The Bible was altered! Who, What, When, Where & Why?


I have once again been told that we Christians have been deceived and that the foundation of that deceit is the Bible. The accusation is that the Bible has been altered.

Would any Muslim apologist care to answer the following questions and to provide evidence to support this accusation that the Bible has been altered?

Who altered the verses? (Please be specific, list names, titles, etc., etc.)
What verses were altered? (Please list the verses you claim have been altered.)
When were the verse altered? (Please list the year that each altered verse was changed.)
Where is the evidence that the Bible has been altered? (Please provide documentation that existed prior to the canonization of the Bible (405 AD) that demonstrates alteration of verses. Remember this is evidence prior to the canonization of the Bible.)
Why were the verses altered? (Please offer the motives for alteration of each changed verse.)

As Muslims have had well over 1300 years to compile the information and evidence requested, this should be a fairly simple task for a knowledgeable Muslim. Simple answers for simple questions.

Thank you.


Those questions should also apply to Latter-day Saints, New Agers, Da Vinci Code believers, ans Jesus Seminar fans


The bible as we know it, is an authentic collection of reliable texts. The canonical gospels for example.

The CC erred on the side of caution in that there were many texts that could have been included but were not,. This is a pretty reliable indicator that what she teaches, is bound in tradition of ‘word of mouth’ and practice.

There were many documents the CC could have included, but after praying to the Holy Spirit for guidance, did not include them. One may therefore conclude that was the will of God.






This sounds like the same argumentation used by adherents and defenders of Mormonism and other restorationists of the 19th centrury.


Of course it is altered
*]You can never translate something exactly - some changes are always introduced. This is especially true of texts which have no punctuation, no capitalization, and no spaces between words (most of the bible).
*]We don’t have anything even close to “original” copies of the gospels so there is no way to determine if changes were intorduced or what they might have been.[/LIST]


Why don’t you know it was that despicable St. Paul! :rolleyes:


The Bible’s Manuscript Evidence

Unlike the Qur’an, when we consider the New Testament manuscripts (MSS) we are astounded by the sheer numbers of extent copies which are in existence. Muslims contend, however, that since we do not have the original documents, the reliability of the copies we do have is thus in doubt. Yet is this assumption correct?



I’m curious as to why it matters if the Bible was or wasn’t altered? If every Bible was burned you’d all still be Christain.

Just seems like arguing over something like whether or not the Bible is accurate or true is sort of skipping across the surface of a very deep body of water.


Pagan Soul:
Since we Christians are convinced the Bible is God’s word given to us, we naturally care very much that it be preserved intact.


:clapping: :bowdown: :amen: :bible1:


Since we Christians are convinced the Bible is God’s word given to us, we naturally care very much that it be preserved intact.

Thank you for that. :slight_smile: I didn’t appreciate that Christians felt that way about the Bible. I assumed, obviously incorrectly, that it was more about the message rather then the exactness of the words…and that the proof of the accuracy of the message is in the consistent positive results in the many people who study it.

But as for the proof of the words, everything I’ve read about seems to imply that its actually fairly conistent - which is pretty amazing consider human beings did the translations and re-writing of each book by hand for years. Guess that shows the care involved.


I had a Muslim argue that the Bible must have been changed, since we have so many different “versions”. What needs to be explained to Muslims is that there have always been many Christian scholars in the world who have made thier own attempt to translated the bible into a modern form that’s most easily understood. That is why we have the NKJV, NLT, NIV, NCV…ect.


Then we can also contend that the Bible was not distorted! Since “we don’t have anything even close to ‘original’ copies of the Gospels”, we cannot prove it either way. No original copies, no evidence for the distortion. This mode of thinking leads you into a number of assumptions rather than historic facts. Thomas Paine used to argue that we did not have the original Bible, but he eventually admitted that it was impossible to prove the corruption of the Sacred Scripture.

Besides, people of all faiths added capitalization and punctuation into their scripture due to the developments in written language. Translation, too, is absolutely necessary and constantly practiced. Does this mean no text is reliable in our day?

Finally, which faith can claim to have the original copies of a religious text? Today’s Quran is the revised version of the supposed Quran in Uthman’s period. Muslims have nothing “even” close to the original Quran in Mohammed’s time because the chapters had not been worked into a single book when Mohammed was alive.

Skepticism is good only if it is fair. :wink:

Peace to you,

Angelos N.


That’s true but it only means that neither side of this argument can prove anything.


