• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Quran Criticism - God's word or manmade?

firedragon

Veteran Member
It seems to me that you demand much from others, yet have very little to offer.

Was it your OP?

Of course not. But it seems like many people have some dire needs to bring into every topic. Its strange.

So tell me. Since you said I have very little to offer,

1. What have you?
2. What do you expect?

Let me know. It might be interesting to hear.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I didn't have to open this thread, I chose to in response to your request.

Of course. The request was made to fulfil your need to eternally keep bringing Islam and Allah and Quran being Gods word into every single thread. ;)

So go ahead. Anything else?
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Do you feel threatened by the fact that a person can believe in God without the need of the Quran because it sure does seem to bother you to hear it in my opinion.

I think you should maybe open a new thread to discuss "Is Quran necessary or can someone believe in God without it".

Please go ahead. After all, its not relevant to this topic.
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I think you should maybe open a new thread to discuss "Is Quran necessary or can someone believe in God without it".

Please go ahead. After all, its not relevant to this topic.
I'll consider the merit of opening up a separate thread on it later.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Hi,

Ultimately us who don't believe in the Quran don't need to provide a reason for why of course, but for as long as we are free to do so some of us will openly object to submission to the Quran due to various reasons.

If that describes you, by special request from one of our RF members who shall not be named this is the thread for you.

This is your one stop shop for Quran criticism, doesn't matter if it's content criticism, scientific criticism, or any other criticism under the sun.

Since I'm the writer of the OP I get the privelege of picking the lowest hanging fruit for first go.

Firstly though I'd like to tell you about my approach. My approach is that as time goes on and new information comes to light, I believe people will inevitably endeavour to post hoc rationalise the Quran and other texts held as sacred in order to try and make the interpretation of the sacred book sound more appealing to a more modern/more informed audience. But if a text obviously referred to some scientific or other fact it should have been obvious to the earlier interpreters of the book who were faithful and devoted students of it who did not have that hindsight. Therefore ideally one would have the interpretation of the book within the lifetime of it's earliest sources, but failing that, the earlier the translation/interpretation the less post-hoc rationalisation will be expected in my opinion.

Hence the reason I pretty much stick to the Yusuf Ali translation, because it is possibly the earliest scholarly translation we have to English by a faithful widely respected scholar of Islam, therefore I would expect it to have less post-hoc rationalisation than later translations (although I'm inclined to think that even it is likely to have some inevitable degree of post-hoc rationalisation given that it is fairly modern).

So here is the opening criticism, I like it because unlike highly technical criticisms which are less accesible to the common folk this one just requires some basic empathy for women;

From Surah 2. Al-Baqara Translation by Yusuf Ali | Islamic Reference | Alim
Verse 282

'O ye who believe! when ye deal with each other in transactions involving future obligations in a fixed period of time reduce them to writing. Let a scribe write down faithfully as between the parties...
.....And get two witnesses out of your own men and if there are not two men then a man and two women such as ye choose for witnesses so that if one of them errs the other can remind her.'

Even if only interpreted as being a reference to financial transactions, in my opinion this unnecessarily incoveniences women by requiring double the number of women for testimony in the place of one man. One could easily see how a fallible patriarchal human could author such an error, but an omniscient God should know that two women are as suitable for testimony as two men, or that one man and one woman is as suitable for testimony as two men.

Now it is your turn to criticise the Quran if you wish to do so :)

When the Quran says Jesus is the Messiah without explaining it, that means the muslims have no choice but to go to the previous scriptures to find out what it means. to be a messiah means to be the Messiah means you have to be a king from the line of David who is God in the flesh. even the Jews knew Messiah is a king, so hes not just a prophet. to be the Messiah means you have to be a king from the line of David who is God in the flesh. even the Jews knew Messiah is a king, so hes not just a prophet. Luke 23:2-3

And they began to accuse him (Jesus), saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying that he himself is Christ a King.

And Pilate asked him, saying, Art thou the King of the Jews? And he answered him and said, Thou sayest it.

So to claim to be Christ is to claim to be a king

This is again confirmed in John 19:12

And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.

