Scholars plan to reunite ancient Bible

[Serving Islam]

Bismillah: Assalamo Alikum.

Handwritten in Greek more than 1,600 years ago — it isn't exactly clear where — the surviving 400 or so pages carry a version of the New Testament that has a few interesting differences from the Bible used by Christians today.

The Gospel of Mark ends abruptly after Jesus' disciples discover his empty tomb, for example. Mark's last line has them leaving in fear.

"It cuts out the post-resurrection stories," said Juan Garces, curator of the Codex Sinaiticus Project. "That's a very odd way of ending a Gospel."

James Davila, a professor of early Jewish studies at St. Andrews University in Scotland, said the Codex also includes religious works foreign to the Roman Catholic and Protestant canons — such as the "Epistle of Barnabas" and the "Shepherd of Hermas," a book packed with visions and parables.

Davila stressed that did not mean the works were necessarily considered Scripture by early Christians: They could have been bound with the Bible to save money.

Read the entire article for yourself: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080721/..._ancient_bible

Salam
Serving Islam.

[Uthman]

Interesting. I wonder about the extent to which this ancient Bible is different from the Bible today.

[Whatsthepoint]

I once checked a 1400 years old Latin version and examined the controversial parts and they were there for the most part.

[ayan333]

Interesting. I wonder about the extent to which this ancient Bible is different from the Bible today.

:sl:

big difference,SubahnALLAH..its like they add something new every year..any one can add their 2 cents to it

SubahnALLAH hey have a remix to the bible now

:w:

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Uthman]

I once checked a 1400 years old Latin version and examined the controversial parts and they were there for the most part.

What was there for the most part? Sorry, I didn't get you. :-[

[Whatsthepoint]

What was there for the most part? Sorry, I didn't get you. :-[

You know, the verses that some people, muslims too, claim were added long after year 0. I checked a couple and they were there in a 1400 years old manuscript.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

The oldest version online could be very useful for scholars of early Christianity, alongside all the other variant Bible texts that are extant. The storage and preservation of information that the internet provides never ceases to amaze me.

Not to mention all the cool things you can find out, such as:

big difference,SubahnALLAH..its like they add something new every year..any one can add their 2 cents to it

Really - is that how it works? Cool! There sure are a lot of things I'd like to see put into the Bible. Where do I sign up? :happy:

Peace

[Keltoi]

:sl:

big difference,SubahnALLAH..its like they add something new every year..any one can add their 2 cents to it

SubahnALLAH hey have a remix to the bible now

:w:

They add something new every year? Interesting I hadn't noticed. Care to share with me what "they" added this year? Or even last year?

[ayan333]

They add something new every year? Interesting I hadn't noticed. Care to share with me what "they" added this year? Or even last year?

r u seriously going to argue and tell me that the bibles been the same through out the years...i havnt found one,not one,wahid,uno.person to who can answer any of my questions,things as simple as whose you GOD

dnt get me wrong...there are some plp out there who do follow christianity,not the christianity were if i ask the two persons who "claim" to be christians who their LORD is,n they tell you two oppostie things..almost garunteed..il ltry to see which version of the bible my neighbors have them compare it to my other neighbors bible n have them settle it

but im not here to argue,simply state my oponion which everyone has a right to express right? and leave it at that

n for the proof of the rencently added things i will glady provide it,actually i would be more then happy to,jus give me a lil time while go up the street to the local church n turn in my "approval to add to bible sheet"...available in stores 2009-2010


i once was told that Islam doesnt permit insulting or talking negatively towards ones relgion although its done to us 24-7,some actually have careers for it but untill then i wnt state the hundreds contridictions it contains n above ive only stated facts,nothing but the truth

till then i guess Isnh ALLAH(If ALLAH (SWA) Wills)

:w:
nice day

hope u find the truth

[Keltoi]

r u seriously going to argue and tell me that the bibles been the same through out the years...i havnt found one,not one,wahid,uno.person to who can answer any of my questions,things as simple as whose you GOD

dnt get me wrong...there are some plp out there who do follow christianity,not the christianity were if i ask the two persons who "claim" to be christians who their LORD is,n they tell you two oppostie things..almost garunteed..il ltry to see which version of the bible my neighbors have them compare it to my other neighbors bible n have them settle it

but im not here to argue,simply state my oponion which everyone has a right to express right? and leave it at that

n for the proof of the rencently added things i will glady provide it,actually i would be more then happy to,jus give me a lil time while go up the street to the local church n turn in my "approval to add to bible sheet"...available in stores 2009-2010


i once was told that Islam doesnt permit insulting or talking negatively towards ones relgion although its done to us 24-7,some actually have careers for it but untill then i wnt state the hundreds contridictions it contains n above ive only stated facts,nothing but the truth

till then i guess Isnh ALLAH(If ALLAH (SWA) Wills)

:w:
nice day

hope u find the truth

No offense, but I really couldn't understand much of that.

