What's new | A-Z | Discuss & Blog
Rebuttal to Anis Shorrosh's reason of why the Muslims believe the Bible is corrupt
On his website, Shorrosh has a section titled FAQ. These are questions that are frequently asked to him and so on. One of the questions reads why Muslims believe the Bible is corrupt. Shorrosh gives one of the worst answers he could possibly give.
Why do Muslims claim that the Bible is corrupted?
The Muslims believe that with the different version of the Bible (i.e, King James, New International Version, etc.) that the Bible
cannot be trusted as a legitimate source of God's word. What they fail to realize that the Old Testament is written in Hebrew and the New Testament is written in Greek, neither in English. These originals have NOT changed. They were translated into these versions to further our understanding of God's Word
If only it were that simple. No, Muslims do not simply believe the Bible is corrupt because of all the different amount of versions out there, but because mainly the Quran tells us. Also the huge amount of contradictions in the Bible also prove this, plus the Bible's own admission that it is corrupted.
What I will basically do now is show exactly why we as Muslims do believe the Bible is corrupted.
To begin with, Shorrosh seems to act like the different Bible versions we have out there are only different in translations and nothing else. Correction, the different versions of the Bible that we do have are not simply different translations and so on, but each Bible has different amount of books in them!
The Catholic Bible and the Protestant Bible are both different from one another, the Catholic Bible contains 73 books, while the Protestant Bible contains 66, so Mr. Shorrosh, is this a mere difference in translation? I think not.
Here is an overview of one catholic Bible:
* 1 Samuel
* 2 Samuel
* 1 Kings
* 2 Kings
* 1 Chronicles
* 2 Chronicles
* 1 Maccabees
* 2 Maccabees
* Song of Songs
* 1 Corinthians
* 2 Corinthians
* 1 Thessalonians
* 2 Thessalonians
* 1 Timothy
* 2 Timothy
* 1 Peter
* 2 Peter
* 1 John
* 2 John
* 3 John
As I also said, the Quran also tells us that the Bible is corrupt. Here is the information from the Quran, which commentary as well:
YUSUFALI: That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-
Here is another explicit verse speaking of Bible corruption, the Quran states that if anyone believes that Jesus died and was crucified they then follow nothing but CONJECTURE which is corruption. Which book today tells us that Jesus died and was crucified? The Bible, so hence the Quran here does call the Bible corrupt. So it can’t get anymore clear than that.
YUSUFALI: But because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard; they change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the message that was sent them, nor wilt thou cease to find them- barring a few - ever bent on (new) deceits: but forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds): for Allah loveth those who are kind.
Another verse showing Bible corruption, this is referring to the Jews. They changed the words from their right places, this could be miss-interpret miss-quote or change the words and put them in different places than they originally were. Each one is a corruption of the book. Here is what the Tafsir says about this verse:
The Jews Alter and Change the Law, Such As Stoning the Adulterer
[íõÍóÑøöÝõæäó Çáúßóáöãó ãöä ÈóÚúÏö ãóæóÖöÚöåö]
(They change the words from their places:) by altering their meanings and knowingly distorting them after they comprehended them,
[íóÞõæáõæäó Åöäú ÃõæÊöíÊõãú åóÜÐóÇ ÝóÎõÐõæåõ æóÅöä áøóãú ÊõÄúÊóæúåõ ÝóÇÍúÐóÑõæÇú]
(they say, "If you are given this, take it, but if you are not given this, then beware!") It was reported that this part of the Ayah was revealed about some Jews who committed murder and who said to each other, "Let us ask Muhammad to judge between us, and if he decides that we pay the Diyah, accept his judgement. If he decides on capital punishment, do not accept his judgement.'' The correct opinion is that this Ayah was revealed about the two Jews who committed adultery. The Jews changed the law they had in their Book from Allah on the matter of punishment for adultery, from stoning to death, to a hundred flogs and making the offenders ride a donkey facing the back of the donkey. When this incident of adultery occurred after the Hijrah, they said to each other, "Let us go to Muhammad and seek his judgement. If he gives a ruling of flogging, then implement his decision and make it a proof for you with Allah. This way, one of Allah's Prophets will have upheld this ruling amongst you. But if he decides that the punishment should be stoning to death, then do not accept his decision.'' There are several Hadiths mentioning this story. Malik reported that Nafi` said that `Abdullah bin `Umar said, "The Jews came to Allah's Messenger and mentioned that a man and a woman from them committed adultery. Allah's Messenger said to them,
«ãóÇ ÊóÌöÏõæäó Ýöí ÇáÊøóæúÑóÇÉö Ýöí ÔóÃúäö ÇáÑøóÌúãö¿»
(What do find of the ruling about stoning in the Tawrah) They said, `We only find that they should be exposed and flogged.' `Abdullah bin Salam said, `You lie. The Tawrah mentions stoning, so bring the Tawrah.' They brought the Tawrah and opened it but one of them hid the verse about stoning with his hand and recited what is before and after that verse. `Abdullah bin Salam said to him, `Remove your hand,' and he removed it, thus uncovering the verse about stoning. So they said, He (`Abdullah bin Salam) has said the truth, O Muhammad! It is the verse about stoning.' The Messenger of Allah decided that the adulterers be stoned to death and his command was carried out. I saw that man shading the woman from the stones with his body.'' Al-Bukhari and Muslim also collected this Hadith and this is the wording collected by Al-Bukhari. In another narration by Al-Bukhari, the Prophet said to the Jews,
«ãóÇ ÊóÕúäóÚõæä ÈöåöãóÇ¿»
(What would you do in this case) They said, "We would humiliate and expose them.'' The Prophet recited,
[Þõáú ÝóÃúÊõæÇú ÈöÇáÊøóæúÑóÇÉö ÝóÇÊúáõæåóÇ Åöä ßõäÊõãú]
(Bring here the Tawrah and recite it, if you are truthful.) So they brought a man who was blind in one eye and who was respected among them and said to him, "Read (from the Tawrah).'' So he read until he reached a certain verse and then covered it with his hand. He was told, "Remove your hand,'' and it was the verse about stoning. So that man said, "O Muhammad! This is the verse about stoning, and we had hid its knowledge among us.'' So the Messenger ordered that the two adulterers be stoned, and they were stoned. Muslim recorded that a Jewish man and a Jewish woman were brought before Allah's Messenger because they committed adultery. The Messenger of Allah went to the Jews and asked them,
«ãóÇ ÊóÌöÏõæäó Ýöí ÇáÊøóæúÑóÇÉö Úóáì ãóäú Òóäóì¿»
(What is the ruling that you find in the Tawrah for adultery) hThey said, "We expose them, carry them (on donkeys) backwards and parade them in public.'' The Prophet recited;
[Þõáú ÝóÃúÊõæÇú ÈöÇáÊøóæúÑóÇÉö ÝóÇÊúáõæåóÇ Åöä ßõäÊõãú]
