What is the proof that the Jews corrupted the Torah?

[جوري]

I,m still waiting for the answer to when exactly the Torah got changed and the Bible ; was there still an uncorrupted version around at the time of Mohammed or not and if there was where was it.

knock yourself out:

Textual Integrity Of The Bible
Is the Bible that we have in our hands today unchanged? Or has it undergone extensive revisions and alterations? Truth is the first victim in the Christian apologetical literature. This is because if they tell the truth about the Church history and its role in formulating the Bible (or Bibles) as well as the manuscript tradition of the New Testament, belief in the Bible as the "Word" of God would take the beating and the Churches would go absolutely empty. Hence it is not be surprising to find an average Christian's knowledge about his own scriptures is pretty close to zero.
This page is to educate the Muslims about the Bible of the Christians, concerning mainly with its compilation and textual reliability. It is often seen that Christian missionaries dupe less-knowledgeable Muslims about the Bible by saying that the Qur'an confirms the Bible and hence Muslims should believe in the Bible. Muslims should remember that the Qur'an attests Torah, Zabur and Injil as revelations from God given to the Prophet. It does not attest whatever writers of the Old Testament or St. Paul in the New Testament wrote or said.
But what is the textual reliability of the so-called Torah, Zabur and Injil present in the modern Bibles? The aim of this page is to venture into this issue. If one can't establish the 'revealed' books' textual reliability, is there any point calling it as the Word of God?
Lastly, we have made sure that we use the references of Judeo-Christian scholars of repute not the apologetical literature for very obvious reasons.
The Canon Of The Bible

A detailed discussion about the various canons of the Bible drawn at various times by different Churches can be seen here.
​

The New Testament Manuscripts

Click here for New Testament Manuscripts
​

Was The Bible Same As We have In Our Hands Today?

Church Tradition and The Textual Integrity Of The Bible

1. Church Tradition and The Bible
   1. Protestant Church
   2. Roman Catholic Church
   3. Anglican Church
   4. Greek Orthodox Church
   5. Coptic Church
   6. Ethiopic Church
   7. Syriac Church
2. Church Tradition and Apostolic Fathers
   1. Clement Of Rome
   2. Ignatius Of Antioch
   3. The Didache
   4. Papias Of Heirapolis
   5. Barnabas
   6. Polycarp Of Smyrna
   7. Hermas Of Rome
   8. The So-Called Second Epistle Of Clement
3. Church Tradition and The Early Lists Of The Books Of The New Testament
4. Church Tradition and 'Inspiration' Of New Testament Books
   1. The Didache
   2. Epistle Of Clement
   3. Epistle Of Barnabas
   4. Shepherd Of Hermas
5. Church Tradition and Manuscripts
6. Church Tradition and The Six 'Disputed' Books

Extracts From The Book How We Got Our Bible
​

The Bible and Its 'Inspiration'

Was Paul Inspired?

Church Tradition and 'Inspiration' Of New Testament Books

1. The Didache
2. Epistle Of Clement
3. Epistle Of Barnabas
4. Shepherd Of Hermas

'Accuracy' Of The New Testament
​

Textual Reliability Of The Bible - Who Is Afraid Of Textual Criticism?

Criteria Used In Choosing Among Conflicting Readings In New Testament Witnesses

1. Introduction
2. The Criteria
3. Outline Of Criteria
   1. External Evidence
   2. Internal Evidence
4. Some Examples

Textual Reliability / Accuracy Of The New Testament

Sir David Dalrymple (Lord Hailes), The Patristic Citations Of The Ante-Nicene Church Fathers And The Search For Eleven Missing Verses Of The New Testament
Based on a narrative whose source is alleged to have been the renowned Scottish Judge Sir David Dalrymple (Lord Hailes), it is frequently asserted that the entire New Testament can be reconstructed from the citations of the Church Fathers of the first three centuries, with the exception of only eleven verses. Going back to the original documents, something which none of the authors have attempted to study, it is shown that the data in them clearly disproves this claim – repeated in numerous missionary and apologetical publications for a period of more than 165 years.

• Introduction
• Historical And Theological Antecedents
• An Anecdote
  • A Brief Chronology
  • Oral Source And Printed Transmission
• Dalrymple's Invitation: Some Preliminary Observations
  • MSS. 25396-399 ‘Interleaved Collation’
  • MSS. 25400-408 ‘Supplemental Collation’
  • MSS. 25409-410 ‘Loose Leaf Collation’
  • Results
  • Some Remarks
  • Lost In Transmission?
• Conclusions

Modern Approaches To New Testament Textual Criticism

1. Radical Eclecticism (G. D. Kilpatrick, J. K. Elliott)
2. Reasoned Eclecticism (B. M. Metzger, K. Aland)
3. Reasoned Conservatism (H. A. Sturz)
4. Radical Conservatism (Z. Hodges, A. Farstad)

Critical Text Of The New Testament: Methodology and Implications

1. Introduction
2. Formation Of A Critical Text: Methodology and Implications
3. Conclusion
4. Appendix: Other Articles Of Interest

The Multivalence Of The Term "Original Text" In New Testament Textual Criticism, E. Jay Epp, Harvard Theological Review, 1999, Volume 92, No. 3. pp. 245-281.

1. Introduction
2. The Use of the Term "Original Text" Past and Present and Its Multivalence
3. The Relation of an Elusive, Multivalent "Original Text" to the Concept of "Canon"
4. Conclusion

Who Is Afraid Of Textual Criticism?

1. Variant Readings In The Qur'an and In The Bible
   1. The Qur'an, Its Variant Readings and Islamic Scholarship
   2. The New Testament, Its Problems and The Critical Texts
2. Textual Criticism and The Reaction Of The Church
   1. J Mill
   2. R Bentley
   3. J J Wettstein
   4. B F Westcott and J A Hort

you might also enjoy

and

one of ten so instead of sticking hours long worth of what is wrong with the bible, after each is done click on the next..

all the best

 

[Aprender]

I,m still waiting for the answer to when exactly the Torah got changed and the Bible ; was there still an uncorrupted version around at the time of Mohammed or not and if there was where was it. If there wasnt then why would Muhammed say

Lo! You are the ones who love them but they love you not, and you believe in all the Scriptures [i.e. you believe in the Taurât (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel), while they disbelieve in your Book, the Qur'ân].

Muhammed doesn't say part of any of the books, he clearly states that these muslims believe in the Torah and the Injeel, why if they are corrupted ?

It begins to look like you are refusing to believe Gods word and even commiting the greatest sin as Christ calls it by Blaspheming against the Holy Spirit by refusing to believe it if it contradics your view of the Quran and then trying to absolve yourself with an unproven myth about changing Gods words.

At what point did the Injeel get corrupted ; and by who ; some proof would be nice. And I mean a change that caused some change in doctrine as opposed to saying the same thing with a slightly different phrase.

Surely with all the available jewish and christian historic scrolls and books that werent burned can be used to find these changes; a much easier job than for scholars to check on the sources for the quran as they either died in battle or the scrolls were burned once the Caliph settled on the version he was happy with.

Im sorry if i seem a little frustrated but I keep asking the question with no one providing me with an answer so I can reseach it?
especially as it seems to be such a primary belief for Muslims asking for somr Proof does not seem unreasonable.

LOVE and RESPECT

Brother, I thought this article was interesting here. You can check it out for yourself.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/07/06/ancient.bible.online/

Discovered in a monastery in the Sinai desert in Egypt more than 160 years ago, the handwritten Codex Sinaiticus includes two books that are not part of the official New Testament and at least seven books that are not in the Old Testament.


The New Testament books are in a different order, and include numerous handwritten corrections -- some made as much as 800 years after the texts were written, according to scholars who worked on the project of putting the Bible online. The changes range from the alteration of a single letter to the insertion of whole sentences.

 

[Rabi Mansur]

The short answer to all of this discussion is: The Torah and Injeel do NOT = the Old Testament and New Testament scriptures.

In my view, the Injeel is the message or good news proclaimed by Jesus (PBUH). It is not the New Testament writings that the church put together to form their canon of scripture. If the Injeel was written down, it was likely something akin to the Q sayings gospel or similar in form to the gospel of Thomas which was discovered in Egypt. It is very possible that Muslims at the time of Muhammad (PBUH) were aware of or familiar with a sayings gospel that would be considered the Injeel. At the very least they knew of the essential message proclaimed by Jesus (PBUH).


Peace.

 

[Hiroshi]

to Hiroshi it would be interesting to put the word Jehovah back in these places to see what effect that has on the verses or interpretations if any.

The Jehovah's Witnesses New World Translation does put the word Jehovah back in those places. I am not aware of any problems in interpretation that are caused by this.

