A Perfect Text Rooted in an Imperfect Tradition?
Muslims believe in the perfect textual preservation of the Quran.
The original texts of most of the former divine Books were lost altogether, and only their translations exist today. The Qur’an, on the other hand, exists exactly as it had been revealed to the Prophet; not a word – nay, not a dot of it – has been changed. It is available in its original text and the Word of God has been preserved for all times to come. (Abul A’la Maududi, Towards Understanding Islam [Gary: IN, 1970], 109)
However, Muslim belief in the perfect textual preservation of the Quran is rooted in an imperfectly preserved tradition known as the sunnah and hadith. 1The sunna constitutes the authenticated traditions of the Prophet [Muhammad], i.e. all his properly verified words and deeds (along with the actions of others which met with his consent). Hundreds of thousands of these traditions exist; a single tradition is termed hadith (The History of The Qur’anic Text: From Revelation to Compilation: A Comparative Study with the Old and New Testaments [Leicester: UK Islamic Academy, 2003], p.39 f.n.96).
Who Collected the Quran?
The hadith disagree about who collected the Quran. Bukhari records two traditions. In the first, Bukhari lists the names of four men who collected the Quran: Ubai bin Ka’b, Muadh bin Jabal, Zaid bin Thabit, and Abu Zaid:
Narrated Qatada: I asked Anas bin Malik: Who collected the Qur’an at the time of the Prophet? He replied, Four, all of whom were from the Ansar, Ubai bin Ka’b, Muadh bin Jabal, Zaid bin Thabit and Abu Zaid. (Sahih Bukhari 6:61:525)
In another tradition Bukhari lists the four men as: Abu Ad Darda, Mu’adh bin Jabal, Zaid bin Thabit, and Abu Zaid:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
When the Prophet died, none had collected the Qur’an but four persons: Abu Ad Darda, Mu’adh bin Jabal, Zaid bin Thabit and Abu Zaid. We were the inheritor (of Abu Zaid) as he had no offspring. (Sahih Bukhari 6:61:526)
Why are different names given?
The Collection of the Quran and the Authorship of the Gospels
Knowing that there is a difference is important because Muslims often argue that since the Gospels do not contain the names of authors that we can’t know who wrote them. But this is not true. Early Christians gave unanimous testimony to who wrote the Gospels (see the below video with notes).
Since Muslim belief and practice is rooted in traditions that don’t always agree and were recorded some 200 years after Muhammad’s death, then they should not have a hard time believing the early and unanimous testimony to the authorship of the Gospels.
So the next time a Muslim tells you we don’t know the authors of the four Gospels, give the following names:
- Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
VERSUS
- Ubai bin Ka’b, Muadh bin Jabal, Zaid bin Thabit, and Abu Zaid OR Abu Ad Darda, Mu’adh bin Jabal, Zaid bin Thabit, and Abu Zaid.
Who Wrote the Gospels? by Timothy McGrew
For the notes to this lecture see:
See Azami, Studies in Hadith Methodology and Literature
To learn more about whether the Quran has been perfectly preserved see:
Uthman’s Collection of the Quran
Are there copyist errors in Quran manuscripts?
The Sana Quran
Quran Manuscripts, Copyist Errors, and More
References
| 1. | ↥ | The sunna constitutes the authenticated traditions of the Prophet [Muhammad], i.e. all his properly verified words and deeds (along with the actions of others which met with his consent). Hundreds of thousands of these traditions exist; a single tradition is termed hadith (The History of The Qur’anic Text: From Revelation to Compilation: A Comparative Study with the Old and New Testaments [Leicester: UK Islamic Academy, 2003], p.39 f.n.96). |
I am not starting a polemic but simply wish to bring some light on the study of the Qur’an. Muslims believe it is unique because it was revealed. Muhammad did not write it. He recited what was revealed to him and contrary to any other book it was not written in the first instance.It was memorized. As soon as the verses were revealed they were memorized by the Prophet and his close surrounding.They were later written on bones, animal skin, stones, etc, but these were never given great consideration during the Prophet’s lifetime. Why were they learnt by heart? There may be multiple reasons but the most important one is that they had to be preserved since considered as the words of God. No less important is the fact that to pray one recites the verses of the Qur’an. In Islam, Salaat (prayer) consists of recitation of the Qur’an and Muslim pray five times daily. The word Qur’an means Recitation.
