How was the bible assembled?

Question

Does anyone have any idea how the bible came to be assembled into one book logistically? I believe in the bible, have just always been curious how so many chapters, from so many different lands and times, all made it together into one book. I'm not looking for "God willed it", I get that; i interested from a logistical and historical perspective, does anyone know? When did the "first" bible come together. Intelligent answers only please! Thank You.

Answer 1

To learn how the books of the bible came to be assembled as such see: http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/canons.stm

Catholic and Episcopal bibles have the same number of canonical books. The Catholic and Episcopal bibles include what Protestants consider as non-canonical books, known as the Deuterocanonical books (Catholic) or the Apocrypha (Episcopal). Catholics consider the Deuterocanonical books as part of their biblical canon, while Episcopalians consider the Apocrypha to be of historical and educational value.

Many versions of the bible existed before the King James and the advent of mass printing.
See: http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/

For an analysis of the various translations of the bible see:
http://faith.propadeutic.com/questions.html

For accurate translations of the bible at the literal level use the NASB or ESV translations.

If you run across what you think is a biblical contradiction, please study the two sites' content below for a comprehensive list of so-called biblical contradictions.

http://kingdavid8.com/Contradictions/Home.html
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm

Accuracy of bible:
http://www.carm.org/questions/trustbible.htm
http://www.carm.org/demo2/bible/reliable.htm

Answer 2

Allow me to explain how the bible was proven to be inspired in the 3rd century, not the 15TH OR THE 21st., using the facts of history. There is a summary below.

The Bible is initially approached as any other ancient work. It is not, at first, presumed to be inspired. From textual criticism we are able to conclude that we have a text the accuracy of which is more certain than the accuracy of any other ancient work.
Next we take a look at what the Bible, considered merely as a history, tells us, focusing particularly on the New Testament, and more specifically the Gospels.

We examine the account contained therein of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. Using what is in the Gospels themselves and what we find in extra-biblical writings from the early centuries,

We then take that and together with what we know of human nature (and what we can otherwise, from natural reason alone, know of divine nature), we conclude that either Jesus was just what he claimed to be—God—or he was crazy.

Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as merely a historical book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, teaching authority, and, as a consequence of the last, infallibility.
Christ’s Church, to do what he said it would do, had to have the character of doctrinal infallibility.

We have thus taken purely historical material and concluded that a Church exists, namely, the Catholic Church, which is divinely protected against teaching doctrinal error. Now we are at the last premise of the argument.
This Catholic Church tells us the
(2)Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the (1)Church is infallible.
Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—(1)that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—(2)that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book.
I took most of the information from http://www.catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp , and reformatted for the sake of simplicity.
Dizzy? This SUMMARY of a summary of a summary should clarify:
1) On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history.
2) From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded.
3) And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired.
4) This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable),
5) and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired).
What I have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired.
I took most of the information from http://www.catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp , and reformatted for the sake of simplicity.
Which is more appealing?

Plausibility (private judgment) or the rock of reason and the facts of history?
In the end, by understanding how the bible came to be does it have an enormous effect on how it is interpreted.

There is more to proving inspiration than a historical perspective. If a scripture failed to test against Apostolic Teaching, that scripture was rejected. That was the MAIN criteria used by the early church when the bible was compiled.

List of books accepted and rejected :
http://www.scborromeo.org/truth/fig4.htm

A Visual Diagram of the History of the New Testament Canon (all Protestant resources)
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ45.HTM

In 397 A.D., the Catholic Church gave a definitive decision as to which writings and books should be admitted into the Bible and which should be rejected, and every book which is in the Protestant New Testament today, was put there by Pope Siricus and the Catholic Bishops in the year 397 A.D.

If the Catholic Church was corrupted by Constantine in 325 AD, (who was never ordained and had no ecclesiastical authority), how can a doctrinally corrupt Church compile an infallible book 72 years later?

