The reliability of Christian and Muslim texts compared

Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
7,917
Likes
11,782
#1
@friend shared a popular Islamic claim with reference to the Qur’an and the Bible...

The fabrication of the Begotten Son
in John 3:16 there is a famous fabrication agreed upon by Christian scholarship.

The fabrication of Trinity
The only verse indicating trinity (the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are one) has been removed from the bible by 32 scholars of the bible in the Revised Standard Version among many other verses as fabrication after they realized that these verses do not exist in the most ancient manuscript and as such there is not a single verse indicating Trinity anymore in the complete bible.
John A-V {5:7} For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (This verse does not exist anymore in the RSV)

The Christian holy texts face two problems :
1 - its original text has been altered/fabricated/omitted by the scribes/religious leaders
2 - scribes/religious leaders and people twist the meaning of the verses.

The Holy Quran has one challenge and that is twisting the meaning of the verses by people without divine authority. thats why we see fanatics like ISIS, Alqaeda, Taliban, boki haram etc...
Put another way, the claim runs that the Qur’an is preserved changeless by the power of Allah whilst the Bible is full of late interpolations and modifications to doctrines.

I am starting this thread to open up explore these two claims:-

1: Has the Qur’an I fact been passed town unchanged?

2: What information. prompted Westcott & Hort to come up with the RSV?

In addition, what are the implications (if any of this).
 





Last edited:
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
3,328
Likes
5,493
#2
We have copy of the Quran from 6th century that is exactly the same as the Quran today so yeah.
You can't even compare the reliability of both scriptures because of how strong the evidence of no change in the Quran is, the evidence being a 1300+ yo Quran.


Edit: This reminds me, do we have a really old copy of the bible? The old testament specifically even though new works too? If yes, has it been read or compared to the current version?
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
7,917
Likes
11,782
#4
@friend - I post the information below without superiority or malice. The claim that the Qur’an has been specially, supernaturally preserved word for word appears to be more of a narrative than an accurate observation.

I invite cross examination of the material below.

CFB90F8F-07E8-4391-A0D8-258CC051404D.png

Description
Product description
PRAISE FOR "CORRECTIONS IN EARLY QURʾĀN MANUSCRIPTS":

"Brilliant. A unique and valuable resource." -- Mark Durie, Melbourne School of Theology

“In Qur'anic research, the text has always been regarded as more or less comprehensible with the help of its Muslim exegetes. In a way, one could qualify the approach as one-dimensional, based on the latest interpretation of an ancient scripture. However, in recent years an increasing wave of Arabic Qur'an editions of different but equally valid Readings has been edited, opening a second dimension, a wide field of research opportunities on the range of scriptural and oral traditions which have led to those different Readings. In addition to these there is a growing activity in editing or presenting early manuscripts of the Qur’an, so that it is not an exaggeration to characterize this stadium as the third dimension of the Qur’an’s history. One of the few remaining pioneers in this domain is Dan Brubaker, who discovers the minute 'corrections’ on the old parchments, which he investigated in the main collections all over the world. He compares the corrections with the earlier versions underneath, and in his analyses of the different types of corrections he observes even the sensible and frequent "omission" of the word "Allah" in the lower text, or frequent corrections of "rizq" or the eschatological "sa'ah / hour" [...] Dan Brubaker’s approach is as modest as it is scientifically sound [...]. In addition [...], he has found a way to lead the reader through a highly sophisticated topic, so that familiarity with Arabic is not even necessary to follow his arguments.” -- Gerd-R. Puin, Universität des Saarlandes (retired)

It has long been popularly asserted that, in contrast to that of the New Testament, for example, the Qur’an’s manuscript tradition is pristine and perfect, without ever a mark out of place, much less a variation involving whole words or phrases. Brubaker’s fascinating study demonstrates that this is not quite so. What the author has done in this short book is to distill years of research, making accessible to a general readership significant and interesting examples of scribal corrections in some of the earliest Qur’an manuscripts. This book about corrections in handwritten copies of the Qur’an offers its own correction of a widespread but faulty view about the Qur’an.” -- Daniel B. Wallace, Executive Director, Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts

“With great enthusiasm Brubaker introduces the fascinating field of quranic text criticism to a general audience while never losing sight of the academic rigor required for such. No one has documented more corrections in Qurʾān manuscripts than Dr. Brubaker. Worth reading.” -- Marijn van Putten, University of Leiden

“Brubaker has here given a helpful introduction to the body of his research on corrections in Qur'an manuscripts, which is now serving as a reference to a wider group of scholars studying the contours of the Qur'an's early transmission history. ” -- Asma Hilali, University of Lille

Brubaker has surveyed some 10,000 pages of early Quran manuscripts, documenting post-production physical corrections. To date, he has noted and described thousands, with various causes including (but not limited to) simple scribal error. Brubaker is working on several academic books, but has found the subject is also of interest to non-academic readers. "Corrections in Early Qurʾān Manuscripts: Twenty Examples" is an introduction to the range of the phenomenon, written to be accessible to non-specialists. In it, he selects a group of corrections from a variety of early Quran manuscripts of this early period. For each example, he shows a picture and gives a brief description, followed by a diagram showing the correction in relation to a modern standard edition of the Quran.

About the Author
DANIEL ALAN BRUBAKER, Ph.D., is a scholar in the history of the Qurʾān, particularly its early manuscript tradition.

Some of the implications of this analysis are discussed here (the concluding part 9 of a series).

 





Last edited:
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
7,917
Likes
11,782
#5
Often apostates like Bart Ehrman cite supposed “oldest and best” manuscripts of the Bible as having the greater authority, the assumption being that people later tried to harmonise doctrines and improve verses to support emerging church doctrines.

But what if the very sources they rely upon for such a critique are fatally flawed?

The RSV represents the work of Wescott & Hort, partly based on the supposed serendipitous find by Constantin Tischendorf of an apparently ancient copy of the Bible.

Recent forensic analysis and comparison of sections of this divided document reveal a very troubling picture (at least for the “higher critics”).


In the talk David references a film “Tares among the Wheat” by Chris Pinto which prompted the continuing investigation...

 





Last edited:
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
3,980
Likes
8,903
#6
Wow that video was so disappointing. I watched it for 15 mins and shut it off. This professor had no argument...

The author of the book they were discussing came to absolutely no conclusions about whether the Quran had been changed from it's original manuscripts. How can you write a book, about trying to debunk the claim that the quran Is preserved and come to no clear conclusion about your findings! You know why, because you can't solidify the notion that there is a distinct difference in the original quranic manuscripts and the modern ones.

Here's my response to the video:

1. The 'rewritten' letters

An argument as to whether the verses were erased or rewritten emerged when the density of the paper appeared to show a difference. The American guy believed that this was evidence that the verses had been rewritten. He gave the example of Surah baqarah and I believe it was the second verse where the letter kahf was elongated. He then goes on to say that there is an insertion of the word 'Allah'. I mean, the manuscript they were referring to was written in Cairo and it's possible that the writer was constantly being corrected and had to rewrite or rephrase what had been documented.
E.g. 'Allah sent this book as a clear evidence'...could be rewritten as 'This book was sent as a clear evidence from Allah'

I teach grammar for a living, other than one being an active sentence and the other being passive, there Is no difference between the two. One is highlighting the doer of the action, the other highlighting the object/receiver of the action.

This to me just sounds like a normal process in writing. For arguments sake, I'd even entertain the idea that they were trying to universalise the style and recording of the Quran or to be inline with other religious authorities, such as Saudi or Yemen. It is important to highlight the American scholar clearly stated 'they're not different readings'. There is literally no difference between the readings of the original manuscripts and the modern ones we read today. So in sum, he was crying about the handwriting and the shape of the letters.

2. The elongation of arabic letters

Right this was actually funny. The guy said one letter was longer than the other. If I write cheese, then write cheeese, what is the actual difference between the words? I will reiterate that the scholar clearly stated that there was NO DIFFERENCE in meaning and both statements could be read in the same way and mean the same thing. Arabic is like that, you can write things in many ways to mean the same thing. It doesn't behave the same way as English so we cannot treat it as such.
I have personally seen manuscripts with elongated letters and others that dont have it, it's a cosmetic issue which could be down to the type of mushaf (script) one is reading.

3. Intentional coverings of verses

There was absolutely no evidence in the video to suggest this was the case. There was nothing concrete to show that someone had erased vital verses which corrupted the meaning and style of the Quran.

Overall, the clip was 2 guys arguing about the handwriting of the writer. They drew no conclusions from what they'd found because it was simply a flawed attempt at actually trying to 'prove' the quran has been revised.

All that I can conclude, based on the verses they discussed, was regional and dialectical differences may have caused manuscripts to be written in various styles. After a while, there may have been an attempt to universalise how the manuscripts were written but in no way did this change the meaning. So in essence, we are arguing about what? Handwriting.
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
3,980
Likes
8,903
#7
The challenge in the Quran remains unfulfilled, bring a text like it or else prove and challenge it to be false.

The consistency in meaning is key to its authenticity that it is indeed, the unaltered direct word of God. Muslims believe this due to no other book being close to it, in terms of accuracy content, poetry and layout.

Unfortunately, one cannot truly appreciate the poetry unless they study the Arabic.

An English speaker, American-Pakistani guy I believe. His name is Nouman Ali Khan and he breaks down verses into simple english for those who cant understand arabic. He may just be a student of knowledge and not a scholar, but as a student of the Quran for over 20 years, he has so much knowledge mashallah. I'd recommend you listen to his videos on verses which are commonly misconstrued.
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
7,917
Likes
11,782
#8
So in essence, we are arguing about what? Handwriting.
Well, perhaps there is a little more to it...


Published on 29 Jun 2019
These talks are to help Christians who are working with Muslims, and to help Muslims deal with some of the problems with their foundations.

This particular series concerns the Qur’an, and whether it has been perfectly preserved. Back in 2014 Jay did a debate with Dr Shabir Ally in Toronto where he introduced from the front a number of corrections out of a total of 800 which had been found by Dr Dan Brubaker and included in his doctoral thesis.

Since that time that debate has been watched by over 500,000, and Muslims have responded by saying that Jay couldn’t be trusted because he doesn’t speak Arabic. That is why Al Fadi has joined with Jay in this series, as he is an Arab from Saudi Arabia, speaks not only modern standard Arabic, but speaks and works in Qur’anic Arabic, and is doing his doctoral research in this area of research concerning the earliest Qur’anic manuscripts.

Muslims have claimed that these corrections are nothing more than simple dialectical differences, or different readings, popularly known as
‘Ahruf’, or ‘Qira’at’.

Al Fadi quickly dispels this notion, noting that the corrections which we are referring to have nothing to do with dialectical differences, or differences with how someone might read it. These differences are consonantal differences, in other words, they are changes to the actual written text, known as ‘Rasm’ in Arabic. More about this will be explained later on in other episodes.

Muslims make 4 claims about their Arabic Qur’an:
1) It is un-created, or eternal (Surah 85:22)
2) It was sent down to one man, Muhammad in 22 years
3) It was compiled completely by Uthman in 652 AD
4) It has never changed in the last 1400 years

Jay and Al Fadi can’t confront the first two claims, but they can and plan to confront the last two claims, that it was compiled completely in 652 AD, and has never changed since that time.

Thus, they are asking 3 simple things of Muslims…to show them one complete manuscript of the Qur’an (114 Surahs), from the time of Uthman
(652 AD), which is unchanged (i.e. which corresponds exactly with our current 1924 ‘Hafs’ text).

What they are asking, and what they are doing is simply known as Textual Criticism, a test which every sacred or historical book has to pass (and the Qur’an, like the Bible is both). This is the same text which the Bible had to undergo back in the 1800s, but has passed with ‘flying colors’.

What’s more, no Christian would make the claim about their Bible that Muslims are now making about their Qur’an. We would never suggest that our Bible is eternal, nor uncreated, nor that it was sent down from heaven to one man (inspired by God, yes, but not ‘sent down’). We would, however, claim that the Bible was complete in its original form, and though we admit there have been changes in the Bible since the first century, we would be clear that what we have today, because of the enormous manuscript and textual trove at our disposal today, is pretty much 99.9% the same as that which was written down in the first century AD.

So, join us as we delve into the last two claims by Muslims concerning their Qur’an, and try to ascertain whether their Qur’an can be traced textually back to the time of Muhammad, or even Uthman, and whether the Qur’an they have today is exactly the same that which we can find in the earliest Qur’anic manuscripts; or whether, indeed, the Qur’an has been corrected or not over the intervening 1400 years.

Follow CIRA International:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cirainternat...
Website: http://www.cirainternational.com
 





Last edited:
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
3,980
Likes
8,903
#9
Often apostates like Bart Ehrman cite supposed “oldest and best” manuscripts of the Bible as having the greater authority, the assumption being that people later tried to harmonise doctrines and improve verses to support emerging church doctrines.
I dont think it's a question of older been wiser and thus more accurate. It's the consistency of the message and what the foundation of that belief system is.

The emergence of the trinity, which wasn't a practise at the time of Jesus's existence (pbuh) shows that what you believe isn't what jesus preached.

Paul never met Jesus, so half of what he says should be taken with a pinch of salt!!

Oh and sorry, visions dont count as meetings.
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
3,328
Likes
5,493
#10
Wow that video was so disappointing. I watched it for 15 mins and shut it off. This professor had no argument...

The author of the book they were discussing came to absolutely no conclusions about whether the Quran had been changed from it's original manuscripts. How can you write a book, about trying to debunk the claim that the quran Is preserved and come to no clear conclusion about your findings! You know why, because you can't solidify the notion that there is a distinct difference in the original quranic manuscripts and the modern ones.

Here's my response to the video:

1. The 'rewritten' letters

An argument as to whether the verses were erased or rewritten emerged when the density of the paper appeared to show a difference. The American guy believed that this was evidence that the verses had been rewritten. He gave the example of Surah baqarah and I believe it was the second verse where the letter kahf was elongated. He then goes on to say that there is an insertion of the word 'Allah'. I mean, the manuscript they were referring to was written in Cairo and it's possible that the writer was constantly being corrected and had to rewrite or rephrase what had been documented.
E.g. 'Allah sent this book as a clear evidence'...could be rewritten as 'This book was sent as a clear evidence from Allah'

I teach grammar for a living, other than one being an active sentence and the other being passive, there Is no difference between the two. One is highlighting the doer of the action, the other highlighting the object/receiver of the action.

This to me just sounds like a normal process in writing. For arguments sake, I'd even entertain the idea that they were trying to universalise the style and recording of the Quran or to be inline with other religious authorities, such as Saudi or Yemen. It is important to highlight the American scholar clearly stated 'they're not different readings'. There is literally no difference between the readings of the original manuscripts and the modern ones we read today. So in sum, he was crying about the handwriting and the shape of the letters.

2. The elongation of arabic letters

Right this was actually funny. The guy said one letter was longer than the other. If I write cheese, then write cheeese, what is the actual difference between the words? I will reiterate that the scholar clearly stated that there was NO DIFFERENCE in meaning and both statements could be read in the same way and mean the same thing. Arabic is like that, you can write things in many ways to mean the same thing. It doesn't behave the same way as English so we cannot treat it as such.
I have personally seen manuscripts with elongated letters and others that dont have it, it's a cosmetic issue which could be down to the type of mushaf (script) one is reading.

3. Intentional coverings of verses

There was absolutely no evidence in the video to suggest this was the case. There was nothing concrete to show that someone had erased vital verses which corrupted the meaning and style of the Quran.

Overall, the clip was 2 guys arguing about the handwriting of the writer. They drew no conclusions from what they'd found because it was simply a flawed attempt at actually trying to 'prove' the quran has been revised.

All that I can conclude, based on the verses they discussed, was regional and dialectical differences may have caused manuscripts to be written in various styles. After a while, there may have been an attempt to universalise how the manuscripts were written but in no way did this change the meaning. So in essence, we are arguing about what? Handwriting.
Anyone who even studied arabic in kindergarten would know how awful these "Arguments" are. Different fonts do not mean different words. Its like people turn their brains off when they try to prove that Quran was rewritten or something.

Apple is apple whether i bold it, italicize it, underline it, overline it, write it in cursive, write in block letters or something else, im still writing apple. The fact that the guy even considered a word written "elongated" to be a change is downright embarrassing.
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
3,980
Likes
8,903
#11
@Red Sky at Morning

Thanks for posting the intro. The whole series is flawed in my view.

You have a guy, Al Fadi, who is an ex muslim, didn't provide any of the credentials as to where he had his Quran studies, who his teachers were and was uncomfortable confirming that he was an authority on speaking on the matter.

He speaks arabic but the arabic in the quran is classical so there are different words and grammar. The only thing he can do is confirm letters and basic propositions.

The reason his credentials are important is we need to know whether he is an authority to speak on this matter. He showed himself to have zero intellectual understanding of the matter and provided nothing.

The American guy cant speak arabic at all and is not well versed in the classical arabic yet he is claiming the quran has manuscript issues...

Lord have mercy...
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
3,980
Likes
8,903
#12
It's not like Christiany where you can attend church for a month then be crowned a pastor!

The sources we get our information from are crucial.
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
7,917
Likes
11,782
#13
@Red Sky at Morning

Thanks for posting the intro. The whole series is flawed in my view.

You have a guy, Al Fadi, who is an ex muslim, didn't provide any of the credentials as to where he had his Quran studies, who his teachers were and was uncomfortable confirming that he was an authority on speaking on the matter.

He speaks arabic but the arabic in the quran is classical so there are different words and grammar. The only thing he can do is confirm letters and basic propositions.

The reason his credentials are important is we need to know whether he is an authority to speak on this matter. He showed himself to have zero intellectual understanding of the matter and provided nothing.

The American guy cant speak arabic at all and is not well versed in the classical arabic yet he is claiming the quran has manuscript issues...

Lord have mercy...
I would encourage anyone to view both sides of the question @friend raised and draw their own conclusions.

5F5834B0-B899-4A4E-A20B-CC961EA6B982.jpeg
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
3,980
Likes
8,903
#14
Well, perhaps there is a little more to it...


Published on 29 Jun 2019
These talks are to help Christians who are working with Muslims, and to help Muslims deal with some of the problems with their foundations.

This particular series concerns the Qur’an, and whether it has been perfectly preserved. Back in 2014 Jay did a debate with Dr Shabir Ally in Toronto where he introduced from the front a number of corrections out of a total of 800 which had been found by Dr Dan Brubaker and included in his doctoral thesis.

Since that time that debate has been watched by over 500,000, and Muslims have responded by saying that Jay couldn’t be trusted because he doesn’t speak Arabic. That is why Al Fadi has joined with Jay in this series, as he is an Arab from Saudi Arabia, speaks not only modern standard Arabic, but speaks and works in Qur’anic Arabic, and is doing his doctoral research in this area of research concerning the earliest Qur’anic manuscripts.

Muslims have claimed that these corrections are nothing more than simple dialectical differences, or different readings, popularly known as
‘Ahruf’, or ‘Qira’at’.

Al Fadi quickly dispels this notion, noting that the corrections which we are referring to have nothing to do with dialectical differences, or differences with how someone might read it. These differences are consonantal differences, in other words, they are changes to the actual written text, known as ‘Rasm’ in Arabic. More about this will be explained later on in other episodes.

Muslims make 4 claims about their Arabic Qur’an:
1) It is un-created, or eternal (Surah 85:22)
2) It was sent down to one man, Muhammad in 22 years
3) It was compiled completely by Uthman in 652 AD
4) It has never changed in the last 1400 years

Jay and Al Fadi can’t confront the first two claims, but they can and plan to confront the last two claims, that it was compiled completely in 652 AD, and has never changed since that time.

Thus, they are asking 3 simple things of Muslims…to show them one complete manuscript of the Qur’an (114 Surahs), from the time of Uthman
(652 AD), which is unchanged (i.e. which corresponds exactly with our current 1924 ‘Hafs’ text).

What they are asking, and what they are doing is simply known as Textual Criticism, a test which every sacred or historical book has to pass (and the Qur’an, like the Bible is both). This is the same text which the Bible had to undergo back in the 1800s, but has passed with ‘flying colors’.

What’s more, no Christian would make the claim about their Bible that Muslims are now making about their Qur’an. We would never suggest that our Bible is eternal, nor uncreated, nor that it was sent down from heaven to one man (inspired by God, yes, but not ‘sent down’). We would, however, claim that the Bible was complete in its original form, and though we admit there have been changes in the Bible since the first century, we would be clear that what we have today, because of the enormous manuscript and textual trove at our disposal today, is pretty much 99.9% the same as that which was written down in the first century AD.

So, join us as we delve into the last two claims by Muslims concerning their Qur’an, and try to ascertain whether their Qur’an can be traced textually back to the time of Muhammad, or even Uthman, and whether the Qur’an they have today is exactly the same that which we can find in the earliest Qur’anic manuscripts; or whether, indeed, the Qur’an has been corrected or not over the intervening 1400 years.

Follow CIRA International:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/cirainternat...
Website: http://www.cirainternational.com
Ok no muslim has ever claimed that the quran (as in the book itself, not the contents) was sent down from God. When we say the Quran, we mean the word of God so the actual words God said and message. The american guy said himself, there is no difference in meaning between what was written then and what is said now. So, if he saying the argument is entirely based on the Quran as in the book, and the manuscripts, but not the message or meaning, of course there will be variations in written manuscripts. You can't guarantee that every single manuscript will be 100% exact word for word! That's a ludicrous claim and muslims, to my knowledge, have never claimed that the writings were exact, word for word.

We claim and still do that one, the so called differences in manuscripts are so minor and do not affect the meaning (as stated in the video you posted). We also claim that the quran was revealed to Mohammed pbuh orally, so no one has ever said that the actual book is eternal, it is the words of God which are eternal.

You can burn or get rid of all the manuscripts but the quran will still be here. The message and words have been memorized from the time of the prophet until now, which cant be said for the bible. That's the claim we make..

The American guy is wrong for saying we believe the book itself is eternal and ever lasting. Hes just playing word games, it's unaltered direct word of God which is being referred to, when muslims claim that the Quran is everlasting. Did you not see how reluctant the ex Muslim was in trying to clarify that? He knows too well muslims dont claim that the book itself, in paper form, is eternal which is why he said 'that's what they argue'. Why didn't he give an insight into what is actually said by muslims since he used to be one....allegedly

There was no interesting textual criticism of the quran. It was just a discussion of error correction and handwriting.
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
7,917
Likes
11,782
#15
Ok no muslim has ever claimed that the quran (as in the book itself, not the contents) was sent down from God. When we say the Quran, we mean the word of God so the actual words God said and message. The american guy said himself, there is no difference in meaning between what was written then and what is said now. So, if he saying the argument is entirely based on the Quran as in the book, and the manuscripts, but not the message or meaning, of course there will be variations in written manuscripts. You can't guarantee that every single manuscript will be 100% exact word for word! That's a ludicrous claim and muslims, to my knowledge, have never claimed that the writings were exact, word for word.

We claim and still do that one, the so called differences in manuscripts are so minor and do not affect the meaning (as stated in the video you posted). We also claim that the quran was revealed to Mohammed pbuh orally, so no one has ever said that the actual book is eternal, it is the words of God which are eternal.

You can burn or get rid of all the manuscripts but the quran will still be here. The message and words have been memorized from the time of the prophet until now, which cant be said for the bible. That's the claim we make..

The American guy is wrong for saying we believe the book itself is eternal and ever lasting. Hes just playing word games, it's unaltered direct word of God which is being referred to, when muslims claim that the Quran is everlasting. Did you not see how reluctant the ex Muslim was in trying to clarify that? He knows too well muslims dont claim that the book itself, in paper form, is eternal which is why he said 'that's what they argue'. Why didn't he give an insight into what is actually said by muslims since he used to be one....allegedly

There was no interesting textual criticism of the quran. It was just a discussion of error correction and handwriting.
@friend made an extraordinarily bold claim on the textual superiority of the Qur’an that I am minded to follow up. I will take your initial observations into account, investigate Dan’s findings and get back to this thread with what I discover.
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
3,980
Likes
8,903
#16
@friend made an extraordinarily bold claim on the textual superiority of the Qur’an that I am minded to follow up. I will take your initial observations into account, investigate Dan’s findings and get back to this thread with what I discover.
What was the bold claim? Do you have the link?
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
3,980
Likes
8,903
#18
@Haich


The bold claim is the simultaneous unfounded claims of biblical corruption and Qur’anic superiority. I have heard the same line too many times not to test those assertions @Haich
Oh I see, I thought you meant that friend made another bold claim.

In that case, I do agree with friend.

Hope to hear some more of your findings, if I get time I'll try to read up on this matter as well.
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
7,917
Likes
11,782
#19
Oh I see, I thought you meant that friend made another bold claim.

In that case, I do agree with friend.

Hope to hear some more of your findings, if I get time I'll try to read up on this matter as well.
The other side of it is extremely interesting and something that @Kung Fu challenged me to research some time ago.The investigation into the Codex Sinaiticus has come along in the interim period and well worth exploring. The implications significantly challenge the assumptions of 19th Century German higher critics.

https://www.vigilantcitizenforums.c...n-and-muslim-texts-compared.6196/#post-229361
 





Last edited: