaking only of a limited knowledge of a small group of Jews in Medina as representative of all Jewish beliefs about all Jewish Scripture, because it would be factually untrue, as proven by the Dead Sea Scrolls and other manuscripts that existed prior to the writing of the Quran. The claim of corruption is simply not factual, and therefore the Quran would be wrong. It's a moot issue, though, because the text wasn't talking about the historical texts accepted by Jews or Christians, but of Jewish leaders in Medina in the 7th century teaching lies.

quote:

---

I highlighted it for you from your own text.

---

And yet you still haven't shown that it says that the Jewish or Christian Scriptures--believed prior to the 7th century--were corrupted.

What you highlighted emphasizes my point: that the Quran was criticizing the Jewish leaders, not the Scripture. It wasn't saying that the Scriptures were corrupt, but that the teachers in Medina were distorting what they heard and teaching falsely to the people. I went through the entire passage for you.

quote:

---

You’re missing the point that the Quran author in Arabia didn't have access to the Roman Catholic canon. They did have Christian scriptures available to them in Arabia, but it wasn’t the Roman Catholic canon. One that they had was the infancy gospel of Thomas.

---

I'm not missing anything. You are arguing just to argue at this point and have missed the boat.

I provided the Islamic Dilemma argument to show that Islam is a false religion, and you wanted to pick a fight with me to proving my point for me. I'm just trying to show you how silly that is.

It doesn't matter of the author of the Quran was talking about a particular Christian Scripture, because the reality is that nothing was corrupted. You don't win this argument by assuming they only had the infancy gospel, either, because if that's all the author of the Quran knew about, it further proves my point that the author was entirely ignorant of Christianity and couldn't make a blanket statement of the Scriptures being corrupted, because the infancy gospel wasn't even considered Scripture by Christians in the 7th century.

You have to look at the history. Christians had a core canon of Scripture that included teachings about the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus, and the resurrection, and those writings existed hundreds of years before the Quran, and they exist today. So whatever the Quran was talking about by the "gospel", it is factually inaccurate for Muslims to say it was corrupted. Either they lose because the texts Christians believed wasn't corrupted, or they lose because the "gospel" wasn't actually something believed by the Christians, and therefore the Quran is wrong and not from God.

quote:

---

You are patently retarded. A potato brain like Joe Biden.

---

I can tell when you're frustrated that you are losing an argument because you bring out the big guns. :lol:

quote:

---

The Quran never refers to “The Bible”. It mentions “the Torah” (which is only the 5 books of Moshe) and it mentions “the gospel” which doesn’t refer to any particular document as there were at least 45-50 different gospels and one they definitely used as a source was not contained within Vaticanus or Sinaiticus.

---

You must not understand what you're saying. You clearly don't understand what I'm saying. I'll try again: whatever the Quran means by the "gospel", it is referring to something that it claims existed when the Quran was written. However, there is no historical evidence for any singular "gospel" narrative believed by Christians other than the four gospel accounts that were written hundreds of years prior to the Quran, so there is no historical support for any corruption. In addition, even if the author of the Quran was referring to some other "gospel" writing that wasn't part of the Christian canon, it still falls flat because they claim that Christians, as a whole, believed that "gospel". If it were referring to the infancy gospel or any other non-canonical book, that would be a factual error, and therefore proves that the Quran is not from God.

So no matter how you slice it, the Quran is wrong, and you are still missing the point.

I blame our government more than I blame fraudsters like this guy. Obviously he is to blame and I hope he goes to jail for a long, long time for his crimes, but when the government isn't a good steward over the money it takes from its citizens, changes need to happen.

quote:

---

Potentially?

---

Well, yeah. I suppose it’s possible he was able to urinate without exposing himself, though that is unlikely.

quote:

---

Again, a simplistic answer.

---

It's a principled answer.

We can debate our current system and the best ways to improve it, but we have to start with the foundational principles.

Sounds like it should have been considered battery and potentially indecent exposure.

quote:

---

Think, Foo, think…what do you call something a rabbi and a scribe would write down with their hand and claim it is from God?

---

I can tell you're grasping for straws on this, but whatever one might call it, the question is what the Quran is talking about, and it's not talking about established Scripture of the Jews and Christians.

The passage actually starts in verse 75, where a party of individuals (rabbis) in Medina were hearing the words of God and distorting them. This wasn't speaking to the Jews as a whole, or the Torah, but of the rabbis in Medina.

Verses 76 and 77 further flesh this out, talking about the hypocrisy of those Jewish leaders who withhold information, not write new Scriptures or "twist" the existing Scriptures.

Verse 78 moves on to the Jewish laypeople who don't actually know their Scriptures but believe what they've been told by those Jewish leaders (wishful thinking, as it is called).

That leads us to the verse in question: verse 79. It's condemning the rabbi's or other leaders that write or re-write the Scriptures with their own commentaries, laws, and opinions that are not part of the established Scriptures, and are leading the lay people astray for their own profit.

Even verses 80 through 82 confirm this by demonstrating a false teaching of limited punishment that the Jewish leaders were teaching and saying was from God.

The context is about Jewish leaders during the time of Muhammad, not the Torah, itself, or the Christian Bible. So no, it's not talking about the Torah/Bible was corrupted at the time of Muhammad. It's condemning Jewish leaders who misuse or misinterpret God's word for the sake of their own gain, and to mislead others.

quote:

---

Except for the part about the Jewish scribes and rabbis writing false scriptures.

---

See above. That verse doesn't say that the Scriptures are either unknown or unknowable, or that they were corrupted so that Jews, Christians, or Muslims at that time did't know what they were or what they said. Try again.

quote:

---

It calls them all “people of the book”. Surah 2:79 refers to people of the book corrupting the scriptures. Christians were described as people of the book. Comprende?

---

Here's surah 2:79. Show me where it says the "people of the book" were "corrupting the scriptures":

"So woe to those who distort the Scripture with their own hands then say, “This is from Allah”—seeking a fleeting gain! So woe to them for what their hands have written, and woe to them for what they have earned." LINK

quote:

---

Which Christian scripture does it refer to? Codex Vaticanus? Codex sinaiticus?

---

Any of them.

That's like saying Protestants can't agree on what the Bible is because they have different translations of it (ESV vs. KJV vs. NIV, and so on). Vaticanus and Sinaiticus don't differ dramatically from one another, and especially not on theology.

What these examples point to, though, are much earlier examples of known biblical manuscripts that are substantively the same as the Bibles people have today without "corruption" about what it says regarding the Trinity, the deity of Christ, the crucifixion of Jesus, and His resurrection, which Muslims would point to today and say that the Bible was corrupted. This is the point of the Islamic Dilemma: Muslims can't show that the Bible was corrupted after the Quran was written (because it is substantively the same as before the Quran was written), and the Quran gives authority and trust to the Bible that it was aware of at that time. So if the Quran is right (that we should go to the Bible for truth), then it's wrong, because the Bible contradicts the Quran.

quote:

---

It is pure stupidity for you to assume “the gospel” specifically refers to the Nicene Christian canon of the Roman Empire.

---

By the time the Quran was written, the Christian canon was well agreed upon. The only real and meaningful exception was the Peshitta, that Muslims may have encountered around that time, and which excluded some books that the rest of Christianity affirmed. What the Peshitta didn't exclude, though, were the core books related to the discussion, of the gospels and the Pauline epistles, that most of the doctrines about the Trinity and so on that Muslims reject are primarily supported from. So even if I granted that Muhammad's view of the "gospels" was from the Peshitta, it was still the same "gospel" that the rest of Christianity believed.

And if for some reason Muhammad was only aware of some weird sect that rejected everything but the gospel of Thomas, then that only further hits against Islam, because it means the Quran was ignorant of what Christians actually believed, and therefore it wasn't a revelation from God.

quote:

---

It clearly did not. You’re just making shite up, and it’s sad.

---

You're just as ignorant of Islam as you are of Christianity, if not moreso. Take the 'L' :lol:

quote:

---

Obviously the writers of the Quran had access to Christian gospels that were not accepted as authoritative by Roman Catholic orthodoxy.

---

I doubt Muhammad and the writers of the Quran had access to the written Christian Bible at all, but likely heard stories from traders and travelers passing through. They get key facts from the Bible wrong in the Quran.

While you're trying to pick nits here, it doesn't actually matter to the argument I'm making, but further strengthens it. Islam's own holy book contradicts itself so glaringly that it discredits the whole religion.