Corruption of the Scriptures: Part I – Does Islam Confirm the Bible As a Scripture from God?

On By stewjo004In Ahadith, Bible, Christianity, History, Islam, Jesus, Judaism, Muhammad, Prophets, Quran, Responses

Corruption of the Scriptures: Part I – Does Islam Confirm the Bible As a Scripture from God?

 By Quran and Bible Blog Contributor stewjo004

pdf
View as PDF

بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمٰنِ الرَّحِيْم

“…The devils inspire each other so that they can argue with you and if you follow them then you will be of those who equate others with God.”

– The Quran, Surah Yunus, 10:36

            A common claim missionaries make when trying to convert Muslims is that the Qur’an approves of the Bible and that Muslims are told by the Quran to seek the Truth from there. Obviously, this claim makes no sense for several reasons:

  1. If the Scriptures of the Christians and Jews were good, there would be no need for Islam or the Qur’an.
  2. The Qur’an, the Prophet and the Sahaba clearly state that the previous scriptures have been corrupted.So in this article we’re going to explore these verses and hadith that missionaries attempt to bombard Muslims with and see if their argument is valid.

“The Word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and justice. There is no power that is capable of changing His Words because He is the All-Hearing and Knowing.”[1]

 

The argument presented by missionaries is that the Scripture can’t change because the Qur’an says that God’s words can’t change. To begin, this is an illogical argument because one can take any religious text and add or delete a verse from it. There’s no magical force field around the text itself. The proper context of these verses has nothing to do with God’s Scriptures. They’re referring to God’s Commands which He throughout the Qur’an calls His Word because He says “Be” and then it happens. Let’s look at some examples (emphasis ours):

“It was He who created the heavens and the earth with purpose. On the Day which He says “Be” it will come to be. His Word is the ultimate Truth and on that Day in which it will be blown into the Horn, He will have all control and authority. The Knower of the seen and the unseen, He is the One to pass Judgment and the One who carries full news…”[2]

“Those who your Lord’s Word has passed on will not believe, even if every sign comes to them, until they see the agonizing torment.”[3]


“Your Lord’s Word was passed against the disbelievers that they would be friends of the Inferno in this way.”[4]


“Whenever I decided to destroy a city, I compel and give complete authority to the financially elite, and as a result they create corruption throughout the land. And so My Word is passed and I annihilate that society completely.”[5]

“But have no doubts, the Word has already been confirmed on a majority of them, therefore they won’t believe.”[6]

The Pharaoh said: “Bring me every skilled magician.”When the magicians came, Moses said to them: “Cast whatever you have to cast.” When they did so, Moses said: “Everything you have brought is only magic, God will show it to be a lie. Rest assured that God will not set the work of those who are the sources of trouble and corruption right. He will uphold the Truth with His Words and make it a reality, no matter how much the sinning criminals hate it.…”[7]

There are more such verses, but there’s no point in being redundant. God’s Decrees are called the Word or Words in the Qur’an. Now keeping this point in mind, let’s reread the verses that missionaries quote about being unable to change God’s Words:

“For those who have faith and are God fearing, there is good news in their worldly life and in the Next. And there is no changing God’s Words ˹because˺ that is the greatest triumph.”[8]


“The Word of your Lord has been fulfilled in truth and justice. There is no power that is capable of changing His Words because He is the All-Hearing and Knowing.”[9]

As can clearly be seen by an objective reader, these verses are about God’s Decrees that He has passed on the Creation, not about His Scriptures. Now we have one verse that is the exception to this:

“Keep on reading what’s been revealed to you by your Lord. None are going to change His Words, nor will you find sanctuary in anyone but Him.”[10]

Let’s first examine the greater context:

“They say: “There were three, and their dog made four,” while some say: “They were five, and their dog made six.” All of this is just guessing into the Beyond, as others say: “They were seven, and their dog made eight.” Say to them: “My Lord knows best how many there were.” Only a few people know them, so don’t argue. Stick with what’s clear evidence, and don’t try to ask any more about them from anyone…So the Sleepers remained in their Cave for three hundred years and they added nine more. Tell them: “God knows best how long they stayed. All the knowledge that’s hidden in the heavens and earth is His. How amazingly well He sees and hears. You won’t find any protective friend except for Him; nor anyone to share in His rule.” Keep on reading what’s been revealed to you by your Lord. None are going to change His Words, nor will you find sanctuary in anyone but Him… Don’t follow or be influenced by those whose hearts I’ve emptied of My remembrance. They follow their own desires, and go overboard in all matters. Tell them that the Truth is from your Lord, whoever wishes can believe and whoever wishes can disbelieve. Have no doubts though, I’ve set the Fire for the wrongdoers, and its walls have already engulfed them…”[11]

In this particular verse, God is referring to the Qur’an itself. The disbelievers were making all kinds of claims so God told the Prophet (and Muslims by extension) basically that:

“Don’t let these evil people influence you, and stick to what is clear. None can change the Qur’an and I will protect you from all these lies as long as you stick to it.”

The irony in using this verse is that God is actually saying people are going to make all sorts of wild claims and guesses, so don’t let it influence you.

Let’s look at the next verse used to substantiate the Bible:

“Who follow the Messenger, the illiterate prophet they find described in the Torah that is with them, and in the Gospel…”[12]


The argument presented by missionaries is that because the verse says “that is with them” this means the Bible is a pure and unaltered book. Now before diving into this verse, some quick things need to be explained and understood as we look into all the other verses that will be quoted.

            To begin, let’s define what is revelation and Scripture. There are multiple versions of revelation a prophet can receive:

  1. A Scripture where God transmits His words verbatim (either through direct speech or through an intermediary such as an angel)
  2. An angel relaying a message from God but not necessarily a Scripture or God’s direct speech (ex. “Your Lord has ordered you to go here…”
  3. Dreams
  4. A Prophet’s inspired action or speech regarding a religious matter.
  5. A Prophet’s rulings
  6. Prophecies

Now, numbers 2-6 are important and can be religiously binding on believers but they are not what we are discussing at this time. The Torah, Gospel and Quran would all be classified as number 1.

            The next point of confusion is about the book called “The Bible”. This book is not being referred to in these verses. The Bible is a collection of stories containing pieces of numbers 1-6 as well as lies and then being claimed as simply #1 by itself. When God in the Qur’an is talking about the Torah and Gospel, He is quoting from what He Himself revealed as a Scripture.  Here is an example: During his ministry, Jesus wasn’t going around reading 1 Timothy to the people. This is part of writing something and claiming that it’s from God. God never revealed these books and one can’t say these are the Scripture.

            The Torah and Gospel are the revelations that were actually dictated by God Himself. Although books in the Bible may contain some of what these Scriptures contained, they are not what is being referred to in the Quranic verses.

Here is an example using Islam (emphasis ours):

“Narrated Ibn `Abbas: The Prophet (ﷺ) was hiding himself in Mecca and used to recite the (Qur’an) in a loud voice. When the pagans heard him they would abuse the Qur’an and the one who brought it, so God said to His Prophet: ‘Neither say your prayer aloud, nor say it in a low tone’ (17.110).”[13]

The bolded part is Scripture in the story. This one verse that is just revealed is part of a whole chapter of the Qur’an that is 111 verses long. All 111 verses are revealed by God but in this incident, only this verse is revealed. Now imagine instead of that little part being the Qur’an, Muslims started saying the whole story is the Qur’an (i.e. the entire hadith above). That’s what the book known as the Bible is. The original revelation isn’t available now or during the time of the Prophet only a part of it is. For further understanding, let’s review the following charts. The green parts are what are being referred to in the Qur’an. What Jews and Christians are in possession of and use today are in brown. Finally the red X’s represent a transmission break (i.e we don’t know who wrote this or where they got it from):

John Stewart - Torah Sources

 

John Stewart - Gospel Sources

These anonymous Frankenstein books used nowadays are not what Muslims believe in nor what God revealed to mankind.

            However, just because we can no longer read these books doesn’t mean we can’t believe in them. It would be the same way we can’t see Angels but we believe in them. The Qur’an is the protector of the original (i.e. the green) Gospel and Torah along with whatever of it survives today in the Bible (i.e. the brown). Whenever Muslims quote from these texts, we are trying to show what parts may have been green or led up to the green.  Hopefully that clears up Islam’s position on the previous Scriptures.  Now keeping this point in mind, let’s look at the verse’s (7:158) context.

            To begin, in this verse God talking to Moses after the Children of Israel worshipped the Golden Calf.[14]  Moses is now going to meet with God bringing 70 men to ask for repentance:

“Moses chose from his people seventy men for their meeting with Me when a violent earthquake seized them. Moses said: “Oh Lord, if You had wanted you would’ve destroyed them way before this as well as me. Are you destroying us because of what the idiots among us did? This is nothing but Your test and through it, You mislead and You guide whomever you want! You are our Protective Friend so forgive us and show us mercy and never allow us to fall into it again because You are the best of those who can forgive! And write good for us in this life as well as the Next because we have lovingly and with full loyalty turned back to you!” I responded: “I target with My punishment whoever I wish and My Mercy extends to everything. I will give My Mercy to those who are God-fearing, purifying themselves by giving what is due in charity and truly believes in My revelations. Who follow the Messenger, the illiterate prophet they find described in the Torah that is with them, and in the Gospel. He will order them to what is good and forbid to them what is evil. And make allowed for them things that are pure, forbid to them all the things that are filthy and he will take off from them the chains and burdens around their necks that used to be on them. Those who will believe in him, obey him out of respect and help him, following the light sent down with him and they are the successful ones.…” So now tell them: “People! I am the Messenger of God for you all, sent by the One who owns the kingdom of the heavens and the earth!  No one is to be worshipped or obeyed but He. He gives life and He gives death, so believe in God and His Messenger, the prophet which can neither read nor write, who believes in God and His words, and follows them closely, so that you can be considered committed to guidance.…”[15]

So as we can see the following from the passage:

  1. The context of “that is with them” is not referring to modern times (or even during the time of the Prophet for that matter). It’s referring to the Children of Israel during Moses’s time.
  2. This verse of the Prophet is in the original revelation (i.e. the green on the chart) and not necessarily the Bible (the brown on the chart) but God knows best regarding this.

