Muslims claim the Bible has been changed.

[GeorgeTwo]

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

The Quran declares the Bible to be a true revelation of God and demands faith in the Bible. Sura 2:40-42,126,136,285; 3:3,71,93; 4:47,136; 5:47-51, 69,71-72; 6:91; 10:37,94; 21:7; 29:45,46; 35:31; 46:11

All these above texts presuppose the availability of the true revelation of God to the people of Muhammad's day. Sura 3:71,93; 10:94; 21:71

A true Muslim is obliged to believe in all the revelations of God. Sura 2:136; 4:136; 29:46

The Quran makes no distinction between God's revelations Sura 2:136

The Qur'an claims that NO ONE can change the Word of God. Sura 6:34; 10:34

Why Do Muslims Believe The Bible Is Corrupted?

In 1064, Ibn-Khazem, FIRST charged that the Bible had been corrupted and the Bible falsified. This charge was to defend Islam against Christianity because Ibn-Khazem come upon differences and contradiction between the Bible and the Quran. Believing, by faith that the Quran was true, the Bible must then be false. He said, "Since the Quran must be true it must be the conflicting Gospel texts that are false. But Muhammad tells us to respect the Gospel. Therefore, the present text must have been falsified by the Christians after the time of Muhammad." His argument was not based on any evidence or historical facts but only on his personal faith, reasoning and desire to safeguard the Quran. This led him to teach that, "The Christians lost the revealed Gospel except for a few traces which God has left intact as argument against them."

Many great MUSLIM teachers DO NOT believe the Bible has been corrupted and ACCEPT the authenticity of our PRESENT New Testament texts.

Ali al-Tabari (died 855) accepted the Gospel texts
Amr al-Ghakhiz (869) " " " "
BUKHARI (810-870) " " " " (he gathered some of the earliest tradition of Islam quoted the Quran itself to support his belief in the text of the Bible Sura 3:72,78)
Al-Mas'udi (956) " " " "
Abu Ali Husain Bin Sina (1037)" " "
AL-GHAZZALI (1111) " " " " (probably the greatest Muslim scholar he lived after Ibn-Khazem but did not accept his teachings)
Ibn-Khaldun (1406) " " " " " " (he lived after Ibn-Khazem but did not accept his teachings but rather believed the earlier Islamic teachers.)

Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, founder of the Aligarh College "In the opinion of us Mohammedans it is not proved that corruption (tahrif-i-lafzi)...was practiced."
Fakhruddin Razi, on the authority of Ibn Abbas, a nephew of Muhammed, "The Jews and early Christians were suspected of altering the text of the Taurat and Injil; but in the opinion of eminent doctors and theologians it was not practicable thus to corrupt the text, because those Scriptures were generally known and widely circulated, having been handed down from generation to generation." (bible.ca/islam)

Muslims, do you believe the Qur'an or Ibn-Khazem?

 

[Arthra]

In our view corruption of the text or as it's been described here as "changing the Bible" is really more of an issue of misinterpretation:

And indeed, there is among them a party who alter the Scripture with their tongues so you may think it is from the Scripture, but it is not from the Scripture. And they say, "This is from Allah ," but it is not from Allah . And they speak untruth about Allah while they know.

~ Surih (3) Ali 'Imran 78

 

[GeorgeTwo]

In our view corruption of the text or as it's been described here as "changing the Bible" is really more of an issue of misinterpretation:

And indeed, there is among them a party who alter the Scripture with their tongues so you may think it is from the Scripture, but it is not from the Scripture. And they say, "This is from Allah ," but it is not from Allah . And they speak untruth about Allah while they know.

~ Surih (3) Ali 'Imran 78

This surah is not talking about changing the text. "With their tongues" means they are misinterpreting a Scripture and it is only "a party" of them. We have no idea which Scripture they are misinterpreting.

 

[GeorgeTwo]

Are you talking about the Comma Johanneum ( Comma Johanneum - Wikipedia )?

In general, all the suspected changes to the NT happened in the first century or so of Christianity - long before Muhammad was born. Of course there were probably a few typos in later centuries, but those were very trivial.

Correct. As texual critics have shown no variant in the New Testament affects Christian doctrine. Most of spelling errors, some are word order, etc.

The Johanneum Comma is a gloss. A gloss is when a scribe puts his thoughts in the margin and the next scribe thinks it is part of the text and incorporates it into the text.

Texual critics can pinpoint any variants and determine if they should be part of the text.

The Qur'an says it confirms what we have today.

The Bible was not translated into Arabic until about 900AD. When the Muslims started comparing the New Testament (and Bible) to the Qur'an, they discovered the Qur'an did not confirm the Bible and that is how "bible corruption" was born.

The Muslims had a choice; either to say the Qur'an was wrong, which would be unthinkable, or claim the Christians and Jews changed their Scriptures and they chose the second option.

 

[GeorgeTwo]

<staff edit>
Take a look at this article:

http://www.thegloriousgospel.ca/manuscr ... john-57-8/

Clips:

Tertullian (c. 200 A.D.) makes the following comment, ‘The connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Comforter, makes an unity of these three, one with another, which three are one…’ . (Against Praxeas, II, Ante-Nicene Fathers) Not a direct quote of the Johannine Comma, but certainly he is alluding to it. Some many question whether he is alluding to the Johannine Comma, but keep in mind that the expression ‘three are one’, only appears in 1 John 5:7, the Johannine Comma.

Cyprian of Carthage (c. 250 A.D.) from his book, ‘De Unitate Ecclesiae, (On the Unity of the Church), The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Church Fathers Down to A.D.325’. His quote, ‘The Lord says ‘I am the Father are one’ and likewise it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, ‘And these three are one”. There is no question here that he is quoting from 1 John 5:7, the Johannine Comma. My simple question is, ‘Where did Cyprian get this from?’ Is it not common sense to conclude that he had a MS that contained the Johannine Comma?

Athanasius (c. 350 A.D.) quotes 1 John 5;7 three times in his writings.

Priscillian (380 A.D.) from his book, ‘Liber Apologeticus’, states the following words, ‘As John says, ‘and there are three which give testimony on earth, the water, the flesh, the blood, and these three are in one, and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus.”

Jerome (382 A.D.) in his book, ‘Prologue to the Canonical Epistles’, quotes the following when discussing the Johannine Comma that, ‘…irresponsible translators left out this testimony in the Greek codices.’ He further adds the following, ‘…these Epistles I have restored to their proper order; which, if arranged agreeably to the original text, and faithfully interpreted in Latin diction, would neither cause perplexity to the readers, nor would the various readings contradict themselves, especially in that place where we read the unity of the Trinity laid down in the Epistle of John. In this I found translators (or copyists) widely deviating from the truth; who set down in their own edition the names only of the three witnesses, that is, the Water, blood, and Spirit; but omit the testimony of the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; by which , above all places, the Divinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is proved to be one’.

Theodorus ( 4th century) writes in “A treatise on one God in the Trinity, from the Epistle of John the Evangelist’ the following, ‘…that John in his Epistle, presents God as a Trinity…’

Gregory of Nazanzius (4th century) this quote is taken from ‘The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers’. Gregory of Nazanzius says, ‘What about John then, when in his Catholic Epistle he says that there are Three that bear witness, the Spirit and the Water and the Blood? Do you think he is talking nonsense? First, because he has ventured to reckon under one numeral things which are not con substantial, though you say this ought to be done only in the case of things which are con substantial. For who could assert that these are con substantial? Secondly, because he had not been consistent in the way he has happened upon his terms; for after using Three in the masculine gender he adds three words which are neuter, contrary to the definitions and laws which you and your grammarians have laid down. For what is the difference between putting a masculine Three first, and the adding One and One and One in the neuter, or after a masculine One and One and One to use the Three not in the masculine but in the neuter, which you yourself disclaim in the case of Deity?’ It is interesting to note that Bruce Metzger claimed that no Greek Father quoted the Johannine Comma, however, it is not to hard to see from Gregory’s comment that he is indeed alluding to the passage and objecting to the grammatical structure if the Johannine Comma is omitted. Keep in mind that Gregory is a 4th century Greek Father of the Church!

 

[Nidge]

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

The Quran declares the Bible to be a true revelation of God and demands faith in the Bible. Sura 2:40-42,126,136,285; 3:3,71,93; 4:47,136; 5:47-51, 69,71-72; 6:91; 10:37,94; 21:7; 29:45,46; 35:31; 46:11

All these above texts presuppose the availability of the true revelation of God to the people of Muhammad's day. Sura 3:71,93; 10:94; 21:71

A true Muslim is obliged to believe in all the revelations of God. Sura 2:136; 4:136; 29:46

The Quran makes no distinction between God's revelations Sura 2:136

The Qur'an claims that NO ONE can change the Word of God. Sura 6:34; 10:34

Why Do Muslims Believe The Bible Is Corrupted?

In 1064, Ibn-Khazem, FIRST charged that the Bible had been corrupted and the Bible falsified. This charge was to defend Islam against Christianity because Ibn-Khazem come upon differences and contradiction between the Bible and the Quran. Believing, by faith that the Quran was true, the Bible must then be false. He said, "Since the Quran must be true it must be the conflicting Gospel texts that are false. But Muhammad tells us to respect the Gospel. Therefore, the present text must have been falsified by the Christians after the time of Muhammad." His argument was not based on any evidence or historical facts but only on his personal faith, reasoning and desire to safeguard the Quran. This led him to teach that, "The Christians lost the revealed Gospel except for a few traces which God has left intact as argument against them."

Many great MUSLIM teachers DO NOT believe the Bible has been corrupted and ACCEPT the authenticity of our PRESENT New Testament texts.

Ali al-Tabari (died 855) accepted the Gospel texts
Amr al-Ghakhiz (869) " " " "
BUKHARI (810-870) " " " " (he gathered some of the earliest tradition of Islam quoted the Quran itself to support his belief in the text of the Bible Sura 3:72,78)
Al-Mas'udi (956) " " " "
Abu Ali Husain Bin Sina (1037)" " "
AL-GHAZZALI (1111) " " " " (probably the greatest Muslim scholar he lived after Ibn-Khazem but did not accept his teachings)
Ibn-Khaldun (1406) " " " " " " (he lived after Ibn-Khazem but did not accept his teachings but rather believed the earlier Islamic teachers.)

Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, founder of the Aligarh College "In the opinion of us Mohammedans it is not proved that corruption (tahrif-i-lafzi)...was practiced."
Fakhruddin Razi, on the authority of Ibn Abbas, a nephew of Muhammed, "The Jews and early Christians were suspected of altering the text of the Taurat and Injil; but in the opinion of eminent doctors and theologians it was not practicable thus to corrupt the text, because those Scriptures were generally known and widely circulated, having been handed down from generation to generation." (bible.ca/islam)

Muslims, do you believe the Qur'an or Ibn-Khazem?

<staff edit>
Have you Read "Look What's Missing" By David W Daniels? if not read it then you'll know why the Muslims Believe as they do and they Do believe the Bible is Corrupted They often use the argument to refute Christians
out of 40 Bible versions every single one has verses removed or altered and many are in Greek texts but they remove them because, Well your guess is as good as mine it's Scandalous
I will say though that the KJV has less corruption than many others

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

The funniest thing is that the Qur'an itself relies on demonstrably ahistorical apocryphal Christian scriptures such as the infancy gospel of Thomas.

 

[xpower]

Dr. Nabeel Qureshi vs. Osama Abdallah Debate: Has the Quran been perfectly Preserved?

What is God Really Like: Tawhid or Trinity?

 

[GeorgeTwo]

Are these textual critics practising Christians by any chance?


Why are the additions still found in the KJV, the most widely used Bible amongst Christians?


No it doesn't. The Qur'an talks about the Torah and Injeel - Singular, not 'Injeel according to' x,y,z etc


Explain the following verse then:

"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 them, nor wilt thou cease to find them- barring a few - ever bent on (new) deceits: but forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds): for Allah loveth those who are kind. From those, too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message that was sent them: so we estranged them, with enmity and hatred between the one and the other, to the day of judgment. And soon will Allah show them what it is they have done." (Quran 5:13-14)




Muslims follow the Qur'an and consult the Prophet's saying regarding the corruption of previous Scriptures; Hadiths like:


Narrated Abu Huraira: The people of the Scripture (Jews) used to recite the Torah in Hebrew and they used to explain it in Arabic to the Muslims. On that Allah's Apostle said, "Do not believe the people of the Scripture or disbelieve them, but say:-- "We believe in Allah and what is revealed to us." (2.136) (Bukhari Volume 6, Book 60, Number 12)

Narrated Ubaidullah: Ibn 'Abbas said, "Why do you ask the people of the scripture about anything while your Book (Quran) which has been revealed to Allah's Apostle is newer and the latest? You read it pure, undistorted and unchanged, and Allah has told you that the people of the scripture (Jews and Christians) changed their scripture and distorted it, and wrote the scripture with their own hands and said, 'It is from Allah,' to sell it for a little gain. Does not the knowledge which has come to you prevent you from asking them about anything? No, by Allah, we have never seen any man from them asking you regarding what has been revealed to you!" (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 92, Number 461)

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. (Bukhari Volume 9, Book 93, Number 614)

Peace

Surah 5:13-14 is speaking of people taking verses out of context, not changing the text.

Forgetting a part of it does not mean changing the text.

There is only one Gospel.

 

[GeorgeTwo]

So for their breaking of the covenant We cursed them and made their hearts hard. They distort words from their [proper] usages and have forgotten a portion of that of which they were reminded. And you will still observe deceit among them, except a few of them. But pardon them and overlook [their misdeeds]. Indeed, Allah loves the doers of good. 5:13


Where can I find the parts of Scripture they forgot? In addition to what they left out;

Nothing was left out. I explained this to you. What some forgot could mean anything on an individual basis.

Who added 'son of God' to Mark 1:1

From the NET Bible:


3 tc א* Θ 28 l2211 pc sams Or lack υἱοῦ θεοῦ (Juiou qeou, “son of God”), while virtually all the rest of the witnesses have the words (A Ë1,13 33 Ï also have τοῦ [tou] before θεοῦ), so the evidence seems to argue for the authenticity of the words. Most likely, the words were omitted by accident in some witnesses, since the last four words of v. 1, in uncial script, would have looked like this: iu_c_r_u_u_u_q_u_.

Who added 'pick up your cross' to Mark 10:21

Mark 10:21 -

21 Then, looking at him, Jesus loved him and said to him, “You lack one thing: Go, sell all you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow Me.”


Nothing added here.

Who added the verses after Mark 16:8

It is believed the long ending was lost, but not needed. It does not affect Christian doctrine. No variant does.

Who added and the third day he shall rise again to Mark 9:31 and 10:34


NET Bible:


58 tc Most mss, especially the later ones (A[*] W Θ Ë1,13 Ï sy), have “on the third day” (τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ, th trith Jhmera) instead of “after three days.” But not only does Mark nowhere else speak of the resurrection as occurring on the third day, the idiom he uses is a harder reading (cf. Mark 8:31; 9:31, though in the latter text the later witnesses also have τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ). Further, τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ conforms to the usage that is almost universally used in Matthew and Luke, and is found in the parallels to this text (Matt 20:19; Luke 18:33). Thus, scribes would be doubly motivated to change the wording. The most reliable witnesses, along with several other mss (א B C D L Δ Ψ 579 892 2427 it co), have resisted this temptation.

The last 2 Hadiths I posted mention Bible alterations and now with modern Scholarship we know it to be the case. Please address the passages from Mark before we move forward to the other Gospels.

Not true, as I explained. No Christian doctrine is affected by any variant reading.

Also when you say there is only 'One' Gospel, which one is it?

Read: Jesus’ Gospel according to Matthew; Jesus’ Gospel according to Mark, etc.

Is it 66 books of the Protestant canon, or the 81 books of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church with their extra books, or Syrian Orthodox and their extra books, or is it the 73 books found within the Catholic Bible?

Jesus Gospel is found in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John which are in the Canon.


The Catholics include some Jewish books, not considered inspired by Jews or Protestants.

 

[anatolian]

First of all, Quran doesn't mention a book as "Bible". Quran mentions Tawrat(Torah), Zabur(Psalms) and Injeel(Gospel) but not Bible. There are several texts in Bible even questioned by Christians' themselves. But you are right on that Quran doesnt inform us about a dramatic corruption of these books. It rather informs us about misinterpretaions and deliberately twisting the messages. Also, it tells us that the period of those books are over and they are not applicable anymore. Quran came for all.

In either case, corrupted or not, the books of Bible are not valid and only Quran is valid for all mankind. And both Christains and Jews have "corrupted ideas" which cause them disblieve.

 

[GeorgeTwo]

First of all, Quran doesn't mention a book as "Bible". Quran mentions Tawrat(Torah), Zabur(Psalms) and Injeel(Gospel) but not Bible. There are several texts in Bible even questioned by Christians' themselves. But you are right on that Quran doesnt inform us about a dramatic corruption of these books. It rather informs us about misinterpretaions and deliberately twisting the messages. Also, it tells us that the period of those books are over and they are not applicable anymore. Quran came for all.

In either case, corrupted or not, the books of Bible are not valid and only Quran is valid for all mankind. And both Christains and Jews have "corrupted ideas" which cause them disblieve.

Who really did your prophet meet in that cave who didn't identify itself as the angel Gabriel?

Muhammad thought it was a demon. How do you know it wasn't?

 

[GeorgeTwo]

Omitted by accident? The oldest complete NT from the first half of the 4th Century, The Codex Sinaiticus Codex Sinaiticus - See The Manuscript | Mark | records the verse as:

1:1 The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ,

Now you say it was mistakenly left out, so to be sure if that is the case could you please supply the original gospel attributed to Mark, so we can check?




Sinaiticus reads;

21 And Jesus looking upon him loved him, and said to him: One thing thou lackest: go, sell whatever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven, and come follow me.

No cross, so I'm wondering who added it to the narrative?



The short ending shows no resurrection, just an empty tomb. The longer ending clearly changes the narrative to a risen Christ, and as Paul says, if Jesus pbuh hasn't risen then your faith is in vain. It's a core Doctrine, Mark's Gospel is the earliest, so please provide the original to see if it indeed had the longer ending.

The earliest Christian creed passed down by Jesus' disciples was this:


For I handed over to you, as of first importance, that which I also received:

that Christ died on behalf of our sins according to the scriptures
and that he was buried
and that he was raised on the third day according to the scriptures
and that he was seen by Cephas then by the twelve...

This creed is believed to have been handed down within two years of Jesus' death and resurrection.

Muslims and their Allah made Jesus out to be a false prophet because Jesus predicted His death and resurrection.

Matthew 12:40 - 'For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the son of man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.'

Matthew 17:9 - As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus instructed them, 'Don't tell anyone what you have seen, until the son of man has been raised from the dead.'

Matthew 17:22,23 - When they came together in Galilee, he said to them, 'the son of man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men. They will kill him, and on the third day he will be raised to life.' And the disciples were filled with grief.

Matthew 20:18,19 - 'We are going up to Jerusalem, and the son of man will be betrayed to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will turn him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified. On the third day he will be raised to life!'

Matthew 20:28 - '...The son of man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.'

Matthew 26:2 - 'As you know, the Passover is two days away - and the son of man will be handed over to be crucified.'

Matthew 26:45 - Then he returned to the disciples and said to them, 'Are you still sleeping and resting? Look, the hour is near, and the son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.'

Mark 8:31 - He then began to teach them that the son of man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again.

Mark 9:31 - He said to them, 'the son of man is going to be betrayed into the hands of men. They will kill him, and after three days he will rise.'

Mark 10:33,34 - 'We are going up to Jerusalem,' he said, 'and the son of man will be betrayed to the chief priests and teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles, who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. Three days later he will rise.'

Luke 9:22 - And he said, 'the son of man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.'


Luke 18:31-33 - Jesus took the Twelve aside and told them, 'We are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written by the prophets about the son of man will be fulfilled. He will be handed over to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him, spit on him, flog him and kill him. On the third day he will rise again.'

If it didn't happen, then Jesus is a false prophet and a liar.

This is the problem that you need to face:

Surah 2:42

Literal
(Word by Word)


And believe in what I have sent down confirming that which (is) with you, and (do) not be (the) first disbeliever of it. And (do) not exchange My Signs (for) a price small, and Me Alone fear [Me].

Since our manuscripts predate the Qur'an by a few hundred years, it is confirming what we have today, so if you think there is some "corruption" the Qur'an is confirming that "corruption" as true.

 

[anatolian]

Who really did your prophet meet in that cave who didn't identify itself as the angel Gabriel?

Muhammad thought it was a demon. How do you know it wasn't?

He identified himself as a messenger from his Lord. He told the Prophet aleyhissalam to read with the name of his Lord. The Prophet aleyhissalam most probably didn't even know the name of the messenger angel back then. He just knew his Lord Allah. His religion was just the Hanif faith, the faith of Abraham. Faith in one God. So, it was not neccesary to tell him that he was the angel Gabriel.

The Prophet aleyhissalam didn't thought it was a demon. He was just afraid of what it was. He saw him with all his glory on sky after getting out of the cave also. There is no demon.

 

[GeorgeTwo]

How is Osama Abdallah qualified to speak on such a topic?

Has the Qur'an been preserved; Adnan Rashid vs James White

Oral transmission from known people is superior over written records from non eyewitnesses.

’Ibn Umar al–Khattab explicitly admits,

"Let no one of you say that he has acquired the entire Qur’an for how does he know that it is all? Much of the Qur’an has been lost, thus let him say, ‘I have acquired of it what is available"’ (Suyuti: Itqan, part 3, page 72).

A’isha (also page 72) adds to the story of ibn Umar and says,

"During the time of the prophet, the chapter of the Parties used to be two hundred verses when read. When Uthman edited the copies of the Qur’an, only the current (verses) were recorded" (73 verses).

The same statement is made by Ubay ibn Ka’b, one of the great companions. On page 72, part 3, the Suyuti says,

"This famous companion asked one of the Muslims, ‘How many verses in the chapter of the Parties?’ He said, ‘Seventy-two or seventy-three verses.’ He (Ubay) told him, ‘It used to be almost equal to the chapter of the Cow (about 286 verses) and included the verse of the stoning.’ The man asked, ‘What is the verse of the stoning?’ He said, ‘If an old man or woman committed adultery, stone them to death."’

Another confession by A’isha:

"Among the (verses) which were sent down, (the verse) of the ten breast feedings was abrogated by (a verse which calls for five breast feedings. The apostle of God died and this verse was still read as part of the Qur’an. This was related by Abu Bakr and ’Umar" (refer to Suyuti’s qan, part 3, pages 62 and 63).

In his book (volume 8, part II, pages 235 and 236), Ibn Hazm says plainly,

"The verses of stoning and breast feeding were in the possession of A’isha in a (Qur’anic) copy. When Muhammad died and people became busy in the burial preparations, a domesticated animal entered in and ate it."

In part 3, page 73, the Suyuti said,

"Hamida, the daughter of Abi Yunis, said, ‘When my father was eighty years old, he read in the copy of A’isha, "God and His angels bless (literally pray for) the prophet Oh ye who believe, bless him and those who pray in the first rows." Then she said, "That was before ’Uthman changed the Qur’anic copies.""’

On page 74, we read,

"Umar said to ’Abdul-Rahman Ibn ’Oaf, ‘Didn’t you find among the verses that we received one saying, "Strive as you strove at the first?" We do not locate it (any more).’ ’Abdul-Rahman Ibn ’Oaf told him, ‘This verse has been removed among those others which were removed from the Qur’an."’

