When was the Bible corrupted?

[thirdwatch512]

Although I hear many muslims say the Bible is corrupt, I know of a muslim who does NOT think it is corrupt. Actually I know of two. They believe that it's not corrupt, but that our INTERPETATION is.

In a sense, they make sense from what the quran says. Just read any early islamic writings. They almost all say that the Bible is not corrupt, just the understanding.

Also, it was an early belief that Jesus WAS crucified, but he arose in a few hours. It is an interesting view. I have several videos on my computer if someone wants to watch about what some early muslims believed on the crucifixion and corruption of the Bible. It is amazing how different the views are today. But the site is a skeptical islamic site, although these videos aren't really skeptical.. They just show what some early muslims believed. They cite proof and all too. If you were to watch all the videos (there are 4 I think) it would take about 2 hours. PM me if you would like to see them

Also, there is a muslim from dubai on youtube.. Very interesting guy. Very smart. Can read 150 pages an hour lol. And he believes that the Bible is not corrupt, but our understanding is.
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=obaidkarki

So, just some nteresting view that I have seen from some muslims. But, since I am not muslim, I obviously can not judge whether or not it is a popular beleif or not.

So.. Is King James the one who released the first full collection ?...(which is just in the 16th century) ....

did anyone release any other version before him...?

The KJV(King James Version) was the first ENGLISH translation of the Bible. However, some have speculated(and I believe it to be true) that the New Testament and Torah had been translated in English even before that.

The Bible we have today, whether people want to admit it or not, was ready by 150ad. Just read any early Church documents. They mentioned the 4 Gospels, etc. By 325 it was officially established. I know that sounds late. However, when I mean officially established, I mean all agreed on it. It had been agreed by the vast majority of people even before 325, but there were some heretical sects and such that did not agree. One would be coptic Christians. They did not join the Catholic Church because of a disagreement. Now the Copts and Catholic's are in unity, but still. So yeah.. The Bible was canonized much earleir then 325, but 325 is when it became official.

The Catholic Church used to be how islam is. In islam most mosques preach in one language.. arabic. Well, the Catholic Church used to speak Latin no matter where you were. This is why it took so long to get an English translation of the Bible.. Because everyone read the Bible in Latin!

 

[thirdwatch512]

Now if a muslim were to accept that the Bible is corrupt, then it would have to be after the time of Jesus, am I wrong?

The quran says (not sure the exact verse) but it "quotes" "Jesus" as saying "I am here to confirm the Torah." So if Jesus was confirming the Torah.. Well, why would He confirm a corrupted book?

At the same time though, the quran also shows mohammad saying to hold fast to the quran, and to what was "revealed previously." Now how can one do that if it is corrupt? It is very illogical to hold fast to something that is corrupted, am I wrong?

"We gave Moses the Book and followed him up with a succession of messengers," (Sura 2:87).

"We have sent thee inspiration, as We sent it to Noah and the Messengers after him: we sent inspiration to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes, to Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and solomon, and to David We gave the Psalms," (4:163). -- Now there is a major problem here! Because Christians and Jews have NEVER claimed the Psalms to be just by David. Psalms are merely poetic writings. There are psalms from the Korah, from Adam, Abraham, etc. So this verse is questioning.

"It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong)," (3:3).


Also, "And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah," (5:46).

Rejected were the messengers before thee: with patience and constancy they bore their rejection and their wrongs, until Our aid did reach them: there is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah. Already hast thou received some account of those messengers," (6:34).

"The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfillment in truth and in justice: None can change His words: for He is the one who heareth and knoweth all," (6:115).

"For them are glad tidings, in the life of the present and in the Hereafter; no change can there be in the words of Allah. This is indeed the supreme felicity," (10:64).

You see the problem there? It never says none can change the QURAN, it says non can change THE WORDS OF "ALLAH." 6:34 s even speaking of former Prophets!

Who is more unjust than those who conceal the testimony they have from Allah?' 2:140 - This is probably the verse that some muslims use to show that the Bible is not corrupt. the reason is because it says that they(Jews and Christians) HAVE the stuff.. but they conceal it(as in lie or misinterpret perhaps.)

O ye who believe! Believe in Allah and His Apostle, and the scripture which He hath sent to His Apostle and the scripture which He sent to those before (him). Any who denieth Allah, His Angels, His Books, His Apostles, and the Day of Judgement, hath gone far, far astray 4:136

Let the People of the Gospel judge by that which Allah hath revealed therein. Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed: such are evil-livers. 5:47

Say: "O People of the Book! Ye have no ground to stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord" 5:71

"They corrupt the word" means "they alter or change its meaning." Yet no one is able to change even a single word from any Book of God. The meaning is that they interpret the word wrongly - [Ibn abbas, commentary on al quran]

Al-Rabia said: This verse refers to the people of the book at the time of Muhammad. In interpreting this verse, he said: Allah revealed this to the Muslim believers to let them know that both Christians and Jews ignored the commandments of Allah in their books which clearly testify to the authenticity of these books, that they were revealed by Allah. The Injil, which the Christians believe in its authenticity, testifies to the truth which was revealed in the Torah regarding Moses’ prophethood, and Allah’s commandments to the Children of Israel. And the Torah, which the Jews believe in its authenticity, testifies to the truth which was revealed in the Injil of Jesus’ prophethood, and Allah’s commandments… yet both sides told each other that each one of them has nothing to stand on despite the testimony of their books. So the most high (Allah) revealed this verse because what they claimed against each is not true. - Al Tabari

Now that the Truth has come to them from Us, they are saying: "Why is he (Muhammad) not given the like of what was given to Musa?" Have they not rejected that which was given to Musa before? They claim: "These (Torah and Qur'an) are the two works of sorcery complementing each other!" And they say: "We believe in neither." Ask them: "Bring a Book from Allah which is a better guide THAN THESE TWO, I will follow it, if what you say be true!" S. 28:48-49 -

Question of thought - If the Torah were corrupt, why would quran say to bring something like it!!

 

[Umar001]

thirdwatch512, do you understand that in this thread, Grace has said that he aint looking to discuss whether Islam teaches the Bible Is curropt.

You have some Muslim who believes the Bible is not curropt, well amazing. This thread is not about tha, if you want please move that info to the Are Muslims obligated to read the Bible thread or create a thread or something.

We can still discuss whether the BIble has been changed at all here.

 

[Pynthanomai]

[...]
The KJV(King James Version) was the first ENGLISH translation of the Bible. However, some have speculated(and I believe it to be true) that the New Testament and Torah had been translated in English even before that.
[...]

Indeed, Wyclif's translation of the Bible into English was published in the late fourteenth century. To my knowledge there are exstant manuscripts of earlier portions of the Bible translated into Middle and Old English. It's probably fairer to say that the King James Version was the first "official" English version, in that it didn't suffer censure or blacklisting to the same extent (if at all) as Wyclif's and other translation efforts did before it.

 

[thirdwatch512]

thirdwatch512, do you understand that in this thread, Grace has said that he aint looking to discuss whether Islam teaches the Bible Is curropt.

You have some Muslim who believes the Bible is not curropt, well amazing. This thread is not about tha, if you want please move that info to the Are Muslims obligated to read the Bible thread or create a thread or something.

We can still discuss whether the BIble has been changed at all here.

Hah yeah, when I relook at the thread title, I see that lol.

Just a memo though - I did put my input. I said that it had to have been after the time of Jesus, because Christ said He was confirming the torah. So why would He confirm something corrupted!

At the same time though, mohammad said the same about the Bible. You know, so it would (seem) logical that the Bible was not corrupted.

 

[back_to_faith]

Those who wonder,when was the Bible corrupted'and it is illogical to say the that Bible is corrupted ,remind me of someone who stare at the

The Leaning Tower of Pisa

and says (but there is no reason for such leaning!!)

What matters not ,when or where or by whom the Bible was corrupted,
it is :

What we have in our hands today ,it is corrupted?

If we approach the topic such way we can easily find overwhelming proofs of corruption

historical, mathematical, ethical, geographical, and chronological difficulties ,tens of false prophecies ,absurdities contained therein.

 

[Umar001]

The Bible we have today, whether people want to admit it or not, was ready by 150ad. Just read any early Church documents.

Care to provide sources?

They mentioned the 4 Gospels, etc. By 325 it was officially established. I know that sounds late. However, when I mean officially established, I mean all agreed on it. It had been agreed by the vast majority of people even before 325, but there were some heretical sects and such that did not agree. One would be coptic Christians. They did not join the Catholic Church because of a disagreement. Now the Copts and Catholic's are in unity, but still. So yeah.. The Bible was canonized much earleir then 325, but 325 is when it became official.

This is what amazes me, agreed upon by which sects? Rather is it true that other sects died out or were driven out? Furthermore, who were these people who chose the canon.

The Catholic Church used to be how islam is. In islam most mosques preach in one language.. arabic. Well, the Catholic Church used to speak Latin no matter where you were. This is why it took so long to get an English translation of the Bible.. Because everyone read the Bible in Latin!

With regards to the Catholic Church being how Islam is, well the similarities you have shown are sown into this topic how? Are you saying that the fact that people spoke in only one language and regarded their holy scripture as only holy in that language is what happend in Catholisism? And that this helped preserve the text?

The whole of the above has yet to deal with changes which are the more evident in the scriptures.

I will relate the words of Grace Seeker for your benefit;

As I understand it, according to the Qur'an the Bible is corrupted. We will start with that as a given then -- that Islam holds to a view that the Bible is corrupted. Thus, I don't need multiple quotes from the Qur'an and Hadith to "prove" this to me. But what I am curious about is the question of when?

So in this thread we have chosen to beging with the presumption that Islam says the Bible is curropt. The job of anyone here is not to show that the Qur'an says the Bible is not curoppt, or to show that if the Qur'an says the Bible is curopt then the Qur'an is contradicting its commands of following it.

...

Al-Rabia said: This verse refers to the people of the book at the time of Muhammad. In interpreting this verse, he said: Allah revealed this to the Muslim believers to let them know that both Christians and Jews ignored the commandments of Allah in their books which clearly testify to the authenticity of these books, that they were revealed by Allah. The Injil, which the Christians believe in its authenticity, testifies to the truth which was revealed in the Torah regarding Moses’ prophethood, and Allah’s commandments to the Children of Israel. And the Torah, which the Jews believe in its authenticity, testifies to the truth which was revealed in the Injil of Jesus’ prophethood, and Allah’s commandments… yet both sides told each other that each one of them has nothing to stand on despite the testimony of their books. So the most high (Allah) revealed this verse because what they claimed against each is not true. - Al Tabari

Now that the Truth has come to them from Us, they are saying: "Why is he (Muhammad) not given the like of what was given to Musa?" Have they not rejected that which was given to Musa before? They claim: "These (Torah and Qur'an) are the two works of sorcery complementing each other!" And they say: "We believe in neither." Ask them: "Bring a Book from Allah which is a better guide THAN THESE TWO, I will follow it, if what you say be true!" S. 28:48-49 -

Question of thought - If the Torah were corrupt, why would quran say to bring something like it!!

Now, in the light of the above background of this thread, your pastin of various verses, although amazing, is useless, since we are not here to debate whether the Qur'an teaches the Bible has been changed, we have started for the sake of arguement with the presumption that it does!!

If that's difficult to comprehend then I do have little faith that you also brought the above in true understanding.

 

[Umar001]

Hah yeah, when I relook at the thread title, I see that lol.

Just a memo though - I did put my input. I said that it had to have been after the time of Jesus, because Christ said He was confirming the torah. So why would He confirm something corrupted!

At the same time though, mohammad said the same about the Bible. You know, so it would (seem) logical that the Bible was not corrupted.

Well then we would have to look at what the confirmation meant, and such confirmation would mean that we would have to look at it from a contex of the scripture.

As I said I can cofirm something is originally from God, but that confirmation alone does not constitute, neccesarily, its retention.

Example,

I cofirm today that I did send a letter to my mother. At the same time I tell you that poeple have made changes to this letter with their own hands and said this is from Al Habeshi from LI to his Mother​

If we take the first sentence, one can say 'Look he is confirming it, so look this means it is with us intact' but if someone looks at the context, he sees, yes he confirmed it, but at the same time he has said in context that some have changed it and forged letters.

But anyhow, whether the Qur'an teaches that the Bible is changed or not is not the topic of the thread.

 

[back_to_faith]

Hah yeah, when I relook at the thread title, I see that lol.

Just a memo though - I did put my input. I said that it had to have been after the time of Jesus, because Christ said He was confirming the torah. So why would He confirm something corrupted!

At the same time though, mohammad said the same about the Bible. You know, so it would (seem) logical that the Bible was not corrupted.

yes Jesus peace be upon him confirmed the torah,just as Mohamed peace be upon him did.

you failed to realize that the Torah and the Old Testament are not Synonym,according to the Quran.


"Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from God," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby. (The Noble Quran, 2:79)"



"Who can be more wicked than one who inventeth a lie against God, or saith, "I have received inspiration," when he hath received none, or (again) who saith, "I can reveal the like of what God hath revealed"? If thou couldst but see how the wicked (do fare) in the flood of confusion at death! - the angels stretch forth their hands, (saying),"Yield up your souls: this day shall ye receive your reward,- a penalty of shame, for that ye used to tell lies against God, and scornfully to reject of His signs!" (The Noble Quran, 6:93)"


"O Apostle! let not those grieve thee, who race each other into unbelief: (whether it be) among those who say "We believe" with their lips but whose hearts have no faith; or it be among the Jews,- men who will listen to any lie,- will listen even to others who have never so much as come to thee. They change the words from their (right) times and places

 

[Grace Seeker]

Can u please tell me about King James...

