Historical accuracy of the Bible and the Qu'ran

BrianCalgary · 15-08-2006 07:14PM #1

Just bringing this topic into the open. How accurate are the books to the original writers and are they historically accurate?

T-1111111111111 · 15-08-2006 09:29PM

BrianCalgary wrote:

Just bringing this topic into the open. How accurate are the books to the original writers and are they historically accurate?

Wat exactly do u mean here Brian - there are facts that the original Qur'an never changed, there are still copies of the original Qur'an from the 7th century, yet there is no original scripture extant to confirm the Bible.

2nd thing is that the Qur'an is believed to be a direct Word from Almighty God or Word of Almighty God, while on the other hand, even Christian scholars agree that the Bible is not just a Word of Almighty God, but that it contains portions of the text which can be attributed to Almighty.

If you want to discuss science behind both these books that shouldn't be a problem. The Qur'an can certainly prove that it is a direct Word of Almighty just using the scientific facts from the Book.

Schuhart · 15-08-2006 10:26PM

T-1111111111111 wrote:

Wat exactly do u mean here Brian - there are facts that the original Qur'an never changed, there are still copies of the original Qur'an from the 7th century, yet there is no original scripture extant to confirm the Bible.

Just generally, I thought there was some issue like vowels were not used in the script in which it was originally written, which gives rise to some uncertainties in interpretation now. Hence, the idea that its exactly what was written originally is questionable.

I thought it was also the case that the Quran occupies much the same position within Islam as the person of Jesus does in Christianity – i.e. the Quran has to be seen as the exact word of God, or Islam would be left in a similar position to Christianity if Jesus is not seen as divine. Hence, there’s a reluctance to engage in the kind of investigative historical scholarship that has been carried out in relation to the Bible, as any suggestion that the text has changed clearly undermines the suggest that it’s the final word.

The New York Times published an article in 2002 about the origins of the text , now much cited on Christian websites.

Wansbrough insisted that the text of the Quran appeared to be a composite of different voices or texts compiled over dozens if not hundreds of years. After all, scholars agree that there is no evidence of the Quran until 691 -- 59 years after Muhammad's death -- when the Dome of the Rock mosque in Jerusalem was built, carrying several Quranic inscriptions.

These inscriptions differ to some degree from the version of the Quran that has been handed down, suggesting, scholars say, that the Quran might have still been evolving in the last decade of the seventh century. Moreover, much of what we know as Islam -- the lives and sayings of the Prophet -- is based on texts from between 130 and 300 years after Muhammad's death. Scholars such as Luxenberg have returned to the earliest known copies of the Quran to grasp what they suggest about the document's origins and composition.

T-1111111111111 · 15-08-2006 10:48PM

Schuhart wrote:

Just generally, I thought there was some issue like vowels were not used in the script in which it was originally written, which gives rise to some uncertainties in interpretation now. Hence, the idea that its exactly what was written originally is questionable.

I thought it was also the case that the Quran occupies much the same position within Islam as the person of Jesus does in Christianity – i.e. the Quran has to be seen as the exact word of God, or Islam would be left in a similar position to Christianity if Jesus is not seen as divine. Hence, there’s a reluctance to engage in the kind of investigative historical scholarship that has been carried out in relation to the Bible, as any suggestion that the text has changed clearly undermines the suggest that it’s the final word.

The New York Times published an article in 2002 about the origins of the text , now much cited on Christian websites.

Say again, what scholars? Pentagon "scholars"? Muslim scholars? If so, name them. Im sure that some cant wait to get something "solid against Islam" in their hands.

BTW the first copy of the Qur'an (by my knowledge) dates 19 years after the Prophet's, peace upon him, death - as a whole book, however, all the text was written down (on animal skins, etc.) during his life. Later is was just assembled into a book.

Secondly, there are literally millions of Muslims who memorised the whole Qur'an from day 1 and the same is valid now (today there are more that 10 millions or a few 10s of millions of those who know the whole Qur'an by heart), so the chances of changing or not preserving the original Qur'an are zero.

