The Argument of Jeremiah 8:8 Stands Corrected!

 

Quennel Gale

 

 

Recently www.answering-christianity.com has uploaded new articles, particularly from Bassam Zawadi. The article in discussion can be found here:

 

http://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/argument_of_jeremiah_8.htm      

 

Apparently Mr. Zawadi has decided to bring up the age-old issue of Jeremiah 8:8, a text addressed long ago which was first used by his master Osama Abdallah. Bassam concludes his article by trying to say this:

 

However, do not expect a subjective Christian to believe the implications of Jeremiah 8:8, they would simply dismiss it. However, use it for those truth seeking and objective Christians.

 

The reason why “subjective” Christians will never believe this argument is because we believe in reading the Holy Bible in light of its context and entire message, while Mr. Zawadi, a follower of Muhammad, whose Quran is about as harmonious as a crack head singing Christmas carols, is used to copying and pasting pieces of verses without context. He begins by saying:

 

The Argument of Jeremiah 8:8 Still Standing!

By
Bassam Zawadi

If we read the Book of Jeremiah, Chapter 8, Verse 8 it says this

⁸ " '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?

It is very clear from the text that the scribes have corrupted the Law (first 5 books of the Old Testament). How did they corrupt it? With their mouths by giving false interpretations? No! They did so with their "pens". Meaning they altered the text of the Law. How else could a pen corrupt something?

Following are some arguments that Christians put forward to try to show that the verse does not say that the Law has not been corrupted.

 

Actually verse 8 doesn’t indicate that the scribes corrupted the law by altering its text. Mr. Zawadi has jumped to conclusions on this issue. Notice he says:

 

Meaning they altered the text of the Law. How else could a pen corrupt something?

 

But the verse itself says:

 

when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?

 

Notice here that the “lying pen of the scribes” handles the law falsely. How can a pen handle a book if a pen doesn’t have any hands? It is obvious that this is referring to a euphemism about the scribes handling the “pure law” falsely, not altering the text. Mr. Zawadi’s argument is also laughable at best even if we conclude that the law was altered and corrupted for:

 

1. The scribes would have to first alter the text

2. Somehow convince the people that their perversion is the original, or force everyone to follow this corrupted text.

3. Get rid of all the copies of the original law in circulation.

 

Apparently Mr. Zawadi is confusing his own pathetic Islamic history to ancient Biblical history and trying to dupe the reader since there is no historical evidence that such things ever occurred. In fact we do find historical data to show that Muslims corrupted the Quran. For instance, if you look at the Hadith you will find that Uthman burned copies of the Quran in order to standardize what he believed was the official text, even though some of Muhammad’s closest followers were in disagreement with him. In the following narration, Ibn Abbas mentioned some verses that were left out in the readings of the Quran:

 

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

 

'Umar said, Ubai was the best of us in the recitation (of the Qur'an) yet we leave some of what he recites.' Ubai says, 'I have taken it from the mouth of Allah's Apostle and will not leave for anything whatever.' But Allah said: None of Our revelations do we abrogate or cause to be forgotten but We substitute something better or similar (2.106)" (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 61, Number 527)

 

Narrated Ibn Abbas:

 

Umar said, "Our best Qur'an reciter is Ubai and our best judge is 'Ali; and in spite of this, we leave some of the statements of Ubai because Ubai says, 'I do not leave anything that I have heard from Allah's Apostle while Allah: "Whatever verse (Revelations) do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten but We bring a better one or similar to it." (2.106) (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 8)

 

These missing verses cannot be referring to abrogated parts of the Quran which were no longer essential since even the abrogated verses were included within the text.

 

This next source states that there isn’t a single Muslim that could say for certain that they have the entire Quran preserved since there wasn’t anyone that could definitely tell what the entire Quran consisted of:

 

It is reported from Ismail ibn Ibrahim from Ayyub from Naafi from Ibn Umar who said: "Let none of you say ‘I have acquired the whole of the Qur'an'. How does he know what all of it is when much of the Qur'an has disappeared? Rather let him say 'I have acquired what has survived.’” (as-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur'an, p. 524).

