The Book Of Revelation Is Not One Of The Dead Sea Scrolls

by Sputnic | September 27, 2008 at 06:28 am

2639 views | 10 Recommendations | 30 comments

The earlyest known surviving copy of every book in the Bible dates from around the third century AD apart from one. The revelation to saint john. This later book is an addition the earlyest known copy of which dates from the seventh century AD. What happened within the intervening 400 years? Gods last messenger prophet Mohammed was born. Revelation attempts to discredit islam with talk of the false prophet and speaks of magic (ironically the same accusation levelled at jesus). Anyone serious about religion should check these facts for themselves. The church say that these books are older but that the earlyer copys perished in a fire - yet only those that were inconvenient for the church!

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend This comment thread is now closed

bill hicks

at 06:53 on September 27th, 2008

Jesus Christ is God Himself come in the flesh. He is God's only begotten Son. He died on the cross and rose again. Everyone who believes in Him has the right to become a child of God. There is no other way to be saved.

Uwe Paschen

at 07:04 on September 27th, 2008

You speak like a Taliban, Bill. Why Religion and Politics should never mix nor business either.

bill hicks

at 07:22 on September 27th, 2008

I didn't know the Taliban believed Jesus Christ is God Himself come in the flesh.

Uwe Paschen

at 07:30 on September 27th, 2008

You know little about Islam then, since Jesus is an important part of Islam, Yet not as a God.

René

at 08:39 on September 27th, 2008

A sham. Not so important that practicing Christians in Islamic countries don't have to pay jizya, and if you don't believe this is a 'modern practice' see this sordid story about Iraqi Christians.

Sputnic

at 08:53 on September 27th, 2008

Hi, all oppression is forbidden in islam. The quran orders the followers of islam to protect non muslims (jews and christians). To make another point, what on earth has your comment got to do with my story??? Also please place comments in chronological order

johnny lynn gardner (not verified)

at 07:05 on September 27th, 2008

jesus christ is NOT god : jesus christ prayed to god : god spoke to jesus publicaly god said this is my sopne in whom i am well pleased so jesus is NOT god : it is written in the beginning of all creation jesus christ was included in the creation of all things proving jesus is not god : " the holy bible is perfectly backwords and christianity is an OCCULT : johnny_lynn_gardner@yahoo.com

Albert Milliron

at 13:32 on November 10th, 2008

Why then would Thomas upon putting his hands in Jesus wounds said, "My Lord and My God"? If Jesus was not God he would have told him, I am not God, don't blaspheme... but he didn;t say that.. what did Jesus say? He said, "Have you believed because you have seen"? "blessed are those who have not seen and still believe". Now you are correct that Jesus did some human things while on the earth.. but if you have read the bible through you would see the scripture that says, "he humbled or emptied Himself, taking the form a servant". While the duality of Jesus is difficult for us to understand it is true according to the Bible. There are many more examples but I will stop here.

René

at 07:07 on September 27th, 2008

Is Revelations the book that first speaks of the Anti-Christ?

bill hicks

at 07:20 on September 27th, 2008

no, the first epistle of john and it is in daniels and some of pauls writing.

according to John anyone who does not believe that Jesus Christ is God come in the flesh has the spirit of anti-christ in them.

Uwe Paschen

at 07:34 on September 27th, 2008

Anti Christ does not mean anti God nor anti Commandments! Big difference. Islam Believes in Christ yet not that he is God bit as Christ said him self a healer and messenger of God.

johnny lynn gardner (not verified)

at 07:29 on September 27th, 2008

all of every thing that is against jesus christ is called the holy spirit and so yes the holy spirit is an anti christ the true spiritual nature of the character of jesus christ is an unholy evil spirit

Sputnic

at 08:08 on September 27th, 2008

Thanks for comments all. Expected a good mix. It is only logical that people be judged based on their own actions and not on the supposed sacrifice of the messia. Not sure how I sounded like the talliban, they say different things in a different language usually on a different medium . All points contrary to my story have been answered, thanks! To say jesus is evil is stupid and evil in itself. No flag, just like me then! Following a flag too closely is akin to idolatry, idolatry is the greatest sin as is said in all of gods books even the ones that have been badly translated. Worship god alone or be an idolator

Uwe Paschen

flagged this story as Good Stuff

at 08:24 on September 27th, 2008

Sputnic, I like this story. It's good stuff.

Sputnic

at 08:32 on September 27th, 2008

Thanks paschen

mfer

at 04:47 on September 29th, 2008

Just a point to clarify something that's inaccurate in the post. The oldest manuscripts (or manuscripts) we have for the bible, with the exception of the Book of Revelation, come from the first century A.D. or earlier. The oldest snippet of Revelation is dated at being in the first quarter of the second century.

