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., http://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?
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.
>>1086549
Because Muslims believe the Koran is the literal word of God.
Christians do not think this except for a few extreme sects
>>1086549
>Is it because Muslim scholars were guided by God?
Yea. Muslims used the Christian God as a template.
>>1086549
Jews mane
>>1086574
>eternal grapes and shade under a palm tree on a sunny desert day
sounds like paradise to me
>>1086549
regardless, still a shite ideology.
>>1086579
That doesn't answer the question as to why the text of the Qur'an is so perfectly preserved.
>>1086549
>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.
>>1086598
Early bible fragments are dated by analyzing style of script, not the materials they're written on.
>>1086598
>you could make the same claim about any bible fragment.
so what?
The issue might just be relatively unimportant to Christians.
>>1086652
>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.
>>1086660
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.
>>1086586
That sounds really comfy actually.
>>1086779
What is this, some kind of pissing match? My holy book is better than yours?
Top zozzle m8
>>1086652
Not true.
>>1086549
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.
>>1086549
>The Bible has hundreds of thousands of discrepancies in known early manuscripts.
MOVABLE NU'S ARE NOT FUCKING DISCREPANCIES
>>1086549
>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.
>>1086549
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.
>>1086549
>Is it because Muslim scholars were guided by God?
No.
>>1086779
The quran is demonstrably false in many areas. If you care, start reading at answeringislam quran scientific errors.
>>1086871
Well, most importantly it does not expressly forbid the raping of little boys, so feel free to continue in that age old muslim custom.
>>1086794
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.
>>1086820
Tu quoque and factually incorrect.
>>1086886
Or maybe you could answer OP's point.
Guess what?
You can't, because he is correct.
>>1086898
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.
>>1086898
Tu quoque and factually incorrect
>>1086898
>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
>>1086549
ALLAH ACKBAR!!
TAKBIR!!
TAKBIR!!!
>>1086549
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.
>>1086937
What lie?
>>1086917
Oh dear. You're a logical positivist I see. Your thinking got blown out decades ago.
>>1086920
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.
>>1086908
OP is correct in asserting that the quran was written at some point following Mohammad's death?
Who did not already know this?
>>1086987
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
>>1086549
>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.
>>1086574
Kek imagine how assblasted Isis dude will be once they reach heaven and get grapes instead of pussy
>>1086994
Op is correct in his assertion that the Qur'an was written during Prophet Muhammad's (pbuh) lifetime or shortly after it.
>>1086998
Maybe you could point to your citation. Here's OP's >>1086549
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!
>>1087024
Luckily, my citation is contained in OP's link.
We all know you're OP btw lel
>>1087024
Islam claims it was written post-mortem. How could carbon dating change that claim?
>>1087019
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
>>1086652
>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
>>1087040
There*
>>1087033
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!
>>1087034
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.
>>1086577
You mean most American Protestants?
>>1087068
>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
>>1087044
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.
>>1087080
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?
>>1087068
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.
>>1086549
>CE
this pc bullshit needs to end
>>1087082
>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
>>1086549
This is a copypasta and is not new at all. Same image, same link, same text.
>>1086549
Just imagine. In a better /his/, 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.
>>1087103
If we can't have PC I demand calendar reform
>>1087024
OP is a faggot.
>>1087103
>triggered
>>1087103
Is it about politics? I thought it was just so "before" and "after" used the same letters, CE. And I guess an anglicisation.
>>1087151
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.
>>1086864
Anything that is factually incorrect or just plain silly is an allegory.
Checkmate, infidel.
>>1086549
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
>>1087177
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.
>>1086586
>you will never have a shaded seat beneath a palm tree and infinite grapes when you die
>>1087203
This is why evolutionism has warped your brain. You think you are better in every way to the people you follow.
>>1087205
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?
>>1087208
I don't like grapes that much
they're alright but I prefer other berries
>>1087203
>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
>>1087245
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.
>>1087245
> the choice of 0 as base still comes from Jesus' birth.
Jesus was born around 4 BC actually.
>>1087214
/pol/ is always right.
>>1087232
The studies of people who are not from an oral tradition basically playing telephone.
>>1087245
Jesus was born in 6 BC. 9/11/-6
>>1087245
How were humanists being hypocritical?
>>1087245
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.
>>1087285
>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
>>1087329
I don't understand what you're trying to say, and I don't think you do either.
>>1087285
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
>>1087344
>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.
