Do Christians have the real Bible? Christian Vs Muslim Perspectives

I'm sure all enjoyed the debate & it'll help many. Recall my 2 contentions: Christian Scripture are preserved in their original form The analysis of Bible’s integrity proves Islam to be a paradox Ijaz could neither give positive arguments against 1, nor could he defend Islamic implication 2. From the evidence and graph; If you're rational, you’d definitely believe all those ancient writings to be historically reliable, just as any historian does. At the same time if you then doubt the textual authenticity of the NT, you can calculate in numbers how much hypocrisy & double standards it takes to doubt it. I never said 2 Tim. 3 refers to NT, but it refers to the Scriptures as whole. It was quoted to give the “doctrine of inspiration” that Bible holds. Even though the authorship of 2 Peter is debated among liberal scholars, we do have good external evidence and some internal evidence that affirms the epistle.[1] Questioning on the authenticity of the MSS discovery of this year is naïve. I even gave the source to quote Dan Wallace. This is no bluff guys but real: "On 1 Feb 2012, I debated Bart Ehrman ... I mentioned that 7 NT papyri had recently been discovered— 6 of them probably from the 2nd century and one of them probably from the first. These fragments will be published in about a year. It was dated by one of the world’s leading paleographers. He said he was ‘certain’ that it was from the 1st century. If this is true, it would be the oldest fragment of the NT known to exist. Up until now, no one has discovered any 1st century manuscripts of the NT. The oldest manuscript has been P52, a small fragment from John’s Gospel, dated to the first half of the second century. It was discovered in 1934." Read more (csntm.org) Ijaz is still confused as to what are variances in the mss. Do those 30000 variants means ‘contradictions’ in the meaning and texts? Not sure about Mill but Ehrman does mislead his layman audience into thinking they’re fatal textual errors, however Bart Ehrman himself in his book admitted that they are completely insignificant. Let me quote Dan Wallace on clearing that misleading claims of Bart to the laymen: "Ehrman overplays the quality of the variants while underscoring their quantity. He says, “There are more variations among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.” Elsewhere he states that the number of variants is as high as 400,000. That is true enough, but by itself is misleading. Anyone who teaches NT textual criticism knows that this fact is only part of the picture and that, if left dangling in front of the reader without explanation is a distorted view. Once it is revealed that the great majority of these variants are inconsequential—involving spelling differences that cannot even be translated, articles with proper nouns, word order changes, and the like—and that only a very small minority of the variants alter the meaning of the text, the whole picture begins to come into focus. Indeed, only about 1% of the textual variants are both meaningful and viable.The impression Ehrman sometimes gives throughout the book—and repeats in interviews—is that of wholesale uncertainty about the original wording,a view that is far more radical than he actually embraces. We can illustrate things this way. There are approx 138,000 words in the Greek NT. The variants in the mss, versions, and Fathers constitute almost three times this number. At first blush, that is a striking amount. But in light of the possibilities, it actually is rather trivial. For example, consider the ways in which Greek can say “Jesus loves Paul”: 1. ᾿Ιησοῦς ἀγαπᾷ Παῦλον 2. ᾿Ιησοῦς ἀγαπᾷ τὸν Παῦλον 3. ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς ἀγαπᾷ Παῦλον"( 4,5 & so on)[2] Quoting James White in his debate with Ehrman: "Given first of all, that there are as of November of 2008, 5,752 cataloged, handwritten NT manuscripts, and given that there are approx 400,000 textual variants amongst these Greek mss—leaving off the Latin, Coptic, Syriac, etc— graphically we can see the situation as presented by Dr. Ehrman like this. Sadly, for the majority of those who hear these numbers or see a graph like this, it is assumed that this means there are three options for every single word in the New Testament. This is the conclusion of many atheists and Muslims, with whom I’ve had dialogue. But is this the case? Surely not, the repetition of the bare fact that there are more variants in the NT than there are words in the New Testament without proper historical context is grossly misleading. The fact is that the vast majority of these variants are utterly irrelevant to the proper understanding and translation of the text. Let’s note the truth of the matter. The more manuscripts you have, the more variants you will have amongst them. If you only have a small number of manuscripts, you have fewer variants; you likewise have less certainty of the original readings. These go hand-in-hand. Obviously, having mss coming from different areas at different times, yet all testifying to the same text is strong evidence that you possess the document in its original form. The more manuscripts you have and the earlier they are is important. The fewer manuscripts you have, the higher possibility of major emendation, editing, and corruption. The New Testament has more manuscripts than any other work of antiquity, approx 1.3 million pages of handwritten text.” [3] So Ijaz’s myth that no two mss agree 100% is utterly deceptive, he says “only one mss or codex can be true”, this is a huge misconception based on ignorance and desperate skepticism. We know there is theological motivation lies behind this denial in the muslim world, as showed from my 2nd contention. Muslims cannot imagine accepting the truth of Bible, since it’d expose their prophet’s new religion of Islam. He defends the textual history of Quran & Sunnah by saying muslims had great oral tradition! As if the early Christians did not have that. Even in the late time of 7th century, Muslims could not develop their codex until third or fourth century, and the oldest codex Sana Mss contradicts the Uthman’s version yet they manage to have faith in Quran’s textual integrity. He just admits the original (previous) revelations of Allah got “lost”. “The Torah, Zabur and Injil were books given by Allaah to the Jews and Christians, not the books written by the Jews and Christians after being lost”. Hence according to the evidence and reasoning I gave (a, b and c) Islam proves to be false religion when the claims of Allah/Muhamad are falsified; and we see immense contradiction between Quran and all it’s so called prev books of Allah. Islam proves to be a paradox, and the truth of the Christian Bible prevails. Sources [1] Wayne Stiles http://bible.org... [2] This is a must read http://bible.org... [3] James White Vs Bart “Does the Bible Misquote Jesus?” mp3 & pdf http://www.apologetics315.com...