If we ponder the first part of "The Itqan", by the Suyuti, we read (page 184),

"Malik says that several verses from chapter 9 (Sura of Repentance) have been dropped from the beginning. Among them is, ‘In the name of God the compassionate, the Merciful’ because it was proven that the length of Sura of Repentance was equal to the length of the Sura of the Cow."

This means that this chapter has lost 157 verses. Also (page 184), the Suyuti tells us that the words, "In the name of God the compassionate, the merciful" were found in the chapter of Repentance in the Qur’anic copy which belonged to Ibn Mas’ud which ’Uthman confiscated and burned when the current Qur’an was edited.

Not only verses have been dropped, but also entire chapters have been abolished from the ’Uthmanic copy which is in the hands of all Muslims today.

 

[GeorgeTwo]

You haven't even attempted to answer my questions.

What is the name of this creed?

Nowhere in the Qur'an or Islamic sources is Jesus pbuh ever called a false Prophet. We believe and follow him just as his family and early Christian Community did.

What's any of this got to do with Bible changes?

Jesus pbuh was a Messiah sent to the Jews, born miraculously, did miracles and wonders.
The ruling class wanted him out of the way, so plotted and planned. Jesus pbuh begged God to save him from the cross, he asked ho would take his place on the cross for eternal salvation. A follower agreed and his Disciples were amazed to see him laughing as they crucified his identical looking helper. He appeared to his family and later ascended to Heaven awaiting his return to this day.

After he left there were many stories about him in circulation as people sought to attract new converts. The confusion and stories of a shape shifting Jesus led to a growth in Gnosticism and alternative stories of a son of god dying on the cross. The people writing these anonymous accounts would look through the Torah for Prophecies they could alter and attribute to Jesus pbuh, building up a conflicting story as they went along. In all some 40+ Gospels were written and later Church Fathers accustomed to worshipping the Sun selected 4 to become part of the NT, the 4 representing 4 elements or corners of the Earth.

Everything above is found in sources left out of the Bible from early Christianity.

Paul thinking uneducated people wouldn't check writes;

1 Corinthians 15:

3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,

What Scripture is he talking about?



How is this a problem? There's no mention of the Torah, New Testament or Bible in that verse.

Allah swt is addressing the Jews and reminding them of what they already knew. Story of Adam pbuh and the covenant made with Bani Israel. Allah swt is reminding them, what Muhammad pbuh is preaching is with them, is nothing new and they should confirm it to people who were asking. Read the context and Hadiths, not just a single verse.

Then as you have posted Allah swt tells them not to exchange revelation for a miserable price. Were the Jews in the 7th Century changing their Scripture? No, so what is Allah swt talking about ?? Read between the lines. Clearly the corruption had already occurred and the learned amongst the Jewish Scholars knew this fact.

Allah swt says, Fear me. Obey the Messenger and return to truth.

The creed was handed down to the Apostle Paul be Jesus' disciples.

 

[GeorgeTwo]

He identified himself as a messenger from his Lord. He told the Prophet aleyhissalam to read with the name of his Lord. The Prophet aleyhissalam most probably didn't even know the name of the messenger angel back then. He just knew his Lord Allah. His religion was just the Hanif faith, the faith of Abraham. Faith in one God. So, it was not neccesary to tell him that he was the angel Gabriel.

The Prophet aleyhissalam didn't thought it was a demon. He was just afraid of what it was. He saw him with all his glory on sky after getting out of the cave also. There is no demon.

"Even Satan can disguise himself as an angel of light."

 

[GeorgeTwo]

Did the Early Scribes Corrupt the New Testament? - Dan Wallace, PhD

Published on 10 Dec 2014

Bible scholar Dan Wallace defends the reliability of the New Testament against the new atheist critics. Wallace touches on many claims made by Bart Ehrman (Misquoting Jesus), C. J. Werleman (Jesus Lied), Dan Brown (The Da Vinci Code), etc. This video is part of the 'Contending with Christianity's Critics' 2012

Quote from Bart Ehrman:

I do not think that the "corruption" of Scripture means that scribes changed everything in the text, or even most things. The original texts certainly spoke at great length about Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. The issues involved in the corruption of the text usually entail nuances of interpretation. These are important nuances; but most of the New Testament can be reconstructed by scholars with reasonable certainty -- as much certainty as we can reconstruct *any* book of the ancient world.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

<staff edit>
Textual evidence, historical context and sheer plausibility establish that the historical Jesus never brought clay figures to life, that legends about this originate in the 2nd century CE, and that insisting on the episode's veracity has got more to do with religious confirmation bias than with proper scholarly research.
In fact, it's the exact same mechanism we find with Christians denying non-historical elements in the Bible, only coming from a different religion.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Here's what we can identify as the most likely historical elements about the actual Jesus:
- he was a Galilean from Nazareth
- he was one of several messiah claimants
- he preached in the early 30s CE
- some of his followers and relatives are known by name, although this list has been expanded by more symbolic elements (twelve disciples for twelve tribes, etc)
- his following included women, some of whom are known by name, but whose role was subsequently downplayed and obscured
- he was executed by the Romans for inciting public unrest (and the blame was later shifted to the Jews)
- his followers collected some of his teachings and sayings
- this was embellished upon a generation later, when it became relevant to record them for posterity
- at this point, the faction who would turn out to be the most long-lived and influential were the gentile followers of Paul, and this coloured and shaped the written accounts into the form we are familiar with
- some conflicts of the second half of the first century are retroactively projected upon Jesus's ministry in the 30s

