There is no end to Muslim creativity in finding reasons to assert the corruption of the Bible. Here is an attempt to claim things are lost or at least not "identical" with what they should be:

Since Moses is described as reading from the Book of the Covenants in Exodus, it is at least obvious that the Book of the Covenants is not identical to the first five books of the Bible.

The passage in question is Exodus 24:

 
1  Then he said to Moses, "Come up to the LORD, you and Aaron, 
   Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel. 
   You are to worship at a distance,
2  but Moses alone is to approach the LORD; 
   the others must not come near.
   And the people may not come up with him." 
3  When Moses went and told the people all the LORD's words and laws, 
   they responded with one voice, 
     "Everything the LORD has said we will do." 
4  Moses then wrote down everything the LORD had said. 
   He got up early the next morning and built an altar 
   at the foot of the mountain and set up twelve stone pillars 
   representing the twelve tribes of Israel. 
5  Then he sent young Israelite men, 
   and they offered burnt offerings and sacrificed young bulls 
   as fellowship offerings to the LORD. 
6  Moses took half of the blood and put it in bowls, 
   and the other half he sprinkled on the altar. 
7  Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it to the people. 
   They responded, "We will do everything the LORD has said; 
   we will obey." 
8  Moses then took the blood, sprinkled it on the people and said, 
     "This is the blood of the covenant 
      that the LORD has made with you 
      in accordance with all these words." 

Side observation: "This is the blood of the covenant..." Does this remind you of a similar statement? It reminds me. Jesus said that at the evening before the crucifixion. Another piece of the evidence that Jesus is the "prophet like unto Moses". Both bring a covenant ratified by blood.

Back to the claim:

Since Moses is described as reading from the Book of the Covenants in Exodus, it is at least obvious that the Book of the Covenants is not identical to the first five books of the Bible.

Comments:

1. This was spoken when Moses was still very much at the beginning of his prophetic career. He had just led the Israelites out of Egypt and to Mount Sinai. He had written some of God's revelations (being commanded by the LORD to do so, see verse 4) but obviously not all of it yet.

This Muslim was seemingly assuming that Moses did not write anything down until he wrote everything. He could very easily read part before he had written it all. Just as Muhammad recited parts of the Qur'an before it was all given to him. And he could give certain parts different names like we find in chapter 20 "The Ten Commandments" or the larger piece refered to here as "The Book of the Covenant", just as suras in the Qur'an have names and are at times called by different names.

Muhammad refered in the Qur'an to the Qur'an as "The Qur'an" when there were only a few suras given of it at the time. Does that mean the rest is not Qur'an which was "revealed" to him at a later time? How can Muhammad keep adding to his book and call what he has so far "The Qur'an" and nobody has a problem but Moses cannot refer by a name to a portion he has received so far when he is ordered to read it to the Israelites?

2. The Expositor's Bible Commentary, in loco, comments on verse 7:

The Book of the Covenant includes in its narrowest meaning in scholarly use today words from 20:22 to 23:33 but more fully, here, the contents of chapter 19, the Decalogue of chapter 20, and the case laws of 20:22 to 23:33.

There is absolutely no reason to postulate a "changed book" or even a "lost book". It was part of the revelation that Moses had received and it is still available today incorporated in the larger collection of the Torah.

The questioner continued:

But many of these lost books were attributed to prophets and seers or their contents are described as prophecy. And furthermore it would seem very strange that the Bible which is supposed to be inspired would recommend that the reader look up uninspired texts for more information. It seems a bit anti-climactic for God to have a bibliography, no?

Book of the Covenant (Ex. 24:7)
Book of the Wars of the Lord (Num 21:14)
Book of Jasher (Josh 10:13, 2 Sam 1:18)
Book of Samuel the Seer (1 Samuel 10:25, 1 Chr 29:29)
Book of Nathan the Prophet (2 Chr 9:29)
Book of the acts of Solomon (1 Kings 11:41)
Book of Shemaiah the Prophet (2 Chr 12:15)
Acts of Abijah/Story of Prophet Iddo (2 Chr 13:22)
Book of Jehu (2 Chr 20:34)
Sayings of the Seers (?) (2 Chr 33:19)
Book of Enoch (Jude 1:14)
plus some missing epistles
(see 1 Cor 5:9, Ephesians 3:3, Colossians 4:16)
and the source of the Nazarene prophecy
(see Matthew 2:23)
Book of Gad the Seer  - I Chronicles 29:29
Visions of Iddo the Seer - II Chronicles 9:29
Earlier epistle to Corinthians - I Corinthians 5:9
Earlier epistle to Ephesians - Ephesians 3:3
Prophecies of Enoch  - Jude 1:14

Neither the Bible, Jews or Christians made ever the claim that everything ever written by a prophet was therefore scripture and meant by God to be preserved. What He did preseve He wanted us to have and keep. David may have written many other psalms but God did not keep them for us. Paul speaks of several letters he wrote that were not kept for us. Is he not allowed to write private lettes anymore just because in some of his letters he was inspired as to their content? John speaks of many things Jesus did that were not recorded for us. It is not what we don't have we need it is what we do have.

I am sure Muhammd said many things that are neither in the Qur'an or the Hadith are they revelation too? Lost revelation?

Most questions around these particular (OT) books above are answerd on this page.

Bible Commentary Index
Answering Islam Home Page