Which book is better preserved?

[@daxvanderwal]

Which book do you think is better preserved and WHY?

[@Mutalimon]

Good luck, brother, and keep an open mind.

[@AdamDylanMajor]

My understanding is that there probably has been a human Gabriel who wrote the Quran secretly before the revelation occurred during the official Mohamed prophet. Of course, this seems like fantasy and not treating the content of your video, but I like to try thinking about things in an unconventional non evidence based way, yet logical. The idea here is that one man can't be knowledgeable enough at the time to write Quran on his own, so much like the Kohanim dictated with Aaron to Moses the Torah, as is believed by Jews, I think one gets to know through this way the meaning of the Quran's "we" which doesn't seem to me to be God

[@AdamDylanMajor]

Concerning your last question before the summary, I think that the lack of unity is something interesting because it teaches us to rely on ourselves and test the text through faith in personal revelation.

[@pollafattah7062]

would you please consider the history of how Quran is complied kzbin.info/www/bejne/pGObYo2vrtyspJY&ab_channel=OnePathNetwork

[@ChristIsMuslim]

-Quran 15:9 "It is certainly We Who have revealed the Reminder [Quran], and it is certainly We Who will preserve it."

[@muhammedabbas4266]

You just made a error and your whole argument was based on that error and that error is that it was not like someone had 3 verses memorized and some had a surah memorized instead there were hafaz at that time Usman (RA) himself was a hafiz also you talked about someone telling Usman (RA) to preserve the Quran so it doesn't become like bible but you didn't look into why he was urging Usman (RA) for that, he was urging Usman (RA) cuz in the battle of al-kadesia alot of hafiz died that's why he was urging Usman(RA) you also made it sound like it was just Usman (RA) who was making the choice of what would be legit and what would not be legit but in reality there was a whole comity of the companions of prophet Muhammad (SAW) Thay together put the Quran together what was legit like what Thay all had memorized were compiled into book and what was addition were Burned just so you know Thay had collected all copies of Quran throughout Arabia so it would make sense that there would be additions in texts this argument is actually a PROFF of preservation of Quran not the other way around

[@Khaled-wm1tu]

5:40 'Irbad bin Sariyah (May Allah be pleased with him) reported: One day Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) delivered us a very eloquent Khutbah on account of which eyes shed tears and hearts were full of tears. A man said: "O Prophet of Allah, this is as if it were a parting advice. So advise us". He (ﷺ) said, "I admonish you to fear Allah, to listen and obey even if an Abyssinian slave is appointed as your leader. Because whosoever among you shall live after me, will see much discord. So hold fast to my Sunnah and the examples of the Rightly- Guided Caliphs who will come after me. Adhere to them and hold to it fast. Beware of new things (in Deen) because every Bid'ah is a misguidance". [Abu Dawud and At- Tirmidhi, who categorized it as Hadith Hasan Sahih]. Reference : Riyad as-Salihin 157 In-book reference : Introduction, Hadith 157 and here you can see that the 4 caliphs after the death of the prophet peace and blessing be upon him were guided

[@hamzaalgibhah5355]

With all respect, in my opinion your logic has some errors. But lets follow your reasoning. At minimum and based on you own reasoning we can concluded for absolute certainty that the current Quran that Muslims have today is 100% equivalent to the Othmanic version of the Quran. The Othmanic version of the Quran was written just 18 years after the prophet death. Thus, there is only 18 years difference between the Original Quran and the Othmanic version. Thus, the lifespan of the Quran (Othmanic version) = 2023 (now) - 650 (Time of Othman) = 1373 yrs. the lifespan of the Quran (Original) = 18Yrs+ Othmanic version Lifespan = 18 + 1373=1391 yrs. In other words if someone to claim that there were alterations to the text of the Quran then it must have been happened during the first 18yrs of the Quran. Now, why does a book lose its well preservation? what are all of the possible reasons? 1st reason: typing mistakes This is not applicable to the Quran since the Quran main method of preservation is Oral recitation of text AND the oral recitation does not depend nor have to follow the spelling rules or writing system. In addition there is a whole filed of science called "Tajweed" that is responsible to preserve the rules of reading/reciting the Quran. These rules depend purely in Oral hearing and not on writing system or spelling rules. In addition reading Quran is a daily practice that every Muslim have to do at least five times a day and Muslims recite the whole Quran at least once during the month of Ramadan and million of Muslims today from all ages, sex and races memorize the Quran. This is a routine and normal practice in Muslims daily life. Thus, it is impossible for a typing mistake to have any effect. Comparing this aspect with the Bible, Bible depends on the writing and thus there are thousands and thousands of typing mistakes. 2nd reason, intentional alternation of the text. This can happen from enemies of the religion and/or corrupted Governments that needs to adjust the text for its own benefits. This is also not applicable to the Quran for the reasons mentioned above. If someone tried to change even one word in the Quran, Muslims will instantly notice that and disapprove it right a way. This is because Quran is recited daily by every Muslim. There are many other reasons some related to the grammar and beauty of the language of the Quran. In addition, The Islamic religion does not allow reading the Quran in any other language or dialect other than the original authenticated recitation learned from Prophet Mohamed. For example, if a Chinese person converted to Islam and he wants to read the Quran, he has to learn Arabic and recite the Quran in Arabic according to the tajweed rules. Of course, there are Chinese translation of the Quran. However, the translations are not treated as Quran. Instead translations are just a human understanding of the Quran and such understanding is subjective. With respect to Othman, you neglected that facts that 1- Othaman was the leader of the country that Prophet Mohamed himself established 2- Othman was among the first believers and followers of Prophet Mohammed and he was with him from the beginning and during the whole life of the Prophet. 3- Othman was very very close to the prophet that he actually married two of Prophet's Mohammed daughters. 4- The Othmanic version of Quran was established by a known committee of the first believers who are known to known and memorize the whole Quran and it is not the work of Othman himself or a single person. 5- The people in charge of establishing the Othmanic version were all among the close companions of the prophet and they all saw the prophet and learned from him directly. Thus, Othman represented an authentic and rightful authority to validate the Quranic written text and was well-accepted by all Muslims at his time. There were some minor disagreements but nor of these were about the validity of the Othman version. The disagreements were mainly about allowing notes to be included with the Quranic text. Some people at that time thought it was OK to include their own notes and style with the Quranic written text since everyone at that time knows Quran Orally and the writing text was something additional. However, Othman was looking to the future (hundred of years later) and he was afraid allowing such notes to be included might cause some confusion to the future generations and he decided to prevent any notes to be included in the written text. The only other major disagreement was related to last two surahs of the Quran where only one of the companions thought that these Sura's was revealed from God to the prophet to be used only by him as a special prayer and not for other Muslims to recite in the Quran. So he was not saying Othman made up these surah's nor he was saying these Surahs were never revealed to the prophet from God. His opinion was that these Surah's were only for the prophet himself. This disagreement does not have any affect of the preservation of the Quran because we know the two surahs and we know the opinion of that person. comparing this aspect with the Bible, you said that there were no control of the Bible transmission including no control of writing of the Bible. So you are saying there were no authority including an authentic authority to validate the text of the Bible. Meaning anyone even enemies of the religion can just write their own versions of the Bible and claim that it is the correct Bible and there were no authentic committee that validates and confirms such claims. Based on the above comparing the Bible and Quran in terms of better preserved, we can conclude the followings: Quran depends mainly on Oral transmission but also have the Othmanic written text as an additional factor and the Othmanic text is 100% well preserved. Muslims memorize the Quran and learns how to read it orally using "Tajweed" rules and the do that daily and yearly. This logically leads to a well-reserved Quran and unity among Muslims about the Quran. Which is true in the real world. The Bible, on the other hand, depends on the writing method (not Oral transmission) and does not have any authentic committee/authority that validates and confirms the written text. Thus, the only way to validate and confirms the validity of the Bible is by: 1- having many manuscripts (the more the better as you said) 2- hope that these manuscripts are consistent with each other with no mistakes. This can never happen. Humans make mistakes and some humans have bad intentions. So if there is no system/method that prevents human alternation to the text, alternation will definitely happen and that's why the Bible has many versions with a lot of inconsistency. In addition, since the Bible depends on the written manuscripts with no authentic committee/authority, no one can guarantee for sure the validity of the written text since no one know how many manuscripts were written and how many have lost forever and how many will be discovered in the future. The best that we can get is make a conclusion based on the available manuscripts

[@thedawar9273]

Couldn't have said it better myself, hope you see this ​ @daxvanderwal

[@daxvanderwal]

Thank you for taking the time to share this! You are right, my argument is mainly focused on the 18 year span between the death of Muhammad and the Othmanic revision. I think since the revision the Quran is preserved very well, and what children grow up memorizing today is pretty much what is in his version. And you have brought up some important things that I have not thought of, I will continue to reflect!

[@hamzaalgibhah5355]

@@daxvanderwal Thanks. I also would like to apologize for the typos and grammar mistakes in my post. Sorry, English is not my first language. I also would like to thank you for all of your videos

[@daxvanderwal]

No problem at all! Thank you for sharing your thoughts, I love to hear everyone's perspective. @@hamzaalgibhah5355

[@ChristIsMuslim]

Many Christians and even the Priests don't know the original language of Bible such as Hebrew and Greek. This is so important because every version of Bible has different verses and additional verses. And the Christian scholars say that the Gospels were written by anonymous authors and without manuscript.

[@daxvanderwal]

Hey! I know many Christian pastors and priests who know Greek and Hebrew, in fact many of the one's I work with know the original languages. With a degree of 99.5% certainty we know what the original New Testament said. The Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John - I will make a video about this topic some time! I appreciate you commenting, I like seeing your thoughts.

[@ChristIsMuslim]

@@daxvanderwal The Gospels have no manuscript and we don't know the last names of Matthew, Mark, Luke & John. And they were not Jesus' disciples who lived with Jesus. And if you say John was one of Jesus' disciples, but we don't know his last name because many people have the name John.

[@daxvanderwal]

It doesn't matter if we have their last name or not, we know who they were (Matthew was a tax collector and one of the first disciples of Jesus). Matthew and John were Jesus' disciples, what evidence do you have that they weren't? You can't just assert that and not provide any evidence. @@ChristIsMuslim

[@ChristIsMuslim]

@@daxvanderwal It's so important because many people have the same name. In Islam we have last name of every Prophet's companions with "... ibn ..." means "... the son of ..." to prove they were real companions of Prophet. And every version of the Gospels have different & additional verses and also without manuscript.

[@daxvanderwal]

Sure many people have the same name, but there's other ways to specify an individual apart from knowing a last name. Someone can still know me without knowing my last name - for example they could say "Dax, the one who makes You-tube videos about Christianity and Islam, and lives in Northern California, and is friends with John and James..." those details will lead you to me. When the church father's talk about Mark being Peter's interpreter... they don't need to give last name's, we're obviously talking about the Peter and Mark who are in the Gospels who were disciples of Jesus. As far as the gospels having a different number of verses, this is because we have 4 authentic testimonies. If you ask 4 people about an event, some of them will say more words and some of them will say less. This is what we see in the Gospels. @@ChristIsMuslim

[@arabiano16]

The problem that christians have is that they don't understand how the Quran was really transmitted. The Quran was transmitted orally. The manuscripts were made for non Arabs to learn how to read it and not make mistakes in reading. Arabs themselves most memorize the Quran from mouth to ear. I myself went to quranic school, the bedouin way, and I don't remember that I used to read the text well as I was not very good at reading when I was taught the Quran. The way it's done, is the sheikh would write the section for you to memorize for you on a wooden slate and he would recite it for you, then you repeat after him, then you recite alone while he's listening, then you go and read it as many times as you can to memorize. Once you're done with the chapter or section you go and recite it to the sheikh, you don't look at the text and he doesn't look at it. You pass if you memorize it vocally correctly, we're not asked to write it. To verify this, you can research how arabic poetry is also transmitted, most Bedouins don't read, especially women, but they memorize hundreds of verses. Again, the text was made for non Arabs as a way to preserve it from mistakes when written or recited.

[@daxvanderwal]

Hey! Thank you for sharing about your experience. One thing I found in my research on oral tradition is that it's actually better if there is a written text to begin with. Like you said you would memorize a written text and then recite it, but since the Quran started orally there wasn't a written text to make sure all the companions were on the same page. This is why the oral tradition broke down early on in the process and Uthman had to standardize a text for everyone to memorize moving forward.

[@_zaaphiel]

@@daxvanderwal you know Abu Bakr had already collected a text of the Quran right? That text was compiled from pieces of the Quran written down by the people alive during the time of the prophet. The text of the Quran was written down while the prophet was live.... this is common knowledge.....

[@daxvanderwal]

Yeah I'm aware of Abu Bakr's collection... but that still brings up multiple questions 1. If his collection was good then why would Uthman have to do it again?v Why was there still confusion and disagreement after this? 2. Manuscript evidence shows us companion codices that disagree (and these obviously reflect the oral tradition). So sure people wrote different parts during the time of Muhammad but even these disagree on some level. I'm not saying it was significant disagreement, but nonetheless memorizers and personal codices show disagreement amongst the early Muslims. I have no problem with someone saying the Quran is most likely well preserved, but the truth is there was definitely disagreement/confusion and that evidence has since been destroyed so we can't even analyze it to come up with a degree of certainty. @@_zaaphiel

[@_zaaphiel]

@@daxvanderwal 1) abu bakr 's collection had no letter markings and accommodated every dialect/reading. Uthman's was to standardize the dialect/reading so that people wouldn't get confused when learning the Quran for the first time. 2) I'm not sure which manuscripts you're referring to, but we know the segments of the Quran which were written down by the people then had their own comments added in, kinda like an in line exegesis. These exegetical notes where scrubbed from Abu bakr's collection if I remember right. I'm not aware of anyone really disagreeing with each other to early on and iirc it was pretty much common knowledge that people added their own exegetical notes. Additionally I'm happy to admit the Bible is well preserved too, more so than a lot of historic documents even. My issue here is that there are some key points on quranic preservation which seem like they are being pushed to the wayside.

[@daxvanderwal]

I've heard Muslims argue that but I'm not sure what examples exist of it, so I'm happy to concede that there are codices that include commentary from some people. I'm referring to actual variants in the text not just notes mistaken as text. But other than that yeah I'm mainly referring to Ibn Masud, I'm sure the majority was in agreement though which is why I'm sure they mostly got it right. My goal is not to push things to the wayside so Ill try to reflect on if I'm doing that! My goal is to challenge Muslims to consider some parts of their history that many of them seem unfamiliar with, but in the same way as you I admit the Quran is well preserved and I have no problem admitting that. I can tell you know your stuff though, so thanks for watching and commenting! I enjoy being stretched. @@_zaaphiel

[@ChristIsMuslim]

Why did one of the Prophet's companions, namely Uthman ibn Affan, make the Quran into one dialect❓ The tribes at the time of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ did not speak Arabic in the same ahruf (dialect). Many tribes had different ways of reciting Arabic words and Quran addressed them in their individual dialects while at the same time delivering the same message. This was one of the literary and linguistic miracles of this book for Arabic speakers who received in the first instance. Hence the following authentic hadith mentions the satisfaction displayed by the Prophet ﷺ after hearing that Allah ﷻ permitted the Quran to be recited in seven dialects. It is recorded in Sahih of Imam Muslim 821 a that : -Ubayy ibn Ka'b reported that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ was near the tank of Banu Ghifar that Angel Gabriel came to him and said: "Allah has commanded you to recite to your people the Quran in one dialect." Upon this he said "I ask from Allah pardon and forgiveness. My people are not capable of doing it." He then came for the second time and said "Allah has commanded you that you should recite the Quran to your people in two dialects." Upon this he (the Holy prophet) again said "I seek pardon and forgiveness from Allah, my people would not be able to do so." He (Gabriel) came for the third time and said "Allah has commanded you to recite the Quran to your people in three dialects." Upon this he said "I ask pardon and forgiveness from Allah. My people would not be able to do it." He then came to him for the fourth time and said "Allah has commanded you to recite the Quran to your people in seven dialects, and in whichever dialect they would recite, they would be right."' It is said that these 7 dialects (ahruf) belong to the following seven tribes: Quraysh, Hudhayl, Thaqeef, Hawaazin, Kinaanah, Tameem and a tribe of Yemen. The wisdom behind this was that the Quran in seven different dialects made its recitation and memorization much easier for the local tribes. After the passing away of the Prophet ﷺ, Islam spread to other regions including non-Arabs and these dialects also came to be spread due to the fact that his companions who recited them went to different regions to teach and instruct the new Muslims. Each region adopted a style of recitation based on a dialect (harf) that the companion recited in. During the rule of Uthman ibn Affan (r.a) he received news that Muslims around the Islamic empire were contending on whose recitation was better. Uthman (r.a) then decided to take measures. By his time the various Quranic dialects had ceased to be of their initial importance. He aimed to eliminate the variant styles of readings (qira’at) which had the potential to cause permanent divisions. He compiled a standardized text which was based on the original Qurayshi dialect (harf), the dialect in which the Quran was revealed to the Prophet ﷺ and which he recited himself. Uthman (r.a) ordered the distribution of this text to the major centers of the Islamic empire. Muslims were encouraged to read this standard edition which did not omit anything from what they were exchanging except for a recitation style. Even though a standard edition was collected and spread across Muslim region and others were collected and burned, that did not affect the original text and their meanings because nothing was omitted from it. Therefore these dialects were the need of the time and environment in which the Quran was being revealed but as Islam spread outside of Arabian Peninsula, they ceased to be of much importance as later Muslims did not have concerns like their early predecessors.

[@tmmmtmm05]

Anyway, when God revealed the Qur'an in different dialects, it was not obligatory for anyone to learn all the dialects. A person can learn only one dialect and leave the rest completely, and there is no sin against him, and thank you for clarifying 🌹

[@shahkaleem6601]

What Usman (RA) did did not change the meaning of the Quran. Consider this sentence: "A quick brown fox jumps." An Indian person would read it with their accent, while a Jamaican would read it with theirs. Although the way it is pronounced may differ greatly, the meaning of the sentence remains unchanged. Thus, I don’t understand why the debate over dialects could affect the Quran’s authenticity.

[@daxvanderwal]

Hey! I agree with you that if it was just an accent difference this wouldn't change anything. But it's more than that. The 7 Ahruf were not just dialects, there were different words being used (this is why there was so much division and diagreement). So Uthman destroying 6 of them (without Muhammad saying he could do this) is a big deal because, what difference existed in those? Also, there are modern day examples like Q37:12, Hafs recitation reads "you wonder" while Doori recitation reads "I wonder". This is a difference that changes the actual meaning of the verse. All in all, there were word/meaning differences early in the Quran's history, and there are word/meaning differences in the Quran today.

[@abdellahi.heiballa]

lol he said everyone was making there own bible puting and throwing things around on a wimp and some how after 2000 years of that that's more certain than a single unified book verified by hight comunity of the eye witness people who witnessed the delivry of the quran and memorised it entirelly and kept it from coruption. what a logic

[@daxvanderwal]

Where did I make this argument? I think you're taking things you've heard from Muslim apologists and throwing that into my mouth for some reason

[@abdellahi.heiballa]

@@daxvanderwal i recomand you to do a live with @TheBobbysPerspective he will answer all your thoughts if you are intrested in the trouth he have been studieng and going into the same journey you are in now

[@kounichiheb4575]

So you're saying that the way how the Quoran was preserved is causing so much uncertainty? Ok let's just say that's reasonable, so that means in a situation like this the only way how any normal human being who has enough intelligence can tell which book has contradictions, is by reading all the books and compares them , now you can read all versions of the Bible and we all know that it has a lot of contractions and an unanswered questions, then read the Koran and I challenge you to find a single mistake or anything that doesn't make sense or even anything that doesn't answer your questions, the thing is, it doesn't matter how many copies or versions are in there. Or how they were preserved, all that matters is the message, the meanings, and the miracles inside the book, just a tiny example, the word day was mentioned 365 times in the Koran, and the word month was mentioned 12 times in the Koran, this is just a very small example, the reason why we believe in Koran it's not only because it was well preserved but also because when you read it you can feel that these are the words of god and not the words of a human, when you read the Koran, you can't find any contradictions, everything is meaningful and make sense, that's why a lot of people around the world nowadays who got curious about the Koran and start reading it, a lot of them converted to Islam, just ONLY by reading it, so with due all respect, instead of trying to find a way how to prove that the Koran is not the book of god and Mohamed peace upon him is not a prophet, you can actually show us from the Koran it self , which chapters or verses that proves the Koran is not a book of god, you can try but you will never be able to find anything 😉 sorry for my English everyone 😂😂

[@_zaaphiel]

Just casually ignoring the councils which banned books from the Bible I see. Very neutral.

[@jacobserroels6567]

Banned is a very charged / uncharitable word to use. better word would be “left out.” They weren’t banned. The early church fathers at the councils that determined the cannon had a set of criteria that were used to determine what books should and shouldn’t be left out of scripture. Now you can disagree with those criteria. But to say they were flat out banned is not a proper reading of the history.

[@_zaaphiel]

@@jacobserroels6567 Banned and persecuted are accurate, since the gospels of Thomas, Phillip, and Mary were hunted down and destroyed after being deemed unacceptable. I wonder how many more gospels were destroyed by the church which we don't even know about.

[@tonyeharcourt7786]

@@_zaaphiel All of those "gospels" were dated centuries after the ascension of Jesus. They couldn't have been canonical as they couldn't have been written by those mentions. So they were left out as the comment above you says. It's not just a case of the church trying to hide them

[@Kthan271j]

The early church before Constantine already knew what was canonical only Revelation was questionable and that was due to content not its source.

[@_zaaphiel]

@@tonyeharcourt7786 the council of nicea was in 325 and these gospels are estimated to either be prior to that or around the same time. It is not too far fetched to figure that, if not nicea itself, one of these councils deliberately banned these gospels and others like them.

[@abdullahal-mulla4627]

You should have explained the process of collecting the scripts. Then you will understand if the control was certain and accurate. The less unity is simply uncertain. How do I know which version of the bible is the actual from thousands of copies that vary in crucial aspects?

[@lolstudio811]

Uthman gathered every person who memorized the Quran and they all agreed on the Quran

[@daxvanderwal]

Ibn Masud and Ubay Ibn Kaab did not.

[@moafro6524]

Dax, my friend, you raise an important point. Let's consider the timelines: The Quran was standardized roughly two decades after the passing of the Prophet Muhammad during the era of the third Caliph, Uthman ibn Affan. On the other hand, the Bible underwent a process of standardization over several centuries after the passing of Jesus Christ. The longer period between the passing of Jesus and the standardization of the Bible allowed more time for variations and interpretations to emerge. Such a timeframe opens the doors and welcomes corruption. When confronted with a well-preserved scripture from another tradition, you argue that it was corrupted before it was preserved. Yet, this overlooks the processes established by dedicated individuals to get the book to us in one preserved form. This is a feat not accomplished any where else in history or the world. You are telling us these Geniuses were somehow unable to compile the right information into the book, even though most of them memorized it letter for letter? The manuscripts exhibit a greater number of discrepancies than the entirety of words found in the modern Bible. This abundance of discrepancies results in a significant degree of disunity. The necessity for the Council of Nicaea centuries later to deliberate on the identity of Jesus is quite remarkable. Consider the level of confusion that would prompt such an assembly, held long after the arrival of the messenger, focusing not on the message itself, but on the individual it pertained to. The fact that they had to ascertain Jesus' identity even centuries later highlights a lack of clarity not just about who he was, but also about the message he brought, indicating a profound uncertainty regarding both.

[@theologies483]

Hey man! I like the beard, looks good on you! During the time of Prophet Muhammad, the Quranic revelations were not compiled into a single written manuscript. Instead, the verses were memorized by many of the Prophet's companions, and some were also written down on various materials. After the death of Prophet Muhammad in 632 CE, under the caliphate of Abu Bakr, a compilation of the Quran was initiated by collecting the scattered verses into a single manuscript. This compilation was continued under the caliphate of Umar ibn al-Khattab. When Uthman became the caliph in 644 CE, he observed that the Muslim community was expanding, and there were regional variations in the way the Quranic revelations were recited. To maintain the unity of the Muslim community and preserve the Quranic text in its pristine form, Uthman decided to create an authoritative and standardized version. Uthman appointed a committee, led by Zaid ibn Thabit and other scribes who had memorized the Quran during the lifetime of Prophet Muhammad, to compile an official manuscript. Once the compilation was completed, Uthman ordered that multiple copies be made and distributed to different regions of the Islamic empire. He also instructed that any existing copies of the Quran in different dialects or with variations be destroyed. The burning of the copies was not intended as a rejection of different recitations, but rather as a measure to ensure the preservation of the Quran in a standardized form. Uthman's efforts were aimed at preventing potential confusion or disputes regarding the Quranic text among the growing Muslim community. Similar to how people misinterpret the council of Nicaea to some how prove that the Bible was corrupted then. What is important from that council though is the discussion of whether or not Jesus was of the same essence of God the Father. I'd like to argue that no, he is not and the Bible aims at the same idea. Matthew 19 16: And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17: And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. John 14 28: Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. I'd love if your next video would be on what the main differences between the Quran and Bible are, and what differentiates being a Muslim and a Christian. It's a fairly straightforward concept. What does it truly mean to be one or the other?

[@PieMaster2425]

"The burning of the copies was not intended as a rejection of different recitations" The copium

[@theologies483]

@@PieMaster2425 I am speaking objectively according to historical records. My belief in the Quran has far more weight than just this fact. If you have greater evidence, please provide it.

[@ihatebigtechs]

bro, you know that those versicles was in greek correctly? and the interpretation of the apostolic fathers lead us to believe in the trinity and the hypostatic union of god. if you are just reading the versicles without any support from the tradition, obviously you will get a lot of different conclusions (as protestants get) about the faith.

[@theologies483]

@@ihatebigtechs Exactly, and that is why I am a Muslim. I have given each Scripture a fair shot and explored what scholars of each faith have to say regarding specific verses. I am not smarter than the scholars who have devoted their life to theology, but I do have enough reason to objectively explore what everyone has to say and find the most consistent answer. Humans are fickle and have a tendency to believe what they want to believe. The Quran has a high degree of integrity in terms of being the same from 1400 years ago and the only real arguments people have brought up are modern arguments regarding the efficacy of oral tradition, 7 dialects and Uthman's standardization. These objections end up being more speculation than objective evidence against the Quran as a whole. Muslims like to claim the Bible is completely distorted, and I don't believe this is true. I have seen and can prove errors in different versions of the bible but 85% of it is the same. What does that 85% teach? Reject polytheism and association of anyone with the one true creator, God. Respect your mother and father You shall not murder unjustly And guess what? That 85% that's consistent, is nearly identical in the Quran. Now let's look at this anecdotally, If I become Christian how does the system of rules that I operate under change? I don't have to pray 5 times a day in a structured way, but I'm still encouraged to pray arbitrarily I can't ever get divorced no matter what and it's preferential if I never get married. I should turn the other cheek against violence (Although Jesus has come as god's sword acknowledged by both Christianity and Islam but that sword is only used as a Sword when God says so at the end of time) I continue not eating pork (Yes Jesus said don't eat pork) And I accept a triune Godhead (Astaghfirullah) I really don't see an iota of a logical reason for me to choose Christianity. I would love to have an easier life, but I choose truth. The first comment I got was a meme comment about my comment was coping. All that objective reasoning to be rebutted with such a childish answer. Your comment is about how it's my fault for understanding it incorrectly. Show me. No one cares about truth and that's really a shame.

