http://news.aol.com/article/syriac-bible-2000-years-old-cyprus/332408

NICOSIA, CYPRUS (Feb. 6) - Authorities in northern Cyprus believe they have found an ancient version of the Bible written in Syriac, a dialect of the native language of Jesus.
The manuscript was found in a police raid on suspected antiquity smugglers. Turkish Cypriot police testified in a court hearing they believe the manuscript could be about 2,000 years old.
The manuscript carries excerpts of the Bible written in gold lettering on vellum and loosely strung together, photos provided to Reuters showed. One page carries a drawing of a tree, and another eight lines of Syriac script.
Experts were however divided over the provenance of the manuscript, and whether it was an original, which would render it priceless, or a fake.
Experts said the use of gold lettering on the manuscript was likely to date it later than 2,000 years.
"I'd suspect that it is most likely to be less than 1,000 years old," leading expert Peter Williams, Warden of Tyndale House, University of Cambridge told Reuters.
Turkish Cypriot authorities seized the relic last week and nine individuals are in custody pending further investigations. More individuals are being sought in connection with the find, they said.
Further investigations turned up a prayer statue and a stone carving of Jesus believed to be from a church in the Turkish held north, as well as dynamite.
The police have charged the detainees with smuggling antiquities, illegal excavations and the possession of explosives.
Syriac is a dialect of Aramaic - the native language of Jesus - once spoken across much of the Middle East and Central Asia. It is used wherever there are Syrian Christians and still survives in the Syrian Orthodox Church in India.
Aramaic is still used in religious rituals of Maronite Christians in Cyprus.
"One very likely source (of the manuscript) could be the Tur-Abdin area of Turkey, where there is still a Syriac speaking community," Charlotte Roueche, Professor of Late Antique and Byzantine Studies at King's College London told Reuters.
Stories regarding the antiquity of manuscripts is commonplace. One case would be the Yonan Codex, carbon dated to the 12th century which people tried to pass off as earlier.
After further scrutiny of photographs of the book, manuscripts specialist at the University of Cambridge library and Fellow of Wolfson College JF Coakley suggested that the book could have been written a good deal later.
"The Syriac writing seems to be in the East Syriac script with vowel points, and you do not find such manuscripts before about the 15th century.
"On the basis of the one photo , if I'm not mistaken some words at least seem to be in modern Syriac, a language that was not written down until the mid-19th century," he told Reuters.


After reading this, I am as confused as a toddler, do you think the bible is really complete? some bible scholars argue that the Scriptures was manipulated by the Roman Empire in the old and gave us their own "Bible", i also read that some books (Chapters) was removed too, Any truth to this?

Why Versions, always? When do we see an ORGINAL, if there is ONE?

olabowale:

Why Versions, always? When do we see an ORGINAL, if there is ONE?

1. Where is the original quran?
2. Why was the first quran written 300yrs after Mohammad's time?
3. Where is the injil and torah allah lied to have sent and confirmed?

Before you hypocrites come here whinning about "originals" pls take your time to answer the above.

Besides what do you mean by "original"? The God of the bible does not deal in throwing books down from heaven neither did Christ ever claim to have written one.

@Davidylan: « #2 on: Yesterday at 07:26:46 PM »

Quote from: olabowale on Yesterday at 02:59:37 PM
Why Versions, always? When do we see an ORGINAL, if there is ONE?


1. Where is the original quran?

Committed to memory, in PURE ARABIC, by many already! Do you have something similar about the bible?

[/quote]
2. Why was the first quran written 300yrs after Mohammad's time?
[quote]

Did Abu Bakr (RA) existed 300 years late? Or Uthman the 3rd Kalifah existed 300 years after Muhammad? Stop lying, man. I love you, but I hate your lying heart!

3. Where is the injil and torah allah lied to have sent and confirmed?

You could have proved it a "lie" if only you can show me the original Bible; Torah or Injil part, without passing up to us "versions and editions." You know the difference(s) between versions, editions, from ORIGINAL? Or don't ya, man?

Before you hypocrites come here whinning about "originals" pls take your time to answer the above.

