If Uthman redacted the text it would be no surprise if there is a uniform text tradition. Did Uthman make intentional deliberate changes to the islamic text that he found? If this is not the case why does he talk about “the Uthmanic text”?
All the same to me because I judge it by it’s content not by it’s age.
It would neither be possible nor necessary for an original nt manuscript to survive to the present day. For some unknown reason Muslims demand this.
He admits that there are variants which seems to be something new. To drop the idea that Allah providentially and miraculously preserved the text almost seems revolutionary. He does seem to be cagey and skirt the issue when he is challenged to get down to brass tacks when he is asked if there are any variations of a significant nature.
Did Allah say that his words could be changed because of dialects? I doubt it. Muslims have to find an excuse to account for the variations in a supposedly eternally fixed text where the master template is in heaven.
When you speak from ignorance, you can only expect to embarrass yourself. The 7 ahruf are modes of recitation legitimised by the prophet and proclaimed to be equally Quran. These are the “variants” you refer to, that have been known and all Quran since the prophet lmao so curse your ignorance for not being aware. Another correction, the Quran wasn’t simply having variants due to dialect but also to compound meaning and make it easier for the illiterate, the old, and to convey the message to as many Arabs as possible. The Quran is a multi formic text eg saying “maliik” or “maalik” in the first chapter of the Quran. You can only choose 1 when you’re reciting but they’re equally Quran and were both recited by the prophet. These are basics
To compare the variants in the quaranic text to english and american “dialects” is a sly move. English and Americans have different words for the same meaning. Nothing to do with dialect.
“It would neither be possible nor necessary for an original nt manuscript to survive to the present day.”
That only applies to the NT…..but it is very possible—for sacred texts older than NT….When it comes to preservation of sacred texts—Christianity is more of an exception than the rule/default:—
for example:—The Tao te Ching:—
Mawangdui and Guodian texts
In 1973, archeologists discovered copies of early Chinese books, known as the Mawangdui Silk Texts, in a tomb dating from 168 BC.They included two nearly complete copies of the text, referred to as Text A (甲) and Text B (乙), both of which reverse the traditional ordering and put the Te Ching section before the Tao Ching, which is why the Henricks translation of them is named “Te-Tao Ching”. Based on calligraphic styles and imperial naming taboo avoidances, scholars believe that Text A can be dated to about the first decade and Text B to about the third decade of the 2nd century BC.
In 1993, the oldest known version of the text, written on bamboo tablets, was found in a tomb near the town of Guodian (郭店) in Jingmen, Hubei, and dated prior to 300 BC. The Guodian Chu Slips comprise about 800 slips of bamboo with a total of over 13,000 characters, about 2,000 of which correspond with the Tao Te Ching.
Both the Mawangdui and Guodian versions are generally consistent with the received texts, excepting differences in chapter sequence and graphic variants. Several recent Tao Te Ching translations utilize these two versions, sometimes with the verses reordered to synthesize the new finds.
So…it is not at all unusual for Muslims to expect a very high standard of preservation…as relatively speaking…the Quran is a much younger “sacred text”.
The Quran in use today is the “Uthmani codex”….(according to evidence) and the Uthmani codex is itself the Quran given to the Prophet (pbuh) according to Muslim tradition.
Most sacred texts that have been “preserved” to a high degree have an oral component to it…it makes memorizing easier and this becomes a tool for preservation….The Tao te Ching for example—is in rhyme/poetic for memorization, the Indian Vedas also have both a written and oral tradition…and a high degree of preservation…
So the Question is not if God preserves sacred texts…but that God, it seems, has made an exception and NOT bothered preserving much of Christian NT?
Perhaps it could be….because God is most wise and loves wisdom?!
If Uthman redacted the text it would be no surprise if there is a uniform text tradition. Did Uthman make intentional deliberate changes to the islamic text that he found? If this is not the case why does he talk about “the Uthmanic text”?
