WHY do Muslims believe the text of the Bible has been corrupted?

[ironsides]

A very interesting question was asked on another thread about the Torah and the Quran, I think a better question would have been: WHY do Muslims believe the text of the Bible has been corrupted?


WHY do YOU believe the Bible text has been corrupted?
WHY do you believe Ibn-Khazem rather then the witness of the Quran,
the word of Muhammad, and these 10 great Muslim scholars who
all believed the Bible texts to be truthful?


On the alleged corruption of the Bible

 

[Tonington]

A very interesting question was asked on another thread about the Torah and the Quran, I think a better question would have been: WHY do Muslims believe the text of the Bible has been corrupted?http://www.answering-islam.org/Bible/jrwhy.html

The Quran explicitly states that the Torah and the Bible are also the word of God. Yet there are clear differences between the practices of the three versions. How else to explain the differences except to say that the followers have either misinterpreted what God told them, or to say that those followers have corrupted the word of God?

 

[Machjo]

Among Muslim scholars, there is considerable debate on this. Muhammad did refer to the corruption of the Bible, but while some say he meant corruption in the sense of having modified the actual text of the Bible, others say that it's referring to people saying things about the Bible that aren't true.

Most mainstream Mulims take the first interpretation, that the actual text of the Bible is now unreliable. It's also an easy way to squirm out of any real debate with Christians and Jews.

Among Muslim scholars though, opinion is more divided with some saying that with the exception of some parts, most of the Bible is still reliable today, and they defend that point by saying that if that were not the case, the Qur'an would never have advised that Muslims read the Bible.

So there is debate with regards to the meaning of 'corruption'.

 

[ironsides]

The Quran explicitly states that the Torah and the Bible are also the word of God. Yet there are clear differences between the practices of the three versions. How else to explain the differences except to say that the followers have either misinterpreted what God told them, or to say that those followers have corrupted the word of God?

Yet, the Torah remains unchanged word for word. You can take a Torah from 1000 years ago and since they are copied by hand word for word, symbol by symbol there should be no change. Which came first, the Torah or the Bible (Old Testament), they are both the same..

 

[Machjo]

Yet, the Torah remains unchanged word for word. You can take a Torah from 1000 years ago and since they are copied by hand word for word, symbol by symbol there should be no change. Which came first, the Torah or the Bible (Old Testament), they are both the same..

Strictly speaking the Torah is the first five Books of the Bible, though it's sometimes used loosely to refer to the whole Hebrew Bible or the Mosaic Law or the Jewish Faith.

As for alterations in the Bible, even Christian scholars acknowledge that there are certain variations in the Bible. One of many example even Christians accept is found the last verse of the Lord's Prayer, which can vary from Bible to Bible.

 

[ironsides]

Strictly speaking the Torah is the first five Books of the Bible, though it's sometimes used loosely to refer to the whole Hebrew Bible or the Mosaic Law or the Jewish Faith.

As for alterations in the Bible, even Christian scholars acknowledge that there are certain variations in the Bible. One of many example even Christians accept is found the last verse of the Lord's Prayer, which can vary from Bible to Bible.

The Lords Prayer is from the New Testament or Christian part of the Bible.


Notice one commonality, both Moses and Muhammad found God on on a mountain or in a cave on a mountain.

 

[Cliffy]

For the immediate evidence of tampering with the bible, just take the Catholic, King James, J.W. and some modern day version touted by Born again Christians. Do a page by page comparison. The differences in meanings becomes very apparent very quickly. The differences may not be apparent in the original texts but the translations are all over the map.

 

[Machjo]

For the immediate evidence of tampering with the bible, just take the Catholic, King James, J.W. and some modern day version touted by Born again Christians. Do a page by page comparison. The differences in meanings becomes very apparent very quickly. The differences may not be apparent in the original texts but the translations are all over the map.

I wasn't referring to differences in translation. I was referring to differences in original texts. Just to take one example:

Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

From the Authorized Version translated from the Textus Receptus.

And...

Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come,
your will be done
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread.
Forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from the evil one.

From the New International Version, translated from the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament.

While most of the differences in the two comparisons are strictly stylistic, you'll notice that the last sentence has a part that is not at all present in the second version.

For a more complete list, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_variants_in_the_New_Testament

And that's just the New Testament. Yet surprisingly enough, few of the variants touch on major religious questions and seem more stylistic in nature, and that's why many would still consider the Bible to be reasonably reliable in spite of the variants.

 

[MHz]

All those variations have separate copyrights, to get a new copyright enough phrases and words have to be slightly different., Verses can mess up a doctrine or the original meaning fortunately doctrine is based on passages which are a lot harder to mess up, accidentally or intentionally.



The translation issues it helps to promote the Quran as being less altered over the years. That may be but the NT trumps anything Jews or Muslims can come up with as to the details that the end times bring (that allows the use of the details in OT Prophecy to enhance what the NT dictates as sequence and time frames.

Anybody trying to find a way out of being shoved into one of those 7 Churches at the beginning of Revelation is wasting their time and energy.

 

[ironsides]

The King James version and all of the New Testament Bibles have been written, rewritten till we have no idea what was originally said. As for the Lords Prayer, it is a Christian prayer and as was mentioned has different words within the Christian church.
I was referring to the Old Testament, the Bible of Moses, the Bible that was written from the Torah or vice versa. 1,800 years of being unchanged word for word.

 

[MHz]

The King James version and all of the New Testament Bibles have been written, rewritten till we have no idea what was originally said. As for the Lords Prayer, it is a Christian prayer and as was mentioned has different words within the Christian church.
I was referring to the Old Testament, the Bible of Moses, the Bible that was written from the Torah or vice versa. 1,800 years of being unchanged word for word.