 

[جوري]

The short answer to all of this discussion is: The Torah and Injeel do NOT = the Old Testament and New Testament scriptures.

In my view, the Injeel is the message or good news proclaimed by Jesus (PBUH). It is not the New Testament writings that the church put together to form their canon of scripture. If the Injeel was written down, it was likely something akin to the Q sayings gospel or similar in form to the gospel of Thomas which was discovered in Egypt. It is very possible that Muslims at the time of Muhammad (PBUH) were aware of or familiar with a sayings gospel that would be considered the Injeel. At the very least they knew of the essential message proclaimed by Jesus (PBUH).


Peace.

after five centuries of evangelizing, there were a meager two tribes of christians in Arabia.. people preferred Judaism or Paganism.. also evinced by the neighboring countries where Christianity was somewhat popular for instance Egypt/Syria/ etc embracing almost in totality Islam as it was spread through the region. Christianity just wasn't convincing then and it isn't now-- there was no printing press Johannes Gutenberg great invention didn't come to be until 1500 something so the lay person went on by word of mouth, they didn't visit the local library for compare and contrast.. .. Unless a super-power imposed it as state religion which would have had to come from Rome to force Christianity down people's throats , and no such thing occurred, in fact the former capital of Christendom Constantinople became Muslim, people didn't care or rather didn't view the teaching of Jesus (p) as the perverse abomination we have today..

and Allah swt knows best

 

[Hiroshi]

The short answer to all of this discussion is: The Torah and Injeel do NOT = the Old Testament and New Testament scriptures.

In my view, the Injeel is the message or good news proclaimed by Jesus (PBUH). It is not the New Testament writings that the church put together to form their canon of scripture. If the Injeel was written down, it was likely something akin to the Q sayings gospel or similar in form to the gospel of Thomas which was discovered in Egypt. It is very possible that Muslims at the time of Muhammad (PBUH) were aware of or familiar with a sayings gospel that would be considered the Injeel. At the very least they knew of the essential message proclaimed by Jesus (PBUH).


Peace.

No Q gospel has ever been found or ever will be found. Even to think that it existed is speculation. But Surah 7:157 says that the Torah and Injeel existed "with them" (that is, with the Jews and Christians that lived in Mohammad's time). And the scriptures that they had then are the same scriptures that we have today.

But somehow Muslims explain this all away.

 

[3rddec]

Apreder thank you for that link I will be watching closely the discussions it will raise.

Dr. Mohsin : Indeed in their stories, there is a lesson for men of understanding. It (the Quran) is not a forged statement but a confirmation of Allâhs existing Books which were before it [the Taurât (Torah), the Injeel (Gospel) and other Scriptures of Allâh] and a detailed explanation of everything and a guide and a Mercy for the people who believe.

it would appear to have been written down but as yet no evidence of anything other than the Christian Gospels and some books not included in the Bible but nothing you Muslims will accept as the original version.

Intresting that the Baha'i accuse the Muslims of loosing their message too; it seems that every new prophet say's the last ones followers have gone away from the original message.
I've dropped a post in their forum to see if they can show how. Its scary cos according to them they believe their Prophet is the returning mesiah and his message is we are all wrong.
Course I am a bit skeptical of someone who changes their name to fit a prophesy but im sure it will provide lines of enquiry that a Christian or Muslim would never consider.

 

[جوري]

Dr. Mohsin : Indeed in their stories, there is a lesson for men of understanding. It (the Quran) is not a forged statement but a confirmation of Allâhs existing Books which were before it [the Taurât (Torah), the Injeel (Gospel) and other Scriptures of Allâh] and a detailed explanation of everything and a guide and a Mercy for the people who believe.

Dr. Mohsin Khan is a translator of the Quran so I am not sure what you stand to gain by highlighting his name in bold. btw I am Dr. M and before me Dr. Mc. has also written a statement if you're big on titles! --indeed in the stories of the people of old are lessons to men of understanding.. you're yet to establish for us how that denotes that the bibles are accurate?

it would appear to have been written down but as yet no evidence of anything other than the Christian Gospels and some books not included in the Bible but nothing you Muslims will accept as the original version.

Do you even know the language your alleged God spoke? there is no consensus amongst your so-called scholars.. some say latin for it is the language of the people of paradise, some say, Hebrew, others say Aramaic, some say Greek. You don't have a consensus on language yet all of a sudden have evidence for the books this alleged god spoke?

