God&Neighbor

This is part of a rather lengthy debate [updated 12.4.12], answering the charge that the ten books of Scripture that Muslims regard as originally true revelation from God are now corrupt in our modern Bibles. I argue that the Qur’an doesn’t record any of the corruption Muslim’s assert, but rather it favors the Torah, Psalms, and the Gospels. This discussion appeared on a Muslim site whose moderator stopped allowing my comments.

Muslim

You have to understand that [the] gospels are a cover up.

Christian

The Qur’an doesn’t speak of the Gospel of Jesus (Injil) as a cover up, but a true revelation from God sent for “guidance and light” (Sura 5:46). Likewise the Torah (Tawret) was sent for guidance and light, and God expects that the Scriptures would be protected and preserved (5:48). The scriptures were “granted inspiration”, and the people who possess them can attest to it (21:7). It’s actually under divine judgment that anyone who will “reject the Book” as the Qur’an warns in 40:70-72. Sura 10:94 bids us to ask those who read the Torah to confirm God’s revelation, and Sura 3:93 names the Torah as the book that “men of truth” study.

I understand that Islam teaches that the Torah, Psalms of David, and the Gospel were true in their original form but have been corrupted, at least where they contradict the Qur’an. My question for you is, when and how were these scriptures corrupted?

The Qur’an was “revealed” between 610 and 632 AD. Since the Qur’an regards these scriptures as true, and “guarded in safety” (5:48), they obviously weren’t corrupted BEFORE the Qur’an was written. The Scriptures could not have been corrupted AFTER the Qur’an either, since by 600 A.D., hundreds of thousands of copies were in circulation in Europe, Asia, Africa in many languages—Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Gothic, Ethiopic, Armenian, and others. The Bible we use now is translated from these early manuscripts, of which we have whole and portions of scripture numbering over 24,000, all of which agree more than 99.5%. How could ALL these manuscripts circulating by 600 A.D. have been CONSISTENTLY altered so they reflect the same corruption that Muslims claim must have occurred?

There simply is no opportunity for the Biblical scriptures to have been corrupted. The Qur’an is correct in its claim that the Bible is the true revelation of God, the same Bible we have today.

Muslim

But the Quran CLEARLY said that the Bible has been corrupted.

“Know they not Allah Knoweth what they conceal and what they reveal? And there are among them illiterates, who know not the Book but (see therein their own) desires, and they do nothing but conjecture. Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say: ‘This is from Allah,’ to traffic with it for a miserable price! Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.”
(The Noble Qur’an, 2:77-79)

Can anything any clearer than that??

Christian

That’s clear? Your answer actually creates more questions and problems with your conclusion. Does it make sense to let this one unclear verse guide the interpretation of the other verses that clearly regard the Torah and Gospels (i.e. 2:121, 5:46-48, 10:94), rather than allowing the many to guide the interpretation of 2:77-79? That’s a backwards approach. If the Torah and Gospels were corrupt, what sort of value would they have for guidance and light, truthfulness, and verification? Wouldn’t the previous revelations had to have been known in order to determine that they had been altered? And, clearly, if “they” are “illiterate” and “know not the Book”, how on earth would they able to alter it anyway?

Muslim commentators on Q 2:75-79 say that it was the Jews who corrupted their own Torah (source) and not Christians and the Gospels, nor would they have been able to alter the Hebrew scriptures that would have been in possession of the Christians (source). In addition to New Testament copies, there would have been many copies of the Hebrew Bible in circulation by this time also, and uniform alterations would not even be remotely possible.

At any rate, 2:77-79 does not say anything about altering text; it says “woe to those who write the Book with their own hands.” It’s apparently speaking of a new book someone tried to pass off as inspired revelation (which Rev. 22:18 warns against).

Muslim

Let me make this one clear for you, as it seems you parroting anti-islam  missionary claims: Do not think that Islam teaches that there once was an original Bible and then the Bible got corrupted. This is not what Islam teaches.

Muslims don’t believe that there was an original book of Philippians or Corinthians etc, which then later on got corrupted. We don’t even believe that these books are divine in the first place.

What muslims believe is that parts of the original revelations sent down to Moses (Torah) and Jesus (Gospel) peace be upon them both still exist in the Bible today. We believe that people came and wrote things from their own and claimed that it was from God. They then went and mixed their own writings with the original revelations (Torah and Gospel) and removed and added to them thats what the Quran speaks about.

This claim of textual corruption is understood by the prophet himself as well as his companions so muslims dont just make up this claim later on as we have some evidences not only from the Qur’an   but also from the Statements of the Prophet Muhammad himself,  from the statements of the companions of the Prophet Muhammad  and from The Statements of The Muslim Scholars.

You can read more in detail here: http://bitly.com/T4y8Uc

The Quran is correct, no credible Biblical scholar today will claim that the collection of wrtings known as the Bible was written or authorized by Jesus himself. They all agree that the Bible was written centuries after the departure of Jesus by unknown writers and they made many mistakes and changed the text.

Christian

“Do not think that Islam teaches that there once was an original Bible and then the Bible got corrupted.”

Well, that’s what YOU said actually: “But the Quran CLEARLY said that the Bible has been corrupted.” I did assume, however, that by “Bible” you meant Torah, the Gospels and David’s Psalms, since that is what the Qur’an speaks of for the most part and regards as truth, guidance and light.

“What muslims believe is that parts of the original revelations sent down to Moses (Torah) and Jesus (Gospel) peace be upon them both still exist in the Bible today. We believe that people came and wrote things from their own and claimed that it was from God. They then went and mixed their own writings with the original revelations (Torah and Gospel) and removed and added to them thats what the Quran speaks about.”

Q 2:77 speaks of “illiterates, who know not the Book” that write this supposedly corrupted book. How do people who can’t read or write, who are ignorant of what they are writing about, write a book? Right off the bat, the passage seems nonsensical.

Secondly, how can “the Book” refer to more than one book, as you say?

Even if we grant that these unidentified illiterates could read and write corrupted versions of the Torah and the Gospels, and that “the Book” can somehow mean multiple books, who do you think “they” were? The source that you copied and pasted much of your argument from, then referred me to, says they were the Jews AND Christians: “Jews and Christians textually corrupted their scriptures.” Obviously the Jews wouldn’t have had either the access to or even the interest in the New testament scriptures, so it would have had to be an effort of both a select group from among the Jews to corrupt the Torah and a select group from among the Christians to corrupt the Gospels. And no doubt that the puritan majority of each group would have fought the effort with everything they had and probably won. Is this really feasible? (And who corrupted the Psalms?)

