NewStats: 3,259,514 , 8,170,390 topics. Date: Sunday, 25 May 2025 at 12:14 PM 5i4233

honesttalk21:


When traditional adherents pour libation it is clearly an offering to the deity or spirit.

This is clearly different from the act of touching or kissing the black stone in Mecca as all acts of worship for a Muslim is towards Allah and nothing else.

The significance of the black stone lies in its connection to Prophet Muhammad pbuh and the pilgrim acts associated with the Kaaba rather than being an object of worship itself.

The Kaaba constitutes a point all Muslims face in unity of faith while praying to Allah

How can we not label him as ignorant? Has any muslim ever told him, or did he read it anywhere in Quran that we worship a stone? He is just a trouble maker.

drlateef:



How can we not label him as ignorant? Has any muslim ever told him, or did he read it anywhere in Quran that we worship a stone? He is just a trouble maker.

Pls read the whole thread and stop your whataboutism.
This topic is about venerating a stone which U do. U guys venerate the black stone when U kiss it just like traditionalist venerate their sacred stones when they pour libation in it.
Neither traditionalists or Muslims worship the stones BUT YOU BOTH VENERATE IT.

And U Muslims attach spiritual significance to the black stone.
That's what we dissecting here.

jendoslim:
Interesting topic, I must it

@Abutwins and honesttalk21

Why can't the two of you agree and take a side of argument?

One believes the stone is a medium by which God forgives sin, the other is covertly disagreeing. Funny

Take a side please.

While at it, kindly answer this, if a stone can serve as a medium, what makes you think other things God created can't serve as a medium?

If they can or can't, kindly provide a logical argument why they can or can't.

The problem is honesttalk is among the new modern muslims who are redefining Islam towards a strict monotheism concept that's not found in their islamic literature.

AbuTwin on the other hand is a conservative Muslim who adhere strictly to what's written in islamic literature even if it makes no sense.

Honesttalk knows if any spiritual significance is attached to the black stone, Islam becomes idolatry. Its pure and simple.
That's why he's fighting tooth and nail to discredit his own sources.

SIRTee15:


The problem is honesttalk is among the new modern muslims who are redefining Islam towards a strict monotheism concept that's not found in their islamic literature.

AbuTwin on the other hand is a conservative Muslim who adhere strictly to what's written in islamic literature even if it makes no sense.

Honesttalk knows of any spiritual significance is attached to the black stone, Islam becomes idolatry. Its pure and simple.
That's why he's fighting tooth and nail to discredit his own sources.

That's your own false opinion!
Islam is a strict monotheistic religion that is based on the obedience of Allah though the Prophets He sent from time immemorial!

AbuTwins:


That's your own false opinion!
Islam is a strict monotheistic religion that is based on the obedience of Allah though the Prophets He sent from time immemorial!

SIRTee15:


Pls read the whole thread and stop your whataboutism.
This topic is about venerating a stone which U do. U guys venerate the black stone when U kiss it just like traditionalist venerate their sacred stones when they pour libation in it.
Neither traditionalists or Muslims worship the stones BUT YOU BOTH VENERATE IT.

And U Muslims attach spiritual significance to the black stone.
That's what we dissecting here.

I can see that when you are boxed to a corner you begin grammatical acrobatics traditionalists worship stone, statue and any object they pay obeisance to. We muslims just do a symbolism by kissing or pointing at the black stone because it is a special object not found on earth but dropped to us from paradise. And the one whom we worship Allah commanded us to do so.
Now let me ask you: do you venerate the cross or worship the cross?

AbuTwins:


Not just the stone or any stone but the black stone in the Kaaba specifically!

Allah is the sole forgiver of sins!

What is evident in the texts of Islam is what have been stated! Allah forgives whoever He wishes to forgive and He punishes whoever He wishes!

The texts of Islam never said any other thing existed as such to the best of my knowledge!

So we stick to the texts of Islam!

Don't mind them.
Prayer serves as a powerful medium for individuals to connect with the divine.

Is the entire hajj or Umrah process not prayer?

What is the meaning or essence of touching the stone?
Was this not done by the prophet Muhammad pbuh?
Is it not a marker for the circumnavigation (Tawaf)?

Touching and or kissing the black stone is symbolic gesture of following the Prophet's example and seeking blessings.

AbuTwins:
Yeah a medium! The stone can't forgive sins on its own!


Yeah, we disbelieve in your own form of Jesus and God too!
Allah forgives sins in the ways stated in the Qur'an and Sunnah! Human blood or son of God's blood sacrifice is not included!

I didn't mention human blood, what are u talking about something I never raised.
My question is Can God forgive through blood as a medium? if the answer is No, then why did God tell the Israelites to shed animal blood for atonement of sin.
Think carefully b4 you answer, there's historical evidence outside the bible that proves the Jews were sacrificing animals for forgiveness of sin-The Temple in Jerusalem.
Who told the Israelites that they can slaughter innocent animals and use their blood for atonement of sin according to the mosaic law?

AbuTwins:

If they have sound oral traditions then why are you and your families not following them? I don't know why you argue with through your nose telling me what you really don't believe in.

are u ok? must I believe in something to study or research it. dont u quote bible verses up and down here? are u a Christian.
Most bible scholars are atheist, yet they sleep and drink with the bible everyday.
I studied african religion because I'm an African Christian. I need to know what evidence is there to show the religion my ancestors followed was wrong and the one I embraced is the correct one.
If I'm to say Christianity is the true faith, then I must produce universal evidence for it. It's not about shouting Islam is the true religion up and down just because Quran said so.
That's why I had to show u that african traditionalist prophets also wrote down their beliefs! Does that make it true?

AbuTwins:

As for the Qur'an not (koran as fools call it) all the stories therein are authentic!

Then start by telling me, when in history did Jews start calling Ezra the son of God. I will be waiting got goddot while u search for answer.

AbuTwins:

Offering blood sacrifice to idols like Ogun, etc is similar to vicarious atonement in Christianity! Blood is important for salvation! Not in Islam. That's why you are preaching Orunmila above! Alhamdulillah we don't offer any food to anyone! Allah is As-Samad! He does not eat nor drink unlike some God that drinks tea without permission! What is Idolatry is your vicarious atonement where God did kill his son as a lamb for to save others!

If blood is not important for salvation, then tell me why the God of Noah, God of Abraham and God of Moses told Israelites to build a temple, slaughter animals and then use the blood of the animals for cleansing of their sin.

Since Allah told Muhammed that he doesnt need blood to forgive sin, then tell me when and why did Allah change his mind and decided to abandon animal blood sacrifices as atonement for sin.