Roman Catholic and Protestant Confessions
about Sunday and the Bible Sabbath....​

None of this has anything to do with this thread.

 

[Grace Seeker]

It's a very interesting question you pose, my friend, and one to which I am also very keen to receive an answer, if only to increase my knowledge of Islam. One point, however, I fear may reduce its coherence: when you or I speak of the "Bible", I am almost assured in my mind that that to which we make reference is utterly foreign to that to which Muslims make reference when they use the same English word. Indeed, from what I have gleaned from other posts and threads, there seems to be very little agreement about the very composition of the Bible, or what books are supposed or believed to constitute it. But if we have no common point of reference, then any conclusions that either Christians or Muslims may draw from the purported corruption of the Bible will not, so far as I can see, have any direct relevance to the doctrines or teachings of their respective religions - inasmuch as they are predicated upon entirely different foundations, i.e. different "Bibles".

It is also worth considering the (quite glaring) disparities that exist between Protestant and Roman Catholic considerations of the constitution of the Christian canon: viz., that the Catholic Bible includes several books deemed apocryphal by Protestants. We can only assume that such discrepancies reduce the strength of Christians' claims of unity about matters of their faith in the eyes of Muslims.

If you actually bothers to read the post, you will see that it doesn't matter to Muslims what the Christians claim.

(Note: Malaikah's post was not in response to Pynthanomai, but my reply is to both.)

I recognize that Muslims and Christians have different views as to what constitutes the Bible. But as I don't speak Arabic, I have to use the English translations that are available to me. Now, I have used search engines for them looking for the words "bible" or "corrupted" in the Quran and Hadith, but have found no phrase where it says that "the Bible is corrupted". But I have been around here long enough to know that this is a frequent statement by Muslims (as evidenced by this thread: Proof The Bible Was Corrupted . So, given that Muslims make this claim, I am asking for when, whatever it is that Muslims refer to as the Bible was actually corrupted. If we find out that the Muslim and Christian definition of the term "Bible" is so different in examining that question that we are actually speaking of two different things, then at least we will have made progress in understanding each other.

originally posted by Malaikah
The point of my post was that we Muslim do not believe that the bible is as authoritative as Christians like to think it.

Granted. I still want to know when it was that Muslims believe our unauthoritative book, compliation, whatever you want to call it, became "corrupted"? If it became corrupted, then at sometime it was something other than corrupt because the word "corruption" itself implies that some type of deterioration of its integrity has befallen it. So, when did this happen? Was it in the copying process? In the compiling process? In the writing process?

If Jesus actually delivered the a true Injil, and yet what we have today is a corrupted message, I want to know with whom in the handling of this message that Muslims think fault lays for its corruption? Thus, like Malaikah, it doesn't matter to me what Christians claim, I'm interested in what Muslims claim.

Some, such as Abdul Fattah, have said that one doesn't know, only that Allah declares that it is corrupted, so this would be a matter of faith, then, no proof required (nor submitted) other than the testimony of the Qur'an itself -- a testimony I have not been able to find for myself. (I'm sure someone will quickly supply it given that opening.)

Others, such as Malaikah, assert that the book which was given to Jesus is not the same which Christians claim is the Bible, and so Muslims need to prove nothing about the present Bible at all. Accept that this is my very question. If there was a book given to Jesus, but we do not have it now, when did we lose it? Did Jesus himself fail in his mission as a prophet, since he apparently never actually wrote any of his message down himself and only entrusted it orally to others? Did Jesus' companions fail because they did not restirct their message to just Jesus' words, but also told about what he did? Did later copyists take this message recorded by Jesus companions and rewrite it for their own purposes, creating stories that were never true?

Al Habeshi says that there is no actual answer to my question from Islamic sources (fair enough, thus it is a point of faith, as Abdul Fattah suggested), but that he personally thinks it may be been at its very inception when pen was first put to paper. Of course, this would imply that if any of the works were by those who actually knew any of Jesus' story first-hand that they intentionally created something that was contrary to the message of Jesus. And if they were not by those people and that the original message had been preserved until this point of writing it down, that those that knew the true message either cared not enough to correct the errors or were somehow effectively silenced from speaking against them. I find these last ideas to be rather incredulous.