Based on distribution of the texts over the region, the rate texts get distributed, the dispersion patters, and what other writers wrote about the texts and their existance the most liberal of scholars put the origional writing of Revelation in the first century A.D.

Sputnic

at 05:35 on September 29th, 2008

First you said second and then first, which do you believe to be true? Remember it is a sin to lie ! And what is your name? What are these snippets you speak of? Not the whole book? Apparently there was a fire at the vatican in the tenth century and many manuscripts were destroyed! Oddly though the manuscripts that made it awkward for the church to justify its position on jesus were the writings that burnt! To creat a lie against god is one of the greatest sins it is possible for a human being to commit. Please give more details about your claims on ist or perhaps second century revelation! The bible wasn,t actually written untill the middle of the first century ad , do you have an original copy?

Sputnic

at 10:44 on October 28th, 2008

Duplicate

Sputnic

at 13:17 on March 6th, 2009

Duplicate

Sputnic

at 13:19 on March 6th, 2009

Duplicat

Sputnic

at 05:38 on September 29th, 2008

First you said second and then first, which do you believe to be true? Remember it is a sin to lie ! What are these snippets you speak of? Not the whole book? Apparently there was a fire at the vatican in the tenth century and many manuscripts were destroyed! Oddly though the manuscripts that made it awkward for the church to justify its position on jesus were the writings that burnt! To creat a lie against god is one of the greatest sins it is possible for a human being to commit. Please give more details about your claims on ist or perhaps second century revelation! The bible wasn,t actually written untill the middle of the first century ad , do you have an original copy?

Sputnic

at 05:38 on September 29th, 2008

Sputnic

at 05:39 on September 29th, 2008

BallyZACA

at 14:23 on October 4th, 2008

Sputnic... you've actually got your timeline wrong. Will help you to correct it. When you state, "The earlyest known copy of every book in the bible dates from around the third century AD apart from one." -- is incorrect -- assume your referring to the "Book of Mark?" which is estimated to have been written approx. 30-50 A.D. The other 3 books of the New Testament, i.e., Matthew, Luke, and John are estimated to have been penned within 100-200 A.D.

As for the dating of the "Revelation of Saint John," also known by many other names, whereas, you contend it was written in the 7th century A.D. -- WRONG -- but will help you to get your timeline corrected. Written by John (the so-call "Revelator") on the Isle of Patmos (see below);

According to early tradition, the writing of this book took place near the very end of Domitian's reign, around 95 or 96. Others contend for an earlier date, 68 or 69, in the reign of Nero or shortly thereafter. The majority of modern scholars also use these dates. Those who are in favor of the later date appeal to the external testimony of the Christian father Irenaeus (d. 185), who stated that he had received information relative to this book from those who had seen John face to face. He says that "it was not seen very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign" (A.H. 5.30.3), who according to Eusebius had started the persecution referred to in the book; however, recent scholars dispute that the book is situated in a time of ongoing persecution and have also doubted the reality of a large-scale Domitian persecution.

According to Epiphanius of Salamis, the Revelation of John was written in the time of Claudius (PG, XLI 909-910).

Some exegetes (Paul Touilleux, Albert Gelin, André Feuillet) distinguish two dates: publication (under Domitian) and date of the visions (under Vespasian). Various editors would have a hand in the formation of the document, according to these theories. The dating of the work is still widely debated in the scholarly community.

Personally, its all bulls**t -- being that ALL faiths are a hoax -- and understood by those in power, but more importantly how to use that power as a means of controlling the masses. It really doesn't matter, as any religion is as good as the next "IF" it provides soliace for the believer. But no matter how you look at, or read it (Bible, Quran, etc.) -- "It's still bulls**t!!!

-END-

Babel-Fish

at 00:41 on October 5th, 2008

I hate debate when there is a lacking of solid information so first of lets look at Revelations where as we can not get a solid date and time of when it was actually wrote.

The Book of Revelation, also called Revelation to John, Apocalypse of John (pronounced [əˈpɒkəlɨps], from Greek Ἀποκάλυψις Ἰωάννου, Apokalupsis Iōannou), and Revelation of Jesus Christ is the last canonical book of the New Testament in the Christian Bible. It is the only biblical book that is wholly composed of apocalyptic literature. Other apocalypses popular in the early Christian era did not achieve canonical status, except for 2 Esdras (Apocalypse of Ezra), which is canonical in the Ethiopian Orthodox Churches.