The incredibly oversimplified statement, “they then went and mixed their own writings with the original revelations (Torah and Gospel) and removed and added to them,” glosses over what kind of undertaking this would be in reality. Whenever this corruption took place, the Jews would have had to replace the “original revelations” of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy and somehow destroy all subsequent copies, or enough subsequent copies, so that the corrupt versions would have been the ones that proliferated. And there is no single point in history where you could access an original of one revelation and not have to destroy numerous circulated copies of another, since these revelations came at different times. Meanwhile, the Christians, not likely in a collaborative effort with the Jews, would have also sought out the “original revelations” of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, which were also penned at different times, and follow the same process, circulating the corrupt Gospels in place of the original versions. Realize that if this was done anywhere close to Muhammad’s time, the entire canonized Bible, including the Hebrew Scriptures and the Gospels, were circulating in 3 continents in at least 6 languages. That would be impossible. If it happened earlier, there is no feasible date to replace “original revelations” since they were all revealed at different times in history. Again, mind you, undertaken by “illiterates.” The whole idea is completely absurd.

Meanwhile, we still have numerous passages in the Qur’an that clearly regard the Torah and the Gospels and the Psalms as inspired, true, guidance and light for you, and so forth. Surah 2:75-77 does not adequately negate these passages.

According to the source you cited, “The greatest source of religious authority in Islam is the glorious Qur’an, the verbatim Word of God.” And regarding the hadith/reported sayings of Muhammad, it says “the Qur’an gives authority to the Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him to teach (3:164) and make clear (16:44) the Qur’an to us.” The Qur’an is your utmost authority with credence given to the hadith for supplementing the Qur’an by clarifying and explaining it further. Is that accurate? Given that, how do you reconcile the fact that the hadith teaching that the Torah, Psalms and Gospels were corrupt (Al Baji commentary on Muwatta’ Maalik) stands in direct contradiction with numerous Qur’anic passages that say the opposite? This teaching does not supplement or clarify the Qur’an; it opposes it. Could the revelation from Allah to the Prophet Muhammad really say in the Qur’an to accept the scriptures, but then reports from Muhammad’s contemporaries say that the Prophet understood Allah’s revelation to mean these same scriptures are to be rejected? If the Qur’an is your ultimate authority, sound exegesis would require you to at minimum regard the Torah, Psalms and Gospels as true. Although the Qur’an contradicts its own content by imploring acceptance of the Gospels but then rejecting integral parts of the Gospels, such as the death and resurrection of Jesus. I’m not used to such internal inconsistency.

“no credible Biblical scholar today will claim that the collection of wrtings known as the Bible was written or authorized by Jesus himself. They all agree that the Bible was written centuries after the departure of Jesus by unknown writers and they made many mistakes and changed the text.”

Sorry, this is clearly false. There are many “credible Biblical scholars” today that would reject everything you stated, except that Jesus didn’t write the Gospels. It is the same reputable body of scholars that affirm that the New Testament is by far the best attested document in ancient history.

Respectfully, some advice in exegesis/homiletics: Allow context and the more obvious, consistent and prevalent teaching in a volume inform you on how to interpret the isolated passages that are harder to understand—certainly not the reverse. Also, pay attention to the blade of Occam’s Razor (the Law of Parsimony). You tend to multiply assumptions where common sense should point to the simpler and more obvious answer.

Muslim

Thanks God Im just back home safely from the Hajj pilgrimage.

What Muslims believe is that parts of the original revelations sent down to Moses (Torah) and Jesus (Gospel) peace be upon them both still exist in the Bible today. We believe that people came and wrote things from their own and claimed that it was from God. They then went and mixed their own writings with the original revelations (Torah and Gospel) and removed and added to them thats what the Quran speaks about.”

“Q 2:77 speaks of “illiterates, who know not the Book” that write this supposedly corrupted book. How do people who can’t read or write, who are ignorant of what they are writing about, write a book? Right off the bat, the passage seems nonsensical.”

Where in the passage which say that the illiterates “umiyyun” who actually write the corrupted book? Do you read and understand Arabic of the Quran like I do, or you just copy and paste information from anti Islam hate sites?

Those who deliberately corrupted the scriptures dont necessarily those who write it. In ancient world in the middle east many were illiterates and count in memorization of the scriptures to transmit the knowledge. Far from nonsensical the Quran is correct. Researchers estimate the literacy rate of Roman-era Palestine at only 3 percent and in rural areas, where most residents “would scarcely ever even see a written text,” it might have been as low as 1 percent.

Refering to 2:77 in broader context the book refer to the Torah.

If you can read arabic please refer to the following Exegesis:
– At-tabari vol2, 2001:144-151),
– Al-misbah al-munir fi tahzib tafsir ibn Katsir, 1999:58
– Hadith muslim, 3165

Despite your ramblings the New Testament and the Old Testament was not the original revelation given to Jesus and Moses. It is full of discrepancies, a typical human tampering. it contains untruths or accidental mistakes and lies in today scholarly word would call corruption.

Again the Quran is correct. that people lies and fabricates their own words and says this come from God. There are the composition of entire books by obscure authors who claimed to be the Apostles Peter and Paul and other spiritual celebrities, individuals falsely claiming to be Paul wrote Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians, and the Epistles to Timothy and Titus. The premise that the Apostle Peter wrote the Epistles of Peter or anything else in the Bible. Many more.

You may want to read The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament by Bart D. Ehrman

Bart Erhman is the best bible scholar and academic today, He is poring over each part of the New Testament in its original Koine Greek since he was young and got the educattion from reputable institution. Clearly he know what he is taking about.

” The Qur’an is your utmost authority with credence given to the hadith for supplementing the Qur’an by clarifying and explaining it further. Is that accurate?”

Thats correct.

No muslims see this as a contradiction. The Quran said people came and wrote things from their own and claimed that it was from God. (the elders who distorted it, the scribes then wrote it down) They then went and mixed their own writings with the original revelations (Torah and Gospel) and removed and added to them.

