Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Isaiah and the Dead Sea Scrolls
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 122 of 204 (199494)
04-14-2005 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Monk
04-14-2005 10:59 PM


Re: Bible inerrancy in what sense?
Thank you. As one of the links back there pointed out, the DSS are remarkable for their LACK of revelations, as they are so exactly the same as our Bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Monk, posted 04-14-2005 10:59 PM Monk has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Monk, posted 04-15-2005 8:29 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 124 of 204 (199507)
04-15-2005 2:46 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by PaulK
04-15-2005 2:26 AM


I made my point as clearly as possible and you still either refuse or simply fail to understand it. The opportunity to explain it was simply another exercise in futility as it started out being.
Quoting from your Message 1:
quote:
So which proposed changes does it ACTUALLY rule out ? As was pointed out in the following discussion it isn't even relevant to the allegations of major additions to Isaiah itself. So what are these "charges" that it does refute and who made them ?
This is the same weird misunderstanding YOU have had all along of MY simple statement. There were no "proposed" changes mentioned. It had no reference whatever to any pre-DSS "additions" to Isaiah. And I answered the question about "charges" and who made them. Apparently you are still confused, but perhaps you need to figure out which questions you need to ask to understand what I was actually saying if there is still a question in your mind. It still looks completely simple and straightforward to me as repeated many many times above, and your dealings with me about it are inexplicable to me.
Sorry, the apologies are due from you.
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-15-2005 01:48 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by PaulK, posted 04-15-2005 2:26 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by PaulK, posted 04-15-2005 3:03 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 128 of 204 (199539)
04-15-2005 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by PaulK
04-15-2005 3:03 AM


Another attempt at clarification
quote:
All I do is mention that there are two major proposed changes that are NOT ruled out by the DSS and ask for examples of those that are. What is weird about that ?
It implies a misreading of what I said.
There is nothing in what I said that suggested "PROPOSED" changes. What do you mean by "PROPOSED?" It clearly shows a misunderstanding of my very simple statement. A simple MISREADING.
"Proposed?"
"Ruled out?"
Again, what do you mean by "proposed changes?" Proposed by whom? You can't possibly mean changes somebody WANTS to be made can you? But that's how it sounds. Do you then mean changes somebody is simply suggesting (proposing) HAVE HAPPENED? Seems to me that would be an unfortunate word choice on your part.
My statement was so simple. I said the DSS show there WEREN'T any changes from then to now. It's simply an obvious conclusion from the fact that their Isaiah scroll is the same as ours.
You are adding in something that isn't there and isn't implied.
Let us walk back through what I said:
quote:
The Isaiah scroll among the Dead Sea scrolls confirms the fact that there haven't been all the changes in the text so often claimed, as it is just about identical to the Isaiah text we have today.
And let's break it down to see if we can discover your problem with this statement.
"The Isaiah scroll among the Dead Sea scrolls..." Is there any problem with this part of the statement that you need clarified?
"...confirms the fact" Is this clear or do you need me to qualify it somehow?
"...that there haven't been all the changes in the text so often claimed..." Perhaps this is where things went wrong. Perhaps you needed to ask me some clarifying points such as:
"What kind of changes?"
"What changes when?"
"Claimed by whom?"
These I could have answered, as in fact I have anyway: "Changes like copying errors, translational errors, even perhaps intentional changes" and as for when, "Between the time of the DSS and now of course" and informed you these changes are claimed "By the average person." Such simple clarifications should have facilitated understanding if there was ambiguity in my first statement.
Unfortunately these clarifications don't do it for you. You kept reading into my simple little statement a reference to the PRE-DSS condition of Isaiah, which makes no sense as how could I be talking about changes BEFORE the time in question, and apparently "the average person" doesn't exist in your mind. I gave four or five references to this belief by the average person. That should have done it but you act as if I'd said nothing. This makes it appear that you are simply being an obstructionist.
As for "as it is just about identical to the Isaiah text we have today" -- I guess you could ask questions about how true this is and in fact this got discussed far more than there was any need. I produced many links showing that the differences are trivial, mostly extremely minor copying errors, and now Monk has come along and made the case with his beautifully simple account of his encounter with a book on the DSS which presented him with nothing but the same Bible he already has.
Besides that, it has been shown that ALL the OT books of the DSS are "just about identical" to ours, it's just that they are not as complete as the Isaiah scroll.
Now in the above is there anything clarifying or potentially clarifying or are you still convinced I'm talking about something else altogether than the above?
=================
Last night I wrote an email to some friends quoting my original statement and asking them if it seemed confusing or false to them in any way. I've only heard back from one who didn't address the question about the statement itself but offered much confirmation of the accuracy of the Dead Sea scrolls -- or actually the accuracy of our OT texts as demonstrated by the Dead Sea scrolls. I will post it if it seems useful.
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-15-2005 08:32 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by PaulK, posted 04-15-2005 3:03 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by PaulK, posted 04-15-2005 10:04 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 129 of 204 (199545)
04-15-2005 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Monk
04-15-2005 8:29 AM


Re: Perseverance
Thank you! Your story about reading the DSS in comparison with the Bible saved this thread in my opinion. I felt like the cavalry had arrived after a long siege!
You have no idea how helpful it is to get a little encouragement in the midst of this strange and in fact incomprehensible battle I keep running into around here. I wish I had MORE faith as I'm always about to lose my temper or my marbles or both, forgetting that God is in charge and there is nothing that happens that escapes Him and nothing I can do without Him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Monk, posted 04-15-2005 8:29 AM Monk has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 131 of 204 (199558)
04-15-2005 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by PaulK
04-15-2005 10:04 AM