(Bring here the Tawrah and recite it, if you are truthful.) So they brought the Tawrah and read from it until the reader reached the verse about stoning. Then he placed his hand on that verse and read what was before and after it. `Abdullah bin Salam, who was with the Messenger of Allah , said, "Order him to remove his hand,'' and he removed his hand and under it was the verse about stoning. So the Messenger of Allah commanded that the adulterers be stoned, and they were stoned. `Abdullah bin `Umar said, "I was among those who stoned them and I saw the man shading the woman from the stones with his body.'' Abu Dawud recorded that Ibn `Umar said, "Some Jews came to the Messenger of Allah and invited him to go to the Quff area. So he went to the house of Al-Midras and they said, `O Abu Al-Qasim! A man from us committed adultery with a woman, so decide on their matter.' They arranged a pillow for the Messenger of Allah and he sat on it and said,
(Bring the Tawrah to me.) He was brought the Tawrah and he removed the pillow from under him and placed the Tawrah on it, saying,
«ÂãóäúÊõ Èößö æóÈöãóäú ÃóäúÒóáóß»
(I trust you and He Who revealed it to you.) He then said,
(Bring me your most knowledgeable person.) So he was brought a young man... '' and then he mentioned the rest of the story that Malik narrated from Nafi`. These Hadiths state that the Messenger of Allah issued a decision that conforms with the ruling in the Tawrah, not to honor the Jews in what they believe in, for the Jews were commanded to follow the Law of Muhammad only. Rather, the Prophet did this because Allah commanded him to do so. He asked them about the ruling of stoning in the Tawrah to make them admit to what the Tawrah contains and what they collaborated to hide, deny and exclude from implementing for all that time. They had to admit to what they did, although they did it while having knowledge of the correct ruling. What made them go to the Prophet for judgement in this matter was their lusts and desires, hoping that the Prophet would agree with their opinion, not that they believed in the correctness of his judgment. This is why they said,
[Åöäú ÃõæÊöíÊõãú åóÜÐóÇ]
(If you are given this,) referring to flogging, then take it,
[æóÅöä áøóãú ÊõÄúÊóæúåõ ÝóÇÍúÐóÑõæÇú]
(but if you are not given this, then beware!) and do not accept or implement it. Allah said next,
[æóãóä íõÑöÏö Çááøóåõ ÝöÊúäóÊóåõ Ýóáóä Êóãúáößó áóåõ ãöäó Çááøóåö ÔóíúÆÇð ÃõæúáóÜÆößó ÇáøóÐöíäó áóãú íõÑöÏö Çááøóåõ Ãóä íõØóåøöÑó ÞõáõæÈóåõãú áóåõãú Ýöì ÇáÏøõäúíóÇ ÎöÒúìñ æóáóåõãú Ýöì ÇáÇøñÎöÑóÉö ÚóÐóÇÈñ ÚóÙöíãñÓóãøóÜÚõæäó áöáúßóÐöÈö ÃóßøóÜáõæäó áöáÓøõÍúÊö]
(And whomsoever Allah wants to put in Fitnah, you can do nothing for him against Allah. Those are the ones whose hearts Allah does not want to purify; for them there is a disgrace in this world, and in the Hereafter a great torment. They (like to) listen to falsehood, to devour Suht) `Suht' refers to bribes, as Ibn Mas`ud and others stated. The Ayah states that if one is like this, how can Allah cleanse his heart and accept his supplication Allah said to His Prophet ,
(So if they come to you...) so that you judge between them,
[ÝóÇÍúßõãú Èóíúäóåõãú Ãóæú ÃóÚúÑöÖú Úóäúåõãú æóÅöä ÊõÚúÑöÖú Úóäúåõãú Ýóáóä íóÖõÑøõæßó ÔóíúÆÇð]
(either judge between them, or turn away from them. If you turn away from them, they cannot hurt you in the least.) meaning, there is no harm if you do not judge between them. This is because when they came to you to judge between them, they did not seek to follow the truth, but only what conformed to their lusts. We should mention here that Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid, `Ikrimah, Al-Hasan, Qatadah, As-Suddi, Zayd bin Aslam, `Ata' Al-Khurasani, and several others said that this part of the Ayah was abrogated by Allah's statement,
[æóÃóäö ÇÍúßõã Èóíúäóåõãú ÈöãóÂ ÃóäÒóáó Çááøóåõ]
(And so judge among them by what Allah has revealed.)
[æóÅöäú ÍóßóãúÊó ÝóÇÍúßõã Èóíúäóåõã ÈöÇáúÞöÓúØö]
(And if you judge, judge with justice between them.) and with fairness, even if the Jews were unjust and outcasts from the path of fairness,
[Åöäøó Çááøóåó íõÍöÈøõ ÇáúãõÞúÓöØöíäó]
(Verily, Allah loves those who act justly.)
So note, the Jews hid the truth, they made up lies about the rule of stoning to the point where many other Jews had believed it to. So this just shows how they had been corrupting their book by hiding information and making things up. So who knows what else they hid, who knows what else they added, who knows what else they mis-interpreted with the Torah. This is just one case in which they were exposed and the truth was brought forth, but however so it is safe to say that there are many other lies and mis-interpretations in their book.
YUSUFALI: Of the Jews there are those who displace words from their (right) places, and say: "We hear and we disobey"; and "Hear what is not Heard"; and "Ra'ina"; with a twist of their tongues and a slander to Faith. If only they had said: "What hear and we obey"; and "Do hear"; and "Do look at us"; it would have been better for them, and more proper; but Allah hath cursed them for their Unbelief; and but few of them will believe.
How more clear can get it? They displace words from their right places. Here is the tafsir of this verse:
Allah states that the Jews, may Allah's continued curse fall on them until the Day of Resurrection, have purchased the wrong path instead of guidance, and ignored what Allah sent down to His Messenger Muhammad . They also ignored the knowledge that they inherited from previous Prophets, about the description of Muhammad , so that they may have a small amount of the delights of this life.
[æóíõÑöíÏõæäó Ãóä ÊóÖöáøõæÇú ÇáÓøóÈöíáó]
(and wishing that you should go astray from the right path.) for they would like that you disbelieve in what was sent down to you, O believers, and that you abandon the guidance and beneficial knowledge that you have.
[æóÇááøóåõ ÃóÚúáóãõ ÈöÃóÚúÏóÇÆößõãú]
(Allah has full knowledge of your enemies) meaning, Allah has better knowledge of your enemies, and He warns you against them.
[æóßóÝóì ÈöÇááøóåö æóáöíøÇð æóßóÝóì ÈöÇááøóåö äóÕöíÑÇð]
(and Allah is sufficient as a Wali (Protector), and Allah is Sufficient as a Helper) He is a Sufficient Protector for those who seek refuge with Him and a Sufficient Supporter for those who seek His help. Allah then said,
[íõÍóÑøöÝõæäó Çáúßóáöãó Úóä ãøóæóÇÖöÚöåö]
(there are some who displace words from (their) right places) meaning, they intentionally and falsely alter the meanings of the Words of Allah and explain them in a different manner than what Allah meant,
[æóíóÞõæáõæäó ÓóãöÚúäóÇ æóÚóÕóíúäóÇ]
(And say: "We hear your word and disobey) saying, "We hear what you say, O Muhammad, but we do not obey you in it,'' as Mujahid and Ibn Zayd explained. This is the implied meaning of the Ayah, and it demonstrates the Jews' disbelief, stubbornness and disregard for Allah's Book after they understood it, all the while aware of the sin and punishment that this behavior will earn for them. Allah's statement,
[æóÇÓúãóÚú ÛóíúÑó ãõÓúãóÚò]
(And "Hear and let you hear nothing.'') means, hear our words, may you never hear anything, as Ad-Dahhak reported from Ibn `Abbas. This is the Jews' way of mocking and jesting, may Allah's curse descend on them.
