Unapologetically Muslim

The Problems of the Bible (PART 2)

6) The Bible is more narrative than it is instructional

A critique that many Christians have of the Quran is that it's much less narrative than the Bible. But honestly, why is that a problem? The Quran isn't a story book, it's an instructional guide from God. It contains clear proof and serves as a guidance for human beings to follow (all of which I will address in another chapter). 

The Bible on the other hand, serves more as a story book than it does as a guidance for human beings. It focuses more on the life of Jesus and the earlier prophets than it does on what they actually taught. It's ambiguous in many areas, hardly touching upon things like how one should worship God, the importance of staying clean, and women's rights. 

Anyone can write a storybook. If I lived during Jesus's lifetime, I may as well have written parts of the Bible myself!

The fact that the Quran isn't narrative like the Bible just serves as more proof of its uniqueness and how it couldn't have been authored by human beings. The Bible was in fact, written by ordinary humans, and so it shouldn't come as a surprise that it more closely resembles a storybook than the Quran does.

7) The Resurrection story wasn't originally in the Bible

Christians believe that on the third day after Jesus's crucifixion, Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to various people. However, according to Professor Bill Warren from the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary, "in the original manuscripts for Mark, the story of Jesus visiting the disciples is nowhere to be found."

The Gospel of Mark is believed to have been the first of the four Gospels, and it was written somewhere between 60-70 years after Jesus's time. Despite it being the earliest book of the New Testament, the story of how Jesus was resurrected was nowhere to be found. Instead, this was believed to have been added as late as the 2nd or 3rd centuries.

"We actually have more than one ending in the manuscripts, and then we have some with no ending," Warren explains, "So what we think probably happened there is that as soon as you see the other Gospels with the resurrection stories, early in the 2nd century at least, someone says, 'You know, we need to put some of this material into Mark to round it off better.' " (National Public Radio, 2011)

So here we have another crucial part of the Christian doctrine that wasn't added to the Bible until centuries later. As a Muslim, this only gives me another reason to doubt the Bible as containing God's pure word. If the Resurrection actually happened, then why wasn't it included in the original text? Why did the Book of Mark originally leave that out? It seemed like Christians added that story later to make it seem like their doctrine has always been consistent, when in reality, it never has been. 

The Resurrection story and the Trinity concept, two major beliefs in the Christian doctrine, weren't created until much later. 

8) The Ten Commandments were originally much different

But this shouldn't come off as a surprise, given the thousand other changes the Bible has went through.

According to ranker.com, "Depending on the translation, one of the Ten Commandments may have had a very different context than the one with which you're familiar. In the original Hebrew, the tenth commandment about coveting. In fact, the original word used, "chamad," is usually used as a synonym for "lakach" (to take), so the tenth (and in some versions the ninth) commandment is actually a command not to yearn for things, but to not go around taking other people's things."

How could you go from "don't steal" to "don't yearn for things?" There's a pretty big difference between the two.

You're trying to tell me that those Bible writers were "inspired by God" to change the original wording? How does that make any sense? 

9) Apparently God punishes you for things you didn't even do

From Adam and Eve eating from the forbidden tree to the curse of Ham, the god depicted in the Bible sure loves to punish those who did absolutely nothing wrong.

Why should all of mankind be "cursed" just because two people decided to do something wrong? Why should all descendants of Ham be cursed (instead of Ham himself!) when he's the one who saw his father naked? 

If God loves His creation then why would be curse them? Why would he hold them responsible for things they never actually did? It sounds completely unfair and makes no sense whatsoever. 

10) Christians are at odds with what belongs in the Bible and what doesn't

The Catholics have their own Bible. The Protestants have their own Bible. The Mormons have their own Bible. 

Why so much division? Why can't there just be one version of the Bible?

At least the Sunni and Shia Muslims are in agreement that there are 114 chapters in the Quran, and haven't insisted on adding or removing any of them.

I'm also aware that the bigger a religion gets, the more likely there are for different sects to form. However, the division in Christianity is much greater than that of Islam. About 90% of all Muslims belong to just one sect, which is Sunni. Meanwhile, about 50% of Christians are Catholic, 37% Protestant, 12% Orthodox, and the remaining 1% other.

If Christianity was the true religion and the Bible really contained God's pure word, then why would there be so much division among its followers? Why does Christianity have such a significant history of conflicts and schisms with the Church? Surely a book that was clearly written by God would have clarified most of the issues Christians have always disagreed on, right?

11) Many of the writers of the Bible were unknown

The only argument Christians have for the Bible maintaining the true word of God is that every single one of those writers, even the ones whose identities were never verified, were "inspired" by God and thus could not have made any mistakes in writing their accounts of Jesus. The reality is that there is no proof of any of the Bible writers getting any sort of divine inspiration, that belief is based on nothing but mere assumption.

Of course how can Christians even know that these writers were truly inspired by God if they don't even know all their names, and therefore can't even look up that writer's background? I mean this is the message of God we're talking about, it only makes sense to know who was responsible for transmitting it, right?  

So to summarize these past two chapters, it is my firm belief that the original message of Jesus is not the same message that is being taught in the Bible. I've listed a lot of evidence for the Bible's possible corruption, including its long history of changes and how some of Christianity's most important concepts (The Trinity and the Resurrection story) weren't added until much later. 

Of course, please let me know If I made any mistakes here, as it's not my intention to include any information that is false.