Now you tell me how many people know the whole Bible by heart? None. If there is one living person in this world please try to find him/her. But there isnt any. Further, even the Christian scholars dont agree on what the Bible really is, what is a good version of the Bible, etc.

BTW not to mention that the Qur'an (besides being identical and unchanged for over 1400 years) is in Arabic, Qur'an in English is not Qur'an, its merely a translation of the Qur'an in English and the same is valid for other translations too. But the original Bible is not extant any more, it just does not exist.

Something else to think about - the word Bible does not appear in the Bible, not once. This is a bit strange (if you compare it to the Qur'an). The Qur'an clearly identifies itself. More than just once. And Qur'an does confirm the previous Scriptures from Almighty and itself:
- The Torah (given to Moses), The Psalms (given to David), The Gospel (given to Jesus) and finally The Qur'an (given to Muhammed, peace upon all these Prophets).

Now you show me if this is the case with the Bible? No. But im inviting you to show me that, dont worry about my "No answer". So how do you know if i.e. English translation is any better than Russian or Romanian, etc.? You cant. But what if they differ in meaning? That can change the whole Christian belief, can it?

robindch · 15-08-2006 11:30PM

...just an observation: both sides claim that their respective holybooks are authentic because they were written within a few years of the death of the protagonist. Neither side believes the other and instead suggests that the holybooks were written years later. Each side thinks the other side leads to damnation as surely as its own side leads to heaven. Both sides claim that god is on their side and that god wrote their own holybook.

Do believers notice similarities of thought here that might suggest a more basic reason why people think these thoughts, rather than anything that might come out of the holybook itself?

lostexpectation · 15-08-2006 11:46PM

If you want to discuss science behind both these books that shouldn't be a problem. The Qur'an can certainly prove that it is a direct Word of Almighty just using the scientific facts from the Book.

Exact quotes from Mohammad?

I wonde what is the first reference to the Bible and to the Quran, outside of those texts... iykwim

T-1111111111111 · 16-08-2006 12:25AM

lostexpectation wrote:

Exact quotes from Mohammad?

I wonde what is the first reference to the Bible and to the Quran, outside of those texts... iykwim

If I give you several facts from the Qur'an which werent known to this world (to humans anyway) and if some of the most knowledgable scientists claim that humankind just didnt know those facts then (in the 7th century) then it is obvious that what's in the Qur'an must be a Divine inspiration or better to say a Divine Revelation, agree?

Read this if you like, and disprove these facts - if you can, and also tell me, who knew these facts (stated in the Qur'an) back in the 7th century???

Fact 1. "Universe is expanding" (somebody won the nobel prize to "discover" this I think, correct me if Im wrong)

Quote from the translation of the Qur'an
It is We Who have built the universe with (Our creative) power, and, verily, it is We Who are steadily expanding it. (Surat adh-Dhariyat: 47)

http://www.creationofuniverse.com/html/bigbang_04.html

Fact 2. "The sky is protecting the Earth"

Quote from the translation of the Qur'an
"We made the sky a preserved and protected roof yet still they turn away from Our Signs.." (The Qur'an, 21:32)

http://www.creationofuniverse.com/html/science_06.html

Now do your best and find in the history of science to prove that somebody knew this before 7th century.

Schuhart · 16-08-2006 01:38AM

T-1111111111111 wrote:

If I give you several facts from the Qur'an which werent known to this world (to humans anyway) and if some of the most knowledgable scientists claim that humankind just didnt know those facts then (in the 7th century) then it is obvious that what's in the Qur'an must be a Divine inspiration or better to say a Divine Revelation, agree?

I take it this means you've given up on the idea that the text perfectly preserves the original wording, and you are hoping that some kind of retro-fitting of some quotes from the text will work. At the end of the day, the reason the overwhelming bulk of people who belief the Quran to be the final word hold that believe is because that's what their parents thought. Similarly, the main reason people who think Jesus is the son of God hold that belief is because that's what their parents thought. If you want some real revelation, you might reflect on that for a bit.

