Is the Quran false?

[Reuben_J]

And i am still waiting for muslims to tell me how is it possible that God forseen that sending Jesus would be a mistake, because it would deceive SO many people into wrong beliefs. He saw that the Bible would be corrupted but He still insisted on deceiving so many people. Why? First he knowingly created Judaism and Christianity that would become corrupted(from muslim point of view), then he said to people that the third religion he founded could not be corrupted. And he failed to convince MOST people that the third religion is actually true. And He according to muslims knowingly created Christianity knowing that most people would choose “fake” Christianity over his “true” religion. Statistics of conversions of religions speak for themselves.

It is important to note that Mahammad did not say that the Bible was corrupted.In fact he believed the Bible was true. However, his source were not the main line Christians like the Catholics but heretic Jews who believed that Jesus was not divine.

It made sense then that the Quran asked them (Muslims) to refer to their ‘Christian’ book in matter pertaining to their belief. This look like he thought that the Bible was uncorrupted and true word of God.

The idea that the Bible was corrupted came much later (around the tenth century), where interaction between regions and communication were improved, by Muslim scholars who found out about the true Christian belief. They were in a dilemma when they discovered the contradiction between the Quran and the Bible.

Today we are actually arguing with the Muslim scholars argument rather than the Quran per se. Mohammad died without knowing his Quran ever contradicted the Bible.

 

[adawgj]

you can find partial truths in the Quran.

 

[Ontheway]

In terms of comparing authenticity between the Bible and the Quran, there is no comparison.

Differences
The Quran was compiled by the Disciples or Companions of Prophet Muhammad, (Verifiable). No Muslim scholar differ about this fact.
2 of the Gospels (Matthew and John) of Jesus was allegedly compiled by the Disciples of Jesus. I say allegedly, because Christian scholars differ about it.
The Gospel of Mark and Luke, were not written by the disciples of Jesus. So need to discuss these two. Not to say there aren’t relevant.

Corruption

If we were assume the Gospels of Jesus were originally written by the disciples of Jesus, there is evidence that those who came after them, corrupted the Gospels. For example, John 8:1-11 In the early manuscripts this can be found anywhere, yet it exist in later copies of the Gospel of John. This is a deliberate addition or corruption. So knows what else was added by those who came after the disciples of Jesus. However Christian scholars agree that things were added to the Gospels.

This does not exist in the Quran, by scholarly Islamic consensus.

Conclusion

The Quran can be authentically proven to be from the disciples of Prophet Muhammad by scholarly consensus, by those who believe in it.
While the Gospels, no scholarly consensus exist with regard to the authors among those who believe in it. Some say it was written by the disciples, while others questions it.

Your arguments and conclusions contain one major and glaring omission which leads to error.
As you stress in your argument above. all scholarship of the Koran is done by Muslim scholars. These are folks who start out with the premise that their book is authentic and direct word of God. Any scholarship conducted by them serves to support these claims to fortify their beliefs. As such, it is some form of scholarship but it serves to support the dogma and suppress dissenting views.

This is not the case with biblical scholarship which has been conducted by Christians, but as often as not, Jews, atheists, unbelievers and presumable even Muslims. These scholars don’t have the agenda. They conduct scholarship not to support the Catholic or Christian faith but to apply the scientific apparatus to study all aspects of the Bible “objectively”.

To my knowledge, no Islamic scholar of the Koran has ever undertaken such scrupulous study of the Book. Non-Islamic scholars who do study the Koran would not share your conclusions about the Koran. At all.
As you claim, scholarly consensus about the Koran is achieved only by believers. Non-Muslim scholars disagree.

 

[Ontheway]

We can divide both of our religions into, traditional and protestant.

Traditional assumes that our religion was been taught a certain way by men. Men are the true preservers of the religion, not books. This tradition as an unbroken chain back to the source, whether he is Prophet Muhammad or Jesus, this would be like the Catholic or Orthodox.

And then we have protestant groups in each traditional, those who are upset with the traditional way of teaching, as seek to redefine, our religion by what they can prove by way of books, this would be like the Baptist, Lutherans etc.

In traditional Sunni Islam, there are differences, but we have acceptable differences as well as unacceptable difference. We divide our religion into three, Belief, Law, and Spirituality.

And within these three branches, in traditional Sunni Islam there are different schools of thought.

Belief.

Ashari, Maturidi and Athari schools of thought.

Law

Hanafi, Hanbali, Maliki, and Shafi schools of thought.

Spirituality - Sufism

We have more than I know, but to name a few, Shadhili, Chisiti, Qadari, Naqshabandi etc etc.

So what these schools of thoughts have expounded upon from the Quran and Sunnah, are acceptable differences of opinion.

Protestant Islam

Wahabism, some of them called themselves, Salafis (meaning followers of the early Muslims).

They actually branched out of the Hanbali school of law, and have Athari (style) of Belief, based on the works of Ibn Taymiyyah… They have completely neglected the Spiritual branch of Islam, all together, which explains alot of their rigid approach towards the religion. Many of the abhorrent Islam groups of today, stem from this protestant group.

So what this group and what others have expounded upon that differ from the above, would be unacceptable difference of opinion.

But why do they slaughter each other over acceptable differences of opinion?

 

[oldcatholicguy]

So both Torah and the Bible were somehow corrupted. So how do you(Muslims) know that the Quran isn’t corrupted. If God allowed for two of his scriptures to become corrupted why wouldn’t he allow the third one to be corrupted also? So if Quran cannot be corrupted and the Bible and the Torah just to contain teachings of Quran why didn’t God give the uncorruptable Quran to mankind in the first place? Why did He gave them the corruptable Torah and the Bible and then around 600 years after His failure to show the “true” teachings to people, which he forseen(He is God after all), He gave us the so-called truth and said that He made a mistake(not literal words probably) when He gave us the corruptable two books and now after so many years He gave us the uncorruptable book? Doesn’t make sense. So the argument follows:

P1: God’s word cannot be corrupted because Quran is supposly God’s word and Quran cannot be corrupted.
P2: Muslims aknowledge that the Bible and the Torah are God’s words so both these cannot be corrupted as Quran cannot be corrupted.
P3: The Bible and the Torah contradict Quran.
P4:The Bible and the Torah are older than Quran and God cannot contradict himself.
C1: Quran is therefore false.

Muslims could say that Quran can be corrupted and tear my argument apart, but then there would be the same chance that Quran is very different from the original form as there is with the Bible.

You can also explore the validity of the Quran (me being Catholic you should assume I don’t view it as valid) by comparing how it came about to the methods God used to correct His people in the past.
-Did God ever set forth a prophet from outside His people to correct their immoral actions? -Did any of these prophets ever condemn Scripture as being corrupted or did they instead uphold Scripture and demand that God’s people follow His teachings?

Muslims can’t say that the Quran can be corrupted. For them it is directly from God with Muhammad simply being the messenger.

 

[Michael57]

It being compiled by the disciples or companions of the receivers (Jesus or Prophet Muhammad), the disciples or companions are considered upright and trustworthy. Therefore their compilations are to be trusted.

The Gospel of Mark and Luke, were not written by the disciples of Jesus. So need to discuss these two. Not to say there aren’t relevant.

I am sorry, but I believe you are incorrect in your assessment of the Gospels of Mark and Luke.

For your consideration: LINK

Mark was the transcriber of the Apostle Peter. Peter was called to be a disciple by Jesus as he fished.

Luke, the Physician, transcribed the report of Mary, Mother of Jesus, and other Apostles that he traveled with, principally Paul, but there were many others.

The dating of these Gospels goes reliably back to the earliest days of the Church.

The writings have been reliably confirmed as textually uncorrupted by archeological evidence, and witnesses of other documents that have been dated to a very early period.

 

[TheSufi]

And i am still waiting for muslims to tell me how is it possible that God forseen that sending Jesus would be a mistake, because it would deceive SO many people into wrong beliefs. He saw that the Bible would be corrupted but He still insisted on deceiving so many people. Why? First he knowingly created Judaism and Christianity that would become corrupted(from muslim point of view), then he said to people that the third religion he founded could not be corrupted. And he failed to convince MOST people that the third religion is actually true. And He according to muslims knowingly created Christianity knowing that most people would choose “fake” Christianity over his “true” religion. Statistics of conversions of religions speak for themselves.

