Why does the Quran direct Muslims to Bible?

[Dirty Penguin]

Question.....While I understand that most bibles have some degree of interpolations is there a common Arabic Bible Muslims can use. I like the RSV and I cross reference it with the Codex Sinaiticus. Now, I'm not speaking on translation per-se because that is a slightly different kind of issue.

[abdul lateef]

The key point is here. That Muslims believe that the revelation to Moses was the Torah. the revelation to JEsus was the Gospel and that there were many revelations to various messengers.

However, whereas gospel translates as "undeniable truth", the gospel of today isnt what was revealed to Jesus.

What the "gospels" of today are, are mere accounts, by men who did not even meet Jesus, but are apparently "according" to an individual Matthew, Mark Luke and John.

When the Quran talks about the Torah being revealled to Moses, it did not mean the Torah in its current state.

Without a doubt, when God sent revelation to messengers, it was perfect in its contents. but over time the rabbis and priests changed things, adding things, taking things out. Men narrated and changed the texts according to their understandings/interpretations/agendas etc.

So although a number of truths could be found in the previous scriptures, (and this is the parts that God refers to when telling the Jews and Christians to read their texts - ie the words of Jesus/Moses and the Words of God revealed to Jesus/Moses) the scripture has not been kept in its original form.

The Muslims are taught in the Quran to have dialogue with the people of the scripture (christians and jews) and come to a common agreement, that we worship only One God. the God of Abraham

[Pastek]

Because you think there is corruption and the Qur'an say, then YOU WOULD NEED SOMETHING TO COMPARE IT WITH to find these so-called corruptions.

It simply not good enough just to base it on what the Qur'an say. You need to prove it. Without comparisons, then your claim is pretty much baseless.

Since, the Qur'an claim there are corruption, then there should be there to compare it with. The Qur'an is incomplete. What I mean it has no complete narrative, just random exegesis, random prophecy, random law, mixed with random fables and fairytale.

Well, first of all we base our faith in the Quran so if God says something and the Bible says something else, for us there is a corruption.
An exemple as you asked :

Quran :
2.102 And they followed [instead] what the devils had recited during the reign of Solomon. It was not Solomon who disbelieved, but the devils disbelieved, teaching people magic

Bible :
4.As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the Lord his God, as the heart of David his father had been.
5.He followed Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and Molek the detestable god of the Ammonites.
(1 kings 11)

For us, here it's a corruption of the Bible

[Pegg]

Originally Posted by abdul lateef

The key point is here. That Muslims believe that the revelation to Moses was the Torah. the revelation to JEsus was the Gospel and that there were many revelations to various messengers.

However, whereas gospel translates as "undeniable truth", the gospel of today isnt what was revealed to Jesus.

What the "gospels" of today are, are mere accounts, by men who did not even meet Jesus, but are apparently "according" to an individual Matthew, Mark Luke and John.

thats no different to the Quran. It was not written by Mohammad either, but was written by many different disciples.

Originally Posted by abdul lateef

When the Quran talks about the Torah being revealled to Moses, it did not mean the Torah in its current state.

that claim is made without any proof whatsoever. I can say the same thing about the Quran or Mohammad. without any proof, I can claim that Mohammad didnt exist at all.

It would be very foolish of me to make such a claim and not offer any proof, im sure you'd agree.

[Pegg]

Originally Posted by Pastek

Well, first of all we base our faith in the Quran so if God says something and the Bible says something else, for us there is a corruption.
An exemple as you asked :

Quran :
2.102 And they followed [instead] what the devils had recited during the reign of Solomon. It was not Solomon who disbelieved, but the devils disbelieved, teaching people magic

Bible :
4.As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the Lord his God, as the heart of David his father had been.
5.He followed Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and Molek the detestable god of the Ammonites.
(1 kings 11)

For us, here it's a corruption of the Bible

the bible was written long before the Quran... so in most peoples view, it is what is written later that is the contradiction.

Can you imagine if someone came with a new Quran that was printed recently and in it you find teachings completely different to what is in the old original Quran?
Would you believe the new one is the right one and the old one is the fake???

[Pastek]

Would you believe the new one is the right one and the old one is the fake???

No
Of course, this is based on faith, so i can't prove that (like the exemple of Solomon)

But, there is a lot of non muslims who said that the Bible is not in its original form, they say there is contradictions between the texts and some historical errors
And i heard that some christian's explaining that the Bible was "inspired", it contains "allegory", or it's not an "historical book" to justify it.

An exemple not based on faith like the exemple of Solomon :

24:1 The Lord’s anger again raged against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go count Israel and Judah.”
(2 Samuel)

21:1 An adversary* opposed Israel, inciting David to count how many warriors Israel had.
(1 chronicles)

*In the french version it's not "an adversary" but "Satan". And i saw 4 different french translations

In spanish too, it's "Satan"
1 Pero Satanás se levantó contra Israel, e incitó a David a que hiciese censo de Israel.

So, there is here a contradiction.
There is a big difference between God and Satan, right ?

Here an other one :

1.6 John wore clothing made of camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey.
(Mark)

11.18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’
(Matthew)


Different version of a same scene. I can't trust at 100% the Bible.

[Pegg]

Originally Posted by Pastek

No
Of course, this is based on faith, so i can't prove that (like the exemple of Solomon)

But, there is a lot of non muslims who said that the Bible is not in its original form, they say there is contradictions between the texts and some historical errors
And i heard that some christian's explaining that the Bible was "inspired", it contains "allegory", or it's not an "historical book" to justify it.

critics of the bible claim that, yes. But it has been proven by historical evidence of a comparison of some very ancient texts from all different parts of the world that the text we have has not changed so much that any meaning is different.

What is often overlooked is the fact that the bible has been copied over many centuries and in different languages ....this means that as the languages change/evolve, so do the way words are used and the way the original thoughts of the bible are expressed. If we all spoke ancient hebrew or koine greek there would be no problem because we could read the bible in the original language... but as we dont all speak those languages, the bible must be translated and a good translation can be considered the equivalent of the true word of God if it has been translated well. Now not all translations are good, thats for sure, but we all have the ability to compare translations and to study the original words and do a little research ourselves.

Originally Posted by Pastek

An exemple not based on faith like the exemple of Solomon :

24:1 The Lord’s anger again raged against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go count Israel and Judah.”
(2 Samuel)

21:1 An adversary* opposed Israel, inciting David to count how many warriors Israel had.
(1 chronicles)*In the french version it's not "an adversary" but "Satan". And i saw 4 different french translations

In spanish too, it's "Satan"
1 Pero Satanás se levantó contra Israel, e incitó a David a que hiciese censo de Israel.

So, there is here a contradiction.

No its not a contradiction...this is very simple
The two accounts relate the same event, but they were written by different people so naturally they wrote it in their own words.
The writer of 2Samuel does not name the one who incited David to do the wrong thing.... but Ezra the priest did add that detail of who it was
2Samuel 24:1 And again the anger of Jehovah came to be hot against Israel, when one incited David against them, saying: “Go, take a count of Israel and Judah.”

1Chronicles 21 And Satan proceeded to stand up against Israel and to incite David to number Israel.

Its not a contradiction. It is what happens when different people write about the same event...they dont necessarily each add all the same details.

Originally Posted by Pastek

There is a big difference between God and Satan, right ?

It was not God who incited David to number Isreal....it was Satan. Samuel adds the detail that Jehovah was angry at David....he isnt saying that it was God who incited David to do the wrong thing.

Originally Posted by Pastek

Here an other one :

1.6 John wore clothing made of camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey.
(Mark)

11.18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’
(Matthew)

Different version of a same scene. I can't trust at 100% the Bible.

You have it very wrong here. Matthew was quoting Jesus when Jesus rebuked the unfaithful jews who refused to believe that John had been sent from God. Mark was simply stating a point about who John was. They are speaking about entirely different subjects.

the gospels are not copies of each other. The writers are similar to 'reporters'. They wrote their accounts by gathering information from eyewitnesses and recording the information. But in this case, the writer of Mark was not explaining about what John did or didnt eat. He was quoting Jesus words about the jews rejection of John. Do you really think Jesus was saying that a grown man lived his whole life without eating or drinking anything??? Dont you think that man would not live very long if he didnt eat or drink. Look at surrounding verses to get an idea of the context.

[Pastek]

2Samuel 24:1 And again the anger of Jehovah came to be hot against Israel, when one incited David against them, saying: “Go, take a count of Israel and Judah.”

Which Bible do you have ? I don't have this part in french and english
1

Chronicles 21 And Satan proceeded to stand up against Israel and to incite David to number Israel.

Its not a contradiction. It is what happens when different people write about the same event...they dont necessarily each add all the same details.

For me it's a contradiction when God and Satan are supposed to say the same thing. It confuse everybody.

the gospels are not copies of each other. The writers are similar to 'reporters'.

Yes, i know. But sometimes one disciple say something and the other say something else. So who can we believe ? For exemple when they talk about Jesus on the cross it's completely different.

Do you really think Jesus was saying that a grown man lived his whole life without eating or drinking anything??? Dont you think that man would not live very long if he didnt eat or drink. Look at surrounding verses to get an idea of the context.

It's well known , Pegg that John was often fasting. So yes, Jesus was talking about the fact that John was fasting.
(9.14 Matthew)

[Pegg]

Originally Posted by Pastek

Which Bible do you have ? I don't have this part in french and english
1

For me it's a contradiction when God and Satan are supposed to say the same thing. It confuse everybody.

that is what you've misunderstood. The account is about satan inciting David to do something he should not have done. Neither account say that God incited David.. . one says that Jehovah was angry at david, the other says that David was incited by 'one' who told him to do something and for that God was angry. The 'one' who incited David to do wrong was Satan, not God. And just think for a moment.... if God asked David to do something, and Daivid obeyed, why would God then be angry with him for obeying????

My bible is the New World Translation printed by Jehovahs Witnesses.

Originally Posted by Pastek

Yes, i know. But sometimes one disciple say something and the other say something else. So who can we believe ? For exemple when they talk about Jesus on the cross it's completely different.

they are relating the events as different eyewitnesses saw them. One eyewitness may have stood at a distance and saw something that another eyewitness did not see.

There is a reason why a court will call many eyewitnesses to the stand in a trial. they get a clearer picture of what happened when they hear all of the eyewitness accounts. Not everyone sees the same things during an event. Someone may only see the start of the event but not the middle of the event, another may only see the end of an event but not the start. That is how the gospels are written and when you put them all together you get the complete picture.

Originally Posted by Pastek

It's well known , Pegg that John was often fasting. So yes, Jesus was talking about the fact that John was fasting.
(9.14 Matthew)

i think if you read the account in context you will see it more clearly. You cannot just take one sentence out of an entire dialogue and form an opinion of it on just that one sentence...you must read it all.

Think for a moment. Can any person or any animal live its whole life without ever eating or drinking? Do you really think that is what Jesus was saying???

[Pastek]

My bible is the New World Translation printed by Jehovahs Witnesses.

No offense, but i've heard that your Bible is different from the other Bibles. By christians themselves.
Like I said, i saw different translations (french, english and spanish) and there is not the sentence you have

they are relating the events as different eyewitnesses saw them. One eyewitness may have stood at a distance and saw something that another eyewitness did not see.

No, sometimes it's completely different :

Here one exemple :

26:47 And while he yet spake, lo, Judas, one of the twelve, came, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and elders of the people.

26:48 Now he that betrayed him gave them a sign, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he: hold him fast.
26:49 And forthwith he came to Jesus, and said, Hail, master; and kissed him.
(Matthew)


18:3 Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons.
18:4 Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye?
18:5 They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them.
(John)


Are you ok that for the same scene it's happen differently ?
One say Judas kissed Jesus as a sign for the soldiers

One said Jesus went forth and asked them what they want


An other one about Jesus on the cross :

15:39 And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.
(Mark)

23:47 Now when the centurion saw what was done, he glorified God, saying, Certainly this was a righteous man.
(Luke)

In one version he said he is a man in an other one he said he is the Son of God

Sometimes the scene is different, sometimes the sentences are different, sometimes both

How can we be sure that Jesus did this or said that ? Some disciples weren't even there when he was on the cross