Re: The Old Testement

**miseshayek** · 02-26-2006

Originally Posted by Chuck

Shalom miseshayek,

True, but not the exactly applies to the pov I'm looking here. Let me explain. I already trust God and believe God and I'm trying to look at it from a neutral pov. If God said it in the previous that He will protect the word Himself in a clear-cut statement then it add points against the corruption argument to some extent. You are right, in realistic terms, anyone can add the statement and make it look like God said it. However, if there is no such statement in the first place than it don't even raise a contradiction from a neutral pov.
====================================

I guess I just don't see your point. If I was going to create a false scripture and want to have it accepted I would insert in the text "This text is true and is from G_d, and G_d guarantees it will never be changed." I would not insert in the text "Anyone who alters the word of G_d in general or this text in particular will burn in hell forever." I wouldn't put that in because I would then have nothing to complain about if I burned in hell forever for falsifying G_d's word. In other words, as I said before, the first seems to be a "hollow promise" while the second threatens real sanctions for fakery. I, therefore, don't understand why you find the former "more convincing."

=================================

I was speaking of changes along the lines which the guy in the following article is complaining about ( http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/freeman-doctrines1.html ). Point is: it is not necessary to claim a new revelation from God to make changes to a scripture.

================================

One of us does not understand this webpage. I read it it as deploring particular translations of the Bible as not authentic or representative of what the text "really means" in the original languages. That is, of course, a problem with the translation of any text. Since languages and the shadings in languages are not identical every translation straddles the line between word for word literalism and representing the general sense of a passage. But that has nothing to do with "changing scriptures" in any material way - rather, it has to do with interpreting a text that everyone first agrees to. For instance, if you look up on any of the major book services a book entitled The Dead Sea Scriptures you will get a volume that provides a word for word comparison of scrolls that are 2,000 years old with the currently used Hebrew and Aramaic texts of the Old Testiment. The texts are not identical, but they are pretty nearly identical except for the Book of Daniel and the absence of Ester in the ancient texts.

You do realize on the issue of translation or interpretation, rather than the issue of "corruption of a text" that, for instance, neither classical Arabic nor classical Hebrew are pointed or punctuated? Hence, even if you have an absolutely unchanged text in the original languages the interpretation of the Qu'ran and the Torah rest upon traditions that are not a part of the text. Further, there are terms in each text the meaning of which is unclear or appears to have changed over time - "honor your father and your mother," for instance, may mean quite different things depending on what you mean by "honor." Does that mean "obey," or "respect," or "do not demean" or all of the foregoing?

"Corrupting a scripture" means that the scripture itself is changed in material ways, not that people have a differences over its "true meaning" or interpretation.

=============================
I think we are not on the same page here, so I'll summarize the discussion here.
You said: "And why would He [God] have done that [corrupted the scriptures]?" (As pointed out in the thread, God didn't corrupt the scriptures).
================================

Without going back and looking, I believe that your observation was that, since G_d controlled everything he must have allowed the scriptures to be corrupted. I understand by that that he either wanted their corruption or did not strongly oppose it. Why would G_d want his word corrupted? Is he trying to trick men into ****ation?

==================================
Then I asked (not the exact words): Whether if God promised (or guaranteed) to prevent scripture from corruption? Or/and whether Israelites have been warned or admonished regarding disobeying or corrupting the scripture?

Then you gave me the verses that were commanding Israelites not change the word of God. It is like giving (an example from Quran) the verse in where God commands Muslims not to make divisions. But this doesn't mean divisions won't happen, because it is command not to do something, rather than guarantee against something from happening - that's my point.
=======================================

I understand that point, but I have several times tried to explain why I find it unconvincing - see above in this post.

=======================================
Similar analyzes [as those performed on the Jewish and Christian scriptures] have been done of the Qur'an, but are dismissed without even being examined by most Muslims I have discussed this matter with.

--------------------------

Give an example.