Memorization of the Qur’an is never mentioned as a means of preservation although it is just that. A Muslim may say that he has memorized the whole Qur’an because he wants to preserve it in him but not for posterity.This practice which started with the Prophet and continues today, however, is highly recommended and it is even said that the one who memorizes the whole Book will be able to bring with him to Heaven ten people. Through the centuries there may have been millions and millions who have memorized the whole Book. This is not counting the numbers who have memorized it partially. Every practicing Muslim must compulsorily recite the verses as they are in the Qur’an to pray. Manuscripts have not been considered important in regard to the preservation of the Qur’an.
Empirical tests of authenticity.
The Qur’an undergoes checks daily and yearly. Everyday the Imam recites loudly and audibly the verses of the Qur’an during prayer and the congregation has to listen attentively. Any deviation by the Imam has to be corrected instantly and loudly.This is the law. This is Islam. The same law is applied for the yearly Tarawi prayer during Ramadhan when the whole of the Qur’an is recited aloud in front of huge congregations around the world. Muslims may not be aware of it but this constitutes a constant check and a proof of the the authenticity of the Qur’an empirically.This is why it is futile to study the Qur’an in the same way as the Bible any other book since its method of preservation is different. That’s why it is meaningless to talk about its textual preservation, about who collected the Qur’an, Uthman’s collection, copyist errors, etc. as if the Qur’an were kept on perishable material supports. The Qur’an is kept in the heart and mind of men and women and no one can deny it.
I would have preferred not to say anything about the Bible because as a Believer I do not want hurt the feelings of anybody. It is not my intention to attack the Bible or Christians. But since a comparison is made between the Qur’an and the Bible I have to respond. At the very outset it must be made clear that the Bible as such does not exist. What we call Bible today is a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy …, and so on. We have multiple versions of the Bible and each one differs from the others but we still call all of them the Bible. The Gospels are honest in saying “according to Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. But no Bible says it is according to Catholics, Protestants, Baptists, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc. To show the malleability of the Bible just consider that the same King James Bible of 1769 has some 100,000 changes from the original 1611.
Mcgrew speaks of concordance and harmony of the Gospels. But Luke does not seem to share this opinion.”Many have undertaken to compose an account of the things…Therefore, having carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.” (Luke 1: 1-3) Why would he have to write an “orderly” (some versions say exact and others accurate) account if he thought the others were accurate or exact?
Thank you for taking the time to comment.
Just because something is learned by heart by millions does not mean it is revelation from heaven. Just because a book has not been changed does not make it revelation from heaven.
Were pre-Islamic Arabians able to judge whether or not Muhammad’s revelation came from heaven? Weren’t many of them polytheists? Weren’t they living in a time of ignorance. With only a few exceptions, polytheists and the ignorant are not the best of judges when determining whether or not revelation comes from heaven. They must ask others who are not ignorant but are able to judge rightly based on previously established revelation.
The ability to judge whether revelation is from heaven was entrusted to the Jews. Then it was entrusted to Jews who believed in Jesus, and then the church. The revelations Muhammad received must be tested by what God had previously revealed in Scripture.
Jesus’ claims had to be tested according to the Old Testament Scriptures. Muhammad’s claims must be tested according to Old and New Testament Scriptures. When Christians compare Muhammad’s revelation with previously established revelation, it is evident that Muhammad contradicts previously established revelation. Isn’t this evident from Islamic rejection of Jesus’ death on the cross?
You claim that the Christian and Jewish revelation is corrupted. But what you’ve written above about the Bible indicates that you are ignorant about the Bible. Have you read the Bible that you are judging? This takes us back full circle to the age of ignorance in pre-Islamic Arabia. Islam did not start with a divinely revealed standard to judge Muhammad’s revelation. Some now use Muhammad’s revelation to ignorantly dismiss or cherry-pick previously revealed and established revelation.
We can start with Jesus’ death on the cross. The New Testament teaching about Jesus’ death on the cross is true.
Please prayerfully and carefully consider what Scripture says about this, “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!” (Galatians 1:8-9)
The death of Jesus on the cross is central to the divinely revealed gospel that was believed and preached by the earliest followers of Jesus.
Thank you agoerner for your reply to my comment.You ask me if I have read the Bible. Yes, I not only read it I studied it. Allow me to answer a few questions you did not ask. I believe in Jesus. I love him and I am expecting his return which I believe will bring peace to the world. I love his message of love. And I take an immense to talk about him.
Born in a Muslim family I attended Christian schools where the Bible was read everyday. I can say that I have always been attracted by Jesus’ personality. Later I read a book “All men are brothers’ by Dr Albert Scwheitzer, an extraordinary Christian who at the age of 24 held 3 doctorates and then discovered how Africans were suffering due to lack of medical facilities. He went back to university and became a medical doctor at 30. He then sold everything, raised funds to build a hospital in the heart of Africa at Lamberené. As a great organ player he would come back to Europe and give concerts to raise funds for his hospital.
A great Christian in my view. But he had questions about the Bible. As a child he wondered how Jesus’ family could be poor when they had received most valuable gifts from the Magi at his birth. He even wrote a book on his questions at the beginning of the 20th century.
As I became mature I started asking questions and could not agree with a few things attributed to Jesus. How could such a lovable being curse a fig tree simply because it did not bear fruits (Mathew 21:19, Mark 11:13) . It was not the season. What was the sin of the fig tree which simply followed the natural laws of nature? Moreover Mathew and Mark differ in their accounts. In Matthew the fig tree withered instantly and in Mark the disciples saw the withered fig on the following day. My love and admiration could accept this. Jesus could not be wrong but Mathew and Mark could. I could not agree with Luke either when he put these words in Jesus’ mouth: “But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them–bring them here and kill them in front of me.’ (Luke 19:27). This is ISIS, not Jesus. “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” (Luke 10:34).
Ultimately instead of having a Jefferson Bible or lose my faith in Jesus I prefer not to agree blindly with the Gospels. Jesus said there is one God and “you have not heard his voice or seen Him face to face”. I believe in him. This answers my personal question: Does God pray and if yes to whom? To himself cannot be.
I hope, my dear agoerner, that nothing I have written offends you or questions your faith. I thank you for the opportunity to express my personal convictions which I know go against “the divinely revealed Gospel” of your reply’. In fact our faith depends on our personal conception of God. Mine cannot accept that He reveals a purple to one and a scarlet robe on Jesus to another.The precision of the laws of nature cannot denote or connote a god of approximation.
“Just because something is learned by heart by millions does not mean it is revelation from heaven. Just because a book has not been changed does not make it revelation from heaven.” Entirely true. No question about that. But this is another issue, isn’t it?
Respectfully and impatiently awaiting your reply
A Rahman
Thank you for your response.
For someone who has read and studied the Bible, why would you say, “To show the malleability of the Bible just consider that the same King James Bible of 1769 has some 100,000 changes from the original 1611.” What kind of changes are you talking about? Your argument appears untrue, weak, and ignorant.
I agree that we should not “agree blindly with the Gospels.” But are you blindly accepting and propagating false information about “100,000 changes…”? False information is like getting poked in the eye with a stick. Are you now trying to poke me in the eye with your misinformation?
As for Jesus cursing the fig tree, I had the same question as you. I came across many smart people who ended up dismissing this sign as inauthentic. I also found that those who dismissed this account often dismissed Jesus’ other miraculous signs.
By God’s grace, I persevered and didn’t too quickly conclude that this was a fictional story about a poor fig tree “which simply followed the natural laws of nature.” I learned that fig trees produce two types of crop. Michael Brown—a Jewish convert to Christianity—gives a helpful explanation,
The fig tree didn’t simply follow “the natural laws of nature.” The fig tree, contrary to its purpose, was unfruitful. The fig tree symbolized Jewish unbelief in God’s word and in Jesus Christ, the Son of God. The withering of the fig tree symbolized the curse for the Jewish leaders condemning Jesus for blasphemy and handing Jesus over to the Romans demanding His crucifixion. The church—those who have faith in Jesus—would carry on God’s mission to the world (see also Mark 12:1-12 and Jesus’ parable of the vineyard).
The gospels are historical accounts. Differences in the telling of historical events is the way history works. For example, different newspapers will tell the same story in different ways and may focus on different details. If you ask a family about their vacation, the husband, wife, and children will tell about the same vacation in different ways. That’s part of the richness of history and the recounting of it. The Bible is both a human and divine book. The writers were human and recounted the history of Jesus in their own different ways and they were divinely inspired by God the Holy Spirit.
As for differences between Matthew and Mark’s account of the fig tree, my understanding is that Matthew tells the account of Jesus cursing the fig tree in a way that emphasizes faith. Mark tells the story in a way that emphasizes both faith and unbelief. To emphasize the faith of Jesus’ disciples and the unbelief of Israel’s leaders, Mark inserts the account of Jesus cleansing the temple in-between the cursing of the fig tree and Jesus’ teaching about faith.
Luke 19:27 is not “ISIS.” It’s actually the opposite — more like a righteous king’s judgment upon ISIS. Luke 19:11-27 is a parable about one of who had rightful and legal claims to kingship and a kingdom. However, his citizens hated him and rebelled against his authority, “We do not want this man to reign over us.” The judgment pronounced in v.27 is upon the king’s enemies. It is a righteous and just judgment like the Final Judgement will be.
Jesus came a first time with reference to salvation (Luke 10:34). He will return a second time with reference to Final Judgment.
I agree with you: Jesus could not be wrong. Mathew, Mark, and Luke cannot be wrong because they were inspired by God the Holy Spirit.
Muhammad could be wrong. He could have been wrong that it was the angel Gabriel speaking to him. We can safely say that it could not have been Gabriel who spoke to Muhammad because—as I pointed out above— the death of Jesus on the cross is central to the divinely revealed gospel that was believed and preached by the earliest followers of Jesus.
Jesus and His followers warned about such deception (Galatians 1:8-9).
I write this with the prayer that God will give you eyes to see and that you would love and believe in the Jesus of history.
Aaron
Thanks for the prayer. I appreciate.
“propagating false information about “100,000 changes…”? False information is like getting poked in the eye with a stick. Are you now trying to poke me in the eye with your misinformation?”
Am I?
In his paper “Why so many versions?” Daniel Wallace, (a firm Christian believer) reputed and respected Greek scholar and professor of New Testament at Dallas Theological Seminary, writes:”we must remember that the King James Bible of today is not the King James Bible of 1611. It has undergone 3 revisions, incorporating more than 100,000 changes!” Others contend that the 791,828 words of this bible counts only 421 word changes. Both sides are right except that neither Dr Wallace nor I meant only ‘word changes’. When a print is changed from an archaic English to a 1611 standard English language and from Gothic type face to Roman type it is natural to have more than 100,000 changes. No one should feel offended or attacked by such statements. Without its linguistic malleability it would have been impossible for ordinary people to read it today. We would have had to read the 168,162 words of the Greek New Testament with an average of two and half variants PER WORD.
