Secret £14million Bible in which 'Jesus predicts coming of Prophet Muhammad' unearthed in Turkey


Vatican 'wants to see' 1,500-year-old ancient script
Has been hidden by Turkish state for 12 years
Handwritten in gold-lettered Aramaic


A secret Bible in which Jesus is believed to predict the coming of the Prophet Muhammad to Earth has sparked serious interest from the Vatican.
Pope Benedict XVI is claimed to want to see the 1,500-year-old book, which many say is the Gospel of Barnabas, that has been hidden by the Turkish state for the last 12 years.
The £14million handwritten gold lettered tome, penned in Jesus' native Aramaic language, is said to contain his early teachings and a prediction of the Prophet's coming.




[/img]

The leather-bound text, written on animal hide, was discovered by Turkish police during an anti-smuggling operation in 2000.
It was closely guarded until 2010, when it was finally handed over to the Ankara Ethnography Museum, and will soon be put back on public display following a minor restoration.
A photocopy of a single page from the handwritten ancient manuscript is thought to be worth £1.5million.


Turkish culture and tourism minister Ertugrul Gunay said the book could be an authentic version of the Gospel, which was suppressed by the Christian Church for its strong parallels with the Islamic view of Jesus.
He also said the Vatican had made an official request to see the scripture - a controversial text which Muslims claim is an addition to the original gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John.
In line with Islamic belief, the Gospel treats Jesus as a human being and not a God.

[/img]

To read more

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2105714/Secret-14million-Bible-Jesus-predicts-coming-Prophet-Muhammad-unearthed-Turkey.html

Question? What if it is an authentic book

aha, lol.

Good you brought this up , I read about it a few days ago and resisted the urge to post it.

This is a known gospel of Barnabas, a heretical book that has been discarded as myth eons ago.

Muslims,    , you are still not sure of your religion, now you need the gnostic gospel of Barnabas  to help Muhammad.

Is your Quran not enough

Even I was going to post it but forgot, :-) Real LOL indeed.

still peeping,

Well, the evidence is for those still claiming that Jesus is their God (Na adhu bi Allah)

Muslims don't need it. I am sure we don't even agree with many things in it.

Hopefully, proper tests are carried out to find out how old it is ,

If it dates to before the birth of the prophet then you have questions to answer,

frosbel:

aha, lol.

Good you brought this up , I read about it a few days ago and resisted the urge to post it.

This is a known gospel of Barnabas, a heretical book that has been discarded as myth eons ago.

Muslims,    , you are still not sure of your religion, now you need the gnostic gospel of Barnabas  to help Muhammad.

Is your Quran not enough

was this part of your original bible b4 it was removed or it wasnt part of it from the beginning,
and again the catholic bible contains 7 more books than the common bible with 66 books.
who added, who subtracted, what was the criteria?
why then do u think the gospel of barnabas should not be in the bible.?

The term apocrypha is used with various meanings, including "hidden", "esoteric", "spurious", "of questionable authenticity", ancient Chinese "revealed texts and objects" and "Christian texts that are not canonical". The general term is usually applied to the books in the Roman Catholic Bible, which Protestants reject as not God's word. As such, it is misleading in this sense to refer to the Gospel according to the Hebrews or Gnostic writings as apocryphal, because they would not be classified in the same category by orthodox believers: they would be classified as a heretical subset of antilegomenae, to distinguish them from now-canonical ancient antilegomenae such as 2 Peter, 3 John and the Revelation of John, and non-canonical but non-heretical books which were quoted by the Early Fathers such as the pseudepigraphic Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache, or The Shepherd of Hermas. T[b]he gnostic writings are generally not accorded any status, not even a negative one: they are ignored, as they are incompatible with the accepted canon prima facie. Non-canonical books are texts of uncertain authenticity, or writings where the work is seriously questioned. Given that different denominations have different beliefs about what constitutes canonical scripture, there are several versions of the apocrypha.[/b]
During 16th-century controversies about the biblical canon, the word acquired a negative connotation, and has become a synonym for "spurious" or "false". This usage usually involves fictitious or legendary accounts that are plausible enough to be commonly considered true. For example, Laozi's alleged authorship of the Tao Te Ching and the Parson Weems account of George Washington and the cherry tree are considered apocryphal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocrypha

The Gospel of Barnabas is a book depicting the life of Jesus, and claiming to be by Jesus' disciple Barnabas, who in this work is one of the twelve apostles. Two manuscripts are known to have existed, both dated to the late 16th century and written respectively in Italian and in Spanish—although the Spanish manuscript is now lost, its text surviving only in a partial 18th-century transcript. Barnabas is about the same length as the four Canonical gospels put together (the Italian manuscript has 222 chapters), with the bulk being devoted to an account of Jesus' ministry, much of it harmonized from accounts also found in the canonical gospels. In some key respects, it conforms to the Islamic interpretation of Christian origins and contradicts the New Testament teachings of Christianity.
This Gospel is considered by the majority of academics, including Christians and some Muslims (such as Abbas el-Akkad) to be late and pseudepigraphical;[1] h[b]owever, some academics suggest that it may contain some remnants of an earlier apocryphal work (perhaps Gnostic[2], Ebionite[3] or Diatessaronic[4]), edited to conform to Islam. [/b]Some Muslims consider the surviving versions as transmitting a suppressed apostolic original. Some Islamic organizations cite it in support of the Islamic view of Jesus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_barnabas


The gospel of Barnabas (attributed by some to Barnabas in the news testament)is among the gnostic gospels that were rejected as heretical and found their way among the early heretical Christians in Arabia. The gospels such as this were common knowledge in Arabia then and that was the basis for the Islam's recognition of Christianity (eg miracles of Jesus talking at birth, making clay birds that flew and that sought of stuff). And these were deemed the correct Christians eg Bn Waraqa (The Prophets In-law)

Of course the Gospel of Barbanas is not expected to deviate from this. I expect the translation to fit into Islam accounts of Christianity. Some Muslims say that the Gospel of Barnabas even mentions Muhammed by name. So its nothing new. the gospel of Barnabas is know to have existed, parts of it survives today, its contents are known and kept as historical artefacts. It would of importance to researchers who would want to compare its contents with bits of what they have. Also, the Vatican is known to be engaged in serious research on anything remotely Christian so the Pope's requests is not surprising. Enquiry and research into Christianity is open and questioning of faith is allowed.

Aside that I see no earth shaking "revelation" except for some to capitalise on it. In fact there are Islamic stories that colerate with these heretical writings other gospels:

(i) Mary working in the temple (in Jerusalem) as child/youth – from “The Proto Gospel after Jacob”, part 8,1 and 8,1b.

(ii) Jesus talking in the crib – from the religious legend “The Egyptian Child Gospel” perhaps via the as made up “The Arab Child Gospel” (originally from Syria) – both tales about fantastic things concerning the child Jesus. “The Arab Child Gospel” also got stories from “The Proto Gospel after Jacob” and “The Thomas’ Child Gospel” – both made up religious legends or myths.

(iii) Jesus making birds from clay – read the heretical Gnostic “Child Gospel after Thomas” verse 1 – 4, a very made up child gospel.

(iii) Mary and the palm – from the made up religious fable “The Proto Gospel after Mathew”, chapter 20.



All those who questioned how Biblical stories came about in the Koran now have an answer.

We await the study of the "gospel", its author and history

The book is 1500 years old, before the time of the prophet,

It mentions him by name!! What are the odds of that?

I hope it is given to the vatican to conduct an independent study,

(AINA) -- Much has been made of the recent discovery in Turkey of a Bible purported to be written in the Aramaic language, 1,500 years ago. The Muslim media, as well as Western media outlets, quickly pounced on this, claiming this Bible contains verses attributed to Jesus Christ, in which Christ predicts the coming of Muhammad. No media outlet has published a facsimile of these verses.

This "Bible" is written on leather in gold letters. The picture of the front cover show inscriptions in Aramaic and a picture of a cross.


For any native speaker of Modern Assyrian (also known as neo-Aramaic), and that would be your average Assyrian today, the inscription is easily read. The bottom inscription, which is the most clearly visible from the published photos, says the following:

Transliteration: b-shimmit maran paish kteewa aha ktawa al idateh d-rabbaneh d-dera illaya b-ninweh b'sheeta d-alpa w-khamshamma d-maran

Translation: In the name of our Lord, this book is written on the hands of the monks of the high monastery in Nineveh, in the 1,500th year of our Lord.

Nineveh is the ancient Assyrian capital and is located in present-day north Iraq, near Mosul.

There are spelling errors that are immediately noticeable.

The first word, b'shimmit maran ("in the name of our Lord", is erroneously spelled with a 't' instead of a 'd'. The 'd' in Assyrian is the genitive, and it prefixes the word that follows. It should read b-shimma d-maran, not b-shimmit maran (note, the last word of the sentence is correctly spelled d-maran ("of our Lord").