[@ihatebigtechs]

I am not questioning whether the Quran was well preserved or not. I firmly believe that it was a document that was very protected and that it probably underwent very few changes to its content (linguistic issues, for example, can count in this change. However, these are minimal things that do not directly influence the doctrine). I didn't understand what you meant in your first paragraph. We Catholics believe that the Bible is insufficient to prove all the dogmatic points of faith, so we use the tradition of the first fathers of the Church to help us in reading it and also to gain more knowledge of truths of faith that were passed on through oral tradition. For you to try to interpret the scriptures without the help of the writings of these priests who had contact with the apostles is the same thing as Protestant "sola scriptura" than merely interacting with the Bible, often with the translation of the Bible, without it being in Greek. You are saying that Christian habits are not so convenient for you (as is the case with the prohibition of divorce) just as you are also saying, without knowing about faith apparently, that we do not have, let's say, "spiritual duties". Which, obviously, is a fallacy. We have to go to mass every Sunday, fast during Lent, fast every Friday of the year under penalty of mortal sin, pray the rosary or angelus every day, have to confess regularly to the priest and so on. go. There are a series of sacraments that must be fulfilled. And, if you want to attest to the authenticity of life, I recommend you see the studies on... There are several studies talking about the authenticity of the Bible as a whole to this day, being one of the most demonstrably least "altered" documents in history. Anyway, there's no point in me talking here and pointing out what's wrong in your comment. nothing will change yours or my opinion, I will continue to be a Roman Apostolic Christian and you will continue to be a Muslim (I don't know if Sunni or Shiite XD)

[@fizzakhanfizzakhan717]

Contact scholars they'll answer you Don't let Satan to take you away from islam

[@daxvanderwal]

I try to read and watch as many scholars as I can in preparation for these videos! But I will definitely do live discussions in the future

[@fizzakhanfizzakhan717]

@@daxvanderwal thank you I really appreciate 🙏 May the king the lord of seven heavens Allah will guide you show you the light ameen

[@daxvanderwal]

I appreciate that! @@fizzakhanfizzakhan717

[@tmmmtmm05]

​@@daxvanderwalThat's good. I advise you to contact Muhammad Ali if you know him. He's good at effective discussions. He's not a scientist, but he's very good. He has enough knowledge to talk to you. He understands every point you bring about. Because he deals with a lot of Christians in the first place.

[@MightyLacolone]

If you had utman islam won't even exist😂because he won't let anyone mess with the holy book

[@abdellahi.heiballa]

if someone is shady he will see everything shady lol

[@sameka7664]

How do you define word of God?? muslim believe quran 100% word of god, 0% word of human.. bible in otherhand is word of paul and other anonimous writer..

[@daxvanderwal]

Yes we have a different view of inspiration. We believe God used humans to write the Bible, so we don't care so much about "word for word" but more so that the meaning is the same. And when it comes to the NT any of the variants that exist don't impact our theology. In other words, the Bible is well preserved (the overall meaning is the same as it is in the original languages and versions). The Bible is not the main miracle in Christianity like the Quran is in Islam. So even if the Bible isn't perfectly preserved it doesn't mean Christianity is false, however if there is an error in the Quran then Islam is false.

[@cumaniseng8149]

1 thing i want you to know is Arab has 7 different dialects, and the original language of Qur'an is in Quraish dialect. The evidence manuscript that being destroyed by Usman is the Qur'an written in other 6 dialects. Because he want to back to the original language of Qur'an, Quraish dialect..

[@pollafattah7062]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/pGObYo2vrtyspJY&ab_channel=OnePathNetwork

[@daxvanderwal]

Hey! Thanks for sharing your thoughts. If the Quran was revealed in multiple dialects then why did Uthman try to make it in just the one dialect?

[@cumaniseng8149]

@@daxvanderwal it's revealed in Quraish dialect, prophet Muhammad's [peace be upon him] language. Since people spread it to the whole arab peninsula..it change the word to their own dialect but still the same meaning..the Usman RA turned it back to the original language to avoid differences..

[@daxvanderwal]

how do you know it didn't change the meaning? And the point remains, there were differences, Uthman tried to fix that by standardizing them... how do we know if he got it right since we can't examine the evidence? @@cumaniseng8149

[@ChristIsMuslim]

@@daxvanderwal Why did one of the Prophet's companions, namely Uthman ibn Affan, make the Quran into one dialect❓ The tribes at the time of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ did not speak Arabic in the same ahruf (dialect). Many tribes had different ways of reciting Arabic words and Quran addressed them in their individual dialects while at the same time delivering the same message. This was one of the literary and linguistic miracles of this book for Arabic speakers who received in the first instance. Hence the following authentic hadith mentions the satisfaction displayed by the Prophet ﷺ after hearing that Allah ﷻ permitted the Quran to be recited in seven dialects. It is recorded in Sahih of Imam Muslim 821 a that : -Ubayy ibn Ka'b reported that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ was near the tank of Banu Ghifar that Angel Gabriel came to him and said: "Allah has commanded you to recite to your people the Quran in one dialect." Upon this he said "I ask from Allah pardon and forgiveness. My people are not capable of doing it." He then came for the second time and said "Allah has commanded you that you should recite the Quran to your people in two dialects." Upon this he (the Holy prophet) again said "I seek pardon and forgiveness from Allah, my people would not be able to do so." He (Gabriel) came for the third time and said "Allah has commanded you to recite the Quran to your people in three dialects." Upon this he said "I ask pardon and forgiveness from Allah. My people would not be able to do it." He then came to him for the fourth time and said "Allah has commanded you to recite the Quran to your people in seven dialects, and in whichever dialect they would recite, they would be right."' It is said that these 7 dialects (ahruf) belong to the following seven tribes: Quraysh, Hudhayl, Thaqeef, Hawaazin, Kinaanah, Tameem and a tribe of Yemen. The wisdom behind this was that the Quran in seven different dialects made its recitation and memorization much easier for the local tribes. After the passing away of the Prophet ﷺ, Islam spread to other regions including non-Arabs and these dialects also came to be spread due to the fact that his companions who recited them went to different regions to teach and instruct the new Muslims. Each region adopted a style of recitation based on a dialect (harf) that the companion recited in. During the rule of Uthman ibn Affan (r.a) he received news that Muslims around the Islamic empire were contending on whose recitation was better. Uthman (r.a) then decided to take measures. By his time the various Quranic dialects had ceased to be of their initial importance. He aimed to eliminate the variant styles of readings (qira’at) which had the potential to cause permanent divisions. He compiled a standardized text which was based on the original Qurayshi dialect (harf), the dialect in which the Quran was revealed to the Prophet ﷺ and which he recited himself. Uthman (r.a) ordered the distribution of this text to the major centers of the Islamic empire. Muslims were encouraged to read this standard edition which did not omit anything from what they were exchanging except for a recitation style. Even though a standard edition was collected and spread across Muslim region and others were collected and burned, that did not affect the original text and their meanings because nothing was omitted from it. Therefore these dialects were the need of the time and environment in which the Quran was being revealed but as Islam spread outside of Arabian Peninsula, they ceased to be of much importance as later Muslims did not have concerns like their early predecessors.

