I know that Islam teaches that the bible and torah are also books of God?

Question

but it is said that anything in those books that conflicts with what is in the quran that they have been changed. My question is how many of you have ever read any of the other books of God other than the quran? Are you knowledgeable about what each book contains because you've read them or only because you've read what Islam says about them?

Additional Details

I simply asked if you've read them. I didn't ask whether you believed them. Currently I happen to believe the bible is the truth and the quran is false, but I don't jump at every opportunity to put it down like some of you tend to do with any prophetic book other than the quran. Do you realize that when you make insulting statements about other religious books you are in fact stating that God's word is false.

Saaimah: Have you taken your meds today sweetie? I have no idea what you are talking about. I said nothing disparaging about the quran. I also never said I wanted to be a Muslim. I have always stated that I am trying to learn as much about it because it is my husband's religion. I love and respect him enough to do this even though my personal opinion is that it is false.

Biblethumper: Very well said and I do agree with you on the authenticity of the bible. I didn't know you were an ex muslim.

Answer 1

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker

I've read them before I was a Muslim and still look at them from time to time. I even took a class in college that dealt with the bible and it changed my ideas a lot.


I missed your last question about those who put down those books.

edit: To be more specific we believe that God gave the laws to Moses, he gave the Injeel to Jesus, and he gave the Psalms to David peace be upon them all. The Psalms and some of the commandments are probably the closest thing to the originals. The New Testament is not even a book given to Jesus, it's just an account of his sayings. I've read some Muslims believe that perhaps the Beatitudes are part of what Jesus was given.

Asker's Rating:

Asker's Comment:

Thanks for clearing that up for me, and thanks very, very much for being respectful.

Answer 2

Islam says that Quran, Zaboor, Toraat, Injeel (Bible) are all words of God....thats all it says..
But over a period of time on course of History, humans have changed and Edited them... Dr. Zakir Naik, a very popular Islamic Scholar, gave a speech pointing all the falacies and Errors(mathematical and scientific) in the Bible.
I know u are a Christian but if you listen to him you may get it... He had that debate with Dr. William Campbell, a Christian Scholar.
I will search if I can get that on the Net I will post it here


You may like to see this:
http://www.irf.net/quran_bible_in_the_li…



TW K

Answer 3

Ive read the bible and some of it is extremely slanderous, such as saying that Lot(who was a prophet of Allah) had sex with his own daughters, or that David Killed a man and slept with his wife and produced solomon who was an apostate.

yes it is easy to tell that the bible and Torah have been infused with men's opinions and words

edit:my purpose was not to slander, but to point out the truth, and the above things i said about david, lot and solomon are all present in the bible

Answer 4

I used to be Christian so yes I have read the bible but it always confused me so I didn't read it a lot, the Torah is some parts of the old testament. I only read because I want to learn the differences between all the books.

Answer 5

quran, "new testament," Book of Mor(m)on" are all revisions/corruptions/perversions of torah. ALL OF THE ABOVE ARE MYTH - yes, i've read them all - written to explain the (then) unexplainable for people who were scared the sun wouldn't rise the next day (they also thought the sun revolved around the Earth) They are ALL B.S. hon; written for scared children & to keep adults in-line. Don't waste your time thinking about it. Religion is the root (or tool) of most conflict & evil. Man created god- NOT the other way around ! Think about it: if there were no people, where then would be the concept of god ?

Source(s):

40 yrs. of study

Answer 6

you better read the qur'an

Answer 7

Its not only what Islam says about them. but it conflicts it self and with science and logic and archealogical evidences.

And it is proved in public debates not from Qur'an but from Bible itself and they are helpless
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fw3do0TLv…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qIdg51wo…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fw3do0TLv…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-j_WRUDa…

So there is no need of wasting time in reading the book

peace

Answer 8

It only says that they have been changed and edited. They r not in the original form. The Quran is the same throughout. It is impossible for it to be changed because no one can produce anything like it. It is beautiful even in English. But in its original Arabic text, it is more beautiful because not every word from Arabic can be translated into English. There is only one Quran. There is no Old Testament or New Testament or whateva. Its just the Holy Quran.

Answer 9

I've read the torah =)
there's a lot of stuff about building things, and laws laid out about food, and history of the jews, etc etc...ive always looked at it as a history book =D cuz it lays out lineage and stuff like that "noah was the son of....and he had these children...and they died at this age..."
but i cant ever read thru it without having the commentary that most of them come with..without it its frustrating cuz nothing makes sense =)
im sorry to disagree with you, but if we say we dont believe the other books (or sum ppl insult them) we are not insulting God's word - it's believed that certain parts have been tampered with by man. There's a difference. Simple example: In the torah, Abraham almost sacrifices his son Isaac...in the quran, its Ishmael. We believe the quran, so we believe that part of the torah is tampered with. The rest that is God's word is not being insulted. And if Muslims say hateful things about christians and jews and their holy books, instead of just accepting our beliefs are different or trying to explain kindly, may God forgive them.

Answer 10

Islam teaches that the bible and torah, within limits, are books of god. All, however, contain errors, hence all are false.

Answer 11

yes i've read the bible many times as i was raised in a strong christian family. my great-uncle was the pastor/minister. that's exactly why i became muslim 7yrs ago. when i was 30. we as christians don't follow the bible as it says,especially when it comes to the 10 commandments. the first one clearly states have no Gods before nor after me. and what did we do. worship jesus(as) mary(ra), and saints. there's one that says make no graven images. jesus(as) hanging from a cross and many staues of mary(ra) and various saints. i could go on but you get my point. we as muslims who've studied all of the books do not follow these practices. in the beginning we all were one it's just that each book was given to a specific messeger for a specific time. what made me take shahadah was when i read the chapter of lot(as) when the bible states that he slept w/his daughters. now why would God have one of his prophets commit incest. i'm intelligent enough to know what's real and what isn't so i made the right choice to become muslim. my immediate family supports my decision and respects me for it and have even said how islaam has made me a better person.

as for my brothers and sisters in islaam make sure we show the proper respect when answering a question. everyone has a right to their opinions. even if we disagree. always remember that it's Allah(God) who makes muslims. HE guides whom HE chooses. it is not for us to judge others. no matter what religion you are you will always think yours is the correct one and you will never change anyones mind if you respond w/ ignorance. not all muslims were born muslim. and part of our religion is to study all of the books we,just believe the qu'ran is the purist one as you believe the bible is, so there's no need for any nastiness on your part.

as for the one asking the question i think people were mad at some of your comments. again it's a/b respect on both parts.

Source(s):

me. i was raised christian

Answer 12

The Quran does not say that the BIBLE is the word of Allah(swt). The Bible is man made and has over 400 authors and took over 1000 years to complete and is ever changing. The Torah and the Gospel were given before the Quran and the Quran is said to confirm the original message of both of these. The Quran is not a new Message it is a reminder of the original message, which is there is no god but Allah(swt) and only one true religion.

There is historical proof that the Church has changed the bible to meet their needs. So, it is not even in the original text. To say someone who criticize the Bible is insulting it is insane. The Quran is historically proved to not have changed.

BTW I have read these books and even have taken bible study classes.

Answer 13

I am having my degree in bible studies!

Answer 14

Christians admitted themselves that Bible has been edited and gone through several changes. but everyone Admits at the same time that Quran is unchanged. It has been carried forward the way it was, generations to generations.
Bible, The true Bible was from Allah but then he eradicated it and revealed Quran which is the last book of Allah, diminishing all others books revealed by him. HE revealed those books according to the time and people of that time.
He later Revealed Quran as a word of Allah and the final book. No other book shall be revealed and no other Messenger would come till the day of judgement. and with Quran Allah said, that he has now complete the religion, known as Islam. ~!

