First off, I'm not getting into a whole debate on verses in the Qu'ran which claim that the Bible is supposedly corrupted. As a Christian I personally believe it to be the Word of God, and I understand Muslims don't, which is fine and I respect this fact.

However, if this is the case, then why do Muslims tend to quote from the Bible to try and show that Islam and Muhammad are mentioned? How can Muslims accept (for example) Isaiah 42 and not Isaiah 53? Or the Gospels proclaiming that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh (John 8:58-59) and yet claim that Jesus mentioned the coming of Muhammad in the Gospel of John (John 1:19-21, John 16:8-11).

Surely, if Muslims believe that the Bible is corrupted then they shouldn't use any of it in direction to their faith, regardless of what it indicates? You either accept it all or you don't, you can't really pick and choose if you understand what I mean? IF these verses do speak of Muhammad then why can Muslims so easily accept these, and not the rest of the Bible?

Anyhow, if this could be explained to me then that would be greatly appreciated. All I'm trying to do is understand Islam a little bit more.

Thank you and Peace,

By a beloved Sister.

Frosbell, the simple reason is that if muslims quote the Qur'an to you to prove their point you can easily claim that you dont beleive in it but if we quote your bible to you in support of our arguement, you will be forced to accept. The bible contains so many interpolatios and alterations (Jeremiah 8: but fortunately muslims have the Qur'an which is the criterion for distinguishing truth from falsehood. see Qur'an 25:1

by the way you also quote the Qur'an in support of your arguement , do you beleive in it?