The Quran supports the divine inspiration of the Torah, Psalms, and the Gospel accounts yet contemporary Muslim belief claims that the bible is corrupted and can not be trusted. This of course cannot be proven and this statement is merely just one of the many opinions being circulated among the practitioners of Islam.
One of the reasons for this kind of thinking is because there are many different bibles available and therefore the logic is that they can’t all be right.
The main reason why there are different bibles is simply because of the vast amount of manuscript evidence that we have available to us. There exists about 6,000 Greek manuscript copies alone which is more manuscript evidence than any other piece of ancient literature that has come to us from antiquity.
Today we have the luxury of printing as well as a better means of producing, sharing and preserving documents. During biblical times manuscripts were few and expensive. So due to the needs of preservation as well as the urgent demand for the scriptures it became absolutely necessary for copies to be made and circulated.
Copies were made available or produced through critical scribal rules and techniques that were followed by the Jews so as not to alter the content of the original autograph. These copies are an advantage in doing comparisons to ensure the accuracy of the text as well as validating its authenticity. You must remember that any discrepancies among the accepted manuscripts are seen as minimal without alterations to its original content or text. What is also remarkable about the new testament is that if had been destroyed it could of been nearly reconstructed just from utilizing the quotes from the ancient church fathers which helps to serve as corroborating evidence to the authenticity and reliability of the scriptures as well .
Also in favor of the new testament is the relatively short period of time between the original autograph and the oldest existing copies with about 100 to 250 years between them. This is relatively a short period of time compared to other ancient pieces of literature such as Caesars Gallic wars which has a time gap of about a 1000 years.
Another means in helping to validate the authenticity of the bible comes with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls which were found at Qumran back in the 1940’s. Up to this time the oldest copy of the Old Testament was the Masoretic text which dates to about 900 CE . When compared to the Dead Sea Scrolls which predate this manuscript by about a 1000 years we see no significant difference.
Also among the checks and balances of keeping the bible from corruption there were meetings that were conducted to establish and protect the scripture from heresy because other forms of pseudo-literature were being circulated and the church leadership had to establish the given orthodoxy and canon which was held to be as sacred scripture. The Council of Nicaea took place in 325 CE among the Christians while the Jews had the council of Jamnia in 90CE.
Another reason why there are different bibles is for the practical purpose of getting the scripture into the common language of the people to whom it was intended. The disciples were commanded to go into all the world and preach the gospel and this is the only way that it could of been done in an efficient matter. There is no conspiracy to alter or change anything through bible translation. I cant imagine somebody handing me a bible written in its original language of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek and expecting me to comprehend its meaning. Even if I studied these ancient languages I am culturally trained to think in English and that would be my bias of interpretation.
The Quran is faced with the same challenges as the Bible when it comes to the rules of literary criticism. After all it didn’t just fall out of the sky nor was it imprinted by the finger of Allah.
Lastly I would like to say that whatever Muhammad received in regards to biblical ideas he obtained and borrowed them through the secondary influences of both Christians and Jews who were the originators of such texts. If the Bible had been corrupted by this time in history in which Muhammad lived then how could Muhammad of received the truth of the matter since He was dependent upon Christian and Jewish influence. The Bible contains good textual copies prior to the advent of Islam so I do not see this as a matter of debate. If the Bible were to be mishandled and corrupted by Christians and Jews then why didn’t Allah in his sovereignty initiate this revelation first with the Muslims. I know these arguments are ridiculous but I wanted to carry them out to their logical conclusion to allow you to see the inconsistencies in these unfounded arguments.
Hi, nice posts there 🙂 thank’s for the compelling information