Mohammad takes what he hears from christians-takes over what he hears from Christians -adopts it as part of his religion-not realizing hes destroying the very claims he makes as a prophet-in chapter 18 26 of the Quran, in chapter 25 verse 2, it says Allah does not share his rule with anyone, he has no son, or partners dominion, and yet here in these two verses, Jesus is with Allah above the throne, thereby sharing in his rule over creation-you have a clear cut contradiction.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Hi,

Ultimately us who don't believe in the Quran don't need to provide a reason for why of course, but for as long as we are free to do so some of us will openly object to submission to the Quran due to various reasons.

If that describes you, by special request from one of our RF members who shall not be named this is the thread for you.

This is your one stop shop for Quran criticism, doesn't matter if it's content criticism, scientific criticism, or any other criticism under the sun.

Since I'm the writer of the OP I get the privelege of picking the lowest hanging fruit for first go.

Firstly though I'd like to tell you about my approach. My approach is that as time goes on and new information comes to light, I believe people will inevitably endeavour to post hoc rationalise the Quran and other texts held as sacred in order to try and make the interpretation of the sacred book sound more appealing to a more modern/more informed audience. But if a text obviously referred to some scientific or other fact it should have been obvious to the earlier interpreters of the book who were faithful and devoted students of it who did not have that hindsight. Therefore ideally one would have the interpretation of the book within the lifetime of it's earliest sources, but failing that, the earlier the translation/interpretation the less post-hoc rationalisation will be expected in my opinion.

Hence the reason I pretty much stick to the Yusuf Ali translation, because it is possibly the earliest scholarly translation we have to English by a faithful widely respected scholar of Islam, therefore I would expect it to have less post-hoc rationalisation than later translations (although I'm inclined to think that even it is likely to have some inevitable degree of post-hoc rationalisation given that it is fairly modern).

So here is the opening criticism, I like it because unlike highly technical criticisms which are less accesible to the common folk this one just requires some basic empathy for women;

From Surah 2. Al-Baqara Translation by Yusuf Ali | Islamic Reference | Alim
Verse 282

'O ye who believe! when ye deal with each other in transactions involving future obligations in a fixed period of time reduce them to writing. Let a scribe write down faithfully as between the parties...
.....And get two witnesses out of your own men and if there are not two men then a man and two women such as ye choose for witnesses so that if one of them errs the other can remind her.'

Even if only interpreted as being a reference to financial transactions, in my opinion this unnecessarily incoveniences women by requiring double the number of women for testimony in the place of one man. One could easily see how a fallible patriarchal human could author such an error, but an omniscient God should know that two women are as suitable for testimony as two men, or that one man and one woman is as suitable for testimony as two men.

Now it is your turn to criticise the Quran if you wish to do so :)

The Bible has prophecies like Israel becoming a nation in the 1940s and Alexander the Great conquering Tyre. There is no evidence that the Quran has prophecies that came true. Muhammad's False Prophecies

On the Roman Conquest of Persia

S. 30:2-4:

"The Roman Empire has been defeated - in a land close by: But they, (even) after (this) defeat of theirs, will soon be victorious - within a few years."

As the prophecy stated the Byzantines did become victorious over the Persians who had at first defeated them. Yet there are fundamental problems with this alleged prophecy:

  • According to Yusuf Ali the Arabic word for "a few years," Bidh'un, signifies a period of three to nine years; yet according to the historical records the victory did not come until nearly fourteen years later. The Persians defeated the Byzantines and captured Jerusalem at about A.D. 614 or 615. The Byzantine counter-offensive did not begin until A.D. 622 and the victory was not complete until A.D. 628, making it a period between thirteen to fourteen years, not "a few years" alluded to in the Quran.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Hi,

Ultimately us who don't believe in the Quran don't need to provide a reason for why of course, but for as long as we are free to do so some of us will openly object to submission to the Quran due to various reasons.

If that describes you, by special request from one of our RF members who shall not be named this is the thread for you.

This is your one stop shop for Quran criticism, doesn't matter if it's content criticism, scientific criticism, or any other criticism under the sun.

Since I'm the writer of the OP I get the privelege of picking the lowest hanging fruit for first go.

