There are over 5,600 early Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament that are still in existence. The oldest manuscripts were written on papyrus and the later manuscripts were written on leather called parchment. 125 A.D. The New Testament manuscript which dates most closely to the original autograph was copied around 125 A.D, within 35 years of the original. It is designated "p 52" and contains a small portion of John 18. (The "p" stands for papyrus.) http://www.kchanson.com/ANCDOCS/greek/johnpap.html 200 A.D. Bodmer p 66 a papyrus manuscript which contains a large part of the Gospel of John. 200 A.D. Chester Beatty Biblical papyrus p 46 contains the Pauline Epistles and Hebrews. 225 A.D. Bodmer Papyrus p 75 contains the Gospels of Luke and John. 250-300 A.D. Chester Beatty Biblical papyrus p 45 contains portions of the four Gospels and Acts. 350 A.D. Codex Sinaiticus contains the entire New Testament and almost the entire Old Testament in Greek. It was discovered by a German scholar Tisendorf in 1856 at an Orthodox monastery at Mt. Sinai. 350 A.D. Codex Vaticanus: {B} is an almost complete New Testament. It was cataloged as being in the Vatican Library since 1475. Early translations of the New Testament can give important insight into the underlying Greek manuscripts from which they were translated from. 180 A.D. Early translations of the New Testament from Greek into Latin, Syriac, and Coptic versions began about 180 A.D. 195 A.D. The name of the first translation of the Old and New Testaments into Latin was termed Old Latin, both Testaments having been translated from the Greek. Parts of the Old Latin were found in quotes by the church father Tertullian, who lived around 160-220 A.D. in north Africa and wrote treatises on theology. 300 A.D. The Old Syriac was a translation of the New Testament from the Greek into Syriac. 300 A.D. The Coptic Versions: Coptic was spoken in four dialects in Egypt. The Bible was translated into each of these four dialects. 380 A.D.
2006-12-15 02:37:16 · 11 answers · asked by Jeanmarie 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
well we dont say its false period. we say that the bibles today are false. we believe in the original bible ourselves. the bibles today change all the time and if u pick up like 2 diff. bibles they'll be so diffrent. if u pick up 100 diffrent qurans they will all be the same in arabic(traslations will be a bit diff. cuz some r in todays english some in old english some in spanish so on so forth). i hope u understand. email me for more questions.
2006-12-15 03:23:27 · answer #1 · answered by covered beauty 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I trust menome b and ought to opt for to operate right here: a million. Mohammed did not understand Jesus' preparation - Mohammed tried to combine 3 Abrahamic religions at his time (Christianity, an previous Abrahamic relgion and Judaism) yet did not cajole Christians and Jews. He claimed that the bible replaced into maximum excellent and Jesus replaced into maximum excellent, yet he claimed that many Christians had fallen asleep or lost their way. This shows that Mohammed by no skill somewhat study the bible or did not do not forget that Jesus replaced into the actual image of God himself. not only a prophet. Jesus replaced right into a prophet, yet more advantageous than a prophet. he's prophet, king, priest and God. So Mohammed can not be more advantageous suited than Jesus. 2. Muslims haven't any valid data that the bible has been altered. Non-Christian and Christian biblical scholars agree that the bible is virtually entirely in its unique style. utilising textual criticism, archeology and historic manuscripts, technology is somewhat confident that the bible we've right now is in its unique style. in elementary words some words are in question, yet none of those words replace the which technique of the bible. None of those words replace the actual shown truth that Jesus claimed himself to be God. 3. In 1064, Ibn-Khazem, first claimed that the Bible were corrupted and the Bible falsified. What replaced into his reason? the easy contradiction of Mohammed's words and Jesus' words. Ibn-Khazem used a logical fallacy to make his declare. He had no data, his irrational delight led him to this end.
2016-11-30 19:40:28 · answer #2 · answered by rothberg 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
because they claim that is was Ishmael and not Isaac who Abraham bound on the altar. Thus, everything from that point on has to be false.
Of course, some ignoramous roaming around the deserts of arabia 2000 years after the fact to suddenly 'know' the truth is too farfetched for words.
2006-12-15 02:40:07 · answer #3 · answered by mzJakes 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It's called "PRIDE". Who the heck wants to admit that he/she's based his/her life on a religion that was partly a plagiarization of the Old and New Testaments and partly a lot of very ancient Beduoin superstitions, all put together by a man who wanted the various tribes to unite and couldn't do it politically?
2006-12-15 02:49:20 · answer #4 · answered by Granny Annie 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It's all false. It's the words of a few, used to control the masses. If it makes you feel better to believe that there is a man in the sky that will make everything alright, keep reading it.
2006-12-15 02:47:56 · answer #5 · answered by fark 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
So, what you are saying is the bible is right, you are right, and the other 5 billion people in the world are wrong.
Man, gotta love the egos around here!
2006-12-15 02:39:49 · answer #6 · answered by Heck if I know! 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Why do some christians say the Quran is false?
2006-12-15 03:02:31 · answer #7 · answered by คzzam 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I don't understand what point you're trying to make. None of that makes the Bible true.
2006-12-15 02:44:46 · answer #8 · answered by . 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The only that comes out of a muslims' mouth is $hit.
2006-12-15 02:43:10 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Because it is. See below.
2006-12-15 03:04:21 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