Now let’s move to the next set of verses:

“But why are they coming to you for a judgement ˹anyways˺ when they have the Torah which contains God’s judgement, and they then turn away and ignore it? It’s because they’re not really believers.”[16]

“So let the followers of the Gospel judge by the laws that God has sent down within it, because whoever doesn’t judge by what God has sent down are rebellious and disobedient.”[17]

And here is the accompanying hadith that missionaries will quote:

“Narrated Abdullah Ibn Umar: “A group of Jews came and invited the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) to Quff. So he visited them in their school. They said: Abul Qasim, one of our men has committed fornication with a woman; so pronounce judgment upon them. They placed a cushion for the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) who sat on it and said: Bring the Torah. It was then brought. He then withdrew the cushion from beneath him and placed the Torah on it saying: I believed in thee and in Him Who revealed thee…””[18]

To begin, there’s a difference of opinion regarding this hadith’s authenticity.  I personally believe this hadith is not authentic because in another authentic hadith, the Torah is brought out later, but for discussion’s sake, we’ll just assume it’s authentic as it won’t really affect anything once proper context is given.  Now, let’s get some background context to these verses from Ibn Kathir’s commentary:

“…this verse was revealed about the two Jews who committed adultery. The Jews changed the law they had in their Book from God on the matter of punishment for adultery, from stoning to death, to a hundred flogs and making the offenders ride a donkey facing the back of the donkey. When this incident of adultery occurred after the Hijrah, they said to each other, “Let us go to Muhammad and seek his judgement. If he gives a ruling of flogging, then implement his decision and make it a proof for you with God. This way, one of God’s Prophets will have upheld this ruling amongst you. But if he decides that the punishment should be stoning to death, then do not accept his decision.”[19]

So as we can see, the Jews attempted to justify another change to God’s Scripture by having a prophet rule that what they were doing was okay so that no sin occurred on them. Now some people may find this strange as to why would the Jews take a ruling from Muhammad (peace be upon him). Well the reason is some of them (and these exist even today) believed him to be a prophet for the Arabs or the gentiles but not for the Jewish people. Ibn Abbas mentions this in his commentary of Qur’an, 2:76:

“They believe that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, `But he was only sent for you (Arabs)” However, when they meet each other they say, “Do not convey the news about this Prophet to the Arabs, because you used to ask God to grant you victory over them when he came, but he was sent to them (not to you).” God then revealed, When they meet those who believe, they say: “We’ve believed!” But when they’re alone in secret, ˹they˺ say: “Are you telling them about what God has ˹revealed to us previously˺, so that they can make a case against you, with your Lord? Don’t you have any type of common sense or understanding?” (2:76)

Meaning, “If you admit to them that he is a Prophet, knowing that God took the covenant from you to follow him, they will know that Muhammad is the Prophet that we were waiting for and whose coming we find foretold of in our Book. Therefore, do not believe in him and deny him.’[20]‘

So to sum up, what happened was that the Prophet asked them what the ruling was for adulterers, and they lied. So then he asked them to bring the Torah and read from it. The man reading tried to place his hand over the verse and a rabbi who became Muslim told him to move his hand. They saw the verse and so the Prophet ruled in favor of stoning,[21] and then God revealed the following Qur’anic passage after the incident:

“Messenger, don’t become sad over those who race to surpass one another in disbelief. The same ones who say with their mouths: “We believe,” but who really have no faith in their hearts, or the Jews who listen eagerly to any lies. Listening to those who haven’t even met you and are twisting the meanings of words from their context saying to each other: “If you’re given this ruling, accept it, but if you’re not, then beware..” Those whom God wishes to test, you will be powerless on their behalf before God, ˹because˺ these are the same ones whose hearts God doesn’t intend to cleanse. It’s a disgrace for them in the worldly life, and then a heavy punishment in the Next. They listen eagerly to lies and eat from bribes. If they come to you for judgement, you can either judge between them, or decline. If you decline, they will not be able to hurt you in any way, but if you do judge between them, judge fairly because God loves the just. But why are they coming to you for a judgement ˹anyways˺ when they have the Torah which contains God’s judgement, and they then turn away and ignore it? It’s because they’re not really believers. I revealed the Torah with guidance and Light. The prophets, who all submitted to God, based their judgement according to it for the Jews. And so did the rabbis and the scholars in accordance with that part of God’s Scripture which they were trusted to preserve, to which they themselves were witnesses to. So don’t fear people, only fear Me. Do not sell My revelations for a small price because those who don’t judge according to what God has sent down are disbelievers. I had prescribed a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, and a wound for a wound for them. However if anyone gives up this right out of charity, it will serve as atonement for their sins. Those who don’t judge according to what God has sent down are doing a serious wrong. I sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming what came before him in the Torah. I gave him the Gospel, which contained guidance and Light within it, verifying what was revealed previously in the Torah, as a guide and lesson for those who are God fearing. So let the followers of the Gospel judge by the laws that God has sent down within it, because whoever doesn’t judge by what God has sent down are rebellious and disobedient.”[22]

Here is what Ibn Kathir stated about the Qur’anic passage:

“…Hadiths state that the Messenger of God issued a decision that conforms with the ruling in the Torah, not to honor the Jews in what they believe in, for the Jews were commanded to follow the Law of Muhammad only. Rather, the Prophet did this because God commanded him to do so. He asked them about the ruling of stoning in the Torah to make them admit to what the Torah contains and what they collaborated to hide, deny and exclude from implementing for all that time. They had to admit to what they did, although they did it while having knowledge of the correct ruling. What made them go to the Prophet for judgement in this matter was their lusts and desires, hoping that the Prophet would agree with their opinion, not that they believed in the correctness of his judgment. This is why they said,

(If you are given this,) referring to flogging, then take it, (but if you are not given this, then beware!) and do not accept or implement it…”[23]

Ibn Kathir then quotes some very important commentary from Ibn Abbas:

“Ibn `Abbas said, “Ka`b bin Asad, Ibn Saluba, `Abdullah bin Surya and Shas bin Qays said to each other, `Let us go to Muhammad to try and misguide him from his religion.’ So they went to the Prophet and said, `O Muhammad! You know that we are the scholars, noblemen and chiefs of the Jews. If we follow you, the Jews will follow suit and will not contradict us. But, there is enmity between us and some of our people, so we will refer to you for judgement in this matter, and you should rule in our favor against them and we will believe in you.’ The Messenger of Allah refused the offer and Allah sent down these Ayat about them,

 “I have sent this Book to you with a purpose and the Truth, verifying the Scriptures that came before it, and it is a witness and Safeguarder to forever dominate over them, so judge between them according to what God has sent down. Do not follow their empty whims and desires, which deviate from the Truth that has come to you. I have assigned a law and a path for you all, and if God had desired, He could’ve made you one community, but He wanted to test you through what He’s given you. So race to do good, you will all return to God and He will make it clear to you about the matters which you argued about. Do they want judgement according to the age of ignorance? Is there any judge better than God for those with firm faith?  (5:48-49)

Ibn `Abbas said, “The Prophet had the choice to judge between them or to turn away from them and refer them to their own Law. Then this Ayah was revealed…and he was commanded to judge between them by our Book…””[24]

So this incident of him making a ruling was because God commanded him to do so, not because he believed in their books. As noted by Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him), God allowed this incident for the purpose of exposing the Jews’ hypocrisy towards His commands (which is why they tried to bribe the Prophet with conversion to Islam) and give more proof against them. These verses were revealed in a very specific context and then were abrogated with Quran 5:48-49 so that missionaries could not make this argument.

            Regarding the hadith where the Jews bring out the Torah and the Prophet says: “I believe in you and Him who sent you” and placing the book on the pillow, there is nothing in the text to indicate that he believed the Torah not to be distorted.  This is called a “reading between the lines fallacy” which is defined as:

“Fallacy of language: Considering what is implied rather than what is stated in a text, including unwarranted personal associations.”[25]

He was simply honoring the book because some of God’s Words (the green in the chart) were still in there.  Furthermore, there is no indication anyway that the book that was brought out was the modern Bible.

            The context of the verses is referring to God’s law in Scripture not the Scripture’s theology. God is basically saying if you’re going to claim to follow God’s law then follow it. More importantly, what is meant here by the Gospel and Torah is the original revealed Scripture (again the green part in the chart). The polemic in this passage, especially the last verse revealed, is there’s no way to judge by the green in the chart except to ask the new Scripture revealed by God which is their protector to what was in them.  These verses from the Qur’an mean that Jews and Christians must judge by the Qur’an since this is the only way to judge what was truly in the Torah and Gospel given to Moses and Jesus (peace be upon them both).

      The next verse which is frequently used by missionaries is the following:

I didn’t send anyone before you except men whom I inspired. So go ask the people of the Reminder, if you don’t know…”[26]

Like before, we need a little bit of background context for proper understanding. One thing that has to be remembered about the Qur’an is that it was originally a speech given in response to a situation. So sometimes without seeing the situation misunderstandings can occur.  This chapter was revealed in the 10th year of Muhammad’s prophethood. Many take it for granted because Judaism, Christianity and Islam’s stories are so well known nowadays, but the pagans who didn’t have a Scripture or know about prophets had never heard of any of them. So they did two things:

  1. They argued that if God was going to send a message to everybody he would have sent an angel which is why we have Quran verses such as:

“The only thing that’s really stopped people from believing, when guidance came to them, was that they said: “How could God have sent a human being as a Messenger to guide us?”  Tell them had the earth been filled with angels walking around casually then I would’ve sent an angel from heaven as a Messenger.”[27]

 

“They say: “What sort of ‘Messenger’ is this? He eats food and walks around in the marketplaces! Why has no angel been sent down to help him with his ‘warnings’? Why hasn’t he been given treasure or a magical garden to supply his food?” Those doing evil say: “The man you follow is simply a victim of some sort of magic.””[28]

 

“They ask: “Why hasn’t an angel been sent down with him?” Had I sent down an angel, this matter would’ve been decided immediately and no letup would be given. And if I had made him an angel, I would’ve still sent him in the form of a man, and what’s confusing them now would’ve confused them even more then.”[29]

  1. They also began secretly asking Jewish and Christian tribes what questions they should ask Muhammad (peace be upon him).

Here is an example from Ibn Kathir’s tafsir:

“Ibn `Abbas said: “The Quraysh sent An-Nadr bin Al-Harith and `Uqbah bin Abi Mu`it to the Jewish rabbis in Al-Madinah, and told them: `Ask them (the rabbis) about Muhammad, and describe him to them, and tell them what he is saying. They are the people of the first Book, and they have more knowledge of the Prophets than we do.’ So they set out and when they reached Al-Madinah, they asked the Jewish rabbis about the Messenger of Allah …””[30]

So God revealed the following:

“Ever closer and closer to people draws their reckoning, while they continue to be careless and ignore it. Never does a renewed message come to them from their Lord, without them listening to it as a joke, while their hearts are distracted. Those who do evil whisper in secret: “Is this man anything except a human being like yourselves? Are you going to fall under his spell while your eyes are wide open and you can see it happening?” He said to them: “My Lord knows whatever is said throughout the heaven and the earth because He is All Hearing and Knowing…”Some say: “Jumbled dreams,” others: “He just made it all up,” yet others say: “He’s just a poet, let him show us a ‘sign’ like those who were previously sent.” No city I destroyed before them believed, so will they believe? I didn’t send anyone before you except men whom I inspired. So go ask the people of the Reminder, if you don’t know… I didn’t give prophets bodies that didn’t need to eat food, nor were they immortal. I fulfilled the Promise for them and I saved them along with those I wished to save. And I destroyed those who went past all limits.”[31]

 

In this passage, God employs a literary technique of talking to the Prophet while indirectly talking about the pagan Arabs. To emulate what’s happening, imagine a teacher is talking to the only student in class who passed a test and said:

“Jimmy, don’t you think the test was easy? I don’t know how anybody could fail it.”