[@aulitoss]

Next video suggestion : the AUTHOR of Bible and Qur'an

[@Abdullh9889]

5:27 The answer to why differences arise if they all had it memorized is that the Quran had 7 different (قرائه) readings and all of them from god but not all the people know all the 7 every on memorized one or two so when the people heard someone reading the Quran in a way that they don't read it it cozied differences between the people so uthman expend ti the people that all the readings are from god and he burned any Quran who has not has written correctly like somebody adding the explaining of the Quran with the Quran like: God is only one no two no three only one. That's how you will read the verse with the explaining but without the explaining it will read like this: God is only one. So if you read the first one and you read the second one you'll say somebody corabted the text not understand that the first one is the verse with the explaining and the second is only the verse.and to make sure that this will never happen uthman burned any Quran who has been taken from them or added to them more explaining. And uthman is not a random guy he married two of the prophet daughters and he was the third best human after the prophet and he is not the firs to compile the Quran he is the third the first one is Abu-Baker the prophet best friend and the first man to belief in the propheta and he and uthman are two people that the prophet sid that they will go to ((جنه)) so they not a random pepeople and Abu-Baker is the first to compile the Quran meaning from the prophet death to after two years of his death. uthman just compiled the people heart on it. And the people who compiled the Quran are not some random people the are the closest friends to the prophet just like jesus friends and the. I am not that good at writing in English so don't care about any incorrect word.

[@daxvanderwal]

If the Quran was revealed in 7 modes, then why did they not know that? Why were they dividing over these modes? And why did Uthman try to get rid of 6 of them?

[@Abdullh9889]

@@daxvanderwal question one:the reason that not all the people know it because many reasons like somebody becoming a Muslim but not hearing the saying of the prophet that the Quran was revealed in 7 readings think about it the prophet will not go to every single person and says to him the Quran was revealed in 7 readings but he well tell the best of his friends so his friends will share to all the other people that he wasn't able to give them the massage and who is the best friends to the prophet that can share the massage??you can search about the 10 of the prophet friends who the prophet said that they will go to heaven one of them is Omar and he didn't know about the 7 readings so this happen: Narrated `Umar bin Khattab: I heard Hisham bin Hakim bin Hizam reciting Surat-al-Furqan during the lifetime of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ), and I listened to his recitation and noticed that he recited it in several ways which Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) had not taught me. So I was on the point of attacking him in the prayer, but I waited till he finished his prayer, and then I seized him by the collar and said, "Who taught you this Surah which I have heard you reciting?" He replied, "Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) taught it to me." I said, "You are telling a lie; By Allah! Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) taught me (in a different way) this very Surah which I have heard you reciting." So I took him, leading him to Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) and said, "O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)! I heard this person reciting Surat-al-Furqan in a way that you did not teach me, and you have taught me Surat-al-Furqan." The Prophet said, "O Hisham, recite!" So he recited in the same way as I heard him recite it before. On that Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "It was revealed to be recited in this way." Then Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said, "Recite, O `Umar!" So I recited it as he had taught me. Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) then said, "It was revealed to be recited in this way." Allah" Apostle added, "The Qur'an has been revealed to be recited in several different ways, so recite of it that which is easier for you." This hadith says clearly that not even the closest friend to the prophet know about the 7 readings so what about the people who become muslims after the prophet death?fun fact the person that gave the idea to compile the Quran is omer. Not everyone heard all the Quran except the closest friends of the prophet and who learned the Quran from the prophet I will give you an example: You are a somebody who became Christian after jesus (death)and you had some of the gospel and then some people come to you and says that there are more chapters of the gospel that are not in your gospel will you accept what the things that they say about the gospel?the answer is no you will question them about what are they saying. So in the time of Abu-Baker the Quran was compiled but in the time of uthman the people starting to hear other people reading the Quran in a different way of them so the problem began and in the end uthman seceded to explain to the people that the Quran was revealed in 7 different reading. Question two:uthman didn't burn 6 reading and left only one the reason why he burned the Qurans is simple in the time of the prophet the prophet was reading the Quran and his friends write what he said and then the prophet ask them to read what they wrote to make sure that what they wrote is right so uthman did the same he gave all the 7 different reading in a country so this reading of the Quran is the country reading but any Quran that was not written in the same way that prophet Mohamed did was buried like somebody trying to write to him self a Quran from his memoir but without making sure that what did he write was the actual Quran so uthman burned any Quran in this way like I'll give you an example: Which is better If I speak for 20 minute and you wrote what I say but without making sure that what are you writing is 100% what I said or you going to me and asking me what is wrong in my writing? Simply going to the people of knowledge .I can't actually Express my self in English💀I'm trying to explain to you in the English language but I am thinking in Arabic. You can search about this topic or the best thing you can do to understand Is to go ask the Muslim lantern he has a KZbin channel in this name and he is very humble and he will help you in this topic and you can ask him about the bible and the Quran he's more knowledgeable from me and he can speak English very well he make live video so you can talk to him please think of talking to him I am sure he will answer all your questions.

[@Haqq_Prod]

From uthman Quran you can read in every one of the styles it's just dialects. it's all about stretching some words and Skip some voiles that's it.

[@tmmmtmm05]

​​​@@daxvanderwalThere is no harm for all Muslims in following one reading of the Qur'an and leaving the remaining 6, but nevertheless, all of them still exist, and Othman, may God be pleased with him, adopted one reading because he wanted to preserve one copy that all people agree on, and as Muslims, this is not a sin or something strange, the readings are optional if you want to learn 7, 5 or only one, it is okay, they are all the words of God + the fruits of burning the rest of the Qur'an because they were not written unanimously, but rather Individuals wrote it for themselves It's like when everyone writes a summary by himself and a particular student writes a summary with the help of all students and with the opinion of the professors, of course, which summary would be more reliable? The summary that many agreed on to write because he became sure of the information because they agree on it and for this Othman may Allah be pleased with him burned the rest of the Qur'ans because they are Qurans written by everyone for himself and there is no need for them because he collected the Qur'an in one Qur'an mediated by trusted companions who memorize the Qur'an..

[@ChristIsMuslim]

-Quran 15:9 "It is certainly We Who have revealed the Reminder [Quran], and it is certainly We Who will preserve it."

[@daxvanderwal]

Hey! In order to accept this verse you have to assume the Quran is well-preserved in the first place, so it's circular reasoning. This is like saying "the Quran is perfectly preserved because it says so", but that doesn't really answer the question. Does that make sense?

[@ChristIsMuslim]

@@daxvanderwal The Quran until now has manucript evidence in Birmingham and there is an oral tradition. The Quran is the only scripture/holy book that can be memorized letter by letter in the original language because God makes it easy for people to understand it. -Quran 54:17 "And We have certainly made the Quran easy to remember."

[@daxvanderwal]

The Birmingham manuscript shows two Surahs, we can hardly call it a "Quran". And the point is the more manuscripts the better the evidence. I think the Quran was well-preserved but to be certain we need more manuscripts @@ChristIsMuslim

[@ChristIsMuslim]

@@daxvanderwal No one memorizes Bible and there is no manuscript of Gospels. It's hard to preserve the Bible. Today many version of Bible out there and have many contradictions and additional verses.

[@figuraclass444]

@@daxvanderwal quran is preserved orally. i cant prove it was preserved but considering today we have millions of hafiz, i am pretty sure it is preserved. so quran says it is we who will preserve it. and quran was preserved. also quran says we made quran in arabic so that it may be easy to memorize. again. second miracle ayah...

[@sciencedaan11]

Can you please make a video on contradictions within books?

[@daxvanderwal]

Sure! That's a good idea

[@Sword7211]

Othman ra was companion it seems to me you are not doing the whole research and now not being as open as you were

[@somewhereinhawaii3663]

Sumerian tablets, which are older than 6,000 years, have many of the same stories as the Bible (Adam and Eve, the great flood, etc) in much greater detail.

[@daxvanderwal]

Hey! I hear this thrown out there a lot but when you go to these original stories they have several differences (you say "greater detail" but what you're referring to is the fact that they aren't the same). And if there truly was a great flood then we would expect multiple accounts of it... perhaps the reality of the biblical flood led to multiple theories and beliefs about it. Since the Bible contains prophecies and Jesus himself affirms the OT, I have reason to trust that the biblical accounts are fact. What makes you think the Sumerian tablets debunk the Bible? (if that's what you're arguing)

[@yosefkashkoul3472]

after sending me my password ill tell you this you think that Uthman was ruling as a king bro you don't understand that these who ruled after the death of the prophet was the most poor people in town for example when Omar took the keys of Jerusalem he arrived with rough clothes and poor looking man that you would think he is less than a califa and you might think he is some poor person who have holes in his cloth that's because we believe as Muslims that who ever you are you still nothing in the eyes of god so you should be humble

[@abdellahi.heiballa]

after mohammed deeath many thousands of people memorised the entire quran some few had mistakes due to their humanity and memory but wen othman compiled the quran he made sure only the legit and fully memorised and othentic veses are preserved and whatever in doubt and not othentic is left out as it was clear

[@daxvanderwal]

Hey! I'm sure the memorization helped preserve the Quran in many ways, it's just not possible to analyze the memories of men so we can't really know how reliable this was. Besides that we know that disagreement and confusion arose, which means the oral tradition wasn't strong enough to combat confusion.

[@_zaaphiel]

@@daxvanderwal the disagreement and confusion was primarily with the converts who weren't around when revelation happened and didn't know arabic as their first language. See Usul al Tafsir by Recep Dogan.

[@daxvanderwal]

What about Ibn Masud and Ubay Ibn Kaab? They disagreed with Uthman's final version @@_zaaphiel

[@abdellahi.heiballa]

"@daxvanderwal, I think you don't understand memorization. Let me give you an example. In all countries around the world, there are 7-year-old kids who memorize the entire Quran, word by word, letter by letter. If each wrote it down, it would be exactly the same from China to Canada. I know it's hard for you to think such a thing is possible. Plus, you have to know it's not just poetry; it's really a divine language. If you spoke Arabic, you would know no human talks or thinks this way. It's not even possible. Even the people of Mecca, when they heard it and they were top poets, said, 'This is not the making of men.' The language used was beyond their understanding, to the point it was used to advance the Arabic language light years ahead. To say an illiterate man who couldn't read or write made it, and people knew Mohammed for 40 years, no one has ever said he was a liar or a crazy person, or wanted wealth or recognition. They told him, 'Stop what you are calling; we will make you a king over us.' He said, 'I can't; it's not up to me.' And he was carrying a sword, fighting in the front lines of battles. So the only thing left is to call him delusional or deceived by the devil. And I don't think the devil will tell people to stop worshiping idols, worship God alone, be kind to your parents, stop injustice, and be pious. If you read about his personality, he was the kindest human who walked this earth, always bowing down, and he was the poorest, spending nights without food, even being the ruler of hundreds of thousands of Muslims. He praised all the prophets and glorified Jesus. If you add all these up, you have one conclusion: he is legitimate."

[@_zaaphiel]

@@daxvanderwal I haven't heard of an objection from Ibn Kaab (or if I did I forgot about it). From what I remember i think Ibn Masud contested the omission of variant readings. I have heard people bring this up years ago, but when I looked into it back then nothing substantial was found.

[@Hasmatix]

if someone think bible is better preserved is really delusional. bible changed many times and it isnt anymore in its original language. the qoran is never changed and still in original language. answer is clear to me

[@daxvanderwal]

We have Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, the original languages of the Bible. In fact scholars would say we know the original reading of the NT to a degree of about 99%.

[@Hasmatix]

@@daxvanderwal nope youre wrong. The bible started in aramaic then it got translated. Oldest bible u can find now is in greek language.

