JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,520
- 2,165
- Banned
- #641
That's it, bud. You can't prove there was an original, thus you can't prove what you have now is authentic.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That's it, bud. You can't prove there was an original, thus you can't prove what you have now is authentic.
Both the New Testament (Bible) and the Old Testament (Torah) are spoken of in the Quran.
And thus are held sacred by all muslims.
That is why you will NEVER hear about Muslims burning the Bible.
Both the New Testament (Bible) and the Old Testament (Torah) are spoken of in the Quran.
And thus are held sacred by all muslims.
That is why you will NEVER hear about Muslims burning the Bible.
I bet there were some Bibles in the World Trade Center towers. So Muslims don't burn the Bible, they just blow the fucking shit out of it.
Stupid thread.
So you consider diversity of opinion to be a sign of weakness? As for how such a religion can be viable, look at the last 1400 years of history...
Yes. Especially when the same verse is interpreted by 2 different groups and the opinions of each are diametrically opposed.
Kinda like a Northern and a Southern Baptist arguing about a verse in the Bible.
I guess I don't see what's wrong with that.
Yes. Especially when the same verse is interpreted by 2 different groups and the opinions of each are diametrically opposed.
Kinda like a Northern and a Southern Baptist arguing about a verse in the Bible.
I guess I don't see what's wrong with that.
You don't? Tell ya what........put a Norther Baptist and a Southern Baptist preacher in a room together and lock 'em in for 2 hours.
When you come back, only 1 will be left. Why? Each side is trying to convince the other that they are the correct ones, and if the other doesn't come over to their way of thinking, they are branded as heretics and consigned to hell.
Wait........isn't that what your faith of Islam does to those that aren't?
Who said that anyone "replaced" the Koran?I don't know how to make this any clearer than I already have. In order to "replace" the actual Qur'an with a fraudulent text, all existing copies of the original text and every document that mentions this replacement would have needed to be destroyed.
What happened to the original that was "changed"?
So, your assertion is that this was written over what was then the only extant copy of the "original Qur'an"? You're aware that Zayd ibn Thabit and other scribes made multiple copies of the Qur'an under 'Uthman's orders, yes? Moreover, the finding in Yemen included nearly 1,000 separate Qur'anic manuscripts. It's possible that some of the palimpsests are 'Uthmani musaahaf or fragments thereof written over pre-'Uthmanic manuscripts. These early writings were made before the Ummah confirmed and standardized the order of ayat under 'Uthman (RA - whose scribes, including Zayd who was one of those appointed to record revelations directly as they occurred, referred to an early codex prepared by Abu Bakr - RA)It was no longer original. Look at it like this- if I write an essay with a pencil, then decide I need to make some changes, I erase and re-write. It's pretty simple. The original has been changed. If some of the manuscripts found in Yemen in the early 70's had obvious markings of scraping off old writing, and being written over.
Were these changes significant? No one will ever know, but the oldest complete copy is thought to have been written in the late 9th century, well after the life of Mohammed.
In a time span of 200+ years, all the revelations which were saved in the memories of men, written in different regions, passed on from one generation to the next, then collected and put into one book and claimed to be the true revelations, unchanged and true as revealed by God, it's a little hard to believe.
You don't have the original, thus your contention about the authenticity and literalness of the Qur'an is merely supposition.
No, you don't at all. "Dispersed fragments" are not the original text. You have faith, and that's fine, but you don't have objective, critical proof. That's fine as long as you understand you believe by faith and not knowledge.
Of course, it does, Kalam. You have no objective proof that you have the original. So you believe by faith.
Who said that anyone "replaced" the Koran?
What happened to the original that was "changed"?
It was no longer original. Look at it like this- if I write an essay with a pencil, then decide I need to make some changes, I erase and re-write. It's pretty simple. The original has been changed. If some of the manuscripts found in Yemen in the early 70's had obvious markings of scraping off old writing, and being written over. Were these changes significant? No one will ever know, but the oldest complete copy is thought to have been written in the late 9th century, well after the life of Mohammed. In a time span of 200+ years, all the revelations which were saved in the memories of men, written in different regions, passed on from one generation to the next, then collected and put into one book and claimed to be the true revelations, unchanged and true as revealed by God, it's a little hard to believe.
Of course, it does, Kalam. You have no objective proof that you have the original. So you believe by faith.
You may benefit from perusing this and related articles.
The Qur'anic Manuscripts
Of course, it does, Kalam. You have no objective proof that you have the original. So you believe by faith.
You may benefit from perusing this and related articles.
The Qur'anic Manuscripts