Though now known as the Book of Revelation, the title found on some of the earliest manuscripts is "The Apocalypse of John" (Αποκάλυψις Ιωάννου), and the most common title found on later manuscripts is "The Apocalypse of the theologian" (ΑΠΟΚΑΛΥΨΙΣ ΤΟΥ ΘΕΟΛΟΓΟΥ). (In English, apocalypse is often rendered as revelation and the literal meaning of the Greek word is "unveiling".)[1] The first words of the book are effectively self-titled, "The Revelation of Jesus Christ".
Dating
According to early tradition, the writing of this book took place near the very end of Domitian's reign, around 95 or 96. Others contend for an earlier date, 68 or 69, in the reign of Nero or shortly thereafter.[12] The majority of modern scholars also use these dates.[13] Those who are in favor of the later date appeal to the external testimony of the Christian father Irenaeus (d. 185), who stated that he had received information relative to this book from those who had seen John face to face. He says that "it was not seen very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign" (A.H. 5.30.3), who according to Eusebius had started the persecution referred to in the book; however, recent scholars dispute that the book is situated in a time of ongoing persecution and have also doubted the reality of a large-scale Domitian persecution.[14]

According to Epiphanius of Salamis, the Revelation of John was written in the time of Claudius (PG, XLI 909-910).

Some exegetes (Paul Touilleux, Albert Gelin, André Feuillet) distinguish two dates: publication (under Domitian) and date of the visions (under Vespasian). Various editors would have a hand in the formation of the document, according to these theories. The dating of the work is still widely debated in the scholarly community.

Then we can look at the preparation of the Bible and the man behind its creation from the accepted gospels.

Constantine I, Roman Emperor adopted Christianity following his victory in the Battle of Milvian Bridge 312. Under his rule, Christianity rose to become the dominant religion in the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 />Roman Empire, and for his example of a "Christian monarch" Constantine is revered as a saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church. Not only the details of his adoption of Christianity make the religious beliefs of Constantine I interesting; theologians and historians alike have argued about the question to which form of Christianity Constantine ultimately converted, with regard to the legitimation of religious persecution.

Though Emperor Constantine I had been exposed to Christianity by his mother, St. Helena, there is scholarly controversy as to whether he adopted his mother's Christianity in his youth, or whether he adopted it gradually over the course of his life.[1] Whatever the case, the accession of Constantine was a turning point for the Christian Church. In 313, Constantine issued the Edict of Milan, legalizing Christian worship, and the emperor would be a great patron of the Church and set a precedent for the position of the Christian Emperor within the Church that would be followed for centuries

The First Council of Nicaea, held in Nicaea in Bithynia (present-day İznik in Turkey), convoked by the Roman Emperor Constantine I in 325 AD, was the first Ecumenical council [1] of the Christian Church, and most significantly resulted in the first uniform Christian doctrine, called the Nicene Creed. With the creation of the creed, a precedent was established for subsequent general (ecumenical) councils of Bishops' (Synods) to create statements of belief and canons of doctrinal orthodoxy— the intent being to define unity of beliefs for the whole of Christendom.

The purpose of the council was to resolve disagreements arising from within the Church of Alexandria over the nature of Jesus in relationship to the Father; in particular, whether Jesus was of the same substance as God the Father or merely of similar substance. St. Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius took the first position; the popular presbyter Arius, from whom the term Arian controversy comes, took the second. The council decided against the Arians overwhelmingly (of the estimated 250–318 attendees, all but two voted against Arius[2]).

Another result of the council was an agreement on when to celebrate the Resurrection, the most important feast of the ecclesiastical calendar. The council decided in favour of celebrating the resurrection on the first Sunday after the first full moon following the vernal equinox, independently of the Hebrew Calendar (see also Quartodecimanism and Easter controversy). It authorized the Bishop of Alexandria (presumably using the Alexandrian calendar) to announce annually the exact date to his fellow bishops.

The Council of Nicaea was historically significant because it was the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom.[3] "It was the first occasion for the development of technical Christology."[3] Further, "Constantine in convoking and presiding over the council signaled a measure of imperial control over the church."[3] A precedent was set for subsequent general councils to adopt creeds and canons.

In 331, Constantine commissioned Eusebius to deliver fifty Bibles for the Church of Constantinople. Athanasius (Apol. Const. 4) recorded Alexandrian scribes around 340 preparing Bibles for Constans. Little else is known, though there is plenty of speculation. For example, it is speculated that this may have provided motivation for canon lists, and that Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus are examples of these Bibles. Together with the Peshitta, these are the earliest extant Christian Bibles.[20]

Now lets look at information on the dead sea scrolls.