========================================

Rather than my giving you a specific example, let me suggest a source for you to examine. There is a book entitled The Qur'an, A User's Guide by Farid Esack which surveys these studies and references some of the responses to them. When the same tools that are applied to the Torah and the other Jewish and Christian scriptures are applied to the Qur'an SOME scholars have concluded that significant parts of that text are not contemporaneous with Muhammad.

The problem is not that conclusion, since Jews and Christians, for instance, are not at all disturbed about similar findings about their texts. The problem is that few Muslim scholars have examined these studies and responded accordingly. The more common reaction is, apparently, to dismiss such studies as "hatred of Islam" or an example of Orientalism. Unfortunately, name calling just doesn't get you much respect in scholarly circles nor is it very convincing to those who do not already feel an allegiance to a faith or ideology.

===========================================.

I don't think that this is an equal playing field or that Muslims are accepting equal tools of examination as to their own scriptures that they eagerly apply to Jewish and Christian scriptures. When they are willing to set aside the pious view of the Qur'an and start applying the same tools to the Qur'an and Hadith that Jews and Christians have been applying to their scriptures for at least 300 years then the "corruption of your scriptures" line is going to make a lot more sense and will be accepted as merely an empirical observation rather than a veiled insult.
----------------------------------

What assumption vs. an actual statement in a text analysis has to do with this? Perhaps you can clarify.
============================================

I am not quite certain what the question is. As I previously indicated, there are many different techniques that have been used to "test" ancient texts. If, for instance, it is asserted that the Walls of Jericho fell down in a certain period and archeology determines that Jericho was not a walled city or even inhabited during that period, the text is false. If a text makes comments about the reign of a particular King who we know from other sources didn't rule until a hundred years after the text was supposedly created, then, the text is false. If a text claims to be 1,300 years old, but uses expressions that did not enter into the language in which it is written until 500 years ago, the text is false. As I indicated, modern computer tools also allow for some conclusions from word choice and sentence construction that indicate that certain verses are written by the same hand, but others are not.
=========================================

What the following verse means?

'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? - Jeremiah 8:8

============================================

I would say that isn't the translation I find in any of the several translations by Jews that I have. Here's one that is on line: "8 How do ye say: 'We are wise, and the Law of HaShem is with us'? Lo, certainly in vain hath wrought the vain pen of the scribes." http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...Jeremiah8.html

Also, here is the Christian King James Version " How do ye say, We [are] wise, and the law of the LORD [is] with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he [it]; the pen of the scribes [is] in vain." http://www.blueletterbible.org/Jer/Jer008.html

In fact, the main translation I find that is close to the above is the NIV, a translation that is generally regarded among scholars as Christianity for the not too bright.

But your question spurred me to do a bit of net research, and,so, what do you think of this? ---

================================

I hope even with our differences in beliefs we can respect each other as children of the same God.
Peace!

----------------------------------

Indeed. And my purpose is not to weaken your faith in the Qur'an or in Muhammad. There is great good in the Qur'an and Muhammad was obviously an admirable man. Rather, I am simply trying to get you to apply the same standards to yourself and your faith that you apply to others and their faiths.

One of the things I very much like about the Escak volume I mentioned above is that it is a good stab at presenting a modern case [that is, a case based on evidence, logical distinctions and argument] for the validity of Islam and the worth of the Qur'an. If your purpose in participating in this Forum is to try to speak to Westerners in a convincing way, as well as talking to other Muslims about the pious recitations of your faith, you should take a look at this volume.

MODERATOR'S COMMENT: A LINK TO AN ANTI-ISLAMIC WEBSITE HAS BEEN REMOVED. YOU ARE WELCOME TO RAISE ANY OF THE POINTS GIVEN IN THE LINKED ARTICLE FOR DISCUSSION, BUT PLEASE TRY TO AVOID LINKING TO SUCH WEBSITES.

**miseshayek** · 02-28-2006