Inerrant Bible Manuscripts?

Hi, Do you mean “most reliable” as in most likely to be faithful to the originals, or something else? The Masoretic texts are not written in the Hebrew that the Bible was written in and certainly not even in the Hebrew that the DSS were written in, so I have difficulty in accepting the MT as being faithful (”reliable’) to the originals. Which Bible’s are based on the DSS texts? Are the Old Testament texts in the Vaticanus unreliable? Similarly, are the Old Testament texts of the Sinaiticus unreliable? This is a non-sequitur. You offer no evidence to support this claim, which is forgivable as there are no original texts of any Biblical texts, Old or New Testaments, I am afraid that your claim is rather empty.I think it would be a good idea to recognise that all biblical texts were the products that reflected the socio-political background of the time in which they were written. This is one reason why we have two creation myths, two Flood accounts, Two Exoduses, Two Conquests etc. it also explains why the Bible is rife with contradictions and historical inaccuracies.So, I think you need to provide a lot more evidence if you are going to support the claim that a Bible based on MSS is going to be more accurate than one that is based on a translated text. This really needs one or two examples if we are going to discuss it.
For example, what do you mean by ”error’?I also find this confusing “ we should have no error in our current Bibles translated from said manuscripts in comparison to the autographs written during the time of the Apostles.”How do you know this without comparing these manuscripts to the autographs written by the Apostles? We do not have any autographs, so how can you suggest that the autographs are less reliable than the extant MSS? It is a shame that we do not have any extant autographs, it would certainly be very exciting for biblical studies if even one was found, we can hope that in the future this happens. Do you have any evidence that any of the extant MSS that we have today were “copies of the autograph"? How do we know which ones were copies of autographs?Brian.

Hi,Thanks for the response, I only have a few minutes before leaving,so I will reply to the rest of your post in detail tomorrow. However, the Vaticanus contains both the Old and the New Testaments. Here The Old Testament (Septuagint Version, except Daniel, which is taken from the version of Theodotion) takes up 617 folios. On account of the aforementioned lacunae, the Old Testament text lacks the following passages: Gen., i-xlvi,28; II Kings, ii,5-7,10-13; Pss. cv,27-cxxxvii, 6. The order of the books of the Old Testament is as follows: Genesis to Second Paralipomenon, First and second Esdras, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticle of Canticles, Job, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Esther, Judith, Tobias, the Minor Prophets from Osee to Malachi, Isaias, Jeremias, Baruch, Lamentations and Epistle of Jeremias, Ezechiel, Daniel; the Vatican Codex does not contain the Prayer of Manasses or the Books of Machabees.And, this is incorrect: From Here Scholars have identified three scribes as having produced the manuscript. The one who was involved with the NT is labeled Scribe A. It can be shown that the scribe of the OT copied the manuscript from dictation in part of that portion.Likewise, it is held that the NT portion was copied down from a written exemplar. Taken altogether, perhaps as many as nine correctors worked on the manuscript from the fourth to the twelfth century. Brian.

Hi, I think “congruent” is a bit of a strong word here, they are maybe similar but they are not congruent. The manuscripts were also added to over time, which was directly influenced by the culture that the texts were produced in. Let’s take the Book of Exodus as an example of this. The Book of Exodus is composed of texts that span a very long period of time. Evidence of this is ”The Song of Miriam’ (Exod. 15:21) being dated to the 14th century BCE by similarities to Ugaritic poetry (David N. Freedman, "The Song of Miriam," JNES 14 (1955), 237-250) and the reference to ”Pithom’ (Exod. 1:11), which was only used as the name of a city during the Saite period (7th century BCE) only being used to refer to temples and temple estates before that time. ( Lemche N P, The Israelites in History and Tradition. SPCK, John Knox Press, London and Kentucky). So, surely the Book of Exodus has evolved over time and we have no way of knowing what the original autograph was like. I’d love a reference for this if you have it, although it smacks of a Gieslar exaggeration, because this is demonstrably untrue.Take the DSS and the MT as an example, when we look at the book of Isaiah we discover that there are many differences between the texts.
From here In Cave One, however, a full text of Isaiah was found, dated palaeographically to 100 b.c. The differences between the Qumran text and the Masoretic Text (mt), the Hebrew text preserved from medieval manuscripts, separated in date by a thousand years, amounted to thirteen significant variants and a host of insignificant spelling differences, which have proved a gold mine for the study of first-century b.c. Palestinian Hebrew.
Here is a breakdown of some of the variants: Variations in the Q Text from the Masoretic Text: Line 2: Last word: Q = an article "he" is added not in M.
Line 3: 6th word: Q = This word is partially obliterated because of the blemish in the leather and the lacuna that follows the word. But the word in Q has a single mem instead of 2 mem's as in M = "ve-romamtiy." Also the yod is missing in the lacuna and abrading has obscured the word in general.7th word: Q = "hemah" 3mpl pro noun and M = "hem" 9th word Q = "biy" prep beth + suf 1cs (in me) corresponds exactly with M and we notice it here only because this is one of the forms that will have aleph appended in the following pages. The differences in spelling and inconsistent use of aleph causes speculation that more than one scribe penned the scroll.
Line 4: 9th word: Q = "hithbonen" is obscured by the blemish.
Line 6: 7th word: Q = the daleth is obscured by fading in " 'od" (yet or more)
Line 7: 3rd word: M= "davah" and M = "davay" (spelling). 9th word: Q = "biy" (in me) and M = "bo" (in it).
Line 9: 7th word: M = "shamamah" (desolation) Q = "shamamo" (its desolation) Line 9: Next to last word: Q = omission of "he" in "ke-mapekat" and M = "ke-mahpekat" prep (k) like or as + noun (as an overthrowing). Note the pronunciation would be the same with or without "he." But "he" appears to be edited in above the line. Last word the resh is missing because of abrasion from "zariym" (strangers)
Line 10: 8th word: In Q = "natsur" 4th stem Pual Participle translated "besieged" only in this place. It is the same word as "Branch" of 11:1 and refers to the Messiah and to Nazarene or Nazareth. Isaiah uses this word in a "mystical" way. See the article on the use of the word word "Nazar." And comments in the commentary on this verse.
Line 12: 1st two words are abraded and difficult to see. They are "shim'u deber" (hear the word of) 6th word: Q = "ve- 'aziynu" and M = "ha-'aziynu." Last 2 words should be "lamah liy" (why) but only part of the mem and the he are visible in "lamah."
Line 14: last 2 words: M = "miy biqesh" (who)+ verb (piel) which is not found in Q. Q rather has an inf. "to seek or request this."
Line 15: 2nd and 5th words: Q = addition of lamed prep. to each of these words.
Line 16: 7th word: Q = "ve- 'atsarathah" cj + nfs cs + suf 3fs ( her solemn assembly) and M = "ve- 'atsarah" cy + nfs (and the solemn assembly).
Lines 18 and 19: last on 18 and 1st word on 19: Q adds two extra words to the end of verse 15. Q = " 'etsba'otheykem" [Aramaic] nfpl cs + suf 2mpl (your fingers) and "be-a' von" prep + nfs (in iniquity) Both these words are added and not found in the Masoretic text and they are both Aramaic spellings of the words. The Aramaic spelling is confirmation of the time of editing the scroll. See more on Aramaic spelling in Q.
Line 19: 3rd and 4th words: Q = add waw cj to each not in M. 2nd word: "na' " (please) is completely obscured by the lacuna.
Line 20: 7th word: Q = a different spelling: addition of aleph to "ya'tom" (fatherless).
Line 21: 3rd from last word: Q = "ke-sheniy" prep + ns (scarlet) and M = "ke-sheniym" prep + nmpl (as scarlets).
Line 22: 2nd word: Q = omission of aleph in the spelling of this word.
Line 23: 4th word: Q = addition of prep beth (in) to "chereb" (sword)
Line 25: 3rd word: Q = "hayu" pf 3mpl (they are) and M = "hayah" pf 3ms (it is)
Line 26: 2nd word: Q = "kulom" (all of them) and M = "kulo" (each one) 3rd word: Q = " 'ohevey" nmpl cs (lovers of) and M = " 'ohev" nms cs (lover of). 5th word: Q = plur cs and M = sing cs. 7th word: Q = spelling "y'atom" same as previous with aleph added.
Line 28: 4th word: Q = ve='enaqam imp 1cs and M = "ve 'anaqamah" imp 1cs + cohortive "he" So, we can see that the DSS and the MT are hardly “congruent”, I think ”similar’ would be a better word to use.But this is just the tip of the iceberg; people who think that the DSS and the MT are identical really could not have done enough research as there are great differences between some books. The Books of Samuel are good examples and should really be taken as an example of how different the texts are. The Book of Samuel varies widely and frequently from the Masoretic Text. 4QSama preserves a number of superior readings that help correct errors in the Masoretic Text (DSS Bible, 213). Let's look at some of these.

