-

I am sure it can be very confusing for those that have not studied Bible history-  there are Books of the Holy Bible that have always been considered scripture for example - Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - then there are some that have not been completely proven.  These have been kept ntot destroyed, considered early Christians writings, but not the Word of GOD.

 

You do realize that we have manuscripts of various Books of the Holy Bible from much earlier dates then the Codex Sinaiticus don't you?

 

The reason the Epistle of Barnabas was not included in the Bible we have today is that it was written later- not enough proof for it to be included.

 

The difference between islam and Christianity is that we did not intentionally burn the various collections the way Uthmann did with the quran, so we can in fact see when man has altered the text:  This is talking about a book Ehrman wrote-

 

The argument Ehrman makes against biblical authority, ironically enough, supports the opposite conclusion. Ehrman indicates that various scribes changed the biblical text as they made copies. Fine. Let's grant that this is true, as I think it is in some cases. The text critical tools used in Ehrman's argument, however, actually show that we can identify these scribal changes and, to a high degree of probability, show what the text was like before the changes were made. In other words, Ehrman's use of text criticism to point out that scribes "misquoted Jesus" employs scholarly tools that allow us to get back to the more authentic words of Jesus. So, the very critical tools that Ehrman uses to write his book, one might argue, are the tools God has given so we can have confidence that we have access to the actual words He once inspired, or something very close to these words.