However some changes may be significant, i.e.meaningful and viable. Here are a few examples. Up to you to decide which are significant:
Joshua 3:11 – “Arke of the Couenant, euen the Lord” vs. “ark of the covenant of the Lord”
2 Kings 11:10 – “in the Temple” vs. “in the temple of the LORD”
Isaiah 49:13 – “for God” vs. “for the LORD”
Jeremiah 31:14 – “with goodnesse” vs. “with my goodness”
Jeremiah 51:30 – “burnt their dwelling places” vs. “burned her dwellingplaces”
Ezekiel 6:8 – “that he may” vs. “that ye may”
Ezekiel 24:5 – “let him seethe” vs. “let them seethe”
Ezekiel 24:7 – “powred it vpon the ground” vs. “poured it not upon the ground”
Ezekiel 48:8 – “which they shall” vs. “which ye shall”
Daniel 3:15 – “a fierie furnace” vs. “a burning fiery furnace”
Matthew 14:9 – “the othes sake” vs. “the oath’s sake”
1 Corinthians 12:28 – “helpes in gouernmets” vs. “helps, governments”
1 Corinthians 15:6 – “And that” vs. “After that”
1 John 5:12 – “the Sonne, hath” vs. “the Son of God hath”
Deuteronomy 26:1 – “which the Lord giueth” vs. “which the LORD thy God giveth”
Joshua 13:29 – “tribe of Manasseh, by” vs. “tribe of the children of Manasseh by”
Ruth 3:15 – “he went into the citie” vs. “she went into the city”
Psalm 69:32 – “seeke good” vs. “seek God”
Jeremiah 49:1 – “inherit God” vs. “inherit Gad”
Matthew 16:16 – “Thou art Christ” vs. “Thou art the Christ”
Mark 10:18 – “There is no man good” vs. “there is none good” (note that now “there is” is marked as being added by the translators for clarity)
1 Corinthians 4:9 – “approued to death” vs. “appointed to death”.
Here is the three changes between the Oxford vs. Cambridge versions of the KJV:
oxford: 2 chronicles 33:19 says “sin”
cambridge: same text as above- “sins”
oxford: nahum 3:16- “fleeth”
cambridge: “flieth”
oxford: Jeremiah 34:16 “whom he”
cambridge: whom ye
oxford: matthew 23:24 at a gnat
cambridge: out a gnat
Changes in the KJV are undeniable facts. With a few exceptions like in this post nobody questions it. The words of the Bible keep changing to adapt to language evolution.I am really astonished that you call my argument “untrue” and “ignorant”. For your information kindly read inter alia “Changes in the King James Version – Bible research” at http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon10.html
“Only by pride cometh contention but with the well advised is wisdom”. (Proverbs 13:10). My discussion with you, Aron, lies on my belief that religion is the highest aspiration of men because it a quest for truth I do want to not to disparage anybody’s belief. I thank you for publishing my comments on your site and sharing your opinions. I shall end with a comment on the fig tree problem:
In Jesus’ time everyone with a little of education would try to write or speak in parables, metaphors and allegories. It was the trend. According to Dr Carrier the fig tree never existed. The fig tree represents Israel because Palestine was called land of olive and fig trees. Since it had sinned it had be punished. My question is: How are we to know in the narratives of the Gospels what is allegorical and what is historical?
A Rahman
A Rahman,
Thank you again for your response.
You originally wrote, “the same King James Bible of 1769 has some 100,000 changes from the original 1611.”
You have produced another quote, “we must remember that the King James Bible of today is not the King James Bible of 1611. It has undergone 3 revisions, incorporating more than 100,000 changes.”
I feel like I’ve been caught in a bait-and-switch in our discussion. This is relatively minor but, does Dan Wallace believe that there are 100,000 changes in the KJV Bible from 1611 to 1769?
I agree with you that Dan Wallace is a reputed Christian scholar. I’ve referenced him elsewhere on this website.
Dan Wallace is talking about the malleability of English translations of the Hebrew and Greek text of the Bible. Language changes over time. Printing techniques change over time. Fonts change over time. Spelling changes over time. Translations change over time. These are all “malleable.” I would imagine this is true for translations/paraphrases of the Qur’an. Do you believe the Qur’an is “malleable?”