AbuTwins:

This is a lie! Blood is spilled on the deities! Food Sacrifices are placed at the road junctions for the gods! Why do you like telling brazen lies like this? We kill ram as Abraham did kill his. Why not kill your son too to commemorate what God did for Jesus?

Mr Man, learn difference btw occultism and religion. No be your Alfas and muslims clerics for Ilorin dey do charm for yahoo yahoo boys in southwest. where did they learn it occultic practice? is it from Quran?

AbuTwins:

After giving you the context of this verses you still came here to repeat the same thing again?
You are far from truth and reason! I am not surprised to see this. Many Holy spirit filled Christians are like this!

Qur'an 53:19-23
Have you then considered Al-Lat, and Al-'Uzza (two idols of the pagan Arabs)
And Manat (another idol of the pagan Arabs), the other third?
Is it for you the males and for Him the females?
That indeed is a division most unfair!
They are but names which you have named, you and your fathers, for which Allah has sent down no authority. They follow but a guess and that which they themselves desire, whereas there has surely come to them the Guidance from their Lord!

So are u saying your early Islamic scholars and biographers of Muhammed like Al Tabari, Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Hisham were lying about the satanic verses. What would they gain by fabricating such stories against Muhammed?

honesttalk21:



Is it untrue that pagans and traditionalists are classified as Polytheists? When they are pouring libation not kissing their idols is this not in their worship?

My friend, stop waffling. pouring gin on idols is the same as licking a stone. Both are veneration.
If Allah forgives sin during this practice of licking stone, then that is worship. In case u dont know, then I'm telling u now.

honesttalk21:

The stories or reports about sacred stones being placed and worshipped in Greek temples, such as the Temple of Artemis in Ephesus, are not related to the Black Stone’s origins. These stories involve gods and goddesses bestowing stones upon their temples for various reasons.

In Greek mythology, various stones and gems were believed to possess unique powers and attributes.

Emerald was believed to have healing and rejuvenating properties. Aristotle thought that owning emeralds could improve a person’s oratory skills, make them successful litigants, protect against epilepsy, and enable them to predict the future and reveal truths.

The Ancient Greeks considered diamonds to be tears of the gods, while Romans believed they were part of fallen stars. Diamonds were also thought to bring great strength to their wearers.

Mr Man leave greek mythology alone. nobody bothers about it anymore. Focus on the black stone.

honesttalk21:

The Black Stone’s significance comes from its association with Ibrahim and Isma’il and its role as a symbol of unity among Muslims from all over the world who come to perform Hajj or Umrah pilgrimages.

I repeat, provide evidence outside of islamic sources that Abraham had anything to do with the black stone.

honesttalk21:

Your Bible in Acts 19:35 states that the the city clerk quieted the crowd and said: “Fellow Ephesians, doesn’t all the world know that the city of Ephesus is the guardian of the temple of the great Artemis and of her image, which fell from heaven? How does Paul or any other differentiate the Gospel from this?

what significance is the Ephesus city clerk to christianity

honesttalk21:

Your reference to modern scholars is because you fail to understand the deliberate acts to correct misunderstanding and misconceptions that are becoming the norm.

So muslims believed Aisha got married at 6 yrs for over one thousand years then suddenly decided to move the age forward because it became object of mockery.
A faith or religion that revolves around human's influence cannot be true.

honesttalk21:

You have made statements referring to the black stone granting forgiveness when it is it being part of the pilgrimage process which when done sincerely in worship of Allah grants forgiveness from Allah of sins

I think we should end it here. It's obvious u are embarrassed by the black stone.

SIRTee15:

My friend, stop waffling. pouring gin on idols is the same as licking a stone. Both are veneration.
If Allah forgives sin during this practice of licking stone, then that is worship. In case u dont know, then I'm telling u now.

Mr Man leave greek mythology alone. nobody bothers about it anymore. Focus on the black stone.

I repeat, provide evidence outside of islamic sources that Abraham had anything to do with the black stone.

what significance is the Ephesus city clerk to christianity

So muslims believed Aisha got married at 6 yrs for over one thousand years then suddenly decided to move the age forward because it became object of mockery.
A faith or religion that revolves around human's influence cannot be true.


I think we should end it here. It's obvious u are embarrassed by the black stone.

Pouring gin on idols is an act of reverence towards ancestral spirits or gods in traditional religions practiced by some Africans, ancient Egypt, Greece and perhaps East Asia , while licking the Black Stone is a symbolic gesture following the example of Prophet Muhammad pbuh, of devotion to Allah in Islam.

In traditional African religions, idols are seen as representations or conduits to communicate with spiritual entities, whereas in Islam, worship is directed solely towards Allah without any intermediaries. The black stone does not represent Allah.

It looks more likely a thing copied from the Christian Bible and perhaps the present day act of anointing with holy oil.

Jacob sets up a stone pillar at the place where God had talked with him. He poured out a drink offering on it and also poured oil on it.
Genesis 35:14-15

This act signifies a form of worship and dedication to God. The pouring of wine as a drink offering and oil on the stone pillar was a way for Jacob to consecrate that place as sacred and mark it as a site where he had encountered God.

The act of pouring libation, which involves pouring out liquid as an offering, has been a common practice in various religious traditions throughout history.

The practice of pouring libations is not part of Islamic worship rituals or traditions. Muslims are guided by the Quran and the teachings of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) to avoid any form of polytheistic practices or rituals that involve offering sacrifices or tributes to beings other than Allah.

SIRTee15:


To my understanding, paganism mean religions outside of the main ones and possibly could refer to animist religions.
.
I don't think traditionalists consider idols deity and most don't worship them.
They idols are mostly symbolic representation of the unseen deity but they are not deity themselves.

That's why I'm asking why those who kiss a stone for symbolic reason accuse traditionalist as idolaters?

Early versions of the Bible, including the Greek manuscripts, the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, the Coptic Bible, the Armenian Bible, and the Gothic Bible, do not align perfectly. In fact, some verses appear in certain versions but are entirely absent in others, while many others are worded differently or contain additions and omissions that affect their meaning. For instance, the long ending of Mark (Mark 16:9–20) and the story of the adulterous woman (John 7:53–8:11) are among the most notable examples of such textual discrepancies. These variations indicate not just simple copying mistakes but point to a deeper issue of alteration over time.

DrRasheed:


Early versions of the Bible, including the Greek manuscripts, the Latin Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, the Coptic Bible, the Armenian Bible, and the Gothic Bible, do not align perfectly. In fact, some verses appear in certain versions but are entirely absent in others, while many others are worded differently or contain additions and omissions that affect their meaning. For instance, the long ending of Mark (Mark 16:9–20) and the story of the adulterous woman (John 7:53–8:11) are among the most notable examples of such textual discrepancies. These variations indicate not just simple copying mistakes but point to a deeper issue of alteration over time.