Re: Another attempt at clarification
I can't see how any reading for "propossed changes" other than changes that are proposed to have happened makes sense in context.
At the very least it implies something far more official than accusations by "the average person" which is what I intended and have clarified many many times. You seem to be talking about SCHOLARLY criticism. I tried many times to say that was NOT my frame of reference.
As for clarity let me remind you that your original statment made no mention of date
No, it should have been obvious that I couldn't POSSIBLY have been referring to changes before the time of the DSS if I'm talking about the DSS' demonstrating the integrity of our current texts. For you not to get this only possible meaning of my statement continues to astonish me, and certainly after it was explained to you dozens of times your continuing with it is even more astonishing.
and in this thread you also try to argue that the DSS scrolls prove that there were no significant changes since the time of Moses (Re: Your kidding, right? (Message 93) remembering that "Sally=Moses" Re: Have you read what you have written? (Message 98)).
You absolutely misread that post. It is a wearisome prospect the thought of trying to explain it to you. I was VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY clear that in the story Sally represents Moses and that any alterations that occurred to her recipe between her and her first three recipients COULD NOT BE KNOWN from the evidence under discussion, just as changes between Moses (or perhaps more to the point the prophet Isaiah) and the DSS cannot be known from anything I have introduced into this discussion.
As for the errors you list
"Changes like copying errors, translational errors, even perhaps intentional changes"
The scroll HAS copying errors and since it is in the original language it isn't relevant to translation errors (although, ironically, many translations of Isaiah DO contain one particular error of translation).
But the context of my statement is "copying errors, translational errors, even perhaps intentional changes" BETWEEN THE DSS AND NOW. THERE IS NO OTHER POSSIBLE CONTEXT. This is not about the DSS scroll itself, it is about CHANGES SINCE THE DSS scroll, and it has been about this from my very first statement. Again you clearly simply misread my statements. I do not understand what your difficulty is. I'm bending over backwards clarifying them and you still misread them. How can you think I'm talking about the scroll itself when I'm so CLEARLY talking about changes SINCE the scroll? Really, this is tremendously puzzling that you keep making this mistake.
As to "who" I have yet to see ANY indication that any "average" person claims that Isaiah has changed since the DSS (personally I suspect that the average person assumes no significant changes as you do)
I gave examples in my very first answer to you on this very thread, three links. I then gave more examples later on in this thread.
Here's a quote from my very first link on the subject on my very first message (#5) on this thread, this one suggesting that some of these average people have philosophical frames of reference for their views:
quote:
The Mormons, liberals as well as other cults and false religions such as Islam that claim the Bible has been tampered with are completely proven false by the extensive, historical manuscript evidence
As for your other claims:
quote:
Unfortunately these clarifications don't do it for you. You kept reading into my simple little statement a reference to the PRE-DSS condition of Isaiah
This is a fabrication on your part. Since I have already corrected you on this point, I see no valid excuse for you to repeat the falsehood.
You mean you have acknowledged that that was a misunderstanding on your part and you have taken it back? I missed that somehow.
... it has been shown that ALL the OT books of the DSS are "just about identical" to ours, it's just that they are not as complete as the Isaiah scroll.
quote:
isn't true either. I've already referred to one that is significantly different.
As I said in the previous post, if you want to raise questions about this, fine, but that's a different problem from your continual misreading of my simple statement. And if you are talking about the other Isaiah fragment in the DSS, IIRC it has ALSO been shown NOT to be different in its meaning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by PaulK, posted 04-15-2005 10:04 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by PaulK, posted 04-15-2005 11:03 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 132 of 204 (199560)
04-15-2005 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by PaulK
04-10-2005 5:01 PM


Message #1 revisited
The Isaiah scroll among the Dead Sea scrolls confirms the fact that there haven't been all the changes in the text so often claimed
quote:
So which proposed changes does it ACTUALLY rule out ? As was pointed out in the following discussion it isn't even relevant to the allegations of major additions to Isaiah itself. So what are these "charges" that it does refute and who made them ?
Here, let me try to answer your questions as written:
The DSS Isaiah rules out ALL changes SINCE then, that is, ALL changes in meaning BETWEEN IT AND OUR CURRENT ISAIAH TEXT, as the two are virtually identical.
"Major additions to Isaiah itself" certainly ARE ruled out SINCE THE DSS, that is, BETWEEN IT AND OUR CURRENT ISAIAH TEXT, as the two are virtually identical.
The "charges" the DSS Isaiah scroll refutes are ALL charges that there have been any serious changes between it and our current Isaiah text, and those who make them are many ordinary people I and other Christians encounter quite frequently, and I gave some links in my Message #5 that show this. Apparently those who make such charges include Mormons and Muslims and liberals according to the first link there.
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-15-2005 09:46 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by PaulK, posted 04-10-2005 5:01 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by PaulK, posted 04-15-2005 11:20 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 135 of 204 (199567)
04-15-2005 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by PaulK
04-15-2005 11:03 AM


