Do Muslims realize they insult Judaism and Christianity every time they say the Holy Bible is corrupt?

Question

If Muslims really consider us friends, shouldn't they stop putting down our Holy Books? If Muslims do not like other people questioning the Koran, shouldn't they stop slandering the Torah and The Bible? Or do ALL people have the right to express their opinions and beliefs?

Thank you in advance for your answers! Have a great day!

Answer 1

Sadly they do not. If they realized it was an insult to God they would not insult their own god who they claim authored these books and was powerless to protect his own word.

Answer 2

I think the Muslim idea of the Bible being "corrupt" is using a larger, wider definition of the term.

I don't think its used in the sense that the entire Bible is trash, but rather it is not the direct word of God and that there's some (or a lot) of human editorial in there.

I CAN see the logic in that idea. Scriptures written across the span of thousands of years and compiled and translated in a place and time that may or may not have understood all of the contexts.

The bottom line is that there is enough variables in the history of the making of our modern Bible, that I can understand the Muslim idea of the Bible being "Corrupt."

The Qu'ran differs in that it was given to one man (Muhammed) via the Angel Gabriel, over a specific time frame. Having held a copy of the Qu'ran myself, Muhammed must have had one heck of a case of writers cramp!

I, as a Christian, do not take offense at the Muslim usage of the word "corrupt" to describe our Bible.

It is a question and a concern that I've handed over to God. And I pray that the Holy Spirit move within my life to help make up for any possible errancy in The Bible.

With regards

Answer 3

There are no contradictions interior the Bible, purely misunderstandings and mistranslations. the reason there are somewhat some sects to Christianity is the comparable reason there are somewhat some areas on your physique. Christianity is a residing organism. some sects are like ft, they shuttle around the globe evangelizing. Others are like palms, eyes, ears, etc. all with diverse applications yet with the comparable unified spirit. this is in many situations called "The physique of Christ". This shape created via God is a lot previous the different religions know-how.

Answer 4

IT'S BIBLE SCHOLARS WHO SAY THAT THE BIBLE HAS BEEN CHANGED/CORRUPTED

1.The Torah was burned at the time of Nebuchadnezzar on 588 B.C. (II Kings: 24-25) when all the Levites who learned the Torah by heart had been killed. Esdras says that all books of the Jews were lost and Ezra rewrote them with divine inspiration. But Second Maccabees says that it was Nehemiah who collected the books. What's the guarantee that Ezra the Scribe or Nehemiah got everything right?

2. If you read John 5:7 and 8, the part "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" has now been expunged in the RSV. In New American Standard Bible, it is written as "...the Spirit and the water and the blood, and the three are in agreement."

3. "The Evidence for Jesus", page 43" by Christian scholar Rev. James Dunn says: the writer of the fourth gospel "was not concerned with the sort of questions which trouble some Christians today_ Did Jesus actually say this? Did he use these precise words? and so on."

4. The New American Bible says the following in its introduction, under the heading 'How to Read your Bible': "It is difficult to know whether the words or sayings attributed to Jesus are exactly as he spoke them...The Church was so firmly convinced that...Jesus...taught through her, that she expressed her teaching in the form of Jesus' sayings.: (St. Joseph medium Size Edition, p. 23)

5. See : http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/john/intro.htm
"Critical analysis makes it difficult to accept the idea that the gospel as it now stands was written by one person. John 21 seems to have been added after the gospel was completed; it exhibits a Greek style somewhat different from that of the rest of the work. The prologue (Joh 1:1-18) apparently contains an independent hymn, subsequently adapted to serve as a preface to the gospel. Within the gospel itself there are also some inconsistencies, e.g., there are two endings of Jesus' discourse in the upper room (Joh 14:31; 18:1). To solve these problems, scholars have proposed various rearrangements that would produce a smoother order. However, most have come to the conclusion that the inconsistencies were probably produced by subsequent editing in which homogeneous materials were added to a shorter original.

6. The New Jerusalem Bible, in its "Introduction to John" says that the Gospel of John was "amplified and developed in several stages during the second half of the first century...It is freely accepted that the fourth Gospel underwent a complex development before it reached its final form." It adds further on that "It would seem that we have only the end-stage of a slow process that has brought together not only component parts of different ages, but also corrections, ADDITIONS, and sometimes even more than revision of the same discourse.[Emphasis is mine]"