U did not answer my question. Instead U dabbled into textual criticism and I'm not sure how knowledgeable U are in that regards.

If there's no uniform alteration of a age in all our ancient bible versions, then U can't say the bible is corrupt.
It only means there's textual variation in our ancient extant manuscripts. Which means some bible versions still held onto the preserved transmission of prior scriptures.

For example the Johannine comma 1 John 5.7 is not seen in any coptic, Syriac, Ge'ez, Armenian, Georgian bible- ancient or modern. It's not seen in the Ethiopian Garima gospel as well.
Thus, claiming the bible is corrupt because of presence of Johannine comma makes no sense because majority of our independent ancient bible versions don't have it.
Rather it's a textual variance seen in Latin Vulgate and subsequent translations that used LV as their source.

Textual variant is not a problem of the bible alone. Quran also has same issue. The discovery of Sana manuscript found in Yemen, the codex of Ibn Masud shows there were definitely textual variance in ancient Quranic versions and these versions don't always agree.

SIRTee15:



U did not answer my question. Instead U dabbled into textual criticism and I'm not sure how knowledgeable U are in that regards.

If there's no uniform alteration of a age in all our ancient bible versions, then U can't say the bible is corrupt.
It only means there's textual variation in our ancient extant manuscripts. Which means some bible versions still held onto the preserved transmission of prior scriptures.

For example the Johannine comma 1 John 5.7 is not seen in any coptic, Syriac, Ge'ez, Armenian, Georgian bible- ancient or modern. It's not seen in the Ethiopian Garima gospel as well.
Thus, claiming the bible is corrupt because of presence of Johannine comma makes no sense because majority of our independent ancient bible versions don't have it.
Rather it's a textual variance seen in Latin Vulgate and subsequent translations that used LV as their source.

Textual variant is not a problem of the bible alone. Quran also has same issue. The discovery of Sana manuscript found in Yemen, the codex of Ibn Masud shows there were definitely textual variance in ancient Quranic versions and these versions don't always agree.

You accuse me of dabbling into textual criticism, but that’s precisely where the core issue lies. If we're evaluating whether the Bible has been preserved or altered, then we must look at the actual manuscripts—where we find undeniable inconsistencies, additions, and omissions that go far beyond simple “textual variation.”

You argue that because no single age is altered uniformly across all ancient versions, we can't call the Bible corrupt. But that logic is flawed. Corruption doesn't require universal uniformity. A single corrupted tradition—especially if it influences major translations and theology, like the Latin Vulgate or KJV—introduces error into the religious understanding of millions. The Johannine Comma, for instance, may not exist in early Eastern manuscripts, but it did make its way into Western canon and was used for centuries to justify the doctrine of the Trinity. That alone demonstrates how serious the impact of a single textual addition can be.

You also try to deflect by pointing to the Qur'an and the Sana'a manuscript. However, unlike the Bible, the Qur'an has a clearly documented and centralized process of canonization under Uthman, with variant readings (qira’at) preserved and classified—not hidden or quietly inserted over centuries like many biblical interpolations. The fact that different Bible versions disagree on whether certain ages are scripture (like Mark 16:9–20 or John 7:53–8:11) is not a minor issue—it’s a glaring sign that we are not dealing with a perfectly preserved revelation.

So no, this isn’t just “textual variation.” It is textual instability that undermines the claim of divine preservation. If God's word was meant to guide all people, shouldn’t it have been protected from such confusion?

SIRTee15:
I decided to bring this here because I'm yet to receive a logical response to my query. All I'm getting is emotional outburst and insults.

Can someone explained to me the difference between these 2 belief system.
Why is one called idolatry and the other not called paganism.
Why can't both of them worship together under the same roof since they both venerate a stone?
Why should adherent of one of the faith travel to Mecca to lick a stone only to come back to Africa and mock someone pouring gin on a stone a pagan.

Pls no insult...just need clarification.

LegalWolf AntiChristian elhakiimed motayoayinde, drlateef, Lukuluku69 , AbuTwins , honesttalk21, Explore2xmore Ohyoudidn't, Qasim6.

You so called monotheists are the ones who have established that dichotomy so why complain?

DrRasheed:



You accuse me of dabbling into textual criticism, but that’s precisely where the core issue lies. If we're evaluating whether the Bible has been preserved or altered, then we must look at the actual manuscripts—where we find undeniable inconsistencies, additions, and omissions that go far beyond simple “textual variation.”

You argue that because no single age is altered uniformly across all ancient versions, we can't call the Bible corrupt. But that logic is flawed. Corruption doesn't require universal uniformity.

Then same standard should be applied to the Quran. The perfect preservation of the Quran cannot be traced to the original source- Muhammed, but only to the Uthman caliphate. Prior to that there were different Quranic versions flying around and they don't always agree.

DrRasheed:

A single corrupted tradition—especially if it influences major translations and theology, like the Latin Vulgate or KJV—introduces error into the religious understanding of millions. The Johannine Comma, for instance, may not exist in early Eastern manuscripts, but it did make its way into Western canon and was used for centuries to justify the doctrine of the Trinity. That alone demonstrates how serious the impact of a single textual addition can be.

claiming Johannine comma bears any weight to trinity is laughable. The eastern churches were the vanguard and champions of Trinity, yet their bible versions don't have the Johannine comma. 90% of the bishops who voted for Trinity in the nicene council came from the eastern churches. In fact, there was no Johannine comma in any 4th century bible when the Trinity concept was established. Johannine comma appeared in the Latin biblical versions around the 6th century.

DrRasheed:

You also try to deflect by pointing to the Qur'an and the Sana'a manuscript. However, unlike the Bible, the Qur'an has a clearly documented and centralized process of canonization under Uthman, with variant readings (qira’at) preserved and classified—not hidden or quietly inserted over centuries like many biblical interpolations.

Preservation of the Quran up to Uthman is inconsequential and irrelevant, the Quran didn't originate from Uthman; whatever was achieved during his time means nothing. what matters is preservation of the Quran prior to Uthman. And we know the Quran wasn't preserved perfectly in anyway b4 Uthman codex was standardized.
Ibn masud and Ibn Ubay both had their own codex, where are they? Both disagreed with the Uthman codex and Ibn Masud deemed it a corrupted text. Ironically, these 2 were considered the best of reciters by Muhammed himself yet they rejected the Quran compiled under Uthman authority.
To make matters worse, Uthman ordered all textual variants of the Quran to be burnt except his own. That action alone is very disturbing because he had no authority to do so.

DrRasheed:

The fact that different Bible versions disagree on whether certain ages are scripture (like Mark 16:9–20 or John 7:53–8:11) is not a minor issue—it’s a glaring sign that we are not dealing with a perfectly preserved revelation.

Bible compilation has always been decentralised right from the inception and there was never an attempt centralize its compilation at any point in history. variation will always arise due to human nature. That's a fact.
But the early church fathers were honest and transparent enough to acknowledge these variants even in the 2nd century and they talked about it. What they didn't do is burn or destroy any copy of the bible they didn't agree with. They let them be. That's intellectual honesty.
Imagine if King James had ordered all prior manuscript to be burnt after production of KJV or Father Jerome destroyed all copies of the bible after compiling the Latin vulgate, no one will know of any shorter ending of Mark or 1 John 5.7. Of course, it would have been easy for them to lie that the bible is preserved all the way to the apostles, but that would have been a very disingenuous act....exactly what Uthman did by burning previous Quranic text.

For example both the longer and shorter ending of Mark 16 was well known to early church Fathers in the 2nd century. The oldest copy of Mark 16 Epistula Apostolorum dated 120 AD has the longer ending. Both Justyn Martyr and Irenaeus quoted from the longer ending of Mark 16 in 150 and 180 AD respectivley.
Eusebius of Caesarea itted both versions of Mark 16 were read in early churches , and advised the congregation to use the shorter version for preaching, he never told them to destroy the longer version.

DrRasheed:

So no, this isn’t just “textual variation.” It is textual instability that undermines the claim of divine preservation. If God's word was meant to guide all people, shouldn’t it have been protected from such confusion?

U are simply a victim of eurocentric world without even knowing.
Now some Christian sect in other regions of the world preserved their text and avoided interpolation, but u are telling me their own version of the bible is corrupt because the European churches allowed interpolation into their own version of the bible!!!!
Mr Man, the bible wasn't compiled by europeans neither do they have monopoly over it. WHAT YOU SHOULD SAY IS THE EUROPEAN VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE SOURCED FROM LATIN AND BYZANTINE TEXTS ARE FLAWED OR IS CORRUPT- ANYTHING BEYOND THAT IS A BIZZARE STATEMENT LACKING IN ANY FACTUAL EVIDENCE.

EVEN BIBLE SCHOLARS IT THE COPTIC, PESHITTA AND GE'EZ ARE WELL PRESERVED BIBLE VERSIONS.

When bible scholars in the 16-18th century in Europe decided to use ancient manuscript for translation, they noticed the discrepancy in the contemporary Latin and Byzantine biblical texts sourced from the LV and ancient greek texts; without any regard for bible versions in other regions, these european scholars came to the conclusion the bible is corrupt.
However by the 20th century, when thousands of non european bible manuscripts were discovered, it was obvious these interpolations wasn't uniform and the appropriate terminology is textual variance NOT corruption.

Finally I noticed u mentioned adulteress pericope as a corruption. No it's not. The age in John 7-8 is part of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Early church fathers confirmed the adulteress pericope was part of the oral gospel and a historical tradition taught and ed down by the apostles to the church.
so kindly remove it as a corruption, its not.

SIRTee15:

Then same standard should be applied to the Quran. The perfect preservation of the Quran cannot be traced to the original source- Muhammed, but only to the Uthman caliphate. Prior to that there were different Quranic versions flying around and they don't always agree.


claiming Johannine comma bears any weight to trinity is laughable. The eastern churches were the vanguard and champions of Trinity, yet their bible versions don't have the Johannine comma. 90% of the bishops who voted for Trinity in the nicene council came from the eastern churches. In fact, there was no Johannine comma in any 4th century bible when the Trinity concept was established. Johannine comma appeared in the Latin biblical versions around the 6th century.


Preservation of the Quran up to Uthman is inconsequential and irrelevant, the Quran didn't originate from Uthman; whatever was achieved during his time means nothing. what matters is preservation of the Quran prior to Uthman. And we know the Quran wasn't preserved perfectly in anyway b4 Uthman codex was standardized.
Ibn masud and Ibn Ubay both had their own codex, where are they? Both disagreed with the Uthman codex and Ibn Masud deemed it a corrupted text. Ironically, these 2 were considered the best of reciters by Muhammed himself yet they rejected the Quran compiled under Uthman authority.
To make matters worse, Uthman ordered all textual variants of the Quran to be burnt except his own. That action alone is very disturbing because he had no authority to do so.

Bible compilation has always been decentralised right from the inception and there was never an attempt centralize its compilation at any point in history. variation will always arise due to human nature. That's a fact.
But the early church fathers were honest and transparent enough to acknowledge these variants even in the 2nd century and they talked about it. What they didn't do is burn or destroy any copy of the bible they didn't agree with. They let them be. That's intellectual honesty.
Imagine if King James had ordered all prior manuscript to be burnt after production of KJV or Father Jerome destroyed all copies of the bible after compiling the Latin vulgate, no one will know of any shorter ending of Mark or 1 John 5.7. Of course, it would have been easy for them to lie that the bible is preserved all the way to the apostles, but that would have been a very disingenuous act....exactly what Uthman did by burning previous Quranic text.

For example both the longer and shorter ending of Mark 16 was well known to early church Fathers in the 2nd century. The oldest copy of Mark 16 Epistula Apostolorum dated 120 AD has the longer ending. Both Justyn Martyr and Irenaeus quoted from the longer ending of Mark 16 in 150 and 180 AD respectivley.
Eusebius of Caesarea itted both versions of Mark 16 were read in early churches , and advised the congregation to use the shorter version for preaching, he never told them to destroy the longer version.


U are simply a victim of eurocentric world without even knowing.
Now some Christian sect in other regions of the world preserved their text and avoided interpolation, but u are telling me their own version of the bible is corrupt because the European churches allowed interpolation into their own version of the bible!!!!
Mr Man, the bible wasn't compiled by europeans neither do they have monopoly over it. WHAT YOU SHOULD SAY IS THE EUROPEAN VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE SOURCED FROM LATIN AND BYZANTINE TEXTS ARE FLAWED OR IS CORRUPT- ANYTHING BEYOND THAT IS A BIZZARE STATEMENT LACKING IN ANY FACTUAL EVIDENCE.

EVEN BIBLE SCHOLARS IT THE COPTIC, PESHITTA AND GE'EZ ARE WELL PRESERVED BIBLE VERSIONS.

When bible scholars in the 16-18th century in Europe decided to use ancient manuscript for translation, they noticed the discrepancy in the contemporary Latin and Byzantine biblical texts sourced from the LV and ancient greek texts; without any regard for bible versions in other regions, these european scholars came to the conclusion the bible is corrupt.
However by the 20th century, when thousands of non european bible manuscripts were discovered, it was obvious these interpolations wasn't uniform and the appropriate terminology is textual variance NOT corruption.

