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

[anonymous9887]

Nope. I used some of the earliest manuscripts. Including Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. And Paul, earlier the manuscripts are, the wider the variants. You should do a little more research before you make this kind of claim.

ok you tell me, in what manuscript do you find 1 John 5:7?

 

[anonymous9887]

Alright then, what is the complete bible manuscript?

I apologize it was more of a question. can you provide any of the above mentioned?

 

[anonymous9887]

Alright then, what is the complete bible manuscript?

well for an answer that would e to some degree acceptable, for sure Matthew, John, Acts, and Pauls letters, Revelation, the epistles of John, James. that is sufficient, although I accept the cannon from Matthew to revelation.

 

[anonymous9887]

View attachment 13395


View attachment 13397

View attachment 13396

Im not very good at using images here. But you can check the text out. Modern Quran vs the Birmingham manuscript. Not a single variant of any nature.

In contrast the bibles oldest manuscript the P52 (Since you neglect this I am posting a picture of that as well) is small, just a few lines, even that contains a textual variant.

The actual size of this is the size of a business card. Or a credit card. If you see, there are seven lines.



Now since you dont have any evidence at all, let me give you one MAJOR variance in Quranic manuscripts, also found in the lower text of the Sanaa.

The standard text - Fa man Kana.
Textual variant - Fa in Kana

The difference - If any of you be sick vs should one of you be sick.

Major variance.

Ill show you a major variance in the John 7:53-8:11 verses omitted. OMITTED.

And consider this though its not a textual variance, Shepard of Hermas, epistle of Barnabus, Letter of clement. Whole books omitted.

Thus, lets be honest when and not make ill informed kindergarten claims like "The original words of the Qur'an are unavailable"


Cheers.

Muslim Claims

1. Muhammad is the final and greatest messenger of god
   
   
2. The Quran was revealed only to Muhammad and is the final revelation
   
   
3. Islam is the final religion
   
   
4. The Quran and Muhammad are inseparable

Historical accounts related to the Quran

• 570 Muhammad was born
  
  
• 610 Muhammad met Jibril in the Hira cave
  
  
• 610- 622 Received the Meccan revelations
  
  
• 621 the ‘Mi’raj’ to the 7 heavens happened
  
  
• 622 Hijra from Mecca to Medina
  
  
• 622- 632 received Medinan Revelations
  
  
• 630 conquered Mecca peacefully
  
  
• 632 Muhammad dies
  
  
• 632- 634 appears Abu Bakr
  
  
• 634- 644 appears Umar
  
  
• 644-656 appears Uthman
  
  
• 656- 661 Ali

Any Biographies of Muhammad (Haddith and other writings)

• 765 Ibn Ishaq
  
  
• 833 Ibn Hisham
  
  
• 870 Al Bukhari
  
  
• 923 Al Tabari

Is there any historical evidence of the religion of Islam or the mention of Muhammad?

The earliest Historical evidence found is in Arabic coin with the name of Muhammad dated to about 691



Quranic Manuscripts

• Topkapi Is dated to about the mid 8th century (incomplete Manuscript)
  
  
• Sammarqand Mushaf Dated to the mid 8th century(incomplete)
  
  
• Ma’il Dated to the late 8th century (incomplete)
  
  
• Petropolitanus Dated to the late 7th century to early 8th century (incomplete)
  
  
• Houseini Dated to the 9th century (incomplete)
  
  
• San’aa Dates to about 705 (incomplete, but the earliest manuscript)
  
  
  A question remains about all these manuscripts, are they all in agreement? Is there any variants? If so why?
• can you please name any historical evidence?
• can you name any secular resources that are not biased that can confirm what Muhammad did?

 

[firedragon]

ok first off do you agree scholars are aware of over 2000 variants yes or no?

2000 variants? Rather than just quoting numbers, why dont you point one variance? Some major variant. Like the 1 John 5:7.

Okay earlier manuscripts. How about codex Bezae? John 18:14-20:13 is called a suppliment. Thats a huge huge variance. Show me something like that.

 

[firedragon]

well for an answer that would e to some degree acceptable, for sure Matthew, John, Acts, and Pauls letters, Revelation, the epistles of John, James. that is sufficient, although I accept the cannon from Matthew to revelation.

My question was "What is the complete bible manuscript". Not the cannon. Everyone knows pretty well what the new bible cannon is.

You are saying the Quran manuscripts are not complete. What is the complete bible manuscript? Complete. 100%.

Mate, there are so many different cannons of the bible. How many books does the bible have? 73? 75? 66? 82? At least you have to agree that no Quranic manuscript has a lesser number of chapters as a book.

So tell me mate, which bible manuscript is complete?

 

[firedragon]

Muslim Claims

1. Muhammad is the final and greatest messenger of god
   
   
2. The Quran was revealed only to Muhammad and is the final revelation
   
   
3. Islam is the final religion
   
   
4. The Quran and Muhammad are inseparable

Historical accounts related to the Quran

• 570 Muhammad was born
  
  
• 610 Muhammad met Jibril in the Hira cave
  
  
• 610- 622 Received the Meccan revelations
  
  
• 621 the ‘Mi’raj’ to the 7 heavens happened
  
  
• 622 Hijra from Mecca to Medina
  
  
• 622- 632 received Medinan Revelations
  
  
• 630 conquered Mecca peacefully
  
  
• 632 Muhammad dies
  
  
• 632- 634 appears Abu Bakr
  
  
• 634- 644 appears Umar
  
  
• 644-656 appears Uthman
  
  
• 656- 661 Ali

Any Biographies of Muhammad (Haddith and other writings)

• 765 Ibn Ishaq
  
  
• 833 Ibn Hisham
  
  
• 870 Al Bukhari
  
  
• 923 Al Tabari

Is there any historical evidence of the religion of Islam or the mention of Muhammad?

The earliest Historical evidence found is in Arabic coin with the name of Muhammad dated to about 691



Quranic Manuscripts

• Topkapi Is dated to about the mid 8th century (incomplete Manuscript)
  
  
• Sammarqand Mushaf Dated to the mid 8th century(incomplete)
  
  
• Ma’il Dated to the late 8th century (incomplete)
  
  
• Petropolitanus Dated to the late 7th century to early 8th century (incomplete)
  
  
• Houseini Dated to the 9th century (incomplete)
  
  
• San’aa Dates to about 705 (incomplete, but the earliest manuscript)
  
  
  A question remains about all these manuscripts, are they all in agreement? Is there any variants? If so why?
• can you please name any historical evidence?
• can you name any secular resources that are not biased that can confirm what Muhammad did?

I must learn tactics from you on how to avoid questions.

 

[YmirGF]

Muslim Claims

1. Muhammad is the final and greatest messenger of god

That is not accurate, Paul. @Paul Chavez In general, Muslims do believe that Mummad is the final prophet but they do not see him as the greatest prophet, but rather, claim all the prophets are equal. The appearance of superiority lies in the fact that he is the alleged "Final" prophet and therefore his revelations trump all prior revelations as they are seen to be distorted or altered whenever they vary from Muhammad's narrative.

 

[firedragon]

ok you tell me, in what manuscript do you find 1 John 5:7?

codex 221 is the oldest where this exists as an extra note.

 

[anonymous9887]

My question was "What is the complete bible manuscript". Not the cannon. Everyone knows pretty well what the new bible cannon is.

You are saying the Quran manuscripts are not complete. What is the complete bible manuscript? Complete. 100%.

Mate, there are so many different cannons of the bible. How many books does the bible have? 73? 75? 66? 82? At least you have to agree that no Quranic manuscript has a lesser number of chapters as a book.

So tell me mate, which bible manuscript is complete?

This is my position, youll be able to tell this is my own writing. P75 and vaticanus are very similar and copied from an earlier manuscript. All the other text and secular resources that appear help to weed out what does not belong in Vaticanus and in Sinaiticus.

The reliability of the New Testament manuscripts

1. The only way to copy the New Testament manuscripts was by hand
   
   
2. We don’t have the original manuscripts
   
   
3. Many scholars assume that we are copying the copies of the copies of the copies, But is there not a possibility that the originals may have survived till a later date, and thus are maybe copies of copies?
   
   
4. All of the Manuscripts of the New Testament differ from one another.
   
   
5. There are 5752 manuscripts of the New testament
   
   
6. 94% of the new testament documents are after the 9th century ( as for me a personally I would deem these with not much authority)
   
   
7. The reality is that we do not know the amount of variant of the New Testament manuscripts. It is assumed that there are anywhere from 300,000 – 500,000 variants in the New testament Manuscripts. The reason that they do not know is because it is far too many manuscripts to go over, not even the computer can catch how many variants there are.
   
   
8. The Majority of the variants are spelling errors, parablepsis occasioned by homoeoteleuton. So the majority fall into the category of non-meaningful variants, non viable (additions or omission that are in later dated text, that clearly did not belong). There are also the viable variants (the variants that do change the meaning of the text).
   
   
9. The less manuscripts you have the fewer variants you will have, but also the less witnesses and evidence that confirm the story.
   
   
10. The more manuscripts you have coming from different locations at different times, and yet testifying about the same events that took place, the more reliable the evidence is.
    
    
11. There are 1500-2000 viable variants in the New Testament equaling to 1% of the words in the New Testament.
    
    
12. We have 12 New Testament Manuscripts within 100 years of the New Testament.
    
    
13. We have 120 Manuscripts within the 1st 300 years of the New Testament.
    
    
14. Having Multiple Manuscripts of the same book within the same time frame is a good thing. It is a good thing, because we go with what the majority says. So if we were to have 5 Manuscripts of the same text written in the same period of time and 4 of them testify a text is written in one way but only one in another, then probably the majority is correct.
    
    
15. Manuscript P75 was written in 175AD and Vaticanus was written in 325AD. These manuscripts are more than likely related in that probably the same source was used to get both these copies. These Manuscripts have a gap in between of about 150 years, and we do know that Vaticanus was not copied from P75.
    
    
16. Now even when you put in comparison The Byzantine text and the Westcott and Hort text are 95% in agreement.
    
    
17. Many People believe that we should have perfect copies of god’s word, since it is god’s word. The fact of the matter is that the bible has been put under more scrutiny than many other historical and philosophical text and has been put at a higher standard than the historical text, and yet the bible has way more evidence provided to prove its reliability. If we are to discredit the bible given all the historical evidence provided, then we should also be consistent and throw out all other historical evidence as well and pass it on as man-made stories.
    

 

[anonymous9887]

codex 221 is the oldest where this exists as an extra note.

when was the text written?

 

[anonymous9887]

That is not accurate, Paul. @Paul Chavez In general, Muslims do believe that Mummad is the final prophet but they do not see him as the greatest prophet, but rather, claim all the prophets are equal. The appearance of superiority lies in the fact that he is the alleged "Final" prophet and therefore his revelations trump all prior revelations as they are seen to be distorted or altered whenever they vary from Muhammad's narrative.

ok I will correct that.

 

[anonymous9887]

codex 221 is the oldest where this exists as an extra note.

I am asking this question for obvious reasons. Tell me what Actual early manuscript it is found in, and the date please.

 

[firedragon]

This is my position, youll be able to tell this is my own writing. P75 and vaticanus are very similar and copied from an earlier manuscript. All the other text and secular resources that appear help to weed out what does not belong in Vaticanus and in Sinaiticus.

The reliability of the New Testament manuscripts

1. The only way to copy the New Testament manuscripts was by hand
   
   
2. We don’t have the original manuscripts
   
   
3. Many scholars assume that we are copying the copies of the copies of the copies, But is there not a possibility that the originals may have survived till a later date, and thus are maybe copies of copies?
   
   
4. All of the Manuscripts of the New Testament differ from one another.
   
   
5. There are 5752 manuscripts of the New testament
   
   
6. 94% of the new testament documents are after the 9th century ( as for me a personally I would deem these with not much authority)
   
   
7. The reality is that we do not know the amount of variant of the New Testament manuscripts. It is assumed that there are anywhere from 300,000 – 500,000 variants in the New testament Manuscripts. The reason that they do not know is because it is far too many manuscripts to go over, not even the computer can catch how many variants there are.
   
   
8. The Majority of the variants are spelling errors, parablepsis occasioned by homoeoteleuton. So the majority fall into the category of non-meaningful variants, non viable (additions or omission that are in later dated text, that clearly did not belong). There are also the viable variants (the variants that do change the meaning of the text).
   
   
9. The less manuscripts you have the fewer variants you will have, but also the less witnesses and evidence that confirm the story.
   
   
10. The more manuscripts you have coming from different locations at different times, and yet testifying about the same events that took place, the more reliable the evidence is.
    
    
11. There are 1500-2000 viable variants in the New Testament equaling to 1% of the words in the New Testament.
    
    
12. We have 12 New Testament Manuscripts within 100 years of the New Testament.
    
    
13. We have 120 Manuscripts within the 1st 300 years of the New Testament.
    
    
14. Having Multiple Manuscripts of the same book within the same time frame is a good thing. It is a good thing, because we go with what the majority says. So if we were to have 5 Manuscripts of the same text written in the same period of time and 4 of them testify a text is written in one way but only one in another, then probably the majority is correct.
    
    
15. Manuscript P75 was written in 175AD and Vaticanus was written in 325AD. These manuscripts are more than likely related in that probably the same source was used to get both these copies. These Manuscripts have a gap in between of about 150 years, and we do know that Vaticanus was not copied from P75.
    
    
16. Now even when you put in comparison The Byzantine text and the Westcott and Hort text are 95% in agreement.
    
    
17. Many People believe that we should have perfect copies of god’s word, since it is god’s word. The fact of the matter is that the bible has been put under more scrutiny than many other historical and philosophical text and has been put at a higher standard than the historical text, and yet the bible has way more evidence provided to prove its reliability. If we are to discredit the bible given all the historical evidence provided, then we should also be consistent and throw out all other historical evidence as well and pass it on as man-made stories.

P75 and Vaticanus are assumed to be Alexandrian. But P75 is so small in comparison to a much more complete Vaticanus.

Nevertheless mate, lets agree that there is nothing called a complete bible manuscript and move on.

If you wish to play this gutter game, this putting percentages to manuscripts is absurd. Most of the bible variants are simple errors. Although there are some major variants as well.

If you put 900 years between the source and a manuscript, you will find 100,000 or more Quranic manuscripts that agree perfectly to the vowel.

The thing is this Paul, for you to make an assessment that the Original Quran cannot be found you must have some good evidence. The variants between manuscripts are nothing major. I have already provided a major variant which you seem to have ignored.

 

[firedragon]

I am asking this question for obvious reasons. Tell me what Actual early manuscript it is found in, and the date please.

THat was an actual manuscript. I cant remember the exact date but I think it was 10th century. Its not an early manuscript which is why most bible translations have omitted it. That is the earliest.

 

[firedragon]

I apologize it was more of a question. can you provide any of the above mentioned?

Sorry Paul, I didnt see this post.

 

[anonymous9887]

P75 and Vaticanus are assumed to be Alexandrian. But P75 is so small in comparison to a much more complete Vaticanus.

Nevertheless mate, lets agree that there is nothing called a complete bible manuscript and move on.

If you wish to play this gutter game, this putting percentages to manuscripts is absurd. Most of the bible variants are simple errors. Although there are some major variants as well.

If you put 900 years between the source and a manuscript, you will find 100,000 or more Quranic manuscripts that agree perfectly to the vowel.

The thing is this Paul, for you to make an assessment that the Original Quran cannot be found you must have some good evidence. The variants between manuscripts are nothing major. I have already provided a major variant which you seem to have ignored.

no I did not ignore, the fact is that there are variants in the quran, which you have failed to answer how many there are. Of course the modern version would seem acceptable, because verses were cherry picked.

here you might like this

 

[anonymous9887]

THat was an actual manuscript. I cant remember the exact date but I think it was 10th century. Its not an early manuscript which is why most bible translations have omitted it. That is the earliest.

you see totally irrelevant.

 

[anonymous9887]

Sorry Paul, I didnt see this post.

can you provide any other historical source or secular resource that confirms Islam and muhammed,something that is not from a muslim but another source.

please watch this video

 

[firedragon]

no I did not ignore, the fact is that there are variants in the quran, which you have failed to answer how many there are. Of course the modern version would seem acceptable, because verses were cherry picked.

here you might like this

Verses were cherry picked? Lol. What do you mean and whats the evidence?

Mate, it is you who claim that there are variants in early Quranic manuscripts. I agree. I have given you one 'MAJOR' variant which is nothing. I say again, nothing. Show me one major variant that helps backup your claim that the Quran or the original is lost. If you cant, then just leave it. Asking me about variants to back up your claims is like asking a an accused for evidence against him in courts.