Thursday, January 26, 2012

The Bible Is the Word of God Debate - Saaib's Second Cross-Examination Answer

The question is completely off the topic. Thus I take liberty to make some comments on Rhoblogy's answer to my earlier Question. Rhoblogy writes:
"....If I hold a copy of the NASB in my hand, I will have no problem in saying that this English text, in here, is 100% the unaltered, pure Word of God....."

1. None of the God's revelations were made in English.
2.  "100% the unaltered, pure Word of God"  is copyrighted to Lockman Foundation.
3. "100% the unaltered, pure Word of God" came into being in year 1971.
4. "100% the unaltered, pure Word of God" was edited in 1972.
5. "100% the unaltered, pure Word of God" has some modified versions (published: 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977).
6. "100% the unaltered, pure Word of God" was finally updated in 1995.

Google "NASB" and see the colorful history of the Bible (in their own words). Oopz, God's word has been renamed as "New American Standard Bible". The name speaks by itself. Moving ahead Rhoblogy said:
"....The quality and preferability of a given MSS copy depends on various factors, including its age. Older, ie, closer to the original writing is better, all other things being equal......"
Thus he contradics his earlier statement:
".......You said: "The closer the manuscript is to the source authentic is the manuscript". Not necessarily. You're showing your ignorance about textual criticism. No wonder you're failing to understand and making such basic errors....."
In his reply, "Rhoblogy", confidently, put forward 9 questions. He wants to know how am I confident that:

Q 1) Mohammed correctly repeated what he heard from Jibril?
A: Because he had to recite it back to Jibril. Muhammad (saw) recited the entire Quran in presence of Jibril every year. This was done twice in the last year of his life.

Q 2) Mohammed’s companions correctly heard him?
A: Because they had to recite it back to Muhammad (SAW). Moreover Muhammad (SAW) used to make them read what they had written. Note that there were not less than 42 scribes and remember that Quran used to be recited not less than 6 times a day in the Mosque (in Namaz). Every  year Quran was and is being repeated in public in the month of Ramadhan in Taraweeh. This was (is) done in front of hundreds (millions today).

Q 3) These companions correctly remembered what they heard over the course of decades?
A: Memory was backed with writing. Note: There were thousands of companions who had it embedded inside their hearts, if one erred there were thousands to correct him. Read answer to Q 2 again, that will add to it.

Q 4) Those that listened to the companions correctly remembered?
A: The companions of the prophet made written copies of Quran. Thus those who listened to the companions had a written book to correct them. Note: Every copy of Quran was accompanied with a reciter. Even the pronunciation was thus preserved.

Q 5) These guys correctly wrote it all down?
A: It was already written down. And moreover whatever was in writing was cross-cheked with other copies, very unlike New Testament.

Q 6) Important parts of the written documentation wasn’t lost at some point?
A: Because no one had ever found such case. The reason being, writing was accompanied with memorizing and memorization had support of written mushafs.

Q 7) Satan didn’t influence one or more of those who wrote down what he remembered to write down some false things? (Indeed, Mohammed himself recited revelation from Satan and later recanted it.)
A: He didn't have only one to influence. He had to influence thousands, alas he wasn't even able to influence even one not even Muhammad (saw). I could have answered that God wouldn't allow it but that would make Rhoblogy say that same is the case with Bible. True, but I never talked about Satan influencing the corruption of Bible.

Q 8) Uthman didn’t have any evil ulterior motives when collecting all the Qur’anic MSS?
A: One, Quran was compiled under Abu Bakr not Uthman. Two, Uthman was only one out of the eight who made the second compilation. Note: When Uthman's commission finished the compilation, they compared it with the earlier compilation done under Abu Bakr and both the Mushaf's were exactly the same. The probability of such a miracle is equal to 1/No of words in the Quran (Factorial) which is equal to zero. Thus proving that the Quran was perfectly preserved.

Q 9) Uthman didn’t burn the wrong MSS? ("right" MSS)
A: Uthmanic commission made 8 copies of Quran burning all other copies without checking them. Thus the question doesn't arise.

Thus Rhoblogy's present question already stands answered. But some more things need to be cleared. Quran in the present form was present in Muhammad's (SAW) time. The companions of the prophet put it in one Mushaf. It was not done by those who had not directly heard it from the prophet. This written Mushaf helped Quran to remain preserved in the memories of those who'd heard Mohammed recite it to them, those who'd heard those who'd heard Mohammed, those who'd heard those who'd heard those who'd heard Mohammed, and those who'd heard those who'd  heard those who'd heard those who'd heard those who'd heard Mohammed.

It is evident that not even a single error crept inside the text. The compilation made under Abu Bakr was exactly the same as that which was done under Uthman and I have already told you the probablity of such an occarance is zero. Read the answers to the 9 questions and you will see some more reasons that errors didn't creep in. Reverend Bosworth Smith had to recognize this great reality. He said:
“… we have a book absolutely unique in its origin, in its preservation, and in the chaos of its contents, but on the substantial authenticity of which no one has ever been able to cast a serious doubt.”
(Mohammed and Mohammedanism, Darf Publishers, London 1986 pp. 14-15)
Other jaundiced Orientalists also accepted this great reality. Adrian Brockett in his "The Value of Hafs and Warsh Transmissions For The Textual History of The Qur'ân":
''.....The transmission of the Qur'ân after the death of Muhammad was essentially static, rather than organic. There was a single text, and nothing significant, not even allegedly abrogated material, could be taken out nor could anything be put in. This is applied even to the early Caliphs....."
Sir William Muir, echoed that the Bible hasn't remained pure. In fact he says no other scripture other that Quran has remained as  pure as Quran.
"....Yet but ONE KORAN has always been current amongst them.... There is probably in the world no other work which has remained twelve centuries (fourteen centuries now*) with so pure a text.....''
This fulfills Allah's (SWT) promise:
‘’Verily We: It is We Who have sent down the Dhikr (i.e. the Quran) and surely, We will guard it (from corruption).’’
I have exceeded the word limit by 110 words, the reason is that I had to copy Rhoblogy's 9 Question. I could have redirected my audience to his page but that would have been cumbersome.

(Rhology's note - actually copying and pasting my 9 questions probably accounted for ~110 words, so the excessive wordcount is of no importance.)
(Link to comment repository post)