Question on Quran vs. the Bible

[mookster]

Hello,

I am new here and I have a question about Islam. Please take this as a respectful tone from someone who sincerely is interested in the answer.

Some famous people appear in both the Quran and the Bible. In some cases, Jewish patriarchs appear in the Quran and their life stories are different in the Quran. The same is true for Jesus.

The Quran was written in the 7th century, so probably 600-2,000+ years after some of these people lived.

Here is my question...asked as a non-Muslim interested in hearing the answer, not as an attack: Wouldn't the Jews who wrote the Old Testament (or the Christians who wrote the new) be in a better position to tell the life stories of these people accurately? If we asked a historian which source he would trust - something written at the time someone was alive (or soon after) vs. something written 1,000 years later - I am sure he would pick the contemporary account.

For example, my understanding is that the Quran says that Jesus was not crucified. Why would I trust that (written in the 600s) over a Gospel written in 70-100 or so? Wouldn't people who actually knew Jesus be in a better position to tell his story? Same question for Old Testament figures - wouldn't the Jews of that time be a better source than someone written 1,000+ years later?

I know Muslims believe that earlier traditions were somewhat corrupted and the Quran corrects history. I suspect Muslims would say that the Quran is the inerrant word of God and so it is more trustworthy than earlier versions. If that is the answer - "it is true because we believe the Quran is the word of God and it corrects earlier tradition" - then I understand that answer.

I was just wondering if there is anything more a Muslim would add or explain.

Thank you and I appreciate anyone who answers.

[al yunan]

"it is true because we believe the Quran is the word of God and it corrects earlier tradition" - then I understand that answer.

Salam brother,

The word of Allah S.W.T is final to all Muslims and although we believe as it's a part of our principles of faith, that Allah S.W.T send other prophets peace be upon them all with books, but those books surviving to day to us are not the original ones.
I hope this answers your question.

Masalam

[YM Usrah Umar]

i cant think of any other answer to be honest to the 1 uv already mentioned....quran has remained the same. however had the bible and torah remained the same...then yh it would prefereable to look at those books, plus you jus hav to look at the storys of moses, jesus from the quran and then compare them to the torah and the bible and youll see that the islamic version makes more sense

recently today sum1 mentioned again to me that the torah is not the 1 we hav today, if you look at the chain of narrators for the torah it doesnt stem back to moses.

im not hating at all...forgive me if i upset anyone

[Riana17]

Salam

Thanks for your interest sister, your question shows you are an intelligent person.
I want to add a question to help you analyze further:
Would you trust a book of 3tho years ago but revised countless times?
Or a younger book that remains in its original text and never been corrupted?

I hope you will read the full Quran and see for yourself if there is doubts or contradictions from page 1 to end
Also, pls discover the Science in Quran - which is beyond amazing

I hope it helps a bit.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Riana17]

Also, in addition to your research (May Allah show you the right path)
A word bible comes from a greek work biblos which means multiple books, indeed bible is compilation of 100’s of books (diff authors)
The word “bible” will never be found inside the BIBLE itself.

And let’s think twice, how can they say Bible is PURELY word of God when the authors acts as the third person?
e.g. in Bible Prophet Moses was not talking to God directly and vise versa imsad

SALAM

[selsebil]

Dear Brother,

Indeed, since those Books are revealed scriptures and those who brought them were prophets, it is necessary and certain that they should have mentioned the one who would supersede their religions, change the shape of the universe, and illuminate half the earth with the light he brought. Is it possible that those scriptures, which foretold insignificant events, would not speak of the most important phenomenon of humanity, the prophethood of Muhammad (PBUH)? Yes, since they would certainly speak of it, they would either denounce it as a falsehood and so save their religions from destruction and their books from abrogation, or they would affirm it, and through that man of truth, save their religions from superstition and corruption. Now, both friend and foe agree that there is no sign of any such denouncement in the scriptures, in which case there must be affirmation.

