(August 31, 2015 at 12:24 pm)MrNoMorePropaganda Wrote: I'm not sure why it would be a fraud. Can you elaborate? I'm confused.
Even before this new, earlier, date the Quran fragments were still older than Uthman. Funnily enough, I saw comments of people claiming they could read the text just by looking at the photographs and that it was exactly like the Quran today. This new date will expose a lot of hypocrites and speed up the death of yet another religion.
Good question. Actually a very good question but there is no quick answer. One of the most common methods of forgery in the antiquities market is to take an actual ancient but mundane artifact and add an inscription to it. Hence the "James Ossuary" which was a simple limestone bone box which had an inscription. The original inscription said "James son of Joseph." To this someone added, "brother of jesus" at a later date. Israeli expert Yuval Goren has demonstrated the difference in the patinas of the two halves of the inscription. Modern forgers understand that they are now up against forensic science techniques so creating an artifact from scratch will be detected. Thus the use of actual objects which have been given a little help has become the way to do it. Adding the words "brother of jesus" to the ossuary took something that was probably worth $1,000 on the antiquities market and made it priceless. Xtians, ever eager to be fooled, came in their pants over it. They are easily fooled.
Now, if there were a few pages of ancient blank parchment laying around the library someone with a little knowledge of chemistry could easily scrape some ink from a less valued document, mix it up and create ancient ink. Then, assuming they had a knowledge of ancient arabic, write something to discredit the koran's claims. Before you say, who would go to that much trouble, look up Piltdown Man.
Now remember what the man said in the article.
Quote:Keith Small, from the University of Oxford’s Bodleian Library, said that carbon dating was not always reliable and the dates announced last month applied not to the ink but to the parchment. The provenance of the text is also unclear and its calligraphic script is characteristic of later inscriptions.
You have 4 potential anomalies. That's a lot.
