1robin
Christian/Baptist
As for the Bible (primarily the Gospels). I will try and make the numbers match up.
1. The Bible has 40 independent authors that span over 1800 years who no matter later or contemporary were infinitely closer to events than the Quran claims about Biblical times. From a historians view point that is devastating. The Bible contains a very simplistic commissioning of it's profits with no unusual physical ailments concerning Gabriel. The gospels have contemporary and multiple eyewitness accounts. Half the apsotles were not killed in a war and we are left to wonder what they knew and whether the living half actually knew everything.
2. Biblical prophets displayed countless miracles and supernatural claims that came true in detail to evidence their claims. There are 2500 prophecies in the Bible. Not one that should have come true has failed. 350 concerning Christ alone and zero concerning Muhammad.
3. What the Biblical authors said was confirmed in many cases by later authors and recorded history. A prophecy made by one comes true hundreds of years later and is recorded by others. This is historical gold. Even Christ himself claims the accuracy of revelations on hand at the time.
4. I will confine this to the Gospels. We have multiple eyewitnesses accounts of the very same events. They all agree and WRITE them down within the lifetimes of thousands that witnessed the events. It records that the holy spirit made sure to impart an accurate account of the events.
5. There is no burning of the Gospel, almost no disagreements among the apostles. I only know of two concerning minor doctrine not stated in the gospels. Circumcision and gentiles. That was straightened out very quickly and all had agreement. Many Gospels state specifically that they made an investigation and consulted witnesses, and verified other texts.
6. The Bible does not quote but one heretical text and it was an example of what to not do. There are no pre-existing stories that the Bible copied. The only possibility is the flood and Gilgamesh and given that the oral tradition for Genesis is likely older than the Babylonian story it is probably two stories that describe the same event.
7. Both the Bible and the Quran lack original copies. However the Bible unlike the Quran has prolific, independent, parallel, and uncontrolled early copying then the original can be reliably known. See textual criticism if you disagree but it is an obvious fact.
There is not a single category a textual scholar or a historian would claim that the Quran is equal to the Bible concerning. Multiple testimony, the type of testimony, lack of incorporation of myth, textual tradition free from manipulation or mandate, the time period and number of authors, and historical corroboration are all on the Bible's side.
You are both bringing up new topics and complaining about me doing so faster than I can answer. I know of no Gospel oral traditions outside of a mention of one that Paul may have maintained concerning some specific things. Even if the Gospel was based soley on oral tradition and is there fore less reliable than scholars claim concerning the texts. The fact that it has multiple INDEPENDANT sources from EYEWITNESSES to what they claimed instead of getting them all from one man and witnessing only a minor amount of what they wrote the Bible would still be more reliable than the Quran. I will add that even if we had no NT books at all we could reconstruct 95% of it from the writings of the early church fathers from docuements many which predate even the books of the gospels. We have something reliable to check any oral tradition with even if you could find one.
1. The Bible has 40 independent authors that span over 1800 years who no matter later or contemporary were infinitely closer to events than the Quran claims about Biblical times. From a historians view point that is devastating. The Bible contains a very simplistic commissioning of it's profits with no unusual physical ailments concerning Gabriel. The gospels have contemporary and multiple eyewitness accounts. Half the apsotles were not killed in a war and we are left to wonder what they knew and whether the living half actually knew everything.
2. Biblical prophets displayed countless miracles and supernatural claims that came true in detail to evidence their claims. There are 2500 prophecies in the Bible. Not one that should have come true has failed. 350 concerning Christ alone and zero concerning Muhammad.
3. What the Biblical authors said was confirmed in many cases by later authors and recorded history. A prophecy made by one comes true hundreds of years later and is recorded by others. This is historical gold. Even Christ himself claims the accuracy of revelations on hand at the time.
4. I will confine this to the Gospels. We have multiple eyewitnesses accounts of the very same events. They all agree and WRITE them down within the lifetimes of thousands that witnessed the events. It records that the holy spirit made sure to impart an accurate account of the events.
5. There is no burning of the Gospel, almost no disagreements among the apostles. I only know of two concerning minor doctrine not stated in the gospels. Circumcision and gentiles. That was straightened out very quickly and all had agreement. Many Gospels state specifically that they made an investigation and consulted witnesses, and verified other texts.
6. The Bible does not quote but one heretical text and it was an example of what to not do. There are no pre-existing stories that the Bible copied. The only possibility is the flood and Gilgamesh and given that the oral tradition for Genesis is likely older than the Babylonian story it is probably two stories that describe the same event.
7. Both the Bible and the Quran lack original copies. However the Bible unlike the Quran has prolific, independent, parallel, and uncontrolled early copying then the original can be reliably known. See textual criticism if you disagree but it is an obvious fact.
There is not a single category a textual scholar or a historian would claim that the Quran is equal to the Bible concerning. Multiple testimony, the type of testimony, lack of incorporation of myth, textual tradition free from manipulation or mandate, the time period and number of authors, and historical corroboration are all on the Bible's side.
You are both bringing up new topics and complaining about me doing so faster than I can answer. I know of no Gospel oral traditions outside of a mention of one that Paul may have maintained concerning some specific things. Even if the Gospel was based soley on oral tradition and is there fore less reliable than scholars claim concerning the texts. The fact that it has multiple INDEPENDANT sources from EYEWITNESSES to what they claimed instead of getting them all from one man and witnessing only a minor amount of what they wrote the Bible would still be more reliable than the Quran. I will add that even if we had no NT books at all we could reconstruct 95% of it from the writings of the early church fathers from docuements many which predate even the books of the gospels. We have something reliable to check any oral tradition with even if you could find one.