Home > Arguments for the Bible's corruption
"The differences in the Bible's canon—varying books and versions among Christians—prove it's been corrupted from what Jesus (peace be upon him) taught. Catholics have 73 books, Protestants 66, and others differ still, like the Ethiopian canon with 81. If it were Allah's pure word, wouldn't it be consistent? The Qur'an warns, ‘They distort words from their places and have forgotten a portion of that of which they were reminded' (Surah Al-Ma'idah, 5:13). Jesus brought a clear message, but these shifting canons show human meddling.
In Islam, the Qur'an is one, unchanging: ‘Indeed, it is We who sent down the Reminder, and indeed, We will be its guardian' (Surah Al-Hijr, 15:9). Jesus was a prophet—‘The Messiah, son of Mary, was no more than a messenger' (Surah Al-Ma'idah, 5:75)—not God, and his truth got lost in these disputes. The Bible's fractured canon can't claim divine protection, but the Qur'an stands as Allah's final, uncorrupted word, aligning with what Jesus really preached."
This argument attempts to force the Islamic paradigm unto the Christian one, but that is fallacious. To the Christian point of view, the new testament isn't the directly transmitted word of God. It's simply a record of Jesus' ministry (among other things) written by his followers. The core of the new testament — the gospel accounts by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John — are universally accepted, and have been from the very beginning. The disagreements and differences relate to other, less relevant books, which aren't essential to the core doctrines. This argument therefore attempts to paint a distorted image regarding the differences, implying that there are widely differing versions of Christian teachings, when in reality it's more a question of cataloging.