Home > Arguments for the Bible's corruption
"The Qur'an doesn't say the Bible today is the word of God as it stands; it refers to the original revelations given to Jesus (peace be upon him) and earlier prophets, like the Injeel and Torah. It says, ‘And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming what came before him of the Torah; and We gave him the Injeel, in which was guidance and light' (Surah Al-Ma'idah, 5:46). That Injeel was Allah's true word, but which Bible now—Greek, Aramaic, English, or differing canons—matches it? None fully do; they're altered versions.
The Qur'an warns of changes: ‘So woe to those who write the scripture with their own hands, then say, "This is from Allah"' (Surah Al-Baqarah, 2:79). Jesus' revelation was pure, but today's Bibles—shifting between languages and canons—aren't that Injeel. The Qur'an, though, is preserved: ‘Indeed, it is a noble Qur'an, in a Register well-protected' (Surah Al-Waqi'ah, 56:77-78). It's Allah's final word, correcting what was lost, while Jesus, a messenger, not God, taught submission to Allah alone.
This argument attempts to convey that there are different Bibles, meaning they vary in their message and meaning. But this couldn't be further from the truth; first, it's important to understand that the Bible is a collection of many books, and the individual books are all constant — their content does not change based on language or canon. We have early manuscripts of all books in their original languages, which allows researchers to weed out errors from newer or translated versions.
"Canon" can be understood as a container; it simply determines which books are included, and in what order. This doesn't affect the actual content of the books.
The Qur'an can also be arranged in any number of ways, and its current order, based on surah length, can also be considered a kind of canon, and not a particularly sensible one. In fact, it's virtually impossible to understand the Qur'an in its normal form without referring to the hadith and tafsirs. It's therefore a case of throwing stones from glass houses; in fact, it's a case of claiming that the houses of others are made from glass, while theirs are built of solid stone, when in reality the reverse is true.