Are Muslims wrong and Christians right?
by Ibn Anwar
I’m sure you’ve heard many a time Muslims claiming and declaring that the Bible is corrupted. Christian Bible-thumpers on the other hand will counter by arguing that the Bible has been thoroughly preserved in its pristine purity. Who is right and who is wrong in this matter? This is a question which raises much heated debate from both camps. It is a question that must be answered nevertheless. I ask the readers to put aside unnecessary subjective emotions(that may cloud your judgment) aside and please read the following material with the utmost sincerity and above all else with your brains put on gear.
“The Bible has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies.” – Mark Twain, Letters from the Earth
First and foremost, let the Bible speak for itself!
“How do ye say, We are wise, and the Law(Torah) of the Lord is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he[it]; the pen of the scribes is in vain.” (King James Version, Jeremiah 8:8 )
The above rendering of Jeremiah 8:8 is in old, classic English and I’m sure masny of you are fumbling as to what exactly is meant by the verse according to the KJV. Well, consider the following renderings of Jeremiah 8:8 into straight-forward modern English:
” `How can you say, “We are wise because we have the law(Torah) of the Lord,” when your teachers have twisted it so badly? ” (New Living Translation, Jeremiah 8:8 )
“How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the law(Torah) of the LORD is with us’? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie. “ ( Revised Standard Version, Jeremiah 8:8 )
I have added the wrd Torah in brackets to inform the readers that the word law there is in reference to the Torah i.e. the first five books of the Bible or so called “books ofMoses” and not just any law. The Hebrew word there is תורה or transliterated as Torah.
The Hebrew text reads:
אֵיכָה תֹאמְרוּ חֲכָמִים אֲנַחְנוּ, וְתוֹרַת יְהוָה אִתָּנוּ; אָכֵן הִנֵּה לַשֶּׁקֶר עָשָׂה, עֵט שֶׁקֶר סֹפְרִים
“eikha tomru khakhamim anakhnu ve Torah adonai itanu akhen hine lasheker asa et sheker sofrim”
So, in the verse given two important points may be adduced:
1. The Torah has been tampered with.
2. The scribes were responsible for this.
The folowing are a couple of examples of apparent corruptions which have crept into the Torah:
“And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he seperated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day“, and the darkness he called “night“. And there was evening, and there was morning – the first day.”
(Genesis 1:3-5 )
The above shows that God made day and night i.e. morning and evening THE FIRST DAY. As all of us know for a fact and it is common sense, night and day, morning and evening exist with the existence of the sun and the moon. So the sun and the moon were created on the first day.
However, the following verses just a few verses after 3 to 5 has something different to say.
“And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. God made two great lights – the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening and there was morning – the fourth day.“
(Genesis 1:14-19 )
So, were the sun and moon created on the first day or the fourth day?
“And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, birds, cattle, beasts, all swarming creatures that swarm upon the earth, and every man;everything on the dry land in whose nostrils was the breath of life died. He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the ground, man and animals and creeping things and birds of the air; they were blotted out from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those that were with him in the ark. And the waters prevailed upon the earth a hundred and fifty days.” (Genesis 7:21-23 )
We now know that the story of a global catastrophic flood is no more than a fairy tale because of the following reasons:
How do you explain the relative ages of mountains? For example, why weren’t the Sierra Nevadas eroded as much as the Appalachians during the Flood?
Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers. [Johnsen et al, 1992,; Alley et al, 1993] A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. Why doesn’t such evidence show up?
How are the polar ice caps even possible? Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn’t regrow quickly. In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions.
Why did the Flood not leave traces on the sea floors? A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1) an uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detritus, (2) different grain size distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), (4) a massive extinction, and (n) other characters. Why do none of these show up?
Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating? Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years, with no evidence of a catastrophe during that time. [Becker & Kromer, 1993; Becker et al, 1991; Stuiver et al, 1986]
Further more, at the time of the flood, there were great civilisations which were prospering such as the Egyptian’s Eleventh Dynasty and the Babulonia’s Third Dynasty at Ur. The fact of the matter is that there was never a global flood as such. As claified by the Qur’an in Chapter 25 verses 35 to 40 and Chapter 7 verses 59 to 70 the flood was experienced by Noah’s people and not the entire planet.
The second point adduced from Jeremiah 8:8 was that the scribes were responsible for tempering the Torah. Before proceeding any further, a basic knowledge on who the scribes were is necessary.
On Got Question Ministries the following is found:
“…the original manuscripts have been lost. They very likely no longer exist. Also during this time, the books of the Bible have been copied again and again. Copies of copies of copies have been made. In view of all of this, can we still trust the Bible?
… As meticulous as scribes were with the replication of the Scriptures, no one is perfect. “
From the above quotation we see that the scribes were responsible for writing the books of the Bible by making numerous copies of them. So, credit is due to the scribes without whom we would not have the Bible today. In a nutshell, Got Question Ministries has admitted that the Bible today are based solely on the copies of books of the Bible written by scribes and there is no way to corroborate these works with the originals since they are all lost. This fact is further substantiated by John H. Sailhamer in “How We Got the Bible” on page 21:
“In other words, the original texts were those manuscripts that we no longer have in our possession, since they have long since disappeared.”
Apologetics Press also admits to the loss of original manuscripts:
“While we still have his words with us today, those original documents have long since been destroyed.”
Explaining about the scribes Barbara Smith in Young People’s Bible Dictionary (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1965) writes:
“Cheifly, in both O.T. and N.T., a professional student and interpreter of the law of Moses. The scribes were at first priests who made copies of the law. They came to be of importance during the exile, when they were probably responsible for the collecting and copying of the writings that resulted in many of the O.T. books.“
Another Bible study website says:
“We have received the Old Testament through diligent copying by scribes from one generation to another.”
In short, the scribes were responsible for the “preservation” of the books of the Bible. According to Jeremiah 8:8 along with many internal evidences, they have not done a very good job at it, have they?
The Scribes and Jesus
Let us now consider Jesus’ relationship with this group of people i.e. the scribes:
In Matthew chapter 23 alone Jesus cursed the scribes saying “Woe be to you” no less than 6 times and called them hypocrites 8 times over which is a record in a single chapter in the whole Bible!
Are the scribes, the ones responsible for the so called preservation of the Old Testament trustworthy? How can they be trusted when they were the ones who plotted to kill Jesus and teated him in such vile ways?
“they(the scribes and pharisees) spat in his face, nd buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands.”
“And they that had laid hold on Jesus Christ led him away to Caiaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders were assembled. Now the chief priests, and the elders and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death.” (Matthew 26:57)
Like in Jeremiah 8:8, her we also see evidence of the scribes lying or making false witness. However, in Jeremiah 8:8 they lied upon the Torah and in the above they lied upon Jesus. Are they to be trusted?
To list every single instance of Jesus reproaching the scribes in this article would be a most tedious task and I do not have the luxury of time nor strength to do that. It is suffice to say that Jesus condemned the scribes in more than 60 verses! In Matthew chapter 23 quoted earlier, the heading reads, “Jesus Denounces the Scribes n the Pharisees”. You may refer to Mark 12:38 to 40, Luke 20:45-47 etc. for more on Jesus against the scribes.
Disappearing Verses
Verses quoted by Jesus in the New Testament from “past scriptures” supposed to be the Old Testament are gone:
“He who believes in me, as the scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water.'” (John 7:38 )
And he went and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, “He shall be called a Nazarene.” (Matthew 2:23)
I challenge the readers to find these two verses from the Old Testament! Trust m, you’ll be wasting your time. This is for the simple fact that they are not there! Where have they ran off to???
Now you see it, now you don’t ! :
There is one verse in the New Testment that actually supports the idea of the Trinity. That verse is to be found in 1st John 5:7 :
“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. “
Now, I open another version of the Bible which is more up-to-date and what do I see?
” And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth. ” (Revised Standard Version, 1 John 5:7 )
OMG! What’s this? The verse on the trinity found in the KJV is replaced with a different verse in the RSV and the former is completely gone in the RSV! If this is not alteration, what in the world is?
ANONYMOUS
Many of the “authors” of the books of the Bible are COMPLETELY ANONYMOUS and DOUBTFUL!
Genesis : Author. On of the “five books of Moses”
Exodus : Author. Generally credited to Moses.
Leviticus : Author. Generally credited to Moses.
Numbers : Author. Generally credited to Moses.
Deuteronomy : Author. Generally credited to Moses.
* My question is very simple. Can dead people write their obituaries?
“And Moses the servant of the Lord died there in Moad, as the Lord had said. He was buried in the land of Moad, in the valley opposite Beth Peor, but to this day no one knows where his grave is. Moses was a hundred and twenty years old when he died, yet his eyes were no weak nor his strength gone.” (Deuteronomy 34:5-7 )
Could Moses have written that? The answer is obviously NO. So, who wrote it?
Joshua: Author. Major part credited to Joshua.
Judges:Author. Possibly Samuel.
Ruth: Author. Not definitely known, perhaps Samuel.
First Samuel: Author. Unknown.
Second Samuel: Author. Unknown.
First Kings: Author. Unknown.
Second Kings: Author. Unknown.
First Chronicles: Author. Unknown, probably collected and edited by Ezra.
Second Chronicles: Author. Likely collected and edited by Ezra.
Esther: Author. Unknown.
Job: Author. Unknown.
Psalms: Author. Principally David though there are other writers.
Ecclesiastes: Author. Doubtful, but commonly assigned to Solomon.
Isaiah: Author. Mainly credited to isaiah. Parts may have been wrtten by others.
Jonah: Author. Unknown.
Habakkuk: Author. Nothing known of the place or time of his birth.
Source : Collins’ Revised Standard Version. 1971. Paes 12-17.
Christian Scholars sing: Who Let the dogs out? Woof Woof Woof!
“The Bible contains many different styles of writing such as poetry, narration, fiction, history, law, and prophecy and must be interpreted in context of those styles. It is the source of the Christian religion in that the Bible contains the words of God and how the Christian is to apply the words of God to his life.”
Bishop Kenneth Gragg the Christian scholar says in his book, “The Call of the Minaret” on page 277:
“Not so the New Testament… There is condensation and editing, there is choice, reproduction and witness. The Gospels have come through the mind of the Church behind the authors. They represent experience and history.”
Dr. F.H. Scrivener in “Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament” says:
“In the second century we have seen too many instances of attempts to tamper with the text of Scripture, some merely injudicious, others positively dishonest”.
Scrivener states that “it is no less true to fact than paradoxical in sound, that the worst corruptions to which the New Testament has ever been subjected, originated within 100 years after it was composed: and that Irenaeus and the African Fathers, and the whole Western, with a portion of the Syrian Church used inferior manuscripts.”
The reputed textual critic Dr. C.R. Gregory in “Canon and Text of the New Testament”, page 424 says:
“The Greek MSS of the Text of the New Testament were often altered by the scribes, who put into them the readings which were familiar to them, and which they held to be the right readings”
Sir William Whiston in his second letter to the Bishop of London, 1719, on page 15 says:
“”We certainly know of a greater number of interpolations and corruptions brought into the Scriptures by the Athanasians, and relating to the Doctrine of the Trinity, than in any other case whatsoever. While we have not, that I know of, any such interpolation or corruption made in any one of them by either the Eusebians or Arians.”
Professor C.J. Cadoux, who was Mackennal Professor of Church History at Oxford, writes on page 16 of his “Life of Jesus”:
“The speeches in the Fourth Gospel(even apart from the early messianic claim) are so different from those in the Synoptic and so like the comments of the Fourth Evangelist himself, that both cannot be equally reliable as record of what Jesus said. Literary veracity in ancient times did not orbid, as it does now, the assignment of fictitious speeches to historical charaters.”
Reverend E. Griffith Jones B.A., D.D. Principal of the United College, Bradford says in his article “The Bible-Meaning and Aim” contributed to the commentary on the Bible and edited by Arthur S. Peake, M.A.D.D. :
“Secondly, the Bible as we have it is a much edited body of Literature, and the various editors have treated their earlier sources with considerable freedom: nor have they always been very skilful in their treatment”
L.D. Twilley, B.D. in “The Origin and Transmission of the New Testament” on pages 44-45 says:
“The scribe may alter a text to agree with his theology. This is a very rare form of corruption, but was definitely employed by Marcion, the heretic. Thus from the very early times there was a very great variety of different readings of the text in existence. Early in the fourth century a certain scholar by the name Lucian carefully compared different readings of the New Testament with which he was acquainted and produced revised form of the text …… This is also referred to Byzantine Text.”
The Catholic Encyclopedia admits:
Transmission of the Text
“No book of ancient times has come down to us exactly as it left the hands of its author– all have been in some way altered. “
After we have considered all of the given information carefully and meticulously we may have the following “equation” :
Original Manuscripts LOST + Scribes responsible for copies of books of the Bible + Bible enirely based on those scribal manuscripts + Jeremiah 8:8 exposes that the Torah has been tampered with as a result of the deceit of SCRIBES + Clear cut DISCREPENCIES throughout the Torah + Scribes bearing false witness against Jesus which indicates their unfaithfulness and untruthfullness + Jesus’ voracious condemnation of the scribes + verses Jesus quoted in the New Testament supposedly from the Old Testament are not found in the Old Testament + Verses disappearing here and there from one version to the next + admission of Christian scholars of alteration, editing, change and existence of fiction = CORRUPTION OF THE BIBLE!!!
“And woe to those who write the book with their own hands and then say: “This is from Allah.” To traffic with it for a miserable price! So woe to them for what their hands write, and woe to them for what they earn thereby!”
