Posted by: Dahni | May 16, 2014

1500 Year Old Bible BS

by Dahni

© 2014, all rights reserved

Kimberly Ruble of  ‘Liberty Voice’ “Boldly Inclusive,” added the following article on May 8th, 2014

It’s title:

‘1500 Year Old Bible Claims Jesus [Christ] Was Never Crucified’  

Its link:

I cannot believe ANYONE with half a mind, could possible believe this! And this includes: Atheists, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Roman Catholics; really anyone! Have none of you never read the Bible of which you confess to believe to any degree or profess to count as nothing, but fiction?

This story, about this (so-called) Bible and gospel of Barney’ (sarcasm intended), contradicts the entire Bible! Therefore, this so-called Bible and gospel would also! If the Bible were true (its 66 books), this writing cannot be authentic, period, end of speech. If I were a betting man, I would take the odds of 66 to 1 in my favor. Or in baseball, if the game is over and one side has 66 hits and the other has 1, which team do you think wins? Make up your own mind!

And the reporter of this, their editor and/or the Guardian are not without responsibility for promoting unfounded; unnecessary doubt, stating such doubt-causing phrases as: “…Claims Jesus Was Never Crucified,” “it could be..” and “in a tight spot.” Why should anyone care? 1500 years ago, is around the end of 6th century A.D. WHEW, a lot has transpired in the 4-5 centuries before that or since around 1 A.D.! I am not doubtful that this book of leather in gold exists or that it is old,  just that Barnabas of the Bible, never wrote a gospel and the God of the Bible especially, never authored or authorized it. Does anyone understand that to include another gospel and to contradict much of the known 66 books, this 1500 year old or so it is said of this  ‘thing,’ totally falls apart, not because of its age, but its many errors?

And what exactly does the reporter of this piece mean by the word “original?” “Original,” what – Bible, gospel, “original” writing by someone named Barnabas, the “original” one of many disciples (not one of the “original” first 12) of Jesus Christ, or just an “original” writer(s) that wrote it and not a forgery or something that has been ‘photo-shopped?’

The reporter’s title uses the word “claims.” How’s this for a title:


‘One Man 1500 Years Later, Proves the 1500 Year Old Bible & Gospel of Barnabas Is Not Authored By God’


Yes I can PROVE that! The 1500 year old gold text says the Apostle Paul was an “imposter?” What does the Bible say about that?


“Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation [administration] of God which is given to me for you, to fulfill the word of God;”

 The Bible, Colossians 1:25, King James Version


Yep, the God of the Bible, authored 66 books, no less and no more!

And by the way, there are more places on earth that speak Aramaic besides, “a tiny village located near Damascus.” Which Aramaic is referred to here? There are more than one.

The correct one that Jesus Christ spoke, the 11 original disciples that were Galileans out of which 2 were authorized to write 2 of the 4 Gospels, spoke, Estrangelo Aramaic. Matthew wrote the book of Matthew and he spoke, Estrangelo Aramaic. John wrote the gospel of John, the book of Revelations, I, II, III John,  and he spoke, Estrangelo Aramaic.

The Apostle Paul spoke Greek and Estrangelo Aramaic (possibly more languages or variations) and he wrote the 7 church epistles of which the Bible states was to: “fulfill the word of God.” I can’t see how it was or could have been “fulfilled,” when this so-called Bible contradicts the other ones that are clear and agree and many predate the 1500 year old one!

Luke wrote the book of Acts (along with the Gospel of Luke) and was half Greek so he spoke Greek and Estrangelo Aramaic.

James, the half brother of Jesus (not one of the original 12 disciples) is credited with the Book of James and he also spoke Estrangelo Aramaic.

Peter (1 of the original 12 disciples) wrote the first and second books of Peter and he spoke, Estrangelo Aramaic.

This leaves Mark (gospel of Mark), Timothy, Titus, Hebrews and Philemon.

There is no gospel or any book by Barney (Barnabas). As a matter of fact, I can prove that the God of the Bible only ever wanted four Gospels! Even if you are Jewish and do not believe the Messiah has yet come the first time, no Jewish person with 1/2 a brain would dispute it because, it comes from the Old Testament!

