• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Science says Bible and Quran are equivalent

I've read both the Bible and the Quran (several translations). When comparing them I used a variety of metrics and I couldn't find any relative difference. They might as well have been the same book.

As it turns out, it wasn't just my opinion. Here's a textual analysis where simple word counts and expressions have simply been tallied.


http://odintext.com/blog/textanalysisbible2of3/

Whatever argument you have for relative moral merits of Islam vs Christianity you've got to find that difference some place else than their religious texts.

The more you know


Well even the author of that study recognises openly that it is rather a superficial research :) And superficial it is indeed. Primarily given the existing evidence, at least the last 70 years are totally relevant: in spite of a long exposure of Islam to Modernity 'the end of the tunnel' is not in sight, we still witness extreme violence and the liberal forces are still extremely weak all over the Islamic world where Islam is majoritarian. Finally even if the quran and the bible were equally violent at the theoretical level it would still be valid that islam is more violent at the practical level.

But the study is misleading at the core because it does not take in account the fact that the Bible is actually the equivalent of the Quran+Hadith+sunna of Muhammad, muslims take the Quran as being the 'uncreated' word of god (a huge stumbling block, unlike the situation in Christianity and even Judaism, see below*), the laws in the Leviticus and Deuteronomy are not considered binding for Christians, the status of unaided Human Reason is different in islam and the other Abrahamic religions (not an accident that in islam we have 'slaves' of allah whilst in the other religions we have 'servants' of god, Job for example can even argue with god), the morality in Islam is what allah wants (even if completely immoral in our eyes) whilst in the other religions the inner nature of god is morality and can be known independently of revelation (that's why Job can argue with god in face of sheer injustice), it's rather straightforward to contextualize violence in the past in the case of Christianity and very difficult to do so in Islam (if the 'perfection' of the Quran and Muhammad is retained) and so on. Tina Magaard is much closer to the truth i'm afraid:

http://10news.dk/after-three-years-...concludes-islam-is-the-most-violent-religion/
http://10news.dk/danish-professor-jihadis-are-just-following-the-example-of-mohammed/
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/11/research-islam-really-is-the-worlds-most-violent-religion


* as Bernard Lewis puts it well in one of his books:

Arthur Jeffery’s book was entitled Materials for the History of the Text of the Qur’an: The Old Codices, 1937. To his horror, his study was immediately denounced and publicly burnt by order of the leading Muslim religious authorities at Al-Azhar Mosque and University. Professor Jeffery...had excellent relations with the people at Al-Azhar, and was the more startled and horrified by their reaction to his book. He pointed out that what he was doing was no different from what the most pious Christians and Jews do to the texts of the Old and New Testaments. To which they replied, “But that is different. The Koran is not like the Bible. The Koran is the word of God.” By this they were not merely casting doubt on the authenticity or accuracy of the Jewish and Christian scriptures. They were pointing to the profound difference between Muslim perceptions and Judeo-Christian perceptions of the very nature of scripture. For Christians and Jews, the Bible consists of a number of books, written at different times and in different places, divinely inspired, but mostly committed to writing by human beings. For Muslims, the Koran is one book, divine, eternal and uncreated. It is not simply divinely inspired; it is literally divine and to question it in any way is blasphemy.


The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise: Muslims, Christians, and Jews under Islamic Rule in Medieval Spain
 
Last edited:
Well even the author of that study recognises openly that it is rather a superficial research :) And superficial it is indeed. Primarily given the existing evidence, at least the last 70 years are totally relevant: in spite of a long exposure of Islam to Modernity 'the end of the tunnel' is not in sight, we still witness extreme violence and the liberal forces are still extremely weak all over the Islamic world where Islam is majoritarian. Finally even if the quran and the bible were equally violent at the theoretical level it would still be valid that islam is more violent at the practical level.

Meh... religion adapts to economic realities and politics. Islam being more violent just means that the governments in Muslims majority countries are less stable. Back when the Islamic world was the more economically prosperous and political stable, it was the Christian world that was backward and violent. Historically liberalism is a luxury we get when there's political stability and the rule of law functions. The lack of liberal forces just means people have more immediate concerns other than idealistic battles to be fought. Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and so on.

How religions turn out, I think is mostly accidents of history.

What wisdom can be found in current world religions are actually universal. They all make similar claims. Ie, it's better to forgive than to take revenge. Such "wisdom" can also be found in secular science and modern psychology text books. They all teach the importance of taking time out from your day for meditation/prayer/introspection. The importance of slowing down and not being in such a hurry in life. We don't need religion for any of this. And they're all interchangeable in this regard.

Modern psychological research also teaches us that humans need meaningful goals in life. If we don't we become unhappy. We lose our passions and momentum in life. Religion has solved this by making shit up. I'm sorry, but I think truth is a virtue. Something Christians and Muslims clearly don't share. Or they'd have shut up about God and Heaven a long time ago. Also here I think all world religions are comparable. They all make bullshit supernatural claims, that may or may not be metaphors. I would have appreciated if the Bible clearly labelled metaphor where the passages are such. The fact that so many Christians believe in magic, is obviously a failure.

Or success, if you think Christianity was intended as a con job right from the start.

But the study is misleading at the core because it does not take in account the fact that the Bible is actually the equivalent of the Quran+Hadith+sunna of Muhammad, muslims take the Quran as being the 'uncreated' word of god (a huge stumbling block, unlike the situation in Christianity and even Judaism, see below*), the laws in the Leviticus and Deuteronomy are not considered binding for Christians, the status of unaided Human Reason is different in islam and the other Abrahamic religions (not an accident that in islam we have 'slaves' of allah whilst in the other religions we have 'servants' of god, Job for example can even argue with god), the morality in Islam is what allah wants (even if completely immoral in our eyes) whilst in the other religions the inner nature of god is morality and can be known independently of revelation (that's why Job can argue with god in face of sheer injustice), it's rather straightforward to contextualize violence in the past in the case of Christianity and very difficult to do so in Islam (if the 'perfection' of the Quran and Muhammad is retained) and so on.

Bah. The Bible also teaches Christians to not get involved in politics. Which of course makes it immoral. But Christians still have gotten involved in politics anyway. So clearly that message hasn't worked. Which is good.


Tina Magaard is a minor researcher. She's got barely any pull in the academic community. Jihadwatch is a fake news site. So... well done quoting them. That's just proves that you're not that concerned about what is true.

* as Bernard Lewis puts it well in one of his books:

Arthur Jeffery’s book was entitled Materials for the History of the Text of the Qur’an: The Old Codices, 1937. To his horror, his study was immediately denounced and publicly burnt by order of the leading Muslim religious authorities at Al-Azhar Mosque and University. Professor Jeffery...had excellent relations with the people at Al-Azhar, and was the more startled and horrified by their reaction to his book. He pointed out that what he was doing was no different from what the most pious Christians and Jews do to the texts of the Old and New Testaments.


The Nazis also burned books. Does that prove that all Christians are intolerant of dissenting opinions and evil? Or has this to do with the prevailing politics of the country. But... since this happened in Turkey, a more liberal Islamic country, makes me think that this was either not true, or there's more to the story.

To which they replied, “But that is different. The Koran is not like the Bible. The Koran is the word of God.” By this they were not merely casting doubt on the authenticity or accuracy of the Jewish and Christian scriptures. They were pointing to the profound difference between Muslim perceptions and Judeo-Christian perceptions of the very nature of scripture. For Christians and Jews, the Bible consists of a number of books, written at different times and in different places, divinely inspired, but mostly committed to writing by human beings. For Muslims, the Koran is one book, divine, eternal and uncreated. It is not simply divinely inspired; it is literally divine and to question it in any way is blasphemy.

