Bible authenticity and transmission,fully detailed argument.

[جوري]

In other words, you can't prove you're not a careless reader.

Rather you have no forethought to what you write and have nothing of substance to impart when presented with your own bull a post or two later!

The point is the Scholastics took what was useful and left what was wrong. They didn't simply mirror everything they read. St Thomas was not an Averroist, but he was familiar with Averroes' writings, there's a difference.

Again, you need to familiarize yourself with 'wrong' vs. 'different'
one has to do with fallacy and the other, personal convictions. Personal convictions has little to do with logic!

For the same reason why you believe there are Jews and Christians despite Muhammad being the seal of prophethood.

and what reason might that be?

For Christians its not haram or makrooh to read the previous inspired works, and that is what I'm commenting on. I'm not making an outrageous claim by saying the Priesthood was an integral part to Old Testament Judaism, any more than saying directing salat towards Mecca is integral to Islam.

and I have already told you, I can be game with that, but how does it reconcile with Jews not buying into your brand of priesthood and remaining on the laws of Moses?

You like to comment on things you know little about, oh well... shrugs

Perhaps the problem is you like to engage in topics you later can't seem to extricate yourself out of without falling into a self made trap?

Wa salaam

aslaam 3la ahel aslaam

 

[Uthman]

Does anybody have anything more to say about the authenticity of the Bible? If not, it may be time to close this thread.

Clearly, it's time to close this thread.

:threadclo