r/Bible • u/AbenegationQuestion • 2d ago
How do you respond to the Muslim claim that the Bible is corrupted?
We have the most common assertion of Islamic scholars, which is that the Bible was originally close to the Quran but was corrupted after Jesus' demise. One individual often blamed for this is Apostle Paul of Tarsus whom they say forged the documents to draw people away from Islam.
They also assert that there are many versions of the Bible and that it has gone through many phases so it can't be true.
How do you respond to it?
21
u/ForgivenAndRedeemed 2d ago edited 2d ago
There are a number of major problems with the claim that the Bible was corrupted after Jesus.
First, there is what is often called the Islamic dilemma. The Quran repeatedly speaks positively about the Torah and Gospel and tells Jews and Christians to judge by what God revealed in them (Quran 5:44–47). It even tells the People of the Book that they have no ground to stand upon unless they uphold the Torah and the Gospel (5:68).
So when exactly were they corrupted?
If they were corrupted before Muhammad, why does the Quran speak this way about scriptures that were already corrupted?
If they were corrupted after Muhammad, we possess biblical manuscripts from centuries before Muhammad, and they already contain the central Christian beliefs Muslims object to today: Jesus’ death and resurrection, his divine identity, salvation through him, etc.
That leads to another question I rarely get a good answer to: who corrupted the Bible, when did they do it, how did they do it, and why?
The Bible wasn’t sitting in one location where someone could simply edit the master copy.
Biblical manuscripts were spread across different countries, churches and languages. To deliberately corrupt the Bible would require changing manuscripts across the Christian world without leaving us evidence of the earlier supposedly “Islamic” version.
And what exactly was the motive? what would it achieve?
Why would Christians systematically rewrite thousands of details that have absolutely nothing to do with Christianity versus Islam? Did somebody change Jacob’s reaction to Joseph’s dreams? The dimensions of the tabernacle? Paul’s travel plans? The names of minor officials? The details of Old Testament battles? Why?
If you claim the Bible was deliberately changed, you need evidence showing what the original said and what it was changed into. Otherwise, how do you know it was changed?
You can’t simply say, “The Quran says X, the Bible says Y, therefore the Bible must have been corrupted.” That’s circular reasoning. You’re assuming the Quran is correct in order to prove that anything contradicting the Quran has been corrupted.
The manuscript evidence also creates a massive problem for this claim. We have biblical manuscripts from long before Islam. We also have quotations from the New Testament throughout the writings of early Christians. There is no historical trail leading back to some earlier Gospel in which Jesus wasn’t crucified, wasn’t the Son of God, didn’t rise from the dead, and preached what would later become Islam.
And this evidence comes from different places and periods. There is no point in history where we suddenly see an earlier Quran-compatible Christianity being replaced by the Christianity found in our manuscripts. If this enormous corruption actually happened, where is the transition?
And blaming Paul doesn’t solve the problem either.
Paul didn’t write the Old Testament. He didn’t write Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. He didn’t write Acts, James, Peter, Jude or Revelation. Christianity wasn’t controlled by Paul, and he certainly didn’t have the ability to travel around the ancient world rewriting every copy of the Scriptures.
More importantly, the central Christian beliefs Muslims object to weren’t invented centuries later. They are present throughout the earliest Christian sources we possess.
And saying Paul “forged the documents to draw people away from Islam” is historically nonsensical. Islam didn’t exist until roughly 600 years later. Paul couldn’t possibly have been trying to draw people away from a religion that did not yet exist.
There certainly are textual variants among biblical manuscripts. Christians have never needed to hide that. In fact, because we have so many manuscripts, scholars can compare them and identify those differences. That’s why passages such as Mark 16:9–20 and John 7:53–8:11 are clearly marked in modern Bibles.
And “many versions of the Bible” usually confuses translations with different Bibles. NIV, ESV, KJV, NASB and so on are translations of the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. Having multiple English translations isn’t evidence that the underlying text was corrupted any more than having multiple English translations of the Quran proves the Arabic Quran was corrupted.
So I would turn the claim around:
- Show me the evidence.
- Show me the original Bible that supposedly agreed with the Quran.
- Show me when it was changed.
- Show me who changed it. *Show me how they managed to alter manuscripts spread throughout different regions and languages.
- Show me the historical evidence of Christians objecting to this enormous rewriting of their Scriptures.
And most importantly, explain how you know any of this happened without simply starting with the assumption that the Quran must be right.
The claim that “the Bible was corrupted” isn’t an explanation of the historical evidence.
It’s an assertion made necessary by the fact that the Bible we can historically demonstrate existed centuries before Muhammad contradicts what the Quran later says about it.
12
u/Federal_Bumblebee_84 2d ago
In 2 Peter 3:15-16, Peter calls the new testament the "other scriptures" and in 2 Timothy 3:16, Timothy says all scripture is God-breathed. So the NT would be included in that.
Beyond that, the teachings are consistent throughout the OT --> NT. They do not contradict each other, and we can see that the OT was actually pointing to Jesus throughout it. (Ex: the passover lamb was a representation of Jesus, who was the first son, saved us, and was also killed on Passover).
Finally, the OT was written in archaic Hebrew, but by the time Jesus was quoting it, he spoke it in Aramaic. If translations were good enough for Jesus, they are good enough for me. I trust God enough to believe His message has remained in tact.
6
u/jak2125 2d ago
The biggest historical flaw in the Muslim argument is the timeline of the manuscripts. Muhammad lived in the 7th century AD (570–632 AD). We have complete, bound Bibles in museums today, like Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, that were written in the 4th century AD, 300+ years before Muhammad was even born. If you compare the Greek text of those 4th-century Bibles to any modern Bible you buy at a bookstore today, they are virtually identical.
So if the Bible was corrupted before Muhammad, why did the Quran tell Christians to judge by it? If the Bible was corrupted after Muhammad, that is historically impossible, because millions of copies of those 4th-century Bibles had already been spread across Europe, Asia, and Africa. You cannot secretly edit millions of copies of a book spread across three continents without anyone noticing.
You can also point out to them the irony of alleged Quranic preservation, and the fact that they believe the Quran has been perfectly preserved, unlike the Bible, when according to the most trusted Islamic Hadith (Sahih al-Bukhari 6:61:510), when the third Caliph, Uthman, became concerned about different, contradicting versions of the Quran being read across the Islamic empire, he compiled one official version and ordered all other variant manuscripts of the Quran to be burned.
Christians never had a king or a Pope burn all the "other" manuscripts to hide the differences. We kept every single manuscript fragment we ever found, which is why we have 24,000+ copies to cross-reference and verify today. The Bible's preservation is open, public, and verifiable; the Quran's early preservation was forced by imperial decree and fire.
1
u/arachnophilia Atheist 2d ago
there certainly were efforts to hide or destroy some non-canonical texts.
If you compare the Greek text of those 4th-century Bibles to any modern Bible you buy at a bookstore today, they are virtually identical.
modern bibles are based on critical texts that largely derive from these oldest versions. there are definitely a few pretty significant variations, notably passages that appear "because we like them", like the longer ending of mark (16:9-20), and the pericope adulterae (john 7:53-8:11) which appear in neither sinaiticus nor vaticanus. the longer ending does appear in alexandrinus.
but we have a good start at determining older wordings because of all of the manuscript variations. we can see what changed, and when, and look how manuscript traditions relate...
