Islam and corruption in the bible

[Hypatia]

Bottom line: every muslim that I recall believes the Bible is corrupted.

I, on the other hand, can’t think, at least off the top of my head, of such a claim among the great classical scholars of Islam: Arabi, Ghazali, Ibn’Sina, Suhrawardi, Mulla Sadra, etc.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

I, on the other hand, can’t think, at least off the top of my head, of such a claim among the great classical scholars of Islam: Arabi, Ghazali, Ibn’Sina, Suhrawardi, Mulla Sadra, etc.

Not all Muslims argue in that way. It is, however, a heavy argument among some of Muslim apologetics, as posters like Hamba show. It is also recorded as early as the 8th century AD by Saint John Damascene, a Christian who worked for a Muslim court, and whom wrote regarding his dialogue with Muslims:

Moreover, they call us Hetaeriasts, or Associators, because, they say, we introduce an associate with God by declaring Christ to the Son of God and God. We say to them in rejoinder: ‘The Prophets and the Scriptures have delivered this to us, and you, as you persistently maintain, accept the Prophets. So, if we wrongly declare Christ to be the Son of God, it is they who taught this and handed it on to us.’ But some of them say that it is by misinterpretation that we have represented the Prophets as saying such things, while others say that the Hebrews hated us and deceived us by writing in the name of the Prophets so that we might be lost. [St. John Damascene, *Fount of Knowledge; source; emphasis mine]

 

[Nine_Two]

And I go back to my question, if the bible is not corrupt, how do Muslims answer for contradictions between it and the Koran. Jesus clearly states that he is God (Before Abraham was, I am (conf. Burning bush)). Yet the Koran clearly states he is a prophet.

Both cannot be right, which is wrong? How does that not count as corruption?

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Yep. I forgot about that myth, which seemed to really get legs with the internet. Unfortunately, too many christians are not familiar enough with that council. I believe the big question there was the divinity of Christ and the Trinity, was it not, affirmed 308 to 1 or something?

I think the final vote was like 316-2 or something like that. A lot of people - Mormons, atheists, Muslims, etc - like to try to make it seem like there was a deadlock that Constantine had to break, but that wasn’t the case. Also, the council was on whether or not Christ was of the same substance (or essence) of the Father, and whether Christ was Creator or Creation (Arius argued that “there was a time when the Son was not”). A lot of people misquote Arius and argue that he said Christ was just a man and not a divine being, but that’s not the case - in fact, modern day Jehovah’s Witnesses believe in a kind of distorted form of Arianism.

This isn’t too related to the OP topic, however, as I said, the council had absolutely nothing to do with scripture and the formation of the Bible, and to argue that the scripture was tarnished there is erroneous.

Another good point. Or they mention the Catholic Bible has 7 more OT books. I can’t think of a single, significant doctrinal difference based on different translations or the 7 OT books.

Regarding the textual variants between the many manuscripts and whether they infer any real corruption, I often argue this way: pick up an NASB (which is based off of the Alexandrian family of manuscripts) and read the NT…then pick up a NKJV (which is based off of the Byzantine family of manuscripts) and read the NT - then come back and tell me if you notice any wildly different theological beliefs present in either. Unless you’re a KJV-Only person, you won’t find any. Both families of manuscripts, separated by hundreds upon hundreds of years, still teach the same theology.

 

[Nine_Two]

There were three votes for Arius. Don’t ask me how I remember this when I can’t even remember any other votes, but there was Arius and two others.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

And I go back to my question, if the bible is not corrupt, how do Muslims answer for contradictions between it and the Koran. Jesus clearly states that he is God (Before Abraham was, I am (conf. Burning bush)). Yet the Koran clearly states he is a prophet.

Both cannot be right, which is wrong? How does that not count as corruption?

It ultimately boils down to circular reasoning, unfortunately. If you are presenting what you believe is revelation in line with two other groups, but their scripture contradicts what you have, you have to argue for corruption in order to substantiate yourself. The Bible is therefore read through the lens of the Quran, rather than the other way around, as it should be.

Actually another point regarding the Muslim argument of corruption - even the early Muslims argued this.

Narrated 'Ubaidullah bin 'Abdullah:
'Abdullah bin 'Abbas said, "O the group of Muslims! How can you ask the people of the Scriptures about anything while your Book which Allah has revealed to your Prophet contains the most recent news from Allah and is pure and not distorted? Allah has told you that the people of the Scriptures have changed some of Allah’s Books and distorted it and wrote something with their own hands and said, 'This is from Allah, so as to have a minor gain for it. Won’t the knowledge that has come to you stop you from asking them? No, by Allah, we have never seen a man from them asking you about that (the Book Al-Qur’an ) which has been revealed to you. [Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 93, Number 614; emphasis mine]

 

[Hypatia]

And I go back to my question, if the bible is not corrupt, how do Muslims answer for contradictions between it and the Koran. Jesus clearly states that he is God (Before Abraham was, I am (conf. Burning bush)). Yet the Koran clearly states he is a prophet.

Both cannot be right, which is wrong? How does that not count as corruption?

Well, in answering this question I can’t really claim to be representing anyone in the Muslim community but me…

But the question of corruption and the question of the reliability of, for instance, the Gospel of John for constructing an image of the historical Jesus, are, to my mind two entirely separate questions.

When Muslims charge that the various texts of the Bible have been corrupted they usually mean that there was some original pure text(s) that contain the revelation of Jesus that has, since, been perverted into the texts that we know. As many people have related, there seems to be no evidence of that. Textual variations are minor and not terribly significant, and anyone can take a look and see what kinds of textual variations we are aware of.

But, is the Gospel of John a reliable source for constructing an image of the historical Jesus … has anyone thought so since before Albert Schweitzer? Even Meier’s Marginal Jew, a contemporary Catholic scholar whose reconstruction of Jesus is thought of as leaning toward a more traditional portrayal, cautions against relying heavily on John. Or, Raymond Brown, who is generally thought of as a very conservative historian and was also a devout Catholic and one of the preeminent scholars on the Gospel of John, expressed his own doubts that Jesus ever identified himself as God, saying that these kinds of claims arose out of the early Christian community.

So it is one thing to say that you have a text, in the form it was originally written, faithfully representing Johannine Christianity; it is another entirely to say that that text provides useful knowledge about Jesus.

The Synoptics remain the best historical source material on Jesus (pbuh), and they still pose all sorts of problems for the historian.

 

[Nine_Two]

Well, in answering this question I can’t really claim to be representing anyone in the Muslim community but me…

But the question of corruption and the question of the reliability of, for instance, the Gospel of John for constructing an image of the historical Jesus, are, to my mind two entirely separate questions.

When Muslims charge that the various texts of the Bible have been corrupted they usually mean that there was some original pure text(s) that contain the revelation of Jesus that has, since, been perverted into the texts that we know. As many people have related, there seems to be no evidence of that. Textual variations are minor and not terribly significant, and anyone can take a look and see what kinds of textual variations we are aware of.

But, is the Gospel of John a reliable source for constructing an image of the historical Jesus … has anyone thought so since before Albert Schweitzer? Even Meier’s Marginal Jew, a contemporary Catholic scholar whose reconstruction of Jesus is thought of as leaning toward a more traditional portrayal, cautions against relying heavily on John. Or, Raymond Brown, who is generally thought of as a very conservative historian and was also a devout Catholic and one of the preeminent scholars on the Gospel of John, expressed his own doubts that Jesus ever identified himself as God, saying that these kinds of claims arose out of the early Christian community.

So it is one thing to say that you have a text, in the form it was originally written, faithfully representing Johannine Christianity; it is another entirely to say that that text provides useful knowledge about Jesus.

The Synoptics remain the best historical source material on Jesus (pbuh), and they still pose all sorts of problems for the historian.