Firstly though I'd like to tell you about my approach. My approach is that as time goes on and new information comes to light, I believe people will inevitably endeavour to post hoc rationalise the Quran and other texts held as sacred in order to try and make the interpretation of the sacred book sound more appealing to a more modern/more informed audience. But if a text obviously referred to some scientific or other fact it should have been obvious to the earlier interpreters of the book who were faithful and devoted students of it who did not have that hindsight. Therefore ideally one would have the interpretation of the book within the lifetime of it's earliest sources, but failing that, the earlier the translation/interpretation the less post-hoc rationalisation will be expected in my opinion.

Hence the reason I pretty much stick to the Yusuf Ali translation, because it is possibly the earliest scholarly translation we have to English by a faithful widely respected scholar of Islam, therefore I would expect it to have less post-hoc rationalisation than later translations (although I'm inclined to think that even it is likely to have some inevitable degree of post-hoc rationalisation given that it is fairly modern).

So here is the opening criticism, I like it because unlike highly technical criticisms which are less accesible to the common folk this one just requires some basic empathy for women;

From Surah 2. Al-Baqara Translation by Yusuf Ali | Islamic Reference | Alim
Verse 282

'O ye who believe! when ye deal with each other in transactions involving future obligations in a fixed period of time reduce them to writing. Let a scribe write down faithfully as between the parties...
.....And get two witnesses out of your own men and if there are not two men then a man and two women such as ye choose for witnesses so that if one of them errs the other can remind her.'

Even if only interpreted as being a reference to financial transactions, in my opinion this unnecessarily incoveniences women by requiring double the number of women for testimony in the place of one man. One could easily see how a fallible patriarchal human could author such an error, but an omniscient God should know that two women are as suitable for testimony as two men, or that one man and one woman is as suitable for testimony as two men.

Now it is your turn to criticise the Quran if you wish to do so :)

The Quran mentioning Mohammed entering Mecca is not a prophecy. Muhammad's False Prophecies

On Entering Mecca

Sura 48:27 makes the following promise:

"Truly did Allah fulfill the vision for His Messenger. Ye shall enter the Sacred Mosque, IF ALLAH WILLS, with minds secure, heads shaved, hair cut short, and without fear. For He knew what ye knew not, and He granted, besides this, a speedy victory."

This verse was revealed in conjunction with the Muslims' failed attempt of entering Mecca to perform Tawaf (the ritual during Hajj of running between two mountains that was supposed to commemorate Hagar's fetching of water for Ishmael).

On their way to the Ka'bah, they were met with a Meccan deputation headed by Suhail b. Amr who forbade the Muslims from completing their journey. This meeting then led to the signing of the treaty of Hudaibiya.

Several problems arise from this whole incident. First, at the signing of the Hudaibiya treaty Muhammad agreed with the pagan Meccans to return to them those who had converted to Islam. At the same time Muhammad also bowed to their demands of replacing his signature of 'Muhammad, Messenger of God' with 'Muhammad, son of Abdullah' so that he might be allowed to make pilgrimage to Mecca the following year. The following is taken from Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 50, Number 891:

"When Suhail bin Amr came, the Prophet said, ‘Now the matter has become easy.' Suhail said to the Prophet 'Please conclude a peace treaty with us.' So, the Prophet called the clerk and said to him, 'Write: By the Name of Allah, the most Beneficent, the most Merciful." Suhail said, 'As for "Beneficent," by Allah, I do not know what it means. So write: By Your Name O Allah, as you used to write previously.' The Muslims said, 'By Allah, we will not write except: By the Name of Allah, the most Beneficent, the most Merciful.' The Prophet said, 'Write: By Your Name O Allah.' Then he dictated, 'This is the peace treaty which Muhammad, Allah's Apostle has concluded.' Suhail said, 'By Allah, if we knew that you are Allah's Apostle we would not prevent you from visiting the Kaba, and would not fight with you. So, write: 'Muhammad bin Abdullah.' The Prophet said, 'By Allah! I am Apostle of Allah even if you people do not believe me. Write: Muhammad bin Abdullah.' (Az-Zuhri said, 'The Prophet accepted all those things, as he had already said that he would accept everything they would demand if it respects the ordinance of Allah, (i.e. by letting him and his companions perform 'Umra.)') The Prophet said to Suhail, 'On the condition that you allow us to visit the House (i.e. Ka'ba) so that we may perform Tawaf around it.' Suhail said, 'By Allah, we will not (allow you this year) so as not to give chance to the Arabs to say that we have yielded to you, but we will allow you next year.' SO, THE PROPHET GOT THAT WRITTEN.

