Since 1932 the University of Birmingham has had, among its collected works...

Since 1932 the University of Birmingham has had, among its collected works, a virtually full two page fragment of the Qur’an. Recently they decided to see if they could come up with a date for these pages. And so they had a carbon-14 dating done. The results are nothing less than astounding. See, e.g., edition.cnn.com/2015/07/23/opinions/quran-manuscript-analysis/index.html

Carbon-14 dating dates organic material based on the deterioration of its carbon-14 isotope, and so can give a range of dates that are statistically determined to be of relative accuracy. This dating is remarkable. The dating was done by a lab devoted to such things in Oxford. There is a 95% chance that these pages were produced between 568 and 645 CE. The prophet Mohammed was engaged in his active ministry in 610-632 CE. These pages may have been produced during his lifetime or in a decade or so later.

In case anyone is missing the significance of that, here is a comparison. The first time we have any two-page manuscript fragment of the New Testament is from around the year 200 CE. That’s 170 years after Jesus’ death in 30 CE.

The Bible has hundreds of thousands of discrepancies in known early manuscripts. Whereas these fragments perfectly match the modern Qu'ran.

Why is it that Muslims have done such a perfect job of accurately preserving the text of the Qu'ran compared to Christians?

Is it because Muslim scholars were guided by God?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas#Anachronisms
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Parchment has been known to be used time and again because shit's expensive.

Also
>martyrs get a bunch of grapes and a nice shade instead of virgins in early editions

You do aware that parchment was often reused in the middle ages? The mere fact that material is old doesn't mean a writing on it as old too, I can go and paint "AYY LMAO" on Egyptian pyramids, that won't prove aliens visited Egypt 4500 years ago.

Because Muslims believe the Koran is the literal word of God.

Christians do not think this except for a few extreme sects

>Is it because Muslim scholars were guided by God?
Yea. Muslims used the Christian God as a template.

Jews mane

>eternal grapes and shade under a palm tree on a sunny desert day
sounds like paradise to me

regardless, still a shite ideology.

If it is comparisons we are making then you could make the same claim about any bible fragment.

That doesn't answer the question as to why the text of the Qur'an is so perfectly preserved.

>Why is it that Muslims have done such a perfect job of accurately preserving the text of the Qu'ran compared to Christians?

You never had to translate your work out of Arabic to reach foreign converts because you spread your religion by the sword.

Early bible fragments are dated by analyzing style of script, not the materials they're written on.

>you could make the same claim about any bible fragment.

so what?

The issue might just be relatively unimportant to Christians.

The number of early copies of the Bible, particularly the NT, is often used by many Christians as evidence of the truth of the text.

Not true.

>The number of early copies of the Bible, particularly the NT, is often used by many Christians as evidence of the truth of the text.

No, as reliability of the text.

Please learn what words mean.

It is often given as evidence of both the truth of the text and reliability of the text. You're just dancing around like a weasel.

The Qur'an beats the NT at both.

That sounds really comfy actually.

What is this, some kind of pissing match? My holy book is better than yours?
Top zozzle m8

Not true.

mislims didn't do a thing to preserve the koran other than teaching it to others, god has promised to preserve the koran according to the koran.
whether scholars were guided or not it doesn't matter, because throughout history we see scholars interpreting koran and interpretations are not 100% in agreement.
however, the miracle is that the koran ever since mohammad received it hasn't changed, not even a single letter or form of word been altered.
you have to consider though that there are 7 types of readings of the koran amongst mislims, which is bretty confusing.
in summary we got one book never been altered, but this book can be read in 7 types of readings, which shouldn't be.

>The Bible has hundreds of thousands of discrepancies in known early manuscripts.

MOVABLE NU'S ARE NOT FUCKING DISCREPANCIES

>Why is it that Muslims have done such a perfect job of accurately preserving the text of the Qu'ran compared to Christians?

Likely because Muslim scholars, and possibly Muhammad were familiar with the doctrinal chaos and repeated schisms that had wracked the Christian church and wanted to avoid that sort of thing. Thus we have the Q'ran repeatedly trying to slam the door on such things, with repeated references to how Muhammad is the last Prophet and no revelations can come except from him.

These attempts failed, just ask the Sunnis and the Shiites.

>Is it because Muslim scholars were guided by God?
Fuck no.

The Q'ran is filled with just as many absurdities as the Bible. While the Bible explicitly describes the Earth as flat in many places and references the then-common belief in the "Firmament" a crystal dome which is said to separate "the waters above" from "the waters below," the Q'ran not only affirms this belief, it expounds upon it and describes Alexander the Great travelling to the ends of the Earth and seeing where the Sun sets into a muddy lake.

No book inspired or dictated by any sort of all-powerful being would ever describe Outer Space as being full of water, or the Sun as being smaller than the Earth.

do those pages say it is okay to rape and murder the infidel? I just want to make sure there's no discrepancies here, and that really is the word of Mohammed.

>Is it because Muslim scholars were guided by God?

No.

The quran is demonstrably false in many areas. If you care, start reading at answeringislam quran scientific errors.

Well, most importantly it does not expressly forbid the raping of little boys, so feel free to continue in that age old muslim custom.

That seems a sad way to phrase it - comparative religion is the topic we are discussing.

That's a bit like saying disagreements in science or any other field of study are just "a pissing contest".

You're very childish and cannot accept that the Bible gets BTFO in this field of study by the Qur'an.

Tu quoque and factually incorrect.

Or maybe you could answer OP's point.

Guess what?

You can't, because he is correct.

Mate, I don't give a fuck whether or not the Bible is 'beaten' by the koran, but your OP and your phrasing make it seem like a pissing match, with some religious nuttery sprinkled in.

Tu quoque and factually incorrect

>you're very childish
>uses BTFO
my sides
No one here care how old your book is senpai, especially when the bible is of secondary importance for christians and you've already lied in the OP

ALLAH ACKBAR!!
TAKBIR!!
TAKBIR!!!

A newer text, on a reused parchment, in a single language, written at one time, using the language today's arabic uses as base, is easier to match than an ancient one, written by a lot of people, in multiple languages(then translated into every tongue on the planet), and then determined by consensus.

What lie?

Oh dear. You're a logical positivist I see. Your thinking got blown out decades ago.
Thanks for implicitly admitting OP is correct by your refusal to do anything except repeat what I said, the logical fallacy known as tu quoque.

Early bible manuscripts are dated using carbon dating, fact. No matter how much you stamp your little feet, turn blue in the face and scream like a little baby.

OP is correct in asserting that the quran was written at some point following Mohammad's death?

Who did not already know this?

But are they dated using carbon dating alone? You haven't proven this
>all that nonsense at the end of your post
Idk senpai, you keep making assertions without evidence. You're sounding a bit desperate

>Why is it that Muslims have done such a perfect job of accurately preserving the text of the Qu'ran compared to Christians?
Because they didn't want to go through the same shit as the Christians did. There were a lot of different accounts of Jesus and figuring out which ones were to be added to the Bible had to happen at a congress. And I believe also in different languages. Has little to do with divine intervention.

Kek imagine how assblasted Isis dude will be once they reach heaven and get grapes instead of pussy

Op is correct in his assertion that the Qur'an was written during Prophet Muhammad's (pbuh) lifetime or shortly after it.

Maybe you could point to your citation. Here's OP's Oh that's right! I forgot! Silly me! You don't have a point and you don't have evidence! You just think shiptposting is the ultimate argument!

Luckily, my citation is contained in OP's link.
We all know you're OP btw lel

Islam claims it was written post-mortem. How could carbon dating change that claim?

kek, we should do a favour to the world and spread that grapes instead of virgins is the reward of exploding. I'm pretty shure they will be less terrorism

>The number of early copies of the Bible, particularly the NT
whoa, no. the earliest fragments we have of christian documents is mid 2nd century. the record of christian texts is really slim until the 3rd and the 4th century. the earliest complete bibles we have with the whole NT are from the 4th century and most likely commissioned by Constantine

There*

Where?