Answer 3

For those who would say the Bible is not the Word of God, or that the Bible contains numerous errors I would say this: Paul could say in 2nd Timothy 3:16, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God." That's the Greek word, "theopneustos" meaning "God-Breathed." Every single word was given from God to 40 different men, and 2nd Peter 1:21 adds: "for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." Now that was the Old Testament. The New Testament wasn't in existence when Paul used these verses. He was telling the churches in his letters what had happened in the past, but in John 16:12-13, Jesus talked about the coming of the New Testament. He says, "I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when He, the Spirit of Truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come."
That's the New Testamant. And we can say with John 17:17, "Your Word is Truth." Today, we have 66 books written by 40 different individuals on 3 continents covering a period of 1,500 years and there's not one mistake, regardless of what some of the critics say. They haven't studied God's Word enough to know the truth. Among the writers we had kings, poets, philosophers, prophets, scholars and fisherman. And I want you to know we have all of the Word of God today. Someone says, "Yes, but we don't have the original manuscripts" Who said so?
We have copies totalling 24,800. Now, how do we know that they're right? Well, if you take 20 items and you compare them and 19 state one thing and one doesn't, then the one is in error. We've got 24,800 manuscripts that exist today to compare one against another and we have another 80,000 quotations from the church fathers, enough to put the entire Bible together with the exception of 11 verses. Take the 80,000 quotations from the church fathers and the 24,800 manuscripts for a total of 104,800 and you have all of God's Word dozens and hundreds of times. This is so because God's Word is literally flawless. After computers have compared millions, or even billions, of letters in analyzing the 104,800 manuscripts the texts are basically flawless. So, don't listen to the critics.

Answer 4

Complicated answer: I suggest that if you really want a good answer to this question, you read "Secrete Origins of the Bible," by Tim Callahan.

Answer 5

I bought a kit at Hobby Lobby.

Answer 6

Where are the originals?

If you mean to refer to the Injeel (the book revealed to Jesus /Eesaa, may Allaah exalt his mention) by the term (original bible), then we do not know the location of the copy you are asking about. But what we can say surely and without any doubt is that the Injeel has been altered and changed by human beings throughout history and the original copy no longer exists.

Therefore, a Muslim has no need to search for its original copy after Allaah has sent the great Quran. Allaah Says (which means): {And is it not sufficient for them that We revealed to you the Book [i.e. the Quran] which is recited to them? Indeed in that is a mercy and reminder for a people who believe.}[Quran 29:51].

He also Says (which means): {And We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam], the Book [i.e. the Quran] in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a criterion over it.}[Quran 5:48].

On the other hand, if by the term (original bible) you are referring to the book used by the Christians, then we say the following:

In the Quran Allaah informs us that He revealed a number of books, including the pages of Prophet Abraham, the Psalms of Prophet David, the Torah of Prophet Moses, the Injeel (Gospel) of Prophet Jesus, and finally, the Quran of Prophet Muhammad. Of these revealed texts only the Quran remains intact in its original form. All of the others (as complete books) have been lost, their remains have survived only as fragments or tampered with in some way so as to make their authenticity doubtful. No where in the Quran is the Bible even mentioned, to say nothing of its being among the revealed texts of Allaah, or as Christian claim "The Word of God." Further, we know from respected scholars that although some fragments of the Psalms, the Torah, and the Injeel (the teachings of Prophet Jesus) may be found in the Bible, comprised of the Old and New Testaments, the Bible can not rightfully be called "The Word of God." Why is this so?