The students who failed know the sarcasm is directed at them. In the same way, while God is refuting the argument that prophets are angels, He takes a jab at the pagans asking the Christian and Jewish tribes by basically saying:

“Yeah, prophets aren’t divine beings. Since you all don’t know what you’re talking about and like asking so many questions, go ask the Christians and Jews about that.”[32]

            Further proof of this can be seen in the original Arabic. The ‘you’ in the “if you don’t know…” part of the verse is in the multiple form.  It is impossible for this to be a command to the Prophet (as he is only one person) and the context doesn’t support Muslims going and asking the Christians and Jews about Islam.

            Now for the final verse that missionaries use:

“If you are in any doubt about what I have sent down to you, ask those who have been reading the Scriptures before you. The Truth has come to you from your Lord, so do not become among those who fell into doubts. And do not lie against God’s signs because then you will become one those who have lost.”[33]

Again, we need a very brief overview of this Surah and it’s themes:

Verses 1- 70. The pagan Arabs find it strange that God gives revelation to a man. God begins His refutation and reasoning with them. He then speaks of His signs throughout the universe and that those who deny them will be the ones who lose in the next life and those who believe in them will be in Heaven.

Verses 71- 92. God relays part of the stories of Noah and Moses and the Pharaoh to the pagan Arabs to show what happened to previous nations that denied God’s Messengers and the signs they came with. Now we move into the verses in question with God finishing up Moses’s story:

“I settled the Children of Israel in a proper place to live, as well as provided them with pure and good things. It was only after knowledge had come to them that they began to argue among themselves. But your Lord will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection regarding their disagreement. If you are in any doubt about what I have sent down to you, ask those who have been reading the Scriptures before you. The Truth has come to you from your Lord, so do not become among those who fell into doubts. And do not lie against God’s signs because then you will become of those who have lost.”[34]

There is a difference of opinion as to who is being addressed in the verse. There are two major views concerning and one minority position. The (“Oh Muhammad”) one finds in most translations is not actually in the verse and that is simply the translator’s interpretation. So let’s look at the different opinions:

1.Talking to the pagans (my preferred view as well as Imam Ar-Razi’s)

Imam Razi (rh) commenting on this verse stated:

“The commentators differed as to who the person being addressed in the verse was. Some said it was the Prophet(saw) while some have stated it was others…”[35]

He then quotes his evidence that the Prophet (peace be upon him) is not being referred to in the verse:

“What indicates the validity of the position I have mentioned is that in the last verses of this chapter (it says):

“Tell them: “People! If you are still in doubt about my religion…” (10:104)

The people first mentioned (in the hypothetical question of verse 94) are now mentioned in this verse. Secondly, (from a common sense perspective) if the Prophet (saw) was in doubt of his own prophethood what was to stop others from having more reason to doubt his prophethood and this requires (all) laws of the Sharia to be voided. Thirdly, if he is in doubt about his prophethood why would asking (the Christians and Jews) remove that doubt when they are disbelievers, and it was declared what remains with them of the Torah and Gospel (is corrupt)?”[36]

So the entire chapter up to this point is talking to the pagans of Mecca and appealing to their reason. God narrates signs in creation, then the stories of Noah and Moses, then addresses the pagans at the end of the passage to ask the Christians and Jews about the stories of Noah and Moses and the Pharaoh so that they don’t end up with the same fate, hence the end of the verse:

“…The Truth has come to you from your Lord, so do not become like those who fell into doubts, and do not lie against God’s signs because then you will become one those who have lost.”[37]

This interpretation in my opinion makes the most sense because when finishing the story of the Pharaoh and Moses and just before He transitions to this question, God mentions His conversation with the Pharaoh before He drowns Him and says:

“I took the Children of Israel across the sea, and the Pharaoh along with his troops pursued them in arrogance and aggression. But as he was drowning he cried: “I believe in the same One the Children of Israel believe in and I have surrendered to Him!” (I said) “Now? When before you had refused to obey, and caused so much corruption? Today, I will preserve your corpse and project you with your small shield on the mound, so that you can be a sign for those who come after you. But many people fail to heed My signs…”[38]

So God is basically saying:

“If you doubt what I’m telling you about these men (whom you don’t believe receive revelation from God) named Noah and Moses, who were men like Muhammad, in this Scripture, go ask the Christians and Jews about them who received Scripture before you: (i.e. “Do you know these stories, did God drown Noah’s people and the Pharaoh because they denied God’s signs that came from these men, etc.”)

Now some might object and say the verse says “if you’re in doubt about what has been sent down” so it has to address Muhammad.  The answer is not really, because there are many Quranic verses where God says He has sent the Qur’an down on the audience.[39]

            Even though this position is enough to refute the point, I’ll quote the other positions for learning purposes.

  1. This verse is referring to the Prophet to ask specific persons and not a general statement. Imam Tabari (rh) and Imam Suyuti (rh) held this position.

The evidence they quote for this position is that in other passages of the Qur’an, it states that there was someone who testified to it’s truth at the time of the Prophet (ﷺ‎):

“Tell them: “I am not something new among God’s Messengers, nor do I know what will be done with you or I. I only follow what’s revealed to me, ˹and˺ My duty is only to clearly warn you.”  Ask them: “Have you thought about this? What if the Qur’an was from God, and you reject it, even though a witness from among the Children of Israel has already testified to something similar, and believed while you were too arrogant?” God doesn’t guide the people that do evil.”[40]

“This is revelation coming gradually from the Lord of the realms. Which the trustworthy Spirit has brought down, onto your heart, so that you can be a warner, in clear Arabic speech. It is in the scrolls of the past. Isn’t it enough proof for them that the learned men of the Children of Israel have recognized it?”[41]

 

Therefore, these verses are telling the Prophet to ask people like Abdullah ibn Salam (ra), Zaid bin Sanah (ra) or Salman Al Farsi (ra), etc., who were scholars of Judaism or Christianity before they became Muslim, about their splitting into sects, the truth of Islam and the Prophet. Further proof of this position can be established because it is agreed they are being referred to in these verses:

“However they are not all the same; there are some among the People of the Scripture who are upstanding, reciting God’s verses during the night hours and bowing in prayer. They believe in God and the Last Day, encourage what is right, stop what is wrong and hurry to do good. And they are in the ranks of the righteous. Whatever good they do will never be rejected from them. God knows full well those who are truly God fearing.”[42]

Imam Tabari, commenting on this verse, says:

“God says to His Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) that if you are in doubt about the truthfulness of what We told you in Revelations – that the children of Israel had not differed concerning your prophethood before you were sent by God as an Apostle to His people, for they found you prophesied in their scripture, and they knew you from the description of you given in the Torah and Gospel– you must confer with those who read the sacred book before you, that is, the people of the Torah and the people of the Gospel, such as Abdullah Ibn Salam and those who, like him, who were honest and had faith in you: do not ask those who are dishonest or are unbelievers.”[43]

So if one holds to this position, the verse is referring to the righteous Companions of the Prophet who before they became Muslims were scholars of Judaism and Christianity.[44] And this would be a means to strengthen his conviction like when Abraham asked God to show him how He brings the dead back to life. The verse is meant to be rhetorical like the verse:

“Ask the Messengers I sent before you if I’ve ever put as gods anyone other than the Most Merciful to be worshipped.”[45]

Obviously God never placed other gods besides Him to be worshipped.

  1. Muslims are to ask the righteous Sahaba who were Christian and Jewish before becoming Muslims about the truth of Islam. (A minority position)

The third position is that the Muslims (being referred to in the indirect way) are to ask those like Abdullah ibn Salam(ra) and Salman al Farsi(ra) to the truth they’ve heard so far. This position has similar evidence as the above. The only add on is this is to strengthen their faith instead of the Prophet’s.  Even though I believe position 1 is the strongest, the point is there is no scholar who favors the interpretation of asking Pastor Rick about Islam!

Conclusion

            It has been demonstrated that all the verses quoted by missionaries are a clear distortion of the Quranic text and the interpretation posited by these missionaries can only be applied to these verses in isolation. Now because I know there will still be naysayers quoting random things they found online, in the next article God willing, we will explore what is the attitude of the Qur’an and early Muslims towards the previous Scriptures.

[1] Surah Al-Anaam, 6:115.

[2] Surah Al-Anaam, 6:73.

[3] Surah Yunus, 10:96-97.

[4] Surah Ghafir, 40:6.

[5] Surah Al-Isra, 17:16.

[6] Surah Ya-Sin, 36:7.

[7] Surah Yunus, 10:79-82.

[8] Surah Yunus, 10:63-64.

[9] Surah Al-Anaam, 6:115.

[10] Surah Al-Kahf, 18:27.

[11] Surah Al-Kahf, 18:22-29.

[12] Surah Al-Araf, 7:158.

[13] Sahih al-Bukhari 7547: Book 97, Hadith 172, https://sunnah.com/bukhari/97/172

[14] Surah Al-Araf, 7:148-154.

[15] Surah Al-Araf, 7:155-158.

[16] Surah Al-Maeda, 5:43.

[17] Surah Al-Maeda, 5:47.

[18] Sunan Abi Dawud 4449: Book 40, Hadith 99, https://sunnah.com/abudawud/40/99

[19] http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=776&Itemid=-60

[20] http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=358

[21] Sahih al-Bukhari 3635: Book 61, Hadith 139, https://sunnah.com/bukhari/61/139

[22] Surah Al-Maeda, 5:41-47.

[23] http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=776&Itemid=60

[24] Ibid.

[25] https://campusnet.sebts.edu/pluginfile.php/198971/mod_resource/content/9/Fallacies101.pdf

[26] Surah Al-Anbiya, 21:7.

[27] Surah Al-Isra, 17:94-95.

[28] Surah Al-Furqan, 25:7-8.

[29] Surah Al-Anaam, 6:8-9.

[30] http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2744&Itemid=73

This hadith on Surah Kahf’s revelation is weak however. It appears Ibn Kathir made a mistake as in Sahih Bukhari, the surah was revealed in Medina.

“Narrated `Abdullah: While I was going with the Prophet (ﷺ) through the ruins of Medina and he was reclining on a date-palm leaf stalk, some Jews passed by. Some of them said to the others: Ask him (the Prophet) about the spirit. Some of them said that they should not ask him that question as he might give a reply which would displease them. But some of them insisted on asking, and so one of them stood up and asked, “O Abul-Qasim ! What is the spirit?” The Prophet (ﷺ) remained quiet. I thought he was being inspired Divinely. So I stayed till that state of the Prophet (while being inspired) was over. The Prophet (ﷺ) then said, “And they ask you (O Muhammad) concerning the spirit –Say: The spirit — its knowledge is with my Lord. And of knowledge you (mankind) have been given only a little)” (17.85)” (https://sunnah.com/bukhari/3)

[31] Surah Al-Anbiya, 21:1-9.

[32] Sheikh Abdul Nasir Jangda goes more into this in his tafseer of Surah Anbiya (starts at 24:25):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1465&v=xX1mO4_Gcc8

[33] Surah Yunus, 10:94.

[34] Surah Yunus, 10:93-95.

[35] https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=4&tSoraNo=10&tAyahNo=94&tDisplay=yes&Page=1&Size=1&LanguageId=1

[36] Ibid.

[37] Surah Yunus, 10:94-95.

[38] Surah Yunus, 10:92.

[39] Surah Az-Sumar, 39:55; Surah At-Talaq, 65:5; Surah An-Nur, 24:34; Surah Al-Maeda, 5:59.

[40] Surah Al-Ahqaf, 46:9-10.

[41] Surah As-Shuara, 26:192-197.

[42] Surah Al-Imran, 3:113-115.

[43] https://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=1&tTafsirNo=1&tSoraNo=10&tAyahNo=94&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=1

[44] For fear of length, I would invite listeners to go on Youtube and hear their stories.

[45] Surah Az-Zukhruf, 43:45.

 

96 thoughts on “Corruption of the Scriptures: Part I – Does Islam Confirm the Bible As a Scripture from God?”

    1. this is the same guy who said “jesus paid a fine”

      humans can pay fines on others behalf because the justice system on our earth is not OMNISCIENT, it doesn’t know where the money is coming from.

      i want to ask if the judge can pay monetary fines? or can the judge say , “you go, i’ll go to jail on your behalf”

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

    2. he wrote :
      I’m not guaranteed to sin and neither are you, we all have free will.

      our friend ken temple was asked long ago,

      god gave his torah to sinners.
      he knew that among the people existed lust, hate and anger.

      are you telling me that for thousands of years these guys didn’t have the ability to master over hate, lust and anger?

      ken temple said, “no, they didn’t”

      so….

      you have embraced your pagan human sacrifice .

      do you love god with all your heart or does your love have 1% defect ?
      can you make lust disappear or does 2 % remain
      can you make anger disappear or 30 % remain
      can you make hate disappear or 1 % remain ?

      so if ANY % remains, then these missionaries are DOOMED by their own arguments.

      so according to them, jesus’ shedding lets them get away with percentage because THEY CAN’T help it

      that was my point . GOD knows we are not ANGELS or sinless. God knows we are weak. committing a SUICIDE for creating creatures who have lust, hate and anger makes no sense, when even this pagan gods worshipers ADMIT THAT they can’t help it “we are born that way”

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  3. Pingback: Muslim argument defeated | Apologetics and Agape

  5. stewjo004

    @ QB

    He didn’t even refute anything. I can tell just from the fact that he didn’t actually respond to it other than rambling that he didn’t even read it.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
      1. stewjo004

        @ Mahmud
        Jazakallah khair, it really is a blessing to me that Allah used me to bring some benefit to you. I’m glad you enjoyed it and can use it to refute the nonsense these kuffar are spreading.

        Liked by 1 person

  6. stewjo004

    @ Tony

    I see he does. I posted basically saying all these verses you quoted have been addressed in context in my article and my comment is still “awaiting moderation” that’s some real (expletives I can’t say). I mean it’s just crazy the amount of propaganda these kuffar engage in which is another sign of Islam’s truth.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply
  7. stewjo004

    I mean he’s so stupid, somehow he thinks my argument that the claim that the Scriptures can’t change because the Qur’an says that God’s words can’t change is illogical because God does NOT magically make someone’s hands possessed if someone adds an alif in the wrong spot. VALIDATES the Bible in some way.

    So he has “refuted” me somehow but doesn’t even understand what his opponent was arguing.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply
    1. mr.heathcliff

      ken temple is one of those christians that if you abuse him too much he starts thinking he is the suffering servant in isaiah 53 . he called me evil and persecutor.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply
      3. mr.heathcliff

        there is no crucifixion in isaiah 53. no where does god or the servant say that the servant is god forsaken. no where does isaiah 53 say that the servant is a sin offering. no where does isaiah 53 say that the servant is sinless. jesus of nt was running around from city to city, how does a text like isaiah 53 apply to a jesus running around from city to city?

        Like

  8. mr.heathcliff

    ” Isnad Hadith principle because we did not have government control or the power of the sword like Uthman did.”

    admits defeat. forgeries got in and forgeries ADDED to manuscript tradition WITHOUT ANY PROTESTS from crosstians. there was no record of up roar when crosstians were ADDING texts to manuscript tradition.

    assumes power of the sword and government control is a bad thing , but does not list reasons why and does not tell readers that muslims are open about the different ways quran can be recited.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply
    1. stewjo004

      @ Tony

      Oh, anytime they attempt to criticize isnad (aka “listing your sources”) I’m almost done talking. I posted but am waiting for an “approval”. Basically, another thing about what Uthman(ra) did was got rid of corrupt variants and them circling widespread so that’s why we don’t have any stupid stuff of finding a new Quran manuscript in a garbage dump and not knowing is the reading we have now right or this one, unlike certain peoples who had a religious book…

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply
      2. mr.heathcliff

        “did was got rid of corrupt variants and them circling widespread so that’s why we don’t have any stupid stuff of finding a new Quran manuscript in a garbage dump and not knowing is the reading we have now right or this one, unlike certain peoples who had a religious book…”

        this point needs to be “stickied” very important point.

        Like

  9. stewjo004

    @ QB

    Yeah again I have given tons of evidence and he is ignoring it. It’s been updated slightly now if you want to follow:\

    Muslim argument defeated


    He has said he is going out of town for a few days (so for some reason that means my post can’t be “approved” yet by him) this is what is pending in case he ‘forgets’:

    @ Ken

    1. Literary plagiarism
    It’s not “unexplainable” it’s easily explainable of the 3 authors, 2 plagiarized which is why the story is retold word for word.

    2. Textual variant and deliberate alterations
    It’s not “skewed” we know they changed things because of theological issues, for example, did Jesus(as) get angry at a man who asked him to heal him or feel sorry for him? They both can’t be correct so which is the more likely to have been changed due to implications? Or the passage where I showed you Jesus(as) of lying in John and a scribe altered the text from “I am not going to the festival” to “I am NOT YET going to the festival” to try and cover it. So even just sticking to these is enough to show corruption.

    3. Higher learning and the Actual Torah and Gospel
    There is nothing to “refute” regarding me this is pretty basic stuff taught in higher learning that most Christians/ Jews aren’t aware of regarding things such as 2/3/4 source theory, Farrer theory, Deuteronomy hypothesis, etc all I have done is make it simple to understand. AND explain how it fulfills what the Quran speaks of. The collection of Frankenstein books being read today in Church and the Synagogues are NOT the scriptures revealed to Moses(as) and Jesus(as).

    4. Stitching stories
    It doesn’t matter if you agree its can it be proven and the answer is a definitive yes
    A. Balaam’s story (one he is a protagonist the other an antagonist)
    https://www.badtheologians.com/2017/07/balaam-prophesies-for-moab.html

    B. Noah’s (One God is anthropomorphic the other transcendent)
    https://www.livius.org/articles/misc/great-flood/flood1-t-bible_2/

    I noticed even prior to learning about this as the Biblical text reads “weird” sometimes

    5. Uthman (ra) and having a standardized text
    For one Uthman(ra) didn’t kill or oppress others over their texts it was voluntary as Ahruf can sound different. There was no government crackdown this was actually EXTREMELY important as it stops variations from spreading. Common sense dictates you want one standardized text to compare the rest of your manuscripts to, that way if something off, the person behind him can see where the scribe went wrong instead of allowing his corrupt copy to circulate. This is what Christians and Jews ended up doing ANYWAYS in the Middle Ages and that’s why you don’t see as drastic differences in later biblical manuscripts. And yes this was a very big difference between us because Muslims were the government it stops the “secret telephone note passing” going around and everything is public. Finally, chains of narration have existed since Islam’s beginning dude you will see Disciples of the Prophet asking others where they got stuff from. Again it is not unreasonable for someone to LIST THEIR SOURCES. This was done even in the antiquity of the Early Christian era especially if someone like “Luke” is claiming to set up an accurate account.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply
    1. mr.heathcliff

      ” between us because Muslims were the government it stops the “secret telephone note passing” going around and everything is public.”

      1. not persecuted.
      2.able to set up educational institutes and propagate correct teachings
      3. you don’t need to go in hiding
      4.openly proclaim the religion to friend and enemy.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply
      1. stewjo004

        @ Tony

        Absolutely I mean you definitely want a centralized religious authority a good example of why look at the kafir Marcion 100 years after Isa(as) and he just says: “Oh yeah I have the real Injeel” and NOBODY could refute him (apparently he was going to be the bishop of Rome AND a student of Paul) The fact that this dude was controversial shows a lack of religious authority and knowledge. Finally, the ONLY reason they even became a mainstream religion and “orthodox” prevailed is that Constantine (i.e. the government) became Christian and thus crushed the other sects and propagated the Trinity and the rest of their doctrines. So their basically mad that we settled all this crap in less than 30 years.

        Like

      1. stewjo004

        @ QB

        Maybe. I just thought it was weird that my comment couldn’t be approved just because he was traveling I’m like but you wrote that though?

        Liked by 1 person

  10. mr.heathcliff

    However, what is lesser known is the context to this quote:

    “Az-Zuhri said:” They differed then with At-Tabut and At-Tabuh. The Quraish said: At-Tabut while Zaid said: At-Tabuh. Their disagreement was brought to ‘Uthman, so he said:’ Write it as At-Tabut, for it was revealed in the tongue of the Quraish.”[3]

    Such a minor detail, do we end the word with a ت or a ه, yet we must ask a very important question, how many times do you think this word is used in the Qur’an? By my count, only in two places, 2:248 and 20:39. Just two places! Imagine that. They were concerned with such minor details, yet we find in the New Testament entire words, phrases, sentences[4] and even chapters[5] being added and omitted at will without consistency[6].

    What is also lesser known is that although some later Arabs and Orientalists criticized the Qur’an for using “impure”, “unclear” Arabic, a polemic based on the verse of the Qur’an which says[7]:

    “…whereas this ˹Quran˺ is ˹in˺ eloquent Arabic.”

    To the contrary however, Kitab al Mabani accounts for every case of an “abnormal” use of the Qur’an’s grammar in classical Arabic poetry and other sources, thus demonstrating that while unusual to some, it was indeed using forms that were highly technical. Had the Qur’an been treated like the New Testament, everyone of those lesser known usages of words should have been “normalized” by later copyists, yet we do not find such an instance. The most current edition of Kitab al Mabani (as far as I know), was edited by the Orientalist Arthur Jeffrey in 1972 under the title, “Muqaddimatān fī ʻulm̄ al-Qurʼān; wa-humā Muqaddimat kitāb al-mabānī wa-Muqaddimat Ibn ʻAtīyah”.

    Most of this research is therefore not new, but well known to Muslims. As the Qur’an says…Allah knows while you know not…

    وَاللَّـهُ يَعْلَمُ وَأَنتُمْ لَا تَعْلَمُونَ

    look man, today , if quran had gone through the same transmission like the nt,

    basmala would have been toyed around with

    alif laam meem would have been something like modern day muslims try to understand

    Alif is for ALLAH swt and Meem is for Muhammad pbuh

    so surely the scribes would have tried to make sense of it like nt writers tried to make sense of things which did not make sense to them when they copied their nt.

    they even ADDED entire texts and believed in FALSEHOODS like today’s crosstians do.

    – Proof that even if “holy” things/items were mentioned in bible, kristian scribes STILL changed the text.
    http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4481&start=20

    http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4481&start=20#p91317

    http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4481&start=20#p91319

    http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4481&start=20#p91320

    this is at the WRITTEN level, realise that jesus’ desciples couldn’t be in every house to CORRECT the incorrect stories being told about him, there was NO ISNAD or mass oral recitation.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. stewjo004

      @ Tony and QB

      He’s letting people comment again since I’m getting annoyed at him ignoring my evidence and going on tangents did you guys want to get in there for a bit?