(Al-Qur’an Surah Al-Baqarah Chp. 2, verse 79)
ALLAH knows BEST!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below is Br. Ibn Anwar's response to Critics :
Let us proceed with a response to the cut and paste article from answering islam.
The whole thesis in the first half of the article proposes that the context disproves the claim that jeremiah 8:8 exposes the fact that the Torah has been changed, altered and manipulated. I have read the context numerous times and reread it twice just now and I did not find any clear indication from the context that Jeremiah 8:8 is not talking about the sxribes changing the Torah.
The author mentions that,
“For all Bible study (as for studying any other book) it is important to look at the context of each passage we want to understand. The above verses are part of Jeremiah’s “Temple Address” in Jeremiah 7:1-10:25. [Click on this link and follow the text while reading the below given commentary.]”
I agree that to understand a text one needs to read in context. However, that cannot be said for the whole Bible(s). Take the last chapter of Mark for instance. How does one understnd the chapter? If one were to take the chapter in context from the KJV one or a set of interpretations may be realised. But, if one were to take it in context from the RSV or the NIV a different interpretation will be realised due to the ommission of the so called “Longer Ending Verses”. This is an example of the corruption of the text of the Bible. So, to say that for “all” Bible study the context must be considered is not so accurate.
The uthor then states,
“The first important clue is to note that God through the prophet Jeremiah states in verse 7: “my people do not KNOW the requirements of the LORD”. He does NOT say that they do not HAVE them. Then in verse 8 he takes up the the false security of the people who claim that they have the law as if the mere possession of the law will benefit them in any way if they do not obey it and if they distort it with their false interpretations.”
Yes, verse 7 says that “my people do not KNOW the requirements of the Lord.” Jochen Katz says,”He does NOT say that they do not HAVE them.” Well, does it say they have them? No, it doesn’t. Is it not reasonable to assess that they do not KNOW the requirements because the book is not there for them to KNOW? If it is to be taken in context then that verse should be read in light of verse 8 which does imply the unavailability of the Torah when it says,”How can you say we are wise for we have the law of the Lord,” when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?”
The author continues saying,”Then in verse 8 he takes up the the false security of the people who claim that they have the law as if the mere possession of the law will benefit them in any way if they do not obey it and if they distort it with their false interpretations.””
Where in the world does it say that the law does not benefit them if they do no obey it because they give their false ninterpretations?!? This is nothing more than the author’s own understanding of the text. The text itself does not say anything like that as anyone who can read will be able to see that.
The author continues,
“The “lying pen of the scribes” is guilty not of changing the text of the law, but of false application of it. They are giving the wrong interpreation out of personal greed and because they fear men more than God. In effect, Jeremiah says that they don’t “have” the Law because they don’t KEEP the Law. It is not the physical presence of the Law or of the Temple that will avert God’s wrath, but only obedience to his word. They did not corrupt the physical text of it, but they “handled” it falsely as 8:8 says. If the text they were working with hadn’t been the Law anymore, then they could not have been accused of mishandling it (”it” = the Law).”
Again, where does it say they are misinterpreting?!? and for personal greed? The author is doing nothing more short of playing semantics. If people in America are breaking the laws and the constitution of the nation can one really say that they DO NOT HAVE the constitution or laws of their nations anymore? The laws and the constitution are still there! They still have them! It makes no sense to say that they do not have the laws when the laws are there and are enforced still despite the fact that they do not obey or adhere.
Earlier, the author claims that during that time(in whih Jeremiah was composed) the scribes were not really copyists but were more teachers and expounders of the law. He didn’t give any proof for this did he?
In my article I provided several definitions from Christian sources regarding “scribes”. Let us reproduce some of them once more,
“Cheifly, in both O.T. and N.T., a professional student and interpreter of the law of Moses. The scribes were at first priests who made copies of the law. They came to be of importance during the exile, when they were probably responsible for the collecting and copying of the writings that resulted in many of the O.T. books.“
“We have received the Old Testament through diligent copying by scribes from one generation to another.”
The references for the quotations above can be taken from the article. So, we see that the scribes were indeed responsible for preserving the texts of the Old Testament which obviously included the “Torah”. If it were not the scribes who did the job of copying, then who? Jochen Katz is trying to pull a fast one on his readers. Do not fall for the trick. The following is from a Bible dictionary:
“Scribe in the Old Testament. The Heb. root idea in the word scribe is that of “to count, to set in order, to wrie”.
The earliest references to the term are found in connetion with the courts of David and Solomon, where the scribes’ primary responsibilities were to write down and preserve records (2 Sam 8:17, 20:25; 1 Kgs 4:3).