As I understand it the Qu’ran states that the bible was altered so therefore it must be so.
It is believed that long ago Jewish and Christian scholars conspired and collected every copy of the ‘original bible’ and altered them to remove all mention of Muhammad and that other stuff was added.
This is why we are infidels because we are ’ under a curse for altering it’.
There is an absence of proof but Muslims continue to insist the Old and New Testaments were altered. The chief reason given in the Qu’ran is a desire for material gain.
I suggest you get the book
inside Islam: A Guide for Catholics by Daniel Ali and Robert Spencer with a foreword by Father Mitch Pacwa.


I once put it to some Moslems that they should produce a Bible with the ‘good’ verses underlined.

If you’re going to bring along a ‘new’ prophet then there’s got to be a reason for him to come along. This normally involves rectifying the screwed up messages of previous generations that just didn’t quite ‘get it’.

Joseph Smith, Muhammed, they all do the same thing.


I don’t think the part in bold is quite true. Actually, Mohammed encouraged people in his lifetime to “verify” his teachings by looking at the books of the Christians and Jews. He just wasn’t as well-versed in those books as he thought himself to be, and so when Muslims first started reading the Bible for themselves (rather than taking Mo’s word for it) they were so disheartened that it didn’t match up with their teachings after all.

You would think at this point they’d put two and two together and realize this Mohammed really wasn’t much of a prophet after all. But no, that couldn’t have been it… somehow the “real” Bibles were all changed. Um, yeah! That’s it! :rolleyes:

I’m sure you’ve seen how the longer someone tries to sustain a lie, the more they must use a growing number of other interconnected lies until their story becomes just plain ridiculous. This could be history’s ultimate example.


If Christians changed the NT, then anti-christian Jewish scholars would have exposed those changes.

It is just plain silly to think that Jewish and Chrisitan scholars in the past got together to change the Old Testament.

Fact is, there was never anything written in the bible about muhammad at all.

Besides, we christians are not expecting any new scriptures at all because we have the Messiah and look forward to his return.

Hebrews 1

1In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. 3The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word.

We are in the last days, and Jesus is the final prophet, no others. The prophets that produce scripture are in the past, not future.

Revelation 22:18-19

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

If anyone tries to add to eschatology via a new prophet, then they are adding or subtracting from the book of Revelation and thus are putting themselves under the curse of God himself.

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

God is patient in these Last Days to allow for everyone who desires to, to come to repentance.


There are two kinds of revelations: (1) universal revelations, which are contained in the Bible or in the depositum of Apostolic tradition transmitted by the Church. These ended with the preaching of the Apostles and must be believed by all; (2) particular or private revelations which are constantly occurring among Christians (see CONTEMPLATION). When the Church approves private revelations, she declares only that there is nothing in them contrary faith or good morals, and that they may be read without danger or even with profit; no obligation is thereby imposed on the faithful to believe them.

Finally the Canon of the Scriptures closes with a prophetic book, the Apocalypse of St. John, which describes the struggles and the victories of the new kingdom while awaiting the return of its Chief at the consummation of all things.


Exactly! In the Secret of Muhammad’s Success" Ali Sina writes:

So, why has Islam succeeded when other cults failed?

  1. Islam is the biggest lie
  2. Muhammad was a ruthless psychopath

“*The broad mass of a nation will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one.” *These are the words of Adolf Hitler. They are living testament to the idea that the bigger the lie the more believable it becomes.

The logic behind this is that the average, normal and sane people generally do not dare to tell big lies. They content themselves with small lies. They fear a bigger lie would not be believed. They are embarrassed of making a total fool of themselves by telling outrageous big lies. And since everyone has heard or has fabricated a few small lies they generally can recognize it when they hear one. But big lies are so outlandish that often take the listener aback. Most people are not equipped to process them adequately. The average person wonders “how could anyone dare to say such a big lie?” And since telling a lie of such a magnitude is almost impossible therefore it must be true. However, what the average and normal person does not understand is that the liar is not an average and normal person but a psychopath, and his way of thinking should not be measured with the same yardstick that the thinking of an average mind is measured.

What the big lie does is that it offsets the scale or our commonsense and better judgment. This is like loading a scale that is designed to weigh kilos with tons. It breaks and stops showing the correct weight, in fact if may even show zero. That is why a bigger lie often appears to be truer than little lies.

Add to this, the absolute conviction of the psychopath liar and his readiness to apply extreme force in support of his claim.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit