Contrary to the claims of your lies, Caesar, aristotle and plato WROTE their literary works themselves, in bronze tablets and scrolls, and many of which still survive until now, kept by many museums and institutions in europe and minor asia
Generally speaking, the older the manuscript copies, the better. The oldest
manuscript for Gallic Wars is roughly 900 years after Caesar’s day. The two
manuscripts of Tacitus are 800 and 1,000 years later, respectively, than the
original. The earliest copies of Homer’s Iliad date from about 1,000 years after
the original was authored around 800 B.C. But with the New Testament, we have
complete manuscripts from only 300 hundred years later. Most of the New
Testament is preserved in manuscripts less than 200 years from the original, with
some books dating from a little more than 100 years after their composition and
one fragment surviving within a generation of its authorship. No other book from
the ancient world has as small a time gap between composition and earliest
manuscript copies as the New Testament
“In the original Greek alone, over 5,000 manuscripts and manuscript fragments or
portions of the NT have been preserved from the early centuries of Christianity.
The oldest of these is a scrap of papyrus containing John 18:31-33, 37-38, dating
from A.D. 125-130, no more than forty years after John’s Gospel was most
probably written” (Craig L. Blomberg, “The Historical Reliability of the New
Testament,” Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, pp. 193-94).
It is unfortunate that you'd rather this cognitive conservatism than plain defects smacking you in the face. Be that as it may, No Muslim here wants to convince you of anything, this is an Islamic forum, seems the onus is on you to refute scholars including staunch biblical scholars like Bruce Mitzger of the gross alterations/subtractions/addendums, not to mention complete deviance of what preceded and proceeded.
The New Testament is the most accurately copied book from the ancient world.
Textual scholars Westcott and Hort estimate that only one-sixtieth of its variants
rise above “trivialities,” which leaves the text 98.33 percent pure. Noted historian
Philip Schaff calculates that of the 150,000 variants known in his day, only 400
affected the meaning of a passage; only 50 were of any significance; and not even
one affected an article of faith (Companion to the Greek Testament and English
Version, p. 177).
Many of the apparent discrepancies in the gospels, Acts and the writings of Paul –
minor as they are – disappear once we judge ancient historians by the standards of
their day rather than ours. As Craig L. Blomberg writes, “In a world which did not
even have a symbol for a quotation mark, no one expected a historian to
reproduce a speaker’s words verbatim”
The New Testament was written by eyewitnesses and contemporaries of Jesus.
For example, Luke probably wrote his gospel around 60 A.D., before he wrote
Acts. Since Jesus died around 33 A.D., this would place Luke only 27 years after
the events, while most eyewitnesses – and potentially hostile witnesses – were
still alive and could have refuted Luke’s record.
Now, this is is what seals the deal for me:
The 40 men who penned the scriptures over a period of 1,500 years insisted that
their message came from God. Many were persecuted and even killed for their
faith. Of the 11 faithful apostles plus Paul, only John escaped a martyr’s death,
although he was boiled in oil and banished to Patmos; even at that, he continued
to boldly proclaim divine truth...
Ainmazg! Enyoreve can raed waht I am wirtnig and konw waht I maen eevn tghuogh I mix up all the lttres ecxpet the frsit and lsat one!
Now imagine if a scribe forgot only one letter because he was careless... Such an error would be easily corrected.
Was trying to show this:
The text of an uncial contains all capital letters, with no spaces between the words, and with no punctuation. In this type of manuscript, if the end of a line was reached in the middle of a word, the copyist simply went to the next line, continuing with the rest of the word. For comparison, consider the passage below in uncial-like script.
Uncial Manuscript Example - Codex Sinaiticus, Romans 6:23–8:5
NOTEVERYONEWHOSAYSTOMELORDLORDWILLENTERTHEKINGDOMOFHEAVENBUTONLYHEWHODOESTHEWILLOFMYFATHERWHOISINHEAVEN
With this type of script, it is easy to imagine even the most careful copyist making a minor mistake such as dropping off a letter, interposing two letters, repeating a line, or skipping a line. The vast majority of the supposed two hundred thousand mistakes in the Greek manuscripts are just such scribal slips of the pen. These errors are very easily detected and corrected by the scholars who study the Greek text of the New Testament. They have absolutely no effect on the integrity of the Greek New Testament.
I can keep going:
Papias, born in 60 A.D., records what the old apostle John told him about the writing of the gospels: "Mark, having become Peter's interpreter, wrote accurately all that he remembered; though he did not record in order that which was done or said by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed Him; but subsequently, as I said, [attached himself to] Peter who used to frame his teaching to meet the [immediate] wants of his hearers; and not as making a connective narrative of the Lord's discourses.' So Mark committed no error, as he wrote down some particulars just as he recalled them to mind. For he took heed to one thing, to omit none of the facts that he heard, and to state nothing falsely in his narrative of them."
Tacitus, the leading historian of Imperial Rome writes: "The author of that name (Christian) was Christ who in the reign of Tiberius suffered punishment under his Procurator Pontius Pilate," while the Jewish historian Josephus writes, "There was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man for he was a doer of wonderful works -- a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day ..."
Although, to answer the question of the post, Christians in Muhammad's time could have had a Catholic-influenced Bible. Although I don't think it really matters because I doubt everyone could read like today, so people would depend upon teachers to read them the Bible and depending on your geographic location, different doctrines could emerge.
Hope this answers all the questions everyone has and clears it all up
Pretty much the same as saying "what kind of Qu'ran was there 700 years ago?". But that's a Christian point of view and hotly debated as I can see.