Finally I noticed u mentioned adulteress pericope as a corruption. No it's not. The age in John 7-8 is part of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Early church fathers confirmed the adulteress pericope was part of the oral gospel and a historical tradition taught and ed down by the apostles to the church.
so kindly remove it as a corruption, its not.

You are mistaken qiraats as translations which is very much laughable, but I will excuse you being non Muslim. Let's disect this together please. Take your time to everything here.

The Quran’s preservation is anchored in both oral and written transmission. During the Prophet Muhammad’s lifetime (570–632 CE), the Quran was memorized in full by companions such as Zayd ibn Thabit and Abdullah ibn Mas'ud, and it was also written down on parchments, bones, and other materials. After the Prophet’s death, the first compilation was initiated by Abu Bakr around 633 CE following the Battle of Yamama.

This project, led by Zayd ibn Thabit, was supervised by senior companions and was later inherited by Caliph Umar and then Hafsa, the Prophet’s widow. Around 650 CE, Uthman standardized the Quran to prevent dialectal disputes and distributed the standardized copies to major cities. This process was not arbitrary—it was done by a committee that included those who had memorized and written the Quran during the Prophet’s lifetime.

The burning of variant texts was not a suppression of theological differences, but a unification of dialectal variations. Unlike the Bible, no variant Quranic manuscript has ever been discovered containing extra chapters or contradicting the theological core of the text. Manuscripts like the Sanaa palimpsest (dated between 650–705 CE by radiocarbon testing) match the Uthmanic text with only minor orthographic and non-theological differences.

In contrast, the Bible lacks any centralized, contemporaneous compilation effort. The four canonical Gospels were written between 65 and 100 CE—decades after Jesus—and none of the original autographs exist. The earliest nearly complete New Testament manuscripts, such as Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, date to the 4th century (around 325–360 CE). Between the 2nd and 4th centuries, numerous manuscripts show wide variation. According to Dr. Bart Ehrman, there are over 400,000 textual variants among the existing Greek manuscripts—more variants than there are words in the New Testament. Many of these are minor, but some involve entire ages.

The long ending of Mark (Mark 16:9–20), for instance, is absent in the earliest and most reliable manuscripts like Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. The pericope adulterae (John 7:53–8:11) is similarly absent in all early manuscripts before the 5th century and appears in varying locations, indicating it was a later insertion.

The Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7), which reads "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one," does not appear in any Greek manuscript before the 14th century and only entered the Latin Vulgate in the 6th century. Erasmus initially omitted it from his 1516 and 1519 Greek New Testaments due to lack of manuscript evidence but was pressured to include it in his 1522 edition after being shown a single Greek manuscript, Codex Montfortianus, which was likely back-translated from Latin. This fabricated verse then shaped Trinitarian theology in Europe for centuries despite having no basis in early manuscripts.

Regarding non-European Biblical traditions, such as the Coptic, Syriac (Peshitta), and Ge'ez texts, it is true that they preserve certain readings not found in Western manuscripts. However, they also contain their own variants and were all translated from Greek originals that were themselves in flux. No ancient Christian tradition—Eastern or Western—possesses a manuscript lineage that traces directly and unaltered to the original writings of the apostles.

For example, the oldest Syriac manuscript of the Gospels (Curetonian Gospels) dates to the 5th century, long after the canonical texts were written. These versions reflect theological and textual decisions made long after the original teachings of Jesus.

The Quranic qira’at, or canonical readings, are another point of confusion. These are not textual variants in the same way as Biblical divergences. All qira’at are based on the same consonantal skeleton (rasm) and are transmitted with rigorous chains (isnad). They were codified by the 10th century, but the readings themselves trace back to companions of the Prophet and were orally transmitted and widely accepted within scholarly communities. Importantly, no qira’a introduces or omits verses, nor do they affect theology.

In contrast, the Bible contains hundreds of textual differences that do alter doctrine or narrative detail. For example, the resurrection appearances in Mark 16:9–20 are absent from the earliest manuscripts, yet they have been used to affirm the resurrection as historical fact. Some modern Bibles now include footnotes or brackets around these verses, but for centuries, these additions were read as authentic scripture. The same applies to the Johannine Comma and the adulteress story.

The idea that oral tradition validates such ages is not sustainable. No early church father before the 4th century mentions the pericope adulterae. It is absent in P66 and P75 (both dated c. 200 CE), Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Sinaiticus. When it finally appears, it does so in different places—sometimes in Luke—which shows it was floating and unanchored. That is the opposite of what would be expected from a divinely preserved text.

The notion that early Christians were "intellectually honest" because they didn’t destroy manuscripts doesn’t excuse the instability. Honesty in acknowledging variants does not resolve the chaos caused by centuries of uncontrolled copying, nor does it erase the doctrinal confusion resulting from it.

Islamic tradition acted decisively and within one generation to standardize and protect the Quranic text. The Bible, in contrast, was left to evolve regionally, leading to conflicting texts, theological insertions, and delayed recognition of errors. This is why modern biblical scholars—whether Christian or secular—do not claim the Bible has been perfectly preserved. Even the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, the standard academic edition, uses a critical apparatus to document thousands of variations.

Again, the Quran has a consistent, traceable textual history, with preservation mechanisms built into both oral and written traditions. The Bible, by contrast, suffers from extensive textual instability, late additions, and no continuous manuscript chain to the original texts. These are not simply "textual variants" but represent deep-rooted problems.

In all of this, it is important to clarify that we Muslims do accept the Bible—but not the Bible as it exists today. We believe that Allah revealed divine scriptures such as the Torah to Musa (Moses), the Zabur to Dawud (David), and the Injil to Isa (Jesus), peace be upon them all. However, the current Bible is not a single revealed book; it is a collection of writings composed over centuries by different authors—some of whom were kings, fishermen, priests, religious leaders, anonymous writers, and even councils of men who decided which texts to include or exclude.

Some were sincere believers, others were scribes, and in many cases, the exact identity of the authors is unknown. What we now have is a text shaped by translation, redaction, and political decisions—not the unaltered word of God.

We do not deny that divine guidance was once sent to previous nations. On the contrary, belief in those original revelations is a pillar of Islamic faith. But what remains of those scriptures today does not represent their pure, original forms. Only the Qur’an, revealed to the final Messenger Muhammad (Salallahu Alaihi Wasallam), has been preserved without alteration.

It came not through anonymous hands or political councils, but directly from Allah through the angel Jibril, memorized by the Prophet’s companions, and transmitted with an unbroken chain both orally and in writing. Allah Himself promised its protection: “Indeed, it is We who sent down the Qur’an, and indeed, We will be its guardian” (Surah Al-Hijr 15:9).

Therefore, while we respect the prophets and the scriptures they were given, we do not rely on the Bible of today as a source of divine law or belief. Only the Qur’an remains as the final, complete, and uncorrupted guidance for all of humanity, until the end of time.

DrRasheed:


You are mistaken qiraats as translations which is very much laughable, but I will excuse you being non Muslim. Let's dissect this together please. Take your time to everything here.

ok as usual for muslims and atheist apologists, their epistles is filled with bunch of opinion laced with conjectures and fabrications without any factual evidence to back any claim made
Now see how I will reply with evidence, I don't make claim without producing evidence. So I expect u to do the same otherwise we can both call it a day.

DrRasheed:

The Quran’s preservation is anchored in both oral and written transmission. During the Prophet Muhammad’s lifetime (570–632 CE), the Quran was memorized in full by companions such as Zayd ibn Thabit and Abdullah ibn Mas'ud, and it was also written down on parchments, bones, and other materials. After the Prophet’s death, the first compilation was initiated by Abu Bakr around 633 CE following the Battle of Yamama.

This project, led by Zayd ibn Thabit, was supervised by senior companions and was later inherited by Caliph Umar and then Hafsa, the Prophet’s widow. Around 650 CE, Uthman standardized the Quran to prevent dialectal disputes and distributed the standardized copies to major cities. This process was not arbitrary—it was done by a committee that included those who had memorized and written the Quran during the Prophet’s lifetime.

As usual you conveniently ignored the biggest elephant in the room when it comes to codification of the Uthman Quran- Ibn Masood, one of your greatest reciters of the Quran rejected it calling the work 'deceit'

Muhammed regarded Ibn Masood one of the greatest reciters ever and advised people to learn Quran from him.

Narrated Masruq: [...] I heard the Prophet saying, "Take (learn) the Qur'an from four (men): `Abdullah bin Masud, Salim, Mu'adh and Ubai bin Ka'b." (Sahih al-Bukhari 4999; vol 6, bk 61, no 521)

Yet the one Your Prophet trusted with the transmission, teaching and preservation of the Quran called the one u are holding a corrupt version. Ibn Mosood compiled his own Quran, it had 111 chapters, the one u have has 114 chapters!!!

Abdullah Ibn Masud said, “I recited from the Messenger of Allah (saw) seventy surahs which I had perfected before Zaid Ibn Thabit had embraced Islam.” (The Codices of Ibn Mas'ud and Ubayy Ibn Ka'b, – Ibn Abi Dawud’s Kitab al-Masahif, p. 17)

“I acquired directly from the Messenger of Allah (saw) seventy surahs when Zaid was still a childish youth - must I now forsake what I acquired directly from the Messenger of Allah?” (Ibid., p. 15)

When Uthman's agents came to Kufa to burn all the variants, Abd Allah Ibn Masud hid his copy of Quran from them and told his followers to do the same. He justified his own version of the recitation by reminding people: "I recited before Allah's Messenger more than seventy suras of the Qur'an. His Companions know that I have a better understanding of Allah's Book than they do; and if I were to know that someone had a better understanding than I have, I would have gone to him." It was said that nobody could find fault with Abd Allah's version
(Sahih Muslim, Book 031, Number 6022)

Except u telling me Ibn Masud a great reciter recommended by Muhammed had poor knowledge of qarat or whatever dialectical argument u making, sorry your case is weak.
The Quran wasn't preserved from the original source. QED.

DrRasheed:

The burning of variant texts was not a suppression of theological differences, but a unification of dialectal variations.

Yes it is. Uthman suppressed versions of Quran he didn't like and had them burnt, when he had no authority to do so.

The Prophet Muhammad said: “The Koran was revealed in seven dialects, all of them are right and perfect.” When Uthman banned whichever he banned from the Koran, and burned whichever he burned, he banned ages Allah has revealed and burned parts of the Koran which were given to the Muslims by the Messenger of Allah. He appointed a small group of Sahaba (close friends of Muhammad) to rewrite the Koran and left out those who heard the Prophet and memorized what he said. When Ibn Massoud objected to the burning of the other codices of the Koran, Uthman had him taken out of the mosque with violence, and struck him to the ground, and broke one of his ribs. (Hussein, A-Fitnato Al-Kobra [The Great Sedition], pp. 160-161, 181-182)


It's pertinent to note that it wasn't only Ibn Masud that rejected the Uthman codex. Another great reciter, someone Muhammed called the best of all reciters Ibn Ubay also denounced Uthman codex.

Narrated Ibn Abbas: Umar said, "Ubayy was the best of us in the recitation (of the Qur'an) yet we leave (out) some of what he recites". Ubayy says, "I have taken it from the mouth of Allah's Apostle and will not leave for anything whatever". (Sahih al-Bukhari 5005; vol 6, bk 61, no 527)
Ubay actually compiled his own Quran which had 116 chapters-2 more than the Uthman Quran and rejected that compiled by Zaid, he continued using his own Quran for instruction and teaching in Syria where he lived.

Other prominent companions of Muhammed complained important verses and chapters were reportedly declared missing in the Uthman Quranic codex. These were not qarats, but words of Allah removed from the Quran.

According to Ibn Umar and Aisha, Muhammad’s wife, one chapter, Surah al-Ahzab had 200 verses in Muhammad’s time. Yet, once Uthman was finished only 73 verses remained, eliminating nearly 140 verses. This tradition is also confirmed by Ubay b. Kabb. (Al-Suyuti’s al-Itqan fii ulum al-Qur'an on nasikh wa mansukh and Darwaza’s al-Qur'an Al-Majid)

It's so obvious the Uthman codex that Muslims used today is a corrupted work of Uthman and can't be traced to the mouth of their Prophet. The preservation of the modern day Quran terminates with Caliphate Uthman. He knew it and that's why he used heavy suppression and intimidation to ensure its survival.

What Uthman did can be compared to early Christians destroying the Gospel according to Mark, Luke, and John, and just keeping Matthew. This may have made things simpler, but Christianity is richer for having preserved all these different testimonies, and Islam is poorer for having destroyed these other testimonies to the Qur’an. The result is that today we have only one testimony to what Muhammad recited. The testimony of the other collections is almost totally lost.

DrRasheed:

Unlike the Bible, no variant Quranic manuscript has ever been discovered containing extra chapters or contradicting the theological core of the text. Manuscripts like the Sanaa palimpsest (dated between 650–705 CE by radiocarbon testing) match the Uthmanic text with only minor orthographic and non-theological differences.