[æóÑóÚöäóÇ áóíøÇð ÈöÃóáúÓöäóÊöåöãú æóØóÚúäÇð Ýöì ÇáÏøöíäö]
(And Ra`ina, with a twist of their tongues and as a mockery of the religion.) meaning, they pretend to say, `Hear us,' when they say, Ra`ina (an insult in Hebrew, but in Arabic it means `Listen to us.').' Yet, their true aim is to curse the Prophet . We mentioned this subject when we explained Allah's statement,
[íóÜÃóíøõåóÇ ÇáøóÐöíäó ÁóÇãóäõæÇú áÇó ÊóÞõæáõæÇú ÑóÚöäóÇ æóÞõæáõæÇú ÇäÙõÑúäóÇ]
(O you who believe! Say not Ra`ina but say Unzurna (make us understand)). Therefore, Allah said about them, while they pretend to say other than what they truly mean,
[áóíøÇð ÈöÃóáúÓöäóÊöåöãú æóØóÚúäÇð Ýöì ÇáÏøöíäö]
(With a twist of their tongues and as a mockery of the religion) because of their cursing the Prophet . Allah then said,
[æóáóæú Ãóäøóåõãú ÞóÇáõæÇú ÓóãöÚúäóÇ æóÃóØóÚúäóÇ æóÇÓúãóÚú æóÇäúÙõÑúäóÇ áóßóÇäó ÎóíúÑÇð áøóåõãú æóÃóÞúæóãó æóáóßöä áøóÚóäóåõãõ Çááøóåõ ÈößõÝúÑöåöãú ÝóáÇó íõÄúãöäõæäó ÅöáÇøó ÞóáöíáÇð]
(And if only they had said: "We hear and obey'', and "Do make us understand,'' it would have been better for them, and more proper; but Allah has cursed them for their disbelief, so they believe not except a few.) meaning, their hearts are cast away from the path of righteousness and therefore, no beneficial part of faith enters it. Earlier, when we explained,
[ÝóÞóáöíáÇð ãøóÇ íõÄúãöäõæäó]
(so little is that which they believe) which means they do not have beneficial faith.
So as you can see, the Jews intentionally mis-interpreted what they were given and made several things up, so their book is indeed corrupt, they have added their own desires into the Torah.
YUSUFALI: There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues: (As they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it is no part of the Book; and they say, "That is from Allah," but it is not from Allah: It is they who tell a lie against Allah, and (well) they know it!
So the verse is clear, they make things up and say it is from God when it is not from God, clear corruption, here is the tafsir:
Allah states that some Jews, may Allah's curses descend on them, distort Allah's Words with their tongues, change them from their appropriate places, and alter their intended meanings. They do this to deceive the ignorant people by making it appear that their words are in the Book of Allah. They attribute their own lies to Allah, even though they know that they have lied and invented falsehood. Therefore, Allah said,
[æóíóÞõæáõæäó Úóáóì Çááøóåö ÇáúßóÐöÈó æóåõãú íóÚúáóãõæäó]
(and they speak a lie against Allah while they know it.)
Mujahid, Ash-Sha`bi, Al-Hasan, Qatadah and Ar-Rabi` bin Anas said that,
[íóáúæõæäó ÃóáúÓöäóÊóåõã ÈöÇáúßöÊóÜÈö]
(who distort the Book with their tongues,) means, "They alter them (Allah's Words).''
Al-Bukhari reported that Ibn `Abbas said that the Ayah means they alter and add although none among Allah's creation can remove the Words of Allah from His Books, they alter and distort their apparent meanings. Wahb bin Munabbih said, "The Tawrah and the Injil remain as Allah revealed them, and no letter in them was removed. However, the people misguide others by addition and false interpretation, relying on books that they wrote themselves. Then,
[æóíóÞõæáõæäó åõæó ãöäú ÚöäÏö Çááøóåö æóãóÇ åõæó ãöäú ÚöäÏö Çááøóåö]
(they say: "This is from Allah,'' but it is not from Allah;)
As for Allah's Books, they are still preserved and cannot be changed.'' Ibn Abi Hatim recorded this statement. However, if Wahb meant the books that are currently in the hands of the People of the Book, then we should state that there is no doubt that they altered, distorted, added to and deleted from them. For instance, the Arabic versions of these books contain tremendous error, many additions and deletions and enormous misinterpretation. Those who rendered these translations have incorrect comprehension in most, rather, all of these translations. If Wahb meant the Books of Allah that He has with Him, then indeed, these Books are preserved and were never changed.
Christians always love to quote a small part of this section in which it says:
Al-Bukhari reported that Ibn `Abbas said that the Ayah means they alter and add although none among Allah's creation can remove the Words of Allah from His Books
They always quote that part but never the rest, why don’t they ever quote the rest? The fact is this statement that non can change Allah's words in his books is referring to the ORIGINALS. The Originals! However so they can make copies and write books with their own hands and ADD things to it, this is not the OIRIGINAL book but their own invention with their hands. Note what the tafsir says:
However, the people misguide others by addition and false interpretation, relying on books that they wrote themselves
So they made their own books up, they copied a lot from the ORIGINAL book and with that they added their own interpretation and lies! Non can corrupt Allah's original books, they can make copies and write with their own hands, that’s how the corruption occurs. The tafsir then summarizes the Muslim position back then and now when it states:
However, if Wahb meant the books that are currently in the hands of the People of the Book, then we should state that there is no doubt that they altered, distorted, added to and deleted from them. For instance, the Arabic versions of these books contain tremendous error, many additions and deletions and enormous misinterpretation
How more obvious does it get???????? This shows that the Muslims back then did view the Bible as corrupt, and gave an example of the arabic Bible to show how corrupt it is, they were not limiting the corruption to the arabic text only, they were referring to the Bible as a whole. So this summarizes the Muslim position. The ORIGINAL BOOKS which Allah sent cannot be corrupted, THE ORIGINAL ONES in the hands of Jesus and Moses. However so people could make copies, they could copy it down and with that they could write their own lies to it which is what they did.
What makes this all the more interesting is that the Bible also calls itself corrupt:
"How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie. (From the RSV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)"
Christians have come up with all sorts of explanations to solve this mess, one common response they give is that this is referring to the rabbis own laws and traditions, ones they made up and then abandoned the Torah. This explanation does not work, because the text says THE LAW has been turned into a lie, what is the law? The Torah is called THE LAW, so hence when the law is mentioned, this is indeed talking about the Torah, and not some rabbi traditions.
So even if the Quran did not tell us the Bible is corrupt which it does, we could simply quote the Bible to show that the Bible itself calls the Bible corrupt!
Now let us turn our attention to the contradictions. These are very interesting contradictions since Christians have not and will never come up with a good explanation to these ones:
From Karims Great article:
1: In Matthew 4:5-8 the Devil took Jesus to the pinnacle and then to the mountain, while in Luke 4:5-9 he took him to the mountain and then the pinnacle.
2: In Matt. 21:12-19 Jesus cleansed the temple and later cursed the fig tree, while in Mark 11:13-15 he cursed the fig tree and later cleansed the temple.
3: In Matt. 8:28-32 Jesus caused devils to enter swine and later called Levi (Matt. 9:9), while in Luke 5:27-28 Jesus called Levi and later caused devils to enter swine (Luke 8:26-33).
4: In Mark 1:12-13 Jesus was tempted in the wilderness and later John was arrested (Mark 6:17-18), while in Luke 3:19-20 John was arrested and later Jesus was tempted in the wilderness (Luke 4:1-13).
5: In Mark 2:13-17 Matthew was called by Jesus and later the tempest was calmed (Mark 4:35-40), while in Matt. 8:18, 23-27 the tempest was calmed and later Matthew was called (Matt. 9:9-17).
6: In Matt. 8:1-4 Jesus cleansed the leper and later healed Peter's mother-in-law (Matt. 8:14-15), while in Mark 1:29-31 Jesus healed Peter's mother-in-law and later cleansed the leper (Mark 1:40-44).
7: In Matt. 8:28-32 Jesus caused devils to enter swine and later appointed the 12 apostles (Matt. 10:1-4), while in Mark 3:13-19 Jesus appointed the 12 apostles and later caused the devils to enter the swine (Mark 5:1-13).
8: In Luke 3:19-20 John the Baptist was arrested and later Jesus healed Peter's mother-in-law (Luke 4:38-39), while in Mark 1:29-31 Jesus healed Peter's mother-in-law and later John was arrested (Mark 6:17-18).
9: In Luke 3:19-20 John was arrested and later the storm was calmed (Luke 8:22-25), while in Mark 4:35-40 the storm was calmed and later John the Baptist was arrested (Mark 6:17-18).
10: In Luke 5:27-32 Levi (Matthew) was called and later the storm was calmed (Luke 8:22-25), while in Matt. 8:18-27 the storm was calmed and later Levi was called (Matt. 9:9-17).
11: In Matt. 8:14-15 Jesus cured Simon's mother-in-law and later John the Baptist was arrested (Matt. 14:3-5), while in Luke 3:19-20 John was arrested and later Jesus cured Simon's mother-in-law (Luke 4:38-39).
12: In Matthew 21:1-11 Jesus entered Jerusalem and later purified the Temple (Matthew 21:12-16), while in John 2:13-25 and 3:1-12 he purified the Temple and later entered Jerusalem (John 12:12-16).
13: In Matt. 8:28-32 Jesus caused devils to enter swine and later paid tribute to John the Baptist (Matt. 11:11-14), while in Luke 7:24-28 Jesus paid tribute to John the Baptist and later caused devils to enter swine (Luke 8:26-33).
14: In Luke 22:14-21 Jesus said after supper that the hand of his betrayer was with him on the table, while in Matt. 26:21 and Mark l4:18 Jesus made this statement during supper.
15: And lastly, in Matt. 8:23-27 Jesus calmed the storm and later appointed the 12 apostles (Matt. 10:1-4), while in Mark 3:13-19 Jesus appointed the 12 apostles and later calmed the storm (Mark 4:35-41).
The earth shook, the heavens also dropped at the presence of God: [even] Sinai itself [was moved] at the presence of God, the God of Israel. (Psalms 68:8)
The LORD reigns, he is robed in majesty; the LORD is robed in majesty
and is armed with strength. The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved. (Psalms 93:1)
Say among the nations, "The LORD reigns.” The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity. (Psalms 96:10)
Does God reject his people?
For the LORD will not reject his people; he will never forsake his inheritance. (Psalms 94:14)
And the LORD rejected all the seed of Israel, and afflicted them, and delivered them into the hand of spoilers, until he had cast them out of his sight. (2 Kings 17:20)
(6) Will the sun burn forever?!
Once for all, I have sworn by my holiness— and I will not lie to David- that his line will continue forever and his throne endure before me like the sun; (Psalms 89:37)
Scientifically, the sun will NOT last forever, it will eventually burn out.
Here are some more errors in the Bible from another great article of Abdullah Smith:
Did Herod slaughter the innocents?
Another prophecy related to the birth of Jesus is the claim that the Messiah would be born at a time when King Herod was killing children. Only the gospel of Matthew (2:16-18) makes this claim, quoting a prophecy of Jeremiah (31:15) which states that "A voice was heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children; and she refused to be comforted, because they were no more." There are two problems with this alleged messianic prophecy: it is not a prophecy about children being killed and it is quite doubtful that there ever was such a slaughter of innocents by Herod. "Rachel weeping for her children" refers to the mother of Joseph and Benjamin (and wife of Jacob) weeping about her children taken captive to Egypt. In context, the verse is about the Babylonian captivity, which its author witnessed. Subsequent verses speak of the children being returned, and thus it refers to captivity rather than murder. The slaughter by Herod is also in doubt because the writer of Matthew is the only person who has noted such an event. Flavius Josephus, who carefully chronicled Herod's abuses, makes no mention of it.
His cruelty was reflected in the biblical account of the Massacre of the Innocents. At the same time as Jesus was born, he was said to have ordered the slaughter of all children (boys) in Bethlehem under two years old. Herod was supposedly fearful of prophecies that said that a "King of the Jews" would be born in Bethlehem. This challenged his authority, and thus he ordered the crackdown to protect himself. This massacre is not mentioned in any non-biblical sources, however, and is very probably apocryphal. (http://www.answers.com/Herod)
“As we have already seen, the stories of the angels and the shepherds, in Luke, and of the wise men, in Matthew, are rewrites of Egyptian mythical themes from at least two thousand years earlier. They are portrayed in the art at Luxor. There is no historical evidence of Herod’s “slaughter of the innocents” either. Common sense tells us that such an order was impossibility in any case. Did Herod intend to kill the children of his friends, his soldiers, his civil servants, tourists passing through, and so on? You know for certain the whole matter is symbolic once you realize that an attempt to slaughter a holy child appears in all the ancient hero myths, from Moses to Horus to Sargon to Hercules. As noted earlier, the threat to the newly born Horus, the Egyptian Christ, came from Herut, the serpent. (Tom Harper, The Pagan Christ, p. 126)
Commenting in his (Harold Liedner) 1999 book The Fabrication of the Christ Myth on the well-known Gospel story of the Gadarene swine, which rushed down a steep cliff and were drowned in the Sea of Galilee, the Jewish scholar Joseph Leidner points out that because Gadera is actually several kilometers away from the sea, the whole incident is evidence of either ignorance or total lack of concern with veridical history. Citing other similar examples, he writes, “From the evidence…the blunt conclusion emerges that the Gospel writers did not know the geography and customs of the Holy Land, and did not know Judaism itself. They were working with source material having nothing to do with historical data of any kind. (ibid, p. 163)
Mark makes serious mistakes in his geographical references to Palestine. He knows the Galilean place names
and the general relative positions of the localities, but not specific details. Hence he "represents Jesus as travelling back
and forth in Galilee and adjacent territories in a puzzling fashion" (Kee, 117, pp 102 - 3). To go (as Jesus is said to in Mk. 7:31) from the territory of Tyre by way of Sidon to the Sea of Galilee "is like travelling from Cornwall to London via Manchester" (Anderson, 2, p 192). Again, Mark’s references to movements across the Sea of Galilee are impossible to trace sequentially. Mention of specific location near the sea are either unknown sites, such as Dalmanutha (8:10), or are patently inaccurate, as in the designation of the eastern shore of the lake as the country of the Gerasenes (5:1)" (Kee, loc cit). Gerasa is more than thirty miles southeast of the lake, too far away for the setting of the story which demands a city in its vicinity, with a precipitous slope down to the water. Probably all that concerned Mark, collecting and adapting pre-existing stories about Jesus, was that the lake and its surrounding territories, some Jewish and some mainly Gentile, was an ideal setting for journey's of Jesus and his disciples, showing how both Jews and Gentiles responded to him with faith. That place names in Mark caused perplexity among early readers is shown by the wide range of variants in the textual tradition where names occur in the gospel. Perplexity is also evidenced by Matthew, who changed Mark’s Gerasenes to Gadarenes (Mt. 8:28), Gadara being a well-known spa only eight miles from the lake.
(G. A. Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus (Prometheus Books, 1982), p. 230
Many other examples of improbable reconciliations could be offered. Since Matt has a Sermon on the Mount and Luke has a similar Sermon on the Plain (Matt 5:1; Luke 6:7), there must have been a plain on the side of the mountain. Since Matt has the Lord's Prayer taught in that sermon and Luke has it later on the road to Jerusalem (Matt 6:9-13; Luke 11:2-4), the disciples must have forgotten it, causing Jesus to repeat it. Mark 10:46 places the healing of the blind man after Jesus left Jericho, while Luke 18:35; 19:1 places it before Jesus entered Jericho. Perhaps Jesus was leaving the site of the OT Jericho and entering the site of the NT Jericho!
Raymond E. Brown, S.S., An Introduction To The New Testament, The Anchor Bible Reference Library (Doubleday, 1997) pp. 109-110
Some more contradictions in the Bible from another great article by Abdullah Smith!
'I am pure and without sin; I am clean and free from guilt. (Job 33:9)
Who can say, "I have kept my heart pure; I am clean and without sin"? (Proverbs 20:9)
Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding. (Proverbs 4:7)
For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow. (Ecclesiastes 1:18)
The problems do not stop there, here is some more:
the book of Matthew.
The authorship of this Gospel is traditionally ascribed to St Matthew, a tax-collector who became an apostle of Jesus. However, most modern scholars are content to let it remain anonymous.