      Like

      Reply
    2. stewjo004

      @ Tony

      I would go the opposite way, if I scribe wanted to “touch-up” the text he would delete the Alif, Lam, Meem altogether as he could justify to himself that it doesn’t add to the surah.

      Like

      Reply
  11. stewjo004

    @ Everybody

    So I finished with Ken and he said the following:

    Hey Stewjo004,
    You put so much information that it will take me a long time to even work through it all, read all the links; listen to videos, etc.
    I don’t have time for all of that right now. I respond to things that I already know about.

    Then why are you even bringing up the topic if you don’t know about it? I’ll repost my response here after this but as a quick note, you see missionaries like Ken and James White I find more annoying than the ones like Shamoun. They still try to act like they’re cool with you when their hearts are just as evil, the whole thing is just condescending.

    Like

    Reply
    1. stewjo004

      Here was my response that had so much info he just couldn’t comment right now:

      @ Ken

      1.Plagiarism and the importance of a proper chain of narration

      Plagiarism is not a “modern concept” it is quite old and people were as mad then as they get now. Next you didn’t read what I wrote I said there were other theories I just said Mark being the first is the least damaging which is why I put that one instead of say Farris’s) You must not understand the Synoptic problem if you’re still using the “four witnesses to a car accident argument”. Witnesses describe things in their own words, they don’t alter a story to make a “theological point”. You simply retell the tale. You are going under the assumption that all of these were meant to be read together when they weren’t and it’s disingenuous to state otherwise. Again if someone is making an orderly account you list your sources for others to verify. It makes no sense to not do this when you have other accounts floating around then all you did was make another account. Let’s look at the following article about hadith chain of narration and its importance (what the story is, is irrelevant in our discussion we’re simply looking at the analysis and it’s easier to do this in pic form like they provided as opposed to writing)
      http://www.twelvershia.net/2019/04/24/hadith-al-safinah-is-not-authentic-from-shia-sources/

      Like Christians, Rafidah will clap their hands research wise and argue the “abundance” of narration makes it authentic (some in ignorance even attempt to argue “muttawatir” i.e. mass reported like how Christians do for the crucifixion or say something like “it’s such an early witness!!!”). However the reality of these chains is there is an OVERWHELMING amount of unknown people and weak narrators (i.e. his memory started to go or he embellished real tales for dramatic effect, etc) So all these chains are no good. As the article notes (edited to drop Arabic terminology):

      “It must be similarly noted that the extreme weakness in each of these chains of narration opens the possibility that they may all actually stem from one source, even though they may apparently not seem to. One cannot dispel the possibility that the tens of anonymous and unknown transmitters who all transmitted this report may have colluded with each other, or erroneously ascribed the report to multiple chains of narration.”

      And yes this has happened where tens of people got together and forged a tale to push an agenda. Not only that like Jesus’s (genealogy) there are contradictions in the chain. Because you don’t have this one cannot verify information and this is enough to doubt the report. Now compare the first claimed mutawtir report from people who have never even met. THIS is what we Muslims want to see.

      Visual

      Click to access Hadith-ul-Afdaliyyah_TreeOfChains.pdf

      Text

      Click to access Hadith-ul-Afdaliyyah_ListOfChains.pdf

      2. Textual variants
      What? There is a clear change due to bias. For example, Ishmael is an ass of a man or a Ishmael is a fruitful man. Either way someone altered the text. You do not mistake “anger” and “compassion”, “donkey” and “fruitful”, etc. Both cannot be right. Again this kinda stems into point one of the naivenesses of thinking people wouldn’t alter or forge things.

      3. Higher learning and the Actual Torah and Gospel
      Making claims is not evidence. None of your sources are early. Since you made a claim about the Hebrew Bible let’s see how far back your “ancient witnesses” (which means nothing in and of itself as I just showed) Moses is estimated to have lived around 14-13 BCE. For the readers what is the earliest Hebrew Bible codex and what is the earliest Hebrew Bible manuscript? (Spoiler alert TWO major breaks in transmission that equal over 1,000 years)

      4. Uthman (ra) and having a standardized text
      Besides being incorrect on pretty much the majority of what you listed (for example, not even knowing the proper names of the people involved, let alone what is authentic) this entire point (and majority of your response) is a “Fear fallacy” (and just plain immature name calling) If you would like to go this route if early Islam is the “Empire Strikes Back” then we can sum up Early Christianity and your religious ancestors as this (@ 1:00 and 5:00) (Acts 14:11-12, Acts 28:6, Acts 8:10, Acts 12:22, John 1:1)

      Now that we got that out of the way:

      A. None of these issues were due to religion and no report as such (I can’t argue with hypothetical boogeymen)
      B. Surprise! The Qiraat are actually independent of each other. For example one comes from the city of Basra’s reciters which was HUGE in political uprisings and distention, guess what it’s the same.
      C. We have manuscripts outside the Uthmanic tradition such as Arabica or the Sana’a manuscripts.
      D. We still know how to recite the other Qiraat I’ll let you hear for yourself why Uthman(ra) had to do what he did:

      This is the largest difference in sound I have personally heard:

      Hafs

      Khalaf

      Here is another one where they recite verse by verse next to each other (Hafs and Al Tousi)

      These aren’t different “versions” that were suppressed, new Muslims not being able to speak Arabic may hold or pause wrong on the sound and change meanings on an accident or someone might do a different sounding one and people not familiar with it might think the reciter is messing up what he’s saying when he’s not. These different “sounding” qiraat were mainly for the benefit of different Arab tribes (as a sound might be easier on their tongue) since this doesn’t apply to new Muslims (since they don’t speak Arabic to begin with) Uthman(ra) standardized Quraysh as it was the first one revealed.
      https://islamqa.info/en/answers/5142/the-revelation-of-the-quraan-in-seven-styles-ahruf-sing-harf

      This is why people who attempt to criticize this have no idea what they’re talking about. These recitation styles existed during the time of Prophet(saw). They didn’t just pop out of nowhere one day. Basically, all Uthman(ra) did was just use this one to make it easier for non Arabs.

      5. Centralized Religious Authority
      You always want a centralized religious authority a good example of why from Christian history is someone like Marcion. He just comes and says: “Oh yeah I have the real NT!” and NOBODY could refute him (apparently he was going to be the bishop of Rome AND a student of Paul) The fact that this dude was controversial shows a lack of religious authority and knowledge. Finally, the ONLY reason they even became a mainstream religion and “orthodox” prevailed is that Constantine (i.e. the government) became a trinitarian and thus crushed the other sects and propagated the Trinity and the rest of your doctrines. Again you guy did the EXACT same thing we did, we just did it earlier and by people who learned directly from the Prophet(saw).

      6. Relevance
      I just realized while typing this response, what do ANY of these tangents have to do with my article you claimed to have refuted?

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
      1. mr.heathcliff

        ” You must not understand the Synoptic problem if you’re still using the “four witnesses to a car accident argument”

        lets employ his argument.
        lets say that their are four witnesses to a car argument who write down what they seen.

        how many of these “eyewitnesses” would be able to create a WORD for word paragraph , same order of words ?

        i will be charitable and i want to see if “eyewitnesses” are able to CREATE 2 line paragraph with same ordering and same wording.

        none of the gospel writers said that they were witnesses, but they do show awareness that they are USING the old testament and taking it too literally.

        quote :

        Also, the version of this episode in the gospel of John lends additional credence to this idea of it having been fabricated on the basis of the Psalmic verse. That is, John 19:23 seems to take Psalm 22:18 even more literally, and in so doing actually ends up misconstruing its sense.

        So, the phenomenon of grammatical parallelism is ubiquitous in the Psalms. And one of the most common forms of parallelism here is repetition.

        A common translation of Psalm 22:18 reads “they divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots” (ESV). But actually, contrary to what the conjunction “and” may imply in this, it’s not really describing two different actions at all here. Instead, these two things are in fact one and the same, simply repeated poetically. We can see this reflected in many English translations, which remove the conjunction:

        “They divide my clothes among themselves, casting lots for my garments” (NJPS)

        [“dividing my clothes” and “casting lots” is the same thing, the same action “dividing my clothes” is being repeated as “casting lots”]

        ; “They are dividing up my clothes among themselves; they are rolling dice for my garments” (NET); “They divide my clothing among themselves; they cast lots for my clothing!” (ISV).
        Some translations are even more unambiguous about this, collapsing the two clauses into one: “They gamble for my clothes and divide them among themselves” (GNT); “They took my clothes and gambled for them” (CEV).

        Also worth noting, though, is that in the original Hebrew of Psalm 22:18, the first word “my garments” is plural (בְגָדַי), while the parallel word to this in the second part is actually singular לְבוּשׁ — which is either a kind of collective singular “clothing,” or sometimes a true singular “tunic” or “robe.” This is reflected in the Septuagint, too, using plural (τὰ) ἱμάτια and then singular ἱματισμός.
        Again, I mention all of this because of what the gospel of John has here in its unique version of the crucifixion narrative:

        23 When the soldiers had crucified Jesus, they took his garments [τὰ ἱμάτια] — dividing [actually just ἐποίησαν] them into four parts, one for each soldier — and the tunic [χιτών]. But the tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from the top. 24 So they said to one another, “Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it to see who will get it.” This was to fulfill what the scripture says, “They divided my garments among themselves, and for my clothing/tunic/robe they cast lots.” (John 19:23-24)
        Instead of understanding just one single act of his garments being divided up by casting lots, then, it actually takes Psalm 22:18 hyper-literally, (mis)interpreting it such that there were two acts: quite literally dividing his garments evenly (“into four parts”), but then casting lots for a singular tunic.

        luke:
        luke never says he is investigating in the sense that one separates falsehood from truth, he is saying that he is ACCEPTING the tradition which he BLINDLY accepted.

        Like

      2. mr.heathcliff

        ” However the reality of these chains is there is an OVERWHELMING amount of unknown people and weak narrators ”

        this is why even a FIRST century mark would be useless because it was created by unknowns .

        Like

      3. mr.heathcliff

        “What? There is a clear change due to bias. For example, Ishmael is an ass of a man or a Ishmael is a fruitful man. Either way someone altered the text. You do not mistake “anger” and “compassion”, “donkey” and “fruitful”, etc. Both cannot be right. Again this kinda stems into point one of the naivenesses of thinking people wouldn’t alter or forge things”

        one can also ask temple what drove matthew to change

        this :
        There you will see him, just as he told you.

        Προάγει ὑμᾶς εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν· ἐκεῖ αὐτὸν ὄψεσθε, καθὼς εἶπεν ὑμῖν

        into this :

        προάγει ὑμᾶς εἰς τὴν Γαλιλαίαν, ἐκεῖ αὐτὸν ὄψεσθε· ἰδοὺ εἶπον ὑμῖν

        he is going before you to Galilee; there you w
        ill see him. Behold, I have told you

        quote :
        Here in Mark, the angel at the empty tomb tells the women that Jesus would meet up with the disciples in Galilee, “just as he told you” — which is a reference back to Jesus’ words in Mark 14:28 (see also Matthew 26:32). But Matthew appears to have modified Mark’s clause καθὼς εἶπεν ὑμῖν, slightly changing it so that it now reads ἰδοὺ εἶπον ὑμῖν.

