Where is the Evidence?

neil wrote: For years and years, I have heard claims from Islam that the Bible is corrupted. NOT ONCE have I seen one shred of evidence to persuade me of this claim.

I agree with you here, if anything Muslims tend to misunderstand, misinterpreted or cancel out the verses much like Ahmed Deedat, (a Muslim debater) when they don�t relate or agree with the Quran, I�ll show you some examples in a minute. Deedat on the other hand receive most of his information on the Bible from questionable sources. Here is a quote published from the Indian Views 11/6/57, said Deedat:   

"I have learnt from Mr Joseph Perdu more about ISLAM than I had learnt in the previous 38 years of my life." - INDIAN VIEWS 6/11/57

Deedat was also in an unholy alliance with Dr Mall of the Arabic Study Circle who (Dr Mall) continued to organize Joseph Perdu's lectures among Muslim's in Durban even after Joseph Pedru told Advocate Bawa in the presence of Dr Mall and Pr Wahhajur Rasul that "there was nothing in the Qur'an to show that Prophet Mohammad was the LAST PROPHET." Dr Mall remained silent all the time when Perdu said this. Mr Perdu, in his attempt to sow the seeds of Bahaism among Muslim intellectuals first, further told Advocate Bawa that "ISLAM IS NO MORE" ... ISLAM CAME FOR ONLY A THOUSAND (1000) YEARS". Subsequently Advocate I.M. Bawa issued a Pamphlet against Joseph Perdu and we reproduce the relevant part of Advocate Bawa's pamphlet for the benefit of our readers." (M.D. p.49-50) Then there is Rashad Khalifa, Deedat�s great servant of Islam who now says there are false verses in Surah 9 of the Quran and guess what? Deedat agreed!

"I have in all humility taken the liberty of bringing the scientific findings of that great servant of Islam - Dr Rashad Khalifa Ph.D., in my own humble way... In it I have freely utilised Dr Rashad Khalifa's data and in places I have used his actual eloquent words verbatim for lack of better expression." (Deedat in his booklet - "Al-Qur'an - the Ultimate Miracle"). Ahmad Deedat thus became an accomplice of Rashad Khalifa by aiding and abetting him in his avowed aim to attack the integrity of the Holy Qur'an." (M.D. p.25-26)

Here is another reliable source:

"THE MAJLIS NEWSPAPER published from Port Elisabeth by Maulavi Sadak Desai condemns Deedat in no uncertain terms regarding Deedat's Islamic knowledge, by saying: Firstly, it is essential to state and stress that Mr Deedat is not a man of Islamic learning. He is not qualified to speak on matters pertaining to the Shariah. What is Fardh upon Mr Deedat is the acquisition of the basic rules pertaining to Wudhu, Salaat, Saum, etc. So that he may be in position to discharge his daily Islamic duties. But, Islamic law is not his avenue. Mr Deedat is absolutely confused by claiming that "there is no prohibition against women attending mosque" and "this is not traditionally done". His confusion is the product of his stark ignorance of the Shariah.

These are just a few, there are many, many more. Why would anyone trust the words of a dubious person such as Deedat? You, if you have a wicked agenda.

Here are some examples below from respective members of Islam who seem to revere at one time or another Deedat�s work from what I observed.

NABA wrote: in book of psalms ch 104 v 5 he sets the earth firm so that earth never move.does our earth is static??????? We all know earth rotates

Since it�s billions of years in existence has the earth ever moved from one location to another, you tell me? Obviously its referring to its permanence not it�s immobility. You would have to look at the original Hebrew text �oh lam� = time indefinite/many years and �adh = forever/ everlastingness, eternity, for-ever. This is one out of hundreds and hundreds of verses that Muslims misconstrue and then blame God�s inspired word as being corrupt.

islamispeace wrote: I saw this thread when it was first posted, so I wrote an article on this subject on my blog:

Another problem with the Muslims faith as per this blog is that they feel that the church counsel of the Roman Catholic (1^st mistake ) or historians like Josephus and others (2^nd mistake) validate the integrity or canonicity of the inspired word of God, they do not. By the direction of God�s Holy Spirit the traditional Jews, Jesus and the first century Judo-Christians had already accepted them. Also, did the church counsel preserve the �Dead Sea Scrolls?� No. The complete canon of the Hebrew scriptures preceded the Christian church and the church was established on them. (How the church used them is a different story) The eight Jewish writers of the remaining books of the complete Holy Scriptures always referred to and quoted from those Hebrew Scriptures, never from the apocryphal books added to the Greek Septuagint. In short, the deciding of what was the canon or authoritative catalogue of the genuine inspired Hebrew Scriptures was not left to the Christian church as your blog suggests. The Great Synagogue of Jerusalem fixed this canon in the days of Jewish Governor Nehemiah in the fifth century B.C. or shortly afterward. Read it for yourselves here at Nehemiah 10:1-28

The preservation of the Holy Bible is to be credited to no religious organization of the church of Rome. It was accepted by Christ Jesus and the early, early Christian congregation. Luke 24:44 He then said to them: �These are my words that I spoke to you while I was yet with you that all the things written about me in the Law of Moses and in the Prophets and Psalms must be fulfilled.�

As far as evidence of the Bible�s corruption, your blog presented none. The books that do not appear in the canon obviously were not produced under inspiration so who said they were ever lost? They were just historical writings available back in the period when the prophet Jeremiah and Ezra wrote the accounts that we have in the Bible. One Bible encyclopedia suggests that the contents of those books may have been �the familiar oral repertoire of professional singers in ancient Israel who preserved Israel�s epic and lyric traditions.� Unfortunately you assume just because certain books were mentioned in the Bible as usable sources that they too were inspired. They were not, they were historical writings/sources that people back then were very much aware of. So to compare the preservation of the Bible/biblia which consists of 66 little books, written over a time period of 1,600 years and starching back nearly 6,000 years to the Koran written less than 1,400 years ago and written over a time period of 23 years and about one fourth as large as the Bible, there is no comparison, at ALL. The Dead Sea Scroll and other sources can attest to that.

Also, before the end of the second century, there is universal acceptance of the four Gospels, Acts, and 12 of the apostle Paul�s letters. Only a few of the smaller writings were doubted in certain areas because such writings were limited in their initial circulation and took longer to become accepted as canonical. It was not until critics like Marcion came along in the middle of the second century C.E. that an issue arose as to which books Christians should accept.

Therefore, your thesis on the Tanakh and New Testament are totally inaccurate and needs to be recanted or retracted. And your archives and posts from what I�ve seen are seriously flowed with conjectural statements and allegations. For instance, you insist that Ishmael was not a teenager when indeed he was although not strong as one and needed to be carried. In fact, they both gave out according to the account.

But, the Hebrew word ye′ledh here rendered �child� also means �young man� and is so translated at Genesis 4:23 . It was said of the youth Joseph (17 at the time) that he was sold into slavery over Reuben�s protest, �Do not sin against the child [bai�ye′ledh].� Lamech likewise spoke of �a young man [ye′ledh]� as having wounded him at Genesis 42:22

So, Isaac was indeed born and was the primary attention of Abraham�s sacrifice that Muslims vehemently tries to deny, not Hagar. He was the �only son� of Sarah as was promised her when Hagar was dismissed. Genesis 17:16, 19, 21   I will bless her and also give you a son by her; I will bless her and she will become nations; kings of peoples will come from her.� 19 To this God said: �Your wife Sarah will definitely bear you a son, and you must name him Isaac. And I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant to his offspring after him. 21 However, I will establish my covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you at this appointed time next year.�

As I mentioned at the beginning, Muslims tend to misunderstand, misinterpreted and cancel out the verses much like Ahmed Deedat (a Muslim debater) when they don�t relate or agree with the Quran. Then they say the Bible has been tampered with, how bias and unreasonable is that? Yet, they have no documented proof of this alleged tampering. Just "my Koran" doesn't say that. As his blog shows they invent scenarios and allegations regarding the scriptures because they don�t match up with the Koran. Why would it match up? The Koran is not part of the Holy Scriptures. I�ve just presented several examples of truth and facts to prove it.