The relation of the gospels to one another is the subject of some debate. Most modern scholars believe that Matthew borrowed from Mark and the hypothetical Q document, but some scholars believe that Matthew was written first and that Mark borrowed from Matthew (see: Augustinian hypothesis). Out of a total of 1071 verses, Matthew has 387 in common with Mark and the Gospel of Luke, 130 with Mark, 184 with Luke; only 387 being peculiar to itself.
Like the authors of the other gospels, the author of Matthew wrote this book according to his own plans and aims and from HIS OWN POINT OF VIEW, while at the same time borrowing from other sources. According to the two-source hypothesis (the most commonly accepted solution to the synoptic problem), Matthew borrowed from both Mark and a hypothetical sayings collection, known by scholars as Q (for the German Quelle, meaning "source").
There are numerous testimonies, starting from Papias and Irenaeus, that Matthew originally wrote in the Hebrew tongue, which could also refer to Aramaic. The sixteenth century Erasmus was the first to express doubts on the subject of an original Hebrew version of the Gospel of Matthew: "It does not seem probable to me that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, since no one testifies that he has seen any trace of such a volume." Here Erasmus distinguishes between a Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew and the lost apocryphal Gospel of the Hebrews and Gospel of the Nazoraeans, from which patristic writers do quote. The vast majority of contemporary scholars, based on analysis of the Greek of canonical Gospel of Matthew and use of sources such as the Greek Gospel of Mark, conclude that the book we have today was written originally in Greek and is not a translation from Hebrew or Aramaic (per Rev. Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament, p. 210). If they are correct, then writers such as Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Jerome referred to a document or documents distinct from the present Gospel of Matthew, as confirmed by the fact that Nicephorus lists the Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of the Hebrews separately in his Stichometry. All of the aforementioned texts are distinct from the Gospel of the Ebionites, Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, and Shem-Tov Matthew.
It is also the consensus position that the evangelist was not the apostle Matthew. Such an idea is based on the second century statements of Papias and Irenaeus. As quoted by Eusebius in Hist. Eccl. 3.39, Papias states: "Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could." In Adv. Haer. 3.1.1, Irenaeus says: "Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church." We know that Irenaeus had read Papias, and it is most likely that Irenaeus was guided by the statement he found there. That statement in Papias itself is considered to be unfounded because the Gospel of Matthew was written in Greek and relied largely upon Mark, not the author's first-hand experience.
Herman N. Ridderbos writes (Matthew, p. 7):
This means, however, that we can no longer accept the traditional view of Matthew's authorship. At least two things forbid us to do so. First, the tradition maintains that Matthew authored an Aramaic writing, while the standpoint I have adopted does not allow us to regard our Greek text as a translation of an Aramaic original. Second, it is extremely doubtful that an eyewitness like the apostle Matthew would have made such extensive use of material as a comparison of the two Gospels indicates. Mark, after all, did not even belong to the circle of the apostles. Indeed Matthew's Gospel surpasses those of the other synoptic writers neither in vividness of presentation nor in detail, as we would expect in an eyewitness report, yet neither Mark nor Luke had been among those who had followed Jesus from the beginning of His public ministry.
Francis Write Beare notes (The Gospel according to Matthew, p. 7):
But the dependence of the book upon documentary sources is so great as to forbid us to look upon it as the work of any immediate disciple of Jesus. Apart from that, there are clear indications that it is a product of the second or third Christian generation. The traditional name of Matthew is retained in modern discussion only for convenience.
So just note the problems the Christians faced just on dealing with what language Matthew wrote in! Hebrew-Aramaic, or Greek. Also note the other problem they face, many did not believe that Matthew even authored the entire account but some other third party did so.
II. AUTHENTICITY OF THE FIRST GOSPEL
The question of authenticity assumes an altogether special aspect in regard to the First Gospel. The early Christian writers assert that St. Matthew wrote a Gospel in Hebrew; this Hebrew Gospel has, however, entirely disappeared, and the Gospel which we have, and from which ecclesiastical writers borrow quotations as coming from the Gospel of Matthew, is in Greek.
3) Finally, were the Logia of Matthew and the Gospel to which ecclesiastical writers refer written in Hebrew or Aramaic? Both hypotheses are held. Papias says that Matthew wrote the Logia in the Hebrew (Hebraidi) language; St. Irenæus and Eusebius maintain that he wrote his gospel for the Hebrews in their national language, and the same assertion is found in several writers. Matthew would, therefore, seem to have written in modernized Hebrew, the language then used by the scribes for teaching. But, in the time of Christ, the national language of the Jews was Aramaic, and when, in the New Testament, there is mention of the Hebrew language (Hebrais dialektos), it is Aramaic that is implied. Hence, the aforesaid writers may allude to the Aramaic and not to the Hebrew. Besides, as they assert, the Apostle Matthew wrote his Gospel to help popular teaching. To be understood by his readers who spoke Aramaic, he would have had to reproduce the original catechesis in this language, and it cannot be imagined why, or for whom, he should have taken the trouble to write it in Hebrew, when it would have had to be translated thence into Aramaic for use in religious services. Moreover, Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, xxiv, 6) tells us that the Gospel of Matthew was a reproduction of his preaching, and this we know, was in Aramaic. An investigation of the Semitic idioms observed in the Gospel does not permit us to conclude as to whether the original was in Hebrew or Aramaic, as the two languages are so closely related. Besides, it must be home in mind that the greater part of these Semitisms simply reproduce colloquial Greek and are not of Hebrew or Aramaic origin. However, we believe the second hypothesis to be the more probable, viz., that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Aramaic.
Let us now recall the testimony of the other ecclesiastical writers on the Gospel of St. Matthew. St. Irenæus (Adv. Haer., III, i, 2) affirms that Matthew published among the Hebrews a Gospel which he wrote in their own language. Eusebius (Hist. eccl., V, x, 3) says that, in India, Pantænus found the Gospel according to St. Matthew written in the Hebrew language, the Apostle Bartholomew having left it there. Again, in his "Hist. eccl." (VI xxv, 3, 4), Eusebius tells us that Origen, in his first book on the Gospel of St. Matthew, states that he has learned from tradition that the First Gospel was written by Matthew, who, having composed it in Hebrew, published it for the converts from Judaism. According to Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, xxiv, 6), Matthew preached first to the Hebrews and, when obliged to go to other countries, gave them his Gospel written in his native tongue. St. Jerome has repeatedly declared that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew ("Ad Damasum", xx; "Ad Hedib.", iv), but says that it is not known with certainty who translated it into Greek. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. Epiphanius, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, etc., and all the commentators of the Middle Ages repeat that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. Erasmus was the first to express doubts on this subject: "It does not seem probable to me that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, since no one testifies that he has seen any trace of such a volume." This is not accurate, as St. Jerome uses Matthew's Hebrew text several times to solve difficulties of interpretation, which proves that he had it at hand. Pantænus also had it, as, according to St. Jerome ("De Viris Ill.", xxxvi), he brought it back to Alexandria. However, the testimony of Pantænus is only second-hand, and that of Jerome remains rather ambiguous, since in neither case is it positively known that the writer did not mistake the Gospel according to the Hebrews (written of course in Hebrew) for the Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew. However all ecclesiastical writers assert that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, and, by quoting the Greek Gospel and ascribing it to Matthew, thereby affirm it to be a translation of the Hebrew Gospel
So note the major problems the Christians face just on establishing what language Matthew wrote his Gospel in. The early Christians as we see had a different version of Matthew than we have today!
Matthew extenuates or omits everything which, in Mark, might be construed in a sense derogatory to the Person of Christ or unfavourable to the disciples. Thus, in speaking of Jesus, he suppresses the following phrases: "And looking round about on them with anger" (Mark 3:5); "And when his friends had heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him. For they said: He is beside himself" (Mark 3:21), etc. Speaking of the disciples, he does not say, like Mark, that "they understood not the word, and they were afraid to ask him" (ix, 3 1; cf. viii, 17, 18); or that the disciples were in a state of profound amazement, because "they understood not concerning the loaves; for their heart was blinded" (vi, 52), etc. He likewise omits whatever might shock his readers, as the saying of the Lord recorded by Mark: "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath" (ii, 27). Omissions or alterations of this kind are very numerous.