God’s Noble Messenger (Upon whom be blessings and peace) says to them through the tongue of the Qur’an: “Your scriptures describe and confirm me; they confirm me in the things I say.” He challenges them with verses such as,
Say, “Bring the Torah and read it, if you are men of truth!”
Say, “Come, let us gather together, our sons and your sons, our women and your women, ourselves and yourselves; then let us earnestly pray and invoke the curse of God on those who lie!” Qur’an, 3:61.
Despite his continuously taunting them with verses such as these, no Jewish scholar or Christian priest was able to show he had made any error. If they had been able to, those very numerous and very obdurate and jealous unbelievers and dissembling Jews and the whole world of unbelief would have proclaimed it everywhere. The Prophet also said:
“Either you find any error of mine, or I shall fight you until I destroy you!” And they chose war and wretchedness. That means they could not find any error. For if they had, they would have been saved from all that.

The words of the Torah, the Bible, and the Psalms do not have the miraculousness of those of the Qur’an. They have also been translated again and again, and a great many alien words have become intermingled with them. Also, the words of commentators and their false interpretations have been confused with their verses. In addition, the distortions of the ignorant and the hostile have been incorporated into them. In these ways, the corruptions and alterations have multiplied in those Books. In fact, Shaykh Rahmat Allah al-Hindi, the well-known scholar, proved to Jewish and Christian scholars and priests thousands of corruptions in them, and silenced them. Nevertheless, despite these corruptions, in our times the celebrated Husayn Jisri (May God have mercy on him) extracted one hundred and ten indications to the prophethood of Muhammad (PBUH), and included them in his Risalat al-Hamidiya.

More information can be found at:

http://lightofquran.info/q5.htm

[greenhill]

When the time came for the prophet to call the Meccans to Islam, he asked them if they would believe him if he told them there was an army waiting to attack them from behind the hill, they said yes they would as he was known for his honesty and integrity. But when he announced the call to Islam, they rejected him. But the fact remains that he was an honest and full of integrity amongst other qualities.

So, what words were taught, were re told, and remembered! And written. Seeing as Allah will be the Judge, His accounts in the Quran will be the verdict. Read, understand and pay heed to its message. An unlettered prophet. No way he could have done it himself or change anything.

I also see that Mookster is not active, but the question is a 'logical' one. Obviously not read about the prophet (pbuh). Might be interesting read for other 'newbies' :D

Peace

[Ahmad H]

It would make sense to ask a Jew or Christian about the biblical stories if their book remained in its original language, along with its oldest manuscript. From what I know, the oldest manuscript is in Greek, not in Aramaic, which is the language that Jesus spoke in. The text is no longer historically accurate if the language is not even the same, let alone written a couple of hundred years later.

If you have an unlettered prophet who finds out the true version of each story from the same Divine source Who revealed the previous books, then you need not use those old changed books which were badly preserved over time. So the question does not become, "Why not ask those who know better" but the question then changes to, "Why not ask those who knew the stories for more generations". Although this may be true in some ways, in most ways it is not. Most people were illiterate in the past, so if changes crept into the Bible, it wouldn't have been noticed so well by most. Who would've challenged such powerful religious authorities in the past anyways? It couldn't be done.

The bible does not remain intact like it used to be. As for those who knew Jesus, I would doubt that those who knew him had their original writings preserved. A lot of politics influenced Christianity later on. In fact, Christianity ceased to exist at Jesus' time. he did not bring Christianity, he only reformed Judaism. Thus, it was always Judaism and there was never a separate religion of Christ himself. He was a reformer and Messiah of the Jews, not of some new group. He was a rabbi, but a Prophet who was guided by Allah. Christianity is the result of the distortions of this original teaching. Even Jews acknowledge Jesus as far as him being a Rabbi reforming Jews is concerned. I think those Jews have the right idea, in my humble opinion.

So, the answer to your question is no, I do not think the Jews and Christians have the true accounts of the past. Historically speaking this is not possible. This has to be based on reliability of the texts in question, not those who are bearers of the text. The Qur'an is not changed, and the Bible is. It is better to trust a text that is unchanged since its inception.

[Good brother]

The bible is accurate when it comes to Jesus and non-biblical sources back this up. Jewish and Roman historians confirm that a Jesus who went around saying I'm only a messenger never existed.

Was Jesus a prophet or a messenger ?

Yes, the Bible says that :

These are just some of the many Biblical verses which point out that Jesus was a prophet and a messenger of the one true God :

1) this is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth. (Matthew 21:11)
2) Jesus said, "A prophet is never accepted in his home town." (Luke 4:24)
3) I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. (John 13:16)
4) Surely this is the prophet who is to come into the word. (John 24:19)
5) "'What things?' he asked. 'About Jesus of Nazareth,' they replied. 'He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people.'" (Luke 24:19)

[Ahmad H]

I'm not denying what the Bible says altogether. My point is that it is unreliable as far as its original words are concerned. I make sure to never say this in front of other Christians or even those with Christian background, but all of them point out that it is changed.