The real answer is I don’t know. I don’t know why God does a lot of things, I don’t know why He allows bad priests or Imams, to represent his religion.

I don’t know why He allows babies to die in a flood or a hurricane or an earthquake.

You asked these questions, but I have the same questions about

Christianity, in regards to Judaism.
If present day Christianity is true, ie Jesus being God, a man being God. Why would God come as a man, when it specifically states in the Old Testament, that **God is not a man, that He should lie, nor the Son of Man, the He should Repent. **(Number 23:19). Why??? Why would God make it hard for me to believe that Jesus a man, is God???

In fact, in Hebrew it is more emphatic, Lo iysh El, **No Man is God, ** → ve kazab. If He were, He would lie.

Some apologetics have tried to make, ve kazab to mean, “a lying man,” or “a man that lies.”

The problem with both meanings, is they do not exist in Hebrew.

“a lying man.” Kazab is a verb and not adjective.

“a man that lies.” There are two things that make this understanding wrong.

1. Kazab, returns to God, in this sentence (in the future → if He were to become man), and not man, sense kazab is closer to God, (that is just simply grammar).
2. the word, that, which one is looking for in Hebrew is Asher, like in the phrase, I am that I am. Ehyeh asher Ehyeh.

No Man is God, (if He were to become man,) He would lie. ß-- This is how I would translate it.
God is not a man, that He should lie. ß This translation is sound as well.

And Jews do not believe God is a man. Salvation according to Catholic and Orthodox is built on God being a man.

 

[TheSufi]

1. the word, that, which one is looking for in Hebrew is Asher, like in the phrase, I am that I am. Ehyeh asher Ehyeh, which isn’t there in Numbers 23:19.

 

[Timi_Celcer]

The real answer is I don’t know. I don’t know why God does a lot of things, I don’t know why He allows bad priests or Imams, to represent his religion.

I don’t know why He allows babies to die in a flood or a hurricane or an earthquake.

You asked these questions, but I have the same questions about

Christianity, in regards to Judaism.
If present day Christianity is true, ie Jesus being God, a man being God. Why would God come as a man, when it specifically states in the Old Testament, that **God is not a man, that He should lie, nor the Son of Man, the He should Repent. **(Number 23:19). Why??? Why would God make it hard for me to believe that Jesus a man, is God???

In fact, in Hebrew it is more emphatic, Lo iysh El, **No Man is God, ** → ve kazab. If He were, He would lie.

Some apologetics have tried to make, ve kazab to mean, “a lying man,” or “a man that lies.”

The problem with both meanings, is they do not exist in Hebrew.

“a lying man.” Kazab is a verb and not adjective.

“a man that lies.” There are two things that make this understanding wrong.

1. Kazab, returns to God, in this sentence (in the future → if He were to become man), and not man, sense kazab is closer to God, (that is just simply grammar).
2. the word, that, which one is looking for in Hebrew is Asher, like in the phrase, I am that I am. Ehyeh asher Ehyeh.

No Man is God, (if He were to become man,) He would lie. ß-- This is how I would translate it.
God is not a man, that He should lie. ß This translation is sound as well.

And Jews do not believe God is a man. Salvation according to Catholic and Orthodox is built on God being a man.

God is not human, that he should lie,
not a human being, that he should change his mind.
Does he speak and then not act?
Does he promise and not fulfill?

As far as i see it, the verse says that God is not like human, because God does not lie, does not change his mind and always fullfils his oaths. You must also understand that in Hebrew, certain sentences had different meanings that they would of have in English if they would of been translated literaly. But i believe that if you do a research about how apologetics answered this question(not a one-sided muslim research), than you may see a logical answer. But im sure that you will get an answer here if you start a thread about it or ask on ask an apologetic(if he will reply ofcurse).

I see islam like this. Mohammed spend 40 years until angel first apperead to him. He probably learned about judaism in Mecca where Judaism was already established. The angel apperead to him for three years, just enough to write the first part of Quran. Muhammad saw that if he includes Jesus as a Son of God, then there would be no need for another prophet and nobody would believe him. So he said Jesus was only a prophet and that he is the greatest so far and the last. He firstly preached good as far as i know, but when he got the power he started to do immoral acts. He used religion to conquer land. But that is my opinion. I wish you all the very best and i wish the very best to every muslim.