Answer 15

I have read a little of the Torah, a little of the Psalms, and a little of the Injeel(Gospel). They didn't make any sense to me at all. The original Aramaic Bible says that Jesus(Peace be upon him) never said he was a God or a "son of" God. But the Catholics over the years changed the verses and threw out a lot of books from the old Gnostic Bibles because they didn't fit with their idea of a God. The status of Jesus(PBUH*) in Christianity was a prophet 2,000 years ago, then he became a "son of" God around 1,000 years ago and then he became "God" 100 years ago! The Qur'an doesn't have any errors in it and is a guidance to all mankind. The Qur'an has stayed the same since it was revealed 1450 years ago! Many of the "Christians" don't even know or speak the language of Jesus(Peace be upon him) anymore which is Aramaic. The Christians during and after Jesus(Peace be upon him) were Jews. Paul is the one who founded Christianity and made Jesus(Peace be upon him) to be a "God" or a "son of" God. That is blaspheme because ALLAH(Subhanna wa ta'ala) is above having partners or sons in worship with him. Jesus(Peace be upon him) followed the laws of Moses(Peace be upon him) and upheld the Torah. He didn't come to "Die" or make new laws.

Answer 16

Can This Book Be Trusted?

“I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane [secular] history whatsoever.”—Sir Isaac Newton, renowned English scientist.1

CAN this book—the Bible—be trusted? Does it refer to people who really lived, places that actually existed, and events that truly happened? If so, there should be evidence that it was written by careful, honest writers. Proof does exist. Much of it has been found buried in the earth, and even more is contained within the book itself.

Digging Up the Evidence

The discovery of ancient artifacts buried in Bible lands has supported the historical and geographic accuracy of the Bible. Consider just some of the evidence that archaeologists have dug up.

David, the courageous young shepherd who became king of Israel, is well-known to readers of the Bible. His name appears 1,138 times in the Bible, and the expression “House of David”—often referring to his dynasty—occurs 25 times. (1 Samuel 16:13; 20:16) Until recently, though, there was no clear evidence outside the Bible that David existed. Was David merely a fictitious character?

In 1993 a team of archaeologists, led by Professor Avraham Biran, made an astounding discovery, which was reported in Israel Exploration Journal. At the site of an ancient mound called Tel Dan, in the northern part of Israel, they uncovered a basalt stone. Carved into the stone are the words “House of David” and “King of Israel.”2 The inscription, dated to the ninth century B.C.E., is said to be part of a victory monument erected by Aramaeans—enemies of Israel who lived to the east. Why is this ancient inscription so significant?

Based on a report by Professor Biran and his colleague, Professor Joseph Naveh, an article in Biblical Archaeology Review stated: “This is the first time that the name David has been found in any ancient inscription outside the Bible.”3 Something else is noteworthy about the inscription. The expression “House of David” is written as one word. Language expert Professor Anson Rainey explains: “A word divider . . . is often omitted, especially if the combination is a well-established proper name. ‘The House of David’ was certainly such a proper political and geographic name in the mid-ninth century B.C.E.”5 So King David and his dynasty evidently were well-known in the ancient world.

Did Nineveh—the great city of Assyria mentioned in the Bible—really exist? As recently as the early 19th century, some Bible critics refused to believe so. But in 1849, Sir Austen Henry Layard unearthed ruins of King Sennacherib’s palace at Kuyunjik, a site that proved to be part of ancient Nineveh. The critics were thus silenced on that score. But these ruins had more to tell. On the walls of one well-preserved chamber was a display showing the capture of a well-fortified city, with captives being marched before the invading king. Above the king is this inscription: “Sennacherib, king of the world, king of Assyria, sat upon a nîmedu -throne and passed in review the booty (taken) from Lachish (La-ki-su).”6

This display and inscription, which can be viewed in the British Museum, agree with the Bible’s account of the capture of the Judean city of Lachish by Sennacherib, recorded at 2 Kings 18:13, 14. Commenting on the significance of the find, Layard wrote: “Who would have believed it probable or possible, before these discoveries were made, that beneath the heap of earth and rubbish which marked the site of Nineveh, there would be found the history of the wars between Hezekiah [king of Judah] and Sennacherib, written at the very time when they took place by Sennacherib himself, and confirming even in minute details the Biblical record?”7

