Well one well known example is  the story of the woman caught in adultery.  Where Jesus (peace be upon him) reportedly says 'let him who is without sin cast the first stone'.  (paraphrasing)

Bible scholars know that this story is absent from the earliest manuscripts and is a later insertion.  You can read more about this here: http://www.bible-researcher.com/adult.html - http://www.bible-researcher.com/adult.html

Now, who added it?  When?  What else did they add or subtract? How can anyone rely on such a book - the NT?

• The Dead Sea Scrolls: date from 200 B.C. - 70 A.D. and contain the entire book of Isaiah and portions of every other Old Testament book but Esther.
• Geniza Fragments: portions the Old Testament in Hebrew and Aramaic, discovered in 1947 in an old synagogue in Cairo, Egypt, which date from about 400 A.D.

Mauri wrote: Hi rubies, You said: Bible scholars know that this story is absent from the earliest manuscripts and is a later insertion.  You can read more about this here: http://www.bible-researcher.com/adult.html - http://www.bible-researcher.com/adult.html The site does not say that Bible scholars KNOW that.  It says that NEARLY ALL Biblical scholars agree on that.  Another site says:  It is not in the earliest manuscripts (with one exception);  Here's the link:  http://www.tektonics.org/af/adulterypericope.html

Stephen Turkel (Patirck Holding), in his usual obfuscation of the point, did not actually prove that the story is "not" a later addition. The link is to one of many of his sophomric works which takes any critical reader for a ride.

The link is a real waste of time, like 99% of Turkel's site.

For an indepth look at the different languages of the manuscripts, divisions and subdivisions see http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09627a.htm - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09627a.htm

The NT has been shown to have numerous insertions to help with the creative interpretations gooing on in the first 400 years of your faith. It seems, from all of the evidence we have, that you faith was not a single entity with everyone professing the same beliefs. What we find are numerous sects, each debting hard with the other to prove its personal ideas of very basic things like who and what Jesus was, and the nature of Gd. The result are numerous "creative editing" that took place from the hands of your early Christians in order for them to show to the other how the word of Gd agrees with them.

Lets not ignore the fact that hundreds of narrative accounts existed in the first 300 years, and were all destroyed save the four you have in your NT, and a few that have miraculously survived. The Gospel of Peter was more widely read, believed, and followed than that of Mark, which to date, has three different endings.

We must be careful how we paraphrase, lest we be found guilty of misrepresentation (false witness).  After your paraphrase, you asked:  Now, who added it?  When?  What else did they add or subtract? How can anyone rely on such a book - the NT? If I posted in the same spirit, I might well ask:  Now, why did rubies misrepresent the facts?  What else has she misrepresented?  How can anyone rely upon such a person? Btw, the oldest OT manuscripts are all fragmentary: The Dead Sea Scrolls: date from 200 B.C. - 70 A.D. and contain the entire book of Isaiah and portions of every other Old Testament book but Esther. Geniza Fragments: portions the Old Testament in Hebrew and Aramaic, discovered in 1947 in an old synagogue in Cairo, Egypt, which date from about 400 A.D.

Sarita wrote: Ok, I want to know how we can prove the Bible has errors and was tampered with? And does anyone have more information about the Council of Nicea? Thanks a bunch!

I hope to have time to address this issue later. For now, I say that all you have to do is read and look closely at the numerous bible editions, and you will find "brackets" around numerous verses that indicate problems with the verse (an admittance of error from Christians). Such verses include the famous story about the adulterer.

You said that �Stephen Turkel (Patirck Holding)�did not actually prove that the story is "not" a later addition�.

Am I to understand that you believe the other site did actually prove that the story was a later addition?  Or, are you merely pointing out that it is a draw�a difference of opinions?

To clarify, I have not taken issue with the passage in question. But with the way a position was presented�as fact that Bible scholars know something, which, if you want to read farther about it, go to this site, when the site does not state or even support the �fact� at all. 

The issue I have is with how we communicate.  Honest communication does not rely upon �coloring� the facts with opinion.  For example, it is one thing to state that Patrick Holding did not actually prove that the story is "not" a later addition�.  But, when you add that he does it �in his usual obfuscation of the point,� you move into manipulation�trying to discredit whatever he says, based upon your personal opinion.  You do it again when you say, �The link is to one of many of his sophomric works which takes any critical reader for a ride�.

You give the appearance of having read much of Holding�s work.  Have you, really? 

And, on the contrary, a critical reader is not as likely to be taken for a ride by Holding, you or rubies, because a critical reader is not so easily influence by rhetoric as by facts. For instance, a critical reader will recognize  �The link is a real waste of time, like 99% of Turkel's site� as �yellow journalism� designed to influence opinion rather than share information.

The NT has been shown to have numerous insertions to help with the creative interpretations gooing on in the first 400 years of your faith

On what do you base that assertion?  What is an �insertion� to you?  Something that was not previously written?  Clarification? 

What do you mean by �creative interpretations�?  Imagined?  Evolutionary, developing?

It seems, from all of the evidence we have, that you faith was not a single entity with everyone professing the same beliefs.

No, faith is not a single entity, if you mean faith is devoid of progression.  Faith is progressive.  The progression is from hope to faith to knowing and then to doing.  And, there are stages of progression within each of those. 

What we find are numerous sects, each debting hard with the other to prove its personal ideas of very basic things like who and what Jesus was, and the nature of Gd

Are you suggesting that that is wrong?  �that we should not debate to prove our personal ideas of very basic things, like who and what Jesus was and the nature of God?   

I contend that if we do not argue the point and prove whether our personal ideas of very basic things are just, that we have nothing!

The result are numerous "creative editing" that took place from the hands of your early Christians in order for them to show to the other how the word of Gd agrees with them.

Let�s go with that.  Show me what you consider to be �creative editing,� and I will show you, if you are willing to see, the progression. 

Lets not ignore the fact that hundreds of narrative accounts existed in the first 300 years, and were all destroyed save the four you have in your NT, and a few that have miraculously survived.

Were they all destroyed?  Why do you think those 4 were not?  And, what are the few that you say miraculously survived?

 The Gospel of Peter was more widely read, believed, and followed than that of Mark, which to date, has three different endings.

That is news to me, mainly because I have never heard of the gospel of Peter.  I am aware of  two epistles of Peter.  It would even be news to me to hear that his epistles were more widely read, believed, and followed than that of Mark.  As far as the three different endings of Mark, please consider that ALL of the older manuscripts (NT or OT) were fragmentary.

The DSS, the Septuagint, and the masoretic differ from one another one certain chapters. All manuscripts differ from one another.  That is what distinguishes them as different manuscripts. 

The Sanhedrin never left a record as to how they chose a book for their cannon. It is all conjecture.  

Wow!  I never knew the Sanhedrin had a cannon!  Please inform me.

It is all conjecture.

What is all conjecture?  

Sarita wrote: Ok, I want to know how we can prove the Bible has errors and was tampered with? And does anyone have more information about the Council of Nicea? Thanks a bunch!

 Peace,

 Wow!

 Where to start? If the fact that there are many different versions, not translations but versions isn't enough we need to pick any one of those and begin there.

 Sometimes bringing to light the many times the bibles have been changed doesn't cut any grass with the bible thumping gospeler because they hold to the idea that they have the right copy/version/ translation/ addition and all others are in error and contain interpolations.

 Rather that go down this road, let's assume that the bible, is unchanged and all the i's are dotted and t's are crossed. Let's assume that it is a perfect copy of the original. To do this we have to single out one version or another. The most widely used version is the King James. So lets go with that for now.

 If we assume that the King James version is a perfect copy of the original we are then faced with this question.......

 Because we find errors in it, was it ever any good or from God in the first place?

 In the interest of being brief I will point out only one in this post. More later if need be.

Matthew 22:35. Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting (testing) him, and saying, 36. Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37. Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul and with all thy mind. 30. This is the first and great commandment.

Now take a look at what Mark's narration. (According to the footnotes in my bible this is the same event).

The Gospel according to Mark chapter 12 verses 28-30

12-28 And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? 29. And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: 30 and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

If the Gospel According to Mark is correct and Jesus (peace is on him) said "Hear O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord" then the gospel of Matthew is incomplete and therefore in error.

If the gospel according to Matthew is right and Jesus (peace is on him) never said it then Mark added this in and its a fabrication.

 I dont know much about the Council Of Nicea. When a crime is committed the notes of such a meeting are normally destroyed. The history is cloudy and blurred by modern assertions and speculation as to what really went on. If you find a copy of the minutes of that meeting I would be interested in reading them.

Redneck wrote:

> If we assume that the King James version is a perfect copy of the original...

Before I respond, I need to first understand what you are claiming.

You seem to be saying that the original biblical manuscripts were written in English.  Correct?   

Or, alternatively, if you believe that the original manuscripts were not written in English, then how in the world could the King James version be a perfect copy of the original???

Reepicheep wrote: Redneck wrote: > If we assume that the King James version is a perfect copy of the original... Before I respond, I need to first understand what you are claiming. You seem to be saying that the original biblical manuscripts were written in English.  Correct?    Or, alternatively, if you believe that the original manuscripts were not written in English, then how in the world could the King James version be a perfect copy of the original???

Peace,

 The burden of proof is on Christians because this is their claim not mine. Im only temporarily entertaining this idea for the sake of rational investigation.

 Do you have an answer for this.....

 

Matthew 22:35. Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting (testing) him, and saying, 36. Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37. Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul and with all thy mind. 30. This is the first and great commandment.

Now take a look at what Mark's narration. (According to the footnotes in my bible this is the same event).

The Gospel according to Mark chapter 12 verses 28-30

12-28 And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? 29. And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: 30 and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

If the Gospel According to Mark is correct and Jesus (peace is on him) said "Hear O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord" then the gospel of Matthew is incomplete and therefore in error.

If the gospel according to Matthew is right and Jesus (peace is on him) never said it then Mark added this in and its a fabrication.


 Looking forward to you answer.

Redneck wrote:

> Looking forward to you answer.

My answer is: "read Cyril's excellent response".

******************

Redneck, your complaints about the bible seem to be based on your claim that ancient Israelies spoke English and wrote documents in English.  Your claim is, of course, nonsense.

Redneck:  �Where to start? If the fact that there are many different versions, not translations but versions isn't enough we need to pick any one of those and begin there.�

When there are many perspectives (versions) seen by one and expressed (translated) to another, that is the scientific method of investigation and is taught in scripture.

Sometimes bringing to light the many times the bibles have been changed doesn't cut any grass with the bible thumping gospeler because they hold to the idea that they have the right copy/version/ translation/ addition and all others are in error and contain interpolations.

Yes.  Everyone of all religions goes through that phase.  That�s part of the learning process�seeing good and evil.  We must isolate (choose, favor) one over all the others in order to have a starting point.  

Rather that go down this road, let's assume that the bible, is unchanged and all the i's are dotted and t's are crossed. Let's assume that it is a perfect copy of the original. To do this we have to single out one version or another. The most widely used version is the King James. So lets go with that for now.

Actually, you have chosen to go down that road by choosing to assume that the KJV is a perfect copy.  But, there�s nothing wrong with the road.  Error arises when we stop.  What good is a starting point if we never go anywhere?   And, what good is it to start unless we finish?   The starting point is choosing something to value�to see the good in it. 

When we learn to see good in one thing, we should not stop there but look for good in something else---and continue on until we see as the Creator sees�that all is good�..because we see the right order of things. 

Suppose I am in the middle of cleaning out the closet.  If you do not understand the process, and judge what I am doing by what you see thus far, you would say I am making a mess---just the opposite of what I say I am doing�cleaning.  You would judge what I am doing as bad (evil).  You see only the present mess.  I envision the clean closet that shall be.  If you could see what I have in mind, instead of disagreeing with me, you would agree that I am cleaning the closet.

If we assume that the King James version is a perfect copy of the original we are then faced with this question.......

 Because we find errors in it, was it ever any good or from God in the first place?

 In the interest of being brief I will point out only one in this post. More later if need be.

Let�s examine that process.

If you truly accept the KJV as the perfect copy of the original and say you see errors in it, and stop there, then:

1. The KJV is a perfect copy of the original.  There are errors in the KJV.  Therefore, the original has errors.
2. The original has no errors.  The KJV does have errors.  Therefore, the KJV is not a perfect copy of the original.
   

It�s really quite simple, isn�t it?  All you have to do is compare the KJV to the original.  If there is a difference, then, you have proven that the KJV is not a perfect copy of the original.

But, there is one slight problem�you don�t have the original.  Since you aren�t using the original to judge the KJV�

1. You really didn�t assume that the KJV was a perfect copy. 
1. You assumed something else was a perfect copy, and you compared that perfect thing to the KJV in order to prove that it was not a perfect copy. 
2. You did actually assume that the KJV was a perfect copy.
1. You distinguish between �perfect and �more perfect��.�perfect� does not mean �flawless� because �perfect� is more flawed than �more perfect.
   

If #1, I would ask what that �something else� is that you consider to be the perfect copy, instead of the KJV. 

If #2, I would ask how you determined the �more perfect� to be so? 

You say that there are errors in the KJV.  What did you compare to the KJV that revealed those errors��and, subsequently, caused you to question, was it ever any good or from God in the first place?

If I had to take a guess, I would say that you are leaning to your own understanding as the standard by which you measure the KJV and judge it to be erroneous.  Similarly, in the example of cleaning the closet, the negative assessment stemmed from leaning to limited understanding. 

More about process:

Sarita has stated that she sees the good in Islam.  I would encourage you to show her more of that goodness.  You don�t need to condemn what she already has in order to make Islam look good.  Imo, that shows lack of faith.  Islam is good.  When you truly believe that, you will focus on the good of Islam rather than on the evil of things that seem contrary to Islam. 

If you think she believes a lie, you don�t have to condemn the lie in order for her to receive the truth.  Just present the truth, and it will expose the lie.  Focus on what is good.  Look for it.  Everywhere. 

IThis is lengthy enough, and I�m not sure but what you might want to keep seeing the conflict, so I won�t go into it now.  But, if you sincerely seek to resolve the conflict you see between the verses you mentioned, I think I can help.  Just let me know.

Ladies & Gentlemen,

The Bible has reportedly been written by various reported writers, as reported by my brother earlier.

The language and words of the reports may vary but the substance should not.

One has to find if any of the reported writer of a reported gospel, wrote or reported anything which the other reported writers either did not know or had never heard of.

A clue here: John wrote his own gospel and the other three had mostly no clue about what John reported. The other three writers had no knowledge that In the Beginning there was a Word, the Word was before God and the Word was God. Even Jesus himself was unaware of this, never knew and had never said anything like that.

Bmzsp: The Bible has reportedly been written by various reported writers, as reported by my brother earlier.

The language and words of the reports may vary but the substance should not.

I agree.  The language and words are but forms of expression.  Confusion results, imo, when the form is perceived, but the meaning (substance) is not.  Too often, we substitute our own understanding, thus conforming that form or image to ourselves�forcing it to fit our understanding.

Yes.  http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Job/Job032.html#8 -  [there is] a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding  .

http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/2Ti/2Ti003.html#16 - - 2Ti 3:16 All scripture  [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable  for doctrine, for reproof, for  correction, for instruction  in righteousness:

bmzsp: One has to find if any of the reported writer of a reported gospel, wrote or reported anything which the other reported writers either did not know or had never heard of.

Yes.  Similarly, unbroken light is invisible.  We can�t see it when it is whole.  But, when it is broken, we can see the parts (manifested as colors).  And, we need to gather all of the parts (colors) before we have the whole.    

bmzsp: A clue here: John wrote his own gospel and the other three had mostly no clue about what John reported.

I agree.  John, while still in his mother�s womb, recognized Jesus when He was still in His mother�s womb.  (The others were grown men before they recognized Him.)

http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Luk&chapter=1&verse=41&version=kjv - And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Luk&chapter=1&verse=42&version=kjv - - 43 And whence [is] this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Luk&chapter=1&verse=44&version=kjv -

Mauri wrote: Hi Andulas, You said that �Stephen Turkel (Patirck Holding)�did not actually prove that the story is "not" a later addition�. Am I to understand that you believe the other site did actually prove that the story was a later addition?  Or, are you merely pointing out that it is a draw�a difference of opinions?

You should understand exactly what I stated: Stephen Turkel did not disprove the claim that the verse about John is a later "insertion". 

To clarify, I have not taken issue with the passage in question. But with the way a position was presented�as fact that Bible scholars know something, which, if you want to read farther about it, go to this site, when the site does not state or even support the �fact� at all.

So then you agree that the passage was a later insertion? Creative editing with your word of Gd?

The issue I have is with how we communicate.  Honest communication does not rely upon �coloring� the facts with opinion.  For example, it is one thing to state that Patrick Holding did not actually prove that the story is "not" a later addition�.  But, when you add that he does it �in his usual obfuscation of the point,� you move into manipulation�trying to discredit whatever he says, based upon your personal opinion.

There was no maniputlation on my part. He did obfuscate. In the end, he did not add anything of value to the topic and simply went on about nothing.

He discredited himself, I simply gave my observation 

You do it again when you say, �The link is to one of many of his sophomric works which takes any critical reader for a ride�. You give the appearance of having read much of Holding�s work.  Have you, really?

define "much", and please state how "much" one must read before one may state that his work is sophomoric?

And, on the contrary, a critical reader is not as likely to be taken for a ride by Holding, you or rubies, because a critical reader is not so easily influence by rhetoric as by facts. For instance, a critical reader will recognize  �The link is a real waste of time, like 99% of Turkel's site� as �yellow journalism� designed to influence opinion rather than share information.

Unfortunately, I have yet to find a single, solid, critical piece on the site. Perhaps you do not feel that you are being taken for a ride because you are unable to grasp the problems with his work, and you are willing to drink his "cool aid" without hesitation.

The link was a waste of time, and did not actually make a point related to the thesis. It simply went on, in the usual juvenile mode, about how there was no problem.

The NT has been shown to have numerous insertions to help with the creative interpretations gooing on in the first 400 years of your faith On what do you base that assertion?  What is an �insertion� to you?  Something that was not previously written?  Clarification?  [/qoute] I base the assertion on evidence that numerous insertions into the MSS (which is used to cut and paste your NT together), was committed by Christians in the first 400 years. I cannot stop at every line and quibble about the nuances of words. An insertion is an insertion. What do you mean by �creative interpretations�?  Imagined?  Evolutionary, developing? Interpreting text with creativity. Just as the phrase suggests. You are quibbling. It seems, from all of the evidence we have, that you faith was not a single entity with everyone professing the same beliefs. No, faith is not a single entity, if you mean faith is devoid of progression.  Faith is progressive.  The progression is from hope to faith to knowing and then to doing.  And, there are stages of progression within each of those.  You are obfuscating. A single entity of your faith meaning a religion that holds the core claims that are made by 20th century Christians who assert that these beleifs go back to the early Christians to the apostles, etc, etc.  Lets not appeal to bad sophistry.   What we find are numerous sects, each debting hard with the other to prove its personal ideas of very basic things like who and what Jesus was, and the nature of Gd Are you suggesting that that is wrong?  �that we should not debate to prove our personal ideas of very basic things, like who and what Jesus was and the nature of God?    Strawman. I never argued that debate is wrong.  I contend that if we do not argue the point and prove whether our personal ideas of very basic things are just, that we have nothing! I am happy for you, although completely irrelevant.     The result are numerous "creative editing" that took place from the hands of your early Christians in order for them to show to the other how the word of Gd agrees with them. Let�s go with that.  Show me what you consider to be �creative editing,� and I will show you, if you are willing to see, the progression.  Thats missionariees for "show me a problem and I will spin it and give it a new label!". Go with this: Do you deny that your witness MSS contain altered words and inserted words? That might be progression, but it is progression of piouse fraud. Lets not ignore the fact that hundreds of narrative accounts existed in the first 300 years, and were all destroyed save the four you have in your NT, and a few that have miraculously survived. Were they all destroyed?  Why do you think those 4 were not?  And, what are the few that you say miraculously survived? no ( already answered in the above statemet I made). Because they agreed with the assumptions of the early church fathers. It is a list. I will take the time to list them if you convince me that it will actually prove my point to you, and not allow you to set up for a barrage of irrelevant diatribe.  The Gospel of Peter was more widely read, believed, and followed than that of Mark, which to date, has three different endings. That is news to me, mainly because I have never heard of the gospel of Peter.  I am aware of  two epistles of Peter.  It would even be news to me to hear that his epistles were more widely read, believed, and followed than that of Mark.  As far as the three different endings of Mark, please consider that ALL of the older manuscripts (NT or OT) were fragmentary. There was a Gospel of Peter. It was at least as popular as the Gospel of Mark. Mark has three different endings. Please argue that "older MSS being fragmentary" proves "something". You are not actually make a conclusion, you are simply asserting something. I cannot read your mind. Mark has 3 different endings. This is a problem. The DSS, the Septuagint, and the masoretic differ from one another one certain chapters. All manuscripts differ from one another.  That is what distinguishes them as different manuscripts.  They differ because: There are at least three different traditions, and not a single "word of Gd" as proposed by Christians. This distinguishes them from a reliable transmission. If segments from Jeremiah are removed between the three tradtions, then this is not so easy to "handwave" off as you just attempted. These differecnes are about what Gd says, or supposedly says, and the reliabilty of those who wrote it to maintain its validity. , The Sanhedrin never left a record as to how they chose a book for their cannon. It is all conjecture.   Wow!  I never knew the Sanhedrin had a cannon!  Please inform me. Wow! I think you have spent too much time at Turkel's site. The "cannonized" works are in the part of your book you call the OT! Hope this helps? [quote] It is all conjecture. What is all conjecture?

What I attributed the statement to.

Keep in mind I am not going to play games with you. I have a tight schedule. If you want to have a discussion, I am game. If you want to stop at every thread, and trade a line for a line and argue about semantics and irrelevant nuances, then I am not interested.

Best Wishes

Andalus:  You should understand exactly what I stated: Stephen Turkel did not disprove the claim that the verse about John is a later "insertion". 

Yes. I understand what you stated.  I was trying to understand what you meant.  By stating that one site does not disprove its case, it gives the impression that the other site did.  If that were true, I would disagree.  And, I would be interested in seeing what proof you saw that I missed.

However, it could be that you had read the other site but were only addressing my post.  And, that if you read the other one, you would say that it did not prove its case, either.  If that were true, I would agree. 

That is the reason I ask for clarification of what I was to understand you to mean.  Am I to understand that you believe the other site did actually prove that the story was a later addition?  Or, are you merely pointing out that it is a draw�a difference of opinions?

Similarly, you quoted me:  To clarify, I have not taken issue with the passage in question. But with the way a position was presented�as fact that Bible scholars know something, which, if you want to read farther about it, go to this site, when the site does not state or even support the �fact� at all. 

And, then, you asked, So then you agree that the passage was a later insertion? Creative editing with your word of Gd?

