Isaiah and the Dead Sea Scrolls

That line as well as the other (date not that ambiguous) support the idea that the changes many, such as PaulK, point to occur before the DSS which, in turn, makes your subsequent claim that since the Isaiah DSS backs up the modern version of Isaiah, post-DSS, irrelevant. That is fine. That's why humans have your namesake. It does not have to make sense to everyone else.

One book compared to how many others that have multiple differences using the same reference (DSS) does not show what you claim above. You yourself use my line of argument as follows: BUT Hmmm, not it's not. If your 1 is proof that the entire text is without significant mistake then by your own argument and mine you must lend credence to 45 texts that show 5000 are wrong....I think the best that you can claim based on what PaulK quoted from you in this thread is that Isaiah alone seems to be consistent with modern day versions when compared to the DSS only. That's it. Extrapolations to the consistency of the entire bible are unsupported. No, I just suggested that your point is only supported inasmuch as the DSS are concerned and that you can't really claim anything about earlier times. Since this does not seem to be consistent with many other scrolls found then you can ONLY in good conscious claim consistency with regard to the Isaiah scroll.....once again.However, who cares if there are differences here and there? I'm assuming you worship god not the bible, so is the message the same? That's all that matters. You seem very upset and edgy, calm down. In the end, you will not change PaulK's way of thinking and PaulK will not change your faith.

??????Yes, that's why I specifically made a point of showing the fallacy in Faith's argument about the Isaiah scroll "showing consistency within the whole bible and the other scolls". I was attempting to draw a parallel with your argument and mine on this level in that Faith thought 5000 texts outweighed 45 texts....ergo the remaining scrolls with significant differences outweighs the Isaiah scroll...if this was not clear to you then I can't wait to see what Faith's response is to me.- -sigh- - gotta do more work on my communication "skills".

My replies to you have been in reference to quotes I have taken from your responses to PaulK.....what's the confusion?You have extrapolated that the bible in it's entirety has been changed very little based on one scroll, the Isaiah scroll. THIS IS VERY FLAWED and is not supportive.I've used your own comparisons and quotes to show your inconsistencies, so if you don't get the point then you might want to re-think your position.As to my last statements that was an aside ONLY!

I have to admit to not being aware of why the 45 are not considered legitimate....but I see this as flawed logic that gets applied by you and others as follows:In other words, you are holding the modern day text as the golden standard and judging whether or not scrolls, versions, etc support what you already hold as fact (unsupported fact). This means that you will conclude that anything found that supports your modern day fact is indeed proof, but if it is neither found in your modern day fact or does not support your modern day fact then it must be incorrect, sub-standard, or disregarded since it was not included in your modern day fact. This is strange as there is this issue of time, and to say that something that is modern is fact over a different version from an earlier time is definitely twisted...mmm not logic, but rationalizing.Wouldn't this be like saying the Greeks named their gods all wrong because in Roman times ("more modern") the gods names were different and CORRECT, so whatever the Greeks used was wrong?Guess I don't follow your logic at all. So, this means that the modern day version are correct, right??Don't feel like you need to reply.

Your defense of "objections TO the modern position" I'm taking to be the above which is "changes in the text".In support of your defense of this "changes in the text" you have sited the Isaiah scroll (which you feel supports the idea you have that the copyists were obsessively adherent which has led to a modern text with few if any errors).The problem?The Isaiah scroll does not "confirm" anything. By your own admission (personally, I don't know about this) you have just informed me that the DSS is not/was not the basis for the modern text which means by default it cannot support your position and makes the above statement that started this thread [b][i]irrelevant[/b][/i].Maybe coincidence, but not proof or support of "the copyists were obsessively adherent which has led to a modern text with few if any errors" (not your exact phrasing) since the copyists did not use this text as a basis. Right?

For the second time: even though the DSS were not the basis of modern texts? Yes, this is what I asked you to explain from post #76. AND, very good, that is what I proposed...a coincidence. Don't ask me to explain your logic, you explain it to the rest of us on this thread!

I will repeat once again:You stated the DSS were not the basis for modern text. Therefore, neither YOU or I can use the DSS to support our positions that there have not been/have been changes to the modern text over time.- You might have other "proof", but this isn't it.
- Why is ONE scroll supportive of your claim to "no changes" and yet no other scrolls count towards proof of change...purely speculation on my part, but I'd say it's in your head.So, according to you, your support for "no changes" is wrong.

1. Really? Then why has he responded that he is NOT talking about that. You've been told this quite a few times. 2. By your own above admission the DSS DO NOT support your position...so whatever you tell me about it and Aunt Sally I don't care because it HAS NO RELEVANCE.

I can't resist.Since Aunt Sally's recipe (the DSS) is not the basis for the recipes these people have copies of it should be concluded that the recipes in fact did not come from Aunt Sally..DUH! Even if they are similar...who cares?This is getting strange.

Why are you all of the sudden bringing Moses into this? This was supposed to be you explaining how the DSS support your statement when they are not the basis for the modern text.You have not done this. It's too bad you've been reduced to this in the absence of being able to support your statement.Like PaulK says you need to apologize to him for misrepresentation and to me for wasting my time debating with someone that keeps changing the goal posts.You need to admit you were wrong, period!

Hi Monk,
While I agree with you and jar about the message being maintained in the bible this thread was opened because Faith made the claim that one scroll, Isaiah scroll, of the DSS was support that there have been no significant changes throughout history in the text.Unfortunately, since the DSS are not the basis for the modern text (information from Faith) this "support" for "no significant changes" becomes irrelevant.I understood that PaulK opened this thread being opened for that reason. As well as the fact the PaulK was not discussing changes post-DSS.Anyway, we could go on forever I'm sure about bible inerrancy.

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"). So, for you to state that the "accusations are unfounded" in the original is a bit superfluous. This certainly explains the misundertsanding that PaulK and myself had initially about what you were trying to claim was support for what.In addition, when I asked you about changes prior to the DSS you extrapolated to me as follows in post #49: Since your original post was to refute "over the centuries" not it is not. 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. THEN the extrapolation part: 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.

Hi Monk,
Maybe you and LA feel I am being harsh on Faith, however Faith originally offered the Isaiah scroll up as refutation of changes "over the centuries" when clearly it is only, at most, supportive of consistency post-DSS. There was no qualification until later.I then asked about changes prior to the DSS and was informed by Faith that since the scribes did such a great job post-DSS that one could conclude that the same could be said about the texts prior to the DSS. I happen to disagree with this and I do not think that a more "modern" text (DSS), relatively speaking of course, indicates that an earlier time was JUST AS EFFICIENT (One needs to take into consideration imprisonment, loss of personal articles, etc that the Israelites are well-known to have gone through).I don't think anyone of us utilizes our logic in this manner in our normal everyday lives.Not the least of which I would like to ask you, what you think it means that there are scrolls that are not found in our modern text. What does one conclude in that case? I don't think one can start crying foul play or other excuses since as a whole the DSS seem to be supportive of consistency across that time frame, but then apparently the DSS, not matter how supportive, are not the basis for the modern text. Do you happen to have a reference for why this is believed? I certainly don't know enough of the details.Anyway, thank you for your reply. For me the message is the most important...not verabtim, regurgitation, but then I feel the same about Confucius. Too many of us on this planet not to try to get along (forcing others not being an option).

Hi Monk,
Thanks for your reply. Fair enough, you answered my question nicely and I understood it. Glad that you understood where I was coming from. Of course, you're right about addressing why or why not apocryphal documents were not included in the collection that make up the bibles most often found in the U.S.Regards