You know as I muslims I still treat the Bible (OT and NT) with Islamic manner of treating a holy book which partly contains original God word ie isnpired (not to place it in dirty place etc.) but the Quran specify in Q 3:3-4: “He sent down to you the Book with truth, confirming what was ‘bayna yadayhi’… [the verse next specifies the ‘previous texts’] …And He sent the Torah and the Injeel before as guidance for the people [the verse next clarifies the role of the Qur’an] And He revealed the Furqan. Indeed, those who disbelieve in the verses of Allah will have a severe punishment…”

‘Furqan’ is derived of the root f-r-q, meaning to separate, divide, differentiate; make a distinction between things; the derivative ‘furqan’ means to be a criterion or a proof. This verse is saying that the Qur’an is the criterion. The Qur’an is designated as al-Furqan not once, but several times (see also 2:185, 25:1). If there is any difficulty in understanding the wonderful expression of the role of the Qur’an in relation to the previous scriptures in like in Q5:48, then Q3:3-4 will assist.

So the Quran acts as a Divine quality control and it only confirms what remains of it in its original form.

Absurd theaching unheard from previous revealation like Jesus are made sacrifice in order to erase people sins…..or to believe that Jesus is God (Did Abraham or any of the prophets before Jesus or even Jesus himself ever mentioned to his followers to worship Jesus?? or Jesus himself claims to be God?? never) are rejected.

The Quran confirms and set the criterion anything what has been taught by all the prophets including Jesus :

– To worship only one God the eternal and everlasting.
– To worship only one God, not God which can die, not 3 Gods in One but only ONE God.

Christian

Ric, glad to see a response, and that you returned safely.

“Where in the passage which say that the illiterates “umiyyun” who actually write the corrupted book?”

The passage that you quoted Oct. 19 says this…

““Know they not Allah Knoweth what they conceal and what they reveal? And there are among them illiterates, who know not the Book but (see therein their own) desires, and they do nothing but conjecture. Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say: ‘This is from Allah,’ to traffic with it for a miserable price! Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.” (The Noble Qur’an, 2:77-79)”

There’s little reason to think that the “illiterates, who know not the book” are not the same ones referred to as “those who write the Book” from a straightforward reading. But are you suggesting that the illiterates who didn’t know the scriptures, hired scribes to write corrupted versions? Who were the masterminds who made sure that the corrupted versions were close enough to the original revelations to be accepted as a substitute? The illiterates who didn’t even know what they said, or the scribes who had no vested interest in the content?

Besides, you still have a basic and unaddressed spacetime problem: There’s no opportune time in which the books of Moses and the Gospels (and presuming the Psalms) could have possibly been collected and replaced with fakes (See my comment dated Oct. 22.)

“So the Quran acts as a Divine quality control and it only confirms what remains of [the Torah/Gospel revelation] in its original form.”

Why was God unable or unwilling to protect and preserve the integrity of His original revelation through Moses and the Apostles, and how do we know that the Quranic revelation has not been corrupted? There is no vast body of ancient copies of the Quran to use for comparison. The opposite is true for the Bible, especially the New Testament.

“Despite your ramblings the New Testament and the Old Testament was not the original revelation given to Jesus and Moses. It is full of discrepancies, a typical human tampering. it contains untruths or accidental mistakes and lies in today scholarly word would call corruption.”

This is a baseless claim. As I’ve said, which can be confirmed, there are tens of thousands of extant manuscripts that stand as evidence for the integrity of the Bible, and the relatively few discrepancies that do exist in the manuscripts are easily reconciled without any change in doctrine or meaning of text. Calling that “ramblings” doesn’t make the evidence go away.

Muslim

“I think I’ve demonstrated that we can’t even know if the Qur’an we have now resembles the original…”

We know that we have the original Quran, why?

-The Quran was memorized during the lifetime of Muhammad (PBUH) and passed down to unbroken chain of memorizers to this generation.

The Quranic memorization is in itself a miracolous fact. People from all age and ethincity and language and every corner of the earth are able to memorize the Quran wholly or partially. I can bring you a kids memorizer who just turn ten and know the Quran by heart in its entirity.
The Holy Qur’an is the only book on earth, which was adopted to be preserved through humans chests and minds and hearts, not just preservation on papers and manuscripts, as God Almighty says:

إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُونَ

Behold, it is We Ourselves who have bestowed from on high, step by step, this reminder (Quran)? and, behold, it is We who shall truly guard it [from all corruption]. (Q 15:9)
A western scholar on Islam, John Burton writes:

“The method of transmitting the Qur’an from one generation to the next by having the young memorise the oral recitation of their elders had mitigated somewhat from the beginning the worst perils of relying solelyon written records . . . ” [John Burton, An Introduction to the Hadith, p.27. Edinburgh University Press: 1994]

The Christian Bible on the other hand did not have any such phenomenon and tradition.

You can watch a teaser of HBO Documentary Films covering this miracolous tradition

http://vimeo.com/30779573

-The Quran was written during the lifetime of Muhammad (PBUH).

-The Quran was collected into a complete book during the reign of Abu Bakr, the first caliph of Islam, and the right hand man of Muhammad (PBUH).

-The Quran was collected by the companions of the prophet Muhammad, those who knew, and lived with him during its revelation.

-The Quran was duplicated into official standardized copies for the new Muslim population; this task was ordered by the third caliph of Islam, Uthman, who was also a close companion of the Prophet Muhammad. The very manuscript that Uthman used to copy, was the one which Abu Bakr had collected into an official Quranic book.

All of the above was how the Quran was preserved, and this is all recorded in the Hadith literature.

My challenge fpr you get me a copy of Quran which is different to one another.In any bookstore in this world!

Now as for the Bible:

-The Gospels were written decades after Jesus.

-The Gospels were written by authors who did not know Jesus.

-The Gospels were written by authors who did not meet Jesus.

-The Gospels were written by anonymous authors, we don’t actually know they are, we are left but to guess.

-The actual Gospel manuscripts we do have are not even the originals, rather they are the copy’s of the copy’s of the copy’s of the books that were written decades after Jesus, by unknown authors, who did not know, or meet Jesus!

-It wasn’t until CENTURIES after Jesus that Christians finally established an orthodox cannon of scripture, yet even after this, there were still disputes, and some books were still rejected and accepted.

-Since there was no official Church orthodox cannon for centuries, you had several different Bible cannons for 400 years, different books claiming to be inspired, each Christian sect having their own Bible which they believed in.

-Up to this day we still see this problem or the Bible being revised, verses being expunged or modifed different VERSIONS not TRANSLATIONS, · The King James Version which are popular in the west, is probably the least accurate translation, being based on manuscripts that were inferior copies, The last twelve verses in Mark were not found in the most ancient examples, nor was the last chapter of John and many more…

I have been fortunate enough to travel around Europe, Mid-east and the far east , Im yet find other “version” of the quran which are different to one another.
It is a proof that we dont have corruption in the Quran as God himself has promised to guard it from corruption.

On the another hand I have in my bookshelf at least 4 “versions” of the Bibles which are different to one another.

No other book in the history of mankind has many vesions and has been revised so many times as the Bible.

KJV 1611- KJV 1769-RV- ASV-RSV-NASB-ESV-NKJV- HCSB-NIV-NET-NLT etc. etc..

And there are many controversy surrounding to each editions and revisions.

You Christians are basically “at war” with each other to which edition and revisions are the authentic Gods words some goes by saying they have The ‘older and better’ manuscripts. KJV vs NIV. etc.

“there are tens of thousands of extant manuscripts that stand as evidence for the integrity of the Bible, and the relatively few discrepancies that do exist in the manuscripts are easily reconciled without any change in doctrine or meaning of text.”

This is somewhat misleading as most of these supposedly ”few discrepancies that do exist in the manuscripts are easily reconciled without any change in doctrine or meaning of text” come only centuries later modern study says it is AFTER the 9th century!

Scholars agree we do not have a reliable text of the NT. It is a book which is reconstructed by scholars and is conjecture based. The parts of the originals have been lost partly due to scribal errors/forgeries within the flawed copying system and due to the absence of complete originals in the early manuscript tradition (never mind the autographs!) Scholars do not know whether the originals are within all the manuscripts currently found at all (around 5,700 manuscripts and 1100-1400 variations)

The differences in variations do matter for example the clear teaching of the doctrine of the Trinity is dependent upon which manuscripts you read – Bart Ehrman mentioned the scribal omission of Jesus not knowing the hour – obviously the scribe did this to push the idea of Jesus being God.

Christian

“On what ground you said the illiterates didnt knew what they they said? in fact oral transmission was the basis of knowledge dissemination in the ancient world…”

That is plausible, I’ll grant you that; I had not considered the possible role of oral tradition. In the larger context of the Qur’an, however, there is still a far greater number of passages exhorting readers to regard the writings of Moses and the Gospels without any hint of a warning about corrupted versions.

“Although the Quran did not elaborate but most modern scholar point to Paul as the mastermind who broke away from the Jewish context that prophet Jesus had begun, he then preached to early Jewish-follower of Jesus that Jesus had been a god, and that the way to win eternal salvation in heaven is to worship him as such. Paul here explicitly introduced, for the first time anywhere, the duality of the previously unitary God as in earlier revealation… the doctrine of the Trinity is dependent upon which manuscripts you read”

The Qur’an doesn’t say that and neither do most modern scholars. Paul didn’t introduce the deity of Jesus Christ, Jesus covered that, as well as salvation by faith in Christ alone (John 3:16, 14:6). The doctrine of a truine God didn’t come from Paul either, but it was revealed in Genesis (1:26 “Let Us make man in Our image”; 3:22 “the man has become like on of Us in knowing good and evil”; 11:7 “let Us go down and there confuse their language”), in Isaiah (6:8 “And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, ‘Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?’”; 48:16 “the Lord God has sent me, and his Spirit”; 61:1 “The Spirit of the Lord God is upon Me, because the Lord has anointed Me to bring good news to the poor; He has sent Me to bind up the brokenhearted”) and in the Psalms (2:7 “The Lord said to Me, ‘You are my Son; today I have begotten you’”) Also, in the original Hebrew, Genesis 1:1 uses “Elohim” for “God”, which is the plural form of El or Eloah.

“history records the tortuous conflict Paul had had with this early follower of Jesus, Jesus’s brother James, a conflict which caused Paul, in about the year 50, to perpetrate his coup d’état against James, and to start his own brand of religion: Christianity.”

Eric Zuesse records that actually, as that is straight off of the description for his book Christ’s Ventriloquists. Haven’t read it or about Zuesse’s methodology, but it’s not a common or established view.

“…the modern-day versions of the Gospel of Luke. It contains a staggering 10,000 more words than the same Gospel in the Sinai Bible (the codex sinaiticus). Six of those words say of Jesus “and was carried up into heaven”, but this narrative does not appear in any of the oldest Gospels of Luke available today (“Three Early Doctrinal Modifications of the Text of the Gospels”, F. C. Conybeare, The Hibbert Journal, London, vol. 1, no. 1, Oct 1902, pp. 96-113).”

Even if the longer portions of Luke’s gospel were to prove unauthentic, we still aren’t missing any critical doctrine. Luke’s later volume states that Jesus “was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight” in Acts 1:9-11, and describes “the day when He was taken up from us” (Acts 1:22). John’s gospel talks about the ascension in 3:13, 6:62, 20:17, as do the other apostles: Eph. 4:10, Col. 3:1, 1 Tim. 3:16, Heb. 4:14, 1 Peter 3:22. As far as the resurrection, that isn’t isolated to Luke’s gospel either (Mark 8:31, 9:31, 10:33, 16:6, ! Cor. 15, lots of others). The differences if discounted don’t leave us without anything—certainly not the deity, death or resurrection of Christ—nor do they add any contradictory material. In other words, no corruption.

“Where is in the Quran said that the process of corrupting the original Injil, Tawrah and Zabur was done in a snap at the time of the prophet?? This is an odd argument really.”

I haven’t said that. My argument is that Qur’an says really nothing clear about corruption of the original Injil, Tawrah and Zabur at all, and that there simply is no possibility of the originals to be corrupted all at once or even piecemeal. What other options are there? As you say, the only possibility for corruption would have been later than Muhammad’s time; that isn’t at all tenable, since the uncorrupted documents were already in wide circulation across numerous countries and languages.

“Scholars agree we do not have a reliable text of the NT…”

Sorry, those are liberal scholars (i.e. Ehrman) who probably have already decided what they will find.

Muslim

“ there is still a far greater number of passages exhorting readers to regard the writings of Moses and the Gospels without any hint of a warning about corrupted versions.”

Yes, the Quran nowhere states that the original Taurat, Injeel, Zabur or Suhuf is in fact the modern day Bible on printing today.

On what basis in the Qur’an do Muslims have the right to examine, investigate and question the Bible? we can do this based upon the verses in the Qur’an that tell us to be on our guard.