        The wording and spelling between these two phrases is still so close that it can’t be a coincidence; but in Matthew’s slight modification of this, it actually ends up completely changing the sense: now instead of “just as he told you” being a reference back to Jesus’ earlier words in Matthew 26:32, here the angel says “Behold, I have told you.”

        shabir ali said
        “matthew changes the statement to (see above) because in the next line jesus himself speaks to the women. now did jesus or the angel really say this or were “common devices” used to change wordings ?

        Liked by 1 person

  12. mr.heathcliff

    i remember when carrier debated james patrick holding. carrier brought out slides in which he showed how scribes tried to reconcile matthew with the gospel of john by inserting a verse in matthew which said that a soldier stabbed christian god.

    this got me thinking , if the early muslim scribes thought that injeel and torah were the books jews had in their hands, and they were DISTORTING texts like christian scribes, surely we would have seen in early manuscript evidence how stories of the quran were being reconciled with biblical stories.

    thoughts?

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. stewjo004

      @ tony

      While its an interesting point raised and we don’t have manuscript evidence of the Quran being altered to fit Israeliyyat narrations, if I wanted to be neutral you do see scholars trying to reconcile narratives with the Quran n books of tafsir anf history. So while I agree we generally keep the Quran separate we do have scholars combining narratives in other works such as lives of the Prophets by ibn Kathir. So its not a decisive argument in our favor.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  13. Pingback: Refuting “Black Hebrew Israelites” Claims – The Quran and Bible Blog

  15. mr.heathcliff

    “I was wondering if someone had any takes on this rather interesting argument put forth for the preservation of the Bible:

    If Muslims believe the Bible is corrupted, then it means that either God is not All Powerful (since he couldn’t prevent it) or he’s not trustworthy (since he didn’t prevent it, and let people be deceived by a corrupted text). Either way, its a problematic view of God. Therefore, Muslims cannot hold that the bible is corrupted.”

    Why not trustworthy? Did he say he preserved it and didnt do it? No.
    Rather its Jesus who they claim to be God who is not trustworthy because he lied when he said that he doesnt knoe the Hour.
    Or their Prophets who they claim God chosed them but they commit Zina and Incest and all kind of crazy stuff.

    Well… not all of the Bible is even revelation from a Muslim standpoint. The Tevrat, Zebur, and Injil make up much less than half of the entire Bible. The Christians like to pretend that the entire book itself is revelation that Muslims should believe in – they do that by appealing to the Holy Ghost (seriously). That’s one reason why they market the entire New Testament as the Injil in Muslim countries – they want Muslims to give it more credence than we normally would.
    In any case, the Injil isn’t corrupted. Whatever and where ever its original form is is certainly in tact – even if that be only with God. Let the Christian first show us the original speech of Jesus, and then we’ll talk.

    The Christians themselves say that their religion was sent to restore the excesses of Judaism, why would god allow Judaism to be corrupted? 

    1) the Bible was never meant to be a book for all time whether it was corrupted or not.
    2) a new prophet’s arrival abrogates the previous message if the new prophet says so.
    3) God allowed for such diversity to exist as a part of testing us.
    These 3 points make it perfectly fine with the Bible being allowed to corrupt. Besides through free will God allows humans to do evil acts, in this case tampering with the Bible. While in the case of the Quran it was the effort and techniques used by the Muslims that preserved the Quran from a purely cause and effect sense (Allah is the One who allows that).

    Truth is always preserved. However, this does not mean that “humans” cannot scribe something with their own hands and distort a thing giving the appearance that it is revelation.
    Consider this example, in today’s era, oppressive governments are printing mass copies of the Quran “without” certain verses to suit their interests. However, the revelation of God (word for word) has been preserved through oral transmission and contained in the hearts of hundreds and thousands that makes it impossible to distort. This oral preservation has never been absent since the revelation of the Quran, although it wasn’t the case for others.
    Allah tells us in the Quran (in relation to other people and other texts) that they penned things with their own hands for vested interests without authority to do so. However, because there were no mass numbers of oral preservation, verification of the revelation was lost.
    God’s wisdom however, is that clarity will always hold, hence, the revelation of the Quran and the oral preservation in mass numbers.

    Christian apologist want to argue about Muslims saying the Bible wasn’t preserved – when they claim “God” couldn’t preserve his newly created world from being cured with sin, he couldn’t preserve his perfect creation man from being enslaved to satan right after they were created, he wasted thousands of years sending prophets and a law that had no power to save anyone. If his “Son” didn’t come to save the day everything would have been lost due to “Gods” mismanagement – or better yet it was all a plan to introduce the only “person” in the trinity that really matters – Jesus.
    It seems to me(and I saw it from the inside) “Christian apologetics” is arguing for the hatred of “God”. Christian apologist seem to be offended at the very thought of Allah (one deity worthy of worship, all powerful master of creation without a partner). In their system “God” is relegated to being just the Father of Jesus – there is no exaltation, praise or worship of him directly – all of that is directed through Jesus. Hear them when they speak its not good enough for Jesus to be a human representative of “God” i.e a prophet or messenger no, he must be very “God” himself. The only purpose “God” has to the Christian apologist is being a glorified baby daddy, he sends and steps out of the way to allow “his Son” to rule and administer creation. “God” as “The Father” is contingent on Jesus as “The Son” – his whole existence and worth depends on Jesus (You can’t have the Father without the Son). Jesus is the upgraded edition he brought “love” and “grace” which obviously had to be missing, he came with a new law based on “love” instead of heartless restrictive commands that were “lifeless” and that had no “power”.
    No wonder Christian nations have dumped Christianity for secular humanism they worshipped an inferior god who was just a super man and now they what to replace the super man and become their own super men through science and technology – “as above so below”. The Christian apologist is usually a right wing evangelical who see’s conservatism or libertarianism as the last hopes for “liberty” – i.e freedom from ecclesiastical rule. The Jesus of Christian apologetics is an agent who comes to prepare the Muslim to embrace “Judeo-Christian values” which as the name implies doesn’t have “God” in it.

    It wasn’t preserved because it was meant only for certain people of certain time. The current one has many different versions some are missing books some are missing verses and others have different meaning. The proof is in the pudding. The promise of preservation by Allah was unique to the last testament only!

    Fahim F His own theology suffers: people were allowed to be damned, the “son of god” had to die for their sins, older revelations were also corrupted etc.

    Uthman Badar There’s a (flawed) hidden premise in this argument, namely that Allah cannot allow the corruption (by humans) of any revelation. But of course He can if He so wills, for a wisdom.

    /////

    facebook discussion

    Like

    Reply
  18. mr.heathcliff

    ”
    I saw an argument today that Quran 2:113 affirms that the Torah and Injil Jews and Christians claim to have today is not corrupted because it mentions that they ‘recite the scripture’ in the verse. I was thinking of explaining the verse by saying that it is affirming the truth of certain passages in both texts that those Jews and Christians had in possession at that time which foretell/affirm Isa (AS) and Musa (AS) respectively. Any thoughts?
    Ironically, the verse could also imply corruption because the very part they appeal to says ‘recite’. At least Jews recite the OT to some extent whereas Christians don’t recite the NT. Then again though, it could also be translated as ‘read the scripture’.”

    Shibli:

    Where it says (وهم يتلون الكتاب), this simply means that they’re reciting the same book and each denying therein what suits them. The Jews and Christians both recite the Torah which prophecies Jesus’ coming and confirms the Prophethood and magnificence of Moses.

    Both Jews and Christians of Arabia, most likely due to geographic separation from their faith-brethren in Palestine and Greece, were pretty weak in their understanding of their own religions. There are several examples of this in the Qur’an, Sunnah, and Seerah. An example is the Jews saying `Uzayr is the son of God. Both groups were very heretical. It is also important to note that they, in all likelihood based on archaeological and historical evidence, did not have complete codices of their scriptures. To date, there is no manuscript or even fragment evidence of any Arabic biblical material prior to the advent of Islam. What they had were piecemeal bits and piece of their scriptures that were scantly translated. It is said that Waraqah bin Nawfal used to translate scripture, so clearly this was an area lacking and the need to provide translation was still ongoing.

    So, keeping the aforementioned details in mind, it appears, according to some narrations, that the Christians of Najran used to minimize or even derogate the status of Moses thinking he’s just a Jewish prophet. That’s unthinkable today, but if you understand that they didn’t even have complete scriptures, this opened the door to all kinds of heresy.

    So “al-Kitab” here isn’t to be interpreted as “The Book” like the Qur’an. This is their misunderstanding due to their superficial understanding of Arabic. Ibn `Ashur cites from al-Zamakhshari that “al-Kitab” here is what is called in Arabic grammar “Ta`rif al-Jins” which means it is a general noun and not specific. This is akin to when the Qur’an says:

    (وَأَخَافُ أَن يَأْكُلَهُ الذِّئْبُ)
    “And I fear lest a wolf should devour him..”

    This wasn’t talking about one particular wolf. It’s just a grammatically accurate construction.

    Ibn `Abbas has said about this verse:

    ‎(أَيْ كُلٌّ يَتْلُو فِي كِتَابِهِ تَصْدِيقَ مَا كَفَرَ بِهِ أَنْ تَكْفُرَ الْيَهُودُ بِعِيسَى وَعِنْدَهُمُ التَّوْرَاةُ فِيهَا مَا أَخَذَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِمْ عَلَى لِسَانِ مُوسَى بِالتَّصْدِيقِ بِعِيسَى، وَفِي الْإِنْجِيلِ مَا جَاءَ بِهِ عَنِ التَّوْرَاةِ مِنْ عِنْدِ اللَّهِ، وَكُلٌّ يَكْفُرُ بِمَا فِي يَدَيْ صَاحِبِهِ)

    “It means that each of them reads from his book that which affirms the very things he disbelieves in. The Jews disbelieve in Jesus and they have the Torah wherein there is what Allah has adjured them by the words of Moses confirming Jesus. And in the Gospel it contains from God what is in the Torah. So each of them disbelievers in what is in the hands of his companion.”

    Similarly, al-Wahidi says in his exegesis, al-Wajiz fi Tafsir al-Kitab al-`Aziz:

    (يعني: إنَّ الفريقين يتلون التَّوراة وقد وقع بينهما هذا الاختلاف وكتابهم واحد)
    “It means that the two groups read the Torah and, in spite of that, have this difference between them, even when they have the same book.”

    Like

    Reply

  19. Pingback: Is the Torah like the Qur’an, or is it not? – The Quran and Bible Blog

  21. mr.heathcliff

    salaam people

    one of you guys recently wrote a response to shamoun about the torah being an equivalent textual miracle as the quran.

    where is the blog post ? is it possible that in the future all articles related to qurans view on the bibleS is linked here ?

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply
  22. Hugh Slaman

    I was vert glad to see you made a distinction between the Torah and the Injil, on the one hand, and the collection of ancient literature called “The Bible”.

