Why a corrupt Bible is a problem for Islam

From Chrysalis:

Maybe it doesnt make sense to you because you believe in a book that has been corrupted, so assume the Qur'an must be corrupted as well. Lots of reasons why this is untrue:

Chrysalis � in the above statement and elsewhere you constantly refer to the Bible being corrupted but you don�t offer one example of this. Will you please provide us at least one example so we can know what you are talking about.

1. Unlike the Bible, the Qur'an's timeline and preservation is recorded and has been traced through the centuries. Even the people who do not believe the Qur'an is divine, believe it is the same Qur'an that was revealed during Prophet Muhammad's time. 

Chrysalis � are you being serious? The New Testament alone has a chain of writings from the eyewitnesses who spoke and lived with Jesus all the way to the Greek versions of the New Testament we have copies of today. This chain of written documentation includes letters from contemporaries and the Disciples, their students, Roman historians, the followers of the first students and so on. For example, the last living disciple was John. He confirmed what the other Disciples wrote and his disciples (Polycarp, Papias and Ignatius) confirmed in writing that John wrote the Gospel attributed to him. There were others like Clement of Rome who also confirmed the authorship of the Gospels and the Church was using these Gospels as part of their teaching and practice. Polycarp, Papias and Ignatius had their students and we have the chain of their confirmation in writing as well. E.g. � Irenaeus. During the time of Irenaeus and Tertullian the Church quoted the New Testament in their lectionaries so extensively that we could recreate all but a few verses of the Bible of today from these lectionaries. (The �missing� verses aren�t corrupted or replaced with something else � they simply aren�t quoted). Across this same time frame we have manuscripts and fragments of manuscripts with the same content as the collections we have today � the same ones that were in existence when Mohammed arrived.

So please tell us how two hundred years of written gap between Mohammed and the documents Muslims have today is superior to what I have just summarized.

2. The Bible's timeline has gaps and loopholes, that leave ample time and opportunity for corruption.

Please provide an example of this claim.

On top of it, the Bible was kept away from the common man for centuries, niether was it ever allowed to translated and only priests could read it.

This was during the Dark Ages � after Mohammed�s time and after the documents we have in hand today. Any changes made during this time can be identified. Do you have any examples to back up your suspcicions?

VS the Qur'an : common men were allowed to not only learn and recite - but have copies of the Qur'an - which meant that no particular entity ever had a sole right over it - thus making it impossible to change without people noticing.

Please provide an account for how and when the Quran came to be � identifying what the oldest copy you have today is.

3.  Kings, Monarchs, Leaders were allowed to produce 'versions' of the bible, and change it on whims.

Please show an example of this.

4. The 'Bible' today consists more of the ramblings of St. So-and-So than it does actual wordings of 'Jesus'.

The writers you impugn were eyewitness followers of Jesus who claimed that Jesus authorized them to write and tell others about what He had said. They were given miracle working power to confirm that God had given this authority as well. If you are going to dismiss their accounts and mutual endorsement of each other, you had better have a better reason than you think Jesus should have written down His own words.

5. Anybody in christian history could simply stand up and claim communication with God, and be titled a Saint, and be allowed to mix thier opinions with Christianity. After Prophet Muhammad's death, anybody claiming prophethood or sainthood is sent to the loony-bin - rather than be revered.

Where did you ever get this idea? First of all, all followers of Jesus are �saints�. The term has come to mean to the world a person the Catholic Church deems worthy of the title but the New Testament refers to all believers as saints. The criteria for being included in the NT as Scripture was � Apostleship by Jesus, writings that had already been accepted and were being read aloud in services by the believers, consistency with other Scripture and contradiction-free, writings created during the Apostolic age, and orthodoxy with Church beliefs. This criteria was also documented in writing before the NT was canonized and it refutes your assertion that anybody could do anything they want.

6. The Christians couldnt even keep the words of men seperate from the word's of Jesus and God !!!! They ended up giving equal importance to the words of common man, and let them penetrate the Bible. Au contraire, Muslims have kept a detailed record of sayings of men, kept it a seperate entity and have not even mixed the words of Prophet Muhammad himself in the Quran . . .

7. Majority of Christian tenets were created AFTER Jesus's passing . . . you expect Muslims to believe, that the religion that is based on Jesus - was actually perfected AFTER his "crucifiction"? Why were concepts allowed to enter Christianity AFTER Jesus? Did he Nauzubillah/God forbid not do his job? that Paul had to take over? As a muslim, I can trust Jesus - but I cannot trust false prophets like Paul.

If you trust Jesus you will listen to Him when He says He says to His disciples:

Joh 15:26  But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

Joh 15:27  And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.

Joh 16:12  I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

Joh 16:13  Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Joh 16:14  He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

Joh 16:15  All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

Joh 16:16  A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.

8. The languge of the Bible etc was not easily understood and commonly spoken by the majority of christians- which made changes in it easier and undetectable. Unlike Arabic, which was spoken and understood by many muslims.

Completely false � please provide examples to support your assertion. Also, the Quran is written in Arabic and only 15% of Muslims today speak Arabic. At the same time, don�t you believe that reading the Quran in anything but Arabic is imperfect? How can 85% of Muslims today know what the Quran is really saying � without relying on the interpretations by Muslim rulers today?

9. Non-muslim Historians and scholars doubt the accuracy of the bible.

Because they doubt that God could speak to people or that miracles could ever have happened. They start from that bias and conclude � what they already presumed: That God doesn�t speak to people and miracles can�t occur. If they or you have any objective evidence for the Bible being inaccurate I would love to see it. E.g. � an historical event didn�t happen, an historical person didn�t exist, etc. Otherwise, this is a meaningless statement. These same �scholars� doubt the accuracy of the Quran even more.

10. Christian denominations/sects whatever you wanna call it - doubt the accuracy of the bible, whereas no Muslim denomination or "sect" doubts the validity of the Qur'an. If the once-followers of the Bible doubt it themselves, it raises alarm-bells.

This is a subjective criteria in two ways. One � why does this matter? It is just your idea of what should exist. Two � the only �Christians� who doubt the accuracy of the Bible are Liberals. Do you include Liberal Muslims in your statement? I think many Liberal Muslims doubt the accuracy of the Quran; they certainly do doubt the reliability of the Hadiths.

11. Bible is based 100% on blind-faith . . . . the Qur'an uses logic, and commonsense and facts - and then expects its believers to have a certain level of blind-faith on certain matters.

I have listed numerous objective attributes of the Bible that you can confirm or refute with facts. Please stop with the naked assertions and counter with some evidence to support your claims. Show where the word patterns don�t exist or how humans can create these. Show where and when the chain of manuscripts and history is broken. Show us how hundreds of prophecies were created and fulfilled by mere men.

Apollos

Apollo,

I think Nur has put it right, the corrupt bible is a problem for its followers and not Islam. And by the way Islam is only submission to the will of God. And by the way God means One, the Creator of All there is other than God, One of One.