Sara Thinks
Member
A highly knowledgeable professor, Bart Erhman, who studied under Bruce Metzger, gives the evidences!
WHAT'S YOUR RESPONSE TO THIS?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Are The Original Manuscripts of New Testament Lost?
- Thread starter Sara Thinks
- Start date
A highly knowledgeable professor, Bart Erhman, who studied under Bruce Metzger, gives the evidences!
WHAT'S YOUR RESPONSE TO THIS?
Interesting post. I'll be very keen to hear what the Christians have to say.
How authentic is the Quran?
How authentic is the Quran?
Limo
Active Member
Regardless if you believe in Quran or not, Quran was kept untouched.
Quran was memorized by hundreds of companions in Prophet's life and was written partially by tens until one complete written copy is collected in one place after Prophet's death by one year.
Since that date, Quran is written in the same language, same script, recited in the same way from generation to another.
Till date people who are specialized in Quran keeps the series of narration of Quran till prophet Mohamed.
OMG! WHO WOULD'V THUNK?
Meanwhile, now hear that the original manuscript of Shakespeare's Much Ado About Nothing is nowhere to be found. Oy veys mir!
A new thread would give much more answers, this would kinda me hijacking the thread.
But still to answer - Qur'an is very authentic and the only "change" was that it's order is from longest chapters to the shortest and not in the order as the chapters were revealed.
All the best
roger1440
I do stuff
If there were no original then they can't be lost.
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
Since this thread has received majority responses from Muslims, I'd ask you guys to point out an original copy of the Quran... Where is it kept? How old is it? What does it look like?
And no, we have no Biblical autographs. Anyone who says otherwise is lying through their faith.
(We have some very old copies of small sections. But there are no original documents.)
And no, we have no Biblical autographs. Anyone who says otherwise is lying through their faith.
(We have some very old copies of small sections. But there are no original documents.)
And how, pray tell, would one authenticate a particular document as 'original'?
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
??
...Same way we authenticate anything else as being an original. It's more difficult when working with historical documents, but it's still possible and it happens all the time.
Do you have a problem with the claim that there are no Biblical or Quranic Autographs?
Rubbish.
Let's pretend that you come across a complete copy of gMk. Let's further stipulate that it can be dated to the 1st century CE with a fairly high degree of accuracy. Now tell us: How do you determine whether or not it is an 'original'?
Not in the least.
Parenthetically, @jonathan180iq , you'd benefit from reading Tov.
Limo
Active Member
As I said the main way of keeping Quran is the memory because it's used in prayer and reciting is a kind of worshiping.
The oldest manuscript is in Birmingham University were radiocarbon dated in 2015 between 568 and 645 CE. It's written during Prophet Mohamed's life 570 CE – 632 CE. It doesn't contain whole Quran but there is no single difference between this manuscript and my copy of Quran.
The oldest complete manuscript is Top Kapi manuscript , It was dated in the first half of 7th century but later it's dated second half of 8th century
Also , Samarkand Kufic Quran is Radio-carbon dating showed a 95.4% probability of a date between 765 and 855
There is a complete agreement between these copies and current copy.
Regards
@jonathan180iq, when might we expect you to demonstrate your "180iq" by offering a cogent response to post #11? Or would you prefer to demonstrate prudence and reconsider your previous claim?
roger1440
I do stuff
Since it happens all the time, can you give me an example?
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
Patience
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
You want an example of an historic document being considered an authenticated original - A primary source?
Internet History Sourcebooks
There's a whole slew of original documents, which have been translated and transcribed for public use, and which have their source material linked. I can cherry-pick from any period of history, if you like, but it will do nothing to change my original claim... The study and authentication of historical documents happens "all the time".
I'm not really sure why an agreed-upon factual statement is being met with hostility.
roger1440
I do stuff
Yes, give me an example of an original manuscript from antiquity. How would any expert even know if it was an original unless it was signed by the author stating it was a first edition? Then there would be the problem of authenticating the signature. There is no means to know if there was or wasn’t a previous edition.
Sara Thinks
Member
Quran is 100% authentic and no man could ever altered it!
The Quran we have till now 2017 is still the original Quran.
Watch the video and as it gives the evidence.
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
It would take an awful lot to verify this hypothetical find as an original, certainly.
As I said before, you'd study it the same way you would any historical document - very carefully.
Auxiliary sciences of history - Wikipedia
That's as simple and as profound as you can make it. It would take years of study, and constant research in the field to determine with what degree of certainty one could make the claim that it was original document - For example, what happens if/when an older copy is found, like with many Biblical texts, by accident? What if an older copy is never found? The latter doesn't necessarily indicate that the subject article is authentic...
I mean,Let's go even further and assume that the few lines found on the back of this ancient Egyptian burial mask that everyone is talking about are not only authentic, but contain the full text. What does that really mean?
As with any historical document, it means that the story told in GMk has a later origin than the date it was transcribed. So, that's good. It would match up with the claims and beliefs of the pious somewhat, right? It then must, like all historical documents, be subjected to all the rigors of Textual Criticism, some types of which are referenced above. And it must be compared to the best copies of it that we have, including the previously accepted oldest clone, P45.
Let's say, just for sh!ts and giggles, that it all worked out. All of the criticisms and all of the study only led to one conclusion, that it's the book of Mark written sometime around 90CE. A copy of Mark, written a mere 60 years after the events it depicts, found in Egypt... People would lose their minds!
That brings us back to your original assumption though, right? We've found a complete work, accurately dated (though still pretty out of touch with the events directly) and it's met all of our educated criticisms - What then?
I do lots of ancestral research, both personally and professionally, and I know that some documents are just going to be forever lost to time. I've got stories about random discoveries in-between walls that have led to familial connections that people never knew existed. A chance encounter with a primary source added layers to a story that no one ever expected. It can be a beautiful thing. And it's all part of piecing history back together, which can be both frustrating and incredibly rewarding. But that does nothing to detract from the necessity of testing everything, always.
We can fairly certainly assume that the Biblical Autographs must have existed, but the fact remains that, to my knowledge, none of them have ever been produced for study. The oldest copies of segments of these books are sometimes hundreds (or sometimes thousands) of years removed from the events which they claims to speak of with accuracy. That's a problem for any field of study, regardless of which side of the faith you find yourself.
As you shouldn't.