The context of the quote you gave from Dr. Wallace is a comment he was making against a sect of Christianity that believes the KJV translation is inspired. Some sects believe the KJV is new revelation. Dan Wallace—and I agree with him—doesn’t believe the KJV translation is inspired or inerrant. That’s the context of his statement. Dr. Wallace believes the Bible is the inspired and inerrant Word of God.
Dan Wallace also discusses your above quote and the KJV Only group here:
https://bible.org/article/changes-kjv-1611-illustration
I feel like I’ve been caught in a bait-and-switch, because the context of your original reference to 100,000 changes—as I understand—was your making a comparison between the unchanging nature of the Qur’an and the changing nature of the Bible.
Would you clarify? Were you originally comparing the unchanging nature of the Qur’an to what you believe is the changing nature of the Bible?
If I have understood your original comparison, then you switched the discussion in the last post. In your last response you discuss the changing nature of language and translations. This is different from what you were originally arguing when you wrote in your first post, “At the very outset it must be made clear that the Bible as such does not exist. What we call Bible today is a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy… To show the malleability of the Bible…”
Would you clarify: What did you mean when you wrote that “the Bible as such does not exist”? Would you say the same thing about the Qur’an?
About your reference to Dr Carrier who says “the fig tree never existed”: What is your source? Does Dr Carrier believe Jesus existed? Does he believe in God? Dr. Carrier isn’t a stick in the eye, is he?
Believing in the Jesus of history—the Jesus Who died on the cross and rose again from the dead—is the most important step you can make on the journey for truth. I pray for myself, and I encourage you to also pray Psalm 25:4-6.
Aaron
Hi Aron,
I am sorry I do not always answer all of your questions. The reason is that I consider some of them to be totally unrelated to the issue under discussion. Others I consider to be self evident and therefore do not necessitate any reply. I’ll try to answer your questions here as thid is going to be my last post.
1. “Does Dan Wallace believe that there are 100,000 changes in the KJV Bible from 1611 to 1769?
NO. He believes there are MORE than 100,000. If the question is about his belief (this is what I consider self evident) no one can answer except Dr Wallace himself because “there is no art to read the mind’s construction on the face” (Shakespeare) I am convinced it is yes because I cannot find any reason why should such a learned and respected scholar of his caliber lie when he writes it in his published paper and affirms it in his video “How badly has the Bible been corrupted?’ (You tube)’. In this video he is not answering the Onlyists but talking about the corruption of the Bible and is more of a comment on Prof.Bart Erthman’s claims.
You cast doubts in my mind about discussing with you. You send me a link in which you claim Dr Wallace discusses my quote. I read the article before you sent the link but I read it again. Totally untrue because 1. Dr Wallace’s statement is discussed but he does not discuss and 2. the author confirms my claim: “My argument about the KJV is not that it has undergone radical changes in its long history … but that it has undergone changes—100,000 of them.”
He affirms:”… I did not personally count 100,000 changes between the 1611 KJV and the modern reprints. But I did take the word from some reputable scholars on that score.” He says ” if so, then there should be nearly 791,328 changes.”
My dear Aron, may I know your biological age? Don’t worry about the mental one which can be easily guessed by your writings. The article you quote demonstrates clearly and exactly my point. Are you sure you read it? You flatter me when you put in the bunch of reputable scholars who with me according to you, are “propagating misinformation” and poking in the eye. I’d rather end this “serious adult ” discussion here but let me answer your questions before.
!. What I mean by “the Bible as such does not exist”? The Original texts of the Gospels do NOT exist anymore. Not only Dr Wallace, Prof Erhman and I say so. All Biblical scholars confirm the Bible is its original form does not exist. There is no discussion about it but whether it can be reconstituted or not is debated. What we have are copies of copies of copies …ad infinitum of the original Greek New Testament. What you read are adapted translated versions. The ORIGINAL Bible does NOT exist. If you are not aware of it let’s stop our discussion right here instead of accusations of propagation of fake news.
