Is the Bible Still the Word of God?

moses wrote: When I am talking about the Bible, I am talking about a book which included Old and new testaments and some which all of them were written by the apostles of Jesus Christ:

This still means nothing. If you would take a look at the link

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Canon/

You will see a list and dates of a trail of confusion. This confusion is based upon the fact that your own doctors have been chasing their tails for two thousand years trying to define a �bible�. 

The next link clearly demonstrates the confusion is �mass� confusion when you take the OT and NT into account with respect to the time before and after Islam.

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Canon/canonages.html

Keep in mind that it was not until the last few centuries that your faith has come closer to agreement to what makes up your holy book. Even now you have some who want nothing but the KJV as the official version of Gods word in English.

The New Testament Autographs 45- 95 A.D. The New Testament was written in Greek. The Pauline Epistles, the Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of Luke, and the book of Acts are all dated from 45-63 A.D. The Gospel of John and the Revelation may have been written as late as 95 A.D.

A dating alone does not necessarily give us the conclusion your source is trying to imply. As an example, Galatians is dated about 50 CE. Wow! We have a letter from Paul that gets us to a time close to Jesus! Or do we. Christians love to brag and boast about MS dating, but usually much is left out and I also believe their theologians who know better mislead their flocks.

Galatians is dated to about 50 CE, the problem is that the earliest MS, P46, dates to 200 CE. That is 15 decades, 150 years, between the time the letter is dated, and an actual copy of the letter that remains. So we have a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a letter that Paul wrote. Keep in mind I am not addressing the theological issues, only the notion if a dated MS and what it means and does not mean. So when you open your bible and read Galatians, you are not actually reading what Paul wrote, you are reading a second century document that represents a transmission of copies that extend back 150 years earlier.

There was no method for transmission, there was no critical methodology for preserving Paul�s word in any accurate way, there is no way to reconstruct what the copy our MS came from looked like. The point is, no one can say, with any certainty, if Galatians is a word for word accurate representation of what Paul wrote. Christian literature is full of accounts of people falsifying accounts and writing in other people�s names. In fact, half of Paul�s work is now hotly contested as forgeries.

Manuscripts There are over 5,600 early Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament that are still in existence. The oldest manuscripts were written on papyrus and the later manuscripts were written on leather called parchment.

 

 

The problem with this claim is that the complete MSS do not get you any closer than 400 years to late second temple.

 

�         125 A.D. The New Testament manuscript which dates most closely to the original autograph was copied around 125 A.D, within 35 years of the original. It is designated "p 52" and contains a small portion of John 18. (The "p" stands for papyrus.)

 

P52 is not a NT MS, it is a fragment.

http://www.kchanson.com/ANCDOCS/greek/johnpap.html

 

You are still in the same position as with Galatians.

 

�         200 A.D. Bodmer p 66 a papyrus manuscript which contains a large part of the Gospel of John.

 

I would not say a large part, it is also segments, (John 1:1-6:11; 6:35-14:26, 29-30; 15:2-26; 16:2-4, 6-7; 16:10-20:20, 22-23; 20:25-21:9, 12, 17) and does not have the story of the adulteress. Now that is a bit strange.

 http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Mss/P66.html

 

 

�         200 A.D. Chester Beatty Biblical papyrus p 46 contains the Pauline Epistles and Hebrews.

 

Incomplete, and we are still back to my example of Galatians.

 

 

 

�         225 A.D. Bodmer Papyrus p 75 contains the Gospels of Luke and John.

 

(Luke 3:18-22; 3:33 - 4:2; 4:34 - 5:10; 5:37 - 6:4; 6:10 - 7:32, 35-39, 41-43; 7:46 - 9:2; 9:4 - 17:15; 17:19 - 18:18; 22:4 - 24:53; John 1:1 - 11:45, 48-57; 12:3 - 13:1, 8-9; 14:8-29; 15:7-8.)

Interesting note: The manuscript does not include the pericope of the adulteress (7:53 - 8:11), making it the second earliest witness (next to P⁶⁶) not to include this spurious passage. (this is one of those mistakes that entered into �bible�).

 

Keep in mind that we are still at the problem as demonstrated with Galatians.

 

http://www.earlham.edu/~seidti/iam/tc_pap75.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

�         250-300 A.D. Chester Beatty Biblical papyrus p 45 contains portions of the four Gospels and Acts.

 

Here is an image.

 

http://www.bsw.org/project/biblica/bibl82/images/Carta.jpg

 

 

Again, we have another example of an incomplete copy copied from lost copies removed 140 years or so from their actual time. We are still at the Galatians example.

