Carbon Dating Shows Koran May Predate Muhammad

HughPickens.com writes: Brian Booker writes at Digital Journal that carbon dating suggests the Koran, or at least portions of it, may actually be older than the prophet Muhammad himself, a finding that if confirmed could rewrite early Islamic history and shed doubt on the "heavenly" origins of the holy text. Scholars believe that a copy of the Koran held by the Birmingham Library was actually written sometime between 568 AD and 645, while the Prophet Mohammad was believed to have been born in 570 AD and to have died in 632 AD. It should be noted, however, that the dating was only conducted on the parchment, rather than the ink, so it is possible that the Koran was simply written on old paper. Some scholars believe, however, that Muhammad did not receive the Koran from heaven, as he claimed during his lifetime, but instead collected texts and scripts that fit his political agenda. "This gives more ground to what have been peripheral views of the Koran's genesis, like that Muhammad and his early followers used a text that was already in existence and shaped it to fit their own political and theological agenda, rather than Muhammad receiving a revelation from heaven," says Keith Small, from the University of Oxford's Bodleian Library. "'It destabilises, to put it mildly, the idea that we can know anything with certainty about how the Koran emerged," says Historian Tom Holland. "and that in turn has implications for the history of Muhammad and the Companions." Update: 09/01 17:32 GMT by S : There was a typo in the dates used by the original linked article — in the press release from the University of Birmingham, the date range given for the parchment is between 568 AD and 645 AD, which overlaps more closely with Muhammad's lifetime. The dates and link have been fixed now in the summary. Historians say this new information highlights the uncertainty surrounding the emergence of such religious texts, rather than being a major upheaval.

Comments

Well, that's embarrassing

[HangingChad]

Ooops.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, for years we trusted Carbon Dating, and now they have to trash all results based on it...

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[wired_parrot]

Well, just like how conclusive carbon dating of the shroud of Turin to the medieval period completely eliminated the throngs of faithful who believed in its miraculous origins

Or how the discovery of the Tomb of Jesus, which would appear to completely invalidate the ressurection and divine origin of Jesus, caused Christian worldwide to renounce their faith.

The faithful will continue to believe, regardless of the scientific evidence. And in this case, as the summary itself mentions, there's a perfect reasonable explanation for the date - the parchment could have been an older parchment that was re-used, which happened often enough in that time period. This will change nothing.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[KGIII]

I expect they will just opt to not believe it. It's easier than tearing a whole religion down because science has shown it to be faulty. I mean, one of the main points of Islam is that Muhammad wrote the Koran and that it was done in a very specific order. I don't think they'll accept this. It will be seen as Western propaganda and a fatwa or three issued because of it. Sad, too, the Arabic peoples have a very rich scientific heritage.

I've met Christians who are hell bent on insisting that carbon dating is wrong. I expect this to be the same. Religion makes some people willing to deny evidence and believe all sorts of strange things. I'm a Buddhist, also an atheist, and have wanted to believe all sorts of things that just don't have any evidence to support them. I can understand.

Instead, for example, I choose to believe that my atoms will return and be the substance known as stars eventually. I don't imagine those atoms will have any memory of me. Karma? Well, sure... We call it human nature and awareness. It's obviously not going to follow me into a new life, I don't see how a star can be subjected to karma anyhow.

Ah well... Let's hope these people doing this work are not subjected to too many death threats or terrorist attacks because of their findings. Some folks work really hard to keep other people in line and some folks are willing to die for their religious beliefs. Hopefully that does not happen here.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Anonymous Coward]

Ooops.

Not any more embarrassing than listening to the tall tales from [random religion] when you think about it.

People have been fascinated by fiction for a very long time.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[OrangeTide]

Wikipedia is a convenient starting point, please see the 59 references on the page.
Feel free to read every one of those linked papers instead of expecting every /. poster to paste dozens of links to satisfy your arbitrary sourcing requirements.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Anonymous Coward]

Sad, too, the Arabic peoples have a very rich scientific heritage.

Apparently scientific knowledge is not a genetic trait that is passed on through race or lineage. Which is fortunate for me because otherwise I'd be a superstitious turnip farmer.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, don't jump to conclusions. The Koran is a lie but the Bible is absolutely true. Come on, it just makes sense!

Re: Well, that's embarrassing

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems like margin of error is being ignored, unless there's an attempt to explain it away (I'm too laz ... ahem, busy to read TFA). But it reminds me of the story of attempting to translate the original text mean "virgins" of Paradise to "raisins", which I realize can be translated in that way, but probably not in context. I don't think the likes of ISIS will fall for it. They will go right on raping little girls in the name of their moon god, Allah.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Penguinisto]

Small problem with your argument (well, two...)

1) The Shroud of Turin is not central to (or even any part of) scripture, teaching, or dogma. In fact, most Christians believe it to be a medieval construct as well, and it remains a curiosity at best, even among the majority of Catholics.

2) The alleged tomb that Jesus was laid in is probably not the one - that particular spot was picked by Helena of Constantinople nearly 4 centuries later, based on some local legends. She also allegedly found the cross, but that's most likely bunk sold to her by locals who were eager to curry favor. As with #1, it has approximately bupkis to do with scripture, teaching, or dogma (Heck, the Council of Nicaea probably hadn't even convened yet when this alleged tomb was found.) Today, it serves as a nice place to worship, and to meditate on the Passion and Resurrection, but it has no real significance otherwise.

Meanwhile... the Quran is the actual scripture of Islam; if it was found to have existed *before* the founder existed (let alone wrote it, received it from Heaven, whatever)? That's kind of like kicking the pillars out from under a rather delicate tower... it would be akin to finding a written account of Jesus' life that carbon-dates to 30-40 BCE... now *that* would be faith-shaking.

All that said, here's the fun part: the calendar we use is rather error-prone and isn't fully accurate. Most scientists and archaeologists know this, and correct for it. This is why Jesus' actual life may have begun as early as 6-10 BCE. I'm hoping these guys in TFA have managed to do those calculations for correction, and more important, did them correctly... because they're about to buy themselves a rather nasty shit-storm if they didn't. Even if they're right, I'm willing to bet that the very first counter-argument will point right to our calendar's not-so-perfect history.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Anonymous Coward]

"Well, just like how conclusive carbon dating of the shroud of Turin [wikipedia.org] to the medieval period completely eliminated the throngs of faithful who believed in its miraculous origins"

Interestingly, the shroud of Turin isn't exactly mentioned in the Bible as being the lynchpin of the Christian faith.

"Or how the discovery of the Tomb of Jesus [wikipedia.org], which would appear to completely invalidate the ressurection and divine origin of Jesus, caused Christian worldwide to renounce their faith."

Uh... so the existence of a tomb that is expressly mentioned in the Bible as being the location of where Jesus was interred after being crucified is now proof that the Bible must be wrong because it apparently actually exists? You give Atheists a bad name.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Anonymous Coward]

Then again, many Christians probably just let the scriptures settle the matter. According to the gospel of John, the shroud of Christ was in two parts.

John 20:4-7
So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre.
And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in.
Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie,
And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Anonymous Coward]

My autobiography was written before I was born too.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[MikeMo]

It is interesting that EVERY bit of data examined about the Shroud (pollen studies, linen study, weaving techniques, post-mortem "autopsy" study, a study of the dirt around the heels, the blood type of the stains, the image itself) ALL support the notion that the Shroud is authentic. The only study that supports a medieval origin is the carbon dating, which has also been challenged.

There are two interesting questions (at least) from that:

1) When there is a massive amount of factual data supporting authenticity and only one data supporting fraud, should all of the supporting data be ignored?

2) How did the supposed fraudster carry out such a detailed fraud?

Then there's the image itself. Although there have been a few (maybe one) success at creating something that looks like the image on the Shroud, there have been no successes at creating an image that matches the physical AND chemical composition of the image. We still don't know how that was done, fraud or not.

My point is that there is still a great deal about the Shroud that is highly controversial, allowing the faithful to continue to hold to their beliefs with not requirement to be stupid or uninformed.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[grub]

Satan altered the carbon dating results to test their faith.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[tomknight]

A bigger oops? That the article's wrong about the dates in the first place.

http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/ne... :
Radiocarbon analysis has dated the parchment on which the text is written to the period between AD 568 and 645 with 95.4% accuracy. The test was carried out in a laboratory at the University of Oxford. The result places the leaves close to the time of the Prophet Muhammad, who is generally thought to have lived between AD 570 and 632.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[cyberchondriac]

Ah well... Let's hope these people doing this work are not subjected to too many death threats or terrorist attacks because of their findings. Some folks work really hard to keep other people in line and some folks are willing to die for their religious beliefs. Hopefully that does not happen here.

You know they will. This will be considered blasphemy in the highest degree, even by the non-fundamentalists. They're marked men.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[peragrin]

The difference is most Christians shrugged their shoulders and ignored it

Muslims will kill all the researchers their families and threaten anyone who dares to not believe their version. I really can't wait for Muslims to get out of this phase.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[mark-t]

The tomb you refer to, The Talpiot Tomb, has not been irrefutably shown to be the actual tomb of Jesus. A case was made for it by a pair of journalists in the first decade of this century that it might somehow irrefutably show that Jesus had not risen from the dead, but the translations that the journalists claim to have made and the so-called evidence that they have which supports their allegations has been since subject to much dispute by archeologists and linguistic scholars alike [1] [2]. The matter is clearly far from settled. Of course, it's very easy to say that the devout might continue to believe even in the face of scientifically irrefutable evidence, but even if that statement were true (which I do not refute), it does not leave science free and clear of any obligation to discover the truth.

The existence of the Aether was disproven through scientific experimentation, so it is wrong to conclude that science cannot disprove things, as long as whatever assumptions you have made about what you may be attempting to disprove are coherent enough to form such experimentation.

For what it's worth, I believe the Shroud may be genuine... but I believe it may be so only because science has not yet been able to determine how the image was made. Even if it shown to be a fraud, however, does not mean that the incident did not happen... it only means that some charlatan tried to artificially lend more credibility to what they were saying than they may have deserved. Even a liar can be telling the truth, after all. Although I'll agree that doesn't help the case for Christianity any.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[PopeRatzo]

As you say, lack of evidence has bupkis to do with people's faith. They believe despite the total lack of evidence, not because evidence exists.

There are so many historical holes in the Bible that Christian apologists have spent more than a millennium trying to explain them away. And people still believe.

A certain percentage of the population has an innate need to believe what cannot be proven. I think this is a feature of humanity, not a bug.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[dargaud]

There's this little something called a margin of error, and it's being taken in consideration carefully.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems it was the end point for Mr. Parrot...parroting Wikipedia, where any moron can say anything.

There is a reason citing Wikipedia is an automatic F in most universities.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Ol Olsoc]

It is interesting that EVERY bit of data examined about the Shroud

It's an even bigger miracle that the shroud manged to stay hidden unti the middle ages, whne is suddenly popped up.

It ranks right up there with the Holy foreskin of Jesus on the veracity chart, and you'll never change your mind.

Re: Well, that's embarrassing

[kubajz]

Interesting that you cite science for the 'tomb of Jesus' where the introductory paragraph says 'disputed' three times and then points out that one filmmaker tried to draw sensational conclusions from the find. But, like you say, the faithful will always believe, no matter what the specific faith entails :)

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[GameboyRMH]

Karma? Well, sure... We call it human nature and awareness. It's obviously not going to follow me into a new life, I don't see how a star can be subjected to karma anyhow.

Karma that has effects within a person's lifetime is "pop-culture Karma" as seen on "my name is Earl," and it could theoretically be scientifically disproven. Personally I'm sure it would be.

The religious definitions of Karma, as far as I'm aware, only have effects in the "next life" and are therefore untestable just like the invisible pink unicorn.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Anonymous Coward]

Well by that logic, astronomy and cosmology are religions too. We assume that the light from stars is the same as here. Etc.

Why would you assume the proportions were different back then? Is there a present observation we can do that backs you up?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediocrity_principle

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Anonymous Coward]

Or how the discovery of the Tomb of Jesus, which would appear to completely invalidate the ressurection[sic] and divine origin of Jesus, caused Christian worldwide to renounce their faith.

This will change nothing.

The resurrection was a bone of contention among early Christians viz. the mention of this contention in the canonical Bible and the Gospel of Mary of Magdala which denies it. History and theology is written by the winners. Alas, w/o experimental replication, no theology is provable or even traceable.

Re: Well, that's embarrassing

[Anonymous Coward]

Except there are written accounts of Jesus' life that predate AD by a thousand years and then some. The account of his life mirrors that of several sun gods. Virgin birth to a mortal woman, death, reincarnation three days later, etc. Etc.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Jorgensen]

As you say, lack of evidence has bupkis to do with people's faith. They believe despite the total lack of evidence, not because evidence exists.

There are so many historical holes in the Bible that Christian apologists have spent more than a millennium trying to explain them away. And people still believe.

A certain percentage of the population has an innate need to believe what cannot be proven. I think this is a feature of humanity, not a bug.

No. That is not a feature. It is definitely a bug.

And before anybody assumes so: I don't expect my humble opinion to settle that issue :-)

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[hairyfeet]

Well you second link doesn't "prove" squat, and this is coming from an atheist, because as your link points out Jesus and Joseph were names as common as Jim and John are today so finding a tomb where a son named Jesus had a father named Joesph? Really proves nothing other than those names were quite common.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Anonymous Coward]

belief in something that cannot be proven is a bug....

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Anonymous Coward]

A certain percentage of the population has an innate need to believe what cannot be proven. I think this is a feature of humanity, not a bug.

[emphasize by me]

And they all work for Microsoft? :)

Joke aside. I tend to agree with you, but it is a "feature" that we should had corrected long ago :(

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[jandersen]

Meanwhile... the Quran is the actual scripture of Islam; if it was found to have existed *before* the founder existed (let alone wrote it, received it from Heaven, whatever)? That's kind of like kicking the pillars out from under a rather delicate tower... it would be akin to finding a written account of Jesus' life that carbon-dates to 30-40 BCE... now *that* would be faith-shaking.

Faith, in all religions, is designed to shake off facts that don't fit; that's they are religions, not science. There are many ways to work an earlier date into the doctrine, if needed, don't you worry. Just look at how Jehovah's Witnesses have handled the repeated failure of the end of the world to manifest itself; and they are by no means the only ones. So spare your glee; and any way, I think it is poor form, trying to make your own religion look better by pointing to potential weaknesses in others. You wouldn't need to gloat, if you really believed that what you stand for is better.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Actually C14 skyrocketted with atomic tests, so much so they've been able to map how long the average cell lives based on the year-to-year curve (!) Then in the 1960s, above ground testing was banned, and levels are returing to normal.

Science has about 10 or so years to figure out the rest of it before the deltas are so small as to be useless, in studying cell age.

There is a whole Radiolab about it.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[MikeMo]

Actually, there is some earlier evidence for it. Don't know if it's enough to be conclusive.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[preaction]

Yes, because they should be learning to do original research by reading the sources Wikipedia cites, and then also finding their own sources. Since Slashdot is not (yet) a university, we don't have to be experts in the field (FSM forbid)

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Anonymous Coward]

There's this little something called a margin of error, and it's being taken in consideration carefully.

In this case, the margin if error is itself an assumption based on other assumptions.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[bobbied]

Or how the discovery of the Tomb of Jesus, which would appear to completely invalidate the ressurection and divine origin of Jesus, caused Christian worldwide to renounce their faith.

It only appears to do that if you assume it does. Where it may be the tomb of the family, there is no real way to know that for sure. If you assume it's the family, then there is little evidence that the body of the biblical Jesus is there. Most of the argument on this is based on how common the names found IN the tomb are and how likely the combination of names might find their way into a single tomb as a family. It also makes some assumptions about who is in the tomb, including the inclusion of Joseph, who seems to have died long before the public ministry of his son and would have not been buried in such an opulent tomb, being very poor. Even if there are questions raised, there really isn't any proof that this tomb held the body of the biblical Jesus.

But, if you want to believe that the gospel accounts are faked, one thing you cannot explain away is how the Apostles died, fully convinced that what they believed is true. Not to mention the whole host of evidence which is outlined in Josh McDowell's "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" work. Josh set out to prove all this hoopla about this Jesus guy was untrue. His conclusions are very interesting, and his facts very well researched.

So, no, this find does not invalidate the resurrection because there is no proof that the body in question is really there. Plus, how a body in a tomb would invalidate the divine origin of Jesus is beyond me, unless you where actually applying some theological theories that obviously you don't believe.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[glenebob]

Citing any encyclopedia is an automatic F in most universities.

Who cares? Is this a university? No. Quit parroting that stupidity.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Zaatxe]

I know you jest, but fundamentalists never believed in Carbon Dating, why would they start now?
This will not shake the faith of the believers a single bit.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Anonymous Coward]

A certain percentage of the population has an innate need to believe what cannot be proven. I think this is a feature of humanity, not a bug.

No, it's a bug. Only someone planning on using that bug to inject malware, er, scam somebody (or many somebodies) would consider it a feature.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[DarkOx]

Because all of Islam is a fraud. Muhammad shows up and claims "I am a profit and oh by the way I am last one" (seal of the profits).

I mean seriously how scamy is that? It rates right up there with "now all your friends are going to tell you this is to good to be true".

I am not arguing here about the validity of the rest of the Abrahamic but its painful clear Muhammad was just a con man.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[bobbied]

Which really doesn't describe the modern Shroud of Turin very well.. The Shroud is like a sheet laid over a body and the image on it is of a whole body, where the linen clothes where strips of cloth wrapped around a body and the Napkin was over the face and head.

Where there are folks who disagree, but the Shroud is most likely NOT anything that was used in the actual burial, but is more likely to be some form of art or an image used to illustrate Biblical teaching in the dark ages. However, if folks find solace in believing otherwise, so be it. As long as they are not worshiping the image, it doesn't matter.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes it even worse -- they're saying it was "Jesus of Nazareth's family tomb"

When the bible says he wasn't even buried in his family tomb. His burial spot was in the tomb of one of his followers -- Joseph of Aramathea.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Pope]

A certain percentage of the population has an innate need to believe what cannot be proven. I think this is a feature of humanity, not a bug.

Agreed. I mean, next thing you know, there's all these Popes running around.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[bobbied]

As you say, lack of evidence has bupkis to do with people's faith. They believe despite the total lack of evidence, not because evidence exists.

This is generally not true... Yea, there are those who swallow anything... But for Christianity the evidence for it's truth does exist if you carefully consider what is being actually claimed.

There is an excellent book written back in the 80's by Josh McDowell where the question of the historical Jesus and the claims of Christianity are systematically evaluated from the considerable evidence we have. "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" was his first volume. He started very much the skeptic, and set forth to disprove this Christian thing once and for all. I think you might be surprised at how carefully he gathers and examines the facts and suggest you read it. You may not arrive at the same conclusion as Mr. McDowell but there is evidence, solid evidence. It may not be enough to convince you, but only the ignorant would claim there is no evidence.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[bobbied]

The difference is most Christians shrugged their shoulders and ignored it

Ignored what? Look, I don't know what you think happened in the dark ages, but as much as I'd like to ignore it, so called "Christians" did some frightful things in the name of religion too. I don't think they did it necessarily for Christian reasons, but some used the religion to motivate folks into some really nasty behavior prior to the protestant reformation.

These days, there is little for Christians to ignore about history as there is little about known history that contradicts the Christian message. And not to put too fine a point on it, as a Christian I don't have to ignore anything so saying I do is incorrect.

Re: Well, that's embarrassing

[Anonymous Coward]

Not true. Many don't understand it, same as non-believers. But many do and just don't trust its accuracy. Same goes for other radiometric dating methods.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Barsteward]

"Interestingly, the shroud of Turin isn't exactly mentioned in the Bible as being the lynchpin of the Christian faith." - correct, but it was used as "proof" jesus existed

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Barsteward]

well, we are all part of gods plan..... :o)

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Anonymous Coward]

If you had even bothered to check the Wikipedia entry, you would have seen that the tomb houses not just Jesus, but members of his family. Including his son.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[SuricouRaven]

More specifically they all support that the fabric originated from around the right geographic area. Whoever made the fake was very good - clearly an expert forger, they even knew to use fabric from the right region. They had no way of knowing that carbon dating would one day be invented though, so they didn't think to use fabric of a suitable age too. Relic forgery was a thriving field in the middle ages, and they were good at it. We still have five different churches claiming to house the Spear of Longinus.

How would blood type support any claim of authenticity? No-one knows Jesus's blood type, and it isn't even clear if the stains are blood at all - they test positive for traces of various proteins found in blood, but are so degraded that it's impossible to be certain, so finding the type isn't going to be possible with any reliability.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Bengie]

I assume gravity existed in the past. I have no way to prove it.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[ShanghaiBill]

Why would you assume the proportions were different back then?

There are many things that can affect the C14/C12 ratio, and there are more than enough unknowns to cover the margin of error in dating the Koran.

C14/C12 can be affected by:
1. Volcanos, which spew out lots of C12 and no C14.
2. Supernovas and GRBs, which create C14 in the atmosphere.
3. Ocean upwelling
4. Wind patterns (oceanic winds have less C14).
There were some extreme weather events around that time, widely believed to be caused by volcanic eruptions, that could have drastically affected C14/C12, and in unpredictable ways. These weather patterns caused more rainfall in Arabia, while causing crop failures and plague in the Byzantine Empire, aborting Justinian's attempt to re-establish the Roman Empire in the West, and paving the way for the rise of the Arab Empire under the leadership of Muhammad.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[phantomfive]

Even if they're right, I'm willing to bet that the very first counter-argument will point right to our calendar's not-so-perfect history.

I'm just saying this based on the summary, but apparently the very first counter argument has to do with using really old paper (and not dating the ink).

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Anonymous Coward]

What does any of this matter, really, except maybe to better identify the actual author(s) of the Quran? Just like the Bible, it's a work of fiction anyway, regardless of how beautiful the writing might be, and the God of Islam isn't any more real than any other gods down through Human history anyway, so how about we just get over all this and focus on things that actually matter, like fixing the damage we've done (and continue to do) to the environment before it's too late, finding a way to change hearts and minds such that people stop treating other people so shitty all the time (getting over this whole 'religion' and 'god' thing will fix at least some of that) and moving towards actual civilization instead of this poor excuse for it that we're living in right now? Humanity has the potential to be so much more than they, as an entire race, is showing right now (right now, as a race, we're pretty much showing our ass) but we're stuck on stupid issues like ' you dont' believe in the Invisible Sky God the exact way we do, therefore you must die', and greed in general, and a real don't-give-a-fuck attitude towards the planet we have to live on (basically: an IDGAF what happens after I'm dead attitude).

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[rgbatduke]

Well, other than looking up and back in time at the stars. Of course that is assuming that the visible Universe isn't a huge virtual reality simulation being transmitted directly into our bottled brains.

rgb

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering radical Muslims, the very first counter-argument will be people calling for them to be beheaded.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Anonymous Coward]

Jump, Jump Boy, Jump

Re: Well, that's embarrassing

[Anonymous Coward]

actually AC might have a good point

http://m.slashdot.org/story/297049

at least in the near future the dating might not be accurate anymore (this doesn't apply to the past)

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[KGIII]

No but I suspect it can be a cultural thing and, unfortunately, it appears that it is not. For a culture with such a rich history of knowledge acquisition and creation it is a bit sad that they've forsaken those traditions. Even a lot of literature was preserved by the Arabic peoples who translated it to Arabic which preserved it to be translated into new languages today. From math to chemistry, we owe a lot of our knowledge to them.

While Europe was wallowing in feces and actively suppressing critical thinking the Arabic peoples were bathing and advancing human knowledge significantly. Yet, today, the cultural roles seem to be reversed. The people who are in a position of power seem hell bent on draconian authoritarian repressive theological regimes. As an outsider looking in this appears to not be a very good situation for anyone who's not in a position of power.

I certainly agree with and support the idea of religious freedoms but when those beliefs are manifest in ways that are harmful then they really should reconsider their tyrannical ideals. That is rather unlikely. I suspect there's a group, or multiple individuals, who are simply using freedom as a way to justify exploitation and control of others.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[KGIII]

My understanding is that karma has effects in this life, as well. I have no beliefs that it continues after life has ended though many do think that it does. However, there are lots of instances of otherwise bad people having good things happen to them but we're not really meant to understand it deeply as far as I have been taught. Then again, it's not like there's an entirely monolithic belief system with Buddhism - you can (and are encouraged to) find your own path - depending on which school one studies.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[KGIII]

Honestly, I am not sure what I'd have done in their shoes? I am not a fan of suppressing findings or anything but my welfare is reasonably important to me. I'd likely publish my findings and just be more aware of my surroundings should there be an uproar.

I've also thought about this a bit more...

  If they were to harm the researchers then it would be interpreted as saying that the facts they claimed were accurate and the religion needed protection. Or, as you mention, they could say that is is just punishment for them being infidels and causing trouble. The former might make people question them? So, maybe - just maybe, they'll opt to simply decry it as false and not attempt an act of retribution. I suspect they could get away with both and I don't have a lot of faith that rational thinkers will prevail.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Javagator]

The faithful will continue to believe, regardless of the scientific evidence.

Scientist B. F. Skinner has proven rather conclusively that people believe what they get reinforced for believing. Of course, most people don't believe that.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[PopeRatzo]

But for Christianity the evidence for it's truth does exist if you carefully consider what is being actually claimed.

I've read McDowell's book. He basically lays out the same non-existent evidence that theologians have for centuries and then does a lot of conjecture. There is no evidence for Jesus existence that comes from Jesus' time. The rest is backfill from post-Paul. It's why the gospels were written in Greek instead of Aramaic or Hebrew.

Joseph Atwill makes a compelling case for the "historical Jesus" actually being allegory for the acts of Titus Flavius.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Cederic]

As long as they are not worshiping the image, it doesn't matter.

How is worshipping the image any more nonsensical than worshipping the zombie jesus it allegedly depicts?

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[azcoyote]

Your points about the shroud of Turin and the alleged tomb are spot-on.

As for the Qur'an, it would indeed be a major problem for Islam intellectually if it were found to preexist Mohammed. However, even though I don't have any desire to defend Islam, from a critical standpoint I think that these findings are really too weak to even imply such a claim.

In the first place, the fact that the dating belongs to the parchment and not necessarily the ink is huge. Since parchment was relatively rare and expensive, it was a common practice (even among Christians) to re-use old parchment, e.g. blank pages in other manuscripts or even at times writing over other texts. In fact, the manuscript in question seems to be a copy of the Qur'an, and no claim seems to have been made that it was the original copy penned by Mohammed himself, and so this opens up seemingly endless possible scenarios where somebody found an older piece of parchment and copied the Qur'an onto it.

Secondly, the real and obvious character of the Qur'an is not so much that it plagiarizes other written texts but that it borrows explicit elements from Judaism, Christianity, and local religious thought, and reshapes all of this material through a particular lens that services Mohammed's political and social agenda. This is clear even without any specific manuscript dating, as it is a process that is more internal and subtle than merely taking a page from one book and inserting it into a another. Understanding this, it actually makes even more sense to suppose that a copyist reused an older parchment, because it fits with the spirit of Islam, a spirit that is evident in ISIS's systematic destruction of antiquities, even if a substantial portion of Muslims may be horrified by this action as well. Islam is in many ways a white-washing and concealment of history; Allah's transcendence breaks into history as an external and alien power and provides the Qur'an as a kind of divine text without history. Hence the Qur'an cannot be translated or critically examined because to do so would be to submit the text to historical forces. (If anyone reading this sees a resemblance between this kind of thinking and Christian fundamentalism, this is not at all surprising.)

Christianity in contrast, despite significant variations and particular groups that lean more in the direction of Islam, is like Judaism a deeply historical religion. By breaking into history in the Incarnation, God takes on our history as his very own, in such a way that the history of human beings becomes transcendently meaningful. Hence the Bible is written by human authors in human language (not a divine dialect of Arabic), but mysteriously transmits the Word of God. Hence it really would be no problem for Christianity (except for a few particular groups) if it were found that certain of Jesus' famous sayings had already been said verbatim by someone else. The divine authority of the Qur'an is premised upon a denial of any human element, but the divine authority of the Bible is premised upon a divine acceptance of human language.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[rgbatduke]

So, Jesus sends a secret message to his followers to "prove" that he existed in a bizarre inverse image on a piece of cloth that appears to have originated long, long after he died in radiometric testing. This is the Alpha and the Omega, creator of the Universe itself, all powerful, who rose from the dead multiple times (according to Saul/Paul, and of course Saints cannot lie about something important like that) and who could easily save the souls of all the unbelievers in the world at any time by manifesting himself to them as he did to Saul/Paul and "hundreds of others".

He could, in fact, save my soul, as I am very, very certain that Jesus Was Not Magic, and that's if a single Jesus corresponding to the one in the inconsistent Gospels even existed and isn't a synthesis of a number of apocalyptic preachers of the time, dressed up with added myths and legends so that the religion itself could hold its own with the other prevailing "world" religions of the day (virgin birth, raised from the dead, raises the dead, sundry other miracles). There is, after all, absolutely nothing that any objective scientist would consider believable evidence to support the preposterous allegations of miracles of this or any other religion. So according to the Gospels, I am damned. According to Mark, Jesus deliberately set things up that way because I am preordained to be damned. Of course elsewhere in the Gospels, it is asserted that Jesus loves me, and still other places I would no doubt be identified as a "dog begging scraps from the master's table" as a Gentile and not a Jew.

But no matter. If Jesus is God, if God is all-powerful and all-loving, Jesus/God doesn't want to damn me or any other sentient being to hell. Of course as all-powerful all-loving Jesus/God, he/it can easily prevent it by just not doing it, but even if he/it establishes a rule that non-believers have to go to hell, he established a clear precedent with Saul that he can and at a whim will appear in person before them to take a Christian-persecuting wicked zealot sinner and convince him that he is real and thereby not only save them from damnation but convert them into a saint. It is an obvious theorem of these not too stringent observations and assumptions that either:

* Jesus is God, but is evil, and deliberately refrains from actions that would save sentient beings he presumably loves and who are capable of suffering from an easily preventable eternity of suffering.

* Jesus is God, but is not all powerful (which some would argue disqualifies him from being God, but whatever) and would love to appear before each sinner and demonstrate his reality and compassion and miraculous abilities, but lacks the time-sharing capabilities to do so.

* Jesus existed but was just a man who was born, lived for a while, perhaps made a bit of heavily mythologized and utterly non-supernatural ruckus, and then died, possibly by crucifixion, possibly of old age or disease.