Archaeologists have dug up many other artifacts—pottery, ruins of buildings, clay tablets, coins, documents, monuments, and inscriptions—that confirm the accuracy of the Bible. Excavators have uncovered the Chaldean city of Ur, the commercial and religious center where Abraham lived.8 (Genesis 11:27-31) The Nabonidus Chronicle, unearthed in the 19th century, describes Babylon’s fall to Cyrus the Great in 539 B.C.E., an event narrated in Daniel chapter 5.9 An inscription (fragments of which are preserved in the British Museum) found on an archway in ancient Thessalonica contains the names of city rulers described as “politarchs,” a word unknown in classical Greek literature but used by the Bible writer Luke.10 (Acts 17:6, footnote) Luke’s accuracy was thus vindicated in this—as it had already been in other details.—Compare Luke 1:3.

Archaeologists, however, do not always agree with one another, let alone with the Bible. Even so, the Bible contains within itself strong evidence that it is a book that can be trusted.

Presented With Candor

Honest historians would record not just victories (like the inscription regarding Sennacherib’s capture of Lachish) but also defeats, not just successes but also failures, not just strengths but also weaknesses. Few secular histories reflect such honesty.

Regarding Assyrian historians, Daniel D. Luckenbill explains: “Often it is clear that royal vanity demanded playing fast and loose with historical accuracy.”11 Illustrating such “royal vanity,” the annals of Assyrian King Ashurnasirpal boast: “I am regal, I am lordly, I am exalted, I am mighty, I am honored, I am glorified, I am pre-eminent, I am powerful, I am valiant, I am lion-brave, and I am heroic!”12 Would you accept everything you read in such annals as accurate history?

In contrast, the Bible writers displayed refreshing candor. Moses, Israel’s leader, frankly reported the shortcomings of his brother, Aaron, of his sister Miriam, of his nephews Nadab and Abihu, and of his people, as well as his own mistakes. (Exodus 14:11, 12; 32:1-6; Leviticus 10:1, 2; Numbers 12:1-3; 20:9-12; 27:12-14) The serious mistakes of King David were not covered over but were committed to writing—and that while David was still ruling as king. (2 Samuel, chapters 11 and 24) Matthew, writer of the book bearing his name, tells how the apostles (of which he was one) disputed over their personal importance and how they abandoned Jesus on the night of his arrest. (Matthew 20:20-24; 26:56) The writers of the letters of the Christian Greek Scriptures freely acknowledged the problems, including sexual immorality and dissensions, in some of the early Christian congregations. And they did not mince words in addressing those problems.—1 Corinthians 1:10-13; 5:1-13.

Such frank, open reporting indicates a sincere concern for truth. Since the Bible writers were willing to report unfavorable information about their loved ones, their people, and even themselves, is there not good reason to trust their writings?

Accurate in Details

In court trials the credibility of a witness’ testimony can often be determined on the basis of minor facts. Agreement on minor details may stamp the testimony as accurate and honest, whereas serious discrepancies can expose it as a fabrication. On the other hand, an overly tidy account—one in which every last detail is neatly arranged—may also betray a false testimony.

How does the “testimony” of the Bible writers measure up in this regard? The Bible penmen displayed remarkable consistency. There is close agreement about even minute details. However, the harmony is not carefully arranged, arousing suspicions of collusion. There is an obvious lack of design in the coincidences, the writers often agreeing unintentionally. Consider some examples.

The Bible writer Matthew wrote: “And Jesus, on coming into Peter’s house, saw his mother-in-law lying down and sick with fever.” (Matthew 8:14) Matthew here provided an interesting but nonessential detail: Peter was married. This minor fact is supported by Paul, who wrote: “Have I no right to take a Christian wife about with me, like the rest of the apostles and . . . Cephas?” (1 Corinthians 9:5, The New English Bible) The context indicates that Paul was defending himself against unwarranted criticism. (1 Corinthians 9:1-4) Plainly, this small fact—Peter’s being married—is not introduced by Paul to support the accuracy of Matthew’s account but is conveyed incidentally.

