i guess our problem with the bible is far beyond the probable errors of the translation...the problem is that the original text ,that was being translated , has nothing to do with the injeel revealed to jesus (pbuh)...we believe in the injeel revealed in jesus..but not in the bible that is mostly written by paul..our problem is not with the translation..
[2:79] Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say: "This is from Allah," to traffic with it for a miserable price! Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby
Ahmed deedat says :
Out of the total of 27 Books of the New Testament, more than half is authored by Paul. As opposed to Paul, the Master has not written a single word of the twenty-seven books. If you can lay your hands on what is called "'A Red Letter Bible," you will find every word alleged to have been uttered by Jesus (pbuh) - in red ink and the rest in normal black ink. Don't be shocked to find that in this so called "Injeel," the Gospel of Jesus, over ninety percent of the 27 Books of the New Testament is printed in black ink!
This is the candid Christian confession on what they call the "Injeel." In actual any confrontation with Christian missionaries, you will find them quoting one hundred percent from Paul.
This is all a claim with no evidence, but whatever makes you sleep at night I guess.
I agree that the Bible is not perfect and has errors (Same errors in the Qur'an), but not because it was corrupted, but because it was written by men, men who are prone to making errors.
you claim that the reason there is only one quranic version after the dots and vowels were added is that Othman picked one and got rid of the others ,but this is plain falsehood..you know why ?...simply because the quran compiled by othman was without any dots or vowels !!!
Wrong, this is not what I claimed, perhaps you should go back and read what I said about Uthman before you quote me.
I said that the dots were added later as the Arabic language was evolving, this has nothing to do with Uthman's Quranic selection.
You are correct, Uthman's Qur'an is not dotted, after all the pictures I brought up in this thread were from Uthman's copy and they were not dotted, my point is Uthman burnt the copies of the other Quranic versions in those days and kept one single copy, this means that the Quran had more than one version.
Read up on the earliest Quranic manuscript today (The Sana'a manuscripts), I think you'll find some interesting answers there.
Also you claim that new letters were added to the arabic alphabet , which is true, but this happened much earlier than the revealation of the quran..what you call the modern alphapet was already known before Islam..the letters Baa ' , Taa' , Thaa' were distinct in the arabic tongue..only written the same ,without the dots
This is a letter send by the prophet (PBUH) to one of the kings..you will be able to see the letters Baa' ,Taa' and Thaa'..So what you are saying about the adding of new letters is no more than intentional misleading
I'm not misleading nothing, I'm simply showing that the alphabets that were used were not the same in the sense that they were raw and they came from their original semitic roots, for example Dhaal and Daal were indeed the same letter, but depending on how you pronounce things you make a certain sounds for certain words.
This happens in Aramaic and Hebrew to this day, for example, the following sounds share the same letters:
P and F
7 (7aa' sound) and Kh
D and Dh
T and Th
B can sometimes sound like W or V
G can sometimes sound like Gh or J
K can sometimes sound like Kh
So on....
Essentially, this is what Arabic was similar to.
