Is the Quran historically accurate

Answer 1

This is a contentious question and accordingly has numerous disparate answers. The answers will be organized by category:

• Answer A: Those that assert that the Bible is MORE accurate than the Qur'an. (Asserted primarily by Jews and Christians)
• Answer B: Those that assert that the Bible is LESS accurate than the Qur'an. (Asserted primarily by Muslims)
• Answer C: Those that the Bible and Qur'an are equally accurate or inaccurate. (Asserted primarily by Anti-Theists)
• Answer D: Problems with the Questions

The particular order made by this organization is not indicative of whether a given answer is correct or not. It is up to you as the reader to make that determination.

Answer AAnswer A1

Any historical document must be put under a few tests to prove its historical accuracy. The Bibliographical Test, the External Test, and the Internal Test. The bible passed with 99.5% accuracy with only 0.5% to spare. This is over a few thousand years and many translations. Before the Bible was put together, manuscripts were painstakingly hand copied only by highly educated scribes and whole scrolls destroyed and written over again if one stroke was written incorrect. Yes the Bible consists of many writers, yet if closely examined, there are prophesies fulfilled hundreds of years after they are written.

Research the accuracy of Quran. Muhammad was thought to have turned mentally crazy by his mother and sisters after he started having the 'revelations from Allah' He was also deemed illiterate. Many people believe that the Quran was written many years after Muhammad's death by his friends who tried to recount his teachings.

The Quran - based on ONE man's revelation from God The Bible - based on MANY witnesses of God, and proven through prophesies and historical accuracy.

Answer A2

Easy! The Qu'ran says Jesus didn't die (see the 3rd chapter). We all know that He was crucified.

Answer A3

Well, it's not quite as simple as that. I strongly believe that the Bible is more accurate. Read the following to find out just a glimpse of why.

The Bible - The Evidence

Muslims assert that we have similar problems concerning the large number of years which separate the manuscripts from the events which they speak about. Yet, unlike the Qur'an which was compiled much more recently, we do not find with the Bible such an enormous gap of time between that which the Bible speaks about and when it was written down. In fact, outside of the book of Revelation and the three letters of John considered to have been written later, when we look at the rest of the New Testament books, there is no longer any solid basis for dating them later than 80 AD, or 50 years after the death of Jesus Christ (Robinson 1976:79). Most of the New Testament was likely written before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, and perhaps before the fire of Rome (64 AD), and the subsequent persecution of Christians, since none of these events, which would have had an enormous impact on the nascent Christian community, are mentioned in any of the New Testament writings. Had the documents been compiled in the second century as Muslims claim, then certainly they would have mentioned these very important events.

This same logic can be taken a step further. Take for instance the martyrdoms of James in 62 AD, Paul in 64 AD, and Peter in 65 AD. All were leaders in the nascent church. Thus their deaths were momentous events for the early Christian community. Yet we find none of the deaths referred to in any of the 27 canonized books of the New Testament (and significantly not in Acts, the most comprehensive historical record we have of the early church). The only explanation can be that they were all written prior to these events, and thus likely before 62 AD, or a mere 30 years after the death of Jesus, of whose life they primarily refer.

Because of time and wear many of the historical documents from the ancient world have few manuscripts to which we can refer. This is especially true when we consider the secular historians and philosophers. For instance, we only have eight copies of Herodotus' historical works, whose originals were written in 480-425 BC. Likewise, only 5 copies of Aristotle's writings have found their way to the 20th century, while only 10 copies of the writings of Caesar, along with another 20 copies of the historian Tacitus, and 7 copies from the historian Pliny, who all originally wrote in the first century, are available today (McDowell 1972:42). These are indeed very few.

When we consider the New Testament, however, we find a completely different scenario. We have today in our possession 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, another 10,000 Latin Vulgates, and 9,300 other early versions (MSS), giving us more than 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament in existence today! (Taken from McDowell's Evidence That demands a Verdict, vol.1, 1972 pgs.40-48; and Time, January 23, 1995, pg.57). Though we do not have any originals, with such a wealth of documentation at our disposal with which to compare, we can delineate quite closely what those originals contained.

What's more, a substantial number were written well before the compilation of the Qur'an. In fact, according to research done by Kurt and Barbara Aland, a total of 230 manuscript portions are currently in existence which pre-date 600 AD! These can be broken down into 192 Greek New Testament manuscripts, 5 Greek lectionaries containing scripture, and 33 translations of the Greek New Testament (Aland 1987:82-83).

