What may be the most revolutionary finding as more ancient Islamic manuscripts are preserved by digitization and shared with scholars around the world is the known fact (known to specialized scholars, that is) that there isn't a certain ancient text for the Quran. Just like the case with the Bible, manuscript copyists made their best efforts to copy accurately the manuscripts before them as they made new manuscripts, but mistakes happened once in a while. And, just as in the case of the Bible, tracing the copied texts back to the earliest available manuscripts, and reconstruction of what the earliest probable form of the text was, doesn't provide certainty about the original "words of God" found in the texts. (That's equally true of the Hebrew scriptures also important to Jews and of the Greek scriptures known as the New Testament.) The gradual spread of knowledge of textual criticism (that's the name of this study as a field of scholarship) in the Christian world is helping to reduce "fundamentalist" tendencies among Christians. In the Islamic world, there is a much smaller percentage of Muslims who are aware that their holy book too has many varied copies, and there is no certainty about the original text of the Quran. As this awareness increases, that could be helpful in reducing conflict over supposed divine commands that were man-made in the first place.
I think it's well known among Muslims that there are multiple readings of the Quran. Another point of note is that unlike the Christian or Hebrew writings, the main method of preservation of the Quran has been through mass oral memorization, and so Muslims tend not to place much emphasis on manuscripts. All the printed editions of the Quran (known as Mushafs) are, in fact, authenticated by well-known memorizers of the Quran (Hafizs). It's also notable that while Bible literally means book, Quran literally means Recital, indicative of the fact that is in rhyming prose and meant to be recited orally from memory rather than read like a book.
this is not accurate. OP is referring to multiple _writings_ of the Quran, which is in fact something you'd be flogged for suggesting in most Muslim countries. The accepted dogma is that the words of the Quran have been protected from changes despite its oral nature, thus making the message more pure than that of the texts before it. also important to note is that translated versions of the Quran are not approved for worship - everyone must use the native Arabic. this does help ensure continuity in words if not meaning.
I am aware of the variations in ancient manuscripts of parts of the Quran. These variations are due to different scripts, different recitations, and sometimes scribe error. There is no reason why I would be flogged if some ancient manuscripts do not conform to the Quran. The accepted dogma is that the Quran has been preserved because of its oral nature, not despite it. No manuscript is as authentic as the oral word, and of course, no translation, whether oral or written, is the Quran itself.
I'd argue that it doesn't make any of the the "holy texts" any less ludicrous, but for people like me, who like to have this kind of resources for researching into our past, having this volume of texts digitized would be a godsend (pun intended :-)).
The appeal of holy texts to me is more artistic rather than spiritual or even historic. Also, I love collecting all texts (a few rather old leather-bound bibles, late 1800 to early 1900, are some of my most prized possessions).
There's something precious lost when the only copy that remains of a volume is digital. Sure, you have the content, but the weight, the smell, the texture of the paper etc... all that would have been gone forever.
Yes just thinking purely about the actual written information in an ancient book it's hard to imagine it could survive copying without a single mistake no matter how much attention to detail there is.
Add to the translation from language to language over many centuries, phrases may not translate very well even within the same language due to changes in culture over a long time. How many phrases and words do we in the English world use that were common even just 100 years ago now imagine 2,000 years ago.
It doesn't matter whether people are aware of uncertainties in their holy scriptures or not. It matters whether they have demographic issues (youth bulge) or (coming) economic problems. The spread of fundamentalist memes requires a susceptible population (or subgroup of it) that is ready to go into war mode (either civil or imperialist war).
Textual criticism is about two thousand years old. It isn't new and it doesn't have any new surprises that haven't been debunked. It certainly isn't "helping to reduce fundamentalist tendencies among Christians".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textual_criticism
http://www.amazon.com/Textual-Criticism-Quran-Manuscripts-Ke...
http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Text/criticaltext.html