Skeptically enough concerning the Koran, I've heard similar things about the modern Christian Bible (AKA The King James version) from Christian scholars, to wit: that the King James version is vastly different from older versions of the Bible which have been discovered from antiquity. One Christian scholar claimed, 'The oldest version of the Bible is the Sinai Bible and it is housed in the British Museum. There are 14,800 differences between it and the King James version. And it never mentions the resurrection of Jesus Christ, do you still think it's the 'True Word of God?' one might ask? I don't at all mean to be controversial about the matter, I'm just curious if anyone knows about any bible which has different versions side by side so one can compare them. It would be a fascinating exercise to explore the differences in all the different versions of the Bible. One thing that also fascinates me is what books were added or removed to different versions of the Bible, and what would a complete version of the Bible look like if all the books were added and none removed.
I'm honestly not very knowledgeable about the Christian Bible, but I would be deeply curious to hear from any Christian scholars out there who have studied the different versions of the Bible, for instance: What's different about them? Are there any mistranslations from the Greek or Aramaic versions? What was added and subtracted from the Bible over the centuries, from books, chapters to sentences. What new books were revealed from the dead sea scrolls and what do those books reveal?
I send my warmest regards to all of you my Steemit friends.
Curiously Yours,
I sincerely hope I haven't offended anyone by asking these questions, I'm meerly fascinated by the whole subject and wondering if there are any Christian scholars on Steemit who can educate me on the subject from a dispassionate viewpoint.
The Christian faith and specifically the resurrection of Jesus is more of an oral transmission than a written transmission. To say there is a Bible that doesn't mention the resurrection, even if true won't in anyway invalidate the oral transmission of the belief which goes all the way back to when the faith started in the first century. Something as big as resurrection doesn't depend on a written book or a piece of paper to successfuly make it to the next generation(s). I think you're reducing Christianity and specially the resurrection to basically a fable in a book that was found by people who took it serious rather than something that actually happened at one point of history and people took it serious because it actually happened and that's why they transferred it to their children as facts rather than a story they read somewhere. The latter has explanatory power in terms of what's been happening in history. The former doesn't and is more like an outlandish conspiracy theory that makes no sense of the written history.