Having hard time understanding

If God could create Man from dust, and speak from a burning bush, and part the Red Sea etc, surely God was capable of guiding the scriptural transmission of His authentic word, whether by parables or stories, or whatever?
 
Last edited:
muhammad_isa said:
One cannot compare the two.
One needs to look at each case [ The possibility that the OT or Qur'an has changed ] separately.

First and foremost, is the AGE of the scriptures. They are also of a different nature.
One was revealed over a few years, and the other over 100's of years.
Click to expand...
Not if the 5 books of Moses are rightly attributed to him. You are conflating the whole of the Old Testament when the difficulty was specific to one of the books attributed to him. In context...read what the writer here wrote.

And the AGE of the scriptures...verified and validated that the early Isaiah (100BC) corresponds exceedingly well with the example from the earliest known complete text of the entire Bible (Textus Receptus, 400AD) 500 years later. No sign of foul play there...

And my point that earlier texts of the Quran seem to not exist still stands...if I am mistaken, and I certainly hope I am, please point to the earliest known authenticated Quran.
 
Last edited:
RJM Corbet said:
If God could create Man from dust, and speak from a burning bush, and part the Red Sea etc, surely God was capable of guiding the scriptural transmission of His authentic word, whether by parables or stories, or whatever?
Click to expand...

Let's see what @wil just said:

Wil said:
What do you mean by G!d's verses? What you (man) have copied, is data, accumulated by man, which was edited by man and translated by man, and compiled by man, and ordered by man, in words written by man....

So if G!d had a hand (decisively controlling hand) in every step....would that not include your post AND our responses?
Click to expand...

He has a good point :)
 
juantoo3 said:
Not if the 5 books of Moses are rightly attributed to him. You are conflating the whole of the Old Testament when the difficulty was specific to one of the books attributed to him. In context...read what the writer here wrote.
Click to expand...

It is only a tradition that Moses, peace be with him, was the author of the Pentateuch. Modern scholars consider that unlikely.

juantoo3 said:
And my point that earlier texts of the Quran seem to not exist...if I am mistaken, and I certainly hope I am, please point to the earliest known authenticated Quran.
Click to expand...

Interestingly, we have the "Birmingham manuscripts" a few miles away from me..
It was part of a collection of early manuscripts collected by the Cadburys who are Quakers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Quran_manuscript

I'm not sure what your point is, though..
Is it possible it could have changed from the recitations that the Prophet Muhammad and many of his companions knew by heart?
It's possible yes. What particular verses do you find unreasonable? :)

I can't find anything at all. It seems very balanced, and does not instruct people to be unfair or lie or promote evil.
 
muhammad_isa said:
It is only a tradition that Moses, peace be with him, was the author of the Pentateuch. Modern scholars consider that unlikely.
Click to expand...
It is a tradition that Mohammed wrote or dictated the Quran.

Interestingly, we have the "Birmingham manuscripts" a few miles away from me..
It was part of a collection of early manuscripts collected by the Cadburys who are Quakers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Quran_manuscript
Click to expand...

Thank you, that was educational.

I also found this there: "The proposed radiocarbon date for the manuscript is significant, as the Islamic prophet Muhammad lived from c. 570 to 632.[21] According to Sunni Muslim tradition it was Abu Bakr (r. 632-634), the first caliph, who compiled The Quran, and Uthman who canonized the standard version of Quran since accepted and used by all Muslims worldwide; then he commanded that all previous versions be burned.[22]"

It's possible yes. What particular verses do you find unreasonable? :)

I can't find anything at all. It seems very balanced, and does not instruct people to be unfair or lie or promote evil.
Click to expand...
In the interest of civility I will not go here just now. :)
 
Codex Parisino-petropolitanus - Wikipedia
The Birmingham fragment appears to be a missing piece of this Codex.

Samarkand Kufic Quran - Wikipedia
"The copy of the Quran is traditionally considered to be one of a group commissioned by the third caliph Uthman; however, this attribution has been questioned. According to Islamic tradition, in 651, 19 years after the death of the Islamic Prophet, Muhammad, Uthman commissioned a committee to produce a standard copy of the text of the Quran (see Origin and development of the Quran).[1] Five of these authoritative Qurans were sent to the major Muslim cities of the era, and Uthman kept one for his own use in Medina, although the Samarkand Quran is most likely not one of those copies. The only other surviving copy was thought to be the one held in Topkapı Palace in Turkey,[1][4] but studies have shown that the Topkapı manuscript is also not from the 7th century, but from much later.[5][6]"

Sanaa manuscript - Wikipedia
"The Sanaa palimpsest (also Ṣanʽā’ 1 or DAM 01-27.1) or Sanaa Quran is one of the oldest Quranic manuscripts in existence.[1] Part of a sizable cache of Quranic and non-Quranic fragments discovered in Yemen during a 1972 restoration of the Great Mosque of Sanaa, the manuscript was identified as a palimpsest Quran in 1981; as it is written on parchment and comprises two layers of text. The upper text largely conforms to the standard 'Uthmanic' Quran in text and in the standard order of chapters (suwar, singular sūrah); whereas the lower text (the original text that was erased and written over by the upper text, but can still be read with the help of ultraviolet light and computer processing) contains many variations from the standard text, and the sequence of its chapters corresponds to no known Quranic order. A partial reconstruction of the lower text was published in 2012;[2] and a reconstruction of the legible portions of both lower and upper texts of the 38 folios in the Sana'a House of Manuscripts was published in 2017 utilising post-processed digital images of the lower text.[3] A radiocarbon analysis has dated the parchment of one of the detached leaves sold at auction, and hence its lower text, to between 578 CE (44 BH) and 669 CE (49 AH) with a 95% accuracy.[4]"

Topkapi manuscript - Wikipedia
"The paleographic assessment indicates that the Topkapi manuscript comes closest to those writings that date back to the 8th century. (cf. the examples in Déroche: Abbasid, page 36).[3]"
and
"Altıkulaç also documents some passages that he believes to be incorrect: "The Muṣḥaf contains a small number of mistakes which may be attributed to the scribes." (Altıkulaç, al-Muṣḥaf al-Sharif, page 75)[3]"
 
Last edited:
juantoo3 said:
It is a tradition that Mohammed wrote or dictated the Quran..
Click to expand...

No, not in the same way.
It is traditionally THOUGHT that Moses wrote it. It is an ancient scripture, and we really don't have a clue.
It is purely, like @RJM Corbet suggests, that one might think that at every step of the way, all text in the Bible has been
saved from error by Divine inspiration.

Personally, having discovered the Qur'an [ which is one revelation, and not a collection from over many centuries ],
I can see that this is not very likely.

juantoo3 said:
In the interest of civility I will not go here just now. :)
Click to expand...

OK .. but I'll just mention that I found the graphic descriptions of hell repulsed me when I first read them.
Coming from a protestant background, I hadn't really thought about hell .. more about heaven :)

Eventually, I realised that there are many people in the world who live in very harsh environments.
There is a great deal of suffering going on.
If Almighty G-d won't allow us to suffer in the next life, then why does he let us suffer in this one?
What about people who torture or oppress others? Is it justice that there are no consequences
for such evil? Clearly not.

The consequences of righteousness is success and contentment.
The consequences of evil is failure and torment.

The descriptions in the Qur'an make it very clear. It compares heaven and hell with concepts that we can
understand only too well.
It does not necessarily mean that there is "a being" who literally judges or tortures people.
We do that to ourselves.

The second point is about the order to be harsh with ones enemies [ kafir ]
These verses refer to defending the community from those who wish evil upon them.
There are many verses that instruct Muslims to make peace treaties, and to be just in dealing
with all human beings.
 
muhammad_isa said:
...one might think that at every step of the way, all text in the Bible has been
saved from error by Divine inspiration.
Click to expand...
Thank you, and I'm certain you and many, many others find great value in the Quran.

But to the comment above, and with due respect to RJM and others who reason in a similar manner, that is a simplistic dodge employed by those who don't have stronger arguments.

Perhaps it is not a "Church" tradition within Islam (and I realize Muslims attend Mosque) among scribes to take great pains in copying, and having copies reviewed *multiple* times, specifically to insure accuracy.

Monasteries had dedicated Scriptoriums:
Scriptorium - Wikipedia

When a Bible text was worn out, or suffered some defacement, or a scribal error, it was laid aside. This is why I find the order by Uthman to destroy all previous Qurans to be more than a little confusing, as in "what was he hiding?" Perhaps nothing, and I'm certain that is the instant reaction, but it does leave the shadow of doubt. The Christian Monks did not profane G-d's Holy Word in any such manner. The retired or erroneous texts were laid aside and carefully preserved. Scholars from time to time have gone through various collections in these Monasteries, some of which are well over a thousand years old, and they can determine how the language has changed (in style and format, not context and content), they can clearly see the erroneous texts.

Perhaps it is a fundamental difference between Islam and Christianity, and the approach to G-d's Holy Word, I can't speak as one who knows. But I can without reservation defend the Monk Scribes that copied the Biblical texts. It was their Holy duty and command to preserve them exactly as received. So deeply engrained was this duty, this obligation, that even when the Catholic Church ordered the destruction of extant knowledge, plunging the common people into the ignorance of the Dark Ages, only two sources preserved the sciences of the Greeks...the Muslims of Toledo Spain, and the Irish Monks of Skellig Michael.
Skellig Michael - Wikipedia

(a place now forever polluted by the Star Wars movie franchise)

Dark Ages - New World Encyclopedia
"...this period in Europe did see a retreat from the classical worldview as political units became smaller and smaller and more competitive. Learning was not highly valued by aristocrats who saw scholarship as the preserve of the clerical profession. Some classical Greek scholarship was lost to Europe at this time. Knights learned to fight, not to read. Toward the end of this period, some classical Greek sources were rediscovered as part of the legacy that the Arabs had preserved. This encouraged Europeans to again see themselves within the context of a larger humanity, with shared aspirations, hopes, and fears. The ideal of a common world order, known earlier in the European space when it had been more or less united under Roman rule, was consequently reborn."
 
Last edited:
muhammad_isa said:
@Cino

I don't agree with your last post at all.

Call priests "Rabbis" or "Scribes" or what have you, it makes little difference.
The OT is comprised of different scrolls of varying ages and authors [ as is the NT, for that matter ].

What makes you think that some of the text hasn't got changed or misinterpreted on revision over 1000's of years?
Why were new prophets sent to Bani Israel if there was nothing wrong with what the Pharisees were teaching?
John the Baptists' head was put on a plate, and Jesus was put on a cross.

Why would G-d only guide only Bani Israel and not the rest of mankind .. and then only when Jesus comes along,
it was for everybody?
Why is it alright to swindle "goy" [ charge them interest ] but not your Jewish brother?
Why does G-d make a covenant with a people, and reward them even if they no longer honour it, just because
they are a particular color or lineage?"..........
Click to expand...
Remember how I said things could get very unpleasant very, very quickly?

They just did.
 
Last edited:
juantoo3 said:
But to the comment above, and with due respect to RJM and others who reason in a similar manner, that is a simplistic dodge employed by those who don't have stronger arguments.
Click to expand...
With due respect I did not say I necessarily believe a word of it. I reasoned that a God capable of parting the Red Sea and stopping the sun, would be quite up to arranging the accurate Biblical transmission of His word to man, including by parables and stories, etc. What's good for the goose ... is the point
 
Last edited:
RabbiO said:
Remember how I said things could get very unpleasant very, very quickly?

They just did.
Click to expand...

Religion.
Traditionally, faith, in addition to reason, has been considered a source of religious beliefs.

It is up to an individual what they want to follow.
There is reason .. and there is tradition.

A large number of people believe that Jesus is "a son of G-d".
Why do you not recognise Jesus?
For me, I use reason to assert that it is no coincidence that Christianity spread the way that it did.

We are raised by our parents and communities as a Jew, Christian, Hindu etc.
When we become adults, most of us continue in the traditions of our communities.
It doesn't have to be so. We are allowed to use reason :)
 
Last edited:
If people want to follow traditon, then that is their prerogative.
However, if they want to claim they follow "the truth" and claim the moral high ground,
they need to show that it is more than tradition.

Example
-----------

Evidence of authorship of a particular scripture.
 
muhammad_isa said:
If people want to follow traditon, then that is their prerogative.
However, if they want to claim they follow "the truth" and claim the moral high ground,
they need to show that it is more than tradition.

Example
-----------

Evidence of authorship of a particular scripture.
Click to expand...
OK, but then it seems to me Uthman is the editor, reasonably and rationally, of the Quran as it is today. "All previous versions were ordered destroyed"

So there is the *tradition* that the Quran is written by Mohammed.
And there is the established fact that Uthman ordered a consolidation and restructuring, and all previous and non-conforming Quranic texts were ordered destroyed, making him - if not the author - certainly the editor.
 
Last edited:
muhammad_isa said:
Religion.
Traditionally, faith, in addition to reason, has been considered a source of religious beliefs.

It is up to an individual what they want to follow.
There is reason .. and there is tradition.

A large number of people believe that Jesus is "a son of G-d".
Why do you not recognise Jesus?
For me, I use reason to assert that it is no coincidence that Christianity spread the way that it did.

We are raised by our parents and communities as a Jew, Christian, Hindu etc.
When we become adults, most of us continue in the traditions of our communities.
It doesn't have to be so. We are allowed to use reason :)
Click to expand...
Please understand my contempt is not directed toward Islam. My disdain is not directed toward you as a Muslim or Muslims in general. To premise one’s view of a faith community and/or its members based on one ignorant and arrogant member would certainly not be reasonable.
 
This seems a good time to remind:
FDRI said:
I am trying to understand the actual reasons when it comes to violence, no matter what religion is causing it. If we don't understand the full rooted reason(s), our Interfaith studies won't help improve anything, and history will repeat itself one way or the other.
Click to expand...
Personally, I don't think the texts have much to do with it. It is people, from differences of opinion, using whatever they can twist to justify their disposition.

Religions are tribal at their root, and tribes by their nature establish in-groups and out-groups. I think it is a survival mechanism, from a time when it was required, a "necessary evil." This "us and them" reasoning is still with us, even though we are no longer tribal.

In short, religion doesn't cause violence. People do.
 
Last edited:
juantoo3 said:
OK, but then it seems to me Uthman is the editor, reasonably and rationally, of the Quran as it is today. "All previous versions were ordered destroyed"

So there is the *tradition* that the Quran is written by Mohammed.
And there is the established fact that Uthman ordered a consolidation and restructuring, and all previous and non-conforming Quranic texts were ordered destroyed, making him - if not the author - certainly the editor.
Click to expand...

OK .. but I've already asked "what is the dispute"?
The only reason I can see that anybody would question whether the Qur'an that was known by heart
to Muhammad and his companions was not the same one that we have today,
is because it contains something that they disagree with :)

It certainly couldn't be the short time-span between its revelation and its writing down!
 
muhammad_isa said:
OK .. but I've already asked "what is the dispute"?
The only reason I can see that anybody would question whether the Qur'an that was known by heart
to Muhammad and his companions was not the same one that we have today,
is because it contains something that they disagree with :)

It certainly couldn't be the short time-span between its revelation and its writing down!
Click to expand...
I don't personally have any dispute. I was responding to your objections to the authenticity of the Bible. Using very similar points of fact, the Quran is subject to the same complaints. Was Uthman a prophet? Was Uthman "led by G-d?" to do what he did? If your objection to the Bible is the potential for corruption of the text (in spite of centuries and millennia old safeguards to help prevent it), I think there is greater potential for corruption regarding the Quran openly stated as fact and admission of destroyed evidence. (The link for the Sana'a palimpsest is quite eye opening in this regard)

Throwing babies out with the bathwater is never a good idea, in my opinion. What goes around, comes around. ;)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top