From what I did understand, you believe you can look at your neighbors Bible and find a different one from your other neighbor? If you mean you will find a different translation of the Bible I would agree. If you mean you will find something theological in one Bible that isn't in another...then I don't agree and would really like for you post evidence of this.

[ayan333]

No offense, but I really couldn't understand much of that.

From what I did understand, you believe you can look at your neighbors Bible and find a different one from your other neighbor? If you mean you will find a different translation of the Bible I would agree. If you mean you will find something theological in one Bible that isn't in another...then I don't agree and would really like for you post evidence of this.

im sorry u didnt understand...

translation? noooooo im talking defferent verses n so on.

to say translation would be stupid...the holy Qur'an is translated in every language possible so in no way did i mean that

hopefully i can find it online or ill try to quote it or even scan it so u wnt have to worry about me making stuff up
ok


its funny cuz my Ap gov. teacher,who is a christian herself always points out these things,kinda weird

but got to memorize my Qur'an Homework but dnt worry im on it
Insh ALLAH

[czgibson]

Greetings,

r u seriously going to argue and tell me that the bibles been the same through out the years...i havnt found one,not one,wahid,uno.person to who can answer any of my questions,things as simple as whose you GOD

If I may rudely interrupt but try to help here:

Perhaps the reason you are so interested in this area is because your religion places great importance on the Qur'an having remained unchanged, whereas Christians do not attach the same claim to the Bible.

In other words, it's a big deal for you, but it isn't a big deal for Christians.

The Bible is a selection of texts drawn from a wealth of different sources, and given that during the time it was created and compiled the flow of information was more limited than it is today, dicrepancies between different texts are inevitable.

Peace

[ayan333]

Greetings,


If I may rudely interrupt but try to help here:

Perhaps the reason you are so interested in this area is because your religion places great importance on the Qur'an having remained unchanged, whereas Christians do not attach the same claim to the Bible.

correct

In other words, it's a big deal for you, but it isn't a big deal for Christians.
right on

The Bible is a selection of texts drawn from a wealth of different sources, and given that during the time it was created and compiled the flow of information was more limited than it is today, dicrepancies between different texts are inevitable. Peace

cool...try explaining that to all those who believe the current bible was wriiten
by GOD....like ur responce through

hope u didnt take it offensive

peace to all

[czgibson]

Greetings,

cool...try explaining that to all those who believe the current bible was wriiten
by GOD....like ur responce through

hope u didnt take it offensive

peace to all

Don't worry, of course not. On here, I only really get offended by unnecessary threats of violence or just general rudeness, neither of which you have shown.

In any case, you should know that if a Christian says he believes the Bible was written by god, he understands this very differently to the way you understand your belief that the Qur'an was written by Allah.

If you look at the Bible, very little of it even claims to be the word of god. With the Qur'an, 100% of it is claimed to be the word of god. That's a big difference.

The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence needs to be, I would say, but that's another story...

Peace

[ayan333]

Greetings,


Don't worry, of course not. On here, I only really get offended by unnecessary threats of violence or just general rudeness, neither of which you have shown.

If a Christian says he believes the Bible was written by god, he understands this very differently to the way you understand your belief that the Qur'an was written by Allah.

If you look at the Bible, very little of it even claims to be the word of god. With the Qur'an, 100% of it is claimed to be the word of god. That's a big difference.

The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence needs to be, I would say, but that's another story...

Peace

o good
understood

peace

[Serving Islam]

Bismillah: Assalamo Alikum.

They add something new every year? Interesting I hadn't noticed. Care to share with me what "they" added this year? Or even last year?

The changes don’t happen really every year (maybe that was a figure of speech), however, the changes of the Bible DO HAPPEN quite often, and that’s why we have thousands of different version today and every adherents of that particular version, claiming that it is the only accurate word of God. Of course they can make such claims simply because the ORIGINAL manuscripts do not exist anymore according to Christian scholars.

For example, according the link posted, the new discovery shows that the manuscripts found includes the Gospel of Barnabas, which mentioned Muhammad pbuh by name as the last messenger of God (although they are still not sure whether it is part of the original Bible or only belongs to Christian writings and not inspired), also the original manuscripts does not mention anywhere the ascension of Jesus to heaven, the word begotten is not mentioned, the 1st epistle of John 5:7 (trinity) is not to be found, the story of stoning the lady who commits adultery is not found, Mark 16 ends at verse 8, verses 9-20 are missing, and many more…

What is important is that Christian scholars themselves declared that the original manuscripts are not exactly as today’s Bible, what other evidence do you require to prove that today's Bible is NOT the accurate word of God?

Salam
Serving Islam

[Keltoi]

Bismillah: Assalamo Alikum.



The changes don’t happen really every year (maybe that was a figure of speech), however, the changes of the Bible DO HAPPEN quite often, and that’s why we have thousands of different version today and every adherents of that particular version, claiming that it is the only accurate word of God. Of course they can make such claims simply because the ORIGINAL manuscripts do not exist anymore according to Christian scholars.

For example, according the link posted, the new discovery shows that the manuscripts found includes the Gospel of Barnabas, which mentioned Muhammad pbuh by name as the last messenger of God (although they are still not sure whether it is part of the original Bible or only belongs to Christian writings and not inspired), also the original manuscripts does not mention anywhere the ascension of Jesus to heaven, the word begotten is not mentioned, the 1st epistle of John 5:7 (trinity) is not to be found, the story of stoning the lady who commits adultery is not found, Mark 16 ends at verse 8, verses 9-20 are missing, and many more…

What is important is that Christian scholars themselves declared that the original manuscripts are not exactly as today’s Bible, what other evidence do you require to prove that today's Bible is NOT the accurate word of God?

Salam
Serving Islam

First of all, the "Gospel of Barnabas" you are referring to has been known to be a medieval forgery for a long time. The Epistle of Barnabas, which is what the article mentioned, is something altogether different.

Barnabas 5:1
For to this end the Lord endured to deliver His flesh unto
corruption, that by the remission of sins we might be cleansed, which
cleansing is through the blood of His sprinkling.

Barnabas 5:2
For the scripture concerning Him containeth some things relating to
Israel, and some things relating to us. And it speaketh thus; He
was wounded for your transgressions, and He hath been bruised for
our sins; by His stripes we were healed. As a sheep He was led to
slaughter, as a lamb is dumb before his shearer.

Barnabas 5:3
We ought therefore to be very thankful unto the Lord, for that He
both revealed unto us the past, and made us wise in the present, and
as regards the future we are not without understanding.

Not exactly what you were looking for was it?

As for the rest, it is an incomplete collection of writings that have been found. I can't say why those aspects are missing, but it at the time this manuscript was written the Christian theological doctrine was already in place. Nothing this codex has or doesn't have changes that fact.

[Keltoi]

Bismillah: Assalamo Alikum.



The changes don’t happen really every year (maybe that was a figure of speech), however, the changes of the Bible DO HAPPEN quite often, and that’s why we have thousands of different version today and every adherents of that particular version, claiming that it is the only accurate word of God. Of course they can make such claims simply because the ORIGINAL manuscripts do not exist anymore according to Christian scholars.

You are still referring to translations. Some translations use the old King James style of speech. Others use a more modern form of speech in the translation. In any event, these different translations do not equal different versions, only different translations.

[usman2468]

The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence needs to be, I would say, but that's another story...

Let me get this is straight here. If you mean that you need some extra ordinary evidence that the Holy Quran is the word of God I can give plenty of them.

[Serving Islam]

Bismillah: Assalamo Alikum

You are still referring to translations. Some translations use the old King James style of speech. Others use a more modern form of speech in the translation. In any event, these different translations do not equal different versions, only different translations.

No I am actually referring to versions of the Bible, NOT translations.

When one Bible contains 73 books, 7 extra books more than the protestant Bible, then we call them different versions, when the same RSV of 1952 and 1971 contradicts each other, we call them versions and not translations, when you read Jehovah’s witness Bible and compare it with the KJV, you will understand what I mean, when you read the Living Bible and compare it with Jimmy Swaggart’s version, then you will realize the huge differences.

The reason for this is that the original Bible itself do not exist today, and so everyone can claim that his Bible is God’s words, but no one can really back up his claim with some evidence, and that’s why Christian Scholars who have done their home work knows well what am talking about.

I can elaborate further on this subject if you wish.

Salam
Serving Islam

[Keltoi]

Bismillah: Assalamo Alikum



No I am actually referring to versions of the Bible, NOT translations.

When one Bible contains 73 books, 7 extra books more than the protestant Bible, then we call them different versions, when the same RSV of 1952 and 1971 contradicts each other, we call them versions and not translations, when you read Jehovah’s witness Bible and compare it with the KJV, you will understand what I mean, when you read the Living Bible and compare it with Jimmy Swaggart’s version, then you will realize the huge differences.

The reason for this is that the original Bible itself do not exist today, and so everyone can claim that his Bible is God’s words, but no one can really back up his claim with some evidence, and that’s why Christian Scholars who have done their home work knows well what am talking about.

I can elaborate further on this subject if you wish.

Salam
Serving Islam

As for the Bible with 7 OT books added, you are referring to the Catholic Bible. It does indeed have 7 books the Protestant Bibles do not. Why? That is a long standing source of disagreement. Protestant do not feel the " deuterocanon", or "apocrypha" are inspired books, but Catholics do. You are right on that score. However, adding or subtracting the apocrypha does not alter Christian doctrine. So the disagreement is not over doctrine.

As for the RSV of 1952 as compared to later versions, that is a case of different translations, as I stated. The difference between the Bibles are different translations of Hebrew words. There is no doctrinal difference.

As for the Jehova's Witnesses version of the Bible, let me ask you a question. If a group of people, with a figurehead, decided to take the Qu'ran and add words and change phrases to match their own ideology, would you consider their version to be valid? The Jehova's Witnesses "Bible" is nothing more than a standard translation of the Bible with their own words added to it. It isn't a case of a different version of the Bible that have always been around, it was a Bible altered in the 19th century. Not really a valid criticism of the Bible mainstream traditional Christianity uses.

The Living Bible is another translation. The author intended it to be a guide in vernacular language, not a sole source of Biblical knowledge.

As for Jimmy Swaggart, again, he did not write a Bible, it is a collection of Bible commentaries. Meant to be a study guide.

[Serving Islam]

Bismillah: Assalamo Alikum.

Keltoi

As for the Bible with 7 OT books added, you are referring to the Catholic Bible. It does indeed have 7 books the Protestant Bibles do not. Why? That is a long standing source of disagreement. Protestant do not feel the " deuterocanon", or "apocrypha" are inspired books, but Catholics do. You are right on that score. However, adding or subtracting the apocrypha does not alter Christian doctrine. So the disagreement is not over doctrine.

It is not a matter of who feels which books are inspired and which are not, we are talking about WHICH BIBLE is really God’s word? And you simply can’t prove that because the original manuscripts are not available today.

I am not sure to which denomination of Christianity you are belongs to, but I am sure that you are sticking to ONE BIBLE only and can’t use other Bibles because you know very well that they are different/VERSIONS, as we will see later in this post.

As for the RSV of 1952 as compared to later versions, that is a case of different translations, as I stated. The difference between the Bibles are different translations of Hebrew words. There is no doctrinal difference.

Ok let us examine both Bibles, but before that I urge you to lay your hand on RSV (1971), and read the preface, and you will note that those scholars who re re re revised the KJV said, that the KJV has grave defects, and that these defects are SO MANY and SO SERIOUS… I wonder how could these defects be so serious if there are no doctrinal differences and mistakes? Just imagine with me for a second, how Muslims would feel when hearing form Scholars of the highest eminence, backed by 50 cooperating denominations that the KJV of the Bible HAVE GRAVE DEFECTS?

Anyway, now let us examine those Bibles: (i.e. the twin RSV).

1- If you read RSV 1952, you will see that there is no mention of BEGOTTEN son of God as it is found in KJV (John 3:16).

2- If you read the 1st epistle of John 5:7 of the same version (RSV 1952), there is no mention of Trinity (i.e. that those three are ONE as mentioned in KJV).

3- Mark 16:19 and Luke 24:51… please read them in RSV 1952 and you will see that Mark 16 ends at verse no 8. which means that the ascension of Jesus is not mention in that VERSION, and instead they replaced “and was carried up into heaven” by a tiny letter ‘a’ to ask the reader if he wishes to look at the footnote where you can see those missing words, and I guess, any honest man would agree that FOOTNOTES are not God’s words or even inspired by God.

