The Man who Challenged the Quran!!!!! (Page 2)

Talent_M: "As i have said before, i am sure the Bible seen small alterations"
I don't know how can I believe in something had been changed either small thing, O man this is our way to the heaven come on,if I missed something might be going to the hell.

okay let's say there is small alterations, could you tell me what are that small alterations pls?, cos you said you are sure and we might overlook and can leave Mohammed's message why not, if you have accurate religion more than I .
secondly consider me as an atheist and want to embrace the Christianity, so how could you convince me, you know always the atheist loves scientific and reasonable explanation.

john1576: Talent. There are passionate believers who are Muslims like you, Hindus, Jews, Chritians, people who believe in flying saucers, all just as convinced as you that they are right. And what about the Elvis Believers? Being passionate and enthusiastic about your religion does not make you right. Why should anyone believe you and not a Elvis Believer? give me one good reason.

risen: There is no jesus only me I say follow me worship me I am the way I am risen damn it.

Talent_M: John tell me pls how did you find me passionate and enthusiastic believer!!?? by the way does everyone asks you or says about your relgion is not right means that one is not correct or not on right? john we have to listen to one another otherwise u know nothing, secondly john u said "Personally, I believe it is true." about Jesus story, then tell me who is passionate one here!!??

"Why should anyone believe you and not a Elvis Believer? give me one good reason"

very simple make a comparison between my religion and their religion, by the way I don't know who are Elvis believers, since when this religion shown up?,is it yesterday!!

Talent_M: sorry there is Jesus(pbuh), and for sure u r man and the man would be never worshipped at all, thanx for ur response.

Magicspell: True to the title of this topic, I am another man who dares to challenge the authenticity of the Qur'an as a coherent and meaningful holy scripture.

Most Qur'anic experts attribute the Qur'an in its present form to post-7th Century alterations. The consensus is: "Almost universally, independent scholars studying the Qur'an and Hadith have concluded that the Islamic scripture was not revealed to just one man, but was a compilation of later redactions and editions formulated by a group of men over the course of a few hundred years. The Qur'an which we read today is not that which was in existence in the mid-seventh century, but is a product of the eighth and ninth centuries. It was not conceived in Mecca or Medina, but in Baghdad. It was there and then that Islam took on its identity; and became a religion."

After having read the Qur'an a couple of times and read much about it, my personal opinion is that it is a cocktail of texts that were not all understood even at the time of Muhammad. Many of them may even be a hundred years older than Islam itself. Even within the Islamic traditions there is a huge body of contradictory information, including a significant Christian substrate; one can derive a whole Islamic anti-history from them if one wants. The Qur'an claims for itself that it is 'mubeen,' or clear, but if you look at it, you will notice that every fifth sentence or so simply doesn't make sense. Many Muslims will tell you otherwise, of course, but the fact is that a fifth of the Qur'anic text is just incomprehensible. This is what has caused the traditional anxiety regarding translation. If the Qur'an is not comprehensible, if it can't even be understood in Arabic, then it cannot make sense in any language.

flashie: ^ i agreed until you said every 5th sentence.

there is undoubted scientific info way ahead of its time tho in that book?

would you say its a book of nil substance?

oh_good_laughs: Talent - Small alteration means 'nothing changing the meaning of the passage'. It really has no relevance toward each meaning, each verse. "The" might be "thee", but the passage has the same meaning. The Bible has many manuscripts (in the 1000s), and in different languages, the probability of the Bible loosing the meaning behind the passage is slim-to-none. If you question the Bible, then you might as well throw out all literature prior to that (any many written after). Throw out Shakespear, Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, because their writings' 'probability' of accuracy is nowhere near the Bible's.


You seem to be so critical over the Bible (i assume) because it disagrees with your view. But, to be clear, if the Quran does have Mohammed's followers accurately quoting Mohammed, who is in-turn accurately quoting an angel (as Muslims believe), means very little.


What i mean to say is, so the book may be accurate an authentic. Does that make it something to follow?, As i said before, anyone can make a book, and call it (god inspried), this means little. My quarrel was simply that Mohammad refers to Jesus, but Jesus said "it is finished at the cross", there is NO Mohammed, no new doctrine according to Jesus.

oh_good_laughs: Magic - That is interesting

Magicspell: Flashie, I agree that the Qur'an contains many interesting things and that its substance most certainly has a value far above nil.

What I wanted to express is that until the content is edited and presented as a coherent theological concept, it confuses the readers more then it enlightens them.

F0rdPrefect: WikiAnswers is great!

oh_good_laughs: Ford - I don't know who you are addressing that to, but im not 'googling' responses.

F0rdPrefect: Yes i know Risen, i have more respect for u than that

Talent_M: !!!! very good Ford u got it quickly and I hope u looked into the answers by the way, some people here said it is interesting!

Talent_M: "What i mean to say is, so the book may be accurate an authentic. Does that make it something to follow?"

Risen tell me ,the credibility isn't important to the religion!!?? how can I follow changeable scripture!!? and by the way what does mean "accurate"!? accurate means that what all inside this book is true,reasonable,reliable,unchangeable,constant,preserved,well grammars and meanings,comprehensive and has no any mistake, which all are from the qualties of Quran, if u wrote like this book, u could achieve your holy scripture that time, but for sure u can't as long as you are a man.

oh_good_laughs: Talent - The Bible is extremely accurate, your fighting 'against the grain' disagreeing with that, you are leaving all logic and probability disputing that.

The Quran is newer, therefore it has been hand copied less, there are less manucripts as well. You take an older religion or writing (some 1000s of years), you are going to see some minor/small change due to that hand-copying process, but look at how careful the priest were when copying. They would always have several witness to re-check what was written, always count each letter copied to make sure they matched the original, they would wash all the writing utinsels and bathe themselves before the copying of scripture. The transferring of scripture was extemely cautious, and very thoroughly examined each time.


You are mistaken in saying the Bible is 'in-accurate'.

oh_good_laughs: Ford - Thanks

john1576: N.A.S.A. I think got their Spacecraft assembly methods from Bible writers. As one Jewish Rabbi wrote down a word, another would watch over his shoulder to see he got the letter correct. N.A.S.A. use the same method when assembling Space Craft, one technician puts in a screw, another watches him to make sure he did the job properly. This is how copies of the Old Testament were made.

oh_good_laughs: Mystic - While that may be true, the New Testament has 1000s of other manuscripts to look at as well. The ordeal of 1 manuscript being out-of-line is very minor, and would have little to no effect on the New Testament accuracy.

Talent_M: "The Quran is newer, therefore it has been hand copied less, there are less manucripts as well."
more than 1400 years, is a newer and it has been hand copied!!?
Risen what you talking about? o man , we memorize it, even if we write it's just transcription, Risen get me pls, the first book which was for more than 1400years is (exact) copy, (identical) for every letter of it to the Quran today, a book never changed and we have only one not like u.
secondly risen would u like to mention again what u havn't answered me before in previous posts, by the way mystic has good view.

"Is Mathew Bible same as John Bible or Loucus Bible or King James Bible or Paul Bible or Marcos Bibe or.... etc of bibles if they are in onle language, is there no difference between them, are they the same in number!!!!!!!!!!??????????
why many christians consider King James bible has good revision!!?? please again don't tell me translation,we are talking about revesions in same language of publication, okay there is differennces between catholic bible in number of Scriptures about the Protestant bible and by the way they are I think 7 Scriptures in the begining they considered them as extra then became agreed and recognized among christian people then Protestant pirests removed them!!!, why is all of that!!??okay you are talking about translation, if you made a comparison between the new testaments scriptures of different languages regardless the old testament which has also distortion, you will find many words have been removed or replaced with another words!!, this about the translations what about the original copies of scriptures,where are they!!!??? okay what about some scriptures has no known writter and when were written!!??and pls havn't you found the contradictions in these scriptures just like makes you feel they are really from man inspiration not from the God, isn't right?"

F0rdPrefect: Why do u two, spend so much time bickering over such pettiness?
Yes, yes im aware its a free forum in which to express ur views and opinions.
Maybe if u spent as much time arguing about who's Flying Spaghetti Monster is the best and instead invested as much time and thought into something more worthwhile, maybe, just maybe, we could all progress as a race and maybe live in peace and harmony.

mongrel_pup: Talent, the Bible has been altered a number of times.

Here is a definition of it: alterations to text Variations among MSS are sometimes due to scribes having misheard a word being dictated or through some other human error. But also sometimes alterations were made for doctrinal reasons. For example a reading loutron =purification in Mark 10: 45 may have been changed from lutron= ransom to make the verse conform to the theology of Heb. 9: 14. Cf. also textual variants at Rev. 1: 5. Sometimes it seems that a scribe was motivated to ensure that his text did not imply an unacceptable doctrine; e.g. Luke 2: 22: ‘the time for their purification’ has been altered to ‘her purification’ in certain Syriac and Coptic MSS in the interests of the doctrine of the Virgin Birth and as a correction because the rite of purification involved the mother alone anyway (Lev. 12: 4–6). Similarly, several MSS (e.g. D, Codex Bezae, c.400 CE) omit Mark's mistaken ‘when Abiathar was high priest’ (2: 26). (Copied from http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O94-alterationstotext.html)

There are many sites that deal with this, one is: http://www.islam4all.com/human_distortion_of_the_bible.htm

Translations can vary between various editions of the Bible, too. Just have a look at http://bible.cc/mark/10-15.htm

Hopefully, the picture has become a little clearer now, Talent.

Talent_M: " we could all progress as a race and maybe live in peace and harmony" we can't as long as we don't correct our faults in time.

Talent_M: thanx mongrel but u shouldn't have mentioned islamic site, that would upset risen .

mongrel_pup: It doesn't matter which sites you choose, Talent. Just google Bible and Alterations together and you will have 443000 hits...

An Islamic perspective will only add spices to the debate, particularly since we primarily should be discussing the Koran in this thread and not the Bible. LOL

@Ford: A wise man once said that much constructive could be gained if religious leaders took the time to study each others' myths thoroughly instead of just literalising their own.