7. From the web site:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/loisy2/chapter7.html
"Towards the end of the first century or the beginning of the second there lived a mystic prophet, a master of gnosis rather than an apostle of the faith, from whom came forth the hymns and symbolic visions on which the fourth Gospel is founded. A little later, towards 135-140, his sublime meditations were collected and framed in a Gospel story, to be used as a manual of initiation into the Christian faith, like other books of similar form already in circulation among the churches. The chronological framework was probably fixed at the same time and a part of the borrowings made from the synoptic tradition. At this stage and in this form the book had no author's name attached to it and its diffusion was limited, or nearly so, to the province of Asia. Some fifteen or twenty years later, towards 150-160, the Marcionite heresy having broken out, this Asiatic book was amended, completed and more or less worked over, not only by the addition of chapter xxi, but by other retouches and additions in the main body; it was then boldly presented as the work of an apostle. But everything was welcome that gave satisfaction to faith, and the result just described was accepted by those whose will-to-believe found the truth in it. Thus it came to pass that, when the Montanist controversy broke out, the adversaries of these pretended writings of the apostle John found nobody to listen to them. When later, towards 190, the great controversy arose about the keeping of Easter, the Roman Church failed to perceive, or pretended not to perceive that, while the Synoptics supported the ritual tradition of Rome and of most other Christian churches, the fourth Gospel supported the different tradition followed by the churches of Asia."

Answer 5

Who said Muslims consider "us" (I assume you mean Christians here) their friends?

And as a Christian, what is your opinion of the Qu'ran?

It's impossible to say what Mohammed would think of Christians today. His time was only 600 years after Jesus time. Christianity was in it's infancy during Mohammeds time. But he did consider Jesus a prophet like himself. He also considered Moses a prophet.

I am no expert, but I believe his real issue was with the "idolaters" of his time. I believe he did treat Christians and Jews with respect and instructed his followers to do likewise.

I believe the issues of today took root in times well after Moses, Jesus, or Mohammed's time on this earth, and they would be ashamed of what has happened in their names.

We can only judge people by their actions, not by the words they claim to live by.

All people do have the right to express their opinions and beliefs but unltimately it just comes down to how nice people are in their hearts. We all know that no amount of religion bashing is going to convert people over to your preferred faith. Nor or you really trying to convert people when you use these tactics...you're just trying to be mean and nasty...

Most Muslims I know are nice, decent, good people. And most Christians and Jews I know are the same. But when you look at the groups as a whole, none of them is tolerant of the other, and in my humble opinion this will never change until their respective clergy stop bashing the other religions.

That's why I am Ba'hai...we don't bash anybody's religion... ;)

Answer 6

They have a different religion. What do you expect them to say?

What is your opinion on the Koran?

What about the Vedas? Is this text holy eternal truth or not?

If it is, why are you not Hindu? If it is not, how dare you insult Hindus in that way.


BTW the Jews think the OT is corrupt and that the NT is just plain blasphamy. That is why they have their own uncorrupted version in the Torah.

Answer 7

Muslims believe that Jesus was the Messiah(Christ) so whatever that guy above said abt false prophets is totally wrong.
You have to understand that we Muslims believe that Jesus was given "Injil"(The Gospel) which was revealed to him. The current Bible cannot be taken as "Injil" which the Qur'an talks about. Obviously we Muslims don't believe that the Gospels which were written by men years after Jesus' time on earth were inspired by the holy spirit. Jesus himself couldn't verify whatever which was written.

Jesus never claimed divinity in the Bible and never called himself God and never asked you to worship him.

And anyways, which edition or version are you talking abt. The Catholic or Protestant. Until now, no one agrees on the completion of the bible. Some groups have actually deleted verses regarding Jesus' resurrection from their versions.
Who decides what goes in the bible and not? The Church! Jesus didn't decide it!

Answer 8

Think about this for a minute...

If you believed someone else's book was true, you wouldn't be following a different book. So of course they think the bible is corrupt, and of course you think the Koran is corrupt, and of course I think they are all corrupt. Anyone who denies this is being politically correct, but not being honest.

Answer 9

I am sure Islam feels quite justified in saying other religions are false. Have you not read what is in their Quran:
sura 2:191 Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them;
sura 2:193 Fight the infidels until they accept Islam;
sura 3:28 Muslims must not take the infidels as friends;
sura 3:85 Any religion other than Islam is not acceptable;
sura 5:33 Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticise Islam;
sura 8:12 Terrorise and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Qur’an; sura 8:65 The unbelievers are stupid; urge the Muslims to fight them; sura 9:29 Kill the Jews and the Christians if they do not convert to Islam or refuse to pay Jizya tax; sura 9:30 The Jews and the Christians are perverts; fight them; sura 9:73 Be harsh with the unbelievers; sura 47:4 Do not hanker for peace with the infidels ...

Answer 10

Better to insult with the Truth then lie and make people content with misguidance.

Even Christians and Jews admit it has been changed.

It just hurts more when Muslims say it.

.

Answer 11

I see just as much Quran bashing by Christians as I do Bible bashing by Atheists I think they are all even!!