The sana manuscript did not match your modern Quran in anyway. Just don't say it, bring evidence from non Muslims Quranic scholars
that says Sana manuscript is almost the same as your Quran. If anything, what scholars are saying is that the lower text of the manuscript is very similar to the Ibn Masud codex.

DrRasheed:



In contrast, the Bible lacks any centralized, contemporaneous compilation effort. The four canonical Gospels were written between 65 and 100 CE—decades after Jesus—and none of the original autographs exist.

point of correction, the 3 synoptic gospel were written prior to the fall of the Jerusalem in 70 AD. The gospel of Luke was definitely written before 62 AD.

DrRasheed:

The earliest nearly complete New Testament manuscripts, such as Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, date to the 4th century (around 325–360 CE). Between the 2nd and 4th centuries, numerous manuscripts show wide variation. According to Dr. Bart Ehrman, there are over 400,000 textual variants among the existing Greek manuscripts—more variants than there are words in the New Testament. Many of these are minor, but some involve entire ages.

The highlighted is not true.
The widest variation in our manuscripts lies btw extant of 5th to 10th century.
extant manuscripts btw 2nd to 4th are very much preserved with insignificant theological variant if any. There's a reason bible scholars now say the gospel was corrupted in the 1st century AD.
They found out that copy of the gospels dated 2nd to 4th do not have those theological interpolation or corruptions they desperately want to see.

DrRasheed:


The long ending of Mark (Mark 16:9–20), for instance, is absent in the earliest and most reliable manuscripts like Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.

Despite the fact I corrected this false statement in my earlier post, u still brought it up. Anyway I will produce evidence to show u longer ending of Mark 16 existed even before codex sinaticus or vaticanus were written.

[i]Because of patristic evidence from the late 100s for the existence of copies of Mark with 16:9–20, scholars widely date the composition of the longer ending to the early 2nd century.
May, Herbert G. and Bruce M. Metzger. The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha. 1977.[/i]

The earliest clear evidence for Mark 16:9-20 as part of the Gospel of Mark is in Chapter XLV First Apology of Justin Martyr (155–157). In a age in which Justin treats Psalm 110 as a Messianic prophecy, he states that Psalm 110:2 was fulfilled when Jesus' disciples, going forth from Jerusalem, preached everywhere. His wording is remarkably similar to the wording of Mk. 16:20 and is consistent with Justin's use of a Synoptics-Harmony in which Mark 16:20 was blended with Lk. 24:53.

The Epistula Apostolorum (mid-late 2nd c.) likely incorporates all four Gospels, including the longer ending of Mark in sections 9-10, per the strong thematic, literary, and narrative sequence resemblance between the texts[59]

Justin's student Tatian incorporated almost all of Mark 16:9-20 into his Diatessaron (160–175), a blended narrative consisting of material from all four canonical Gospels.
Lunn, Nicholas. The Original Ending of Mark. Pickwick Publications, 2014, 74-75.

Besides, the Latin Vulgate written in 380 AD close to the time of Codes Synaticus and vaticanus has the longer ending of Mark chapter 16. So the idea that longer ending of chapter 16 is a later interpolation makes no sense.

DrRasheed:

The pericope adulterae (John 7:53–8:11) is similarly absent in all early manuscripts before the 5th century and appears in varying locations, indicating it was a later insertion.

The Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7), which reads "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one," does not appear in any Greek manuscript before the 14th century and only entered the Latin Vulgate in the 6th century. This fabricated verse then shaped Trinitarian theology in Europe for centuries despite having no basis in early manuscripts.

Once again, stop looking at the bible with a eurocentric lens, whatever Europe did with their bible version should not rub on others. We know how western Christians justified transatlantic slave trade with the use of the bible for over 300 years. As I already said, the western europe bible version of Latin and byzantine texts may have been corrupted BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THE BIBLE IS CORRUPTED.
EVERYBODY SHOULD CARRY THEIR OWN SIN- that's what u guys preach in your religion. Let's it application be uniform.

DrRasheed:

Regarding non-European Biblical traditions, such as the Coptic, Syriac (Peshitta), and Ge'ez texts, it is true that they preserve certain readings not found in Western manuscripts. However, they also contain their own variants and were all translated from Greek originals that were themselves in flux. No ancient Christian tradition—Eastern or Western—possesses a manuscript lineage that traces directly and unaltered to the original writings of the apostles.

Unfortunately u are not a bible scholar so your big words mean nothing. Let's ask what the scholars have to say about preservation of the non- european bible texts.

[i]Over the centuries, the Peshitta textual integrity has been preserved through critical scholarship, manuscript discoveries, and modern translations.
Critical Editions of the Peshitta New Testament

Bruce M. Metzger, a renowned textual critic, describes the Peshitta as:
"Careful, faithful, and literal," sometimes referred to as the "Queen of the versions."
— The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission and Limitations, Oxford University Press, 1977, p. 50.


"If modern scholarship shows that the Peshitta is historically reliable as an ancient version of the New Testament that predates the Greek manuscripts, we would not be able to say that the Greek version is corrupted. What we would be able to say is that the Greek-based translations are so extremely similar to the Aramaic Peshitta... that the two texts are virtually identical."
— Was the Bible Corrupted? Part 2: Peshitta, Historical Bible Society.

DrRasheed:

For example, the oldest Syriac manuscript of the Gospels (Curetonian Gospels) dates to the 5th century, long after the canonical texts were written. These versions reflect theological and textual decisions made long after the original teachings of Jesus.

This is a serious accusation that demands hardcore evidence.
anyway read here about transmission of the syriac text from the 2nd century...https://uasvbible.org/2024/12/30/in-depth-how-have-the-ancient-syriac-versions-preserved-the-new-testament/

DrRasheed:


The Quranic qira’at, or canonical readings, are another point of confusion. These are not textual variants in the same way as Biblical divergences. All qira’at are based on the same consonantal skeleton (rasm) and are transmitted with rigorous chains (isnad). They were codified by the 10th century, but the readings themselves trace back to companions of the Prophet and were orally transmitted and widely accepted within scholarly communities. Importantly, no qira’a introduces or omits verses, nor do they affect theology.

Well we really need to dissect Ibn Masud and Ibn Ubay's Quranic version before we can come to this big conclusion.

DrRasheed:

In contrast, the Bible contains hundreds of textual differences that do alter doctrine or narrative detail. For example, the resurrection appearances in Mark 16:9–20 are absent from the earliest manuscripts, yet they have been used to affirm the resurrection as historical fact.

