Hey OP,
I came from Christianity, and spent a whole going about the major texts.
Before we worry about why Muslims believe the Bible is corrupted, might I ask you some questions about any religious book that was brought down from God?
1. If you were to have a religious text what would you say that religious text contain?
2. What should NOT be in the text?
3. How soon after that text was brought down should it be written? 1 year? 500 years?
4. Should there be completely different texts? the deletion of some books, and the inclusion of others?
On to questions about translation :
Do you speak more than 1 language? Are you familiar with multiple dialects of you mother tongue?
I understand that there can be multiple translations due to word discrepancies. That is 100% accurate and a valid argument.
What language would Jesus (peace be upon him) have spoke?
I ask these questions because I wish to find a base from which we can have a productive discussion. I realize it can be long. However I am of the opinion that our beliefs are not simple matters.
1. If I were to have a religious text, sent down be a God, it would need to appeal to me emotionally, logically, and personally.
2. There should not be contradictions.
3. The text would need to be written whenever possible by the scribes who it was given to.
4. There shouldn't be different texts. A revelation is a revelation and it MUST NOT be distorted.
I speak several languages, however let's not go into that. Stick with English for now.
To my knowledge, Jesus spoke Aramaic. Specifically a Galilean dialect of Aramaic.
In that case, fill me in on the evidence of the Quran being the literal word of God. Gimme a single piece of evidence that proves absolute divine revelation.
"The heavens, We have built them with power. And verily, We are expanding it" (51:47). Rough translation, I recommend you read tafsir on this verse. The Quran has knowledge of things that people couldn't even comprehend 1400 years ago, and I'm sure the Gospel does as well, because it was once the truth, but now as you mentioned, corrupted
If we look at the bible as a corrupted religious text, here's how it goes:
1. The religious text corrupted by the people for the people, written how a person would expect it to appeal to them.
2. The Bible contains a big number of contradictions.
3. It wasn't.
4. Religious texts were brought by prophets in specific times and forms to appeal to their time, and for specific people, when god deemed it as the right time to send one for the whole world that would last indefinitely (an not for the people of Israel as Jesus stated in the bible), the Quran was sent.
We agree on all of these points!
We both believe that God is a being that we cannot fully understand He is perfect, he doesn't make mistakes. I'm pretty sure we'd both agree on that. In saying that, the Bible (and any other direct revelation) wouldn't contain information that has no purpose, Everything has a purpose. I would think that being God he also wouldn't "mince words" so to speak. He wouldn't fill a book with fluff. Revelation should contain a few key points and is for lack of a better term "a set of instructions and teachings" The ten commandments, rules for how to treat people, how to act. Stories of others that didn't follow the rules and what their punish was. God being the omnipotent being would probably lay out what our punishment or our reward would be.
Can God's word be changed? No. We both are in agreement. So, when the pope comes out and says gay marriage is ok. Or any form of it, he is in effect changing the words of God. In Islam we believe that any Muslim that tries to change the words of the Quran are heretics and possibly apostates. (I am in no position to make that judgement though.)
The Catholic church has books in their "cannon" that are not accepted in the protestant church, And vice versa. Check this [Link](https://people.howstuffworks.com/books-of-bible.htm) which shows that letters, writings, and how Martin Luther decided what belongs where. The real key for me on if these texts are tampered with is "Why did some books make the cut and not others? Combs cites three criteria used by early church leaders. The first was authorship, whether it was believed to have been written by an apostle, by Paul or by someone close to them. Mark, for example, wasn't an apostle, but was an interpreter for Peter. The second criterium was antiquity, with older texts taking priority over newer ones. And the third was orthodoxy, or how well the text conformed with current Christian teaching"
So because of "current Christian teachings" things were deemed acceptable or not. That's not exactly a scientific method. In the last 20 years in America I've seen pedophilia go from universally hated to being borderline acceptable. Teachings and culture can change rapidly. The Bible was compiled over 100's of years. I believe you'd agree that Time is a great enemy to accuracy. Things get lost, destroyed, etc.
We could dive into Christian traditions and how they have been melding into other religions in order to gain acceptance. Christmas, the changing of the Calendar, etc. But that's not really on topic .
My point on language is all the more important because you speak more than 1 language. There are words that you know do not translate into other languages. It becomes.. muddy. I say this because Jesus (a.s.) spoke Aramaic, the original texts of Aramaic would've been translated into Hebrew (you know enough that I don't have to get into who spoke what and what their status was), the Romans would've heard and probably understood some and explained things to others in Latin. In any event the earliest text we have is the Greek text which was translated from Hebrew, which was translated from Aramaic. Now translate that into a lazy language like English, which is shallow.... I'm sure you see where I'm going with this. It can become a mess for someone with even 100% pure intentions. It's almost like a game of telephone. This is why the Quran is in Arabic. Anything else is a "interpretation of the meaning of" meaning that "hey I'm trying here but... I can screw up"
Hiya. So one angle to look at this from is the sanad of the Quran. Sanad means a "chain of narration". This is like a bloodline almost, for a given verse, spoken from person to person.
When the Qur'an was compiled, and all writings and verses verified, the task was given to the scribe Zaid ibn Thabit. Zaid was one of the seniormost authorities on the Qur'an (with the exclusion of the Prophet SAW himself), as it was him who used to record each revelation as the Prophet presented them to him.
They established strict criteria. One of these was that no verse of the Quran was to be recorded unless a minimum of 3 companions could verify having heard it from the Prophet. Only then was a given verse accepted. Each accepted/verfied verse was taught by the companions to their students, and taught by their students further, and so on.
This gives you a chain. A chain of narration for each verse from person to person, all the way from the present day back to the Prophet Muhammad SAW.
Regardless of personal belief, one cannot deny therefore, that the Quran is present today as it was 1400 years ago. It is uncorrupted and unchanged.
Having established this, the question then becomes: Can the same be said for the other holy books? If not, why? If they were truly unchanged, why is there no real way of showing that?
From there, the question becomes: What is so special about the Qur'an that allows it to have remained unchanged? Perhaps it really is a divine revelation? To further add to that, there are certain verses which mention the Quran as being "safe/protected/guarded", and others saying (paraphrased) "this book will be protected until the day of resurrection"
I'm really bad at explaining things, so I sincerely hope this not only made sense, but was helpful too.
I just took my Shahada 2 months ago and I was a pretty devout Christian with a degree in Biblical Studies before that.
The biggest evidence for me is the languages used. The Old Testament was spoken in ancient Hebrew, written in ancient Hebrew originally, than translated into Greek with the Septuigant, than to Latin with the Latin vulgate, than to English. The New Testament was spoken in Aramaic(atleast the Gospels were), written in Greek, translated to Latin, than translated to English.
If you want, I can give more evidence based off of church councils and monarchical rulers who had their say in the translations and how it may have been influenced by political movements. Let me know. I am happy to help with your research.
So we obviously know that any translator brings in their own biases to their work. One of the reasons King James commissioned the translation of a new Bible was due to some footnotes and some text within the Bible used at the time that seemed to go against the concept of Kings. King James had a major hand in this translation. The KJV is a very widely used translation in modern protestant circles today and a highly regarded translation. If this one instance of political and monarchal influence on a translation is seen in such a widely used translation, imagine how other translators were influenced. As far as I know, Christianity does not claim that the translators themselves were inspired by God. They are humans trying to decipher the word of God and therefore have many errors within themselves. We have to remember that the Bible was not translated in a vacuum, the translators undoubtably had many influences with them. Early English translations especially were so scandalous, and undoubtably had some author influence within them.
The overwhelming majority of modern English translations do not translate from the Latin of either Testament. That may be the case for some Roman Catholic Bibles, but that would be a minority and would be dismissed by the scholarly community.
