good question fo muslims?

Question

Muslims say that the original versions of the injeel and torah no longer exist, that todays versions are corrupted. How can this be verified? I mean there is nothig to compare todays Injeel and Torah with if the "originals" dont exist.

Despite this there is a verse in Dueteronomy and a verse in the Gospels (or Injeel) that muslims often say refers to the coming of Mohammad.

If the Injeel and Torah have been changed, then why haven't these verses? Are you saying that out of all of these books, only these 2 verse were not corrupted? If I pull out a piece of meat and see that part has spoiled and turned green, I throw it all out. IAccording to Muslims 99.99% of the Bible is corrupt in the Islamic view. If thats the case, why not throw out all of it as you would do spoiled meat? Why claim any verses propehsize Mohammad, its corrupt!!

I am asking this sincerely, and ask for thoughtful answers hopefully from your mind, not some website.

Thanks for the responses thus far however I asked a very specific questions. Please respond to them. For example Muhammad gave a detailed description of the differences between Christianties and Islams view of Jesus. That really had little to do with the question. Please stick to the topic

Answer 1

Don't you love all the scholarly muslims that run to answer your question?

I have learned if you ask too many questions they wil call you infidel and threaten your life.

Answer 2

salam (peace be upon you), i thank you that u asked this question. It would be very unfair to get the percentage in your question, as i myself have never heard a muslim scholar of any exact percentage. You may have listened to one or two, but majority doesn't have percentages.

Muslims believe in all the books revealed to man by God, including Injeel, Torah, Zamboor, and the Quran. Quran is the final testament revealed to man and it testifies the revealing of the other books as well. Since Bible was compiled and written after hundreds of years of Jesus(PBUH) death, its accuracy can be questioned as its logical to question something that was written after such a long time.
Quran was written and completed right in the time of Prophet Mohammad (PBUH). And unlike christians, muslims memorized the verses right then and there, as they were living in an oral tradition, where poetries and stories were all shared orally, so their memories were quite compatible with that time... if you want to question their memories, you can find a guy/girl, who has memorized whole Quran, and can listen to it word for word, and you wont be disappointed, i assure you, even though we are not living in a oral tradition. something that can verify your question of Quran being changed over time. Quran today after 1400 years is still the same Quran word to word, u can also verify this by asking an american muslim about chapter114, and then ask an australian muslim about the same chapter, and i assure you they would recite it word for word.
Can i verify if Bible has changed over time or not, i have to ask you to compare todays bible, to last year's bible, i dont know which version you read, but you can see yourself for the similarities and dis.

every year they get out a new revised version of King Jame's, in which little changes are made, just think, if these little changes are being made (deleting a verse) over,say a decade, how different today's Bible would be from that of 100 years earlier. i dont want to offend you, in any way plz forgive me if i did offend u. Quran says today's Bible is changed Bible from that of Jesus's PBUH time. So there are verses in the Bible that are from the time of Jesus PBUH, and there are those that are not, a muslim should read the Bible and can only testify those that are testified by the Quran, cuz a muslim knows Quran hasn't been edited ever, (although some people may claim, there are other versions or may refer to the books that were burned, these are some myths that can be answered if you listen to a muslim scholar particulary about these issues, since i already have taken a lot of space here).
And again, meat and the Bible,can't be compared, even the concept you gave is incompatible with that of Bible alone.

I am just a student, you can listen to the indepth debates of Christian and Muslim scholars on the specific issue, "the authenticity of Bible and Quran", i'll be glad to further help you, contact me at [e-mail], if you do find yourself askin for more help. thank you
salam
faiz

Answer 3

All the new Bibles are different. There are like 100 or more different versions of the Christian Bible. The same goes with the Torah.

Answer 4

Two complete EARLY versions of the NT exist.
The Codex Vaticanus (in the Vatican)
The Codex Sinaiticus (in the British Museum)
Both date from 400 years before the Koran, and both agree with each other, despite the fact that they are from different sources.
Did I mention that they agree with our current Bible too?

Answer 5

havent they been edited, changed for the convenience of the people or made new editions?

Answer 6

The area of disagreement between Islam and Christianity, concerning Jesus, includes the following points:

1. Although Islam accepts the holiness of Jesus, it denies his divinity. According to the teaching of Islam, Jesus is no deity. He is not God, nor is he united with God. He is worthy of reverence and great respect, but he is not worthy of worship. Islam is uncompromising in its Monotheism. God is only One, and there is no God but He, the Almighty, the Ever-Living, the Self-Subsistent, the Infinite in life, knowledge, and power. Jesus is not ever-living. He was born less than 2000 years ago, and according to the gospels, he died after a very short life. He is not almighty because he was a subject of persecution; nor was he infinite. He could not be the Creator of the world because the world is over four billion years old, while he was born less than two thousand years ago. He is not worthy of worship because he himself was a humble worshipper of God.