Re: Another attempt at clarification
1) If you meant to exclude informed views you should have said so.
I've said it many times. My first statement was apparently not precise enough, as it was really just a remark made in passing, which is why I suggested questions you might have asked about it, but by now there shouldn't be any doubt about what I meant as I have repeatedly insisted I was referring to the "average person" and gave quotes to that effect as well.
Especially if you meant views that could be adequately defeated by comparing the Septuagint with the Masoretic text. (The Septuagint was translated at about the same time as the DSS was written). Which really means that the DSS weren't that significant for the poitn you now wish to claim.
Nonsense. The fact that their texts are virtually identical to ours is the ONLY point I have EVER claimed. There are fragments of the Septuagint among the DSS scrolls too, but this is not relevant to anything. All that is relevant is that their text and ours are identical.
2) When you refer to changes in general, without qualifying the issue of the date you are implicitly including changes before the DSS - or do you think that the average person would assume that Isaiah could only have changed AFTER the DSS were written ?
I would assume that the average READER OF MY STATEMENT would have the good sense to know that I couldn't possibly be referring to changes BEFORE the DSS if I'm talking about how it demonstrates the integrity of our texts over 2000 years LATER. Mostly the "average person" IS thinking only of the Christian period as a matter of fact.
Again, if you want to discuss the PRE-DSS period, that's a completely other issue with completely other arguments to consider. It is NOT relevant to my statement about the DSS' implications for OUR TEXTS NOW.
3) For someone who likes to attack others you really aren't reading very carefully or thinking carefully yourself. I did not say "no signficant changes since Moses original text", I said "no significant changes since the time of Moses". Since the original three copies in your story were written by "Aunt Sally" then they date to the time of "Aunt Sally".
Sorry I was imprecise, but the point stands that I clearly said there was no way from the given information to know about changes within that period of time, only AFTER.
4) Since the DSS Isiaah scroll itself contains copying errors how can it be used to prove that there were no more since it was written ?
The copy errors IN the Isaiah scroll prove NOTHING. They are trivial and they are irrelevant to the point I'm making. The proof of the integrity of our Isaiah text now is in the fact that it SAYS THE SAME THING as the DSS Isaiah. It has nothing to do with the trivial errors in the DSS text. Those errors just weren't in the Isaiah texts that ours derived from or they got corrected over the years in any case, by comparison with the many other mss that were in circulation.
How can you be sure that none of the differences are copying errors in later texts or that there are none in the sections that do not survive ?
I'm not following you. Again, the point is that their text and ours are the SAME. There ARE no significant "differences" at ALL. That's the whole POINT. What "sections" do not survive? We have it ALL, just as they did. In the case of other scrolls we have MORE, but the text the DSS DOES have is nevertheless identical in meaning to ours.
5) Since the DSS Isaiah scroll is not a translation and it is being compared with the current Masoretic text which is not a translation either how can it be relevant to translation errors ?
It isn't. The POSSIBLE translation errors refer to all the SUPPOSED changes that are imagined by the "average person" to have occurred SINCE then. But NO errors of ANY kind occurred to affect the meaning of the text as our text and theirs are IDENTICAL -- no copying errors, no intentional changes, no translational errors, no changes WHATEVER of any significance. When they go to translate the DSS it ends up saying the SAME THING as our Bible. When they compare it to current Hebrew and Greek versions (for the Septuagint), and to the oldest Masoretic texts, it says the SAME THING.
6) Your examples from Message 5 are not relevant because they are not restricted to changes to Isaiah (or even the OT) after the DSS were written. If you have examples form such sources which actually DO answer the question asked in Message 1 please produce them.
THERE HAVE BEEN NO CHANGES WHATEVER "AFTER THE DSS WERE WRITTEN" WHICH IS THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION. THIS IS PROVED BY THE FACT THAT OUR CURRENT BIBLES ARE IDENTICAL WITH THEIR TEXTS. WHAT ABOUT "IDENTICAL" ARE YOU NOT GETTING?????
7) I am undecided on whether you meant the more general claim implied by your post or not. Certainly you contine to make assertiosn that imply that my original assessment was correct (e.g. your quote from your message 5 above). As such I have given you the benefit of the doubt throughout this thread. At the minimum I would expect the same courtesy from you even if your misrepresentation were equally well supported by the evidence.
I'm sorry, I simply have NO idea what you are saying, what is so difficult about this subject, where the misunderstandings lie or what. I've done my best over and over to answer your apparent misunderstandings and there's nothing more I can do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by PaulK, posted 04-15-2005 11:03 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by PaulK, posted 04-15-2005 12:33 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 136 of 204 (199570)
04-15-2005 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by PaulK
04-15-2005 11:20 AM


Re: Message #1 revisited
So where is the evidence that Mormons claim that Isaiah has changed since the DSS were written ? And if the Mormons do not make that "charge" what basis do you have for claiming that liberal Christians or Muslims do ?
I quoted a website on this, not myself.
I myself have encountered Mormon complaints that the Bible has been altered over the years, and mostly they refer to the New Testament although it's possible they mean in general that since Nephi and company moved to South America the Bible just took a dive in trustworthiness. In any case there's plenty of evidence that no such changes ever occurred and the DSS prove it for the OT books they have, but since that reflects on the abilities of the copyists over the centuries, hundreds of them over 20 hundreds of years, in which they copied BOTH OT AND NT for the Christian churches, the integirty of the NT is also confirmed by the DSS' virtual identity with ours.
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-15-2005 10:56 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by PaulK, posted 04-15-2005 11:20 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by PaulK, posted 04-15-2005 12:48 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 142 of 204 (199591)
04-15-2005 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by PaulK
04-15-2005 12:48 PM


