Oldest Books?

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble

Because in all probability none of those changes have any fundamental effect on how the core content is interpreted? - that's the point I was making.

Probability based on what logic?

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble

Moving on a little then, can those who claim that the Bible (Torah or New Testament) has been significantly changed - in a way a great many hugely significant works just as old do not appear to have been - actually provide 'proof' of this?

All I have seen is the suggestion that it might have been changed or unsupported statements that it has. The relatively few 'contradictions' and 'errors' that cannot be otherwise explained demonstrate only that there were generally trivial differences of opinion and knowledge of historical/mythical details between the (different) authors of the books concerned - which we knew anyway.

What we see in the Biblical text and manuscripts is that there is evidence of changes taking place. This is something which can be found in the Biblical footnotes of today, which makes me wonder as to how much research you have done to derive that in probability it has not changed significantly.

First there is the phase of Oral Traditiion where many people could have said many things, this of itself can be problematic if names and evidences are not taken. The authors of the Gospels we have now would have had to compile some information, this poses the question as to whether they compiled the right Oral Traditions.

Then there is the evolution within the Gospels themselves, we see the Jesus is Mark being one thing and the Jesus is Matthew slightly more elvated, then we see the Jesus in John being of a totally different catagory.

Then add to that also the scribal changes we have seen now which do change meanings, such as the 1 John 5:7, such as the Mark 1:1 and so forth. These are changes we have found, one has to marvel at the changes we have not found and have yet to find or even the changes we will never find.

format_quote Originally Posted by lavikor201

I would disagree, The "tanslations" in Greek etc were changed. The source Hebrew text always remained the same, pronounciations may have differed, but many even doubt that, since an actual Torah scroll written according to the law of writing a Torah scroll (not a book with the Torah written in it, but gives commentary in the middle etc) has never been found that differs from our tradition.

Not finding a change does not neccesitate no changes, we should look at the conditions in which the Torah found itself by its keepers. Is it true Biblical Scholars which you might disagree with, rather I think you do disagree with, have said there are 4 sources to the Books of Moses and have come up with this by studying the text and the common traits found?

This will be enough for now insha'Allah.

Warm Regards to both you

Eesa.

Sure. Look at this site. Lots of Bibles lots of different ways of interpreting it over the years.
http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/

format_quote Originally Posted by samah12

Wow Barney what a lot of different versions of the Bible. Thanks for the link, have put it in my fav's and will have a delve later.

Yeah, worth doing. It's like reading the same book but with totally different authors. never gets boring. (well actually it gets incredibly boring...yet facinating too)
Have fun.

format_quote Originally Posted by samah12

Does the message change in the various versions? If not why so many?

Yes it changes. The oldest versions spit forth hellfire and the newer ones tone it down.

In about 50 more years they will probably advise people to not covert thy neighbours mercedes nor their plasma TV, lest they lose stickers on a sin-chart or something. (thats being sarcastic, but hey, it's not my religion!)

format_quote Originally Posted by samah12

Oh great will go soon and have a good laugh. I remember when I was 13 they changed the Lords prayer, that was the day I stopped going to Christian church (that and they took stickers off my little angel chart).

I talked too loudly in Sunday School and some old bird hit me on the head with a Bible.

Bringing a message of peace! Pfft!

format_quote Originally Posted by samah12

I watched a documentary at Christmans that said there were originally 30 Gospels (including one by Judas) but the leaders of the Christian church chose only 4 to be included in the Bible. Does anyone know if this is true and if so why only 4?

Also I am confused (nothing new there) as to why Allah tells us in the Quran to "judge" between the books but most Muslims would never dream of reading anything but the Quran. Why? Allah has told us to compare them and if we do not read them how can we compare?

What verse sis.

The exact number of original Gospels is unknown. The most famous non-gospel was that of Mary. It apparently told of Jesus's favor to her, the relationship between them and much other lost infomation.

The gospels that contradicted the Trinity & the deification of Jesus were removed and consigned to the bonfires from circa 300AD.

format_quote Originally Posted by samah12

To be honest with you Trumble I have no answers. It is a subject I have just become very interested in. I believe in coexistance and a thread about coexistance on this site got me thinking about this. Why is there so much animosity between Muslims, Christians and Jews?

not sure about jews, but i think conflict and animosity between islam and christianity is inevitable because both religions claim to be The One True Religion and both proselytize.

Hostility to the Jews is simply because it's hard to turn on Arab TV and not see something critisising israel, Preachers using Quranic passages about Apes and Pigs, School lessons starting with chants of "Death to Israel" schoolbooks feeding a steady diet of the same and 3 year olds on TV being able to quote stuff like ....
http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=1398
That might be why.

that would only explain it since the rise of the zionist movement (a political, not a religious movement).
before that, the jews fared much better under the muslims than under the christians.