There is always the 1611 edition of the KJV, I don't know anybody who uses anything different when trying to explain the OP and NT Prophecies. As it is I have no idea how somebody can promote some things so far out of their stated order and still expect people to take them seriously, in this case it is specifically about certain prophecies and how they play out according the vid 'Waiting for Armageddon'

 

[Machjo]

There is always the 1611 edition of the KJV, I don't know anybody who uses anything different when trying to explain the OP and NT Prophecies. As it is I have no idea how somebody can promote some things so far out of their stated order and still expect people to take them seriously, in this case it is specifically about certain prophecies and how they play out according the vid 'Waiting for Armageddon'

Again, I wasn't referring to the translated versions but rather the original ones. For instance, the King James version is translated from the Textus Receptus, whereas the New International Version is translated from the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament. So clearly if they're translated from different original texts, then the translated texts will be different too. And these are just two versions of the original Greek texts.

 

[MHz]

Again, I wasn't referring to the translated versions but rather the original ones. For instance, the King James version is translated from the Textus Receptus, whereas the New International Version is translated from the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament. So clearly if they're translated from different original texts, then the translated texts will be different too. And these are just two versions of the original Greek texts.

I would suggest you read the preface to the KJV1611 edition, they are quite specific in which texts they used and why. Ever notice that (say you consider the OT to be faithfully recopied) they have a hard time understanding what it says, Jesus blew right past the most learned members of their Temple staff. That would also point to a human component.

 

[L Gilbert]

A very interesting question was asked on another thread about the Torah and the Quran, I think a better question would have been: WHY do Muslims believe the text of the Bible has been corrupted?

I don't know. As both are products of humans, IMO, both are corrupted. lol

WHY do YOU believe the Bible text has been corrupted?

It was written by humans. It was written by humans thousands of years ago for people of those times. So there's a lot of nonsense in it however much people of those days believed in dum things like talking, burning bushes and feeding thousands with 5 fish and a couple loaves of bread (the "fish" must have been whales and I can't imagine the size of the loaves of bread).

WHY do you believe Ibn-Khazem rather then the witness of the Quran,
the word of Muhammad, and these 10 great Muslim scholars who
all believed the Bible texts to be truthful?


On the alleged corruption of the Bible

I don't.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

I think everybody trying to offer an opinion on the alleged corruption of the Bible ought to read Dr. Bart Ehrman's book Misquoting Jesus. The man's been a serious biblical scholar for 30 years and he's an expert in textual criticism, not to be lightly dismissed. He makes the point that we don't have the original manuscripts, so we don't actually know what they said. Claiming the originals were divinely inspired isn't helpful if we don't have them, unless we can reconstruct them. In trying to reconstruct them from the sources we do have (that's what textual criticism's about) it's obvious that the text has been deliberately modified by scribes, to clarify or emphasize doctrinal points, align it with the dogma of the times, and make it conform to earlier prophecy. Would that quality as corruption of the text? It seems self-evident to me that if the originals were divinely inspired and the deity wanted us to have the message preserved in its original form, he certainly could have ensured the originals were preserved. Evidently he didn't; I can think of no more cogent argument for the position that the scriptures are the work of men, not god, and always have been, including the originals.

 

[MHz]

I think everybody trying to offer an opinion on the alleged corruption of the Bible ought to read Dr. Bart Ehrman's book Misquoting Jesus. The man's been a serious biblical scholar for 30 years and he's an expert in textual criticism, not to be lightly dismissed. He makes the point that we don't have the original manuscripts, so we don't actually know what they said. Claiming the originals were divinely inspired isn't helpful if we don't have them, unless we can reconstruct them. In trying to reconstruct them from the sources we do have (that's what textual criticism's about) it's obvious that the text has been deliberately modified by scribes, to clarify or emphasize doctrinal points, align it with the dogma of the times, and make it conform to earlier prophecy. Would that quality as corruption of the text? It seems self-evident to me that if the originals were divinely inspired and the deity wanted us to have the message preserved in its original form, he certainly could have ensured the originals were preserved. Evidently he didn't; I can think of no more cogent argument for the position that the scriptures are the work of men, not god, and always have been, including the originals.

That doesn't hold up if the purpose of the prophecies is a requirement rather than option. The Bible says God has to inform the ones about things He is going to do before He does them. The early parts of the Bible mention the end that Revelation covers. The basic message cannot be changed, salvation and even if it was a pristine set of Scriptures man might not understand them due to errors in their thinking rather than the problem being with the Book itself.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

... even if it was a pristine set of Scriptures man might not understand them due to errors in their thinking rather than the problem being with the Book itself.

Seems to me that an omnipotent deity ought to be able to write a clear message ordinary mortals can readily understand.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

For the immediate evidence of tampering with the bible, just take the Catholic, King James, J.W. and some modern day version touted by Born again Christians. Do a page by page comparison. The differences in meanings becomes very apparent very quickly. The differences may not be apparent in the original texts but the translations are all over the map.

Catholic, Protestant and Jewish Ten Commandments are different from each other.

 

[MHz]

Seems to me that an omnipotent deity ought to be able to write a clear message ordinary mortals can readily understand.

The message can easily be understood, two bruises have to happen, one to child of Eve's seed and the other to the Satan, before things are 'back on track'. The sequence is even given and it does point to one singular way that prophecies unfold. That men have made oodles of different doctrines would seem to mean men are a bigger problem to that understanding rather than God giving us texts that do nor fit together in just one way.

 

[ironsides]

Catholic, Protestant and Jewish Ten Commandments are different from each other.

Of course they are from the New Testament, a book changed and interpreted so many times like you change your socks. It has been changed in order to accommodate certain social, political situations and lets not forget the personal ambitions of a few despots thru out history..


Yet the order of the Ten Commandments may have changed, the meanings of them remain pretty much the same.