‘There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues: (as they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it is no part of the Book; and they say, ‘That is from Allah,’ but it is not from Allah: It is they who tell a lie against Allah…’
(Holy Qur’an 3:78)

This of course is because most people during that time are illiterate any how (be they Jew, Christian, Zoroastrian, Pagan or Muslim). They obviously could not read a book for themselves, but were told to be on their guard because the fact that they were illiterate and couldn’t verify it.

‘But because of their breach of their Covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard:They change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the Message that was sent…(Holy Qur’an 5:13)

Any truthful reader can see obviously that the Qur’an says that they forget a good portion of what was sent and they changed the words from their places. This can only happen if there is an oral tradition being passed along and some people willfully pervert this oral tradition.

Now you are very mischievous to say that the Qur’an confirms the current what you consider as the writing of Moses and the gospels

Here a passsage we found in Deutoronomy which clearly prove that the “five books of Moses” is not authentically the writing of Moses.

“So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD.
And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day.
And Moses was an hundred and twenty years old when he died: his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated.” (Deuteronomy 34:5-7)

How can Moses write the day he died in 3rd person??

Also the Injeel does not mean the current Gospels. Let us look at the instances and mention of the Injeel in the Qur’an.

Then, in their wake, We followed them up with (others of) Our apostles: We sent after them Jesus the son of Mary, and bestowed on him the Injeel; and We ordained in the hearts of those who followed him Compassion and Mercy. But the Monasticism which they invented for themselves, We did not prescribe for them: only the seeking for the Good Pleasure of Allah. but that they did not foster as they should have done. Yet We bestowed, on those among them who believed, their (due) reward, but many of them are rebellious transgressors. (Holy Qur’an 57:27)

We believe that Allah had given Jesus the Injeel (Gospel in singular) but we would repudiate the following attribution to Jesus based upon what the Qur’an says above that ‘the Monasticism which they invented for themselves, We did not prescribe for them’.

His disciples said unto Him, “If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.”But He said unto them, “All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs who were so born from their mother’s womb, and there are some eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.” (Matthew 19:10-12)

Now it seems Jesus recommending the practice, but Muslims would argue that this is an interpolation put in the mouth of Jesus based upon our belief that the Qur’an states this was not ordered upon people. So the Qur’an disregard the gospel of Matthew statement.

‘Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:”This is from Allah,” to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.’ (Holy Qur’an 2:79)

This is the muslim belief that that there are people who are in the habit of writing books and than saying this is from God . It is on this basis that Muslims have the right to be skeptical of what people today call the Old and New testament writings .

“Paul didn’t introduce the deity of Jesus Christ, Jesus covered that, as well as salvation by faith in Christ alone (John 3:16, 14:6). The doctrine of a truine God didn’t come from Paul either, but it was revealed in Genesis… in Isaiah…and in the Psalms… Also, in the original Hebrew, Genesis 1:1 uses “Elohim” for “God”, which is the plural form of El or Eloah.”

Thats not how I see it, Jewish and modern scholars (except a few evangelicals) do think (as Islam does) that Jesus is a mere prophet for the Jewish people:

Professor Graham Stanton’s critically acclaimed book The Gospels and Jesus, Oxford University Press, 2002. writes:

“Jesus certainly did not intend to found a new religion. He did not repudiate Scripture, though on occasion he emphasized some Scriptural principles at the expense of others. With a few rare exceptions he did not call in question the law of Moses. But he did challenge established conventions and priorities. Jesus believed that he had been sent by God as a prophet to declare authoritatively the will of God for his people: acceptance or rejection of him and his message was equivalent to acceptance or rejection of God.’” (Graham Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus pp.269-270, Oxford University Press, 2002)

(Graham Stanton (1940 – 2009) was Lady Margaret’s Professor of Divinity at Cambridge University. Stanton’s special interests were in the Gospels, Paul’s letters, and second century Christian writings.

For the year 1996-97, Stanton was the President of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas (Society for New Testament Studies – SNTS), a society of New Testament scholars. For nine years he was Editor of the journal New Testament Studies and of the associated monograph series, and was a General Editor of the International Critical Commentaries.)

Other respected scholars include: E.P. Sanders, Geza Vermes, James D.G.Dunn, John Hick, Maurice Casey and many more.

Of course for me as a Muslim I take the Qur’an as the last revelation given by God to Muslims. So anything that would stand contrary to the teachings in the Qur’an would be something that I would either not comment on or not trust as being authoratative.

“He [Jesus] said: ‘I am indeed a servant of God. He has given me revelation and made me a prophet; (19:30)

‘He [God] will send him as a messenger to the Children of Israel’ (3:49)

So for example as you say if the New Testament says that Jesus is the son of God and the Qur’an says that God does not have a son than I would go with the Qur’an.

I dont deny that some passages in the Gospel somewhat substantiate (although not unequivocally) Jesus “divinity” but since there are also an overwhelming number of very clear verses about Jesus Christ’s identity and his distinction from God.

For Instance Elohim and Adonim, Hebrew words for God, occur in the plural. If this literally meant a plurality of persons, it would be translated “Gods.”

But the Jews, being truly monotheistic and thoroughly familiar with the idioms of their own language, have never understood the use of the plural to indicate a plurality of persons within the one God. This use of the plural is for amplification, and is called a “plural of majesty” or a “plural of emphasis,” and is used for intensification

In Arabic we identify this use of plural of majesty or plural of emphasis, for example when two persons meet each other we greet:

السلام عليكم as-salāmu `alayk*um* (plural)

Instead of السلام عليك as-salāmu `alayk (singular)

“re: history records the tortuous conflict…which caused Paul…to start his own brand of religion: Christianity.” Eric Zuesse records that actually, as that is straight off of the description for his book Christ’s Ventriloquists. Haven’t read it or about Zuesse’s methodology, but it’s not a common or established view.

Spot on. Like Hyam Maccoby and , Dr. Robert Eisenman etc. Zuesse view is not uncommon to the understanding of Paul a pure orthodox corruptor of scripture — the original HEBREW changed when translated to the Greek Matthew by orthodox scribes. Paul made Jesus an eternal savior by preaching him as Lord AFTER HIS DEATH (Romans 10:9-10). There are numerous other alterations hiding other, living, Masters in the New Testament (James for one, hidden in the gospels/Acts as “Judas”), such as John 9:4, with the received “sent me” instead of “sent US” (Codex Sinaiticus) indicating the limited ministry of Jesus.