T-1111111111111 wrote:

Quote from the translation of the Qur'an
"We made the sky a preserved and protected roof yet still they turn away from Our Signs.." (The Qur'an, 21:32)

I suppose this might not be the time and place to remind you that the passage that follows this one suggests the Sun orbits the Earth.

T-1111111111111 · 16-08-2006 02:03AM

Schuhart wrote:

I take it this means you've given up on the idea that the text perfectly preserves the original wording, and you are hoping that some kind of retro-fitting of some quotes from the text will work. At the end of the day, the reason the overwhelming bulk of people who belief the Quran to be the final word hold that believe is because that's what their parents thought. Similarly, the main reason people who think Jesus is the son of God hold that belief is because that's what their parents thought. If you want some real revelation, you might reflect on that for a bit.I suppose this might not be the time and place to remind you that the passage that follows this one suggests the Sun orbits the Earth.

Not commenting the 1st nonsense, however I will comment the false accusation.First of all, the passage that follows does not say that Sun orbits the Earth. Where did you get that? U are deliberately trying to change not only the meaning but also what is actually there in the English translation of the Qur'an.

21:31

And We have made the sky a roof withheld (from them). Yet they turn away from its portents.

21:32

And He it is Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. They float, each in an orbit.

21:33

Text marked in bold red Where does it say that Sun orbits the Earth??

aidan24326 · 16-08-2006 02:16AM

T-1111111111111 wrote:

The Qur'an can certainly prove that it is a direct Word of Almighty just using the scientific facts from the Book.

Really? Pretty bold assertion there T-1111111111111. I'd love to see this proof. Maybe you would enlighten us?

T-1111111111111 · 16-08-2006 02:20AM

aidan24326 wrote:

Really? Pretty bold assertion there T-1111111111111. I'd love to see this proof. Maybe you would enlighten us?

Dont skip the posts. I mentioned 2 proofs so far. Read the one on expanding the universe and tell me, when did humans discover this fact? 7th century, 15th or was it 20th century?

Or maybe you have some proof which could say that universe in not expanding?

Be my guest.

The Qur'an stated this in the 7th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe#Expansion_and_age.2C_and_the_Big_Bang_theory

I'll repeat the claim from the Qur'an in case you skipped it in the previous posts.

Quote from the translation of the Qur'an
It is We Who have built the universe with (Our creative) power, and, verily, it is We Who are steadily expanding it. (Surat adh-Dhariyat: 47)

esskay · 16-08-2006 02:45AM

T-11111111111, I am curious to know how these scientific facts, amazing as they seem, are prorof that the Qur'an is a direct Word from Almighty God or Word of Almighty God?

andy1249 · 16-08-2006 03:01AM

Fact 1. "Universe is expanding" (somebody won the nobel prize to "discover" this I think, correct me if Im wrong)

First off , no one got a nobel prize for the discovery of an expanding universe , Astronomy was not considered for the nobel prizes at that time , if it had been , it would have been Edwin Hubble , but he died before any prize was bestowed on him for that discovery , and the prize is never awarded posthumously.

Now do your best and find in the history of science to prove that somebody knew this before 7th century.

Oh but there are lots , an expanding universe has been popular for thousands of years , the 20th century's only claim on this ancient idea is a formal observation and mathematical description , thats all ,
For some examples see here ,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

These are taken from the above link , I think you'll agree that some of these sources pre-date yours by a couple of millenia at least ...

A number of Christian and traditional Jewish sources have accepted the Big Bang as a possible description of the origin of the universe, interpreting it to allow for a philosophical first cause. Pope Pius XII was an enthusiastic proponent of the Big Bang even before the theory was scientifically well established and consequently the Roman Catholic Church has been a prominent advocate for the idea that creation ex nihilo can be interpreted as consistent with the Big Bang. This view is shared by many religious Jews in all branches of rabbinic Judaism.

