Sign in to follow this  
Pete

I Know This Is Controversial To Some

Recommended Posts

Dan56   

Just as I suspected, Mohammad plagiarized someones work. Thank goodness Jesus didn't write anything :)

Actually, I'm not sure I trust carbon dating, especially when your talking about a very narrow margin of error.

Share this post


Link to post
Pete   

Plagiarized or not, it shows the variety of thought around then. The Koran also has a view of Jesus like so many earlier books that did not make it to the bible that starkly differs from the view people have of Jesus to day.

Share this post


Link to post
Seeker   

From the article

...scientists dating the tome from between 568 and 645AD.

Islamic scholars believe Muhammad lived between 570 and 632AD and that he founded Islam after 610AD.

I see no contradiction between these two statements. In fact, since the dating was done on the paper rather than the ink, it seems that the evidence shows the book to have been written no earlier than is claimed.

Share this post


Link to post

From the article

I see no contradiction between these two statements. In fact, since the dating was done on the paper rather than the ink, it seems that the evidence shows the book to have been written no earlier than is claimed.

That is what I thought but figured my math was fuzzy.

Share this post


Link to post
mererdog   

HEADLINE- Publishers Relying Heavily On The Word "Could" As Error Margin On Radiocarbon Dating Of Qur'an Too Broad Too Prove Anything

Edited by mererdog

Share this post


Link to post
Pete   

From the article

I see no contradiction between these two statements. In fact, since the dating was done on the paper rather than the ink, it seems that the evidence shows the book to have been written no earlier than is claimed.

From the article

I see no contradiction between these two statements. In fact, since the dating was done on the paper rather than the ink, it seems that the evidence shows the book to have been written no earlier than is claimed.

True.

HEADLINE- Publishers Relying Heavily On The Word "Could" As Error Margin On Radiocarbon Dating Of Qur'an Too Broad Too Prove Anything

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

95.4% accurate. However I believe seekers point to be the case.

Share this post


Link to post
mererdog   

95.4% accurate. However I believe seekers point to be the case.

Right. 95.4% accurate with an error margin of plus or minus 38 years. So the traditional version of history is safely within the margin of error, but that isnt a controversial enough analysis to sell papers, so they are focusing on the "could".

Share this post


Link to post
Pete   

Right. 95.4% accurate with an error margin of plus or minus 38 years. So the traditional version of history is safely within the margin of error, but that isnt a controversial enough analysis to sell papers, so they are focusing on the "could".

I think your right. The more I read about this news the more I feel there is no story here. .

Share this post


Link to post
Dan56   

I think your right. The more I read about this news the more I feel there is no story here. .

That's pretty typical of every story on the Huffington Post :)

Share this post


Link to post
Pete   

I think Huff can be good some times but like many news papers they can sensationalise that which really is not news or inaccurately report it. We have a number of papers in the UK that really are not worth the read (imo). I agree it is sometimes a good idea to take some things with a pinch of salt (as they say in the UK). Do they use that expression in the US?

Share this post


Link to post

I think Huff can be good some times but like many news papers they can sensationalise that which really is not news or inaccurately report it. We have a number of papers in the UK that really are not worth the read (imo). I agree it is sometimes a good idea to take some things with a pinch of salt (as they say in the UK). Do they use that expression in the US?

Close enough. It's "a grain of salt."

Share this post


Link to post

In newspaper reporting it all comes down to sources, resources and reporting accuracy.

I happen to enjoy the Huff, (hate the Hoff) but really enjoy most Huffington articles. Only after using below criteria (foot note)do I accept or discount their account but quite often find they (Huff) have gone farther than other reporters in digging up details. Too many of our major publications NY Times, LA & SF Chronicles etc have become so politically motivated it's difficult to separate the chaff from grain.

So, I hope no one knocks the Huffington Post simply because it's controversial. Ya never know, ya might just learn something other publications were too wishy-washy about to print!

Blessings of Peace,

In the "library days" (pre-internet) I know first hand how many volumes of seemingly contradicting resources I poured over while doing my thesis on "Troy to Moses" - a loosely held theory that the Nordic gods may (yes, may) have originated from stories revolving around actual, living people from the 2nd and 3rd cities of Troy (4200BCE-3500BCE) that trekked across Asia Minor westward and ended up in Lower Scandinavia circa 3000BCE +/- 250 years. Heinrich Schliemann and his team found residences with pottery, jewelry, weapons and other artifacts emblazoned with dozens of the latter gods names such as: Æger, Oddin, Thurg, Vill, Vee, Bor, Biga, Frig, Tiw, Himdal, Brigg, Frej, Bold etc so similar to the Nordic Pantheon it is beyond coincidence.

The Internet is no different, or in all reality worse, than our old text books regarding the accuracy of information. Books are written by "experts", "Professors", "archaeologists" who all have opinions, often based on "facts" about our historical past, but are still scholarly opinions regarding what the evidence may or may not show. As then in the library days, I do today: gather info from numerous sources, cross off the conflicting or unsubstantiated, and boil it down to what is common ground in all reports.

Edited by Atwater Vitki

Share this post


Link to post
Pete   

I read the Huff and enjoy it, and I am not knocking it. Yet, I would not 100% support its accuracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Dan56   

I would never trust the accuracy of any news media.

I agree.. For concrete down to earth facts, I get all my news from the ULC forum.. There absolutely no bias or exaggerated stories here. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Pete   

I agree.. For concrete down to earth facts, I get all my news from the ULC forum.. There absolutely no bias or exaggerated stories here. :)

Yes! Just like some believe so called holy books to be 110% true.....

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this