Have I changed subject of the discussion? I said that we only have sersions of the Bible. To prove my point I said that the KJV has undergone some 100,000 changes. I was accused of propagating misinformation I proved my point by considering the intrinsic nature of translating into a standard language. This automatically involves changes. How many revisions did the KJV undergo? Revisions only mean changes!
3. Do I believe the Qur’an is malleable? This is totally different issue not related at all with the study of the Bible To be honest I have not studied the Qur’an to the same length as I have studied the Bible.I believe that the Qur’an is the Word of God preserved and checked daily by the very practice of the religion as I demonstrated (Quad erat demonstrandum) in my first post.The Qur’an is a living Book.
If you do not mind I’d like to end the discussion here because I am avid of knowledge especially of the Bible. Unfortunately I do not learn anything here and what is commonly agreed as knowledge like changes in the KJV and the disappearance of the original Bible is being questioned.I hope you find someone more knowledgeable in the Qur’an.
Bye
A Rahman
Dear A Rahman,
Thank you for this discussion. This will also be my last response. If you want to discuss anything else, feel free to email me through the “Contact” tab.
1. You never proved your claim that “the same King James Bible of 1769 has some 100,000 changes from the original 1611.” Does Dr. Wallace write there are more than 100,000 changes from 1611 to modern editions? Yes. Does Dr. Wallace write there are more than 100,000 changes from 1611-1769, No. Not from the sources you provided.
That’s what I mean by bait and switch. Your argument began with 100,000 changes between the years 1611-1769. You’ve given me something different. Furthermore, they aren’t significant changes. What’s the point of bringing them up in the first place?
2. It appears you initially brought up changes in the King James Bible, because you confused the manuscript tradition of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures with English translations of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. The King James Version is not a copy of the Greek and Hebrew text. It is an English translation of Greek and Hebrew texts. When you compare the Arabic Qur’an to the English King James—as you did in your first post—you are comparing apples and bananas.
You wrote, “The ORIGINAL Bible does NOT exist.” Agreed. But what is your point, since the original recitation of the Qur’an does not exist? We can’t compare modern Hebrew and Greek texts to the original. Neither can we compare modern recitations of the Arabic Qur’an with what was allegedly recited to Muhammad by Gabriel.
You wrote, “I said that we only have sersions [sic] of the Bible.” This is also true of the Qur’an. My understanding is that we don’t have access to the original recitation of the Qur’an; we don’t have an original manuscript of the Qur’an; there are copyist errors in the transmission of the Qur’an; there are differences in translations and paraphrases of the Qur’an. The fact that we don’t have originals doesn’t mean we can’t know what was originally written/recited. The fact that we don’t have originals doesn’t mean something cannot be Scripture. I discuss this here.
3. You started off your first post saying you simply wished “to bring some light on the study of the Qur’an.” However, you admit in your last post that you have not studied the Qur’an to the same length as you have studied the Bible. What kind of light can you bring to the discussion, if you haven’t studied the Qur’an enough to be able to know if it is malleable?
When you are able to answer questions about the malleability of the Qur’an and that we only have “sersions” [sic] of the Qur’an, you will understand that the argument you have presented is not as strong as you imagine. It’s not much of an argument at all.
4. My most basic argument that the Qur’an did not come from Gabriel is based on the death of Jesus on the cross. The transmission histories of the Qur’an and Bible do not undermine the historicity of Jesus’ death on the cross. I discuss Jesus’ death on the cross here.
5. About Dr. Carrier and the fig tree. Why didn’t you produce your proof? If you believe and love Jesus, why are you quoting from a man—if it is the Richard Carrier I think you are referring to—who questions the historical existence of Jesus and is an atheist? What would you think if I gave you arguments from scholars who don’t believe Muhammad existed?