The Bible has errors?

Reepicheep,

First, I know you are just pulling legs!

From you: "Clearly, the parts in red contradict each other (since Yusuf Ali includes the case of two daughters, while Pickthal excludes the case of two daughters).  This indicates that there must be two contradictory Arabic manuscripts for this portion of the koran."

Correct?

No, not correct.

You see, there is only one Arabic manuscript of the entire Qur'aan. Qur'aan has been translated in English by Englishmen, an American, an Arab and translators from the Indo-Pak Sub-Continent.

Pickthall was an Englishman while Yusuf Ali was an Indian. Muhammad Ali was the first Muslim from India who did the First translation of Qur'aan in English in 1904 and Shakir, Hilali and others have basically copied him and made some improvements. Yusuf Ali did in 1934.

Now, let me quote you the translation of the same 4:11 from Muhammad Asad, formerly known as Leopold Weiss, a Polish Jew, was extremely knowledgeable and fluent in English, Arabic, Pushto and Urdu. He even went and lived with the tribes of Mecca, just to learn the dialect of Arabic which the Prophet and his people spoke and Qur'aan was delivered in. He mastered it.

Asad translates as: "Concerning (the inheritance of) your children, Allah enjoins (this) upon you; "The male shall have the equal of two females' share; but if there are more than two females, they shall have two-thirds of what (their parents) leave behind; and if there is only one, she shall have one-half thereof."

Reepi, this does not mean there were three manuscripts in Arabic.  

The meanings of Arabic Qur'aan are quite clear to those who read, write and understand Arabic. Were I to translate the same it would have been similar to that of Asad. The fluency in English and Arabic has to be at par to get real close to the meanings.

BMZ

BMZSP and Abuzaid: so, then, it appears that the inheritance laws for daughters, as outlined in the Koran, are as follows:

1 daughter: receives half the estate

2 daughters: doesn't say

3 or more daughters: receives two thirds of the estate

This leads to the interesting question: what share of the estate, if any, do two daughters receive?

Okay, people, the Bible does not make the claim of being perfect.  Its a COLLECTION of Books versus ONE Book.

The Bible is fallible.  It can be wrong.  There are 66 books in the "accepted" Western Bible.  There are many more books that were rejected by the Council of Nicea.  The Bible itself makes no claims to be perfect.  In fact, the admonishment at the end of Revelations to not add anything to this book, only refers to the Book of Revelations and not to the entire Bible.  But of course, the Patriarchs at Nicea put it at the end of the "New Testament" for a reason.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com has some great resources on the histories of the various books in the compliation that we call the Bible.

Once again, this site has a forum trying to compare apples and oranges.  I challenge that the only way to disprove the assertions of the many authors of the New Testament is to have a core belief and testimony that Muhammed is a Prophet.  Or to believe that Muhammed and the Apostles were lying (in the case of non-Christian, Non-Muslim religions). 

No Muslim can prove to me that Jesus was not the Son of God.  Nor can I prove to them what I believe to be true.  That is the power of belief. 

Instead of focusing on the differences, why don't we focus on what is the same in all three books. (Talmud, Bible and Quran)  We all worship the same God, he is the Supreme Creator.  Why argue about the details?

Angela wrote: Okay, people, the Bible does not make the claim of being perfect.  Its a COLLECTION of Books versus ONE Book. The Bible is fallible.  It can be wrong.  There are 66 books in the "accepted" Western Bible.  There are many more books that were rejected by the Council of Nicea.  The Bible itself makes no claims to be perfect.  In fact, the admonishment at the end of Revelations to not add anything to this book, only refers to the Book of Revelations and not to the entire Bible.  But of course, the Patriarchs at Nicea put it at the end of the "New Testament" for a reason. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com has some great resources on the histories of the various books in the compliation that we call the Bible. Once again, this site has a forum trying to compare apples and oranges.  I challenge that the only way to disprove the assertions of the many authors of the New Testament is to have a core belief and testimony that Muhammed is a Prophet.  Or to believe that Muhammed and the Apostles were lying (in the case of non-Christian, Non-Muslim religions).  No Muslim can prove to me that Jesus was not the Son of God.  Nor can I prove to them what I believe to be true.  That is the power of belief.  Instead of focusing on the differences, why don't we focus on what is the same in all three books. (Talmud, Bible and Quran)  We all worship the same God, he is the Supreme Creator.  Why argue about the details?

Actually I have been taught my whole life as a Christian that the Bible is perfect, without error. When I asked why we are not taught about the Council of Nicea, I was told that was political and had nothing to do with the Bible or the faith we have that Jesus Christ is our Savior.