This is one of the most common questions Muslims ask! Muslim teachers have taught their students that Christians have changed the Bible to say what they want it to say.
No proof can be found to support this. In fact, if one compares the manuscripts with each other as well as comparing them to modern translations, he will not find any major differences.
Why Do Bible Translations Vary?
All translations of the Bible come from the same Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. The differences in the Bible are in the modern language translations. They are not in the original manuscripts.
New translations are done because wording needs to be changed, not “corrections.” The Bible doesn’t need corrections because it was written perfectly! It has no errors. The men who wrote the Bible received it directly from God.
English Translations of the Quran are not Identical!
There are also language differences in translations of the Quran. They do this because they think the word they choose is better than the word another translator used. Look at these various translations of the first verse in the Quran:
Sahih International: In the name of Allah, the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful.
Yusuf Ali: In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.
Shakir: In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.
Arberry: In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate.
Why does one translator use “Most Gracious” and another “Beneficent”? These are two different words in English with very similar meanings. Another translator added the words “entirely” and “especially” to the translation, but one used “most.” Are they trying to change the meaning of the Quran? Of course not!
Only Arberry used the word “compassionate” while the others used “merciful.” Which is correct? Is Allah merciful or compassionate?
All of these men are trying to translate the Quran as clearly as possible. They are all translating from Arabic. Yet, they all have different opinions about which word is best. However, all of the translations clearly convey the meaning of the first verse of Al-Fatihah.
Why are there New Bible Translations?
New translations are done for different peoples and eras. Scholars translate for different groups of people. They use the best words in the language of the people that convey the meaning of the original Bible text.
The same is true with Muslim translations of the Quran. For example, Arberry translated the Quran in 1955. At that time the word “compassionate” might have been a good choice. But modern scholars may feel that “merciful” is better understood by this generation.
A Bible For Everyone!
God wants everyone to understand the Bible! The message of the Bible is not just for those who can read Hebrew and Greek. God wants all people to know that He loves them and sent Isa Al-Masih to die for their sin.
God wants a relationship with every person. Do you have a personal relationship with God? The only way that we can know God is through reading the Bible. And the only way we can read and fully understand the Bible is if we have it in our own language.
For example, the Bible says, “Here I [Isa Al-Masih] am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me” (Revelation 3:20).
We can understand that holy verse because it is in simple English. Jesus is saying if you open the door of your heart and let Him in, He will start a relationship with you!
[We invite you to visit us at https://www.isaandislam.com/way-of-salvation to learn more about God’s gift of Salvation. God loves you and waits to hear from you. Isa clearly said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (Injil, John 14:6). For a deeper understanding of Isa we suggest you subscribe to “Isa, Islam, and Al-Fatiha” at this link.]
SOME QUESTIONS FOR THE COMMENT SECTION BELOW
We encourage our readers to comment on the article above. Comments that don’t directly relate to the topic will be removed. Please start a dialogue with us by focusing on one of the following questions:
1. Why do we need a translation of the Injil in our language?
2. Why shouldn’t the Injil be translated?
3. How do we know the translations of the Injil are not different from the original meaning?
If you have a question regarding this article, please contact us by clicking this link.
`
Dear Friends: We highly value all comments on our website. Yet we do have some guidelines:
1. No one may enter more than one comment at a time. Thus you may not fill multiple comment boxes.
2. Your comment should be directly related to the theme of the lead article.
3. It is best if you only put forward one or two questions at a time.
4. Use good English. If the comment is not clear, we may edit it.
5. Don’t use abbreviations.
6. Do not use capital letters to emphasize something.
7. Do not include any hyperlinks.
If you have extra questions, please email us at .
`
There is only one thing I will add here. Even churches disagree on which Bible to use. There are churches or sects in Christianity who strictly forbid the use of specific Bibles. I attended an Anglican-owned school and they punished students who came with Bibles other than the prescribed ones whenever we had Religious Education.
Why do you have to differ in your own books? Why do you allow some and forbid others? Is it because they say different things or do they contain verses that other translations don’t agree with? That has kept me wondering.
How can you disagree within yourselves if you truly believe the Bible to be a revelation from God to us?
~
Sheikh,
Thank you for your comment. I want to begin by saying that what happened at that school is not typical. Most churches don’t really care which Bible a person uses. This is because it’s the matter of translation. There are not many books of the Bible, but many translations. If there are differences, they are minor, and don’t change the essential meaning of what God wanted to say to us. My suggestion is, why don’t you ask the church about it? I think they have their own reasons for doing it. My guess is that because it’s a school, and the school gave rules to the students, and it was easier to teach from a specific translation.
Aila.
`
Dear Aila,
It marvels me when the author of this article claims that there is no evidence that the Bible is changed.
Surely, you’ve heard of the 16th century forgery: 1 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.” This explicit reference to the Trinity is not found in any Bible before the 1500s. Also, there is John 7:53-8:11, about the adulteress is not found in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.
There are more but these few major forgeries will suffice to prove that Christians had the tendency to add their own words to what they considered as God’s word.