Who gives a shit? Newsflash, humans wrote both the Quran and Bible. God was not involved. Obviously.
 
Meh... religion adapts to economic realities and politics. Islam being more violent just means that the governments in Muslims majority countries are less stable. Back when the Islamic world was the more economically prosperous and political stable, it was the Christian world that was backward and violent. Historically liberalism is a luxury we get when there's political stability and the rule of law functions. The lack of liberal forces just means people have more immediate concerns other than idealistic battles to be fought. Maslow's hierarchy of needs, and so on.

How religions turn out, I think is mostly accidents of history.

What wisdom can be found in current world religions are actually universal. They all make similar claims. Ie, it's better to forgive than to take revenge. Such "wisdom" can also be found in secular science and modern psychology text books. They all teach the importance of taking time out from your day for meditation/prayer/introspection. The importance of slowing down and not being in such a hurry in life. We don't need religion for any of this. And they're all interchangeable in this regard.

Modern psychological research also teaches us that humans need meaningful goals in life. If we don't we become unhappy. We lose our passions and momentum in life. Religion has solved this by making shit up. I'm sorry, but I think truth is a virtue. Something Christians and Muslims clearly don't share. Or they'd have shut up about God and Heaven a long time ago. Also here I think all world religions are comparable. They all make bullshit supernatural claims, that may or may not be metaphors. I would have appreciated if the Bible clearly labelled metaphor where the passages are such. The fact that so many Christians believe in magic, is obviously a failure.

Or success, if you think Christianity was intended as a con job right from the start.

But the study is misleading at the core because it does not take in account the fact that the Bible is actually the equivalent of the Quran+Hadith+sunna of Muhammad, muslims take the Quran as being the 'uncreated' word of god (a huge stumbling block, unlike the situation in Christianity and even Judaism, see below*), the laws in the Leviticus and Deuteronomy are not considered binding for Christians, the status of unaided Human Reason is different in islam and the other Abrahamic religions (not an accident that in islam we have 'slaves' of allah whilst in the other religions we have 'servants' of god, Job for example can even argue with god), the morality in Islam is what allah wants (even if completely immoral in our eyes) whilst in the other religions the inner nature of god is morality and can be known independently of revelation (that's why Job can argue with god in face of sheer injustice), it's rather straightforward to contextualize violence in the past in the case of Christianity and very difficult to do so in Islam (if the 'perfection' of the Quran and Muhammad is retained) and so on.

Bah. The Bible also teaches Christians to not get involved in politics. Which of course makes it immoral. But Christians still have gotten involved in politics anyway. So clearly that message hasn't worked. Which is good.


Tina Magaard is a minor researcher. She's got barely any pull in the academic community. Jihadwatch is a fake news site. So... well done quoting them. That's just proves that you're not that concerned about what is true.

* as Bernard Lewis puts it well in one of his books:

Arthur Jeffery’s book was entitled Materials for the History of the Text of the Qur’an: The Old Codices, 1937. To his horror, his study was immediately denounced and publicly burnt by order of the leading Muslim religious authorities at Al-Azhar Mosque and University. Professor Jeffery...had excellent relations with the people at Al-Azhar, and was the more startled and horrified by their reaction to his book. He pointed out that what he was doing was no different from what the most pious Christians and Jews do to the texts of the Old and New Testaments.


The Nazis also burned books. Does that prove that all Christians are intolerant of dissenting opinions and evil? Or has this to do with the prevailing politics of the country. But... since this happened in Turkey, a more liberal Islamic country, makes me think that this was either not true, or there's more to the story.

To which they replied, “But that is different. The Koran is not like the Bible. The Koran is the word of God.” By this they were not merely casting doubt on the authenticity or accuracy of the Jewish and Christian scriptures. They were pointing to the profound difference between Muslim perceptions and Judeo-Christian perceptions of the very nature of scripture. For Christians and Jews, the Bible consists of a number of books, written at different times and in different places, divinely inspired, but mostly committed to writing by human beings. For Muslims, the Koran is one book, divine, eternal and uncreated. It is not simply divinely inspired; it is literally divine and to question it in any way is blasphemy.