Interesting, so you’re saying that instead of being corrupted, they were useless to begin with. While you attack the Gospel of John, you’ve left yourself room to go after the synoptics as well. The problem is the synoptics present the same problem. For example Matthew 13:35 attributes Psalm 77(78):2 to Christ, even though in the context of the psalm it is clear God is the subject.
Further does the Koran not say that Jesus mearely appeared to be crucified, while all four Gospels, including the synoptics, say he was crucified?

We are thus left with three propositions: The Bible is worthless, The bible is corrupt, or the Koran is worthless.

Now you clearly deny those last two so we are left with the argument that the bible is worthless.

So we have another problem, the Koran is clear that Christians are “People of the Book”, and makes mention that they hold a revelation from the “prophet” Jesus.
That’s all well and good, but as we’ve just seen from what you argued, the Christians don’t actually hold a revelation from Jesus, they hold a bunch of books with made up stuff in them.

Therefore, by your own argument the koran is in error.

Now as a Muslim you most certainly can’t hold this belief, so I would ask that if you want to continue on this line, show me exactly where my syllogism erronous.

 

[abucs]

Thanks for the info on the council vote - i didn’t realise it was that dominant.

I think John is quite reliable. There are lots of secular writers these days who try to cast doubts on John as an Apostle and author of the 4th Gospel.

I think it basically boils down to a bad arguement by them to deal with the synoptics as not written by Matthew, Mark and Luke and downplay any allusion to Christ’s divinity as “add-ons”.

With John, they can’t do that, so they simply refuse to accept John as the author/speaker behind that Gospel with no credible arguements that i can see.

 

[hamba2han]

Not to disrespect,but maybe the Lord wanted to communicate something else but you misunderstood. In any way you read the verse, it does not make sense to switch from 1st person to 3rd person in the same sentence unless the author inadvertently wanted to mean something else.

I understand the use of ‘we’ instead of ‘I’ for respect or glorification but in verse 14 it should continue to use ‘we’ instead of reverting to Allah in the same sentence.

Sorry to get off topic.

Hi Hamba,

are you able to show/cite pre Koranic Arabic verses which would support this established Arabic literary style ?

If not, is there evidence for a similar literary style at the same time (or a little after) the Koran was delivered ?

Thanks.

I think the answers to both of your questions can only be given by someone who is well versed in the Arabic language, specifically the form and style of the Arabic used in the Qur’an, of which I am unfortunately NOT an authority on… Sorry.

However, the good news is that I can suggest a website where you can learn more on the literary form and style of the Qur’an.

 

[schaick]

The Quran confirms the Holy Bible, or at least the Torah and Gospel.

2:87 We gave Moses the Book and followed him up with a succession of messengers; We gave Jesus the son of Mary Clear and strengthened him with the holy spirit. Is it that whenever there comes to you a messenger with what ye yourselves desire not, ye are puffed up with pride?- Some ye called impostors, and others ye slay!

2:136 Say ye: “We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma’il, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them: And we bow to Allah.”

3:3 It is He Who sent down to thee, in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law and the Gospel before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion.

5:44 That We descended the Torah/Old Testament, in it guidance and light, the prophets those who submitted/surrendered , judge/rule with it, to those who guided/Jews , and the knowledgeable Lord worshippers , and the religious scholars with what they memorized/safe kept from God’s Book , and they were not on it witnessing/present ; so do not fear the people and fear Me, and do not buy/volunteer with My signs/verses a small price, and who does not judge/rule with what God descended, so those, they are the disbelievers.

5:46 And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah.

5:47 And the New Testament’s/Bible’s people should judge/rule with what God descended in it, and who does not judge/rule with what God descended, so those, they are the debauchers

5:48 To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If Allah had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allah; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute;

5.66 If only they had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side. There is from among them a party on the right course: but many of them follow a course that is evil.

5:68 Say: “O People of the Book! ye have no ground to stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord.” It is the revelation that cometh to thee from thy Lord, that increaseth in most of them their obstinate rebellion and blasphemy. But sorrow thou not over people without Faith.

6:154 Moreover, We gave Moses the Book, completing to those who would do right, and explaining all things in detail,- and a guide and a mercy, that they might believe in the meeting with their Lord.

