Corruption of Bible

First, let me thank you for the oppritunity for a great debate. I thank you for taking time out of your day to do this. this is why the new testament was not written in Hebrew http://www.ntgreek.org... bible book dates http://carm.org... Moses did write the first 5 books http://www.letusreason.org... Obituary was added after Moses death, this in no way proves that he didn't have a hand in writing it as you have stated. Also just because it is not written in the first person does not alter the fact that Moses could have just written it in the third person for example. http://www.answersingenesis.org... Second, you claim that the Islamic view is that the bible we have today is not the same as the new testament that Jesus, or the old testament that Moses had. Saying that we don't have the same testaments that they had is an assumption. You must assume that Jesus and Moses had Bibles. Jesus couldn't have had A copy of the new testament, let alone a DIFFERENT copy, it hadn't even been written yet. What would the basis of the new testament be about if He did? It could say nothing about His death and resurrection because these events hadn't occurred yet. Same principle applies to Moses with the old testament. Also you are assuming that older the manuscript, the more accurate, and that is simply not the case. Being that the bible is much older than the Koran, does that mean it is more accurate than the Koran? If we both witnessed an event, and you went home right away and decided to lie because you you were ashamed of something you might have done, and I decided to write it down several years later for whatever reason but tell the truth about what happened, does that mean that because you wrote it down first you are right? Nope. Now imagine we both die and 500 years later people find both of the things we wrote. Is it fair then for them to assume that because yours was written down first, it must be more accurate or trustworthy? Again no. That is why there are "lost books of the bible". These "Books" were rejected because if all scripture is God breathed, and God is perfect (God can't make mistakes), so if they don't line up with what we KNOW actually IS God's word, then they must go. Now using the same analogy, If you and I had witnessed the same event and you went home and wrote down what you saw and I did the same, there would probably be minor discrepancies. This kind of thing happens in police reports all the time. Now does this mean that because there are minor differences that neither one is trust worthy? Absolutely not. If it is a minor detail like what you ate for breakfast or something that does not reflect where our stories agree about said incident. The same holds true to the four gospels. None of the gospels are attributed to Jesus because Jesus didn't write them. Each gospel gives quotes that Jesus said. Mark 8:34 is a preface to mark 8:35 where it is quoting what Jesus actually said. Each gospel is written from the point of view of the eye witness. That's why it says the gospel according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The part of certain bibles that states "the gospel according to", is not God breathed. It is simply an introduction indicating who wrote it, or whose perspective it is from. Also let me touch on the "translation errors" that you spoke of earlier. Let's say that we have a fragment of a scripture. And this scripture is missing one letter. Now we have to figure out what that missing letter is. This is the sentence. "The dog runs very fas_. I think that it is pretty obvious what the missing letter is. You can figure out some missing information based on the context of what you DO have. Now there are bibles that deal in word for word, thought for thought, and paraphrase translations. All can be accurate. It is conveying the same message. So are there differences in the oldest copies of the bible that we have when compared to what we have now? It really depends on what you mean by differences. Word for word? Maybe. Does it change the entire doctrine of what God was trying to convey? No. God has preserved His message to us. Isaiah 40:8 "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever."The original written manuscripts were the inspired word of God, the copies are the preserved word of God. There is a difference. Meaning that His message will be told. You are correct in saying that we don't have the original hard copies of the new testament. But this in no way falsifies the copies that we DO have. Furthermore if we don't have the originals, then how can we go one step further and claim that the ones that we do have are different from them? I do not speak Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic etc. and I don't think that you do either. And even if you did, you have not read the oldest copies that we have, and neither have I. So basically we are taking various scholars words for it. I'm sure that we could find scholars that say that they have changed and scholars that say that they haven't. Ultimately we are reduced to taking someones word for it. We are both People of faith, you and I. Now if I believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, as I am sure you do with the Koran, then I must also believe that He can preserve the message within it. I have not seen any evidence that the Bible has changed. But I know that there are versions that differ slightly. But NONE of them change the basic doctrine of the Christian faith. So I suppose we would have to specify which translation we are speaking about in order to debate this topic further. You said that today's bibles have things in them that some of the older manuscripts don't contain. That is because they are translated from false texts. For instance the KJV is based off of the Byzantine manuscripts, where as most of the more modern translations are based off of the Alexandrian scripts. So before we continue we must first define which one you would like to debate on. I would prefer to talk about the Byzantine since roughly 90 percent of the known new testament manuscripts are Byzantine in nature, and Christianity is based off of the new testament and the life of Jesus. case against the Alexandrian manuscripts http://www.biblesupersearch.com...