2. Jesus, according to the teaching of Islam, is not a son of God. God does not have any son or child, because He is above that. Bodily parenthood is inconceivable in His case because He is not physical. Spiritual parenthood also is not conceivable, because He is the Creator of every spiritual and material being. The Holy Qur'an is clear on this point:

"And (they) impute falsely, without knowledge, sons and daughters unto Him. Glorified be He and high exalted above (all) that they ascribe (unto Him). The Originator of the heavens and the Earth! How can He have a child when there is no consort for Him, when He created all things and is Aware of all things? Such is God, your Lord. There is no God save Him, the Creator of all things, so worship Him. And He taketh care of all things." 6:100-102

3. Islam denies the crucifixion of Jesus. Jesus did not die on the cross. The Holy Qur'an is clear on this point.

"And because of their saying: 'We slew the Messiah Jesus Son of Mary, the Messenger of God.' They slew him not nor crucified him, but appeared so unto them; and lo! Those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof but the pursuit of a conjecture; for certain they slew him not, but God took him up to Himself. God is Ever-Mighty, Wise." 4:157-158

There is a way to reconcile the Qur'anic statement with the statements of the gospels: The difference between the two statements could be a difference between appearance and reality. No doubt, some event had taken place at the time of what seemed to be the crucifixion of Jesus and his death on the cross. The life of Jesus was full of miracles, and so could be what seemed to be his death. It could have been that another person (such as Judas, the one who betrayed him) was miraculously likened to him, and he, not Jesus, died on the cross.

There is another way to reconcile the two statements without resort to assumption of any miracle: Suppose Jesus was put on the cross, and that he had fainted, so he appeared dead, while he was still alive.

This assumption is not without evidence from the gospels: The gospels state that Jesus did not stay very long on the cross. He was taken down hurriedly, without breaking his legs, while it was the custom to break the legs of the crucified. The Jews were preparing to celebrate Passover. They did not want him to stay on the cross until the next day, Saturday, on which they are not supposed to do any work such as burial. As Jesus did not stay too long on the cross, he could have remained alive.

The gospels state also that after Jesus appeared to be dead, a man struck at his body with a lance, and that the blood gushed out from his body. We know that blood does not flow from a dead body. This indicates that Jesus was still alive.

The gospels state that Jesus was laid in his tomb, and that a heavy stone was laid above the tomb, and that on Sunday, the body was missing, and that the stone was removed from the mouth of the tomb. We have the right to suspect that some of the disciples of Jesus removed the stone and rescued him. Were Jesus resurrected miraculously, there would have been no need for removal of the stone. God is able to raise him from the grave and keep the stone where it was. The removal of the stone seems to be a human, and not a Divine, work.

In addition to this, the gospels state that Jesus appeared several times to his disciples after the event of crucifixion. All these appearances seemed to have taken place in secrecy, and that Jesus was not willing to appear openly. Were he miraculously resurrected, he would not have had to hide from his enemies. The secrecy of his appearances indicates that he was still living as he did before, and that his life was not interrupted by a short death, and that he was still afraid of the pursuit of his enemies.

The international society of the Holy Shroud has recently concluded that the stains of blood on the shroud of Jesus indicate that Jesus was still living when he was taken down from the cross. Otherwise, there would be no blood on the sheet which covered his body afterwards.

A Christian, believing in the crucifixion of Jesus, would have a hard time reconciling two of the principles in which he believes, namely: Jesus is God, and Jesus was crucified. A crucified person cannot be God because he is unable to protect himself, let alone be almighty.

A Muslim, on the other hand, does not have such a problem. He believes that Jesus is a prophet and no more. A prophet may be persecuted and crucified, because a prophet is not supposed to be almighty. Although Islam does not have the problem of contradiction, it has solved the problem which it does not have. Jesus was not crucified. God had protected him.

4. Islam disagrees with Christianity on the Doctrine of Redemption. The Doctrine of Redemption is based on the Doctrine of the Original Sin: that mankind had been condemned by God because of the sin of Adam and Eve which was consequently inherited by their children. Islam denies the whole Doctrine of the Original Sin; God did not condemn mankind because a sin was committed by a couple at the beginning of time. (This will be made clear in the following inquiry.) There is no original sin; therefore, there is no need for redemption to mankind out of a sin that did not exist.

Furthermore, suppose that there is an original sin. To forgive mankind their original sin, God does not need a sinless person, such as Jesus, to be crucified. He can forgive the human race without causing an innocent person to suffer. To say that God does not forgive mankind unless mankind crucifies Jesus, is to put Him in the position of a ruler who was disobeyed by his own subjects. When the children asked the ruler to forgive the sin of their fathers, he refused to do so unless they kill one of his beloved ones. If they commit such a terrible crime, he will forgive them; otherwise, he will not. I do not think that the advocates of the original sin would be willing to put God in such a position. God, the Most Just and Merciful, does not condemn people because of their ancestor's sin. He may forgive them their own sins without requiring them to commit a bigger one.