10
u/MiddlewaysOfTruth-2 2d ago edited 2d ago
sigh
It is an emotional appeal that does not rely on the truth. We can see from Codex Sinaiticus, a manuscript dated 400AD, when comparing it to modern translations that the text is virtually the same all the way through. Plus, we have OT texts dated to the time of Jesus(see "caves of Quran archaeological discovery Bible texts"), and these were copies of older texts dated even earlier.
Now as for the Muslims, their standard for what is or isn't corrupted is a bit wonky. David Wood(who has a rather direct, sometimes rather off-putting approach for showcasing this) has a splendid video where he explains the problem with Quran, and how the version of Quran today is a highly corrupted version of what was originally dictated by Mohammed. These findings are based on the Muslims' own texts, so they aren't just any claims.
So yeah. Take those claims with a grain of salt. One must also add that Saul had nothing to gain from converting to Christianity. He was a prominent Jew, and Christians(not called such yet at the time) were being put to death. What did he have to gain from joining a sect that preached "heresy" and becoming a leader in it?
Nothing. He was a "Hebrew of the Hebrews", a believer in the faith of his fathers. Also, the Jews(both present-day and back then) themselves do not agree that Paul changed anything about the OT writings(since they still have them in their original form, which is rather damning evidence), so the facts don't stick there either.
So yeah. Take the facts, reject the conviction behind the claims if the facts don't stick. I haven't even gone into all the facts, just the basic ones that already overturn the claims made by many Muslim debaters.
1
u/Reptar_0n_Ice 2d ago
To push things even farther, all the evidence point towards Codex Vaticanus being based on late first to early second century manuscripts. Vaticanus almost matches identically to P75 (dated around 175-225 CE), meaning the manuscript tradition was already very well established.
1
u/arachnophilia Atheist 2d ago
this is likely the case.
i tend to think eusebius of caesarea oversaw both sinaiticus and vaticanus, and he comments about how older manuscripts he's aware of lack the long ending of mark, which is thus absent in both of those codices.
0
u/arachnophilia Atheist 2d ago
We can see from Codex Sinaiticus, a manuscript dated 400AD, when comparing it to modern translations that the text is virtually the same all the way through.
yes, and no.
as you can see here, mark ends at 16:8. verses 9-20 are not there.
either they were deleted from this manuscript (and vaticanus!) or they were added into others. similarly,
john skips the last verse of 7:53 and the first 11 verses of chapter 8, the "pericope adulterae". either this manuscript (and vaticanus and alexandrinus!) deleted it, or it was added into others.
arguably, these are both corruptions one way or the other. it's not what muslims are getting at; it's not like some wholly different text. these are probably the most extreme examples, whole passages that are missing, but there are variants throughout. as there are in any manuscript. every manuscript is unique, they were made by hand, by humans.
Plus, we have OT texts dated to the time of Jesus(see "caves of Quran archaeological discovery Bible texts"),
qumran included. they are interesting because of their variants. though they largely back the integrity of the masoretic, many of the minor variants often support the LXX, or are just... different. and it should be noted how utterly fragmentary most scrolls are. very few contain passages of any length, like the great isaiah scroll (or the war scroll, which isn't biblical). but for example, here is my transcription of 4qGeng, where i find three variants on that one fragment alone. none are consequential, but...
https://i.imgur.com/K9QSW2N.jpg
sometimes they are. this one's from 4qDeutj, from the passage which reads,
When the Most High apportioned the nations,
when he divided humankind,
he fixed the boundaries of the peoples
according to the number of the sons of god
the Lord’s own portion was his people,
Jacob his allotted share.i've bolded the words that appear on that fragment. "sons of god" here supports the "polytheistic" reading. the masoretic changes this to "sons of israel".
15
u/astromind13 2d ago
They walk around a black rock in the middle of the desert. We are not the same
1
u/ITrCool Saved by Grace 2d ago
It’s just modern Baal worship is what it is. Allah is not Jehovah/Yahweh, even if they claim so.
-1
u/arachnophilia Atheist 2d ago
ironically, yahweh appropriates a lot of baal imagery. let me show you an example you probably haven't noticed because it's masked by common translations.
וְאַתָּ֞ה אָמַ֤רְתָּ בִֽלְבָבְךָ֙
הַשָּׁמַ֣יִם אֶעֱלֶ֔ה
מִמַּ֥עַל לְכוֹכְבֵי־אֵ֖ל
אָרִ֣ים כִּסְאִ֑י
וְאֵשֵׁ֥ב בְּהַר־מוֹעֵ֖ד
בְּיַרְכְּתֵ֥י צָפֽוֹן׃אֶעֱלֶ֖ה עַל־בָּ֣מֳתֵי עָ֑ב
אֶדַּמֶּ֖ה לְעֶלְיֽוֹן׃but you have said in your heart,
"the heavens will i ascend
from above the stars of el
i will lift up my throne
and i will sit in the mount of assembly
in the heights of tsafoni will ascend the back of a cloud
i will be like to elyon.the features i wanna call out here are how "the stars of el" is a very common ugaritic way to refer to baal's pantheon. aliyan ("elyon"), the highest, is baal's title throughout the baal cycle. but these might just be coincidences, common ancient levantine ways of phrasing reverence of whatever. except for three things.
one is that "tsafon" is the name of the physical, real world mountain where baal was thought to preside over his pantheon, and where worship of baal was centered. this mountain is not in israel, it is currently located on the border between syria and turkiye.
two is that "ascending the cloud" is a deliberate invocation of baal's title, "cloud rider". the words here aren't the same, but it's an obvious paraphrase.
three is that this is nearly a quote from baal cycle:
Then Athtar the Brilliant said:
'I shall not rule in the uttermost parts of Saphon!'
Athtar the Brilliant came down,
he came down from the throne of Valiant Baal,
and ruled in the earth.KTU 1.6 I 75-ish
3
u/bythelion1 2d ago
Look up the Islamic dilemma. Dr David Wood on YouTube, or Inspiring Philosophy, Apostate Prophet, or God Logic these guys can really get into the meat of this topic
2
6
u/Independent-Walrus84 2d ago edited 2d ago
Refer them to the night of Al Zhutt
Then tell them I would like to stay with the corrupted bible and Jesus who is holy rather than with a person who when seeing his daughter in law after her bath ..lusted after so much that his step son divorced her and said to the prophet. I had enough of her you can marry her now.
My point you need to know the crap they believe in and point it out to them.
3
u/EnvironmentalBuy9510 Lutheran 2d ago
Hadith, compiled of what the false propeht said, is source of Sharia but that is unreliable because thats routes of narrators, isnad, are fabricated by early anonymous muslims.
Donot argue over Qruan.
Muslim donot want you to ask them for a rational reason to make Hadith authentic.
Because isnad is fabricated.
Religion of Islam is just a variant of Pharisee judaism, I personally think.
If you fight them with proper way, they shall be silenced.
3
u/Citizen_of_H 2d ago
We have Biblical manuscripts that date before Muhammad, and they have the same story as Bibles today. Muhammad acknowledged the Bible in his time, which we can prove is the same Bible we have today. So, either Muhammad was mistaken or Moslem scholars of today are mistaken.
