Just who were the real authors of the Bible? Quotes of Bible Corruption from NIV Bible Commentary.

[أبو حفص الأيوبي]

Just who were the real authors of the Bible? Quotes of Bible Corruption from NIV Bible Commentary.

Introduction: We must first of all know that the entire bible is corrupted and unreliable and is mostly filled with man-made laws and corruption! "`How can you say, "We [the Jews] are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?' (From the NIV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)"

The Revised Standard Version makes it even clearer: "How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it (i.e., the bible) into a LIE.(From the RSV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)"

In either translation, we clearly see that the Jews had so much corrupted the bible with their man-made cultural laws, that they had turned the bible into a lie!

See Also Deuteronomy 31:25-29 where Moses peace be upon him predicted the corruption/tampering of the Law (Bible) after his death.

The Book of Moses predicted that the Law (Bible) will get corrupted. The Book of Jeremiah which came approximately 826 years after did indeed confirm this corruption.

Also visit:

The bible is a book that contains countless contradictions and corruptions as ironically the bible's own theologians openly admit! They even claim that it contains fables and fairy tales:
The Christian and Bible theologians call them "fictions that exist in the Bible"!
The Christian and Bible theologians say "The original manuscripts had been lost"!
The Christian and Bible theologians call them "fairy tales and fables in the Bible"!
Countless contradictions and corruption.
The original authors are "unknown" of almost all of the bible's books and gospels.

101 Contradictions in the Bible!

James White admits that the Bible is corrupt!

Just who were the real authors of the Bible?
The sections of this article are:
1- Exposing the Bible's books' and gospels' corruptions.
- Exposing the New Testament.
- Exposing Paul.
- Exposing the Old Testament.
2- So who wrote the bible then? were they really the original Prophets and Disciples?
3- The New Testament was written in the 4th century by Constantine and his council by their own words.
4- The Roman Catholic Encyclopedia admits that the bible had been "altered".
5- Contradictions in historical claims and accounts.
6- Conclusion.
7- Further Sites to Research.
8 Book Information (Bibliography).

Below, you'll see that the Bible's books and gospels were:

1. Written by mysterious men.
2. Written by an unknown number of men.
3. Written in unknown places.
4. Written in unknown dates.
   
5. Paul never even met Jesus Christ in person while the latter was on earth. It is falsely claimed that Jesus appeared to Paul while Paul was on his way to Damascus after the "crucifixion" (Acts 9:2-4. Note: Paul's name used to be Saul. Yet, Paul admittedly wasn't even sure whether the Holy Spirit was inspirning him or not).
   
6. None of the disciples, even in the false writings attributed to them, ever claimed that their writings were inspired or Divine. Not only that, but we even ironically see that:
   
7. Luke for instance, wrote his "gospel" for the sake of another person and not GOD Almighty. See below for details.
8. The disciples even fought with each others [1] [2].
9. We read about direct invitations to dinner and other occasions between the disciples in the "books" [1].
10. According to the commentaries below, all of the books of the bible were altered and corrupted.
    
11. The Bible's own theologians even admit that the bible contains "fictions", its original manuscripts "had been lost", and contains "fairy tails and fables".

Note: Please also visit my My response to Quennel Gale's rebuttal to this article.



1- Exposing the Bible's books' and gospels' corruptions:
The Gospel of Matthew:

"The unknown author, whom we shall continue to call Matthew for the sake of convenience, drew no only up the Gospel according to Mark but upon a large body of material (principally, sayings of Jesus) not found in Mk that corresponds, sometimes exactly, to material found also in the Gospel according to Luke. (The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1008)"

"As for the place where the gospel was composed, a plausible suggestion is that it was Antioch, the capital of the Roman province of Syria. (The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1009)"

So we clearly see, both the author or authors and the place of composition of the "Gospel of Matthew" are unknown.

The Gospel of Mark:
Note: This gospel is the oldest and supposedly the most original one in the New Testament!

"Although the book is anonymous, apart from the ancient heading "According to Mark" in manuscripts, it has traditionally been assigned to John Mark, in whose mother's house (at Jerusalem) Christians assembled. (The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1064)"
"Although there is no direct internal evidence of authorship, it was the unanimous testimony of the early church that this Gospel was written by John Mark. (From the NIV bible Commentary [1], page 1488)"
We certainly do not know whether Mark was the author or not! The quote clearly states "no direct internal evidence of authorship". Also, the so-called unanimous testimony of the early church:

- Does not prove that the author was Mark.