Making things up isn't going to help you.

I don't know why you are being so deliberately silly. You've gone out of your way to troll what could have been a good discussion on comparative religion.

At least you are bumping the thread!

Not accurate. Muhammad (pbuh) dictated the Qur'an in his lifetime and his followers made both written copies of his words and memorised them so they could recite them orally. The written copies were collected together very shortly after his death and made into the Qur'an. the text of which has been accurately preserved until this day.

Islam does not teach it was written after his death at all. You are speaking out of your bottom.

You mean most American Protestants?

>The written copies were collected together very shortly after his death and made into the Qur'an. the text of which has been accurately preserved until this day.
except that there were contradicting versions. several differing qurans were put together and edited and then all versions that were different from the chosen official one were burned

Thank you for fully agreeing with and supporting mine and OP's point.

You are quite correct to point out how weak the evidence is that the text of the Bible has been accurately preserved.

Allahu Ackbar.

In accurate claim.

The original was preserved. Some people began to make different copies based on writing down oral transmission and this practice was stopped.

Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't Islam mainstream in the Middle East quite soon after Muhammeds death anyways while Christianity was this prosecuted radical Jewish pacifist movement for the first 200 years of it's existance?

Yes, Mohammad told four men the essentials of the quran, and died. Then one of the four men who had memorized it died. Then there was a scramble to make sure the other three didn't die before what they memorized was committed to pen and paper.

It was, and then one man decided which version he preferred, destroyed the rest, and killed anyone who disagreed with him. Abu Bakr.

>CE
this pc bullshit needs to end

>You are quite correct to point out how weak the evidence is that the text of the Bible has been accurately preserved.
Yes, but the original message sure as hell wasn't that of Islam. just because it wasn't accurately preserved doesn't make your bullshit correct

This is a copypasta and is not new at all. Same image, same link, same text.

Just imagine. In a better Veeky Forums, somewhere out there, this post could have opened with a sober observation followed by an earnest question specifically directed towards Quranic historiography and early transmission, which would have gone for 300+ posts without a single shitpost about religion.

If we can't have PC I demand calendar reform

OP is a faggot.

>triggered

Is it about politics? I thought it was just so "before" and "after" used the same letters, CE. And I guess an anglicisation.

I demand you suck my holy cock, heathen.
absolutely

And let's not forget the amazing mental and mnemonic powers of preliterate societies. That a man could not read or write but could memorize an entire book's worth of sayings is amazing.

Anything that is factually incorrect or just plain silly is an allegory.
Checkmate, infidel.

Muslims had the advantage of being in power and therefore could commission and protect books rather than have them destroyed.

also there are incredibly old fragments of biblical texts which date to the lifetime of the apostles

Studies show that oral transmission quickly mutates the original source. The "great" oral texts we have preserved are probably just great scholars taking oral tales and making it into literature/philosophy.

CE and BCE were created so people wouldn't get triggered by the fact that we use the birth of a religious icon as the beginning of our calendar.
It's a little bit about politics.

>you will never have a shaded seat beneath a palm tree and infinite grapes when you die

This is why evolutionism has warped your brain. You think you are better in every way to the people you follow.

btw
>Use of the CE abbreviation was introduced by Jewish academics in the mid-19th century.
It was the juice all along. Why is it always the juice?

I don't like grapes that much
they're alright but I prefer other berries

>Studies show
what studies?

most societies with oral traditions keep to a very strict level of accuracy

its only when the oral tradition breaks down that details are lost

Seems ridiculous to change BC/AD to BCE/CE for "secularisation" when the choice of 0 as base still comes from Jesus' birth.

It's like Nietzsche's point about Humanist-Egalitarianism being a hypocritical denunciation of Christianity, all over again

And when we have a couple of months named after Roman gods and a tyrannical roman autocrat, bitch was so disrespectful he even called the calendar Julian...

