after five years, i left islam. here's one huge contradiction in the qur`an

[firedragon]

1. Is there variants between the 5 manuscripts and the fragment you mentioned? If so how many? Is it in the thousands?
2. Show me a complete manuscript of the Qur'an (100%complete)?

Mate, you are the one who is claiming to the variations enough to proclaim the original is lost. Thus it is you who should answer this question.

 

[anonymous9887]

Mate, you are the one who is claiming to the variations enough to proclaim the original is lost. Thus it is you who should answer this question.

So you admitted that the manuscripts vary. I have Just done the research I can't point them out because I don't have access to the manuscripts nor do I know arabic. But I have to admit I am going by scholarly research.
But I do know the facts.
1. They all vary
2. And they are all incomplete
3. There is also evidence uthman burned or got rid of manuscripts.
4. The manuscripts you say you rely on is probably the Topkapi date back to the 7th century dates past those 4 individuals involved.
5. It seem like the Qur'an has evolved over time.

 

[anonymous9887]

Mate, you are the one who is claiming to the variations enough to proclaim the original is lost. Thus it is you who should answer this question.

I am also getting these facts from the same people who point out the biography and life of Muhammad was written 200- 300 years after the fact!!!
So they are stating facts.

 

[anonymous9887]

Mate, you are the one who is claiming to the variations enough to proclaim the original is lost. Thus it is you who should answer this question.

Well tell me what you know and I will research it, but having incomplete manuscripts is pretty scary.

 

[firedragon]

So you admitted that the manuscripts vary. I have Just done the research I can't point them out because I don't have access to the manuscripts nor do I know arabic. But I have to admit I am going by scholarly research.
But I do know the facts.
1. They all vary
2. And they are all incomplete
3. There is also evidence uthman burned or got rid of manuscripts.
4. The manuscripts you say you rely on is probably the Topkapi date back to the 7th century dates past those 4 individuals involved.
5. It seem like the Qur'an has evolved over time.

What you saying is that you don't have clue of what you are talking about. To say things like it seems like the Quran has evolved over time is absurd. Even with study of textual criticism.

You should have a better knowledge of what the variations are to say "The original words of the Qur'an are unavailable".

 

[firedragon]

Well tell me what you know and I will research it, but having incomplete manuscripts is pretty scary.

You coming from a religion having the earliest manuscript of a business card's size, the P52 saying this is quite amusing.

 

[anonymous9887]

What you saying is that you don't have clue of what you are talking about. To say things like it seems like the Quran has evolved over time is absurd. Even with study of textual criticism.

You should have a better knowledge of what the variations are to say "The original words of the Qur'an are unavailable".

Not at all here is how I look at it.
1. We have fragments of the Qur'an. Correct
2. None of the other manuscripts are in agreement with one another.
3. But your right we don't have access to the originals.

 

[anonymous9887]

You coming from a religion having the earliest manuscript of a business card's size, the P52 saying this is quite amusing.

No problem.
1.We have more eye witnesses of our manuscripts coming from different places at different times. We have historical evidence of people that existed and the message they preached.
2. It is as if we have a puzzle that is 100 pieces and we have 120 pieces.
3. We have more people testifying for this manuscript than any other sacred writings.

 

[anonymous9887]

You coming from a religion having the earliest manuscript of a business card's size, the P52 saying this is quite amusing.

We have 2 manuscripts that are related are P66 or 72 (don't quote me on it) and vaticanus, but one is not the copy of the other.

 

[Augustus]

Birmingham manuscript. Dated latest 643 AD. Earliest 6th century.

This really isn't accurate information. Just an example of how the mainstream media is absolutely awful for transmitting anything remotely nuanced, complex or scientific/academic. I really hate seeing it stated as close to a fact. It's not.

The tl:dr: Birmingham manuscript dated between 568-645 with a probability of 95% assuming that the calibration of the machine is correct, which it probably isn't because RC dating of Middle Eastern texts is notoriously unreliable. The early dating is also contingent on scholarly consensus regarding contemporary knowledge about Quranic orthography being significantly wrong. Overall, dating is possibly correct but balance of probabilities says late 7th or perhaps early 8th C.

 

[firedragon]

We have 2 manuscripts that are related are P66 or 72 (don't quote me on it) and vaticanus, but one is not the copy of the other.

P66 is an awesome manuscript of the Gospel of John. That is just one book out of the New Testament. Dated 200 AD by paleographers. But you claim "The original words of the Qur'an are unavailable" which is such a fantastic statement given that your argument is 100 years later etc. Dont you think its a hypocritical statement?

You quoted P66, do you know that this doesnt have the famous Pericope of the adulteress? Now that's a major textual variance. Who me one variance of this magnitude between any of the Quran manuscripts found anywhere in the world.