 

[kovacs725]

The real answer is I don’t know. I don’t know why God does a lot of things, I don’t know why He allows bad priests or Imams, to represent his religion.

I don’t know why He allows babies to die in a flood or a hurricane or an earthquake.

You asked these questions, but I have the same questions about

Christianity, in regards to Judaism.
If present day Christianity is true, ie Jesus being God, a man being God. Why would God come as a man, when it specifically states in the Old Testament, that **God is not a man, that He should lie, nor the Son of Man, the He should Repent. **(Number 23:19). Why??? Why would God make it hard for me to believe that Jesus a man, is God???

In fact, in Hebrew it is more emphatic, Lo iysh El, **No Man is God, ** → ve kazab. If He were, He would lie.

Some apologetics have tried to make, ve kazab to mean, “a lying man,” or “a man that lies.”

The problem with both meanings, is they do not exist in Hebrew.

“a lying man.” Kazab is a verb and not adjective.

“a man that lies.” There are two things that make this understanding wrong.

1. Kazab, returns to God, in this sentence (in the future → if He were to become man), and not man, sense kazab is closer to God, (that is just simply grammar).
2. the word, that, which one is looking for in Hebrew is Asher, like in the phrase, I am that I am. Ehyeh asher Ehyeh.

No Man is God, (if He were to become man,) He would lie. ß-- This is how I would translate it.
God is not a man, that He should lie. ß This translation is sound as well.

And Jews do not believe God is a man. Salvation according to Catholic and Orthodox is built on God being a man.

Well you do not know things about God, but isn’t this our goal on earth to know God, worship Him and be in connection with Him through prayer? I believe that Jesus’s death on the Cross gave suffering a sense. Through the example of Abraham you see that God is into sacrifices. It is not understood why, but later on the Bible explains that it is because the wage of sin is death. Throughout the Old Testament God wanted to teach His people that they are sinful and a sacrifice needed. Is God the best teacher on earth? Probably. I see the process of the Bible unfold from the Old Testament to the New. I do not see such process in Islam faith, rather a huge break among God’s people. And Jesus Himself said that there would be false prophets throughout the years and that He wanted us to be One. If He was just a prophet, we could still know that God the Father wanted us to be One. Why would the Almighty God then contradict Himself by making another interpretation?

 

[ScottEH]

And i am still waiting for muslims to tell me how is it possible that God forseen that sending Jesus would be a mistake, because it would deceive SO many people into wrong beliefs. He saw that the Bible would be corrupted but He still insisted on deceiving so many people. Why? First he knowingly created Judaism and Christianity that would become corrupted(from muslim point of view), then he said to people that the third religion he founded could not be corrupted. And he failed to convince MOST people that the third religion is actually true. And He according to muslims knowingly created Christianity knowing that most people would choose “fake” Christianity over his “true” religion. Statistics of conversions of religions speak for themselves.

They are never going to be able to provide you with a satisfactory answer simply because there is no answer. Its completely illogical to claim what they claim. In order for them to believe that Christianity is a corruption of some earlier version of Islam, they have to believe that God wanted to condemn billions of people for idolatry because of a work that He supposedly dictated to His prophets. The Bible makes it fairly clear that Jesus is God. If that is incorrect, then billions of Christians have committed the unforgivable sin of “shirk”. Seems silly to me.

Furthermore, the Bible was the literal dictated word of God, how could it be corrupted? It would be the speech of God Himself. How can His speech be corruptable? Wouldn’t it, by its very essence, be incapable of corruption? We as Christians don’t believe that it was the literal verbatim words that God spoke. We acknowledge human authorship under divine inspiration. That seems far more logical to me. And it doesn’t detract from the fact that it is still the word of God

 

[Timi_Celcer]

And also, as far as i can see, alot of western muslims know more about the Bible than most of Christians including me. The problem is that you open the Bible with the intent of finding errors, contradictions,… and you cannot see anything else that what you want to see. I believe if that if you could focus on finding the solution somewhere and not just looking for why the Bible is wrong you could find it. I think you should focus on Quran more and you will soon see why it is ilogical and wrong. Wish you all very well.

