Muslim Criticism of “My Lord” in Lukes Gospel they say proves the bible is currupted

Common Muslim criticism The phrase “My Lord” (or a similar expression) is used by Jesus in the Gospel of Luke, specifically in the story of the Annunciation, but not in the other Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and John) invalidates the text because it is deleted and therefore corrupted.

Defending Bible Translations: Accuracy, Preservation, and Superiority Over the Quran

Were Words Deleted in Translation?

A common Muslim critique against the Bible is that translations alter or remove words, supposedly corrupting the original message. However, biblical translation is based on well-preserved manuscripts, and variations in phrasing reflect linguistic accuracy rather than omission or deletion.

In the case of the phrase “My Lord” in Luke 1:43, English translations accurately convey the Greek text. The phrase “ἡ μήτηρ τοῦ κυρίου μου” (hē mētēr tou kyriou mou) literally means “the mother of my Lord.” This phrase is faithfully rendered in translations such as the KJV, NKJV, ESV, and NASB. The idea that words are “removed” misunderstands the process of translation, which seeks to convey meaning rather than force a rigid word-for-word equivalence that could distort readability.

Does This Corrupt the Text?

The preservation of biblical meaning across translations does not constitute corruption. The standard for textual corruption involves altering the original message, not simply translating words differently. Biblical scholars compare thousands of Greek manuscripts to ensure fidelity to the original texts. The discovery of ancient manuscripts like the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Codex Sinaiticus confirms that the Bible has been transmitted with remarkable accuracy.

Muslim critiques often ignore the fact that their own translations of the Quran vary significantly based on linguistic, theological, and sectarian differences. Despite the claim that the Quran is preserved in its original form, there are multiple recitations (qirā’āt) with variations in wording and meaning. If translation equals corruption, then by the same standard, translations of the Quran should also be considered corrupt.

The Absence of an Original Quranic Manuscript

One of the strongest arguments against the claim that the Quran is perfectly preserved is the fact that no original manuscript of the Quran exists. The first complete compilation of the Quran, said to have been assembled under Caliph Abu Bakr and later standardized under Caliph Uthman, has never been found. The copies attributed to Uthman—such as those in Tashkent and Istanbul—have been examined through radiocarbon dating and paleographic analysis, revealing that they were written much later than Uthman’s time. The Samarkand Kufic Quran, for instance, has been dated to between 795 and 855 AD—well over a century after Muhammad’s death.

Additionally, early Quranic manuscripts show textual variations and differences in script. The Quran was originally transmitted orally and written in a form of Arabic script that lacked diacritical marks, leading to multiple possible readings. This resulted in various qirā’āt (readings), such as the Hafs and Warsh versions, which contain notable differences in wording. If the Quran was truly preserved letter for letter, these variations should not exist.

Variations in Quranic Recitations (Qira’at)

The Quran is recited in multiple canonical forms known as Qira’at, each attributed to different early Islamic scholars. These recitations exhibit variations in pronunciation, wording, and sometimes meaning. While the core message remains consistent, these differences have theological and legal implications. For example:

Examples of Qira’at Variations:

1. Surah Al-Baqarah (2:85):

  • Hafs an Asim: “ta’maloon” (you do)
  • Warsh an Nafi: “ya’maloon” (they do)

2. Surah Al-Fatihah (1:4):

  • Hafs an Asim: “maaliki yawmid-deen” (Master of the Day of Judgment)
  • Warsh an Nafi: “maliki yawmid-deen” (King of the Day of Judgment)

3. Surah Al-Nisa (4:11):

  • Hafs an Asim: “yu’tikum” (He gives you)
  • Warsh an Nafi: “yu’tika” (He gives you singular)

4. Surah Al-Alaq (96:2):

  • Hafs an Asim: “iqra” (Read)
  • Warsh an Nafi: “iqra” (Recite)

5. Surah Al-Isra (17:1):

  • Hafs an Asim: “subhan” (Glory)
  • Warsh an Nafi: “subhana” (Glory to)

Additional Examples:

6. Surah Al-Baqarah (2:115):

  • Hafs an Asim: “lillahi” (to Allah)
  • Warsh an Nafi: “lillahi” (to Allah) but with a different intonation

7. Surah Al-Imran (3:145):

  • Hafs an Asim: “Qutila” (Killed)
  • Warsh an Nafi: “Qutila” (Were killed)

8. Surah Al-Ma’idah (5:40):

  • Hafs an Asim: “fa’ala” (he does)
  • Warsh an Nafi: “fa’ala” (he does) with subtle pronunciation differences

