After carefully reading the posts to develop a better understanding of the Islamic point of view, it appears to come down to one knot. Muslims believe the Bible is corrupt only because Mohammed said so, that’s their only source.
although it’s enough for us that quran said that , but actually i never used quran verses to convince you that your bible corrupted
i don’t know how your carfully reading dosn’t see all what i quoted from christianity scholars writings
Are there any historical or archeological evidence to prove the Bible has been changed?
answering-christianity.com/CNN_Bible_July_2009.pdf
Commenting in his (Harold Liedner) 1999 book The Fabrication of the Christ Myth on the well-known Gospel story of the Gadarene swine, which rushed down a steep cliff and were drowned in the Sea of Galilee, the Jewish scholar Joseph Leidner points out that because Gadera is actually several kilometers away from the sea, the whole incident is evidence of either ignorance or total lack of concern with veridical history. Citing other similar examples, he writes, “From the evidence…**the blunt conclusion emerges that the Gospel writers did not know the geography and customs of the Holy Land, and did not know Judaism itself. **
They were working with source material having nothing to do with historical data of any kind. (ibid, p. 163)
Though Luke 1:5 dates the birth of Jesus in the “days of Herod, King of Judea,” who died in 4 B.C., he wants the journey from Galilee to Bethlehem to have occurred in response to a census called when “Quirinius was governor of Syria.” As historians know, “the one and only census conducted while Quirinius was legate in Syria affected only Judaea, not Galilee, and took place in A.D. 6-7, a good ten years after the death of Herod the Great.” In his anxiety to relate the Galilean upbringing with the supposed Bethlehem birth, Luke confused his facts. Indeed, Luke’s anxiety has involved him in some real absurdities, like the needless ninety mile journey of a woman in her last days of pregnancy - for it was the Davidic Joseph who supposedly had to be registered in the ancestral village, not the Levitical Mary. Worse yet, Luke has been forced to contrive a universal dislocation for a simple tax registration: who could imagine the efficient Romans requiring millions in the empire to journey scores of hundreds of miles to the villages of millennium-old ancestors merely to sign a tax from! Needless to say, no such event ever happened in the history of the Roman empire, but Micah 5:2 must be fulfilled. (Randel Helms, Gospel Fictions, pp. 59-60)
“…Luke tells how a decree went out from Augustus that “all the world should be registered”. The trouble is that there is absolutely no trace—in a well document period—of such a decree. It’s simply a means of getting Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem for theological reasons. The messiah had to be of Davidic descent, and thus from Bethlehem. Luke says the birth occurred while Quirinius was governor of Syria. That means it could not have happened before 6 C.E., the year we know he took office. At the same time, Matthew says Jesus was conceived while Herod the Great was in power in Judea. But Herod died in 4 B.C.E.! The authors of The Jesus Mysteries point out that Mary’s real miracle, if both references are taken genuinely, was “a 10-year pregnancy”. For Matthew, Jesus’ hometown was Bethlehem. For Luke, it was Nazareth. (Tom Harper, The Pagan Christ, pp. 125-126)
Examining Peter’s Christ-confession at Caesarea Philippi and the way it was presented by each Gospel writer enables us to see immediately that the Gospels are not biographies meant to be read as linear history. They are midrashic interpretations. Midrash is a way to incorporate timelessness into a sacred narrative.
(John Shelby Spong, Resurrection: Myth or Reality? p. 133)
well , i can quote many of things like that
i didn’t study those things myself , have no experience to do that , but my point is that those people didn’t depend on quran un thier studies