Who gives a shit? Newsflash, humans wrote both the Quran and Bible. God was not involved. Obviously.

Also, there are many Christians who do think god wrote the bible through a human which is why they call the Bible the inerrant "Word of God."
 
Textual analysis is from the humanities department, not the science department.

Honestly, this kind of comparison is pointless.

The difference that is really important is that Christians have had a few extra centuries to cook up lame excuses for ignoring huge chunks of their own holy book. That's the only appreciable difference that I can see.

Well, we can also say that 610 years ago, Christianity was much more horrible than modern Muslims, but that is probably because the world itself is less horrible, not because Christianity is more horrible.
 
Textual analysis is from the humanities department, not the science department.

Honestly, this kind of comparison is pointless.

The difference that is really important is that Christians have had a few extra centuries to cook up lame excuses for ignoring huge chunks of their own holy book. That's the only appreciable difference that I can see.

Well, we can also say that 610 years ago, Christianity was much more horrible than modern Muslims, but that is probably because the world itself is less horrible, not because Christianity is more horrible.

In the English language world the humanities are often called "soft sciences". Especially Ámericans like to upgrade their academics. That's why lecturers are called "professors"... even though they aren't.
 
Textual analysis is from the humanities department, not the science department.

Honestly, this kind of comparison is pointless.

The difference that is really important is that Christians have had a few extra centuries to cook up lame excuses for ignoring huge chunks of their own holy book. That's the only appreciable difference that I can see.

Well, we can also say that 610 years ago, Christianity was much more horrible than modern Muslims, but that is probably because the world itself is less horrible, not because Christianity is more horrible.

In the English language world the humanities are often called "soft sciences". Especially Ámericans like to upgrade their academics. That's why lecturers are called "professors"... even though they aren't.

Yeah, I know. Some of those disciplines will even try to think of themselves as or present themselves as sciences in order to gain credibility.

Humanities are important, but they are not sciences.
 
In the English language world the humanities are often called "soft sciences". Especially Ámericans like to upgrade their academics. That's why lecturers are called "professors"... even though they aren't.

Yeah, I know. Some of those disciplines will even try to think of themselves as or present themselves as sciences in order to gain credibility.

Humanities are important, but they are not sciences.

Word usage is important. It has to do with communication. We're always best off using the word most likely will get the message across. If nearly everybody is using a word the wrong way, they're not wrong. Then the word has changed meaning. Common usages of words are often different from word usage within the scientific community. The word "theory" is a good example
 
I've read both the Bible and the Quran (several translations). When comparing them I used a variety of metrics and I couldn't find any relative difference. They might as well have been the same book.
What were those? How did other texts compare?

As it turns out, it wasn't just my opinion. Here's a textual analysis where simple word counts and expressions have simply been tallied.

http://odintext.com/blog/textanalysisbible2of3/
It scored the Bible and the Koran on these emotions:

Joy, anticipation, anger, disgust, sadness, surprise, fear/anxiety, trust -- diagrammed going clockwise from upward.
 
There are various systems for classifying emotions. What that paper used was apparently Robert Plutchik's scheme, where opposite are on opposite sides and neighboring emotions have no clear relationship. Here is his idea of basic emotions:
[table="class: grid"]
[tr]
[td]Anticipation[/td]
[td]Joy[/td]
[td]Trust[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Anger[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]Fear[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Disgust[/td]
[td]Sadness[/td]
[td]Surprise[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]
He identifies additional emotions as mixtures of neighboring ones:

Joy (Love) Trust (Submission) Fear (Awe) Surprise (Disapproval) Sadness (Remorse) Disgust (Contempt) Anger (Aggressiveness) Anticipation (Optimism)

They also come in pairs of opposites.

