It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Awen24
there are copies of New Testament texts from the first century that are still extant.
Well if that is the case you must be hiding them yourself...
Perhaps you might want to show these texts to the scholars of the bible all over the world because none of them know of such things...
there isn't a single original text from the NT in existence from the 1st century...
the earliest fragment we have is a piece of the gospel of john which is about the size of a credit card... and its from the early second century...
so it would be wise to take your own advice... get your facts straight
originally posted by: Tangerine
Yes, that's exactly what was done when a second century Bishop named the four gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John despite the fact that they could not possibly have written them.
The Timeline of Muhammad - WikiIslam
... 631 AD All Arabians submit to Islam Muhammad
originally posted by: schuyler
Interesting, of course, but hardly a deal-breaker in any sense of the term.
1500 years ago is still 500 years shy of the New Testament events.
A book written/assembled 500 years after the fact is not going to be blowing anything wide open.
Other New Testament scholars won't get a chance to study this gospel portion until it is published in a book about a year from now. They are admittedly skeptical, since the alleged fragment would be almost two centuries older than the current oldest copy of Mark
According to their translation, the main inscription reads, “In the name of the Lord, this book is written by monks of the high monastery in Nineveh in the 1500th year of our Lord.”
the Muslim media is confusing the age 1500-year old of the book with the year 1500 AD. The Muslim media has supposedly reported that “‘an ancient, 1500-year-old bible predicted the coming of Muhammad,” but once again the site disagrees. The Vatican Insider claims that media reports are confusing the 1500 years attributed by the media and the date of 1500 AD written in the book’s main inscription and due to this confusion