Argument from perfect preservation

[Psychonaut]

Good grief this topic annoys the shit straight out of my ass, but, alas, I have a strong urge to post about it.

What exactly is it with this argument from perfect preservation I keep hearing in religious circles? 

IE: *the bible hasn't changed (even though we've got no way to verify it, and plenty of scholars to suggest otherwise)
     *the quran hasn't changed (a bit more of a stable text, but still with variants that get swept under the rug, due entirely to testicular atrophy on part of the western academics)


Are the sons of Abraham forgetting one very important text that hasn't been corrupted in over 4400 years?



And we all know what they think of Pharaoh. 

Does anyone have any other arguments against this blatant fallacy? or possible variants that will tear it down further?
I do honestly think there is a lot of dishonest dialogue when it comes to the humanities, and am not always well equipped for the sophistry that goes on when discussing them.

[RobbyPants]

Are the sons of Abraham forgetting one very important text that hasn't been corrupted in over 4400 years?

What is this? The oldest we date biblical writings is something like 2,700 years.

Does anyone have any other arguments against this blatant fallacy?

Well, we know the oldest manuscripts of Mark ended right when Jesus was put in the tomb. The rest was added later. I honestly don't know what these people are talking about.

Also, different sects have different canons. Catholics have more books in their Bible than Protestants. Which version is the "correct" and "perfectly preserved" version?

[Psychonaut]

It's the pyramid text, one of the oldest religious texts in the world. Preserved in stone for all to see in it's original form.
I doubt that any person of any abrahamic faith would take this preservation as a sign that it's true.

To add, that's a good point. I've seen many christians admit that the manuscripts contain variants that dont matter to the doctrine, but the fundamentalists aren't to in to it. I'm yet to see this in the islamic world.

[Cephus]

Honestly, how can they even make that claim when we have no original version of any book in the Bible. For all they know, everything changed dramatically before the first copy we have. Add to that the fact that we have more than 50 different Bible translations, how the hell can they say it hasn't been corrupted when there are tons of distinctly different versions?

[robvalue]

Why would any of it need preserving if god was still around to tell us stuff, eh?

The argument from photocopying, nice

[Psychonaut]

Why would any of it need preserving if god was still around to tell us stuff, eh?

The argument from photocopying, nice

The holy Xerox manual 14:35-37 

35 Oh ye believers in the copy of the copy of the copy of the other copy of the copy, 36 Has't thou been maddened to thinkest thou canst alter the words of the mighty xerox? 37 Nay, but thou art of an unbelieving ilk, for thou dost not perceiveth thine holy manual, for it hast holy protectiveth powereths.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

One of the old Popes wrote his own Bible but it was so full of extra BS the critics tossed it into the trash can.

[ReptilianPeon]

What if I told you Vedic Chants are considered an oral masterpiece by UNESCO? That means if all of the Vedic texts were destroyed people would still have access to them orally. And, given the size of the Quran, I think chanting Vedas is more impressive than being Hafiz.

Suddenly, the Quran doesn't sound so miraculous. Over the centuries, millions of people have learnt to recite the Vedas, likely more than have the Quran given how old the Vedic texts are. The Vedic texts are older than Judaism and even Zoroaster. They pre-date monotheism.

Regardless, preservation has no bearing in truth. It just shows how careful humans can be when they care about something greatly. When I see Abu Bakr's copy of the Quran I may agree that it wasn't changed.

But people really believe that a man hiding in a cave was visited by an angel? Did other people see this angel? The irregularity of revelation is suspect to me. I find it hard to believe the Quran was revealed in dribs and drabs. Allah is such an incompetent deity. Since Allah hasn't done a Quran 13:13 on me, or anyone drawing cartoons, I can only assume Muhammed was a fraud, assuming he even existed.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

If I have a recently published copy of 'Moby Dick' that is word for word exactly and entirely the same as Melville's original handwritten manuscript, it doesn't prove the existence of Captain Ahab.

Boru