Oh yeah and all those days of the week.

> the choice of 0 as base still comes from Jesus' birth.
Jesus was born around 4 BC actually.

/pol/ is always right.

The studies of people who are not from an oral tradition basically playing telephone.

Jesus was born in 6 BC. 9/11/-6

Doesn't change the fact that the choice was traditionally based off what was thought as Jesus' birth.

So would the sole argument for common era be simply that it no longer mislabels the birth date?

We don't know either way.

How were humanists being hypocritical?

Months are NAMED after Roman gods (and days after Norse gods), but that doesn't imply worship. Lots of things are named after Christian stuff too (e.g. most cities in California), but nobody cares. "Year of our lord" is inaccurate unless you are a Christian. "Common era" IS literally accurate because it is the calendar that everyone uses, regardless of its origin.

>something that happened over 2000 years ago
>common
it's actually more inaccurate than:
>guy was born that year
>that's where we'll start our calendar

I don't understand what you're trying to say, and I don't think you do either.

its not completely accurate because the calendar we use specifically recognizes the birth of Christ as being the dawn of the new era.

CE/BCE is a blatant attempt to co-opt christianity to serve the will of the Liberal bourgeois

>its not completely accurate because the calendar we use specifically recognizes the birth of Christ as being the dawn of the new era.

It IS literally, objectively accurate because it is the calendar that we all use.

Incidentally, you do realize that Jesus was not born on 1/1/1, right? Not that it matters.

You might not.

I do.

(Your date of birth has Jesus being born the same year Herod dies.)

Am an atheist but I still think its silly, people who are uncomfortable with the role Christianity played in history need to grow up

I'm not uncomfortable with it, I just prefer accurate terminology. If people say BC/AD I don't sperg out like you guys are.

>need to grow up

I would argue that it is those with a kneejerk, tantrum-throwing closemindedness to "political correctness" are the ones who need to grow up.

Okay, well what's it an allegory FOR?
Checkmate, Apologist

I dont sperg out over it, anymore now that I am not a Christian anyway.

But it seems to me that it was changed not for accuracy but because some people were uncomfortable with the Christian connection. To me this seems childish

>Christians getting buttblasted because the Bible has been badly preserved

>Why is it that Muslims have done such a perfect job of accurately preserving the text of the Qu'ran compared to Christians?
It's one book written in one go (relatively) and its actually quite small.

They dated the ink.

99.5% intact over thousands of years is astonishing.

And it's 600 years newer. A hundred years from now it will not exist, and nobody will remember it.

And nothing of value will have been lost.

Dont be fucking stupid

>>martyrs get a bunch of grapes and a nice shade instead of virgins in early editions

Citation needed, this is some fringe idea by one Orientalist, even other non Muslim scholars don't believe this.

He means the 72 virgins thing, its meant to be grapes but one person said its virgins and that idea caught on

You evidently don't know much about the grape theory or where it comes from.

The basis for that reading is that the Quran was written in a Syro-Aramaic dialect and not exclusively in classical Arabic. That's a very recent, very niche theory that is considered highly contentious even by secular academics.

>The first time we have any two-page manuscript fragment of the New Testament is from around the year 200 CE. That’s 170 years after Jesus’ death in 30 CE.
See

The 72 virgins thing isnt even from the quran

Muhammad was actually visited by a false angel of light, it was a demon, a fallen angel of deception. Satan and his workers are great mimickers and Muhammad, deceived, established a demonic cult of Allah (false-God) called Islam (meaning voluntary submission to this false-God, i.e. Satan) which he spread by the sword convinced that it was the last revelation of God Almighty.

Islam is none other than Satan's magnum opus, which now has 1.6 billion adherents (23% of the world population) and which will probably be followed by half of the world population by 2050.

>For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

2 Corinthians 11:13-15

Muhammad was Satan's pawn, merely a man, he was easily deceived.
Jesus is the Christ prophesied in scripture, born of God, undeceivable.

Islam's deceptions are endless:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas#Anachronisms