 

[GeorgeTwo]

As much as I like his conviction, it's much better when there's a qualified Scholar around holding a very different view. See my video below Dan Wallace and Bart Ehrman, where his words are far removed from your unsubstantiated quote:



I had a look and a Christian website says, the quote was sent by Bart Ehrman in a correspondence to one of their readers :/

Here's the video I mentioned:

Dan agrees the originals are lost, but the NT can be reconstructed from Church Father quotes. Later on Bart Ehrman's facebook page Dan clarified what exactly that means:

Link >>> Bart D. Ehrman

Dan Wallace "Actually, no, I didn't say that. I said what Ehrman and Metzger have said, viz., that virtually the entire NT can be reconstructed on the basis of the writings of the church fathers. "Early" is the key word that I do not use. That view was based on a misunderstanding through a third party!"

Bart D. Ehrman "Yes, this was the area of much of my research early in my career, the study of Patristic sources for reconstructing the text of the New Testament. It's very much a pity that there are not good sources for the first to third centuries, but we do start getting them in the fourth century (my dissertation was on one of the earlier ones, the writings of Didymus the Blind)."

New Testament goes back to the 4th Century. How much has changed from the original Injeel of the First Century, we will never know. We do know the family of Jesus pbuh and at least 6 Disciples knew he wasn't crucified or part of a Trinity.

The problem you have is that the Qur'an confirms the past revelations and you are stuck with it because the Qur'an contradicts the past revelations.

How did all that foklore end up in the Qur'an as revelations, such as Jesus speaking as an infant and making clay birds that could fly?

Also, in regard to the Islamic view of a substitute on the cross probably came from the Coptic Apocalypse of Peter dated to the 3rd century; no one believes Apostle Peter wrote it.

It is Gnostic. Many of the Gnostics were also Docetics. The Docetics believed that Jesus was truly God in the flesh, but He was not really a human being. In other words, Jesus only seemed to be a man.

I believe it quite possible that the Islamic belief that Jesus escaped crucifixion because a substitute was crucified in His place stems from Docetism. I believe that some of the Gnostic/Docetic "Christians" made it to Saudi Arabia. In fact, the governor of Egypt sent Muhammad a Coptic slave by the name of Maria. Maria could have been Muhammad's source for Surah 4:157. There were undoubtedly more Coptics in Saudi Arabia during the lifetime of Muhammad.

 

[GeorgeTwo]

Quotes by Bart Ehrman

“What I think we can say with some confidence is that Jesus actually did die, he probably was buried, and that some of his disciples (all of them? some of them?) claimed to have seen him alive afterward. Among those who made this claim, interestingly enough, was Jesus’ own brother James, who came to believe in Jesus and soon thereafter became one of the principle leaders of the early Christian church.”

Source: Bart Ehrman, Jesus, Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, [Oxford University Press US, 1999], p.229

“The Gospel of John … goes a long way toward identifying Jesus himself as divine (see e.g., John 8:58; 10:30; 20:28).”

Source: Bart Ehrman, Whose Word Is It? [Continuum International Publishing Group, 2006], p. 161

Book: The Text of the New Testament (authors Bart Ehrman and Bruce Metzger)

Bruce M. Metzger is a world-renowned authority on the manuscripts and transmission of the Greek New Testament

Testimony from Bruce Metzger in the book, “The Case for Christ”:

"With the similarities in the way Greek letters are written and with the primitive conditions under which the scribes worked, it would seem inevitable that copying errors would creep into the text,' I said. "Quite so," Metzger conceded.

"And in fact, aren't there literally tens of thousands of variations among the ancient manuscripts that we have?" "Quite so."

"Doesn't that therefore mean we can't trust them?" I asked, sounding more accusatory than inquisitive. "NO SIR, IT DOES NOT," Metzger replied firmly. "First let me say this: Eyeglasses weren't invented until 1373 in Venice, and I'm sure that astigmatism existed among the ancient scribes. That was compounded by the fact that it was difficult under any circumstances to read faded manuscripts on which some of the ink had flaked away. And there were other hazards - inattentiveness on the part of scribes, for example . So yes, although for the most part scribes were scrupulously careful, errors did creep in.

"But," he was quick to add, "there are factors counteracting that. For example, sometimes the scribe's memory would play tricks on him. Between the time it took for him to look at the text and then to write down the words, the order of words might get shifted. He may write down the right words but in the wrong sequence. THIS IS NOTHING TO BE ALARMED AT, BECAUSE GREEK, UNLIKE ENGLISH, IS AN INFLECTED LANGUAGE." "Meaning...," I prompted him.

