Board index ‹ Islam

[1 Corinthians]

How do I refute the claim by Muslims that the Bible has been corrupted?

Hi there, I've heard the claim by several Muslims that the Bible has been corrupted, for example: 2 Chronicles 22:2 Ahaziah is 42 when he began to reign and reigned one year, but the parallel account in 2 Kings 8:26 he's 22 when he began to reign and reigned one year. (They often use the New King James version by Gideons, the NIV doesn't have this discrepancy however). How does one counter the numerical discrepancies they cite?

Also, I found one of my own in the Gospels, when you compare Matthew and Luke's accounts about Jairus approaching Jesus, Matthew clearly stated it was while Jesus was addressing the question about fasting at Levi's feast, yet Luke, who wrote an orderly account under inspiration, places this very same event much later and in a different setting. Can someone help me to understand why the discrepancy? (I just want to clarify that I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, I'm just confused by these things...)

[jimwalton]

Abdul Saleeb, in "Islam's Theological Challenges," writes of the problem of Muslims claiming the Bible has been corrupted:

1. The Qur’an refers to the Bible as “The Book of God,” “The Word of God,” “A light and guidance to man” (Sura 2.41, 89, 101), confirming its divine origins.
2. The Qur’an confirms previous Scriptures (Sura 2.41, 89, 101).
3. Muslims are commanded to believe in the previous Scriptures (Sura 2.136).
4. Muhammad is encouraged to test the genuineness of his own message with the contents of the Jewish and Christian Scriptures (Sura 10.94).
5. Christians and Jews are commanded to stand firm on the Law and the Gospels (Sura 5.71; cf. 5.50).
6. Very few changes to the Scriptures, if any, happened after AD 600.

> How does one counter the numerical discrepancies they cite?

Numerical discrepancies are often scribal errors that with only a little effort can be figured out.

> Matthew and Luke's accounts about Jairus

We know from the writings of Plutarch, who wrote over 60 biographies in the same era that the Gospels were written, that in those days it was not only acceptable but expected that certain practices were part of the work:

1. Transferal (attributing words spoken by one person to another)
2. Displacement (placing something spoken in one context to another context)
3. Conflation (combining elements of two different events or people as one)
4. Compression (describing events as taking place in a shorter period of time than actual)
5. Simplification (omitting details in order to focus attention)
6. Expansion of narrative details (creative reconstruction and free composition of plausible circumstances)
7. Paraphrasing (creative retelling to emphasize a point)
8. The law of biographical relevance (the addition or omission of biographical information according to the purpose of the author)

As Mike Licona writes, "The Gospels writers also follow these practices and use these literary devices. It would be absurd to suppose that the NT Gospel writers could have learned to write Greek and cope with written source material while remaining outside the pervasive influence of their culture. The differences between the Gospels can quite easily and rightly be appreciated and/or resolved in light of the literary conventions of ancient biography and historiography."

Craig Keener, in "Christobiography," writes: "Studies of contemporary ancient biographies show that ancient biographers displayed different levels of flexibility in appropriating their sources. Nevertheless, such levels of deviations were common textual phenomena in ancient biographies. The parallels and variations that we find in the Synoptic Gospels would have been analogous to other similar literary works of the time. Just like Tacitus and Suetonius would not have invented their reported rumors about Caligula, Nero, and Domitian, the Gospel writers also would not have invented new stories (i.e., events not in their sources) about Jesus. Therefore, such differences as chronological displacement, conflation of material, and simplifying of narratives in the Gospel accounts would have been typical of the biographical genre and expected by ancient audiences."

[1 Corinthians]

Brilliant! I guess my issue is/was that being the inspired word of God I expected it not to be influenced by such things, but that the gospel accounts - while not necessarily identical - would not be influenced by such practices but rather by God's holy spirit, and when someone says something occured at such and such a time and place it actually happened at that said time and place. Thanks for your answer, I'll dig into it!

[jimwalton]

> If God is all-powerful and all-knowing, isn't He responsible for everything that happens including all sin?

No. God is described and defined as all-powerful, but the Bible is quite clear on at least two relevant points: (1) God can choose when to use His power and when not. He can use it in degrees, completely, or not at all. The fact that He is all power does NOT show that He is responsible for everything that happens. (2) Many things happen that are not God's doing. There are other spiritual forces at work, humans make decisions and do things, and often God lets nature take its course as He designed it to do. He is not responsible for everything that happens.

> But doesn't God decide what the rules are for free will?

Of course not. Free will has two necessary components: will and freedom. The freedom to make choices belongs to the choosing agent and not anyone else.

> Why couldn't he make it so that we have free will but don't sin?

This idea is self-contradictory and self-defeating. If you're not free to sin, you're not free but rather constrained and contained. It's like saying, "You can have any flavor ice cream you want as long as it's vanilla."

> isn't that what we have in Heaven? Free will without sin?

We will still have free will in Heaven, but we will have completely (by our own free choice) submitted our wills wholly unto God, and therefore we will have free will without sin. That's not something that can happen here on Earth because we have a sin nature.

> I know God can't be responsible for all sin

Correct, He can't be. The fact that He is all-powerful doesn't mean everything that happens is His doing, and the fact that He is omniscient (all-knowing) has no bearing on the issue either. Knowledge is never causative; only power is causative. What I know doesn't make anything happen unless I use power to make it happen. Because I know you are reading this sentence doesn't mean I made you do it. Knowledge doesn't make anybody do anything, except me when I choose to do something. But then it's the doing, not the knowing, that is causative.