As one publisher (Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Wheaton, Illinois) stated: 'The Bible may look like one book, but it is actually sixty-six books in one. Thirty-nine books make up what we call the Old Testament, and twenty-seven make up the New Testament. It is possible that more than forty writers were used by God to write all sixty-six books.' (Quoted from the "Holy Bible" – New Living Translation, Gift & Award Edition, l997, p. vii)

So if the Bible is neither narrated by God nor written by Him, and, as such, is not ‘the word of God,' then what is it? By any objective criteria, the Bible is a book containing a compilation of stories, legends, folk tales, folk lore, myths, sagas, narratives, poetry, fragments of scriptures (fragments from the Psalms, the Torah, and the Injeel as already mentioned), letters (esp. in New Testament), visions, dreams, accounts of events from doubtful sources (not eye witnesses), editors’ or scribes’ notes, as well as human errors.

For those who believe in it, it is a book that has historical, cultural, moral and ethical values, and a source of spiritual teaching and guidance. It is a book held in high esteem, primarily by Christians who see it as a divine book and the source of their religious beliefs. But, in the final analysis it is only a book with many limitations and imperfections which disqualify it from being called "The Word of God." Whoever makes such a claim then the burden of proof rests with him. On the contrary, the Glorious Quran is the Speech of Allaah and, through the Angel Gabriel, was revealed to Prophet Muhammad, sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam; later compiled into a book more than 14 centuries ago it remains in its original form until today.

Some common misunderstandings about the Bible include the following:

* The Bible is one book, the Old Testament. The Bible contains sixty-six books (or more depending upon the denomination one belongs to).

* The Old Testament (OT) is the Torah followed by the Jews. The OT contains some fragments of the Torah which was lost and the Psalms, but the Talmud is the book followed by the Jews and is totally unrelated to the Bible.

* The New Testament (NT) is the Gospel of Prophet Jesus, or the Injeel. It is neither. It is made up of twenty-seven books, none of which was narrated or written by Prophet Jesus although the NT may contain fragments of the Injeel (sayings and teachings of Prophet Jesus). The Injeel as revealed through Prophet Jesus has been lost. The fragments which may be cited in the NT may not be authentic or in their proper context. So it is erroneous to equate the NT with the Injeel mentioned in the Quran.

* The Bible is a holy book, narrated, dictated by God and is infallible. While this is a claim, this misconception has already been addressed. Since the Bible is 'only' a book, there is no need to call it a forgery, a corrupted text, etc. The Quran is the only authentic "Word of God," His Speech, and Allaah has promised to protect it from distortion of any kind until the Day of Judgment and He has kept His promise. Not one letter or syllable has been changed over the past l4 centuries.



What are the difference between Torah and Qur'an?

The common ground between the Noble Qur'an and the Torah is that both are Books revealed by Allah the Exalted through the Archangel Jibreel (Gabriel), peace be upon him. Yet, the essential differences between these tow Books are the following: 1) The Holy Qur'an is preserved by Allah Almighty against interpolation and adulteration, as Allah Says (interpretation of meaning): Verily We: It is We Who have sent down the Dhikr (i.e. the Qur'ân) and surely, We will guard it (from corruption)[15:9]. As for the Torah, it did not escape such interpolation and adulteration. 2) The Holy Qur'an was sent down on Allah's Messenger, Muhammad, sporadically (in steps) according to separate occasions and events, while the Torah was revealed all at once. 3) The Qur'an constitutes a commanding law whose validity is continuous till Doomsday, whereas the Torah was abrogated by the Qur'an being the last revealed Book and being supremely predominant over all of the previous Scriptures. Allah Almighty Says: And We have sent down to you (O Muhammad SAW) the Book (this Qur'ân) in truth, confirming the Scripture that came before it and Mohayminan (trustworthy in highness and a witness) over it (old Scriptures)[5:48]


Do the Words 'Torat' and 'Injeel' in the Qur'an refer to the Original Uncorrupted Scriptures?

Question:

In your response to the recent article "If the Bible is corrupted..." (17th January), I feel it is also worth mentioning that the verses in question, (10,64) and (5,68) and other related verses obviously do not, and cannot refer to the "mainstream" scriptures that were/are corrupted in possession at the time of the Prophet (pbuh) and those that we have now.

