It seems all religious books suffers from differences in terms of manuscripts and newer versions

[Faih]

And in this case, also the quran. I've checked wikipedia on this. It seems "Although i believe there are somewhat more evidence for Jesus being historical (Although i can see why sceptics might argue against)". I have however seen that there are some references of muhammad in the 7th cenutry.

However, even so. Is the book well preserved?

Not from what i know. There are bunch of discrepancies in the old manuscripts of the quran and the modern version which are probably from the Cairo version.

This can also be said about the gospels. So we have no clue what it actually said and what it didn't say? And it doesn't help that the earliest is atleast 70 years after the death of muhammad. Since there are no vowel markings to know what words originally said.
History of the Quran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edit: I should probably have posted this on religious debate. Sorry about that :/

 

[Quintessence]

Moved it for ya.

 

[Nietzsche]

This is an issue found in all religious texts that date back far enough. You rarely, if ever, find the true original, which itself is not the original, as it would be someone(the speaker or otherwise) writing down what they head or remembered. And given the nature of human memory, there will be slight alterations and bias brought into the text wholly unintended by the writer. One cannot help who they are and how well they can hear & remember. This will then be compounded each time a copy is made or something new is added.

 

[Treks]

The Sikh scripture is quite close to the original, but I suppose that's because it was only finished around 300 years ago. In fact, the Adi Granth (containing the bulk of the text) originally put together by the 5th Guru is called the Kartarpur Bir and is still in existence.

 

[Desert Snake]

This subject is why you have religious beliefs/parameters, in the first place, outside of the texts. This is also a part of the reason that, many people do not understand the texts in the place, it's like reading something without a reference. Many churches would even be making this sort of 'mistake', as well, ie, the thought that the texts ''are'' the religious beliefs, and not describing them. Xianity seems to be very much thought of this way, for some reason.

 

[JFish123]

And in this case, also the quran. I've checked wikipedia on this. It seems "Although i believe there are somewhat more evidence for Jesus being historical (Although i can see why sceptics might argue against)". I have however seen that there are some references of muhammad in the 7th cenutry.

However, even so. Is the book well preserved?

Not from what i know. There are bunch of discrepancies in the old manuscripts of the quran and the modern version which are probably from the Cairo version.

This can also be said about the gospels. So we have no clue what it actually said and what it didn't say? And it doesn't help that the earliest is atleast 70 years after the death of muhammad. Since there are no vowel markings to know what words originally said.
History of the Quran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edit: I should probably have posted this on religious debate. Sorry about that :/

As you can see, the New Testament has far more Manuscript evidence and is far closer to the time if the actual event then ANY other document such as the Quran or Haddith in History.

 

[Treks]

But Quran and Hadith aren't on your table. :/

 

[Politesse]

I think part of this is that we live in an age where written texts are strongly preferred to oral communication - when you look back far enough into antiquity, you see a lot of people worried about authenticity for sure, but they're in a very different dialogue on it, one centered on the person a text is associated with and their credentials. A single "autograph" of a holy text is in many ways a modern obsession.

 

[LuisDantas]

Texts, particularly religious ones, need frequent revision in order to remain meaningful and relevant.

Yes, I know there are people who think that instead scripture should somehow be immutable and that people should aim to be "faithful" to it.

Never understood how that came to be.

 

[McBell]

Texts, particularly religious ones, need frequent revision in order to remain meaningful and relevant.

Yes, I know there are people who think that instead scripture should somehow be immutable and that people should aim to be "faithful" to it.

Never understood how that came to be.

I suspect it has to do with the "God is never changing" mindset.

I mean, if god never changes, how can his word change?

 

[seeking4truth]

Preservation of the Holy Quran never depended on written texts to preserve it.
It was revealed to a culture that relied on human memory to preserve and pass on knowledge in a region where resources were hard come by on which to preserve texts. Arabs were famous for their ability to remember their genealogy and history without texts, like the native Australians, African and Americans who also had few if any texts.

During the lifetime of the Holy Prophet(peace and blessings be on him) many, many believers memorised the whole Quran verbatim. Still today all over the world there are thousands of Muslims who can recite the whole Quran from memory. It's style is such that it is not as difficult as non-Muslims would imagine. If all the existing texts of the Holy Quran were destroyed it would still be possible to recompile it accurately from the memories of those thousands.

This is difficult to imagine in a time and culture where the printed word has held such a high value but humans in the past were capable of much more than we might give them credit for.

As a believing Muslim I also believe that God has aided man in preserving this text as it was revealed to the Holy Prophet(peace and blessings be on him)

 

[seeking4truth]

"Texts, particularly religious ones, need frequent revision in order to remain meaningful and relevant."

If the religious text relates to human nature and human behaviour at its basic level and aims to guide humans to reach the highest levels of good behaviour, honesty, integrity and morality then I think these guideline would remain the same for all cultures and all times and therefore need not be constantly revised.

If you are a believer in an All Knowing, Wise Deity then it is for Him to guide us and for us to interpret that guidance according to our own understanding. I do not think it is for humans to change the guidelines as they wish. God leads us not we lead God.

 

[LuisDantas]

I suspect it has to do with the "God is never changing" mindset.

I mean, if god never changes, how can his word change?

You are probably right. Yet it is difficult to justify that mindset when confronted with reality.

 

[LuisDantas]

"Texts, particularly religious ones, need frequent revision in order to remain meaningful and relevant."

If the religious text relates to human nature and human behaviour at its basic level and aims to guide humans to reach the highest levels of good behaviour, honesty, integrity and morality then I think these guideline would remain the same for all cultures and all times and therefore need not be constantly revised.

I just don't see how that could possibly be, Seeking. I will go so far as to say that I know for a fact that it is not so.

A text is just words. It can not begin to have a meaning, let alone a purpose, until and unless it is interpreted by someone with rational faculties. And then that meaning must be considered in relation to the environment - social, economical, physical.

The text does not change, and one could conceive its origin as being omniscient even across time. Yet changes in the environment make the discarding, updating or at least the continual commentary and complementing of the written aids of any true, effective, vital religion an unavoidable, matter-of-fact need.

What is religiously sound for a Nigerian today is not the same as it would be for a slaveholder in 19th century, and so on. Medicine changed so much in the last couple of centuries or so that social and economical duties could not possibly have kept unchanged. Same for production of goods, or communication technology, or transports.

If you are a believer in an All Knowing, Wise Deity then it is for Him to guide us and for us to interpret that guidance according to our own understanding.

Probably. And that, it seems to me, brings us exactly to the point I just described.

I do not think it is for humans to change the guidelines as they wish. God leads us not we lead God.

Then why would God make it possible for humans to both change their environment so much as they do, and to have reason to decide how to deal with those changes?

Is it possibly God's desire that humans neglect their responsibilities and their discernment in order to follow static scripture?

 

[seeking4truth]

I just don't see how that could possibly be, Seeking. I will go so far as to say that I know for a fact that it is not so.

A text is just words. It can not begin to have a meaning, let alone a purpose, until and unless it is interpreted by someone with rational faculties. And then that meaning must be considered in relation to the environment - social, economical, physical.

The text does not change, and one could conceive its origin as being omniscient even across time. Yet changes in the environment make the discarding, updating or at least the continual commentary and complementing of the written aids of any true, effective, vital religion an unavoidable, matter-of-fact need.

Probably. And that, it seems to me, brings us exactly to the point I just described.
Then why would God make it possible for humans to both change their environment so much as they do, and to have reason to decide how to deal with those changes?

Is it possibly God's desire that humans neglect their responsibilities and their discernment in order to follow static scripture?

There is a system created by the All Aware, Wise creator to facilitate the developments you describe in Human culture.
Prophets are men who have developed a special relationship with God and a deeper knowledge of the guidelines He gives. These prophets continue to interpret and advise on the correct interpretation and advise accordingly.
There is one other part of the process. A special prophet called Messiah develops when almost all correct understanding of the guidelines has disappeared through corruption and distortion and the religion can hardly benefit people. The Messiah(and there have been more than one) redirect and show people the true meaning of the religion and how to use it to benefit everyone.

Eventually, when required, religion itself is upgraded and more sophisticated guidelines given as man develops. This does not mean that man Himself can change the 'Law'.

This is the origin of the many varied religions that exist - each revision leaves behind some who persist in the practice of the old religion.

 

[LuisDantas]

There is a system created by the All Aware, Wise creator to facilitate the developments you describe in Human culture.
Prophets are men who have developed a special relationship with God and a deeper knowledge of the guidelines He gives. These prophets continue to interpret and advise on the correct interpretation and advise accordingly.

I guess I just don't believe in that. Or perhaps more exactly, it seems clear to me that such prophets either do not exist or are really not particularly rare.

There is one other part of the process. A special prophet called Messiah develops when almost all correct understanding of the guidelines has disappeared through corruption and distortion and the religion can hardly benefit people. The Messiah(and there have been more than one) redirect and show people the true meaning of the religion and how to use it to benefit everyone.

It would be sad if that were needed.

Eventually, when required, religion itself is upgraded and more sophisticated guidelines given as man develops. This does not mean that man Himself can change the 'Law'.

The Law of God, I assume?

If there is such a Law, it can't possibly be what we find in any of the known scriptures. Well, maybe in the Tao Te Ching, or some of the Hindu scriptures.

This is the origin of the many varied religions that exist - each revision leaves behind some who persist in the practice of the old religion.

Except that it is not really how it happens. Humanity has much more varied religious beliefs than your model needs.

 

[Unification]

And in this case, also the quran. I've checked wikipedia on this. It seems "Although i believe there are somewhat more evidence for Jesus being historical (Although i can see why sceptics might argue against)". I have however seen that there are some references of muhammad in the 7th cenutry.

However, even so. Is the book well preserved?

Not from what i know. There are bunch of discrepancies in the old manuscripts of the quran and the modern version which are probably from the Cairo version.

This can also be said about the gospels. So we have no clue what it actually said and what it didn't say? And it doesn't help that the earliest is atleast 70 years after the death of muhammad. Since there are no vowel markings to know what words originally said.
History of the Quran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edit: I should probably have posted this on religious debate. Sorry about that :/

Indeed. They all have internalized meaning and generally the same message. What we all have in common. And everything we have in common is everything INTERNAL, particularly the mind and brain and body. Anyone amongst any religion, anyone anywhere in the world has these. Most take them literally and outwardly and historically when they are intended to be taken internally, used as weapons of oppression to satisfy pride, ego, agenda and control over others. Most are even deceived because they have well intent, albeit their own intent. Has placed a heavy burden of conditioning on people's minds over centuries and most choose the "follow the crowd" approach to be a part of a group and fit in. All about the conscious mind and it's separated nature that needs made one and whole. All of the enemies in the texts are internal thoughts and emotions and desires(children) that consume us and separate us from the rest of humanity by our labels and judgements on everything. Man, woman, male, female, child, heaven, hell, earth, sun, moon, cities, temple, house, etc. are not literal but internal. Supposed to written on minds, brains, and hearts, not paper.
It's silly to me why anyone would place a book and texts over their living "God" anyhow and the better judgements placed into their conscious minds and ignoring that. For example, I knew literal adultery was not the brightest idea before even reading a text or knowing anything about "God." Adultery in texts is internal, cheating on truth and love and equality with lies/myths and hate and inequality. Divorce is separation of mind(woman) back into duality. Duality creates divide in the world and between people. Oneness doesn't. All about an unclean and filthy woman(mind) that needs to wake up and see reality and truth of themselves, others, and life. As if their "God" was stupid enough to create and wire them without this DNA and moral laws written on ones insides, and instead needed texts and a book to do so.
People are too conditioned on these texts, so rather than have them walk away from them, it's best they are at least taught internally and in truth for what they are and mean. Increase in vocabulary, words, knowledge, wisdom, reality, truth has always progressed and no matter how much it keeps being REVEALED by "God," it has always been ignored mostly.

Many blessings.

 

[Sabour]

And in this case, also the quran. I've checked wikipedia on this. It seems "Although i believe there are somewhat more evidence for Jesus being historical (Although i can see why sceptics might argue against)". I have however seen that there are some references of muhammad in the 7th cenutry.

However, even so. Is the book well preserved?

Not from what i know. There are bunch of discrepancies in the old manuscripts of the quran and the modern version which are probably from the Cairo version.

This can also be said about the gospels. So we have no clue what it actually said and what it didn't say? And it doesn't help that the earliest is atleast 70 years after the death of muhammad. Since there are no vowel markings to know what words originally said.
History of the Quran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edit: I should probably have posted this on religious debate. Sorry about that :/

I suggest if you are looking into Islam and trying to understand it, take it from the Islamic sources. Take the Islamic point of view on things first and see explanations on why certain things are the way they are. Besides, I don't recommend ever using Wikipedia as a source for anything as anyone can come in and edit things.

Regarding the topic, please read this Sources of Islamic Law

I think it will give answers for what you are looking for.

 

[sule007]

History of the Quran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edit: I should probably have posted this on religious debate. Sorry about that :/

Thanks for link advice

 

[ChristineES]

And in this case, also the quran. I've checked wikipedia on this. It seems "Although i believe there are somewhat more evidence for Jesus being historical (Although i can see why sceptics might argue against)". I have however seen that there are some references of muhammad in the 7th cenutry.

However, even so. Is the book well preserved?

Not from what i know. There are bunch of discrepancies in the old manuscripts of the quran and the modern version which are probably from the Cairo version.

This can also be said about the gospels. So we have no clue what it actually said and what it didn't say? And it doesn't help that the earliest is atleast 70 years after the death of muhammad. Since there are no vowel markings to know what words originally said.
History of the Quran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edit: I should probably have posted this on religious debate. Sorry about that :/

People are copying these book and people are not perfect. Before there were printing presses, people did it by hand, painstakingly, word by word. That is why scholars try and find the oldest manuscripts possible of these books, so they will have fewer discrepancies.