Is there a Bible that is an exact copy of the original writings of the New Testament?

Original???? .. That's a laugh

In The New Testament......The minute details upon details make the stories very suspect... Ever notice, the biggest lies need the most details.

The NY Times or Fox (Faux) News can't get a story straight the next day but the Biblical scripts have Jesus “Word for Word" along with several “word for word” utterances from his “well versed” fisherman Apostles. All this “talk” wasn’t put on papyrus until several hundred years later. And then run through the Forgery Mill know as the Catholic Church for another 1000 years . Originality was certainly lost. But perhaps the original vagueness and incredible nonsense stayed...

The New Testament was long term ongoing theatrical production designed to amaze and control the masses while making strong, divinely inspired political statements.

Yes and No -- NO, not technically an EXACT copy of the Original writings...but this is NOT the same as claiming that we have no idea of what the original texts contained.

We do not have an exact copy because this isn't how the Bible came to exist. It is NOT a single book written by a single author - like say the Homer's Odessa or a work of Shakespeare.

The Bible is more like a Library - a collection of books by different authors.

The Authors didn't work together and say: "Hey, let's all write our version of the events down and compile them" They wrote separately, some are basically instructional letters to various Christian groups, such as Paul's letters. Some are written to Jewish phariseees/scribes/seducees, etc. expecting them to already KNOW the old testament, very well. Some were written to Roman audiences.

These books were then shared among the Christian communities and over time - copies made.

Over time, Bishops started to compile them into lists and recommend that people read them. - This was the beginning of them being formed into a 'book' so to speak. Bishops sometimes disagreed as to which books were the best or contained the best advice, version of Christ's life, etc.

Thousands of copies of the Apostle's writings spread across Christendom (Christian communities)

"Here Brother, see what Paul wrote to the Corinthians" "Thank you... well, here, let me give you a copy of what James wrote the Church in the East"

Then around 325AD or so - Emperor Constantine of the Roman Empire asked the Bishops of the Christian Church (called the Catholic faith by this time) to formally decide on WHICH books Christians should read and consider 'inspired'

The Catholic church then met at Nicea and began deciding which books would be included. They met again at Hipo and Carthage (396, & 397 AD) to further discuss. A major criteria for inclusion was how closely associated a book was with an Apostle (its pedigree) as well as if it contained anything that was not part of the "Canon" (official teaching of the faith) or books that came into existence too far after an Apostle died. In other words, the Bishops chose books which had been used by Christians for centuries and which fit with the Apostolic teachings of the Church (what had been taught to them by the Apostles)

So this is HOW the Bible came to be. -- It did not fall from Heaven in a completed form.

_________________

**** As for Accuracy***

Unlike pretty much ANY other ancient book -- the Bible is unique in that we have literally hundreds if not thousands of copies in various states and ages which have survived. Many more then other ancient texts/accounts.

What these old and new copies, partial manuscripts, tattered fragments, etc. allow us to do is compare them to each other and rule out mistakes in translation or additions by Scribes and Bishops.

We can see when certain phrases changes or if a new event was suddenly inserted because we can compare newer copies to older ones.

So RATHER then all these copies making it 'impossible' as some claim, to know what is true or was part of the original.. the fact that we have so many copies makes it POSSIBLE to very accurately reconstruct the original.

The MORE copies you have.. the more a pattern emerges - this is true in just about ANY field of study, be it scientific, forensic, anthropological, cultural, or literary.

The Code Breakers of WWII used multiple copies of an enemies message to often times pick up on patterns and break codes. -- It is STILL, to this day, a standard tool of code breaking - the more copies you have the more you can pick out deviations.

This is ALSO how we know that our current versions of the bible haven't fundamentally changed anything and are accurate, to this day, even though many different publishers are making copies and translating them into different languages.

Since we don't have the autographs (the original documents written in the hand of the original authors or scribes), we can't know if any Greek copy of any New Testament documents is an exact copy of the original.

However, we *do* have very ancient Greek copies of all of the New Testament documents, written in the same general variety of Greek writing (majuscule - that is, capital letters only) that was used in the first century. Check out Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus for some very ancient Greek copies of the New Testament documents. There are even more ancient fragments of those documents

http://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/scriptorium/pap...

including one likely to date to the first century

http://www.dts.edu/read/wallace-new-testament-mans...

No. The earliest surviving Bible with an almost complete text of the New Testament is called the 'Codes Sinaiaticus'. It dates from the middle of the fourth century AD. Earlier manuscript fragments of the New Testament also survive, but nothing like a complete original copy.

http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/codex/default.aspx

No original manuscripts of the New Testament exist, as far as we know. The original ones are called the Autographs.

However, the two oldest Bibles, known as proto-Bibles, are dated to about 350 A.D. One is the Codex Amiantinus in the biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana in Firenze. They are written in Greek, for it was not until around 405 AD that the first Latin translation came out.

However, here is proof of the authenticity of one bit of the NT. Historian and papyrologist Carsten Thiede proved (in 1994) that a papyrus kept in Oxford's Magdalen college was much younger than previously thought. He dated it to AD 65 at the latest, and possibly earlier than that. This papyrus was of the Gospel of Matthew, relating events on the last night before Jesus died. It turns out to be the oldest remains of a Christian book ever found.

Here's the important point about claims that such Scriptures are unreliable and not written by eye-witnesses. In our time there's been a rise in claims that the biblical Gospels were not historical, eye-witness accounts but just unreliable folk-lore; stories about Jesus collected long after his death, cobbled together to meet the needs of a persecuted little band of Christians. Scholars tended to describe the Gospels as "community creations" - myths designed by a committee rather than vivid biographies. In 1993 a seminar of 100 experts declared that only 20% of the sayings attributed to Jesus in the Gospels were authentic or near approximations.

One such person is Barbara Thiering, who has argued that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, they had three children, were divorced, then Jesus remarried. I do wonder if Ms Thiering is a Mormon because that's the sort of stuff they believe. Of course, once the Gospels are assumed to be unreliable, then any interpretation of Jesus' life, however bizarre, is as good as any other guess!

However, this Magdalene Papyrus now silences these critics! It proves that this Gospel of Matthew is authentic and written within 30 years of Jesus' death, by those who had witnessed it. Of course, it could be even earlier than that. Matthew's account was circulating amongst the same generation of people who walked and talked with Jesus. And that AD 65 manuscript reads EXACTLY the same as modern translations of Matthew’s Gospel! Get the book below if you want the full story.

No.

As more texts are discovered, the more the xtians have to change the 100% trooz FACTs word of god texts.

The last major shift was upon the discovery of the dead sea scrolls which sent the xtian apologists running back to the print workshops to fire out some edits. Despite the bible being 100% FACT (apparently) the day before.

There are over 5000 copies of the original and most of them are all the same, the ones that differ have different words with SYNONYMOUS meanings(same meanings). The best manuscripts were the ones used to translate the king james version.

Since the OT was ancient Hebrew, you can't get the whole thing in it's original Greek. It wasn't all Greek. But you can get the NT in its original Greek - the Westcott and Hort text.

(Good luck learning ancient Greek.)

There are no original manuscripts for any books of the Bible (Old or New). So there's no way to know how closely any books resemble the originals.

As Catholics know, the Bible was what the Church said it was. There is no 'exact copy', it makes no sense. If we found a lost letter from St Paul today it WOULD NOT be Scripture.