The Quran doesn't explicitly say the writing were corrupted, but talked about them twisting what they were told in the covenant regarding Moses Twelve Successors and Aaron and and his family, which can be meaning or it can be that they explicitly changed it.
Ah. So the Quran does not say it. Muslims determine that.
In other words. people have decided that the Bible is corrupt.
Is that not the same as people deciding that the Bible is myth?
What's the difference, if you think there is?
Also, did you say, the Quran talks about "
them twisting what they were told in the covenant regarding Moses".
Them, meaning people?
Is that not in line with what I said, and the scriptures I quoted?
It was the people that were corrupted. The ones who were supposed to keep the covenant - especially the leaders, and teachers - Not the Bible, Not God's word. Not what God gave them.
Hence why Jesus rejected them.
Are you not confusing people and writings?
The writers of the Tanakh all condemned those corrupt people, and spoke about them... from Mose to Malachi, all the prophets spoke of those corrupt people.
They stated clearly how they deviated from God's word, and did not keep it.
When the Book of the Law was found the good kings and the prophets expounded it.
The prophets God raised up, had God's law transmitted, and copied.
It's therefore, the case that like scholars today, and Atheists, some Muslims - apparently, that includes you - take a position on the Bible or writings, including the Tanakh, which none of the prophets, nor Jesus, nor the Gospel writers took.
Is that not true? Or can you name one person from Moses down to the apostles, who takes, or took the position you and fellow Muslims take.
Why take the Muslims position? Who authorized them? What proof do you have? Why would they not be the corrupt ones, that do not want to follow God's regulations?
It takes the stance that the covenant continued in his family. It also explicit that Saul/Talut is a chosen king and messenger of God. It also gives a different account of Ishmael and motive of Ibrahim of moving him to Becca which is all suggestive that it disagrees with what is stated about Ismail as one of the corruption as well it never acknowledges Hajar existing which suggests slavery is made up through out time and God never allowed it once.
It also takes a stance that all Messengers are holy and so we won't see Lot doing what the Bible accuses him of doing with his daughters, and being drunk is not an excuse nor Sulaiman being corrupted.
This sounds no different to Biblical critics and Atheists, Link... and do we not say, they speak of what they do not understand, and without understanding?
Do not people dismiss things they do not agree with... Isn't that what you are doing?
Because someone is a servant of God, that does not mean they would not have flawed thinking, or do something foolish.
Is that not what we see throughout the Bible.
Did Aaron not do foolishness on numerous occasions, and lived, only because of God's mercy?
Who is Lot, that he cannot act foolishly? His faith was not that of Abraham.
When we reason that the Bible cannot be God's word, or that it is myth, or that it is corrupt, because
we think this man would not do this, if... or God would not allow... is that not a case of being driven by our emotion.
If it's not emotion, what is it? What basis is there for saying that Lot was too perfect to act foolishly, or be influenced by a culture?
There is none apparently. Even Jesus' apostles were influenced by culture. The Jews were misled by their association with false worshipers to burn up their children in the fire - God's own people.
Lot is not so special.
As for God choosing Saul. The Bible says, Saul was humble before he let pride dominate him.
So were others God chose.
God's own created angle in heaven developed pride.
One Jesus chose - Judas - turned betrayer - betraying Christ himself.
Surely you are not going to say that part of scripture is corrupt,
because you don't think God would allow that?
Such emotionally driven conclusions are not reasonable, would you agree?
Also while Bible will emphasize Moses is greater then his successors, Quran shows, the Messengers come in groups known as the family of the reminder/revelation/prophethood of the time, and we don't distinguish in terms of importance or greatness between them, rather, each Ahlulbayt ascend together so God keeps their ranks even hidden from their viewpoint and so for example, we don't know who is higher Yahya and Jesus and they are blessed together and ascend in ascension together.
As for Mohammad (a) and his family (a), they are equal rank, because they are praised to extent of being utmost praised, and utmost praised to the extent of being all praised without the opposite and so if one neglect from any of them, they would be so far behind, and so they are equal rank and blessed together as well and ascend together as well.
The Quran is clear that the family of Aaron is the family of Moses and vice versa and so this was a corrupted concepted where Jews tried to split between the two and went against the covenant of Aaron and his offspring and said God changed it and annulled his covenant with him and his offspring.
Evidently, the Quran, and yourself, are against the Bible. Is that a fair conclusion?
Perhaps you can enlighten me to be more accurate.
Due to not having the time, I will get into the Aaron discussion later.