I did, already. Please stop whinning and step up to the plate and give me answers to questions raised, above!

Besides what do you mean by "original"?

Original means, the thing that will not be called "version, edition, etc!"

The God of the bible does not deal in throwing books down from heaven neither did Christ ever claim to have written one.

Allah did not "throw" the Qur'aan. Revelation came from God, Who is not on earth, is not the same as throwing! Big difference, man, unless you are blind by intention!

By the way Muhammad (AS) did not write any book. Remember he was unlettered and for this reason, Jews and christians pride themselves, emptily as "people of the Books!" Jesus who came from pedigree of "prophets" and revelation receiver; Moses, David (AS), can be denied as a prophet who did not receive any revelation from his Lord?

If you do, please know that Muhammad (AS) is in the company of nobles; like Moses and David (AS) who people stated received revelations. This alone put muhammad in greatest of level and companionship!

olabowale, where are the injil and torah allah lied to have sent? finito

David, show me an authentic Bible, that will stand, head and shoulders above the rest. You have something like that, man? Lets dubb it "Original." I wanna see it. lol.

Olabowale the slowpoke . . .

And in their footsteps, We sent 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary) confirming the Taurat (Torah) that had come before him, and We gave him the Injeel (Gospel), in which was guidance and light and confirmation of the Taurat (Torah) that had come before it, a guidance and an admonition for Al-Muttaqun (the pious - see V.2:2). S. 5:46 Al-Hilali & Khan; cf. S. 57:27

Either you can produce it or allah is a liar. Make up your mind.

"People of the Book, you do not stand on anything, until you perform the Torah and the Gospel [Injil], and what was sent down to you from your Lord." , S. 5:68

Where are they? Was allah lying?

@Davidylan: « #6 on: Today at 02:41:41 AM »

Olabowale the slowpoke . . .

And in their footsteps, We sent 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary) confirming the Taurat (Torah) that had come before him, and We gave him the Injeel (Gospel), in which was guidance and light and confirmation of the Taurat (Torah) that had come before it, a guidance and an admonition for Al-Muttaqun (the pious - see V.2:2). S. 5:46 Al-Hilali & Khan; cf. S. 57:27

Either you can produce it or allah is a liar. Make up your mind.

If you believe this very verse, since you are using it to process your argument, then please note that Jesus is sent, in the "foot steps" of those who came before him. Those individuals (AS) were human prophets and messengers. Almost all came from parents; fathers and mothers. Except Adam, the first man who had none, and his mate was made from substance (rib) removed from him. Yet none of these noble people was made to be anything other than what they are.

To produce an Injil is not my responsibility. Allah says the Bible; Injil and other parts have been corrupted. That is enough, proof. However if I proceed to give you visual proofs; I will ask you to collect many Bible Versions, and editions. Whatever you do you will find that no two versions and or editions are alike. Infact, there is no concensus among Bible versions and or editions. Think about it. The mere fact that you dont have a "Bible" that all Christian denominations will agree to as the "Bible for all" proofs that you have only NO ORIGINAL! What you have are Not Originals, but corrupted unoriginals!

It is you who have to think hard, therefore that what you have been passing as "Bible" is not 100% as was giving to the last "prophet" of the bible; Jesus! I made up my mind and i hope you will see that from the Lead lensed Glasses you are wearing to cover your heart.

« #7 on: Today at 02:42:41 AM »
"People of the Book, you do not stand on anything, until you perform the Torah and the Gospel [Injil], and what was sent down to you from your Lord." , S. 5:68

What was sent to them which is in Torah and Injil that they need to perform, that Allah is giving them injuction about in this verse? It is to abandone their "corruption" and follow the Messenger, Prophet (AS) who is new in their mist, alive with his latest revelation the Qur'aan. Their prophets (AS) have told them about him. Jesus (AS) spoke about him, in a nicknamed "Comforter, Spirit of Truth", since he was also that, himself. Moses spoke about him, since they say there is no prophet like Moses to come among the Children of israel, in the way he liberated his people, collectively uniting them together as a single people with a single purpose. Removing them from altogether from the yoke and laden burden of evil and idolatry of Pharaoh. Giving them a new religion. Jesus never gave a new religion, in his lifetime. Moses did in his lifetime.