Who knows what else Matthew omitted and took out? If all the Gospels are God-breathed why would Matthew delete things from it? It is clear that these Gospels are not God breathed but are eye witness accounts based on what they thought. They never received any revelations as we clearly see, they wrote the Gospels to how they saw fit.
VI. DATE AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION
Ancient ecclesiastical writers are at variance as to the date of the composition of the First Gospel. Eusebius (in his Chronicle), Theophylact, and Euthymius Zigabenus are of opinion that the Gospel of Matthew was written eight years, and Nicephorus Callistus fifteen years, after Christ's Ascension--i. e. about A.D. 38-45. According to Eusebius, Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew when he left Palestine. Now, following a certain tradition (admittedly not too reliable), the Apostles separated twelve years after the Ascension, hence the Gospel would have been written about the year 40-42, but following Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, v, 2), it is possible to fix the definitive departure of the Apostles about the year 60, in which event the writing of the Gospel would have taken place about the year 60-68. St Irenæus is somewhat more exact concerning the date of the First Gospel, as he says: "Matthew produced his Gospel when Peter and Paul were evangelizing and founding the Church of Rome, consequently about the years 64-67." However, this text presents difficulties of interpretation which render its meaning uncertain and prevent us from deducing any positive conclusion.
In our day opinion is rather divided. Catholic critics, in general, favour the years 40-45, although some (e.g. Patrizi) go back to 36-39 or (e.g. Aberle) to 37. Belser assigns 41-42; Conély, 40-50; Schafer, 50-51; Hug, Reuschl, Schanz, and Rose, 60-67. This last opinion is founded on the combined testimonies of St. Irenæus and Eusebius, and on the remark inserted parenthetically in the discourse of Jesus in chapter xxiv, 15: "When therefore you shall see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place": here the author interrupts the sentence and invites the reader to take heed of what follows, viz.: "Then they that are in Judea, let them flee to the mountains." As there would have been no occasion for a like warning had the destruction of Jerusalem already taken place, Matthew must have written his Gospel before the year 70 (about 65-70 according to Batiffol). Protestant and Liberalistic critics also are greatly at variance as regards the time of the composition of the First Gospel. Zahn sets the date about 61-66, and Godet about 60-66; Keim, Meyer, Holtzmann (in his earlier writings), Beyschlag, and Maclean, before 70, Bartiet about 68-69; W. Allen and Plummer, about 65-75; Hilgenfeld and Holtzmann (in his later writings), soon after 70; B. Weiss and Harnack, about 70-75; Renan, later than 85, Réville, between 69 and 96, Jülicher, in 81-96, Montefiore, about 90-100, Volkmar, in 110; Baur, about 130-34.
So note Christians can’t even get the time and date composition of Matthew! What makes this even funnier is that Christians always ask us Muslims when did the Bible get corrupted? Well I ask you the Christian, when did the book of Matthew get compiled and composed? We have no such problems with the Quran, we know when and where it was composed, and how it was done as well.
It is easy to see how Matthew, with his disposition to organize and assemble his material, should have omitted this, for it would hardly fit in with his teaching against public giving. We may say there is really no fundamental conflict between them, and yet we would hot want to record them together, no matter how much we prize them both. In fact, there is hardly a detail given by Mark which Matthew has omitted which we cannot understand his omitting. The demonic recognitions of Jesus, the difficulty Jesus sometimes seems to have in effecting a cure. Mark 8:23-25, his apparent use of means in healing. Mark 7:33; 8:23—these may have deterred Matthew from using some accounts when he had what he may well have considered better ones with which to fill his gospel.
This Marcan material, which can be seen displayed in any Greek or English harmony of the gospels,  Matthew somewhat rearranged, yet in using it he followed the order of Mark's phrases to an extraordinary degree. We can form a very fair idea of the way in which Matthew used his sources by the way he used Mark, and while he rearranged blocks and items of material with some freedom, in detail he was singularly
So Matthew took out what he didn’t like, put in what he did like and re-arranged things. How convenient.
To most moderns it seems an act of sheer plagiarism to use another man's book so freely and say nothing about it. But we must always remember that both Matthew and Mark were anonymous; neither writer gave his name to his gospel or claimed it as his own;
So note the Christian does show that what Matthew did is plagiarism, but he tries to clear this up by saying the writers were anonymous and didn’t giver their names or claimed the Gospel to be of his own, if so, then how do you know Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark? Ah yes, you ASSUME.
The question arises: What other sources had Matthew for the writing of his gospel? It is plain that one, at least, of these other sources was used by Luke also, since many things absent from Mark are present in both Luke and Matthew and in the same form of words. Luke is especially instructive here, for his method, unlike Matthew's, was to use his sources en bloc, not minutely interwoven. So it comes about that there are in Luke considerable areas where Mark has not been used at all; we may call them Mark-free areas. Since these alternate with solid extracts from Mark, which were evidently taken directly from that gospel with slight verbal changes, it seems very probable
that the non-Marcan passages were likewise taken from other written sources, which Matthew also used in his own peculiar way.
The longest of these Mark-free areas in Luke is 9:51-18:14. Then, after an excerpt from Mark, 19:1-28 is again Mark-free. These may be called the Perean Section,  since their scene is laid in Perea. They probably formed a separate document or documents; certainly they were used by Matthew.
Another of these Mark-free areas in Luke is 6:20-8:3, which may be called the Galilean Section, as its action takes place in Galilee. But with it we may naturally group scattered passages such as 3:7-18;
4:2-13, wanting in Mark and yet used also by Matthew. Whether these two sections, the Galilean and the Perean, were separate or are to be thought of as one (the so-called "Q" or "Quelle") has been much discussed; they are different in certain definite respects, and Luke in his preface, 1:1-4, leads us to expect him to show the use of a number of sources: "Many writers have undertaken to compose accounts, . ..." It is clear that Luke and Matthew used the material of these sections, in addition to Mark. There is no substantial reason for supposing that they were combined into one document, and Luke's statement, 1:1, is definitely against it. They had reached written form probably somewhere in the Greek world.
Papias of Hierapolis, in one of the fragments from
 Cf. D. R. Wickes, The Sources of Luke's Perean Section (Chicago, 1912), and E. W. Parsons, A Historical Examination of Some Non-Marcan Elements in Luke (Chicago, 1914).
So note, all the Gospel writers are just borrowing from other sources and just mixing it around to make their own Gospel.
Yet Matthew probably had other sources, chiefly traditions of sayings of Jesus, current in more or less developed forms in Christian preaching, which he wrought into fuller and more finished forms, e.g., in the finely rounded parables of chapter 25. These may have been combined into a document or they may have existed separately. They had been reduced to writing somewhere in Greek Christian circles, probably about Antioch. They would be of that "formless," that is, unorganized, type of sayings collection natural enough in the oral stage in Jewish Christian groups, since it was in this way that the Jews were wont to gather and transmit (of course orally) the sayings of the rabbis.
Some problems with the Gospel of John:
The fifth chapter tells of the cure of the paralytic at the pool of Bethsaida in Jerusalem. According to the Vulgate the text of the second part of verse three and verse four runs as follows: " . . . waiting for the moving of the water. And an angel of the Lord descended at certain times into the pond, and the water was moved. And he that went down first into the pond after the motion of the water, was made whole, of whatsoever infirmity he lay under." But these words are wanting in the three oldest manuscripts, the Codex Vaticanus (B), Codex Sinaiticus (aleph), and Codex Bez (D), in the original text of the palimpsest of St. Ephraem (C), in the Syrian translation of Cureton, as well as in the Coptic and Sahidic translations, in some minuscules, in three manuscripts of the Itala, in four of the Vulgate, and in some Armenian manuscripts. Other copies append to the words a critical sign which indicates a doubt as to their authenticity. The passage is therefore regarded by the majority of modern critics, including the Catholic exegetes, Schegg, Schanz, Belser, etc., as a later addition by Papias or some other disciple of the Apostle.