 

[TheSufi]

God is not human, that he should lie,
not a human being, that he should change his mind.
Does he speak and then not act?
Does he promise and not fulfill?

As far as i see it, the verse says that God is not like human, because God does not lie, does not change his mind and always fullfils his oaths. You must also understand that in Hebrew, certain sentences had different meanings that they would of have in English if they would of been translated literaly. But i believe that if you do a research about how apologetics answered this question(not a one-sided muslim research), than you may see a logical answer. But im sure that you will get an answer here if you start a thread about it or ask on ask an apologetic(if he will reply ofcurse).

God is not a man, that He should lie, nor the Son of Man, that He should repent. Numbers 23:19 King James Version.

This is the first time Son of man is mentioned in the bible. It is as if, God knew, people in the future, would claim that the Son of Man is God. God is refuting this, when He says, He is not the Son of Man, before people make the claim.

Look at this verse.

***. Nor the Son of man that He should repent. King James Version.
Hath he spoken and shall he not make good.

Why did God mention the Son of man here? This is the first time Son of Man is mentioned in the Bible.

Answer:

God is neither the lowest of man, who lies nor the highest of man, who repents.
God is neither the imperfect man, who lies nor the Perfect man, who repents.
God is neither the irrespectable man who lies nor the respectable man who repents.
God is neither the arrogant man who lies, nor the humble man who repents.
God is not man at all.

Jesus, the Son of man, taught us to pray the Lord’s Prayer, the essence of this prayer is repentance.

I also have other questions about Christianity.

How can the very act of our salvation (cruxifiction) be based on a sin, killing? Thy Shall not kill. God caused innocent people (to kill) to go against His commandment to save us.

Are we allowed to sin for a greater good?

I see islam like this. Mohammed spend 40 years until angel first apperead to him. He probably learned about judaism in Mecca where Judaism was already established. The angel apperead to him for three years, just enough to write the first part of Quran. Muhammad saw that if he includes Jesus as a Son of God, then there would be no need for another prophet and nobody would believe him. So he said Jesus was only a prophet and that he is the greatest so far and the last. He firstly preached good as far as i know, but when he got the power he started to do immoral acts. He used religion to conquer land. But that is my opinion. I wish you all the very best and i wish the very best to every muslim.

I see Islam like this. Islam is Abrahamic, it isn’t necessarily Mosaic. Abraham was a father of many nations. Muslims worship the God of Abraham. It isn’t a new religion. The angels were always with Prophet Muhammad even as a child, they came and cleaned and purified his heart, when he was a child.

Perhaps God saw the confusion that the Bible had caused, and caused it to become corrupt, thus prepared the coming of a scripture, directly from God, which would be preserved for all time, in its original language.

Confusion, like Jesus correcting the Jews and their rigid approach to Mosaic law and complete lack of spirituality. Confusion among the Christians, while getting spirituality correct made the error of making Jesus, God. Prophet Muhammad corrected this mistake.

 

[dronald]

The real answer is I don’t know. I don’t know why God does a lot of things, I don’t know why He allows bad priests or Imams, to represent his religion.

I don’t know why He allows babies to die in a flood or a hurricane or an earthquake.

You asked these questions, but I have the same questions about

Christianity, in regards to Judaism.
If present day Christianity is true, ie Jesus being God, a man being God. Why would God come as a man, when it specifically states in the Old Testament, that **God is not a man, that He should lie, nor the Son of Man, the He should Repent. **(Number 23:19). Why??? Why would God make it hard for me to believe that Jesus a man, is God???

In fact, in Hebrew it is more emphatic, Lo iysh El, **No Man is God, ** → ve kazab. If He were, He would lie.

Some apologetics have tried to make, ve kazab to mean, “a lying man,” or “a man that lies.”

The problem with both meanings, is they do not exist in Hebrew.

“a lying man.” Kazab is a verb and not adjective.

“a man that lies.” There are two things that make this understanding wrong.

1. Kazab, returns to God, in this sentence (in the future → if He were to become man), and not man, sense kazab is closer to God, (that is just simply grammar).
2. the word, that, which one is looking for in Hebrew is Asher, like in the phrase, I am that I am. Ehyeh asher Ehyeh.