* Jesus is a syncretic myth composed perhaps of John the Baptist legends and legends of some of the other apocalyptic con men/preachers of the age who went around preaching for a living and salted the crowd with shills to increase their following and donation/support stream. It is, not at all unreasonable that any such preacher would be named or even just titled Yeshua, which simply means god-redeemer, which happens to be the meaning of the word Christ as well which happens to be pretty much the meaning of Messiah (annointed savior). Jesus Christ, the Messiah, is "Annointed/Holy Savior" in three languages, Romanized Hebrew, Greek, and Hebrew. It seems perfectly reasonable that none of these terms is an actual name of the individual(s) involved (including, by the way, "Emmanuel", which comes from a completely irrelevant prophecy to King Ahaz and means "God is with us" and which nobody records as being one of his names but Matthew seeking desperately to tie Jesus to some kind of "official" prophecy).

If I am mi

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[tnk1]

There is really no reason for it to shake their faith.

The margin of error only starts before Mohammed was born, but his whole lifetime is comfortably within the margin of error. And while this is probably not the one he wrote or received, there were definitely early copies, of which there were probably many of by the time he died, considering his eventual position as ruler of a number of united tribes and prophet of an up and coming religion.

So, this is not news at all. It's like saying that Jesus was disproved by saying that the original Bible was written somewhere between 10 BC and 60 AD. Some people need to understand what a "margin of error" is.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[tnk1]

Eh, the Shroud of Turin probably has a more exciting history than just about any single piece of cloth that was ever produced by mankind. Not only was it moved from places unknown to Constantinople, where it was involved in a fire and a few sackings, it was then shipped out from there to Italy and that was all centuries before it stayed in one place. It was probably never the best item to use carbon dating on. Doubts will continue to linger on that one.

As for the Tomb of "Jesus", good grief.... A tomb for Joshua son of Joseph in Israel is like finding a headstone for John Smith. You'd actually have to be more uneducated than otherwise to actually let that one get by without an huge amount of skepticism.

Anyway, none of that, nor this Koran copy point at anything other than their existence. It's not like they dated the Koran copy to be completely outside of Mohammed's lifetime. Since when does anyone who understands dating methods assume that the earliest date in the range proves anything?

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Oligonicella]

As my ex father in law, a Professor Emeritus in theology used to say, "If all the splinters of the cross were assembled, the cross would have been too big to drag through the streets." As you said, forgers were plentiful and good at their craft. Usually it was just wood chunks and chicken bones, but this one was exemplary.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[tnk1]

It is hard to believe that someone like Jesus would have been worthy of much note in his own lifetime being executed as a not-very-dangerous rebel after a short ministry in a backwater province filled with itinerant prophets, rebels, and preachers, but it is similarly hard to believe that such a person could not have existed either.

And while there's no good reason to assume his existence also validates the claims made for him, it seems pretty clear to me that the only good reason to doubt his very existence is simply to make some sort of point, usually due to hostility or skepticism of the religion that he was the cause of. And that's just as much bias as you'd expect from the other direction as you'd get from a believer who was doing their own "history".

Even the earliest and most troublesome (for orthodox believers) manuscripts of the New Testament don't deviate in the slightest in accepting the existence of their subject, even if they have different things to say about what he did or what he *was*. And consider that in about AD 120 when the first collected books of the New Testament were almost certainly in existence, there were people around whose parents or grandparents likely were disciples of the man. You wouldn't be able to just make this guy up from whole cloth. And you wouldn't need to.

Very simply, the best evaluation of what evidence we have is that there was this guy named Joshua in first century Judea and Galilee. He preached and was likely executed as a political criminal by the Roman Imperial government. His followers believed he was the Son of God and founded a religion that became Christianity. And that is about as simple as a story as you can make it, which to me seems like the most likely history by far.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[mark-t]

The blood analysis supports that the donor was male, and was apparently also the right race to have been from that region of the world. It is at least plausible that Jesus was the donor, but of course, only if there were any errors in the dating process.

One of the most interesting points I find about the image on the shroud, the wounds in the hands on the image were actually situated at the wrist or base of the palms, whereas practically all other contemporary depictions of Christ's crucifixion at the time often represented him as having nails through his palms. It was many hundreds of years later before this commonly held view was discovered to be an inaccurate perception of crucifixion by contemporary culture, and in fact, when nails were used in crucifixion (typically they were not, but in Jesus case, they apparently were), the nails driven into the very base of the palm, at a person's wrist. If the nail were actually driven into the palm, the flesh would simply tear free as the person hung there, possibly even falling off of the cross entirely. The fact that the shroud's image faithfully represents an image of somebody who was apparently crucified by such a torturous means consistent with how it would have actually been done, and contrary to what people would have expected at the time is no small consideration to lend credibility to the shroud's authenticity.

Consider also that the image itself is not even really visible to the naked eye, today requiring imaging technologies that were only invented in the past couple of hundred years to resolve any serious level of detail. if the shroud was a fake, "expert forger" is an understatement... he would have had to produce the image almost completely blind.

Coupled with the fact that today there is still no real consensus on how that image could have even been constructed gives at least some credibility to the notion that the shroud is genuine, and suggests that the interpretation of the dating analysis performed in '88 was incorrect. Hardly definitive, of course... but something to at least give a sketical person pause, as long as they genuinely want to keep an open mind.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[gweihir]

well, we are all part of gods plan..... :o)

I am not. Unless I am subject to apotheosis, then maybe, if I develop a plan afterwards.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Anonymous Coward]

Muhammad shows up and claims "I am a profit..."

I don't know about that, but I bet he could spell.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[bobbied]

As long as they are not worshiping the image, it doesn't matter.

How is worshipping the image any more nonsensical than worshipping the zombie jesus it allegedly depicts?

I'm sure your local Muslim would explain it much better than I, but if you think about the 10 commandments you learned as a child, think about #3. Folks who would hold the shroud to be proof of Christ's resurrection would likely hold to a literal reading of the 10 commandments too, so worshiping the image on the shroud would be inconsistent with their profession.

Oh, you want to have a philosophical argument about the existence of God... Sorry, I'm not sure you have even a basic command of the facts given your wording, and there is a saying about "Not casting your pearls before swine" that comes to mind...

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Anonymous Coward]

fundamentalists never believed in Carbon Dating, why would they start now?

I can think of one reason.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not the GP.

That said, there are certainly not 59 references on that page.

Clicking on some randomly, reference #46 is literally somebody's office hours.

Reference #15 gives "Error", #21 gives a 404, #30 appears to be blank, and #56 gives a "Sorry...".

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Anonymous Coward]

it's a bug, but there's no repo.....

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Anonymous Coward]

> Even a liar can be telling the truth, after all. Although I'll agree that doesn't help the case for Christianity any.

AS you'll have noted, lying for jebus is an old an honorable practice.

It's part of why I walked away from my parents' FAC when I was fifteen and have only been in churches since for weddings and funerals and occasional concerts, since they're useful venues for those events.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Anonymous Coward]

#20 is also gone, and #2 is not even a link to a news story, but a link to a newsgroup, where someone apparently copy and pasted a story. All of the responses on the board are from biblical scholars and such complaining that the story is ridiculous and has no place being discussed there.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Anonymous Coward]

Watch any of the 20 or so religious channels or late night Praise Jebus shows and tell me the whole thing's not a scam.

As far as carbon dating anything, please, there have been so many religious hoaxes of the years you can't keep up.

Send me 200.00 USD and Jesus will send you thousands back. Right.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Cederic]

Folks who would hold the shroud to be proof of Christ's resurrection would likely hold to a literal reading of the 10 commandments too, so worshiping the image on the shroud would be inconsistent with their profession.

That makes sense. They'd be betraying their own lies to themselves.

Oh, you want to have a philosophical argument about the existence of God... Sorry, I'm not sure you have even a basic command of the facts given your wording, and there is a saying about "Not casting your pearls before swine" that comes to mind...

You appear to be a bit short on the pearl front. Meanwhile, I guess I'm a cannibal. Gammon is GOOD.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[OrangeTide]

There is a reason citing Wikipedia is an automatic F in most universities.

Luckily this is a casual forum and not a thesis paper. Where a link to a massive list of citations should be more than enough to satisfy even the most voracious pedant.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a Wikipedia page you may find interesting, Reductio ad absurdum.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Dan East]

Jesus is God, but is evil, and deliberately refrains from actions that would save sentient beings he presumably loves and who are capable of suffering from an easily preventable eternity of suffering.

In order to be sentient beings that are truly free, one must be given a choice. That choice was in the form of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Placing Adam and Eve in a walled garden that they could never leave, nor ever ascend or descend out of, is nothing more than a pet hamster in a cage. They could not have enjoyed Free Will had that been the case. Mankind is unique in the bible compared to other entities, such as angels and demons, as mankind has the ability to procreate. Angels, on the other hand, are each individual creations that cannot reproduce. According to the bible, angels wonder after humanity, because humanity has the ability to procreate and reproduce. (as a side note, it is not biblically correct that people who die "get their wings" and turn into angels) Anyway, back to the choice (aka tree). Mankind was given a choice, as a whole. When Adam and Eve sinned, their sin affected their offspring as well - aka all of humanity - because they had the power to procreate. Nothing mankind was capable of could ever atone for that sin, because mankind was then flawed and imperfect. The best that could be done was to take the purest, best fruits (both animal and plant) and offer them up as a sacrifice to atone for the sin committed by the forefathers. When Jesus came he was both man and God. He lived a sinless life as a human, and was sacrificed by humanity without justification. He offered himself as that perfect sacrifice, and as he was sinless, he was able to atone for Adam and Eve's sin, and provide a route for humanity to once again become pure in God's eyes. The only thing that any person has to do to receive this atonement is to simply believe that Jesus Christ was both man and son of God, and died for their sins.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[phreakazoas]

I haven't the faintest clue how your beliefs even relate to Buddhism considering you don't believe in reincarnation or the karmic cycle, etc. I guess you can call yourself whatever you want. You probably are an Atheist who embrasses some aspects of Buddhism. Mohammed, as far as I understood the muslim story to be, never wrote down the Quran. That was part of the alleged miracle, i.e. that he was illiterate and yet dictated the Quran. Others did, or verbally memorized it and recited it. Within a generation it was by Caliph Uthman, if memory serves, compiled into the Quran as we know it now, and possible variants were burnt/destroyed. Revelations did come at different times according to Islam(it speaks of the times in the Hadith). Most religions are about the miraculous in some way, i.e. that which is impossible physically - the supernatural. It would be impossible to follow most religions and not believe in things that cannot be scientifically substantiated. Otherwise, those things wouldn't be supernatural and those things would be Science and not faith. You can never prove the Resurrection of Christ nor that Mohammed was met by the Archangel Gabriel, etc. That's the point. I won't go into this further, but essentially without dating the ink, little is shown. People used older parchment and hides, and even erased/wiped them off and then wrote something else on them later. The ink has to be tested. I don't think the thing is a forgery. On a cool note, one forger, which unfortunately I can't remember the case, managed to use medieval ink(how did he get it?) on a medieval parchment and sold it for millions of dollars. It was only years later that it was shown to be a fake. He was already dead by then :). Now that's genius. If only I had those skills :(

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[phreakazoas]

That's to be expected. The media generally glosses over details and gets them wrong oftentimes just to have a good story. Journalists write about fields they know nothing about oftentimes. They oftentimes have a set desired story and then find the off field people in the field who agree with their desired results.
A good example of this is the previously-mentioned Talpiot Tomb with its given wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and then about the movie made from it by James Cameron: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... , you will find that under the criticisms that essentially the thing is bogus. It states on the bone container that it contains Jesus son of Joseph and then there is a container with a Mary. As shown in the critiques, Jesus was the 6th most common name at the time, Joseph was the 2nd, and Mary was the most common for females. There was a Judah(4th most common name) son of Jesus and someone else if I remember.
Currently, http://names.mongabay.com/male... , that would be like finding a tomb with a David son of John, Michael son of David and a Mary and then claiming it was a specific person. They only DNA tested and found that the Mary and Jesus weren't related *maternally*. Therefore the assumption is made that it must be the wife. Ever heard of paternal cousins? I have quite a few. They didn't test the DNA of the others and asked why not indicated that they weren't scientists/archealogist but journalists. I.e. if there story doesn't fit they have issues. An academic paper was never submitted to an archealogical journal for review. The media doesn't just do that with religion but with many subjects.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you left out the why part.

I think it's because belief requires a certain humility.

Think about the last time someone screwed you over. Did they apologize? Would you have accepted their apology if they acted all arrogant and haughty about it as though they didn't mean it?
Why should God accept an apology from anyone who isn't actually sorry? How can we demonstrate our repentance? By being humble enough to say it: Jesus is Lord.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Anonymous Coward]

"Interestingly, the shroud of Turin isn't exactly mentioned in the Bible as being the lynchpin of the Christian faith." - correct, but it was used as "proof" jesus existed

By whom? Please be specific. I want you to name specific people who claimed this before I am going to accept your claim.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[KGIII]

Do you know anything more about what to search for if I'm curious about the scraping process? I'm assuming this must be hide based.

As for your forgery story - I recall something very similar or perhaps the same story. I seem to recall that they were supposedly stealing the paper from old manuscripts at a library or private book collection but nobody figured out how they made the ink? If that's the same story then I'm vaguely familiar with it. I think it involved a monastery in Germany or some such.

I'm not sure how they'd go about testing just the ink without destroying the document. I guess, if it's on some hide (I still haven't read the article or looked into it deeply except to skim a link someone posted) then maybe they could separate a small amount from the hide assuming it hasn't been bound with the hide entirely but I'm not sure how accurate that could even be. That and, well, from what I've seen they seem to require quite a bit of material to do carbon testing.

It will be interesting to see where this goes. I'm guessing that this is a popular subject and will get some attention. I'm not sure how there can be more testing though - at least not the ink in and of itself and without destroying the document. Maybe there's some spillage in an unused section and they can remove that for testing?

Also, I think your memory is correct. The scholars seemed to think (again, a documentary or two on Islam) that the Koran was written not long after his death but not while he was alive. Your mention of a generation seems likely and I think the scholars had mentioned him living to be in his mid-60s.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[phreakazoas]

Even the wikipedia article and then the article on the documentary by James Cameron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... , especially the second of the two, shows that there is more criticism than agreement on the conclusion given of the Talpiot Tomb.

It states on the bone container that it contains Jesus son of Joseph and then there is a container with a Mary. As shown in the article, Jesus was the 6th most common name at the time, Joseph was the 2nd, and Mary was the most common for females. There was a Judah(4th most common name) son of Jesus and someone else if I remember.

Currently, http://names.mongabay.com/male... , that would be like finding a tomb with a David son of John, Michael son of David and a Mary and then claiming it was a specific person. They only DNA tested and found that the Mary and Jesus weren't related *maternally*. Therefore the assumption is made that it must be the wife. Ever heard of paternal cousins? I have quite a few. They didn't test the DNA of the others and asked why not indicated that they weren't scientists/archealogist but journalists. I.e. if their story doesn't fit they have issues. An academic paper was never submitted to an archealogical journal for review. The media doesn't just do that with religion but with many subjects.

The article for the movie, which contains the more extraordinary claims being made, contains great critiques.

This all reminds me of how dissapointed I am in general with documentary quality as it has degraded over the last 20-30 years. The journalist were more honest scientifically it seems then and gave good explanations of things. Now, it seems like we are fed pop candy science with flashy pictures.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[phreakazoas]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... . The belief that he didn't exist is sort of back water and uncommon. There are writers and scholars who believe in many things, which are often contradictory. You could find an odd scholar to back lots of odd beliefs. The overall consensus is that Jesus did exist. The nature of that existence is at question though.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[phreakazoas]

We observe ancient gravity daily when we see its effect on the stars since we are seeing their light from millions or billions of years ago(it takes a long time to get here). I we could be in a matrix or something. But, I'm speaking of the world as we observe it.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Copid]

The proportions aren't assumed to be the same over time.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[HornWumpus]

I have the exclusive earth franchise to sell 'payoff in the kingdom of heaven annuities'.

No I don't accept checks written on the 'bank of heaven'.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[PopeRatzo]

Tell you what. You look at the section of the citation that you provided on the research proving the existence of Jesus and come back and tell us whether you think the methodology passes the smell test.

It's all based on conjecture, writings from the 3rd and 4th centuries and wishful thinking.

See for yourself. It's your own goddamn citation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[PopeRatzo]

Very simply, the best evaluation of what evidence we have is that there was this guy named Joshua in first century Judea and Galilee. He preached and was likely executed as a political criminal by the Roman Imperial government. His followers believed he was the Son of God and founded a religion that became Christianity. And that is about as simple as a story as you can make it, which to me seems like the most likely history by far.

So, you're saying that the most likely Jesus wasn't Jesus?

There were scores of "messiahs" around at the time of the Roman occupation. The zealots had half of them. Their followers all deified them and their disciples and their disciples children all created origin stories for them. It was basically Marvel vs DC, except all the heroes were Jewish.

Look, I'm a big supporter of Christianity. I think faith is a good thing. But there's no historical Jesus and I'm not sure why it even matters.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[phreakazoas]

I heard about the "scraping process" when in theology(I completed and then went on to do Computer Science lol). But, years ago I saw it again in relation to a Yemeni manuscript of the Quran, which had that on it. It is called the Sana'a manuscript https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... . The process is called palimpsest and has an article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... . That's definitely my word of the day.

I'm sure we are referring to the same story about the forger. Even the ussuary of Jesus' brother James was supposedly found, only to have been found to be a fake(the inscription at least) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... . Not that anyone would care if they found it. Plus, if I remember Josephus claimed that he was thrown off the temple wall at some point (prior to 70CE when the temple was destroyed of course).

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[rgbatduke]

In order to be sentient beings that are truly free, one must be given a choice.

It would be interesting to discuss precisely what you mean by this, since in one sense I have a near infinity of choices I make instant to instant -- to strike the letter "*" in between the previous quotes, for example (where I had to think for a second about just which key would best make my point and so I involved my true sentient freedom, I suppose) and in another if the laws of physics are actually what they appear to be, in some fundamental sense I will never be free. But let's assume for grins that you mean "moral" choice. Leaving aside the absolute absurdity of the inheritability of sin and punishing people for something that in fact they did not do (as I personally was not there in the mythical garden you refer to, and neither was anybody else, because it is a myth, a metaphor, not an actual description of something that actually happened), let's see what the true moral choice before you is.

I think that we'll all agree that in general believing in a falsehood is a bad thing. If you disagree, then obviously we have little more to discuss. Furthermore, I certainly hope that you'll agree that our knowledge of the world around us is highly imperfect. After all, you are implicitly asserting that all of physics, biology, chemistry, astrophysics, genetics, and countless other pieces of evidence-supported knowledge are incorrect when you start speaking of a Tree of Knowledge as if it were something that actually existed in a strictly bounded timeframe that is nowhere near the length of the observational record we can infer from simple observations and physical laws and that is described in an absolutely absurd myth that is contradicted on every single assertion that it makes by scientifically observed fact. No matter what certainty you wish to accord your "knowledge" derived from a myth thousands of years old with no possible reliable provenance compared to simple matters you can verify with your own eyes and understanding, the mere fact that I in the very best of faith disagree means that at least one of us has imperfect knowledge of the world, and only a tiny bit of insight into the imperfection of our brains and senses should be sufficient to convince you that the only honest conclusion is that neither one of us can be certain of our knowledge of the real world around us. We have little choice but to doubt it.

We therefore have a moral responsibility to believe the most that which we can doubt the least, in some mathematically and logically defensible sense, given the entire body of our observational knowledge. So here is a simple, logical argument for you. Let's start with Thomas Paine:

"If we are to suppose a miracle to be something so entirely out of the course of what is called nature, that she must go out of that course to accomplish it, and we see an account given of such miracle by the person who said he saw it, it raises a question in the mind very easily decided, which is, is it more probable that nature should go out of her course, or that a man should tell a lie? We have never seen, in our time, nature go out of her course; but we have good reason to believe that millions of lies have been told in the same time; it is therefore, at least millions to one, that the reporter of a miracle tells a lie." (Paine 1794)

This is actually completely inadequate as a statistical statement. The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics are what is meant by "nature going out of its course". We have never observed these laws to be substantively violated, in far more than milllions of observations. In addition, I think that we have to agree that in addition to being mistaken about imperfect beliefs, humans are prone to lie, to make things up, to con people, to tell them falsehoods for the fun of it, to hide guilt, or for personal gain. Human testimony is enormously unreliable. Hearsay testimony is so unr

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[publiclurker]

too bad stating that there is evidence over and over again is not the same thing as having any actual evidence.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think "profit" means what you think it means... or maybe it does...

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[phreakazoas]

Well, actually, I have a poor sense of smell and if you want to refute the wikipedia article and challenge the sources, do so. That onus is yours. That's the only way things are improved. The earliest papyrii we have is from the 2nd century not the 3rd and date of authorship(divine or not) ranges from 60-130 depending on the document and the book you are referring to even according to liberal scholars. And sources...well have fun, not going to bother with you :)

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[mattack2]

Look, I'm a big supporter of Christianity. I think faith is a good thing. But there's no historical Jesus and I'm not sure why it even matters.

Uhh, because it's the lynchpin of the entire religion?

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Anonymous Coward]

To show the shroud is authentic as what exactly? Are you saying that if you can prove the shroud came from the right time period that this proves it has anything to do with the son of god? Even if it was proven beyond doubt this came from about 30AD (roughly when Jesus is thought to have died), it would just prove that the shroud is a really old peice of cloth- that's all.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Anonymous Coward]

None of those things contradict each other because all of them are metaphorical.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Anonymous Coward]

So now let’s do a direct, line by line, word by word comparison of the first verse in the Koran and II Corinthians 4:4.

Koran: All praise is due to Allah, the God of the Worlds.
Bible: [KJV] —————–In whom the God of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not [the bible], lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

http://biblebookprofiler.com/blog/2015/07/02/a-mini-comparative-religions-course/

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[PopeRatzo]

Well, actually, I have a poor sense of smell and if you want to refute the wikipedia article and challenge the sources, do so. That onus is yours.

I won't refute the Wikipedia article. I will quote it:

"Criticism of Jesus research methods[edit]
A number of scholars have criticised Historical Jesus research for religious bias and lack of methodological soundness, and some have argued that modern biblical scholarship is insufficiently critical and sometimes amounts to covert apologetics.[141][142]

Theological bias[edit]
John Meier, a Catholic priest and a professor of theology at University of Notre Dame, has stated "... I think a lot of the confusion comes from the fact that people claim they are doing a quest for the historical Jesus when de facto they’re doing theology, albeit a theology that is indeed historically informed ..."[143] Meier also wrote that in the past the quest for the historical Jesus has often been motivated more by a desire to produce an alternate Christology than a true historical search.[28]

The British Methodist scholar Clive Marsh[144] has stated that the construction of the portraits of Jesus as part of various quests have often been driven by "specific agendas" and that historical components of the relevant biblical texts are often interpreted to fit specific goals.[29] Marsh lists theological agendas that aim to confirm the divinity of Jesus, anti-ecclesiastical agendas that aim to discredit Christianity and political agendas that aim to interpret the teachings of Jesus with the hope of causing social change.[29][145]

The New Testament scholar Nicholas Perrin has argued that since most biblical scholars are Christians, a certain bias is inevitable, but he does not see this as a major problem.[146][147]

Lack of methodological soundness[edit]
The historical analysis techniques used by biblical scholars have been questioned,[27][28][29] and according to James Dunn it is not possible "to construct (from the available data) a Jesus who will be the real Jesus."[148][149][150]

W.R. Herzog has stated that "What we call the historical Jesus is the composite of the recoverable bits and pieces of historical information and speculation about him that we assemble, construct, and reconstruct. For this reason, the historical Jesus is, in Meier's words, 'a modern abstraction and construct.'"[151]

Donald Akenson, Professor of Irish Studies in the department of history at Queen's University has argued that, with very few exceptions, the historians attempting to reconstruct a biography of the man apart from the mere facts of his existence and crucifixion have not followed sound historical practices. He has stated that there is an unhealthy reliance on consensus, for propositions, which should otherwise be based on primary sources, or rigorous interpretation. He also identifies a peculiar downward dating creep, and holds that some of the criteria being used are faulty. He says that the overwhelming majority of biblical scholars are employed in institutions whose roots are in religious beliefs. Because of this, more than any other group in present-day academia, biblical historians are under immense pressure to theologize their historical work. It is only through considerable individual heroism, that many biblical historians have managed to maintain the scholarly integrity of their work.[152][153]

Dale Allison, a Presbyterian theologian and professor of New Testament Exegesis and Early Christianity at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, says, "... We wield our criteria to get what we want ..."[27]

According to James Dunn, "...the 'historical Jesus' is properly speaking a nineteenth- and twentieth-century construction using the data provided by the Synoptic tradition, not Jesus back then and not a figure in history."[154] (Emphasis in the original). Dunn further explains that "the facts are not to be identified as data; they are always an interpretation o

Re: Well, that's embarrassing

[Anonymous Coward]

Flying Spaghetti Monster is lord... fixed that for you.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[PopeRatzo]

Uhh, because it's the lynchpin of the entire religion?

Hey, don't blame me. I'm not the one who made it up.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as they are not worshiping the image, it doesn't matter.

How is worshipping the image any more nonsensical than worshipping the zombie jesus it allegedly depicts?

Jesus not a zombie; here's the difference:

Zombies eat people.

People on the other hand eat Jesus.

Re: Well, that's embarrassing

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn, you're more verbose that the hosts file dude.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Anonymous Coward]

Matthew's gospel was written in Hebrew.

Also, Josephus mentions Jesus in his historical texts. Being a Jew, he had nothing to gain from admitting Jesus' existence. He evidently did so because it was widely known to be fact at the time.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[bobbied]

Now you are trolling.... Blindly claiming some position to be true is a bad thing too...

Where would you like to start here?

Let me see.... How about discussing the historical basis for the text of the Bible, specifically the OT books? There is a lot of evidence, shared by the top three religions in this world (Islam, Judaism, Christianity), that these writings have existed in their current form for at least 3,000 years.

Or, how about the NT? It claims to have been written by a handful of Jewish guys prior to 100AD. What say you about that?

There are two basic pieces of evidence for the historical existence of the text of protestant Bible that indicate that this text was written by the authors it claims during the likely time they where alive. So, as a historical text, it needs to be taken seriously....

With me so far?

Then, there is the general facts around this character Jesus of Nazareth. Think about how insignificant this guy would have been, the first son of a poor tradesmen carpenter, living in a poor military town in the backwater of a insignificant Roman province. His father was likely dead, leaving him responsible for his widowed mother and he was executed as a criminal by a hapless Roman governor in order to stop a riot. He owned no property, had no money and had no descendants. He only had 12 followers, well make that 11 by the time he died. How is this guy important enough in history that we now count the years since his advent? How is this insignificant minor rebel who died with nothing at the hands of the Romans even discussed today? I contend that this is because there was something historically unique about him.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Anonymous Coward]

Just for correction: "one of the main points of Islam is that Muhammad wrote the Koran". Mohammed was known to be illiterate by muslims (i.e. he didn't know how to read and write).

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Anonymous Coward]

it would be akin to finding a written account of Jesus' life that carbon-dates to 30-40 BCE... now *that* would be faith-shaking.

Not really. It would just be prophetic.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Anonymous Coward]

And basically nobody believed those things, even then. Yet we have quite a lot written about some ancient carpenter who was essentially a nobody until their followers made the news, but we're supposed to believe there was no such person ... and yet we only discovered this 2,000 years after the fact.

The biggest problem with this theory is the fact that, in spite of the great many things argued against Christianity, nobody ever said "what are you talking about, we're the chief priests and we had nothing to do with asking Pilate to execute anybody named Jesus!"

Which is really, really funny for a story involving a whole lot of historical figures, like Pilate, the chief priests, etc. who were notable and influential people in the area when it would have been a very simple way to rebut the heretics who were persecuted by both Roman and Jewish authorities for several generations after the death of Jesus.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Anonymous Coward]

Christianity viewed through the same eyes sounds a lot like a Hippy Commune led by a stage magician that got out of hand (free love, peace on earth, down with the establishment, man, no watch me pull lazarus out of a hat)

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[phreakazoas]

I said nothing against what was said there, in fact, they all speak of perceived broad issues, but it doesn't state any specific issue with any particular argument or source about the existence of Jesus. Even one of the guys quoted by you states that most people who study the historical period of Jesus believe that he did exist, and do not write in support of the Christ myth theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory#Criticism). Again, the issue isn't the existence of said person, but is about what he did.
How we perceive a 1st century entity won't be perfect and will be with bias. How we perceive Julius Ceasar is likewise tainted. But, he still existed.
Look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and the criticism section and smell all you like. And you never responded to your authorship and dating issues. And also there is more at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... .

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[PopeRatzo]

Also, Josephus mentions Jesus in his historical texts.

Josephus was born after Jesus died. The historicity of his writings are suspect.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/c...

Also, the two (2) references to Jesus that Josephus makes were almost certainly scribal additions, added much later by someone who was not Josephus.