For a simpler scheme, here is the valence-arousal model:
[table="class: grid"]
[tr]
[td]Anger[/td]
[td]Active[/td]
[td]Happiness[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Unpleasant[/td]
[td][/td]
[td]Pleasant[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]Sadness[/td]
[td]Inactive[/td]
[td]Relaxation[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]
Valence = - Neuroticism = + Pleasant, - Unpleasant
Arousal = + Extroversion = + Active, - Inactive
Comparing to two of the dimensions in the Five Factor Model of personality.
 
From what I read of the environment Mohammed would have lived in he was exposed to different cultures. Syncretism may be the word.
The Koran refers to Jews as the People Of The Book who lost their way. Jesus is also referenced. Mohammed considered himself in the line of Abrahamic prophets, coming after Jesus. Any commonality should not be a mystery.

Compared to the Bible the Koran is a coherent rendering . The OT is a disjointed incomplete set of works written at different times to different audiences. According to the Oxford Commentary Job was likely part of a lost set of teaching materials..

As to rules and punishments ancient Jews and Muslims were equally harsh.

A major difference is that the ancient Jews were not scripturally enjoined to make converts and grow. Muslims have always sought to expand based on scripture. Not that Christians haven't of course.

The 613 OT commandments' interesting reading.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_commandments
 
Last edited:
From what I read of the environment Mohammed would have lived in he was exposed to different cultures. Syncretism may be the word.
The Koran refers to Jews as the People Of The Book who lost their way. Jesus is also referenced. Mohammed considered himself in the line of Abrahamic prophets, coming after Jesus. Any commonality should not be a mystery.

Karen Armstrong did a good breakdown of Mohammed's view of Christianity and Judaism. He didn't get it. He thought Christianity and Judaism was something different than what it really was. Which in turn is radically different than the Judaism or Christianity of today. All he knew of Christianity was based on what he gleaned from Christian traders. So people on the fringes of society with little power. Back then the differences between a trader and a pirate were not great. His Judaism was based on the behavior of powerful Jewish tribal leaders. Which, due to real politik, didn't always do what their scriptures suggested they would.

Compared to the Bible the Koran is a coherent rendering . The OT is a disjointed incomplete set of works written at different times to different audiences. According to the Oxford Commentary Job was likely part of a lost set of teaching materials..

According to Bart Ehrman Quranic coherency has to do with the Ottoman empire. Since their empire spanned the entire Islamic world (-Indonesia) they standardised the Quran. Before this it was just as random as the Bible.

As to rules and punishments ancient Jews and Muslims were equally harsh.

A major difference is that the ancient Jews were not scripturally enjoined to make converts and grow. Muslims have always sought to expand based on scripture. Not that Christians haven't of course.

The 613 OT commandments' interesting reading.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_commandments
 
Do you mean Caliph `Uthman? What we usually call the Ottoman Empire is too late in name. Seems like more than one `Uthman here.
 
Do you mean Caliph `Uthman? What we usually call the Ottoman Empire is too late in name. Seems like more than one `Uthman here.

I really need to read "The history of God" again. I recall it was attempted many times starting with the Abbasids and ending with the Ottomans. Standardising the Quran was only really successful until after the invention and introduction of the printing press. So the same story as for the Bible. I recall they found a shit tonne of old Bibles in an old Syrian Mosque a while back, which gave them a unique peak into the evolution of the Quran. There's a rule in Islam that you're not allowed to destroy a Quran. Not even after it's starting to fall apart. So this mosque took it upon itself to store Qurans to worn to use. And they did this for a very long time. Which is better than the Papal library for Bibles, since that's curated. So it's the greatest hits. The Syrian mosque was more just a cross section.
 
From what I read of the environment Mohammed would have lived in he was exposed to different cultures. Syncretism may be the word.
The Koran refers to Jews as the People Of The Book who lost their way. Jesus is also referenced. Mohammed considered himself in the line of Abrahamic prophets, coming after Jesus. Any commonality should not be a mystery.