>>1087279
You might not.
I do.
(Your date of birth has Jesus being born the same year Herod dies.)
>>1087371
Am an atheist but I still think its silly, people who are uncomfortable with the role Christianity played in history need to grow up
>>1087393
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.
>>1087184
Okay, well what's it an allegory FOR?
Checkmate, Apologist
>>1087420
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
>>1087526
99.5% intact over thousands of years is astonishing.
>>1087551
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.
>>1087581
Dont be fucking stupid
>>1086574
>>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.
>>1087631
He means the 72 virgins thing, its meant to be grapes but one person said its virgins and that idea caught on
>>1087670
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.
>>1087783
The 72 virgins thing isnt even from the quran
>>1086549
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
>>1086549
>>1087808
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:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Barnabas#Anachronisms
>>1087257
Kek as if everyone here didn't know that
>>1087818
>its all false bullshit
You wish.
>>1087803
Yes, but Huris are referenced in a number of places in the Quran. And the notion that Huri means grape and not virgin is based on a fairly recent theory about the language of the Quran:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Syro-Aramaic_Reading_of_the_Koran#Huri
>>1087818
>No one cares
Lol you seem angry
Why don't you call out the Muslim who's denying evolution itt
>>1086609
Maybe it has something to do with nearly 1000 years of civilization backslide in the centuries after Jesus' death?
'sokay, Islam has been going through it's own decline in the last century or so.
>>1086574
the fucking umayyads, the sunni filth, changed quran to fit them and their jihadi goals
>>1086886
The Quran is 1400 years old, the bible is 2000 years old. Of course there are scientific errors you dumb motherfucker
>>1086549
Cute girl. Im guessing shes from SE Asia?
>>1087600
I'm just telling you the truth. You can deal with the truth however it is that you like.
>>1087818
The quran is being presented as intact and reliable, and the bible is being attacked as corrupted and untrustworthy.
Taking everything in the quran as absolutely true, it was satan that lied to Mohammad and said he was Gabriel.
And any different gospel about Jesus, even if it comes from an angel, as all demons are angels, is accursed.
Mohammad is accursed, even if the book of his sayings is intact.
>>1088070
There are scientific errors in the supposedly eternal quran.
There are no scientific errors in the bible, as the bible did not include much of the science of its day, all of which was wrong.
Where you see a conflict between what the bible says and what science says, you assume science is true and the bible false.
I know the bible to be true, and science to always be wrong.
>>1086611
This pretty much.
>>1086549
barely good enough for toilet paper
>>1086611
Latin...
>>1091038
>There are no scientific errors in the bible,
>Where you see a conflict between what the bible says and what science says, you assume science is true and the bible false.
So in other words there is lots of scientific errors in the Bible but you assume books written by ancient goat herders are correct and science is wrong.
Here's a list of 463 scientific and historical errors in the Bible for you.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/science/long.html
>>1086549
Muhammad was copying Christianity and Judaism. You'll notice there is no passage in the bible where Jesus says "Matthew, mark, Luke, John, why the fuck aren't you writing this down." Who knows if Jesus even cared if it got written down. At any rate he got crucified at a relatively young age, and if you believe in the resurrection he didn't spend the forty days he was back writing. The bibles importance got inflated by later Christians as time went on since there were generations of Christians who did not have an authoritative manuscript. Muhammad was alive after the Christian bible had been decided for centuries. It would make sense he wanted his own holy book since all he was doing was ripping off Judaism and Christianity but decided to have the audacity that he was the final act of revelation from God. Tldr; Muhammad wrote his holy book, Jesus did not write his.
>>1086549
>The Bible has hundreds of thousands of discrepancies in known early manuscripts.
>Whereas these fragments perfectly match the modern Qu'ran.
>virtually full two page fragment of the Qur’an
>virtually full two page fragment of the Qur’an
This comparison is disingenuous. They're trying to compare a fragment that is just short of 2 pages to the entirety of the Bible. Or is it their contention that we couldn't even find 2 pages worth of old Biblical material that isn't full of discrepancies?
>>1092590
The official stance of a lot of churches is that the bible is divinely inspired by God but written by man. The explanation for scientific discrepancies is that they are a result of the worldview of the human author, and in some instances they are metaphorical. Basically, the scientific discrepancy is a result of human error but God will not let them err when the wording matters for moral reasons. Agnostic but I get the logic of that interpretation.
>>1092590
"In the beginning"
When was the universe created?
The Gap Theory 1:1-2
Wow, that's some powerful argument there. Science says the universe had a beginning, and so does the bible. Are the rest of them this bad?
>bible says bat is a bird
Oh, kek, it is. Bible says bat is a winged creature.
Great site. Really makes me laugh to see what the opposition is.
This is a perfect example of when the conflict is so obviously against science; it's your #2. The other 400+ are equally lame:
The Genesis 1 creation account conflicts with the order of events that are known to science. In Genesis, the earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. The order of events known from science is just the opposite. 1:1-2:3
>Science knows what happened at t=0, where the laws of science break down.
>>1092590
Oh, this site is just precious. I'm getting such a kick out of it.
God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (1:14-19). And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them? 1:3-5
God is light. God spoke light into existence. Angels are beings of light. How can you have light without a sun?
How can God tell time without a watch!
TOPKEK
>>1092590
Seth lived 912 years. 5:8
Enos lived 905 years. 5:11
Cainan lived 910 years. 5:14
Mahalaleel lived 895 years. 5:17
Jared lived 962 years. 5:20
Wow! Such powerful arguments!
>>1092689
Not only are your arguments against those pretty awful but that is an enormous logical fallacy to claim that proves the rest of the examples wrong.
You also didn't even attempt to engage with the meat of my post which was to point out that this guy >>1091038 claiming there are no scientific errors in the Bible because the Bible is always correct over science was a ludicrous circular argument.
I give you 2/10, you tried, but not very hard.
>>1092695
I see the point whooshed over your head.
>>1092700
Exactly. Years were probably like lunar months or some other time metric that got lost in translation in between whenever those stories originated and when they were written and then transcribed and translated across the years
>>1092709
Do I need to use smaller words?
1. Both the bible and science say the universe had a beginning. So where's the error?
2. The bible says a bat is a winged creature. So where is the error?
3. God is light; the angels are light; God spoke light into existence and filled the entire universe with light, including putting light into the sun. So where's the error? The error is in the claim that God cannot tell time without a sun! That God cannot grow plants without sunlight! That God cannot form the universe in the order He said He did!
These are all nonsense!
>>1092714
Oh, it's an ironic Christian site designed to make empiricists look like retarded 12 year olds?
Wow, you're right. I totally missed that.
>>1092718
Nope.
Men used to live longer under different conditions; God changed those conditions and put a cap on man at 120 years.
You can draw a chart of the ages of men from Adam down to Abraham down to Joseph and further, and it will be asymptotic with a 120 year limit.
>>1087103
Amen.
"CE, lol"
When did the era become common?
"Lol around when Jesus was born"
>>1086779
just because idiots claim that means it demonstrates truth doesn't mean they're right, you massive fucking moron
>>1086779
The quran says Jesus was not crucified. Nobody else believes this.
The quran says Jesus did not die. Nobody else believes this.
The quran says that Jesus' body was switched on the cross to appear like Jesus. Nobody else believes this.
The quran says that Jesus did not rise from the dead.
How would an Arab 600 years after the fact know more than the eyewitnesses who spent 40 days with Jesus after He arose?
>>1086549
It's because they noticed well before Muhammad's own time how much the early Christians fought amongst each other over the validity and interpretation of scripture and the clear lack of authority on What Jesus Would Do until one particular faction literally seized control of everything by force with the muscle of the Roman state behind them.
They were fucking terrified of the same thing happening to Islam and wrote everything down in one place according to exactly how Muhammad himself presumably specified it. As a result of a rigorous insistence on not making or re-interpreting even the slightest changes to the original text, including in language format, over generations, they could write and transcribe the original text in its original format over and over again (the Christians were unable to do the same thing until hundreds of years after both Jesus' death and the disagreements the earliest church fathers down to the apostles themselves had with each other, and because Jesus never actually wrote anything down himself and therefore left no known single, authoritative text for his followers to use).
The Muslims thought that by having their prophet's exact words remain perfectly preserved without risk of perversion, they could avoid both sectarianism and misinterpreting what God actually wanted them to do. Obviously it failed as early as immedately after Muhammad died, and because it's impossible to claim that only a single interpretation is the exact same one applicable to the entire universe that the prophet himself supposedly would have espoused, even making room for changing worldly circumstances.