…The prophet Jeremiah depended on his faithful scribe, Baruch, to record his messages(Jer 36:4,6,27,28,32)…Jeremiah accused them of perpetrating lies (Jer. 8:8)
Scribal duties extended beyon those of merely recording and preserving messages. ”
(Mercer Dictionary of the Bible(1990). Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press. p. 801-802)
Again, we see that scribes were responsible for recording and preserving the texts. This only makes perfect sense since the word itself means “TO WRITE” !
In the article I have already briefly analysed the text of Jeremiah 8:8 itself. Let us elaborate on it once more.
The verse reads,
“אֵיכָה תֹאמְרוּ חֲכָמִים אֲנַחְנוּ, וְתוֹרַת יְהוָה אִתָּנוּ; אָכֵן הִנֵּה לַשֶּׁקֶר עָשָׂה, עֵט שֶׁקֶר סֹפְרִים”
The following translations are perhaps closest to the Hebrew:
“How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of Jehovah is with us? Behold, certainly the lying pen of the scribes hath made it falsehood.” (Darby Bible Translation)
“How can you say, ‘We are wise, And the law of the LORD is with us’? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes Has made it into a lie.”(New American Standard Bible)
How can God’s book be made into a lie if not by corruption? Is the message of Jesus a lie? Surely, no Christian will say that. But, Jimmy Swaggart had sex with prostitutes. That went against the teachings of Jesus right? Did the actions of Swaggart render the teachings of Jesus a lie? According to Katz’ logic the answer is yes. Does it make sense? The truth is the truth, if someone does otherwise in his action the truth remains the truth. 2+2=4. Even if a billion people said 2+2=10 the truth of 2+2=4 remains the truth. It has not been turned into a lie.
There are four key terms in the verse that need to be paid attention to namely,
1) Torah
2) Sheker
3) Et
4) Sofrim
The Torah is in reference to the 5 books attributed to Moses. Sheker literally means a sham or a lie or false. Et means pen and sofrim is the plural for scribes.
Now, as I have mentioned earlier the word “scribe” or “sofr” in Hebrew means “to write”. This word in the verse is amplified by the mention of “et”. Why does it say et when the word scribe itself is already understood as someone who writes? The reason is because it is telling you not to make the mistake which Katz is making. Make no mistake about it. It is not talking about some weird misrepentation of the Torah by the false teachings of the scribes, but rather that trhe scribes who WRITE with the PEN have made the Torah into sheker(a lie). If it is really trying to convey the idea of false teachings from the scribes’ preaching as per the claim proposed by Katz then surely it would have used “peh” which means mouth(and speech) in Hebrew or “lashan” which means tongue. What does a pen represent? A pen represents WRITNG rather than speech. The verse does not support katz’ understanding at all. The fact of the matter is that the Torah was changed into a lie by the pen of the scribes i.e. it has been corrupted.
Katz later cites Matthew 23:2-3 as proof of Jesus’ acceptance of the Torah. I suggest all of you to read the verses again and see whether it says what Katz claims it says. The Torah is NOT even mentioned in the verse! lol. The verses speak of the teachings of the scribes and the pharisees. What exactly were they teaching? Were they teaching the Samaritan Torah or the Mesoretic Torah? When the verse says everything does it truly mean everything without restriction? If it does then I expect Christians to please abandon Jesus and the entire New Testament. Why? Because were the scribes and the Pharisees not the same people who rejected the teachings of Jesus and Jesus himself as nothing more than heresies? If everything truly means everything then Christianity needs to be thrown out the window. If th text is to be accepted as true then it ought to be understood reasonably i.e. whatever true teachings that the scribes and the Pharisees taught those are the ones that ought to be accepted. Either this is the interpretation that should be used or go with Katz’ and out goes the whole of Christianity.
This tactic used by Christian missionaries to prove the authenticity of the Old Testament in claiming that it is fully confirmed by Jesus by citing passages here and there has been discussed by the Protestant scholar Paley in his book published in 1850 in chapter 3. Alas, the discussion is quite long as such it is not feasible for me to start transcribing them here. It is sufficient to mention here that he discusses that the claims such as the one made by Katz by citing Matthew 23 does not bear much weight. He also cites 1 James 5:11 and 2 Timothy 3:8.
A for the other passages that seem to mention the law they are of no consequence. Because even if they mean what Katz says it does not deter the fact that Jeremiah 8:8 admits to the corruption of the Torah as discussed. The problem is that Katz assumes the unity of the Bible whilst I do not.
Ibn Anwar