Im amazed how cant you admit it is a corruption in such a glaring evidences.

What about the most important doctrine trinity? John5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. This verse is undeniable an evidence of doctrinal corruption!

By the way you are deceiving people to say that Jesus ascension is mentioned John’s gospel and others. Where, when, and how did this happen is contradictory in the gospels. While the questioanable Luke 24:50-51 states Jesus ascends outisde, after dinner, and at Bethany and on the same day as the resurrection , Mark 16:14-19 – Jesus ascends while he and his disciples are seated at a table in or near Jerusalem , Matthew 28:16-20 – Jesus’ ascension isn’t mentioned at all, but Matthew ends at a mountain in Galilee and NOTHING about Jesus’ ascension is mentioned in John while in Acts 1:9-12 – Jesus ascends at least 40 days after his resurrection, at Mt. Olivet.

Muslims believe that the Qur’an, the Torah and the Gospel were all wahy. That means revelation that was sent down orally, and than latter was to become text. When the Qur’an is talking about Christians and the Injeel it does not meant: Christians = a calvinist. Injeel= New Testament canon inclusive of 27 books.
These Christians like Bahira and Waraqa had oral traditions go back to prophet Jesus, and/or some writings that differed with more established modern day Christians like Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholic

What is this “uncorrupted documents were already in wide circulation”? do you believe all of Jesus sayings, and teachings and actions recorded in the present day New Testament?

If you are honest to urself Christian would say of course not!

Prophet Jesus is reported to have lived for 33 years. Only 3 years of his life is supposedly recorded in the New Testament. Obviously this left allot of very sincere and pious Christians wondering. What he was doing and saying for 30 years?

Keep in mind that the Gospel of John says,

“Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.” (John 21:25)

So according to the Quran, the Torah and the Gospel were all revelation that was sent down orally, and than latter was to become text. The Qur’an does not tell us the contents of those revelations. That is not the objective of the Qur’an.

However, the position of the Muslims is that the wrtieen Torah, the Zabur or the Injeel is what the various Christian and Jewish sects have in their possession today but mixed with other thoughts and writings

The position of the Muslims is also not to say that the the Torah, the Zabur or the Injeel is absolutely corrupted.

The Christians themselves only have a presupposition, a belief in ‘original autographs’. Only by faith they can know with 100% confidence what the Injeel of Jesus was.

The Codex Sinaiticus contains the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Heremes which is not found in today’s New Testament. There are Christian groups that survive until this present day that does not accept Revelation, Jude, James 1st and 2nd Peter as canon.

Christians themselves have always disputed up until this present day what should be Biblical canon.

“Sorry, those are liberal scholars (i.e. Ehrman) who probably have already decided what they will find.”

Sorry you are being emotional. Bart D. Ehrman’s is undeniably an academic with impeccable credentials. His presentation and arguments are firmly rooted in mainstream scholarship.

Bart powerfully defends Jesus Christ historicity against Canadian author and historian, Earl J. Doherty, on the view that Jesus did not exist as an historical figure. Are you going to dismiss Bart Erhman as merely “already decided what they will find”?

Christian

“-The Gospels were written decades after Jesus.
-The Gospels were written by authors who did not know Jesus.
-The Gospels were written by authors who did not meet Jesus.
-The Gospels were written by anonymous authors, we don’t actually know they are, we are left but to guess.”

That the gospels were finally written decades after Christ (50-70 A.D.) is true but insignificant. There is little doubt of Matthew and John’s authorship, and they were Jesus’ disciples. Mark, his gospel being the earliest, was a disciple of Peter, who was Jesus disciple. Luke didn’t know Christ while He was on earth but no doubt knew the other disciples, was a fact junkie, and his account aligns well with the others, forming the Gospel that is “guidance and light and confirmation of the law” (Q 5:46)

“The method of transmitting the Qur’an from one generation to the next by having the young memorise the oral recitation of their elders had mitigated somewhat from the beginning the worst perils of relying solelyon written records . . . ” [John Burton, An Introduction to the Hadith, p.27. Edinburgh University Press: 1994] The Christian Bible on the other hand did not have any such phenomenon and tradition.”

Even though the Qur’an is roughly 1/5 the length of the Bible, it is still impressive that many Muslims have committed it to memory. That should serve as an example of devotion to others. Oral traditions were no doubt a part of the early church’s transmission of the Scriptures as well, but such a “miraculous tradition” doesn’t mean the text is accurate to the original. What drives the uncertainty of the Qur’an is the lack of abundant early manuscripts to verify it, particularly when compared to the Bible. If “God himself has promised to guard it from corruption”, then why do the earliest copies reveal very different readings? The method you offer for the collection by Muhammad’s contemporaries and duplication under the direction of Uthman is speculation.

“My challenge for you get me a copy of Quran which is different to one another.In any bookstore in this world!”

Well, I don’t have the frequent flyer miles for such a task, but I can refer you to such a comparison of two Qu’rans: The Qur’an According to Imam Hafs and The Qur’an According to Imam Warsh. Diacritical differences result in different words and therefore different meanings: (Hafs, 2:58 “we give mercy” vs. Warsh, 2:57 “he gives mercy”); and vowel differences with the same result (Hafs, 2:10 “they lied” vs. Warsh, 2:9 “they were lied to”, also Hafs, 3:146 “And many a prophet fought” vs. Warsh, 3:146 “And many a prophet was killed”, and Hafs, 28:48 “two works of magic” vs. Warsh, 28:48 “two magicians”). In fact, there is a version of the Qur’an that lists the variants from the Ten Accepted Readers, “Making Easy the Readings of What Has Been Sent Down,” Muhammad Fahd Khaaruun, the Collector of the 10 Readings from al-Shaatebeiah and al-Dorraah and al-Taiabah, which lists approximately 4,000 variants, many of which, as shown above, alter the meaning of the passages.

Your comparison of Bible versions and translations don’t reflect these type of differences. There are dozens of different ways to say, for example. “Jesus loved Paul” in Greek. Every language has multiple ways to say the exact same thing. That is the goal of various English translations of the Bible. Granted, there are instances where word choice is not the best and peripheral details are different. That’s not to say a corrupt version of the Bible has never been published. The New World Translation, published by Jehovah’s Witnesses truly does distort God’s word. Many take issue with the RSV/NRSV, the source text for the KJV, and “paraphrases” such as The Message, but fortunately we have such a vast body of manuscript sources that it’s possible to sort out those differences. We can still compare the vast majority of translations to our earliest copies and come out satisfied with the accuracy. Between the Qumram scrolls and the 12 oldest NT papyri alone, we can account for over 85% of the Bible.