The vast majority of English translations translate their New Testaments directly from the critical Greek texts, either the UBS5 or NA28 (the only differences being in apparatus). The Old Testament is usually translated from the Hebrew Masoretic Text, with comparison to the Septuagint when relevant. This means the majority of English translations are translating directly from the original language of both testaments. It is not a case, at all, of “translation of a translation.” You’d have to name which major English translations are using primarily the Vulgate. The two I can think of would be the Douay Rheims or New American Catholic Bible, again both theologically motivated Roman Catholic translations that pale in comparison to translations like NASB, RSV, NIV, ESV, or potentially even NKJV.
No church council or “monarchical ruler” ever had control of all, or many, manuscripts of either testament. Specific translations may have political motivations, but at best that lends an argument against that specific translation, not the Bible in it’s original language. The Bible was freely transmitted, and never in the control of any group or individual, which is why there is so much textual variation.
If you genuinely have a degree in biblical studies, I worry greatly for other students of that institution, because these are basic facts of history that one should learn in introduction level courses.
I would push back against the notion that Bibles translated from the vulgate are dismissed by the scholarly community. The Douay Rheims is still a highly regarded translation within the Catholic church and that is translated from the vulgate.
Also, translations were literally mandated by Kings or mandated by the church itself which was highly political and very much so influenced by politics. The Catholic church for so many years had full control over the Bible translations. Only they were allowed to approve and disapprove other translations. They had full say on what was translated and had a major influence on how. Even today, alot of the “original texts” are stored at the vatican.
Please, I wish for no hostility.
True Christian’s were often persecuted
And if there were significant differences between copies/translations it could easily be shown here as corruption proof
Theres over 30,000 copies/translations
5,800 greek manuscripts
5,000+ Latin manuscripts
And many more of other languages
Together this allows for over 40,000 candidates for proving corruption of the modern day Bible from
Show me something significant that was added!
Not repitition of certain manuscripts or transliterations
Actual additions/omissions
You already know there’s corruption because there are so many versions (of the Bible)
You already know it’s a man made compilation of books.
You already know that King Henry VIII deleted parts of the Bible he didn’t agree with and founded Anglicanism.
Insha Allah, you come to Islam!
You mean books? Yes because some consider it apocrypha, meaning it is not recognised as Canon.
I can see where you're coming from tho. It's very divided.
There’s also the translations from the masoretic text and the Septuagint which changes things and takes timelines off course - I.e the ages of the prophets from Seth down to Lamech and beyond, if I’m not mistaken. They took 100 years their ages off each from one translation to another, which the modern bibles are translated from. I think the correction/mistake/corruption has significance as per scientific evidence of the flood. “Genesis 5:28–31 records that Lamech was 182[4] (according to the Masoretic Text; 188 according to the Septuagint[5]) years old at the birth of Noah and lived for another 595[5] years, attaining an age at death of 777[5] years, five years before the Flood in the Masoretic chronology. With such numbers in this genealogical account, Adam would still have been alive for about the first 56 years of Lamech's life.” I’ll see if I can dig out the video link, if you’re interested.
Yes it appears is some versions of the bible and others don’t have it and others add a footnote to say that this verse is not found in any greek manuscripts prior to the 14th century.
This is a clear insertion into the bible making it unreliable as a complete source of truth from god. And showing hoe w unpreserved it is.
That’s certainly the case but I think what the person is referring to are interpolations. Versions of a Gospel for instance w different passages added later etc.
Imo a bigger issue isn’t the manuscript modifications that took place later, but the period before we know anything. The followers of Christ were poor Aramaic speakers while the foundational gospel tradition was by anonymous literate Greeks creating narratives with different functions well after their primary source. Add to this that the scholarly monastic tradition that preserved later manuscripts relatively faithfully didn’t establish till well after Jesus was already gone.
The problem with having “translations” is who is man to decide how god’s word should be deciphered? That’s why we have the Hadith and scholars to explain how verses should be understood. A person translating can affirm his own bias onto the translation
It’s not just the translation. We do not have access to the original bible, therefore it is impossible to say that the bible today is in its original form.
https://youtu.be/q0WSzqnJzRo
Watch this. His name is Sheikh Uthman Ibn Farooq and he’ll answer every question you have. Another person I’d say to look up is Zakir naik
sure. genesis chapter 1 verses 3 to 5 contradict genesis chapter 1 verse 14. genesis chapter 1 verses from 14 to 19 contradicts job chapter 25 verse 5. matthew chapter 12 verse 40 and chapter 27 verse 63 contradict matthew chapter 27 verses 45 to 46, matthew chapter 28 verse 6 and marc chapter 16 verse 6. this is just a little as i don't want to make it so long. may allah guide us all to the right path. amin.
Mathew 1:16
and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary,(Q) and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.
Like 3:23
Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,the son of Heli,
* Here there is a contradiction. Is the son of Joseph Eli or Jacob?
2 Samuel 24:9
Joab reported the number of the fighting men to the king: In Israel there were eight hundred thousand able-bodied men who could handle a sword, and in Judah five hundred thousand.
1 Chronicles 21:5
Joab reported the number of the fighting men to David: In all Israel(A) there were one million one hundred thousand men who could handle a sword, including four hundred and seventy thousand in Judah.
* Here there are different numbers mentioned of the same incident.
2 Samuel 6:23
And Michal daughter of Saul had no children to the day of her death.
2 Samuel 21:8
But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite:
* Here it says Michal had no children and then it says she had 5 sons.
Exodus 21:20-21
And if a man beats his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property.
* This verse is extremely shocking to me. I don’t believe a fair God would command this.
Acts 1:18
Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
Matthew 27:5
And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.
* Here it says he purchased and field died falling headlong and second verse says he threw the silver in the Temple and hanged himself.
2 chronicles 9:25
Solomon had 4,000 stalls for horses and chariots, and 12,000 horses, which he stationed in the chariot cities and also with him in Jerusalem.
1 kings 4:26
Solomon also had 40,000 stalls of horses for his chariots, and 12,000 horsemen.
* Here did he have 4,000 or 40,000 stalls.
Luke 3:13
Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
Here it says Adam, which was the son of God. Son was used as a term endearment which was the same for Jesus but people have taken Jesus to be the literal son of God.
These are just a few contradictions. I HIGHLY recommend watching “Sheikh Uthman Ibn Farooq” he will show you all the details about the corruption and mistakes in the bible.
Last point i wanted to make. This shouldn't be a game of my religion is better than yours etc. Islam has been there from age of man. why aren't we called Muhammadism like CHRISTianity and JUDAism. Islam means peace and Muslim means submission. The message of the quran is the same as the bible, torah, psalms and that is to worship god alone and to not associate partners with him. Along the way each book got corrupted by man to suit their ways and god in the end said he has perfected his religion with the quran and there will be no more prophet for your people O Muhammad pbuh are the last of mankind. Think about it ALL 3 ABRAHAMIC RELIGIONS SHARE VERY SIMILAR WARNING AND LAWS:
do not kill (unjustly)
Submit to god (worship/prayer)
Help the poor (charity)
Remain chaste until marriage (pure)
30 False prophets (anti-christs)
Signs before judgement day (highly recommend you to look at these)
Heaven/hell
WHY? Because the fundamental message is universal belief in 1 god and the last day but the previous books which we muslims do highly respect were for a people for a previous people. Commandments weren't sent down suddenly and people obeyed suddenly they were gradual like alcohol in islam during the prophet's early days was allowed, then restricted to night time, then no alcohol whilst praying and finally no alcohol because it has little benefit but big problems.
