To you it has no falsehood. To me it is an interpretation of the wordless reality of God. This is the difference. I don't call scripture a false but an interpretation in words the wordless reality that is God.
Lote you have thought about these things extensively, but you have built a view of it in which you are beginning to believe the spin you have doctored regarding it. Despite correcting your misuse of words, for example 'scripture' you continue to use it to justify your view.
When we think about the world; when we exchange ideas there must be a form for that exchange; the mind thinks in these exchange units. A profoundly deaf person (prelingual) who does not know words etc. will think in the signs they know - a visual language. A strange concept to be sure but it's true.
So the reading and any other message is shared through 'words' (in the broad sense). 'Words' are a bridge between entities and the way our minds function. Is there any point in sending a message that cannot be received? Radio waves packed full of information sail by your crainum every second yet you are oblivious - you can't sense it for one, but even if you could it's modulated/coded in a way you cannot process.
So everything requires an interpretation; and even the reading when read in the original language is open to interpretation. What I would argue is that even with the divergent interpretations it remains true. See people have looked into the not just the semantics but the syntax of koranic constructs - and even there is no clash or falsehood in the derived meaning or interpretation if you like. It is a book of tremendous truth, absolute truth.
What you are REALLY arguing is not about the absolute truth of the message at all. I've defined what that is and demostrated how the reading qualifies for the term. You have a problem with completeness.
Whether the reading is complete and sufficient is your real problem.
Lote just like I am free of religion, I am free of mysticism. In the reading the God does not use the word mystery or mysticism. These are concepts that men create - and mystery is a greater part of the doctrines on 'Christ' and 'Trinity'. The occult is also steeped in mystical and mysterious things.
Your seem to be ignorant of mysticism and meditation and how they are very important in the religious experiecne. Truth, prophet Muhammad did not reach out to the highest heavens for the revealations, he descended to the very core of his soul in a "meditative trance". Why are you ignoring this very fact of religious experience?
I don't seem ignorant of mysticism or meditation except to you. That is a subjective truth for you and what to you justifies your bashing of that particular straw man.
I don't know where you got your information regarding prophet Muhammad undertaking soul searching trances etc. I have no knowledge of such and therefore cannot pursue it. Can you admit that what you are thinking is nothing but conjecture?
Thus can one ignore conjecture? Absolutely.
I pursue clarity, not mystery.
God communicates to us to demystify things. It makes things CLEAR. Mysticism is the opposite of clarity. Mysticism involves secret pathways travelled by 'psychonauts' - whereas the God wishes that we travel the straight road - the road that is protected and clear.
But you think God as a rational object who sits on his mighty throne. This can't be true. Listen to a variety of spiritual experience the have one thing in common that is God is beyond Reason and Language. Don't be ignorant of other types of religious experience...
You are bashing straw men Lote. I didn't say these things and you are basically talking rubbish.
You keep going about absolute truth Truth of scripture? Your rejection of commonality between other forms of spirituality makes you very ignorant of the infinite possibility of the wordless reality that we call God...
I believe there is no point in debating with you when you have closed your mind to other possibilities and interpretation of the Divine...
Lote your problem is that you are imprecise with your words and have the habit of 'word transplantation' - from your ideas to my mouth.
You also confuse regularly the two concepts of the "God" (a noun) and "the Divine" (an adjective). There is no such thing as "the Divine" no matter how you might construct or imagine it. This is only the beginning of your confusion - your writings demonstrate constant errors like this.
The word 'divine' is actually another weasel word - one which in reality means nothing and anything at the same time. Here is an Oxford definition...
In its strictest sense, divine means associated with or derived from God (: the divine right of kings), but it has also been used to describe anything that is admirable or treasured ( | her wedding dress was divine).
Associated with God... and that gets to the heart of it really. You are one who associates with the God.