This is the oddest verse- the Quran a fuller explaination then the Holy Bible!?
10:37 This Qur’an is not such as can be produced by other than Allah; on the contrary it is a confirmation of that went before it, and a fuller explanation of the Book - wherein there is no doubt - from the Lord of the worlds.

 

[hamba2han]

As to your last three paragraphs…Bull-loney.
I’ve seen this muslim slight-of-hand pulled before. Lifting quotes out of context to imply something a person DID NOT say is not uncommon. And those are not “renown Christian scholars” you refer to in your “alerations” link from islamreligion.com.

**18. The Jews and Christians say: We are sons of Allah and His loved ones. Say; Why then does He punish you for your sins? **

What does that (the part I underlined) mean exactly?

**14. “And from those who said: ‘We are Christians,’ We took their Covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message which was sent to them. Therefore We have stirred up enmity and hatred among them till the Day of Resurrection, and Allah will inform them of what they used to do.

**Forgot? Forgot what? What Mohammad said they forgot?
And “stirred up hate”? Like the sins of hate and anger are exclusive to Jews and Christians? The muslim world is immune to it?

15. O people of the Scripture! Now has Our messenger (Muhammad) come to you, explaining to you much of that which you used to hide in the Scripture, and forgiving much. Indeed, there has come to you a light from Allah and a plain Scripture.

Who exactly is “you” that “hid” scripture? God didn’t protect Jesus’ Gospel just as Christ himself promised? Please provide a copy of the original “hidden scripture.”

Christ said explicitly more than once He was the Son of God who would die for us and rise from the dead. He said those that those who do not believe in Him do not know him. You and your so-called source do not know Him, so you are unqualified totalk about anything regarding Him and His church.

What you are asking for is a tafsir i.e explanation and clarification of the Qur’an and therefore I would recommend that you refer to this website for any explanations and clarifications that you might want to learn about concerning specific verses or passages of the Qur’an.

 

[LtTony]

What you are asking for is a tafsir i.e explanation and clarification of the Qur’an and therefore I would recommend that you refer to this website for any explanations and clarifications that you might want to learn about concerning specific verses or passages of the Qur’an.

Tafsir? LOL. I’m not asking for more legalism. I’m asking for a simple, brief explanation of the verses – either your own opinion or that of mainstream islam.
You should be able to give your opinion. I mean, after all, you were the one that posted them. Are you saying you have no idea what they mean?

Otherwise I will just consider you dishonest and insincere in your conversations here.

 

[LtTony]

However, the more pertinent question would be → Would these judges who are presiding over the case in this Western Court of Law, themselves end up in Paradise or the Hell-fire?

Only God can answer that, wouldn’t you say?

What if they are sincere, fair and honest, and ruled only based on the law they were sworn to uphold?

 

[LtTony]

Regardless of corruptions in the Koran, I’m still waiting to hear evidence that the bible is corrupt, and if it is not corrupt, why it blatently contradicts the koran?

You may want to consider posting this question on another site where you might reach more muslims posters. However, what you het isn’t going to be much different that what has been expressed here, imo.
Bottom line: someone who denies the death and resurrection of Christ has an agenda. They do not *know *Christ. The deniers would have to first disprove 1.) the death of Christ, and 2.) His resurrection, before I would examine their claims any more than I have.
Anything else and you’re putting the cart before the horse.

 

[planten]

My expalantions are in blue color.

Originally Posted by LtTony
As to your last three paragraphs…Bull-loney.
I’ve seen this muslim slight-of-hand pulled before. Lifting quotes out of context to imply something a person DID NOT say is not uncommon. And those are not “renown Christian scholars” you refer to in your “alerations” link from islamreligion.com.

18. The Jews and Christians say: We are sons of Allah and His loved ones. Say; Why then does He punish you for your sins?

What does that (the part I underlined) mean exactly?