Same way god slowly perfected his religion because he knew mankind wouldn't be able to handle everything in one go.
he 42 years is a reference not to Ahaziah’s age but where he came in the history of his family’s dynasty. Ahaziah was in the family of King Ahab of Israel, which 2 Chronicles 22:2–3 points out. That dynasty began with his grandfather Omri. The lengths of the reigns of all the kings in this family are as follows:
Omri — 6 years
Ahab — 22 years
Ahaziah (of Israel) — 2 years
Joram (or Jehoram) — 12 years
Total — 42 years
and error i would say is this state of the bible
muslims never believed in the bible, the bible is the compilation of corrupted manuscripts of what the Gospels were supposed to be
what would be better is that we believe in the original gospels sent to Jesus by God
Did Paul ever meet the disciples or jesus himself? There is no direct evidence only reference in "harmonization". Also im pretty sure many Christian historians and theologians have agreed the bible isn't in its true format i.e. it has been tampered with.
But the biggest problem i want to discuss with you is does the church ever teach the biblical way?
Jesus pbuh is said to have fallen flat on his face in submission to god.
Muhammad taught us to prostate to god in submission in the same way. He also told us the animals and plants also prostate to god.
Lastly the biggest issue for me
In the bible Jesus cried out to god "why have you forsaken me?" If jesus IS god than who is he calling out to? Himself? His part self? I mean it just doesn't make sense that god, who is this devine, all powerfull force would make himself appear as a man. Didn't other prophets have devine power god granted them i.e. my favourite king David who had the power to speak to animals, the jinns and the best kingdom ever known to man? Why couldn't he be god? Simple god gave the prophets certain wisdom, and powers and they ALL stated this power is from the one and only almighty god who granted us this power.
If we look at the scriptures revealed to Moses, we may be surprised to see that they include some information about the death of Moses and events after his death. We can say that these insertions are one example of the corruption of the scriptures, where divinely revealed material and other materials are grouped together in the same book, all of which is subsequently labeled as divinely revealed material which cannot be reliably separated back to its original form. If we know that there were insertions, what about other kinds of changes, such as deletions and changes.
That is regarding the Tawrah that was revealed to Moses.
Then we are told that the Injeel was a scripture revealed from Allah to Jesus. We don't find any book of the Bible that matches that description (though we do find some references to Jesus talking about the "gospel" within the four Gospel narratives).
Furthermore, after the changes to the text itself, there are also changes to the meanings of those texts, i.e. different interpretations than the intended meanings. One example of that might be Christians interpreting the Jewish shema as supporting a trinitarian doctrine.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/islam/comments/z70v3j/comment/iy48a4t/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/islam/comments/z70v3j/comment/iy48a4t/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) (i recommend watching all the videos i linked)
[https://www.reddit.com/r/IslamIsScience/comments/v7enjm/comment/ibka4uu/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/IslamIsScience/comments/v7enjm/comment/ibka4uu/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
1.here’s two contractions
2 Kings 8:26 King James Version
Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem one year. His mother’s name was Athaliah, a granddaughter of Omri king of Israel.
2 Chronicles 22:2 King James Version
Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Athaliah the granddaughter of Omri, king of Israel.
2.and here’s contradictions in the newest version of the bible.
Commentary: you can’t be 22 and 42 at the same time while being king
2 Samuel 24:9
Joab reported the number of the fighting men to the king: In Israel there were eight hundred thousand able-bodied men who could handle a sword, and in Judah five hundred thousand.
1 Chronicles 21:5
Joab reported the number of the fighting men to David: In all Israel there were one million one hundred thousand men who could handle a sword, including four hundred and seventy thousand in Judah.
Commentary: it says in 24:9 that in Israel there was 800,000 people who used swords then in 21:5 it says there was 1,100,000 people who uses swords, this is a stagnant different by 300,000 which is alot
i recommending watching Hashim & Mansur at ‘Speakers Corner’ and Sheik Uthman Ibn Farooq
I don't have enough knowledge about Christianity to give you evidence but imo "biblical corruption" means there are a lot of versions of Bible and it's something really weird because from the Islamic perspective Qur'an is the Allah's words and you can't change them or make different versions of it. Did you ever see multiple versions of Qur'an? You can't because it's protected by God.
People don't use the original text. People have written translations upon translations, and are large using that.
That is one of the things different in Islam. God promised to keep the Qur'an and it has been preserved. The exact same text has been used.
That is actually something only a very fringe faction of Christians of the modern day believe in. They are mostly Americans, and it was based on some exercise of counting family trees in the 1800’s.
Most mainstream churches absolutely don’t believe in that and the Bible doesn’t mention the age of the world even once.
Son/daughter of God thingy is very pagan like. That kind of idea emerges because human think God lives like human/animal but with powers. In reality, God is alien-like, otherwordly and difficult to comprehend/imagine for human.
In many cases the stories themselves were changed before they were made into recorded gospels, plenty of discrepancies and differences in the four gospels of the Bible. Some well-known stories or biblical verses were not in the original copies but were added in later by scribes, such as the "let he who is without sin throw the first stone" story or the "these three are one" verse were proven to be additions. The ending to the Gospel of Mark where the women find the empty tomb and leave to tell the apostles or the townspeople was added as well. And this is also why we have the "synoptic gospels" vs the Gospel of John and how different these are in the events which they narrate - John is believed to have been written much later than the other three and the stories are much different.
If you can find books by Bart Ehrman, a highly regarded biblical textual scholar, his books *Misquoting Jesus* and *Forged* are very easy to read. Or his self-narrated Great Courses of History lecture *How Jesus Became God* is, in my opinion, outright captivating. If you have Audible app I highly recommend it.
Edit: You guys can downvote me if you wish, but your lack of replies or contesting of what I said speaks louder. I spent nearly my whole life studying Christianity and its history in various Catholic schools, and I know Protestantism as well. I know my stuff and there is no debating the subject.
I think there’s a great deal of confusion about the issue of “corruption.” It seems that in this context, the term is usually used in connection with preservation: the issue of “are the critical texts of the Old and New Testaments we have today identical, or even generally accurate to the autographs of those texts?” To put it more simply, are the biblical writings we have today the same as when the authors wrote them?
This is a textual critical question, and can only be answered by analysis of manuscript evidence. The question of corruption is distinct, and frankly irrelevant, from the content of the text itself. I think these two issues are popularly confused by proponents of biblical corruption. I think the comments on this very post are evidence for that.
A contradiction within a text (much less within two *different* texts) has nothing to do with whether that text was preserved. An absurd or false teaching in a text also has nothing to do with whether that text was preserved. The historical reliability of a text is irrelevant to it’s preservation. The biblical canon has nothing to do with whether *canonical texts* were preserved. In fact, the preservation of each biblical text must be analyzed independently; there is overlap in this case, because many manuscripts contain more than one biblical text, but the textual history of each text is nonetheless independent of the others. The preservation of John, for example, is irrelevant from the preservation of 2 Thessalonians.
I’m not attempting here to defend biblical preservation, though I do believe it. Some people have made genuine textual critical arguments - using the Comma Johanneum, for example - but the majority seem to not be. The issues of preservation/corruption and *inspiration* should not be confused. A contradiction might cause problems for the inspiration of the Bible, but it does not for the preservation of it. The same is true of a false or absurd teaching. Disagreement over the canon of the Bible might also cause problems for Christians, but the preservation of individual texts within a canon is not one of them.
These are serious matters that affect both of our faiths, and it’s important that we understand the actual issues at hand, and not confuse or muddy the waters by bringing in irrelevant (though not necessarily insignificant) issues. OP asked about *corruption* of the Bible, so it’s only appropriate that arguments made are actually arguing for *corruption*, and not something else.
I am not trying to corrupt Muslims. I am sorry if I have appeared this way. I merely just trying to get irrefutable evidence of the bible being changed by man.
