I already replied to that. If you don't accept my point, fine, but at least acknowledge I've made it.
I linked a Wikipedia article that answers you thoroughly. Here it is a third time:No, you have not given an answer!
Your responses were merely..........DEFLECTIONS!
Again:
WHO IS............................."WE?"
Any objective review by simply reading the Quran confirms where the OP was going with this, there are a series of contradictions and frankly conditional lessons so to speak throughout the text.
If we applied the grammatical and practical standard that one statement or conclusion from excludes the possibility of another statement or conclusion from then you can pick everything from the subjects of what man was created from, to who was the first Muslim, to how forgiveness and mercy is applied.
The elephant in the room guys is much of the text from the period was subject to this fault.
We do not get to ignore the reality of history here that up through the Bronze Age and into the time of Muhammad the overwhelming majority of the population could speak their native language but few had the skill set to read or write in a manner that these texts were generally spoken from. Some of course, but historians generally agree less than 5% of any population from these cultures could write in a manner that religious text was.
And this means contradiction and conditional applied lesson was easy to get away with, followers were just that. Very few were sitting there thinking 'well this conversation is opposite the one we had yesterday.' And those few that did present question or challenge most often faced a harsh fate, perhaps Islam being the most prone to those harsh results for nonbelievers. Then and now.
I linked a Wikipedia article that answers you thoroughly. Here it is a third time:
Royal we - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
I could also cite you dozens of articles from knowledgeable Christians who have debated your point — not to mention many other articles regarding the grammatical side, but I imagine you are already aware of this issue and are well able to do your own research.
I linked a Wikipedia article that answers you thoroughly. Here it is a third time:
Royal we - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
I could also cite you dozens of articles from knowledgeable Christians who have debated your point — not to mention many other articles regarding the grammatical side, but I imagine you are already aware of this issue and are well able to do your own research.
That only ends the debate for those that believe as Muslims do, for the rest of us this is a valid subject to discuss (just as we can for the other Abrahamic Religions no matter how they feel about it.)Everything you say would apply to the qur'an if, and only if, it was authored by a human. But that's not what Muslims believe. They accept that every single word in the Qur'an came directly from allah. That's what makes them Muslims. Therefore there is exactly zero room for any contradiction or error because of course allah is perfect and would never utter anyone that could be disproved or misunderstood. When such is pointed out as clearly as was done in thread, the devout Muslim MUST make excuses for allah's errors. We see this happening here.
Any objective review by simply reading the Quran confirms where the OP was going with this, there are a series of contradictions and frankly conditional lessons so to speak throughout the text.
If we applied the grammatical and practical standard that one statement or conclusion from excludes the possibility of another statement or conclusion from then you can pick everything from the subjects of what man was created from, to who was the first Muslim, to how forgiveness and mercy is applied.
The elephant in the room guys is much of the text from the period was subject to this fault.
We do not get to ignore the reality of history here that up through the Bronze Age and into the time of Muhammad the overwhelming majority of the population could speak their native language but few had the skill set to read or write in a manner that these texts were generally spoken from. Some of course, but historians generally agree less than 5% of any population from these cultures could write in a manner that religious text was.
And this means contradiction and conditional applied lesson was easy to get away with, followers were just that. Very few were sitting there thinking 'well this conversation is opposite the one we had yesterday.' And those few that did present question or challenge most often faced a harsh fate, perhaps Islam being the most prone to those harsh results for nonbelievers. Then and now.
I linked a Wikipedia article that answers you thoroughly. Here it is a third time:
Royal we - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
I could also cite you dozens of articles from knowledgeable Christians who have debated your point — not to mention many other articles regarding the grammatical side, but I imagine you are already aware of this issue and are well able to do your own research.
I have ignored you as a whole because you have strayed from appropriate language.