4- Forgot to tell you that Christian scholars also have said that the RSV is the most accurate Bible, goes to the most ancient manuscripts (200 – 300 years after Jesus) bringing their Bible step closer to Islam by removing, God’s begotten son, Trinity, and sitting on God’s right hand/ascension.

5- All the above points and more were RESTORED into “God’s word” in RSV 1971. Now which one really is God’s word? And what are the evidences?

As for the Jehova's Witnesses version of the Bible, let me ask you a question. If a group of people, with a figurehead, decided to take the Qu'ran and add words and change phrases to match their own ideology, would you consider their version to be valid?

They can’t change the Qur’an, it is written on the hearts of Muslims, that is how Allah preserve it. On the other hand, neither you nor Jehovah’s Witnesses can tell us which version of the Bible is really God’s words because again and again, the original do not exist today, and these are NOT MY WORDS, it’s the words of Bible Christian Scholars.

The Jehova's Witnesses "Bible" is nothing more than a standard translation of the Bible with their own words added to it. It isn't a case of a different version of the Bible that have always been around, it was a Bible altered in the 19th century. Not really a valid criticism of the Bible mainstream traditional Christianity uses.

Again, because you are NOT a Jehovah’s Witness, it is just normal to speak against their own version of the Bible, which is believed BY THEM to be the accurate word of God. How can anyone prove that they’ve added into the original Bible, if we don’t have the original at all???

Salam
Serving Islam.

[usman2468]

No offense but what kind of Holy book bible is.

Not preserved in its original version
Conflicting views
Conflicting translations
Conflicting verses

Even if Islam did not tell me that the message of Bible has been corrupted. The problems I have mentioned seemed sufficient to prove that Bible is indeed corrupt.

[Keltoi]

It is not a matter of who feels which books are inspired and which are not, we are talking about WHICH BIBLE is really God’s word? And you simply can’t prove that because the original manuscripts are not available today.

I am not sure to which denomination of Christianity you are belongs to, but I am sure that you are sticking to ONE BIBLE only and can’t use other Bibles because you know very well that they are different/VERSIONS, as we will see later in this post.

Actually I don't stick to one Bible. Sometimes I use the King James, sometimes NIV, sometimes something else. The doctrine is the same, it is the translation that is different. Passages can be worded differently while still expressing the Hebrew or Greek language they are translated from, at least to the best of the translators ability. The same is true for the Qu'ran. You will find different translations of the Qu'ran that are worded differently.

As for what is God's Word as opposed to inspired text...I think you are using a Muslim perspective and placing a Christian text into that perspective. We do not believe God writes books. We believe men have been inspired to chronicle God's interaction with His people. As Christians, we believe the OT and the NT chronicle that interaction. It is faith, just like your belief that the Qu'ran is the literal Word of God.

Ok let us examine both Bibles, but before that I urge you to lay your hand on RSV (1971), and read the preface, and you will note that those scholars who re re re revised the KJV said, that the KJV has grave defects, and that these defects are SO MANY and SO SERIOUS… I wonder how could these defects be so serious if there are no doctrinal differences and mistakes? Just imagine with me for a second, how Muslims would feel when hearing form Scholars of the highest eminence, backed by 50 cooperating denominations that the KJV of the Bible HAVE GRAVE DEFECTS?

Actually the preface states that the Kings James version of the Bible suffers from translation defects. They know this because an older version of the Bible was found. The majority of those defects have to do with nouns and verbs, with some errors being more profound. As one passage describes headbands, tablets, and earrings; when it should say sashes, perfume boxes, and amulets. The errors have been corrected to the best of the translators ability. As for your other points about "begotten" and "ascension into Heaven", they are English words used to describe a non-English concept. If you wish to nitpick the Bible, do so in Greek or Hebrew, as that is the source, not the English King James or the revised versions. Oh, and no version says the word "Trinity". That is a word used to describe a religious concept in Christianity. That concept, from a Christian perspective, is found in the Bible, regardless of translation.

Again, because you are NOT a Jehovah’s Witness, it is just normal to speak against their own version of the Bible, which is believed BY THEM to be the accurate word of God. How can anyone prove that they’ve added into the original Bible, if we don’t have the original at all???

Honestly, this is non-point. I don't need to read an ancient codex to figure out that Jehova's Witnesses have altered the available Biblical texts to suit their own religious ideology. If I decide tomorrow to found a new religion based on a singing rabbit and change the word "Jesus" to "Wilber the Rabbit" it doesn't have anything to do with "lack of an original", it was my decision to do so.