Evaluating Scriptures which Muslims use in claming that the Bible was lost

Here the scope of this paper to look into Muslim claims about the Bible being lost. For some you may notice that these verses used in this paper have been repeated by many Muslims in their attempts to debunk Christianity. So far no other paper has been written to address this subject so therefore I just got tired of seeing them and therefore I undertook the task of addressing them. The Muslim who sent this to me is named Kasim. It is addressed to him and other Muslims who try to use these same old verses.

I recently recieved this email from a Muslim named Kasim who believes tha the bible is corrupted. We will examine his comments to see if what he claims is true and if his evidence presented is as incriminating as he and other Muslims think.

Kasim starts off with an obvious error in his approach and then builds a strawman argument to support he claims further. There isn't a debate between Christians regarding what bible to use due to the simple fact that we are only talking about translations of the bible and not the Hebrew and Greek text. Muslims like Kasim seem to ignore history and the simple fact that God never revealed the Bible in English and that in order to judge Christianity you must judge the Bible from the Hebrew and Greek language and not the English text. How would Kasim like if I used this same methodology against the Quran? Would he also agree?

Error number 2. First of all in order to compare the Bibles Christians use we must compare them from every language on earth since all Christians don't speak English! Kasim thinks that if there are discrepancies found in the ENGLISH bible then it affects Christianity as a whole! What about Arab speaking Christians who don't know English should we put them in this argument dealing with the Bible versions too? What about Spanish speaking Christians, are they supposed to be judged along with their faith using the ENGLISH bible? This is the type of argument Muslims use today and it is very easily answered once one sits down and evaluate what they are actually saying. Therefore in order for the Quran to be right and Christianity to be wrong, based on common Islamic arguments, the English bible must be used as the judgement for all Christians when all Christians don't even speak English! How hilarious to say the least.

Again does every Christian read these versions of the Bible? Kasim and other Muslims thinks so. Based on his argument people in China must also read the KJV when most of them probably can't even speak English. Lets look at these scriptures that Kasim presents.

Kasim nor any other Muslim can furnish any argument among Christians or bible dealing with these two verses. He is forced to believe only the Quranic account of Jesus not supposedly being crucified, which is ironically a later invention of Muhammad who never set foot in Palestine.

Kasim makes another obvious error because this scripture in parts is included in the RSV bible in stark contrast to his bogus claims read:

This verse is included in the RSV it is just a few verses down in verse 48. If Kasim or any other Muslim wants to get picky about what verse number this is please remind them that "verse numbering" was a recent invention and wasn't used in Biblical times. For example if I saw a few sentences and then write it another way and then later number it here is the affect I get:

Now if I number it based on recent invention to make it easier here is the affect I get:

Based on Muslim arguments like the one Kasim uses, this is wrong and not included since it isn't in the exact same area. In fact this same methodology can be used against the Quran also as seen from these English translations:

In Pickthal's translation this verse is found in 5:82 while it can be found in Yusifi Ali's translation at 5:85. Should we discount the Arabic Quran because of English numbering? Better yet how come they are found in different places does the Arabic Quran have it in one place in the same manner all over the world or are Yusif and Pickthal using different Arabic copies of the Quran which vary and differ which ironically refute Islamic claims about the Quran not having a single variant. Should we be this critical like Muslims who use this method against the bible? Hmm.

Actually new evidence has shown that it was included in the most recently manuscripts which is why it was put back into the bible. One must ask Kasim, why the other translations he cited has this verse and only the RSV eliminated it and then put it back? All of these were based on earlier manuscripts than the KJV and yet they still have it. However the Quran is guilty of the same thing:

Islamicist Alfred Guillaume notes that:

Guillaume continues:

L. Bevan Jones sums it up:

Again we see that scholars say nothing about this not being present. It is in some manuscripts and not in others. It is a known fact the people abbreveiate messages and we must wonder what is wrong with this. If this present in some manuscripts than it was known and was written down from the sayings of Jesus.

This verse is included but however the NIV uses women in place of the men which doesn't prove that this verse didn't exist in the early manuscripts. This quote displays this notion:

Now look at the NIV in verse 35:

We mentioned before that some manuscripts have men and the reason why is simply because both women and men worked in the field grinding grain. Therefore during the return of the Lord, both Men and women will be taken. Again no evidence whatsoever to prove that this verse was a later addition due to the simple fact that it was in some early manuscripts.

As I said before earlier manuscripts didn't have this verse which actually proves it closer to the original. However Kasim nor any other Muslim can only present verses that are nothing more than mere abstract statements however these verses aren't corrupt and are present in every bible and the early manuscripts:

Need we say more.

This is another favorite scripture of Muslim however learned Christians as well as truthful Muslim know that this scripture in the KJV is correct due to the simple fact that without the whole verse it violates basic Greek grammer:

People like Kasim and other Muslims who use this verse as proof as well as possibly citing scholors who try to eliminate this verse from the Bible are doing so based on something that is impossible to do to the simple fact that it violates the Greek grammar itself!!!

Take your pick, this word means both which refutes Kasim and any other Muslim idea of Christian argument over a translation of the Bible.

I don't know what bible Kasim was looking at since this verse he claims isn't in the RSV either read:

My dear reader this is the type of information that Muslims use and spread all over the internet in their desperate attempts to get people to come to Islam. Mere lies is what it is and this is clear evidence. The reason why it isn't in the KJV is because it isn't in the RSV either. I don't fault Kasim for this, he is the typical Muslim, they usually go to Muslim websites and blindly copy and paste whatever they say when they probably never even seen a bible for themselves.

Again we see evidence of blindly copying from Muslim websites. Look at the definition of bastard:

All these translations agree, they either give the word "bastard" or the definition. Therefore we must wonder how Christians are in argument about this? Maybe our friendly Muslim websites can provide us with an answer.

