Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 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
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 99 of 204 (199426)
04-14-2005 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Faith
04-14-2005 6:08 PM


Re: Your kidding, right?
Yawn. Perhaps you would like to state which of my major points is supposedly similar to your argument.
Or you could just save time and apologise now for your misrepresentation and for your last post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Faith, posted 04-14-2005 6:08 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Faith, posted 04-14-2005 6:24 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 101 of 204 (199430)
04-14-2005 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Faith
04-14-2005 6:24 PM


Re: Your kidding, right?
You want me to APOLOGISE for giving you the chance to explain your claim ?
Are you that upset at bewing proved wrong ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Faith, posted 04-14-2005 6:24 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Faith, posted 04-14-2005 7:06 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 123 of 204 (199505)
04-15-2005 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Faith
04-14-2005 7:06 PM


Re: Your kidding, right?
Unfortunately for you, my ability to understand logic is not in question. This particular subthread started when I pointed out that you had misrepresented my claims. And you have contnued to misrepresent me rather than deal with that issue.
Since you fail to understand even the points I was arguing for, nor even the purpose of opening this thread - which is clearly stated in Message 1 you have no sound basis for questioning my logic.
Now are you prepared to act like an adult and apologise for your misrepresentations (intentional or not) ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Faith, posted 04-14-2005 7:06 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Faith, posted 04-15-2005 2:46 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 125 of 204 (199509)
04-15-2005 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Faith
04-15-2005 2:46 AM


Firstly your claim that there is any "weird misunderstanding" in the quoted section is an obvious falsehood.
You claimed:
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
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 ?
As for your claim that you have answered the question about which "charges' and who made them I suppose that your failure to find any real examples is an answer but hardly one that supports your case.
If you somehow fail to understand these points I can only suggest that it is you that is confused.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Faith, posted 04-15-2005 2:46 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Faith, posted 04-15-2005 9:31 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 127 of 204 (199533)
04-15-2005 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Monk
04-15-2005 8:29 AM


Re: Perseverance
Well maybe you can help her come up with an answer to the question in the original post.
So far Faith's failed to do so and at present her discussion with me seems to boil down to her making groundless attacks rather than admit to her error.

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

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 130 of 204 (199554)
04-15-2005 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Faith
04-15-2005 9:31 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.
As for clarity let me remind you that your original statment made no mention of date 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 (Message 93 remembering that "Sally=Moses" Message 98).
As for the errors you list
quote:
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).
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)
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.
And this:
quote:
... 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.
isn't true either. I've already referred to one that is significantly different.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Faith, posted 04-15-2005 9:31 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Faith, posted 04-15-2005 10:34 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 133 of 204 (199561)
04-15-2005 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Faith
04-15-2005 10:34 AM


Re: Another attempt at clarification
1) If you meant to exclude informed views you should have said so.
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.
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 ?
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".
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 ?
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 ?
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 ?
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Faith, posted 04-15-2005 10:34 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Faith, posted 04-15-2005 11:45 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 134 of 204 (199564)
04-15-2005 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Faith
04-15-2005 10:45 AM


Re: Message #1 revisited
The Book of Mormon contains a large amount of material from Isaiah, with some variations. This is explained by assuming that the Israelites who sailed to America took a copy of Isaiah with them. Thus they do not argue that Isaiah has significantly changed since the DSS.
Here are two Mormon apologetic articles on Isaiah
Notify
Deutero-Isaiah in the Book of Mormon? - FAIR
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 ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Faith, posted 04-15-2005 10:45 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Faith, posted 04-15-2005 11:54 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 138 of 204 (199581)
04-15-2005 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Faith
04-15-2005 11:45 AM


Re: Another attempt at clarification
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.
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.
3) Thank you
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.
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.
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.
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)
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 ????

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Faith, posted 04-15-2005 11:45 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Faith, posted 04-15-2005 1:43 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 139 of 204 (199586)
04-15-2005 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Faith
04-15-2005 11:54 AM


Re: Message #1 revisited
So lets get this straight. A website your referred to made an assertion that various other groups claimed that the Bible had been changed in various ways and you interpreted that as meaning that those groups believed that Isaiah had been changed after the DSS was written. Even though the web page does not say any such thing. And you accuse other people of not understanding logic ?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Faith, posted 04-15-2005 11:54 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Faith, posted 04-15-2005 1:10 PM PaulK has not replied
 Message 144 by Faith, posted 04-15-2005 1:51 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 141 of 204 (199588)
04-15-2005 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Monk
04-15-2005 12:50 PM


Re: Too black and white for scientists
I think we have to be cautious about generalising. There is a lot of history here and the status of books and the regard they were held in has often changed over time. For instance however you resolve the Synoptic Problem it is likely that two out of the three authors took it upon themselves to revise and add to (or condense if Markan priority is denied) the work of at least one of the others.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Monk, posted 04-15-2005 12:50 PM Monk has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 145 of 204 (199599)
04-15-2005 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Faith
04-15-2005 1:51 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).
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 ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Faith, posted 04-15-2005 1:51 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Faith, posted 04-15-2005 6:16 PM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 146 of 204 (199602)
04-15-2005 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Faith
04-15-2005 1:43 PM


Re: Another attempt at clarification
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.
You claim that this refutes common "charges" that the Bible has changed. So you need to produce examples that really are refuted.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Faith, posted 04-15-2005 1:43 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Faith, posted 04-15-2005 6:30 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 156 of 204 (199713)
04-16-2005 6:06 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Faith
04-15-2005 6:30 PM


Re: Another attempt at clarification
quote:
If you concede that has been shown, terrific, thanks. Big step here.
Since my position has NOT changed on that matter at all, it is NOT a "big step". It is no step at all.
quote:
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.
This on the other hand DOES appear to be a big step, since you are now asserting that the OT has not changed AT ALL.
Like I said, you are trying to have it both ways. Whenever you want to argue that you were correct to assert that the Isaiah scroll refuted COMMON claims about changes in the Bible the "post-DSS" qualification goes out the window.
quote:
????? 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?
From the DSS. Which way do you want to have it ?
Are you claiming that the Isaiah scroll refutes claims of ANY changes to the OT, so that your claim that it refutes common "charges" follows from the assertion ?
Or are you claiming that it only refutes claims of changes since the DSS and therefore it fails to refute the common claims that the Bible has changed ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Faith, posted 04-15-2005 6:30 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Faith, posted 04-16-2005 9:01 AM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 163 of 204 (199774)
04-16-2005 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Faith
04-16-2005 10:46 AM


Re: Summary
I too believe this thread is over.
The answer to the question posed in the first thread is "none at all". There are no commonly-made charges that are refuted by the DSS Isaiah scroll.
Rather than admit this Faith has resorted to numerous personal attacks and misrepresentations, typical of the bad behacviour of a creationist caught in an error.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Faith, posted 04-16-2005 10:46 AM Faith 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