All the same to me because I judge it by it’s content not by it’s age.
It would neither be possible nor necessary for an original nt manuscript to survive to the present day. For some unknown reason Muslims demand this.
He admits that there are variants which seems to be something new. To drop the idea that Allah providentially and miraculously preserved the text almost seems revolutionary. He does seem to be cagey and skirt the issue when he is challenged to get down to brass tacks when he is asked if there are any variations of a significant nature.
Did Allah say that his words could be changed because of dialects? I doubt it. Muslims have to find an excuse to account for the variations in a supposedly eternally fixed text where the master template is in heaven.
When you speak from ignorance, you can only expect to embarrass yourself. The 7 ahruf are modes of recitation legitimised by the prophet and proclaimed to be equally Quran. These are the “variants” you refer to, that have been known and all Quran since the prophet lmao so curse your ignorance for not being aware. Another correction, the Quran wasn’t simply having variants due to dialect but also to compound meaning and make it easier for the illiterate, the old, and to convey the message to as many Arabs as possible. The Quran is a multi formic text eg saying “maliik” or “maalik” in the first chapter of the Quran. You can only choose 1 when you’re reciting but they’re equally Quran and were both recited by the prophet. These are basics
To compare the variants in the quaranic text to english and american “dialects” is a sly move. English and Americans have different words for the same meaning. Nothing to do with dialect.
“It would neither be possible nor necessary for an original nt manuscript to survive to the present day.”
That only applies to the NT…..but it is very possible—for sacred texts older than NT….When it comes to preservation of sacred texts—Christianity is more of an exception than the rule/default:—
for example:—The Tao te Ching:—
Mawangdui and Guodian texts
In 1973, archeologists discovered copies of early Chinese books, known as the Mawangdui Silk Texts, in a tomb dating from 168 BC.They included two nearly complete copies of the text, referred to as Text A (甲) and Text B (乙), both of which reverse the traditional ordering and put the Te Ching section before the Tao Ching, which is why the Henricks translation of them is named “Te-Tao Ching”. Based on calligraphic styles and imperial naming taboo avoidances, scholars believe that Text A can be dated to about the first decade and Text B to about the third decade of the 2nd century BC.
In 1993, the oldest known version of the text, written on bamboo tablets, was found in a tomb near the town of Guodian (郭店) in Jingmen, Hubei, and dated prior to 300 BC. The Guodian Chu Slips comprise about 800 slips of bamboo with a total of over 13,000 characters, about 2,000 of which correspond with the Tao Te Ching.
Both the Mawangdui and Guodian versions are generally consistent with the received texts, excepting differences in chapter sequence and graphic variants. Several recent Tao Te Ching translations utilize these two versions, sometimes with the verses reordered to synthesize the new finds.
So…it is not at all unusual for Muslims to expect a very high standard of preservation…as relatively speaking…the Quran is a much younger “sacred text”.
The Quran in use today is the “Uthmani codex”….(according to evidence) and the Uthmani codex is itself the Quran given to the Prophet (pbuh) according to Muslim tradition.
Most sacred texts that have been “preserved” to a high degree have an oral component to it…it makes memorizing easier and this becomes a tool for preservation….The Tao te Ching for example—is in rhyme/poetic for memorization, the Indian Vedas also have both a written and oral tradition…and a high degree of preservation…
So the Question is not if God preserves sacred texts…but that God, it seems, has made an exception and NOT bothered preserving much of Christian NT?
Perhaps it could be….because God is most wise and loves wisdom?!
forgot to put the quote marks—-the mawangdui and guodian tao te ching is quoted from Wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao_Te_Ching
I wonder if Paul compared the OT stories of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Joseph and Moses with the Qur’anic stories? If yes, what is the result?
Thank you.
My KJV was well preserved from the original. Can’t speak for the other versions.
A manuscript in a tomb is of no use to anyone much less to the one next to whom it is placed.
I didn’t need the dead sea scrolls either.