No Man is God, (if He were to become man,) He would lie. ß-- This is how I would translate it.
God is not a man, that He should lie. ß This translation is sound as well.

And Jews do not believe God is a man. Salvation according to Catholic and Orthodox is built on God being a man.

We already discussed this in another thread, and I’m beginning to realize that it is your favorite passage in the Bible that has been refuted over and over. Who are you trying to convince? Us or yourself?

Pick up a Hebrew Bible and see if your translation is there. The KJV is right, “God is not a man that He should lie” which is true. Jesus is also not a man that He should lie, because Jesus never lied.

Anyways, Daniel 7:13-14.

 

[Timi_Celcer]

God is not a man, that He should lie, nor the Son of Man, that He should repent. Numbers 23:19 King James Version.

This is the first time Son of man is mentioned in the bible. It is as if, God knew, people in the future, would claim that the Son of Man is God. God is refuting this, when He says, He is not the Son of Man, before people make the claim.

Look at this verse.

***. Nor the Son of man that He should repent. King James Version.
Hath he spoken and shall he not make good.

Why did God mention the Son of man here? This is the first time Son of Man is mentioned in the Bible.

Answer:

God is neither the lowest of man, who lies nor the highest of man, who repents.
God is neither the imperfect man, who lies nor the Perfect man, who repents.
God is neither the irrespectable man who lies nor the respectable man who repents.
God is neither the arrogant man who lies, nor the humble man who repents.
God is not man at all.

Jesus, the Son of man, taught us to pray the Lord’s Prayer, the essence of this prayer is repentance.

I also have other questions about Christianity.

How can the very act of our salvation (cruxifiction) be based on a sin, killing? Thy Shall not kill. God caused innocent people (to kill) to go against His commandment to save us.

Are we allowed to sin for a greater good?

I see Islam like this. Islam is Abrahamic, it isn’t necessarily Mosaic. Abraham was a father of many nations. Muslims worship the God of Abraham. It isn’t a new religion. The angels were always with Prophet Muhammad even as a child, they came and cleaned and purified his heart, when he was a child.

Perhaps God saw the confusion that the Bible had caused, and caused it to become corrupt, thus prepared the coming of a scripture, directly from God, which would be preserved for all time, in its original language.

Confusion, like Jesus correcting the Jews and their rigid approach to Mosaic law and complete lack of spirituality. Confusion among the Christians, while getting spirituality correct made the error of making Jesus, God. Prophet Muhammad corrected this mistake.

**
Read:**
carm.org/god-is-not-a-man
answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120729200629AAZsYcF

Also if you are not satisfied with answers provided in the above links, i advise you to search the internet and apologetic from a Christian point of view not from a muslim. Also you must remember that if you would actually disproved Christianity in this verses you provided, then there would be no more Christianity. But because Christianity still exist this question has been dealt with.

“God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent; Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?” (Numbers 23:19).

This as i see it, is a phoetic way of God telling us that He isn’t like humans, he doesn’t repent and doesn’t change his mind. Also this verse is contradictory to Quran because in islam, God or Allah in Arabic is almighty and can change his mind whenever he wants to. So from your point of view(which i believe is false) this verse is corrupted.

As for your other question, about Jesus crucifixion, killing Jesus wasn’t a sin. By Jewish standards he was a blasphemer and violated the sabbath rule and those are to be stoned to death. But you can correct me if im wrong here i didn’t do alot of research i just used logic(i will probably do more research tommorow). Also we all killed Jesus by our sins not only the Jews and the Romans.

I again encourage you to stop looking just from muslim point of view but from Christian also. Do not be on sided but always seek the truth with an open heart, and soon you will be a Christian Catholic.

I know its probably hard to aknowledge that what you believed your whole life is false. But remember God loves you. I will pray for you.

 

[Hail_Linus]

I believe it’s very clear the Quran is false. If you look at what we know about the culture of ancient Judaism and ancient Christianity it seems rather impossible that Muslim allegations are true.

