It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Antique bible turns up in Turkey

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 09:59 AM

Originally posted by mars1
Written in gold that's different.
Could prove how the bible we have today is a load of bull crap

An Aramaic translation from ca. 500? Not likely. We have many older Biblical documents in the original languages. The majority of Qumran texts (1st c. BCE - 2nd c. CE) and the Vulgate (4th c.) are proto-Masoretic, meaning a 6th century OT would almost certainly conform to the Masoretic Text. We have almost half of the NT in the original Greek from the 2nd century, and the balance no later than the 4th century. Codex Alexandrinus, with most of the Septuagint, is from the 5th century. A 5th-6th century translation into another language might give us a few footnotes in critical apparati, but it wouldn't change the text.

Besides, this book is just another copy of the Pe#ta, and it's not 1500 years old. Textual critics are already making fun of it.

posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 03:09 PM
reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli

Hi Furvus

You wrote


'The majority of Qumran texts (1st c. BCE - 2nd c. CE) and the Vulgate (4th c.) are proto-Masoretic'...


This is patently NOT true.

Only about 35% of the Qumran Dead Sea Scroll material found (at least as far as what was un-earthed from Qumran's Caves 1-11 are concerned !) can in any way, shape or form be considered 'protoMasoretic' in 'consonantal content'

That is, if you take the time to count EVERY SINGLE CONSONANT (and also every word) one by one - these cave 1-11 texts were sealed up (as veritable Time Capsules, bearing witness to older more FLUID text families) in June of 68 CE during the 1st failed Jewish War against Rome (66-72 CE) when the 2nd Temple of Herod and Jerusalem was burned to a crisp.

Now, if you are speaking about the LATER text copies found at Masada or other areas (dating from the Bar Kokhba revolt c. 135-138 CE) these are all of the post-Jamnia (c. 90 CE) Babylonian protoMasoretic family of consonantal texts (albeit with a few glaring exceptions !) - one must ALWAYS make a distinction between texts that circulated in Palestine POST -Jamnia (i.e. after 90 CE at which time the protoMasoretic Babylonian text family became 'the official and only one to be read in the Synagogues' alla Hillel II) and the kind of more fluid texts we find in PRE-JAMNIA (aka Javneh) times (e.g. those texts found in Caves 1-11 near Qumran which were all sealed up in June of 68 CE and which DO NOT FOLLOW the later protoMasoretic text types - see the work of Emanuel Tov on trying to separate the 'earlier' (more fluid preJamnia) from the 'later' (post-Jamnia) Hebrew and aramaic textual traditions

The rest of the Hebrew and Aramaic Corpus found in caves 1-11 actually do NOT conform very closely (according to Tov and others who have spent countless hours carefully counting every consonant and word on a column - then carefully comparing them with other Hebrew and Aramaic text families of the same book !) to the protoMasoretic very often - they tend to follow various Hebrew Vorlagen (Hebrew consonantal text underlays) -- some similar to those used by either the Alexandrian Septuaginta (LXX) translators (c. 250 BCE) of the Hebrew scriptures - or represent the Hebrew Consonantal Vorlage to the somehwat later (c. 140 CE) Greek translation of the same group of Hebrew texts by Symmachus who used a MUCH DIFFERENT (i.e. non proto-Masoretic) Hebrew Consonantal Vorlage (text underlay) to make his own free translation into Greek...

Or YET ANOTHER Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek by Aquila which used ANOTHER Hebrew family consonantal text underlay or YET ANOTHER translation into Greek of the Hebrew/Aramaic scriptures by Theodotioin - which uses YET ANOTHER consonantal Vorlag Hebrew text underlay (very different from either the protoMasoretic text family or the Greek LXX vorlagen, or the Hebrew/Aramaic text family used by Aquila or the Hebrew text vorlag-underlay of Symmachus !!)

Just a little clarification on ATS this morning !!
edit on 26-2-2012 by Sigismundus because: stuttering cooommmpputeeeeerrrrrrr keeeyboarddddd

posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 03:56 PM
The Oriental Orthodox still have their services in Aramaic. In fact, they still use the Liturgy of St. James, which is the oldest Christian liturgy that is still in use (speculated to be from the 1st century at the earliest, but no later than the 4th). The Church was well established throughout the region by 500 AD. If anything, the text should not go to the Vatican, but to the Orthodox Church, who still have a presence in Turkey.