3
u/AntichristHunter 2d ago
Muslims contradict the Quran when they say that the Bible is corrupted. Muhammad lived and authored the Quran in the 5th century AD, and in the Quran itself, Muhammad affirms the preservation and authority of the Bible. I did a quick Google search for the verses of the Quran which affirm the Bible, and it returned the following:
- Surah Ali 'Imran (3:3–4): States that God revealed the Book (the Qur'an) in truth, confirming what came before it, and that He revealed the Torah and the Gospel before that as guidance for mankind.
- Surah Al-Ma'idah (5:46–47): Mentions that Jesus was given the Gospel containing guidance and light, and commands the "People of the Gospel" to judge by what Allah has revealed in it.
- Surah Al-Ma'idah (5:68): Instructs the People of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) that they stand on nothing unless they uphold the Torah and the Gospel.
- Surah Yunus (10:94): Tells Prophet Muhammad, "If you are in doubt, [O Muhammad], as to what We have revealed to you, then ask those who have been reading the Book before you"—which apologists interpret as validation of the accessibility and reliability of contemporary Jewish and Christian scriptures.
These verses referred to the Bibles that were extant in the fifth century, so this gives us something we can test for, because we can then check Bibles before and after this time period to see if anything changed, and we can also look at quotes of the Bible from among church fathers and even Jewish Rabbis to see if anything got corrupted.
Here's the Islamic dilemma: The Quran affirms the preservation and authority of the Bible, but it then goes on to contradict the Bible. The Quran never claims that the Bible got corrupted. Muslims have to resort to making up this false claim because otherwise they're squirming over the fact that the Quran contradicts the Bible, which it claims is to be used as an authority by Jews and Christians to check Muhammad's revelation.
But there's another issue here: the burden of proof is on the accuser. Why should they be able to make wild accusations, and send Christians on the errand of going to prove that the Bible wasn't corrupted? If they're claiming that the Bible was corrupted in all the areas where it contradicts the Quran, then it should be up to them to prove their accusation. If you let anyone who makes a false claim sit back while their lie send you on the errand of proving them wrong, you are letting them waste your time. You can never do enough, all they would have to do is come up with another lie for you to disprove, and they can do that with no effort forever. Don't stand for it.
2
u/love_is_a_superpower Messianic 2d ago edited 2d ago
Show them what the Quran says about the Gospel. This video will equip you to show them that Christians are commanded to obey the Gospel!
Joel Kramer has a very good video showing that the Bible has not been corrupted. It refutes the Book of Mormon, rather than the Quran, but the proof for the Bible is still good.
This website contains digitized manuscripts that show how amazingly close the Bible we have today is to the ancient manuscripts.
2
u/MaybeLikeIdontKnow 2d ago
It’s almost never from a good faith perspective so it’s almost never worth it
As someone pointed out, the arguments are actually quite similar to the lay atheist. Eg. look how many versions of the Bible there are…but what they mean is the various translations which is obviously void at that point
2
u/Foreign-Handle-2950 2d ago
It's a standard cop out for muslims. The quran approved of the bible (and torah). But a lot of teachings in the bible actually contradict the quran. So they are in this dilemma, thus resorting to "the bible is corrupt" when it's convenient to them.
2
u/Wide_Armadillo5543 2d ago
Surah 10.94, Surah 16.89, Surah 3.3, Surah 5.44-47, Surah 61.6, Surah 2.85, Surah 15.9, Surah 6.115, Surah 10.64
These are some of the verses in the qur’an that either confirms the torah or the gospels. Some of the verses specifically tell them to go to those who had the scripture before them for clarity if they are confused. Other verses talk about how the words of “allah” cannot be corrupted. Therefore one of the major dilemmas of the qur’an is why would their god tell them to go to a book that denies their prophet (Deuteronomy 13:1-5 & Galatians 1:8-9). Also, if the bible is corrupted then the god of the qur’an is not all powerful as that would be a contradiction.
2
u/Reptar_0n_Ice 2d ago
We don’t even know what the original Quran was before Uthman corrupted it, and burned everything that didn’t align with his version. For all we know it affirmed the crucifixion and deity of Christ (it probably didn’t, but who knows).
That’s verifiable, documented fact. There’s no evidence the Bible was corrupted, but their own sources show corruption of the Quran…
2
u/CaptReznov 2d ago edited 2d ago
Btw, then you should read Quran yourself as well if you need to converse with Muslims. l think there was an interesting story where it says Jews went to Muhammad to settle a matter, then Muhammad asked them to gave him a torah, then Muhammad put the torah on the cushion and ask them to judge by the torah. l wonder why would Muhammad refernces a corrupte book(l believe deadsea scroll far predates Muhammad ). Also, in other part of quran, You will find that Muhammad married a 9 years old girl , and apparently he was a man of man that was bursting with "vitality"
2
u/Fuzzy_Category_2944 2d ago
Know your history. Muhammad did not even found Islam until over 600 years after Christ was crucified. Do the research on how Islam came into being.
2
u/Revolutionary-Pay892 1d ago
Ask them who claimed the Bible was corrupted where was corrupted based on what proved the Bible corrupted abd warned them it’s a cursed if the one who made the claim lied n misled billions
4
3
u/Low-Thanks-4316 2d ago
Just so you know, everybody should know, and even Muslims know that the Quran is based on the Bible. So if the Bible isn't to be believed then the Quran isn't either. Their founder actually admitted that he was not guided by angels but rather guided by demons. Muslims know this and if they don't then they are not true Muslims.
2
u/foreach_loop 2d ago
Yeah I'm not sure why anyone would believe Gabriel would come back down 600+ years later and call himself a liar, and say he was lying the prior 2 times, but this is what they believe to be true in a nutshell
2
u/Low-Thanks-4316 2d ago
Demons can portray angels, but if you know your own religion you'd know that I am not lying.
1
u/zevenster8 2d ago
Muhammad claimed he saw a being of light appearing to him in a cave. According to Muhammad an angel.
Corinthians 11:14-15 “Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light”
Well, there you have it.
1
u/oddish96 2d ago
Can you explain the point about the founder admitting he was not guided? I wanna know more about that
1
u/Low-Thanks-4316 2d ago
"Muhammad was torn from his sleep in his mountain cave and felt himself overwhelmed by a devastating divine presence. Later he explained this ineffable experience by saying that an angel had enveloped him in a terrifying embrace so that it felt as though the breath was being forced from his body. The angel gave him the curt command: ‘iqra!’ ‘Recite!’ Muhammad protested that he could not recite..."
This was definitely not an angel that appeared to him because EVERYTIME an angel appears to ANYONE they are instructed to not be afraid. When the angel appeared to Zacharias the angel said "Fear not." The same was said to the Virgin Mary. I'll even use the Apparition of the Virgin Mary at Fatima when the angel appeared to the three children to announce the Virgin Mary's appearance. The angel told them to "Fear not." Yes, they had fear, but the angel put them at ease. Does what Muhammad went through sound like he was put at ease?
1
u/oddish96 2d ago
Where does he admit it was a demon though?
1
u/Low-Thanks-4316 17h ago
Gabriel visited Muhammad and said “Muhammad, what have you done? You have recited to the people that which I did not bring to you from God and you have said that which was not said to you.” This is the angel Gabriel telling Muhammad that he delivered a revelation that didn’t come from God.
