As you know I agree with the official Baha'i view that the Quran is the 'Word of God.' I suspect that has a different meaning for Baha'is and Muslims. For Baha'is it means God revealed Himself and His purpose through Muhammad. So the Quran is God speaking to Muhammad's audience, initially Arabs living on the Arabian Peninsula, predominantly from the Quraysh tribe. Of course some of the words God guided Muhammad to speak can be generalised to a much wider audience (eg humanity).
Muhammad's audience were not well acquainted with the religion of the Christian and Jewish peoples and so Muhammad educated them in language they could understand using concepts that were acceptable to the people of that time. So of course Muhammad or God speaks of the Jesus and Moses we are all familiar with. He speaks of Judaism and Christianity. He refers to the Gospel and Torah the people were familiar with.
The idea that Muhammad spoke about another Gospel or Torah makes as much sense to Christians, atheists and Baha'is as if Muhammad were speaking of another Judaism and Christianity, or an entirely different Moses and Jesus.
Just because the Words were spoken by Muhammad doesn't negate their Divine origins. The Words clearly were spoken by Muhammad.
Right. So its divine Origin, which means God could have revealed about an Injeel that was revealed to Jesus and of other scripture revealed to many other prophets in the past. God revealed. Not that Muhammed read some what ever manuscripts that were in circulation in the Arabian Peninsula. That is why you taking the absolute naturalistic approach when it comes to the trial of proving the Quran was definitely referring to the Bibles that were in circulation at the time, is conflicting with your theology. Unless of course, your theology teaches that the Quran was Muhammeds own work, not Gods, and Muhammed read some books that were there at the time and wrote the Quran on his own.
He is either referring to the Gospel and Torah that form part of the Christian and Jewish scriptures and/or the Jewish and Christian scriptures more widely to encompass the Tanakh and New Testament.
When you say "He", are you referring to Muhammed as a human being or is it "God"?
I agree that Muslims as a general rule have a completely different understanding about the origins of the Torah and Gospel compared to Christians, atheists and Baha'is.
We could easily examine the Quranic verses in regards Moses and the Torah. How useful a conversation would that be for us?
You can of course examine the Quran about "Moses and the Torah", but there are no verses saying that the Torah was revealed to Moses. None.
I made that clear because you brought the revelation of the Torah to Moses up in your post.
As I understand history, Muslims thinkers and scholars had departed from the obvious conclusions about the Quran's references to the Gospel and Torah to what is acceptable to most Muslims today within the first few centuries after Muhammad's passing. How exactly that happened and who were the key Muslim scholars is a question I have not deeply studied. The history of Muslim thought does interest me though.
Which scholar? Which early muslim scholar did you refer to at the end who could not reconcile the Hebrew scripture and the New Testament scripture with the Quran and that resulted in considering them as being not what Moses and Jesus taught? Which early scholar were you referring to? I asked because you said "early muslim scholars".
There were no scholars who did that as far as I have known. I have never come across any scholar in my entire life who as you said "who could not reconcile the Hebrew scripture and the New Testament scripture with the Quran and that resulted in considering them as being not what Moses and Jesus taught". So Adrian, it is your responsibility to give these early scholars names and which literature you are referring to. It could be that you were taught wrong, or it could be you are right so only if you quote these early scholars one could make the assessment of what you say. Otherwise it is just a belief you have.
You said the Quran "Obviously concludes". What does it obviously conclude? If you take a completely naturalistic approach, then you can argue that Muhammed just was referring to the existing Bible. Then Muhammed was just a writer who claimed to be a prophet, and the Quran has nothing to do with God, and it is only natural that he was referring to the Bible.
Otherwise, if the Quran is Gods word, and God exists as you state your theology is, it is very possible that God was referring to his original message he named the Taurath and Injeel among others mentioned in the Quran, and not the physical books in the Bible.
Consider it and I would like to see your response.