"Josephus was born after Jesus died, so in the most charitable interpretation, he is simply passing along second-hand information. More damning, scholars almost universally agree that this was not original to Josephus. He was a Jew, not a Christian, and this isn’t what he would’ve written. Also, the passage interrupts the flow of the book at this point (that is, the book would read better if this passage were removed), and it is briefer than similar summaries in the rest of the work. This is what you’d expect from a later addition.
From the Jewish standpoint, Josephus was a traitor. Formerly a Jewish commander, he defected to the Roman side during the First Jewish-Roman War in around 67, and his history was written in Rome. Jews had little interest in copying his works to keep them in circulation, and it was mostly Christians who copied them. They might have been motivated to “improve” Josephus.
The earliest copy of the Testimonium Flavianum is from Eusebius (324 CE or earlier). That it is traceable back to Eusebius raises concerns. He is not considered an especially reliable historian, and it’s possible that he added this paragraph.
The second passage is a bit long, so let me summarize. Ananus was named the new high priest. He was eager to establish his authority, and he sentenced a group of men to death, one of whom was James the brother of Jesus. There was an outcry against this execution (perhaps it was hasty or was built on insufficient evidence—the text isn’t specific), and concerned citizens petitioned the Roman procurator to rein in Ananus. The procurator agreed and removed Ananus from the high priesthood, “and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.”
Let’s return to James, one of the unfortunates executed by stoning. The text says:
[Ananus] assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others
While this doesn’t celebrate the miracles of Jesus, it does at least establish the existence of Jesus Christ in the first century, since the book was written in about 93 CE. However, David Fitzgerald (Nailed, p. 58–61) summarizes a Richard Carrier argument that makes an intriguing case that this isn’t what it seems to be.
The first problem is that this isn’t how other accounts describe the death of James the Just, the brother of Jesus Christ and first bishop of Jerusalem.
Next, notice the clumsy sentence structure:
“the brother of Jesus,
who was called the Christ,
whose name was James ”
rather than simply “the brother of Jesus, whose name was James.” Imagine if “who was called the Christ” was originally a marginal note in a copy that was merged into the manuscript by a later scribe. Scholars can point to many examples of these scribal insertions. In the form that we have it, it’s like a chatty email that drops “and then I saw Jesus” into a rather boring summary of a trip to the mall. Surely the reader of Josephus would say, “What?? Who cares about James? Go back and elaborate on that Christ bit!” This is what journalists call “burying the lead.”
The argument for that phrase being an addition goes from intriguing to convincing when we consider how the passage ends. Who replaced the hotheaded Ananus? It was “Jesus, the son of Damneus.” (Don’t forget that Jesus or Yeshua was a popular name at this time.)
Before, you

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[phreakazoas]

Thee believe not part addition [Bible] is not what it is speaking about. Believe not, i.e. salvation through Christ, God, i.e. the gospel if read in context. The Bible contains those things, but isn't the same as those things :)

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[CanadianMacFan]

I carbon dated that book and found it was written before Josh McDowell was born.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[phreakazoas]

Where it says, "...blinded the minds of them which believe not", the addition of [the Bible] is not what it is being spoken about. Believe not, as in those who do not beleive in salvation through the Christ, if read in context. The Bible speaks of those things, but isn't the same as those things :)

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[KGIII]

Yeah, I should have said he said what is in the Koran. It was written after he died as I mentioned later. :/

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[bobbied]

LOL.. Well my copy dated to after 2030 after I dipped it in Carbon 14 dust...

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[KGIII]

I dimly recall another documentary about fake antiquities, biblical in nature, coming out of the same area as the box did in your Wikipedia link. I seem to recall that there was some investigation into a master forger who was pushing works out through unsuspecting dealers? One item was a box (I'm not sure if that's the same one) but there were more of them that were being questioned. I think the conclusion was that they did not really know but there were some pretty big indicators that they *might* have been forged. I think, in the documentary, someone went to prison for a long time (they take this stuff serious it seems) but it was for different charges?

I really should start trying to remember the names of all these documentaries. *sighs* The thing is that I watch them for light learning and amusement and not as a rigorous study or anything so I tend to forget all the names, details, etc... It probably doesn't help that I used to drink a great deal and watched many of them while I was drunk.

Thanks for the links. I may return with more questions - I'm off to read the first two links.

Re: Well, that's embarrassing

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes but this Bible stuff was written only after they were dead and was not widely read until later still.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Anonymous Coward]

> I believe the Shroud may be genuine...

The main evidence that the shroud is not genuine is that the image could not have been made by wrapping it around the body or held in any manner that would form that particular image.

Put some coloured cream on yon your face and then wrap a cloth around your face to include both ears. The result is _nothing_ like the image on the shoud. Put some cream on the back of your head and put the cloth from your face to the back of your head. Again it is _nothing_ like the image.

The shroud's image is like that of two photographs taken separately, one of the front and one of the back. The image is such that the body is several feet or several yards away from the cloth forming the image through a lens. 'Cameras' (meaning closed room) go back to ancient Greece, lens from 11th century or earlier. It is quite possible that the shroud's images were formed using a photographic technique in the 14th or 15 century. It is impossible that the images were formed by contact or near contact with a body.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[reboot246]

Some believe that Joseph of Arimathea was Jesus' uncle (or great uncle). In fact, some believe that he had traveled with his uncle (a trader) all around the known world before he began his ministry. Maybe Jesus was born to a wealthy family? He did know how to read and write, something a lowly commoner would not have known. He was well-read and educated. Again, not something the lower class would have been.

Do I believe it? Not really, but it is interesting to consider.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[PopeRatzo]

Yet we have quite a lot written about some ancient carpenter

Even the historians who support a historical Jesus don't believe he was a carpenter. Just for the record.

The original Greek word used in the passage calling Jesus a carpenter is "tekton", which means "builder". Considering how few structures in that period were made of wood, it's far more likely that a historical Jesus, if he existed, was a stonemason.

Some historians believe the "builder" story was just cover for the political activities of Jesus. The way politicians put on work clothes and go clear brush to make people believe they're just regular folks. There's also a very good argument that the Jesus of the bible was actually royalty. From what I've read, the most compelling argument is that the stories of Jesus were actually allegory describing the campaigns of Titus Flavius. And since Josephus was a known traitor in collusion with the Romans, it would make sense that he was acting as a Titus Flavius' press agent and made up the story of Jesus out of whole cloth.

This does not diminish one bit the teachings presented in the gospels, and I have great respect for Christians. The Pauline books are a bunch of hokum in my opinion. Paul is the one who turned the Jesus story into a religion, and all of his personal kinks were carried along for the ride.

Re: Well, that's embarrassing

[don.g]

That's all well and good, but by the standard of historical documents from the same time period, the New Testament is pretty darn good. The Gospels were all written within 60 years of Jesus' death. There were eyewitnesses around to say "that's not what I saw!"

Other historians of the time (e.g. Josephus) corroborate Jesus' existence.

If you're going to pick a fight with a 2000 year old religion, don't embarrass yourself with the "it was all made up" and "Jesus didn't exist" arguments.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[PopeRatzo]

Matthew's gospel was written in Hebrew.

No Hebrew manuscript of Matthew has ever been found. The claim that it was written in Hebrew comes from two fragments written by second century bishops, who also said that they had never seen a Hebrew manuscript.

In fact, there is enough linguistic agreement between the gospels that most historians (and linguists) believe that all four were written in Greek. The people who say Matthew was written in Hebrew (or Aramaic) are in every case proponents of the extraordinary claims of Christianity. It's like saying that you believe Obama was born in Kenya because some Fox News blonde said so.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[MrNaz]

This is a joke. Full disclosure: I'm a Muslim. Nonetheless, I've read this article and it's bollocks. There are at least two major flaws that I can see:

a) Paper back then was a valuable resource, and it is highly likely that this parchment was either made and stored for several years before being used, or could have been reused.
b) Radiocarbon dating is NOT accurate to 2 years in 1400, or about 0.14% which is what they are claiming.
c) Even if we DO accept the radiocarbon dating, the date range confidence intervals overlap the historically recorded dates anyway well within one standard deviation so I don't know where all this "OMG this Koran is older" nonsense is coming from, unless some idiot journalist took the mean value and took that as, ahem, gospel.

As I said earlier, in the interests of intellectual honesty I'm disclosing the fact that I am a Muslim and that I would have to engage in significant review of my world view, were this proved correct. But as I see it, there just is nothing to this claim that warrants any time spent considering the possibility that the whole historical record to date is wrong.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[MrNaz]

There are THREE major flaws in this... No FOUR major flaws in this... Among the major flaws in this article are...

I bet nobody expected that.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[quenda]

it would be akin to finding a written account of Jesus' life that carbon-dates to 30-40 BCE... now *that* would be faith-shaking.

Even an account from 30-40 *AD* would likely be faith-shaking. Everything we have was written by people who never met Jesus, most of it long after his death by anonymous authors. (No, the gospels were not written by the disciples with whose names they are traditionally associated.)

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Anonymous Coward]

What about now?

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[publiclurker]

so basically you have nothing, you know you have nothing and still think you can BS your way through by restating over and over the same nothing. Face it son, you have nothing. How about you admit it and stop wasting the grownups time.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[mark-t]

Your reasoning assumes that if the shroud were genuine, then the energy that was used to impress the image would have radiated in all directions from Christ's body, leaving behind an image that looks quite different from one that resembles a photograph taken from some distance.

However, there is no basis to assume that.... if the shroud were genuine and the image actually formed at the moment of Christ's resurrection, the energies released during the event, at least insomuch as we would be able to discern the manifestation of it, could easily have have been entirely unidirectional, thereby producing an image more consistent with that of a photo,. like what is on the shroud.

And of course, the image doesn't even correspond with what most contemporary images of Jesus were portrayed to look like at the time of the shroud's alleged mideval manufacture.... it was common at the time to portray Christ's wounds as being in the center of his palms, and not at end of the wrists, as the shroud depicts. If it really was done by a forger, it was done by someone who had somehow figured out how crucifixion with nails was actually practiced, and was even more interested in being attentive to those details and scientific accuracy than in even being widely believed, since most people at the time would not have identified with the wounds being in the location where they were depicted on the shroud.

Sure, it's still possible that it was created by a charlatan, but how, and why? Particularly since nobody would have believed him in his lifetime anyways because it didn't conform to the common perception of Jesus. Assuming, of course, they could even see the image at all (since the image is all but completely invisible to the unaided eye).

Re: Well, that's embarrassing

[yeshuawatso]

Hey, don't bring me into this conversation. I'm here to read the comments, not be called out in them.

Re: Well, that's embarrassing

[Anonymous Coward]

But could you accept that you may have been deceived? You are a victim of a long running scam potentially.

Re: Well, that's embarrassing

[Anonymous Coward]

The significant question is: would it have mattered to your world view if the text had indeed predated Muhammad by an eon.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[guises]

That's why the gospels were written in Greek? Wait, what's the reason you give? Lack of evidence for Jesus' existence is why the gospels were written in greek? How does that work?

Greek was the "international" language, pervasive throughout the Roman empire at the time. Any information you'd want to spread would almost certainly be written in Greek. It held more or less the position that English does today. Jesus and his followers spoke Aramaic, they were also poor and it's virtually certain that they were illiterate. The gospel "according to Luke" is not a gospel written by Luke, it's a gospel attributed to Luke and written by someone else. Someone who wanted the information disseminated, and so wrote it in Greek.

Re: Well, that's embarrassing

[MrNaz]

I can accept that possibility. However, my choice to follow the religion is based on a thoroughly open eyed evaluation of its body of knowledge.

Re: Well, that's embarrassing

[MrNaz]

Also, ironically, in this situation, I'm the one who evaluated the veracity of the radiocarbon dating claim made by the author of that article rather than accepting it on, well, blind faith.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[tehcyder]

The Bible is true because it's the word of God. Proof? It says so in the Bible!

Re: Well, that's embarrassing

[rgbatduke]

You might want to read something like Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus", or look at some historical examples of the game of "telephone" and how easily it can generate spurious information, as opposed to church propaganda. I agree that it is probably more likely than not that a unitary Jesus existed, but it isn't more likely than not as in 99% likely, it is more likely than not maybe 60-40 or 70-30, and it is certain that we know nothing reliable about Jesus' life outside of -- maybe -- his sayings. Luke and Matthew disagree categorically about his birth and don't even have it occurring during the same decade or the reign of the same Herod. Mark (the oldest synoptic and likely source for the material in the other two) starts with Jesus fully grown, appearing more or less out of nowhere (and ends, in the earliest extant manuscripts, with Jesus dead and in the tomb and with no resurrection -- the last 16 verses of Mark are later additions). None of the synoptics were written by eyewitnesses (obviously), all were written (probably) after the fall of the temple, and there is a clear progression in "miraculousness" with their probable age, as one would expect from people embellishing and adding new myths and legends to support a newborn cult against all of its competitors. And we have nothing like original source material. The Bible you know is the result of copies of copies of copies of... copies of manuscripts ultimately leading to some poor mistranslations that were transformed into dogma once the printing press was invented. Ehrman began as a born again Christian who studied the New Testament because he wanted to learn the word of God as it was actually written down, and is now an agnostic who ultimately concluded that there is no such thing in this world, that its original content is lost forever and is irretrievable. Which is inconsistent with the usual "true believer" belief in its infallibility, in the idea that it is a gift from God to guide us, that it is a reliable guide to life or even merely a true account of the Jesus who might or might not be documented there.

As for Josephus -- quite aside from the fact that he is not an eyewitness, writing in the mid-90's CE, he mentions Jesus three times. All three are subject to very serious doubt. For one thing, we have nothing like a reliable chain of transmission for Josephus any more than we do the Bible. Do you have any idea at all what the oldest copy of Josephus extant is dated back to? Let's guess that the answer is no. The answer is (IIRC) the twelfth century for the Cyriac copy. Again, we have copies of copies of copies, usually written in languages that aren't even the original language of the manuscript, copies of translations of the manuscript that were copied and preserved by the very church that post-Constantine found it useful. Nearly all scholars who study Josephus agree that at least part of the references to Jesus in Antiquities are insertions. But which ones? There is widespread belief in there being an "authentic kernel" that was his original text, but the problem with extracting it is (aside from the fact that it is literally impossible to do because we cannot at this time differentiate forgery from original by anything but guesswork and cannot even be certain there IS any original left) that at best, the result of such a process is open to considerable doubt. It is a matter of guessing, and of course any guess would be subject to enormous personal bias on the part of the guesser -- there is no objective way to determine the truth.

I would suggest that you read this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

and note that there is pretty good reason to think that all of the references to Jesus in Antiquities are insertions, or at least have been corrupted irretrievably, and there is at least some reason to think that the entire Testimonium is a forgery deliberately inserted by Eusebius. It

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[tehcyder]

Meanwhile... the Quran is the actual scripture of Islam; if it was found to have existed *before* the founder existed (let alone wrote it, received it from Heaven, whatever)? That's kind of like kicking the pillars out from under a rather delicate tower

You can explain that by saying that Allah had prepared the Quran earlier and kept it in Heaven waiting for Mohammed, or that the parchment is a special one immune to carbon dating because Allah has breathed on it, or simply that the ordinary laws of space-time don't apply to Holy Prophets.

If logic and science could destroy religions there'd be none left by now. But religion is impervious to reason.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[tehcyder]

The question of the existence of an historical Jesus seems pretty irrelevant to me. The real issue is the "Son of God" business. If someone suddenly found a series of contemporary witness reports and paintings of Jesus, it wouldn't say anything about whether or not he was divine.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[tehcyder]

No-one knows Jesus's blood type

Type J, surely?

Re: Well, that's embarrassing

[Anonymous Coward]

There are some problems with your Flavian theory. Tacitus mentions Christians being blamed for burning Rome in 64 AD, under Nero. That indicates that Christians were in Rome and at least well-known enough to be scapegoated by that time. Pompeii is buried in 79, and a Sator square found there seems to indicate Christian presence (there is no evidence linking the squares to Mithraism, and plenty of later evidence for association with Christians). Those two points suggest that Christianity was spreading in Italy in some form by the beginning of Titus' reign.

Re: Well, that's embarrassing

[PopeRatzo]

There are some problems with your Flavian theory.

There were certainly Christians in Rome by the time Tacitus was writing (probably the late 70's or 80s). Assigning blame to them may be more political than historical. Just a thought.

I'm not that heavily invested in whether or not Joseph Atwill's theories about Titus are true. I don't believe the historicity of the Christ really makes a difference to the value of Christian teachings. It's all a matter of faith, for those that have faith.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Anonymous Coward]

. I really can't wait for Muslims to get out of this phase.

None of us currently living. Will live long enough to see that happen.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Gr8Apes]

Here's some thoughts about cults in general (yes, all religions started as cults, and thus will always be cults):

• David Koresh
• Jim Jones
• Heaven's Gate
• Scientology
• Joseph Smith
• ....

Now as an exercise, discuss the fundamental difference between those and any others you choose that have a prophet.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[TemporalBeing]

That's why the gospels were written in Greek? Wait, what's the reason you give? Lack of evidence for Jesus' existence is why the gospels were written in greek? How does that work? Greek was the "international" language, pervasive throughout the Roman empire at the time. Any information you'd want to spread would almost certainly be written in Greek. It held more or less the position that English does today. Jesus and his followers spoke Aramaic, they were also poor and it's virtually certain that they were illiterate.

While I mostly agree...if you follow the gospels, then at the very least Jesus was not illiterate as he read from Temple scrolls in public.

The gospel "according to Luke" is not a gospel written by Luke, it's a gospel attributed to Luke and written by someone else. Someone who wanted the information disseminated, and so wrote it in Greek.

Paul (also known as Saul) and Luke were both educated individuals. Saul being from a wealthy background and highly studied and respect Pharisee. Luke was a doctor of the day. So it is very likely they wrote the works themselves as they would have been sufficiently educated to do so. These aspects are typically not in question.

As to the rest of the Apostles, yes they were considered to generally be without much education.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the Bible was written in the 4th century. Before it was a collection of different gospels.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Anonymous Coward]

I do not accept your whole argument about Islam concealing history: as an example, muslims consider Abraham and Jesus as prophets also.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, they haven't gotten out of this phase in 14 centuries... how much longer do you think it'll be? ;)

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Anonymous Coward]

> could easily have have been entirely unidirectional, thereby producing an image more consistent with that of a photo,. like what is on the shroud.

I am not sure what you mean by 'easily'. I suspect that you are using the word in its 'magically' or 'impossibly' form.

But even a 'unidirectional' form would not produce what is on the shroud. There are two images, one of the front and another of the back with them touching at the top of their heads. Apart from the 'radiation' needing to be bidirectional, there is not enough cloth between the images to have some cloth above and some below the body.

Perhaps you could make up a story about how the body was turned over for the second 'exposure', or perhaps some cloth was magically removed and an invisible join made.

Once you believe in special magic then anything is possible, as long as you ignore the actual evidence.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Alien1024]

one thing you cannot explain away is how the Apostles died, fully convinced that what they believed is true.

Citation from a historical non-Christian source needed. Otherwise, it's circular reasoning.

Not to mention the whole host of evidence which is outlined in Josh McDowell's "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" work. Josh set out to prove all this hoopla about this Jesus guy was untrue.

No, that guy is an apologist, who had been a Christian minister for many years before becoming a writer.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Anonymous Coward]

I love the way people point to how religion isn't historical, and then come out with statements that have absolutely no historically factual basis. There is no evidence that the Gospels were written by either people who had never met Jesus, nor that they were anonymous. As a matter of fact until the late nineteenth century the veracity of the documents was never seriously questions. When it was questioned it was done by people whose agenda was to prove them false. (In an historical not religious sense.)
Serious Biblical scholarship is now even questioning the relatively late period previously accepted for the writings. For example, for years it was accepted that John was written late, perhaps as late as 90 A.D. Serious scholars are now contesting that and placing the writing earlier, perhaps even earlier than the 70 A.D. destruction of the temple. The only reason to place its writing after the 70 A.D. date was because it contained a prophesy about the temples destruction. So, of course, that must mean it was written afterwards, despite all other evidence it was written earlier. That is an unwarranted biased interpretation based on an agenda. If you discount that one prophesy there are many other indications that the writing was earlier.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[SuricouRaven]

It is certainly a very impressive forgery. The attention to detail is quite something - region-appropriate materials and such. But it does have a few flaws that give it away.

As well as the carbon date, the Jesus is wrong. The shroud image shows someone of very European features, just like it seen in every depiction of Jesus from Europe from the days of the roman empire up to the present day. A very white Jesus, which is wrong: Jesus was from Judea, and of purely Jewish ancestry. Different ethnicity entirely.

You'll never convince the believers though. I've seen them argue that the carbon date is wrong because the holy light of the resurrection was able to resurrect the individual carbon atoms too and make the shroud appear younger!

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[SuricouRaven]

Only one hand is exposed in the shroud image. There's a blob on it that looks like a blood stain, but it's not clear where the hole was supposed to be.

The image is barely visible today, but obviously it was a lot more visible back when it was new. If you couldn't see the image, it wouldn't be a holy relic - it'd just be a piece of cloth, and it would never have been venerated and preserved. Dyes do fade over time.

I note that believers also have no explanation as to how the image formed, other than invoking magic and claiming that the resurrection somehow seared an image into the fabric. I don't know why God would want to be so flashy with no-one watching.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Meski]

Ah well... Let's hope these people doing this work are not subjected to too many death threats or terrorist attacks because of their findings. Some folks work really hard to keep other people in line and some folks are willing to die for their religious beliefs. Hopefully that does not happen here.

You know they will. This will be considered blasphemy in the highest degree, even by the non-fundamentalists. They're marked men.

And in the future, we'll study the markings using carbon dating.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[guises]

So it is very likely they wrote the works themselves as they would have been sufficiently educated to do so. These aspects are typically not in question.

That doesn't seem consistent with Marcan priority, which is pretty widely accepted. For Luke to have written his own gospel he'd have to be in his eighties at least when he wrote it, if he were using Mark as a source.

I'm not an expert on this, I'm just repeating what I remember from a course I took.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[ebvwfbw]

There's hope. They're becoming more educated and can see what's going on. They can realize it's a fake religion. As fake as Kwanzaa.

Re: Well, that's embarrassing

[MrNaz]

Yes, it would have. My acceptance of the religion as true rests on my ability to verify all of the facts contained in its doctrines. To date, none have contradicted anything scientifically verifiable, even though there have been many attempts such as the clowns who wrote this article.

Re: Well, that's embarrassing

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair... The fact that you are Muslim (or believe any religion) is proof that you struggle to review your world views. Religious people always say they are open to change if something proved otherwise... But when you dig a little deeper you realize the only thing that would truly count for them is God showing up and telling them that he/she/it doesn't exist.

The truly interesting point is how our brains fool us into thinking we're objective about faith, when in reality our poor gray matter pulses with subjectivity.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Anonymous Coward]

Except the error range for the new testament is more like 100 BC to 300 AD with the majority written (as in "Final edit") in the 2nd century AD

Of course nutters prefer to think it came as one complete package in the 30s or 40s AD

Re: Well, that's embarrassing

[MrNaz]

I accept the possibility of what you're saying, however I think you're being pretty presumptuous about my internal state, given that you don't know me at all.

Since the early days of Islam, our senior scholars have held that unquestioning belief is not belief. Growing up in a multi-religious environment, I questioned whether or not my religion was the right one, or even if religion at all was valid, from an early age. I concluded from a fairly lengthy process, that Islam was the correct religion. I've conversed with scholars of most major religions on this, including ardent atheists. Ironically, atheists tend to be the least willing to challenge their assumptions, and simply rest on the old "religion is based on blind faith" cudgel. As far as Islam goes, nothing could be further from the truth, despite the fact that the vast majority of Muslims alive today are unaware of the deep epistemological framework that underpins the religion, and are unaware of the fact that we are instructed, not encouraged, to ask the question: "Am I sure that Islam is the correct religion?" Without considering this question and engaging in the research and reflection required to answer it, one's adherence to the faith is considered to be deficient.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Anonymous Coward]

And some people like myself don't even need religion to question dubious science. The real 'margin for error' in any radio-dating is so huge to be unusable but people still put their faith into it. For anyone who feels that these dating methods are sound science, I have a few questions:
How many atoms of each isotope where originally in the specimen?
How many atoms of each isotope have been introduced to the specimen since it was laid into the ground?
If you can't answer those two questions, down to the atom, then any result you get is irrelevant.
Scientists already determined that the amount of naturally occurring c-14 varies so greatly across time that the results of radio-dating are unusable. They then use dendrochronology on trees less than 5,000 years old and determine that data set is somehow useful enough to extrapolate anything from periods older than 5,000 without giving a single reason why unpredictability across all time can be thrown out because of data from a single time point. If you wish to plot a point on a line, you need the formula to plug that point into. If all you have is one point of data, the only formulas that can give anything useful are linear formulas. A curve needs more data points the more irregular it is yet science claims the opposite to be true? Something that varies as much as they claim, couldn't possibly be linear so how can anything be extrapolated from that data for any other time frame but the time it existed?

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[TemporalBeing]

So it is very likely they wrote the works themselves as they would have been sufficiently educated to do so. These aspects are typically not in question.

That doesn't seem consistent with Marcan priority, which is pretty widely accepted. For Luke to have written his own gospel he'd have to be in his eighties at least when he wrote it, if he were using Mark as a source. I'm not an expert on this, I'm just repeating what I remember from a course I took.

Possible for the Gospel of Luke; however, Luke also wrote several others which were more contemporary and in conjunction with Paul's writing - or rather, letters to the various Churches and people he visited. Peter was also known to have written several later in life.

Re: Well, that's embarrassing

[Anonymous Coward]

The bible forbids one and requires the other.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, don't jump to conclusions. The Koran is a lie but the Bible is absolutely true. Come on, it just makes sense!

If you are so sure that Bible is true and Quran is a lie. Then you should watch the video by Dr Zakri Naik "Quran in the Light of Science" .https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xk61hslLHlw

Re: Well, that's embarrassing

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this news is ridiculous from the outset. It's not like there is anyone who believes our life and the entire universe are run by some omnipotent fellow who has nothing better to do but go around and give beautifully crafted books to carefully selected individuals telling how to live in piece and respect, so that the only effect of this would be the said people using these to kill and exploit each other, and... Oh wait...

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[cavebison]

> Or how the discovery of the Tomb of Jesus, which would appear to completely invalidate the ressurection and divine origin of Jesus, caused Christian worldwide to renounce their faith.

The article you linked to says very clearly it's a disputed claim.

Re:Well, that's embarrassing

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds a lot like global warming. Oops, I mean climate change.

In before

[Anonymous Coward]

Death threats.

Re:In before

[NotDrWho]

From the "religion of peace"?!? Preposterous!

Re:In before

[leonbev]

Yeah, I hope that these guys were smart enough not to publish their Koran dating results under their real names. Otherwise, they're going to end up on some ISIS hit list for blasphemy or something equally stupid.

Re:In before

[ichthus]

WBC is a bigger threat and problem for USians than ISIS.

Really? To date, how many people have they beheaded?

I hate the jackasses of WBC just as much as anyone, but you're a fucking moron.

Re:In before

[Anonymous Coward]

You are mentally stunted, and your trolling will not sway the remotely intelligent. As utterly repulsive and douchey as they are, WBC has never killed anyone. They number in the tens, not tens of thousands. And just because ISIS is overseas doesn't mean much. Planes and boats, you know? Welcome to the modern era. And if Christianity hates fags, Islam hates them even more. When's the last time a "christian" US court had a gay person executed for being gay?

Re:In before

[Anonymous Coward]

Driving someone to suicide, i.e. mental manipulation, is as effective as stabbing them with a knife.

Unfortunately (and ironically) backward, spiritual beliefs about the magic rational specialness of the human brain mean that attacking someone's brain directly is considered less bad than attacking other organs.

WBC is culpable for more deaths that ISIS in the USA, yes. Since the US created the instability that produced ISIS, I'd rather think Americans don't see much of a problem with its actions outside the US.

Re:In before

[Anonymous Coward]

WBC has hurt people's feelings. ISIS has murdered people, including in the US. You are a dumbass and completely full of shit.

Re:In before

[Anonymous Coward]

ISIS claimed to have supported those guys who shot up the mohammed cartoon contest.

WBC wasn't even cited by that guy who shot up the anti-gay think tank.

Re:In before

[Archangel Michael]

Well, to be honest, most liberals are more scared of words than Muslims. Probably because words hurt them while no Muslim has. So their views are completely accurate for that data point.

So anecdotally liberals are correct, WBC is more dangerous than ISIS to the USians. But only if words hurt.

Re:In before

[CaptSlaq]

[Citation Needed]

Re:In before

[Anonymous Coward]

So if someone tells me to kill myself I have to do it? I have no choice in the matter? None?

Come the fuck on. IF it even happened at all then I'd say that's just darwinism at work and good riddance.

Re:In before

[Oligonicella]

A group that can be circumvented with a block of idling motorcycles is a bigger threat than a group bent on murder and extermination? Don't think so, Sparky.

Re:In before

[Coren22]

WBC aren't Christians or they would follow Jesus' advice over the adulteress: "Let those among you without sin cast the first stone."

Which Mary promptly followed and stoned the woman to death...

really...

[dingleberrie]

"Some scholars believe, however, that Muhammad did not receive the Quran from heaven, as he claimed during his lifetime..."

My brain died a little bit just from reading that.

Re:really...

[edawstwin]

"Some scholars believe, however, that Muhammad did not receive the Quran from heaven, as he claimed during his lifetime..."

My brain died a little bit just from reading that.

Me too. I mean how could he claim it after his lifetime?

Re:really...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah...it's not just "some scholars". Most sensible people also believe he did not receive it from heaven, but rather he pulled it out of his ass.

Re:really...

[Richard_at_work]

If its the "duh, obvious!" aspect you are going for, do you want to know how many people my wife see's as a GP who have entire religious texts that they have "received from their deity" and written down? Its not uncommon for people to write significant texts down that they believe have been gifted to them by a "god".

So the possibilities we have here are:

1. The text is older than thought and it was co-opted to form the basis of Islam
2. The timelines are screwed up and everything actually fits together as understood
3. The parchment is old, but was reused to create the Koran that was tested

Possibilities 2 and 3 leads on to...
a. Muhammad received it from heaven
b. Muhammad made it up deliberately
c. Muhammad made it up delusionally

Those scholars you quote think that the truth is actually possibility 1, while Muhammads claim could equally cover options a and c as sources, from his perspective.

Re:really...

[NotDrWho]

Next up, Joseph Smith got Mormon tablets from guy named Steve, not actual angel! Film at eleven!!

Re:really...

[CrimsonAvenger]

Me too. I mean how could he claim it after his lifetime?

It could have been claimed on his behalf after his death. After all, what we know about the subject is what people have written about it, not necessarily what actually happened....

Re:really...

[Vermonter]

Actually just the other day I read a report showing that the Book of Mormon shares a very large number of similarities to a book written a few decades prior, but the name of that book escapes me right now.

Re:really...

[Anonymous Coward]

Do the Mormons also call for a genocide of non-Mormons ?

Stop the communist deflection bullshit and talk Mohammedism. Thanks.

Re:really...

[Intrepid imaginaut]

I'm not sure why anyone thinks the Christian Bible is any different, a far as I'm aware the early church was inundated with testaments and apocalypses, prophets running around willy-nilly and whatnot, they just picked the ones they liked best.

Re:really...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Some scholars believe, however, that Muhammad did not receive the Quran from heaven, as he claimed during his lifetime..."

My brain died a little bit just from reading that.

Me too. I mean how could he claim it after his lifetime?

Obviously, since it is older than him, he wrote it before his lifetime.

Re:really...

[AmiMoJo]

A scholar is just someone who studies something, it doesn't imply scientific method or intelligence. Scholars of theology are often deeply religious and spend much of their time trying to reconcile conflicting statements on holy texts, or apply ancient and poorly worded ideas to the modern world.

Re:really...

[lesincompetent]

[...] Muhammad did not receive the Quran from heaven [...]

Someone says from hell.

Re:really...

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank christ I wasn't the only one!

Re:really...