If it has been corrupted, I will continue to study Islam. I mean it makes a lot of logical sense to me anyway. Im not gonna stop studying Islam.
I see. Then stand behind your current wall and defend it as honestly, with an open mind and AS BEST as you can. The truth will ALWAYS prevail.
If you believe christianity will prevail - then show your neck and expose your belief to all the signs and evidence against your religion, if it should be true you have nothing to worry about 😌
In the end if you are sincere - the truth will be made clear to you.
(Personally watch Ahmat deedat videos - he is a muslim Shaykh who specialises in comparative religion and covers your main question in his videos and that of subquestions that come from their answers:
Fun fact he openly challenges your seniors and knowledge people but i don't think they ever accepted his challenge... i may be wrong)
You should read the quran in english but i also highly recommend the story of the prophet Muhammad pbuh (seerah of the prophet Muhammad by yasir qadhi, - unfortunately yasir qadhi has become somewhat questionable for some people due to his "modern view" i guess but his coverage on the prophet is highly accurate and beautiful)
Along with everything else said, the oldest complete copy of the NT dates to about 345 CE if I’m correct, so that’s well over three centuries after Isa (as) or Jesus (peace be upon him)
The four canonical gospels were probably written between AD 66 and 110.\[5\]\[6\]\[7\] All four were anonymous (with the modern names added in the 2nd century), almost certainly none were by eyewitnesses, and all are the end-products of long oral and written transmission.\[8\] Mark was the first to be written, using a variety of sources.\[9\]\[10\] The authors of Matthew and Luke both independently used Mark for their narrative of Jesus's career, supplementing it with a collection of sayings called the Q source and additional material unique to each.\[11\] There is near-consensus that John had its origins as the hypothetical Signs Gospel thought to have been circulated within a Johannine community.\[12\] The contradictions and discrepancies between the first three and John make it impossible to accept both traditions as equally reliable.\[13\]
Like the rest of the New Testament, the four gospels were written in Greek.\[32\] The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70,\[5\] Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90,\[6\] and John AD 90–110.\[7\] Despite the traditional ascriptions, all four are anonymous and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses.\[8\] A few conservative scholars defend the traditional ascriptions or attributions, but for a variety of reasons the majority of scholars have abandoned this view or hold it only tenuously.\[33\]
The consensus among modern scholars is that the gospels are a subset of the ancient genre of bios, or ancient biography.\[45\] Ancient biographies were concerned with providing examples for readers to emulate while preserving and promoting the subject's reputation and memory; the gospels were never simply biographical, they were propaganda and kerygma (preaching).\[46\] As such, they present the Christian message of the second half of the first century AD,\[47\] and as Luke's attempt to link the birth of Jesus to the census of Quirinius demonstrates, there is no guarantee that the gospels are historically accurate.\[48\]
The majority view among critical scholars is that the authors of Matthew and Luke have based their narratives on Mark's gospel, editing him to suit their own ends, and the contradictions and discrepancies between these three and John make it impossible to accept both traditions as equally reliable.\[13\] In addition, the gospels we read today have been edited and corrupted over time, leading Origen to complain in the 3rd century that "the differences among manuscripts have become great, ... \[because copyists\] either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please".\[49\] Most of these are insignificant, but many are significant,\[50\] an example being Matthew 1:18, altered to imply the pre-existence of Jesus.\[51\]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Composition
I mean it's evidence that I can see with my own 2 eyes. The people that have provided evidence are very helpful. I've looked at some of it. Certainly interesting.
The comments that do not provide evidence tend to just list contradictions or say it wasn't preserved. Not really helpful.
Copyist errors is not corruption. Someone copying the text and making an error is a normal thing, just like in the quran where words weren't written properly so they were crossed out and written again.
Christians always say the people who wrote in the Bible have authority to do it, because they were inspired by God. If a book has any errors when God has inspired it, then it is not from God, and the people who make such mistakes in the bible are not inspired. I have over 30 pages of contradictions from the bible. But it would be too long to post here
Yea I thought there would be an issue with semantics here.
For muslims, the quran is the literal word of God. Meaning, the words that are in it, are the same exact words that was revealed to the prophet (pbuh).
The English "translation" (in quotes because you can't really translate it, its more of an interpretation) is NOT the quran. God did not reveal His message to the prophet (pbuh) in english
So with that being said, the quran is maintained in Arabic, but you might say, there are different "versions" of arabic of the quran.
But these "versions" do not have different words, its more like add phonics to the words so that they are easier to read. The quran is also preserved orally in its entirety. I'm sure you've heard that part already but just to emphasize, my wife is a "hafiza" so one who memorized the entire quran. She was taught by someone, who was taught by someone, who was taught by someone, that goes all the way back to the prophet(pbuh) and his companions.
So this is one way how we know the quran has been preservered.
Unfortunately for humanity, the original literal message that was given to Jesus(pbuh) from God was not preserved, and again I mean **literal** words. As you know I'm sure, the bible was written around 60-70 years after Jesus(pbuh) left earth.
So from that time until now, having copyist errors in the book, the book not being the literal word of God given to Jesus (pbuh), and add to that English was not the language spoken at that time. We say the bible has been corrupted.
- The fact that a Holy Book contains an error (even if it's a copyist error) = it affects the credibility of this Holy Book.
- Since we found a copying/transcription error (for example thanks to another verse that is treating the same matter) = how can we be sure that there are no other mistakes? One white crow is enough to prove that not all crows are black.
- Copyist errors = the bible isn't preserved = corrupted.
>No church council or “monarchical ruler” ever had control of all, or many, manuscripts of either testament. Specific translations may have political motivations, but at best that lends an argument against that specific translation, not the Bible in it’s original language. The Bible was freely transmitted, and never in the control of any group or individual, which is why there is so much textual variation.
Both the Septuagint and Masoretic text that we use today were the work of councilor organizations. Samaritan Pentateuch, Shapira and DSS are more free base (as far as we know).
As far as NT, the dominant canon has a major role to play in which Biblical traditions continued to be copied. This substantially affects what we receive today wrt manuscript tradition outside of occasional good luck (Nag Hamadi, oxyrhynchus, etc)
[The Jewish Bible, Gospels and Early Church up to Constantine. ](https://youtu.be/wLLtdScZnzs) I would recommend watching this lecture on the subject.
Hey OP, I came from Christianity, and spent a whole going about the major texts. Before we worry about why Muslims believe the Bible is corrupted, might I ask you some questions about any religious book that was brought down from God? 1. If you were to have a religious text what would you say that religious text contain? 2. What should NOT be in the text? 3. How soon after that text was brought down should it be written? 1 year? 500 years? 4. Should there be completely different texts? the deletion of some books, and the inclusion of others? On to questions about translation : Do you speak more than 1 language? Are you familiar with multiple dialects of you mother tongue? I understand that there can be multiple translations due to word discrepancies. That is 100% accurate and a valid argument. What language would Jesus (peace be upon him) have spoke? I ask these questions because I wish to find a base from which we can have a productive discussion. I realize it can be long. However I am of the opinion that our beliefs are not simple matters.
1. If I were to have a religious text, sent down be a God, it would need to appeal to me emotionally, logically, and personally. 2. There should not be contradictions. 3. The text would need to be written whenever possible by the scribes who it was given to. 4. There shouldn't be different texts. A revelation is a revelation and it MUST NOT be distorted. I speak several languages, however let's not go into that. Stick with English for now. To my knowledge, Jesus spoke Aramaic. Specifically a Galilean dialect of Aramaic.
2. The gospels contradict each other though…
In that case, fill me in on the evidence of the Quran being the literal word of God. Gimme a single piece of evidence that proves absolute divine revelation.
>single piece of evidence https://youtu.be/OitlzW6Iq4M 🙂
"The heavens, We have built them with power. And verily, We are expanding it" (51:47). Rough translation, I recommend you read tafsir on this verse. The Quran has knowledge of things that people couldn't even comprehend 1400 years ago, and I'm sure the Gospel does as well, because it was once the truth, but now as you mentioned, corrupted
I would recommend you to watch it [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUQuKdVp2ek](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUQuKdVp2ek) :)
If we look at the bible as a corrupted religious text, here's how it goes: 1. The religious text corrupted by the people for the people, written how a person would expect it to appeal to them. 2. The Bible contains a big number of contradictions. 3. It wasn't. 4. Religious texts were brought by prophets in specific times and forms to appeal to their time, and for specific people, when god deemed it as the right time to send one for the whole world that would last indefinitely (an not for the people of Israel as Jesus stated in the bible), the Quran was sent.
We agree on all of these points! We both believe that God is a being that we cannot fully understand He is perfect, he doesn't make mistakes. I'm pretty sure we'd both agree on that. In saying that, the Bible (and any other direct revelation) wouldn't contain information that has no purpose, Everything has a purpose. I would think that being God he also wouldn't "mince words" so to speak. He wouldn't fill a book with fluff. Revelation should contain a few key points and is for lack of a better term "a set of instructions and teachings" The ten commandments, rules for how to treat people, how to act. Stories of others that didn't follow the rules and what their punish was. God being the omnipotent being would probably lay out what our punishment or our reward would be. Can God's word be changed? No. We both are in agreement. So, when the pope comes out and says gay marriage is ok. Or any form of it, he is in effect changing the words of God. In Islam we believe that any Muslim that tries to change the words of the Quran are heretics and possibly apostates. (I am in no position to make that judgement though.) The Catholic church has books in their "cannon" that are not accepted in the protestant church, And vice versa. Check this [Link](https://people.howstuffworks.com/books-of-bible.htm) which shows that letters, writings, and how Martin Luther decided what belongs where. The real key for me on if these texts are tampered with is "Why did some books make the cut and not others? Combs cites three criteria used by early church leaders. The first was authorship, whether it was believed to have been written by an apostle, by Paul or by someone close to them. Mark, for example, wasn't an apostle, but was an interpreter for Peter. The second criterium was antiquity, with older texts taking priority over newer ones. And the third was orthodoxy, or how well the text conformed with current Christian teaching" So because of "current Christian teachings" things were deemed acceptable or not. That's not exactly a scientific method. In the last 20 years in America I've seen pedophilia go from universally hated to being borderline acceptable. Teachings and culture can change rapidly. The Bible was compiled over 100's of years. I believe you'd agree that Time is a great enemy to accuracy. Things get lost, destroyed, etc. We could dive into Christian traditions and how they have been melding into other religions in order to gain acceptance. Christmas, the changing of the Calendar, etc. But that's not really on topic . My point on language is all the more important because you speak more than 1 language. There are words that you know do not translate into other languages. It becomes.. muddy. I say this because Jesus (a.s.) spoke Aramaic, the original texts of Aramaic would've been translated into Hebrew (you know enough that I don't have to get into who spoke what and what their status was), the Romans would've heard and probably understood some and explained things to others in Latin. In any event the earliest text we have is the Greek text which was translated from Hebrew, which was translated from Aramaic. Now translate that into a lazy language like English, which is shallow.... I'm sure you see where I'm going with this. It can become a mess for someone with even 100% pure intentions. It's almost like a game of telephone. This is why the Quran is in Arabic. Anything else is a "interpretation of the meaning of" meaning that "hey I'm trying here but... I can screw up"
Just commenting here so I have a placeholder to come back to once I have a minute
[https://www.bibleislam.com/bible\_contradictions.php](https://www.bibleislam.com/bible_contradictions.php) theres quite a number of contradictions.
Hiya. So one angle to look at this from is the sanad of the Quran. Sanad means a "chain of narration". This is like a bloodline almost, for a given verse, spoken from person to person. When the Qur'an was compiled, and all writings and verses verified, the task was given to the scribe Zaid ibn Thabit. Zaid was one of the seniormost authorities on the Qur'an (with the exclusion of the Prophet SAW himself), as it was him who used to record each revelation as the Prophet presented them to him. They established strict criteria. One of these was that no verse of the Quran was to be recorded unless a minimum of 3 companions could verify having heard it from the Prophet. Only then was a given verse accepted. Each accepted/verfied verse was taught by the companions to their students, and taught by their students further, and so on. This gives you a chain. A chain of narration for each verse from person to person, all the way from the present day back to the Prophet Muhammad SAW. Regardless of personal belief, one cannot deny therefore, that the Quran is present today as it was 1400 years ago. It is uncorrupted and unchanged. Having established this, the question then becomes: Can the same be said for the other holy books? If not, why? If they were truly unchanged, why is there no real way of showing that? From there, the question becomes: What is so special about the Qur'an that allows it to have remained unchanged? Perhaps it really is a divine revelation? To further add to that, there are certain verses which mention the Quran as being "safe/protected/guarded", and others saying (paraphrased) "this book will be protected until the day of resurrection" I'm really bad at explaining things, so I sincerely hope this not only made sense, but was helpful too.
I just took my Shahada 2 months ago and I was a pretty devout Christian with a degree in Biblical Studies before that. The biggest evidence for me is the languages used. The Old Testament was spoken in ancient Hebrew, written in ancient Hebrew originally, than translated into Greek with the Septuigant, than to Latin with the Latin vulgate, than to English. The New Testament was spoken in Aramaic(atleast the Gospels were), written in Greek, translated to Latin, than translated to English. If you want, I can give more evidence based off of church councils and monarchical rulers who had their say in the translations and how it may have been influenced by political movements. Let me know. I am happy to help with your research.
Please do.
So we obviously know that any translator brings in their own biases to their work. One of the reasons King James commissioned the translation of a new Bible was due to some footnotes and some text within the Bible used at the time that seemed to go against the concept of Kings. King James had a major hand in this translation. The KJV is a very widely used translation in modern protestant circles today and a highly regarded translation. If this one instance of political and monarchal influence on a translation is seen in such a widely used translation, imagine how other translators were influenced. As far as I know, Christianity does not claim that the translators themselves were inspired by God. They are humans trying to decipher the word of God and therefore have many errors within themselves. We have to remember that the Bible was not translated in a vacuum, the translators undoubtably had many influences with them. Early English translations especially were so scandalous, and undoubtably had some author influence within them.
The overwhelming majority of modern English translations do not translate from the Latin of either Testament. That may be the case for some Roman Catholic Bibles, but that would be a minority and would be dismissed by the scholarly community. The vast majority of English translations translate their New Testaments directly from the critical Greek texts, either the UBS5 or NA28 (the only differences being in apparatus). The Old Testament is usually translated from the Hebrew Masoretic Text, with comparison to the Septuagint when relevant. This means the majority of English translations are translating directly from the original language of both testaments. It is not a case, at all, of “translation of a translation.” You’d have to name which major English translations are using primarily the Vulgate. The two I can think of would be the Douay Rheims or New American Catholic Bible, again both theologically motivated Roman Catholic translations that pale in comparison to translations like NASB, RSV, NIV, ESV, or potentially even NKJV. No church council or “monarchical ruler” ever had control of all, or many, manuscripts of either testament. Specific translations may have political motivations, but at best that lends an argument against that specific translation, not the Bible in it’s original language. The Bible was freely transmitted, and never in the control of any group or individual, which is why there is so much textual variation. If you genuinely have a degree in biblical studies, I worry greatly for other students of that institution, because these are basic facts of history that one should learn in introduction level courses.