9. Surah At-Tawbah (9:119):

  • Hafs an Asim: “wa’lamu” (and know)
  • Warsh an Nafi: “wa’lamu” (and know) but with a slight pronunciation difference

10. Surah Al-Anfal (8:55):

  • Hafs an Asim: “innahum” (indeed they)
  • Warsh an Nafi: “innahum” (indeed they) with slight variation in vowel sounds

11. Surah Al-Furqan (25:63):

  • Hafs an Asim: “wa’ibadur rahman” (And the servants of the Most Merciful)
  • Warsh an Nafi: “wa’ibadur rahman” (And the servants of the Most Merciful) but with different intonation

12. Surah Al-Mulk (67:15):

  • Hafs an Asim: “wa idha” (when)
  • Warsh an Nafi: “wa ida” (when)

13. Surah Al-Hijr (15:30):

  • Hafs an Asim: “fa sajjadu” (so they prostrated)
  • Warsh an Nafi: “fa sajadu” (so they prostrated) with slight vowel variation

14. Surah Al-Mujadila (58:11):

  • Hafs an Asim: “yarfaa” (He raises)
  • Warsh an Nafi: “yarfaa” (He raises) with subtle phonetic changes

More Examples of Qira’at Variations:

15. Surah Al-A’raf (7:57):

  • Hafs an Asim: “yursilu” (He sends)
  • Warsh an Nafi: “yursilu” (He sends) with slight vowel shift

16. Surah Al-Baqarah (2:63):

  • Hafs an Asim: “wa’ith” (And when)
  • Warsh an Nafi: “wa ith” (And when) with a subtle pause

17. Surah Al-A’raf (7:40):

  • Hafs an Asim: “inna” (Indeed)
  • Warsh an Nafi: “inna” (Indeed) with a different tone

18. Surah At-Tawbah (9:3):

  • Hafs an Asim: “wa’basa” (and spread out)
  • Warsh an Nafi: “wa’baasa” (and spread out) with slight variation in vowel sounds

19. Surah Al-Anfal (8:75):

  • Hafs an Asim: “yawm al-jum’ah” (The Day of Gathering)
  • Warsh an Nafi: “yawm al-jum’ah” (The Day of Gathering) with slight phonetic variation
  • These variations arise from the Quran’s initial oral transmission and the absence of diacritical marks in
  • early Arabic script, leading to multiple readings preserved through different Qira’at.

Here’s the full list of common Qira’at (recitations) of the Quran:

  1. Hafs an Asim – The most widely recited version of the Quran today.
  2. Warsh an Nafi – Predominantly used in North and West Africa.
  3. Qalun an Nafi – Also popular in parts of North Africa, particularly in Tunisia.
  4. Al-Duri an Abu Amr – Found mainly in parts of West Africa.
  5. Susi an Abu Amr – A variant also prevalent in parts of Africa.
  6. Al-Shu’bah an Asim – Known for slight variations from the standard Hafs recitation.
  7. Al-Samarqandi an Al-Kisai – A notable variant from the recitation of Al-Kisai.
  8. Al-Dananjili an Al-Kisai – Another version related to Al-Kisai’s recitation.
  9. Al-Zarkashi an Al-Kisai – One of the earlier forms of recitation.
  10. Al-Bazzi an Asim – A recitation variant from Asim, differing slightly in some letters and vowels.
  11. Al-Kisai an Asim – Another reading attributed to Asim, with differences in pronunciation.



Comparison with Biblical Manuscripts

In contrast, the Bible’s textual history is supported by a substantial number of manuscripts. For the New Testament alone, over 5,800 Greek manuscripts exist, with some dating to within decades of the original writings. The Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, dating to the 4th century, provide strong evidence of the New Testament’s consistency over time. The Old Testament’s reliability is corroborated by the Dead Sea Scrolls, which align closely with the Masoretic Text, demonstrating remarkable preservation over centuries.

Why This Does Not Make the Quran Superior

Muslims argue that because the Quran is only considered “pure” in Arabic, it is superior to the Bible. However, this argument is flawed for several reasons:

  • The Bible’s Message is Universally Accessible – The Bible was written in multiple languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek) and was always intended to be translated so that all nations could understand the Gospel (Matthew 28:19). Unlike Islam, which restricts its holy text to Arabic for full understanding, Christianity embraces translation to reach people in their native tongues. The Bible’s openness to translation proves its divine intention for all humanity.
  • The Quran’s Own Variants Undermine Its Preservation – While Muslims claim the Quran is unchanged, Islamic scholars acknowledge differences between the Hafs, Warsh, Qalun, and other recitations. These variations challenge the claim of a perfectly preserved Quran. If minor differences in Bible translations are considered corruption, then the existence of different Quranic readings must also be seen as textual corruption.
  • A Text’s Superiority is Based on Truth, Not Mere Preservation – Even if a text were perfectly preserved, that does not prove divine origin. A fictional book could be perfectly copied without error, but that would not make it inspired. The reliability of the Bible is not based on rigid linguistic uniformity but on historical accuracy, fulfilled prophecy, and theological coherence. The Quran, by contrast, contains historical errors, contradictions, and dependence on later sources for its understanding of biblical events.