More DSS authentication of our Bible
As I mentioned in an earlier post, I wrote an email to some friends asking for their view of my original statement on this thread. I've received two answers at this point. The information sent by the second respondent which I reproduce below discusses many facets of the DSS' relevance to answering many of the issues raised by Bible critics.
Here's the email I sent, followed by the responses to it:
quote:
Hello all,
I just want to ask [you] if you would tell me if there's something confusing or false about this statement I made [on an internet forum]:
The Isaiah scroll among the Dead Sea scrolls confirms the fact that there haven't been all the changes in the text so often claimed, as it is just about identical to the Isaiah text we have today.
It looks to me like a simple straightforward statement that at the most might need a clarification or two. It was something I just said in passing but I can't see how on earth it could cause all this uproar.
Got this answer from one friend:
quote:
Nothing confusing or false I can see... I distinctly remember, btw, standing in the Shrine of the Scroll, a pupular tourist site that highlights the finds at Qumran, and reading my Bar-Mitzvah portion and it was identical, word-for-word.
Just challenge them to list the differences...
Well we've already been through the listing-the-differences bit, and I could do without a repeat myself. Here's another friend's reply. She sent a very detailed commentary on the DSS showing its relevance for authenticating our current Bible in more ways than one:
quote:
The Dead Sea Scrolls are the oldest and most complete of the book of Isaiah. It is amazing how accurate they are to today's copies. When in Jerusalem, I visited the DSS's beautiful, modern museum, and it is there stressed concerning their accuracy.
Rachel
Apologetics Press :: Reason & Revelation
April 1995 - 15[4]:25-30
The Dead Sea Scrolls and Biblical Integrity
by Garry K. Brantley, M.A., M.Div.
Bible believers often are confronted with the charge that the Bible is filled with mistakes. These alleged mistakes can be placed into two major categories: (1) apparent internal inconsistencies among revealed
data; and (2) scribal mistakes in the underlying manuscripts
themselves. The former category involves those situations in which
there are apparent discrepancies between biblical texts regarding a
specific event, person, place, etc. [For a treatment of such
difficulties see Archer, 1982; Geisler and Brooks, 1989, pp. 163-178].
The latter category involves a much more fundamental concernthe
integrity of the underlying documents of our English translations. Some
charge that the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts, having been
copied and recopied by hand over many years, contain a plethora of
scribal errors that have altered significantly the information
presented in the original documents. As such, we cannot be confident
that our English translations reflect the information initially penned
by biblical writers. However, the materials discovered at Qumran,
commonly called the Dead Sea Scrolls, have provided impressive evidence
for both the integrity of the Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts of the Old
Testament and the authenticity of the books themselves.
DATE OF THE MATERIALS
When the scrolls first were discovered in 1947, scholars disputed their
dates of composition. Scholars now generally agree that although some
materials are earlier, the Qumran materials date primarily to the
Hasmonean (152-63 B.C.) and early Roman periods (63 B.C.-A.D. 68).
Several strands of evidence corroborate these conclusions. First,
archaeological evidence from the ruins of the Qumran community supports
these dates. After six major seasons of excavations, archaeologists
have identified three specific phases of occupation at the ancient
center of Qumran. Coinage discovered in the first stratum dates from
the reign of Antiochus VII Sidetes (138-129 B.C.). Such artifacts also
indicate that the architecture associated with the second occupational
phase dates no later than the time of Alexander Jannaeus (103-76 B.C.).
Also reflected in the material remains of the site is the destruction
of its buildings in the earthquake reported by the first-century Jewish
historian, Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews, 15.5.2). Apparently, this
natural disaster occurred around 31 B.C. a position that prompted the
occupants to abandon the site for an indeterminate time. Upon
reoccupation of the areathe third phasethe buildings were repaired
and rebuilt precisely on the previous plan of the old communal complex.
The community flourished until the Romans, under the military direction
of Vespasian, occupied the site by force (see Cross, 1992, pp. 21-22).
Such evidence is consistent with the second century B.C. to
first-century A.D. dates for the scrolls.
The second strand of evidence is that the generally accepted dates for
the scrolls are corroborated by palaeographical considerations.
Palaeography is the study of ancient writing and, more specifically,
the shape and style of letters. Characteristic of ancient languages,
the manner in which Hebrew and Aramaic letters were written changed
over a period of time. The trained eye can determine, within certain
boundaries, the time frame of a document based upon the shape of its
letters. This is the method by which scholars determine the date of a
text on palaeographical grounds. According to this technique, the
scripts at Qumran belong to three periods of palaeographical
development: (1) a small group of biblical texts whose archaic style
reflects the period between about 250-150 B.C.; (2) a large cache of
manuscripts, both biblical and non-biblical, that is consistent with a
writing style common to the Hasmonean period (c. 150-30 B.C.); and (3)
a similarly large number of texts that evinces a writing style
characteristic of the Herodian period (30 B.C.-A.D. 70). This
linguistic information also is consistent with the commonly accepted
dates of the Qumran materials.
Finally, as an aside, the carbon-14 tests done on both the cloth in
which certain scrolls were wrapped, and the scrolls themselves,
generally correspond to the palaeographic dates. There are, however,
some considerable differences. Due to the inexact nature of carbon-14
dating techniques (see Major, 1993), and the possibility of chemical
contamination, scholars place greater confidence in the historically
corroborated palaeographic dates (see Shanks, 1991, 17[6]:72). At any
rate, the archaeological and linguistic data provide scholars with
reasonable confidence that the scrolls date from 250 B.C. to A.D. 70.
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SCROLLS
While the importance of these documents is multifaceted, one of their
principle contributions to biblical studies is in the area of textual
criticism. This is the field of study in which scholars attempt to
recreate the original content of a biblical text as closely as
possible. Such work is legitimate and necessary since we possess only
copies (apographs), not the original manuscripts (autographs) of
Scripture. The Dead Sea Scrolls are of particular value in this regard
for at least two reasons: (1) every book of the traditional Hebrew
canon, except Esther, is represented (to some degree) among the
materials at Qumran (Collins, 1992, 2:89); and (2) they have provided
textual critics with ancient manuscripts against which they can compare
the accepted text for accuracy of content.
THE SCROLLS AND THE MASORETIC TEXT
This second point is of particular importance since, prior to the
discovery of the Qumran manuscripts, the earliest extant Old Testament
texts were those known as the Masoretic Text (MT), which dated from
about A.D. 980. The MT is the result of editorial work performed by
Jewish scribes known as the Masoretes. The scribes’ designation was
derived from the Hebrew word masora, which refers collectively to the
notes entered on the top, bottom, and side margins of the MT
manuscripts to safeguard traditional transmission. Hence, the
Masoretes, as their name suggests, were the scribal preservers of the
masora (Roberts, 1962, 3:295). From the fifth to the ninth century
A.D., the Masoretes labored to introduce both these marginal notes and
vowel points to the consonantal textprimarily to conserve correct
pronunciation and spelling (see Seow, 1987, pp. 8-9).
Critical scholars questioned the accuracy of the MT, which formed the
basis of our English versions of the Old Testament, since there was
such a large chronological gap between it and the autographs. Because
of this uncertainty, scholars often corrected the text with
considerable freedom. Qumran, however, has provided remains of an early
Masoretic edition predating the Christian era on which the traditional
MT is based. A comparison of the MT to this earlier text revealed the
remarkable accuracy with which scribes copied the sacred texts.
Accordingly, the integrity of the Hebrew Bible was confirmed, which
generally has heightened its respect among scholars and drastically
reduced textual alteration.
Most of the biblical manuscripts found at Qumran belong to the MT
tradition or family. This is especially true of the Pentateuch and some
of the Prophets. The well-preserved Isaiah scroll from Cave 1
illustrates the tender care with which these sacred texts were copied.
Since about 1700 years separated Isaiah in the MT from its original
source, textual critics assumed that centuries of copying and recopying
this book must have introduced scribal errors into the document that
obscured the original message of the author.
The Isaiah scrolls found at Qumran closed that gap to within 500 years
of the original manuscript. Interestingly, when scholars compared the
MT of Isaiah to the Isaiah scroll of Qumran, the correspondence was
astounding. The texts from Qumran proved to be word-for-word identical
to our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The 5
percent of variation consisted primarily of obvious slips of the pen
and spelling alterations (Archer, 1974, p. 25). Further, there were no
major doctrinal differences between the accepted and Qumran texts (see
Table 1 below). This forcibly demonstrated the accuracy with which
scribes copied sacred texts, and bolstered our confidence in the
Bible’s textual integrity (see Yamauchi, 1972, p. 130). The Dead Sea
Scrolls have increased our confidence that faithful scribal
transcription substantially has preserved the original content of
Isaiah.
TABLE 1. QUMRAN VS. THE MASORETES
______________________________________
Of the 166 Hebrew words in Isaiah 53, only
seventeen letters in Dead Sea Scroll 1QIsb
differ from the Masoretic Text (Geisler and
Nix, 1986, p. 382).
10 letters = spelling differences
4 letters = stylistic changes
3 letters = added word for light (vs. 11)
______________________________________
17 letters = no affect on biblical teaching
CRITICAL SCHOLARSHIP, DANIEL, AND THE SCROLLS
The Qumran materials similarly have substantiated the textual integrity
and authenticity of Daniel. Critical scholarship, as in the case of
most all books of the Old Testament, has attempted to dismantle the
authenticity of the book of Daniel. The message of the book claims to
have originated during the Babylonian exile, from the first deportation
of the Jews into captivity (606 B.C.; Daniel 1:1-2) to the ascension of
the Persian Empire to world dominance (c. 536 B.C.; Daniel 10:1). This
date, however, has been questioned and generally dismissed by critical
scholars who date the final composition of the book to the second
century B.C. Specifically, it is argued that the tales in chapters 1-6
as they appear in their present form can be no earlier than the
Hellenistic age (c. 332 B.C.). Also, the four-kingdom outline,
explicitly stated in chapter 2, allegedly requires a date after the