 

It is Mr. Zawadi, not Christians, who needs to prove that the Quran is not corrupted in light of such Islamic references. Trying to reject this data will do nothing to convince us of the contrary, especially when these are Islamic sources and the alleged reported words of those closest to Muhammad who boldly admitted that the Quran is not entirely intact since some of it’s contents are missing. British Scholar Sir Norman Anderson stated:

 

"So, although it is true that today the Kufan text of Hafs is accepted almost everywhere in the Muslim world, the claim commonly made by Muslims that they have ipsissima verba of what Muhammad actually said, without any variant readings, rests upon an ignorance of the facts of history." (Anderson, Islam in the Modern World [Leicester: Apollos, 1990], p. 47; bold emphasis ours)

 

There is no need to say anything more on this issue. Mr. Zawadi doesn’t have anything close to this against the Holy Bible so he must rely on a misinterpretation of a biblical text to prove his point. Before we analyze Jeremiah 8:8 we first need to address some of the other comments of Mr. Zawadi:

 

The "lying pens of the scribes" means that the scribes wrote misinterpretations of the Law and not actually altered the text of the Law

If scribes wrote misinterpretations of the Law then why would people go and read them? Notice that in verse 7 is says that they don't know the requirements of the Law. If they wanted to know the requirements of the Law, why go and read what the scribes have written when they could easily go to the supposedly uncorrupted text of the Law when it was available. Everything is there.

Notice how the verse says that they don't have the Law. If the Law was truly there in an uncorrupted form then that means that they had it.

Some Christians tend to argue that "not having the Law" means that they don' truly abide by it. However, verse 7 states that they don't know the requirements because the lying pen of the scribes have handled the Law falsely (verse 8). People should have easily went to see what is written in the Law to know the requirements of God and not listen to the scribes. But they couldn't because the scribes corrupted the Law and therefore people could not have known the true requirements because they would not have been able to distinguish between the corrupted and uncorrupted verses of the Law.

 

Mr. Zawadi further confuses himself on this issue by wondering why would people read a misinterpretation of the law from those who don’t know the requirements of the law? He then jumps to conclusions claiming that the answer to this is because, “they didn’t have it in the first place”!  Now let us post the immediate context of this passage to show you just how flawed Mr. Zawadi’s explanation truly is:

 

 

One who looks at the immediate context will see that God poses a question to show why the false scribes cannot claim to be wise, and in verse 9 he answers that question by saying BECAUSE THEY REJECTED THE WORD OF THE LORD (HIS LAW). In light of such rejection, WHAT TYPE OF WISDOM COULD THEY CLAIM TO HAVE? We see that there is no mention that these scribes corrupted the Bible. If verse 8 was claiming that the law was corrupted then why is God calling it his word in verse 9? This is something Mr. Zawadi has failed to address.

 

Moreover, how could the people reject the word of God when they would have no way of knowing what it was since, according to Mr. Zawadi, it had been corrupted by the scribes? The answer should be obvious: They couldn’t have rejected the word of God if they didn’t know what it was and yet God claims that they did reject it. What is the assumption behind this charge? That God’s word was available to the people in an uncorrupt form! Zawadi says:

 

Jeremiah 26:4 says that God still commanded them to follow the Law. How could this be if the Law has been corrupted?

