Why from Muslim point of view the content of the Holy Bible is been modified although it's just a translation

Question

to Hebrew, Aramaic, Sumerian, Latin, Greek and so on. So meaning that the when the Koran is transalate to english the content are modified

Answer 1

I wish that the Koran could also be modified to discourage the Muslim hatred for the non-Muslims, I wish that it would consider women to have equal rights with men, I wish that it effaces the myth that martyrs are given 72 black eyed virgins to screw in heaven, and most of all, I wish it to forbid the killings of innocent non-Muslims in the name of Allah. Don't you think that ENOUGH is ENOUGH?

Answer 2

What exactly has been modified, who did it, and when has this been done.? No one has proof for this. I would say we are open for listening. The oldest Bible is from about 1000 B.C. In Mohammed's time the Bible was not changed (that's what the Quran says) The Dead See Scrolls confirm the OT and NT written 100 after Christ. Today's Bible is the same as the Original Copy.
Translating does not change the Message of the Bible. OT the prophecies of Jesus coming as a Savior, NT witness of his life and death and future things to happen.

The Bible is a Book for all people to read. Why should God speak only Arabic, that's absurd. Most Muslim cant even read and understand Arabic!

Answer 3

One big difference between the bible and the Koran is that the bible has been edited and modified many times through its history. Parts that don't fit te editors' agendas are omitted and there have been additions.

Muslims have kept their holy book intact refusing human intervention and disliking translations. They believe that a person needs to understand Arabic in order to get the most accurate reading of the Koran. They respect it as the word of God, therefore they want the original work to stay intact

Answer 4

Islam is a lie they are all liars that's why. The Koran, written by some scribe under the veil of 'Mohammed' -- the General of Warfare; is the most prolific eventide of PLAGIARISM the literary world has ever seen!

Answer 5

I'm not a Muslim, but I can understand how someone can come to this conclusion.

For example, modern scholarship believes a number of things about how religious texts have been transmitted over the millennia, and if I can I would like to share some of those theories (and I stress -theories-) with you now:

With any translation, there has to be some interpretation levied upon the text, as no two languages are identical in idiom. :-)

For example, the New Testament, as we have it today, is written in a dialect of Greek common to the early half of the first millennium; however, we know that Jesus and his disciples primarily spoke in Aramaic, the common Jewish language of the time. Any place where Jesus is quoted in Greek had to be translated from (most likely) an original Aramaic tradition or source, which requires a bit of interpretation.

Greek and Aramaic are to -very- different languages, and some idioms are difficult to convey across that barrier. For example, many people are familiar with the following that is attributed to Jesus:

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

In the Aramaic language, the word /gamla/ or "camel" has sever interesting homophones (words that sound the same, and in this case spelled the same). As a result /gamla/ can mean either "camel," "gangplank," OR "ship-binding rope" as its root g-m-l tends to convey the meaning: "to bear a burden."

Now out of these three choices, "ship-binding rope" makes much more sense than "camel" within this context as #1 rope through a needle's eye is a more fitting parallel to thread and #2 the particular quality of rope (i.e. ship-binding rope) would be very appropriate as most of Jesus' early followers were -fishermen-. :-)

Now another example of how a translation can be deficient is that even nuances such as wordplay or puns can be lost between languages. A very good example of this comes from the Gospel of John in the pericope (a n academic word for "section") called "The True Children of Abraham Debate." In the Greek, this passage tends to read a bit awkwardly, and seems to be lacking a cogent reason for why the dialogue is snapping back and forth so quickly. It reads as follows:

John 8:39
They retorted and said to him:
"Our father is Abraham!"
Jesus says to them:
"If you are Abraham's children, do as Abraham would do!"

Now in Aramaic, these words are a bit more bitting due to the fact of a pun that exists between the words /abba/ (father), /abraham/ (Abraham), and the verb /`abad/ (to do). Substituting in the words for an example, we get:

John 8:39
They retorted and said to him:
"Our abba (father) is Abraham!"
Jesus says to them:
"If you are Abraham's children, `abad (do) as Abraham would `abad (do)!"