- Nor does it prove that other people did not alter and modify the book, especially when the book was written at least 40-50 years after Christ. We don't even know if Mark even wrote the book. "Traditionally, the gospel is said to have been written shortly before A.D. 70 in Rome, at a time of impending persecution and when destruction loomed over Jerusalem. (The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1064)"
"Serious doubts exists as to whether these verses belong to the Gospel of Mark. They are absent from important early manuscripts and display certain peculiarities of vocabulary, style and theological content that are unlike the rest of Mark. His Gospel probably ended at 16:8, or its original ending has been lost. (From the NIV bible Foot Notes [1], page 1528)"
"This verse, which reads, "But if you do not forgive, neither will your heavenly Father forgive your transgressions," is omitted in the best manuscripts. (The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1081)"
"This passage, termed the Longer Ending to the Marcan gospel by comparison with a much briefer conclusion found in some less important manuscripts, has traditionally been accepted as a canonical part of the gospel and was defined as such by the Council of Trent. Early citations of it by the Fathers indicate that it was composed by the second century, although vocabulary and style indicate that it was written by someone other than Mark. (The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1088)"
So, in reality, we don't really know whether Mark was the sole author of this Gospel or not, nor do we know when and where the "gospel" was even written. And since The New Testament wasn't even documented on paper until 150-300 years (depending on what Christian you talk to) after Jesus, then how are we to know for sure that the current "Gospel of Mark" wasn't written by some pro of Mark?

A new captured image of this book's corruption:


(http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...0;&version=31;)

The above text reads: "The most reliable early manuscript and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20."
Now my concern to this corruption and 'answer-the-problem-away' statement is that what are those so-called "reliable early manuscript(s)" and who are the "ancient witnesses"?
According to the early Christians' manuscripts, Jesus never got crucified, and trinity is a lie. The so-called "gospel of Mark", along with all of the "gospels" of the NT, were written by third-party narration, as clearly demonstrated and shown in the sections below. People wrote on the tongue of Jesus' Disciples those books. They are neither original nor are the Pure Word of GOD Almighty.

If the "gospel of Mark" was indeed Divine and from GOD Almighty, then we wouldn't have this corruption, that they're admitting above, in it.

I hope you see the real danger in making these assumptions when you are willing to DIE for the fact that such Gospel is the actual True Word of GOD Almighty!
Further regarding this Gospel, we read the following commentary about Mark 16:9-20:
"Serious doubts exists as to whether these verses belong to the Gospel of Mark. They are absent from important early manuscripts and display certain peculiarities of vocabulary, style and theological content that are unlike the rest of Mark. His Gospel probably ended at 16:8, or its original ending has been lost. (From the NIV bible Foot Notes [1], page 1528)"
This quote raises a very serious issue here. First of all, as we've seen above in the first quote, we have no evidence that proves that John Mark was the sole author of this so called "Gospel". Second of all, we see that this Gospel has some serious problems/suspicions in it. The issue of Mark 16:9-20 is a scary one, because many Christian cults today use poisonous snakes in their worship and end up dying.
Removing Mark 16:9-20 is quite appreciated by me personally (to be quite honest with you), because it prevents people from dying from snake bites. But however, the serious issue of man's corruption of the bible remains.
We can be absolutely certain now that the above Quotes prove without a doubt that the bible is doubtful. The quote "or its original ending has been lost" proves that what we call today "Gospels" were not written by their original authors such as Mark, John, Matthew, etc... It proves that the Gospel had been tampered with by man. Let alone considering it as the True Living Words of GOD Almighty.
If John Mark wasn't the one who wrote Mark 16:9-20, then who did? And how can you prove the ownership of the other person? Let alone proving that it was GOD Almighty's Revelation. And as we saw in the first quote above, we don't even know that John Mark was indeed the one who wrote the so called "Gospel of Mark".
To say the least in our case here, we now have enough evidence to discard the entire Gospel of Mark from the Bible, because you can't take bits and pieces of it and say some of it belongs to him and some of it doesn't! Let alone considering the entire corrupted Gospel as the True Living Word of GOD Almighty, which is a complete blasphemy.
Please visit A dangerous forgery was inserted at the end of the so-called "Gospel of Mark".