[Attila Dimedici]

Primarily because the Christian Church has never claimed that the Christian Bible was received already written and merely transcribed. The claim has always been that various men, at various times, actually wrote the contents of the Bible. The closest it comes to claiming the "received already written", is the tablets containing the Ten Commandments which Moses received from God, and then promptly shattered. We are told that the stone tablets he presented to the Israelites were carved by Moses, but these were merely quoted/paraphrased as part of other documents which were written and later included in the Bible.

Re:really...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Some scholars believe, however, that Muhammad did not receive the Quran from heaven, as he claimed during his lifetime..."

My brain died a little bit just from reading that.

it melted my bible, Torah, and Archie collection in one swoop!

Re:really...

[guruevi]

You laugh, but in order to be a well-regarded "Muslim scholar" you actually have to believe the tenets of at least one of the several sects of Islam. Same goes for "Christian scholar" though, most of them are theologians with their own views on the literal-ness of the interpretation but they accept at least some of the tenets of Christianity.

Re:really...

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, why post this sort of thing? It's not even as if it's a particularly clever or interesting troll.

Re:really...

[ceoyoyo]

The Christian faith claims that the bible is the word of god (lots of bibles actually say that on the front), transcribed by particular men upon holy revelation. The church does indeed claim that the bible was merely transcribed, although they do admit that it was transcribed in chunks.

Re:really...

[Anonymous Coward]

Please read the summary. He claimed it BEFORE his lifetime.

Re:really...

[Carewolf]

I'm not sure why anyone thinks the Christian Bible is any different, a far as I'm aware the early church was inundated with testaments and apocalypses, prophets running around willy-nilly and whatnot, they just picked the ones they liked best.

Yes, but that is the official church story of the bible. It was written after the life of Jesus and assembled from many different sources, BY the Church a few centuries AD. The origin story of the bible is matter of history, no one claims it is the literal word of God or appeared through mysteries means.

Re:really...

[Anonymous Coward]

It that was the case, they should have been able to carbon date the stool.

Re:really...

[Holi]

I don't know, but they certainly have a thing for baptizing you after your dead. I guess the whole genocide thing would make post-mortem baptisms more efficient.

Re:really...

[Anonymous Coward]

Were they written on two pizza boxes?

Re:really...

[Anonymous Coward]

Do the Mormons also call for a genocide of non-Mormons ?

*ahem*

Re:really...

[serviscope_minor]

Next up, Joseph Smith got Mormon tablets from guy named Steve, not actual angel!

I think he may have got them from a guy named Joseph.

Re:really...

[jellomizer]

I really don't get that statement as well.
If it was received by some supernatural source, from an all powerful and all knowing being... Why would it feel bound to use newly generated paper. If it was all knowing, it would create the book outside of space time, when it felt making it a book it would.

That is the problem trying to compare Science with the Supernatural. If you have an effect said to be created from a source that cannot be measured so, your attempt to measure probably will not come with good results.

Now if you look at the article in terms of more of a scientific point of view other than a way to bash a religion. But the fact that they probably used an old empty book create it, or the fact the much if Islam is from Christianity and Jewish religions as well, you may expect it was parts to be already written.
 

Re:really...

[The Grassy Knoll]

First real proper reason for using "Anonymous Coward" I've seen on /.

Re:really...

[Attila Dimedici]

Perhaps, I chose the words poorly. Both Mormons and Muslims claim that their Scripture are merely copies of documents which came from heaven. Christians do not claim that those who wrote the Bible were copying from documents they received from heaven.
There are those who claim that those who wrote the Bible were merely copying words dictated to them by God. They are a minority.

Re:really...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_massacre

Re:really...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually just the other day I read a report showing that the Book of Mormon shares a very large number of similarities to a book written a few decades prior, but the name of that book escapes me right now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_Spalding

Re:really...

[Whorhay]

"no one claims it is the literal word of God"

Like most absolute statements, this is false. It might be that most Christians don't believe the Bible to be the literal word of God, but there is definitely a vocal sub group that do claim it is exactly that. Additionally, despite knowing that the Bible was assembled into its various forms by groups of religious leaders centuries after the constituent parts were supposedly written, many people I have talked to believe that the form we have today is what God intended all along.

While we know a lot about the history of The New Testament, the Old Testament is far more obscured. The last I heard it looked like the author attributed as Moses had written the first few books. Which is troubling when you think of all the Christian mythology that comes out of those books. For instance the Exodus appears to be completely unsupported by archaeological evidence.

Re:really...

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps, I chose the words poorly. Both Mormons and Muslims claim that their Scripture are merely copies of documents which came from heaven. Christians do not claim that those who wrote the Bible were copying from documents they received from heaven.

Isn't the difference between "transcribed from heaven" and "inspired by the holy spirit from heaven" purely semantic? I mean, both groups believe their text is the unerring word of god, merely passed along by mortals, right?

Re:really...

[chipschap]

there is definitely a vocal sub group that do claim it is exactly that

Even more interesting to me is that some of these vocal sub-groups make a literal word by word interpretation of the English translation of original Hebrew and Greek texts, usually the King James translation. Apparently English is the official language of their brand of Christianity.

As to the whole carbon dating of the Quran .... want to start a pool on how long it will take for a fatwah to be issuef against the scientists who published the study?

Re:really...

[Anonymous Coward]

Like most absolute statements, this is false. It might be that most Christians don't believe the Bible to be the literal word of God, but there is definitely a vocal sub group that do claim it is exactly that.

Really? What book did he write? I'm not seeing a "Book of Jehovah" anywhere in the Old Testament. Maybe mine is broken?

Re:really...

[Anonymous Coward]

no one claims it is the literal word of God

You've obviously never encountered American Protestant fundamentalists. That is exactly what they claim, that the bible is the literal unerring word of God.

Re:really...

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? What book did he write? I'm not seeing a "Book of Jehovah" anywhere in the Old Testament. Maybe mine is broken?

Protestant fundamentalists in the U.S. believe that god basically whispered in the ear of the people who wrote the bible. It is the unerring word of God, as transcribed by a bunch of wankers.

Re:really...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Christian faith claims that the bible is the word of god (lots of bibles actually say that on the front), transcribed by particular men upon holy revelation. The church does indeed claim that the bible was merely transcribed, although they do admit that it was transcribed in chunks.

You really can't speak of the Christian faith as a whole. There's 2,000 of history there. The Church (Catholic, that is) believes that the Bible is a library of works that are inspired by God and it is respected for that. Many Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura which give more weight to the Bible as law than it does for Catholics. For example, Catholics don't believe literally that Adam and Eve existed as portrayed in Genesis but many evangelicals do.

The point is that there's a difference between the "Word of God" and "inspired by God."

Re:really...

[phantomfive]

Probably A view of the Hebrews

Re:really...

[Carewolf]

"no one claims it is the literal word of God"

Like most absolute statements, this is false. It might be that most Christians don't believe the Bible to be the literal word of God, but there is definitely a vocal sub group that do claim it is exactly that.

Okay, let me rephrase it: No True Christian believes that ;)

Re:really...

[XxtraLarGe]

If it was received by some supernatural source, from an all powerful and all knowing being... Why would it feel bound to use newly generated paper. If it was all knowing, it would create the book outside of space time, when it felt making it a book it would.

I might be wrong, but my understanding is he was given the words of the Quran from an angel, and then had a scribe write the words down at a later time. If the paper AND the ink are both older than Muhammad, then that would completely falsify the claim that Muhammad gave the world the Quran, which in turn would falsify Islam itself. It would be comparable to the Sanhedrin producing Jesus's corpse after the apostles claimed he was resurrected from the dead.

Re:really...

[Anonymous Coward]

It was actually claimed while he and his buddies ditched their wives and went off to the cave to smoke some sweet buds and eat some fungus.
Just like Jesus and his buds.
And Noah and his buds.
Oh, and that Dianetics guy and his buds too.

Re:really...

[Kismet]

You're probably thinking about a book entitled "The Late War between the United States and Great Britain," by Gilbert J. Hunt. It's a little history of the war of 1812 written in the style of the King James bible. In terms of content, it isn't that similar to the Book of Mormon, but it contains many of the same features of style, including alleged "Hebraisms" that LDS apologists claim are proof of the Book of Mormon's ancient sourcing. When some authors in the early 19th century wished to summon a certain kind of authority, they would invoke a "biblical" style. This style helped them to muster the sense of holiness or truth that they wished to convey to the audience.

Re:really...

[Anonymous Coward]

There are a number of contenders. The BoM shows startling linguistic similarity to "Late War Between the United States and Great Britain" as well as the "First Book of Napoleon". It shows a strong thematic similarity to "A View of the Hebrews" published some years earlier (by the former pastor of one of Smith's scribes). By far the most obvious source, however, is the King James Version of the Bible. There are about twenty-five chapters copied in entirety from the KJV, plus literally hundreds of small quotations peppered throughout the text. The fact that the Book of Mormon repeatedly quotes KJV translation errors should tell you all you need to know.

Re:really...

[Kismet]

The LDS claim is that their scripture was translated from an ancient record, written by men, found buried in a hill in rural New York by Joseph smith. Although not a part of the official history taught in Sunday school, Mormons now also affirm that Joseph Smith did not even look at the plates while translating them. Like the later "Abrahamic" papyrus, the plates seemed to be little more than a prop to provide, perhaps, some form of inspiration. In fact, Joseph Smith received his "translation" through a seer stone which he placed in his hat. He used that same stone to search for buried treasure, something it did not find very well.

Re:really...

[T.E.D.]

Primarily because the Christian Church has never claimed that the Christian Bible was received already written and merely transcribed.

Let's test this statement, with the actual doctrine of the USA's largest Christian demonization, the Southern Baptists, straight from their own website:

The Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired and is God's revelation of Himself to man. It is a perfect treasure of divine instruction. It has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter. Therefore, all Scripture is totally true and trustworthy.

So according to this, yes The Bible was authored by God, and merely transcribed by a collection of humans.

Of course this is already provably incorrect (or irrelevant, depending on how you look at it), because we don't have originals for any of the books of The Bible, the oldest copies are not entirely consistent with each other, and the books aren't consistent amongst themselves when they refer to the same events (or even try to transcribe the same passages). So its a little hypocritical for folks from countries with a Christian heritage to be pointing at the Koran and yelling "Aha!" over a couple decade discrepancy in the age of some parchment when they have this gigantic log in their own eye...

Re:really...

[mschwanke97402]

"Some scholars believe, however, that Muhammad did not receive the Quran from heaven, as he claimed during his lifetime..."

My brain died a little bit just from reading that.

Me too. I mean how could he claim it after his lifetime?

Dude, this is RELIGION we are talking about. Dead prophets can talk to us as they please.

Re:really...

[Attila Dimedici]

There are many errors in your post which are beyond a discussion on the Internet. It is worth noting that the New Testament is the best documented ancient document we currently possess. Other documents of similar antiquity have a greater gap between their time of original writing and the currently oldest existing xopy of them. There are other factors involved which indicate that your knowledge of the methods of identifying the accuracy of ancient documents is limited.

Re:really...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just stop now. The GP was right. The New Testament is a mishmash of extant manuscripts, each different, that scholars still debate today. And with scribal errors and later changes, almost every extant copy we have is different. The oldest full version of what we call the New Testament today is the Codex Vaticanus, written some 300 years after Jesus's death. It's roughly contemporary with the Codex Sinaiticus, but there are differences even between these two contemporary manuscripts. The oldest extant fragments are some small bits of the Gospel of John that date to about 100 years after Jesus's death.

There is wide disagreement among scholars over changes and conflicts between various manuscripts and there is no agreed-upon "definitive" version. Short of god coming down on a cloud and giving us one, or the archeological find of the millennium, there never can be.

Re:really...

[gweihir]

And there is the problem: Actual scholars do not "believe", they have facts to back up what they say. Lets not glorify religion by assuming it has any factual basis...

Re:really...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Book of Mormon is also claimed to have been written by various men, then collected and abridged by one (Mormon, hence the name), then translated by Joseph Smith. So it's not claimed to have been received already-written, except by the translator (who claimed divine assistance in the finding and the translation).

Re:really...

[swillden]

Both Mormons and Muslims claim that their Scripture are merely copies of documents which came from heaven.

Actually, I don't think either claims that. I know Mormons don't. Mormons claim that the Book of Mormon was written by a series of prophets. The prophets were inspired, but wrote in their own words. Same as the Bible. The difference is in the method of collection and translation, not the method of authorship.

I think it's the same for Islam. Muslims believe Mohammed was a prophet, so his writings were inspired by Allah, but the Koran contains his own words.

Re:really...

[Coren22]

If it was a supernatural source, why wouldn't it make the book out of sheets of titanium with the words imprinted in it in gold?

Re:really...

[joshuaf]

There are two. View of the Hebrews and The Late War. Both are covered pretty well in the Letter to a CES director.

Re:really...

[phreakazoas]

My brain hurt when I read the first part, i.e. that some scholars claim...did not receive...from heaven. No? I thought all scholars were muslim and thought that the Quran was revealed from God! The whole sentence is insulting to human intelligence.

Re:really...

[Vermonter]

The Late War, thank you! That was the name of the book in the report. I was racking my brain trying to remember it.

Re:really...

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends on the denomination. The Roman Catholic church (the largest single denomination of Christians in the world), for example, don't really claim it's a literal transcription - that is, that the people who wrote it heard some booming voice in the clouds and wrote things down. Instead they claim that the Bible is the "word of God" in that it was "divinely inspired". God didn't speak to the writers from a burning bush, but he "guided their hand" while they wrote it. *Lots* of ink has been spilled over the years on the subtle implications of this difference on the meaning of the Bible, relevance for free will, etc. See this bit from the Catholic Encyclopedia for the tip of the iceberg.

Re:really...

[agm]

So there are scholars that think it was received from heaven? Are these the same scholars that have yet to make their mind up on unicorns, fairies and astrology?

I would think that you cannot believe in those things and be considered a scholar.

Re: really...

[Anonymous Coward]

You're ignoring the most rational conclusion: Jesus snuck into the lab and recalibrated the carbon dating machine so that Mohammad (and all his Muzzie followers) would look like chumps.

Re:really...

[Anonymous Coward]

Woo there. When is the last time you attended a Catholic Sunday mass to listen 'to the word of God' (e.g. readings out of the Bible)? The official 'church story' that it was 'put together by many men' does NOT contradict their belief that it was entirely 'divinely inspired'. In fact it is the only way to have kept out many gospels that were contemporaneous with those that were included or pre-date those included. Think about it, why did these supposedly 'truthful men' keep some gospels but not others? It's not because they believed one over another as being 'truthful'/accurate as there was no evidence one way or the other so the only way short of simply saying it was a 'political decision and all this stuff is made up anyway' was/is to say the gospels are 'divinely inspired' and the 'true word of God' that was always MEANT to be the 'one true bible' (there simply can not be any others).

Think about it, for it not to be the 'Word of God' the Catholic church (at a minimum) would have to go around saying 'these are just stories we included that may or may not be true & there are other documents from the same period that may or may not be true as well that paint an entirely different picture of Jesus Christ'...nope not going to happen...so the Bible IS the 'Word of God' divinely inspired no matter how or who put it together.

Which is also what makes this story about Mohammed possibly not writing the Torah stupid, it may nor may not be scientifically accurate but 'true believers' aren't going to care 1 iota, it is 'divinely inspired' at a minimum and at that point it's very easy to explain away the science using magic.

Re:really...

[zugmeister]

... the plates seemed to be little more than a prop to provide, perhaps, some form of inspiration. In fact, Joseph Smith received his "translation" through a seer stone which he placed in his hat. He used that same stone to search for buried treasure, something it did not find very well.

Not being too familiar with that particular flavor of religion, I can't tell if you're making up silly stuff based on what they believe or if they really think a magic rock was central to the creation of their religious texts. Really, Douglas Adams came up with more reasonable explanations for stuff than this...

Re:really...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly, not even "published scientist" implies those things.

Re:really...

[tehcyder]

the USA's largest Christian demonization, the Southern Baptists

That is too epically wrong to be an accidental typo for "denomination" surely?

Re:really...

[ceoyoyo]

The distinction between whether god faxed a copy or used telepathy seems pretty minor in this context. If a copy of the gospel of Mark was found that predated Mark, that would bear a similar relation to the claim that god made Mark write it as a koran predating Mohammad has to the claim that Mohammad stumbled over the divinely teleported original while taking his evening constitutional.

Re:really...

[Kismet]

I come from an LDS family, so I grew up with a set of traditions surrounding Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. There are numerous Mormon sects, each with their own traditions, and not all of them in agreement with the others. In the mainstream LDS group, people generally thought that Joseph had something called the "urim and thummim," which was a kind of loupe or spectacles that the prophet would gaze through in order to divine the writing on the gold plates. He would read along in this manner, dictating to his scribe. The urim and thummim is based in old Testament lore, and Joseph claimed to have found one of these divining objects along with the gold plates, an armor breastplate, and a sword, all buried together in the Cumorah hill.

Smith got through 116 pages of manuscript and then loaned these out to a friend so that the friend could show the work to some interested parties. These 116 pages were subsequently lost, at which time Joseph Smith said that a divine messenger came to retrieve the gold plates along with the urim and thummim. The story goes that, after some time passed, Joseph again found favor with God and was reinstated as translator, only this time without the aid of the urim and thummin. Instead, Smith used his seer stone.

Whether or not this is a reasonable explanation for a religious text, it is not inconsistent with the American frontier folk magic of the early nineteenth century. Growing up with these traditions, most Latter-Day Saints have no problem with them. Because many of them didn't know about the seer stone until very recently (the church published some photos, which you can probably find online), it is a challenge for them to believe that translation via seer-stone is a "reasonable explanation," as you say. It doesn't exactly square with the urim and thummim version of the story that they had originally. I'm sure this is all absurd nonsense to most outsiders, although the LDS church is maintaining its congregation and perhaps even growing it slightly, in spite of whatever perceived absurdity exists within its history. Mormons are by no means particularly stupid or credulous, and generally the church doesn't bank on its history when looking for converts.

Reasonable or not, I find Mormon history quite fascinating. Well, that is, up until these recent times in which we now find the largest sect of Mormonism little more than a gigantic corporate franchise. Speaking of America, Eric Hoffer once said that "what starts out here as a mass movement ends up as a racket, a cult, or a corporation." Indeed. Nevertheless, you'll find the Mormons to be an excellent lot in spite of their sappy, corporate church.

Re:really...

[Reziac]

One theory is that Smith was writing a fantasy novel (tho from what else I've read, his own grasp on reality was a trifle suspect... so as to whether he believed it??) Thus:

Structurally, the Book of Mormon is in line with other fantasy manuscripts of its era: publishers didn't think readers would buy that a crazy adventure was happening to the narrator in realtime, but a secondary narrator relaying the adventure via a framing story was acceptable. Given that structure, the angel Moroni showing Smith the tablets is the framing story; the rest is the fantasy.

As an example we know for sure was meant to be fantasy, E.R. Eddings' The Worm Ouroboros also uses this framing story structure (tho the author drops it after a few chapters and tells the story directly, tho I got the feeling he'd gotten caught up in the story and flat forgot to use it).

Re:really...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. I laughed my ass off at this. I hope anyone who calls himself a scholar would know that M did not receive the K from heaven.

Re:really...

[Anonymous Coward]

there is definitely a vocal sub group that do claim it is exactly that

Even more interesting to me is that some of these vocal sub-groups make a literal word by word interpretation of the English translation of original Hebrew and Greek texts, usually the King James translation. Apparently English is the official language of their brand of Christianity.

This is not hard to understand. God pre-destined the words as well as language development and translation so that the Bible would be literally correct in English today.

Fatwa against heretic scientists

[Anonymous Coward]

... coming up in 5... 4... 3...

Oh well.

The library's fiction section

[Anonymous Coward]

Some scholars believe, however, that Muhammad did not receive the Quran from heaven...

No, really?

Oh shit, I see a Jihad coming.

[Anonymous Coward]

A revelation like this cannot end well.

Cue terrorist bombings/shootings

[silas_moeckel]

Because anything that differs from their dogma must be killed.

Not much different than christians a few hundred years ago. Not much different than the current christians tendency to ignore or call it satan's lies anything that differs from their views.

Re:Cue terrorist bombings/shootings

[Anonymous Coward]

Go ahead, show me that a plurality of Christians believed that all non-believers should be put to death.

Re:Cue terrorist bombings/shootings

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, because you should judge an entire people by the behavior of a minority.

Catholics tolerate and commit child molestation. So if there is going to be a cleansing of dangerous religions, let's at least include ones that have been directly harming us for decades.

Re:Cue terrorist bombings/shootings

[Anonymous Coward]

Two entirely different magnitudes of "minority", two different levels of crime; your argument for equivalence is crap.

Re:Cue terrorist bombings/shootings

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, because you should judge an entire people by the behavior of a minority.

I have yet to meet a Muslim who doesn't believe that someone should be put to death for insulting Muhammad. They are not the minority, as far as sentiment goes. They're merely the most active and aggressive.

Re:Cue terrorist bombings/shootings

[Anonymous Coward]

Is APK off his meds again?

Re:Cue terrorist bombings/shootings

[bobbied]

Because anything that differs from their dogma must be killed.

Not much different than christians a few hundred years ago. Not much different than the current christians tendency to ignore or call it satan's lies anything that differs from their views.

Ignorance.... Come on... A few THOUSAND years ago the Christian religion got hijacked by politics in an effort to control the masses, with very important and lasting results: The protestant reformation and The United States of America, the home of religious freedom. Like it or not, this country was populated by a bunch of generally CHRISTIAN European protestants who where trying to escape religious and political oppression. Eventually this oppression followed them here and as fate would have it, the USA was born.

Re:Cue terrorist bombings/shootings

[Barsteward]

you haven't met many (or any) then

Re:Cue terrorist bombings/shootings

[silas_moeckel]

Anytime you have a bunch of people that will all believe in an invisible father figure you will have issues.

Re:Cue terrorist bombings/shootings

[bobbied]

Ha ha... How insightful....

There IS a bit more to this you know. You are jumping to the final question but you haven't investigated and answered the preliminary questions yet.

I'll give you a hint... If you want to argue the point with me, you need to go back to the start and argue the virgin birth, death and resurrection of Christ, which is going to require you to understand a good bit of history and the theology which pre-dates Christ. You see, Christ is the key to it all, past, present and future, so go after that issue and not straight to the sarcastic comments.

Re:Cue terrorist bombings/shootings

[penguinoid]

Not put to death, but non-believers do deserve to be eternally tortured.

Re:Cue terrorist bombings/shootings

[silas_moeckel]

No there is not a bit more, you believe is some , the minutiae of your religion has no bearing on whether or not it's a good idea to have faith in something you can not prove.

I take no issue with moral codes etc etc but frankly ascribing some deity as the reason for following them is scary. If you want to be a good person figure what good is for yourself and be that person.

Re:Cue terrorist bombings/shootings

[Cederic]

Really? I have to argue the points you want to argue about, and not rank stupidity of your position?

Ok:
- Virgin birth. For fucks sake that means nothing. It's pathetically easy to impregnate a virgin. Shit, one hand shandy or a bit of suck with no swallow and the means are readily available. Of course, we're assuming that she was actually a virgin at all.
- Death. Yeah, people die. Get over it.
- Resurrection. Yeah, people historically were quite bad at telling whether someone was dead or not. This is why bells were put onto coffins. Did some bloke die, wake up from his coma and lever the rock away from his tomb, walk outside and go 'fuck me it's bright here?' Probably.

Of course, we're also already ignoring the other stories of the time which contradict the currently recognised bible, we're ignoring the big rewrite that happened a few hundred years later and we're assuming that any of it is fucking true in the first place.

That's a lot of assumption. It's easier and more reliable to assume you're an idiot.

Re:Cue terrorist bombings/shootings

[bobbied]

Yep, you are ignorant about the necessary theology and facts... I suggest you read "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" before you proceed in ignorance here.

Re:Cue terrorist bombings/shootings

[Cederic]

I suggest you read something other than propaganda before exposing your own ignorance further.

I don't give a flying fuck whether Jesus existed or not. I just wish people would stop brainwashing small children, making immortal threats and using violence to impose their beliefs on others.

How about that?

Re:Cue terrorist bombings/shootings

[bobbied]

Never said I could prove it, only that the arguments being used to disprove it are naïve and ignorant of the known facts. I was appealing to one's intellectual interest in the topic in an attempt to get some independent investigation of the facts and theories done before proceeding to debate the topic.

You see, It's not about trying to mentally arm wrestle folks into submission to my perspective, but keeping everybody honest about how they came up with their perspective. I think may folks just made up their mind and don't really care what the evidence so they remain ignorant. I say this because they don't argue the real issues that lead up to their conclusion, nor do they know how they arrived at their conclusion and how to support it.

Ignorance is not a bad thing if you've never had a chance to investigate and learn about something and admit that you don't know. It's willful ignorance that is bad. You don't go bury your head in the sand because you've made up your mind.... And YES, I do practice what I preach in this... If I don't know, I don't know and I admit to it. If I want to argue some point I don't know, I go out and investigate before making up my mind. That goes for religion as well as my professional career.

Re:Cue terrorist bombings/shootings

[bobbied]

I suppose I'm guilty of brainwashing my kids in your mind... However, the rest does not even remotely describe me or my faith.

You see, it's not MY religious duty to make you follow the law, the very law I've failed to follow myself. How can I even condemn you for failing to follow the law if I'm not able to myself? The Bible clearly says that judgment of sin awaits even if you don't believe it will. It is your choice to believe or not. God makes it clear that he will honor YOUR choice, if it be sin and punishment or life is entirely up to you.

So if God isn't going to force this issue, how is it even remotely my place to do so? In my view this is between you and Him and has nothing to do with me. It's like we are two children and God is the parent. You are doing something wrong, and all I can do is warn you about the punishment to come.

Re:Cue terrorist bombings/shootings

[Coren22]

Did APK ever get on meds?

Re:Cue terrorist bombings/shootings

[silas_moeckel]

There are no facts in dispute so nothing to debate, religion is an opinion at best a tool to control others at worst.

Re:Cue terrorist bombings/shootings

[bobbied]

There are no facts in dispute so nothing to debate, religion is an opinion at best a tool to control others at worst.

So, I say you are unaware of the facts and you say there are no facts in dispute.... You do see the logical disconnect there right?

Re:Cue terrorist bombings/shootings

[tehcyder]

You are doing something wrong, and all I can do is warn you about the punishment to come.

And what exactly is he doing wrong other than refusing to believe in something for which you can provide no evidence?

(If you do have evidence, I'd love to see it).

There you have it

[The-Ixian]

Science debunks religion once again.

I am sure that this time those religious folks will come around...

Re:There you have it

[Jesrad]

Yup, it's science alright. Muhammad likely just plagiarized his paper, like many.

Re:There you have it

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, you just made me snort my Coke...

Re:There you have it

[Anonymous Coward]

Scientists debunk Islam with carbon dating.

Islamic extremists debunk scientists with AK-47s.

Old testament

[Anonymous Coward]

Old testament is older than Jesus.
And this doesn't make any of the two "better or worst", not makes the Bible a "fake".

Re:Old testament

[Anonymous Coward]

ummm...that's why it's called the OLD Testament.

Re: Old testament

[OrangeTide]

Which is why the Orthodox Christian (e.g. Catholic) Old testament contains more books than the Hebrew Bible.

I thought it was because their signal-to-noise ratio was lower.

Re: Old testament

[Langalf]

Really? This would come as a surprise to all the Jews READING the Torah in their synagogues at the time of Christ.

Re: Old testament

[Attila Dimedici]

Um, no. No portion of the Old Testament was an oral tradition at the time of Jesus. As a matter of fact, the New Testament tells us that Jesus read from the book of Isaiah. There are manuscripts which are copies of various Old Testament books which still exist today which were written before Jesus.

Re: Old testament

[crunchygranola]

Dead Sea Scrolls. Ever heard of them? They include a fair chunk of the Tanakh ("Old Testament" to Christians) written down as much as 400 BCE (before the birth of Jesus). The Ketef Hinnom silver scroll from Jerusalem dates from 600 BCE, and is clearly part of a long established written tradition. The Israelites/Jews were writing down their religious history for a thousand years before the Christians (we have religious inscriptions in Hebrew that are that old).

Re: Old testament

[Anonymous Coward]

It's all noise.

Re: Old testament

[Anonymous Coward]

Parts were written down, by heretics. Mainstream Jewish theology was based on the oral tradition. It was the function of the priestly class.

Any Christian scholar knows this. The Christian Old Testament was compiled and codified before the Jewish Bible.

Re: Old testament

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the only oral tradition at the time of Jesus were the Jewish traditions later known as the Talmud. It was codified after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. It was also condemned by Jesus as the tradition of men (in opposition to the Torah, which was in written form). Mark 7:7

Deuteronomy 31:24-26
And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished,
That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying,
Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee.

Afterwards the book of Moses is referenced several times throughout the OT.

Joshua 8:31
As Moses the servant of the LORD commanded the children of Israel, as it is written in the book of the law of Moses, an altar of whole stones, over which no man hath lift up any iron: and they offered thereon burnt offerings unto the LORD, and sacrificed peace offerings.

Joshua 23:6
Be ye therefore very courageous to keep and to do all that is written in the book of the law of Moses, that ye turn not aside therefrom to the right hand or to the left;

2 Kings 14:6
But the children of the murderers he slew not: according unto that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, wherein the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

2 Chronicles 25:4
But he slew not their children, but did as it is written in the law in the book of Moses, where the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not die for the children, neither shall the children die for the fathers, but every man shall die for his own sin.

2 Chronicles 34:14
And when they brought out the money that was brought into the house of the LORD, Hilkiah the priest found a book of the law of the LORD given by Moses.

2 Chronicles 35:12
And they removed the burnt offerings, that they might give according to the divisions of the families of the people, to offer unto the LORD, as it is written in the book of Moses. And so did they with the oxen.

Ezra 6:18
And they set the priests in their divisions, and the Levites in their courses, for the service of God, which is at Jerusalem; as it is written in the book of Moses.

Nehemiah 8:1
And all the people gathered themselves together as one man into the street that was before the water gate; and they spake unto Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses, which the LORD had commanded to Israel.

Nehemiah 13:1
On that day they read in the book of Moses in the audience of the people; and therein was found written, that the Ammonite and the Moabite should not come into the congregation of God for ever;

Mark 12:26
And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?

Re: Old testament

[kubajz]

This is not true, actually. The Torah and Prophets were written down on scrolls stored in the temple and synagogues, both Old and New testament mention numerous occasions where people read from the scrolls, found old scrolls, wrote down what happened etc.