“You Christians are basically “at war” with each other to which edition and revisions are the authentic Gods words…”

“War” is a pretty extreme exaggeration on the whole. “Revisions” is not an accurate term either, as the science of textual criticism vindicates the Bible from any claim that it has evolved over time. Genuine debate exists over the “best” translation and minor variations between them, because people care about the truth, but generally not over principal doctrines.

“…the Quran nowhere states that the original Taurat, Injeel, Zabur or Suhuf is in fact the modern day Bible on printing today.”

The Qur’an doesn’t have to state this, perhaps because it nowhere states that these revelations have changed and resulted in a corrupted modern Bible.

“‘There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues: (as they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it is no part of the Book; and they say, ‘That is from Allah,’ but it is not from Allah: It is they who tell a lie against Allah…’ (Holy Qur’an 3:78)”

This doesn’t say that there is a resulting corrupted Book. There will always be twisted interpretation (the Bible warns of people who do this as well), but this doesn’t show that the Bible we hold and read now is corrupt. The corruption is something “they say”…“with their tongues” not write with a pen. If these people “tell a lie against Allah, and (well) they know it,” that means they also know the truth, which means “the Book” is still a possible source of truth.

“‘But because of their breach of their Covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard: They change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the Message that was sent… (Holy Qur’an 5:13)”

As in 3:78, it isn’t clear that this verse is talking about “written” words. Also, note that “they change the words from their (right) places” is the same phrase as 4:46, “displace words from their (right) places”, which is a passage that affirms the truthfulness of the Jewish scripture and says that some disobey it (“those who received a portion of the scripture, and how they choose to stray” 4:44, and “they say, ‘We hear, but we disobey’” 4:46). In the Sahih Translation 5:13 reads “they distort words from their [proper] usages,” which is something you’d say if something was misinterpreted. And, observe that this same Surah appeals to Jews and Christians to affirm their own scriptures, presupposing them to be God’s Word (Surah 5:65-69) AFTER 5:13 supposedly warns of the same people corrupting them. Finally, 5:13 has NOT been interpreted as a warning of corrupted scripture historically, according to the Tafsir… http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=776&Itemid=60

“Deuteronomy 34:5-7 … How can Moses write the day he died in 3rd person??”

That’s basically an obituary added by someone else at the very end of the book. A similar ending was added to Joshua (24:29-33). That’s not uncommon, and certainly doesn’t nullify the rest of the book.

“We sent after them Jesus the son of Mary, and bestowed on him the Injeel; and We ordained in the hearts of those who followed him Compassion and Mercy. But the Monasticism which they invented for themselves, We did not prescribe for them… Holy Qur’an 57:27”

The Qur’an’s author obviously noticed the corrupt Byzantine form of Christianity practiced by some professing to be Christians in the Arabian peninsula at that time. The mention of monasticism here and saint worship in 17:56 is probably an observation of the beginnings of Roman Catholicism. Here and many other places in the Qur’an, Jesus is referred to as the “son of Mary” (22 times). This phrase appears only once in the Bible, in Mark 6:3, by unnamed town people who only knew of Jesus by his earthly family relationships. Biblical emphasis has always been on Jesus as the Son of God. There are important distinctions between orthodox Christianity and Catholicism. Catholics glorify Mary and the saints far more than the Bible warrants. Between the 5th and 7th centuries, new ideas within Catholicism began to form about Mary, calling her the “Mother of God” and offering her prayers. The Qur’an may have been noting the development of those ideas.

“Matthew 19:10-12… Now it seems Jesus recommending the practice, but Muslims would argue that this is an interpolation put in the mouth of Jesus based upon our belief that the Qur’an states this was not ordered upon people.”

I would actually agree with you on that. Celibacy for church leaders is a requirement according to Catholic doctrine, not in orthodox Christianity. Nowhere does the Bible require it. In this passage Jesus allows celibacy for some, and to a degree He encourages it—but requiring it is definitely an interpolation. 1 Cor. 7:32-34, 1 Tim. 3:1-13, Titus 1:6-9 further present the case that marriage will be good for some but perhaps not the best for others.

Sounds like the corruption you insist occurred is Roman Catholicism?

“… Jewish and modern scholars (except a few evangelicals) do think (as Islam does) that Jesus is a mere prophet… Graham Stanton…was Lady Margaret’s Professor of Divinity at Cambridge University. Stanton’s special interests were in the Gospels, Paul’s letters, and second century Christian writings…was the President of the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas. … Bart D. Ehrman’s is undeniably an academic with impeccable credentials… currently the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.. received his PhD and M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary”

Richard Dawkins is an emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford, and was the University of Oxford’s Professor for Public Understanding of Science from 1995 until 2008, and he thinks religion and God are a delusion. Osama bin Laden attended the élite secular Al-Thager Model School and devoted his time to studying the Qur’an, and we all got a taste of his worldview. Being an academic doesn’t make you right. There are plenty of evangelical scholars with advanced degrees and university positions and there are plenty of atheists there too. What matters is what the truth that they claim.

“Bart Erhman is the best bible scholar and academic today… Clearly he know what he is taking about.”

Bart also believes that Jesus died on a cross (The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, p. 197), that Jesus was buried and seen alive afterward (Jesus, Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, p. 229), that “the Gospel of John…goes a long way toward identifying Jesus Himself as divine” (Whose Word Is It? p. 161) and that Paul was a real apostle of Christ who knew Jesus’ disciples and early church leaders (Infidel Guy interview with Bart Ehrman 31:50—35:38). Your appeal to his “impeccable credentials” doesn’t fare well when Ehrman denies some of the principal claims of Islam. Does he still know what he’s talking about?

Others who have refuted Ehrman:
http://www.apologetics315.com/2011/05/bart-ehrmans-new-testament-forgery.html
http://risenjesus.com/articles/52-review-of-forged
http://www.christianpost.com/news/is-the-new-testament-forged-49605/
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2011/07/book-review-of-bart-d-ehrman’s-forged-writing-in-the-name-of-god-why-the-bible’s-authors-are-not-who-we-think-they-are/

“…as a Muslim I take the Qur’an as the last revelation given by God to Muslims. So anything that would stand contrary to the teachings in the Qur’an would be something that I would either not comment on or not trust as being authoratative.”