The Lukan papyrus, situated in a library in Paris has been dated to the late 1st century or early 2nd century, so it predates the John papyrus by 20-30 years (Time April 26, 1996, pg.8). But of more importance are the manuscript findings of Mark and Matthew! New research which has now been uncovered by Dr. Carsten Thiede, and is published in his newly released book on the subject, the Jesus Papyrus mentions a fragment from the book of Mark found among the Qumran scrolls (fragment 7Q5) showing that it was written sometime before 68 AD It is important to remember that Christ died in 33 AD, so this manuscript could have been written, at the latest, within 35 years of His death; possibly earlier, and thus during the time that the eyewitnesses to that event were still alive!

The most significant find, however, is a manuscript fragment from the book of Matthew (chapt.26) called the Magdalene Manuscript which has been analysed by Dr. Carsten Thiede, and also written up in his book The Jesus Papyrus. Using a sophisticated analysis of the handwriting of the fragment by employing a special state-of-the-art microscope, he differentiated between 20 separate micrometer layers of the papyrus, measuring the height and depth of the ink as well as the angle of the stylus used by the scribe. After this analysis Thiede was able to compare it with other papyri from that period; notably manuscripts found at Qumran (dated to 58 AD), another at Herculaneum (dated prior to 79 AD), a further one from the fortress of Masada (dated to between 73/74 AD), and finally a papyrus from the Egyptian town of Oxyrynchus. The Magdalene Manuscript fragments matches all four, and in fact is almost a twin to the papyrus found in Oxyrynchus, which bears the date of 65/66 AD Thiede concludes that these papyrus fragments of St. Matthew's Gospel were written no later than this date and probably earlier. That suggests that we either have a portion of the original gospel of Matthew, or an immediate copy which was written while Matthew and the other disciples and eyewitnesses to the events were still alive. This would be the oldest manuscript portion of our Bible in existence today, one which co-exists with the original writers!

What is of even more importance is what it says. The Matthew 26 fragment uses in its text nomina sacra (holy names) such as the diminutive "IS" for Jesus and "KE" for Kurie or Lord (The Times, Saturday, December 24, 1994). This is highly significant for our discussion today, because it suggests that the godhead of Jesus was recognised centuries before it was accepted as official church doctrine at the council of Nicea in 325 AD There is still ongoing discussion concerning the exact dating of this manuscript. However, if the dates prove to be correct then this document alone completely eradicates the criticism levelled against the gospel accounts (such as the "Jesus Seminar") that the early disciples knew nothing about Christ's divinity, and that this concept was a later redaction imposed by the Christian community in the second century (AD).

But possibly the greatest attestation for the authority of our New Testament are the masses of quotations taken from its pages by the early church fathers. Dean Burgon in his research found in all 86,489 quotes from the early church fathers (McDowell 1990:47-48; 1991:52). In fact, there are 32,000 quotations from the New Testament found in writings from before the council of Nicea in 325 A.D. (Mcdowell Evidence, 1972:52). J. Harold Greenlee points out that the quotations of the scripture in the works of the early church writers are so extensive that the New Testament could virtually be reconstructed from them without the use of New Testament manuscripts.

Sir David Dalrymple sought to do this, and from the second and third century writings of the church fathers he found the entire New Testament quoted except for eleven verses (McDowell 1972:50-51; 1990:48)! Thus, we could throw the New Testament manuscripts away and still reconstruct it with the simple help of these letters. Some examples of these are (from McDowell's Evidence..., 1972 pg. 51):

Clement (30- 95 A.D.) quotes from various sections of the New Testament.

Ignatius (70-110 A.D.) knew the apostles and quoted directly from 15 of the 27 books.

Polycarp (70-156 A.D.) was a disciple of John and quoted from the New Testament.

Thus the manuscript evidence at our disposal today gives us over 24,000 manuscripts with which to corroborate our current New Testament. The earliest of these manuscripts have now been dated earlier than 60-70 A.D., so within the lifetime of the original writers, and with an outside possibility that they are the originals themselves. On top of that we have 15,000 early translations of the New Testament, and over 2,000 lectionaries. And finally we have scriptural quotations in the letters of the early Church fathers with which we could almost reproduce the New Testament if we so wished. This indeed is substantial manuscript evidence for the New Testament.

Jericho's excavation showed that the walls fell outwards, echoing Joshua 6:20, enabling the attackers to climb over and into the town. Yet according to the laws of physics, walls of towns always fall inwards! A later redactor would certainly have not made such an obvious mistake, unless he was an eyewitness, as Joshua was.

Nelson Glueck (a Jewish Reformed scholar and archaeologist) probably gives us the greatest support for the historicity of the Bible when he states, "To date no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a single, properly understood biblical statement."

William F. Albright (a renowned archaeologist) says, "The excessive skepticism shown toward the Bible by important historical schools of the 18th and 19th centuries, certain phases which still appear periodically, has been progressively discredited. Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history."

So as you can clearly see, the evidence is fairly compelling. Just a small point on the revision of the Bible. The Bible has, indeed, been revised. However, the original manuscripts have been preserved. Not only this, the Bible you can buy from shops is simply a translation of the original text. In the same way that Harry Potter is both in the original English and a whole host of other languages, the Bible is available in the original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic, but is also available in English. It is well documented how quickly language changes, so the Bible is frequently 'revised' to fit the current 'correct' form of English. The English Standard Version (ESV), for example, uses thousands of manuscripts as early as possible, to determine exactly what the original texts said.

Finally, just a small point about "great-grandfathers" (see further up) passing down stories etc through generations. I understand the point, but it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The entire New Testament (particularly the Gospels) can be found to be from before around 100AD (100 years after Jesus died, the point in which 'Legend Theory would apply). Which means that it is widely accepted by scholars as an accurate account of events. Legend Theory dictates that if a text is passed by word of mouth for over a hundred years, 'legend' and 'myth' creeps in, rendering the text as inaccurate.

If you actually took all this time reading my post, appreciate it. There are various other places you can find information like this. I would suggest books such as The Case For Christ - Lee Strobel, The Case for The Bible - Lee Strobel, and The Reason For God - Timothy Keller. For more information on the defence of the Gospels.

Answer BAnswer B1

The Bible is inaccurate because

1. It contains many versions derived from ancient manuscripts RSV goes back to the most ancient manuscripts and yet they date back to 100-200 years after Christ. 2400 manuscripts-None of the two manuscripts are identical as agreed by 50 christian scholars of highest eminence backed by around 30 denominations.
2. The Bible has a number of books many of whose authors are not known as agreed by wikipedia. It was inspired by men who wrote it so it is subject to human error.
3. The Bible was never memorized to preserve its safe passing down to future generations.
4. The Bible contains serious historical, scientific ,mathematical and logical error. Example historic errors: it addresses all kings of Egypt as kings, though Egypt was ruled by pharoahs during time of moses, scientific errors: it states that earth is flat and vegetation created before sunlight etc and many other mathematical and logical discrepancies.
5. It does not exist in the original language which is Hebrew or Aramaic, these are extinct languages and because of its translation from a dead language into multiple translations doubts arise whether the meaning can remain intact for 2000 years.
6. The authors of Bible report with innumerable errors, in third person of happenings which contradict each other. The Bible contains contradictions in many aspects like genealogy of Christ, number of people in battle, even the basic message.

Answer B2

No, the Bible is definitely not more accurate than the Quran. The Quran has not been revised as the Bible has been.

We all know for a fact that the Bible has been revised on many occasions by many different writers. I have read a Bible It said Noah is a alcoholic

Answer B3

The Quran is more accurate than the bible, because it does not contain contradictions. Bible contains many contradiction. Bible is also revised many times.

This is the same as that I have a testimony of my grand-grand-grand father (without faults and contradictions).

He gives it to my grand-grand father (and my grand-grand father changes it).

My grand-grand father gives it to my grand father (and my grand father changes it also).

My grand father gives it to my father (and my father changes it).

My father gives it to me, and I claim to people that I have the original testimony of my grand-grand-grand father (without changes)???????

There is another claim that the mother and sisters of Muhammed pbuh said that he pbuh was crazy ,etc.

This is funny because Muhammed pbuh has no sisters and his mother died when he was only 2 years old.

This is what happened.

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 1, Number 3:

Narrated 'Aisha:

(the mother of the faithful believers) The commencement of the Divine Inspiration to Allah's Apostle was in the form of good dreams which came true like bright day light, and then the love of seclusion was bestowed upon him. He used to go in seclusion in the cave of Hira where he used to worship (Allah alone) continuously for many days before his desire to see his family. He used to take with him the journey food for the stay and then come back to (his wife) Khadija to take his food like-wise again till suddenly the Truth descended upon him while he was in the cave of Hira. The angel came to him and asked him to read. The Prophet replied, "I do not know how to read.

The Prophet added, "The angel caught me (forcefully) and pressed me so hard that I could not bear it any more. He then released me and again asked me to read and I replied, 'I do not know how to read.' Thereupon he caught me again and pressed me a second time till I could not bear it any more. He then released me and again asked me to read but again I replied, 'I do not know how to read (or what shall I read)?' Thereupon he caught me for the third time and pressed me, and then released me and said, 'Read in the name of your Lord, who has created (all that exists) has created man from a clot. Read! And your Lord is the Most Generous." (96.1, 96.2, 96.3) Then Allah's Apostle returned with the Inspiration and with his heart beating severely. Then he went to Khadija bint Khuwailid and said, "Cover me! Cover me!" They covered him till his fear was over and after that he told her everything that had happened and said, "I fear that something may happen to me." Khadija replied, "Never! By Allah, Allah will never disgrace you. You keep good relations with your Kith and kin, help the poor and the destitute, serve your guests generously and assist the deserving calamity-afflicted ones."

Khadija then accompanied him to her cousin Waraqa bin Naufal bin Asad bin 'Abdul 'Uzza, who, during the PreIslamic Period became a Christian and used to write the writing with Hebrew letters. He would write from the Gospel in Hebrew as much as Allah wished him to write. He was an old man and had lost his eyesight. Khadija said to Waraqa, "Listen to the story of your nephew, O my cousin!" Waraqa asked, "O my nephew! What have you seen?" Allah's Apostle described whatever he had seen. Waraqa said, "This is the same one who keeps the secrets (angel Gabriel) whom Allah had sent to Moses. I wish I were young and could live up to the time when your people would turn you out."

Allah's Apostle asked, "Will they drive me out?" Waraqa replied in the affirmative and said, "Anyone (man) who came with something similar to what you have brought was treated with hostility; and if I should remain alive till the day when you will be turned out then I would support you strongly." But after a few days Waraqa died and the Divine Inspiration was also paused for a while.

Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah Al-Ansari while talking about the period of pause in revelation reporting the speech of the Prophet "While I was walking, all of a sudden I heard a voice from the sky. I looked up and saw the same angel who had visited me at the cave of Hira' sitting on a chair between the sky and the earth. I got afraid of him and came back home and said, 'Wrap me (in blankets).' And then Allah revealed the following Holy Verses (of Quran):

'O you (i.e. Muhammad)! wrapped up in garments!' Arise and warn (the people against Allah's Punishment),... up to 'and desert the idols.' (74.1-5) After this the revelation started coming strongly, frequently and regularly."

Answer B4

Memorization of Holy books

In Islam, Muslims follow a tradition from the prophet's time that is to memorize the Qur'an, as was commanded to our Prophet (SAWS). The Prophet revised the whole Qur'an regularly and many of his followers did the same. This is the method by which the Qur'an is guarded against major alterations.

In Christianity or Judaism today you do not get the same. The Christian holy books is not memorized by people in the complete sense. Only isolated verses is normally memorized by Christians to evangelize.

So from a Memorization perspective, then the Qur'an is more Authentic than the bible.

Answer CAnswer C1

The vote from popularity rarely works and is never an objective means of determining facts.

Just because millions remember a song about Santa Claus does not make him real.

All ancient books contain errors. The Bibles do as does the Koran. 100s of errors. But a member of Club A will see errors only in the book of Club B. And vice versa.

These books are based on faith and given the adequate amount it will seem flawless. But outsiders will see something different.

Answer DAnswer D1

I ask that no one tamper with this entry and to place all entries ahead of this one. To whomever asked the original question allow me to offer a suggestion. Do not ask which is more historically accurate, instead ask about a historical event that they disagree on, and find evidence to that point. I would assume from the question and the subject of the question that you are perhaps looking for a religion to believe in. This may or may not be the case, but, I feel it is important that in religion the answer does not come down to fact or history. This is especially true in the fact that history is bias not only because it was originally recorded bias but because over translation and interpretation it became even more bias. This is true of all things written. I myself am christian and regrettably do not know much of the Qur'an. This in itself makes me bias. I hope this was helpful.

Answer 2

Quran is the religious holy book of Muslims as revealed by God to prophet Muhammad through the angel Gabriel (Jibril). Quran is not basically a historical book. However, any historical event dealt by Quran is of course dealt with accurately and correctly since Quran is the true and direct God words.

Answer 3

the both from Allah , bible changed by the people and there is many types bible but Allah send only one bible , bible for certain place and certain people and certain time .

quran is only one type and doesn't changed , quran for all human for all place for all times .