"Then Suhail said, 'We also stipulate that you should return to us whoever comes to you from us, even if he embraced your religion.' The Muslims said, 'Glorified be Allah! How will such a person be returned to the pagans after he has become a Muslim?'" (bold emphasis ours)

One of those forced to return to Mecca with the pagans was Abu Jandal. In Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasulullah (The Life of Muhammad, trans. Alfred Guillaume, Oxford University Press), p. 505 we are told:

'When Suhayl (the Meccan representative and the treaty's compiler) saw Abu Jandal he got up and hit him in the face and took hold of his collar, saying, 'Muhammad, the agreement between us was concluded before this man came to you.' He replied, 'you are right.' He began to pull him roughly by his collar and to drag him away to return him to Quraysh, while Abu Jandal shrieked at the top of his voice, 'Am I to be returned to the polytheists that they may entice me from my religion O Muslims?' and that increased the people's dejection'" (bold and italic emphasis ours)

And:

'While they were in this state Abu- Jandal bin Suhail bin 'Amr came from the valley of Mecca staggering with his fetters and fell down amongst the Muslims. Suhail said, 'O Muhammad! This is the very first term with which we make peace with you, i.e. you shall return Abu Jandal to me.' The Prophet said, 'The peace treaty has not been written yet.' Suhail said, 'I will never allow you to keep him.' The Prophet said, 'Yes, do.' He said, 'I won't do: Mikraz said, 'We allow you (to keep him).' Abu Jandal said, 'O Muslims! Will I be returned to the pagans though I have come as a Muslim? Don't you see how much I have suffered?'

Abu Jandal had been [previously] tortured severely for the cause of Allah' (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 50, Number 891)

We need to ask did Moses ever return a convert (especially one who was an Egyptian) back to the pagan Pharaoh in order to please the latter in obtaining what he wanted? Did Jesus ever compromise the truth of God by agreeing with the Pharisees in turning back all gentile seekers in order to be accepted by the Jewish ruling council? Would either Moses or Jesus go so far as to deny their apostleship in order to please the demands of pagans? Would these men refuse to glorify the true God in the manner commanded by the Creator and acquiesce to the request of addressing God in a manner pleasing to the unbelievers, much like Muhammad did?

As one would expect the Muslims were enraged, especially Umar b. al-Khattab who rebuked Muhammad:

'Umar bin al-Khattab said, 'I went to the Prophet and said, "Aren't you truly the messenger of Allah?" The Prophet said, "Yes, indeed." I said, "Isn't our cause just and the cause of the enemy unjust?" He said, "Yes." I said, "Then why should we be humble in our religion?" He said, "I am Allah's messenger and I do not disobey Him, and He will make me victorious"' (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 50, Number 891)

The anger of the Muslims is justifiable when we realize that Muhammad promised that his followers would have access to Mecca that very same year. When that did not occur, Muhammad attempted to justify his statement by stating, "Yes, did I tell you that we would go to Ka'ba this year?" (Ibid)

In other words, since he did not specify when they would enter Mecca this cannot be considered a false prophecy! This is simply erroneous since the Muslim contingent was on their way to Mecca when a deputation from the pagan Arabs stopped them. In fact, one of Muhammad's demands in signing the treaty was that the pagans permit the Muslims to complete their journey to Mecca in order to perform Tawaf. Suhail denied Muhammad's request and instead made an agreement that the Muslims could enter Mecca the following year. Ibn Kathir further supports this in his commentary on S. 48:27:

"In a dream, the Messenger of Allah saw himself entering Makkah and performing Tawaf around the House. He told his Companions about this dream when he was still in Al-Madinah. When they went to Makkah in the year of Al-Hudaybiyyah, none of them doubted that the Prophet's vision WOULD COME TRUE THAT YEAR. When the treaty of peace was conducted and they had to return to Al-Madinah that year, being allowed to return to Makkah the next year, SOME OF THE COMPANIONS DISLIKED WHAT HAPPENED. 'Umar bin Al-Khattab asked about THIS, saying, 'Haven't you told us that we will go to the House and perform Tawaf around it?'" (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged, Volume 9, Surat Al-Jathiyah to the end of Surat Al-Munafiqun, Abridged by a group of scholars under the supervision of Shaykh Safiur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh, Houston, New York, London, Lahore; first edition, September 2000], p. 171; bold and capital emphasis ours)
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Those who live in glass houses . . .

