Why the "There are so many interpretations of the Bible" claim is confused

[Aractus]

The question is "which version is identical" ? I put forth this claim once since it's very logical : at which point, did the bible became "unified" and so "spread" ?

In other words; the parts which are scattered left and right and found identical might not actually be the "real thing". The real book was gone long ago, and all is left, is the madness & forgery of corrupted Roman monks. The book is so full of nonsense, because the real religion got to be suppressed by the government of that time (i.e Rome).

AtlasS, I've mentioned this to you many times. Modern scholarship has long-since disproved that theory. That's why the MT is now preferred above the LXX, and why Textus Receptus is preferred over the "majority text".

History repeats itself, but can you trust dates ? did Jesus really showed up 2000 years ago, or is it before that ?
History is written by the victors, and Rome was the victor. The bible of today is the Roman version..

That's why God sent Mohammed peace be upon him anyways. One who trusts history, is the same person who shed a blind eye on the "dark side" of humanity. Humans love to lie & forge after all, to turn things into their favor.

There is no doubt, whatsoever, that Jesus showed up and taught in the first century. Exactly what he taught, what his beliefs were, and what his focus was is a matter that will be debated for many centuries to come, but we know that he did make teachings. The teachings in the synoptic gospels most likely come from two pre-existing written sources, one of which (the sayings document) probably goes back to the 40's or 30's AD.