Intresting that the Baha'i accuse the Muslims of loosing their message too; it seems that every new prophet say's the last ones followers have gone away from the original message.
I've dropped a post in their forum to see if they can show how. Its scary cos according to them they believe their Prophet is the returning mesiah and his message is we are all wrong.
Course I am a bit skeptical of someone who changes their name to fit a prophesy but im sure it will provide lines of enquiry that a Christian or Muslim would never consider.

Bahai's aren't any more a religion than mormons are.. you can't take the same book, twist it around and call yourself a messenger.. anyone of basic understanding can tell the difference between a doctor and a fraud, except for the truly poor and ignorant and the same goes for any art or science. Anyhow if I were you I'd not worry so much about bahai's they makeup less than 1% of the population, when you yourself are so far astray praying to a self-immolating mangod who abrogated his commandments through a charlatan and couldn't even pick apostles who would shoulder the responsibility after his death..

all the best

 

[Hiroshi]

Dr. Mohsin Khan is a translator of the Quran so I am not sure what you stand to gain by highlighting his name in bold. btw I am Dr. M and before me Dr. Mc. has also written a statement if you're big on titles! --indeed in the stories of the people of old are lessons to men of understanding.. you're yet to establish for us how that denotes that the bibles are accurate?

I am pleased that you have a title Dr. M. I myself have no such academic distinction.

In Surah 10:94 Muhammad is directed to question those familiar with the Bible if he has any doubts about the truthfulness of what was recorded in the Qur'an. This establishes that we are to measure the authenticity of the Qur'an against the Bible, not the other way around. Why then do Muslims insist rather on measuring the authenticity of the Bible against the Qur'an?

 

[جوري]

I am pleased that you have a title Dr. M. I myself have no such academic distinction.

In Surah 10:94 Muhammad is directed to question those familiar with the Bible if he has any doubts about the truthfulness of what was recorded in the Qur'an. This establishes that we are to measure the authenticity of the Qur'an against the Bible, not the other way around. Why then do Muslims insist rather on measuring the authenticity of the Bible against the Qur'an?

The verse has nothing to do with the authenticity of the bible whatsoever. It has everything to do with confirming that the stories of old which were revealed did in act happen .
Reading the verse that directly precedes it:
[[SIZE=-1]Pickthal 10:93] And We verily did allot unto the Children of Israel a fixed abode, and did provide them with good things; and they differed not until the knowledge came unto them. Lo! thy Lord will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection concerning that wherein they used to differ.

we can see that it is addressing the children of Israel, the confirmation would be to superimpose what is revealed to that which has happened to them--also given that Arabia had two meager tribes of Christians with books not readily available to anyone, one can safely assume the same historically not just Quranically, that it is talking of the Jews and their oral tradition.

I am not sure why you guys are so keen on misquoting the, adding, subtracting and interpreting at whim? surely you must do it only to please yourselves? since it isn't convincing an argument to any Muslim and quite frankly borders on pathetic!

and yes that is indeed the perk of having a higher degree, ones ability to think for themselves in lieu of listening to hours of useless sermons and not being able to parley that to people you desperately need to convince of it!

all the best[/SIZE]

 

[Hiroshi]

The verse has nothing to do with the authenticity of the bible whatsoever. It has everything to do with confirming that the stories of old which were revealed did in act happen .
Reading the verse that directly precedes it:
[[SIZE=-1]Pickthal 10:93] And We verily did allot unto the Children of Israel a fixed abode, and did provide them with good things; and they differed not until the knowledge came unto them. Lo! thy Lord will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection concerning that wherein they used to differ.

we can see that it is addressing the children of Israel, the confirmation would be to superimpose what is revealed to that which has happened to them--also given that Arabia had two meager tribes of Christians with books not readily available to anyone, one can safely assume the same historically not just Quranically, that it is talking of the Jews and their oral tradition.

I am not sure why you guys are so keen on misquoting the, adding, subtracting and interpreting at whim? surely you must do it only to please yourselves? since it isn't convincing an argument to any Muslim and quite frankly borders on pathetic!

and yes that is indeed the perk of having a higher degree, ones ability to think for themselves in lieu of listening to hours of useless sermons and not being able to parley that to people you desperately need to convince of it!

all the best[/SIZE]

Peace, The Vale's Lily.

It seems that our recent posts have been deleted because they were off topic. I sincerely wanted to study your last reply but it has now disappeared. Do you want to repeat the post on a new thread or sent it to me as a PM?