Here is an email that I received from a Christian regarding Mark 16:17-18:

From: R. Mercer
To: truthspeaks@answering-christianity.com
Subject: I Totally Agree
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2001 13:41:57 -0700

"What credibility does Christianity have when it scriptures are littered
with such dangerous and obvious forgeries?"
You summed it up very well on your web page. That is my question
entirely. Just what are we to believe? If forgeries have been proven to
exist in the Bible, then how many more must there be? What about the
chapters and verses we all guide our whole life/styles by? Are they
forgeries, too?

This verse in Mark 16:17-18, has always bothered me. I have, and
still do believe the rest of that passage (laying on of hands, healing
the sick,...), so how can that part of the passage be true when the
serpent part is forged?

I know the part on drinking any poison says "IF", but the part on
taking up serpents says "SHALL", which has always been a problem for me
to believe. Imagine us all being forced to take up serpents in order to
serve God.

On the other hand, if this was forged, then that creates an even
bigger concern for me. Not knowing what text in our bible is authentic
and what is not.

Thanks for letting me take up so much of your time. Like I said
before, this passage always bothered me, probably more so than any other.

Thanks, once again. Good Day.

The Book of 1 and 2 Peter:
"Some modern scholars on the basis of a number of features that they consider incompatible with Petrine authenticity, regard the letter as the work of a later Christian writer. Such features include the cultivated Greek in which it is written, difficult to attribute to a Galilean fisherman, together with its use of the Greek Septuagint translation when citing the Old Testament; the similarity in both thought and expression to the Pauline literature; and the allusions to widespread persecution of Christians, which did not occur until at least the reign of Domitian (A.D. 81-96). In this view the letter would date from the end of the first century or even the beginning of the second, when there is evidence for persecution of Christians in Asia Minor. (The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1348)"
"Nevertheless, acceptance of 2 Peter into the New Testament canon met with great resistance in the early church. The oldest certain reference to it comes from Origen in the early third century.(The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1354)"
"Among modern scholars there is wide agreement that 2 Peter is a pseudonymous work, i.e., one written by a later author who attributed it to Peter. (The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1354)"
So like the rest of the books and gospels of the Bible, we don't even know regarding 1 Peter:

1. Who wrote it.
2. How many people wrote it.
3. When it was written.
4. Where it was written.

The Book of Acts:
"Although the author does not name himself, evidence outside the Scriptures and inferences from the book itself lead to the conclusion that the author was Luke. (From the NIV bible Commentary [1], page 1643)"
So based on some conclusion, you're willing to die for defending the idea that the Book of Acts was the True Word of GOD Almighty? If the book was inspired by GOD Almighty, then how come it wasn't mentioned in the book itself to help us filter it out from the many other "Satanic false books"? Are we sure that this book too is not a man-made Satanic book?
After all, its Just a conclusion, isn't it?
Beside, what evidence are they talking about?! The New Testament wasn't even documented on paper until 150-300 years (depending on what Christian you talk to) after Jesus. So unless the Book/Gospel was signed by its author, there is no way we would know for sure that it was indeed his book from the first place, let alone considering it as the True Living Word of GOD.
Please visit: Was Jesus crucified on a tree (according to Peter), cross (according to others), or never got crucified (according to Islam)?
None of Jesus' disciples witnessed the crucifixion. They "all fled" and "deserted" Jesus. This further confirms Islam's claims.

Hebrews 5:7-8 confirm Islam's claim about Jesus never got crucified and contradicts the Bible! According to the documentary film, "Banned from the Bible", which I watched on the History Channel, some of Saint Peter's apocalypse were banned from the current Bible, and these Epistles contain what Islam claims - that Jesus didn't get crucified on the cross and it only appeared that he was. This banned part also says that Jesus was standing next to the cross laughing. These are the parts of the bible that only few people in the world know about.

According to the documentary film, the apocalypse was very popular among Christians during the 2nd century. They believed "it was spiritually inspired" by GOD Almighty to Saint Peter. They actually had doubts about "John's apocalypse", which is known today as "the Book of Revelation". Interestingly also, this apocalypse says that after GOD Almighty fills both Heaven and Hell with inhabitants from Mankind, and the people of Hell get tortured for a long period of time, the People of Heaven will ask and Pray to GOD Almighty to Forgive the people of Hell. GOD Almighty will then eventually listen to their Prayers, and will order the "Gates and the Steel Bars of Hell" to be opened and allow the people of Hell to enter Heaven for Good. This apocalypse of Peter seems to also perfectly fit Noble Verse 7:40 in the Noble Quran where Allah Almighty Promised that He will eventually open the Gates of Heaven to all disbelievers and empty Hell. Please visit: Hell will eventually be empty according to Islam.