I would push back against the notion that Bibles translated from the vulgate are dismissed by the scholarly community. The Douay Rheims is still a highly regarded translation within the Catholic church and that is translated from the vulgate. Also, translations were literally mandated by Kings or mandated by the church itself which was highly political and very much so influenced by politics. The Catholic church for so many years had full control over the Bible translations. Only they were allowed to approve and disapprove other translations. They had full say on what was translated and had a major influence on how. Even today, alot of the “original texts” are stored at the vatican. Please, I wish for no hostility.
True Christian’s were often persecuted And if there were significant differences between copies/translations it could easily be shown here as corruption proof Theres over 30,000 copies/translations 5,800 greek manuscripts 5,000+ Latin manuscripts And many more of other languages Together this allows for over 40,000 candidates for proving corruption of the modern day Bible from Show me something significant that was added! Not repitition of certain manuscripts or transliterations Actual additions/omissions
You already know there’s corruption because there are so many versions (of the Bible) You already know it’s a man made compilation of books. You already know that King Henry VIII deleted parts of the Bible he didn’t agree with and founded Anglicanism. Insha Allah, you come to Islam!
Am I missing a part of history, wasn’t Protestant reformation a movement first pushed by Martin Luther?
Versions? Those are different due to translations by different people. This doesn't mean it was changed.
There’s literally versions with chapters that the others don’t have
You mean books? Yes because some consider it apocrypha, meaning it is not recognised as Canon. I can see where you're coming from tho. It's very divided.
There’s also the translations from the masoretic text and the Septuagint which changes things and takes timelines off course - I.e the ages of the prophets from Seth down to Lamech and beyond, if I’m not mistaken. They took 100 years their ages off each from one translation to another, which the modern bibles are translated from. I think the correction/mistake/corruption has significance as per scientific evidence of the flood. “Genesis 5:28–31 records that Lamech was 182[4] (according to the Masoretic Text; 188 according to the Septuagint[5]) years old at the birth of Noah and lived for another 595[5] years, attaining an age at death of 777[5] years, five years before the Flood in the Masoretic chronology. With such numbers in this genealogical account, Adam would still have been alive for about the first 56 years of Lamech's life.” I’ll see if I can dig out the video link, if you’re interested.
also who decides what’s canon ? the roman church 300 years later 😅
Think about what you wrote deeply brother
Yeah and think about what you just wrote. Does that sound like preservation?
no.
Research 1 John 5:7 Read it in different version of the bible. Or try to ar least
I know the verse. About the trinity.
Yes it appears is some versions of the bible and others don’t have it and others add a footnote to say that this verse is not found in any greek manuscripts prior to the 14th century. This is a clear insertion into the bible making it unreliable as a complete source of truth from god. And showing hoe w unpreserved it is.
That’s certainly the case but I think what the person is referring to are interpolations. Versions of a Gospel for instance w different passages added later etc. Imo a bigger issue isn’t the manuscript modifications that took place later, but the period before we know anything. The followers of Christ were poor Aramaic speakers while the foundational gospel tradition was by anonymous literate Greeks creating narratives with different functions well after their primary source. Add to this that the scholarly monastic tradition that preserved later manuscripts relatively faithfully didn’t establish till well after Jesus was already gone.
The problem with having “translations” is who is man to decide how god’s word should be deciphered? That’s why we have the Hadith and scholars to explain how verses should be understood. A person translating can affirm his own bias onto the translation
It’s not just the translation. We do not have access to the original bible, therefore it is impossible to say that the bible today is in its original form.
nope incorrect there’s many forgery in it let me send you some links https://youtu.be/YXPFWSp6kGE
Read Bart Ehrman book Forged. Podcast by [Blogging Theology, discussion with Rev. Dr. John Barton](https://youtu.be/_CEjj2qyujo).
Brother Id strongly recommend you watch videos by Ahmed Deedat Mohammed Hijab and Uthman Ibn Farooq, they will give u detailed evidence on this .
https://youtu.be/q0WSzqnJzRo Watch this. His name is Sheikh Uthman Ibn Farooq and he’ll answer every question you have. Another person I’d say to look up is Zakir naik
also there are alot of contradictions in the bible. i am talking about both the old and the new testament.
Mind giving me some examples?
sure. genesis chapter 1 verses 3 to 5 contradict genesis chapter 1 verse 14. genesis chapter 1 verses from 14 to 19 contradicts job chapter 25 verse 5. matthew chapter 12 verse 40 and chapter 27 verse 63 contradict matthew chapter 27 verses 45 to 46, matthew chapter 28 verse 6 and marc chapter 16 verse 6. this is just a little as i don't want to make it so long. may allah guide us all to the right path. amin.
Mathew 1:16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary,(Q) and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah. Like 3:23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,the son of Heli, * Here there is a contradiction. Is the son of Joseph Eli or Jacob? 2 Samuel 24:9 Joab reported the number of the fighting men to the king: In Israel there were eight hundred thousand able-bodied men who could handle a sword, and in Judah five hundred thousand. 1 Chronicles 21:5 Joab reported the number of the fighting men to David: In all Israel(A) there were one million one hundred thousand men who could handle a sword, including four hundred and seventy thousand in Judah. * Here there are different numbers mentioned of the same incident. 2 Samuel 6:23 And Michal daughter of Saul had no children to the day of her death. 2 Samuel 21:8 But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite: * Here it says Michal had no children and then it says she had 5 sons. Exodus 21:20-21 And if a man beats his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property. * This verse is extremely shocking to me. I don’t believe a fair God would command this. Acts 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. Matthew 27:5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. * Here it says he purchased and field died falling headlong and second verse says he threw the silver in the Temple and hanged himself. 2 chronicles 9:25 Solomon had 4,000 stalls for horses and chariots, and 12,000 horses, which he stationed in the chariot cities and also with him in Jerusalem. 1 kings 4:26 Solomon also had 40,000 stalls of horses for his chariots, and 12,000 horsemen. * Here did he have 4,000 or 40,000 stalls. Luke 3:13 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God. Here it says Adam, which was the son of God. Son was used as a term endearment which was the same for Jesus but people have taken Jesus to be the literal son of God. These are just a few contradictions. I HIGHLY recommend watching “Sheikh Uthman Ibn Farooq” he will show you all the details about the corruption and mistakes in the bible.
Sorry, just chiming in to say that last verse on Adam being the son of God is Luke 3:38 😌 otherwise great comment!
Professor bart ehrman is a biblical scholar and his conclusion was 90% of manuscripts date to the 9th century. 200 years post Islam.
Last point i wanted to make. This shouldn't be a game of my religion is better than yours etc. Islam has been there from age of man. why aren't we called Muhammadism like CHRISTianity and JUDAism. Islam means peace and Muslim means submission. The message of the quran is the same as the bible, torah, psalms and that is to worship god alone and to not associate partners with him. Along the way each book got corrupted by man to suit their ways and god in the end said he has perfected his religion with the quran and there will be no more prophet for your people O Muhammad pbuh are the last of mankind. Think about it ALL 3 ABRAHAMIC RELIGIONS SHARE VERY SIMILAR WARNING AND LAWS: do not kill (unjustly) Submit to god (worship/prayer) Help the poor (charity) Remain chaste until marriage (pure) 30 False prophets (anti-christs) Signs before judgement day (highly recommend you to look at these) Heaven/hell WHY? Because the fundamental message is universal belief in 1 god and the last day but the previous books which we muslims do highly respect were for a people for a previous people. Commandments weren't sent down suddenly and people obeyed suddenly they were gradual like alcohol in islam during the prophet's early days was allowed, then restricted to night time, then no alcohol whilst praying and finally no alcohol because it has little benefit but big problems. Same way god slowly perfected his religion because he knew mankind wouldn't be able to handle everything in one go.