Theological Defense: The Significance of “My Lord” in Luke 1:43 and Its Non-repetition

In theological terms, the phrase “My Lord” in Luke 1:43, where Elizabeth calls Mary “the mother of my Lord,” carries profound significance. Elizabeth’s declaration is a recognition of the divine nature of Jesus Christ, acknowledging Him as both her Lord and the Lord of all. The phrase directly affirms the deity of Christ, a critical aspect of Christian theology. However, the claim that the term “My Lord” must be repeated throughout the Gospels for consistency misunderstands both the nature of language and the theological intent of the text.

In the narrative of Luke 1:43, the use of “My Lord” is a special moment where Elizabeth, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, makes a prophetic statement about the identity of the unborn Jesus. This is not a standard greeting or repetitive usage but a unique theological acknowledgment of Christ’s divinity. The absence of this exact phrase in the other Gospels does not diminish the truth it represents; rather, each Gospel writer has their own focus and style, which emphasizes different aspects of the life and ministry of Jesus. For example, while Luke emphasizes the nativity and miraculous nature of Christ’s birth, the Gospel of John focuses on Christ as the eternal Word, the Logos (John 1:1).

From a theological standpoint, the message of Jesus’ Lordship and divinity is consistently preserved in all four Gospels, even if the exact phrase “My Lord” does not appear in each one. Jesus is referred to as Lord in numerous contexts throughout the Gospels, with key moments such as His crucifixion (Mark 15:39) and His resurrection (Matthew 28:18). This demonstrates that the concept of Jesus as Lord is not confined to one isolated phrase but is a foundational truth permeating the entire New Testament.

Thus, the omission of the phrase “My Lord” in some Gospels does not suggest any corruption or loss of meaning. Instead, it highlights the varied ways in which the Gospel writers convey the same divine truth about Jesus Christ. Each Gospel’s unique approach does not alter the core message that Jesus is Lord, and the translations of these texts accurately reflect the original intent of the authors.

The claim that English Bible translations corrupt the text is unfounded. The phrase “My Lord” in Luke is accurately preserved in translation, and variations in phrasing do not equate to textual deletion. More importantly, the Quran itself lacks an original manuscript, meaning its text cannot be verified or backed up by historical evidence, unlike the Bible, which has thousands of manuscripts confirming its accuracy.

The Bible remains superior not because of rigid linguistic preservation, but because it stands on a foundation of historical reliability, prophetic accuracy, and divine inspiration. The theological consistency of the Bible’s message of Jesus as Lord remains intact across all translations and across all four Gospels. The Quran, on the other hand, has no original manuscript, multiple conflicting versions, and internal contradictions—disqualifying it as a superior or divinely preserved text.

Why “My Lord” in Luke 1:43 Does Not Need to Be Repeated in Other Gospels: A Strong Theological Argument

The claim that the phrase “My Lord” in Luke 1:43 needs to be repeated verbatim in the other Gospels to maintain the theological integrity of the text is a misunderstanding of both biblical language and theological presentation. A strong theological argument can be made showing that the absence of this exact phrase in the other Gospels does not undermine the truth of the message. Here are the key points that make the case irrefutable and demonstrate that this phrase does not need to be repeated, even from a Muslim perspective.

1. Theological Consistency Across All Four Gospels

The Gospels were written to emphasize different aspects of Jesus’ person and work, and while they all affirm Jesus’ divinity, each writer focuses on specific elements that best serve their theological purpose and audience.

  • Luke’s Unique Emphasis: The phrase “the mother of my Lord” in Luke 1:43 is unique because Luke’s Gospel emphasizes the role of Mary and the humanity of Jesus. Luke focuses on Jesus’ incarnation—His coming to earth as fully divine and fully human. By Elizabeth calling Mary “the mother of my Lord,” she prophetically affirms Jesus’ identity as the Christ, the Lord, even before His birth. This statement is powerful in the narrative because it shows that even in utero, Jesus is recognized as the Lord of all, even by those who did not yet fully understand His role in salvation history. Luke’s Gospel does not need to repeat this specific phrase in other parts because it stands as a singular, prophetic declaration that encapsulates the very essence of Jesus’ mission. It serves as a cornerstone of Luke’s introduction to Jesus’ divine nature.
  • The Other Gospels’ Theological Focus: In contrast, the other Gospels highlight different aspects of Jesus’ divinity. Matthew presents Jesus as the King and fulfillment of prophecy, Mark emphasizes His authority and power as the Son of God, and John begins with the philosophical and theological declaration that Jesus is the Word (Logos) who was with God and is God (John 1:1). Therefore, the title “Lord” is expressed in different forms and contexts in all four Gospels without the need for a literal repetition of Elizabeth’s specific words.
    • Matthew makes multiple references to Jesus as Lord (e.g., Matthew 8:2-3, 28:18), but does not need to reiterate the exact words used in Luke 1:43 because the title “Lord” is communicated through a broader theological lens.
    • Mark and John also speak of Jesus’ Lordship, but their focus is on different aspects, such as Jesus’ powerful works and His eternal relationship with the Father.

2. The Significance of “My Lord” in Luke 1:43 as a Singular Prophetic Moment

The declaration in Luke 1:43, “the mother of my Lord,” is a prophetic statement made by Elizabeth under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It marks a unique moment in biblical history when the full recognition of Jesus’ divinity occurs, even before His public ministry begins. This moment of recognition is unparalleled because Elizabeth, who is filled with the Holy Spirit, immediately identifies the unborn Jesus as her Lord. This declaration stands as a singular, profound acknowledgment of Jesus’ divinity and authority.

In the Gospels, prophetic declarations often stand alone, highlighting a pivotal truth at a specific moment in the narrative. Luke 1:43 is such a moment. Theologically, it does not need to be repeated because it is a special, divinely inspired utterance that is both a fulfillment of prophecy and a profound statement of truth regarding the nature of Jesus. The absence of this phrase elsewhere in the Gospels does not lessen its significance. Instead, it allows the other Gospels to focus on other aspects of Jesus’ identity, such as His role as Savior, King, and Teacher.

3. The Consistency of “Lord” Throughout the Gospels

While the exact phrase “My Lord” is unique to Luke 1:43, the title “Lord” is used throughout the Gospels to affirm Jesus’ divine authority. This is crucial because it shows that the idea of Jesus as Lord is not confined to a single phrase in Luke but is a repeated theme throughout the entire New Testament.

Here are some clear examples from the other Gospels where Jesus is called Lord, ensuring that the concept of His divinity is well-established in each narrative:

  • Matthew 8:2-3: A leper comes and says, “Lord, if You are willing, You can make me clean.” This is a recognition of Jesus’ divine authority.
  • Matthew 28:18: Jesus claims, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.” This is a declaration of His sovereignty and Lordship.
  • John 13:13-14: Jesus Himself affirms, “You call Me Teacher and Lord, and you say well, for so I am.” Here, Jesus explicitly recognizes Himself as Lord, affirming His divine authority.
  • John 20:28: Thomas says to Jesus after the resurrection, “My Lord and my God!” This powerful declaration from Thomas acknowledges both the Lordship and divinity of Jesus.

These verses, found in different Gospels, show that the title of “Lord” is fully preserved throughout the New Testament. The absence of the exact phrase “My Lord” in the other Gospels does not diminish the theological consistency across the texts. Each Gospel, in its own way, confirms the divinity and authority of Jesus.

4. The Necessity of Unique Theological Moments

The Gospels are not intended to be mere repetitions of one another but are theological narratives written with distinct purposes. Luke’s Gospel emphasizes the miraculous birth and the early recognition of Jesus’ divinity, exemplified by the phrase in Luke 1:43, which shows the immediate recognition of Jesus’ Lordship even as a fetus.

In theological terms, the doctrine of divine revelation teaches us that God reveals His truth progressively. The Gospel writers were inspired to highlight specific moments in Jesus’ life to unfold this divine revelation. Luke 1:43 serves as a unique moment in this revelation. To demand that the exact phrase be repeated in every other Gospel would ignore the literary and theological intent of the Gospel writers. Each Gospel contributes to the whole picture of Jesus’ identity without the necessity of repeating every phrase.

5. No Need for Repetition to Confirm Divinity

The divinity of Jesus in the Gospels is confirmed in multiple ways, including His miracles, teachings, and resurrection. The phrase “My Lord” in Luke 1:43 serves as a confirmation of this divinity, but it does not need to be repeated elsewhere because it is confirmed through other titles, statements, and actions of Jesus throughout the Gospels. The title “Lord” is used in various forms, and the essential truth that Jesus is Lord is maintained throughout the entire New Testament.

Conclusion: A Compelling Argument Against the Muslim Claim

The claim that Luke 1:43 must be repeated in the other Gospels to affirm Jesus’ Lordship is fundamentally flawed. Theologically, the Gospels each contribute unique insights into the nature of Jesus without needing to mirror each other in every detail. The phrase “My Lord” is a specific, prophetic declaration in Luke 1:43 that stands as a singular, inspired acknowledgment of Jesus’ divinity and role as Lord. The absence of this exact phrase elsewhere in the Gospels does not diminish the truth it conveys, nor does it mean that the concept of Jesus’ Lordship is absent from the other Gospels.

The claim that English Bible translations distort the text is unfounded. The phrase “My Lord” in Luke is faithfully preserved in translation, and variations in wording do not equate to textual omission or corruption. More importantly, the Quran itself lacks an original manuscript, meaning its text cannot be verified or supported by historical evidence, unlike the Bible, which has thousands of manuscripts confirming its accuracy.

The Bible remains superior not because of strict linguistic preservation, but because it stands on a foundation of historical authenticity, prophetic fulfillment, and divine inspiration. The theological consistency of the Bible’s message of Jesus as Lord remains intact across all translations and throughout all four Gospels. The Quran, on the other hand, lacks an original manuscript, contains conflicting versions, and presents internal contradictions—disqualifying it as a superior or divinely preserved text.

  • Bible translations – biblical translations, Scripture versions, Holy Bible versions
  • Accuracy of Bible – precision of Scripture, Bible fidelity, textual accuracy
  • Quran manuscript – Quranic text, Quranic preservation, original Quran text
  • Historical evidence – historical validation, manuscript verification, textual confirmation
  • Bible superiority – Bible’s supremacy, superiority of Scripture, Bible’s divine inspiration
  • Quran preservation – Quranic preservation issues, Quranic transmission, Quranic authenticity
  • Textual corruption – textual alteration, translation distortion, loss of textual meaning
  • Theological consistency – doctrinal coherence, theological accuracy, religious alignment
  • Jesus as Lord – Christ’s Lordship, Jesus Christ’s divinity, Jesus as Sovereign
  • Biblical manuscripts – ancient Bible manuscripts, Greek Bible manuscripts, New Testament codices
  • Differences in Quran recitations – variations in Quranic readings, Quranic recitation differences, Quranic Qira’at differences

Bibliography and Sources

Bibliography and Sources

The Bible’s Textual History

  • Metzger, Bruce M. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
  • Ehrman, Bart D. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. HarperSanFrancisco, 2005.
  • Aland, Kurt, et al. The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995.

Muslim Criticism and Responses

  • Ali, Muhammad M. The Quran: English Translation. 7th ed. Elmhurst: Tahrike Tarsile Quran, 2002.
  • Ibn Kathir, Ismail. Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged): The Explanation of the Qur’an. Riyadh: Darussalam Publishers, 2000.
  • Smith, Michael A. Scripture and the Qur’an: A Comparative Study. London: Equinox Publishing, 2012.

Biblical Translation and Interpretation

  • Hoskyns, Edward. The Fourth Gospel. London: Faber & Faber, 1947.
  • Carson, D. A., editor. New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994.
  • Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Gospel According to Luke (I–IX): Introduction, Translation, and Notes. Garden City: Doubleday, 1981.

Quranic Preservation and Variants

  • Poonawala, Ismail K. The Quran: Its Composition and Preservation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
  • Sadeghi, Behnam and Mohammadi, Mohsen. The Codex of the Quranic Manuscripts: Examining Variants of the Quran. Princeton University Press, 2017.
  • Dutton, Yasin. Arabic Script and the Quran: The Origins and Development of Qira’at. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Comparative Textual Studies

  • Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 3rd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012.
  • Ulrich, Eugene. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2010.

Quranic Recitations and Variants

  • Rippin, Andrew. The Quran: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007.
  • Khan, Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din. The Quran: Translation and Commentary. Riyadh: Dar-us-Salam, 1997.

Theological Defense of Biblical Teachings

Carson, D. A. The Gagging of God: Christianity Confronts Pluralism. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002.

Warfield, B.B. The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1948.

Frame, John M. The Doctrine of the Word of God. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2010.

Vanhoozer, Kevin J. Is There a Meaning in This Text? The Bible, the Reader, and the Morality of Literary Knowledge. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998.

Blomberg, Craig L. Making Sense of the New Testament: A Practical Guide to the Early Books of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017.