Jesus is a hypocrite for bowing down to GOD only during his desperate times. See another proof in the bible that Jesus can not be the Creator of the Universe.

The Gospel of Luke:
"The identification of Luke as the author is primarily based on the "we" passages in Acts (beginning in Acts 16:10), which indicate that Luke was associated with Paul in his ministry and wrote down the account of his activities. (The Amplified Bible, Page 1153)"
The only proof that they have about Luke being the sole author of this gospel is a weak speculation on "we". This is absurd at best! This speculation shows:

1. The gospel was likely to have been altered or written by others beside Luke.
2. It's place of documentation is unknown.
3. It's date of documentation is also unknown.

It is also worth mentioning that the author of the book of Acts is also unknown as shown above:
"Although the author does not name himself, evidence outside the Scriptures and inferences from the book itself lead to the conclusion that the author was Luke. (From the NIV bible Commentary [1], page 1643)"

So their whole speculation is absurd at best!

There is a serious forgery about Jesus' "resurrection on the third day" claiming that it was foretold in the OT when it wasn't! Let us look at Luke 24:44-48 from the NIV Bible:
Luke 24
44 He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."
45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.
46 He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day,
47 and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
48 You are witnesses of these things.
Luke 24:44-48 says that it is written in the Law of Moses (i.e., the Torah) that Jesus will die and resurrect on the third day. Where in the entire Old Testament (not Just in the 5 books of Moses that make up the Law of Moses or the Torah) do you have that?! Show me one Old Testament verse that prophesized about Jesus' third day resurrection?
Please visit: A serious forgery in Luke 24:44-48 about Jesus' "resurrection on the third day" claiming that it was foretold in the OT when it wasn't!
In fact, in my article Answering Isaiah 53, I clearly proved that the Old Testament actually confirms the Noble Quran's claims about Jesus never got crucified! Let alone dying and resurrecting on the third day!
Anyway, Let us see what the NIV Bible's theologians said about this book:
"The author's name does not appear in the book, but much unmistakable evidence points to Luke. (From the NIV bible Commentary [1], page 1529)"
Again, we don't know for sure whether it was Luke or not who wrote the "Gospel of Luke" since his name doesn't appear in the Book. The Gospel itself seems to be a compromising one to the Word of GOD. Let us look at the following:
"Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, (Luke 1:3)"
Few problems with this Gospel from the quote above:
1- The author was not inspired, and knew for sure that he was not inspired by GOD Almighty to write the Book since he didn't mention about any divine inspiration, and he said "...since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning..." Where do we see GOD's inspiration in this?
2- The author wrote it for the purpose of "his most excellent Theophilus." Since when we compromise GOD Almighty and document His Holy Words for the purpose of other higher (in rank) human beings?
I say it again, I hope you see the real danger in making these assumptions when you are willing to DIE for the fact that such Gospel is the actual True Word of GOD Almighty!
Also, beside, what evidence are they talking about?! The New Testament wasn't even documented on paper until 150-300 years (depending on what Christian you talk to) after Jesus. So unless the Book/Gospel was signed by its author, there is no way we would know for sure that it was indeed his book from the first place, let alone considering as the True Living Word of GOD.

Further from brother Vipor Poison; may Allah Almighty always be pleased with him:
Luke 1:3

Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,
The following is from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

http://newadvent.org/cathen/14625b.htm
http://newadvent.org/cathen/14625a.htm
If Theophilus existed in either the 2nd or the 4th centuries then how could the writer of this gospel be the same Luke who is supposed to be with Jesus in the 1st century.
Maybe he lived to about 200 years.. :)

From brother Amir AbdulRahim; may Allah Almighty always be pleased with him:
The subject of Mankind's corruption of the bible has interested me greatly, and I have taken a closer look at this subject. Its seems it's not only your site that brings this subject up, but a couple of Christian sites too.
For example, an article in the Catholic Encyclopaedia that you mentioned in regard to the 'Theophilus' mentioned in Luke's Gospel (from your Just Who Are The real authors Of The Bible? article) testifies to this fact (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14530a.htm):

"IV. TRANSMISSION OF THE TEXT
No book of ancient times has come down to us exactly as it left the hands of its author-- all have been in some way altered. The material conditions under which a book was spread before the invention of printing (1440), the little care of the copyists, correctors, and glossators for the text, so different from the desire of accuracy exhibited to-day, explain sufficiently the divergences we find between various manuscripts of the same work. To these causes may be added, in regard to the Scriptures, exegetical difficulties and dogmatical controversies. To exempt the sacred writings from ordinary conditions a very special providence would have been necessary, and it has not been the will of God to exercise this providence."
Lets Just go through that again - "No book of ancient times has come down to us exactly as it left the hands of its author--all have been in some way altered." All have been in some way altered! In view of this blatant admission, how can anyone expect me, or any muslim, to follow an impure book?
When you compare this to the great lengths taken to preserve the original Qur'an, there's no contest!

The Book of Hebrews:
"The writer of this letter does not identify himself, but he was obviously well known to the original recipients. (From the NIV bible Commentary [1], page 1856)"
So because the guy was supposedly "well known (which we don't really know that for sure anyway)", then would that give us the right to consider his words as the Words of GOD Almighty?! I am sorry, but I don't really see the logic behind this! The Book of Hebrews is one of the highly used Books among Christians. I hear references from it a lot when listening to Christians preaching. Yet, no one really knows who wrote it!. This is quite ironic, because Christians use such highly doubtful books in their teachings as if they were the True Living Words of GOD Almighty. I don't care what you call this, but I call it blasphemy, because it is the most ridiculous insult to GOD Almighty and His Holy Words that I have ever seen.
I Just hope you see the real cheap quality in the religion of Christianity, with all my respect due to every Christian reader.
Please visit: Was Jesus crucified on a tree (according to Peter), cross (according to others), or never got crucified (according to Islam)?
None of Jesus' disciples witnessed the crucifixion. They "all fled" and "deserted" Jesus. This further confirms Islam's claims.

Hebrews 5:7-8 confirm Islam's claim about Jesus never got crucified and contradicts the Bible! According to the documentary film, "Banned from the Bible", which I watched on the History Channel, some of Saint Peter's apocalypse were banned from the current Bible, and these Epistles contain what Islam claims - that Jesus didn't get crucified on the cross and it only appeared that he was. This banned part also says that Jesus was standing next to the cross laughing. These are the parts of the bible that only few people in the world know about.


According to the documentary film, the apocalypse was very popular among Christians during the 2nd century. They believed "it was spiritually inspired" by GOD Almighty to Saint Peter. They actually had doubts about "John's apocalypse", which is known today as "the Book of Revelation". Interestingly also, this apocalypse says that after GOD Almighty fills both Heaven and Hell with inhabitants from Mankind, and the people of Hell get tortured for a long period of time, the People of Heaven will ask and Pray to GOD Almighty to Forgive the people of Hell. GOD Almighty will then eventually listen to their Prayers, and will order the "Gates and the Steel Bars of Hell" to be opened and allow the people of Hell to enter Heaven for Good. This apocalypse of Peter seems to also perfectly fit Noble Verse 7:40 in the Noble Quran where Allah Almighty Promised that He will eventually open the Gates of Heaven to all disbelievers and empty Hell. Please visit: Hell will eventually be empty according to Islam.

Jesus is a hypocrite for bowing down to GOD only during his desperate times. See another proof in the bible that Jesus can not be the Creator of the Universe.

The Gospel of John:
"Many scholars of the past two centuries have denied that John wrote this book, partly because of their belief that the author fabricated many details such as the miracles and the discourses of Jesus. (The Holman Illustrated Study Bible, ISBN: 978-1-58640-275-4, Gospel of John, Page1540)"
"Critical Analysis makes it difficult to accept the idea that the gospel as it now stands was written by one person.(The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1136)"
"Within the gospel itself there are also some inconsistencies. (The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1136)"
"To solve these problems, scholars have proposed various rearrangements that would produce a smoother order. However, most have come to the conclusion that the inconsistencies were probably produced by subsequent editing in which homogeneous materials were added to a shorter original. (The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1136)"
"Other difficulties for any theory of eyewitness authorship of the gospel in its present form are presented by its highly developed theology and by certain elements of its literary style.(The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1136)"
"The gospel contains many details about Jesus not found in the synoptic gospels. (The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1136)"
"The final editing of the gospel and arrangement in its present form probably dates from between A.D. 90 and 100. Traditionally, Ephesus has been favored as the place of composition, though many support a location in Syria, perhaps the city of Antioch, while some have suggested other places, including Alexandria.(The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1136)"
So again, no one knows regarding the "Gospel of John":