Although you understood what I stated, you were seeking clarification of my position.  To you, it seemed that my not having taken a position left the impression that I agreed.  However, it could be that you were not interested in my focus (the reasoning that supports opinion) and wanted to change the focus to opinion.

There was no maniputlation on my part. He did obfuscate. In the end, he did not add anything of value to the topic and simply went on about nothing.

He discredited himself, I simply gave my observation 

I understand that that is the way you see it�your opinion.  That is the reason I pointed it out�so that opinion could be distinguished from the evidence. 

I had said: You do it again when you say, �The link is to one of many of his sophomric works which takes any critical reader for a ride�.

You give the appearance of having read much of Holding�s work.  Have you, really?

You ask:  define "much", and please state how "much" one must read before one may state that his work is sophomoric?

Anyone can state anything.  But, the validity of what one states rests upon the reasoning that supports what is stated.  By saying that the link �is one of many,� you give the impression that you have read many of his works.  Is that impression valid?  Have you read many of his works?  About how many?

Unfortunately, I have yet to find a single, solid, critical piece on the site.

Again, are you saying that it has less supportive evidence than the other site or that it is no more convincing than the other site? 

Perhaps you do not feel that you are being taken for a ride because you are unable to grasp the problems with his work, and you are willing to drink his "cool aid" without hesitation.

Actually, I can�t see how you can grasp the problems of his work if you cannot grasp the problems of your own communication.  You assume that I am drinking his �kool aid,� because I do not drink yours.  We need to test the validity of assumptions and opinions and rely upon sound evidence and sound reasoning, rather than persuasive words.

The link was a waste of time, and did not actually make a point related to the thesis. It simply went on, in the usual juvenile mode, about how there was no problem.

And, I am still curious if you see that as something that distinguishes it from the other site or something that it has in common with the other site.

Earlier you said:  The NT has been shown to have numerous insertions to help with the creative interpretations gooing on in the first 400 years of your faith

I asked: On what do you base that assertion?  What is an �insertion� to you?  Something that was not previously written?  Clarification? 

Your response:  I base the assertion on evidence that numerous insertions into the MSS (which is used to cut and paste your NT together), was committed by Christians in the first 400 years.

It sounds as though you mean something that was not previously written by men.  I would caution you to consider that such judgment would render the Koran an insertion to what was previously written.

I cannot stop at every line and quibble about the nuances of words. An insertion is an insertion.

It would be more expedient if you examined your thoughts for validity before presenting them as valid.

Earlier, I asked: What do you mean by �creative interpretations�?  Imagined?  Evolutionary, developing

You respond: Interpreting text with creativity. Just as the phrase suggests. You are quibbling.

While you see it as quibbling, I see it as seeking clarification.  Since you offer no explanation, I can only judge by what I have read of your posts, thus far,  I am inclined to think  that by �interpreting text with creativity,�  you mean �relying upon impression without first validating that impression�.  The reason I am inclined to think that is because, as I have pointed out, your statements have often left an impression of something else, prompting me to ask what you meant.  It is human nature to project ourselves on others, seeing in them the things we cannot recognize in ourselves.  That�s a good thing IF we, then, use what we see as a flaw in others to examine ourselves for the same flaw.  A better way is to first examine ourselves.

Earlier, I responded to your statement: �It seems, from all of the evidence we have, that you faith was not a single entity with everyone professing the same beliefs.�

No, faith is not a single entity, if you mean faith is devoid of progression.  Faith is progressive.  The progression is from hope to faith to knowing and then to doing.  And, there are stages of progression within each of those. 

You respond: You are obfuscating. A single entity of your faith meaning a religion that holds the core claims that are made by 20th century Christians who assert that these beleifs go back to the early Christians to the apostles, etc, etc.  Lets not appeal to bad sophistry

If you see facts being obscured, look carefully to see which of us is blending opinion with facts and which of us has made an attempt to focus on reasoning which will validate an opinion as factual.  (Note that Quran constantly appeals to reason.  A follower of it would, also.)

If you see an apple bud, an apple blossom, apple seeds, and the fruit of an apple all sorted, based upon that evidence, you might well say that there is no common core.  But, when you see them in the right order, and on the tree, you will know that not one of them could exist if it were not for the common core�the tree.

Earlier you said: What we find are numerous sects, each debting hard with the other to prove its personal ideas of very basic things like who and what Jesus was, and the nature of Gd

I responded: Are you suggesting that that is wrong?  �that we should not debate to prove our personal ideas of very basic things, like who and what Jesus was and the nature of God?   

You respond: Strawman. I never argued that debate is wrong. 

If that was not what you meant, what did you mean?  If that were not a condemnation, was it a commendation?  Or, what?  Why did you make that statement?  

Earlier, I said: I contend that if we do not argue the point and prove whether our personal ideas of very basic things are just, that we have nothing!

You respond: I am happy for you, although completely irrelevant.

You see it as irrelevant.  Because my opinion is irrelevant to you?  Or, because you do not see how it relates (is in response) to your statement about sects debating?

Earlier, you said: The result are numerous "creative editing" that took place from the hands of your early Christians in order for them to show to the other how the word of Gd agrees with them.

I responded: Let�s go with that.  Show me what you consider to be �creative editing,� and I will show you, if you are willing to see, the progression. 

You dismiss it with your opinion:  Thats missionariees for "show me a problem and I will spin it and give it a new label!".

Go with this: Do you deny that your witness MSS contain altered words and inserted words?

That might be progression, but it is progression of piouse fraud.

But, to respond to your question, Do you deny that your witness MSS contain altered words and inserted words?  I agree that the image (form) has changed, but not the word.  The engravened image is a landmark to guide us.  Muhammed spoke the same word that Jesus did.  He just used a different form of expression.

You say that the 4 surviving gospels survived  Because they agreed with the assumptions of the early church fathers.  It sounds as though you are implying that their assumptions.  If so, I would ask what those assumptions were, and how you came to that conclusion (what you base that upon�your reasoning).

