In the course of normal discussion, the following topics will usually arise as Islamic challenges to the Bible. Before addressing each topic a note is in order.Why repudiate the Bible? The Bible is the record of history regarding who Jesus Christ is and man's relationship to God. Unless all or parts of the Bible are demonstrated as inferior to the Quran, then the Quran can make no legitimate claims regarding it's own version of biblical personalities, teachings, and events.
With that said, these seven topics are the most common challenges Muslims pose to Christians. Each is briefly outlined and a short answer is provided.
1. Jesus never taught He was God or God's Son.
2. The original Gospel was lost/corrupted.
3. The Bible has been corrupted.
4. Paul corrupted Christianity with his teachings.
5. There are many versions of the Bible and no one can be sure which is authentic.
6. The Bible contains many errors of text, science, and common sense.
7. The Bible prophesied the coming of Mohammad (with provided texts).
Jesus never taught He was God or God's Son
It is true that there is no verse in the Gospels (Injeel) in which Jesus Christ says plainly, "I am God," or "I am the Son of God." However, Jesus did employ three very specific means to make it clear to His disciples, and His enemies, that He claimed to be God in human flesh. In each an every case His meaning was clear to those around Him.
Jesus Christ applied Old Testament prophecies about God to HimselfLuke 20:41-44 "Then Jesus said to them, 'How is it that they say the Christ is the Son of David? David himself declares in the Book of Psalms, The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet. David calls Him Lord. How then can He be His Son?'"
Jesus used Old Testament terminology and applied it to Himself. John 8:58 "I tell you the truth. Before Abraham was born, I Am." "I Am" was a reference only to God. To the Jews this was clear. In verse 59 "At this, they picked up stones to stone Him."
John 17:5 "Father, glorify Me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began."
Jesus Christ openly accepted the worship of others
Matthew 14:33 "Then those who were in the boat worshipped Him saying, 'truly you are the Son of God.'"
Matthew 28:9 "Suddenly Jesus met them. 'Greetings,' He said. They came to Him, clasped His feet and worshipped Him." Notice that Jesus did not rebuke them for worshipping Him, rather He said in verse 10, "Do not be afraid."
Jesus Christ accepted the testimony of others: that He was God's Son
Matthew 16:13, 17 "...He asked His disciples, 'Who do people say the Son of Man is?' Simon Peter answered, 'You are the Christ. The Son of the Living God.' Jesus replied, 'Blessed are you Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in Heaven.'"
Jesus enemies asked Him directly if He was claiming deity for Himself. Jesus answered them directly: Matthew 26:63-64 "The High Priest said to Him, 'I charge you under oath by the Living God: tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.' 'Yes. It is as you say,' Jesus replied."
[top]
The original Gospel (Injeel) was lost or corrupted
The basic claim goes like this: The Injeel that God gave to Jesus was lost by His disciples; or was corrupted to the extent that we no longer know exactly what Jesus said.
According to the Quran there can only be one possibility. In every case in which Mohammad refers to the Injeel, he always refers to it in the present tense; that is, as if it existed at the time that Mohammad lived and spoke. On more than one occasion Mohammad challenges Christians and Jews to reference the Torah and Injeel concerning himself. There is no mistaking that in the Quran the Injeel is referenced to exist and to be intact. The only claim the Quran makes regarding the Injeel is that Christians have corrupted its meaning; not the actual text as was available to read at the time. The question then remains, are the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John the same documents as were in existence in Mohammad's time? The answer is "yes." (Right: Injeel fragment dated to 1st century.)
There are in existence, from antiquity, thousands of copies of New Testament documents from prior to, and dating to, Mohammad's day. While it is sometimes claimed that the Injeel was actually a source, or "other" document apart from these four, there is no evidence that such a document exist. Note these reasons:
No Apostle or Church Father ever quoted from, or made reference to any such document,No Bishop or Pastor from the first century through modern times has ever quoted from or referenced such a document.
Of the many lists of canons that were compiled from orthodox and unorthodox sources, no such document has ever been referenced.
Both the Quranic and historical evidence mesh to present us with the most likely identity of the Injeel to be the Gospels that we have in existence today. (For an additional opinion on another likely identity for the Injeel, reference this site's article on Christian Pseudepigrapha.) [top]
The Bible has been corrupted
This is not the same claim as presented above. Usually, this claim revolves around subsequent translations of the Bible into English or other languages. It also refers on occasion to "additions" scribes made to biblical passages in the process of copying text.