We already debunked this Mark 16:9-20 myth, stop repeating what so cannot substantiate. Mark 16 longer version is as old as any NT manuscript.
Besides, the resurrection story didn't start with Mark 16, there were prior New Testament texts written by eye witness that confirmed the resurrection of Jesus Christ before the gospel of Mark was written.

One was Peter, apostle of our Lord,
1 Peter 1
3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

DrRasheed:

and Some modern Bibles now include footnotes or brackets around these verses, but for centuries, these additions were read as authentic scripture. The same applies to the Johannine Comma and the adulteress story.

The idea that oral tradition validates such ages is not sustainable. No early church father before the 4th century mentions the pericope adulterae. It is absent in P66 and P75 (both dated c. 200 CE), Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Sinaiticus. When it finally appears, it does so in different places—sometimes in Luke—which shows it was floating and unanchored. That is the opposite of what would be expected from a divinely preserved text.

Take am easy with confabulation. It's the internet age, bogus claims can easily be debunked.
Church Fathers confirmed the pericope adulterae is part of the Oral gospel.

Papias (c. 60 – c. 130) knew of the story when he referenced a woman “who was accused of many sins before the Lord,” though he said it was found in the Gospel according to the Hebrews.
“And he relates another story of a woman, who was accused of many sins before the Lord, which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews” (Eusebius, Church History, Book 3, Chapter 39).

The Didascalia Apostolorum, an early third-century book of church discipline like the Didache, makes reference to this age:

“But if you do not receive the one who repents, because you are without mercy, you shall sin against the Lord God. For you do not obey our Saviour and our God, to do as even He did with her who had sinned, whom the elders placed before Him, leaving the judgment in His hands, and departed. But he, the searcher of hearts, asked her and said to her: ‘Have the elders condemned you, my daughter?’ She says to him: ‘No, Lord.’ And he said to her: ‘Go, neither do Ι condemn you’” (8.2.24).

Didymus the Blind, who lived in the early fourth century, summarizes the age in one of his works:

“So we have in certain gospels: Α woman, it says, was condemned by the Jews on of a sin and was being sent to be stoned to the place where that customarily happened. The savior, it says, seeing her, and perceiving that they were ready to stone her, said to those who were going to assault her with stones, ‘Whoever has not sinned, let him take up a stone and throw it. If anyone is aware in himself that he has not sinned, let him take up a stone and smite her.’ And no one dared. Since they understood themselves, and knew that they were themselves liable in certain matters, they did not dare to strike her down” (Commentary on Ecclesiastes 223.7-13).

Callistus, who was Bishop of Rome from 217-222 AD, quotes from the age in his second epistle to all the bishops of Gaul. And Leo the Great references the story in Sermon 62 on the suffering of Christ.

DrRasheed:

The notion that early Christians were "intellectually honest" because they didn’t destroy manuscripts doesn’t excuse the instability. Honesty in acknowledging variants does not resolve the chaos caused by centuries of uncontrolled copying, nor does it erase the doctrinal confusion resulting from it.

To be honest, I agree Muslims did a better job preserving their texts than Christians. Yes, I agree.
But maybe if the Pope had called for holy crusade to ensure biblical uniformity crusade, I'm very sure we Christians would have had a preserved text today.
I have no doubt of the power of the pope to deal with monks and scribes harboring unofficial versions of the bible.
If the Pope could convince people to burn their women for witchcraft for over 300 years or successfully threaten people to believe the earth is flat for over a thousand years, I don't see how destroying contrary versions of the bible would be a problem.
Abi is that now Uthman came to produce only one Quran.

DrRasheed:

Islamic tradition acted decisively and within one generation to standardize and protect the Quranic text. The Bible, in contrast, was left to evolve regionally, leading to conflicting texts, theological insertions, and delayed recognition of errors. This is why modern biblical scholars—whether Christian or secular—do not claim the Bible has been perfectly preserved. Even the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, the standard academic edition, uses a critical apparatus to document thousands of variations.

I'm very sure u muslims don't think these argument of bible is corrupt through.
because if u do, no muslim will ever utter the phrase ''bible is corrupt'

Let me challenge your thinking faculty tonight

1. Tell me, what version of the Torah were people using during the time of Jesus. When Jesus was quoting from the Torah, what version of Torah was he referencing?

2. When Allah was helping Waraqah ibn Nawfa to translate the injil to arabic. What version of the gospel was Waraqah using for his translation.

DrRasheed:

Again, the Quran has a consistent, traceable textual history, with preservation mechanisms built into both oral and written traditions. The Bible, by contrast, suffers from extensive textual instability, late additions, and no continuous manuscript chain to the original texts. These are not simply "textual variants" but represent deep-rooted problems.

The day you find a New Testament manuscript that says Jesus is not the Son of God or Jesus wasn't crucified or Jesus didn't come to die for the sin of mankind, then u can have a leg to stand on.
Or if we discover an ancient NT manuscript that has those verses omitted from its pages, then we can talk.

The oldest gospel manuscript we have- P52 gospel of John dated 120 AD is the page that talks about the trial of JESUS CHRIST.

Hiding behind variants that are mainly scribal grammatic errors or spelling mistake wont safe u.

DrRasheed:

In all of this, it is important to clarify that we Muslims do accept the Bible—but not the Bible as it exists today. We believe that Allah revealed divine scriptures such as the Torah to Musa (Moses), the Zabur to Dawud (David), and the Injil to Isa (Jesus), peace be upon them all. However, the current Bible is not a single revealed book; it is a collection of writings composed over centuries by different authors—some of whom were kings, fishermen, priests, religious leaders, anonymous writers, and even councils of men who decided which texts to include or exclude.

Some were sincere believers, others were scribes, and in many cases, the exact identity of the authors is unknown. What we now have is a text shaped by translation, redaction, and political decisions—not the unaltered word of God.

We do not deny that divine guidance was once sent to previous nations. On the contrary, belief in those original revelations is a pillar of Islamic faith. But what remains of those scriptures today does not represent their pure, original forms. Only the Qur’an, revealed to the final Messenger Muhammad (Salallahu Alaihi Wasallam), has been preserved without alteration.

It came not through anonymous hands or political councils, but directly from Allah through the angel Jibril, memorized by the Prophet’s companions, and transmitted with an unbroken chain both orally and in writing. Allah Himself promised its protection: “Indeed, it is We who sent down the Qur’an, and indeed, We will be its guardian” (Surah Al-Hijr 15:9).

Therefore, while we respect the prophets and the scriptures they were given, we do not rely on the Bible of today as a source of divine law or belief. Only the Qur’an remains as the final, complete, and uncorrupted guidance for all of humanity, until the end of time.

Quran as a divine text is another topic for another day. I don't even believe Muhammed wrote the Quran anyway.