Re: Old testament

[Anonymous Coward]

I have an idea : let's write a modern religious book !

Re: Old testament

[Barsteward]

"The Christian Old Testament was compiled and codified before the Jewish Bible." - can you provide a citation for that claim?

Re: Old testament

[bobbied]

Um, no. The Old Testament was an oral tradition at the time of Jesus. The Christians were the first to write it down and compile a book. The later the Jews did the same. Which is why the Orthodox Christian (e.g. Catholic) Old testament contains more books than the Hebrew Bible.

Oh for Pete's sake... How much ignorance can there be?

The OLD Testament was in existence LONG before Christ was alive, IN WRITTEN FORM based on the existence of copies of the text and their content. FEW knowledgeable scholars would question the existence of the OT in largely it's current form in 30 AD. Tradition says the bulk of the OT was canonized by the Jewish people by 600 BC, with parts being translated into Greek as early as 300 BCE. So saying the OT was written AFTER Christ's life is largely unsupportable by facts. The content of the OT is unchanged from the Jewish scriptures, with only a few books which some believe should be included which are not historically part of the Jewish scripture. This was written by JEWS not Christians.

Now the NT WAS written after Christ's life, but was complete within the first 100 years with the writing of "The Revelation of John". The collection of books included in the NT was settled by about 200 AD/CE and although some have claimed to have "The lost gospel of..." from time to time, they are not properly included in the Bible. This part of the bible WAS written by Christians, many who where converted Jews and who referenced the OT extensively.

Re: Old testament

[bobbied]

Really? This would come as a surprise to all the Jews READING the Torah in their synagogues at the time of Christ.

Or the guys that translated the Torah into Greek about 300 years before Christ... (See The LXX...)

Re: Old testament

[T.E.D.]

Parts were written down, by heretics.

...where "heretics" means "people whose beliefs are inconvenient to their rulers".

Re: Old testament

[amxcoder]

Mod this up as informative. This is all true from I've learned as well. The OT was written on scrolls at the time, many feet long, and stored in the synagogs. The Jews had scholars that would copy and duplicate the scrolls by hand. When ever new ancient scroll fragments are recovered (like the dead sea scrolls), current theologians and scholars compare what is found to the existing versions of what they have, to see how accurate they are, and if any changes had been made along the way through the duplication process. Very little changes have occurred from the oldest fragments, to the newest, especially not major changes in content. In fact, it's been found that it was impeccably transcribed and copied, with great effort to keep the original content without alterations.

It's also true, that Jesus, and others in the NT were referenced as going to the synagogs and reading directly from the scrolls of the OT. Basically, the OT was the bible of Jesus's time, since He was the NT.

The NT was completed while most of the eye witnesses of Jesus were still alive, meaning if any deliberate lying, or exaggerations took place in the writing of the NT, the original crowds of eye witnesses would have been around to contest it. Which is also why Christians take the claims made in the NT as historical, since it was written by eye witnesses, to the generation of people that also included eye witnesses. Yes, it was written after the fact, (rather than the apostles walking around with a pen and paper at the time), but that is how most historical documents of that time were created.

Religion is made up?

[Anonymous Coward]

No way!

thats entirely bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

ok first off, i am not islamist, fuck muhammed and fuck allah.

however, a. carbon dating is not that precise. as much as koran and muhammed is bullshit, this report is also bullshit. the shit could have been written in old paper, or simply the carbon dating maybe was not that precise.

we all know all the prophets including mohammed and jesus and david, ate some schrooms and climbed on the mountain and thought they were downloading some shit from god, but not true.

be modern, and dont believe in all this bullshit kids.

thank you

Re:thats entirely bullshit

[KGIII]

I have consumed enough narcotics, including myriad hallucinogens, and probably have done enough to make Keith Richards blush - or at least take notice and nod in approval. Not one single time, not once, have I managed to get a divine message. I've tripped hard enough to where I lived in a cartoon world, peyote is a wonderful drug - don't do it, and nope, not one message from a divine creature.

I have received telepathic thoughts from a cat, however. No, those weren't real either but, for the time, we had own form of communication. Cats don't really like humans much, but I digress.

All these drugs, all that time being "open" to such, and not one single text message from a deity. I've probably consumed enough POUNDS of mushrooms, yes pounds, over the many years to where I should have seen or heard something. I spent almost three weeks talking like Kermit the Frog in a post-trip mental state and still, no Jesus.

I have, finally, managed to stop doing all those drugs. I used to trip while working at times. I've eaten whole sheets of acid over the years. I've had vials of liquid LSD. I've tried all sorts of research chemicals. I've vomited what appeared to have a neon blue aura while on peyote outside of Taos, NM. I've eaten mescaline and DRIVEN around Colorado (a journey that began in Arizona) while happily insisting that the number in the odometer's tens place was my warp speed while my passengers suffered giggle fits. I've had to stop driving because I was laughing so hard that I cried and pulled off because I could no longer see the road. (Don't trip and drive, kids.)

I've done the mystic thing and tried to be one with the universe. I've tried to function, and actually did just fine, among normal people while tripping and waiting for the weekends so that I could consume even more drugs. I've tried all these things, from meditation to trance and done them all while hallucinating my proverbial nuts off. Lo and behold, no deity spoke to me.

I guess my point is, while I do not do drugs any more, if these prophets were taking hallucinogenic drugs that enabled them to communicate with a deity (or believe they were) then, to be honest, I'd like to try those drugs. I mean, yeah, I've done my best to try every single last drug out there that will mess with your head or make you feel good. I've tried more than I should have and somehow remained alive. I've done my part...

Nope... No deity for David. Not even a whisper from an angel. If one spoke then I didn't hear it and it's not for lack of trying.

And before someone pipes up that I was spoken to by managing to survive all of that? Yeah... About that... Lemme just say that gravity is a bitch. If there was a deity protecting me then they blinked a few times. Though, sometimes I tend to think that gravity is not a benevolent force. It's straight up evil. So, if someone has found some of the mushrooms that will enable you to speak with God then, yes, I'll buy as many as you can supply.

As an aside, I like to tell people, when asked, that, "I tried tripping once, for about twenty years. I didn't like it so I stopped." It's kind of interesting how you can manage to become so acclimated to it that you can fit in with the NPCs and function just fine. Once you get past the stage where your head is a bowl of oatmeal it's pretty easy but you can do it while peaking though it is more difficult.

Re:thats entirely bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, i was disappointed to see this on Slashdot. For a place that worships science as infallible, the eagerness to uncritically eat up such a bogus story is disheartening. Science is glorious, but in this case the guys are trolls looking for trouble.

Re:thats entirely bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

be modern, and dont believe in all this bullshit kids.

thank you

Thankfully there are people that are more mature and intelligent than you.

Re:thats entirely bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

you didn't do drugs correctly, you wasted all that time and energy and health, you poor sod. you REALLY missed the whole point....you simply weren't good at what you were doing, and you were far, far too deliberate and clumsy in your grasping.

Re:thats entirely bullshit

[KGIII]

That may be true but I had a lot of fun trying.

Re:thats entirely bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

psychedelics can AT BEST and rarely give a real spiritual experience, but alas only an adolescent type of spiritual experience. And there are high costs to one's health, development and integration into regular society.

http://deoxy.org/8_larvals.htm

even Jim DeKorne, author of the wonderful, funny book "Psychedelic Shamanism" now rather regrets devoting most of his healthy, adult life to mysticism and drugs. He almost drove himself mad over LSD and the I Ching. He lived as a hermit out in the desert, just doing LSD and I Ching all the damn day.

Re:thats entirely bullshit

[KGIII]

LOL I've never read the book but I would expect they're quite a fruitcake by now. I can not prove it but I strongly suspect that I have been influenced from all the hallucinogens I've consumed. My brain often works in odd ways and I follow some rather strange thoughts to non-obvious conclusions. It has its benefits and I don't think I'd be like this otherwise but, at the same time, I have some strange memory issues. I can remember stuff just fine but I have to make a conscious effort to remember them.

If I read a book I'll have forgotten the title and author just a few days later - yet I can recount specific passages pretty much verbatim because they were interesting and I decided to hold on to that. Then, say a movie, I'll have completely forgotten the majority of the movie but I'll remember what I ate during the movie, who I was with, and I might even remember the date and time. On the other hand, if you ask what I ate yesterday I may have to pause and think about it before responding.

I'd not say that they're necessarily harmful but I'd say that abuse can be harmful or have strange effects on you or at least that's my experience and what others have shared with me. I think moderation is key if one is going to opt to use them. I can't say one is better than the other but I'd probably suggest staying away from the research chemicals.

Finally, I don't think there's such a thing as a bad trip - they're just more interesting. Once you get on the ride you can't get off so go into it with that mindset and I've not seen anyone do more than freak for a little while though I am usually happiest when I trip alone or with just a few other people.

Dangerous, stupid lies.

[Anonymous Coward]

That 568 date is made up just to insult Islam. Nice work on the fact checking, slashdice.

http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/latest/2015/07/quran-manuscript-22-07-15.aspx

Re:Dangerous, stupid lies.

[jbssm]

/sarc: Yes, most scientific facts only exist to insult religion... specially Islam which is pretty good at feeling insulted all the time.

Re:Dangerous, stupid lies.

[KGIII]

That 568 date is made up just to insult Islam. Nice work on the fact checking, slashdice.

http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/latest/2015/07/quran-manuscript-22-07-15.aspx

How do you figure? I checked your article and it says the same thing. I realize that this is going to be tough for some folks to reconcile and that they'll work to ignore it or deny it but you could at least make a site that supports your claim that the number was made up just to insult Islam. I mean, yeah, it takes a few minutes to fake a site. Why link to a site that says the same thing that this summary is saying? (You know damned well that I didn't read the article but I did click and check out your link.) Where you hoping that nobody would read your link and assume that what you were saying is true? Did I miss something in your linked article? What gives?

Re:Dangerous, stupid lies.

[spitzak]

Huh? Here is the 2nd paragraph of the linked site. It certainly does refute the post above. I think your reading comprehension needs some work:

"Radiocarbon analysis has dated the parchment on which the text is written to the period between AD 568 and 645 with 95.4% accuracy. The test was carried out in a laboratory at the University of Oxford. The result places the leaves close to the time of the Prophet Muhammad, who is generally thought to have lived between AD 570 and 632."

Note that "AD 568 to 645" is different than the Slashdot article lead which says "545 AD and 568".

Re:Dangerous, stupid lies.

[KGIII]

I assume it was an unintentional effort and not some great effort to insult Islam - that was mostly where I was going with it. Even if the date's aren't exact there's no real difference in the story because they were careful to include the weasel words of "may predate." I'd say it is clickbait-y but probably not an active cabal of people who are attempting to slight a particular religious group.

I probably should have been more clear but, yeah... I doubt it's more than an attempt to get clicks and not some giant conspiracy to insult Islam. I could be mistaken but I'm really a fan of Occam's Razor and it doesn't really seem like /. would be motivated to insult Islam as a general rule. I'd expect they're motivated by greed more than they are likely to be motivated by theology.

Re:Well...

[hyperar]

Religion fiiiiiiight!!!!

Nope. Typo.

[jonnythan]

"545 AD and 568"

1) This was a typo. It was between 568 and 645 AD.
Here's the original article:
http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/ne...

"Radiocarbon analysis has dated the parchment on which the text is written to the period between AD 568 and 645 with 95.4% accuracy. The test was carried out in a laboratory at the University of Oxford. The result places the leaves close to the time of the Prophet Muhammad, who is generally thought to have lived between AD 570 and 632."

2) They dated the paper, not the ink. It was common to scrape and reuse paper. It also only dates the time the plant or animal died.

Re:Nope. Typo.

[fermion]

That time was still steeped in an oral tradition, and much was still not written down. For instance, in the Christian Testament only Mark was written contemporaneously with Jesus. The other books were written well after his death, using sources that have always been suspect. In the case of the Koran, the dates still indicates that it was written during the lifetime of the prophet, not after.

Re:Nope. Typo.

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean they couldn't just call Primatech or Dunder Mifflin and order a few reams?

Re:Nope. Typo.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, Mark wasn't composed until approximately 66-70CE, prior to or even slightly after the siege and fall of Jerusalem. And it was strongly influenced by the old testament book of Daniel.

Re:Nope. Typo.

[crunchygranola]

That time was still steeped in an oral tradition, and much was still not written down. For instance, in the Christian Testament only Mark was written contemporaneously with Jesus. The other books were written well after his death, using sources that have always been suspect.

Mark also was written decades after Jesus death - though at a time when people still lived who remembered him.

Not sure what you mean by "suspect". We have excellent evidence the other Gospel's were written using sources that we no longer have - but what makes them "suspect"?

Re:Nope. Typo.

[KGIII]

Thanks for the information. I don't think that changes the information a great deal given that they use the weasel words of "may predate" instead of making a claim that it does predate Muhammad. However, we can also remember that he didn't start his teaching until he was much older in life and the Koran wasn't' written until after he passed away (as I recall).

The scraping part is interesting (I'd not heard of that before and haven't looked into it so I'll take your word for it, it does not sound unreasonable) so they should test the ink if they can do so without harming the document and if they can get a usable amount. Do we have the technology to actually get enough ink for a valid test without harming the document?

I believe that he didn't start teaching until he was in his 30s, if I remember the documentaries well enough, and that scholars believe it was shortly after his death when they began to write down his teachings. Again, just using my poor memory, he lived to be in his 60s so that would put the first writings somewhere near the second decade of the 8th century at the earliest. That puts the earliest writings at some 150 years, approximately, after the paper was created.

I've not checked. Was this paper or papyrus or?

I also recall a documentary about the history of Islam and some older lady was doing it. She'd found some architectural ruins that seemed to indicate that some of the beliefs and practices may have predated the scholarly accepted history of Islam but, unfortunately, I am unable to recall the name of the documentary. That sort of stuff, names of actors and things like that too, just don't stick and I'm way too lazy to keep some sort of notes for something that is light history/hobby work. I think it may have been a Pure History Special or a Nova piece? Maybe BBC? It was about the history of Islam though it was more from a skeptical viewpoint than anything else. I give the clues so that maybe someone can jog my memory.

Anyhow, the idea isn't that new as I recall. I am not, nor should I be considered, an authoritarian figure on the subject (obviously). Though this is not the first time I've seen or heard of people proposing that Muhammad may have cribbed from prior art. I imagine copyrights and patents have expired by now. ;-)

Re:Nope. Typo.

[Anonymous Coward]

and when I followed the trail from TFS it went to a christian column. Nothing like getting information about Islam from a christian columnist. No axe to grind there, nosiree.

Re:Nope. Typo.

[Anonymous Coward]

you could just be arguing about the genetic descendants of unicorns, because they are both fucking made up. The argument for a historical Jesus amounts "We don't have any verifiable evidence of his existence but the church is such a pain in the butt about "science" and "facts" we're not gonna bother refuting his existence any more."

Don't speak of this!

[Anonymous Coward]

All the people, universities, towns, etc mentioned in the article will probably be destroyed by the weekend.

Accuracy

[ardmhacha]

"545 AD and 568"

Can carbon dating be that precise?

The Daily Mail link has "Carbon dating found the pages were produced between 568AD and 654AD" which seems like a more reasonable range.

Re:Accuracy

[CrimsonAvenger]

645.

Typo (hopefully, as opposed to willful disinformation) in TFS. The actual range is 568 to 645. Which conveniently spans the Prophet's lifetime.

Which means it might have predated the Prophet. Or it might not.

Re:Accuracy

[nikkipolya]

It can't be, simply because that's not interesting.

Re:Accuracy

[Holi]

So basically this finding does exactly the opposite of what the summary says. It states that there is evidence that the Koran and Muhammad were contemporaries and in no way refutes the fact that Muhammad may have written it.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right, this headline and summer is a white hot pack of lies and a huge fucking waste of everyone's time. I'm done with /. for good now.

Re:Accuracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. So a fragment of the Koran has been found written on the skin of an animal whose death can be pretty accurately dated to a time roughly contemporaneous with Muhammad's life. I image that new would be quite interesting to scholars of Islam, and might affect someone's cherished theories about when and how the text was compiled, but it doesn't upset the apple cart for normal people of any religious point of view. It is consistent with highly divergent theories of the Koran's origin.

Re:Accuracy

[r-diddly]

Only Imperial stormtroopers are so precise.

Re:Accuracy

[tehcyder]

It's not often you see "Daily Mail" and "reasonable" in the same sentence, especially if it's related to Islam.

also also

[Anonymous Coward]

well the pictures depicted on http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3216627/Koran-Birmingham-thought-oldest-world-predate-Prophet-Muhammad-scholars-say.html not even arabic.

Re:also also

[GCsoftware]

That IS Arabic, a very old form of it that didn't use the dots we use nowadays to denote say a Ba from a Ta or a Nun

Re:also also

[Barsteward]

jeez, don't trust that racist xenophobic rag to get anything correct

Which scholars really believe it's divine source?

[swb]

Some scholars believe, however, that Muhammad did not receive the Quran from heaven, as he claimed during his lifetime

So are there actual scholars, I mean people who put facts before belief, who DO believe the divine inspiration story?

Are are those "scholars" merely religious functionaries whose "scholarship" is really just a form of theology?

Re:Chop Off Heads

[hyperar]

Chop off Hands.

Kill atheists.

Overtax Jews and Christians, then kill them.

Kill Buddhists.

Kill Hinduists.

All the "relgion of peace".

Yeah, is not like chirstians have ever killed anybody, right?. All of this religion poiting to other religions is beyond stupid, they are all ways to control people. There are over 5000 gods being prayed on earth, but yours is the only real one... give me a break.

Good luck to those who made this finding

[NotDrWho]

Hope you don't get shot or blown up by followers of the "religion of peace" for your work.

Re:Good luck to those who made this finding

[Anonymous Coward]

Or prosecuted for blasphemy

https://lorrab.wordpress.com/2015/04/28/get-ready-for-blasphemy-law-making-islamic-criticism-aggravated-crime/

Like the Bible

[kilfarsnar]

"Some scholars believe, however, that Muhammad did not receive the Quran from heaven, as he claimed during his lifetime, but instead collected texts and scripts that fit his political agenda."

So it's more like the Bible, then?

Re:Like the Bible

[ve3oat]

So it's more like the Bible, then?

Amen to that! But I assume you are talking only about the New Testament of the Christian Bible, officially compiled and rewritten by some committee in the 4th century A.D. from prior works, some of which were composed before the birth of Jesus but which were not included in the Old Testament.

Re:Like the Bible

[frogjimmy]

Upvote. Damn it, I command you to upvote! Damn new technologies! +1 now! I give up. That was a brilliant and accurate comment though.

Re:Like the Bible

[Tokolosh]

Some believe in burning bushes, some believe in the Jewish zombie, some believe in a rock in the desert, some believe in magic underpants, some believe in cows and elephants, some believe in aliens in volcanoes, some believe they were previously an ant, some believe in pasta.

I believe I'll have a beer, but...

NO ONE EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!!!

Re:Like the Bible

[AmiMoJo]

Muhammed was illiterate. He had friends who could read, but he himself could not. So in the original story God dictated the Koran to him, and he recited it to his friend who wrote it down. The more you think about this the less it makes sense.

As such the Koran is supposed to be the literal word of God. I mean, it clearly isn't, because even if you accept that there might be a deity, the book itself is very poorly written. It's very obviously a product of the minds of the time, and you don't need a language degree to see that.

This finding is a huge problem for people who believe that the Koran is the literal word of God, dictated to Muhammed. Unlike the Bible, where it is accepted that there are many authors and many of them were not alive at the time of the events depicted, and each had their own agendas etc, the Koran is supposed to be perfect. Any flaw would be a flaw in God's work.

Re: Like the Bible

[DNS-and-BIND]

I knew there would be some prick changing the subject to Christianity. Like clockwork. At least have some originality and make a different criticism like "the Koran is in its original language while the Bible exists only in translation." Otherwise you're as derivative and cliche as Banksy's Disneyland.

Re:Like the Bible

[frog_strat]

It is not totally a matter of faith, or subscribing to some dogma. There are many statements made about the dating and fidelity of our modern Bible. These can and have been tested. It is not looking good for those who cling to traditional idea that we actually even have the original texts. Not only do the source texts not agree, the further you back the worse the divergence gets. Check out Bart Ehrman.

Re: Like the Bible

[serviscope_minor]

What's wrong with comparison to other religious texts, especially Abrahamic ones.

the Koran is in its original language while the Bible exists only in translation

The old testament is mostly avilable in it's original language (depending on the precise denomination) albeit in txt spk (really---all the vowels are missing).

Re:Like the Bible

[a whoabot]

It is not known whether Muhammad was illiterate or not.

See:

Gerhard Boewering (2008) "Recent research on the construction of the Qur'an" in Gabriel Said-Reynolds (ed.), The Qur'an in Its Historical Context, Routledge: p. 70-87.

and:

Sebastian Guenther (2002), "Muhammad, the Illiterate Prophet: An Islamic Creed in the Qur'an and Qur'anic Exegesis" Journal of Qur'anic Studies. Volume 4, Issue 1, Page 1-26

Re:Like the Bible

[Anonymous Coward]

"poorly written"? you ignorant sack of shit! Al Qur'an in Arabic is one of the most glorious works of Poetry in ANY language at ANY time in all of human history! Many, many people converted to Islam based on the supernatural beauty and perfection of the words of Al Qur'an!

Re:Like the Bible

[a whoabot]

Except I'm sure Ehrman would agree that the traditional idea is not that we have the original texts, but rather that that is modern fundamentalist view.

Re:Like the Bible

[Anonymous Coward]

The subject of the new testament seems to be an amalgam of Egyptian and archaic messiah myths with the addition of the old testament for contemporary credibility.

Re:Like the Bible

[Anonymous Coward]

Muhammed was illiterate. He had friends who could read, but he himself could not. So in the original story God dictated the Koran to him, and he recited it to his friend who wrote it down. The more you think about this the less it makes sense.

the more you think about how it doesn't make sense the less it makes sense. but, let's think of ways this does make sense.

you can form the thoughts above, but you can't read or write japanese. you can have a friend write the thoughts you expressed above in japanese, and then you would have a passage of japanese text that was created by someone who doesn't read or write japanese. further, you understand the idea behind the japanese words sushi, sayounara, sake, hiroshima, and ninja. your friend can write down these words in japanese, and now you have japanese words that you understand and can verbally express, but which you cannot read or write. further still, the literacy rate in japan is 99%, which means that 1% of the japanese population can live in japanese society without being able to read or write japanese. 99% is an excellent literacy rate; afghanistan has a literacy rate of 28%.

Re: Like the Bible

[Anonymous Coward]

The Bible does exist in its original languages.

Re:Like the Bible

[Anonymous Coward]

There are at least 30 manuscript fragments from before the 4th century A.D.

Re: Like the Bible

[Anonymous Coward]

They are both Abrahamic religions, as such they will always be compared...

Re:Like the Bible

[Anonymous Coward]

a Great Civilization that lasts 1,000 years does not get founded on a 'poorly written' document!

Re: Like the Bible

[tehcyder]

I knew there would be some prick changing the subject to Christianity. Like clockwork. At least have some originality and make a different criticism like "the Koran is in its original language while the Bible exists only in translation." Otherwise you're as derivative and cliche as Banksy's Disneyland.

That's Dismaland, you fucking blasphemer.

Re:Like the Bible

[Anonymous Coward]

No. The bible does not say anywhere that it came from heaven while the Quran does.

Re:Like the Bible

[RockDoctor]

NO ONE EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!!!

Actually, the Spanish Inquisition normally sent a messenger around to check what time would be convenient for them to come around and talk to you about allegations or charges that have been presented.

Re:Like the Bible

[Anonymous Coward]

right; because a book that's managed to pass through 1400+ years unchanged, CLEARLY is poorly written.

Are you this stupid normally or did you take something this morning?

Re:Like the Bible

[Anonymous Coward]

Towelhead spotted.

Indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's outlaw deadly ideologies and if this requires the blackening of major parts of the "old testament" and lots of communist literature, GO FOR IT.

Quran openly calls for the killing of non-Mohammedics. What would happen if the KKK openly prayed and distributed books which called for the killing of other groups ?

Re:Well...

[Chrisq]

It wouldn't be the first time that Muslims were wrong about something. After all, their so-called 'prophet' was an illiterate, genocidal pervert who plagiarized and stole his worthless teachings.

Practices copied by his followers throughout the ages.

Changes Nothing

[DumbSwede]

People believe what they want to believe – this will make no difference. While the carbon dating is somewhat ambiguous (and gives more than enough wiggle room for believers), this will similarly give those who don’t believe in Islam, the complete certainty this completely disproves Islam without any further consideration.

I myself do not believe in Sky-Faeries, and many here will rush to blame Religion for most of mankind’s woes (or perhaps more specifically Islam more than most) but the real problem is adherence to any ideological Dogma and cherry picking or distorting facts to fit your Dogma.

Don’t be expect to win any friends or converts by trying to push this down Islam throat as proof Mohammad is not divine. It will be seen as a Zionist/Christian/American plot to deceive the faithful.

Re:Changes Nothing

[serviscope_minor]

I myself do not believe in Sky-Faeries,

Ah a Pagan. Poseidon lives in the sea and so is exempt from your exclusions.

Re:Changes Nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats ok, I am used to religions blaming things on plots. I mean gay marriage is obviously an atheist/wiccan/satanic plot as well.

Re:Changes Nothing

[Anonymous Coward]

Adults with imaginary friends are stupid and dangerous.

Re:Well...

[meglon]

Yeh...that's never happened in other religions, right Noah...er, i mean Ziusudra.

Most all religions are adapted from the beliefs that came before them, some more so than others. Christianity took parts of pretty much every religion around and cobbled itself together... then voted on which dogma it should use as a public face; its no real surprise that Islam did as well.

Political agenda

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, of course there was. The Bible is nothing but centuries of political manipulation. The whole religion was based on a preacher who wanted Rome and the status quo destroyed. If we transported an early Christian or Muslim to today, they wouldn't have a clue WTF modern practitioners are talking about.

Why if Jesus were alive today, Fox News would call him Jesus ( pronounced hey- Zeus) the Socialist Middle Eastern Terrorist.

Religion has always been political - the Dali Lama was the head of the Tibetan state before his resignation a few years ago - so, do not give any shit about Buddhists being all pure.

Name the religion and I will show you how they oppress people or have in the past like Tibetan Buddhism. And clergy are power hungry parasites - like politicians.

Re:Political agenda

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah those Buddhists are always trying to rape and pillage. Are you really this fucking retarded?

Muslims will find this offensive...

[jbssm]

Pretty sure Muslims worldwide will claim these findings are offensive and disrespectful to Islam and as such we will put them aside and pretend they don't exist. Which is pretty much the modus operandi from the West for anything that might offend Muslims.

Re:Muslims will find this offensive...

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, if you study the bible, and contradict some Church's teaching, their members will be offended at you as well. Which is pretty much the modus operandi from anybody who is challenged, unfortunately, sometimes they are right to take offense.

Re:Muslims will find this offensive...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, I refer even to Donald Trump, who if you challenge him, will take offense. So far he's been doing well with the bluster, but how long that will sustain him is beyond me.

Re:Muslims will find this offensive...

[jbssm]

Yes, Christians might be offended, but: 1-You won't apply self censorship like you do about something that offends Islam. 2-You don't have a real possibility of being murdered (in the 1st world at least) just because you refuse to apply that self censorship about Catholicism (unlike with Islam).

Re:Muslims will find this offensive...

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Yes, I will. I know the people around me. Keeping my mouth shut on religion and politics is a good rule to follow.
2) Catholics, maybe, maybe not. That might be a local issue of their relative scarcity, so I'm not familiar with them though. The Protestants around me? Another story. I'm quite aware of their tendency to flare up when sparked. At least, the crazies among them.

Sorry, but I think you're confusing an all-too common human problem with a religious one. There's a guy in Missouri who shot people because he THOUGHT they were Jewish. What else is going on that you don't want to see?

Re:Muslims will find this offensive...

[jbssm]

You are seriously telling us that you apply self censorship about telling the truth about any Christian religion for being afraid of being murdered? Really, you seriously telling us that?

Re:Muslims will find this offensive...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, that's what I just got done telling you. Did you think I was lying? There are people you can provoke to kill among all creeds and kinds. Or even murder aside, they could and would make life difficult for me in other ways just because they didn't like what they heard. That might actually be worse, in some sense, because they're not simply losing control, but acting viciously in an effective manner. Sometimes I think that's a more terrible kind of evil.

So when somebody goes on a tear about same-sex marriage, or illegal immigrants, or unholy members of the Muslim faith like that thieving bastard who stole the White House and won't even show his birth certificate, I tend to keep my mouth shut.

Re:Muslims will find this offensive...

[mjwx]

Pretty sure Muslims worldwide will claim these findings are offensive and disrespectful to Islam and as such we will put them aside and pretend they don't exist. Which is pretty much the modus operandi from the West for anything that might offend Muslims.

Pretty sure most Muslims wont give a shit.

But people who watch Fox News wont have a clue as they'll only show some obscure cleric out in Bumfuckistan having a big old rant about it.

If Al Jazera was like Fox news, they'd claim a Klansman was the average American.

The average Muslim takes their religions as seriously as the average Christian these days. If you look hard enough, you'll find nutters in every faith.

Re:Muslims will find this offensive...

[jbssm]

The average Muslim takes their religions as seriously as the average Christian these days.

That's actually wrong. Factually wrong, although it's an argument that being repeated all around against all data. As you can see, the "average" Muslim believes in capital punishment for Apostasy (leaving the faith of Islam) and more than the average believes that stoning to the death should be the penalty for adultery.

The data comes from the PEW research centre, not some nut-job right-wing organisation. Should also be noted that the extremist Muslim majority countries couldn't be analysed, so the real situation is even worst: http://www.pewforum.org/2013/0...

Re:Muslims will find this offensive...

[tehcyder]

You are seriously telling us that you apply self censorship about telling the truth about any Christian religion for being afraid of being murdered? Really, you seriously telling us that?

I've read about places in the stupider parts of the USA where you need to be a Christian to get anywhere in politics or business, so even if it's not direct fear of being murdered, in that sort of environment you're far from free to criticise Christianity.

Just because it's nowhere near as bad as living in Islamic State or North Korea does not mean that you have perfect intellectual freedom.

Re:Muslims will find this offensive...

[jbssm]

1 - Like you just admitted, you won't get murdered for telling some unpleasant truth about a Christian religion in a Christian country. 2 - That's not even the issue. The issue is that you can get murdered for telling some unpleasant truth about Islam in a Christian country.

