/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Oldest Books?



samah12
03-28-2007, 07:30 PM
Can anyone tell me how old the oldest known Quran that is still in existance is and where it is kept? Same question for the Torah and Bible?
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
IbnAbdulHakim
03-28-2007, 07:35 PM
:salamext:

sis every quran is the same, inshaAllah the oldest was just like the one you have in your house.
Reply

samah12
03-28-2007, 07:39 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim
:salamext:

sis every quran is the same, inshaAllah the oldest was just like the one you have in your house.
Thank you I understand that but I am having a bit of a set too with a Christian friend. When I told her that not one letter of the Quran has ever been changed she said prove it, show me the oldest existing Quran so I can compare it to yours. And of course she does not agree with me that the bible has been changed many times. So the task for me is to find the oldest Quran and she will find the oldest bible so I can prove I am right. ( I know, pride is a sin).
Reply

rebelishaulman
03-28-2007, 07:44 PM
The Othman Koran is the oldest in the world. The Othman Koran was compiled in Medina by Othman, the third caliph.

http://www.irfi.org/articles/article..._the_world.htm
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
siFilam
03-28-2007, 07:47 PM
:salamext:
sis, I found these sites
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Qur...samarqand.html

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Qur...s/topkapi.html

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Qur...s/hussein.html

There are copies scribed in 488 A.H., 1290 A.H. and 842 A.H. and these are kept in the Library of King Abd-el-Aziz.

but I don't think these copies are open for the public to use. I think they are in safe places and the officials are trying to preserve them.
hope this helps.


wasalm
-SI-
Reply

Umar001
03-28-2007, 07:52 PM
Sister, I hope you know what your doing.

As for the Qu'ran, there's many logical things, the fact that there is the written manuscripts, the fact that the Qu'ran is memorised by many letter for letter, which of itself shows its validity.


I think the crucial thing is the envioroment in which scriptures have been provided in.

Debating is useless unless both persons are receptive. Thus debating an 'ignorant stubborn' individual will fail to prove anything to him since he will not listen, rather debating with someone who is receptive will have a result either you come to a better understanding or he does.
Reply

samah12
03-28-2007, 08:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by rebelishaulman
The Othman Koran is the oldest in the world. The Othman Koran was compiled in Medina by Othman, the third caliph.

http://www.irfi.org/articles/article..._the_world.htm
Thanks for the info. What about the oldest Torah? Or is it rude to ask?
Reply

czgibson
03-29-2007, 01:05 AM
Greetings,
format_quote Originally Posted by samah12
Thanks for the info. What about the oldest Torah? Or is it rude to ask?
7th century BCE according to this article:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...062895,00.html

Peace
Reply

samah12
03-29-2007, 07:46 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by czgibson
Greetings,


7th century BCE according to this article:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...062895,00.html

Peace
Thanks for the info. Very interesting subject I think, we all claim that our books are unchanged but do many of us take the time to validate this? Think I will loose some sleep looking into this one.
Reply

Trumble
03-29-2007, 11:39 PM
I still can't see the big deal of this 'unchanged' thing.

You could take many examples from the classical world in Greek and Latin written any time in the twelve hundred years or so before Mohammed (including the period in which the New Testament was written) and there is no evidence they have been changed in any significant way. Sure, the miniscule letters and such are a medieval addition, but that's just cosmetic. Where is all the scholarly debate claiming that we have somehow fundamentally mis-interpreted Plato or Aristotle (both of whom have 'messages' far more complex than the New Testament) because somebody made some copying errors somewhere down the line?
Reply

samah12
03-29-2007, 11:56 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
I still can't see the big deal of this 'unchanged' thing.

You could take many examples from the classical world in Greek and Latin written any time in the twelve hundred years or so before Mohammed (including the period in which the New Testament was written) and there is no evidence they have been changed in any significant way. Sure, the miniscule letters and such are a medieval addition, but that's just cosmetic. Where is all the scholarly debate claiming that we have somehow fundamentally mis-interpreted Plato or Aristotle (both of whom have 'messages' far more complex than the New Testament) because somebody made some copying errors somewhere down the line?
The big deal is that the Quran is the word of Allah and no-one should change even one letter of it. It is known that the bible has been changed, particularly during the reformation of the church, so how can anyone be confident that the message in the bible today is the message that God gave to man?

There are plenty of scholars that debate like crazy over Plato and Aristotle but not on this website.
Reply

czgibson
03-30-2007, 12:06 AM
Greetings,
format_quote Originally Posted by samah12
There are plenty of scholars that debate like crazy over Plato and Aristotle but not on this website.
True, but I think you missed Trumble's point: what is so amazing about the Qur'an remaining unchanged, when so many other (and older) texts could make the same claim?