This passage contains the story of the adulteress. The external critical evidence seems in this ease to give still clearer decision against the authenticity of this passage. It is wanting in the four earliest manuscripts (B, A, C, and aleph) and many others, while in many copies it is admitted only with the critical mark, indicative of doubtful authenticity. Nor is it found in the Syrian translation of Cureton, in the Sinaiticus, the Gothic translation, in most codices of the Peshito, or of the Coptic and Armenian translations, or finally in the oldest manuscripts of the Itala. None of the Greek Fathers have treated the incident in their commentaries, and, among Latin writers, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Hilary appear to have no knowledge of this pericope.
So now we have verses in the Gospel of John on which there is doubt, and are not authentic and not written by John. This itself is enough to throw this book away.
Another problem is the ending of Mark:
There was some dispute among textual critics in the 19th century as to whether 16:9-20, describing some disciples' encounters with the resurrected Jesus, were actually part of the original Gospel, or if they were added later. The oldest extant manuscripts do not contain these verses and the style differs from the rest of Mark, suggesting that they were a later addition. A few manuscripts even include a different ending after verse 8. By the 5th century, at least 4 different endings have been attested. (See Mark 16 for a more comprehensive treatment of this topic.)
Mark 16 is the final chapter of the Gospel of Mark. There is much debate about the ending of Mark, and many textual problems—there are nine different endings known—but most of the debate focuses around the so-called ‘longer’ ending (16:9-20).
* The original ending of Mark was lost, and somebody else at a very early date completed the gospel. C. H. Turner has suggested that the original version of the gospel may have been a codex and the last pages may have been lost. However, it seems unlikely that Christian use of the codex form stretched as far back as the proposed date for the writing of Mark, though there is evidence for its adoption in the second century;
* The author(s) of Mark intentionally ended the gospel at 16:8, and someone else at an early date completed the gospel;
* More than one edition of Mark’s Gospel was made, so some Christian communities would have possessed the longer ending edition, and others would have possessed the edition that stopped at 16:8. ( SAM- MEANING PEOPLE HAD DIFFERENT BIBLES)
* The original ending was inconvenient to the church, and it was replaced.
Verses 16:8-9 read as follows in the New Revised Standard Version:
(16:8) So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid. (16:9) Now after he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from who he had cast out seven demons.
Note the way the narrative flow abruptly changes from "they were afraid" to "now after he rose". Also, Mary Magdalene, introduced at the beginning of the chapter (16:1), is re-introduced almost as though she had not already been mentioned.
The final sentence in v.8 is also regarded as strange by many scholars, because in the Greek text it finishes with the conjunction ?a? (gar, 'for'). It is contended by those who see 16:9-20 as originally Markan that ?a? literally means “because”, and this ending to v.8 is therefore not grammatically coherent (literally, it would read “they were afraid because”). However, this objection misunderstands the nature of the Greek language. Since Greek is an inflexive language as opposed to a syntactic language such as English, word order is not as important. (Compare Grammar in Greek language and Grammar in English language.) ?a? is never the first word of a sentence: there is no such rule that states it can never be the last word, though it is very rare for a book to end with ?a?.
Still, ?a? aside, the grammar of v.8 is still odd, as the verb f?ße?µa? (phobeomai, 'I fear') has no object. Gundry also mentions that only 10% of Mark’s ?a? clauses—6 out of 66—conclude pericopes (Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross, Chapters 9-16). As such, this statistic favours the view that, rather than concluding 16:1-8, v.8 begins a new pericope, the rest of which is now lost to us. Gundry therefore does not see v.8 as the intended ending; a resurrection narrative was either written, then lost, or planned but never actually written. Either way, the originality of vv.9-20 is denied by Gundry—and, indeed, the overwhelming majority of textual critics.
Mark 16:9-20 is in most of the undamaged Greek copies of the Gospel of Mark. A copy of a manuscript, however, is only as good as the text being copied, so all of the texts with 16:9-20 may simply be copies of the same non-Markan addition. The verses are absent in the oldest manuscripts of Mark, including the vitally important Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, which both conclude the gospel at 16:8.
However, Mark 16:9-20 is absent in other early church fathers (e.g. Clement of Alexandria, Origen). At any rate, all that can be concluded from this use of the longer ending is that, rightly or wrongly, Mark 16:9-20 had become part of Church tradition and scripture much like other apocryphal writings such as The Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache, neither of which are now considered canonical.
Some textual problems, however, still remain, e.g. whether Gerasenon or Gergesenon is to be read in v, 1, eporei or epoiei in vi, 20, and whether the difficult autou, attested by B, Aleph, A, L, or autes is to be read in vi, 20
the great textual problem of the Gospel concerns the genuineness of the last twelve verses. Three conclusions of the Gospel are known: the long conclusion, as in our Bibles, containing verses 9-20, the short one ending with verse 8 (ephoboumto gar), and an intermediate form which (with some slight variations) runs as follows: "And they immediately made known all that had been commanded to those about Peter. And after this, Jesus Himself appeared to them, and through them sent forth from East to West the holy and incorruptible proclamation of the eternal salvation." Now this third form may be dismissed at once. Four unical manuscripts, dating from the seventh to the ninth century, give it, indeed, after xvi, 9, but each of them also makes reference to the longer ending as an alternative (for particulars cf. Swete, op. cit., pp. cv-cvii). It stands also in the margin of the cursive Manuscript 274, in the margin of the Harclean Syriac and of two manuscripts of the Memphitic version; and in a few manuscripts of the Ethiopic it stands between verse 8 and the ordinary conclusion. Only one authority, the Old Latin k, gives it alone (in a very corrupt rendering), without any reference to the longer form. Such evidence, especially when compared with that for the other two endings, can have no weight, and in fact, no scholar regards this intermediate conclusion as having any titles to acceptance.
We may pass on, then, to consider how the case stands between the long conclusion and the short, i.e. between accepting xvi, 9-20, as a genuine portion of the original Gospel, or making the original end with xvi, 8. In favour of the short ending Eusebius ("Quaest. ad Marin.") is appealed to as saying that an apologist might get rid of any difficulty arising from a comparison of Matt. xxviii, 1, with Mark, xvi, 9, in regard to the hour of Christ's Resurrection, by pointing out that the passage in Mark beginning with verse 9 is not contained in all the manuscripts of the Gospel. The historian then goes on himself to say that in nearly all the manuscripts of Mark, at least, in the accurate ones (schedon en apasi tois antigraphois . . . ta goun akribe, the Gospel ends with xvi, 8. It is true, Eusebius gives a second reply which the apologist might make, and which supposes the genuineness of the disputed passage, and he says that this latter reply might be made by one "who did not dare to set aside anything whatever that was found in any way in the Gospel writing". But the whole passage shows clearly enough that Eusebius was inclined to reject everything after xvi, 8. It is commonly held, too, that he did not apply his canons to the disputed verses, thereby showing clearly that he did not regard them as a portion of the original text (see, however, Scriv., "Introd.", II, 1894, 339). St. Jerome also says in one place ("Ad. Hedib.") that the passage was wanting in nearly all Greek manuscripts (omnibus Græciæ libris poene hoc capitulum in fine non habentibus), but he quotes it elsewhere ("Comment. on Matt."; "Ad Hedib."), and, as we know, he incorporated it in the Vulgate. It is quite clear that the whole passage, where Jerome makes the statement about the disputed verses being absent from Greek manuscripts, is borrowed almost verbatim from Eusebius, and it may be doubted whether his statement really adds any independent weight to the statement of Eusebius. It seems most likely also that Victor of Antioch, the first commentator of the Second Gospel, regarded xvi, 8, as the conclusion. If we add to this that the Gospel ends with xvi, 8, in the two oldest Greek manuscripts, B and Aleph, in the Sin. Syriac and in a few Ethiopic manuscripts, and that the cursive Manuscript 22 and some Armenian manuscripts indicate doubt as to whether the true ending is at verse 8 or verse 20,
The author of the Gospel of Mark does indeed seem to lack first-hand knowledge of the geography of Palestine. Randel Helms writes concerning Mark 11:1 (Who Wrote the Gospels?, p. 6): "Anyone approaching Jerusalem from Jericho would come first to Bethany and then Bethphage, not the reverse. This is one of several passages showing that Mark knew little about Palestine; we must assume, Dennis Nineham argues, that 'Mark did not know the relative positions of these two villages on the Jericho road' (1963, 294-295). Indeed, Mark knew so little about the area that he described Jesus going from Tyrian territory 'by way of Sidon to the Sea of Galilee through the territory of the Ten Towns' (Mark 7:31); this is similar to saying that one goes from London to Paris by way of Edinburgh and Rome. The simplist solution, says Nineham, is that 'the evangelist was not directly acquainted with Palestine' (40)."