This does not necessarily have to be referring to the Law of Moses. It's possible it could be referring to the revelations that God had sent down to Jeremiah. e.g.. Jeremiah Chapter 7 and 36

 

When confronted with an obvious kryptonite response to his argument Mr. Zawadi must now revert to the typical Islamic misinformation by claiming “oh well, it doesn’t actually refer to the Law of Moses”. So let’s assume that he believes that it was referring to the revelations God sent down to Jeremiah, this is still going to work against Mr. Zawadi, for the very verse he tries to use in his defense, Jeremiah 26:4, backfires against him:

 

"Say to them, 'This is what the LORD says: If you do not listen to me and follow MY LAW, WHICH I HAVE SET BEFORE YOU, and if you do not listen to the words of MY SERVANTS THE PROPHETS, whom I have sent to you again and again (though you have not listened) then I will make this house like Shiloh and this city an object of cursing among all the nations of the earth.'" Jeremiah 26:4-6

 

As you can clearly see, this passage mentions that:

 

1. You must follow the law, which God sent down WHICH WAS BEFORE JEREMIAH (eliminating any chance that this only refers to Jeremiah since many prophets came before him).

2. You must listen to the words of God’s servant’s the prophets, which God had sent over and over again.

 

So based on this passage, the law God was referring to is that which preceded Jeremiah and the words of the prophets refers to the message that God sent Israel throughout their history, calling them to repent and turn back to the law in order to avoid its wrath. Mr. Zawadi’s entire argument crumbles before our very eyes and his explanation falls flat on his face.

 

In Nehemiah, chapter 8 we find that Ezra reads the Law to the people of Israel for a whole week, day after day. For example in verses 8, 13-14, and 18. This is in about 430 B.C. about 180 years after Jeremiah's temple address which took place in 609 or 608 B.C., the first year of the reign of king Jehoiakim (see Jeremiah 26:1). In Malachi 4:4, God tells the people to follow the Law.

This is irrelevant because Christians are assuming that these books of Nehemiah and Malachi are truly from God. Maybe they were following the same corrupted Law that Christians are following today. This proves nothing.

 

Actually Mr. Zawadi is wrong again. Let’s reiterate what he said earlier:

 

He said: Jeremiah 26:4 says that God still commanded them to follow the Law. How could this be if the Law has been corrupted?

This does not necessarily have to be referring to the Law of Moses. It's possible it could be referring to the revelations that God had sent down to Jeremiah. e.g.. Jeremiah Chapter 7 and 36

 

But what does Jeremiah 26:4-6 say:

If you do not listen to me and follow MY LAW, WHICH I HAVE SET BEFORE YOU, AND if you do not listen to the words of MY SERVANTS THE PROPHETS, whom I have sent to you again and again (though you have not listened)

 

As you can see, both the law AND THE WORDS OF THE PROPHETS were considered equal in God’s eyes, therefore prophets like Ezra and Malachi wouldn’t be following a corrupted law, and their words would be the very words of God himself. Also Mr. Zawadi doesn’t explain to us how this is irrelevant, because apparently he doesn’t know. Claiming that Christians are assuming that Nehemiah and Malachi are from God as the grounds to reject their testimony as irrelevant IS BASED ON HIS ASSUMPTION THAT JEREMIAH IS FROM GOD AND NEHEMIAH AND MALACHI AREN’T FROM GOD. In other words, he accepts Jeremiah 8:8 as God’s word, as trustworthy enough to prove that the law was corrupted. Yet, when other writers and prophets prove him wrong, or show that he has no clue what he is talking about, since that verse doesn’t say that the text of the Law was corrupted, he then rejects their testimony on the basis that they are not prophets and their views are therefore not necessarily true!

 

If Mr. Zawadi wants to reject Christian thinking because of their assumption, how can he answer our supposed assumption WITH ANOTHER ASSUMPTION? He has committed the fallacy of begging the question, calling Christian thinking irrelevant without proving it irrelevant other than assuming that Jeremiah 8:8 is more trustworthy than all the other verses in the Bible, and even more reliable than the rest of the statements of Jeremiah that happen to explain what Jeremiah 8:8 does and does not mean! That's like answering a question with another question.