Tony, it is simple. The Jews and the christians used to say that they were the children of God. Quran says,okay, accepted. But then why God (Allah) punsihes you, if you are the sons of God?? Nobody punishes his beloved sons. Can you understand that please. If Jews and the christians are the beloved sons of God then they should not suffer, should not be punished.

14. “And from those who said: ‘We are Christians,’ We took their Covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message which was sent to them. Therefore We have stirred up enmity and hatred among them till the Day of Resurrection, and Allah will inform them of what they used to do.

Forgot? Forgot what? What Mohammad said they forgot?
And “stirred up hate”? Like the sins of hate and anger are exclusive to Jews and Christians? The muslim world is immune to it?

**Allah took a covenant (firm oath) from the christians too. The oath is not described here. But the christias forgot a good part of the message that was given to them through Jesus. They got divided into factions and sections, even became Protestants. There is evident enmity between the christians today and it will remain till the day of judgement. That is the enmity or hatred towards each other.

(Pardon. At some place on the net, I read an article in which some one protestant was abusing the Pope very much, that was not tolerable.)

Allah says that He (God) will inform each party on the day of judgement about what they used to do., about what they had been doing. They cannot understand and sort out the truth in this world. They will be informed of their relative mistakes (crimes) on the day of judgement.**

15. O people of the Scripture! Now has Our messenger (Muhammad) come to you, explaining to you much of that which you used to hide in the Scripture, and forgiving much. Indeed, there has come to you a light from Allah and a plain Scripture.

Who exactly is “you” that “hid” scripture? God didn’t protect Jesus’ Gospel just as Christ himself promised? Please provide a copy of the original “hidden scripture.”

**“You” means the people of the book i.e. Jews and the Christians. Guidance was given to the Jews care of Moses. But anybody can read their history in the bibleOT. How much misguided they were even from the time of Moses. Later they suffered much.They were defeated, misplaced, displaced, taken away as prisoners, punished… all is well known. That was all due to mishandling the scripture and disobedience.

Same thing happened to the christians. 300 years running around, hiding in caves, struggling hard. But during that time, even long before that, much of the original message of Jesus was lost. They were punished, persecuted under the Jews and the Romans.**

Christ said explicitly more than once He was the Son of God who would die for us and rise from the dead. He said those that those who do not believe in Him do not know him. You and your so-called source do not know Him, so you are unqualified totalk about anything regarding Him and His church

.

Perhaps Jesus said it once or twice. But what did he mean? He also said “You are all sons of God.” What did he mean and what meaning you are trying to derive? Literal meaning or spiritual meaning?? Since I do not agree to your belief at all, so I will not comment on what you have said. NO hard feelings please. You asked. I have replied.

 

[Nine_Two]

Planten, I’m curious what your opinion on the subject of this thread is. You said in another thread that God would never allow his holy words to be corrupted, perhaps you would explain the contradictions.

 

[dzheremi]

Planten, you really had me hopeful that you had stopped this silly fonts and colors business, but now you’re back to different colors, sizes, etc. Knock it off already! Either post with the regular font or don’t post at all.

Tony, it is simple. The Jews and the christians used to say that they were the children of God. Quran says,okay, accepted. But then why God (Allah) punsihes you, if you are the sons of God?? Nobody punishes his beloved sons. Can you understand that please. If Jews and the christians are the beloved sons of God then they should not suffer, should not be punished.

If this was coming from any poster but you, I’d have to say it’s the silliest thing you’ve ever written. As it is, it’s par for the course. From a so-called holy book, such argumentation is absolutely unacceptable. “Sons of God” cannot be punished because no father ever punishes his beloved sons? Boy, I wish I had grown up in your house! As to the truth of your interpretation, it is written in the Bible that he who withholds his rod hates his son, but he who loves him disciplines him diligently (Proverbs 13:24; the source of the saying “Spare the rod, spoil the child”). Apparently you, and more troubling the author of the Qur’an, were unaware of that particular verse, as well as the overall pro-corporeal punishment stance of much of the OT.

Allah says that He (God) will inform each party on the day of judgement about what they used to do., about what they had been doing. They cannot understand and sort out the truth in this world. They will be informed of their relative mistakes (crimes) on the day of judgement.