1. 
   *]The first four books of the Torah are not considered inspired by Judaism. These are believed to be dictated by God directly to Moses. In other words these books were particularly sacred and I can find no motive for corrupting them. In fact this would be a motive to not corrupt the Torah.
   
   *]In Judaism the rules for copying a torah are very strict. The Rabbi has to read each word aloud as he writes it. If the rabbi happens to misspell one word then he is required to erase the entire line and begin that line again. (This is probably why a Torah is so expensive.) Again, following these rules is seems impossible to corrupt the Torah.
   
   *]It is a known fact that the pre-Constantine Roman Empire routinely attempted to confiscate and destroy Christian scripture. Many refused turn over the scripture and there punishment was to have the right eye gouged out and one achilles tendon slashed. Again this does not sound like a group that would let their scripture be corrupted.
   
   I think it’s pretty clear that the allegation of scripture corruption do not fit ancient Jewish and Christian’s Modus Operandi.
   
   Another fallacy is that there were different versions of Quran. There used to be quite a few but when the Muslims noticed this they chose one version and destroyed the others. They claim they chose one that could be linked back to Muhammad’s wife. However, there also exists another version which resides in an undisclosed location in Europe and is being translated.

 

[dronald]

However, there also exists another version which resides in an undisclosed location in Europe and is being translated.

Link?

 

[Hail_Linus]

Hail_Linus;11133086:

However, there also exists another version which resides in an undisclosed location in Europe and is being translated.

Link?

This is written about in a book called The Closing of the Muslim Mind. It was written by Robert R. Reilly (a senior fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council). If I am able to locate my copy of the book I will post info about where he got this information.

 

[TheSufi]

We already discussed this in another thread, and I’m beginning to realize that it is your favorite passage in the Bible that has been refuted over and over. Who are you trying to convince? Us or yourself?

Pick up a Hebrew Bible and see if your translation is there. The KJV is right, “God is not a man that He should lie” which is true. Jesus is also not a man that He should lie, because Jesus never lied.

Anyways, Daniel 7:13-14.

I refuted your refutation in this thread, using the Hebrew to do so.
Yes the verse completely dismantles the whole modern christian doctrine.

God is not a man.

No man is God.

 

[dronald]

I refuted your refutation in this thread, using the Hebrew to do so.
Yes the verse completely dismantles the whole modern christian doctrine.

God is not a man.

No man is God.

Just for the other readers of this thread I want to direct you to this thread here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=11103542#post11103542

There you will find our discussion on the matter, and it was rehashed here for unknown reasons.

The point I was trying to make is that, “Kazab” (Kaw-zab) (כָּזַב) is a verb which means lie or to lie. Therefore the translation should say, “God is not a man to lie” or “God is not a man that He should lie.” Also, the word used for repent is, “nachem” (naw-khem) (נָחַם) Also a verb to mean, repent, or change ones mind, or feel sorry for ones self.

There is nothing in the Hebrew that states that “God is not a man, and if He were, He would lie” This is a horrible translation not even found in the Hebrew Bibles that the Jews use.

wî·ḵaz·zêḇ is “That he should lie” for the closest possible wording.

Check out some similar times the phrase is used:

Micah 2:11 If a man should go about and utter wind and** lies**, saying, "I will preach to you of wine and strong drink…
kiz·zêḇ (lie)

Job 6:28 But now, be pleased to look at me, for I will not lie to your face.
’ă·ḵaz·zêḇ.(lie)

Job 24:6 in spite of my right I am counted a liar…
’ă·ḵaz·zêḇ (lie)

Further passages with, “Nachem” are quite compelling as well:

Exodus 32:12… Turn from your burning anger and relent from this disaster against your people

wə·hin·nā·ḥêm (to change)

Jeremiah 15:6 …I am weary of relenting
hin·nā·ḥêm (of relenting)

I could honestly go on to prove that the KJV has hit it dead on, and the Jewish Hebrew Bibles we have now and I will continue if this gets dragged on anymore. I honestly didn’t expect the same issue to be brought up by the same person in a different thread. So if it so happens that the same issue is brought up in another thread then I’ll have to continue defending it there.

Anyways, I hope I can put some minds at ease, all God is saying is that He is not a man to lie or a Son of Man to change His mind. If you don’t believe me consult your local Hebrew Bible.