/lit/ - Literature

>>16918783
Why the quran is retarded i explained in the previus post.
Pages of your shit were eaten by an actual fucking sheep. Verse were forgoten becouse you were weither too stupid to remember them or died in a battle.
Your ''book'' is litelary compiled from writtings found on bones and skin on animals and was compiled year after Muhamad had died.

Even your most respected apologists droped the ball on this with Yasir Qadhi admiting the Quran was not preserved.

Meanwhile you ppl cry about ''Bible being corupted'', while in reality we have manuscripts who are dated to 30 years after the original. We have so many manuscrips we can be 100 % certain that all the things you find in the bible was actually written by the Apostles.

>>16105725
nigga st Cyril literally went door to door searching for writings by Julian to burn. But yes it is totally accidental that all the late antiquity Neoplatonists and historians quoted mountains of books that were still existent at that time but now all we have are those quotes.

Anyway you're a Christian, dunno why you're getting so upset. They were only following Christian dogmas to destroy non-Christian as set out by the Bible and all the Church Fathers. You should praise their work.
>We, if wise, shall take from heathen books whatever befits us and is allied to the truth, and shall pass over the rest,’ St Basil, Address, IV
Also read "Address to Young Men on Reading Greek Literature." by St Basil.
>"The tradition of the forefathers has been destroyed, the deep rooted custom has been torn out, the tyranny of joy [and] the accursed festivals . . . have been obliterated just like smoke." - Chrysostom
>"That all superstition of pagans and heathens should be annihilated is what God wants, God commands, God proclaims!" - St Augustine
We literally still have papyrus' which we know previously was Pliny, Plautus, Cicero, Seneca, Virgil, Ovid, Lucan, Livy and many more but was scrubbed over and used for biblical texts or Augustine's commentary on the Psalms.
>"Basil advocated the removal of great tracts of the classical canon as an act of ‘great care’ to ensure the soul was safely guarded. Sometimes this editing process might be even more intrusive and scribes were asked to report suspicious works to the authorities so they could be censored."

Either Christianity tried to preserve classical texts and did probably the worst possible job imaginable. Or it was a systematic doctrine of destruction that just barely failed. Your choice. Read the Church Fathers though and you'll know the truth.

>>15903635
Plato and Aristotle survived because they were so popular before Christianity to the point that even the Christians couldn't have lost those. It was close though.

Let's stop pretending the church was some great preserver of knowledge. Those monks spent their lives copying bible books and Augustine etc, and then sometimes lil old Johnny copied something non-Christian.

>>14972860
The good old Christian subversion.
>destroy over 90% of written/oral literature
>take complete control over the modes of literature production
>once or twice there emerges a christian monk that actually thinks that destroying his European heritage is a bad idea so he manages to preserve a few percentages of it
>WE WUZ PRESERVERS AND SHIEEET WITHOUT US ALL WOULD BE GONE!
The preservation of pre-Christian European literature was accidental.

>>11350442
>is it not inherent that through centuries of translations and manipulations, the book could now contain errors innumerable, thus making the direct word flawed?
No it isn't. It's one of the dumbest arguments atheists make because the implication is each translation was taken from another translation in a game of telephone that distorts meaning like running a sentence through google translate 5 or 6 times.

The NT was written in Greek. The OT was written in Hebrew. We still have very old copies of all books. And the books of the Bible were some of the most widely copied works in that era so we have plenty of copies to cross reference.

There is really no concern with the integrity of the documents, we know that they're accurate to what was originally written to a high degree of confidence

>>10934049

Before you agree with what you already thought; remember that the first gospel was written within 40 years of Christs death. The first christian writings are within 20.

The word of mouth and heavy editing excuse only goes so far.

I hope you realise how unreasonably sceptical that statement is. You really have no reason to doubt the commonly accepted authorship of the Bible, unless you're applying the same doubt to every other work of antiquity. The New Testament is literally the most reliable ancient text that we have. We have over 20,000 manuscripts of the New Testament prior to the invention of the printing press. Other ancient texts pale in comparison.
Also "anonymous person" doesn't make any sense because there were dozens of authors over hundreds of years. It's not a single book.