The Sole Source versus Multiple Sources: A Comparative Theological Analysis   Singular Revelatory Authority   In Islamic theology, the Qur’an is upheld as the definitive and singularly authoritative revelation from Allah, superseding all antecedent scriptures. Adherents regard it as the verbatim word of God, transmitted through the Prophet Muhammad by the angel Gabriel, rendering it unparalleled in its divine origin, purity, and completeness. This belief undergirds the doctrine of the Qur’an’s supremacy, positioning it as the infallible source of guidance that abrogates and perfects prior revelations, such as the Torah and the Gospel. These earlier texts, although once considered divinely inspired, are deemed by Islamic tradition to have undergone human corruption, thereby diminishing their reliability in comparison to the Qur’an’s pristine preservation.   Similarly, within the theology of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), the Book of Mormon occupies a position of preeminent authority, comparable to the Qur’an in Islam. Regarded as a divinely inspired text, it is believed to have been translated by Joseph Smith from golden plates revealed by the angel Moroni. The Book of Mormon is extolled as the “most correct of any book on earth,” a direct revelation from God that complements and fulfills biblical scriptures. While the Bible retains a revered status in LDS doctrine, the Book of Mormon is considered uniquely authoritative, untainted by the errors of human transmission, and indispensable for restoring the fullness of the gospel. This establishes its doctrinal primacy within Mormon theology, echoing the singular authority attributed to the Qur’an in Islam.   The Strength of Multiple Witnesses   From a theological perspective informed by biblical scholarship, the assertion of a single source’s superiority—whether the Qur’an or the Book of Mormon—can be rigorously evaluated against the evidential robustness of the Bible’s multiplicity of witnesses. The Bible, encompassing the Old and New Testaments, is substantiated by an extensive and diverse manuscript tradition. This includes over 5,800 Greek New Testament manuscripts, complemented by thousands of Latin, Coptic, Syriac, and other translations, with some, such as the Rylands Papyrus (P52), dating to the early second century CE. For the Hebrew Scriptures, the Dead Sea Scrolls provide additional corroboration, affirming the textual integrity of the Old Testament across centuries. This vast array of documentary evidence, spanning multiple cultures and historical periods, lends significant weight to the Bible’s reliability.   Theologically, this multiplicity of sources aligns with a principle articulated in Deuteronomy 19:15 and reaffirmed in 2 Corinthians 13:1: truth is established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. This legal and epistemic standard suggests that a plurality of attestations enhances the credibility of a claim, surpassing the inherent limitations of a solitary revelation. The Bible’s textual tradition is further reinforced by its internal coherence, despite being composed by over forty authors across approximately 1,500 years. This convergence of diverse voices into a unified narrative of redemption underscores a collaborative divine-human process, as articulated in 2 Peter 1:21, where human authors were “moved by the Holy Spirit.”   In contrast, revelations dependent on a single source, such as the Qur’an or the Book of Mormon, lack equivalent external validation. The Qur’an’s transmission hinges on the singular prophetic experience of Muhammad, while the Book of Mormon relies entirely on Joseph Smith’s encounter with divine revelation. Neither text benefits from a contemporaneous multiplicity of documentary witnesses akin to the Bible’s manuscript tradition. This reliance on a lone individual’s testimony introduces an epistemological vulnerability, analogous to a judicial scenario where a single witness lacks corroboration. While proponents of these texts assert their divine origin, the absence of parallel attestation limits their evidential foundation relative to the Bible’s extensively supported textual history.   Comparative Epistemological Implications   The Bible’s manifold attestation arguably provides a more robust epistemological basis for its authority than the singular revelatory claims of the Qur’an or the Book of Mormon. The strength of its diverse witness lies not only in the sheer volume of manuscripts but also in their chronological proximity to the events they describe and their consistency across linguistic and cultural boundaries. This contrasts with the singular transmission model, which, although potentially compelling within its theological framework, remains fragile in the absence of external substantiation. The biblical model, rooted in a multiplicity of voices and preserved through a broad textual tradition, embodies a resilience that singular-source revelations struggle to replicate.   In conclusion, the theological and evidential merits of multiple sources, as exemplified by the Bible, present a formidable counterpoint to the claims of sole-source supremacy. While the Qur’an and the Book of Mormon hold profound significance within their respective traditions, their reliance on a singular prophetic conduit contrasts with the Bible’s collaborative and corroborated witness. This distinction invites further scholarly reflection on the nature of divine revelation and the criteria by which its authority is assessed.   The above previously published article was rewritten by Grok 3.0 under the direction of Jack Kettler and perfected using Grammarly AI.   “Study to show thyself approved unto God” (2 Timothy 2:15).   Mr. Kettler, an author who has published works in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum, is an active member of the RPCNA in Westminster, CO, and has written 18 books defending the Reformed Faith available on Amazon.