When i read the Bible, I was surprised to read the accounts given in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John to have very identical accounts, but they are narrated in different ways. It sounds almost like how the Ahadith in Islam are. They were transmitted and recorded later only to be changed to different versions of the same accounts. Thus, we don't know exactly how things occurred in Jesus' time according to the Bible.

This is why the Qur'an is such a blessing. People may deny the Messengers and they can say that these are mere stories of the ancients and there is no proof that they came. In fact, Atheists are making this move towards Jesus to turn him into a myth now. In fact, I think it is a very childish move on their part since only real historians and not some Atheists half-baked theories can determine the historical authenticity of the Bible. However, the Qur'an is such a book that it is known to not be changed no matter how anyone argues about it. It mentions all of the past Messengers and how in general everyone has had a messenger come to them, so they cannot deny that they had someone sent to them.

Therefore, the Qur'an is a witness to the truth of the Bible. It confirms all those past Messengers, including Jesus. So the Qur'an is a blessing for the Christians. At the same time, it leaves no excuse for those Atheists who know of the Qur'an and what it says, and yet they still deny Jesus ever came coming up with theories to run away from believing in God in this life.

[Good brother]

When i read the Bible, I was surprised to read the accounts given in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John to have very identical accounts, but they are narrated in different ways. It sounds almost like how the Ahadith in Islam are. They were transmitted and recorded later only to be changed to different versions of the same accounts. Thus, we don't know exactly how things occurred in Jesus' time according to the Bible.

Regarding comparison of Saheeh hadeeth with Gospels, let's listen to Dr. Hamidullah.

"The compilation of the Gospels, their preservation and transmission from one generation to the other, has not taken place in the way which governed the books of Hadith...

We do not know who wrote them, who translated them, and who transmitted them. How were they transferred from the original Aramaic to Greek? Did the scribes make arrangements for a faithful reproduction of the original? The four Gospels are mentioned, for the first time, three hundred years after Christ. Should we rely on such an unauthentic book in preference to that of Bukhari who prefaces every statement of two lines with three to nine references?"

[Ahmad H]

I didn't say the Bible and Ahadith have went through a similar method nor are they are same. I said, "It sounds almost like how the Ahadith in Islam are." Almost is not a direct comparison.

[Hulk]

There were others who were also referred to as sons of God and it might be worth noting that the word used for "son" can also be translated to mean "servant".

God knows best.

[M.I.A.]

the quran was revealed by an angel.

the words were not the prophet muhammed's (pbuh) own.

that is the story.


so its not a case of compiling a book by evidence and sources and historians and plagerism.

its revelation.


and you might need to compare it to other sources of writing and there historical revelation of which i have no knowledge.. bearing that in mind.


anyway, thats why it cant be reproduced and thats why its a good read every day of your life.


im not saying that other parts of monotheism are the lessers.

its just that the language has changed as it passes hands.



pbu all the prophets, who's stories are there revelation and who's messages are there revelation.


although not available in every book store.

[M.I.A.]

the quran also deny's jesus's (pbuh) claim to sun-ship...on his behalf.

[MustafaMc]

Jesus did not say he was "A" son of God, he said he was "THE" son of God.

One simple 2 part question for you if you will be so bold as to answer honestly, "How many times in the 4 gospels is it recorded that Jesus referred to himself as The Son of God and how many verses record him as referring to himself as the Son of Man?" Correct me if I am wrong, but in Matthew, Mark or Luke the phrase "Son of God" is not even once recorded as having been on Jesus' lips and in John I found it in only 3 verses. In contrast, in 78 different verses Jesus referred to himself as the Son of Man. Do you think there might be some significance to this dramatic discrepancy? I found an amazing congruence on this issue with the Qur'an in that Jesus is nearly always referred to as the Son of Mary, but no other person in the Qur'an is referred to by the title, "Son of so-and-so". The belief about Jesus being at the same time God and the Son of God is emphatically denied in the strongest possible terms in the Qur'an.