rise of the Grecian Empire. Further, these scholars argue that since
there is no explicit reference to Antiochus Epiphanes IV (175-164
B.C.), a Seleucid king clearly under prophetic consideration in chapter
11, a date in the late third or early second century B.C. is most
likely (see Collins, 1992a, 2:31; Whitehorne, 1992, 1:270).
The apparent reason for this conclusion among critical scholars is the
predictive nature of the book of Daniel. It speaks precisely of events
that transpired several hundred years removed from the period in which
it claims to have been composed. Since the guiding principles of the
historical-critical method preclude a transcendent God’s intervening in
human affairs (see Brantley, 1994), the idea of inspired predictive
prophecy is dismissed a priori from the realm of possibility.
Accordingly, Daniel could not have spoken with such precision about
events so remote from his day. Therefore, critical scholars conclude
that the book was written actually as a historical record of events
during the Maccabean period, but couched in apocalyptic or prophetic
language. Such conclusions clearly deny that this book was the
authentic composition of a Daniel who lived in the sixth century B.C.,
that the Bible affirms.
The Dead Sea Scrolls have lifted their voice in this controversy. Due
to the amount of Daniel fragments found in various caves near Qumran,
it appears that this prophetic book was one of the most treasured by
that community. Perhaps the popularity of Daniel was due to the fact
that the people of Qumran lived during the anxious period in which many
of these prophecies actually were being fulfilled. For whatever reason,
Daniel was peculiarly safeguarded to the extent that we have at our
disposal parts of all chapters of Daniel, except chapters 9 and 12.
However, one manuscript (4QDanc; 4 = Cave 4; Q = Qumran; Danc = one of
the Daniel fragments arbitrarily designated c for clarification),
published in November 1989, has been dated to the late second century
B.C. (see Hasel, 1992, 5[2]:47). Two other major documents (4QDanb,
4QDana) have been published since 1987, and contribute to scholarly
analysis of Daniel. These recently released fragments have direct
bearing on the integrity and authenticity of the book of Daniel.
INTEGRITY OF THE TEXT
As in the case of Isaiah, before Qumran there were no extant
manuscripts of Daniel that dated earlier than the late tenth century
A.D. Accordingly, scholars cast suspicion on the integrity of Daniel’s
text. Also, as with Isaiah, this skepticism about the credibility of
Daniel’s contents prompted scholars to take great freedom in adjusting
the Hebrew text. One reason for this suspicion is the seemingly
arbitrary appearance of Aramaic sections within the book. Some scholars
had assumed from this linguistic shift that Daniel was written
initially in Aramaic, and then some portions were translated into
Hebrew. Further, a comparison of the Septuagint translation (Greek
translation of the Hebrew Bible) with the MT revealed tremendous
disparity in length and content between the two texts. Due to these and
other considerations, critical scholars assigned little value to the MT
rendition of Daniel.
Once again, however, the findings at Qumran have confirmed the
integrity of Daniel’s text. Gerhard Hasel listed several strands of
evidence from the Daniel fragments found at Qumran that support the
integrity of the MT (see 1992, 5[2]:50). First, for the most part, the
Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts of Daniel are very consistent in content
among themselves, containing very few variants. Second, the Qumran
fragments conform very closely to the MT overall, with only a few rare
variants in the former that side with the Septuagint version. Third,
the transitions from Hebrew to Aramaic are preserved in the Qumran
fragments. Based on such overwhelming data, it is evident that the MT
is a well-preserved rendition of Daniel. In short, Qumran assures us
that we can be reasonably confident that the Daniel text on which our
English translations are based is one of integrity. Practically
speaking, this means that we have at our disposal, through faithful
translations of the original, the truth God revealed to Daniel
centuries ago.
DATE OF THE BOOK
The Daniel fragments found at Qumran also speak to the issue of
Daniel’s authenticity. As mentioned earlier, conventional scholarship
generally places the final composition of Daniel during the second
century B.C. Yet, the book claims to have been written by a Daniel who
lived in the sixth century B.C. However, the Dead Sea fragments of
Daniel present compelling evidence for the earlier, biblical date of
this book.
The relatively copious remains of Daniel indicate the importance of
this book to the Qumran community. Further, there are clear indications
that this book was considered canonical for the community, which
meant it was recognized as an authoritative book on a par with other
biblical books (e.g., Deuteronomy, Kings, Isaiah, Psalms). The
canonicity of Daniel at Qumran is indicated, not only by the prolific
fragments, but by the manner in which it is referenced in other
materials. One fragment employs the quotation, which was written in
the book of Daniel the prophet. This phrase, similar to Jesus’
reference to Daniel the prophet (Matthew 24:15), was a formula
typically applied to quotations from canonical Scripture at Qumran (see
Hasel, 1992, 5[2]:51).
The canonical status of Daniel at Qumran is important to the date and
authenticity of the book. If, as critical scholars allege, Daniel
reached its final form around 160 B.C., how could it have attained
canonical status at Qumran in a mere five or six decades? While we do
not know exactly how long it took for a book to reach such
authoritative status, it appears that more time is needed for this
development (see Bruce, 1988, pp. 27-42). Interestingly, even before
the most recent publication of Daniel fragments, R.K. Harrison
recognized that the canonical status of Daniel at Qumran militated
against its being a composition of the Maccabean era, and served as
confirmation of its authenticity (1969, p. 1126-1127).
Although Harrison made this observation in 1969, over three decades
before the large cache of Cave 4 documents was made available to the
general and scholarly public, no new evidence has refuted it. On the
contrary, the newly released texts from Qumran have confirmed this
conclusion. The canonical acceptance of Daniel at Qumran indicates the
antiquity of the book’s compositioncertainly much earlier than the
Maccabean period. Hence, the most recent publications of Daniel
manuscripts offer confirmation of Daniel’s authenticity; it was written
when the Bible says it was written.
A final contribution from Qumran to the biblically claimed date for
Daniel’s composition comes from linguistic considerations. Though, as
we mentioned earlier, critical scholars argue that the Aramaic sections
in Daniel indicate a second-century B.C. date of composition, the
Qumran materials suggest otherwise. In fact, a comparison of the
documents at Qumran with Daniel demonstrates that the Aramaic in Daniel
is a much earlier composition than the second-century B.C. Such a
comparison further demonstrates that Daniel was written in a region
different from that of Judea. For example, the Genesis Apocryphon found
in Cave 1 is a second-century B.C. document written in Aramaicthe same
period during which critical scholars argue that Daniel was composed.
If the critical date for Daniel’s composition were correct, it should
reflect the same linguistic characteristics of the Genesis Apocryphon.
Yet, the Aramaic of these two books is markedly dissimilar.
The Genesis Apocryphon, for example, tends to place the verb toward the
beginning of the clause, whereas Daniel tends to defer the verb to a
later position in the clause. Due to such considerations, linguists
suggest that Daniel reflects an Eastern type Aramaic, which is more
flexible with word order, and exhibits scarcely any Western
characteristics at all. In each significant category of linguistic
comparison (i.e., morphology, grammar, syntax, vocabulary), the Genesis
Apocryphon (admittedly written in the second century B.C.) reflects a
much later style than the language of Daniel (Archer, 1980, 136:143;
cf. Yamauchi, 1980). Interestingly, the same is true when the Hebrew of
Daniel is compared with the Hebrew preserved in the Qumran sectarian
documents (i.e., those texts composed by the Qumran community
reflecting their peculiar societal laws and religious customs). From
such linguistic considerations provided by Qumran, Daniel hardly could
have been written by a Jewish patriot in Judea during the early
second-century B.C., as the critics charge.
CONCLUSION
There are, of course, critical scholars who, despite the evidence,
continue to argue against the authenticity of Daniel and other biblical
books. Yet, the Qumran texts have provided compelling evidence that
buttresses our faith in the integrity of the manuscripts on which our
translations are based. It is now up to Bible believers to allow these
texts to direct our attention to divine concerns and become the people
God intends us to be.
REFERENCES
Archer, Gleason, Jr. (1974), A Survey of Old Testament Introduction
(Chicago, IL: Moody).
Archer, Gleason, Jr. (1980), Modern Rationalism and the Book of
Daniel, Bibliotheca Sacra, 136:129-147, April-June.
Archer, Gleason, Jr. (1982), Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker).
Brantley, Garry K. (1994), Biblical Miracles: Fact or Fiction?,
Reason and Revelation, 14:33-38, May.
Bruce, F.F. (1988), The Canon of Scriptures (Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press).
Collins, John J. (1992a), Daniel, Book of, The Anchor Bible
Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday), 2:29-37.
Collins, John J. (1992b), Dead Sea Scrolls, The Anchor Bible
Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday), 2:85-101.
Cross, Frank Moore (1992), The Historical Context of the Scrolls,
Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Hershel Shanks (New York:
Random House).
Geisler, Norman and Ronald Brooks (1989), When Skeptics Ask (Wheaton,
IL: Victor).
Geisler, Norman and William Nix (1986), A General Intorduction to the
Bible (Chicago, IL: Moody).
Harrison, R.K. (1969), Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids,
MI: Eerdmans).
Hasel, Gerhard (1992), New Light on the Book of Daniel from the Dead
Sea Scrolls, Archaeology and Biblical Research, 5[2]:45-53, Spring.
Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, The Life and Works of Flavius
Josephus, (Chicago, IL: John C. Winston; translated by William Whiston).
Major, Trevor (1993), Dating in Archaeology: Radiocarbon and Tree-Ring
Dating, Reason and Revelation, 13:73-77, October.
Roberts, B.J. (1962), Masora, The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the
Bible (Nashville, TN: Abingdon), 3:295.
Seow, C.L. (1987), A Grammar for Biblical Hebrew (Nashville, TN:
Abingdon).
Shanks, Hershel (1991), Carbon-14 Tests Substantiate Scroll Dates,
Biblical Archaeology Review, 17[6]:72, November/December.
Whitehorne, John (1992), Antiochus, The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed.
David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday), 1:269-272.
Yamauchi, Edwin (1972), The Stones and the Scriptures: An Evangelical
Perspective (New York: Lippincott).
Yamauchi, Edwin (1980), The Archaeological Background of Daniel,
Bibliotheca Sacra, 137:3-16, January-March.
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-16-2005 08:50 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by PaulK, posted 04-15-2005 12:48 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 143 of 204 (199593)
04-15-2005 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by PaulK
04-15-2005 12:33 PM