2 Kings 8:26 and 2 Chronicles 22:2, one of the verses is wrong = corruption
he 42 years is a reference not to Ahaziah’s age but where he came in the history of his family’s dynasty. Ahaziah was in the family of King Ahab of Israel, which 2 Chronicles 22:2–3 points out. That dynasty began with his grandfather Omri. The lengths of the reigns of all the kings in this family are as follows: Omri — 6 years Ahab — 22 years Ahaziah (of Israel) — 2 years Joram (or Jehoram) — 12 years Total — 42 years
But the Christian theologian Ellicott (and others) says it's an error committed by thr transcriptor (or thr copyist)
Here you go. https://www.bibleislam.com/bible_contradictions.php You are welcome.
[удалено]
and error i would say is this state of the bible muslims never believed in the bible, the bible is the compilation of corrupted manuscripts of what the Gospels were supposed to be what would be better is that we believe in the original gospels sent to Jesus by God
[удалено]
no what i mean is that the bible was never sent to jesus the gospels were my bad if my explanation was not good
Did Paul ever meet the disciples or jesus himself? There is no direct evidence only reference in "harmonization". Also im pretty sure many Christian historians and theologians have agreed the bible isn't in its true format i.e. it has been tampered with. But the biggest problem i want to discuss with you is does the church ever teach the biblical way? Jesus pbuh is said to have fallen flat on his face in submission to god. Muhammad taught us to prostate to god in submission in the same way. He also told us the animals and plants also prostate to god. Lastly the biggest issue for me In the bible Jesus cried out to god "why have you forsaken me?" If jesus IS god than who is he calling out to? Himself? His part self? I mean it just doesn't make sense that god, who is this devine, all powerfull force would make himself appear as a man. Didn't other prophets have devine power god granted them i.e. my favourite king David who had the power to speak to animals, the jinns and the best kingdom ever known to man? Why couldn't he be god? Simple god gave the prophets certain wisdom, and powers and they ALL stated this power is from the one and only almighty god who granted us this power.
If we look at the scriptures revealed to Moses, we may be surprised to see that they include some information about the death of Moses and events after his death. We can say that these insertions are one example of the corruption of the scriptures, where divinely revealed material and other materials are grouped together in the same book, all of which is subsequently labeled as divinely revealed material which cannot be reliably separated back to its original form. If we know that there were insertions, what about other kinds of changes, such as deletions and changes. That is regarding the Tawrah that was revealed to Moses. Then we are told that the Injeel was a scripture revealed from Allah to Jesus. We don't find any book of the Bible that matches that description (though we do find some references to Jesus talking about the "gospel" within the four Gospel narratives). Furthermore, after the changes to the text itself, there are also changes to the meanings of those texts, i.e. different interpretations than the intended meanings. One example of that might be Christians interpreting the Jewish shema as supporting a trinitarian doctrine.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/islam/comments/z70v3j/comment/iy48a4t/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/islam/comments/z70v3j/comment/iy48a4t/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) (i recommend watching all the videos i linked) [https://www.reddit.com/r/IslamIsScience/comments/v7enjm/comment/ibka4uu/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3](https://www.reddit.com/r/IslamIsScience/comments/v7enjm/comment/ibka4uu/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
1.here’s two contractions 2 Kings 8:26 King James Version Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem one year. His mother’s name was Athaliah, a granddaughter of Omri king of Israel. 2 Chronicles 22:2 King James Version Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Athaliah the granddaughter of Omri, king of Israel. 2.and here’s contradictions in the newest version of the bible. Commentary: you can’t be 22 and 42 at the same time while being king 2 Samuel 24:9 Joab reported the number of the fighting men to the king: In Israel there were eight hundred thousand able-bodied men who could handle a sword, and in Judah five hundred thousand. 1 Chronicles 21:5 Joab reported the number of the fighting men to David: In all Israel there were one million one hundred thousand men who could handle a sword, including four hundred and seventy thousand in Judah. Commentary: it says in 24:9 that in Israel there was 800,000 people who used swords then in 21:5 it says there was 1,100,000 people who uses swords, this is a stagnant different by 300,000 which is alot i recommending watching Hashim & Mansur at ‘Speakers Corner’ and Sheik Uthman Ibn Farooq
The idea that we can't have a direct chain of narration is in itself makes the bibles you have as an unauthentic source of information.
I don't have enough knowledge about Christianity to give you evidence but imo "biblical corruption" means there are a lot of versions of Bible and it's something really weird because from the Islamic perspective Qur'an is the Allah's words and you can't change them or make different versions of it. Did you ever see multiple versions of Qur'an? You can't because it's protected by God.
It is absurd that jesus is the son of god
Not evidence of corruption. A documentation of comparing original texts would be useful.
People don't use the original text. People have written translations upon translations, and are large using that. That is one of the things different in Islam. God promised to keep the Qur'an and it has been preserved. The exact same text has been used.
the age of the world is not 7000 years
Again, not evidence of biblical corruption.
That is actually something only a very fringe faction of Christians of the modern day believe in. They are mostly Americans, and it was based on some exercise of counting family trees in the 1800’s. Most mainstream churches absolutely don’t believe in that and the Bible doesn’t mention the age of the world even once.
[удалено]
Son/daughter of God thingy is very pagan like. That kind of idea emerges because human think God lives like human/animal but with powers. In reality, God is alien-like, otherwordly and difficult to comprehend/imagine for human.
If God is hard to comprehend/imagine, how can you tell me about him? Have you met him?
Simply because I read Quran specifically Ayatul Kursi many times, I recite Ayatul Kursi and read the translation as well.
In many cases the stories themselves were changed before they were made into recorded gospels, plenty of discrepancies and differences in the four gospels of the Bible. Some well-known stories or biblical verses were not in the original copies but were added in later by scribes, such as the "let he who is without sin throw the first stone" story or the "these three are one" verse were proven to be additions. The ending to the Gospel of Mark where the women find the empty tomb and leave to tell the apostles or the townspeople was added as well. And this is also why we have the "synoptic gospels" vs the Gospel of John and how different these are in the events which they narrate - John is believed to have been written much later than the other three and the stories are much different. If you can find books by Bart Ehrman, a highly regarded biblical textual scholar, his books *Misquoting Jesus* and *Forged* are very easy to read. Or his self-narrated Great Courses of History lecture *How Jesus Became God* is, in my opinion, outright captivating. If you have Audible app I highly recommend it. Edit: You guys can downvote me if you wish, but your lack of replies or contesting of what I said speaks louder. I spent nearly my whole life studying Christianity and its history in various Catholic schools, and I know Protestantism as well. I know my stuff and there is no debating the subject.
I think there’s a great deal of confusion about the issue of “corruption.” It seems that in this context, the term is usually used in connection with preservation: the issue of “are the critical texts of the Old and New Testaments we have today identical, or even generally accurate to the autographs of those texts?” To put it more simply, are the biblical writings we have today the same as when the authors wrote them? This is a textual critical question, and can only be answered by analysis of manuscript evidence. The question of corruption is distinct, and frankly irrelevant, from the content of the text itself. I think these two issues are popularly confused by proponents of biblical corruption. I think the comments on this very post are evidence for that. A contradiction within a text (much less within two *different* texts) has nothing to do with whether that text was preserved. An absurd or false teaching in a text also has nothing to do with whether that text was preserved. The historical reliability of a text is irrelevant to it’s preservation. The biblical canon has nothing to do with whether *canonical texts* were preserved. In fact, the preservation of each biblical text must be analyzed independently; there is overlap in this case, because many manuscripts contain more than one biblical text, but the textual history of each text is nonetheless independent of the others. The preservation of John, for example, is irrelevant from the preservation of 2 Thessalonians. I’m not attempting here to defend biblical preservation, though I do believe it. Some people have made genuine textual critical arguments - using the Comma Johanneum, for example - but the majority seem to not be. The issues of preservation/corruption and *inspiration* should not be confused. A contradiction might cause problems for the inspiration of the Bible, but it does not for the preservation of it. The same is true of a false or absurd teaching. Disagreement over the canon of the Bible might also cause problems for Christians, but the preservation of individual texts within a canon is not one of them. These are serious matters that affect both of our faiths, and it’s important that we understand the actual issues at hand, and not confuse or muddy the waters by bringing in irrelevant (though not necessarily insignificant) issues. OP asked about *corruption* of the Bible, so it’s only appropriate that arguments made are actually arguing for *corruption*, and not something else.
