The bible has been rewritten many times , can it be trusted to be accurate ?

Question

The bible has been rewritten many times , can it be trusted to be accurate ?

Answer 1

Yes and No, do not depend on one version or one person's intrepetation of what those versions say. The Truth is in there, the Almighty saw to that. Some of it takes some ferreting out.



Isaiah 28:9 Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts.

10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:

11 For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.

12 To whom he said, This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest; and this is the refreshing: yet they would not hear.

13 But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.(KJV)

Answer 2

As many people have already said the bible has not been rewritten many times. The bible is composed of books and each one has it's own history. In some cases there is internal evidence that it went through different stages of editing before it was finalised.

The Hebrew Bible - know as the Old Testament is shared with Judaism and was originally written in Aramaic and Hebrew. - although they have the books in a different order. The Greek Bible - the New Testament was collected together and read at worship for about 200 years before the earliest surviving complete texts were written. Because of copying over that period there are numerous variations but the vast majority are of no consequence. Many devoted scholars have worked on establishing the most accurate text but inevitable there are some issues which remain.

Some people rely on the King James Version from the seventeenth century which in the light of the knowledge of the time was remarkable but since then scholarship has moved on and we now have slightly different views on the most accurate text and translations.

Many other books were written. Some we know about from the writings of the early church fathers and from some we have fragments. The Jesus Seminar carried out a full review when it started work about twenty years ago and concluded that the Gospel according to Thomas should be studied and they also looked carefully at what we now have from the Gospel of Peter. Otherwise, I think, they rejected the rest as not adding to our knowledge of Jesus.

Answer 3

If you look at the New Testament, you will find that there about 2,300 manuscripts of the New Testament books that date from early years of the church, before any of the church councils that "supposedly" rewrite the books.



When these manusctips are compared, they are word for word identical 99.7% of the time. Most of those are different spellings of the same word. Of the roughly 7000 lines that make up the New Testament, there are fewer then 40 about which there is any scholastic debate on what the original reading was. Not a single one of those affects a Christian doctrine.



Some of these manuscripts have been dated within a few years of the original books. Such as a fragmented manuscript of all the writings of Paul (written before his death in 67AD). The manuscript is on paper that was last produced in 68 AD when the Romans destroyed the place where it was manufacturered. From the fragments, scholars have been able to reconstruct 72% of the manuscript. (Looks like a jigsaw puzzle with about 1/4 of its pieces missing. The parts that are there are indentical to Greek text used to translate Bibles today. Where there are holes, today's Greek text would fit perfectly in each.



Or a manuscript of the gospel of John that scholars believe may date from 17-20 years after the original. They have been able to reconstruct 809 of the 893 verses (and working on the rest). Again, it is word for word identical to the Greek text used today.



Add to that over 8,600 quotes from the New Testament books, commentaries, translations into other languages, harmonies of the gospels, litergies, prayer books, etc. It is possible to recreate every word of all but 11 lines of the New Testament from other sources that date before the first church council.



While the New Testament has been "retranslated" many times over the centuries, as new languges appear and old ones change, it has not been "rewritten". The scholars who make Bible translate all go back to the same early Greek manuscripts and retranslation them. They are not basing their translation on an earlies English version, which was translated from German, which was translated from Latin, which was translated from a classical Greek text, which was translated froma Koine Greek text. Instead they go back to the original Koine Greek text each time a new translation is made. That makes it difficult to "rewrite" the New Testament.



As someone who can read the original language, and has studied many of the early manuscripts, I know that they the Bible we have today is an accurate and reliable text of the original material.

Answer 4

The Bible has been translated many times. That is not the same thing as being re-written. It is common to continually provide translations in contemporary language. For example, we don't speak the way that people did in 1611 when the King James version of the Bible was translated. The Bible was originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. The Old Testament or Hebrew Scriptures in Hebrew and Aramaic. The New Testament or Christian Scriptures in Greek. There are many archaeological discoveries of ancient biblical texts or ancient texts about Scripture that confirm much of what is read in the Bible today. The Dead Sea Scrolls are an example of one such discovery.

Answer 5

It seems that the apostate Unsilenced Lamb doesn't waste any chance to talk badly about Jehovah's Witnesses.



When the NWT was made Jehovah's Witnesses were aware of what the Bible says in Revelation 22:18,19:



"I am bearing witness to everyone that hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone makes an addition to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this scroll; and if anyone takes anything away from the words of the scroll of this prophecy, God will take his portion away from the trees of life and out of the holy city, things which are written about in this scroll."



<> -- Watchtower October 15, 1999





http://www.watchtower.org/e/na/article_05.htm

http://www.watchtower.org/e/bible/index.htm

Answer 6

The Hebrew Scriptures have remained true, and this can be proven from the ancient copies that have been found. The new testament has been monkeyed around with for so long that it is hard to really know what is true and what is not.



If anything in the "new testament" cannot be proven by the Hebrew scriptures, then it is not wise to form doctrine upon it. Take the nobility of the Bereans to heart and follow their example.



Messiah came to turn men back to the Torah. That's what repentance is all about.

Answer 7

Whenever something is translated, you always lose something, because certain words just cannot be translated. Some people don't realize that the bible was originally written in Arabic, not Latin or Greek. It was translated to Greek during the Hellanization period, and then eventually to Latin which was the official language of the Catholic Church. After Vatican II the bible was translated into many other languages. But the bible itself has never been re-written. There's a difference between being re-written and being translaled.



For me it doesn't matter how many languages the bible was translated into. For me as long as the message of the bible stays the same, I'm okay. I think the translations keep the same themes, keep the same stories, keep the same message, and that is more important to me than getting the exact word correct.



So for me, I think the bible can be trusted, and is accurate as far as its themes and teachings. But I see your point. Great question.

Answer 8

i see, so God the Father has very little power in all your eyes and minds. He hold the every atom of the earth together with His power, people, and what is even more amazing He keeps the endless universe going. Him and Him alone. so to believe that the bible is not accurate as it can be, is to deny His great power. He would definitely make sure His word would be there for His church. now some words were added and punctuations not easy when translating from one language to another and so on, i will admit. but the nkjv of the bible italicized those words which were added to the texts from which they had translated. the best i can say is get every translation of the bible and compare and cross reference.

Answer 9

I am amazed by some of the ignorance out there. Some of you need to do some research on the volume of manuscripts available for the scriptures and the volume of manuscripts for secular wittings such as Plato and Socrates's ect. You will find the balance scale leans very very heavy to one side.



Yes,



It is the most documented literary work in the entire world of antiquities.



It is the most scrutinized literary work ever.



Recommendation- Use a Bible that has been translated by a group of differing Christian org.s.. the KJV, Strong's and Young's Dictionaries and some good old fashioned open minded work.



You will find that the scriptures will speak for them selves, most times.



A word's true original meaning many times brings deeper appreciation for what the passage is saying.



I use esword for much of the above. It is for the most part free and is downloaded from the internet.



Finally, do not rest on your own understanding. Study with a group of people that have the same goal: To understand His word and apply it to one's life.



Grace and Peace to all.

Answer 10

The BIBLE has not been rewritten many times. That would be sort of impossible since the writings are those of 40 men spanning more than 1500 years. It HAS been translated a number of times and new ones come out still today, most to accommodate political correctness, like one that eliminates any reference to God as a male. Others designed for children. But if you take the time to study and review the serious bibles and compare them (I like blueletterbible.org) you will find very little differences in them. You also have archaological evidence, in the form of the dead sea scrolls/ They contained handwritten copies of certain books, some of which date back to not long after the originals were written, and show little variation from what is written down there and what we have today.

Answer 11

Yes. The archaeological evidence is overwhelming! If you'd like some specific answers check out the book by Lee Strobel called "The Case for the Real Jesus." He's a former atheist reporter who interviewed some highly regarded scholars about this very subject.

Answer 12

The Greek text at least of the Old Testament is in keeping with the original manuscripts even Jesus referred to in the Temple, this has been proved already by the discovery of the Dead sea scrolls. And only the catholic texts and orthodox churches have always submitted OT cannons within their Bibles texts which were also found in the scrolls, which the KJV does not include, referred to as the Apocrypha texts.

Answer 13

After all of what you have already read above, the real question is, does it really matter? It's not the accuracy that really matters, the bible was never intended to be a historical reference book. It is, and always has been a MORAL reference book. The basic messages are still the same as they were in the beginning, just as they are the same in almost all texts from all religions.

Answer 14

When was it rewritten? I know one of my Bibles was translated in 1972, but from all my research on the subject, the Bible has not been rewritten in any form.

Answer 15

When you compare the translations to the original languages the Scriptures were written in, you can see how accurate the meanings have been maintained. So, yes.

Beware of the modern translations...many HAVE changed meanings, even left out some verses and words.

Answer 16

this is real that the Bible has been translated each and every so often even although I do think of a high quality quantity of care has long previous into each and every translation. i've got faith ought to you seem on the King James version it replaced into as quickly as translated from the formed Greek and Latin. a great style of translators you will detect have tried to return to in all risk the main earliest texts plausible to get a real translation, realising that's the passable ingredient to do. the adult males and females human beings who actualy wrote the books of the Bible have been all adult males of God and in close to communiion with God and as a effect the be attentive to God replaced into as quickly as conversing by potential of way of them. sometimes adult males and females human beings have not won a word precisely appropriate. probable on account that case in point there is not any different word in the English language, or some difficulty language, that suggests precisely an analogous ingredient, or on an extraordinary social gathering they are in a place to have made a mistake. If like me you think of the Bible is a non secular e-e book then the spirit will in all risk be geared up to assist you spot by potential of way of any minor misinterpretations etc. Pray for the Holy Spirit to representative you. The be conscious will then come alive in a sparkling technique. reading the Bible will must be comprehensive with prayer, you may say a connection with the formed author - the be conscious (God). "in the hollow replaced into as quickly as the be conscious and the be conscious replaced into as quickly as with God and the be conscious replaced into as quickly as God. an analogous replaced into as quickly as in the begining with God. All concerns have been made by potential of way of Him and without Him replaced into as quickly as now not notwithstanding made that replaced into as quickly as made. In Him replaced into as quickly as life and the life replaced into as quickly as the gentle of fellows. And the gentle shineth in darkneww; and the darkness comprehended it now not." a million John a million:a million-5

Answer 17

Some bibles are up dating their info to try to more accurate and some religions and cults have written their own bibles to fit the religion, so i would say in general 50/50.

Answer 18

You're wrong. The Scriptures have NEVER been rewritten. They've been recopied. And the most ancient texts we have found are identical to modern copies. You're believing a pathetic set of unfounded lies.

Answer 19

No....



It's kinda like that game where you line 20 people up in a straight line and person number one whispers something into person number 2's ear...and so on and so forth down the line.



By the time you get to the 20th person...it never ends up being the same thing that person number 1 said originally. That's how the Bible works. It's stories were passed down orally for generations before being written down. Once they did get written down...they were picked through and the ones the church liked, were included in the Bible, the ones they didn't, were omitted.



Since its inception, it's been translated and retranslated so many times that it's original message was lost ages ago...if it ever actually had one, beyond just being the collection of stories it is....

Answer 20

The bible is the most ancient book in the world. It was translated by order of King James in 1611. I trust the King James version only. The other bibles water down God's word and some even change the meanings and cut out verses like Acts 8:37 in the NIV.

Answer 21

I have always wondered the same thing. Here is 1 example of changing it for the ggod of the writers. In the old days, when there were kings and knights the Catholic Church owned all documents and bible rights. They were the single richest entity, they were the ones whom changed tith what you can to you must tith 10% of your income always, no matter what you owe others god always comes first in payments sort of thing. Reaserch it youll find it.

Answer 22

It ministers to me and works for me. God is not hindered by the rewritings but rather annoints the writer. I feel the level of accuracy is within my comfort level because it works for me and speaks truth to my heart.

Answer 23

Not really. The bible was edited and compiled from many authors in the first place. There have been several translations from the original language and translations from the translations.



Take three English language bibles from different publishers and you will find three somewhat different bibles. Some passages being significantly different.



It's like picking a religion. If there is one correct bible (or religion) which one is the right one?

Answer 24

God is powerful enough to protect the gist of his message through the times. the major problem exists when a cult religion uses the gospel to change Gods message and shore up their false teachings.



God will have no mercy on such people and the ones who knowingly follow .







What Greek Scholars Think of the New World Translation



This collection of quotes, found on many Christian Bulletin Boards, primarily addresses the Jehovah Witnesses mistranslation of John 1:1





Dr. J. R. Mantey (who is quoted on pages 1158-1159) of the Witnesses own Kingdom interlinear Translation):





"A shocking mistranslation." "Obsolete and incorrect." "It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Word was a god.'"

Dr. Bruce M. Metzger of Princeton (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature):





"A frightful mistranslation." "Erroneous" and "pernicious" "reprehensible" "If the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists."

Dr. Samuel J. Mikolaski of Zurich, Switzerland:





"This anarthrous (used without the article) construction does not mean what the indefinite article 'a' means in English. It is monstrous to translate the phrase 'the Word was a god.'"

Dr. Paul L. Kaufman of Portland, Oregon:





"The Jehovah's Witnesses people evidence an abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar in their mistranslation of John 1:1."

Dr. Charles L. Feinberg of La Mirada, California:





"I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah's Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar."

Dr. James L. Boyer of Winona Lake, Indiana:





"I have never heard of, or read of any Greek Scholar who would have agreed to the interpretation of this verse insisted upon by the Jehovah's Witnesses...I have never encountered one of them who had any knowledge of the Greek language."

Dr. Walter R. Martin (who did not teach Greek but has studied the language):





"The translation...'a god' instead of 'God' is erroneous and unsupported by any good Greek scholarship, ancient or contemporary and is a translation rejected by all recognized scholars of the Greek language may of whom are not even Christians, and cannot fairly be said to be biased in favor of the orthodox contention."

Dr. William Barclay of the University of Glasgow, Scotland:





"The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New testament translations. John 1:1 is translated: '...the Word was a god,' a translation which is grammatically impossible...It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest."

Dr. F. F. Bruce of the University of Manchester, England:





"Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with 'God' in the phrase 'And the Word was God.' Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicative construction...'a god' would be totally indefensible." [Barclay and Bruce are generally regarded as Great Britain's leading Greek scholars. Both have New Testament translations in print!]

Dr. Ernest C. Colwell of the University of Chicago:





"A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb...this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas. 'My Lord and my God.' - John 20:28"

Dr. Phillip B. Harner of Heidelberg College:





"The verb preceding an anarthrous predicate, would probably mean that the LOGOS was 'a god' or a divine being of some kind, belonging to the general category of THEOS but as a distinct being from HO THEOS. In the form that John actually uses, the word "THEOS" is places at the beginning for emphasis."

Dr. J. Johnson of California State University, Long Beach:





"No justification whatsoever for translating THEOS EN HO LOGOS as 'the Word was a god.' There is no syntactical parallel to Acts 28:6 where there is a statement in indirect discourse; John 1:1 is direct....I am neither a Christian nor a trinitarian."

Dr. Eugene A. Nida, head of Translations Department, American Bible Society:





"With regard to John 1:1, there is of course a complication simply because the New World Translation was apparently done by persons who did not take seriously the syntax of the Greek." [Responsible for the Good News Bible - The committee worked under him.]

Dr. B. F. Wescott (whose Greek text - not the English part - is used in the Kingdom Interlinear Translation):





"The predicate (God) stands emphatically first, as in IV.24. It is necessarily without the article...No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word...in the third clause 'the Word' is declared to be 'God' and so included in the unity of the Godhead."