Christian factions altered their respective version of Scripture in order to defeat their opponents in debates. The witness directs both Muslim and Christians to the Injil (Gospel, not Paul’s letters nor the book of revelations) because it still contains untenable truths and an unmistakable references to Muhammad(p). Those who attempted to corrupt Jesus’ message only succeeded in making some portions of the Gospel unintelligible. Anybody with the least bit of common sense who has read the gospel’s contradictory passages would know that it has been a victim of foul play.
~
Muslim,
In our Bible, we are told that the verses was added later. Every Bible has a note telling that it’s not original, but this verses don’t contradict with the core message. Also, it’s impossible to change the whole Bible without someone knowing that it’s been changed because there are so many manuscripts. And each of them is the same. If one manuscript were changed, it would have been obvious. So I can’t agree with you that it’s a forgery.
`
Aila,
At least you agree that there are verses in the Bible which are not original, let alone inspired. Also, appealing to numerical superiority won’t help, since most of the manuscripts are fragment with the earliest being dated to around 200AD. 200 years is still enough to corrupt scripture. According to the interpreters dictionary of the bible, non of these manuscripts are identical, so you lied. Here are a few more changes to deal with:
1 Tim 3:16 was changed from ”..who was made manifest in the flesh” to ”God made manifest in the flesh
Luke 5:43-44 is not in many ancient manuscripts
Luke 24:12 was added
Mark 9:16-20 A complete 12 verses were also added.
The shepherd of Hermas used to be accepted, Christians now reject it as scripture. Likewise, The Epistle of Barnabas. Many church leaders believed: Revelations, Jude, James, Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John were not inspired e.g Martin Luther, Bodenstein, etc. Face it Aila, the bible is unreliable.
~
Muslim,
The Holy Spirit lives inside the believers (Injil, Romans 8:11), so the Holy Spirit led his people in writing and in deciding which books are included. In choosing which of which the books/ scriptures to be added into the Bible, the Church’s fathers who were also filled with the Holy Spirit sat together to decide before other witnesses.
Also, the whole message of the Bible doesn’t contradict to each other, yet adds more understanding. The core message of the Bible is about Isa Al-Masih. He is God who came to the world becoming flesh (Injil, John 1:1).
I’d also like to give comment on the scriptures that you quoted above:
1 Tim 3:16: Not changed. It is written in a different way but has the same meaning, that God appeared in a body (flesh).
Luke 5:43-44: It’s not there in current Bible.
Luke 24:12: What’s the proof to say that it’s added?
Mark 9:16-20 A complete 12 verses were also added: Again, what is the proof?
The are also many Christians writings, one of them “Sepherd of Hermes”, yet it’s considered as non-inspired writings by Holy Spirit. Thus, by the leading of the Holy Spirit the book was dismissed. It also applies to the Epistle of Barnabas.
~
1 Tim 3:16 was changed to ensure that it explicitly mentioned God as becoming flesh: otherwise, it simply mentions that Jesus was manifest in the flesh, without referring to him as God.
Also, the shepherd of Hermas and the epistle of Barnabas were accepted by 3rd century Christians, as they were found in Codex Sinaiticus, a Bible from the 3rd century. Also, note that this Bible does not contain Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11. Does this mean that the Holy Spirit led previous Christians astray by making them accept the shepherd of Hermas and the epistle of Barnabas which according to you are uninspired.
~
Muslim,
The verses that show God manifested into flesh or Jesus became flesh is not only in 1 Timothy 3:16. Throwing that verse out doesn’t change the meaning that Jesus was God who was manifested in the flesh because we know that Jesus is the Word of God therefore he was God. This is written in many other parts of the Bible, such as in John 1:1-8, Colossians 2:9, etc.
The Bible writings were made by human beings and were inspired by the Holy Spirit. It doesn’t mean that it’s the Holy Spirit who wrote directly. However God is in control and is powerful to protect His words. “The words of the Lord are pure words, like silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times. You, O Lord, will keep them;..” (Zabur, Psalm 12:6-7).
~
Oh Aila, even your own Bible confirms Muslim claims of corruption. Jeremiah 8:8 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 above verse shows that even the Bible considers itself corrupted. Moreover, you haven’t explained why the Holy Spirit falsely led previous Christians to accept uninspired books (Shepherd of Hermas and Epistle of Barnabas).
`
Muslim,
Anytime we read Scripture, we need to consider an entire passage. This is really the only way that we can understand what a specific verse means. In Jeremiah 8, Jeremiah is prophesying abut what will happen to Judah because they have sinned against God. Beginning in verse four, God is describing Judah’s sin. This includes verse eight! Verse eight is explaining that the scribes are even corrupt. This doesn’t mean that all scribes were corrupt, just the ones at this point in time.
`
Dear Friends: We highly value all comments on our website. Yet we do have some guidelines:
1. No one may enter more than one comment at a time. Thus you may not fill multiple comment boxes.
2. Your comment should be directly related to the theme of the lead article.
3. It is best if you only put forward one or two questions at a time.
4. Use good English. If the comment is not clear, we may edit it.
5. Don’t use abbreviations.
6. Do not use capital letters to emphasize something.
7. Do not include any hyperlinks.
8. Do not copy and paste an article from somewhere else into your comment. We want your own ideas, not someone else’s!
If you have extra questions, please email us at .