You are really not getting the point here.

Re:Chop Off Heads

[kilfarsnar]

Chop off Hands.

Kill atheists.

Overtax Jews and Christians, then kill them.

Kill Buddhists.

Kill Hinduists.

All the "relgion of peace".

It seems the Media have done their job and you are appropriately terrified of the Other.

Re:Chop Off Heads

[pijokela]

Where did the GP claim some other religion was better? What does the truthfulness of any religion have to do with the points GP made?

Reading is fundamental

[XxtraLarGe]

Muhammad did not receive the Quran from heaven... but instead collected texts and scripts that fit his political agenda.

Muslims will counter this claim by stating Muhammad was an illiterate, but that's probably not the case.

Re:Reading is fundamental

[Anonymous Coward]

Muslims will counter this claim by stating Muhammad was an illiterate, but that's probably not the case.

No. Muslims, especially the radical ones, will simply start chopping off the heads of anyone that disagrees. It's all horseshit. I lump those idiots into the same boat as Smith's Magic Glasses of Mormonism, the Brainwashed Idiots Book of Lies and Exaggerations (BIBLE), and L. Ron Hubbard's Tax Evasion Religion called Scientology.

It's all bullshit. At least Christianity, Mormonism and Scientology doesn't chop off heads or kill people for drawing some visage of Mohammed. If I thought I could get away with it, I would create a nice HTML5 website that allows you to

1 - pick any book of religion of your choice, pull up a digital image of any page and let you virtually burn the fucking thing in a nice puff of digital smoke. Preferably using an animation of a hot, naked man or woman (you pick) setting it on fire.

2 - Add a nice web game cartoon of putting MoMo himself into a cage and poking him with sticks and when you're tired clicking a button and having wild boars appear in the cage and tearing his bearded ass apart with him screaming. Or every thousandth click on the kill button makes one of the boars get amorous and he starts having sex with him before he gets eaten.

3 - A game of "Piss on the Scientology Symbol" like one of those shooter games in a carnival. The winning score gets animated caricatures of Tom Cruise, John Travolta and some other well known weak minded Hubbard Believers running around and shooting flying Qurans with laser pistols. ...and anything else I can find that violates the sanctity of any sacred cow and pisses some "believer" off at the most visceral level possible.

Re:Which scholars really believe it's divine sourc

[nikkipolya]

They are scientific theologians.

No problem for dickheads

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when do facts matter in religious issues? No problem for fanatics, they'll just burn the old book, claiming that it offends God the Almigthy.

Re:Which scholars really believe it's divine sourc

[swb]

So they set up double-blind studies where half the group is given a placebo prayer and the other half is given a real prayer?

Re:Chop Off Heads

[allcoolnameswheretak]

Historically, it's very likely that Christianity has caused the most harm to human beings and humanity as a whole thus far.
If you think about the dark ages, witch hunts, torture during the inquisition, crusades, sanctions against unbelievers, such as expulsions and acquisitions of their assets, forced conversions, colonization, abuse and culture shock of natives...

Most of this bad Karma was accumulated in the early to late middle ages, until the age of enlightenment finally put a stop to most of it. Of course today you still have popes condemning contraceptives, abortion and other modern solutions to age old problems, which is still creating a considerable amount of hurt.
Then of course you also also have fundamentalist christians, such as the "God Hates Fags" nutjobs, dishing out a sizeable portion of distress to some people, even today.

I think Islam still has some catching up to do if it wants to reach christianity's accumulated level of harm. But I have to admit that current Islamists are trying pretty hard at the moment. If they go on like this, they might catch up in only a century or two.

So to sum up

[dskoll]

To sum up: Book of hateful, evil, misogynistic bullshit found to have been copied from an earlier draft of hateful, evil, misogynistic bullshit.

Re:So to sum up

[Anonymous Coward]

Boys are the ones whose sexual organs all Muslims believe should be cut up.

Re:So to sum up

[Anonymous Coward]

In the context of the time, Islam and the Koran were positively progressive. And for all the many improvements in women's rights and the rights of slaves... white western christians still haven't renounced the Old Testament, which is little more than an anthology of excuses for hate.

Re:So to sum up

[dskoll]

Standard Islamist apologist. I assume you are not a woman. Now imagine that you are a woman. Would you rather live in a Muslim-dominated society? Or a secular Western society?

Re:So to sum up

[dskoll]

Lots of Muslim countries mutilate their girls' genitals. And a clitorectomy is a hell of a lot more radical than circumcision.

Re:So to sum up

[Anonymous Coward]

In every country where there is female genital mutilation, there is also male genital mutilation, but not the other way around. It's done at the same age and for similar reasons, and under similar conditions.

A cliterectomy is NOT more radical; male circumcision destroys a huge swath of sexual tissue that is highly erogenous, specialized, and mechanically valuable—male circumcision completely alters the way a penis functions, and that's when it goes "well".

Re:So to sum up

[dskoll]

What is your point? That because Muslims circumcise males, the Koran is not misogynistic hateful evil bullshit?

Because the Koran is all of those things.

Re:So to sum up

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose your comment is a lie of omission.

It's important to realize that Islam is also misandristic; despite popular dogma, women do not actually comprise some special target of oppression. Shall we compromise on the word "misanthropic"?

Re:So to sum up

[dskoll]

No, Islam is specifically misogynistic. Sharia law values the testimony of women less than of men. A man can divorce his wife just by uttering words; a woman cannot divorce her husband.

A quote from the Koran: "Men are managers of the affairs of women because Allah has made the one superior to the other."

A quote from the Koran regarding inheritance: "The share of the male shall be twice that of a female."

Islam is also misanthropic, but it reserves special vilification for women. So my comment is the truth and no "lie of omission".

Re:So to sum up

[Anonymous Coward]

In 600 AD? Or now? Two different results perhaps.

Re:So to sum up

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. Circumcision is one thing, clitoridectomy is a whole other level of hell. A truly equivalent operation to severing the clitoris would be severing of the entire penis. Clitoridectomy is deliberately intended to condemn the victim to a lifelong inability to climax.

Re:So to sum up

[Anonymous Coward]

FGM is also not Islamic. It is tribal. Most Islamic nations condemn it, and nothing in Qur'an or Hadith mentions it.

Re:So to sum up

[tehcyder]

Lots of Muslim countries mutilate their girls' genitals. And a clitorectomy is a hell of a lot more radical than circumcision.

To be fair, that's a horrible cultural thing rather than a horrible religious thing.

Re:So to sum up

[tehcyder]

No, Islam is specifically misogynistic. Sharia law values the testimony of women less than of men. A man can divorce his wife just by uttering words; a woman cannot divorce her husband.

A quote from the Koran: "Men are managers of the affairs of women because Allah has made the one superior to the other."

A quote from the Koran regarding inheritance: "The share of the male shall be twice that of a female."

Islam is also misanthropic, but it reserves special vilification for women. So my comment is the truth and no "lie of omission".

"Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord".

Oh wait, that was St Paul in the New Terstament.

Re:So to sum up

[Anonymous Coward]

no, "lots" of Muslim countries DO NOT do FGM. It is a tribal practice, NOT AN ISLAMIC PRACTICE, and it is mostly confined to Africa. It is not done in Arab countries, and NOTHING in Qur'an or Hadith calls for it. It is practice condemned by almost every National Council of Islam.

Re:So to sum up

[dskoll]

Again, what is your point? Because Christianity is misogynistic also that Islam isn't? Or that Islam's "not so bad" because other religions are misogynistic?

Re:So to sum up

[dskoll]

It may be a "horrible cultural thing", but the religion is complicit in the demeaning and dehumanizing of women that permits such horrible cultural practices to thrive. These things do not take place in a vacuum.

Re:So to sum up

[Anonymous Coward]

THE RELIGION OF ISLAM WITH the exception of THREE NATIONAL COUNCILS FORMALLY CONDEMNS THE PRACTICE OF FGM!

3 of 41 national councils!

and you know absolutely nothing of real womens lives in Islam.

Re:So to sum up

[dskoll]

I know plenty because I have met lots of women who have escaped to Canada to get away from Islam. The stories they tell, and the stories told in "Cruel and Usual Punishment" by Nonie Darwish show the true evil of Islam.

Re:So to sum up

[dskoll]

Even in 600AD when Islam was just getting going, misogyny was the rule under Islam. So no, I don't think the results would have been all that different.

Re:So to sum up

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. there are over 500 million Muslim women on planet Earth.

Hey Communist

[Anonymous Coward]

And communists think of Mohammedics as potential allies "in order to destroy the white man and his civilization". And yeah, they would be first on the chopping block if the Mohammedics gain political power. Dont expect any logos from a commie. They are devoid-of-intelligence-losers.

Clearer Origins

[SuperKendall]

I think the fact that the pages of the Koran do not glow with unearthly swirling lights or set fire to the hands of un-believers is a better indicator it did not come from heaven.

Re:Clearer Origins

[Jamu]

And the fact that it isn't printed on soft, absorbent paper, is proof that it's of no value.

Re:Clearer Origins

[Anonymous Coward]

And no illustrations.

Re:Clearer Origins

[tehcyder]

I think the fact that the pages of the Koran do not glow with unearthly swirling lights or set fire to the hands of un-believers is a better indicator it did not come from heaven.

I don't think anyone is saying this is the original Koran.

No it doesn't

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/news/latest/2015/07/quran-manuscript-22-07-15.aspx

Blasphemy! Oh boy.

[AndyKron]

I wonder how many people will die over this revelation?

Re:Blasphemy! Oh boy.

[Zaatxe]

None, because Islam is the religion of peace.

Re:Blasphemy! Oh boy.

[NoKaOi]

I wonder how many people will die over this revelation?

None, because nobody will give a shit. The same goes for little things that contradict any other religion. Christianity, Mormonism, etc etc. Plenty of evidence to contradict it. In this case, it's not even that contradictory, which is why it's a minor thing, not some Earth-shaking revelation that contradicts all of the teachings of Islam. The dates are still within his lifetime so he still could have received the words from God. Even if you want to take it all at face value, perhaps it means the Koran was compiled (written down in one place) a few years early that originally believed, which is a small detail that doesn't completely shake up Islam. The dates are close enough such that those who still want to believe the Koran wasn't actually compiled until 650AD could reasonably assume that the paper could be 18 years older when it was written on.

I'm impressed

[RogueWarrior65]

I'm impressed at how few comments are mod'ed up for this one.

Holy fuck ....

[Anonymous Coward]

Some scholars believe, however, that Muhammad did not receive the Quran from heaven

Holy fuck, people ... nobody fucking believes any of this shit was received from heaven unless they're complete fucking morons.

Humans write fucking religions.

Fuck your fucking god, your prophet, and your fucking heaven. It's not fucking real, it's all bullshit and lies.

Idiots who believe in this shit are the cause of so many problems in the world it isn't funny.

Your fucking moronic delusions and fantasies are so much bullshit it isn't fucking funny.

Drooling fucking morons.

Re:Holy fuck ....

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you believe in human rights, such as freedom of expression? Such rights are just as fictitious as sky gods. And yet they're foundational to the life you live. You probably have never even questioned them, always assuming they were obviously true and proper.

I wouldn't throw stones in a glass house if I were you. There are many more delusions we all live with without even realizing it.

Of course, not all delusions are equal. In most situations I'd prefer an inalienable right to freedom of expression over a vengeful sky god. But they're all figments of our collective imagination. If "real" is the measure of whether an idea should be accepted, we'd all still be chucking spears.

Extremely Biased Reporting

[Firas Zirie]

I haven't commented in a long time, but the reporting on this subject is heavily biased to support the pre-determined conclusion that the manuscript predates Mohammed (pbuh). The Daily Mail is guilty of this (shock! horror!) and so is the summary with its strategic "typo".

From the Mail article, Carbon dating places the manuscript between 568 and 645AD, while Mohammed is thought to have lived between 570 and 632AD. Most intelligent persons would take a quick glance at those dates and be able to dismiss the headlines outright. The range on the dating is nowhere near precise enough to make such a bold statement which is obviously meant to be inflammatory.

Also, as others have rightly stated, the dating is for the parchment, not the ink itself. It is perfectly possible for the parchment to have been produced and not been used for a length of time. Writing paraphernalia was extremely precious at that time; they may have been saved for something important.

Finally, while it is correct that the FULL Quran was not compiled in written form until after the prophet's death, and was primarily stored in memory of the followers, that does not preclude writing completely! The discovered script contains only a couple of chapters, and is not a complete version.

tl;dr: inaccurate and sensationalist headline and reporting on results which may actually point to the opposite.

Occam's razor

[lorinc]

Well, in absence of scientific evidence, if you just read the thing and have to decide between:
- The guy made it up to fit his political agenda
- The guy got it from a superpowered entity

Honestly, there's no way you can find the later simpler and more plausible. Especially after reading that part where men are allowed to marry up to four wives except the prophet who could marry as many as he wanted...

But it is always cool to have scientific evidence when you can get ones.

Re:Occam's razor

[Anonymous Coward]

I prefer Hitchen's razor when presented with claims that have no evidence

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Obvious explanation

[Nidi62]

Muhammad had horrible handwriting so Allah had to ghost write it for him and all he had lying around was a decades old ream of paper.

Re:Let me fix that for you

[Anonymous Coward]

seriously who is up-voting this guy? enough of the bigotry

scholar historian or scientist

[aepervius]

You have got to remember theologist are also scholars. So that some scholars believe that jesus/mohamad/price rama existed or received divine documents or whatnot is not far fetched. but usually historian if they do their work correctly relying only on evidence will not (in their papers) describe the miracle or anything else supernatural as having a basis in reality even if they truly believe it. I say usually because sometimes they make books making a case for the miracle too (IIRC bart Ehrman for example). But mostly what you will get from historian is only "X existed" and no judgement call on the supernatural stuff.

So basically it is not a surprise to read the sentence which amde your brain "die a little". just think scholar in the more generic sense.

It must be understood ...

[Rambo Tribble]

... that a key tenet of the Muslim faith is that the Koran is the unaltered word of God. This belief is perhaps even more immutable than the proscription against the iconography of Mohammed which has led to so much violence. Do not expect these findings to be accepted or go down lightly in the Muslim world.

Re:It must be understood ...

[Anonymous Coward]

So? Catholics believe the same about the Bible, especially the new testament. Go to a Sunday Catholic mass, hear the priest read from 'the Word of God' (the use of the term 'this is the Word of God' is used all the time about the Bible during mass)...at least it was when I was forced to go & be indoctrinated...when you take communion you are LITERALLY expected to believe you are 'eating the body of christ'...NO not 'figuratively' ACTUALLY eating a dead persons body.

How than it is at all surprising that Muslims believe the Koran is the 'unaltered/unadulterated word of God'? Why is it even necessary to 'prove' the document is older than Mohammed to call it's contents in to question? And why even try since those that 'believe' won't believe the science. You could go back in time & catch him in the act of making this shit up & nobody who truly 'believes' will care. That's not a muslim trait though, that's true about any major religion though oddly more so with the 3 Judaic religions (4 if you count Mormons).

Not handed down from God?!

[Anonymous Coward]

"...but instead collected texts and scripts that fit his political agenda."

So... Just like the Christian bible?

Anonymous Cowards

[Tokolosh]

Amazing that all the posts are not AC.

Rationalization

[sociocapitalist]

"...could rewrite early Islamic history."

Good luck with that.

Uh oh

[xenotransplant]

The flying spaghetti monster is NOT going to like this.

Re:Uh oh

[RockDoctor]

And just who do you think was feeding decades-old grain and straw to the sheep (or goat) that was peeled to make the parchment, in order to skew the carbon isotope signature of the parchment when Mo said "I've got this great idea, and I need a fresh sheet of goatskin to write it on!"

(See post below for more on carbon dating.)

Doesn't Predate Mohammed

[jaeztheangel]

The articles are clear about the fact the parchment is from during life of Mohammad. The writing of the document would have happened *much* later. Makes sense considering scarcity of parchment in the region at the time. This feels like another anti-Islam piece.

Re:Doesn't Predate Mohammed

[T.E.D.]

Its not even all that weird. Writing material was expensive back then, particularly for desert-dwellers. Its not at all uncommon to find ancient handwritten texts using reused paper (or parchment or whatever was used).

This whole thing is downright silly. If it dated to much *younger* than the traditional date of the Koran, that would be news. That the writing surface is a smidge older proves absolutely nothing.

Compare this with "The Bible", which actually does not exist as a single thing anywhere, but is known to us from a mismatched assortment of copied and recopied handwritten snippets that don't even match up with each other. The Koran is in much better shape as an authoritative source than that, but it doesn't stop a large amount of Christians from claiming The Bible is the inerrant word of God. So claiming this finding proves anything about the divinity of the Koran is somewhere between naive and offensive.

Re:Doesn't Predate Mohammed

[johannesg]

And that's such a shame. There's just so much to love in islam: bombings, beheadings, mutilation, pedophilia, apartheid, racism - if it offends human decency, you can be sure islam promotes it. How dare anyone speak out against it... It's one great strength is its ability to take a diverse group of poor, illiterate, angry people and bring them together under the umbrella of arab superiority, against the west and anyone else unlucky enough to be perceived as an enemy. And it's only through violence and mob rule that islam has managed to gain and retain any ground in the world.

Re:Doesn't Predate Mohammed

[Anonymous Coward]

This feels like another anti-Islam piece.

On slashdot, home of tolerance and religious faith? NO, THAT CAN'T BE TRUE!

The Koran was written well after Mohammed's death (according to Muslim scholars, anyway) and during that time period palimpsests were extremely commonplace. Not that anybody here cares, of course.

Re:Doesn't Predate Mohammed

[jaeztheangel]

Simply not true: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Doesn't Predate Mohammed

[Anonymous Coward]

Palimpsest

Re:Doesn't Predate Mohammed

[CanadianMacFan]

Why don't you crawl out from under that rock and actually try meeting some people?

The vast majority of people who practice the Islamic faith are good, honest, and peaceful. How about if I were to judge all Christians on the actions of the Antibalaka or the KKK?

Re:Doesn't Predate Mohammed

[johannesg]

Well, for one thing, because I'm not in fact under a rock. I'm not saying there aren't any muslims that aren't good, honest, and peaceful, but if they are, it is _despite_ their religion, not because of it. It is because they are, in all but name, apostate - they have left the core tenets of their faith behind and are living, by any non-islamic standard, decent lives. Great, more power to them!

But there are other muslims who are perfectly happy to do all those bad things I've mentioned and more, in the name of their faith, and they have ample support in the holy texts of islam. All that text is publicly available, you know - we can read it too, and it is really easy to understand where ISIS gets its inspiration when it burns a few prisoners or destroys ancient monuments.

The discovery of this document is actually a great opportunity for islam. It removes just one single fact - the absolute authority of mohamed. If he was so clearly 'mistaken' about the origin of the texts, maybe he was also making the rest up? Maybe he is in fact not a prophet at all, but an imposter, who took an earlier, gentler islam and transformed it into the warlike monstrosity it is today. If you are a muslim, wouldn't you want to know?

At least the world is not going to blame the muslims for shaving some of the sharper edges of their religion, I can tell you that.

Why, by the way, do you assume I'm Christian, and not for example hindu, Jewish, shintoist, Buddhist, or atheist?

Re:Doesn't Predate Mohammed

[RockDoctor]

Its not at all uncommon to find ancient handwritten texts using reused paper (or parchment or whatever was used).

"Palimpsest" is the term.

If it dated to much *younger* than the traditional date of the Koran, that would be news.

No it wouldn't. You've got the logic flipped.

Compare this with "The Bible", which actually does not exist as a single thing anywhere,

... not since I last ran out of toilet paper.

Re:Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

If the book was written between AD 568 and 645, known with 95.4% accuracy.
And Muhammad lived between AD 570 and 632, known to the best of our records on his life.

Then we know that the book is either created sometime before Muhammad's birth or after his death or anywhere in-between!

It's not scientific to assume the book is older than Muhammad. The results only confirm that the book may have existed during his lifetime, when the believers of Islam asserts that the first written version did not appear until decades after Muhammad's death.

One word:

[DudeTheMath]

Palimpsest.

Even if the carbon dating is right, all we know is the sheep (or goat) on which it was written died before Mohammed was born.

Bad science journalists! No biscuit!

Re:One word:

[circletimessquare]

thank you, found the one non-idiot in this thread

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

when writing media was rare and expensive, it was common to remove the original text and write over the pages with new text. the original pages can be decades even centuries older than when they were used to write the quran on them

in fact, in the modern study of ancient texts, it is *common* to find another text hidden underneath, and to use various methods to reveal that second, or even third text, because of writing media reuse

wouldn't it be hilarious if further inspection reveal the original use for the pages of this quran was some ancient christian writings that contradict christian dogma?

LOL. hard religious trolling

Re:One word:

[supercrisp]

I wish I had mod points today. I study Modernist lit, but I came to it by way of medieval lit. It is absolutely unsurprising for parchment to be much older than the text on it. That sort of thing is extremely common. It's really troubling to me that the summary and so many posts here keep saying "paper"; parchment is an entirely different thing, and it was used much differently. It's quite hard to get a good animal skin free of blemishes, and then hard to get that animal skin down to a finished product. The resulting parchment is expensive and tended to be reused numerous times. It's not uncommon for a parchment to be 100s of years older than text on it. This news story is interesting but also really a nonstory. I hate to be this way, but the only reason it's a story is the sort of "gotcha" anti-Islam slant that's put on the science. I haven't seen the original research yet, but if it was at all couched in this sort of "bang, Islam busted" sort of way, it's really quite irresponsible. (NB: I'm a big old atheist, and would love to see debunking of any and all religions. But this ain't that.)

Lots of problems with the lineage of sacred texts

[Anonymous Coward]

The Koran findings do not surprise me. In the past few years I have become aware of just how troubled the lineage of the Bible is. We have many copies of the Greek New Testament texts, and there are thousands (at least) of differences between them, some significant. I don't think there is any text that dates back to before 300AD. People like to say Jesus is the most well attested figure in history. But those attestations really are from 800AD, maybe 300 at best, they are not contemporary. The testimony of Josephus is almost certainly a victim of modification to any common sense readying, considering who he was. If you are interested in this, check out Bart Ehrman, Robert Price, Richard Carrier.

Highlights a vulnerability in Islam

[DrQwerty]

From what I have read on this subject, the dating does relate to the parchment (papyrus), not the ink. The type of script used on the papyrus in question is apparently evidence that the text that is visible was written much later, likely written over the top of earlier writings (papyrus was scarce and hence re-used). This is not challenging to orthodox Muslim beliefs. Still it is a fascinating subject that highlights a vulnerability of Islam. If there emerges text that is identical or very similar to text in the Koran and that text is proven to have been written before Muhammad, then that will be a real head spin for most Muslims. It would prove that the text was not revealed to Muhammed after all but was actually already in circulation. It may be that a uniform religious text was gathered together at the time from existing material by the new Arab empire for political purposes. The story of Muhammad may have been a massive embellishment on a kernel of an idea (political leader and warrior who preached a faith). Most knowledge of Muhammad is drawn from hadiths (a collection of sayings and stories of the prophet) that were only compiled much, much later (around 300 years later). There are many contradictions in the hadiths, providing evidence of different stories being spun for political expediency by competing political operatives. This is a view suggested by Robert Spencer in his book "Did Muhammad exist? ...". Of course I am not Muslim and I maintain the right to question faiths or any other dogma or body of thought.

so its a miracle (AGAIN)

[Anonymous Coward]

if the book is before his time and it talks about him and events of his time than its a miracle. no ?

So what? god created it before he found it.

[goruka]

God created it a few centuries before, then left it in a cave for Muhammad to find it. The prophet was merely pointed to it.
A perfectly scientific explanation.

Nothing to see here

[dwheeler]

Most scholars don't think that the Talpiot Tomb has anything to do with Jesus. For exampel, Géza Vermes says the arguments for the Talpiot tomb are not "just unconvincing but insignificant" (see the Wikipedia page). Also, Christian theology does not depend on whether or not the shroud of Turin is real.

I'm not muslim, but even the summary notes a perfectly reasonable explanation - the parchment could be an old one. And frankly, I'm skeptical that the carbon dating is that precise; carbon dating depends on a lot of assumptions that can easily be false in specific circumstances. (Yes, radioactivity decreases at a fixed rate... but you have to make BIG assumptions about its starting value.) So while this article makes for a good headline, the current actual evidence is rather worthless.

Re:Nothing to see here

[Anonymous Coward]

The Qur'an is not written by Mohamed (at least it is not claimed by the Muslims I know to be written by Mohamed), and most stories were already told, but misunderstood by the Christian/Jewish people at the time of Mohamed (at least that was what I understood from a colleague of mine who tried to convert me to Islam, because he thought for some reason that I was Christian). An Gods plan with Mohamed was to tell how the people have to interpret those stories. A Qur'an that exists before Mohamed only proofs that Islam is right, I guess.
 
Qur'an is the base of the religion, all the other books (like the Sharia) are later additions, written by scholars who had first, second, x'th hand information from Mohamed and friends. The Islam theologists can probably explain that the Qur'an always existed, but only until Mohamed appeared and did his thing, people understood and became Islam.

But they could also just say the carbon dating is Haram and be done with it. That's why religions are so easy. It is just some inexplicable gibberish that needs years of study of books written in a dead language combined with the faith that those texts were written by God (or written by people inspired by God), and when you don't have read it correctly you are wrong and go to hell. End of discussion.

Oh, and when you are in the wrong place (like somewhere in Palmyra) it is: "You're wrong and we will correct your wrongness by seperating your body from your head". And that's probably what would happen with mister Brian Booker if he were somewhere near that place.

Re:Nothing to see here

[Anonymous Coward]

For example the dating of the shroud of Turin is now in question because the corner of the shroud that was tested appears to have been from an area that was repaired during the Middle Ages after the shroud was damaged by a fire. One assumption was that the corner was the same age as the rest of the shroud. Other pieces of information, independent of the carbon dating method, materials used, plant spores in the cloth. They weave of cloth used and its composition all support a very early first century origin for the shroud.
Saying all that it is absolutely true that no Christian is required to believe the shroud is the burial shroud of Christ. It is not a Biblical relic and neither the Catholic or Orthodox Churches have declared it dogma of faith.

Re:Chop Off Heads

[KGIII]

I think the general idea is that the Christians really aren't, on a large scale, killing people today. Just because someone's done something in the past makes it okay to do it today? I'm not sure I follow that logic. What were you getting from there and how did you use rational thinking to come up with that reply?

I see you knocked the snot out of a strawman, that's pretty good. I am not sure what made you assume they were Christians. I know a few folks who still claim to be Christians and they're pretty nice people. Then again, so aren't the Muslims that I've met.

So, yes... What was your reply's point? I fail to comprehend how wrong behavior in the past justifies wrong behavior today. To quote your own post, "...give me a break."

Re:Well...

[Penguinisto]

One is the codification of an multi-millennium-old text written down from an even older oral history (e.g. The Great Flood) that has no claim to being anything else.

The other is a specific text written in a much, much more recent era - a text that was claimed to have been written directly on word from the Almighty, dictated right then and there.

As for your second claim, Christianity sprang from Judaism, and does not (indeed, cannot) claim otherwise. The "every religion around" myth tends to fall apart with even the smallest amount of research that doesn't involve Facebook memes or coffeehouse pontification.

Oh, and the Council of Nicaea (that 'voted on' thing you refer to) was a final and formal attempt to winnow out the texts which were unprovable or obviously falsified to fit an agenda (that agenda usually being Gnostic or Nestorian in origin); it was done primarily to prevent (okay, fend off) splintering and adulteration of scripture (and until Martin Luther showed up and altered the text/composition, managed to do that reasonably well. )

any manuscript before AD 650 is too soon

[Anonymous Coward]

According to Muslim tradition, the Prophet Muhammad received the revelations that form the Qur’an, the scripture of Islam, between the years AD 610 and 632, the year of his death. At this time, the divine message was not compiled into the book form in which it appears today. Instead, the revelations were preserved in “the memories of men”. Parts of it had also been written down on parchment, stone, palm leaves and the shoulder blades of camels. Caliph Abu Bakr, the first leader of the Muslim community after Muhammad, ordered the collection of all Qur’anic material in the form of a book. The final, authoritative written form was completed and fixed under the direction of the third leader, Caliph Uthman, in about AD 650.

Re:any manuscript before AD 650 is too soon

[Crosshair84]

The fatal problem with the Koran is that it was heavily edited by Uthman, who then ordered all competing copies destroyed. Some copies that survived this show significant editing. So we have something delivered by a "prophet" who did no miracles except the "miracle" of the Koran itself... which was such a "miracle" it had many early variants that took political bludgeoning by a non-prophet to attempt to whittle down to one variant.

Contrast this with the Christian texts. The church was a persecuted organisation for nearly 300 years after its founding. It had no authority to wipe out competing variants en-mass until around the year 800 at the earliest. In modern days, what this means is that we have thousands of complete or partial texts from the times the church had no or extremely limited political power that were lost and then rediscovered in modern times. Any intentional editing would easily be caught, as it is in the Koran, but textual critics don't find that. They find the usual spelling errors, word substitution, word order changes and the like that you find in any document from that pre-printing press age.

When the documents of the New Testament were compiled together into one volume, after circulating as independent documents before that, no effort was made to edit or harmonize the accounts. Many apparent contradictions exist to the casual reader that are only resolved with a little research into the cultural context, historic context, and standards of writing of the day. While this makes it easy for critics to invent contradictions out of whole cloth, it's also a data goldmine for historians. Eyewitness testimony virtually always agrees on the major details while differing on the minor details.

The benefit of these minor details added off the cuff can be shown to be true or false.

When Jesus is stabbed with a spear after death, blood and water poured out. Why would water pour out of such a wound? Well today we know why. Jesus was going into hypovolemic shock from the beating he sustained before being crucified. This causes fluids, but not blood, to build up in the body around the heart and lungs. So when stabbed through the heart and lungs, a mixture of blood and what would appear to be water would spill from the wound. In the 1st century the only way you would know that is if you saw it happen. You would have no idea WHY it happened of course.

In the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard, workers are offered a Denarius for a days labor in the Vineyard, which we now know through archaeology was a typical days wage in Pre-70AD Judea. No Google, how may people would know the days wage for for unskilled labor 700 miles from where you live now 40 years ago unless you actually lived there?

The book of Acts is fascinating to read from the perspective of a historian because it has so many details.