To those such as back_to_faith who say: "What matters not ,when or where or by whom the Bible was corrupted, it is :", then I guess you will have little interest in this thread. But I am nonetheless interested. You are free to go elsewhere.

And to those who want to attack the integrity of the Qur'an as a way to defend the Bible, you also are free to go elsewhere. I already know what I as a Christian think, and most Muslims on this forum do as well. But what I am interested in learning more is what Muslims think and why they think what they do. I don't believe point/counter-point exchanges will help me to achieve that.

 

[don532]

Thank you for asking this question, Grace Seeker. This is a question I also have had. In the Muslim view, when did the corruption take place?

 

[Amadeus85]

I think that the main question here is was Bible changed before or after Muhammad times.

After the times of muslim prophet Muhammad- in those times, Bibles were already in North Africa, Middle East, Minor Asia, parts of Europe. All were placed in churches and monasteries and protected by monks and priests. So the only persons who could change Bible then , would be christian monks and priests. But why would they try to destroy the fundaments of their faith?

Before the times of muslim prophet Muhammad- first of all as some people here proved there are verses in the Quaran saying that Torah and Injil were not corrupted. And we also have the dead sea scroll -According to carbon dating, textual analysis, and handwriting analysis the documents were written at various times between the middle of the 2nd century BC and the 1st century AD. At least one document has a carbon date range of 21 BC–61 AD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_scrolls

 

[queefer]

are you just another lying troll or a Christian?

reason I ask is that you claim to be an athiest yet keep trolling here!

Atheist >> NO God, which for a Christian is Jesus. Since Jesus is God, there is no need for him to give himself a book because he would be giver of torah ...

Jesus is NOT God. He's the son of God, you lying troll.

 

[Grace Seeker]

I think that the main question here is was Bible changed before or after Muhammad times.

That might be your question, but it certainly isn't mine. I'm told that Muhammad (pbuh) said the Bible was corrupted, so it follows that it is asserting that it was corrupted before. Thus question is NOT "before or after Muhammad", but when before?

And with respect, the Dead Sea Scrolls really don't add much to this discussion one way or the other.



As far as this type of off topic post goes:

Jesus is NOT God. He's the son of God, you lying troll.

Take it somewhere else. Please.

 

[doorster]

people! forgive me as I am going to be a fly in your ointment or disrupt your non-debate as God, which for a Christian is Jesus.

Since Jesus is God, there is no need for him to give himself a book because he would be giver of torah ... and th book or collection thereof that is Christian NT Bible is an account of that god while he was in human form by some 4 or 5 persons who may or may not have seen/known him personally, namely Mathew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul.

On the other hand there is NO God called Jesus in Islam.

The God in Islam is known as Allah and one of his Messengers was and is known as Hazrat Easa Alaisalam, who was given a book called Injeel by The God (Allah)

my conclusion is that our Injeel is not the one authored by the 5 Christian Saints/apostles (call them what you will)

Unless off course I've got it completely wrong and the thread is about Psalms and Tenach, then carry on!

 

[queefer]

...As far as this type of off topic post goes:
Take it somewhere else. Please.

The 'lying troll' quote was 'Doorsters'. Let him 'take it somewhere else'. And Jesus STILL isn't God.

 

[Grace Seeker]

my conclusion is that our Injeel is not the one authored by the 5 Christian Saints/apostles (call them what you will)

Unless off course I've got it completely wrong and the thread is about Psalms and Tenach, then carry on!

the thread is about the Bible which includes all of the above.
Again, I am not making the claim that the Bible is corrupted, I am accepting that Islam makes this claim and asking for more clarification about it.

It now seems to me that many Muslims wish to back off from saying that the Bible is corrupted to talking about particular books within the Bible. That might be a good idea as, has been pointed out from the beginning, the Bible is really a compliation of many books. It might be that one could prove that Isaiah or Hebrews was corrupted and Genesis, Psalms or the Gospel of John could still be completely uncorrupted.


Though this is not the title of the thread, I would still like to ask:
Which books of the Bible does Islam hold are corrupted?


Doorster, when you say "our Injeel is not the one authored by the 5 Christian Saints/apostles" are you speaking as a Muslim? Your "way of life" is undisclosed.

 

[doorster]

Doorster, when you say "our Injeel is not the one authored by the 5 Christian Saints/apostles" are you speaking as a Muslim? Your "way of life" is undisclosed.

I'm sorry! I'll change that in a minute

yes I am a Muslim

wasalam

 

[don532]

my conclusion is that our Injeel is not the one authored by the 5 Christian Saints/apostles (call them what you will)

What injeel do you have and how does it differ from the new testament? Is the message different?