    The Torah and the Injil were revealed books which still survived among limited circles of scholars in the Arabian peninsula when Islam was revealed, although most inheritors of ancient Israelite religion had no access to them. They might still be re-discovered; this, it is said in certain hadiths, is one of the main tasks of the Mahdi, and Allah knows best.

    The Pentateuch and the books making up the New Testament are simply new books, different books than the ones which were revealed, though sometimes the same names are used for them.
    (e.g. ‘Torah’ for the Pentateuch).

    I think we should drop all talk of “corruption” of earlier books, as this creates the impression that the revealed books are still available, only some words or sentences have been changed or removed or added. Because of this misleading impression, Christians try to challenge Muslims on variant readings and qira’at and the like, and thus turns out to be a very technical and subtle topic that doesn’t belong in the field of da’wah at all, where much more basic issues need to be addressed.

    Rather than “corruption”, we should talk about how most followers of earlier prophets had *lost* their books by the time Islam was first proclaimed, and replaced them with new books entirely.
    Some scholars or leaders among the followers of earlier prophets still had the Torah and the Injil in Arabia when Islam was proclaimed; no doubt this was partly because in Arabia they were free from the influence of the main empires, and because these books clearly pointed to the coming of the Arabian prophet, peace be upon him, thus giving those who had them a motive to be in Arabia.

    Wa al-Salam,
    Hugh

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply
    1. stewjo004

      @ Hugh

      Walakum salam wa rahma tu lahi wa barakatu.

      Great comment and welcome to the blog. Some passing points:

      1. Yes, I think its an important thing for Muslims to distinguish between these texts as many Muslims make the mistake of thinking the Bible was a former revelation when it’s not.

      2.. I’m not sure if the Arab Jews and Christians had some earlier text of revelation. The book “The Religious and Spiritual Life of the Jews of Medina” by Haggai Mazuz makes a very strong case they are normal Rabbinic Jews being dealt with by the Prophet(saw) and not some new sect. As of now I personally think they were using what’s known as a “targum”.

      3. Agree 110% that it should not be discussed during dawah with a normal person walking around. The only time I think an except n should be made is with the ones who are all “My Bible says! My Bible says!” At that point I show them two corruptions Mark 9-20 and John 7:20-8:11.then move on. Regarding the qiraat this is more difficult as most Muslims don’t study them. Tell them it’s an accent, not a different version or corruption, play these two to show the difference, then move on:

      Hafs

      Khalaf

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
    1. stewjo004

      @mr. heathcliff

      My thoughts would be, ehh? While I agree many times “scripture” is a better translation (and Jews and Christians instantly know what you’re talking about when you say that). A kitab is more like (if memory serves) something that is etched and permanent like a tablet. Hans Wehr says:

      “piece of writing, record, paper, letter, note, message, document, deed, contract, book”
      https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/roots/Kaf-Ta-Ba.html

      But tbh it is kinda nitpicking translation wise imo.

      Like

      Reply
    2. mr.heathcliff

      khaleel andani said (i am working by memory) ALL PROPHETS brought something called “al -kitaab”

      in a 7th century oral CONTEXT, this would mean a divine ORAL prescription, not a PHYSICAL fixed book.

      the words used were . divine prescription. instruction. command

      definately not a physical book of torah or 27 books of the nt.

      God said He would TEACH the injeel to isa

      since Quran says that it is not to compel people to believe and if Allah did , he would have made everyone one nation….Allah gave freedom to the other religions to rule by their beliefs.

      with this verse in mind, people should look at the commands, prescriptions , instructions of ALLAH (preserved information) and freely come to the final revelation .

      in other words, from quranic perspective “what ALLAH revealed therein” LEADS to the Quran.

      Like

      Reply
  25. mr.heathcliff

    look at ayats 2:136
    3:84

    look at the word used “NUFARIQU”

    this word is from form 2

    if we say it is ALLAH(the MUnzil) who revealed to the prophets, then how haven’t we “nufarriqu” if we say matthew was inspired ?

    we clearly made a separation, division, big distinction……

    now the source is someone other than Allah.

    are these ayats indirectly hinting at biblical corruption?

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. stewjo004

      @mr.heathcliff

      Technically yes it is as we are giving a very neutral answer to say by Allah:
      “we believe in what was sent down to Isa(as) and all the prophets by their Lord”. Notice we never stated, “we believe in your text”. Same when the Prophet(saw) sent the letters out to the rulers:

      “Peace be upon he who follows the guidance.”

      He never once gave them salams he(saw) indirectly salaamed the Muslims while not making it offensive to the leaders and if they accepted Islam the salam then would go to them as well.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
    1. stewjo004

      @mr.heathcliff

      I’ll give an A for creativity and while people were definitely making up and conflating stories with Isa(as) I believe there is a simpler solution then that (but I think he’s headed in the right direction)

      Like

      Reply
    1. mr.heathcliff

      QUOTE:
      Thank you for giving your reading of Matthew (which I disagree with, as the gospel imo portrays Jesus as teaching halacha that brings out the true intention of the Torah as in Francois Viljoen’s The Torah in Matthew; LIT Verlag Münster, 2018), though for now I just want to address what you said about the Didache. Didache 6:2 encourages the proselyte to bear the whole yoke of the Lord (δύνασαι βαστάσαι ὅλον τὸν ζυγὸν του κυρίου) in order to be perfect (τέλειος), and this is often understood as utilizing language both with respect to the Torah (utilizing the familiar “yoke” metaphor in Acts 15:10, Galatians 5:1, Barnabas 2:6, 2 Baruch 41:3, m. ‘Abot. 3:5, m. Ber. 2:2) as well as τέλειος conveying an ideal righteousness (as in Matthew 5:48, 19:21), which one should attain before the coming of the Lord (16:2). This ideal however is not demanded and the proselyte is encouraged to do what he is able. For some references see Jonathan A. Draper’s “Torah and Troublesome Apostles in the Didache Community* (Novum Testamentum, 1991), Huub van de Sandt and David Flusser’s The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity (Fortress, 2002), pp. 239-240, 269-270, John S. Kloppenborg’s “Did. 1.1-6.1, James, Matthew, and Torah” in Trajectories Through the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers (Oxford, 2005), and Huub van de Sandt’s ” ‘Bearing the Entire Yoke of the Lord’: An Explanation of Didache 6:2 in the Light of Matthew 11:28–30″ in The Scriptures of Israel in Jewish and Christian Tradition (Brill, 2013). Also 6:2 is a redactional join to the preceding Two Ways document; the subsequent instruction on food belongs to the church order document that follows as it utilizes the recurring Περι δε formula. The statement in 6:2 thus prefaces the entire section and not just the portion about food. “Now concerning food, bear what you are able (ὁ δύνασαι βάστασον), but in any case keep strictly away from meat sacrificed to idols” (v. 3). This gives a concession like all the other instructions in the church order document have concessions (such as the instruction on baptism making allowances for no running water), but here clearly the proselyte is encouraged to do more with respect to food than merely refrain from food sacrificed to idols, with βάστασον linking back to the reference to bearing (βαστάσαι) the whole yoke of the Lord, i.e. Torah observance with respect to kashrut. And the reference to the Lord’s day in ch. 14 belongs to a later supplement of the church order section (ch. 12-16), which has a number of other later features, but also I’m not sure if observance of the Lord’s day necessarily excludes the sabbath (as it did for Ignatius).

      Like

      Reply
  29. mr.heathcliff

    zanillamillaQuality Contributor 5 points 3 days ago
    I still have Aune’s commentary of Revelation (WBC, 1997) open and I recall from prior reading that the text of Revelation is among the most sparsely attested of the NT. On p. cxxxix, he gives a table of the temporal distribution of papyrus and uncial manuscripts of Revelation. There is only one fragment from the second century, only a few portions from the third century, and only one complete manuscript (Codex Sinaiticus) from the fourth century. The next complete manuscript is the Codex Alexandrinus from the fifth century CE. If you omit the Codex Sinaiticus, there are portions of Revelation unattested before the fifth century (such as 2:1-3:18, 4:4-5:4, 5:9-6:4, 6:9-8:13, 17:3-22:21). So it appears to be that this claim is false (barring any further manuscript discoveries since 1997) for the book of Revelation, as the complete book is attested only once before the end of the fourth century CE. And if the claim is false for Revelation, it would be false for the NT as a whole.

    https://old.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/m0udmi/can_the_entire_new_testament_be_reconstructed/

    Like

    Reply
  30. mr.heathcliff

    “I’m not sure if the Arab Jews and Christians had some earlier text of revelation.”

    what about papias’ sayings “of the lord” ?
    these are lost.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. mr.heathcliff

      quote:
      Eusebius had a low opinion of the author, and Eusebius was regarded as the primary authority of the early church. Also Phrygia was the center of the Montanist “heresy” and Papias’ chiliasm may have appealed to Montanists while turning off “orthodox” anti-Montanists. The last writers who seemed to have had direct knowledge of the book were Apollinaris of Laodicea (4th century CE), Eusebius of Caesarea (4th century CE), and Andrew of Caesarea (7th century CE). This may suggest a really limited circulation of Papias’ works, as the only copies known to have existed in the post-Nicene era were those in Caesarea (where it may have been in Origen’s library) and in Phrygia where Papias had lived. Philip of Side (5th century CE) and George the Sinner (9th century CE) offer some unique information about the book but they seem to only know about it second hand (such as from epitomizers and others who commented on Papias). After this, there was virtually nothing new said about the book. So it makes me wonder if the medieval manuscripts were Papian pseudepigrapha.

      Like

      Reply
    1. mr.heathcliff

      http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gospelhebrews.html

      In The Other Gospels, Ron Cameron provides the following information: “The Gospel of the Hebrews may have been known to Papias (a church writer who died ca. 130 C.E., whose five-volume ‘Exegesis of the Sayings of the Lord’ is now lost, preserved only in a few quotations in the writings of Eusebius). Hegesippus (late in the second century) and Eusebius (early in the fourth century) attest to the existence of this gospel, but do not quote from it. Fragments are preserved in the writings of Clement of Alexandria (late in the second century), Origen (early in the third century), and Cyril (Bishop of Jerusalem, ca. 350 C.E.). Jerome (ca. 400 C.E.) also preserves several fragments, all of which he probably reproduced from the writings of Origen. The extent of this gospel is no longer known. According to the list of ‘canonical’ and ‘apocryphal’ books drawn up by Nicephorus (Patriarch of Constantinople, 806-818 C.E.), the Gospel of the Hebrews contained 2200 lines, only 300 fewer than Matthew!”

      Like

      Reply
  32. mr.heathcliff

    1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (4 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

    Quotations of Non-Canonical Writings in the New Testament: Platinum Post by Douglas Wadeson
    March 24, 2021
    This post is accessible by Platinum Members only. If you feel left out, please consider clicking the “Upgrade!” button above to migrate to this membership level. Platinum members increasingly enjoy special benefits while every penny collected aids families and children in desperate need.

    ////

    is anyone a platinum on ehrmans blog?

