Historical accuracy of the Bible and the Qu'ran

It's not an ignorant question. What literature exists of his life is 150 yrs too late and entirely of Muslim origin and even there contradicts itself. The hadeeth are even later. In any case I never said he didn't exist. I merely said that the historical Mohammed is largely an unknown to us. For too long many people have assumed he was a more historical figure than Jesus or any other faith founder. The fact is based on historical documents he is just as cloudy a character, lost in the mists and myths of time. Think about it. A military and religuous figure of such note and we have no second hand reports of him? No reports from those he was to have fought in battle? No Greek or Byzantine sources who he was supposed to have dealt with? It's easy to imagine the loss of information about a purely religious figure but to lose a successful military figure to that degree? Hardly.

I would however agree that the concept of Mohammed has huge historical repercussions and as such should be included in such a list as the one you referenced.

T-1111111111111 wrote:

I think all of U are well able to find such evidence from history urselves.
So dont ask me to do you a favor.

Well I can't. I'm sorry other than the sources I've mentioned before I know of no other sources. If you have them please post them or recommend a book which deals with this.

Now the question is - do u really want to find such evidences or not?

I for one would love to see historical evidence even from a purely curious stance.

1. Why are you interested? Just be honest, dont lie if possible.

All faiths and their founders interest me. The don't lie if possible bit was hardly required or courteous BTW.

2. There is not such evidence.

Strong statement indeed.

So u could try and throw urself from Mt. Everest but that still wudnt change my views, get it?

Why would I want to? What you believe is up to you as is up to those Christians who believe what they believe as is up to me to ask questions.

Bottom line, I dont wana do something which I know is a waste of time.

So you didn't want debate then? You just wanted agreement?

mountainyman wrote:

Did the Greeks know it wasn't true based on the sort of work that Copernincus did or did they just believe that the earth goes round the sun using a mythological basis?

MM

OT but this was well before Copernicus. Some Greeks observed and noted the central idea of the sun in the heavens. Mostly it was through observation of retrograde motion of the planets etc. I could explain more but it's all Greek to me...

ScumLord wrote:

You can't prove there not acurate because any scientific system we have to do so is wrong.

It appears so.

I think the Qur'an is suposed to be pretty much word for word now as it was back then, it was never translated or re-writen to satisfy the ruling powers morals or sesibility like the bible was.

That's what the common idea is and as there is few studies on the subject commonly available for obvious reasons(see T-111111111's reaction to any thought of dissension) that will probably remain the common consensus. As I've said before what studies have been done by both Arabic and other historical scholars highlights a few of the problems with the unbroken transmission idea. I) The earliest Quran that survives is 200yrs + after when it was supposed to have been collected. 2) Those early copies(tashkent, British Museum) have many differences in both form and content from the later ones. 3) The earliest Islamic texts make no mention of the Quran(which is strange). 4) The earliest Quranic inscriptions on coins and buildings again differ from the later version(it seems to have settled down in content from about the 10th century) 5) To Arabic and ancient language scholars there appears to be more than one "voice" in the texts. Stylistic changes are evident. It's not the most cohesive text because of it. For a start it has little claim to chronology and does have a few historical and theological inconsistencies.

How many different versions of the bible are there today in how many different languages?

Loads and historians have issues with much of the history contained within even though some of the texts are dated to the first 2 centuries after the Gospel reported death of Jesus and that's closer to the dates in question than the Islamic texts are(and there are secondary non Christian sources however vague).

I didn't know there was any doubt that he exsisted,

Obviously not among the faithful. Naturally. Among historians there has been a quiet rethink on ascribing much historical trustworthyness purely to the Islamic texts. Without secondary corroboration or very early Arabic sources the history of it's revelation and collection must remain in the realm of faith.

I'm sure I watched a BBC documentry on his life and their fairly unbiased and trustworthy.

Well they're bias or not is for another forum, if they have any bias . There was a recent documentary on Jesus and the miracles of same. Does this mean there were miracles(sorry to the Christian chaps and chapesses). There was also another documentary less recent that tried to find the historical Jesus(even what he may have looked like). There were some questions raised in that programme on historical accuracy too. Imagine the reaction if that may have occured if those had been raised about Mohammed.

Wasn't he supposed to be a conquering warrior? There's bound to be proff of his existence if he was.

That's the problem right there. The first mention of him and his personal history is from many years(100+) after his death. It doesn't survive itself though it is referenced by later biographers so it's likely it existed. No mention on inscriptions or coinage until much later. The Hadeeth or Islamic life of the Prophet is 200yrs after his death. Long enough for inaccuracies at the very least to creep in. His name itself Mohammed means anointed one. Not likely to be his given name, more an honoury title. Non Muslim Greek and Christian sources give nothing at the time of his life and precious little until Islam starts to grow and show up on the radar. In fact the earliest Greek reference portrays Mohammed purely as a military leader not a religious one only noting the group he belongs to as followers of Abraham. Mecca a supposed crossroads of trade and the center of his later power doesn't show up on any of the trade maps at the time and indeed for a couple of centuries.

Of the battles he fought and the military campaigns he persued the records are strangely silent. All the more surprising as he was fighting many tribes and even the Byzantines/Romans according to the Islamic texts. Now you would think that such an important military leader that was having such success would have at least shown up once in a larger context.

I repeated name Gabriel three times so that you know and although name Gabriel was not used in that particular verse,

No need to shout.

all Muslims agree that is so,

Well they would have to or there would be a contradiction. In any case I'll give you that one(though there are doubts over interpretation). One down. Loads to go.

Smartarse