Re: Another attempt at clarification
quote:
1) Stating something after the fact is not the smae as stating it at the beginning. Moreover you misunderstand my point about the Septuagint. The Septuagint in itself is evidence against many large changes in the Biblical text other than variations between the Septuagint and the Masoretic texts. And the DSS cannot resolve that as they themselves include Septuagint-type texts.
Fine, since I'm saying there have been no changes. What is your point? Resolve what? Our Bible is the same as theirs. There are no changes between then and now.
quote:
2) I can only repeat that I have no reason to bleieve that the average person specifically limits any claims about changes to Isaiah to the period after the DSS was written. If they claim that the Isauh we have is significantly different form the original then you cannot refute that except by arguing against changes before the DSS were written.
"From the original" Old Testament, of course, but their charges are NOT specific at all, they are general charges against the integrity of the entire Bible, and usually the target is the New Testament, but the DSS answer that too by showing the general high quality work of the copyists over the centuries. The context is the period from the DSS to now, and this is the period "most people" DO have in mind, people who are not Bible scholars or even people who have read the "higher critics," just people who have picked up this piece of Bible debunkery and show up on message boards and the like to "prove" how it's all completely untrustworthy.
quote:
3) Thank you
You're welcome no doubt but since you don't quote me I'll have to wait to reread my post to find out what you are thanking me for.
quote:
4) The copying errors in the Isaiah scroll show that copying errors were being made even at that time. Copying errors by their nature are likely to be minor. And the text is not "the same" in the sense of being identical - there are many variations.
According to all the material I have posted, and my recent post of friends' contributions, and Monk's posts, the DSS and our current Old Testament are identical in meaning and message. The copying errors are irrelevant and there are NO "variations" between the DSS and now, if by that you mean passages with different meanings. We've been over this thoroughly. The evidence is well documented on this thread.
quote:
5) I very much doubt that the average person believes that the Hebrew text of Isaiah is likely to change translation errors. If you have any evidence to the contrary then please produce it.
The fact that the Hebrew text of Isaiah is identical to all our current Hebrew texts of Isaiah and is translated into English with exactly the same meanings as our English Bibles have -- which is testified to by Monk for one, and both the friends I just quoted, not to mention all the official links so far -- certainly puts to rest accusations of ALL errors down the centuries since the DSS, including translation errors.
quote:
6) The point of the question is not whehter there HAVE been changes in the Hebrew text of Idsaiah between the DSS and now. The point of the question is whether anyone CLAIMS that there have been such changes.
Again, my original statement only referred to GENERAL CLAIMS ABOUT THE BIBLE TEXT AS A WHOLE. ALL the scrolls found at Qumran put these claims to rest as they demonstrate the overall astounding accuracy of the copyists throughout the centuries since then.
quote:
7) TO clarify my point. I do not claim to know whether your oriignal claim was meant to include changes prior to the writing of the DSS. Thus I have not apologised (since I am not convinced I was wrong - and I have pointed out evidence which suggests that I was correct)
I couldn't possibly have included changes prior to the writing of the DSS in a statement about their implications for texts 2000 years later, and you certainly don't have any evidence otherwise.
quote:
However I have also NOT directly challenged the claim that you meant changes since the DSS were written and I have argued on that basis. Why do you think I keep asking you to produce people claiming that the Book of Isaiah has changed SINCE THE DSS WAS WRITTEN ? How can you not understand that ????
OK, sorry if I have not acknowledged your dropping the pre-DSS complaint, but just as you are not sure about my not including it I have not been sure you dropped it.
There are no specific claims about the book of Isaiah involved, the claims I referred to from the beginning were general, about the entire Bible. The finding of the Isaiah scroll was just a great opportunity to put them to rest. And it puts them soundly to rest although you seem so far to be unable to process this fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by PaulK, posted 04-15-2005 12:33 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by PaulK, posted 04-15-2005 2:25 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 144 of 204 (199596)
04-15-2005 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by PaulK
04-15-2005 12:48 PM


Re: Message #1 revisited
quote:
As for your claim that the Isaiah scroll has direct relevance to NT documents the transmission history is entirely different. The Masoretic text is - like the DSS - purely Jewish. The NT documents were transmitted by Christians. The DSS documents are a testimony to the Jewish copiers and the Masoretes - not Christian scribes.
Those possessed by the churches and copied for the churches and passed down since the days of Christ HAVE been copied by Christian scribes. They copied ALL the books used by Christians and that means both Old and New Testaments -- in translation of course, in Latin for a long time, and then in the various languages, not the Hebrew I must assume. The point is the message of them all has not been altered over all those centuries. They have done as good a job as the Masoretes, to judge by the results.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by PaulK, posted 04-15-2005 12:48 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by PaulK, posted 04-15-2005 2:18 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 147 of 204 (199640)
04-15-2005 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by PaulK
04-15-2005 2:18 PM


Re: Message #1 revisited
I'm sorry but you still don't understand the history.
The OT in most English-language Bibles is translated directly from the Masoretic text. That, therefore, has nothing to do with Christian copyists at all. Christians used to use the Spetugaint translation of the OT, then a Latin translation of that (Jerome's Vulgate).
That's right, I lost track. Since they've had the Hebrew texts they've translated directly from that. But they've also compared their translations, at least the King James translators did, with ALL the previous translations in ALL the languages, including the Latin, the German, the French, the Syrian etc. It was part of the process of translating to make all those comparisons, so you could say the KJV was "based" on all of them in some sense.
And I agree that we should judge Christian copyists by THEIR results. But the Isaiah of the DSS and the modern Masoretic texts - and even of modern English translations is not the work of Christian copyists. Why, then, should we judge Christian copyists by the achivevments of others ?
OK, let's leave it at the Old Testament then. I'm happy with that for now.
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-15-2005 05:17 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by PaulK, posted 04-15-2005 2:18 PM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by ramoss, posted 04-23-2005 12:38 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 148 of 204 (199645)
04-15-2005 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by PaulK
04-15-2005 2:25 PM


Re: Another attempt at clarification
quote:
Let's make it very clear.
You claim that the Isaiah scroll proves that there have not been significant changes to the Hebrew test of Isaiah since the DSS. Fine.
If you concede that has been shown, terrific, thanks. Big step here.
quote:
You claim that this refutes common "charges" that the Bible has changed. So you need to produce examples that really are refuted.
That's the same vague accusations I started out with, that the Bible has changed over the years, but at least now those are refuted for the Old Testament.
The New Testament can be shown not to have been significantly changed over the years with the thousands of extant ancient texts as mentioned in earlier posts. Mark 16:9-20 has already been discussed and shown to be legitimate by the vast majority of the manuscripts. The New Testament as a whole can be the next subject.
quote:
Instead you produce claims that the Bible HAS changed - which would be true IF Biblical texts had changed PRIOR to the DSS.
You can't have it both ways.
????? Can't possibly have said both things. The "charges" are that it has changed; the answer always is that it has not, that it is remarkably accurate over the centuries.
But to this point then, we agree that the DSS confirm the accuracy of the translation {EDIT: Correction, should be "transmission"} of the HEBREW TEXT down to us. OK?
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-15-2005 05:33 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by PaulK, posted 04-15-2005 2:25 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by PaulK, posted 04-16-2005 6:06 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 149 of 204 (199647)
04-15-2005 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by LinearAq
04-15-2005 12:25 PM