The first word also contains another spelling error. The correct spelling for "name" in Assyrian is ashma, with the initial 'a' being silent. Therefore, when correctly spelled, 'in the name of our Lord" should be written as b-ashma d-maran.

The word idateh is misspelled, it should end with an 'a', idata. Also the phrase al idateh ("on the hands" is incorrect, it should read b-idata ("by the hands".

The bottom sentence uses the word ktawa ("book" to refer to the book, but in Assyrian the Bible is never referred to as a "book." One says awreta (Old Testament), khdatta (New Testament), or ktawa qaddeesha (holy book). Given this, since no one has seen the inside of this "Bible," we cannot be sure if it is in fact a Bible.

Most significantly, this writing is in Modern Assyrian, which was standardized in the 1840s. The first bible in Modern Assyrian was produced in 1848. If this book were written in 1500 A.D. it should have been written in Classical Assyrian.

It is highly unlikely for monks to make such elementary mistakes. It remains to be seen whether this book is a forgery, or even what kind of book it is.

The bottom inscription also says the book was written in 1500 A.D, If the book does contain verses predicting the coming of Muhammad, it is no great accomplishment to predict something 870 years after the fact, since Muhammad founded Islam in 630 A.D,

Most media outlets, as well as Muslim and Christian outlets, lead the story with headlines pronouncing "1500 year old Bible predicts the coming of Muhammad" -- without any evidence to support this.

For Muslims, the implications of the headlines are desirable, that Jesus Christ is a Prophet, just like Muhammad, and not the Son of God. According to Al Bawaba, the Turkish culture and tourism minister, Ertugrul Gunay, said "In line with Islamic belief, the Gospel [this Bible] treats Jesus as a human being and not a God. It rejects the ideas of the Holy Trinity and the Crucifixion and reveals that Jesus predicted the coming of the Prophet Mohammed."

Commenting on the errors in the book, Al Bawaba says in another article:

For example, the book says that there are nine heavens and that the tenth is paradise while in Quran they are seven only and claims that Virgin Mary gave birth to Jesus without any pain while the Quran story says she got labor pains.
According to the gospel, Jesus said to Jewish priests that he is not the Messiah and that the Messiah is Mohammed. This means a denial of the existence of a Messiah, who is in fact Jesus Christ, and makes Jesus and Mohammed seem like they are one and the same person.

The book also contains information that lack historical credibility like the presence of three armies, each made up of 200,000 soldiers, in Palestine whereas the entire population of Palestine 2,000 years ago did not even reach 200,000. In addition, Palestine was occupied by the Romans at the time and it is impossible that Palestine was allowed to have any army or armies of its own.

The last sentence in chapter 217 says that 100 pounds of stones were placed on Christ's body. This confirms that the gospel was written quite recently because the first to use the pound as a unit of weight was the Ottomans in their experiments with Italy and Spain and it was never known during the time of Jesus.

Chapter 20 also stated that the cities of Jerusalem and Nazareth are sea ports.

This same article ends with "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."

But despite the availability of information on this "Bible," most media outlets, Muslims, liberal and secular organizations have portrayed this discovery as something that undermines Christianity, ignoring the many problems with this book and presenting it as virtual fact. In fact, in their zeal to support the anti-Christian narrative, they have withheld or suppressed information questioning the authenticity of this book. For these organizations and individuals, this is another tool in their arsenal for the attack on the foundations of Christian doctrine.

By Peter BetBasoo and Ashur Giwargis

http://www.aina.org/news/2012022916569.htm

@tiarabubu
This looks like a desperate attempt to disprove the finding

A few of things to note

1. Spelling errors are common place in many ancient writings

2. The book is 1500 years old Not written in 1500AD - The writer shows no evidence of this 'bottom inscription'

3. The vatican will not be keen on getting a book written in 1500 AD because it has no historical value

4. Historical inaccuracies do not disprove the find; there are many inconsistencies in the current gospels

tbaba12345:

@tiarabubu
This looks like a desperate attempt to disprove the finding

A few of things to note

1. Spelling errors are common place in many ancient writings

2. The book is 1500 years old Not written in 1500AD - The writer shows no evidence of this 'bottom inscription'

3. The vatican will not be keen on getting a book written in 1500 AD because it has no historical value

4. Historical inaccuracies do not disprove the find; there are many inconsistencies in the current gospels

I had always assumed the Quran was complete , now you also want to add the Gospel of Barnabas to fill in the gaps or complete the puzzle for want of a better expression.

Please leave us alone, stick to your plagiarised Book 

frosbel:

I had always assumed the Quran was complete ,

You assumed right!!

A few more steps and you'd be muslim God willing::