Note how the "ab" sound is being repeated mockingly? :-)

Now, here's another catch. If the Greek texts are a translation (in places) from an Aramaic tradition, and most Bibles are based off of the Greek and translate into English, we're beginning to play a game of telephone with the text. If one iteration is enough to change small to moderate nuances, imagine how multiple iterations of translation can change a text. Some versions of the Bible, because of the translators' sources, can go through as many as 5 translation iterations in some places and it all adds up.

Furthermore (and very pertinent to this particular question) there is another problem where even if a document is in the same language similar misunderstandings can happen. To illustrate my point, let me post a small passage from the original 1611 King James Version of the Bible:

Philemon 1:20
Yea, brother, let mee haue ioy of thee in the Lord: refresh my bowles in the Lord.

(The spelling above is original, but I wasn't able to display the ligatures. See the sources section below where you can see this for yourself.)

If you were to pick up a KJV today, the editors have partially modernized the language:

Philemon 1:20
Yea, brother, let me have joy of thee in the Lord: refresh my bowels in the Lord.

Refresh my "bowles" in the Lord?

Not only are we dealing with a small mistranslation ("bowels" should read "compassion" or "love" as the word has a double meaning in Aramaic and Greek but not English), but the archaisms in the text make it difficult to understand.

The KJV is a text that is revered by many, but most people cannot read it as it was originally without misunderstanding what it says. The English is simply too old and not standardized enough for the average reader.

1) Spellings are different ("mee" "bowles"),
2) U and V were used interchangeably ("haue" => "have"),
3) I and J had not yet been completely differentiated ("ioy" => "joy") as J was a new letter to the Roman alphabet, and
4) Idiom was different ("thee" => "you")...

(As a side note I guess it would be the "KIV" instead of the "KJV" back in the day? :-) ).

All in all, as a living language progresses, things change.

Modern English is nothing like Old or Middle English.
Modern Greek is nothing like Classical or Koine Greek.
Modern Hebrew is much different than Biblical Hebrew.
Modern Arabic is much different than Classical Arabic.
Modern Aramaic is -very- different from Middle Aramaic.


Now, because of the two points that I've outlined above, mainly:

1) Translation "Telephone" and
2) "Living Language Shift"

The New Testament is not the only document that is susceptible to such things.

The Tanakh or "Old Testament" appears to have some Ugaritic sources behind some of the Psalms, and the dialect of Hebrew that books such as the Torah (or "Pentateuch") are written in are far too young to be from the original time periods described (in other words, some scribes somewhere must have updated the language much how modern KJV Bibles are updated, at the least). The Tanakh was also originally written without vowel markings, so interpreting vowels was required in order to make sense of the text. Finally, modern Hebrew (and Aramaic) have also progressed past their application in the body of these works.

The Qur`an appears to have some Aramaic sources behind some passages that were later written down in Arabic according to the Luxembourg group. Furthermore there is some debate between Muslim denominations as to the vocalization of some words within the text as the original Qur`an was (like the Tanakh) written without vowels. Finally, also like the Tanakh, Modern Arabic has progressed past where Classical Arabic originally finds itself within the Qur`an (albeit much less than Modern and Classical Hebrew).

The modern Vedas also are written in a dialect that is too young, but the Vedas are not my specialty, so I'll leave it off with that. :-)

Now, in closing, note that everything that I have said above is -not- something that everyone believes, but I can understand how someone, in this case a Muslim, can believe that the Holy Bible (or any document for that matter) has been modified ny translating it from its original language and context.

I hope this answers your question! :-D

Answer 6

not only did the Bible lose meaning during translation, it was modified by Scholars and Rabbis.

And that's Why The Qur'an must be read in Arabic, however you can read it in asny language for understanding.

Answer 7

Its modidfied in a way by humans to suit their preferences in order to satisfy them and permit them to do things which originally was forbidden. Why else would christianity be branched out as the way it is now since it the message came from a single prophet (Jesus Christ). If it hasn't been untouched all of christianity should be unified under one form of christianity..

Answer 8

do you really believe at the man WHO people that can actually can drink beer or some alcohol.
in Islam,we can't!

if you you are the person WHO can think than why not you compered the AL-quran and the bible?

Answer 9

they assume that they koran is 100% correct