Let me see if I understand this: God will inform the people of what they used to do. They cannot understand what they should have been doing so as to reform themselves while they’re still here. They just have to wait for God to come and tell them how bad they’ve been once it is too late to do anything about it? **How cruel and sadistic is Islam’s God?! **

“You” means the people of the book i.e. Jews and the Christians. Guidance was given to the Jews care of Moses. But anybody can read their history in the bibleOT. How much misguided they were even from the time of Moses.

They were even misguided in the time of Moses? How does this make sense in light of the Islamic claim that Moses, Jesus, etc. were all Muslims and taught Islam? Were Moses, Jesus, et al. such bad prophets that they couldn’t straighten out their followers even while they were still among them? Was “Islam” in such bad shape in those days, even as the traditional Islamic view says that the original followers of the Biblical prophets as well as the prophets themselves were all Muslims?

Nothing that you say makes any sense.

 

[Nine_Two]

You may want to consider posting this question on another site where you might reach more muslims posters. However, what you het isn’t going to be much different that what has been expressed here, imo.

I meant to respond to this when I was asking Planten that question -

This is actually pretty much what I expected from this thread. I had hoped there would be some straight answers, but didn’t expect them.

 

[planten]

Planten, you really had me hopeful that you had stopped this silly fonts and colors business, but now you’re back to different colors, sizes, etc. Knock it off already! Either post with the regular font or don’t post at all.

dzhereme, when ther eis amixture of mor ethan two posts, I try to make things clear by my way.

If this was coming from any poster but you, I’d have to say it’s the silliest thing you’ve ever written. As it is, it’s par for the course. From a so-called holy book, such argumentation is absolutely unacceptable. “Sons of God” cannot be punished because no father ever punishes his beloved sons? Boy, I wish I had grown up in your house! As to the truth of your interpretation, it is written in the Bible that he who withholds his rod hates his son, but he who loves him disciplines him diligently (Proverbs 13:24; the source of the saying “Spare the rod, spoil the child”). Apparently you, and more troubling the author of the Qur’an, were unaware of that particular verse, as well as the overall pro-corporeal punishment stance of much of the OT.

It appears that you had more problems with my posts, over and above the fonts and the colors. You cannot understand the meaning of Beloved son. A beloved son will not do bad things as to deserve punisment.

Let me see if I understand this: God will inform the people of what they used to do. They cannot understand what they should have been doing so as to reform themselves while they’re still here. They just have to wait for God to come and tell them how bad they’ve been once it is too late to do anything about it? **How cruel and sadistic is Islam’s God?! **

Try hard to understand it. God did not want the followers of Jesus to disperse and disagree.He gave true guidance to Jews through Jesus. They disagreed to Jesus. Those who agreed to Jesus also forgot the real message and went into man God and son God.

God did not intend that. But God had free will to mankind to do good or do bad. Can you please understand it. The guidance given to Jews was perfect. But what did they do?? If they had remained on right path, there would have been no need for your God Jesus to come. So how and why did God allowed Jews to pervert the message?? Can you understand??

They were even misguided in the time of Moses? How does this make sense in light of the Islamic claim that Moses, Jesus, etc. were all Muslims and taught Islam? Were Moses, Jesus, et al. such bad prophets that they couldn’t straighten out their followers even while they were still among them? Was “Islam” in such bad shape in those days, even as the traditional Islamic view says that the original followers of the Biblical prophets as well as the prophets themselves were all Muslims?

Nothing that you say makes any sense.

The Jews were misguided in the life time of Moses. They did many bad things, such as idolatory, worshipping the Calf, disobeying Aaron, etc. That was while Moses was alive. Then the Jews refused to enter into their promised land when Moses ordered them to do so. That was disobedience.

The rest of the story should be well known to christians, as to what happened in the time of jesus. Were the Jews at that time on right track?? If they were ignorant or misled then dzhereme, you please reply to me “Why did God allow them to be misled?”