 

Daniel Chapter 9 shows that Daniel read from the Book of Jeremiah and also believed in an uncorrupt Torah. This shows that Daniel did not understand Jeremiah 8:8 to mean that the text of the Law was corrupted

First of all the only evidence of what verses that Daniel read from the Book of Jeremiah are Jeremiah 25:11, 12 and 29:10 where God predicts that Israel would be taken into captivity to Babylon for 70 years. This does not prove that he read the whole book of Jeremiah.

Even if there was proof that he read the whole book of Jeremiah that does not mean anything. Daniel could have easily misunderstood the passage just like how Christians are today. Maybe he twisted around its true meaning just like how Christians do today because he they don't want to admit that their scripture is corrupted.

 

It is very apparent that Mr. Zawadi is obviously arguing with nothing but hot air. Logically if he concludes that:

 

Because Daniel read parts of the law about the 70 years captivity in Babylon it doesn’t prove that he read the whole book.

 

It can logically be concluded also that: Because Daniel didn’t read the whole book, that THE WHOLE BOOK WASN’T IN EXISTENCE.

 

In the first place why would Daniel need to read the entire book to focus on one particular event? Logically this makes no sense whatsoever. Also even if it was proven that Daniel did have the whole book, this still wouldn’t be good enough for Mr. Zawadi (talk about being objective) who claims that, “ he could have easily misunderstood it”. So according to Mr. Zawadi’s logic, if you read a newspaper (which has a front page, classified, sports, business section, etc) and you only read a particular part of the paper, for example the business section, we must therefore conclude that it doesn’t prove that you have the entire newspaper! Or worse it would mean that the classifieds, or other sections didn’t exist! That is exactly how he is arguing against the Bible!

 

God could have restored the Torah just like how he did with Jeremiah's own revelations in Jeremiah 36:1-7, 20-32, 27-32

Irrelevant, because Jeremiah 8:8 does not say that God restored the Law. Yes he could have done it. God could do anything. But the verse didn't say that.

 

God didn’t need to restore the Torah since it wasn’t corrupted and was already perfect as the prophet David explicitly taught:

 

THE LAW OF THE LORD IS PERFECT, reviving the soul. The statutes of the LORD are TRUSTWORTHY, making wise the simple. Psalm 19:7

 

According to the Quran, David was given his revelations and wisdom by Allah himself:

 

"Before this, We wrote in the Psalms (al-Zaburi), after THE REMINDER (Zhikri): `My servants, the righteous, shall inherit the earth.'" Surah 21:105

 

"Then if they reject thee, so were rejected messengers before thee, who came with Clear Signs, The Scriptures (Zuburi), and the Book of Enlightenment." S. 3:184

 

"Without doubt it is (announced) IN the revealed Books of former peoples (Zubu-ril-'awwaliin)." S. 26:196

 

"Are your Unbelievers, (O Quraish), better than they? Or have ye an immunity IN the Sacred Books (Zubur)?" S. 54:43

 

"And if they reject thee, so did their predecessors, to whom came their messengers with Clear Signs, Scriptures (Zuburi), and the Book illuminating." S. 35:25

 

Finally, the following citation demonstrates that there were Muslims who had no problem in accepting all of the OT Psalms as revelation:

 

Then Allah, may He be glorified and honored, revealed to Da'ud (David), the Psalms, that is al-zabur, which are ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY in number and IN THE HANDS OF THE JEWS AND CHRISTIANS. (Abu 'l-Faraj Muhammad ibn Ishaq al-Nadim, The Fihrist - A 10th Century AD Survey of Islamic Culture, edited and translated by Bayard Dodge [Great Books of the Islamic World, Inc., Columbia University Press, 1970], p. 43; bold and capital emphasis ours)

 

Although this source erroneously attributes all 150 Psalms to David, this nonetheless demonstrates that some Muslims wholeheartedly embraced and accepted all of the OT Psalms as God's revealed Word.