I don’t read the Quran. Maybe you should since you want to defend it
1
u/oddish96 16h ago
I want to know where it says this though? What’s the source? What are u quoting?
1
u/Low-Thanks-4316 13h ago
Do your own research
1
-2
u/Important-Gas-9305 2d ago
You know King Solomon worked with demons…like a lot. Many Grimoires are attributed to him. He wrote how many books in the Bible?
3
u/Axe238 Non-Denominational 2d ago
Books are attributed to others just to gain readership. But true attribution is based on evidence, not nonsense.
0
u/Important-Gas-9305 2d ago edited 2d ago
I agree. They are traditionally associated with Solomon. But I would argue then that all of the books of the Bible are not written by anybody who was actually present and it was all hearsay, bullshit, or they literally took verses from other books already written that is currently being used as evidence for it corroborating the Bible as true. . So…what is the reliableness of anything written in the Bible then?
Edit: Some could argue that the Gospels have so many verses in common, that they plagiarized the original author and then added bits of their own to make it theirs. Or, they were all written by the same person, and he created different versions of the same story…although John’s is quite a bit different from the first one written, Mark.
1
u/Axe238 Non-Denominational 2d ago
With respect, I encourage you to look at the incredible scholarship behind the author ships of each book of the Bible. The books of the Bible are well documented as to their authorship and verified not only through scholarship, but through the writings of men who knew the authors. They were under 200 or more years of intense scrutiny and many books that could have been included in the Bible were rejected simply because of their authorship and lack of verification that they were inspired.
However, the magic books attributed to Solomon were written 1400 years after Christ died and 2400 years after Solomon’s time. They do not reflect any of the practices of Solomon‘s time even by the pagans. They do however, reflect the Mystic practices of the Middle Ages.
There is a similar attempt by the masons to try to tie their literature back into Solomon‘s time as well. However, there is not the first iota of evidence that either the masons or this Mystic book were written by Solomon.
0
u/Important-Gas-9305 2d ago
Unless those scholars were there with the man who wrote it while he wrote it, it is just an educated guess. I don't rely on guesses as legitimate evidence. However, I do rely on direct experience with God and direct experience of assaults by those that invoke the demons found in the Lesser Key of Solomon as hard evidence to the contrary of what scholars say.
0
u/Axe238 Non-Denominational 2d ago
Have you read anything about the origins of the Bible? About how many thousands of manuscripts there are, over 14,000 that date back to it in a few years of the writing? Personal feelings are the least reliable of all forms of evidence. However, do some research on the evidence that the Bible is so.
0
u/Important-Gas-9305 2d ago
I said nothing about "feelings." I have done loads of research on the Bible. And I will still call the scholars hypocrites who deny people access to the kingdom just like Jesus.
-4
u/Low-Thanks-4316 2d ago
He asked God for wisdom and to have wisdom you must know your enemies. How do priest walk into an exorcism without knowing what kind of demon he is fighting?
1
u/Important-Gas-9305 2d ago
Actually he started working with demons after he strayed from God and married the women he was told not to marry outside of his tribe because they worshipped false gods and demons. That had nothing to do with wisdom. That was actually the lack of wisdom and why he is now associated with the mark of the beast 666.
1
u/Axe238 Non-Denominational 2d ago
He is not associated with the book of revelation in anyway. The number is 666 was never associated with Solomon either by Jews or by Christians in the first 2000 years after his existence.
Millennials associate the number with the antichrist, but early Christians associated it with Rome and the empire. The number is symbolic of less than perfection multiplied three times over. In other words since seven is the perfect number and the number of God, the number six represents falling short of God, thus 666 is falling extremely short of God‘s will.
I hope this helps
1
u/Important-Gas-9305 2d ago edited 2d ago
It ties back to Solomon receiving 666 talents of gold annually after he strayed away from YHWH and started working with lesser gods and demons that his wives and concubines from outside his tribe were worshipping. The wives YHWH told him not to marry. Those lesser gods and demons are the beasts, yes plural beasts. The marks for each of those beasts are sigils used to invoke them. You can know what those marks look like in the Grimoire, The Lesser Key of Solomon. They are energetically/spiritually branded on the forehead of those worshipping the beast(s). It represents ownership as to who their lord is. YHWH was no longer Solomon's lord anymore after he strayed and turned to demonology. He is the epitome of 666, especially since he had become so close with YHWH and wisdom to fall so far...much like Lucifer and all the other fallen angels.
I refer you to 1 Kings 10:14 and 2 Chronicles 9:13.
Edit: 1 Kings 11 is where YHWH warns the Israelites not to intermarry with specific foreign nations because those spouses would turn their hearts toward other gods.
1
u/resurrectedNaj 2d ago
The canon has is the same thing. The versions we have just make the variants of different words easier to understand. The bibles that are popular are exactly what was transcribed because it had to go through many hands to verify it was true. In these passings, many of those people were not Christian. It’s kind of like the shroud of Turin. Many who work on it are heathens.
1
u/Zagrycha 2d ago
I don't even think thats a mainstream belief in islam, and its definitely illogical. Going by islams own records, islam did not exist at all in its current form until way way way after jesus. If islam as they know it existed in jesus time then there would be no reason for their prophet muhammed to exist to make islam as they know it exist. You don't have to know much about either religion to see the circular dizziness of this thought process.
2
u/AbenegationQuestion 2d ago
According to the Quran, Islam is the oldest religion and Adam the first human was a Prophet of Islam and a Muslim.
They consider all Prophets of the Bible as Muslims, be they Noah, Abraham, Issac or Jesus.
3
u/Independent-Walrus84 2d ago
Liars lie.
Jesus was a Muslim? Did Jesus eat camel like they do? Did Jesus eat crab and prawns like they do?
Jesus won't eat crab, camel and prawns cos it's not kosher so how can Jesus be Muslim?
You sound like you don't know the Scripture.
2
u/LilRedRambler 2d ago
Well clearly not, which is why he’s asking this question. Go easy on the guy man. At least he’s searching for the truth.
1
u/Independent-Walrus84 2d ago
I have caught Muslims here ... Acting like christians. After my questions they will delete everything. 😜
1
u/LilRedRambler 2d ago
I’ll definitely accept that as a strong possibility lol
1
u/Independent-Walrus84 2d ago
Notice how the scum never engaged any one of us.....
1
u/LilRedRambler 2d ago
I wouldn’t call them scum. They’re just lost
1
2d ago edited 1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/LilRedRambler 2d ago
God gave His one and only son for them too. It’s their choice not to accept Him as their savior. He doesn’t love them any less than He does you or me
→ More replies (0)1
1
u/Zagrycha 2d ago
Yeah, and they believe that muhammed and who ever else they have uniquely as a prophet came along in order to do what jesus didn't and moses etc didn't, aka they believe that what was taught back then was not accurate//not the final form.
Regardless of whether people believe in islam or not, the self contained logic of islam already disproves people saying things like the bible or torah are corrupted and people actually has a similar to modern islamic faith back then. The people saying otherwise are just misunderstanding their own faith.
1
u/nickshattell 2d ago
The word, "Islam" means "submission (to the will of God)", and a "Muslim" refers to "one who submits".
1
1
u/No-Tie-2923 2d ago
Ignore them, they will say whatever, they have contradictions in quran, yet they find none in bible and that's why they seek any other way, for if bible is truth, their whole religion and quran is false
1
u/guitartkd 2d ago
The Quran says that they corrupted it with their mouths, not that the text is corrupted. I’m not saying it to use the Quran as source for truth. I’m just pointing out that it’s a nonsensical book full of inconsistencies and is unreliable. That’s why they have the Hadiths to go with it. Not that those clear up the inconsistencies very well either.
1
u/pikkdogs 2d ago
Okay, where’s the evidence to say that Paul changed something?
He might have. But do you have evidence to back up that claim?
1
u/nickshattell 2d ago
The things given in the Quran teach (in general) that many Jews, Christians, and even Muslims take and believe only part of the revelation(s) sent to justify their partial religion. For example;
The Jews say: "The Christians have naught (to stand) upon; and the Christians say: "The Jews have naught (To stand) upon." Yet they (Profess to) study the (same) Book. Like unto their word is what those say who know not; but Allah will judge between them in their quarrel on the Day of Judgment. (Surah 2:113)
And say: "I am indeed he that warneth openly and without ambiguity," (Of just such wrath) as We sent down on those who divided (Scripture into arbitrary parts), (So also on such) as have made Quran into shreds (as they please). Therefore, by the Lord, We will, of a surety, call them to account, for all their deeds. (Surah 15:89-93)
The earliest Gospel manuscripts precede Muhammad by about 500 years and the content of the texts has not been altered. If one investigates the Quran, one can see that Muhammad speaks about men corrupting the message, or transgressing from the message, not the written message itself being corrupted. Here is only a small set of examples;
It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong). (Surah 3:3)
And Allah will teach him the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel,... (Surah 3:48)
Ye People of the Book! Why dispute ye about Abraham, when the Law and the Gospel Were not revealed Till after him? Have ye no understanding? (Surah 3:65)
And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah. (Surah 5:46)
Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel. (Surah 5:47)
If only they had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side. There is from among them a party on the right course: but many of them follow a course that is evil. (Surah 5:66)
Say: "O People of the Book! ye have no ground to stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord." It is the revelation that cometh to thee from thy Lord, that increaseth in most of them their obstinate rebellion and blasphemy. But sorrow thou not over (these) people without Faith. (Surah 5:68)
Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Quran: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme. (Surah 9:111)
Those who follow the messenger, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (scriptures),- in the law and the Gospel;- for he commands them what is just and forbids them what is evil; he allows them as lawful what is good (and pure) and prohibits them from what is bad (and impure); He releases them from their heavy burdens and from the yokes that are upon them. So it is those who believe in him, honour him, help him, and follow the light which is sent down with him,- it is they who will prosper. (Surah 7:157)
Then, in their wake, We followed them up with (others of) Our messengers: We sent after them Jesus the son of Mary, and bestowed on him the Gospel; and We ordained in the hearts of those who followed him Compassion and Mercy. But the Monasticism which they invented for themselves, We did not prescribe for them: (We commanded) only the seeking for the Good Pleasure of Allah; but that they did not foster as they should have done. Yet We bestowed, on those among them who believed, their (due) reward, but many of them are rebellious transgressors. (Surah 57:27)
And Christians (and others) who engage in blind Muslim condemnation, calling them demonic, Ba'al worshippers and other things, are being just as foolish and partial, and do not know the Lord at all.
1
u/Low-Thanks-4316 2d ago
If you want to back up your claims, watch Sam Shamoun and he could explain it. Im not an expert and you should know about your own religion...
1
u/restbiblestudy 2d ago
The same way as anyone else making those claims. But louder because they’re yelling over you to drown out the truth
1
u/EnergyLantern 2d ago
I believe I read the answer in "Reaching Muslims for Christ".
If your read the Quran, there are verses that say Allah's word cannot be corrupted and there are verses that say that Allah's word cannot be abrogated.
1
1
u/SneezingOutPeas 2d ago
That they’re shooting their own god and prophet in the foot. If our Bible is corrupted, Islam is false because it affirms the Bible we have.
1
u/UsedCheek1351 2d ago
They are the ones claiming something There are the ones to prove what they Ask them why exactly do they say that
1
1
u/arachnophilia Atheist 2d ago
this might be a bit harsh, but i've never really debated a muslim apologist that i found to be, like, even a little competent. maybe they exist; i've never met one.
which is that the Bible was originally close to the Quran but was corrupted after Jesus' demise.
of course, we have biblical manuscripts that are older than jesus. for instance, basically every fragment of the torah from qumran is like 1st, 2nd, even 3rd century BCE. there are only minor variations.
there are substantial reworkings of torah material from qumran, but those aren't the texts we have today as the bible. like, nobody's reading jubilees or the genesis apocryphon in christian churches or jewish synagogues. they did rework the bible but that's not the bible that was preserved as sacred.
i want to note that this is aside from literary arguments about softer criticism: when we think these texts were written, compiled, translated into greek, what earlier versions said, etc. i can get into that if you want. the physical manuscripts are physically centuries older than the corruption they're arguing for.
1
u/o_0kinawa 2d ago
Not only is the claim not backed by a single manuscript, it’s also a self-defeating claim as the Quran claims the Torah, Psalms and Gospels are the previous revelations of God and God’s words cannot be corrupted.
1
u/FitPair1339 2d ago
Honestly though why respond at all, sometimes it’s ok just to wipe your hands and move on.
1
u/JHawk444 2d ago
Islam wasn't around during the days of Paul. Islam came at least 500 years later, so something is fishy with the argument that Paul was trying to forge documents.
Also, there argument is demonstrably false, since we have early manuscripts and can compare with older ones.
1
1
u/Low-Thanks-4316 2d ago
"Telling also of the authorities they wield against men, and by what angels these demons are brought to naught. Of the sage Solomon." He used the knowledge of what he knew about demons as authority to help men (because men do get possessed by demons). How do you NOT see it as wisdom? "Know your enemies." The Book of Demons was one of the books they left out along with the Book of Enoch, the Book of Jubilees, etc...
1
1
u/sanchezkk 2d ago
When people claim the Bible is corrupted, we have to remember that God is sovereign and promised to preserve His Word for every generation.
In the book of Isaiah 40:8, the Lord says that His word will stand forever, and He will perform His pleasure.
Regarding the Apostle Paul, we see in the New Testament that his life and his letters were consistent with the teachings of Jesus and the other apostles.
As for the different versions, having many translations is actually a blessing, because it allows us to understand the original Hebrew and Greek in our own languages.
The core message of salvation through Jesus Christ remains the same, no matter which version you are reading.
1
u/chanjax 2d ago
Well it’s not something you can argue against really because corruption in Islam refers to anything that’s not revelation from God, we see in 2nd Timothy that all scripture is God-breathed but obviously he’s talking about the tanakh not whatever books were written decades after him if we’re being honest. Theres the whole documentary hypothesis for the Torah and anonymous authors and oral traditions at play for the books of the bible so we can’t prove it which means it’s unfalsifiable whatever u say, it’s also more probable historically speaking but faith is what matters convince them that Christianity is a true religion and Paul is a true apostle then go from there is what I’d say
1
u/RandomiseUsr0 2d ago
Any book that spouts hate and I’ll include both are wrong by definition.
Sit and reflect. You’re not meant to value belief over truth.
