Reliability of the Bible and the Islamic Response

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Bibaccuracy.html
At the above website, some Islamic group attempts to discredit the Bible's reliability. One of the big arguments for the Muslims is the unreliability of the Bible compared to the reliability of the Koran. That is pretty interesting concerning the evidence for the Bible compared to the Koran. I am not going to rehash the response since there is a good response located at this website:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/

I do want to point out some important information concerning the reliability of the scriptures however.

The fact that there are 24,000 partial and complete copies of the New Testament is extremely important. That enables Bible scholars to compare the manuscripts to make sure they have the most accurate translation. Scholars have concluded that there are only 150 variances between the manuscripts. However, the variances are minimal. We have to remember that they didn't have a copy machine in the first and second century when the Bible was written. People had to make copies by hand so to have 24,000 copies with only 150 small variances is very impressive. If you compare the number of manuscripts we have for the New Testament to other ancient manuscripts, they don't have even close to the number of manuscripts of the New Testament. Of course, critics don't question the accuracy of other ancient texts.

A big discovery was the dead sea scrolls. The dead sea scrolls were discovered at Qumran in 1947. They found a manuscript that became the oldest Old Testament manuscript which dated to around 150BC. The oldest manuscript before the dead sea scrolls dated around 980AD. When the compared the manuscripts there was only about 5 percent of variation between the manuscripts.

We know the New Testament is accurate because of the number of manuscripts that were able to be compared with each other.

We know the Old Testament is accurate because of the care that was taken on the Old Testament.

The Jewish Priest had to rewrite the manuscripts of the Old Testament, and they had to take extreme care by obeying strict rules.

You can see the rules in rewriting the Old Testament at this site:
http://biblicism.wordpress.com/2008/06/16/the-bibliography-of-the-old-testament/

So again, you have to be careful in listening to the critics. Everybody has there agenda. Every religion has critics that either tries to discredit it or prove it.

My agenda is simple. I am looking at truth. I look at scriptural truth, and non-scriptural truth.

This is what I know from facts so far (see my prior posts):

1) Intelligent Life doesn't come into existence by chance (nothing in this world can demonstrate intelligent life coming into this world by randomness)

2) We know there is a God (Intelligence is required to create order)

3) Jesus existed (The evidence is overwelming. If Jesus didn't exist, then no lie would even come close to the lie of Jesus being a historical person. There is overwelming evidence of the expanse of Christianity in the first century and to say that this happened based on a lie is much harder to believe then the existance of Jesus)

4) The Old Testament is reliable (No ancient text even comes close to the care that was taken when rewriting the Old Testament)

5) The New Testament is reliable (No other ancient text even comes close to the number of copies we have of the New Testament. If we don't doubt the other ancient texts, we surly shouldn't doubt the New Testament.)

Some information is taken from this site: http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Manuscript.html