The reliability of Christian and Muslim texts compared

[Todd]

In the bible there are different books, different goals, different styles but each of the 66 books is considered equally God-inspired.

In theory yes, but not in actual practice...

 

[manama]

The reason I am posting this information up is not to “disprove” Islam by showing textual variance, but simply to acknowledge it. When discussion of the Bible and Qur’an occurs, the actual issues and ideas are avoided by appealing to the dual false notions of an almost magically unchanged Qur’an and perniciously corrupted Bible. I don’t think either of these ideas holds water so I will continue to research both points for the benefit of shifting the discussion to the real message and meaning of the texts, not some supposed “original” lost message.

Why are there over 30 different Arabic Qur’ans? - Quranic Corrections Ep. 3

Why do these guys say a simple sentence by twisting and turning it until its confusing. There are no 30 different Arabic Quran, Quran is revealed in classic formal Arabic. The language in written form was very simple to write but difficult to read so since non native speakers would be reading it too, symbols were added to show vowel sound making it easier to read.


The symbols actually further strengthen the preservation of the Quran because without it people could've said "oh its not this word its that" and change the verses but now they can't.

 

[manama]

I have got a tight schedule so i cant contribute in detail. yet i have a drawing of the elongated Arabic letters so that non-Arabic readers understand what it really is like in the following drawing :
View attachment 25105

LOL i'm stealing this for future use.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

Sure.
this drawing is important for non-muslims to understand how christian missionaries spread lies while people dont understand what and how arabic text style actually is.

I don’t think elongating letters is the biggest issue some of the early copies have...

 

[manama]

This entire series is two people not understanding that caligraphy and fonts are a thing and that people have different handwritings.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

It is claimed that Dan’s research has unearthed the following issues. I am going through the video series to see in these claims are substantiated or not...

Dr Dan Brubaker in his doctoral thesis looked at these 6 [Qur’an] manuscripts as well and found 7 types of early Consonantal corrections scattered right through these manuscripts, pointing out that these variants are not the later ‘diacritical’ or vowellization corrections at all, but are corrections to the basic Arabic script itself, known as the ‘Rasm’, a salient point which Muslims are constantly confused by.

The 7 types of Consonantal Corrections Dr Brubaker found include:

1) Insertions: Words or letters which are inserted above the line, or between other letters, after the text had been finished. These often can be considered mere ‘copyist errors’, or ‘scribal errors’.

2) Erasures: Words or even sentences and verses which have been erased with nothing to replace them. These are more damaging because they show an intentional correction by a later scribe, censoring the text so that it corresponds with the current 1924 ‘Hafs’ canonical text.

3) Erasures, written over top: Words, or phrases which have been erased and then other letters, words and phrases written over top. This is even more damaging, because it demonstrates an intentional correction with the hope by the later scribe of standardizing the text.

4) Overwriting without erasures: Here the scribe hasn’t even tried to hide what they are correcting but has quickly (and often awkwardly) written over top of the existing text with new words or phrases, in order to standardize the existing text with our current 1924 ‘Hafs’ text.

5) Coverings: Like the erasures, this is an intentional censorship to the text by a later scribe who places elongated paper or animal skin patches over a word, or a phrase, or a verse, in order to hide what obviously disagrees with our current 1924 ‘Hafs’ canonized text.

6) Selective coverings overwritten: Here the scribe covers over an existing text with these paper or animal skin patches, and then writes another text on top of the covering. This again is an intentional censor of the text, but this time writing in what will now standardize that text to our current 1924 ‘Hafs’ text.

7) Tapings: Instead of an elongated covering a later scribe has applied a patch over top of the existing text in order to censor it, so that it now corresponds with our current 1924 ‘Hafs’ text. This is not due to a damage of the manuscript, as the back side shows no damage. What remains now parallels our 1924 edition.

 

[Douglas Summers]

This entire series is two people not understanding that caligraphy and fonts are a thing and that people have different handwritings.

The Spirit of Christ and the Gospel can not be hidden, even in translation's. If the Scriptures of the four gospels do not make you ask yourself...who is this man, Then even the original text will not affect your drawing to Him to seek who He is. And you are left with the rest of the world, trying to find fault with the Scriptures because you do not understand them. (Matt. 13:3-4; 18-19) Salvation is Spiritual and is not explainable by carnal knowledge. And, until we see ourselves for our true nature, man will not appreciate what God has done. Of all of God's creation, man is the most evil when left to his self and void of God...Just take a look at the state of affairs and the mess man has made out of a beautiful creation.

 

[manama]

The Spirit of Christ and the Gospel can not be hidden, even in translation's. If the Scriptures of the four gospels do not make you ask yourself...who is this man, Then even the original text will not affect your drawing to Him to seek who He is. And you are left with the rest of the world, trying to find fault with the Scriptures because you do not understand them. (Matt. 13:3-4; 18-19) Salvation is Spiritual and is not explainable by carnal knowledge. And, until we see ourselves for our true nature, man will not appreciate what God has done. Of all of God's creation, man is the most evil when left to his self and void of God...Just take a look at the state of affairs and the mess man has made out of a beautiful creation.

uh?

 

[Douglas Summers]

uh?

As with the Karan, many people try to say that the Bibles is not true or rewritten, so you can not know the Truth. My point was, as far as the Bible is concerned, A man can know Christ, even thou it may not be the original Script. That was what the original discussion was about (errors in the Bible and Karan).

 

[JoChris]

In theory yes, but not in actual practice...

It takes skilled analysis and preparation for preachers to show the relevance of some of the Old Testaments' books to Christians today.

James 3:1 My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation. https://biblehub.com/commentaries/james/3-1.htm

Quite a while back when I found a sermon series that linked Hebrews to Numbers which made a massive difference to my understanding.

The problem is that many Christians are taught very little about WHY OT books are still relevant. The problem is poor teaching standards/ preachers trying to entertain the flock (not "disciple" them), not less inspired books.

 

[JoChris]

Sure.
this drawing is important for non-muslims to understand how christian missionaries spread lies while people dont understand what and how arabic text style actually is.

Does misunderstanding of different styles of arabic writing e.g. due to natural changes in language over time* really equal deception in your mind?
Claiming Christian missionaries spread lies about Islam is a very strong claim.

----
*whether that is true or not needs to be analysed in detail on a case by case analysis

 

[Douglas Summers]

It takes skilled analysis and preparation for preachers to show the relevance of some of the Old Testaments' books to Christians today.

And Spiritfilled.

 

[Daciple]

So if I could go back in History to say 100AD and show direct evidence that there were about and ONLY 12 Bible in existence at that time and then show you clearly that someone went and rounded up those ONLY existing Bibles, created their own Bible and then burnt all the other ones, would any Muslim here trust that the remaining Bible was the direct and official Bible as revealed by God to us, even if I can prove to you that it was preserved perfectly from that point on till today?

 

[Infinityloop]

So if I could go back in History to say 100AD and show direct evidence that there were about and ONLY 12 Bible in existence at that time and then show you clearly that someone went and rounded up those ONLY existing Bibles, created their own Bible and then burnt all the other ones, would any Muslim here trust that the remaining Bible was the direct and official Bible as revealed by God to us, even if I can prove to you that it was preserved perfectly from that point on till today?

No, because the Bible is not a Revelation (as already mentioned about ten times in this thread). It's only an amassed collection of narrative/biographical books with a few poetry books, letters and accounts of visions.
You miss the entire contention here.

Aside from this, go back to 100AD and you'll find more biographies of Jesus that simply just Matt, Mark, Luke and John (leaving aside that there are in fact a huge chunk of them that have survived history), none of these however are Jesus' Injeel (the Revelation from Jibreel given to Jesus), for very obvious reason.

 

[Daciple]

No, because the Bible is not a Revelation (as already mentioned about ten times in this thread). It's only an amassed collection of narrative/biographical books with a few poetry books, letters and accounts of visions.
You miss the entire contention here.

Aside from this, go back to 100AD and you'll find more biographies of Jesus that simply just Matt, Mark, Luke and John (leaving aside that there are in fact a huge chunk of them that have survived history), none of these however are Jesus' Injeel (the Revelation from Jibreel given to Jesus), for very obvious reason.

So lets go back to what I am actually asking, IDC about anything discussed prior, none of the points that you have tried make concerning the Bibles legitimacy has any relation to what I am actually asking. Lets put aside all of the other issues you or anyone else has with the Bible. Let us just say they dont exist however correct or incorrect one may view it.

Let us say that the Bible is the direct revelation of God and that there were about a dozen of them and ONLY a dozen of them that existed around 100 AD, we come to see that someone collected these 12 Bibles, burned them and then created their own version and published it as the only True Bible. Even if that mans version of the Bible was kept in tact perfectly would any Muslim on this board accept the authenticity of that Bible?

Again lay aside all other problems you may have with our current Bible and focus solely on the question, if the Bible is the direct Revelation of God to man, there were ONLY 12 of them and one man collected these, burned them and created his own personal version, would you trust and believe that that version IS the direct True Revelation of God, would any of you Muslims accept that Bible as the Truth?

 

[manama]

Sure, I'd believe it if you can produce an original Aramaic Bible that was compiled in the decade after Jesus' death and matches the current versions with the only "difference" being that the font is different and the whole reason behind that compilation and burning of excess copies was that it would forever remain unchanged and I could sit here and read the entire book in original Aramaic in the correct pronunciation without even knowing the language.

I wouldn't call it from God since I don't think God doesn't know basic science but I'd believe in it's reliability as an unchanged scripture of a certain religion.

 

[manama]

What the two guys in that video also seem to heavily forget is that there weren't just 4-12 copies of Quran in the old script. It's that the rest were destroyed or stolen in wars especially during the Era of Mongols or genghis Khan where they burned down libraries. Not to forget that British colonization started and continued with massive stealing though it was mainly resources but it included books too. How do you think the oldest copy ended up at Birmingham University? It was literally "found" in Arabic texts present there totally not stolen from Muslim countries

Like always you have to dumb down yourself and forget grammar or common history when watching these videos to agree with them.

 

[Daciple]

Sure, I'd believe it if you can produce an original Aramaic Bible that was compiled in the decade after Jesus' death and matches the current versions with the only "difference" being that the font is different and the whole reason behind that compilation and burning of excess copies was that it would forever remain unchanged and I could sit here and read the entire book in original Aramaic in the correct pronunciation without even knowing the language.

I wouldn't call it from God since I don't think God doesn't know basic science but I'd believe in it's reliability as an unchanged scripture of a certain religion.

So you're good with some man taking it in and of himself (who isnt a Prophet or heard anything from God himself) to take the other copies of the Bible he could find and burn them and present you with his version of what that Bible is and call it the real version of the Bible? You would take that man made version as being legit?

 

[JoChris]

What the two guys in that video also seem to heavily forget is that there weren't just 4-12 copies of Quran in the old script. It's that the rest were destroyed or stolen in wars especially during the Era of Mongols or genghis Khan where they burned down libraries. Not to forget that British colonization started and continued with massive stealing though it was mainly resources but it included books too. How do you think the oldest copy ended up at Birmingham University? It was literally "found" in Arabic texts present there totally not stolen from Muslim countries

Like always you have to dumb down yourself and forget grammar or common history when watching these videos to agree with them.

The oldest copy ended up in Birmingham University Library because it was God's will for that happen so more careful analysis by outsiders to Islam can be done on Islamic texts, not just us having to trust what Muslims say as usual(and hoping they are not omitting anything that puts Islam in a negative light - that has happened repeatedly).

 

[JoChris]

No, because the Bible is not a Revelation (as already mentioned about ten times in this thread). It's only an amassed collection of narrative/biographical books with a few poetry books, letters and accounts of visions.
You miss the entire contention here.

That is your worldview talking.
A Muslim will not say that the bible is God- inspired, a Christian does.
There is a huge amount of outsiders' historical evidence to back up the bible's claims e.g. archaeology.
Is that the same story for the Quran?

Aside from this, go back to 100AD and you'll find more biographies of Jesus that simply just Matt, Mark, Luke and John (leaving aside that there are in fact a huge chunk of them that have survived history), none of these however are Jesus' Injeel (the Revelation from Jibreel given to Jesus), for very obvious reason.

What time period was that from?
Can you give a link to that story of Jibreel given to Jesus Himself?