Dr. J. J. Griesbach (whose Greek text - not the English part - is used in the Emphatic Diaglott):





"So numerous and clear are the arguments and testimonies of Scriptures in favour of the true Deity of Christ, that I can hardly imagine how, upon the admission of the Divine authority of Scripture, and with regard to fair rules of interpretation, this doctrine can by any man be called in doubt. Especially the passage, John 1:1-3, is so clear and so superior to all exception, that by no daring efforts of either commentators or critics can it be snatched out of the hands of the defenders of the truth."









EDIT: DC I have unblockked you but my account is so screwed up that I do not think I can receive or send e mail ...I did send you an e mail though and if I get one from you, I will reply.

Answer 25

It helped lead me to a personal relationship with Christ Jesus.



I'll NEVER stop trusting it!

Answer 26

The God I serve is quite capable of making sure that His Holy Word remains pure.



Most of the so called translations are merely commentaries.

Answer 27

Not really. in the middle age the catholic church manipulated everything that was read to manipulate the population. Its a fact that the church did manipulate the bible and remove some books.

PS: theres a lot of manipulation envolved ^^

Answer 28

The message isn't in the words rather through the words. Accuracy isn't so important unless you are a literalist than you have bigger problems.

Answer 29

No, because when translations were made from the original, man translate them according to what man wants the contents to be. There have been many editions and when compared, the contents of one edition to another is different.

Answer 30

Yes, if you look at a modern Torah, and the Isaiah scroll from the Dead Sea Scrolls you will find not one change!

Answer 31

the first time it was written yes but in islam we believe that when the our beloved last prophet looked at the bible he confirmed that this was not the message from god. so yes it is inaccurate, it has been chnaged over the years.

Answer 32

Whaddya mean, many times? It's not like a new edition comes out every year.

Answer 33

No, of course not. It is a collection of stories and parables meant to serve as a timeless guide for life.

Answer 34

Considering it was written by people who thought the Earth was flat and the Sun went round the Earth... good luck trusting any of them!

Answer 35

False statement...it has been translated and copied many times...there are known inaccuracies...even Christians (who are awake) know there are things missing that the churches condemn as heresy...

Answer 36

You can only rely on it being totally the opposite really.

Answer 37

not only has it been re written several times. men (catholic prests ) decided which books to put in and which one to omit...that bothers me a lot....why were they not all used. I think mankind and messed with it so much it is suspect

Answer 38

Ahhhhh, so so. Some is accurate I suppose, but we cant know from any proof, because there is no proof

Answer 39

put it this way, whisper something to a friend and let them whisper it to another friend....by the time it gets back to you, will it be the same thing that you whispered to your friend?

Answer 40

Where are the originals?



If you mean to refer to the Injeel (the book revealed to Jesus /Eesaa, may Allaah exalt his mention) by the term (original bible), then we do not know the location of the copy you are asking about. But what we can say surely and without any doubt is that the Injeel has been altered and changed by human beings throughout history and the original copy no longer exists.



Therefore, a Muslim has no need to search for its original copy after Allaah has sent the great Quran. Allaah Says (which means): {And is it not sufficient for them that We revealed to you the Book [i.e. the Quran] which is recited to them? Indeed in that is a mercy and reminder for a people who believe.}[Quran 29:51].



He also Says (which means): {And We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam], the Book [i.e. the Quran] in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a criterion over it.}[Quran 5:48].



On the other hand, if by the term (original bible) you are referring to the book used by the Christians, then we say the following:



In the Quran Allaah informs us that He revealed a number of books, including the pages of Prophet Abraham, the Psalms of Prophet David, the Torah of Prophet Moses, the Injeel (Gospel) of Prophet Jesus, and finally, the Quran of Prophet Muhammad. Of these revealed texts only the Quran remains intact in its original form. All of the others (as complete books) have been lost, their remains have survived only as fragments or tampered with in some way so as to make their authenticity doubtful. No where in the Quran is the Bible even mentioned, to say nothing of its being among the revealed texts of Allaah, or as Christian claim "The Word of God." Further, we know from respected scholars that although some fragments of the Psalms, the Torah, and the Injeel (the teachings of Prophet Jesus) may be found in the Bible, comprised of the Old and New Testaments, the Bible can not rightfully be called "The Word of God." Why is this so?



As one publisher (Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Wheaton, Illinois) stated: 'The Bible may look like one book, but it is actually sixty-six books in one. Thirty-nine books make up what we call the Old Testament, and twenty-seven make up the New Testament. It is possible that more than forty writers were used by God to write all sixty-six books.' (Quoted from the "Holy Bible" – New Living Translation, Gift & Award Edition, l997, p. vii)



So if the Bible is neither narrated by God nor written by Him, and, as such, is not ‘the word of God,' then what is it? By any objective criteria, the Bible is a book containing a compilation of stories, legends, folk tales, folk lore, myths, sagas, narratives, poetry, fragments of scriptures (fragments from the Psalms, the Torah, and the Injeel as already mentioned), letters (esp. in New Testament), visions, dreams, accounts of events from doubtful sources (not eye witnesses), editors’ or scribes’ notes, as well as human errors.



For those who believe in it, it is a book that has historical, cultural, moral and ethical values, and a source of spiritual teaching and guidance. It is a book held in high esteem, primarily by Christians who see it as a divine book and the source of their religious beliefs. But, in the final analysis it is only a book with many limitations and imperfections which disqualify it from being called "The Word of God." Whoever makes such a claim then the burden of proof rests with him. On the contrary, the Glorious Quran is the Speech of Allaah and, through the Angel Gabriel, was revealed to Prophet Muhammad, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam; later compiled into a book more than 14 centuries ago it remains in its original form until today.



Some common misunderstandings about the Bible include the following:



* The Bible is one book, the Old Testament. The Bible contains sixty-six books (or more depending upon the denomination one belongs to).



* The Old Testament (OT) is the Torah followed by the Jews. The OT contains some fragments of the Torah which was lost and the Psalms, but the Talmud is the book followed by the Jews and is totally unrelated to the Bible.



* The New Testament (NT) is the Gospel of Prophet Jesus, or the Injeel. It is neither. It is made up of twenty-seven books, none of which was narrated or written by Prophet Jesus although the NT may contain fragments of the Injeel (sayings and teachings of Prophet Jesus). The Injeel as revealed through Prophet Jesus has been lost. The fragments which may be cited in the NT may not be authentic or in their proper context. So it is erroneous to equate the NT with the Injeel mentioned in the Quran.



* The Bible is a holy book, narrated, dictated by God and is infallible. While this is a claim, this misconception has already been addressed. Since the Bible is 'only' a book, there is no need to call it a forgery, a corrupted text, etc. The Quran is the only authentic "Word of God," His Speech, and Allaah has promised to protect it from distortion of any kind until the Day of Judgment and He has kept His promise. Not one letter or syllable has been changed over the past l4 centuries.







What are the difference between Torah and Qur'an?



The common ground between the Noble Qur'an and the Torah is that both are Books revealed by Allah the Exalted through the Archangel Jibreel (Gabriel), peace be upon him. Yet, the essential differences between these two Books are the following: 1) The Holy Qur'an is preserved by Allah Almighty against interpolation and adulteration, as Allah Says (interpretation of meaning): Verily We: It is We Who have sent down the Dhikr (i.e. the Qur'ân) and surely, We will guard it (from corruption)[15:9]. As for the Torah, it did not escape such interpolation and adulteration. 2) The Holy Qur'an was sent down on Allah's Messenger, Muhammad, sporadically (in steps) according to separate occasions and events, while the Torah was revealed all at once. 3) The Qur'an constitutes a commanding law whose validity is continuous till Doomsday, whereas the Torah was abrogated by the Qur'an being the last revealed Book and being supremely predominant over all of the previous Scriptures. Allah Almighty Says: And We have sent down to you (O Muhammad SAW) the Book (this Qur'ân) in truth, confirming the Scripture that came before it and Mohayminan (trustworthy in highness and a witness) over it (old Scriptures)[5:48]





Do the Words 'Torat' and 'Injeel' in the Qur'an refer to the Original Uncorrupted Scriptures?