Some modern Islamic scholars believe that the Qur'an parallels the Big Bang in its account of creation, described as follows: "Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together as one unit of creation, before We clove them asunder?" (Ch:21,Ver:30). The claim has also been made that the Qur'an describes an expanding universe: "The heaven, We have built it with power. And verily, We are expanding it." (Ch:51,Ver:47). Parallels with the Big Crunch and an oscillating universe have also been suggested: "On the day when We will roll up the heavens like the rolling up of the scroll for writings, as We originated the first creation, (so) We shall reproduce it; a promise (binding on Us); surely We will bring it about." (Ch:21,Ver:104).

Certain theistic branches of Hinduism, such as in Vaishnavism, conceive of a theory of creation with similarities to the theory of the Big Bang. The Hindu mythos, narrated for example in the third book of the Bhagavata Purana (primarily, chapters 10 and 26), describes a primordial state which bursts forth as the Great Vishnu glances over it, transforming into the active state of the sum-total of matter ("prakriti"). Other forms of Hinduism assert a universe without beginning or end.

Buddhism has a concept of a universe that has no creation event, but instead goes through infinitely repeated cycles of expansion, stability, contraction, and quiescence. The Big Bang, however, is not seen to be in conflict with this since there are ways to conceive an eternal universe within the paradigm. A number of popular Zen philosophers were intrigued, in particular, by the concept of the oscillating universe.

In esoteric cosmologies, including Rosicrucian, Theosophical, Sufi and the Kabbalah (where it is related to the conception of "divine retraction", tzimtzum, as explained in the Zohar), a belief in emanationism is seen as consistent with the expanding universe.

In particular note that Hinduism is familiar with an expansionist universe , the oldest religion in the world !!

Wibbs · 16-08-2006 10:14AM

T-1111111111111 wrote:

Wat exactly do u mean here Brian - there are facts that the original Qur'an never changed, there are still copies of the original Qur'an from the 7th century

No I'm afraid there are not. The first reference to Quranic texts(not the Quran) is 50yrs later and differs from the texts today. The earliest one we have is from the 9th century. The Tashkent Quran is written in a style of Kuffic script no earlier than 800. It's also incomplete and the arty illuminations(a la book of kells) are 9th century in style. Also the same Quran is considered to contain "errors" by many Muslim scholars(google Tashkent quran)

yet there is no original scripture extant to confirm the Bible.

Well there are literally 1000's of ancient Greek and Latin documents from the 1st century to the 4th preserved in musuems and places like the Vatican that reference Christianity. The Jewish Torah has a history going back even further. There are Hindu and Buddhist texts going back many 1000's of years. Yet from the first 100yrs of islam where it had spread a great empire we have very little to none. In fact Islamic documents only appear in the 8th century. There is a gap of 100-150yrs between Mohammed and the earliest reference to the Quran or a Quran itself. Given that a desert environment is good at preserving documents, some may yet show up although that makes it the more unusual that such a book with such importance to the faith didn't survive.

Say again, what scholars? Pentagon "scholars"? Muslim scholars? If so, name them.

There are plenty of classical scholars who would agree with those statements. As for naming them, most have to write under pseudonyms for obvious reasons.

Im sure that some cant wait to get something "solid against Islam" in their hands.

The study of history isn't always a conspiracy. Sometimes, not always. The Christian works have had to contend with critical anaylisis from both inside and out for long enough. Hasn't worried them.

BTW the first copy of the Qur'an (by my knowledge) dates 19 years after the Prophet's, peace upon him, death - as a whole book, however, all the text was written down (on animal skins, etc.) during his life. Later is was just assembled into a book.

For a start, the facts of his date of death and indeed his whole life story only come to us from Muslim sources dated 200 yrs after his death. The earliest evidence of a new religion in the region make no mention of him. The assembly of the Quran has issues too. Why is it not chronological? It also contradicts itself quite a lot to an outside eye.

Secondly, there are literally millions of Muslims who memorised the whole Qur'an from day 1

Assuming perfect memory by all those people(and it was nowhere near millions certainly when he was alive, thousands at most)why did Uthman feel the need to destroy rival copies of the texts? Surely if they were memorised such destruction would not be required?

Also lets consider the claim that the Quran was collected soon after the Prophets death. Even if we take the Islamic view that this happened problems arise. Many early Muslim commentators state clearly that some of it was lost (through people who memorised dying in battle etc). So even by that criteria it can't be complete in it's present form. Also many variant copies existed when Uthman(sp) ordered the collection of the one true Quran. In fact he ordered all others to be burned so we'll likely never know. The earliest Quranic quotes show up on the temple of the mount in Jerusalem and they differ in style and spelling from the Quran of today. Another problem with the idea of it's early origin is that the earliest Muslim religious text that survives the Fiq Akbar from the mid 8th century doesn't mention the Quran at all. Strange if it was around at the time and of such central importance to the faith.

Further, even the Christian scholars dont agree on what the Bible really is, what is a good version of the Bible, etc.

Mainly because of more scholarly readings of the origins of those books exist. Scholarly critiques of the Quranic texts are thin on the ground for various reasons.

BTW not to mention that the Qur'an (besides being identical and unchanged for over 1400 years) is in Arabic,

You believe that and that's faith, but it's not historically accurate. Even the pure Arabic claim is dubious as there are many non Arabic words in the Quran(Pharoh for a start).

But the original Bible is not extant any more, it just does not exist.

The original Quran would be apparently written on skins and papyrus and it doesn't exist either.

And Qur'an does confirm the previous Scriptures from Almighty and itself:

OK, Lets for a minute consider that the Quran is unchanged and protected by God. Also consider the Quranic view that the earlier revelations(Gospels/Torah) are also God's word that have been corrupted by man. This suggests that God's power isn't consistent as it means he let man corrupt earlier revelations yet protected the Quran. In the Quran God states there is no changing of his word. How come man could change the previous ones so easily? It also means those who follow the earlier revelations are damned because God couldn't protect his own word. Is hardly fair or makes sense.

But what if they differ in meaning? That can change the whole Christian belief, can it?

The same goes for the Quran. The earliest Quran has as Schuhart points out non diacritical Arabic text. Even if you take this as point zero the lack of these diacritical dots and vowels can make huge differences to how the text is read. The "virgins in heaven" bit for martyrs? It can also be read as pure white dates, not virgins, depending on where you place the vowels.

Wibbs · 16-08-2006 10:46AM

T-1111111111111 wrote:

First of all, the passage that follows does not say that Sun orbits the Earth. Where did you get that?.../... And He it is Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. They float, each in an orbit.

21:33 [/b]

Text marked in bold red Where does it say that Sun orbits the Earth??

More to the point where does it say the earth orbits the sun. Indeed orbits at all. The Quran makes many many references to the sun and moon floating in an orbit. It makes no such claim for the earth. None. Therefore in the Quran the earth is a flat, stable and fixed resting place. There are many passages that suggest that.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/015.qmt.html#015.019
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/043.qmt.html#043.010
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/021.qmt.html#021.033 No mention of the Earth
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/020.qmt.html#020.053
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/013.qmt.html#013.002 Here the sky is held up by unseen pillars. Note only the sun and moon have a course/orbit.

And there are more. That was a quick search. It also says that the sun sets in a muddy spring at the end of a day. Which is wrong on both counts. The sun never sets. It only appears to set to any one observer at any one time.

This ties in with the pre copernican notion that the sun and moon orbit the earth. A common idea at the time and wrong. Show me one passage where the Quran states in the same language as the sun and moon that the earth orbits. Just one will do.

andy1249's post covers the big bang theory pretty much perfectly.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/021.qmt.html#021.030
The text states that the universe consisted of heaven and earth as one and the was parted. There was nothing before the big bang. No time, space, earth or sky. This also suggests the earth was made before the rest of the universe which is also wrong.

ttp://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/067.qmt.html#067.005
This states that the stars are closer than the rest of the universe and that meteors drive away evil spirits, which is also scientifically wrong. Do not get me started on the 7 heavens stuff.

Zombrex · 16-08-2006 10:58AM

T-1111111111111 wrote:

And He it is Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon. They float, each in an orbit.

21:33 [/b]

Text marked in bold red Where does it say that Sun orbits the Earth??

In the red bit. The Qu'ran is clearly saying that both the sun and the moon orbit the Earth.

This isn't suprising, the common held belief at the time was that the Earth stayed still and the sun moved around it. The Greeks knew this wasn't true, but that knowledge was lost or ignored until the 15th century when a more accurate model of the solar system was developed and it was realised (again) that the sun was actually stationary and the earth moved around it

Wibbs · 16-08-2006 11:13AM

Wicknight wrote:

The Greeks knew this wasn't true, but that knowledge was lost or ignored until the 15th century when a more accurate model of the solar system was developed and it was realised (again) that the sun was actually stationary and the earth moved around it

Bang on the money. The only thing I would change in that is that the sun does orbit the galaxy(which is often wrongly used by Quranic miracle people to explain away the sun orbiting bit)

Tim Robbins · 16-08-2006 11:16AM

Here's an excellant documentary about it:

http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/C/can_you_believe_it/debates/bible.html
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2061773048178434620

Wibbs · 16-08-2006 11:34AM

A very good documentary indeed. What I like about it is although he found "messiness" in the origins it informed his faith rather than destroyed it. The line 'If we can find God in the imperfections of our lives, then maybe we can find him in the messiness of the text' seemed to sum up his journeys conclusion. The difference with the Quran in comparison with most other holy books is that such research isn't encouraged, indeed it's actively discouraged. It is point zero. It smacks of house of cardism, that if just one part is in error the whole lot falls, which as Christians, Jews, Buddhists and Hindus will tell you is not exactly true. Even scientific atheists will agree that if tomorrow we found a mechanism of evolution that contradicts one part of Darwin's writings, we would still hold his basic "truth" as correct. Indeed many of the earliest Muslim scholars were not so rigid in their view of such things.

Joeface · 16-08-2006 12:21PM

Well I will admit first off that im am no expert on either these, but since the OP asked How accurate are the books to the original writers and are they historically accurate?. Simple way to answer that is too take a paragraph from each and start translating it in to different languages for example , Start in english ,then too french , german , greek , spanish and so on and back too english , should give u a fair idea of what has been lost (bit like chinese whispers) Historically accurate is a harder one to answer. I suppose it depends whos reading it ,and who wrote it, any group of ppl who witness something will a describe it differently.

robindch · 16-08-2006 12:26PM

> Even scientific atheists will agree that if tomorrow we found a mechanism
> of evolution that contradicts one part of Darwin's writings, we would still
> hold his basic "truth" as correct.

I'm not quite sure if I understand your point here. Could you be a bit more specific?

UU · 16-08-2006 12:40PM

I don't think the Qur'an or the Bible are historically or scientifically accurate. What annoys me is somebody interprets one a certain way, claims to find one piece of evidence in it to suggest something is scientifically accurate and they all jump to the conclusion that such book is true.

On the contrary, I don't believe a book like the Qur'an can be written by a god. I could easily write a book tomorrow, claiming it to be written by god or something divine and get a load of suckers to believe it to be true! Just like L.Ron Hubbard of Scientology or Joseph Smith of Mormonism did.

In saying this, both books have something really valuable to offer humanity but as they contradict themselves and say hurtful and very unholy stuff in them, I'm not convinced by their holiness or accuracy.

Ayla · 16-08-2006 12:44PM

I am in no way a scholar on this subject, so what I have to say here is only my own perceptions and theories. That said...

I would argue that both the Bible and Qu'ran are texts that have evolved over the centuries. They have both been written after the events in which they describe (although some of the sections may have been passed down through history until someone finally collected all of the bits and put them into the one book).

But I'd say both books have some historical truth and some interpretive differences. It is a human impossibility to imagine that facts could have been so purely memorized and passed through generations, or even if two people had been at the same event and seen the same thing that they'd tell the story the same way. That's human...we all see and remember things differently.

But, hypothetically speaking, even if the stories were passed on perfectly until the collection of documents into the Bible and Qu'ran, that doesn't mean that the countless rewritings, translations and revisions haven't taken their toll. Modern scholars are constantly disagreeing on which translations are "more correct" and "more accurate"...there is no way in which the original script can possibly be translated into the modern forms of English (or any other language) and still mean exactly the same thing.

So I'd argue that this thread, while interesting, is really debating a null point. The Bible's not perfect, and neither is the Qu'ran. But both have a very important role in remembering our past, and both represent the beliefs and cultures of the people whose lives are detailed. So to debate individual phrases and quotations and say "ah, see that's why (the Bible/Qu'ran) is historically less accurate" is to trivialize the entire texts.

Schuhart · 16-08-2006 01:09PM

Wibbs wrote:

No I'm afraid there are not. The first reference to Quranic texts(not the Quran) is 50yrs later and differs from the texts today. The earliest one we have is from the 9th century. The Tashkent Quran is written in a style of Kuffic script no earlier than 800. It's also incomplete and the arty illuminations(a la book of kells) are 9th century in style. Also the same Quran is considered to contain "errors" by many Muslim scholars(google Tashkent quran)

Wibbs, you should be declared a national resource. Plenty of interesting material in that post.

Wibbs · 16-08-2006 01:28PM

robindch wrote:

> Even scientific atheists will agree that if tomorrow we found a mechanism
> of evolution that contradicts one part of Darwin's writings, we would still
> hold his basic "truth" as correct.

I'm not quite sure if I understand your point here. Could you be a bit more specific?

Sorry robindch I was being obtuse as usual. What I was trying to illustrate was that if a universal truth* exists, whether scientific or no, small changes in one area won't necessarily negate the whole. The chappy in the last link who sought to understand the origins of the Bible made some good points even from my position of an agnostic. His faith/truth was enlightened by his findings not destroyed. Any truth, faith or concept that is based on a rigid non changing view of existence is doomed from the start. It can't evolve and those things that can't evolve to changing environments die.

If a God does exist then surely His teachings would evolve over time to allow for such change. In much the same way as a parent evolves their dialogue with the growth of their children. Even according to Islamic scholars this has examples in their own faith. EG the teaching of the no alcohol rule evolved from a little is OK to none over time. The earlier revelation was abrogated by the later. Apparently to allow the followers to adapt to the new rule.

*If you will allow me the indulgence of the word truth here for convenience and for want of a better word.

Wibbs · 16-08-2006 01:35PM

Ayla wrote:

So I'd argue that this thread, while interesting, is really debating a null point. The Bible's not perfect, and neither is the Qu'ran. But both have a very important role in remembering our past, and both represent the beliefs and cultures of the people whose lives are detailed. So to debate individual phrases and quotations and say "ah, see that's why (the Bible/Qu'ran) is historically less accurate" is to trivialize the entire texts.

While I agree about the null point part, the problem is that to Muslims the central part of their faith states that the Quran is perfect. No ifs or buts. You can't take one part and ignore another or decide one part is lesser than another. It is complete(some fundamentalist Christians have similar arguments, but they would generally be a minority by comparison). That's the difference. I suspect you may be approaching this from the Christian perspective(lapsed or not) which holds the various parts of the Bible as "God breathed" or inspired by God, not actually written by Him. There exists a large gulf between Judaism/Christianity and Islam on this point.

Tim Robbins · 16-08-2006 01:57PM

1. How much of the Bible did Jesus write?
2. In fact, did Jesus write anything at all? If not, why not?
3. How much of the Bible is an eye witness account?
4. What is there such a big time difference between the time of Jesus and the time the Gospels were written?
5. Why were the written in Greek? Did Jesus speak this?
6. Was is the Bible consider to be a expert book on Meta-Physics, but can't reveal that much about Physics?
7. How much editing of the Gospels was done by the Romans?
8. How did Moses write five books and die in one of them?

Sapien · 16-08-2006 02:01PM

As "received" texts go, the Qu'ran is far more interesting than the Gospels. As anyone who has read the Satanic Verses will know, the Qu'ran was dictated directly by Mohammed to Salman the Persian. So, in terms of propinquity of the original text to its divine source, we have simply: God (via the Archangel Gabriel, but angels tend not to mix up their messages), to Mohammed, to paper (discounting any textual mischief of the kind Salman Rushdie suggests in his book). On the other hand, the Gospels were written by several different people who had never met Christ, many years after his death. Few scholars dispute that Mohammed personally composed the Qu'ran over a 23 year period, while it is difficult to see the composition of the Gospels as anything other than a propaganda-ridden consolidation of a generation-old word-of-mouth myth.

Ayla · 16-08-2006 02:15PM

Wibbs wrote:

the problem is that to Muslims the central part of their faith states that the Quran is perfect. No ifs or buts. You can't take one part and ignore another or decide one part is lesser than another. It is complete(some fundamentalist Christians have similar arguments, but they would generally be a minority by comparison). That's the difference. ...There exists a large gulf between Judaism/Christianity and Islam on this point.

Interesting point Wibbs, but not the OP's question. He asked an objective question about the historical accuracy of each text, which is what I referred to in my response.

If you want to get into the subjective interpretation of accuracy, well, that's a whole other bag of worms...

That's getting into the philosophical differences between the religions, which (although interesting) isn't relevant to this thread.

Tim Robbins · 16-08-2006 02:27PM

UU wrote:

In saying this, both books have something really valuable to offer humanity but as they contradict themselves and say hurtful and very unholy stuff in them, I'm not convinced by their holiness or accuracy.

Great point UU, I'm with you on that.

Wibbs · 16-08-2006 02:50PM

Sapien wrote:

On the other hand, the Gospels were written by several different people who had never met Christ, many years after his death.

True enough.

Few scholars dispute that Mohammed personally composed the Qu'ran over a 23 year period,

Actually contrary to popular belief many do(and I would suggest that Muslims believe he didn't personally compose the Quran anyway. Big no no).

OK Let's take it from first principles. Did Mohammed as we understand him even exist? The evidence is sketchy to say the least. All the early documentary evidence for his life comes to us exclusively from Muslim sources. Not a good basis for historical accuracy. The lack of corroboration is a sticking point especially when you look at other areas of those texts from the historical point of view. Mecca itself doesn't exist in any of the contempory, earlier or immediate post Mohammed sources. For a start his name which means praiseworthy is unlikely to have been his given name. No accounts of his life exist even in Muslim literature until at least 150 yrs after the date of his apparent death and they are written over a longer timeframe than the Christian texts(and those original documents are lost, only referenced by later writers). Indeed many of those contradict the later version of events. The earliest Islamic literature and coinage which survives makes no mention of him. The Greek and Christian sources that do exist are equally later than his lifetime. One account has Mohammed as purely a military man with no word about his divine role, simply saying that they follow the Abrahamic code like other Arab tribes(descendants of ishmael). That's a strange thing to omit.

while it is difficult to see the composition of the Gospels as anything other than a propaganda-ridden consolidation of a generation-old word-of-mouth myth

A definition which one could easily and equally apply to any other faith you care to mention. None has the exclusive right to that title. That's the point.

Ayla wrote:

Interesting point Wibbs, but not the OP's question. He asked an objective question about the historical accuracy of each text, which is what I referred to in my response.

And I was trying to point out that the question of it's historical accuracy is hard to view objectively for many Muslims(but I do get your point).

If you want to get into the subjective interpretation of accuracy, well, that's a whole other bag of worms

Indeed it is and that's why my point IMHO was relevent to the OP's question. The very act of questioning the origins of the Quran would have a far different resonance to a Muslim compared to questioning the Gospels would have to a Christian. The only close comparison would be questioning Jesus' divinity.

Historical accuracy of the Bible and the Qu'ran

Comments