That there are variant readings of biblical text in English, or another other language, is not unexpected. This is also true of the Quran. Variant readings of Quranic translations are sometimes so different that one occasionally has to double check the references to be sure the same passage is being read from translation to translation. Even the most widely hailed English translations by Yusuf Ali and Mohammad Pickthall contain a great amount a variants that are sometimes so wide as to cause the reader to question the translation itself. In the case of the Bible, however, regardless of the translation (KJV, NIV, NASB, RSV, etc), the messages, and even the core meaning of virtually all passages remains intact. Where variant meanings of a word or phrase are possible, translators note such occurrences in the margins. being careful to preserve the integrity of the text itself.
[top]
Paul corrupted Christianity with his teachings
It is said that Paul the Apostle corrupted Christianity by elevating Jesus Christ to the status of deity. Indeed, many of Paul's writings directly confer Godhood upon Jesus Christ. Note this example:
Phillipians 2:5-7 "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men."Is this, however, different from what Jesus Christ claimed of Himself, or what His Apostles claimed He taught? Note Jesus words:
John 17:5 "Father, glorify Me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began."The other teachings of Paul, love for one another, love for unbelievers, building character, marriage and family to be held in high honor - none of these concepts are foreign to Jesus teachings in the Injeel or the Old Testament.
[top]
There are many versions of the Bible and we can't be sure what is authentic
This is actually a very good argument against the reliability of the Bible's testimony about Jesus Christ. However, upon careful scrutiny it does fall short. This argument usually addresses two kinds of "versions of the Bible:"
Variations in Codex to CodexVariations in Translations
There are some ancient versions of biblical passages and books that have a degree of variation from one period of time to another. These variations are generally known to those who read study notes or margins within the side columns of most study Bibles. Biblical scholars and translators have been extraordinarily open regarding these "additions" such as the final few verse of Mark 16. Thus, by openly pointing out in many translations that these notes were later incorporated into some text, and by drawing attention to such passages, the integrity of the text is being preserved.
Other variations amount to minor discrepancies in copying from one generation to another. Usually there are difficulties with what amounts in translations to punctuation, word stresses, and in some case, numbers of items, men, or days. However, when comparing (by way of example) ancient copies of Old and New Testament documents dating near the 1st century to those, say, of 1000 A.D. the variations are so small as to have virtually no impact on the general meaning of the text; and in fact, there is no change that causes any major doctrine of the Christian or Jewish faiths to be reconsidered in light of said comparison. It is, in fact, a well established truth that more ancient (not old, rather, ancient) copies of biblical texts exist than any other writing in history. This great corpus of ancient texts contributes to maintaining the integrity of biblical text. This is quite different from the Quran, in which the Caliph Uthman destroyed almost all copies of Quran's which contained variant readings from the version he authorized.
A very good treatment of issues revolving around Codex problems is provided by Josh McDowell in his books, Evidence that Demands a Verdict I & II.
Regarding "different versions" in translations, a translation, but rule, applies the current use of language at the time of the translation to be more readable to the audience for which the document is translated. This is also true of translations of the Quran into English, which in reality, contain far wider variant readings than any two translations of the Bible. Readers of Yusuf Ali's, and Mohammad Pickthall's translations will note that in many passages, completely opposite terminology is used in translating the same Quranic passage. See the section titled, "The Bible has been corrupted" for more on this
[ top ]
The Bible contains many errors in text, science, and common sense
This claim is only partially correct. Yes, the Bible does contain some error in text. Most notably, numerical variants exist in several Old Testament passages where parallel passages contain a variant number. These discrepancies exist in even the oldest available manuscripts. There are two supporting arguments, though, to demonstrate that this is not an important issue as regards inspiration of the texts.
1. All ancient copies of biblical text are just that, copies, not the originals.2. Many of the numbers represented in the variant readings cannot be ascertained because of a faded corpus or misreading of the original languages.
3. The meaning of doctrinal statements are not affected by any variant readings.
The third is probably the strongest. There is also the consideration that of the thousands of copies of ancient documents that exist, there is so little variation between them that extraordinarily good comparisons can be made to demonstrate what the original text actually said.
Regarding errors of science, while much has been written on the topic, it cannot be said with any certainty that the Bible has been proven to be in error where science is concerned. Specifically, statements in Genesis 1-3 about the creations, order of creation, and later chapters about the flood of Noah cannot be said to be proven wrong through scientific observation or testing.
These passages have been debated for many centuries; and through those centuries Christian and philosopher alike have attempted to ascertain if the creation account of Genesis is to be taken literal or figurative. Indeed, there is good argument and evidence presented by both sides.