The Gospels are also great reads because of the sheer incompetence of the disciples before the resurrection. If YOU were making up a religion would YOU put in your scriptures YOU committing even half of the screw-ups that the disciples got themselves into? They completely fail to understand major teachings on many occasions. Jesus calls Peter Satan. The male followers of Jesus hide in fear while the women followers go to and discover the empty tomb. They then fail to understand the meaning until he appears before them and verbally slaps them about. You have passages where large numbers of followers LEAVE after Jesus makes a statement. You have Peter denying that he was associated with Jesus during the trial. (Yea, that makes a great recruitment story, Peter is the leader of the church, the first pope, and right there you have him cowering and running away and in general being a complete incompetent.) That's not a good story to make up, but if it's what really happened then it is good history.

When I went through my period of doubt earlier in my life, looking at Islam and Christianity, the difference is that Islam depends on the text itself, whil

Re:any manuscript before AD 650 is too soon

[tehcyder]

In the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard, workers are offered a Denarius for a days labor in the Vineyard, which we now know through archaeology was a typical days wage in Pre-70AD Judea. No Google, how may people would know the days wage for for unskilled labor 700 miles from where you live now 40 years ago unless you actually lived there?

For hundreds of years in medieval Britain a day's wage was a penny. I doubt things changed any quicker in Jesus's time. It's really not all that extraordinary.

Re:New Religion

[Anonymous Coward]

That's been done already.

Sometimes they're the same thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Quantum Mechanics, spooky distance 'miracle' effects that are simply filtering. Time travel that isn't. Setting properties of particles that we now know aren't actually particles so you can't be setting that property.

Religion or science?

Well provably wrong hence a religion but taught as a science. All bad science is sustained as a religion in its final days.

Re:Chop Off Heads

[tomknight]

There's a bizarre train of AC posts asserting that anyone who's not virulently anti-Muslim is a communist. This is very odd, and can't be the product of a well-informed healthy mind.

As it happens, I am not a communist. I also do not subscribe to your opinion that the Quoran (is the the "Book of Hate" you mention?) explicitly promotes "the evil stuff" you've noticed that some Muslims are committing. These groups are not actually liked, admired or even approved of by all Muslims across the world, but there are doubtless many who do, and these are the ones you choose to see. You can feel free to pick and choose your facts to suit your worldview, but I need to stand up and say I don't agree with you.

Posting non-AC. Not everyone's scared.

Talk about opening a can of sandworms

[Applehu Akbar]

"Some scholars believe, however, that Muhammad did not receive the Quran from heaven, as he claimed during his lifetime, but instead collected texts and scripts that fit his political agenda."

Despite all the jokes they make about the place (think of it as their New Jersey), the British are going to miss Birmingham.

New World Order / Religion agenda

[Anonymous Coward]

This is part of the NWO agenda to undermine all religions and bring everyone in the world under one world religion that worships Lucifer. Next they will go after Christianity and other religions with fake science like this.

god is the world's oldest sock-puppet

[FudRucker]

used by religious fanatics and control freaks to troll the simple minded out of their money

Inflexible religious beliefs

[Theovon]

It's one thing to have a general sense that there might be a higher being that has influenced traditions through history. Some may think that's a silly idea, but it's general enough that you don't lose your sense of reality if someone disproves some factual aspects of your beliefs that you rely on heavily. Even within Christianity, I think that a lot of what we're taught to believe was made up long after Jesus' death. There are a lot of Christian concepts that I just don't think are all that critical, like original sin and the virgin birth. I can even imagine believing in Jesus having divinity without the need for his sinlessness or a resurrection. Sound crazy? It's hard to separate the core of Christianity from all the cruft that came later. The core of the religion is one of forgiveness. People do bad things. If you recognize that you did wrong, admit it, and resolve to change your ways (repent), then you will be forgiven. None of that changes if you dismiss any of these traditions I mentioned. I also admire the Christian Jesus (who may be an amalgam of real historical people) as a great philosopher and counter-cultural rebel.

Re:Inflexible religious beliefs

[Anonymous Coward]

"The core of the religion is one of forgiveness."
Yet most christians are not, They are filled with hate.
Exactly the same as the muslims and their hatred for anything not muslim.

Re:Inflexible religious beliefs

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? That's all you think Christianity actually is about? Forgiveness & repentance? What do you think 'sacrifices to the gods' were before Jesus? It's exactly the same idea just dressed up differently 'please forgive me for whatever wrong I may or may not have committed so that whatever bad thing may or may not be happening to me will stop happening or won't happen' THAT is what 'repenting your sins' amounts to in Christianity.

All the rest of it is 100% necessary to keep the peons in line. If you don't believe in it then you're not a Christian & you need not care what Jesus did or didn't do or say or who he may or may not have been.

Re:Inflexible religious beliefs

[Theovon]

Yes, they are filled with hate and legalism, which is exactly like those Pharisees that Jesus was taunting continually.

or

[Anonymous Coward]

They reused \recycled some older valuable parchment?

Koran did pre exist Mohammad

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

According to Islamic beliefs Koran has always existed and it is eternal. It was revealed to Mohammad by Arch Angel Gabriel. And these revelations were recorded by his scribe (also father-in-law and the second Caliph) Abu Bucr. So Koran pre-existing Mohammad does not conflict with Islam.

However the written form of Koran known to humans was the revelations as recorded by Abu Bucr. If there were versions of written documents that pre existed Koran it would cause a stir and most Muslims will just ignore the finding and whatever else needed to be ignored.

So you believe the Koran predates the Prophet?

[DingerX]

I mean, hold on a second. Slashdot links to an article that copies from another article a report of carbon dating of "545-568" for a piece of parchment from a codex of the Qu'ran. People in this thread immediately act all smarmy about religious folks and their crazy beliefs. Some even claim historians will "just give you the facts" or some horsecrap. Here's what a historian does: A. Looks at article. B. Follows link to article they stole that from. C. Follows their link to the article they stole it from. D. Hits a paywall and goes to Wikipedia. E. Finally gets the point: two bifolios of a really old Qu'ran were discovered (by Alba Fedeli) in a Birmingham codex, Radiocarbon analysis (by the University of Oxford's Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit) dated the animal from which the parchment came to between 568-645 with 95.4% confidence -- in other words, there's a 19 chances of out 20 that the animal was alive when Mohammad was. The verses were copied onto it sometime after the animal was killed. This should all be backed up by consulting the sources linked in Wikipedia, but I'm doing this for an internet rant, thank you very much. So, guess what? If you actually study the sources, you find that 1) no "scholar" has produced a coherent argument using this evidence as the key proof that the Koran predated Mohammad, 2) Antetexts are an entirely different matter, 3) plenty of people are willing to blindly follow their faith on this matter. Most of those seem to be those who proclaim the loudest about the superiority of "science" without having any knowledge of what "science" is and a fundamental confusion of what constitutes faith and what constitutes reason. Hint: if you believe it, 'cos you read it on the interwebs and it matches what you think of the world, it ain't reason.

Re:So you believe the Koran predates the Prophet?

[KGIII]

The Koran was written after Mohammad died. There's probably not much chance, at all, that he was alive while the animal was alive IF we assume that the carbon dating was accurate considering he is believed to have lived until his 60s if I recall the documentary correctly.

Re:Which scholars really believe it's divine sourc

[KGIII]

Assuming there is a divine being, a big assumption to make, then it is not a great leap to go from there to accepting divine inspiration.

Assuming your questions are not rhetoric then, in order...

Possibly.
Probably.

Re:Chop Off Heads

[avandesande]

Caused? This was the religion of their time. I highly doubt whoever was in power would of behaved well if they were following another religion. Also your comment shows a poor understanding of other cultures and religious beliefs and how they were used to manipulate people.
   

Re:Let me fix that for you

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure you were among those denouncing the bigotry of the "Piss Christ" piece of "art"?

Sensationalistic

[cfalcon]

First, no, they believe that the parchment may have been made between those times.

Second, this is carbon dating, and we are talking about drama involving a couple decades.

From most to least likely, as best I can tell:

1- The carbon dating is off by a couple years. This is extremely likely, especially given that Islamic events *mostly* take place in the light of history (with the typical religious spin regarding their accuracy, of course). They did not date the ink itself, something that the scientists point out but gets lightly treated in media.
2- The parchment, a very valuable and frequently reused substance, was around a few years before being written on. This assumes that the carbon dating is totally accurate. Remember this isn't the difference between something being ten million years old and some guy claiming the earth is 4k years old- this is not a very long time at all. Nor is it like from 200 AD or anything, either.
3- Some parts of the Koran predate Mohammad Since this is just a very small part of the Koran, this is the most interesting claim, but neither is it as the headline is spinning it. While Muslim fundamentalists will fight this conclusion, they have a pretty reasonable leg to stand on- so far, at least. Even if they are wrong and parts of the Koran were repurposed to back some new militant religion, is that really that surprising to the rest of us?

Certainly interesting, but nowhere near as impactful as the headlines sound on this.

Also note, their p is that 5% thing- they are 94.5% sure, meaning they are wrong 1/20th of the time. That means that out of all the 95% confidence claims, 1/20 are wrong- and those would always be the most sensational.

Hey, speaking of sensational, why is the link to daily mail? This is all over the net, is that the best source?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07...

Also, I'm still not sure what dates are being claimed- each article seems to have slightly different ranges?

Re:Sensationalistic

[Anonymous Coward]

>From most to least likely, as best I can tell:

The _most_ likely thing is that this whole article is based on a simple typo...in the original paper it gives a range between 568 and _645_

Re:Sensationalistic

[known_coward_69]

how can parts of Islam not predate Mohammed? Allah was an existing god with roots going back hundreds of years. the Quran mentions Noah and Jesus. A lot of the rules or the same as Judaism and Christianity. They don't accept the Trinity like a lot of early Christians rejected it. Islam is Judaism and Christianity separated by some linguistic differences. we know the names by the english names which are based on greek names. but the original names of noah, jesus and other characters were all arabic sounding

Re:Sensationalistic

[cfalcon]

> how can parts of Islam not predate Mohammed?

I didn't say that. I said: "Some parts of the Koran predate Mohammad" would be the results of the claim.

No one (including even fundamentalist Muslims) would claim that Islam didn't come out of Judaism and/ore Christianity- they have talk of "prophets", etc. Muslims I think believe Jesus was a prophet or something? I would say that the differences are more than just linguistic, however.

Re:Sensationalistic

[RockDoctor]

Second, this is carbon dating, and we are talking about drama involving a couple decades.

It is plain that between the actual science and the reporting, there is a weak link (or several), in the reporters.

TFS gives an age range, which if not qualified is probably as you say, a 95% confidence interval. That alone makes it a non-story, really. Their C.I. for the age of the parchment goes before the (nominal) date of birth of the purported author. Non-issue on the face of it, even before you bring up issues like palimpsests.

If I wanted to, and given a reasonable amount of funds, I could start to make parchment tomorrow which would, when prepared, give a carbon date of, say, 200AD. If you used similar techniques to prepare a suitable ink ... I reckon we could have Mo's hand-written note that " Khadijah, I've discovered a really great con trick that'll get us all killed, or make us rich", with a solid RC date of 600-610 CE (calibrated). Between preparing the parchment, the ink, and finding a calligrapher who do the squiggly lines, I reckon we could possibly have the forgery ready for 2021. Are you game?

The technique for preparing the parchment would be to grow a lot of grain in a greenhouse using CO2 from coal manufacture, combined with natural ventilation. The coal-derived CO2 would dilute the natural C-14, as it has essentially no C-14. We want 1400 years of depletion, so that would be about 1/4 coal-derived CO2 to 3/4 natural ventilation. (We might need to filter for N-14 and nuclear-test derived nucleotides, so it might be easier to go with straight coal-derived CO2 and add a source of C-14.)

C-14 depleted grain in hand, we grow a small herd of C-14 depleted sheep or goats. We'd need to check they're genetically similar to ones in the area. Just buy some local goats and we can breed up our beasts.

How to make the ink ... I'd have to do some more research. We might need to grow some C-14 depleted chickens to make C-14 depleted egg for a binder.

And I've got other things that I've got to do. Is the general plan clear? Are you up for it?

Carbon dating

[prgrmr]

Anyone who thinks carbon dating is precisely accurate to within 2 years on such a small sample doesn't understand carbon dating.

Re:New Religion

[Anonymous Coward]

They just had to look 1500 years back, that's all.

Casts doubt on carbon dating instead.

[Anonymous Coward]

When science is wrong, news at eleven.

Re:Yeah

[omnichad]

And if an earlier manuscript was found that dates to between 545 AD and 568, that's probably more relevant to discuss right now.

Re:New Religion

[Anonymous Coward]

Elron's back, everybody. Someone tell Xenu.

Some scholars believe

[Anonymous Coward]

Some scholars believe, however, that Muhammad did not receive the Quran from heaven

Yeah, sure! And what's next? The Virgin Mary didn't get pregnant by a dove? Jesus Christ didn't came back from the dead? Moses didn't split the red sea in half? Noah didn't save the life on Earth by keep a pair of each animal in a skiff? Pfff, yeah! Sure!

Is Allah Like You?

[Sam36]

http://chick.com/reading/tract...

I hate to burst your bubbles

[Anonymous Coward]

None of this matters because there is no God anyway.

Just psychopathic "believers" and the falsehoods they force on themselves and others.

Inconvenient Truth Indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

Protect that particular book from ISIS.

Sjats the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

Muslims believers will simply discard this.

The rest of us already knew that if Muhammad was a historical person, he at the very best was simply a wise man, not a prophet.

science!

[hoggoth]

> Some scholars believe, however, that Muhammad did not receive the Quran from heaven

science.slashdot.org LOL

Have to.

[Anonymous Coward]

FOLLOW THE GOURD!

And Thus starts the Jihads!

[Lumpy]

A Jihad on you, and a Jihad on you..... Dammit I need a Jihad on my self. Jihads for everybody!

All religions fall apart as made up crap once they are investigated.

Except Cthulhu... you cant take my great destroyer from me!

Re:Lots of problems with the lineage of sacred tex

[known_coward_69]

the old testament is worse. most of that was written in babylon and reads like a broken telephone version of old sumerian stories that date back thousands of years prior. even the symbols go back to ancient sumer and iran

Re:Chop Off Heads

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone's butthurt. The ugly truth is what it is, and trying to divert attention to a different flawed religion doesn't change jack squat. And for the record, Islam is worse. They still repress, oppress, and take slaves to this day.

Gets Popcorn

[Anonymous Coward]

This should be fun.

Denial

[Anonymous Coward]

Let the suicide bombings begin!

Moses

[Anonymous Coward]

Next they are going to tell us that god made the clay tablets before Moses was born...

Re:Chop Off Heads

[allcoolnameswheretak]

Caused? This was the religion of their time.

I don't understand what you mean by this.

Also your comment shows a poor understanding of other cultures and religious beliefs and how they were used to manipulate people.

Sure, the powerful will almost always use their power to shape their world, and religion is a nice means to move the masses. But I find it difficult to imagine any other religion having caused quite as much damage as Christianity, which in its basic form incites bad conscience for many human drives and that advocates repent and corporeal punishment, among other things. I mean, which other religion worships a bloody, crucified dead man that was practically tortured to death? I find many things about Christianity are inherently violent to the point of being macabre. Enter a cathedral in catholic Spain and you are likely to find carvings or paintings of martyrs and the violent ways in which they died, which is regarded as something worth of admiration. During mass you eat "the body of christ" and drink "the blood of christ". I mean... Jesus!

For sure, you also had guys like the Aztechs, which conducted blood rituals and sacrificed hundreds of captives to their gods in a single day. But Christianity also "wins" simply thanks to its scale and global reach. No other civilizations have had quite the influence and global impact as the christian ones.

Talking ants

[Anonymous Coward]

Fellow geeks, am I correct in understanding that the book was assumed to be true and only carbon dating is now casting doubt on its veracity?

No one else found the talking ants bit just a tad suspicious?

For you convenience: Sura 27:18 "At length, when they came to a (lowly) valley of ants, one of the ants said: "O ye ants get into your habitations, lest Solomon and his hosts crush you (under foot) without knowing it."

No to mention the invisible Jinn folk.

F&^**king fairy tails.

wow flaw of intellect?

[AgNO3]

Name precise years of Muhammad? They only have estimate. Then they admit they have not tested ink. Im no religious person but that seems to be some serious we must prove something false methodology. Seeing that at best the result is a bounty on the scientist maybe they should have actual proof its not just old paper while admitting it could just be old paper. Funding getting low?

Oh but Carbon Dating....

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, you're going to use discredited Carbon Dating to try and date the holy writings of Muhammed PBOH.

Now you're going to tell me that the Earth is more than 6000 years old and that Adam & Eve, Noah, the flood, and Moses are all myth and legend and that there actually is no God and that it's all made up by earthly men seeking power over the weak.... Ohhhhh

"Jesus' life that carbon-dates to 30-40 BCE...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Jesus' life that carbon-dates to 30-40 BCE... now *that* would be faith-shaking."

Isis and Osiris ?

http://www.egyptorigins.org/osirisandjesus.htm

Re: "Jesus' life that carbon-dates to 30-40 BCE...

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly, all the religions are based on folklore and built on the religions and beliefs of the people before them. Heck even the Koran is basically a copy of the Old Testament (with additional insanity added).

Re:Chop Off Heads

[hyperar]

Where did the GP claim some other religion was better? What does the truthfulness of any religion have to do with the points GP made?

Yeah, you'll see, every religion is the same, criticizing one and only one, is stupid.

How long until...

[wardrich86]

How long until the copy goes missing or the library gets burnt down?

Old paper?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think they are dating the age of the matter, not the age of the act.

Dating Mo!

[Anonymous Coward]

While carbon can be used to date Mohammud. Mohammud dated 9 year old girls.

Belief is Infallible

[Anonymous Coward]

This finding is a huge problem for people who believe that the Koran is the literal word of God, dictated to Muhammed.

No. You would like to imagine(believe) that this would create an indefensible logic problem for them. But, it will do no such thing. They believe that it is. It is as simple as that. No amount of facts, or "proof", or logic, or argument, or your own personal belief will change that.

They will continue to believe and any attempt to sway their belief is self-fulfilling prophecy of your infidel ways.

Re:Belief is Infallible

[raind]

Some may say it's faith....

Scientist != atheist

[dwheeler]

If scholar just means "one who studies", then obviously anyone who studies a religious text for a long time BECAUSE they're a believer is by definition a scholar. I don't think that's what you mean.

If we change "scholar" to "scientist", it's quite clear that scientist is not synonymous with atheist. Pew research found that "just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power". Besides, many would say that science requires repeatable experiments, and many truths simply aren't repeatable (e.g., history).

Re:Scientist != atheist

[tehcyder]

"Scholar" is just a slightly old fashioned way of saying "academic", it does not equate with "scientist" at all.. If you're a professor of Christian Theology, I imagine you're likely to believe in God.

Re:Scientist != atheist

[RockDoctor]

When you cite that Pew survey (which is repeated every year or two, and shows consistent trends), you should also note that amongst scientists of higher reputation (principally membership of invitation-only societies like the Royal Society and National Academy of Sciences ; but also filtering on having been awarded a Nobel Prize), then the proportion of atheists rises.

By the time you get to FsRS and Nobellists, the proportion of atheists is up around 90%, and increasing steadily with time.

Re:Scientist != atheist

[RockDoctor]

If you're a professor of Christian Theology, I imagine you're likely to believe in God.

Why?

We've had Archbishops of Canterbury (head goddy of the UK's state religion) who didn't believe in central tenets of their professed faith, so why should being an atheist disbar you from studying religion closely enough to become a professor at it.

I'm perfectly capable of doing the maths to become a professor of statistics (or so my statistics professor told me when trying to persuade me to join his department), and I'm perfectly capable of analysing and understanding the rules of a game of poker. The fact that I hardly ever play cards of any sort, and haven't played poker ever, and never would if there was money on the table is no barrier to understanding the game. (Understanding it's emotional appeal is a question for psychologists specialising in addiction.)

News prompts conservative Christians to decide...

[Anonymous Coward]

...that carbon dating is valid after all!

Re:Chop Off Heads

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're wrong. You're giving Islam quite a free pass there, and ignoring their historical conquests and slavery.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Chop Off Heads

[umghhh]

actually people killed people on any imaginable ground or without one so this cannot be an argument for anything.
Mass killing people for a reason has been done too and the reasons have been plenty religious, political, economic etc
Humans mass kill humans because they 'think' that such killings have some utility for them. Each particular party in a mass killing has to be fought and power taken off it, usually efforts to do so are bloody and difficult. In a sense an ideology as strong as to convince people to mass kill other people binds them together and makes them survive even harshest of punishments. Which is a problem for the rest of course. The only conclusion that I can draw from this is that society has to be prepared to act if a groups of such individuals emerge because it is inevitable that they do.

'Proof' that Koran not 'sent from heaven'

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? We needed scientific proof that a document wasn't 'sent from heaven'...what kind of crap is that? Of course since the oldest copies of books from the Bible don't predate Moses or his 'tablets sent from God' there can never be any proof they weren't 'divinely inspired' so this lets Jews & Catholics off the hook. How about we just recognize that the stories in these books aren't factual & go from there.

News at 11

[Anonymous Coward]

"but instead collected texts and scripts that fit his political agenda"

"Religious zealots use religion to push a political agenda, News at 11"

This has been true since religion was conceived, The turned it practically into a science in Europe with Christianity. Not saying that religion is all bad, it can motivate SOME to behave more amicably towards their fellow man, but don't take it too seriously otherwise you end up with abortion clinic bombers and other forms of terrorism.

Re:New Religion

[kilodelta]

Actually I toyed with buying a bunch of properties as the Church of the Green Grass Vapors. All properties would be named after Egyptian, Greek and Roman god, and maybe some Hindu gods for good measure. Have regular open worship with tenants and claim tax free. That would be fun.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

Practices copied by the 3 related religions (Jews, Christians, Muslims) and probably many others 'throughout the ages'...this is not unique to 1 religion.

Well of course...

[Anonymous Coward]

He didn't receive it from heaven. You'd have to be completely crazy to even believe that.
It's funny how most religions that are that old (including Christianity) always have some guy getting "something" out of nowhere.

Would love to see a new religion pop up today with some guy claiming that, just to see how much he gets bashed for being batsh*t insane.

Misleading title

[LichtSpektren]

Actual conclusion: paper that a particular copy of the Qur'an was written on *might* be older than Muhammed himself. I don't see many Muslims apostatizing over that.

I see some people mentioning the Shroud of Turin. The infamous carbon dating of it was actually done on a corner that was not part of the original relic; there was a fire in the Middle Ages, and its caretakers repaired it with a piece of cloth they had. The carbon dating confirmed that. Unfortunately most journalists ran with the erroneous conclusion that the sacred artifact itself was scientifically confirmed to be a forgery, which it wasn't.

Re:Misleading title

[Anonymous Coward]

> The infamous carbon dating of it was actually done on a corner that was not part of the original relic;

No, that is not true. The dating was done on a piece of the actual relic. The 'repair' theory was proposed by 'believers' as an excuse to dismiss evidence.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

RIIGGHHTTT...you do know that the New Testament (the primary difference between Christians & Jews) is claimed to be 'the word of God'...NOT 'books with stories we like to tell at bedtime' but the ACTUAL 'word of God' (go to a Catholic mass on Sunday some time to listen to the Priest read from 'the Word of God').

The Council of Nicaea was a farce pure & simple. Just another way for the 'powerful' to control the peons. 'winnow out the texts which were unprovable or obviously false'? They are ALL 'unprovable or obviously false'...heck even the names of the supposed 'prophets' that wrote them are 'unprovable'. Sure the books that were selected were done so to 'fit an agenda' but make no mistake about it, it was a purely political decision & the stories ARE still rehashes of previous myths that existed about previous 'gods' or 'just really magical beings' (Hercules et.al.)

Wrong dates, and more info ...

[kbahey]

The article and summary are bogus.

The parchment carbon dating gives a range on when the animal (sheep, goat, camel) died, not when the actual writing was done. But it does establishe an "parchment made no later than X" and a "writing can't be earlier than Y" scenario.

Muhammed died in 632 AD, and the parchment is dated up to 645 AD (latest). So it is most likely a copy written by a companion of Muhammed, possibly in his lifetime, or shortly after.

What this dating refutes beyond a doubt are the now discredited theories about Muhammed being a mythical figure, and the Quran invented in the late 7th century. For example, the Hagarene theory by Crone and Cook and the Nevo-Koren Crossroads to Islam theory are untenable now. This manuscript is earlier than all these theories claim.

It is written in the Hijazi script with no dots or diacritics. This script originated in Hijaz (Arabian Peninsula west coast), and was dominant in the few decades following the death of Muhammed, before the Kufic script dominated (from Iraq). The amazing thing is that I can read most of it, almost 14 centuries later!

By the way, I contacted Dr. David Thomas, one of the researchers, to ask if the ink was carbon dated, or just the parchment. He said just the parchment, so as not to affect the writing. I also asked if this was a palimpsest (older parchment that was washed and written over at a later date), and he said that it is not, since there are markings that show in that case.

So, this is as early a written copy as can be.

The interesting part is that the 645 AD date pre-dates the standardization of the Quran that was done around 650 AD by the 3rd successor to Muhammed, Caliph Uthman. Research shows minor variations, but nothing significant.

Here is his full reply:

1. Has the testing methodology taking into account the ink as well as the parchment?

DT: No, only a tiny corner of the parchment. The test involves the destruction of the object, and we did not want to lose any text.

2. The reason I ask about the dating of the ink is this: What is the possibility that this manuscript is a palimpsest? Could the parchment be indeed from 645AD, but the ink was washed away and the parchment recycled at a later date?

DT: There are usually signs of underwriting in palimpsests, though there are none here. It is theoretically possible that the ink, and therefore, the Qur'an, was written on parchment that had been prepared earlier, but our assumption is that this parchment was prepared expressly for this Qur'an and therefore the writing would have been applied very soon after the surface was prepared.

3. Caliph Othman's unification of the Quran was around 650 AD (he died in 656 AD). Has there been any text variance analysis on this document to see if it is a pre-Othmanic or post-Othmanic variant of the Quran text? For example, similar to the work on Sanaa 1 Manuscript.

DT: This analysis was the subject of Alba Fedeli's PhD thesis (which involved the research that led to the discovery of this date). There are some minor variants from the standard 'Uthmanic text, though in these fragments nothing significant.

In later emails he says that Fedeli's thesis is due to be published soon.

Re:Wrong dates, and more info ...

[Dan East]

What this dating refutes beyond a doubt are the now discredited theories about Muhammed being a mythical figure, and the Quran invented in the late 7th century. For example, the Hagarene theory by Crone and Cook and the Nevo-Koren Crossroads to Islam theory are untenable now. This manuscript is earlier than all these theories claim.

That is totally incorrect. The dating cannot refute that at all. I have had a long interest in the Voynich Manuscript, and it is the same kind of thing with the dating there (the vellum has been dated as contemporary to when the manuscript *appears* to be from, but not the ink). The parchment could have been reused, or could have been unused for many decades. The text on the manuscript may have been written a century after the animal was killed to create the parchment.

Re:Wrong dates, and more info ...

[kbahey]

In theory, yes you are correct. For this specific case, it is unlikely.

I detailed that in my comment.

The professor who did the research says that it is not a palimpsest, i.e. the parchment has not been reused and rewritten on, e.g. like the Sanaa 1 Manuscript, which is a palimpsest, with older writing on it.

In the case of the Birmingham manuscript, I doubt very much that someone created parchment and it was left blank for a century.

Besides, the use of the Hizaji script shows that it is within 50 years or so from the start of Islam. After that date, the Kufi script dominated almost all Islamic writing for a century or two.

Similarities ...

[Anonymous Coward]

In the old Jewish folk tales, a guy with a name of Moses went to a mountain and G-d supposedly gave him the "10 commandments",, all laid out in stone tablets

In the old Islamic folk tales, a guy went into a hole in the ground, met was given a copy of the Koran (already written, and nicely bounded) by an angel

- - -

In the old Christian folk tales, the archangel Gabriel came into the dream scape of Mary, told her that G-d was so delighted in her that G-d gonna impregnate her and gave her a very special child, who will one day do something really great

In the old Islamic folk tales, that guy who went into that hole in the ground was told by archangel Gabriel that G-d was so delighted in him that he has been appointed as a 'prophet'

- - -

If you study the Koran you will notice many more 'coincidences' --- and the 'coincidences' are so many that one can't help to think that perhaps, G-d forbids, plagiarism might had happened !!

Re:Similarities ...

[HornWumpus]

It's worse than that. The Koran contains stories that are based on common at the time mis-translations of the Jewish books.

Just like the book of Mormon, it contains proof of being the work of men, by virtue of the mis-translations included.

I'm sure the same would be true of the Jewish and Christian books, but their predecessor books aren't readily available.

Re: Similarities ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ya except that isn't accurate at all. God was seen directly by more than 1.2 million Jews simultaneously. Not just Moses. In addition the 'stone' was sapphire - not just 'stone'. In fact there were two sets.

Re:Similarities ...

[siliconsmiley]

The collective works of the New Testament aren't based on earlier books. They are based on a collection of oral traditions. The Torah dates back to the origin of written language.

Re:Similarities ...

[HornWumpus]

Might want to read up on the council of Nicia. Where the new testament was edited by a politically appointed committee.

Old version of the books aren't common, but they are common enough to see that edits were made for consistency in the four official gospels.

They still haven't released the dead sea scrolls. Because the differences between them and modern versions would cause all kinds of strife.

Re:Similarities ...

[ladoga]

Might want to read up on the council of Nicia.

You probably meant Nikaia (Greek) or Nicaea (Latin).

How to complain about the articles that are totall

[ltorvalds024]

How to complain about the articles that are totally misleading? for example: consider an article submitted by timothy Carbon Dating Shows Koran May Predate Muhammad 304. If you will check the date of the parchment in the original article it is AD 568 and 645, on the other hand the date given in timothy's article is 545 AD and 568. This typo in date changes the meaning of the news, probably misleading entirely... The dates from original news speaks exactly opposite of the title submitted by timothy Also who will take the responsibility of spreading wrong information? original article link: http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/ne...

Flawed Logic

[Anonymous Coward]

I try to be a logical person and while logically disproving religions can be fun I don't think the summary here does a very good job of it.

I'm not following how these dates lead to the following logical conclusion: "a finding that if confirmed could rewrite early Islamic history and shed doubt on the "heavenly" origins of the holy text"

If someone says a book came from place X how does the book being older than the person making the claim disprove the claim?

I don't know much of this religion but the summary is incomplete in order to prove the logical contradiction. The only way I can see a contradiction is if the person claims the book was created at the time of that persons coming into possession of the book. Is this the case? If not could Muhammad have simply received a used copy of the book?

