General argument for Islam.

[Desert Diva]

I can quote enormous chunks of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone for you as well. That doesn't make Harry, Ron, and Hermione real people. Frankly, you're making me laugh, then groan and roll my eyes, like when one encounters a rabid Twilight fangirl that won't stop instructing you in the minutiae of vampire lore.

[WinterHold]

I can quote enormous chunks of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone for you as well. That doesn't make Harry, Ron, and Hermione real people. Frankly, you're making me laugh, then groan and roll my eyes, like when one encounters a rabid Twilight fangirl that won't stop instructing you in the minutiae of vampire lore.

Come on, I mean rabid ? I'm just posting an opinion supported by quotes from a book ; talk about the rabid anti-theists (who attacked me in many posts trying to bite me) turning discussions into civil wars similar to that of vampires & werwolves in twilight ! your example sucks big time too ; since twilight fans are the awesome. ><

[Mudhammam]

This is 2015. Sixteen hundred (1600) years ago would be around 400 AD. The Koran was written between 644-656 when Uthman was caliph.

Because the Codex Sinaiticus was discovered in the 19th Century it's most likely a fraud that was written well before 400 AD.

Cite your evidence. You can claim whatever you want---religionists do it too---but until you provide evidence that it is a fraud, I think we can apply Hitchens' razor: what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

We do know that the Codex Amiatinus was the real deal. It was written after 692 and three copies were commissioned. One copy was given to the Pope, who didn't have a Bible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Amiatinus

So both the Bible and the Koran could have been written as complete books around the same time using various manuscripts and oral stories and pure BS.

Produce an actual Bible before the year 700 other than the Codex Amiatinus.

No problem.
Codex Vaticanus - 4th century.
That gives you two different versions prior to the Koran. Plus, we know the Old Testament was compiled before the Common Era, and numerous Church Fathers in the first few centuries of Christianity cite their preferences for what New Testament works they considered sacred. So, we have a pretty good idea of when and how the Bible was written and compiled, and it's nothing at all like the picture in your head.

[Desert Diva]

I can quote enormous chunks of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone for you as well. That doesn't make Harry, Ron, and Hermione real people. Frankly, you're making me laugh, then groan and roll my eyes, like when one encounters a rabid Twilight fangirl that won't stop instructing you in the minutiae of vampire lore.

Come on, I mean rabid ? I'm just posting an opinion supported by quotes from a book ; talk about the rabid anti-theists (who attacked me in many posts trying to bite me) turning discussions into civil wars similar to that of vampires & werwolves in twilight ! your example sucks big time too ; since twilight fans are the awesome. ><

So your taste in "literature" sucks too. Why am I not surprised?

[RobertE]

Just found this and I wonder if any muslim can shed some light on this "perfect book."

In addition to Syraic, Dr. Mingana also discerned foreign words introduced into the Quranic vocabulary from Ethiopic, Persian, and Greek (all of which would have had representative influences in the Hijaz during Mohammed's time). While Mingana's work is somewhat dated now, and not every one of his claimed Syraic influences on the Qur'an seem plausible today4, his work was an important step in delving the foreign influences upon the Quranic evolution, and in the main, remains foundational to this day.

Here is the link:

http://www.studytoanswer.net/islam/purearabic.html

[WinterHold]

So your taste in "literature" sucks too. Why am I not surprised?

humph, the Quran is not literature, though Gaia and Apollo always loved the books I recommended for them

[Wyrd of Gawd]

---

This is 2015. Sixteen hundred (1600) years ago would be around 400 AD. The Koran was written between 644-656 when Uthman was caliph.

Because the Codex Sinaiticus was discovered in the 19th Century it's most likely a fraud that was written well before 400 AD.

Cite your evidence. You can claim whatever you want---religionists do it too---but until you provide evidence that it is a fraud, I think we can apply Hitchens' razor: what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

We do know that the Codex Amiatinus was the real deal. It was written after 692 and three copies were commissioned. One copy was given to the Pope, who didn't have a Bible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Amiatinus

So both the Bible and the Koran could have been written as complete books around the same time using various manuscripts and oral stories and pure BS.

Produce an actual Bible before the year 700 other than the Codex Amiatinus.

---

No problem.
Codex Vaticanus - 4th century.
That gives you two different versions prior to the Koran. Plus, we know the Old Testament was compiled before the Common Era, and numerous Church Fathers in the first few centuries of Christianity cite their preferences for what New Testament works they considered sacred. So, we have a pretty good idea of when and how the Bible was written and compiled, and it's nothing at all like the picture in your head.

All you've produced is a name of a book that was supposedly written in the 4th Century. You haven't produced the book itself for examination. The church nabobs might have specified their favorite scrolls for their fairy tale but they did not write the Bible.

Produce an actual copy of your delusion for examination.

[Mudhammam]

All you've produced is a name of a book that was supposedly written in the 4th Century. You haven't produced the book itself for examination. The church nabobs might have specified their favorite scrolls for their fairy tale but they did not write the Bible.

Produce an actual copy of your delusion for examination.

Here's an "actual copy of my delusion":



You'll have to go to the Vatican Library of Rome to have any chance of seeing it personally, so you'd better start buffing up your credentials, especially your knowledge of history.

Anyway, you can read it here, if you read Greek: https://archive.org/details/OldTestament...xVaticanus

Oh, and once you get through researching the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus, there's a third and fourth manuscript(s) that contain the majority of the Greek Old and New Testaments, both dated from the fifth century: Codex Alexandrinus
Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus

What are you going to propose next, an Omphalos hypothesis for biblical manuscripts?

[Wyrd of Gawd]

All you've produced is a name of a book that was supposedly written in the 4th Century. You haven't produced the book itself for examination. The church nabobs might have specified their favorite scrolls for their fairy tale but they did not write the Bible.

Produce an actual copy of your delusion for examination.

Here's an "actual copy of my delusion":



You'll have to go to the Vatican Library of Rome to have any chance of seeing it personally, so you'd better start buffing up your credentials, especially your knowledge of history.

Anyway, you can read it here, if you read Greek: https://archive.org/details/OldTestament...xVaticanus

Oh, and once you get through researching the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus, there's a third and fourth manuscript(s) that contain the majority of the Greek Old and New Testaments, both dated from the fifth century: Codex Alexandrinus
Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus

What are you going to propose next, an Omphalos hypothesis for biblical manuscripts?

Well, that's obviously BS because the ancient writers didn't put their writing into numbered verses. It's a fraud.

[Mudhammam]

Here's an "actual copy of my delusion":



You'll have to go to the Vatican Library of Rome to have any chance of seeing it personally, so you'd better start buffing up your credentials, especially your knowledge of history.

Anyway, you can read it here, if you read Greek: https://archive.org/details/OldTestament...xVaticanus

Oh, and once you get through researching the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus, there's a third and fourth manuscript(s) that contain the majority of the Greek Old and New Testaments, both dated from the fifth century: Codex Alexandrinus
Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus

What are you going to propose next, an Omphalos hypothesis for biblical manuscripts?

Well, that's obviously BS because the  ancient writers didn't put their writing into numbered verses.  It's a fraud.

 
Well, I didn't think you were worth my time, and while that much is confirmed now, I can at least bow out from this discussion proud of having made a clear demonstration of the fact that calling one's self an "atheist" or a "skeptic" doesn't make one more pervious to reason.