The four gospels fulfill those old testament prophecies.  The Old Testament prophesied four aspects of the coming Messiah, God’s “branch” [a part of the whole]. This coming Messiah would be His [God’s] “king, the branch,” His “servant the branch,” His “Man the branch” and His “son the branch.” The book of Matthew uses the word “king” more than any other gospel and it has a genealogy. This genealogy traces Jesus Christ’s right to be a king, all the way to David the King and the house of Judah, out of which, “the king would not depart.” The book of Mark uses the word “servant” more than any of the other three gospels. It does not contain a genealogy because, this was not done for a slave or a servant. The book of Luke uses the word “man” more than the other three gospels. It has a genealogy that traces the birth of Jesus Christ all the way back to Adam, the first man and Jesus Christ was called, in the book of Romans, “the second Adam.” The book of John uses the word “son” more than the other three gospels. It does not have a genealogy because, God was his father. This blows this 1500 year old book and it’s gospel of Barney’ out of the water because, it is NOT an “original” Bible with another gospel, authorized by God.

The association of the third century Nicene Counsel (325 AD) with this so-called 6th century Bible and gospel of Barnabas is, both misleading and preposterous!

This so-called Bible is riddled with spelling errors. It’s doubtful that any monk (that were supposed to have written it) would have made such mistakes. Monks and scribes had much more training and discipline and requirements for accuracy, to have made such careless mistakes.

Historical facts and cultural facts for the time it was supposed to have been written, don’t even line up with the “claims” some our claiming. If I were a Muslim, I sure wouldn’t  want to use its 1500 year old   “claim”  that Jesus Christ predicted the coming of Muhammad, since that would have been 870 years later, when Muhammad founded Islam in 630 A.D. Ooops, the math is a little funny, this would be the year 1500, not a 1500 year old book that supposedly was in the 6th century. Oh, and then some say it was 2,000 years old. That would present a problem for Roman Catholics, Christians, Jews and Muslims. Or does it?

If this discovery found in 2,000 is 2,000 years old, this would place it in 1 A.D. This would make the Book of Acts written by Luke also, an “imposter” as it mentions the Apostle Paul. So throw out the book of Acts, the epistles of Paul and any other book that mentions him. Then, there is no “new birth” because, unless Jesus Christ was crucified, he could not have redeemed man, from the curse of the law. Adam blew it and brought death to all. To be redeemed from the curse you had to die or have a redeemer. You cannot be a redeemer unless you die. You cannot be a savior unless at least one is saved, by your death. But whoopee, you’re redeemed from the curse, but you still die. There is no life in death, life is in being raised from the dead. Jesus Christ could not have ascended into heaven unless he first died because, he would not have fulfilled the law. If he did not rise, it would not be possible for the dead to rise or those alive at his return to be gathered together unto him.

Muslims would have a problem because, if Jesus did not ascend to heaven, there would have been no transfiguration with Moses, Mohammed and Jesus as they believe. And the Jews still have a problem because, they don’t believe the Messiah has come yet, the first time. This 1500-2000 year old ‘thing,’ contradicts everyone and everything known!

There are just too many other ancient texts that agree more fully with each other and were made with similar materials as opposed to “leather” and “gold writing.”  So throw out those because this discovery in the year 2,000 A.D. contradicts them?

The ancient roman writings and histories of TacitusSuetonius, and Cassius Dio in reference to Christians, dispute this 1500-2000 year old ‘thing!’ If it was the most accurate, why would Roman history reflect it?

If  I were Roman Catholic, I would not sweat it as any kind of threat  to my beliefs, whatsoever. Christians? BS! Muslims? BS because, it contradicts the Koran!

Look at how the reporter treats this part of the article:

“It is thought that during the Council of Nicea that the Catholic Church chose which Gospels that appear in the regular Bible as it is known today. They would have tossed out the Gospel of Barnabas [How do you toss out in 325, something that would not be written until about 175 years later?] “along with many others in favor of the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. There have been numerous supposed Biblical texts which have come to light over time, including the Dead Sea Gnostic Gospels. However this ancient Bible has especially seemed to brought worry to the Vatican.”

[Why should the Vatican “worry? – 325 A.D. the Nicean Council as opposed this book around 500?]”

“What would something like this mean to any Christian based religions and their believers? It would cause a very tight spot.” [Why would this put any Christian based group into a “tight spot?”] “The Vatican has requested the Turkish authorities to let them look at the inside of the book within the Church. Now that the ancient Bible has been found and the contents released to the public , what will the Catholic church have to say about it?

To believers of the Christian faith, this book will be considered a fraud and a fake, something to be ignored and forgotten about. [But the reporter previously said it would put Christian based religions and their believers in a “tight spot,”  now, has it become no big whoop?] “To atheists, agnostics or people who are secular thinkers, they may wonder if the text is real or not. More than likely they will not even care.

excerpts from:

I think anyone, including the Atheists would or should “care” because, they would not want to use this ‘thing’ to either discredit God or try and prove there is no God! I’d stick to the many other Bibles in many languages that agree and predate this 1500 year old one, to rest my belief upon, no matter what that belief might be! Just because you do not believe in God, does not mean you should not use sound biblical or other sound principles of research!