1. Who wrote it.
2. How many people wrote it.
3. When it was written.
4. Where it was written.

Also, when one reads this gospel, he would immediately notice that it was not written by John himself. Christians say that it was John the Apostle writting about John the Baptist. The evidence in the Quotes above clearly proves that this is a desperate lie! I submit to you that neither John wrote anything! Let us look at the following verses from the gospel:
"And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? (From the King James Version Bible, John 1:19)"
"John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; (From the King James Version Bible, John 1:26)"
"For John was not yet cast into prison. (From the King James Version Bible, John 3:24)"
etc...
Whoever wrote the gospel, was he appointed or inspired by GOD Almighty? If yes, then who is that man? It can't be John for it is quite obvious from the above verses and many more throughout the gospel that John wasn't the original author. One has to be ridiculously biased and blind in faith to deny that.
So now, what about these most popular verses:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (From the King James Version Bible, John 1:1)"
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (From the King James Version Bible, John 3:16)"
These verses were obviously written by mysterious men and not by any of Jesus' original disciples. Therefore, it is blasphemy to consider such verses as Divine and to try to prove Jesus is the Creator of the Universe through them. The lie of trinity was born between the years of 150 to 300. It is quite possible and highly probable that some church wrote the so-called "Gospel of John" from excerpts that they found. Notice that there are 24,000 "letters" or papers found that were not included in today's New Testament, which means that the excerpts that were used for writing the "Gospel of John" and all of the other books and gospels of the NT are highly doubtful and contain no proof what so ever that they were written by any of Jesus' original disciples. The Gospel of John was written about John but not by the original "Saint John". Big difference and big corruption! You can't consider such rubbish as GOD Almighty's Divine Holy Words.
Again, please visit: The Gospel of John, Gospel or gossip? to see proof about early Christians rejecting the so-called Gospel of John. They believed it was all man-made.
Was Jesus crucified on a tree (according to Peter), cross (according to others), or never got crucified (according to Islam)?
None of Jesus' disciples witnessed the crucifixion. They "all fled" and "deserted" Jesus. This further confirms Islam's claims.

Hebrews 5:7-8 confirm Islam's claim about Jesus never got crucified and contradicts the Bible! According to the documentary film, "Banned from the Bible", which I watched on the History Channel, some of Saint Peter's apocalypse were banned from the current Bible, and these Epistles contain what Islam claims - that Jesus didn't get crucified on the cross and it only appeared that he was. This banned part also says that Jesus was standing next to the cross laughing. These are the parts of the bible that only few people in the world know about.

According to the documentary film, the apocalypse was very popular among Christians during the 2nd century. They believed "it was spiritually inspired" by GOD Almighty to Saint Peter. They actually had doubts about "John's apocalypse", which is known today as "the Book of Revelation". Interestingly also, this apocalypse says that after GOD Almighty fills both Heaven and Hell with inhabitants from Mankind, and the people of Hell get tortured for a long period of time, the People of Heaven will ask and Pray to GOD Almighty to Forgive the people of Hell. GOD Almighty will then eventually listen to their Prayers, and will order the "Gates and the Steel Bars of Hell" to be opened and allow the people of Hell to enter Heaven for Good. This apocalypse of Peter seems to also perfectly fit Noble Verse 7:40 in the Noble Quran where Allah Almighty Promised that He will eventually open the Gates of Heaven to all disbelievers and empty Hell. Please visit: Hell will eventually be empty according to Islam.

Jesus is a hypocrite for bowing down to GOD only during his desperate times. See another proof in the bible that Jesus can not be the Creator of the Universe.

The Gospel of 1 John:
"....Unlike most NT letters, 1 John does not tell us who its author is. The earliest identification of him comes from the church fathers...(From the NIV bible Commentary [1], page 1904)"
"The letter is difficult to date with precision....(From the NIV bible Commentary [1], page 1905)"
This is really ironic! with all respect due to Christians. If the Book's author is not for sure known, then why assume that it was Saint John who wrote it?
Please visit The lie of 1 John 5:7. This verse was later discovered to be a Satanic lie. The Roman Catholic Theologians don't believe in it, and it doesn't exist in their Bibles.
The same case where no author is really known exists in the Gospels of 2 and 3 John.

The Book of Revelation:
"The author of the book calls himself John, who because of his Christian faith has been exiled to the rocky island of Patmos, a Roman penal colony. Although he never claims to be John the apostle, he was so identified by several of the early church Fathers, including Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Terullian, Cyprian, and Hippolytus. This identification, however, was denied by other Fathers, including Denis of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzen, and John Chrysostom. Indeed, vocabulary, grammar, and style make it doubtful that the book could have been put into its present form by the same persons responsible for the fourth gospel. (The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1373)"
"Four times the author identifies himself as John (1:1,4,9; 22:8).....In the third century, however, an African bishop named Dionysius compared the language, style and thought of the Apocalypse (Revelation) with that of the other writings of John and decided that the book could not been written by the apostle of John. He suggested that the author was a certain John the Presbyter, whose name appears elsewhere in ancient writings. Although many today follow Dionysius in his view of authorship, the external evidence seems overwhelmingly supportive of the traditional view. (From the NIV bible Commentary [1], page 1922)"
Again, we don't know who wrote the Book of Revelation. It is certainly highly doubtful that it was written by Apostle John. The Theologians and Historians of the NIV bible seem to agree with the invalidity of this book from the above quote. So are you now going to consider the other John's words as the Words and Inspirations of GOD Almighty?
As we see, the style of writing in the book of Revelation is different from the books that are believed to be from John which are the Gospel of John, 1 John, 2 John and 3 John. The book of Revelation's style seems to be closer to John the Presbyter's writings. This man is known in ancient writings. There are also many Christian theologians today that hold the same view about the falsety of the book of Revelation.
Isn't this sufficient enough to prove that the book is doubtful?
Notice that in the sections of "Gospel of John" and "Gospels of 1, 2 & 3 John" above, the author did not identify himself and it was ASSUMED without actual proofs that it was Saint John who wrote them. Notice how they said that if he were to identify himself, then it would be hard for them to explain it.
Now, notice the author in the Book of Revelation does identify himself as John, but he has a complete different language and style of writing from the other books, which created much uncertainty about its validity in the Church.
My questions here are: Who wrote the Books? And is or is not Saint John supposed to identify himself in his books? And where are his books that have his name on them?
Again, keep in mind that the NT was not even documented on paper until 150 to 300 years after Jesus (depending on what Christian you talk to). So the dating is way too long for us to be assuming books to belong to certain people. Let alone considering their nonsense (contents) as the True Living Words of GOD Almighty.

Please visit: Jesus the "Alpha and Omega". Not only this quote doesn't prove Jesus as GOD, but it was also written in a book that is unreliable in later bibles. In the original Bibles, the quote doesn't even exist!!
False and failed Prophecies about the Hour put in the mouth of Jesus in the books of Mark, Luke and Revelation in the New Testament.
Arche of the Creation of God as Alpha and Omega. The "Alpha and Omega" doesn't even exist in the original Bibles! It's a lie that was later inserted by trinitarians. See the historical proofs in the article. If their site is down, then you can read the article at this link ON MY SITE.

Hebrews 5:7-8 confirm Islam's claim about Jesus never got crucified and contradicts the Bible! According to the documentary film, "Banned from the Bible", which I watched on the History Channel, some of Saint Peter's apocalypse were banned from the current Bible, and these Epistles contain what Islam claims - that Jesus didn't get crucified on the cross and it only appeared that he was. This banned part also says that Jesus was standing next to the cross laughing. These are the parts of the bible that only few people in the world know about.

According to the documentary film, the apocalypse was very popular among Christians during the 2nd century. They believed "it was spiritually inspired" by GOD Almighty to Saint Peter. They actually had doubts about "John's apocalypse", which is known today as "the Book of Revelation". Interestingly also, this apocalypse says that after GOD Almighty fills both Heaven and Hell with inhabitants from Mankind, and the people of Hell get tortured for a long period of time, the People of Heaven will ask and Pray to GOD Almighty to Forgive the people of Hell. GOD Almighty will then eventually listen to their Prayers, and will order the "Gates and the Steel Bars of Hell" to be opened and allow the people of Hell to enter Heaven for Good. This apocalypse of Peter seems to also perfectly fit Noble Verse 7:40 in the Noble Quran where Allah Almighty Promised that He will eventually open the Gates of Heaven to all disbelievers and empty Hell. Please visit: Hell will eventually be empty according to Islam.