I think, from my general understanding of these verses, the Qur'an obviously refers to the true, original, uncorrupted scriptures that were given to the people aforetime (i.e. Jews and Christians). This is especially apparent in Surah 5, verse 68.

So the Torah and the Injil mentioned in the Qur'an most certainly cannot be the "Old Testament", the "Pentateuch" or the "New Testament" as we have today, but the original Torah and Gospel as was revealed to both Moses (pbuh) and Jesus (pbuh).

Therefore is it not better understood logically that these verses in fact refer to the scriptures that were revealed in a pure state and not the corrupted versions?

Answer:

The Qur'an, by the names 'Torah' and 'Injeel' refers to what was called 'Torah' and 'Injeel' in the environment in which the Qur'an was revealed. It is obvious that had the Qur'an implied something else by these words, it was then necessary to clarify that the words were being used to imply something different from what they were commonly used in the environment. It should be kept in mind that the implication of words in a good piece of literature cannot be against the common usage of such words. If such is the case, it can only be considered a flaw of that piece of literature. For example, in the contemporary English language, the phrase "the prophet" (in singular form) is used only for Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)[1]. If any contemporary English writer uses the phrase to imply any other person, it would only be considered a serious mistake and flaw in his writing, unless he/she explicitly or implicitly[2] clarifies in his writing that the phrase has been used in a meaning different from its generally understood connotation.

It may, however, be noted that the 'Torah' and the 'Injeel' (especially the Injeel) that we have in our hands today are not necessarily the ones which were referred to as the Torah and the Injeel by the first addressees of the Qur'an. This is substantiated by a few references of the Qur'an to the Jews and Christians living in the environment of the revelation of the Qur'an. For instance, the Qur'an has referred to a particular sect of Jews, who hold "`uzair" to be the son of God. This obviously is a reference to a particular sect of Jews, who held `uzair to be the Son of God (as the mainstream Jews do not, generally, ascribe to this belief). Furthermore, it should be interesting to note that the Qur'an has referred to the Christians in its environment, by the name of "Nasaara", while, it is known that the general (mainstream) Christians had come to be known as "Christians" or "Maseehee" from a very early period of Christianity (as is mentioned in the Biblical book "Acts of the Prophets"). In view of this fact, it seems quite plausible that the Christians living in the Arabian Peninsula at the time of the revelation of the Qur'an were generally those who ascribed to the Nazarene creed. The Nazarenes were a Syrian Judeo-Christian sect that came to be recognized in the fourth century AD. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica:

Although they [the Nazarenes] accepted the divinity of Christ and his supernatural birth, the Nazarenes also maintained strict observance of Jewish laws and customs, a practice that had been dropped by the majority of Jewish Christians. They used a version of the Gospel in Aramaic called the Gospel According to the Hebrews, or the Gospel of the Nazarenes.

However, it is extremely unfortunate that the Injeel according to the Hebrews or the Gospel of the Nazarenes (which was probably the book referred to as 'Injeel' in the environment in which the Qur'an was revealed) is nowhere to be found anymore, as has been mentioned in the quote of the Encyclopedia.

This is my opinion regarding the references of the Qur'an to the two books. However, do let me know if I have failed to fully clarify my point of view.


[1] Refer to the word 'Prophet' in the Oxford Advanced Learner's Encyclopedic Dictionary, third impression, 1995.

[2] Implicit clarification may be through the context in which the word is being used.


The Qur'ân came to humanity after all the previous revealed scriptures had either been lost or, like the Torah and the Gospel , corrupted. Allah speaks about how people had corrupted the scriptures, saying: “Woe to those who write the Book with their own hands and then say: ‘This is from Allah' to gain from it a paltry price. So woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they gain from it.” [ Sûrah al-Baqarah : 79]




http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/fatwa/showf...
http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/fatwa/showf...
http://understanding-islam.org/related/t...
http://www.islamtoday.net/english/librar...