These are just different ways that this verse was rendered in order to prove that there is an argument Kasim must prove that the Hebrew Tanech has these discrepancies when the text these verses was based on is the same one:

Again we are back to the argument of English rendering of the Hebrew text and not a discrepancy in the Hebrew text.

Here we see again that English has no effect on the Hebrew text since these are nothing more than mere renderings based on the same Hebrew text of this scripture:

So Kasim's best defense against Christianity is a translation not the real text. Again Muslims would be quick to point out that this shouldn't be used in dealing with the Quran but yet they still try to refute Christianity from translations.

What Kasim doesn't tell you about is the simple fact that the 7 Catholic epistals are later additions to the canon of the Bible.The 7 apocryphal books, as well as the additional endings of some of the OT books which the Catholic Church accepts, were not officially declared to be part of the Catholic OT canon until the Council of Trent, AD 1546, a fact that bible scholars recognizes. This was primarily in response to the Protestant Reformers such as Martin Luther and their attacks on doctrines such as indulgences. In one of these books, 2 Maccabees 12:43-45, praying for the dead that they may be loosed from sins is commended:

Hence, it is not hard to imagine why Catholics would want to include such a book since it supports their doctrine of praying for souls caught in purgatory, something rejected by the Reformers.

Yet, amazingly, a book which was not included as part of the canon, despite the fact that it also formed part of the Apocrypha literature, is 2 Esdras (4 Esdra by Roman Catholics). This book rejects prayers for the dead. (Cf. 2 Esdra 7:105) The acceptance of 2 Maccabees and the rejection of 2 Esdras affirms the total arbitrariness of the decision behind the choosing of books which supported Catholic doctrine, while rejecting those that did not.

The Quran affirms the Holy Bible that existed at the time of Muhammad as the uncorrupt word of God. Seeing that the canon had already been established prior to the advent of Islam, this affirms the canon of 66 books as the infallible rule of faith since these were the books that the Judeo-Christian communities had already come to canonize. So by ascribing to this theory of extra books, Kasim and other Muslims who use this argument actually add things to the word of God which the Quran prohibits as well as reject what the Quran called the word of God!!

Even Macabbes in the Catholic flat out deny any inspiration from God. Read for yourself and see: P>

The fact that prophets had ceased from appearing in Israel before the Maccabean period affirms that these apocryphal writings were not written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

This fact alone is enough to convince someone of the uninspired status of these writings. And that is why Catholics never even dwell on this books. I attended a Catholic highschool and my Professor called these books (7 epistals) outright fables and legends. Therefore Kasim and any other Muslim embarass themselves by trying to use this as a defense against Christianity.

If Kasim would learn about history he would see why the Protestants rejected these 7 books. For one thing the Quran doesn't regard them as the word of God, the 7 books don't even regard themselves as the word of God and one must wonder why Muslims use them to claim that Christians corrupted the word of God by removing them? Actually Christians were right to remove them and even Catholic Christians don't prescribe to them and it took all the way to the middle ages for them to put them in their official canon. That should be a lesson to Kasim and any other Muslim who tries to use this as an attack on Christianity.

I have no problem with this but Kasim should follow this and not use misinformation to add to the bible as well as diminish the true word of God.

We've seen above dealing with Romans 7:17 that Kasim and the site that he got this information from along with Muslims who continue to copy this stuff are nothing but liars. For more, see above dealing with Romans 7:17.

If Kasim and other Muslims obey these verses then he shouldn't present information about the Catholic epistals since they are infact violating what these verses claim. Also translations don't qualify as adding to the Hebrew and Greek text.

No every letter in the Quran isn't identical and neither is the original Quran in Egypt. Infact Muslims have told me that it was in Istanbul, Turkey and even somewhere in Southern Russia. Historical evidence disproves Kasim claims which are repeated over and over by Muslims: "it is quite clear that the text which 'Uthman canonized was only one out of many rival text... [and] there is grave suspicion that 'Uthman may have seriously edited the text he canonized." ((From "The Problem of Variants" in LE SAINT CORAN, Traduction et commentaire de Muhammad Hamidullah, avec la collaboration de M. Léturmy, nouvelle édition 1989 corrigée et augmentée, ix-x)

The well-known scholar W. Montgomery Watt, commenting on the variant readings between the codices of Abdullah Ibn Masud and Ubay Ibn Kab, writes:

British Scholar Sir Norman Anderson states:

1. Quran Is Incomplete

According this source, portions of the Quran that had been memorized by those slain in the battle vanished, never to be found again.

These missing verses cannot be referring to abrogated parts of the Quran which were no longer essential since even the abrogated parts still form part of the text today.

This is why Ibn Umar would say:

2. Suras Added or Deleted

The Islamic traditions agree that certain Muslim reciters included extra suras not found in the present text of the Quran. For instance, Ubay Ibn Kabb was considered one of the best Muslim reciters, being dubbed "the Master of the Quranic Reciters." Yet, interestingly Kabb included two extra suras, which he claimed were part of the revelation:

Here are the two suras in their entirety:

Surat al-Hafd

Surat al-Khal'

Interestingly, Ubay was not the only one who included these suras into his codex. According to al-Suyuti, both Ibn Abbass and Abu Musa also included them as part of their text. (Al-Itqan, p. 154)

QUESTION FOR KASIM & OTHER MUSLIMS

Why are these suras not part of the Quran today seeing that Muslim reciters such as Ubay claimed that God revealed them as part of the text? They lived with Muhammad they were his closest companions and yet these surahs aren't there. So much for this idea of the Quran being the same since it was first revealed.

Quennel Gale at queball20@yahoo.com

1. Home Back Home
2. New Articles Back to New Section.