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

[Aractus]

From my understanding the Qumran texts date to the last 2 centuries BCE & a century forth in CE. The MT is compared against the Qumran scrolls more than anything in terms of similarity; my problem is who wrote them, how, and to serve whom.

In other words : the original version itself that was kept in the temple mount can be itself forged. That if there was a kept original version in the first place.

Who can say for certain, that they are the same tablets of Moses peace be upon him ? the Jewish texts themselves, points a finger to the sins of Moses's followers : the golden calf story. How many Aaron were there to forge after Moses's death ?

That for Old Testament though.. how many Aarons could there be within Jesus's followers ?

I get sick of explaining this to you over and over. You are in the position that your religion teaches you that the original form of the Bible was correct, but that it has since been corrupted. This is the same teaching followed by Orthodoxy which continues to teach that "the LXX" is the correct form of the Hebrew scriptures despite overwhelming modern evidence to the contrary.

The MT's textual lineage without question goes back to the text used by first century Palestinian Jews. There are many pathways a text can be carried, and those can result in significant variants as in Samaritan Pentateuch. Its textual lineage is significantly different to that of the MT, and it diverged at some point before first century Palestine around the time that the Jewish sect emerged. It has specific variants (the so-called "Samaritan layer") that appear to have been introduced centuries earlier, intentionally, and yet when those intentional changes are discounted the text overwhelmingly agrees with the MT Pentateuch. So we have not just one, but two separate religious bodies that preserved their texts for many centuries - in fact millennia - without changing it.

So what we know, without any real doubt, is the text of the Hebrew Bible was not intentionally altered by the Palestinian Jews since around 200 BC.

As for the New Testament text, the exact text is even surer because we know with fairly good certainty when the books were written. Yes there can be wide disagreement about exactly when, but for the most part all the important books of the NT were written between the dates of 48 and 90AD with fairly strong certainty (that excludes 1-2 Peter, Hebrews and Revelation). Of even greater importance is the fact that scholars have texts appearing as early as the third century that show distinct textual lineage (just like Receptus vs Byzantine but earlier). The raw form of Receptus is around 99.5% accurate to the original content of the NT books, and the modern critical version (Novum Testamentum, first published in the 16th century) is at least 99.9% word-for-word accurate to the original first century autographs of the NT books.

Being completed a "century" after his death, is a main disaster in terms of the accuracy of the text..I understand that this was never written directly; rather it was based on the memory of the writer..exactly like the Muslim "Hadiths".

And the Q source seems lost; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source

The year of the Q source is hypothetical, since the source itself is hypothetical.

Q is hypothetical, but what isn't hypothetical is that there was a written source older than the synoptic gospels that at least contained a number of sayings. That's not a hypothesis, it's a certainty. There is word-for-word accuracy between the three synoptic gospels in parts that can only be explained by there being a previous source. For example there are areas where Mark and Matthew are word-for-word identical - but Luke's account of the same event is different. There are areas where Mark and Luke are word-for-word identical and Matthew's account of the same event is different. And there are areas where Luke and Matthew are word-for-word identical and yet different to Mark's version. This is in such a way that the alternative theories can't explain. This goes beyond the scope of my reply, but whether Q existed or not is hypothetical - but likely. What is not hypothetical is that there was at least one written source containing information copied by all three authors.

Again, you are wrong. All the important texts were completed within 60 years of his death. All of them. And James, Jude, and the epistles of Paul were written before 60 AD - within 30 years of his death.

It doesn't matter when they were written anyway, since the Muslim faith teaches that they were "correct in the original form but were altered" . You have been shown repeatedly that this is not the case, the text that exists today can be demonstrated to be more than 99.9% word-for-word accurate to the original autographs. And if you were to exclude some of the books so as to only include the most relevant ones (James, Jude, Paul's undisputed epistles, the gospels and acts) then the accuracy would be nearly 100%.

This isn't a religious teaching I'm regurgitating to you, it's the view of modern scholars. Every individual text contains some error somewhere, and a few contain some additions. Nothing has been removed from the NT, and the critical text is for the most part indistinguishable from the original autographs that were written.