This was exactly what Muhammad did to the arabs; stopping them from endless feud, removing idolary from them. Making them a single people and nation under a banner of the new religion with a single Lord God the Creator Allah. Yet before this people had not experience this classical birth before. It was not a renaissance for them, but a renaissance to all humans, starting from them. The exact thing that the Children of Israel had and was suppossed to carry forward from Moses to the end of time. The blew it after Jesus.

Somebody else had to carry it. It just not have to be from Children of israel anymore, since they are not the only people from Ibrahim (AS). There run was finished, and that was that.

Where are they? Was allah lying?

Today is Sunday. I hope you go to church. When you get there, before the Reverend/Pastor, ask him or raise your hand and ask about the "Xerox" copy of the Original Bible; even in English (I will be making it difficult if I asked for Hebrew or aramaic), that all Christians; Catholics, and all the other Orthodox sects and all protestant sects can agree on.

If he waffles on an answer or can't meet your demand, just get up and say to him, "so you have been preaching from "not original" all along? No wonder the muslims are saying the Bible is corrupt. Then storm out of the place and give me a call, man.

The point of the matter is that it is you who needs to get the reality of your Biblical quagmire. I know that you don't have Original and uncorrupted Bible, considering the many Bibles on earth, today! Point to an Original from collection pile of the Bibles! Show me the Money, man.

There is not the smallest fragment of trustworthy evidence to show that any of the Gospels were in existence, in their present form, earlier than a hundred years after the time at which Christ is supposed to have died. Christian scholars, having no reliable means by which to fix the date of their composition, assign them to as early an age as their calculations and their guesses will allow; but the dates thus arrived at are far removed from the age of Christ or his apostles. We are told that Mark was written some time after the year 70, Luke about 110, Matthew about 130, and John not earlier than 140 A.D. Let me impress upon you that these dates are conjectural, and that they are made as early as possible. The first historical mention of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, was made by the Christian Father, St. Irenaeus, about the year 190 A.D. The only earlier mention of any of the Gospels was made by Theopholis of Antioch, who mentioned the Gospel of John in 180 A.D.

Christ is supposed to have been a Jew, and his disciples are said to have been Jewish fishermen. His language, and the language of his followers must, therefore, have been Aramaic--the popular language of Palestine in that age. But the Gospels are written in Greek--every one of them.  they were not translated from some other language. Every leading Christian scholar since Erasmus, four hundred years ago, has maintained that they were originally written in Greek. This proves that they were not written by Christ's disciples, or by any of the early Christians. Foreign Gospels, written by unknown men, in a foreign tongue, several generations after the death of those who are supposed to have known the facts--such is the evidence relied upon to prove that Jesus lived and did all what the bible said he did?

But while the Gospels were written several generations too late to be of authority, the original documents, such as they were, were not preserved. The Gospels that were written in the second century no longer exist. They have been lost or destroyed. The oldest Gospels that we have are supposed to be copies of copies of copies that were made from those Gospels. We do not know who made these copies; we do not know when they were made; nor do we know whether they were honestly made. Between the earliest Gospels and the oldest existing manuscripts of the New Testament, there is a blank gulf of three hundred years. It is, therefore, impossible to say what the original Gospels contained.

There were many Gospels in circulation in the early centuries, and a large number of them were forgeries. Among these were the "Gospel of Paul," the Gospel of Bartholomew," the "Gospel of Judas Iscariot," the "Gospel of the Egyptians," the "Gospel or Recollections of Peter," the "Oracles or Sayings of Christ," and scores of other pious productions, a collection of which may still be read in "The Apocryphal New Testament." Obscure men wrote Gospels and attached the names of prominent Christian characters to them, to give them the appearance of importance. Works were forged in the names of the apostles, and even in the name of Christ. The greatest Christian teachers taught that it was a virtue to deceive and lie for the glory of the faith. Dean Milman, the standard Christian historian, says: "Pious fraud was admitted and avowed." The Rev. Dr. Giles writes: "There can be no doubt that great numbers of books were then written with no other view than to deceive." Professor Robertson Smith says: "There was an enormous floating mass of spurious literature created to suit party views." The early church was flooded with spurious religious writings. From this mass of literature, our Gospels were selected by priests and called the inspired word of God. Were these Gospels also forged? There is no certainty that they were not. But let me ask: If Christ was an historical character, why was it necessary to forge documents to prove his existence? Did anybody ever think of forging documents to prove the existence of any person who was really known to have lived? The early Christian forgeries are a tremendous testimony to the weakness of the Christian cause.

