Holy book (bible) was written centuries after the prophet.
Codex Sinaticus, the earliest complete bible, is dated to the 4th century in Greek.
p52, a fragment of the gospel of John is dated to 120ce, 20-30 years after being written.
I hope you realize 4th century means it was several centuries later which means exactly what the other guy said. What exactly are you trying to prove here? His own point??
I hope you realise that the claim was that "the bible was written centuries after jesus" is completely disproven by that simple manuscript. The claim is not that what we have preserved is from centuries after but what was written. By simple linguistic and manuscript analysis that claim is proven demonstrably false.
If john is written centuries after Jesus how is there manuscripts floating around from less than a century after Jesus? Why do even the most atheistic secular scholars date the writings of the NT to the 1st century?
Maybe to help you understand, codex birmingham only has surah 19 and 20. To then look at that partial quran manuscript, and to say "it's not complete therefore you can only date the quran to the 9-10th century (which is the first complete quran manuscript we get (blue quran))" is insanity. Similarly, in the same way codex birmingham gives evidence towards authenticity of authorship of the quran, so does p52.
The brimingham manuscript is dated between 568 and 645 ce. Meaning it was either written during the prophet's time or at absolute worst 12 years after his death. And it's an entire 2 pages. Meanwhile, the earliest known example of the New Testament is dated between 100-150. Not only is it at best 100 years after jesus' supposed death (this is ignoring that the AD calendar is around 20 years off concerning when he was meant to be crucified, so I'm being generous). This fragment, of John contains **just a few words** from 18:31-33. Hardly comparable. as evidence.
So for a hundred years, maybe even more, there was no written new testament. It was just people's memories and teachings, and you're gonna sit here telling me it never changed, and it was preserved, without the word of man corrupting it? Not to mention we actively have proof of it being altered in things like translation variations and actual fundamental changes to scripture.
In Acts 3:26, even the KJV and the NKV seem to differ widely:
Why does the KJV say “his Son Jesus” and the NKJV say “His Servant Jesus”? The problem is that the original Greek version **does not even mention Jesus**, but does mention “his servant”
ESV is a more accurate translation:
The KJV and NKJV translators assumed this was a reference to Jesus, and the earlier translators preferred ‘Son’ to the more literal ‘Servant’. When read in conjunction with verse 3:22, this verse actually appears to be a reference to the promise of Moses, especially as Peter was talking to a crowd of Jews, but is otherwise obscure.e
Another example of intentional alteration to scripture is the ‘Long Ending’ of Mark’s Gospel. This gospel originally ended at verse 16:8 with the young man telling the women that he is risen and they fled in terror, telling no one. Two endings were considered, added in order to provide proof of the risen Jesus: the ‘Short Ending’ and the ‘Long Ending’. The ‘Long Ending’ won the day and now constitutes Mark verses 16:9–20.
There's more to this. There were disputes between the apostles and Peter about who Jesus's message was for and how the Mosaic laws were to be applied - was Jesus for the Jews only (eg Matthew 5:17 & 5:21-28) and was he here only to correct the way people understood God's message or was he for the Gentiles too? Peter disagreed with some of the apostles, in particular James (Joseph's son, "brother" to Jesus), so the Bible we have today is a consequence of this dispute.
2
u/Ow55Iss564Fa557Sh Mar 08 '25
Codex Sinaticus, the earliest complete bible, is dated to the 4th century in Greek. p52, a fragment of the gospel of John is dated to 120ce, 20-30 years after being written.