Other hands have attached additional endings after Mark 16:8; see the note on Mark 16:9-20.
All this information is enough to cast doubt upon the entire book of Mark. We don’t know for sure on who wrote Mark, we don’t where it was exactly written, we don’t know exactly when it was written. Finally the fact that there is such a controversy on the ending of Mark throws the whole book into question just on this fact alone. The fact that additions have been made in the last chapter leaves us wondering what else has been added in Mark.
Now there is some other things that do call into question the Bible’s author, such as several disturbing stories found in the OT, such as the law of the rapist marrying the victim if she is a virgin, and murdering women and children etc. This is quite contrary to the Islamic teaching on warfare and justice, let me first quote the relevant passages from the noble Quran, and then quote some hadiths of the prophet:
Also from the hadiths, the prophet said:
Volume 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 257.
Narrated By 'Abdullah : During some of the Ghazawat of the Prophet a woman was found killed. Allah's Apostle disapproved the killing of women and children.
Volume 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 258.
Narrated By Ibn 'Umar : During some of the Ghazawat of Allah's Apostle a woman was found killed, so Allah's Apostle forbade the killing of women and children.
Chapter 2: APPOINTMENT OF THE LEADERS OF EXPEDITIONS BY THE IMAM AND HIS ADVICE TO THEM ON ETIQUETTES OF WAR AND RELATED MATTERS
Book 019, Number 4294:
It has been reported from Sulaiman b. Buraid through his father that when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him to fear Allah and to be good to the Muslims who were with him. He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war, do not embezzle the spoils; do not break your pledge; and do not mutilate (the dead) bodies; do not kill the children. When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of Muhairs and inform them that, if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the Muhajirs. If they refuse to migrate, tell them that they will have the status of Bedouin Muilims and will be subjected to the Commands of Allah like other Muslims, but they will not get any share from the spoils of war or Fai' except when they actually fight with the Muslims (against the disbelievers). If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them. When you lay siege to a fort and the besieged appeal to you for protection in the name of Allah and His Prophet, do not accord to them the guarantee of Allah and His Prophet, but accord to them your own guarantee and the guarantee of your companions for it is a lesser sin that the security given by you or your companions be disregarded than that the security granted in the name of Allah and His Prophet be violated When you besiege a fort and the besieged want you to let them out in accordance with Allah's Command, do not let them come out in accordance with His Command, but do so at your (own) command, for you do not know whether or not you will be able to carry out Allah's behest with regard to them
Let us now turn our attention to the Bible, which completely contradicts these teachings from Islam which does make us wonder. From the Bible:
And the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have begun to give Sihon and his land before thee: begin to possess, that thou mayest inherit his land. 32 Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to fight at Jahaz. 33 And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. 34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain. 36 From Aroer, which is by the brink of the river of Arnon, and from the city that is by the river, even unto Gilead, there was not one city too strong for us: the LORD our God delivered all unto us
1 Then we turned, and went up the way to Bashan: and Og the king of Bashan came out against us, he and all his people, to battle at Edrei. 2 And the LORD said unto me, Fear him not: for I will deliver him, and all his people, and his land, into thy hand; and thou shalt do unto him as thou didst unto Sihon king of the Amorites, which dwelt at Heshbon. 3 So the LORD our God delivered into our hands Og also, the king of Bashan, and all his people: and we smote him until none was left to him remaining. 4 And we took all his cities at that time, there was not a city which we took not from them, threescore cities, all the region of Argob, the kingdom of Og in Bashan. 5 All these cities were fenced with high walls, gates, and bars; beside unwalled towns a great many. 6 And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city. 7 But all the cattle, and the spoil of the cities, we took for a prey to ourselves
1 When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee, the Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and mightier than thou; 2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them: 3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. 4 For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly. 5 But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire. 6 For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth
17 And the city shall be accursed, even it, and all that are therein, to the LORD: only Rahab the harlot shall live, she and all that are with her in the house, because she hid the messengers that we sent. 18 And ye, in any wise keep yourselves from the accursed thing, lest ye make yourselves accursed, when ye take of the accursed thing, and make the camp of Israel a curse, and trouble it. 19 But all the silver, and gold, and vessels of brass and iron, are consecrated unto the LORD: they shall come into the treasury of the LORD. 20 So the people shouted when the priests blew with the trumpets: and it came to pass, when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, and the people shouted with a great shout, that the wall fell down flat, so that the people went up into the city, every man straight before him, and they took the city. 21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword. 22 But Joshua had said unto the two men that had spied out the country, Go into the harlot's house, and bring out thence the woman, and all that she hath, as ye sware unto her. 23 And the young men that were spies went in, and brought out Rahab, and her father, and her mother, and her brethren, and all that she had; and they brought out all her kindred, and left them without the camp of Israel. 24 And they burnt the city with fire, and all that was therein: only the silver, and the gold, and the vessels of brass and of iron, they put into the treasury of the house of the LORD. 25 And Joshua saved Rahab the harlot alive, and her father's household, and all that she had; and she dwelleth in Israel even unto this day; because she hid the messengers, which Joshua sent to spy out Jericho. 26 And Joshua adjured them at that time, saying, Cursed be the man before the LORD, that riseth up and buildeth this city Jericho: he shall lay the foundation thereof in his firstborn, and in his youngest son shall he set up the gates of it. 27 So the LORD was with Joshua; and his fame was noised throughout all the country.
And the LORD
said unto Joshua, Fear not, neither be thou dismayed: take all
the people of war with thee, and arise, go up to Ai: see, I have
given into thy hand the king of Ai, and his people, and his
city, and his land:
shalt do to Ai and her king as thou
didst unto Jericho and her king: only the spoil thereof, and the
cattle thereof, shall ye take for a prey unto yourselves: lay
thee an ambush for the city behind it.
"Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told."So note how contradictory these teachings are compared to the Quran, Allah tells us to not transgress the limits, and the prophet Muhammad also told us do not kill the women and children, and we are commanded to follow the prophets orders on the order of Allah. So this also makes us the Muslims doubt the Bible even more, to find such brutal massacres and injustice being done. Allah told us to stand out for justice:
Yet where is the justice in this:Ezekiel 9:5-7
"Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told."
Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children.
The wives shall be raped!So these type of stories do cast doubt on the Bible from a Muslim perspective since they completely contradict the message of the Quran. I could give many more reasons to why we Muslims believe the Bible is corrupt, but I think that shall do, and that shall defenitly refute the claim of Shorrosh that Muslims believe the Bible is corrupt just because of so many different Bible translated version.