Does anyone wonder how old this ‘thing’ REALLY is? Is it 1500 or 2000 years old? How old was it when discovered in 2000 A.D.? Excuse me, is not this the year of 2014 A.D.? Would this ‘thing’ then now be 1514 or 2014 years old? And does anyone wonder why, if this thing was discovered in 2000 and it’s now 2014, why did it take 14 years to develop all of the fuss over it NOW? Did it take 14 years to track down someone that could read Estrangelo Aramaic? Was it even written in Estrangelo Aramaic or was it in some other later variation? If it aint’ in Estrangelo Aramaic it’s actually a younger ‘thing,’ than the oldest copies, scrolls and fragments is existence today!

This article about this ‘thing,’ mentions the Dead Sea Scrolls which were discovered in 1947. It was determined that theses scrolls were written around 70 A.D. which predates the 1500 year old ‘thing.’ Among its many scrolls are two copies  of the book of Isaiah and the Decalogue (passages from the book of Deuteronomy containing, the ten commandments). Isaiah prophesied of the crucifixion of the Messiah to come. Josephus, was a first century Jewish historian. Even if you consider his histories as pro-roman (which many do), he even recounted the illegal trial, crucifixion and death of Jesus Christ. IF this ‘thing,’ this supposed 1500 year old bible with the gospel of Barnabas was actually written in around 1 A.D., why would other texts, scrolls and even Roman histories of Josephus, contradict it? Or does it, this ‘thing,’ this book, contradict everything else? Here’s the rub, one contradiction, just one, repudiates, rejects, denounces and abandons the rest from any of it being truth! And this book is full of error. Those facts alone should arrest anyone’s attention that it is nothing short of BS!

Apparent contradictions are just that – apparent. These are due to error in translation, a proof-reader’s oversight, interpretation or an intentional and deliberate act. Chances are, they are usually caused by a failure to read exactly what is written, where it is written, how it is written, why it is written and to whom it is written. I’m sorry, when discussing something as a Bible and a God, we cannot escape the word, perfect. If God is perfect (and He would have to be), His word would have to be perfect. Why, because we people are so critical and so doubting, so unbelieving, and so sceptical by, our very nature! Where do you suppose the word logic originated from? Are we to suspend logic of which His word must out of necessity be, logical? Are we supposed to drop a bunch of texts, for a single, just because it agrees with what we already believe or would want to believe? Sorry, it might feel good and we might like it and we might want to do that, but it’s just not honest research!!!!!

Exactly how much of this article was authored by the reporter of the Guardian? A lot of it, word for word seems to be taken from someplace else. Doesn’t anyone know how to source information anymore and to give credit where it’s due? Is everything just based on ‘copy and paste’ with a few embellishments here and there and then one just puts their name to it? To tell you the truth, I can’t even say this article was “original” or where it first started. There are some things I am confident of however.


1. This book exists
2. It’s old
3. It was written by someone or someone(s)
4. It was written with gold ink
5. It was written on leather
6. Barnabas, one of Jesus’ many disciples, never wrote it
7. It contradicts many known ancient biblical texts, history, culture and has misspelled words (among many other errors)
8. The God of the Bible NEVER authored or authorized it

Do your research. Report, do NOT sensationalize, which was done in the title, even though it is from a quote. Report, do not present this as an editorial (opinion), which is what the reporter did. Apparently, this reporter is not alone, as there does not seem to be anyone, anywhere, anymore that has journalistic integrity? It appears the criteria is, ‘can we shock people, sell it and make a buck?’ And attach this ancient find to the Bible and make the discovery, even more valuable, monetarily. Yep, follow the money! I was once, a proud member of the press and an investigative reporter. I knew better, than to have run something like this by my editor and I knew he would have slapped me, for even thinking about giving it to him! By slap I mean, firing me or suggesting I take some time off to re-consider my choice of wanting to be a journalist! I am not questioning the reporter’s intentions or sincerity, but sincerity, is no guarantee for truth! Neither is a book 1500-2000 years old!

It’s simply 1500-2000 year old, Bible BS!

Wouldn’t it be extraordinary if people were honest; that they really did research; that they read what was written instead of making stuff up; that they looked for answers instead of trying to prove what they already believe; that they presented something for exactly what it is and that they did so without trying to shock or disturb anyone, just for the publicity or to sell something, for the highest possible amount?

Just I-Magine,



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


%d bloggers like this: