The question before us is this: If the Injeel were intact in Mohammad.s day, as the Quran appears to testify; since we have copies of Injeels from that same period, and from centuries before, why does the Quran tell remarkably different stories than are found in the Injeels dated from his time?
*A classic case of Christian special pleading **
As to what does Quran actually say;
The Qur'an’s Three Accusations
What the Qur'an really criticizes is not anybody else’s books. It never mentions the Bible, but as a matter of fact neither does the bible, that is just a nickname for a collection of books. What it talks about are scriptures and what it criticizes is the way that some, I stress some people, use their scriptures.
It criticizes the handling of whatever people call scripture. It endorses the fact that the truth has been preserved by people that they have in their scriptures the truth, but they mishandle it.
It makes basically three accusations which probably you could go to any church and the pastor will say those things are true of those people over there.
(I) The Quran says some of the Jews and Christians pass over much of what is in their scriptures.
(II) Some of them have changed the words, and this is the one that is misused by Muslims very often giving the impression that once there was a true bible and then somebody hid that one away, then they published a false one. The Quran doesn’t say that. What it criticizes is that people who have the proper words in front of them, but they don’t deliver that up to people. They mistranslate it, or misrepresent it, or they add to the meaning of it. They put a different slant on it.
There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues: (As they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it is no part of the Book; and they say, "That is from God," but it is not from God: It is they who tell a lie against God, and (well) they know it! (3:78]
(III) And the third accusation is that some people falsely attribute to God what is really written by men.
Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from God," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby. [2:79]
Now probably in any church there will be people who will say, "Yes, I know a church that does all those three things. They pass over much of what is in their scripture, they‘ve changed things, they put the wrong slant on the words, and they’ve credited God with things that men said. "So really there is not a cause for a problem between the Christian and the Muslim on these charges, the Christian, I would like to think, would generally go along with those ideas."
And again, I stress it only accuses some people of doing that.
[Islam and Christianity - Lecture by Gary Miller]
Now to make it easy for you I’ll give you couple of examples of each of the three accusations.
Point 1 - The Quran says some of the Jews and Christians pass over much of what is in their scriptures.
The virgin birth of Jesus and the miracles he demonstrated are cited by some as proof of his divinity. We need only read the Biblical account of Adam's creation, without father or mother, and the accounts of miracles associated with the prophet Elisha (Genesis and 2 Kings chapters 4,5,6). In the case of these two men, no Christian asserts their divinity, yet each has a qualification in common with Jesus.
So miarcles performed by Jesus (pbuh) is cited as proof yet they pass over miracles performed by Prophe Elisha.
Bible texts are produced to show that Jesus used the terms "son of man", "son of God", "Messiah", and "saviour". But each of these terms is applied to other individuals in the Bible. Ezekiel was addressed as "son of man" (Ezekiel chapter 3). Jesus himself speaks of the peacemakers as "sons of God" (Matthew 5:9). Cyrus the Persian is called "messiah" at Isaiah 45:1.
Again these terms are quoted to assert the divinity of Jesus, but the same terms are passed over when referred to other people.
At John 10:30 Jesus is quoted as saying "I and the Father are one." The Greek word translated "one" is HEN. Certain scholars have insisted that the only possible understanding of this word is "one in essence or nature". One need not be a Greek scholar to refute this unjustified claim. A counter example is sufficient. The same word is used by Jesus in John 17:11,21,22,23, as he includes his disciples in this oneness, whatever its meaning.
Again John 10:30 is quoted while John 17 is passed over.
These are just a few examples.
Point 2 - (II) Some of them have changed the words. What it criticizes is that people who have the proper words in front of them, but they don’t deliver that up to people. They mistranslate it, or misrepresent it, or they add to the meaning of it. They put a different slant on it.
Bible texts are produced to show that Jesus used the terms "son of man", "son of God", "Messiah", and "saviour". But each of these terms is applied to other individuals in the Bible. Ezekiel was addressed as "son of man" (Ezekiel chapter 3). Jesus himself speaks of the peacemakers as "sons of God" (Matthew 5:9). Cyrus the Persian is called "messiah" at Isaiah 45:1.
T*he duplicity of translators is manifested here, for they inevitably render only the meaning of the word "Messiah" which is "anointed". Where other Bible verses seem to refer to Jesus, they prefer to transliterate "Messiah" or the Greek equivalent "Christ". In this way they hope to give the impression that there is only one Messiah. As for "saviour", the word is applied to other than Jesus (2 Kings 13:5). Christians choose to cite the forty-third chapter of Isaiah as proof that there is only one saviour. Again, translators have tried to obscure the fact that God is the only saviour in the same ultimate sense that He is our only nourisher and protector, though men also have these assigned tasks.*
By over specifying this pronouncement in Isaiah they hope to have us believe that God equals saviour and Jesus equals saviour therefore Jesus equals God.
The conspiracy of modern translation is easily demonstrated. The King James Bible of 1611 is everywhere available. Compare it to a more recent translation, say the New English Translation. In the earlier version we find 2 Kings 13:5 contains the word "saviour", but in the newer version the synonymous word "deliverer" has been substituted. In fact, "saviours", the plural, will be found at Obadiah 21 and Nehemiah 9:27. Here again, by substituting a different word, the connotation of divinity tied to the word "saviour" has been guarded in modern versions by less than honest translation.
Present day bible contains only 4 gospels, however its a well know fact, there are many other gospels as well.
(III) And the third accusation is that some people falsely attribute to God what is really written by men.
Now before I give some examples of this accusation, let me tell you, this accusation is also to be found in the bible itself.
How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain. (Jeremiah Chapter 8: 8 KJV)
How can you say, ‘We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us’, when, in fact, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie? (Jeremiah Chapter 8: 8 RSV)
In one of the New Testament Books, Paul goes on to list the men he once baptimised and finished as saying, there were others, but I don’t remember them now. This is the kind of objections Muslims have with some Christians who insist that every word in the bible is the word of God. Is this how God works, that He says don’t expect me to remember it now, it was a long time back?
Secondly the various bible out there is proof, that people have attriuted what is written by men to God. They all are not same, just for the sake of argument, lets assume (for the sake of argument) that one bible is 100% word of God. The rest of them (and there are many), will still contain words attributed to God which is actually written by men. But I have already highlighted the kind of stuff Muslims object to (don’t committ excesses in your religion, and dont attribute to God what is written by men).
The bible, Pseudigrapha and other gospels are not to be confused with Injeel. These are collection of writings by many different authors. Injeel is like The Quran i.e. it is a dictation [literal word of Allah to men].
This is part of the tidings of the things unseen, which We reveal unto thee (O Apostle!) by inspiration: Thou wast not with them when they cast lots with arrows, as to which of them should be charged with the care of Mary: Nor wast thou with them when they disputed (the point). [3:44]
Yes (a) that Prophet Muhammad [pbuh] was not time at the time of the event and *no one was knew about it 14 centuries back. *
*** This is part of the tidings of the things unseen. ***
This is a common phrase in the Quran. Had anyone known this information he would have objected. He would have said you say ‘It is part of the unseen’ but we know this, we learned it in school or our father told us about it. It was indeed part of the unseen [in the sense that no one knew about it at the time of the Prophet [pbuh]].
It is the church not God that sets the criteria to classify these Apocryphaas false.
May Allah quide us closer to the truth*