 

Hence, not only does the Quran say that Allah personally wrote the Psalms, but it also says that the Psalms were given to other Prophets besides David!! Therefore, since Zawadi believes that the law was corrupted, and yet since David believed that the law was perfect and flawless, then he has basically shown that the Quran is wrong and corrupted as well! Amazing! If David says that the law of God is perfect and then the Quran claims that Allah wrote the Psalms through David then this means that both Allah and the Quran are liars based on Mr. Zawadi’s fantastic research!

 

Jesus gave authority to the Law in the Gospels

How do you know that Jesus even read Jeremiah 8:8? How do you know that Jesus truly gave authority to the Law? Because your Gospel says so? How do you know that the Gospel writers truly quoted Jesus' true words? This will get into a discussion of the authority of the Gospels so lets not go there. However, you cannot use the Bible to prove the Bible has not been corrupted. This is just circular reasoning.

 

Mr. Zawadi’s argument becomes more humorous by the second. He claims that

 

However, you cannot use the Bible to prove the Bible has not been corrupted. This is just circular reasoning.

 

Now since he is such a master of logical fallacies, it apparently never occurred to him that on the flip side:

 

You cannot use the Bible to prove that the Bible is corrupted for this would also be circular reasoning.

 

Why is it okay to use the Bible in his argument, but then call the very same reasoning circular if used by Christians to prove the exact opposite? If Mr. Zawadi objects to this then why does he say in his conclusion below:

 

Well either Jeremiah 8:8 is a true verse and the Bible is corrupted or Jeremiah 8:8 is a corrupted verse but it is in your Bible so your Bible is still corrupted!

 

It is obvious that he is using a circular argument by using the Bible against the Bible, but won’t allow Christians to use the Bible on behalf of the Bible. Mr. Zawadi seems to be ignorant of the fact that Bible ISN’T ONE BOOK, but a collection of many books brought together from over a span of 3000 years as one authoritative source from God. Hence, it isn’t circular reasoning to use the Bible in defense of the Bible for in history as well as scientific study, different sources validating the same information is considered sufficient evidence.

 

Even your own Quran says that Jesus came to confirm the Law

The Gospel was given to Prophet Jesus to confirm what remained intact from the Torah; and the Glorious Quran was given to Prophet Mohamed (saws) to confirm what remained intact from the Gospel and The Law! 

 

Let’s look at what Jesus had to say about the law:

 

"I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." Matthew 5:18

 

Jesus claimed that the Torah as it exists would not pass away until all was fulfilled. Zawadi obviously may have a problem with this and may claim that since it comes from the Gospel it proves nothing. But the problem for him is that he has no Islamic source whatsoever from the time of Jesus that says something different. So basically Zawadi wants us to accept Muhammad and the Quran as more authentic sources of information on the life of Jesus, even though they came 600 years after Christ, and discard the documents that came from the first century period right around the time Christ actually lived!

 

Let us now move on to the meaning of Jeremiah 8:8. After all, if Jeremiah 8:8 does not mean that the text of the Torah had been corrupted what then did Jeremiah mean by the statement that the lying pens of the scribes have falsified it? A careful reading of the context leads us to believe that Jeremiah was referring to the written commentaries of the scribes whereby they falsely interpreted the law of God, leading people astray by their traditions. A similar situation arose between Jesus and the scribes and Pharisees:

 

"Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 'Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don't wash their hands before they eat!' Jesus replied, 'And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?... Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: 'these people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.'" Matthew 15:1-3,6b-9

 

In a similar fashion, Jeremiah was rebuking the scribes for their traditions that were leading the people to reject the word of God. This can be seen from the passage that immediately follows verse 8:

 

"The wise will be put to shame; they will be dismayed and trapped. Since they have REJECTED the word of the LORD, what kind of wisdom do they have.” Jeremiah 8:9

 

As we said earlier, it is pretty hard to reject God’s word if that word was no longer available! Thus, we see no evidence whatsoever that Jeremiah believed that the text of the Law had been corrupted.