[And I'm sure the mods wouldn't object to a little Plato and Aristotle popping up here and there on LI...] :p


Peace
Reply

Trumble
03-30-2007, 12:09 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by samah12
so how can anyone be confident that the message in the bible today is the message that God gave to man?
Because in all probability none of those changes have any fundamental effect on how the core content is interpreted? - that's the point I was making.


There are plenty of scholars that debate like crazy over Plato and Aristotle but not on this website.
About their philosophy, yes. Just as they do Kant or Wittgenstein. In none of those cases is that debate about whether we don't actually know what they wrote because somebody copied it down wrong!
Reply

lavikor201
03-30-2007, 12:14 AM
It is known that the bible has been changed, particularly during the reformation of the church, so how can anyone be confident that the message in the bible today is the message that God gave to man?
I would disagree, The "tanslations" in Greek etc were changed. The source Hebrew text always remained the same, pronounciations may have differed, but many even doubt that, since an actual Torah scroll written according to the law of writing a Torah scroll (not a book with the Torah written in it, but gives commentary in the middle etc) has never been found that differs from our tradition.
Reply

Trumble
03-30-2007, 12:23 AM
Moving on a little then, can those who claim that the Bible (Torah or New Testament) has been significantly changed - in a way a great many hugely significant works just as old do not appear to have been - actually provide 'proof' of this?

All I have seen is the suggestion that it might have been changed or unsupported statements that it has. The relatively few 'contradictions' and 'errors' that cannot be otherwise explained demonstrate only that there were generally trivial differences of opinion and knowledge of historical/mythical details between the (different) authors of the books concerned - which we knew anyway.
Reply

samah12
03-30-2007, 12:36 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by lavikor201
I would disagree, The "tanslations" in Greek etc were changed. The source Hebrew text always remained the same, pronounciations may have differed, but many even doubt that, since an actual Torah scroll written according to the law of writing a Torah scroll (not a book with the Torah written in it, but gives commentary in the middle etc) has never been found that differs from our tradition.
Sorry I was referring to the english translation that I read as a christian.
Reply

samah12
03-30-2007, 12:40 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
Moving on a little then, can those who claim that the Bible (Torah or New Testament) has been significantly changed - in a way a great many hugely significant works just as old do not appear to have been - actually provide 'proof' of this?

All I have seen is the suggestion that it might have been changed or unsupported statements that it has. The relatively few 'contradictions' and 'errors' that cannot be otherwise explained demonstrate only that there were generally trivial differences of opinion and knowledge of historical/mythical details between the (different) authors of the books concerned - which we knew anyway.
To be honest with you Trumble I have no answers. It is a subject I have just become very interested in. I believe in coexistance and a thread about coexistance on this site got me thinking about this. Why is there so much animosity between Muslims, Christians and Jews? So this is what I am currently researching, taking one small topic at a time. I decided to start with the foundations of each religion, the Books.

So if anyone has any comments, answers or suggestions then I am all ears (or eyes as the case may be).
Reply

don532
03-30-2007, 01:05 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by samah12
To be honest with you Trumble I have no answers. It is a subject I have just become very interested in. I believe in coexistance and a thread about coexistance on this site got me thinking about this. Why is there so much animosity between Muslims, Christians and Jews? So this is what I am currently researching, taking one small topic at a time. I decided to start with the foundations of each religion, the Books.

So if anyone has any comments, answers or suggestions then I am all ears (or eyes as the case may be).
I have to agree with Trumble. I have seen no proof the texts of the Bible were changed.
Reply

samah12
03-30-2007, 01:11 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by don532
I have to agree with Trumble. I have seen no proof the texts of the Bible were changed.
This is where the thread started, I asked if people could tell me the whereabouts and age of the oldest Quran, Bible and Torah. In this day and age of technology there must be a way to compare the oldest to the current. Surely this would stop the argument once and for all?
Reply

don532
03-30-2007, 01:27 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by samah12
This is where the thread started, I asked if people could tell me the whereabouts and age of the oldest Quran, Bible and Torah. In this day and age of technology there must be a way to compare the oldest to the current. Surely this would stop the argument once and for all?
Here's a link on some of the biblical texts. All the oldest texts available do not differ significantly in meaning. Yes, the apocrypha books are not in included in the non catholic bible, but the message is not changed. It wouldn't matter how old of manuscripts were found. If it differs from the Qur'an, it's still corrupt in the Muslim perspective.

http://www.religion-cults.com/Judaism/escript.htm

1- The "Greek Bible", the "Septuagint":
From the third century before Christ, is the oldest document we have: It is the Greek translation made in Alexandria by a Group of 72 rabbis (6 from each one of the 12 Tribes of Israel), and hence the name of "Septuagint" given to the translation. It has 46 books, like the Catholic Bibles, and it was the common version of the Bible among the Jews well after Christ; the one used and quoted by the Evangelists and Apostles when they wrote the New Testament, and the one mostly quoted in the Talmud.
- It was then translated to Syriac in the 1st century AC, to Coptic in the 3rd century AC, and to Latin in the 4th century AC (the "Vulgata").
2- The "Hebrew Bible", the "Masoretic Text":
Written in the 6th to 10th centuries after Christ, by a Group of scholars from Babylon and Palestine, the Karaites, introducing vowels and accent signs to the original Hebrew. It has 39 books, and it is the one mostly used by Protestants.
3- The "Dead See Scrolls":
Very important, because they are in Hebrew, dating from 300 "before Christ", when the oldest Hebrew Bible we had, the Masoretic, is from 700 "after Christ"... it pushed back the curtain 1,000 years on the earliest known surviving Hebrew manuscript of the Old Testament.
Only from the Cave IV of the Qumran finds, there are fragments of 382 manuscripts. Every book of the Bible, except Esther, is represented, and same books by many copies. Seven scrolls are in Israel, at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem. But most of them are in Jordan at the Palestine Archeological Museum of Jerusalem.
All manuscripts are with a remarkable similarity to those Greek and Hebrew we had!... and they have been qualified as "the most important discovery ever made in Old Testament manuscripts", also very valuables in New Testament studies.
"Codex":
The Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, are kept in several "Codex": The "Codex Vaticanus", the oldest, from the 4th century AC, in the Vatican Library, Rome. In the British Museum of London are kept the "Codex Sinaiticus" of the 4th century AC, and the "Codex Alexandrinus" of the 5th century. In Cambridge, the "Codex Bezae" of the 5th century AC.
There are also fragments of the Bible kept in "papiry" in Manchester and Oxford (England), in Washington (USA), and Geneva (Switzerland).
Reply

samah12
03-30-2007, 01:48 AM
[QUOTE=don532;699159]
If it differs from the Qur'an, it's still corrupt in the Muslim perspective.

QUOTE]

Thanks for the link and info, great research.

:"To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have we prescribed a Law and an Open Way. If Allah had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allah; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute"(The Table Spread:48)

Obviously this is from the Quran. Allah says "To each among you we prescribed a Law and an Open Way", so I am happy to accept that the faiths are all valid. Allah has brought me to Islam, what he has made lawful for some he has forbidden for me.
Reply

Umar001
04-01-2007, 11:12 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
Because in all probability none of those changes have any fundamental effect on how the core content is interpreted? - that's the point I was making.
Probability based on what logic?

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
Moving on a little then, can those who claim that the Bible (Torah or New Testament) has been significantly changed - in a way a great many hugely significant works just as old do not appear to have been - actually provide 'proof' of this?

All I have seen is the suggestion that it might have been changed or unsupported statements that it has. The relatively few 'contradictions' and 'errors' that cannot be otherwise explained demonstrate only that there were generally trivial differences of opinion and knowledge of historical/mythical details between the (different) authors of the books concerned - which we knew anyway.
What we see in the Biblical text and manuscripts is that there is evidence of changes taking place. This is something which can be found in the Biblical footnotes of today, which makes me wonder as to how much research you have done to derive that in probability it has not changed significantly.

First there is the phase of Oral Traditiion where many people could have said many things, this of itself can be problematic if names and evidences are not taken. The authors of the Gospels we have now would have had to compile some information, this poses the question as to whether they compiled the right Oral Traditions.

Then there is the evolution within the Gospels themselves, we see the Jesus is Mark being one thing and the Jesus is Matthew slightly more elvated, then we see the Jesus in John being of a totally different catagory.

Then add to that also the scribal changes we have seen now which do change meanings, such as the 1 John 5:7, such as the Mark 1:1 and so forth. These are changes we have found, one has to marvel at the changes we have not found and have yet to find or even the changes we will never find.


format_quote Originally Posted by lavikor201
I would disagree, The "tanslations" in Greek etc were changed. The source Hebrew text always remained the same, pronounciations may have differed, but many even doubt that, since an actual Torah scroll written according to the law of writing a Torah scroll (not a book with the Torah written in it, but gives commentary in the middle etc) has never been found that differs from our tradition.

Not finding a change does not neccesitate no changes, we should look at the conditions in which the Torah found itself by its keepers. Is it true Biblical Scholars which you might disagree with, rather I think you do disagree with, have said there are 4 sources to the Books of Moses and have come up with this by studying the text and the common traits found?

This will be enough for now insha'Allah.

Warm Regards to both you :)

Eesa.
Reply

samah12
04-02-2007, 12:12 AM
I watched a documentary at Christmans that said there were originally 30 Gospels (including one by Judas) but the leaders of the Christian church chose only 4 to be included in the Bible. Does anyone know if this is true and if so why only 4?

Also I am confused (nothing new there) as to why Allah tells us in the Quran to "judge" between the books but most Muslims would never dream of reading anything but the Quran. Why? Allah has told us to compare them and if we do not read them how can we compare?
Reply

barney
04-02-2007, 12:16 AM
Sure. Look at this site. Lots of Bibles lots of different ways of interpreting it over the years.
http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/
Reply

samah12
04-02-2007, 12:29 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by barney
Sure. Look at this site. Lots of Bibles lots of different ways of interpreting it over the years.
http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/
Wow Barney what a lot of different versions of the Bible. Thanks for the link, have put it in my fav's and will have a delve later.
Reply

barney
04-02-2007, 01:01 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by samah12
Wow Barney what a lot of different versions of the Bible. Thanks for the link, have put it in my fav's and will have a delve later.
Yeah, worth doing. It's like reading the same book but with totally different authors. never gets boring. (well actually it gets incredibly boring...yet facinating too)
Have fun.
Reply

samah12
04-02-2007, 01:08 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by barney
Yeah, worth doing. It's like reading the same book but with totally different authors. never gets boring. (well actually it gets incredibly boring...yet facinating too)
Have fun.
Does the message change in the various versions? If not why so many?
Reply

barney
04-02-2007, 01:50 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by samah12
Does the message change in the various versions? If not why so many?
Yes it changes. The oldest versions spit forth hellfire and the newer ones tone it down.

In about 50 more years they will probably advise people to not covert thy neighbours mercedes nor their plasma TV, lest they lose stickers on a sin-chart or something. (thats being sarcastic, but hey, it's not my religion!):rollseyes
Reply

samah12
04-02-2007, 02:16 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by barney
Yes it changes. The oldest versions spit forth hellfire and the newer ones tone it down.

In about 50 more years they will probably advise people to not covert thy neighbours mercedes nor their plasma TV, lest they lose stickers on a sin-chart or something. (thats being sarcastic, but hey, it's not my religion!):rollseyes
Oh great will go soon and have a good laugh. I remember when I was 13 they changed the Lords prayer, that was the day I stopped going to Christian church (that and they took stickers off my little angel chart).
Reply

barney
04-02-2007, 02:25 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by samah12
Oh great will go soon and have a good laugh. I remember when I was 13 they changed the Lords prayer, that was the day I stopped going to Christian church (that and they took stickers off my little angel chart).
I talked too loudly in Sunday School and some old bird hit me on the head with a Bible.

Bringing a message of peace! Pfft!
Reply

Umar001
04-02-2007, 11:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by samah12
I watched a documentary at Christmans that said there were originally 30 Gospels (including one by Judas) but the leaders of the Christian church chose only 4 to be included in the Bible. Does anyone know if this is true and if so why only 4?

Also I am confused (nothing new there) as to why Allah tells us in the Quran to "judge" between the books but most Muslims would never dream of reading anything but the Quran. Why? Allah has told us to compare them and if we do not read them how can we compare?

What verse sis.
Reply

barney
04-02-2007, 11:56 PM
The exact number of original Gospels is unknown. The most famous non-gospel was that of Mary. It apparently told of Jesus's favor to her, the relationship between them and much other lost infomation.

The gospels that contradicted the Trinity & the deification of Jesus were removed and consigned to the bonfires from circa 300AD.
Reply

snakelegs
04-03-2007, 12:09 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by samah12
To be honest with you Trumble I have no answers. It is a subject I have just become very interested in. I believe in coexistance and a thread about coexistance on this site got me thinking about this. Why is there so much animosity between Muslims, Christians and Jews?
not sure about jews, but i think conflict and animosity between islam and christianity is inevitable because both religions claim to be The One True Religion and both proselytize.
Reply

barney
04-03-2007, 12:40 AM
Hostility to the Jews is simply because it's hard to turn on Arab TV and not see something critisising israel, Preachers using Quranic passages about Apes and Pigs, School lessons starting with chants of "Death to Israel" schoolbooks feeding a steady diet of the same and 3 year olds on TV being able to quote stuff like ....
http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=1398
That might be why.
Reply

snakelegs
04-03-2007, 01:33 AM
that would only explain it since the rise of the zionist movement (a political, not a religious movement).
before that, the jews fared much better under the muslims than under the christians.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 12-20-2013, 11:03 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-11-2011, 05:58 PM
  3. Replies: 21
    Last Post: 12-24-2009, 09:30 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-03-2009, 07:33 AM
  5. Replies: 36
    Last Post: 10-14-2006, 05:18 PM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!