[@daxvanderwal]

@@Hasmatix oh really? what evidence do you have that it was originally in Aramaic? Also, if it was originally in Aramaic and if we don't have Aramaic that means it's lost, then why does the Quran quote Jesus in Arabic? Surely this means the Quran also doesn't contain the original words of Jesus

[@tmmmtmm05]

​@@daxvanderwalMy friend, the Qur'an is not the words of Jesus, but it is the words of God. This is the difference. Yes, the Qur'an does not talk about Jesus, peace be upon him, in its original language, because it is simply not the words of Jesus, but the words of God Almighty. And the problem with the Bible is that we know that Jesus, peace be upon him, speaks Aramaic, and there is also another problem. You do not consider the words of the Bible to be the words of God, but you consider them inspired by people, so their views can be different or their experiences different. It is normal for there to be a difference in speech between them or to say that you are 99% sure that you have the same text And you leave room for 1% doubt. And this for us is totally rejected. We consider the Qur'an to be the literal word of God that he said to the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, and he transmitted it to his companions, so it is not the views of different people or experiences. It is the literal word of God. And this difference between each of us looking at his book is what makes discussions useless But of course in the end it will not be completely useless if a person learns enough about both religions so don't worry you will eventually reach a conclusion And I just want to advise you on something that deals with the Qur'an as the literal words of God so that you leave no room for doubt And when you wonder about something I promise you you will find multiple answers Yes but all of them are consistent and convincing and suitable for different times and have a certain standard of interpretation that is not a literal or symbolic interpretation it is a standard I hope you understand what I mean

[@abdellahi.heiballa]

Dax insisting the Bible is well preserved as it's seen more remixes than a telephone game of whispers. where 'To be or not to be' now echoes as 'To spin or not to spin.' or 'To juggle or not to juggle.' or 'To eat or not to eat, that is the lunchtime dilemma.' and that's more cairtain as dax claims lol

[@daxvanderwal]

It is more certain. Because we can compare all of these. It's like the memorizers of the Quran - if 9 out of 10 people have a certain ayat memorized in a certain way, then you can decide on the original recitation with a high degree of certainty. But if you have just 1 memorizer saying an ayat, then you have to just trust that person instead of the testimony of several people. The fact that we have so many manuscripts means we get to see how several people copied the manuscripts, instead of just trusting one person. As far as the telephone analogy - the difference is if someone changes it we can see because of how many manuscripts we have. They wouldn't get away with changing it from "to be or not to be". It would only be a problem if we didn't know if someone changed it or not, if there wasn't much manuscript evidence (which is true for the Quran).

[@abdellahi.heiballa]

@@daxvanderwal while I appreciate your comparison between the Quran and other religious texts, such as the Bible, it's important to clarify some aspects of the Quran's preservation. Unlike the Bible, which has numerous versions, texts, and chapters that are subject to debate, the Quran's preservation is often emphasized in its written form. The Quranic text have been meticulously preserved in its original language, Arabic, and any variations primarily pertain to the rules of recitation, such as accents. The idea is that the essence and content of the Quran remain consistent across different readings, ensuring a high level of textual integrity. In contrast, the Bible has undergone various translations and interpretations, leading to a multitude of versions and textual variations. The absence of an original autograph or manuscript for many biblical books raises questions about the accuracy and authenticity of certain passages. While your point about the abundance of manuscripts may suggest a thorough preservation process, it's crucial to differentiate between the Quran's focused emphasis on the written text and the diverse textual history of other religious scriptures. The Quranic narrative centers around textual preservation, making it distinct from the challenges faced by other texts like the Bible with its multiple versions and uncertainties regarding the original manuscripts.

[@abdellahi.heiballa]

othman didnt do it he commissioned a committee that was known of preserving and memorising the entire quran to produce a standard copy of the text of the Quran and it's not like he or they just made a decision there were thousand and thousand of people who took the quran entirly verse to verse from person to person without any text even untill today it's called sterwi.

[@abdellahi.heiballa]

so you are saying othman and the other muslims didn't have the intelect to know how to come up with a degree of certainty they should have kept the wrong verses and miss memorised ones untill you come and fix them, by the way there is a different between accent and verson all the difference today is accent

[@braunaranjo8991]

Why would God allow disunity over the Bible?... A couple ideas: 1. It falls into the free will perspective and 2. God doesn't really care about the Bible because it is a tool inspired by God but made by men and for men... IDK, just my 2 cents

[@daxvanderwal]

Very good points! I think you're on to something with the free will point... similar to the problem of evil, perhaps he has allowed humans to make mistakes (but has prevented the Bible from becoming so much of a mess that we can't tell what is original). So he has allowed some uncertainty and disunity but not when it comes to the overall truth of what the Bible communicates. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

[@mohamedseptember790]

​​​@@daxvanderwalThe only problem with this view is there's truth in every piece of literature out there. Take the bavghatgita for instance from Hinduism, an ancient book filled with some truthful aspects but it doesn't mean we should all be hindu. So if we faced with this issue how will God ensure which of the relgions are nonsense and which aren't? I don't think God would send and unclear message? Again, everything can be true based on your perspective and becomes subjective i.e hindu believe his right, Muslim believes his right, Christian believes his right and sometimes this subjectivity is based on a nonsensical story and we as humans can still find a way to make it seem true. Take the crucifixtion for instance, beautiful concept and story but doesn't prove anything... And this is my point we need to identify the difference between an explanation and proof otherwise everything can be true. Just becuase I can explain original sin doesn't mean it's true. We need to be careful what we mean by proof and explanation e.g Muslims don't just believe a man existed in makkah and did hajj around a Kabba. We can prove it since Muslims still do this to this very day amongst many other things. The quran is the only scripture that challenges the reader to falsify so there's another way you can differentiate between proof and explanation. Hope this helps

[@yosefkashkoul3472]

okay good point let's me give u my pass word but ill write each number in different comment so you collect the the numbers and tell me what is the password ill write it from the first one to the last one collect the numbers and comment back as a full password even tho u can reach out to the time of each number

[@yosefkashkoul3472]

4

[@jacobserroels6567]

Killer video bro 👊

[@daxvanderwal]

thanks for watching homie

[@smallchrist]

I pray that The Lord Jesus Christ gives you peace and that God continues to give you wisdom and knowledge. I pray that God will keep you and make his face shine upon you and be gracious to you. May the Lord guide you in all your ways and that you will have the desires of your heart according to God's will. Thanks for the video btw very informative.

[@daxvanderwal]

I appreciate the prayers! Thank you for the support.

[@melissakeith1084]

Promo_SM ❤️

[@yosefkashkoul3472]

7

[@yosefkashkoul3472]

3

[@TheSVgregor]

Very good very among your many good videos.

[@daxvanderwal]

Thanks for watching!

[@yosefkashkoul3472]

9

[@yosefkashkoul3472]

8

[@yosefkashkoul3472]

1

[@amd8365]

Neither, they are both false and dangerous.

[@daxvanderwal]

What makes you say that! I'd love to hear more about your thoughts. Also, do you think there is a God?

[@abdellahi.heiballa]

@@daxvanderwal leave this lazy low thinker ethiest he is just here for the while and will enjoy hell for eternity or i hope god guid him and save him.

[@smooth2477]

Typical Christian 😂

[@daxvanderwal]

do you have an actual argument?

[@yosefkashkoul3472]

0

[@yosefkashkoul3472]

6

[@yosefkashkoul3472]

7

[@yosefkashkoul3472]

0