All four of the Gospel writers—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—record that on the night of Jesus’ arrest, one of his disciples drew a sword and struck a slave of the high priest, taking off the man’s ear. Only the Gospel of John reports a seemingly unnecessary detail: “The name of the slave was Malchus.” (John 18:10, 26) Why does John alone give the man’s name? A few verses later the account provides a minor fact not stated anywhere else: John “was known to the high priest.” He was also known to the high priest’s household; the servants were acquainted with him, and he with them. (John 18:15, 16) It was only natural, then, that John mention the injured man’s name, whereas the other Gospel writers, to whom the man was a stranger, do not.

At times, detailed explanations are omitted from one account but are provided elsewhere by statements made in passing. For instance, Matthew’s account of the trial of Jesus before the Jewish Sanhedrin says that some people present “slapped him in the face, saying: ‘Prophesy to us, you Christ. Who is it that struck you?’” (Matthew 26:67, 68) Why would they ask Jesus to “prophesy” who had struck him, when the striker was standing there in front of him? Matthew does not explain. But two of the other Gospel writers supply the missing detail: Jesus’ persecutors covered his face before he was slapped. (Mark 14:65; Luke 22:64) Matthew presents his material without concern as to whether every last detail was supplied.

The Gospel of John tells of an occasion when a large crowd gathered to hear Jesus teach. According to the record, when Jesus observed the crowd, “he said to Philip: ‘Where shall we buy loaves for these to eat?’” (John 6:5) Of all the disciples present, why did Jesus ask Philip where they could buy some bread? The writer does not say. In the parallel account, though, Luke reports that the incident took place near Bethsaida, a city on the north shores of the Sea of Galilee, and earlier in John’s Gospel it says that “Philip was from Bethsaida.” (John 1:44; Luke 9:10) So Jesus logically asked a person whose hometown was nearby. The agreement between the details is remarkable, yet clearly unwitting.

In some cases the omission of certain details only adds to the credibility of the Bible writer. For example, the writer of 1 Kings tells of a severe drought in Israel. It was so severe that the king could not find enough water and grass to keep his horses and mules alive. (1 Kings 17:7; 18:5) Yet, the same account reports that the prophet Elijah ordered enough water to be brought to him on Mount Carmel (for use in connection with a sacrifice) to fill a trench circumscribing an area of perhaps 10,000 square feet [1,000 sq m]. (1 Kings 18:33-35) In the midst of the drought, where did all the water come from? The writer of 1 Kings did not trouble himself to explain. However, anyone living in Israel knew that Carmel was on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea, as an incidental remark later in the narrative indicates. (1 Kings 18:43) Thus, seawater would have been readily available. If this otherwise detailed book were merely fiction masquerading as fact, why would its writer, who in that case would be a clever forger, have left such an apparent difficulty in the text?

So can the Bible be trusted? Archaeologists have dug up enough artifacts to confirm that the Bible refers to real people, real places, and real events. Even more compelling, however, is the evidence found within the Bible itself. Candid writers spared no one—not even themselves—in recording the hard facts. The internal consistency of the writings, including the coincidences without design, gives the “testimony” the clear ring of truth. With such “sure marks of authenticity,” the Bible is, indeed, a book you can trust.

[Footnotes]

After that discovery, Professor André Lemaire reported that a new reconstruction of a damaged line on the Mesha stela (also called the Moabite Stone), discovered in 1868, reveals that it also contains a reference to the “House of David.”4

“Cephas” is the Semitic equivalent of “Peter.”—John 1:42.

on the other hand Jen the Quran Has not needed to be changed since it still serves it's author well, Satan is still pleased with his work in it.

Source(s):

X Muslim, And A True Christian And Witnesses Of Jehovah God.

Answer 17

How dare you say that about The Holy Qur'aan?? Who are you??? And last time your tongue was up in the muslims'.. as you claimed you wanna be a muslim but now you act like this disgusting!! i think you are a liar, sorry..

Answer 18

We as muslims believe in the Torah, Gospel, Palms and the Quran. The Bible is not the Book of God. It was the Palms that was given to Jesus (pbuh). I have never read any of the other books as the Quran is the seal of all of them. Other relgious books are no longer authentic, some parts of them have been corrupted or lost.