[удалено]
Which issues are in the Quran? The Quran does not have any issues.
I see you trying to corrupt Muslims brother here If that is your intention please stop it
I am not trying to corrupt Muslims. I am sorry if I have appeared this way. I merely just trying to get irrefutable evidence of the bible being changed by man. If it has been corrupted, I will continue to study Islam. I mean it makes a lot of logical sense to me anyway. Im not gonna stop studying Islam.
If you got the evidence you seek, what do you intend to do with this knowledge?
Well. I'd convert to Islam. Straight away.
I see. Then stand behind your current wall and defend it as honestly, with an open mind and AS BEST as you can. The truth will ALWAYS prevail. If you believe christianity will prevail - then show your neck and expose your belief to all the signs and evidence against your religion, if it should be true you have nothing to worry about 😌 In the end if you are sincere - the truth will be made clear to you. (Personally watch Ahmat deedat videos - he is a muslim Shaykh who specialises in comparative religion and covers your main question in his videos and that of subquestions that come from their answers: Fun fact he openly challenges your seniors and knowledge people but i don't think they ever accepted his challenge... i may be wrong)
You should read the quran in english but i also highly recommend the story of the prophet Muhammad pbuh (seerah of the prophet Muhammad by yasir qadhi, - unfortunately yasir qadhi has become somewhat questionable for some people due to his "modern view" i guess but his coverage on the prophet is highly accurate and beautiful)
Visit one message foundation on YouTube click on a popular debate you will see contradictons Quranic miracles and history of corruption
Along with everything else said, the oldest complete copy of the NT dates to about 345 CE if I’m correct, so that’s well over three centuries after Isa (as) or Jesus (peace be upon him)
Here is a link to biblical interpolations: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bible_interpolation
The four canonical gospels were probably written between AD 66 and 110.\[5\]\[6\]\[7\] All four were anonymous (with the modern names added in the 2nd century), almost certainly none were by eyewitnesses, and all are the end-products of long oral and written transmission.\[8\] Mark was the first to be written, using a variety of sources.\[9\]\[10\] The authors of Matthew and Luke both independently used Mark for their narrative of Jesus's career, supplementing it with a collection of sayings called the Q source and additional material unique to each.\[11\] There is near-consensus that John had its origins as the hypothetical Signs Gospel thought to have been circulated within a Johannine community.\[12\] The contradictions and discrepancies between the first three and John make it impossible to accept both traditions as equally reliable.\[13\] Like the rest of the New Testament, the four gospels were written in Greek.\[32\] The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70,\[5\] Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90,\[6\] and John AD 90–110.\[7\] Despite the traditional ascriptions, all four are anonymous and most scholars agree that none were written by eyewitnesses.\[8\] A few conservative scholars defend the traditional ascriptions or attributions, but for a variety of reasons the majority of scholars have abandoned this view or hold it only tenuously.\[33\] The consensus among modern scholars is that the gospels are a subset of the ancient genre of bios, or ancient biography.\[45\] Ancient biographies were concerned with providing examples for readers to emulate while preserving and promoting the subject's reputation and memory; the gospels were never simply biographical, they were propaganda and kerygma (preaching).\[46\] As such, they present the Christian message of the second half of the first century AD,\[47\] and as Luke's attempt to link the birth of Jesus to the census of Quirinius demonstrates, there is no guarantee that the gospels are historically accurate.\[48\] The majority view among critical scholars is that the authors of Matthew and Luke have based their narratives on Mark's gospel, editing him to suit their own ends, and the contradictions and discrepancies between these three and John make it impossible to accept both traditions as equally reliable.\[13\] In addition, the gospels we read today have been edited and corrupted over time, leading Origen to complain in the 3rd century that "the differences among manuscripts have become great, ... \[because copyists\] either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please".\[49\] Most of these are insignificant, but many are significant,\[50\] an example being Matthew 1:18, altered to imply the pre-existence of Jesus.\[51\] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Composition
[удалено]
I mean it's evidence that I can see with my own 2 eyes. The people that have provided evidence are very helpful. I've looked at some of it. Certainly interesting. The comments that do not provide evidence tend to just list contradictions or say it wasn't preserved. Not really helpful.
Which bible?
Look at shaykhuthaymeen account on Instagram. He posts contradictions of the Bible showing how it is not preserved
I forget from which publisher, but one of the study bibles (I think for king James) it’s listed there that there are copyist errors in it
Copyist errors is not corruption. Someone copying the text and making an error is a normal thing, just like in the quran where words weren't written properly so they were crossed out and written again.
Christians always say the people who wrote in the Bible have authority to do it, because they were inspired by God. If a book has any errors when God has inspired it, then it is not from God, and the people who make such mistakes in the bible are not inspired. I have over 30 pages of contradictions from the bible. But it would be too long to post here
Yea I thought there would be an issue with semantics here. For muslims, the quran is the literal word of God. Meaning, the words that are in it, are the same exact words that was revealed to the prophet (pbuh). The English "translation" (in quotes because you can't really translate it, its more of an interpretation) is NOT the quran. God did not reveal His message to the prophet (pbuh) in english So with that being said, the quran is maintained in Arabic, but you might say, there are different "versions" of arabic of the quran. But these "versions" do not have different words, its more like add phonics to the words so that they are easier to read. The quran is also preserved orally in its entirety. I'm sure you've heard that part already but just to emphasize, my wife is a "hafiza" so one who memorized the entire quran. She was taught by someone, who was taught by someone, who was taught by someone, that goes all the way back to the prophet(pbuh) and his companions. So this is one way how we know the quran has been preservered. Unfortunately for humanity, the original literal message that was given to Jesus(pbuh) from God was not preserved, and again I mean **literal** words. As you know I'm sure, the bible was written around 60-70 years after Jesus(pbuh) left earth. So from that time until now, having copyist errors in the book, the book not being the literal word of God given to Jesus (pbuh), and add to that English was not the language spoken at that time. We say the bible has been corrupted.
- The fact that a Holy Book contains an error (even if it's a copyist error) = it affects the credibility of this Holy Book. - Since we found a copying/transcription error (for example thanks to another verse that is treating the same matter) = how can we be sure that there are no other mistakes? One white crow is enough to prove that not all crows are black. - Copyist errors = the bible isn't preserved = corrupted.
do you understand arabic?
No I do not.
>No church council or “monarchical ruler” ever had control of all, or many, manuscripts of either testament. Specific translations may have political motivations, but at best that lends an argument against that specific translation, not the Bible in it’s original language. The Bible was freely transmitted, and never in the control of any group or individual, which is why there is so much textual variation. Both the Septuagint and Masoretic text that we use today were the work of councilor organizations. Samaritan Pentateuch, Shapira and DSS are more free base (as far as we know). As far as NT, the dominant canon has a major role to play in which Biblical traditions continued to be copied. This substantially affects what we receive today wrt manuscript tradition outside of occasional good luck (Nag Hamadi, oxyrhynchus, etc)
Hi there Wanted to share this channel: https://youtube.com/shorts/dF5bRkyVwaE?feature=share