What prophecy does the Bible have that didn't come true? When you read the Bible many times, you notice things that you didn't notice before. https://probe.org/prophecies-of-the-messiah/?print=pdf

The Place of His Birth Biblical prophecy is a fascinating subject. It not only includes predictions of events that are still in the future. It also includes predictions of events that were future at the time the prophecy was given, but which have now been fulfilled and are part of the past. This latter category includes all the prophecies about a coming Messiah that Christians believe were accurately fulfilled in the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus. If the Bible really does contain such prophecies, then we would seem to have evidence that’s at least consistent with the divine inspiration of the Bible. One can see how an all-knowing God could accurately foretell the future, but it’s not clear how a finite human being could do so. Thus, if there are accurately fulfilled prophecies in the Bible, then we have yet another reason to believe that the biblical worldview is true. Let’s begin with a prophecy about the Messiah’s birthplace. “Messiah” is a Hebrew term that simply means “anointed one.” When translated into Greek, the language of the New Testament, the term becomes “Christ.” Christians believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah promised in the Hebrew Scriptures (see Mark 14:61-62). In Micah 5:2 we read, “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.” This prophecy was given in the eighth century B.C., more than seven hundred years before the birth of Jesus!
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Quite a few if you use the same standards as in your article. The Tyre prophecy was a total failure.

Jesus fulfilled all of the messianic prophecies. https://probe.org/prophecies-of-the-messiah/?print=pdf

Notice, first, that it refers to a future ruler who will come from the town of Bethlehem. When King Herod, shortly after Jesus’ birth, asked the Jewish religious leaders where the Christ (or Messiah) was to be born, they told him that he was to be born in Bethlehem and cited this verse from Micah as support (Matt. 2:1-6). Both Matthew and Luke confirm that Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Matt. 2:1 and Luke 2:4-7). So He clearly meets this necessary qualification for being the promised Messiah.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
Nope, You used a apologetics site again, didn't you? That is the same as admitting that you are wrong. Ask a Jew if he fulfilled those prophecies, not a biased amateur.

I believe that Jesus fulfilled all of the messianic prophecies because What prophecy does the Bible have that didn't come true? When you read the Bible many times, you notice things that you didn't notice before. https://probe.org/prophecies-of-the-messiah/?print=pdf

Notice, first, that it refers to a future ruler who will come from the town of Bethlehem. When King Herod, shortly after Jesus’ birth, asked the Jewish religious leaders where the Christ (or Messiah) was to be born, they told him that he was to be born in Bethlehem and cited this verse from Micah as support (Matt. 2:1-6). Both Matthew and Luke confirm that Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Matt. 2:1 and Luke 2:4-7). So He clearly meets this necessary qualification for being the promised Messiah. But that’s not all. Micah also says that the origins of this ruler are “from of old, from ancient times.” How should we understand this? One commentator notes, “The terms ‘old’ . . . and ‘ancient times’ . . . may denote ‘great antiquity’ as well as ‘eternity’ in the strictest sense.”{1} Dr. Allen Ross states, “At the least this means that Messiah was pre-existent; at the most it means He is eternal.”{2} Micah’s prophecy thus suggests that the Messiah will be a supernatural, perhaps even divine, person. And this astonishing conclusion is precisely what Jesus claimed for Himself!
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I believe that Jesus fulfilled all of the messianic prophecies because What prophecy does the Bible have that didn't come true? When you read the Bible many times, you notice things that you didn't notice before. https://probe.org/prophecies-of-the-messiah/?print=pdf

That is only because you are trying to get it to say things that it does not say. Once again, as a Jew here. They will explain to you why Jesus did not fulfill those prophecies. Christians made up a lot of non-prophecies. Most of what they claim to be prophecies simply are not. They are only verses taken out of context. Quoting out of context is called "quote mining" and it is a form of lying.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
That is only because you are trying to get it to say things that it does not say. Once again, as a Jew here. They will explain to you why Jesus did not fulfill those prophecies. Christians made up a lot of non-prophecies. Most of what they claim to be prophecies simply are not. They are only verses taken out of context. Quoting out of context is called "quote mining" and it is a form of lying.