 

Since Zawadi has been trying to quote the Bible to prove that it is corrupted, it is time for us to return the favor. Here is what Zawadi’s false book says about its own text:

 

"Like as We sent down on the dividers Those who made the Quran INTO SHREDS. So, by your Lord, We would most certainly question them all, As to what they did." S. 15:90-93 Shakir

 

Since he believes that the Quran is the word of God then he should obviously have no problem with the Quran claiming that there were those WHO SHREDDED IT! Islamic scholar Alphonse Mingana made the following interesting comments regarding these verses:

 

"Finally, if we understand correctly the following verse of Suratul-Hijr (xv. 90-91): 'As we sent down upon (punished) the dividers (of the Scripture?) who broke up the Koran into parts,' we are tempted to state that even when the Prophet was alive, some changes were noticed in the recital of certain verses of his sacred book. There is nothing very surprising in this fact, since Muhammad could not read or write, and was at the mercy of friends for the writing of his revelations, or, more frequently, of some mercenary amanuenses." (Mingana, "Three Ancient Korans", The Origins of the Koran - Classic Essays on Islam's Holy Book, ed. by Ibn Warraq [Prometheus Books, Amherst NY, 1998], p. 84; bold emphasis ours)

 

Need we say more?

 

Is God not able to preserve the Torah?

He is able to but just because he allowed it to become corrupted does not undermine His power. It could have been God's divine plan for it to have been corrupted because the Law was probably only meant to be followed for a particular point in time unlike the Holy Quran which is the final revelation of God and has remained intact and preserved and is meant to be followed for all time since it has been revealed.

 

Since Zawadi believes that the Quran is the word of God, and remains intact for all time, then he needs to explain this to us:

 

Say: Have you considered if it is from Allah, and you disbelieve in it, and a witness from among the children of Israel has borne witness of one like it (mithlihi), so he believed, while you are big with pride; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people ... And before it the Book of Musa was a guide and a mercy: and this is a Book VERIFYING (it) IN the Arabic language that it may warn those who are unjust and as good news for the doers of good. S. 46:10, 12 Shakir

 

One of the greatest Muslim commentators Ibn Kathir wrote regarding the above:

 

<(at the same time), a witness from among the Children of Israel has testified to something similar>

 

meaning, ‘the previous Scriptures that were revealed to the Prophets before me all testify to its truthfulness and authenticity. They have prophesied, well in advance, about things similar to that which this Qur’an informs of.’ Concerning Allah’s statement ...

 

<and believed>

 

‘this person who testified to its truthfulness from the Children of Israel, due to his realization that it was the truth.’

 

<while you rejected (the truth)!>

 

‘whereas you have arrogantly refused to follow it.’ Masruq said: "That witness believed in his Prophet and Book, while you disbelieved in your Prophet and Book." (Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged) Volume 9 (Surat Al-Jathiyah to the end of Surat Al-Munafiqun), First Edition: September 2000, pp. 52-53; cf. online edition)

 

The late Christian scholar of Islam Sir William Muir wrote about the Quran’s view of God’s true word:

 

A Jew, either residing in the vicinity of Mecca, or having visited it perhaps from Medina or elsewhere,—at any rate known at Mecca,—is quoted to the people of Mecca as bearing testimony to the correspondence of the Corân with the Jewish Scriptures, and accordingly believing in it. "Does not this," says Mahomet, "prove the divine inspiration of the Corân, and yet ye proudly reject it?"