Question:



In the recent article "If the Bible is corrupted... I feel it is also worth mentioning that the verses in question, (10,64) and (5,68) and other related verses obviously do not, and cannot refer to the "mainstream" scriptures that were/are corrupted in possession at the time of the Prophet (pbuh) and those that we have now.



I think, from my general understanding of these verses, the Qur'an obviously refers to the true, original, uncorrupted scriptures that were given to the people aforetime (i.e. Jews and Christians). This is especially apparent in Surah 5, verse 68.



So the Torah and the Injil mentioned in the Qur'an most certainly cannot be the "Old Testament", the "Pentateuch" or the "New Testament" as we have today, but the original Torah and Gospel as was revealed to both Moses (pbuh) and Jesus (pbuh).



Therefore is it not better understood logically that these verses in fact refer to the scriptures that were revealed in a pure state and not the corrupted versions?



Answer:



The Qur'an, by the names 'Torah' and 'Injeel' refers to what was called 'Torah' and 'Injeel' in the environment in which the Qur'an was revealed. It is obvious that had the Qur'an implied something else by these words, it was then necessary to clarify that the words were being used to imply something different from what they were commonly used in the environment. It should be kept in mind that the implication of words in a good piece of literature cannot be against the common usage of such words. If such is the case, it can only be considered a flaw of that piece of literature. For example, in the contemporary English language, the phrase "the prophet" (in singular form) is used only for Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)[1]. If any contemporary English writer uses the phrase to imply any other person, it would only be considered a serious mistake and flaw in his writing, unless he/she explicitly or implicitly[2] clarifies in his writing that the phrase has been used in a meaning different from its generally understood connotation.



It may, however, be noted that the 'Torah' and the 'Injeel' (especially the Injeel) that we have in our hands today are not necessarily the ones which were referred to as the Torah and the Injeel by the first addressees of the Qur'an. This is substantiated by a few references of the Qur'an to the Jews and Christians living in the environment of the revelation of the Qur'an. For instance, the Qur'an has referred to a particular sect of Jews, who hold "`uzair" to be the son of God. This obviously is a reference to a particular sect of Jews, who held `uzair to be the Son of God (as the mainstream Jews do not, generally, ascribe to this belief). Furthermore, it should be interesting to note that the Qur'an has referred to the Christians in its environment, by the name of "Nasaara", while, it is known that the general (mainstream) Christians had come to be known as "Christians" or "Maseehee" from a very early period of Christianity (as is mentioned in the Biblical book "Acts of the Prophets"). In view of this fact, it seems quite plausible that the Christians living in the Arabian Peninsula at the time of the revelation of the Qur'an were generally those who ascribed to the Nazarene creed. The Nazarenes were a Syrian Judeo-Christian sect that came to be recognized in the fourth century AD. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica:



Although they [the Nazarenes] accepted the divinity of Christ and his supernatural birth, the Nazarenes also maintained strict observance of Jewish laws and customs, a practice that had been dropped by the majority of Jewish Christians. They used a version of the Gospel in Aramaic called the Gospel According to the Hebrews, or the Gospel of the Nazarenes.



However, it is extremely unfortunate that the Injeel according to the Hebrews or the Gospel of the Nazarenes (which was probably the book referred to as 'Injeel' in the environment in which the Qur'an was revealed) is nowhere to be found anymore, as has been mentioned in the quote of the Encyclopedia.



This is my opinion regarding the references of the Qur'an to the two books. However, do let me know if I have failed to fully clarify my point of view.





[1] Refer to the word 'Prophet' in the Oxford Advanced Learner's Encyclopedic Dictionary, third impression, 1995.



[2] Implicit clarification may be through the context in which the word is being used.





The Qur'ân came to humanity after all the previous revealed scriptures had either been lost or, like the Torah and the Gospel , corrupted. Allah speaks about how people had corrupted the scriptures, saying: “Woe to those who write the Book with their own hands and then say: ‘This is from Allah' to gain from it a paltry price. So woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they gain from it.” [ Sûrah al-Baqarah : 79]



http://understanding-islam.org/related/t...