 

�         350 A.D. Codex Sinaiticus contains the entire New Testament and almost the entire Old Testament in Greek. It was discovered by a German scholar Tisendorf in 1856 at an Orthodox monastery at Mt. Sinai.

 

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Mss/sinai.html

 

Saying it was complete would not be the complete truth. The contents are of interest: (It has both the Old and New Testaments. The New Testament contains Four Gospels, Acts, Catholic Epistles and Pauline Epistles (including Hebrews), Apocalypse, the Epistle of Barnabas and Shepherd of Hermas.)

So is it reasonable to say that the holy spirit has not yet inspired Christians after 300 years to know what a cannon is and is not? Something else of interest:

 

�Matthew 16:2 f. is omitted, Mark ends at 16:8, Luke 22:43 f. was marked as spurious by the first corrector, but these signs were canceled by the third corrector. John 5:4 and the Pericope de adultera are omitted. The doxology of Romans comes after 16:23 verse 24 being omitted. Hebrews follow immediately after II Thessalonians.�

It looks like the holy spirit is having some trouble guiding the faithful. And there is that story of the adulteress again. So after 300 years your scholars do not know if the story actually happened or not. I find it interesting that if we look at the evidences your source puts up, it really creates more problems for your claim.

�         350 A.D. Codex Vaticanus: {B} is an almost complete New Testament. It was cataloged as being in the Vatican Library since 1475

 

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Mss/vatican.html

 

 

A 4^th century book. Not only is the adulteress story still omitted, but you are no closer to proving your claim for a continuity going back to Jesus.

 

'Shasta's, Meditations, etc� there are your written accounts of the oral Gospel, the Injeel of Jesus if you care to read and believe.

Do you have blind faith in the face of all proof or you still believe there are no written accounts?'

Maybe I'm just a dumb Muslim but I would think that if there were a "Gospel of Jesus Christ" then the religion bearing his name and claiming to follow his teaching would have included it in their holy book.

Shibboleth wrote: So Andalus, to make a long story short the Bible HAS been persevered which pre-dates �Islam� by a long shot!

Dear Shibboleth

I'm not sure how you make such statements

the bible is mainly the old testament and new testament

Even if the dates you mention is valid and even if the dead sea facts you posted here

http://www.centuryone.com/25dssfacts.html are valid,

it means the earliest reference we have of the old testament is written in the period of 200 B.C. to 68 C.E./A.D ( this is what the reference you posted says , fact 13 )

This means it's written at least a thousand year after Moses ( PBUH ), if not, please tell us how much time is there between Moses and Jesus ( PBUH )

Do you expect a sane person to trust that scrolls written after a thousand year, ( with text that was not publicly and openly recited on daily basis like muslims do with the Qur'an ) , remained exactly the same ?

Shibboleth wrote: What we have today is what was available before Muhammad�s birth; I�ll even work with you regarding the fragment portions to keep it simple.

The table here that someone posted seems to work the fragment portions
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Canon/canonages.html

Shibboleth wrote: I�m not going play around with semantics with you; it�s too frivolous to say the least and time consuming. But, even if the MS go back to the 6th century, I�ll even say that ALTHOUGH it doesn�t,

Then which century it dates back to ? 3rd ?

Shibboleth wrote: what has been corrupted?

again you're asking the question the other way around,

It's the basics of debating that if someone makes a claim, it's their task to prove it

if you want us ( or any person muslim or not ) to believe your claim that the Old testament, and the new testament hasn't been altered, it's your task to prove so

So far all what you presented are reference that all of it at it's earliest have huge time gaps between the text written, and the sources, not to mention the language differences and the percentage of the text available

Shibboleth wrote: Let�s skip threw rhetoric. You tell me what�s been corrupted regarding the coming of Muhammad in the Bible that Muslims/Christians/Jews need to know. Let�s start with his prophethood.

I prefer to start with the creation if this world

Does it say in the bible you read that God created the universe in six days then rested ?

I don't like to follow a God that rests

What if I need God someday and find out that God is resting? what shall I do then ? depend on myself ?

I started some threads trying to understand some puzzling issues regarding christianity, maybe you can shed your input in it

Care to explain the original sin ? trinity ?

Shibboleth wrote: The most important issue is whether Muhammad is a legitimate / true prophet in the tradition of the Biblical revelation of Moses in the Torah. In particular, the issue whether he is announced in the scriptures:

The scriptures which the earliest references to it is over a thousand year after it was revealed ?

Nevertheless, if you want to discuss this, please start a new topic

Shibboleth wrote: This translation is similar to the one in the 3rd Century for starters. If you�re using the KJV which I suspect you are almost 2000 years later, the message is the same.

It would be useful to tell us which 'version' you use and consider the bible and in which language, so we can refer to it when speaking with you

Best Regards