 

So Baidhâwi,—

على مثله مثل القران وهو ما في التوراة من المعاني المصدقة القرآن المطابقة له أو مثل ذالك وهو كونه من عندالله فآمن أي بالقرآن لما رائي من خبر الوحي مطابقاً للحق

 

"To the like-thereof, i. e. like the Corân, and the meaning is that the contents of the Tourât (Pentateuch) by their purport attest the Corân, as corresponding therewith, or resembling it;—and thus prove its being from God. And believed, that is, in the Corân, when he (the Jew) saw the intimations of Inspiration corresponding with the truth." (Sir William Muir, The Corân: Its Composition and Teaching, p. 84; bold emphasis ours)

 

Note the structure of the argument: because he assumed the divine origin of the Torah, the author of the Quran argued that since his Quran is "like the Torah" this therefore proves that it is of divine origin as well. In this context at least, the Quran seeks to derive proof for its inspiration from the authority of the Torah. In light of this, how can Zawadi remain a Muslim when he believes that the Torah was corrupted before or around the time of Jeremiah whereas his false prophet Muhammad believed the contrary, going so far as to claim that his Quran is actually a verification of it in Arabic?

 

In fact, using Zawadi’s logic would further prove that the Quran is also a corrupted text since it is nothing more than an Arabic version of a text that had been falsified by the lying pen of the scribes!

 

Conclusion

Jeremiah 8:8 is explicitly clear when it states that the Law has been corrupted. We are not even sure if Jeremiah is really the true author of this book. We don't have any evidence to confirm if he wrote the whole book. So even if Christians try to come up and show verses from the book of Jeremiah that give authority to the Law then that would just simply be contradicting Jeremiah 8:8. Maybe others added to the book to try and cover it up. Only God knows best. Maybe Christians might criticize me for saying that Jeremiah is not reliable yet I use Jeremiah 8:8 to prove that the Bible is corrupt. Well either Jeremiah 8:8 is a true verse and the Bible is corrupted or Jeremiah 8:8 is a corrupted verse but it is in your Bible so your Bible is still corrupted! However, do not expect a subjective Christian to believe the implications of Jeremiah 8:8, they would simply dismiss it. However, use it for those truth seeking and objective Christians.

 

Jeremiah 8:8 backfires on Mr. Zawadi, and Islam in a much more harmful way, than Zawadi could even imagine. As for the Law of God being corrupted, here is what the Quran has to say:

 

Shall I seek other than Allah for judge, when He it is Who hath revealed unto you (this) Scripture, fully explained? Those unto whom We gave the Scripture (aforetime) know that it is revealed from thy Lord in truth. So be not thou (O Muhammad) of the waverers. Perfected is the Word of thy Lord in truth and justice. THERE IS NAUGHT THAT CAN CHANGE HIS WORDS. He is the Hearer, the Knower. S. 6:114-115 Pickthall

 

If the Quran is the word of God, and it claims that nobody can change God’s words and the Law of God was originally God’s word, how can Mr. Zawadi contradict his very own Quran and claim otherwise? He has just made Allah a liar! Returning to the Quran, we read:

 

"All food was lawful to the Children of Israel except what Israel made unlawful for itself before the Torah was revealed. Say, 'BRING the Torah and READ it, if you are men of truth.' If any, after this, invent a lie and attribute it to God, they are indeed transgressors." S. 3:93-94

 

They measured not God with a true measure when they said, ‘God has not sent down aught on any mortal.’ Say: ‘Who sent down the Book that Moses brought as a light and a guidance to men? YOU PUT IT INTO PARCHMENTS, REVEALING THEM, and hiding much; and you were taught that you knew not, you and your fathers.’ Then leave them alone, playing their game of plunging. This is a Book We have sent down, blessed AND CONFIRMING THAT WHICH WAS BEFORE IT… S. 6:91-92 A.J. Arberry

 

It is quite clear from these passages that the original Torah and the uncorrupted Book of Moses were in the possession of the people of Muhammad’s time. If they were corrupted in the time of Jeremiah then we must conclude that Muhammad mistakenly believed that a corrupt law was actually the very one that God gave to Moses, thereby proving that Muhammad was a false prophet since a true prophet would have known better. In light of the foregoing there really is no need to elaborate further on this apart from saying that Mr. Zawadi has given us another dagger to stab his false religion with!

 

1. Home Back Home
2. New Articles Back to New Section