This is the conviction that comes by worldview, not by evidence. What then would be the point of further debate?

“… Elohim and Adonim, Hebrew words for God, occur in the plural. If this literally meant a plurality of persons, it would be translated ‘Gods.’ But the Jews, being truly monotheistic and thoroughly familiar with the idioms of their own language, have never understood the use of the plural to indicate a plurality of persons within the one God. This use of the plural is for amplification, and is called a “plural of majesty” or a “plural of emphasis,” and is used for intensification.”

Plurality was never used for emphasis in Hebrew writings; this is actually a recent convention. Tayler Lewis, Emil Rodiger, Claus Westermann, Gerhard Hasel are Bible scholars who maintain that plurality of majesty was completely foreign to early Jewish culture and probably would have been insulting to frame God in such a way. The idea is also inconsistent with other uses of Us and Our in other Jewish scripture (ie. Gen. 3:22, Isaiah 6:8), particularly where the same “Us” is used for the triune God (“let Us go down and confuse their language” Gen. 11:7) and sinful people (“Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens” Gen.11:3) in the same chapter. Even if “plural of majesty” were in use when the Torah were written, there is no clue as to when we should assume its use. At any rate, the Qur’an apparently makes use of plural pronouns for God more often than the Bible does (http://bit.ly/eU9RJm)

The doctrine of the trinity was probably not clear at all to the inspired writers of the Old Testament, until Isaiah, the Psalms and Proverbs, where the specificity of three persons starts to come into view. The Messiah’s arrival as God’s Son further clarified the revelation, and even further when He left the Holy Spirit for believers after His ascension.

“What about the most important doctrine trinity? John5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. This verse is undeniable an evidence of doctrinal corruption!”

Actually, that’s 1st John 5:7, and it’s genuineness is disputed. The thing is, this verse isn’t necessary to uphold the doctrine of the trinity given the greater context of scripture that affirms it. It certainly isn’t a contradiction either. If it’s genuine revelation, then it further affirms it; if it’s a later addition, the trinity is still revealed elsewhere in scripture.

“By the way you are deceiving people to say that Jesus ascension is mentioned John’s gospel and others…”

I didn’t say the ascension is mentioned in John’s gospel.

“Where, when, and how did this happen is contradictory in the gospels. While the questioanable Luke 24:50-51 states Jesus ascends outisde, after dinner, and at Bethany and on the same day as the resurrection , Mark 16:14-19 – Jesus ascends while he and his disciples are seated at a table in or near Jerusalem , Matthew 28:16-20 – Jesus’ ascension isn’t mentioned at all, but Matthew ends at a mountain in Galilee and NOTHING about Jesus’ ascension is mentioned in John while in Acts 1:9-12 – Jesus ascends at least 40 days after his resurrection, at Mt. Olivet”

There is no contradiction between the post-resurrection gospel accounts. Where one writer leaves out details, another supplements with other details; the order of events and framework is all there. This is what you might expect from multiple perspectives of the same thing, as well as travel and time spans between events that aren’t always elaborated. Re: Luke and Acts, Bethany was not only the name of a town but the district of Mount Olivet adjoining the town. The ascension in Mark does not necessarily occur at a dinner table. That’s where Jesus appeared to the disciples. The ascension then occurred “after the Lord Jesus had spoken to them”. The journey to Mount Olivet near Bethany Luke mentions isn’t described in Mark, but that’s no reason to assume the trip didn’t happen. Jesus was no doubt with His disciples in BOTH Galilee and Jerusalem at different times after the resurrection. If Jesus was on earth 40 days after His resurrection, there was certainly enough time to visit all the locations mentioned. John and Matthew may not have described the ascension because their focus perhaps was purposely on the life of Jesus on earth (John doesn’t mention His birth either).

“What is this ‘uncorrupted documents were already in wide circulation’? do you believe all of Jesus sayings, and teachings and actions recorded in the present day New Testament? If you are honest to urself Christian would say of course not!”

That would actually be an un-Christian response to say that some or any of Jesus’ teaching in Scripture is false. This belief is adopted by faith and then affirmed by the evidence. Absent any evidence that God’s original revelation is corrupt, there’s no reason for a Christian to believe that any part of our internally consistent and widely-accepted Bible was somehow replaced from its beginnings based on Muslim interpretation of the Qur’an that doesn’t even seem to be supported by the Qur’an itself. Rather, it proclaims a regard for the Taurat, Injeel and Zabur.

“Prophet Jesus is reported to have lived for 33 years. Only 3 years of his life is supposedly recorded in the New Testament. Obviously this left allot of very sincere and pious Christians wondering. What he was doing and saying for 30 years?”

In Luke 2 Jesus was 12 years old and earning the respect of teachers in the temple courts of Jerusalem, and following that “Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and the people. (vs. 52)” Apparently He had begun a ministry at 12 or 13, but he had disciples for about 3 years when He was 30. “Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.” (John 21:25) It’s certainly possible Jesus had a significant teaching ministry before the Gospel accounts, but that the last 3 years were the culmination and fulfillment of His coming.

“The Christians themselves only have a presupposition, a belief in ‘original autographs’. Only by faith they can know with 100% confidence what the Injeel of Jesus was.”

True, it is always a matter of faith that we can know anything, and the same applies to Muslims and the Qur’an. But the overwhelming agreements of tens of thousands of ancient Biblical manuscripts makes allegations of corruption bordering on absurd. There is very little reason to think that the original autographs and earliest generations of copies we don’t have don’t follow the same pattern of consistency all the way back to their source. And by original autographs I mean the first time these accounts were written down. Regardless of how long oral tradition carried a message, there would still be a first written testament. And there’s no reason to think the message was corrupted during oral transmission, or from oral to written, in which case you need to hold to the idea that individual efforts to change the message occurred in each account, but were coordinated so the message on the whole remained consistent.

“The Codex Sinaiticus contains the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Heremes which is not found in today’s New Testament. There are Christian groups that survive until this present day that does not accept Revelation, Jude, James 1st and 2nd Peter as canon. Christians themselves have always disputed up until this present day what should be Biblical canon.”

Again, there will always be those in any group who disagree over doctrine. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a right way to discern it.