I know Muslims say the Bible is a book of god, same god that sent the Koran. The Koran is an end all etc etc.
So does that mean that Muslims take whats writen in the Bible as being factual? I mean they must if its a book of god, or inspired by god no?
If they do, then how do Muslims come to terms with the obvious contradictions between the two? Example, Jesus says he is the son of god, while Muslims dont believe such a claim. Also, Jesus instructs his followers to turn the other cheek and not seek retribution, while the Koran allows retribution to a certain extent, slap for a slap etc.
So how do Muslims view these and other contradictions?
Muslims take the current bible as a perversion of the original Bible. It is indeed a book of God but it has been excessively corrupted by humans and very little of the original word of Allah remains in it.
Thats a muslims view point
with new editions of bible coming out almost regularly, i dont think anyone wud say that the bible in our hands today is a word of God....
as Maniac said, the Book was revealed by God (Allah) and then later it was changed/corrupted by men, and this continue till today hence u get new versions of the book....
and there r many points on which Quran agrees with even today's bible....
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Maniac: *
Muslims take the current bible as a perversion of the original Bible. It is indeed a book of God but it has been excessively corrupted by humans and very little of the original word of Allah remains in it.
Thats a muslims view point
[/QUOTE]
The interesting thing is that there are no evidence to prove the correctness of this statement.
When the Quamran rolls were discovered, some were older than any known manuscripts at the time. In stead of showing any deviations, they in fact proved the authenticity of what was already at hand.
I far as I know, the Prophet Muhammad also did not dispute the Torah as being correct during his time.
and what made you say that!!
The Roman Catholic Bible was published at Rheims in 1582, from Jerome's Latin Vulgate and reproduced at Douay in 1609. As such the RCV (Roman Catholic Version) is the oldest Version that one can still buy today.. The King James "version" in 1611, and then revised in 1881 (RV), and now re-revised and brought up to date as the Revised Standard Version (RSV) 1952, and now again re-re-revised in 1971 (still RSV for short)...
I wonder why RCV and RSV are different, if both are words of God!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by The Old Man: *
The interesting thing is that there are no evidence to prove the correctness of this statement.
When the Quamran rolls were discovered, some were older than any known manuscripts at the time. In stead of showing any deviations, they in fact proved the authenticity of what was already at hand.
I far as I know, the Prophet Muhammad also did not dispute the Torah as being correct during his time.
[/QUOTE]
Perhaps God, in His infinite wisdom, planned on the translations and interpretations of His word to be in the form of today's Bible. For those who are not beholden to literalness, the Bible can be true to the meaning of His words instead of exact words (since God did not use a recording device to record His exact words anyway.)
Perhaps God had to change his words in just under 20 years (King James RSV versions 1952 & 1971)..
Perhaps. After all, He is all knowing, all powerful and has infinite wisdom. Perhaps His favorite version is the New King James Version - NKJV (1982). He may believe His word can be understood and followed better by having the translation updated instead of expecting people to read from the context of a different time, different different place and different culture.
There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues:
Surat-u Ali-Imran (3):78
Perhaps .. His favorite “versions” are yet to come.. perhaps with all His wisdom and His all knowing He didn’t know about the next 10 or twenty years and the guidlines line for the changing world! 
Not possible - infinite wisdom and all-knowing means that there isn't anything He doesn't know.
Bingo: finaly you got it right.. so why need to change in just twenty and then again after ten years!
The corruption of the Biblical text has very little to do with variant translations or interpretations. The real problem is that different Bibles can't ever seem to agree on which verse/word actually forms a part of the original text; where a chapter should end; whether entire books should be part of the Bible or not. This problem remains unsolved and as yet, despite centuries of effort, Christianity has utterly failed to provide us with a standardised text that anyone can hold up and say this is what God originally revealed. Every time someone tries to do that, someone else points out that his Bible has verses and chapters not found in other copies.
Our Christian Gupsters know full well deep in their hearts that the current Bibles are not the Infallible Word of God.