If Jesus lived, he must have been born. When was he born? Matthew says he was born when Herod was King of Judea. Luke says he was born when Cyrenius was Governor of Syria. He could not have been born during the administration of these tow rulers for Herod died in the year 4 B.C., and Cyrenius, who, in Roman history is Quirinius, did not become Governor of Syria until ten years later. Herod and Quirinius are separated by the whole reign of Archelaus, Herod's son. Between Matthew and Luke, there is, therefore, a contradiction of at least ten years, as to the time of Christ's birth. The fact is that the early Christians had absolutely no knowledge as to when Christ was born. The Encyclopaedia Britannica says: "Christians count one hundred and thirty-three contrary opinions of different authorities concerning the year the Messiah appeared on earth." Think of it--one hundred and thirty-three different years, each one of which is held to be the year in which Christ came into the world. What magnificent certainty!

More in the link below.

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/marshall_gauvin/did_jesus_really_live.html

toneyb . . . we've come across people like you before. you lazily visit athiest sites and merely copy and paste. Put up your concerns one by one here and lets deal with them. thanks.

davidylan:

toneyb . . . we've come across people like you before. you lazily visit athiest sites and merely copy and paste. Put up your concerns one by one here and lets deal with them. thanks.

You lazily listen to the apologetics of pastors or read the words of unknow authors whose identity is still being debated even amongst christains but still come here and accuse me of lazily copying and pasting the words of other atheist? The writer has written about most of my concerns you can visit the link and deal with them one by one if you like. According to the writer these Gospels, and they alone, tell the story of the life of Jesus No where else is his story ever written even the Jews and Romans have no record of him or the things that were said to have happend during his life like the killing of babies by king Herod, Earth quake and mid day darkness when he was crucified, The dead saints that resurrected and walked around the city of Jerusalem for all to see, his healing of the blind,raising of the dead etc. The things the bible said he did were very extra ordinary. Yet no body outside the bible bothered to write any of the things that the bible said he did. He never even left any writtings of his own all what we know about him were written by people who no body knows anything about them. There is no record any where to show that Matthew, Mark , Luke and John ever existed, we know absolutely nothing of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, apart from what is said of them in the Gospels. Moreover, the Gospels themselves do not claim to have been written by these men. They are not called "The Gospel of Matthew," or "The Gospel of Mark," but "The Gospel According to Matthew," "The Gospel According to Mark," "The Gospel According to Luke," and "The Gospel According to John." No human being knows who wrote a single line in one of these Gospels. No human being knows when they were written, or where. Biblical scholarship has established the fact that the Gospel of Mark is the oldest of the four. Even their accounts speak in the 2nd or 3rd person thats apart form the very contradictory report of events they recorded. Example where did jesus first appear to the eleven disciples?  In a room in Jerusalem according to Luke 24:32-37.  On a mountain in Galilee according to  Matthew 28:15-17. So which is it? room or mountain? Jerusalem or Galilee? A room is not a mountain and Jerusalem is not Galilee(The 11 disciples can not be in Jerusalem and Galilee at the same time). And we are supposed to believe that this are the accounts of eye witness who witnessed all that happened despite the fact that they got it all mixed up in their accounts.

One more thing Josephus mentions and writes in details about one "John the Baptist". There are more than enough differences between his account and those found in the gospels. Interesting he places John the Baptis's death at a date later than that given for Jesus' death, even though the gospels all agree that John the baptist died first.

I see Jesus as something like a black hole, we can deduce that he existed and did wonders by his effect on others(mostly unknow people), but we can't see him directly.