The Old Testament doesn't directly say that the Messiah and suffering servant are the same person but it gives a messianic profile. If you read the Old Testament over and over again, you'll notice references to Jesus that you didn't notice before. Does the Old Testament truly predict a second advent of the Messiah? | GotQuestions.org

Question: "Does the Old Testament truly predict a second advent of the Messiah?"

Answer:
The Old Testament does prophesy the second coming of Christ, also referred to as the second advent of the Messiah. Some Old Testament prophecies concern the first advent, when Christ was born as a human being. Others concern the second advent, which is the ultimate triumph of this Messiah. It’s important to remember that prophecy does not describe the future in the same detail as history describes the past. So, while the prophecies of the Old Testament certainly describe both the first and second advents, most early interpretations of these prophecies melded them into a single event. Particularly during the years leading up to Jesus’ birth, it was assumed Messiah would be a political/military figure with an immediate worldly kingdom (Luke 19:11). In the light of Jesus’ ministry, it is possible to understand the true purpose of Christ and the real nature of His kingdom.

A careful look at Old Testament prophecies shows an underlying assumption of two advents. Micah 5:2 and Isaiah 7:14 predict the first advent. Separately, Isaiah 53:8–9 predicts a suffering and dying Messiah, who will be given life and greatness according to Isaiah 53:11–12. Daniel 9:26 describes the Messiah being killed after His appearance. At the same time, prophets such as Zechariah (Zechariah 12:10) say this same “pierced” Messiah will be seen again by His enemies. So the clues are there.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
The Old Testament doesn't directly say that the Messiah and suffering servant are the same person but it gives a messianic profile. If you read the Old Testament over and over again, you'll notice references to Jesus that you didn't notice before. Does the Old Testament truly predict a second advent of the Messiah? | GotQuestions.org
It does not need to. And any real Bible scholar will tell you that the "suffering servant" was the country of Israel.

You note, that I do not even need to use links to support my claims since you keep using lying sources. Once again you defeat yourself by doing so. Why can't you try to find a reliable source?
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
The Quran mentioning Mohammed entering Mecca is not a prophecy. Muhammad's False Prophecies
Its interesting if that is claimed to be a prophecy because it says, "Ye shall enter the Sacred Mosque, IF ALLAH WILLS"

In other words if it doesn't come true Muhammad could fall back on making it conditional upon Allah's will, in other words it is not falsifiable and therefore does not count as a believable prophecy.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Hi,

Now it is your turn to criticise the Quran if you wish to do so :)

Oh goodeeee! Yeah!
Well.......
Ummmmm.....
Errr.....

Hang on...... I don't know the Qu'ran, DD.

So I'm going to guess that like the Old and New Testaments it is just a book of amazing content written by, recorded by, kept by and read by.... mankind.

I have no argument with old books that do have much wisdom in them, I'm just very very cautious about how mankind twists them this way and that to support some very shocking ideas and actions.
 

Skywalker

Well-Known Member
It does not need to. And any real Bible scholar will tell you that the "suffering servant" was the country of Israel.

You note, that I do not even need to use links to support my claims since you keep using lying sources. Once again you defeat yourself by doing so. Why can't you try to find a reliable source?

The belief that the suffering servant is Israel is just an interpretation of human beings. The Bible verses that talk about the second coming of the Messiah refute that the suffering servant is Israel. Does the Old Testament truly predict a second advent of the Messiah? | GotQuestions.org

Many Old Testament prophecies foretell the ultimate triumph of Christ, which will occur at the second advent. These include statements from the books of Zechariah (Zechariah 9:14–15; 12:10–14; 13:1; 9:14–15); Amos (Amos 9:11–15); Jeremiah (Jeremiah 30:18; 32:44; 33:11, 26); and Joel (Joel 3:1); which describe the Messiah coming in triumph to lead Israel into salvation. Note that these are in the context of passages such as Deuteronomy 30:3–5 and so are predictions of the time of Messiah’s final victory.
 
Top