Re:Chop Off Heads

[avandesande]

So it isn't Christianity that causes it, just being religious (a form of insanity in my book). I would recommend the 'golden bough' if you are interested in this type of thing. Most of the core of Christianity is a modernization of pagen themes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:New Religion

[DaveSewhuk]

Perfectly legal if you meet 4 of 12 fuzzy criteria from the IRS. See the John Oliver show for recipe.

QUICK, GET THAT UPDATE UP!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Before something happens.

Color me skeptic but...

[nomad63]

Is there anyone with a scientific background, who believe wholeheartedly, without a doubt, that the angels came from the sky and dictated holy scriptures of any widely popular religion to any of the so-called prophets ? Of course, all of them, Moses, Jesus and Mohammad and some lesser known and to a certain extent, self-proclaimed prophets were nothing more than motivational speakers, who put multiple pieces of common sense information into the same text and peddled it as "holy scripture". And doing the right thing by any religion's book is the right way to live. I am not talking about kill-all-jews-and-christians beliefs of some ku-ku believers of Islam, the believers of jews-are-the chosen-children-of-god crap or you-can-not-do-anything-right-by-god-unless-you're-catholic crowd. I am talking about the principle of living by the golden rule, which at the end all religious texts suggest. And if Mohammad has collected Koran from older sources, what difference does this make ? Does it diminish the value of the teachings ? We all know the prophets are smidgen above the snake oil peddling charlatans. So ??? Big deal... Tempest in teapot in my never so humble opinion.

Re:Color me skeptic but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Your argument from incredulity is so pompous as to be offensive. And I'm not even muslim.

Re:Chop Off Heads

[allcoolnameswheretak]

I'm not "giving Islam a free pass". As I said, if current Islamists keep it up, their atrocities will overtake those committed by Christianity "soon", on a historical scale.

Also, you seem to reduce all my points to a contrast of the crusades vs. jihad. The crusades are just one of my points.

The "expert" video you link at is a bit ironic considering that in the middle ages, during Islamic expansion, Islam was in general way more tolerant, progressive and enlightened in the arts, sciences and treatment of other religions than we (christians) were. And yes, Islam expanded and there were wars. So? The Mongols also expanded via war. So did the Japanese, and the Nazis, and the Roman empire, and the Aztechs, and the Persians, and the Greeks, and the Chinese red army, and...
Powerful empires made wars and expanded. Religion is just one of many reasons to do so. Not sure what this has to do with anything.

And In Other News

[mschwanke97402]

The University of Birmingham Library burned to the ground today...

Clickbait

[wcrowe]

The article is clickbait. The carbon dates match Muhammad's life quite unremarkably. I would like you fucktard /. editors to stop posting stupid ass stuff like this. If I want to see idiocy, I'll go check my facebook newsfeed.

No, it can't.

[StikyPad]

a finding that...could shed doubt on the "heavenly" origins of the holy text.

No, it can't. No one who believes in supernatural events will be swayed by scientific evidence. At best, it shows that god works in mysterious ways, at worst, that science is flawed, or that science is anti-religion by trying to discredit holy prophets. There is no shortage of mental gymnasts among the faithful.

so like christians then

[umafuckit]

"This gives more ground to what have been peripheral views of the Koran's genesis, like that Muhammad and his early followers used a text that was already in existence and shaped it to fit their own political and theological agenda,

Same with Christians. They just attach themselves to the Old Testament in the belief that this enhances the legitimacy of the books they chose to call the New Testament (there are plenty of other books from that time hanging around the Vatican that they excluded). Never mind that the message in the Old Testament is often very different from the New. The Old Testament God was a real wanker much of the time.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

How did Martin Luther alter the text of the Bible? He translated it into German and managed to get some Greek manuscripts from Erasmus instead of using the Latin ones that had been used, but he didn't alter any early Greek or Hebrew manuscripts.

Considering the common reuse of parchment ...

[Ihlosi]

... going from "the parchment this Koran is on is older than the prophet" to "the Koran pre-dates the prophet" is literally jumping lightyears to a conclusion.

Article: 1% scientific fact, 99% BS

[Anonymous Coward]

Update: the only thing that this article has to do with since turned out to be a typo.

NEWSFLASH - The Koran isn't the word of God!

[Karmashock]

Was anyone shocked by that one? Anyone?

Re:NEWSFLASH - The Koran isn't the word of God!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I'm not shocked by you leaping to a conclusion unproven by the actual evidence.

Especially doing so AFTER the summary was already corrected, when you don't even have that excuse.

However, you can feel free to continue to believe whatever makes you most comfortable. Have faith in them.

Duh!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, duh! What a surprise.

and don't call me shirley

[Anonymous Coward]

I did not know Koreans have been around that long. Awesome!

Some scholars

[Anonymous Coward]

"Some scholars believe, however, that Muhammad did not receive the Koran from heaven, as he claimed during his lifetime, but instead collected texts and scripts that fit his political agenda."

While the latter may be in dispute, surely no serious academics believe the former.

Re:Well...

[meglon]

Spoken like someone truly brainwashed by dogma.

Christianity/Catholicism is based not only on Judaism (the entire old testament), but also on the resurrection myths from Egypt, the "eating of the dead" rituals from early Egypt (as well as numerous other civilization/religions/belief systems) which is ultimately the basis for the schism with Judaism. In addition, it scavenged all sorts of localized myths from everywhere it went in Europe, adopting aspects so as to be able to integrate other cultures easier.

Judaism, of course, is based on earlier religions from Akkadians, Sumerians, and most likely the Indus valley (as well as some we don't even know about, lost to time). Those religions most likely had many aspects based on what came before them. A new religion, untethered to the past would be a rare oddity.

Nicaea was, for all intentional purposes, the creation of the Jesus myth.... as well as the murder of anyone who disagreed with going along with it. Martin Luther did change the the religion (although given recent events, i'd say the change was temporary) as he was at odds with the Pope/church being the only source of divinity, and thought God should be held as that. He also, in opposition to what a lot of US "christians" seem to think now, you couldn't use money to buy your way into heaven. Be that as it may, his actions were to shift focus from the pope/church back onto God. Nicaea, on the other hand, created THE myth of Jesus that was to be the foundation for the whole religion, then murdered anyone that didn't toe the line.

You have epitomized the problem with (a lot of) religious people... your blind faith to your dogma blinds you to reality of what has happened in history, and what is happening now. You know what your preacher tells you, but you don't know about your churches history, and typically you don't even bother knowing what's in your "holy books;" you rely on your preacher to tell you what to believe.

The dour truth of the matter is

[Anonymous Coward]

the age of reason shut down the Christian slaughter machine. Nothing short of eliminating people and memory of Islam will stop the International SLAughter Machine®.

Better file a DMCA takedown notice just in case.

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't have all these fakes floating around if the original was ripped off some other prophet.

" Some scholars believe, however, that Muhammad di

[Anonymous Coward]

/Sarcasm
Really!? Now that would be unprecedented! /Sarcasm

heavenly origins

[multi io]

Brian Booker writes at Digital Journal that carbon dating suggests the Koran, or at least portions of it, may actually be older than the prophet Muhammad himself, a finding that if confirmed could rewrite early Islamic history and shed doubt on the "heavenly" origins of the holy text.

Umm, I actually have doubts about the "heavenly" origins of anything. Did someone actually write the above in a scientific paper? What test result would have confirmed the "heavenly" origins of that book? Those researchers seem to assume that the C-14 dating period should have started the moment that Koran was "handed" to Mohammed. That would imply that this heaven/god thing makes books out of carbon fetched from living things or the upper atmosphere, at the moment it hands them down to us. That would be kind of pedestrian, wouldn't it? Shouldn't He have instant access to all the carbon resources of the universe? Like, if He made the Koran out of carbon fetched from the Martian atmosphere or from some stellar core, there would be no C-14 in that, so C-14 dating would give "infinite"/undefined results.

IBERIJAN INQVISITOR

[Anonymous Coward]

1: No one really expects a proper count of points or contrapuntal standing-stones in what is a near approximation of a verbal argument.
3: A comfy chair is the best thing, the Second best thing to have after tea, during an argument.
4: have you come here for an argument or would you like a b j ?

Still gossiping behind my back Coren22?

[Anonymous Coward]

What I said on that's true now & here too http://ask.slashdot.org/commen...

* Why don't you answer the question there too, old HAG??

(It doesn't take a brain to realize you did that AC post prior to yours as well - "how clever" (lol, not)).

APK

P.S.=> It's since you didn't do what you said & RAN as always, lol... apk

Re:Still gossiping behind my back Coren22?

[Coren22]

I have told you before, I don't post AC, I post as Coren22 every time I post. I don't log out, I don't check the post anonymously box, I post as me.

Accuracy of technique??

[Faisal Rehman]

Accuracy and precision of carbon dating also matters. Carbon dating of text ink also need confirmation.

77 years of range with 95.4% accuracy

[Faisal Rehman]

The carbon dating result give a range of 77 years with accuracy of 95.4%. It is within time when revelation of those ayah happened.

See you here, Coren22... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

Time to shoot your ass down publicly yet again http://ask.slashdot.org/commen...

APK

P.S.=> You keep talking behind my back, like you did THERE above & here too - see where it gets you (public humiliation)... apk

Re:See you here, Coren22... apk

[Coren22]

LOL, you really are a head case huh?

I said I couldn't disprove ALL of your points. But there are many points of yours that are completely false, like your false sense of winning arguments.

You still have yet to prove the point that your shitty hosts file program is somehow better than virus scanners, ad block, DNS, and proper use of a computer, but that has always been true.

There was no talking behind your back there, I responded to your insanity again, and you replied with more of it.

The sky is blue
APK is annoying
Hosts files solve a very small subset of computer problems.

I CHALLENGE you to disprove ALL of my statements, otherwise you are admitting that hosts files are garbage!

Now lets see how you like it.

It doesn't matter.

[JonathanPDX]

People believe what they CHOOSE to believe.

Coren22 = "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!"... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject ya gossiping old HAG, & keep running from http://ask.slashdot.org/commen...

* It's a COMPLETELY FAIR CHALLENGE to you, but you're running like the TALK BEHIND OTHERS' BACKS BITCH YOU CLEARLY ARE!

(That's about ALL you can manage... running & talking behind someone's back, you punk!)

APK

P.S.=> Boggles the mind! Man - how a punk like you can LIVE with yourself, I have no clue!

Then again, you'd have to have PRIDE IN YOURSELF, & those "like you" (mere "ne'er-do-well" WORMS) don't!

Since you create nothing worthy, where by comparison, I do, & I think THAT is what you can't stand, mostly about YOURSELF...

(You're ALL mere talk but no action or decent deeds/accomplishments in the art & science of computing - so losers like YOU try to "take it out" on those like myself that have all of that, & in my case, many times)... apk

Re:Coren22 = "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!"... apk

[Coren22]

Dispute ALL of my points or stop responding. Run Forrest Run indeed, that is what you are doing.

AdBlock+ = inferior & 'souled-out' vs. hosts

[Anonymous Coward]

Can adblock+ do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:

1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (past ads)
2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stop C&C communique
3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stop C&C communique
4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stop C&C communique
5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (adds reliability)
6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns
7.) Protect vs. trackers
8.) Protect vs. spam
9.) Protect vs. phish
10.) Protect vs. caps
11.) Get you past a dnsbl
12.) Keep you off dns request logs
13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
15.) Give you easily controlled data
16.) Do all that & block ads better than addons more efficiently in cpu cycles + memory usage

* ANSWER ="NO" to each above on ab+ doing it as well or @ ALL + hosts = already on every device natively.

APK

P.S.=> Ab+ does less than hosts & less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):

Ab+'s 128mb memory inefficiency http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).

+

ClarityRay defeats it by dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods!

+

Ab+'s paid to not do its job http://www.businessinsider.com...

Ab+ adds complexity from a slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).

What's best?

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit http://start64.com/index.php?o...

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

&

It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

+

In its 32-bit model too https://www.virustotal.com/en/...

... apk

Biggest question of ALL Coren22... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

"You still have yet to prove the point that your shitty hosts file program is somehow better than virus scanners, ad block, DNS" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 02, 2015 @12:12PM (#50444503)

What have YOU done better than my program? Answer = zero... & see my replies (adblock most of all http://slashdot.org/comments.p... ): I have, you can't prove it wrong...

* :)

(You disgusting little WORM that gossips like some OLD HAG behind my back all over this forums...)

APK

P.S.=> You're a WASTE of life... apk

DNS vs. hosts... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

Hosts combined w/ OpenDNS compliment one other. I don't resolve 'every host-domain there is' via hosts, only my favorites @ top of hosts (20 of them beating indexing past 2++ million records).

It's where ANYONE spends MOST OF THEIR TIME online - & it's faster + more efficient vs. calling to remote DNS servers.

Placement of favs thus, for FAST RESOLUTION from memory (hosts are cached like any file is), additionally saves CPU cycles, RAM, + I/O turning off the slower usermode clientside DNS cache service, instead opting for the kernelmode diskcache (no context switch overhead to the IP stack either this way).

The rest of my hosts files' entries are 3,782,195++ blocked entries vs. malware & ads of many kinds.

I use REMOTE FILTERING DNS SERVERS that help block out malicious sites/servers/hosts-domains via DNSBLs (not locally here as a separate redundant wasteful recursive server or a service/daemon).

---

OpenDNS:

208.67.222.222
208.67.220.220

Patched vs. Kaminsky redirect poisoning - 99.999% of ISP DNS aren't.

---

It LIGHTENS remote DNS loads - admins of 'em should like that!

How do I make my hosts (& do reverse dns pings for FAV sites for faster, more reliable, & safer connections)?

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit http://start64.com/index.php?o...

FREE & adds speed, security, + reliability, doing more w/ less, more efficiently vs. browser addons & locally installed DNS servers @ home + fixes DNS' redirect security issues - obtaining data vs. online threats & adbanner blocking from 10 reputable sites in the security community!

MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus per this VERY recent testing of them all http://www.av-test.org/en/news...

APK

P.S.=> Next I'll SHOW YOU what Symantec said about antivirus inefficacy... I live up to challenges, even when those I challenge RUN FROM MINE as you have!

... apk

Re:DNS vs. hosts... apk

[Coren22]

Remote DNS? Who the hell uses remote DNS?

I have a local caching DNS, or use the router's built in DNS, why would I setup a remote DNS?

Dispute ALL my points or admit that you are wrong!

AntiVirus' ADMITTED inefficacy... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

"You still have yet to prove the point that your shitty hosts file program is somehow better than virus scanners" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 02, 2015 @12:12PM (#50444503)

See subject & this http://dottech.org/157355/syma...

* Hosts BLOCK known malicious sites that infect you BEFORE THEY CAN...

(Ads included, possibly biggest infector of them all, & better than "almostALLAdsBlocked" souled-out & crippled by default http://slashdot.org/comments.p... by a country mile in terms of abilities & doing FAR MORE with FAR LESS CPU + RAM resources consumed from a faster mode of operations in kernelmode vs. less cpu serviced usermode & with less messagepassing overheads too)

Host-domain name served exploiters are BY FAR the majority - for the rest? I use my firewall rules table (for those served by IP, & then ICANN/IANA block those out quickly, & they're not "mobile" like host-domain served ones are, which is WHY they are used more by malwaremakers/botnet herders etc.).

Lastly: UNLIKE INEFFECTIVE ANTIVIRUS? Hosts SPEED YOU UP, vs. slowing you down & in 2 ways (hardcoded favs where you spend most time online, resolving faster locally from system RAM cached & ADBLOCKING (not crippled by default like adblock/abp+).

APK

P.S.=>

"Hosts files solve a very small subset of computer problems" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Wednesday September 02, 2015 @12:12PM (#50444503)

Ahem: I never ONCE said "hosts cure all ills", did I? Show me where I did (in fact that's how I dusted BarbaraHudson & Hairyfeet in fact, years ago: THEY TRIED TO SAY I DID & couldn't show it) - & @ least I created something that does all of what I always note in hosts!

- you're a BIG talking, gossiping behind MY back, mere "ne'er-do-well"... apk

Re:Coren22 opens mouth, inserts foot... apk

[Coren22]

So the sky is blue, you failed to dispute ALL my points, therefore I am right! (this is the logic you are using, I am making a point).

Most people use remote DNS stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: 99.999% of ISP DNS servers != patched vs. the Kaminsky redirect poisoning flaw...

* :)

(Plus, you're "adding on 'MOAR'", needlessly, vs. hosts & firewalls combined for security... dumb!)

AS FAR AS YOUR WEAK 'challenge' stupid?

I have lived up to it -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

YOU HAVEN'T FACED MINE ON "ALMOST ALL ADS BLOCKED", have you? Nope... lol, "Forrest".

APK

P.S.=> You're eating up more RAM, CPU, & adding complexity (dumb thing to do), especially in rules tables complexity in DNS vs. hosts EASY TO UNDERSTAND + EDIT entries... apk

Re:Most people use remote DNS stupid

[Coren22]

The sky is blue
APK is annoying
Hosts files solve a very small subset of computer problems.

I CHALLENGE you to disprove ALL of my statements, otherwise you are admitting that hosts files are garbage!

Re:Most people use remote DNS stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Apk did here Coren22 http://slashdot.org/comments.p... and all you do is talk behind his back since he humiliates you for your stupidity and gossipy old lady ways.

Re:Most people use remote DNS stupid

[Coren22]

That post does not refute a single one of my comments, so refute them ALL or admit you are wrong.

The sky is blue
APK is annoying
Hosts files solve a very small subset of computer problems.

I CHALLENGE you to disprove ALL of my statements, otherwise you are admitting that hosts files are garbage!

Again: Coren22 opens mouth, inserts foot... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject & this link (consolidated) -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

* :)

(Keep RUNNING from this one most of all "Forrest" -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... )

APK

P.S.=> Hope you liked this - I surely did: YOU BROUGHT IT ON YOURSELF talking behind my back like a gossipy old hag (it's what do nothing "ne'er-do-wells" like YOU do)... apk

Re:Again: Coren22 opens mouth, inserts foot... apk

[Coren22]

Still waiting for that answer.

Re:Again: Coren22 opens mouth, inserts foot... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems you got your answer while eating your words vs. apk here http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

It refuted all that technically matter

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: & this link right here http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

* The rest of YOUR utter b.s.? It's trolling & illogical effete failing ad hominem attacks (per your post now).

"EAT YOUR WORDS" (gossiping behind my back ones no less).

What makes me laugh most?

WHERE DID I ONCE EVER SAY "HOSTS CURE ALL"? Hmmm?? Show us that... you can't!

(LMAO, it's how I busted up BOTH Hairyfeet AND BarbaraHudson (they couldn't ever show I said it, as I never once have - only that hosts do far more, for FAR less, with less complexity & room for exploit or breakdown, than other "so-called 'solutions'" out there...))

APK

P.S.=> You're TRULY pitiful & Keep "running", Forrest -> http://ask.slashdot.org/commen...

Above ALL else here:

I asked you to show which of my points on "AlmostALLAdsBlocked" are NOT correct as you said...

(FACT: Browser addons like Adblock = inefficient INFERIOR vs. hosts - which YOU help prove now!)

Funny:

You ADMITTED it's NOT POSSIBLE TO DISPROVE ME VALIDLY TECHNICALLY there too, quoted... apk

Comparison

[Anonymous Coward]

If I had to choose between trusting carbon dating an old object or Muhammed, I would pick Muhammed.

And that is saying something for me ...

where is the problem??

[Anonymous Coward]

Where is the problem?? 568 to 645 that means koran was written during lifetime of muhammad (pbuh) (570 to 632)....and koran also claim that...where is the problem??

Plan to create a religion...

[rezme]

Step 1: Write Qu'ran
Step 2: Distribute Qu'ran
Step 3: ???
Step 4: Prophet...

Coren22 it's not polite

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: ...talkin w/ yer mouth full eatin yer words http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

* :)

(Have you NO manners? It's obvious you have NO SKILLS in computing... lol!)

APK

P.S.=> Coren22 - DO tell us: How does it taste, eating your words, rammed down your throat by your FOOT IN YOUR MOUTH, spiced by "the bitter taste of SELF-defeat"?

LMAO!

Change your diet!

Eating your words != GOOD nutrition, boy... apk

Re:Coren22 it's not polite

[Anonymous Coward]

Taking your Haldol and lithium pills would be good nutrition for you, APK.

Also, has anyone noticed how more ad companies are serving ads directly from IP addresses these days? They don't even use server names. A hosts file can't do shit to block those threats. Thankfully there are good browser extensions like AdBlock and uBlock we can use.

SPH

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I don't believe he did, despite numerous suggestions that he Seek Professional Help.

Evidence Does Not Support Title

[DerekBennett]

Koran568 AD and 645 Mohammed 570 AD and 632 AD According to the time windows described in the article, it is entirely possible that the particular Koran analyzed was transcribed during or after the lifetime of Mohammed. So, what is shocking about that? This evidence basically agrees with the mainstream Muslim traditions that the Koran was transcribed late in Muhammed's life.

Same shit different day

[Anonymous Coward]

Basically Christians were ruling the world at that time. There were Jewish, Christian communities even within Arab peninsula. All these people had not noticed what Mohammed did by stealing their original text and give it a different spin but a bunch of British scientist/scholars in 21st century. This is straight bull shit.

Arabs opposing the Mohammed blamed him for being a wizard for coming up with verses in Quran. Even for Arabic language, these verses were found really original at that time considering past Arabic literature. You can call him a wizard as the people that opposed Mohammed at that time but you cannot claim that Mohammad as a famously illiterate found the text and give it a new spin. People at that time would have quickly found out about it and refute his claims being prophet easily. They did refute him but for other reasons but not that.

Quit projecting your issues by ac Coren22

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject: Eating your words & talking w/ your mouth full != good manners or good nutrition http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

* Your vast experience with mental problem prescription drugs speaks worlds of you also...

APK

P.S.=> I look at this EVERY SINGLE DAY: WTF are you SMOKING?

Use of IP addresses vs. host-domain names in exploits, botnets, or malware is SMALL!

(Why? IANA/ICANN drop known bad IP addresses blocking them easily once notified of bad things going on in them, thus WHY host-domain names are BY FAR the most used choice by "bad guys" online - since they are "mobile" across hosting providers & WHY they are used more)... apk

Another possibility

[GPS Pilot]

either:

* Jesus is God, but is evil...
* Jesus is God, but is not all powerful...
* Jesus existed but was just a man...
* Jesus is a syncretic myth...

There are some possibilities that you missed. This one, for example:

* God is a good experimentalist, and like all good experimentalists, he rarely intervenes with the way things play out in his creation/experimental system. He sits back and passively observes, for hundreds or thousands of years at a time, and Jesus is the product of "Ok, I'm tired of the dynamic that the most intelligent carbon units have gotten into; let's see what happens if I have one of them teach some ethical principles to the others."

Re:Another possibility

[rgbatduke]

There are some possibilities that you missed. This one, for example:

* God is a good experimentalist, and like all good experimentalists, he rarely intervenes with the way things play out in his creation/experimental system. He sits back and passively observes, for hundreds or thousands of years at a time, and Jesus is the product of "Ok, I'm tired of the dynamic that the most intelligent carbon units have gotten into; let's see what happens if I have one of them teach some ethical principles to the others."

I didn't miss it, because this is an inconsistent possibility (not that it is possible to come up with a coherent and consistent theory of God, but that's a REALLY long discussion) Let's see. How could God be a good experimentalist? Well we usually perform experiments to learn something where we don't know the outcome. But God is omniscient, and cannot NOT know the outcome (and remain God), at least not unless you want to become a Hindu monist pandeist and imagine Mahavishnu/Brahma splitting its omniscient universal self (Brahman) into all of the many sparks of life (Atman) that have forgotten the perfect knowledge of Brahman. However, this view is generally opposed by most Abrahamic theologists because it destroys the essential dualism required to have a God to worship who can punish and reward and make the whole system work (not to mention that it contradicts pretty much all of the sacred texts of the family of religions).

Now, God could also be an experimentalist by playing dice with the Universe -- just rolling out a big, unknown Universe with no idea how it will all come out, a big reality simulation, just to see what happens, and then he could sit there blaming the lifeforms that emerge for being precisely what the dice he used plus the ruleset he used produced and invent ANOTHER pair of realities, one in which those lifeforms can live forever being tortured by demonic merciless robots, one in which those lifeforms can all sit around and chant praises for eternity to make him feel Really Important. But I hope that we agree that this is a rather ugly picture of God as well.

Besides, you're contradicting a number of essential statements from the Gospels, notably John, and your comment stinks of the Arian heresy that was stamped out post Nicaea (with fire and steel). Jesus is the alpha and omega, dude, and was there at the beginning and will be there at the end. So God cannot decide to send us Jesus to teach us ethical principles because there is no real difference between Jesus and God. Jesus/God sent himself, as he knew he would at the beginning, to produce precisely the outcome he predestined at the end. If you are damned, you have no choice in the matter as you were damned from the beginning of time. Not that the Gospels are consistent on this point. But let's have a look:

Mark 4:11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
4:12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

Mark 10:18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

Matthew: 11:25 At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.

So, apparently, Jesus and God are different, Jesus is not God and doesn't even claim to be good! He deliberately teaches those predestined to be saved in parables so that ordinary people won't get it and WON'T be converted and saved. Thanks, Jesus! I'll adopt his methods in my physics class, I guess, and teach physics using metaphors instead of equations just so I can flunk all of the students I confuse. Hey, it's OK! It was predestined! But it is Matthew that directly contradicts your asse

Re:Another possibility

[GPS Pilot]

we usually perform experiments to learn something where we don't know the outcome. But God is omniscient

From the available evidence, I've concluded that God is likely not omniscient about future events.

It doesn't make sense that you ascribe the property of omniscience, with such certainty, to an entity that you don't even believe exists. Therefore, your lengthy post is fundamentally flawed nearly from the beginning.

then he could sit there blaming the lifeforms that emerge for being precisely what the dice he used plus the ruleset he used produced

So you believe we don't have free will; that we're merely biological billiard balls, inevitably careening down whatever path was determined by the Initial Conditions? That's depressing and demotivating.

More later, perhaps.

Re:Another possibility

[rgbatduke]

Look, it doesn't make sense to believe that an entity exists that created a Universe whose visible extent is 28 billion light years across, whose inferable extent is perhaps ten times that (at least, there is no upper bound that can be established), that contains at least order of Avogadro's number of stars. On the basis of the available evidence, on the basis of our knowledge of things like information theory and the principles of causality and how "intelligence" works, the assertion is absurd in the extreme. So let's start with that.

However, I'm referring to the Standard Model of (Abrahamic) God:

http://whywontgodhealamputees....

or if you want a less polemic definition:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Note that one standard attribute is omniscience. Of course, you are free to wrestle with the inconsistent concept any way you like to avoid the serious problems with consistency created by the standard model, but then you can hardly blame others if they brand you heretic and tie you to a metaphorical stake surrounded by kindling (or, in the case of modern Islam, cut your head off). It is not impossible to construct a moderately consistent picture of God -- Pandeism or Panendeism come very close -- but the problem with either one is sentience and theodicy. The Abrahamic faiths are explicitly dualistic, as well (although Vedantic Hinduism, fundamentally a monist pandeism, is not).

Dualism has serious problems -- and I mean mathematical, semantic, ontological, conceptual problems, problems that I do not think can be consistently resolved. One of the very simplest is the problem of "creation", something that we literally have never observed to occur (the physical law in question is "Conservation of Mass-Energy" in case you were wondering). All we have ever seen happen in the real world is for stuff to move around and change form. We never ever observe creation. The human concept of creation is itself an inconsistent myth without any evidence -- when we "make" something, we make it out of something else, invariably and without exception. A second problem is mere set theory. Suppose there is a God (set) and a disjoint Cosmos (set) where I use the term Cosmos to describe a spacetime continuum as distinct from "the Universe" a term I reserve for everything that has objective existence. The Universe, for example, could contain multiple Cosmi, and some theories of quantum mechanics suggest that it does, although personally I think that the evidence supporting this so far is weak in the extreme. But it could also be that our visible Cosmos exists, as does a Lord of the Rings Cosmos or a "Christopher Stascheff Cosmos", with potentially different physics or where magic works. God is supposedly unitary (or again, it Is Not God) in anything like a standard model religion, so clearly:

Universe = God U \sum Cosmi

Stating that "God created the Universe" all by itself is inconsistent -- this is the ontological argument run backwards. Since God (if God exists) logically must be a subset of all things that exist, God did not create all things that exist. If you imagine God and a disjoint Cosmos, the union of the two is strictly greater than God, so the God you have imagined is not God.

This is a small taste of the problems you encounter when you try to figure out how God can think, or how God can experience time or be sentient. Time in physics is a dimension. Experiential time, the time that orders your sentient thoughts, is strictly based on entropy. This is straight up stuff -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... quantifies it and sets limits. Combine this with information theory and encoding, since knowledge in the mind is a process derived from a (very!) imperfect encoding of realit

Destiny of human remains

[GPS Pilot]

If our decomposed remains remain on Earth, they'll be vaporized when the sun becomes a red giant. http://www.universetoday.com/1...

As far as I know, that prediction is compatible with all religions.

I choose to believe that my atoms will return and be the substance known as stars eventually.

That long-term view is a more pleasant way to put it than the short-term outlook some atheists state: "We're going to be nothing more than food for worms."

Take your own advice: Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

You trolling dolts don't ever get the best of my points in favor of hosts.

APK

P.S.=> Only thing is in your case? You'd need more than "professional help" vs. the truth I tell - you'd need a MIRACLE to get the best of what I post, since it's merely truth & concrete, undeniable, & easily verifiable fact from reputable sources... apk

These non believers have nothing to do change all

[Anonymous Coward]

These so called Illuminati have changed Bible , Torah to their version not the Real Bible which was changed "Diluted" by King James times I believe with the Vatican so average man does not need to know what it really says and Only Koran has not changed since most scholars of Mislim belief memorized the Entire Koran so if all is wiped out in few days exact duplicate can be printed as if Original. without any mistake. What they know is that they can't make changes SO what to do? Start disbelief of Mohammed and that Koran didn't come to him. What. Crock of lies, not going to work shit heads.

No

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: "This finding is a huge problem for people who believe ..."

This comment causes me to think you don't have a good understanding of faith. There are innumerable ways this will be addressed theologically. There is no threat to either the faith or the faithful. One need not be a cynic to come to this conclusion either; plenty of enlightened believers live with a conviction that the principles of religion are deeper and stronger than any specific document, statement, historical fact, personality or action. For cynical interpretations I will leave that task to others.