Thus Muslims still interpret the Qu'ran in just as many different ways as Christians do the New Testament, the difference being merely in how one group interprets a complete text as opposed to another interpreting a fragmentary one. The issue of perfect textual preservation of a work is meaningless in the wider discussion of proper interpretation.
>>1092783
>God is light; the angels are light; God spoke light into existence and filled the entire universe with light, including putting light into the sun. So where's the error? The error is in the claim that God cannot tell time without a sun! That God cannot grow plants without sunlight! That God cannot form the universe in the order He said He did!
Kek. You were talking about nonsense!
>>1092785
People who are empiricists look like 12 years olds compared to people that think blood magic performed by a Palestinian carpenter / sorcerer two thousand years is going to make them a magic place to live among the clouds when they die?
Oh the ironing.
I'm guessing it's because Christianity and their followers had to keep everything secret and they were persecuted by Roman's so a lot of the shit got destroyed and lost while Islam never really was in that kind of situation
>>1092700
91.2 years
90.5 years
91.0 years
89.5 years
96.2 years
>>1092590
>http://skepticsannotatedbible.com
lel, bait? stale as fuck desu fampai
>>1093162
Going by that some interpretation, Enoch had his first son when he was 5 kek
>>1092689
>laws of science break down
>break down
They don't break down. Our current understanding of the laws of nature do not apply to the universe before the universe as the universe existed at at a point smaller than the plank length where the laws of the transfer of information as we understand today cannot be applied. There is simply another set of laws that we have not yet determined.
>>1086589
Would you say it's..... Shiite?
>>1092700
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methuselah#Interpretations
>>1093169
nice counter argument
>>1094017
thx desu fampai
/x/ is over that way folks
Because it came at a later time and more important Muhammad was a prominent leader in his society not a poor man arrested for crimes.
Islam became the state religion of Arabia in Muhammad's lifetime, and the Quran was integral to the faith from the start. Christianity in 200 CE was some weirdo Roman cult, and the gospels weren't even composed until decades after Jesus died.
>>1094258
stale meme
>>1094258
>>1094272
>>1094258
>>1094272
>>1094279
http://storage.cloversites.com/fcfgroups/documents/Why%20We%20Believe%207.pdf
>>1092963
>be goatfucker
>create a religion centered around the local town rapist so that we won't fight eachother anymore
>they fight eachother some more
fast forward
>get conquered by a platoon of westerners
>get freedom
>blow eachother up
>westerners intervene
>get blown up
such a good run
>>1094509
astound argument, poster talks about theology and history, your /pol/ level shit on the religions followers is irrelevant.
>>1094543
not an argument
>>1086549
you'll never have a muslim qt 3.14 by your side
they are the closest we get to pure 3d waifus
>>1093958
Your current understanding, as the understanding of everyone before you, is incorrect.
>>1093973
969 trips around the sun; died the year the Flood happened.
>>1087813
this
>>1094272
That doesn't prove anything he said wrong and has already been countered by OP.
>>1094509
When's your 14th birthday?
>>1086549
>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.
>
Why is it that Muslims have done such a perfect job of accurately preserving the text of the Qu'ran compared to Christians?
You do realise that Christianity didn't become a proper religion until hundreds of years after Jesus' death? Before that it was simply considered a Jewish cult.
>>1091032
>>1087808
>>1087813
I agree, Muhammad was no holy man. However, if he was such an Antichrist, why did he tolerate Christians and Jews? I'm sure he could have told his followers to kill them left and right but instead he told them to tolerate them. Even prior to the civil war, Syria had a large christian diaspora and prior to the mandate of Israel, the middle east outside Israel had a big Jewish diaspora. Hell, ISIS has spared Christians as long as they pay their Jizya.
>>1097703
1992.
>>1086549
>The Bible has hundreds of thousands of discrepancies in known early manuscripts. Whereas these fragments perfectly match the modern Qu'ran.
Fragments of early new testament manuscripts are just as accurate to the modern bible. Fragments of the old testament have even been found dating back to the late first temple period and it pretty much matches the modern torah.
>>1098455
>Fragments of early new testament manuscripts are just as accurate to the modern bible.
That depends how you look at it. The earliest copies / fragments of the earliest Gospel, Mark, don't even have the Resurrection in them.
>>1098550
[citation needed]
>>1086549
No, it's because it's from over half a millenium later and that the Qur'an has always been written in Arabic since the beginning.
>>1086549
>There is a 95% chance that these pages were produced between 568 and 645 CE.
lel, scientists and their probabilities