Re: Too black and white for scientists
Just to agree with Monk:
Was the quality control more stringently adhered to for Biblical texts than for non-Biblical texts?
All I know is that the Jewish scribes, or Masoretes, had a particularly strict system for keeping the text pure, including methods of counting individual letters.
Does the strictness of adherence to quality control relate in any way to the actual truth of the documents copied or is that strictness a product of the belief that they are true?
Of course it doesn't prove the truth of the documents, but it certainly reflects the reverence of the copyists and the Jewish leaders for the divine source of the scripture.
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-15-2005 05:40 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by LinearAq, posted 04-15-2005 12:25 PM LinearAq has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 152 of 204 (199668)
04-15-2005 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Taqless
04-15-2005 7:22 PM


Re: Bible inerrancy in what sense?
"throughout history" ONLY SINCE THE DSS.
quote:
Originally you made the statement in the context of having written "over the centuries" and you were taking exception to the "common accusation that the Bible has supposedly been altered over the centuries" and THEN, without qualifying YOUR statement you said the following "The existence of any scroll from that time that has the same text as our text is proof that such accusations are unfounded.".
But since the "accusation" was "over the centuries" your statement in no way refutes the claim you mention (in light that YOU MEANT to say "unfounded post-DSS").
"FROM THAT TIME" ought to have made that clear. No way a text found at a particular time can testify to alterations made BEFORE that time. Maybe it would have helped if you'd asked a question for clarification's sake, though I can't tell what your problem was so I don't know what to suggest. In fact your above paragraph is sloppily enough worded that I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Perhaps you could try to state it more clearly? {I think I start to make more sense of this as this post proceeds however, so read on}
quote:
So, for you to state that the "accusations are unfounded" in the original is a bit superfluous.
I have NO idea what you are talking about. It would really help if you'd quote me using the word "unfounded" in context so I could see what you are referring to. I'm having to wing it here, having very little idea what you are trying to say. Also I haven't used the term "original" in reference to the DSS at all, as it ISN'T original -- they are all copies, so again, what are you saying? It appears to me that you simply haven't taken the time to grasp my points and have managed to mangle them completely in this attempt at reconstruction.
quote:
This certainly explains the misundertsanding that PaulK and myself had initially about what you were trying to claim was support for what.
Nothing you've said explains much of anything. It is completely incomprehensible. I have not been unclear. I've repeated my points over and over, clarifying where necessary, and from my point of view it's NOT difficult to understand at ALL, but you are MAKING it difficult. Perhaps you have some preconceptions that are interfering with simply READING what I've actually said? Perhaps you don't know what some words mean? Perhaps you should have asked a question about how I use this or that word to help clarify an ambiguity? That's the best I can do to understand this.
In addition, when I asked you about changes prior to the DSS you extrapolated to me as follows in post #49:
One cannot "extrapolate to" a person, Tagless. Now you are showing that you have trouble with the English language.
Faith writes:
You claim all that is meaningless if there were changes made to Isaiah prior to the DSS, but that is another subject.
quote:
Since your original post was to refute "over the centuries" not it is not.
Why? This refers to the centuries AFTER the DSS which I would think would be obvious after all, especially since I've repeated the phrase "SINCE THE DSS" I don't know how many times, as well as "the INTERVENING centuries" and other attempts to make the time period clear. I'm obviously referring to my point that the texts AFTER the intervening centuries (our modern Bible) are the same as the texts BEFORE the intervening centuries (the Dead Sea Scrolls).
Also, you didn't quote enough for starters here. I'm saying "you claim all that is meaningless" but I have no idea what "all that" is as you don't quote back far enough. In any case, I go on to say that something here (I can't tell what) is "another subject" so why are you addressing it as if it were the main topic?
quote:
Faith(cont'd) writes:
I repeat, my topic was the RELIABILITY OF THE SCRIBES since the Isaiah scroll, period.

quote:
HUH? No, it was not! You said nothing about the reliability of the scribes when you brought up the Isaiah scrolls to refute "over the centuries" changes.
Again, apparently you are having a problem with the phrase "over the centuries" which is in fact the same thing as saying "the reliability of the scribes since the Isaiah scroll." I have NEVER referred to any "centuries" except those between the DSS and the present, and again, I have used many qualifying phrases to be sure it is clear that that is the period I'm talking about. I think you simply haven't been reading carefully enough.
quote:
THEN the extrapolation part:
Faith(cont'd) writes:
This DOES have implications for the reliability of the scribes prior to that too, especially since the Jewish scribes were known for their obsessional-to-superstitious methods of accuracy.
Faith from this post writes:
NO HE WAS IN ERROR AS I *WAS* DISCUSSING ONLY THE POST-DSS PERIOD AND HE KEPT INSISTING ON HIS PRE-DSS IRRELEVANCY.
As I've pointed out that certainly was not clear when you you went from an "over the centuries" claim to support from a post-DSS time frame....try to remember that it is not immediately clear what a poster's focus is when one is reading plain text.
I'm simply not following you. I believe I have taken pains to be as clear as possible. I have, however, come to recognize that it is dangerous around here to dare to insert a parenthetical phrase, an aside, a remark in passing, a hint as to a possible future subject, and the like, as it will not be regarded as such. I shouldn't have risked any reference whatever to the pre-DSS period, however parenthetical, as there was enough confusion already.
In any case, overall I get the impression that you ascribe your own idiosyncratic meanings to words I have used, that are not the same meanings I ascribe to them, and you want to make that my fault rather than your own. Since it is very hard to follow you I can't determine whether any of it IS in fact my fault, something I could have prevented. All I know is that I have taken pains to be clear. Possibly if you would take the time to reread a few previous posts of mine very very carefully you might begin to see what I've been saying from the beginning.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Taqless, posted 04-15-2005 7:22 PM Taqless has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024