The Dead Sea Scrolls consist of roughly 1,000 documents, including texts from the Hebrew Bible, discovered between 1947 and 1979 in eleven caves in and around the Wadi Qumran (near the ruins of the ancient settlement of Khirbet Qumran, on the northwest shore of the Dead Sea) in the West Bank. The texts are of great religious and historical significance, as they include practically the only known surviving copies of Biblical documents made before 100 AD, and preserve evidence of considerable diversity of belief and practice within late Second Temple Judaism. They are written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, mostly on parchment, but with some written on papyrus. [1]

Publication of the scrolls has taken many decades, and the delay has been a source of academic controversy. As of 2007 two volumes remain to be completed, with the whole series, Discoveries in the Judean Desert, running to thirty nine volumes in total. Many of the scrolls are now housed in the Shrine of the Book in Jerusalem

The significance of the scrolls relates in a large part to the field of textual criticism. Before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible were Masoretic texts dating to 9th century. The biblical manuscripts found among the Dead Sea Scrolls push that date back to the 2nd century BC. Before this discovery, the earliest extant manuscripts of the Old Testament were in Greek in manuscripts such as Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Although a few of the biblical manuscripts found at Qumran differ significantly from the Masoretic text, most do not. The scrolls thus provide new variants and the ability to be more confident of those readings where the Dead Sea manuscripts agree with the Masoretic Text or with the early Greek manuscripts.

Further, the sectarian texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls, most of which were previously unknown, offer new light on one form of Judaism practiced during the Second Temple period.

I can now confirm that revelations were not one of the dead sea scrolls, but I already knew that fact and that’s why revelations is within the new testaments and not the old testament, the dead sea scrolls are specifically only old testament related.

Most of Gbostic Gospels and the Gospels plus letters and Revelation where stored with the Vatican Library. Some copies however have been found in the holy lands in the early 20th century, but can not be classified as deadsea scrolls.

The term gnostic gospels refers to gnostic collections of writings about the teachings of Jesus, written around the 2nd century AD.[1] These gospels are not accepted by most mainstream Christians as part of the standard Biblical canon. Rather, they are part of what is called the New Testament apocrypha. However, public interest has been spurred by recent novels and films which refer to them.

My logic opinion is Revelation was wrote prior to the foundation of Islam and refer to the devils last stand and has nothing to do with Muhammad and your assumptions wrong, one needs to research before making statements that could be seen as completly wrong.

The documents which comprise the collection of gnostic gospels were not discovered at a single time, but rather as a series of finds. The Nag Hammadi Library was discovered accidentally by two farmers in December 1945 and was named for the area in Egypt where it had been hidden for centuries.[5] Other documents included in what are now known as the gnostic gospels were found at different times and locations, such as the Gospel of Mary, which was recovered in 1896 as part of the Akhmim Codex and published in 1955. Some documents were duplicated in different finds, and for others, such as the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, only one copy is currently known to exist.

There are differing schools of thought on the dating of the original versions of these gospels. Scholars with a focus on Christianity tend to date the gospels mentioned by Irenaeus to the 2nd century, and the gospels mentioned solely by Jerome to the 4th century. The traditional dating of the gospels derives primarily from this division. Other scholars with a deeper focus on pagan and Jewish literature of the period tend to date primarily based on the type of the work:

Hopefully this information is helpful….

Babel-Fish

at 00:54 on October 5th, 2008

If you want to bring religion to an issue one needs to research thoroughly within a community like nowpublic one has many an expert especially in religion and history. Being an atheist that writes about religion and its problems I have learn't to respect opinions and indocrinations of others and the truth and the facts are respected with in any debate.

'Anyone serious about religion should check these facts for themselves.' tut tut, lol

We do, we certainly do, note the comments on your article. I would certainly stick to something you really know about.

Peace be with you

Sputnic

at 01:53 on October 5th, 2008

Thanks for comments but I wasn,t refering to when people say these books were published but to the date of the earlyest copys that they actually have in their physical possession. I will clarify this for those that are sleepy with a sentence. Its easy to say something was written before it actually was and then not have a copy from that time to prove it. Carbon dating is a gift from God! I know the dead sea scrolls are old testament! Its worrying the number of people that dont! Its new to some people - new = news. Glad you knew already, peace be upon you

Sputnic

at 01:56 on October 5th, 2008

Albert Milliron

at 13:21 on November 10th, 2008

None of the original articles are in extant. One good reason for Revelation to be absent from the Dead Sea Scrolls is that they were gathered by the Essenes, a separatist sect in the south of Israel. John wrote Revelation in about 90 AD or later on the isle of Patmos quite a distance from Qumran. There is a good chance a copy never made it to them. The earliest fragment of Revelation is from about circa 275. Most of the best manuscripts we have are from the 8th century AD. Keep in mind that the King James Bible uses almost exclusively 2 twelfth century manuscripts as their basic text. I take issue with your discrediting Revelation as it was part of canons since 300 AD. Revelation was accepted as being inspired long before it was canonized. We do not have ANY full texts from the 3nd or 4th century.

Sputnic

at 02:51 on November 11th, 2008

Dead sea scrolls are old testament, book of revelation is new testament. As a one time commentator on christian radio I am surprised you dont know that!