I am not surprised that primarily Muslim Turkey would be quick to jump on any speculation bandwagon that attempts to prove their Muslim faith by trying to discredit Christianity. My own speculation is that is likely a text that was used by the Church. However, I'm not in love with my speculations. It could be from a later time.

And for those who don't know their history or geography, here's an interesting tidbit: St. Nicholas the Bishop and Wonderworker of Myra (from whom people get the Santa Claus thing) was from Turkey.
edit on 26-2-2012 by LeSigh because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 04:30 PM
Could some one please tell me why I am unable to flag this thread and why it isn't top of front page?

posted on Feb, 26 2012 @ 07:08 PM
If this book suggests that Mahamad is a prophet to come then it isnt part of the bible.
No book that is found can stand on its own and be classed as text, it HAS to be able to be crossed referenced to other teachings from other books of the bible.
Imagine if in 2000 years somebody finds a gold leafed book saying its part of the bible suggesting Obama was the 21st century prophet that everyone should listen to. No doubt some would believe.

The whole bible and its teachings can be cross referenced within itself.
This stuff about Mahammad in this supposed new testament CAN NOT be cross referenced and is not cross referencable with anything else written in what has been canonised, Mahammad isnt even recognised in the Old Testament, never mind the New testament.
There is nothing new in scripture that can stand without other older scriptural support.
It is what the Mormons do, just add stuff and say its part of the bible
This story is based on complete stupidity.

posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 09:42 AM
"Controversy mounts over newly-found gospel that claims advent of Islam"

Akkad added that the gospel’s account of how Jesus told a crowd of thousands about the advent of Prophet Mohammed is hard to believe.

This gospel, he explained, contains several mistakes that can be obvious to Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike.

Reading the 325-page, 231-chapter Arabic translation of the book, which can be downloaded from the internet, makes it easy to detect the contradictions to Quran it contains.

According to many studies, the gospel attributed to St. Barnabas was written by a European Jew in the Middle Ages who was quite familiar with the Quran and the Gospels. He, thus, mixed facts from here and there and his intentions remain unknown.

A complete read of the attached article lists some of the contradictions.

posted on Mar, 2 2012 @ 11:48 PM
reply to post by mars1

there is talk that the bible we have now is mistranslated.

"there is talk"? That's been a going theory for a long long long time.
I'd like to know what's in this new "antique" also.
Personally, I'm right now looking into the "Life of St Issa" records and the findings of the Kashmir professor Haissnan and his colleague Levi, who published years' worth of research in The Fifth Gospel a few years ago.

I know Notovitch (the Russian who said he visited Kashmir and was allowed to hear the sacred teachings of the Buddhists there who recorded Issa's life) has been called a fraud, but I don't believe that yet. Notovitch's "Life" is unquestionably talking about the same person (Jesus), and the records he relates show what went on during the "unknown years" (which were most of the years) of Jesus Christ's life.

At this point I'm just looking into the ideas and theories; I am in no place to make a judgment call on any so-called Scripture or Gospel or their authenticity or validity. But yeah, if the RCC gets hold of it, we'll never know.

posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 03:29 AM
and guess what? i just read a news article about muhsin yazicioglu, head of the religious/nationalistic party bbp in turkey and who was (controversially) killed in a chopper accident while he was heading to an election rally prior to the elections in 2009 was heavily into the whole matter and planned to fund a movie about it. he's claimed to have said that whoever messes with the subject would get killed.

full article thru google translate, sorry
edit on 7-3-2012 by jamsession because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 03:36 AM

Originally posted by ColCurious
reply to post by mars1

It's a beautiful antique, no doubt about that.
But why is it a big deal from the religious point of view?
It's still 500 years too young to be considered as a historically accurate reference to anything within the christian mythology anyways.

because it contains a prophecy about prophet mohammad's coming they say. prophet mohammad was born in 570.

posted on Mar, 7 2012 @ 04:16 AM
reply to post by mars1

Gawd I have to agree! DON'T LET THEM HAVE IT!

We need to know what it says - we all do - and for multiple reasons!

Great thread!


new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in