Jesus never recorded the Bible in his lifetime. The first edition came around 200 years later or so.
Secondly, yes, some elements may contain the Word of God, but the Bible is also a combination of Words of a Prophet of God and Words of a Historian. Combing all 3 elements.
Furthermore, the difference between Protestant and Catholic Bibles mean that one has 8 more Books in it's Bible than the other?
You can easily pick two diffrent Books in the Bible which discuss the same incident, but the difference is astronomical. There are numerous errors like this in the Bible.
Each religion believes that their Scriptures are the Word of God. But in order to test this claim, all one has to do is read each scripture side by side and carry out a comparative study! You'll get the answer. Not that we need it, but it will shed some light to some of our die hard fans in here.
Irrelavent of the debate the Bible is pure or not, a Muslim is bound to follow the Quran only. All previous books and religions became out of date when Hazrat Muhammad :saw: became Prophet. That is what Islam teaches us and that is what a Muslim believes.
true, but our faith is not complete till we believe that Allah sent some prophets with books or words of revelation: Hazrat Ibraham:as: 's Scrolls, the Psalms of Hazrat Dawood:as:, the Torah, the Gospel of Hazrat Eisah:as:, and the Quran… :as:
Correct. A Muslim has to have faith in them in order to be a Muslim, but is required to follow Quran only.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by sholay: *
Our Christian Gupsters know full well deep in their hearts that the current Bibles are not the Infallible Word of God.
[/QUOTE]
I'm sure they do not. If they do, then they do not require a strict, literal interpreation of holy scriptures to follow their faith as you do. Their faith may be in their heart, God may be in their soul. That makes them wrong only in the eyes of someone with a different faith (belief). As sure as YOU are, you cannot prove your faith is any more valid than theirs. 80% of the world (many of them very smart, very spiritual, very moral people) have a totally different set of beliefs than you do. And why it's wonderful you are so confident and certain in your beliefs, just remember there are over 5 billion people in this world who think you are a 'die hard fan' for your beliefs.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Seminole: *
I'm sure they do not. If they do, then they do not require a strict, literal interpreation of holy scriptures to follow their faith as you do. Their faith may be in their heart, God may be in their soul. That makes them wrong only in the eyes of someone with a different faith (belief). As sure as YOU are, you cannot prove your faith is any more valid than theirs.
[/QUOTE]
1st let me congratulate you that you don't need "literal interpreation of holy scriptures" bible in this case and "faith may be in their heart, God may be in their soul" a very logical approuch I must say. And it doesn't make it wrong in my eyes.
May I ask one question, how you define good and bad? of course your conscious tells you that.. example Adultry.. you know it by heart that its bad and you don't need a book to tell you that. (Correct me if I am wrong here).and No doubt, both the Old and the New Testament condemn adultery.
"A ****** shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord." (Deuteronomy 23:2) *
now Do I need to quote * Matthew 1:3 *
I better leave it.
[QUOTE]
80% of the world (many of them very smart, very spiritual, very moral people) have a totally different set of beliefs than you do. And why it's wonderful you are so confident and certain in your beliefs, just remember there are over 5 billion people in this world who think you are a 'die hard fan' for your beliefs.
[/QUOTE]
Indded 80% of the world's population have a different point of view but not TOTALLY different belief. lets talk about Christianity and the Islam. you know the basic difference between these two?
TRINITY.. we believe that Hazrat Eisah (Jesus) was nothing more then a messanger of God, and our Christian brothers believe him to be SON of GOD. where this belief came from? and what about *"Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is the one and only God. And you must love him with all your heart and soul and mind and strength.'"!! Mark 12:29
*
No doubt in muslim community you will find some hardcore elements, but these elements are those people who have no resources/ or will to learn Quran in its true meaning. they do what they BELIEVE is right! but I bet you will not find ANY hardcare teachings in QURAN itself.
Exactly… follow the Quarn but in the mean time also required to BELIEVE on old books. here the argument is if The Bible, as it is NOW, the one Allah gave Hazrat Eisah :as: or not.