"MEANING IT MAKES A WHALE OF A DIFFERENCE IN ENGLISH IF YOU SAY, 'DOG BITES MAN' OR 'MAN BITES DOG' - SEQUENCE MATTERS IN ENGLISH. BUT IN GREEK IT DOESN'T. ONE WORD FUNCTIONS AS THE SUBJECT OF THE SENTENCE REGARDLESS OF WHERE IT STANDS IN THE SEQUENCE; CONSEQUENTLY, THE MEANING OF THE SENTENCE ISN'T DISTORTED IF THE WORDS ARE OUT OF WHAT WE CONSIDER TO BE THE RIGHT ORDER. So yes, some variations among manuscripts exist, but generally they're INCONSEQUENTIAL VARIATIONS like that. Differences in spelling would be another example."

I keyed in on the most important issue. "How many doctrines of the church are in jeopardy because of variants?" "I DON'T KNOW OF ANY DOCTRINE THAT IS IN JEOPARDY," he responded confidently

"So the variations, when they occur, tend to be minor rather than substantive?"

"Yes, yes, that's correct, and scholars work very carefully to try to resolve them by getting back to the original meaning. The more significant variations do not overthrow any doctrine of the church. Any good Bible will have notes that will alert the reader to variant readings of any consequence. But, again, these are rare." (Strobel, pp. 82-85)

Strobel concludes:

As we stood, I thanked Dr. Metzger for his time and expertise. He smiled warmly and offered to walk me downstairs. I didn't want to consume any more of his Saturday afternoon, but my curiosity wouldn't let me leave Princeton without satisfying myself about one remaining issue.

"All these decades of scholarship, of study, of writing textbooks, of delving into the minutiae of the New Testament text - WHAT HAS ALL THIS DONE TO YOUR PERSONAL FAITH?" I asked.

"Oh," he said, sounding happy to discuss the topic, 'IT HAS INCREASED THE BASIS OF MY PERSONAL FAITH TO SEE THE FIRMNESS WITH WHICH THESE MATERIALS HAVE COME DOWN TO US, WITH A MULTIPLICITY OF COPIES, SOME OF WHICH ARE VERY, VERY ANCIENT."

"So," I started to say, "scholarship has not diluted your faith-"

He jumped in before I could finish my sentence. "On the contrary," he stressed, "it has built it. I've asked questions all my life, I've dug into text, I've studied this thoroughly, and TODAY I KNOW WITH CONFIDENCE THAT MY TRUST IN JESUS HAS BEEN WELL PLACED."

He paused while his eyes surveyed my face. Then he added, for emphasis, "VERY WELL PLACED." (Strobel, p. 93)

What do Metzger and Ehrman conclude together in that revised work? Melinda Penner of Stand to Reason writes,


(Book: The Text of the New Testament (authors Bart Ehrman and Bruce Metzger)

“Ehrman and Metzger state in that book that we can have a high degree of confidence that we can reconstruct the original text of the New Testament, the text that is in the Bibles we use, because of the abundance of textual evidence we have to compare. The variations are largely minor and don’t obscure our ability to construct an accurate text. The 4th edition of this work was published in 2005 – the same year Ehrman published Misquoting Jesus, which relies on the same body of information and offers no new or different evidence to state the opposite conclusion.”

Here’s what Ehrman said in an interview found in the appendix of Misquoting Jesus (p. 252):


“Bruce Metzger is one of the great scholars of modern times, and I dedicated the book to him because he was both my inspiration for going into textual criticism and the person who trained me in the field. I have nothing but respect and admiration for him. And even though we may disagree on important religious questions – he is a firmly committed Christian and I am not – we are in complete agreement on a number of very important historical and textual questions. If he and I were put in a room and asked to hammer out a consensus statement on what we think the original text of the New Testament probably looked like, there would be very few points of disagreement – maybe one or two dozen places out of many thousands. The position I argue for in ‘Misquoting Jesus’ does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger’s position that the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.”

Source: http://crossexamined.org

Bart Ehrman was asked why he did take on the Qur’an:

If you had listed to this video:

One: you would have learned that the deity of the Messiah was established in the first century.

Two – you would have learned we have about 1 million quotations of the New Testament by the Church Fathers,

Three – you would have learned we could reproduce many times over the entire New Testament just be using the quotations of the Church Fathers

Four – you would have learned Bart Ehrman’s answer to the following question, referring to his quote in the appendix of “Misquoting Jesus?”

‘Why do you believe these core tenants of the Christian orthodoxy to be in jeopardy based on the scribal errors you discovered in biblical manuscripts?’

This is Bart Ehrman’s answer:

“Essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.”

And Bart Ehrman is who Muslims rely on to claim the New Testament is corrupted???