The Book of Revelation is a very important, probably the most important Book in the bible today, because it has prophecies in it of what Christians believe is for our future today, even though it has nothing to do with our current world. It talks about Jesus soon (1800 to 2000 years ago) will return (Revelation 22:7). I don't know how soon is 2000 years to the Bible. All the people that this book was told to had died.
It also talks about the great battle of Gog and Magog fighting the righteous; "and will go out to deceive the nations in the four corners of the earth [The earth DOES NOT have four corners and no the earth is not a square or rectangle. It is round almost like an egg!!]--Gog and Magog--to gather them for battle. In number they are like the sand on the seashore. (From the NIV Bible, Revelation 20:8)"

The thing that we need to notice here beside the grave error about the shape of the earth in this false book (sorry to say that), is that the Gog and Magog existed before. Gog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal (Ezekiel 39:1), is the name of the leader and Magog is the name of his nation (Ezekiel 38 and 39). The Gog and Magog army had already been defeated and the Noble Quran confirms their story. There had been historical discoveries that perfectly match the Noble Quran's claims regarding the Gog and Magog, such as the discovery of the "Iron Gates", and other literature that mentions the Gog and Magog army and location. There is even historical documentation about them which matches the Noble Quran in London, England.
Please visit The story of Gog and Magog and the Iron Gates in the Noble Quran and the Bible to see the references and proofs of these historical discoveries and several more.
The Bible says: The earth is flat! See all the verses in the bible that claim the earth is flat.
It is a common Christian answer to say "We support Israel because it is God's promised land to the Jews, and He will prevail them against the army of Gog and Magog who seems to be mainly an Islamic army today." They mostly rely on the Book of Revelation from the bible to support this claim.
The story of the Gog and Magog army attacking the Jews exists in both the Book of Ezekiel and the Book of Revelation in the Bible. The Book of Ezekiel which came literally thousands of years before the Book of Revelation predicted the attack and defeat of the army of Gog and Magog.
The Noble Quran (The Muslims' Holy Scripture) talks about the army of Gog and Magog in details and explains the events that ALREADY took place. As I mentioned above, there had been historical discoveries that perfectly match the Noble Quran's claims regarding the Gog and Magog, such as the discovery of the "Iron Gates", and other literature that mentions the Gog and Magog army and location.
Please visit The army of Gog and Magog and the Iron Gates in the Noble Quran and the Bible.
The lie (sorry to say that) of the Book of Revelation, however, also predicts the coming of the army of Gog and Magog. But as I said, the army of Gog and Magog were ALREADY predicted in the bible thousands of years before the Book of Revelation.
So, the prediction in the Book of Revelation proves that the writer of the book, lacked a great deal of knowledge about history, because as I said, the event of the Gog and Magog battle (i.e., the battle of Armageddon) already happened!
The point is that the Book of Revelation, however, like most of the bible today seems to be nothing but a big hoax (sorry to say that). It is very doubtful, but yet ironically, very important to the Christians of today.
Would you honestly deep inside yourself call nonsense of this kind the True Living Words of GOD Almighty, especially after knowing that very important early Christian resources thought "the book could not been written by the apostle of John"?
Please visit What parts of the Bible do Muslims believe in?


The Books of Paul:
Before we start on the analysis of Paul's Books, we must first know that Paul who's Books are believed to be inspired by GOD Almighty Himself and who is a disciple of Jesus peace be upon him never actually met Jesus in person (Acts 9:2-4. Note: Paul's name used to be Saul. Yet, Paul admittedly wasn't even sure whether the Holy Spirit was inspirning him or not). Jesus had 12 disciples when he was on earth. Paul was not one of them!. Paul much later after the disappearance of Jesus came and claimed that Jesus came to him and ordered him to be his disciple. Paul is really taken on faith only and not on proofs. He could be well be another smart deceiver who made his way into the world of the current corrupted bible (sorry if I offended you).

للمزيد من مواضيعي

 

الموضوع الأصلي : Just who were the real authors of the Bible? Quotes of Bible Corruption from NIV Bible Commentary.     -||-     المصدر : مُنتَدَيَاتُ كَلِمَةٍ سَوَاءِ الدَّعَويِّة     -||-     الكاتب : أبو حفص الأيوبي