Earlier, I asked: And, what are the few that you say miraculously survived?

You respond: It is a list. I will take the time to list them if you convince me that it will actually prove my point to you, and not allow you to set up for a barrage of irrelevant diatribe.

I would be interested in hearing of any of which I am not familiar�like the gospel of Peter.  I did a Google search and found it.  I couldn�t find any evidence to support your claim that it was once more widely read than the gospel of Mark, though.

Anyway, I can�t say that it will prove your point to me because I don�t know what your point is.  That�s the reason that I keep asking for clarification. 

Mark has three different endings. Please argue that "older MSS being fragmentary" proves "something". You are not actually make a conclusion, you are simply asserting something. I cannot read your mind. Mark has 3 different endings. This is a problem.

If you have 3 copies of a paper back book, and they all suffer fragmentation�the one that loses the last page will end differently than the one that loses the next to last page and both will differ from the one which loses only a portion of the last page.

They differ because: There are at least three different traditions,

There are different traditions, yes.  If a lawyer, a doctor, and an artist observe or hear the same thing, each will express it differently, because of their different traditions. 

and not a single "word of Gd" as proposed by Christians.

I can�t imagine anyone being so presumptuous as to think he has heard and understood all that God has ever said, and thus be qualified to make such a statement.

This distinguishes them from a reliable transmission.

By your standards, perhaps, and if everyone held your standards, they would be universally rejected.  So, the variable responsible for the difference of opinion is the standard of measure.

If segments from Jeremiah are removed between the three tradtions, then this is not so easy to "handwave" off as you just attempted. These differecnes are about what Gd says, or supposedly says, and the reliabilty of those who wrote it to maintain its validity.

On the contrary, if segments are removed, intentionally or accidentally, the message is not necessarily lost.  For instance, I think you can get the intended message even though I omit part of the form:    �I to store an bought food.�   But, not everyone has the same skill of �closure�.  Some people might not get the message from because that due to the flaws seen in the messenger (form carrying the meaning). 

Wow! I think you have spent too much time at Turkel's site.

Rest assured that I spent very little time there.

The "cannonized" works are in the part of your book you call the OT!

Hope this helps?

How can it possibly help to allude to something that I already said I was unaware of when you alluded to it the first time?  I might recognize it by another name, but until you designate what you are referring to, how am I to know? 

Until I know what it is that you are labeling �conjecture,� there�s not much point in asking you why you call it that.

Keep in mind I am not going to play games with you. I have a tight schedule. If you want to have a discussion, I am game. If you want to stop at every thread, and trade a line for a line and argue about semantics and irrelevant nuances, then I am not interested.

As lengthy as this has been, the only factual information I have gleaned from your discourse is that there is a Gospel of Peter.  My time is valuable, too.  I am more interested in reasoning than in opinion.

I dont know how many "mistakes" the bible got.

But what i do know, before i converted n when i was in school still.  When we used to go church, the bible the priest read from, the one we read from and the one the people next to us read from was never the same...

But if you read the quran...  Well, everything is still the same from the time its been printed the first time.  Alhamdullilah no one can chance the Quran.

Cyril wrote: ysimjee wrote: I dont know how many "mistakes" the bible got. But what i do know, before i converted n when i was in school still.  When we used to go church, the bible the priest read from, the one we read from and the one the people next to us read from was never the same... But if you read the quran...  Well, everything is still the same from the time its been printed the first time.  Alhamdullilah no one can chance the Quran. How come can you use that fake and ridiculous argument, which is still being found on many Muslim forums! Translations vary from one translator to the other and from one language to the other. If you go on any Muslim forum you will notice that people use translations and not Arabic, and that translations of the same verses may greatly vary from one another. Besides translations of the Arabic Quran are sometimes rather clumsy and even wrong, which is not the case with translations from the Bible.

The differences that ysimjee observed are not just based upon translation differences, but upon compilation and use of MSS, which differ, and reflect in the various editions of the bible.  

For illustration purposes, let's look at a verse from the Koran (surah 4:11):

The Pickthal translation reads:

Allah chargeth you concerning (the provision for) your children: to the male the equivalent of the portion of two females, and if there be women more than two, 

The Yusuf Ali translation reads:

Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children's (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females: if only daughters, two or more,

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?

Reepicheep wrote: This indicates that there must be two contradictory Arabic manuscripts for this portion of the koran. Correct?

Not correct, in the context "two or more" and "more than two" is same. When translator translates from Quran they actually writes their understanding of Quran in such a way that reader of the translation can grab the meaning in the most familiar way. This is not word to word translation. If I write exact word it will be "above two" but translators felt that "above two" is not familiar way of saying in english. So, they wrote these two versions according to their understanding which brings correct meaning in a readers mind in more familiar way.

You should not cook stories for your desires without proper knowledge. Don't think Quran the bible way. Quran and its histrory is much more perfect that you imagination.

Regards

No, Abuzaid, you are incorrect.  "Two or more" and "more than two" do not have the same meaning.

"Two or more" includes the case of exactly two daughters.

"More than two" excludes the case of exactly two daughters.

Out of curiosity, I checked all the translations I could find, to see how this verse is translated:

- two translations (Yusuf Ali and Hilali Khan) use the phrase "two or more".

- nine translations (Pickthal, Shakir, Irving, Palmer, Sher Ali, Khalifa, Arberry, Rodwell, and Sale) use the phrase "more than two" or similar wording.

Based on this, I've concluded that "more than two" is correct. But it still doesn't explain why Yusuf Ali and Hilali Khan translate the phrase differently.

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

Reepicheep wrote: - nine translations (Pickthal, Shakir, Irving, Palmer, Sher Ali, Khalifa, Arberry, Rodwell, and Sale) use the phrase "more than two" or similar wording. Based on this, I've concluded that "more than two" is correct. But it still doesn't explain why Yusuf Ali and Hilali Khan translate the phrase differently.

However, their is not proof of two confliting arabic script

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?

Kindly open another thread to discuss this issue. This thread is to discuss errors in bible. So, obviously you started to discuss contradictions in Quran also.

Now, the point you have raised is already cleared. Yusuf Ali has made an error in translation. Thas is the end of story.

Do you find any other contradiction in Quran, let's discuss. But not law of inheritance, not in this thread atleast. Don't try to change the topic of thread for unnecessary arguments.

Regards

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 - 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 - 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.

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. 

To a degree you are right but we have been given a mind to use. Most moslems I meet have not said it is a matter of belief. They have all encouraged me to think and use my mind. Rarely have I ever heard Christians say that. That somehow I need to just believe that God created his son (who by the way is God) to come down and die for us, (can God die in any form?) And then Jesus rose to be seated by God, but is God and somewhere in there is the holy spirit. Who sits next to God and Jesus but is God too.. rather confusing and actually illogical.

In Islam, they say, look at life, look around you, use logic, use science. Use your mind. Then if you can look at these things in a way and can "see" the divine then you believe in God. And the Quran is about helping people to see these signs. And if you believe in the Signs then you will believe in the Divine. Something mysterious and beyond all humans. Then it follows to logic that to give us knowledge God has sent people to be messengers or prophets. And God being just has sent these messengers to all peoples so that they can KNOW. We don't know all of them. Just some.

Seems logical to me. Jesus was one of the prophets / messengers. The message was corrupted by people for their own personal / political gain. It became corrupted and the Bible was altered to suit peoples' purposes.

Hayfa wrote: To a degree you are right but we have been given a mind to use. Most moslems I meet have not said it is a matter of belief. They have all encouraged me to think and use my mind. Rarely have I ever heard Christians say that.

Muslims must use their minds... but according to the lines of the Quran. When it says that man is made from clay, you must precisely not use your mind or you would notice that it is a repeat of an old pagan myth.
Christians may not say that you have to use your mind but they just do it. See the tremendous progress in all types of sciences that has come from Christian countries compared to the rather "not use your mind" attitude of Muslim countries.
Christians by using their minds have  taken God out of the realm of science which has liberated thinking. Has such a way of thinking been used or is used by Muslim societies?

In Islam, they say, look at life, look around you, use logic, use science. Use your mind. Then if you can look at these things in a way and can "see" the divine then you believe in God. And the Quran is about helping people to see these signs.

The same teaching about seeing God around us is in the Bible. There is nothing new in the Quran.

Jesus was one of the prophets / messengers. The message was corrupted by people for their own personal / political gain. It became corrupted and the Bible was altered to suit peoples' purposes.

Cyril wrote: Muslims must use their minds... but according to the lines of the Quran. When it says that man is made from clay, you must precisely not use your mind or you would notice that it is a repeat of an old pagan myth.

Repeat of an old pagan myth ? May I ask for some more info on this, perhaps in a new thread   

This is a very interesting thread.  In my opinion, no one here should feel offended or upset by other's beliefs.  But I do agree that we were created with evolving intelligence for a reason.  God makes no mistakes in His design.  People need to stop thinking of God as a person and realize that God is a being that we can never comprehend because He Is beyond our comprehension.  You don't even have to leave Earth to have a glimpse of His greatness.  Just think of the Atlantic Ocean.  It takes about 14 hours to get across it.  How biggg it is, and God created it.  The trees grow and have their cycles without our input...the air moves around the earth allowing us to breath....our blood runs through our veins without us even thinking about it....the list goes on....Now you must look at every aspect of your life.  Everything your eyes lay sight on, everything your ears hear, everything you can touch, smell and taste.  Who created all of this?  God!  Our planet is but an insignificant part of our Galaxy, let alone our universe.  The universe is so huge that even the most intelligent of us cannot understand its size.  Now think about it, who created it?  Surely no man.  So now tell me, does God need a son?  Definitely not.  He is Great beyond our comprehension and instead of trying to argue about who's religion is right, why not start at the foundation of your belief.....GOD!  He and only He can guide you to the truth.  If God's creation is so amazing beyond which we can fully comprehend, then would he not have had a plan?  Would He allow for His book to have mistakes or different versions?  Of coarse not,  the mistakes come from man, for God does not make annnnyyy mistakes. 

Faith cannot be sewn into your soul unless you have searched for God in every aspect of your life, not just religion.   

Christians may not say that you have to use your mind but they just do it. See the tremendous progress in all types of sciences that has come from Christian countries compared to the rather "not use your mind" attitude of Muslim countries.

It depends on who you define as "Christian." Are you talking about people who have separated themselves from religion, commonly referred to as humanists? As we know most "advances" are done in predominantly secular countries. There has been a turning away from combining faith and science in these areas.  This started in Europe during the Renaissance. And it did not make the religious sectors happy at all and resulted in the Roman Inquisition.  

As far as what Moslems did in the past I would say the colonization of lands that were predominantly Moslem had an effect on efforts. How can you be worried about science and such if you are fighting for your livelihood and survival?

And it can be argued in the west that people have so far turned away from spirituality that they have seen it is their �right� to destroy and pillage the natural world.  It is this type of superiority complex has left us shakey in terms of long-term survival. The excesses of the west are a danger to the planet. If there was a true connection to the spiritual, would people waste so much as focus on accumulating so many useless and wasteful possessions?

Cyril wrote: Hayfa wrote: To a degree you are right but we have been given a mind to use. Most moslems I meet have not said it is a matter of belief. They have all encouraged me to think and use my mind. Rarely have I ever heard Christians say that. Muslims must use their minds... but according to the lines of the Quran. When it says that man is made from clay, you must precisely not use your mind or you would notice that it is a repeat of an old pagan myth. Christians may not say that you have to use your mind but they just do it. See the tremendous progress in all types of sciences that has come from Christian countries compared to the rather "not use your mind" attitude of Muslim countries. Christians by using their minds have  taken God out of the realm of science which has liberated thinking. Has such a way of thinking been used or is used by Muslim societies?