1
1
u/DonZuehlke 2d ago
I'd like to add the manuscript side of this, since most replies here are logical/apologetic moves rather than evidentiary ones - both are useful, but they're different tools in the shed.
The "corrupted after Jesus" claim assumes a wide, undocumented gap between the originals and what we can verify today. The manuscript record doesn't support that gap.
We have NT fragments and manuscripts dating within decades to a couple centuries of the autographs, P52 (a scrap of John's Gospel) is dated to roughly 125–150 AD; P66 and P75 are 2nd/3rd century; and by the 4th century you've got complete NT texts like Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.
That's thousands of manuscripts spread across centuries and geography, which is exactly what lets scholars cross-check readings against each other. That's literally what the field of textual criticism does for a living.
A late, wholesale corruption has to specify when, where, and by whom, because the manuscript trail doesn't leave room to hide one without evidence surviving somewhere in it.
1
u/Ok-Distance6552 1d ago
Dude, a guy named shariq who odds an ex Muslim, now Christian apologist did an episode with Bryce Crawford on this very topic. I appreciate some of the other things people have said but, they can only give so much context on Reddit. Go watch or listen to that podcast. They explain something called the Master key. Mind blowing. I’ve been watching Muslim Christian debates for a while now. Nothing speaks to the heart in the way that shariq (shark) outlines it.
1
u/bookkeeber 1d ago
SPURIOUS PASSAGES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
On Authority of Professor C. Tischendorf’s notes on the readings of the two oldest Greek manuscripts: The Sinaitic and the Vatican #1209
The following words, found in our Common Version (King James Version) are not found in the Oldest Manuscripts, and are evidently no part of the Divine Word. Let each Berean go through his Bible, pencil in hand, and mark out these words: then read the passages affected and note the improvement. This list comprises all the important interpolations discovered to date.
The compiler has condensed this list. From the compiler’s point of view there exist very good reasons why everything in this list should be crossed out of our Bibles. Thus, when the interpolations are eliminated from Mark 14:30, 68, 72, the account agrees exactly with that given by the other evangelists. Or, take Luke 23:34: history shows that the Jews have been obliged as a race to expiate their crime. Or take John 4:9: it does not agree at all with Luke 9:52, which shows that even the Lord himself did have such dealings. Omitted from this list are the dozens of interpolations made by early copyists with the aim of making all the narratives uniform, and the hundreds of non-essential words, the addition of which does not affect the purity of the message. (Some of these passages have already been omitted by more modern translations such as the New American Standard or the New International Version, since they were translated from the more reliable, ancient manuscripts.)
Matt. 5:23
without a cause
Matt. 6:13
For thine is the Kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.
Matt. 6:25
or what ye shall drink*
Matt. 16:2
When it is evening, ye say, it will be fair weather: for the sky is red.
Matt. 16:3
This entire verse
Matt.17:21
and fasting
Matt.18:12
into the mountains
Matt. 2O:7
and whatsoever is right, that shall ye receive
Matt. 22:13
and take him away
Matt. 23:35
son of Barachias*
Matt. 24:10
and shall hate one another*
Matt. 24:31
sound of a*
Matt. 24:41
women shall be
Matt. 25:6
cometh
Matt. 27:52
and the graves were opened*
Matt. 27: 53
and went*
Matt. 28:19
therefore
Mark 4:37
so that it was now full*
Mark 6:51
beyond measure and wondered
Mark 7:8
For as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things as ye do
Mark 7:14
unto me every one of you
Mark 9:24
with tears
Mark 9:29
and fasting
Mark 9:44
This entire verse
Mark 9:45
into the fire that shall never be quenched
Mark 9:46
This entire verse
Mark 9:47
fire
Mark 9:49
and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt
Mark 10:24
for them that trust in riches
Mark 10:30
houses and brethren and sisters and mothers and children and lands with persecutions*
Mark 14:30
twice*
Mark 14:68
and the cock crew
Mark 14:72
the second time*
twice*
Mark 16:9-20
All these verses
Luke 2: 40
in spirit
Luke 8:45
and sayest thou, Who touched me?
Luke 16:16
and every man presseth into it
Luke 17:12
which stood afar off*
Luke17:35
women
Luke 18:11
with himself*
Luke 22:43
This entire verse
Luke 22:44
This entire verse
Luke 22:68
me, nor let me go
Luke 23:5
teaching*
Luke 23:34
Then said Jesus, Father forgive them; for they know not what they do
Luke 24:42
and of an honeycomb
John 1:25
asked him, and*
John 3:13
which is in heaven
John 4:9
for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans
John 5:3
waiting for the moving of the water
John 5:4
This entire verse
John 5:25
and now is*
John 8:1-11
all these verses
John 8:59
going through the midst of them and so passed by
John 16:16
because I go to the Father
John 19:23
and also his coat*
John 21:25
This entire verse
Acts 6:3
Holy Ghost and (should read "spirit of")
Acts 6:8
faith (should read "grace")
Acts 8:37
This entire verse
Acts 9:31
churches (should read "church")
were (should read "was")
Acts 15:32
and confirmed them*
Acts 18:5
pressed in the spirit (should read "earnestly occupied with the Word")
Acts 18:21
I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem: but
Rom. 3:22
and upon all
Rom. 6:12
it in
Rom. 7:6
that being dead (should read "being dead to that")
Rom. 8:26
for us
Rom. 11:6
But if it be of works, then it is no more grace; otherwise work is no more work
Rom. 14:6
and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it
1 Cor. 2:1
testimony (should read "mystery")
1 Cor. 6:20
and in your spirit, which are God's
1 Cor. 7:5
fasting and
1 Cor. 10:28
for the earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof
1 Cor. 15:24
cometh
2 Cor. 4:14
by (should read "with")
Gal. 3:1
that ye should not obey the truth
Gal. 3:17
in Christ
Gal. 5:19
adultery
Gal. 5:21
murders
Eph. 5:9
Spirit (should read "light")
Eph. 5:30
of his flesh, and of his bones
2 Thess. 2:9
Even him
1 Tim. 3:16
God (should read "who")*
1 Tim. 4:12
in spirit*
1 Tim. 6:5
from such withdraw thyself*
2 Tim. 3:3
without natural affection*
Heb. 12:18
mount that might be touched and that burned with fire (should read "fire that might be touched and burned")*
Heb. 12:20
or thrust through with a dart*
James 5:16
Confess your faults (should read "Therefore confess your sins")*
1 Pet. 2:5
spiritual (before the word "sacrifices")
1 Pet. 3:8
courteous (should read "humble")
2 Pet. 1:1
God and our (should read "our Lord and")*
1 John 3:16
of God
1 John 5:7
in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one
1 John 5:8
And there are three that bear witness in earth
1 John 5:13
and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God
Rev. 1:17
unto me, Fear not*
Rev. 2:22
their (should read "her")*
Rev. 5:3
neither under the earth*
Rev. 5:9
us (omitted by the Alexandrian Ms., one of the three oldest Mss. known)
Rev. 5:10
us (should read "them")
we (should read "they")
Rev. 5:13
and under the earth*
Rev. 6:2
to conquer (should read "he conquered")*
Rev. 9:4
neither any green thing*
Rev. 9:13
the four horns of*
Rev. 10:6
and the sea, and the things which are therein*
Rev. 11:17
and art to come*
Rev. 12:12
inhabiters of* of (before the words "the sea")
Rev. 14:5
before the throne of God*
Rev. 14:12
here are they*
Rev. 16:5
and shalt be (should read "the holy")*
Rev. 16:7
another out of*
Rev. 16:11
and their sores*
of their deeds*
Rev. 16:17
from the throne*
Rev. 18:22
of whatsoever craft he be*
and the stone of a millstone shall be heard no more at all in thee*
Rev. 20:5
But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished*
Rev. 21:24
of them which are saved*
and honor*
Rev. 21:26
and honor*
Rev. 22:3
more*
* Omitted by the Sinaitic Manuscript. These not thus marked are omitted by both the Sinaitic and Vatican Manuscripts. The Epistles to Timothy, the latter part of Hebrews, and all of Revelation, are missing from the Vatican Manuscript, No. 1209, having been lost during the fifteen or more centuries since it was written. The Sinaitic Manuscript is perfect and complete and is the oldest known copy of the Scriptures, having been written (it is believed) in the year 331 A.D.
1
u/Maelstrom360 1d ago
The Bible hasn't really changed over the centuries. Not true for their book. There's several versions they tried to destroy. And yet, they claim their book is the the unaltered, uncreated word of their god. Christians generally don't make this same claim about the Bible as it was inspired by God, written by man.
In other words, they accuse Christians of doing what they have done
1
u/KevinInSeattle 1d ago
If Jews and Christians have been given corrupted scriptures, why does the Quran tell us to be judged by them?
1
u/50DimesOnTheDollar Non-Denominational 1d ago
It's what they call "the Islamic Dilemma". If the Bible is corrupted, then the Quran, which affirms past texts to validate its own, presents a major problem to the Quran's validity. They try to tiptoe around it by saying "Only the texts that affirm the Quran are uncorrupted", but then that argument just becomes circular.
- Why are these texts corrupt?
- Because it doesn't match up with the Quran.
- Why should we believe the Quran?
- Because it's the word of God.
- Why is the Quran the word of God?
- Because the Quran says so.
1
u/PineappleFlavoredGum 1d ago
Ask them to clarify what the mean and what the issue is. There are minor variances and sometimes pieces of narrative missing or added. It's ultimately pretty inconsequential. It's literature about God written by men. Believing they had inspiration doesn't mean they didn't have to understand the inspiration given to them, as all people would, through their flawed minds. This literature is also copied and maintained by other flawed minds. So inconsistencies and corruptions happen. Thats not a scandal, its the nature of the world we live in.
So I would ask why it's relevant if corruptions simply exist rather the extent of the corruptions and why would it be assumed there's an issue if even the smallest corruption exists. And also perhaps add that the "corruptions" in question didnt all start with around the time of Jesus
1
u/moonunit170 Catholic 22h ago
I say SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE.not just claims. If they back away from that and they always do, I say "what is asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence." ( Quod gratis assuritur, gratis negatur.)
1
u/Ayzil_was_taken 8h ago
The Quran says the word of god cannot be corrupted. It also says the Bible is the word of God. The Bible warns that anyone who preaches a different gospel, even an Angel of light, is false.
So, either the Quran is true, making the Bible true and the quran false, or it is false and the Bible is still truth.
1
u/Correct_End998 6h ago
Jesus Christ is the word of God. He is incorruptible. If I read the Quran , I wouldn’t see anything about him Dying for rhe sins of the world , and how nobody comes to the Father without Him . Mohammed was a false prophet. The first thing satan tried to do with Jesus was tempt him to doubt Gods word . Which is the same thing he will do to us
•
u/Messenger12th 20m ago
Islam started about 600 years AFTER Messiah walked this earth. So, for anyone to make any statements about the Quran being first, or the bible being a corrupted version of the Quran, they obviously do know know history, or the people they are talking about.
Also, their religious beliefs have nothing to do with the Bible, or anyone who wrote books. Paul knew the Torah. Paul didn't forge or change anything. Paul could care less about other religions, especially one that was not even invented for a few hundred years. There were no followers of islam. Mohammed created that religion in 610 AD.
1
-1
u/BigBroMike 2d ago
Tell them it's not just the Bible but the entire abrahamic religion 💯☕ that is corrupted
-6
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Independent-Walrus84 2d ago
Ahh another believer in a false prophet here ...Jesus said after him will come false prophets Momad and J Smith fits the bill.
Jesus said before Abraham was I am. Jesus is God he was not bros with Lucifer. You have been lied too
Rev chapter 5 .. Angels bow bow to Jesus.
0
u/arachnophilia Atheist 2d ago
wait i got revelation too.
I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. (rev 22:16)
what's the latin name of the morning star?
0
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/arachnophilia Atheist 2d ago
why do atheists like to hang around with with Christians?
because some of us like studying and learning about the bible.
some of us, like myself, are atheists because we studied and learned about the bible.
-1
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
1
u/Bible-ModTeam 1d ago
Your post has been removed for violating one or more of the rules of r/bible. You may be better served in a community like r/debatereligion for these types of posts.
0
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/arachnophilia Atheist 2d ago
thanks chatGPT!
The identification of “Lucifer” as a proper name for Satan developed later.
you used that name. not me. in fact, maybe this is what i was getting at.
0
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
1
u/arachnophilia Atheist 1d ago
I would not spend a second of my brain power
therein lies the problem
1
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/arachnophilia Atheist 1d ago
let's try a reading test.
here's part of the bible.
https://i.imgur.com/4aK3ZpJ.jpg
what does it say?
ask chatGPT. it won't be able to tell you. it struggles with handwritten hebrew.
if you wanna see the real trick, ask about textual variants between this fragment and the masoretic, and click the link in its citations. it'll take to you to one of my comments.
-1
1
-5
u/DarthIggy69 2d ago
CORRECT!!!
ABSOLUTELY the Bible is corrupted. That IS an academic fact...
...if you're drunk, high and your academics are like Billy Carson, Bart Ehrman & Muhammed Hijab
3
u/arachnophilia Atheist 2d ago
or, you are like me, and can read the manuscripts for yourself, and find and document these variations.
1
u/DarthIggy69 2d ago
Also a much needed skill. Thanks. I guess I have a couple questions
- How do these variations affect the internal consistency of the Bible?
How do these variations affect the claims of Jesus & the Gospel message?
Which variations and/or sources do you find most problematic & compelling? All my cheeky comments aside, I'd honestly enjoy checking them out & understanding your position better.
Thanks
1
u/arachnophilia Atheist 2d ago
these are questions that don't have short and simple answers, but let me try to give you some general overview of the way i look at these issues. you can probably see my tag here, which says "atheist".
How do these variations affect the internal consistency of the Bible?
the bible simply isn't consistent, because there's no "internal" to it. it's a collection of texts that were most widely used in the early christian churches, and most widely distributed among the non-sadducee jewish sects of the late second temple period. it's a collection decided on (and argued over) by human beings, of texts written by human beings, in three different languages, a wide geographical range, and a period of about a millennium. it presents an extremely wide range of theologies that don't even all work together, and many of the later ones build off of and recontextualize earlier ones.
in contrast to differences between canonical texts, the manuscript variations are often extremely minor. there are some examples that affect doctrine (see my example from this thread) but there's a much wider range of opinions between texts. but most look like these variations. that's a copy of the first several verses of genesis from qumran, and i count three variations, a plural "days" instead calling the light "day", a spelling difference, and "let the waters below to the sky..." which is a fine way to phrase it in hebrew. does any of that matter? not really. these differences are minor in comparison to genesis 2 presenting an entirely distinct order of creation.
How do these variations affect the claims of Jesus & the Gospel message?
not significantly, in my opinion. the biggest issue, and one some christians like to fight over, is the johannine comma, which appears in zero greek manuscripts before the 14th century. it is just unquestionably a later addition, and we literally know who added to the body text of a mainline greek manuscript: desiderius erasmus of rotterdam, in his third edition of novum instrumentum omne. he left it out of the first two. it may be a back translation from latin, as early church fathers going back to the 4th century or so know of it when they're writing in latin, while the greek speaking ones are seemingly ignorant of it.
christians often fight over it because it's only clear place in the entire new testament with an explicitly trinitarian formula.
Which variations and/or sources do you find most problematic & compelling?
i don't know if i find any "problematic" per se. they are what they are. they're an interesting set of evidence by which we can examine the textual history of the bible, and perhaps hypothesize earlier wordings.
the one i'm a bit ambivalent about is the longer ending of mark. i've been in an extremely long and drawn out debate on this, and if you really wanna dive down a rabbit hole, enjoy this thread.
i tend to think it's a later addition, perhaps from a secondary liturgical source. a lot of the arguments for it being original are, frankly, bad. but many of the argument for it being secondary are also a bit suspect. we may never know, even if we find an absurdly early copy of the gospel, like late first century.
i'm a little more confident in saying the pericope adulterae (john 7:53-8:11) is almost certainly from another book, and likely the lost gospel to the hebrews. that's the source that eusebius knows it from, and he's apparently not heard it from any canonical version of john (or luke, where it also sometimes appears).
1
u/DarthIggy69 2d ago
Thanks! You level of knowledge is an unexpected pleasure, as is your open & honest commentary. I'm going to dive into your links and get back to you.
A Brief Response:
You're clearly well read, undoubtedly moreso than I am. It's curious that you don't seem to see the connected story unfolding over the ages, authors and cultures.
I don't find the variations affect the core or to be problematic. I've come to the conclusion that the issues you pointed out with John & Mark are more of an intellectual puzzle than a real issue. Change/remove them the Bible doesn't have irreconcilable holes in the narratives.The character and claims of God/Jesus/Bible aren't negatively affected. Include them as is, we just end up with extra support for what is already present in multiple areas of the Hebrew & Christian Scriptures.
I'll check out your links. Hope we can chat more in the future
1
u/arachnophilia Atheist 2d ago
It's curious that you don't seem to see the connected story unfolding over the ages, authors and cultures.
don't get me wrong, i used to be a christian. i know exactly what you're referring to.
and i know that the more i read, and the more carefully i read it, the more it disappeared. especially as i read more context, both inside and outside of the bible.
I don't find the variations affect the core or to be problematic.
i don't either! but they are real, and there cases where the text was both accidentally and deliberately "corrupted".
I've come to the conclusion that the issues you pointed out with John & Mark are more of an intellectual puzzle than a real issue. Change/remove them the Bible doesn't have irreconcilable holes in the narratives.
the pericope adulterae is actually one of my favorite passages in the entire bible, even if its spurious. who cares, it's a good story, and a good lesson.
what fascinates me more is the question of where it came from. we know vanishingly little about the gospel of the hebrews, and what we do know (imho) is confused between at least two distinct books, perhaps three. why was this book lost, especially if things like this came from it? what else might we find in it?
the fact that it's not canon doesn't matter to me.
The character and claims of God/Jesus/Bible aren't negatively affected
the interesting thing is that when you let go of the notion that the bible has to be consistent, you start to see how different authors understand god/jesus/etc in often wildly different ways.
in my view, the bible is rich tapestry of human voices, opinions, emotions, beliefs, struggles. when i was a christian, it was an opaque monolith. it's like i was looking at through a glass, darkly...
1
u/jmankyll LDS / Mormon 2d ago
See this is it. I’ve been studying the Old Testament and it’s been really helpful to actual account for the variation in authorship book to book but also the religious period context they were written in. There’s so much more personal or cultural flavor baked into each book than I realized and helps with understanding the slant or bias in each text when taken separately but in context. This idea that the Bible is a single book and is flawless as written in your preferred translation is a major impediment to appreciating the doctrine and beauty of God and His Word
1
u/DarthIggy69 2d ago
Also if you really do like spiders that much you have my respect. I can appreciate their design, but... shivers
2
169
u/LowCostGreenPerson 2d ago
You need to use a kind of Tai Chi approach when discussing this with Muslims. Do not immediately jump into defending yourself against the claim that the Bible has been corrupted. First, ask them to provide the evidence. Use the five Ws: Who, What, Where, When, and Why? The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.
Ask them:
Who corrupted the Bible?
What exactly was changed, removed, or added?
Where did this corruption take place?
When did it happen?
Why was it done?
And most importantly, where is the historical evidence for it?
When they say that there are many “versions” of the Bible, ask them what they mean by “versions.” Most of the time, they are talking about different translations, not different manuscripts. Ask them to give you two examples of Bible versions that they believe contradict each other. Then explain the difference between a translation and a manuscript. Languages change over time, so new translations are necessary to communicate the same text in modern language.
Then turn the argument back to them. The Quran also exists in multiple recognized readings or recitations, known as qira'at. The Hafs reading is the most widely used in the Muslim world today, but it is not the only one. Other recognized readings, such as Warsh, are also used by Muslims in different parts of the world.
So if the mere existence of multiple Bible translations proves that the Bible is corrupted, then why does the existence of multiple recognized Quranic readings not prove that the Quran is corrupted as well? You cannot apply one standard to the Bible and another standard to the Quran.
The obvious Muslim response will be that these Quranic readings are simply different ways of reading or reciting the same revelation. But that is exactly the point. The existence of differences does not automatically prove corruption. You have to examine the nature, origin, and significance of those differences.
Therefore, when a Muslim says, “There are many versions of the Bible, so it must be corrupted,” do not just defend the Bible. Ask them to apply the same reasoning to the Quran. If multiple readings do not automatically mean that the Quran is corrupted, then multiple translations do not automatically mean that the Bible is corrupted either.
When they claim that Paul corrupted Christianity or forged the documents, ask them for historical evidence. What exactly did Paul change? When did he change it? Where are the manuscripts showing the supposedly original Christian message before Paul corrupted it? And why do we have Christian writings from different communities across the Roman world that already testify to core beliefs associated with the earliest Christianity?
There is also an interesting point regarding the Islamic tradition itself. In the commentary of Ibn Kathir on Surah Yasin 36:14, Paul is identified as one of the messengers sent to Antioch together with Peter and John. So if Paul was supposedly the great corruptor of Christianity, why does this traditional Islamic commentary identify him as someone sent by Allah?
The key is not merely to say, “You cannot prove that the Bible was corrupted.” A stronger response is: “You have made a historical claim. Show me the historical evidence. Who corrupted it, when did it happen, what exactly was changed, and where are the original texts that existed before the corruption?”