Muslims claim, that a proof the Koran was from God, is that it contains scientifically accurate information about Embryology before man discovered it for himself. However, all the information in the Koran regarding Embryology is copied from three sources, 1. A Greek doctor named Galen, who lived of 150 AD. 2. A Jewish doctor named Samuel ha-Yehudi who lived 150 AD. 3. the Greek father of medicine Hippocrates who lived 400 BC. My question is: in light of the fact that all the information contained in the Koran was already in print by these three doctors, will you retract the argument on Embryology? If not, will you supply one detail revealed in the Koran about Embryology, that was not already revealed or that was new?
Muslims claim, that a proof that the Koran was from God is that it contains scientifically accurate information about Embryology, yet in 86:6-7 the Koran says, "man was created from ejected liquid- Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs". This echoes the scientific error of Hippocrates who believed semen originates, from the brain down the spinal chord, before passing through the kidneys and finally out of the body. (Hippocratic Writings, Penguin Classics, 1983, p. 317) My question is: do you reject modern science and believe the Koran when it says sperm originates from the mid-gut section of a man's body.
Muslims quote an article written in 1957 by the Jehovah's Witnesses who stated there were 50,000 errors in the translation of the King James version. My question is: Even if this were true, (which of course it is not), how does this prove there is corruption in the original Greek MSS from which the King James version was translated?
Muslims claim, that the many different translations of the English Bible will render a single text with many different words and phrases. You said this was proof the Bible is corrupted and that the Koran reads exactly the same way everywhere in the world in Arabic. My question is: Since the many English translations of the Koran also render a single text with many different words, does that proof that the Koran is corrupted?
Muslims believe the word Allah was used by Jesus when he hung on the cross. The Bible records that Jesus said "Eli Eli lama sabachthani", but you say Jesus really cried out to Allah and said "Allah, Allah lama sabachthani" My question is: Would you please explain why you would use this argument when you don't believe Jesus ever hung on the cross? And second, since Jesus was quoting Ps 22:1 on the cross, isn't rather unlikely that both the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament are wrong using Eli, a Hebrew word, rather than Allah, an arab word?
Muslims chide Christians because the earliest complete copies of the Bible were written 300 years after the originals of the first century. Yet Muslim scholars state the earliest copy of the Koran was written no earlier than 150 years after Muhammad died. My question is: in light of this fact, how could the Koran possibly be better than the Bible and would you please state the name and location and date of the earliest Koran you believe to be in existence?
Both the Samarqand MSS is in Tashkent, and the MSS housed in the Topkapi Museum in Istanbul are written in the script style called "Kufic". And not the earlier style known as Ma'il or Mashq. This fact is the reason Muslim scholars date these manuscripts no earlier than 200 years after Muhammad died. My question is: leaving aside blind faith and wishful thinking, what evidence do you supply that these MSS were written any earlier?
The British Museum in London has an ancient copy of the Koran written in the Ma'il style of script, but practicing Muslim scholar Martin Lings, who is the former curator for the manuscripts of the British Museum, dates this manuscript at 790 AD. My question is: Apart from just making the claim, what evidence do you supply that this MSS were written any earlier?
The text of the Koran in 37:103 reads "they had both submitted their wills (became Muslims)" while the Arabic text of the Tashkent MSS gives the exact opposite meaning, "they did not submitted their wills" (they did NOT become Muslims.) My question is: have you actually read the Tashkent MSS for yourself in this passage and how do you explain this textual variation given your comments on the miracle of the perfect Koran?