Greetings.

I was curious. You are implying that science is necessarily superior when it disconnects from Gd in the Islamic context, and that a "free thinking" results. Could you please demonstrate what progress science has been made that required a disconnect from Gd in the Islamic context? Furthermore, if keeping a connection to Gd and approaching the universe as teleological, within the Islamic view, is inferior and stifles thought, how do you explain the success of thought during the rise of Islamic Civilization?

Also, could you give an example of Islamic theology stifling scientific progress that would otherwise beneift man, perhaps in a pragmatic way?

In Islam, they say, look at life, look around you, use logic, use science. Use your mind. Then if you can look at these things in a way and can "see" the divine then you believe in God. And the Quran is about helping people to see these signs. The same teaching about seeing God around us is in the Bible. There is nothing new in the Quran.

The bible is mainly focused on the relationship between Gd, the Torah, and the tribe of Judah as the new center piece after the destruction of Israel, and the sanctity of the Davidic line.
In this world we judge things according to their predominant attributes. From this, one could say that the QUran does urge it's reader to look to the world around them and see the signs and contemplate the miracles of life as a way to contemplate Gd. This is a common theme of the Quran.

This does not mean that the bible os completely void of the notion of looking around, but it does mean that the bible does not have this as a central teaching.

Jesus was one of the prophets / messengers. The message was corrupted by people for their own personal / political gain. It became corrupted and the Bible was altered to suit peoples' purposes. The usual worn-out questions: where (not where in the Bible but in which location did it occur), when and by whom?

This is a type of non sequitur. The location of where a corruption was committed is not a proof that a corruption occurred, just as not being able to tell you where the corruption occurred in terms of location does not mean the corruption did not occur.

Kindest Regards 

Bismarck wrote: rubies wrote:   Well one well known example is  the story of the woman caught in adultery.  Where Jesus (peace be upon him) reportedly says 'let him who is without sin cast the first stone'.  (paraphrasing) Bible scholars know that this story is absent from the earliest manuscripts and is a later insertion.  You can read more about this here: http://www.bible-researcher.com/adult.html - http://www.bible- researcher.com/adult.html Now, who added it?  When?  What else did they add or subtract? How can anyone rely on such a book - the NT? Rubies, My understanding is that, although the 'pericope' about the woman caught in adultery may not have originally been in that Gospel, if it was not, it was almost assuredly inserted because it was a treasured story in its own right in oral tradition and it was inserted into the canon in order to preserve it.

That is complete and absolute conjecture. All anyone can say with any certainty is that it was not a part of the tradition.

Thus, its presence it not the same as saying scripture was corrupted... just two treasured scriptures (the Gospel, and that 'pericope') were combined in order to preserve both. Best regards, Bismarck

Actually, in the context of transmission and textual criticsm, that would be considered an example of corruption.

regards

niqab_ummi wrote: Assalamu'Alaikum, and Salaams to all of our non-muslim guests, It is well documented there are hundreds of places you can go to start with a good encyclopedia or dictionary at the very least here is a small part from a very lengthy exerpt. Pope Damasus I assembled the first list of books of the Bible at the Council of Rome in 382 A.D. He commissioned Saint Jerome to produce a reliable and consistent text by translating the original Greek and Hebrew texts into Latin. This translation became known as the Latin Vulgate Bible and was declared by the Church to be the only authentic and official Bible. The priests of the past were not priests by todays definition or standard. There's little to no doubt that at that time some scattered documentations, and widely contested but in general accepted points of views and interpretations of the teachings and practices of Issa(AS) Jesus did exsist but not a complete text.  Go deeper into that time period and you will find that after Issa(AS) was taken to Jannah-Heaven the horrific killings by the romans continued the mass slaughtering of the followers appostles continued at a certain point a mergence or mutual aggreement came about to combine the Roman traditions and Christian beliefs after the Roman empire felt threatened.... For example look at the winter season now... For hundreds of years Christmas was banned in the UK it wasn't until the late 1400's the church and governing bodies allowed it....It was viewed as not a true holiday of the birth if Issa(AS) but as a pagan holiday one that was celebrated in rioutus fun one with Roman Influences in relation to the winter solstice and Sun God worshiped by them. No matter what your faith is you must delve deep into it's time period and history using not only the resource your church, temple, or masjid has provided but also outside well documented sources. When you study not only the text but also the history surrounding it. It brings much more understanding. I do know Issa(As) did not finish his work because the Quran states that....and that's why he will return. Allah(swt) knows best. No matter what your faith it has been well documented by Islamic Officials, Church Officials, and Jewish Officials that the Quran is the only book of God that has be so well preserved and maintained from the very first of it's revelations....There have been many documentaries, international conferances and articles on this subject. Even if there were none I would say just by reading the Quran and the amount of detail and knowledge it provides about all of the book of Allah(swt) God is proof enough.....I learned many things in more detail about the Christian faith as a Muslim than I did as a Christian and that just backs up the evidence that the Quran is the Pure unaltered word of Allah(swt) God. Wa'Allahu'Alim...God is the most Knowing. MasSalaama,

Thank you so much for that!  Sounds fascinating and I promise to check it all out and research more. The journey for truth continues to get more interesting and exciting for me as time goes on. God bless you sister.

The only thing I question about what you said previously was that a priest wrote the Bible, only later did you clarify this:

Pope Damasus I assembled the first list of books of the Bible at the Council of Rome in 382 A.D. He commissioned Saint Jerome to produce a reliable and consistent text by translating the original Greek and Hebrew texts into Latin. This translation became known as the Latin Vulgate Bible and was declared by the Church to be the only authentic and official Bible.

All he did was translate the text, as the Quran has also been translated. It does not mean that the translator was the writer, just the translator, it is quite different.