Another bible version

Yes they are. Derivative of accounts of actual events.

The works contained in the dead sea scrolls were written about or were completely unknown prior to their discovery....Nobody invented them to explain why accounts of Christ's life differ and are the same. The q document has never been mentioned except in theory.

 

I'm not sure if I believe a Q document ever existed. I tend to believe that Q is more likely to have been oral tradition that was woven into the different Gospels. Similar stories but with enough inconsistencies to show a very human touch.

 

except for the parts that aren't? what is your explanation for why mark is "missing" material? and if mark, luke, and matthew are all so similar because they tell the same story, why then is john so different?

not sure what difference that makes. the fact is, they represent "biblical" writings that nobody had seen in thousands of years. obviously the record of such writings is incomplete.

not necessarily. the document could easily have been mentioned. they obviously wouldn't have called it "q". like i stated before, some have suggested the gospel of the hebrews might be the q source.

 

i dunno. from what i've read, the similarities aren't something you'd expect from an oral tradition.

here's a sample comparing two greek passages:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...for-word.png/618px-Synoptic_word-for-word.png

implies that q was written in greek or else you'd have a different translation into greek even if the hebrew or aramaic was the same.