Compared to the Bible the Koran is a coherent rendering . The OT is a disjointed incomplete set of works written at different times to different audiences. According to the Oxford Commentary Job was likely part of a lost set of teaching materials..

As to rules and punishments ancient Jews and Muslims were equally harsh.

A major difference is that the ancient Jews were not scripturally enjoined to make converts and grow. Muslims have always sought to expand based on scripture. Not that Christians haven't of course.

The 613 OT commandments' interesting reading.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_commandments

Sure, compared to the Bible, the Quran is more coherent. Then again, it would have to be because it is shorter. Now if you compare the Bible to the Hadith, then the Hadith is the one that is an incoherent, self contradicting mess.
 
Whether Mohammed understood Christianity and Judaism is irrelevant, he drew on both traditions.

Yke Torah and the Koran are not the same, they represent different cultures and worldviews.

The monotheism of Moses was likely borrowed from another culture. The Koran and Islam arose as a tool to unify disparate Arabs, sometimes forcibly.

The modern Jewish myth is that they trace back to antiquity in an unbroken monolithic culture. The Torah was written not as a single work, it is unconnected works written over a long period of time in different cultures.

The OP sounds like an attempt at moral equivalence between Islamic extremists and modern Israel.
 
Whether Mohammed understood Christianity and Judaism is irrelevant, he drew on both traditions.

Nah. He just projected stuff. He had no way of separating Roman culture from Christianity. Arguably they were the same thing at that point. He was really far out into the bushes. Karen Armstrong breaks it down in History of God. I don't have a copy here now.

Yke Torah and the Koran are not the same, they represent different cultures and worldviews.

I don't think there's another sacred text that has as wide a span of culture, politics and fundamental theologies as the Torah. The Torah is both pagan as well as henotheistic... all in one book. The Quran is monotheistic. So, something completely different all together. Also at the time of Mohammed the dominant form of Judaism was pharisaic Judaism. That's a form of Judaism pretty far removed from the Judaism of the Torah. So I don't think Mohammed had any possibility getting an accurate picture of Jewish theology as in the Torah. The rabbis of that age weren't teaching it any longer.

The monotheism of Moses was likely borrowed from another culture. The Koran and Islam arose as a tool to unify disparate Arabs, sometimes forcibly.

The modern Jewish myth is that they trace back to antiquity in an unbroken monolithic culture. The Torah was written not as a single work, it is unconnected works written over a long period of time in different cultures.

The OP sounds like an attempt at moral equivalence between Islamic extremists and modern Israel.

The study only talks about the Torah together with the New Testament. They're not talking about Jewish religion at all. So I don't know how you managed to read modern Israeli politics into it?

The study is also not talking about Muslims or Christians. It only compares their religious texts. I'm well aware that Islam, in practice, is different from Christianity, in practice. I think the conclusion from the study is that Christianity in practice, is the way it is because of other stuff than the Bible. And Islam is the way it is because of other stuff than the Quran.
 
Other people have already pointed out (correctly imo) that just counting words is a very flawed approach because it misses the meanings that are actually in the text; but another possible issue-- are all the quranic references to violence being counted if words like translated "strive" etc are being used in an implicit military sense?
 
Also, would the OP just dismiss the fact that for Christianity, there is an Old Testament and a New Testament? That's not a significant difference in religious texts that makes it much easier for Christians to take their religion in a non-theocratic direction? Or view many commands as "not for them" but for ancient Jews?

Seems to me that Muslims are kind of stuck with the teachings in the quran and hadith, unless they take a very liberal position on the authority of "scripture", or they just inconsistently ignore things. And while a chunk of believers may always be able to inconsistently ignore things that don't fit with the modern world, you run the risk that there will also be another chunk of believers trying to actually implement it in the world today.
 
Back
Top Bottom