Aineo wrote:There are over 26000 Biblical manuscripts, but none of them are the originals. One blood stained copy of the Qur'an is not physical evidence of its age or even who it belonged to. This is comparable to Catholics churches claiming to have a piece of the cross Jesus was crucified on. It is a traditional belief. Has the manuscript been scientifically dated?
Please do remember that we are talking about the first manuscript ever written and found. We are not talking about the original of AL-Qur'an or Bible.
Before we continue this discussion please answer my questions:
You used to say:
" I don't find either the Wikipedia or the U.N. as
unbiased or even
scholarly sources of information."
My question:
1. How do you judge or determine BIASED or UNBIASED the information between debate.org.uk / sullivan-county.com and UNO / UNESCO?
2. Have you ever found the BIASED information from UNESCO since it was formed? Tell me which information and when.
Tell me with mature explanation pls.
From the U.N. site:
People: This manuscript is the earliest extant written version of the Koran reviewed to Prophet Muhammed. It is specially associated with the third Caliph Othman, who ordered its compilation, who was assassinated while reading it.
Compiled from what? Neither one of your sites disproves what Apple pie has posted.