P72 is earliest 3rd century. Vaticanus is a near complete bible but that doesnt have the trinitarian verse. Now thats a stupendous variation. Show me one variation even close to that between two Quran manuscripts. Mate, when you quote your own manuscripts, do you even know the variations? Do you even know the contents? Earlier you quoted SInaiticus as something you study but you had no clue what was in it. Whole books are missing in the current bible. Let me quote you two. Epistle of Barnabus and Shepard of Hermas. Now that is huge difference.

I dont mean to disrespect you but lets not be hypocrites. Show me what variants of the Quran you are speaking of.

Old manuscripts are bound to decay. Bound to get lost and perish. Thats how it is. No one in their right mind will discredit the bible because the oldest manuscripts are small in size. The Topkapi Museum manuscript has 99% of the Quran dated second century Hijra. In contrast, whats the percentage the P52 represents of the bible. .015%??? Thats second century AD. The earliest manuscript ever found.

 

[firedragon]

This really isn't accurate information. Just an example of how the mainstream media is absolutely awful for transmitting anything remotely nuanced, complex or scientific/academic. I really hate seeing it stated as close to a fact. It's not.

The tl:dr: Birmingham manuscript dated between 568-645 with a probability of 95% assuming that the calibration of the machine is correct, which it probably isn't because RC dating of Middle Eastern texts is notoriously unreliable. The early dating is also contingent on scholarly consensus regarding contemporary knowledge about Quranic orthography being significantly wrong. Overall, dating is possibly correct but balance of probabilities says late 7th or perhaps early 8th C.

Absolutely wrong.

You assume the calibration of the machine the university of Birmingham used was wrong? And this is not at all akin to dating of other middle eastern texts.

Scholarly consensus is based on marks. It is because of their preconceived notion that Hadith narrations helped the compilation of the Quran. This manuscripts broke their heart. That is why they make claim to this. Even then, none of the Islamic scholars who were involved ever said early 8th century. The consensus is that the dating could be wrong because of the script, well they could be wrong about the script. For them, its hard to believe that a Quran could have existed during the prophets time. They will never believe it because it discredits ahadith and its role in the compilation of the Quran. The value of friends and followers of the prophet etc. You should get involved more mate.

And when you inspect the folios the only way that the calibration could have gone wrong is with contamination. The issue is this, if you take contamination into consideration the maximum difference will be 22 years. What will stab your stomach is that this will make it earlier, not later.

 

[anonymous9887]

P66 is an awesome manuscript of the Gospel of John. That is just one book out of the New Testament. Dated 200 AD by paleographers. But you claim "The original words of the Qur'an are unavailable" which is such a fantastic statement given that your argument is 100 years later etc. Dont you think its a hypocritical statement?

You quoted P66, do you know that this doesnt have the famous Pericope of the adulteress? Now that's a major textual variance. Who me one variance of this magnitude between any of the Quran manuscripts found anywhere in the world.

P72 is earliest 3rd century. Vaticanus is a near complete bible but that doesnt have the trinitarian verse. Now thats a stupendous variation. Show me one variation even close to that between two Quran manuscripts. Mate, when you quote your own manuscripts, do you even know the variations? Do you even know the contents? Earlier you quoted SInaiticus as something you study but you had no clue what was in it. Whole books are missing in the current bible. Let me quote you two. Epistle of Barnabus and Shepard of Hermas. Now that is huge difference.

I dont mean to disrespect you but lets not be hypocrites. Show me what variants of the Quran you are speaking of.

Old manuscripts are bound to decay. Bound to get lost and perish. Thats how it is. No one in their right mind will discredit the bible because the oldest manuscripts are small in size. The Topkapi Museum manuscript has 99% of the Quran dated second century Hijra. In contrast, whats the percentage the P52 represents of the bible. .015%??? Thats second century AD. The earliest manuscript ever found.

1. No its not hypocritical because we have other sources which can confirm the bible and it's authenticity. The early church fathers quotations and comments. And there are historical sources that back up all that entire scene made an impact. But at any rate you have an explosion of manuscripts that came to be. So even before a court of law these sacred documents carry more evidence then any other text, and I say that with absolute certainty.
2. I completely understand that the earliest copies do not include the foot notes as the textus receptus does. I forgot which papyrus is related to vaticanus, but these are the closest resemblance available. And they came from different sources!!!
3. The variant argument is stupid considering these factors. 92% of the bible manuscripts are written after 900 , which carry no authority for a more reliable source.
We have plenty of evidence. If we have 4 manuscripts that validate a text we will take the majority.
4. It's funny that our copies have lasted longer than your originals.

 

[anonymous9887]

P66 is an awesome manuscript of the Gospel of John. That is just one book out of the New Testament. Dated 200 AD by paleographers. But you claim "The original words of the Qur'an are unavailable" which is such a fantastic statement given that your argument is 100 years later etc. Dont you think its a hypocritical statement?

You quoted P66, do you know that this doesnt have the famous Pericope of the adulteress? Now that's a major textual variance. Who me one variance of this magnitude between any of the Quran manuscripts found anywhere in the world.

P72 is earliest 3rd century. Vaticanus is a near complete bible but that doesnt have the trinitarian verse. Now thats a stupendous variation. Show me one variation even close to that between two Quran manuscripts. Mate, when you quote your own manuscripts, do you even know the variations? Do you even know the contents? Earlier you quoted SInaiticus as something you study but you had no clue what was in it. Whole books are missing in the current bible. Let me quote you two. Epistle of Barnabus and Shepard of Hermas. Now that is huge difference.

I dont mean to disrespect you but lets not be hypocrites. Show me what variants of the Quran you are speaking of.

Old manuscripts are bound to decay. Bound to get lost and perish. Thats how it is. No one in their right mind will discredit the bible because the oldest manuscripts are small in size. The Topkapi Museum manuscript has 99% of the Quran dated second century Hijra. In contrast, whats the percentage the P52 represents of the bible. .015%??? Thats second century AD. The earliest manuscript ever found.

The variants are irrelevant. For these reasons.
1. If they are not of the earliest copies those variants don't count.
2. Misspellings or the order in which the greek text was compiled. These do not change the meaning.
3. Viable variants of the originals are a very small amount. But we still have a well attested book.

 

[anonymous9887]

P66 is an awesome manuscript of the Gospel of John. That is just one book out of the New Testament. Dated 200 AD by paleographers. But you claim "The original words of the Qur'an are unavailable" which is such a fantastic statement given that your argument is 100 years later etc. Dont you think its a hypocritical statement?

You quoted P66, do you know that this doesnt have the famous Pericope of the adulteress? Now that's a major textual variance. Who me one variance of this magnitude between any of the Quran manuscripts found anywhere in the world.

P72 is earliest 3rd century. Vaticanus is a near complete bible but that doesnt have the trinitarian verse. Now thats a stupendous variation. Show me one variation even close to that between two Quran manuscripts. Mate, when you quote your own manuscripts, do you even know the variations? Do you even know the contents? Earlier you quoted SInaiticus as something you study but you had no clue what was in it. Whole books are missing in the current bible. Let me quote you two. Epistle of Barnabus and Shepard of Hermas. Now that is huge difference.

I dont mean to disrespect you but lets not be hypocrites. Show me what variants of the Quran you are speaking of.

Old manuscripts are bound to decay. Bound to get lost and perish. Thats how it is. No one in their right mind will discredit the bible because the oldest manuscripts are small in size. The Topkapi Museum manuscript has 99% of the Quran dated second century Hijra. In contrast, whats the percentage the P52 represents of the bible. .015%??? Thats second century AD. The earliest manuscript ever found.

The Qur'an with all due respect does not have the amount of evidence the bible has, not even close.

 

[firedragon]

1. No its not hypocritical because we have other sources which can confirm the bible and it's authenticity. The early church fathers quotations and comments. And there are historical sources that back up all that entire scene made an impact. But at any rate you have an explosion of manuscripts that came to be. So even before a court of law these sacred documents carry more evidence then any other text, and I say that with absolute certainty.

In that case mate, even the most traditional Muslim scholar bearing ahadith and various other studies can pinpoint exactly who were the earliest narrators of the Quran.

No historian or any Christian have any chain to say exactly who wrote some of the bibles contents. None. You just making general statements.

2. I completely understand that the earliest copies do not include the foot notes as the textus receptus does. I forgot which papyrus is related to vaticanus, but these are the closest resemblance available. And they came from different sources!!!

Foot notes? Earliest is P52, no foot or head or arms available in it. Lets not play this game mate.

Again, Vaticanus does not have the pericope of the adulteress. That is a huge variance. Also it has full books which are different from codex vaticanus. What kind of difference is that? Please show me one similar in the Quranic traditions. Just one. Or you can ignore this question as you usually do.

 

[firedragon]

The variants are irrelevant. For these reasons.
1. If they are not of the earliest copies those variants don't count.
2. Misspellings or the order in which the greek text was compiled. These do not change the meaning.
3. Viable variants of the originals are a very small amount. But we still have a well attested book.

Of course. We all know this.

But dont you think that the concept of trinity explained in one verse is not a viable variant if not found in some manuscripts? It is an extremely viable variant.

Did Jesus have compassion towards the leper or get angry?

We dont have to delve deep into textual criticism of the bible because it will just go no where. But you claimed "The original words of the Qur'an are unavailable". You should back it up by pointing out the variances and the reason for this kind of huge claims. Otherwise it just will show a character of blurting.

 

[firedragon]

The Qur'an with all due respect does not have the amount of evidence the bible has, not even close.

Fleeting statement.

 

[anonymous9887]

Fleeting statement.

Not a fleeting statement, we have historical, and secular evidence of Jesus ministry up to John's death. We are talking about different groups that have different views on this new religion making comments about it. Joseph us the early church fathers and other sects. Can you provide the equivalent?

 

[anonymous9887]

Fleeting statement.

We have people who lived in the time of the apostles who had writings. The hadith was written 200-300 years later they were eye witnesses of nothing.