The Genesis account of the creation of life cannot accurately be compared to evolution because evolution itself remains a theory. There has been to date no observable evidence of intermediary forms, and many evolutionary scientists still argue amongst themselves as to whether evolution takes place through spontaneous changes in special forms, or gradually, with intermediary stages. Currently, no intermediary forms of any species have been found to provide evolution with the final nail in the coffin for creation.
In Genesis there also stands the account of the creation of the universe. Many cosmologists and physicists have regarded the account as hogwash for several reasons. These are just three examples of difficulties natural science sometimes has with the Bible. Indeed, many Muslims point to the same problems as "proofs" of sorts that the Bible is not the word of God. (See the our pages on the Quran and Science regarding Quranic errors.) A short answer to these points, however, is in order.
1. Six literal days for creationThere is no evidence that the six days of creation are literal 24 hour periods. The same word used for day in the original Hebrew is also used throughout the Old Testament to refer to extended periods of days, weeks, years, and even ages. Clearly the description of "days" is for the reader's benefit and not meant to be taken as literal 24 hour periods. We must also note that gravity, as Einstein noted, affects time. At creation, time did not pass at the same rate because gravitational forces throughout creation were quite different. Gravity time dilation is no theory, but a long established fact. Does it affect the interpretation of Genesis? It may, though no one has applied it to the creation account in a scientific manner as of yet.
2. Creation of light before the sun and stars
Light does not always come from stars. There are many forms of light on many different wavelengths, including that which is unseen: radio waves, radiation, bioluminessence, etc. If the Big Bang model is correct, then certainly many waves of light across a huge spectrum would have eminated for thousands of years following the moment of the explosion. Of course, the Big Bang concept is not the only theory for the creation of the universe. While the Steady State theory has been pretty well shot down; White Fountain Cosmology has yet to get a fair examination by both Christian and secular cosmologists.
3. Existence of plant life before creation of sun and stars
This is no longer difficult to answer. In 1996 a completely new form of life was discovered near volcanic vents on the sea floor. (The discovery was reported by every major T.V. network, including NBC and CNN. Look up references in their web sites.) Called, Methanococcus Jannaschii, it is a completely new form of life. That is to say, previously unknown;, in its own classification. It is not an animal, a fish, a plant; it is completely unlike anything else. It has DNA, it consumes hydrogen and sulfur, and lives in total darkness in waters hundreds of degrees in temperature. The January 1997 issue of Discovery magazine profiled a cave found 80 feet under Bucharest, Romania. The cave, which teh article points out, receives no energy from the sun, is home to 40-50 species of life — 33 of which are previously unknown to man. This life lives without benefit of the light and heat of the sun. Scientists have also pointed out that microscopic life lives in the very rock of the Earth as far down as 2 miles from the crust. It exist with no light whatsoever. Even current evolutionary theory permits life apart from the sun. Observations show conclusively that it is not only possible, but has taken place on a grand scale.
[top]
The Bible prophesied the coming of Mohammad
How do you prove a negative? That is, how do I take passages in the Bible about Mohammad (which don't exist) and prove they are false?
There are some passages which Muslims refer to as proof that the Bible prophesied Mohammad's advent. The most well known is Deuteronomy 18:18. In this passage, God says he will raise up a prophet for Israel from among their countrymen. Some translations use "brothers" or "brethren." Islamic teachers take "brothers" to mean from Ishmael's decendents. What most Muslims are not educated about is the fact that Ishmael and his decendents are not refered to as "brothers' of Israel in the Old Testament. In fact, only Esau's descendants could be referred to as "brothers" since Esau was the brother of Jacob, through whom the national of Israel was born. Mohammad, Islam's prophet, was not of the tribes born from Esau.
Another is the passage in Song of Solomon which when Arabized turns the Hebrew word for praise into Ahmed, a variation of Mohammad. It is a stretching of linguistics and there is no linguist that respects the butchering of a language to make a point.
Other passages are often applied to Mohammad, such as the "Paraclete" being Mohammad instead of the Holy Spirit and so forth. (The Paraclete, Jesus said, would live inside of us. Mohammad lives inside no one.) Aside from these poor attempts, the greatest argument against biblical references to Mohammad is quite simple. You cannot both argue against the Bible's reliability and rely on it at the same time. (See numbers 2, 3, 5, and 6 on this page.) Ahmed Deedat has published two pamphlets that are guilty of this: Is the Bible the Word of God?, and What the Bible says about Mohammad. Each book treats the refered to passages selectively, arguing for and against the reliability of the biblical text at the same time. It cannot be done.
[top]