    Like

    Reply
  33. mr.heathcliff

    Other New Testament References to Books Outside the Hebrew Bible: Platinum Guest Post by Doug Wadeson
    April 26, 2021
    This post is accessible by Platinum Members only. If you feel left out, please consider clicking the “Upgrade!” button above to migrate to this membership level. Platinum members increasingly enjoy special benefits while every penny collected aids families and children in desperate need.

    https://ehrmanblog.org/other-new-testament-references-to-books-outside-the-hebrew-bible-platinum-guest-post-by-doug-wadeson/

    Like

    Reply
    1. mr.heathcliff

      https://old.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/jb3ld9/question_about_the_dating_of_the_book_of_daniel/g8vhnsf/

      Do we have any examples of early church fathers quoting non-canonical Christian writings and traditions? by nathangmichel in AcademicBiblical

      [–]zanillamilla [score hidden] 5 hours ago
      A fascinating example is the Book of Eldad and Modad which is probably the book quoted in James 4:5, 1 Clement 23:1-5, 2 Clement 11:1-2, and Hermas (Vision 2.3.4). The latter is the only certain fragment of Eldad and Modad (a little book that was a bit shorter than Susanna), but there is a high probability that the other quotations belong to this book as well. Consider that James, 1 Clement, 2 Clement, and Hermas all quote from a noncanonical scripture (formally quoted with formulae such as γραφὴ, ὁ προφητικὸς λόγος, and γέγραπται) and that the content of each quotation is shared with at least one of these other works.

      First of all there is the scripture quoted in 1 Clement 23:1-5 and 2 Clement 11:1-2 which has the sentence Ταλαίπωροί εἰσιν οἱ δίψυχοι (combining two especially rare words, the neologism δίψυχος and ταλαιπωρέω) which is echoed in δίψυχοι ταλαιπωρήσατε in James 4:8-9 (just a few verses after the noncanonical quotation in v. 5) and δίψυχε καὶ ταλαιπωρε in Hermas (Parable 1.3). The noncanonical quotation in James 4:5, meanwhile, has the phrase τὸ πνεῦμα ὃ κατῴκησεν ἐν ἡμῖν which is reflected in τὸ πνεῦμα ὃ ὁ θεὸς κατῴκισεν ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ ταύτῃ in Hermas (Mandate 3.1; cf. τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον τὸ ἐν σοὶ κατοικοῦν in 10.2.4-5). The quotation (Ἐγγὺς κύριος τοῖς ἐπιστρεφομένοις) from the noncanonical scripture in Hermas, namely Eldad and Modad, is echoed in ἐγγίσατε τῷ θεῷ, καὶ ἐγγιεῖ ὑμῖν in James 4:8 (again, immediately after the quote from noncanonical scripture) and προσερχομένοις αὐτῷ in 1 Clement 23:1 (which immediately precedes the quotation from noncanonical scripture). So all four works quote from some noncanonical scripture and the content of each is found the others, often in the surrounding context.

      Because of this, it is unlikely that these four books quote from multiple apocryphons but rather there is a common denominator that explains the mutual intertextuality, and Hermas specified that the apocryphon in question was Eldad and Modad. Now also consider that 1 Clement also has two more noncanonical quotations. 1 Clement 17:5-6 quotes Moses as saying Ἐγὼ δέ εἰμι ἀτμὶς (nothing like this is found in the OT) and this is paralleled by ἀτμὶς γάρ ἔσται (which combines εἰμι with ἀτμὶς) in James 4:14, again several verses after the quotation from noncanonical scripture. A noncanonical quotation from Moses also fits with Eldad and Modad, which was based on the story in Numbers 11 concerning Moses and Joshua. 1 Clement 46:2 quotes another scripture saying Κολλᾶσθε τοῖς ἁγίοις which parallels κολλώμενοι τοῖς ἁγίοις in Hermas (Vision 3.6.2), a short distance from his quotation from Eldad and Modad. Finally, immediately after the echo of Eldad and Modad in James 4:8 is the phrase καθαρίσατε χεῖρας καὶ ἁγνίσατε καρδίας which parallels καθαρᾷ καρδίᾳ in the preceding context of the noncanonical quotation in 2 Clement 11:1-2 and καθάρισον οὖν τὴν καρδίαν σου in Hermas (Mandate 9.7), a short distance from 10.2.4-5 which paraphrases the noncanonical quotation from James 4:5. The most parsimonious explanation for this network of intertextuality is common dependence on the source specifically named by Hermas.

      Dale Allison published a full article on this topic in JSP (2011), and he advanced even further arguments in support of this analysis. He points out that the explicit quotation of Eldad and Modad in Hermas has a close parallel in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Num. 11:26 (“The Lord is near them in their hour of distress”), so although the language in Eldad and Modad may draw somewhat on Psalm 145:18, the thought is close to what is also found in Jewish midrash on the Eldad and Modad story. He also mentions several other close parallels in content in the immediate context of James 4:5 and Hermas. Finally, he shows that James 4:5 has a midrashic context in the story of Eldad and Modad in Numbers 11. He advances a half dozen points to show this, including that it is only this story in the whole OT that concerns jealousy for the Spirit, the reference to receiving greater grace on account of humility (4:6) echoes what was said about Eldad and Modad both in Jewish midrash and in the church fathers, and the reference to craving (ἐπιθυμεῖτε) in James 4:2 reflects ἐπιθυμέω in Numbers 11:4, 34 LXX.

      Like

      Reply
  35. mr.heathcliff

    how much of mark was “lukanized” or “matthewized” by the the scribes that what has reached us is corrected form which was read in big cities and eclipses the smaller cities?

    Like

    Reply
  36. mr.heathcliff

    a person on twitter said :

    you wrote: Salam. I think these ayat will be helpful for you in disproving the missionary argument that Quran affirms the bible. Surah 48:15 proves “no one can change the words of Allah” is only about his decrees. Surah 34:46 proves “bayna yaday” means “before”- not “between their hands”

    long time ago in a facebook discussion i posted the following :

    here is something interesting which i found:

    Literally, “between your hands” (bên yādēkā). The idiom is known at Ugarit (ktp . . . bn ydm), where “shoulder” is used with “between the hands.” A similar expression in 2 Kgs 9:24, “between the shoulders,” uses zĕrô’a, which can mean “arm” or “shoulder.” The normal word for “hand” (yād), which is used in this instance, is not always sharply differentiated from the anatomical parts with which it is associated: the wrist, arm, or even shoulder (compare the way regel can mean “foot” or “leg”; Ginsberg 1978: 131). Thus “hands” here is a kind of synecdoche representing the upper extremities, so that bruises “between the hands” signifies marks on either the chest or back. Because flogging as a punishment (Deut 25:2; cf. previous NOTE) apparently involved striking a person’s back (see Prov 19:29, which proclaims that flogging is “for the back of fools”), the likelihood is that the expression “between your shoulders” signifies that the bruises are on the person’s back (contra, e.g., NRSV’s “on the chest”).

    does anyone see a connection between back and before?
    maybe it is just an idiomatic way to say something which took place in the past

    Like

    Reply
  37. stewjo004

    So adding to this I was reading Baqarah and realized there is an implicit charge of textual corruption is literally in the opening of Baqarah:

    This is the Scripture in which there is no doubts, a guide for the God-fearing, (2:2)

    Allah says this Scripture (the Quran) has no doubts in it while addressing a Jewish audience. That implies their scriptures do have doubts in them. And boom there’s another one.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  41. Pingback: Response to a Christian Apologist: Was Jesus “Worshiped” in the Gospels? – The Quran and Bible Blog

  43. mr.heathcliff

    “So let the followers of the Gospel judge by the laws that God has sent down within it, because whoever doesn’t judge by what God has sent down are rebellious and disobedient.”

    QUOTE:
    Sometimes , the Quran uses the mudari3 when telling a story from the PAST or relaying PAST events. Telling a past event as though it is occuring in the present captivates the listner and helps them visualise the event.

    Sahih International: And [recall] when We saved your forefathers from the people of Pharaoh, who afflicted you with the worst torment, slaughtering your [newborn] sons and keeping your females alive. And in that was a great trial from your Lord.

    THE VERSE ACTUALLY READS

    WE SAVED YOU……..WHO AFFLICTS (PRESENT TENSE)….SLAUGHTERS YOUR…….(PRESENT TENSE)

    Indeed, We sent down the Torah…..(PAST)
    https://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=5&verse=44#(5:44:1)

    IT jumps FROM past to PRESENT to PAST again.

    “and do not SELL….”
    talks about a PAST event as if it is happening in the present…

    https://corpus.quran.com/wordbyword.jsp?chapter=5&verse=46

    AND We sent on their footstep isa…..

    PAST……..SHIFTS TO present

    quote:
    The present tense can be used to paint a picture. Allah describes something that happened a long time ago, but He is using the present tense.

    He wants the reader to imagine that you are there and it is happening right in front of you.

    FINALLY :

    Sahih International: And We have revealed to you, [O Muúammad], the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a criterion over it. So judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations away from what has come to you of the truth.

    Like

    Reply
    1. mr.heathcliff

      WITH this perspective in mind, it appears that quran wants the crosstians to go back in time and imagine in the present tense WHAT they SHOULD have done as the true followers of isa.

      Like

      Reply
  45. mr.heathcliff

    Quote
    In Deuteronomy 4:8, Moses says, “What great nation has perfect laws and rules like all of this Torah which I am setting before you today?” Here the term explicitly connotes the plurality of laws contained in the subsequent chapters, and in those alone: “which I am setting before you today” can only mean the laws delivered by Moses to the people on the plains of Moab, that is, the laws of Deuteronomy 12–26…

    The books following Deuteronomy, Joshua through Kings, stretch the term even further. They use a new expression, “the [book of the] Torah of Moses.” This phrase no longer refers just to the laws of Deuteronomy 12–26, but rather to the book of Deuteronomy as a whole, including Moses’s speeches before and after the giving of the law…

    In the final books of the Hebrew Bible, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles, we again find the phrases “the book of Moses” and “the (book of the) Torah of Moses.” We also, however, find the word “Torah” used on its own, as if the referent is a well-known entity to the listener or reader. Throughout these books, the Torah referred to seems to be not only Deuteronomy, as in Joshua–Kings, but the entire canonical Pentateuch…

    We have in the Hebrew Bible, then, an interesting semantic phenomenon: while the use of the word “Torah” and the phrase “Torah of Moses” was continuous through the biblical period, the precise referent of “Torah” changed, gradually taking on a wider meaning, from a single law or collection of laws (Deut 12–26) to a book in which those laws were found (Deuteronomy) and finally to the entire corpus in which that book–and others with other laws–were found (the Pentateuch), which is what the word means to this day. When this late meaning is read back into the earlier uses of the phrase, it was but a small step to understand the phrase “Torah of Moses” in Joshua–Kings, and especially the statement near the end of Deuteronomy that “Moses wrote this Torah” (Deut 31:9), as signifying that Moses was the author of the entire Pentateuch. Through this semantic expansion and the inner-biblical and postbiblical interpretive process, the idea of Mosaic authorship became a textually warranted claim.

    Like

    Reply
  46. Erasmus

    As the koran is an uninspired work of fiction it matters not to me what it may or may not say as pertains to the bible. As it contradicts the bible it would make no sense anyway to appeal to it as an authority.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a comment