​

One dramatic example is in I Samuel 11 where the MT and KJV left out the first paragraph. The Longer reading in the DSS explains what happens in this chapter. It says:

​

"Nahash king of the Ammonites oppressed the Gadites and the Reubenites viciously. He put out the right eye of all of them and brought fear and trembling on Israel. Not one of the Israelites in the region beyond the Jordan remained whose right eye Nahash king of the Ammonites did not put out, except seven thousand men who escaped from the Ammonites and went to Jabesh-gilead" (The Dead Sea Scroll Bible translated by Abegg, Flint, and Ulrich page 225). Then verse one of I Samuel 11 starts. I really do not have to as this is your baby and you need to provide evidence to support your claim. You are saying, for example, that the DSS and the MT are identical, which is untrue. For your claim to have any credibility you have to show two copies that are 1000 years apart that are identical, you haven’t done this, even your links haven’t provided anything other than their opinion.Are you saying that no original is required to know EXACTLY what the original said, or are you saying that no original is needed for us to have a good idea of what it said? I really do not think it is a different debate because if any original text was written for a specific social or political reason then some of that text may not appear at all in the DSS.Cheers.Brian.

Hey Ca, good to see you again.Check this out from F's first link:The Dead Sea Scrolls date around the time of Jesus copied by the Qumran community, a Jewish sect living around the Dead Sea. We also have the Septuagint which is a Greek translation of the Old Testament dating in the second century B.C. When we compare these texts which have an 800-1000 years gap between them we are amazed that 95% of the texts are identical with only minor variations and a few discrepancies. To me, this is one of the major problems between fundies and free thinkers. Even as an athiest, I can recognise that the statements in this paragraph are extremely igorant. I count 5 errors in this paragraph alone (you may find more), so why are believers less inquisitive than non-believers.Brian.PS hang around, I have missed you.

Why did you feel the need to make this approach, do you not have enough faith in your own ability to research the topic?Seriously, whoever you are arguing against could be corrected by a 3 minute google.Brian.This message has been edited by Brian, 11-08-2005 07:31 PM

Not a kung foo i hope?Hardly a fool when I know your stance, I highlighted your link becuase it was your link and for no other reason. I never implied your believed the info. No one is saying you are. Well, you are at least half a fool. So, you are too thick to actually defeat these morons by yourself? What is hard about it? 'kin hell man a 5 year old can demolish AiG!! So what can you do to the people you discuss things with? Well, if you have to resort to these tactics you are as thick as they are.Why not try being honest?We are all happy to help.Brian.This message has been edited by Brian, 11-08-2005 07:39 PM

I hate reading websites, IMO you cannot beat going to the library and reading the netire contents of someone' book.Seriously Fitz, you should have been honest because there are many people here who would be happy to help you out, it's no big deal, just not a good way to start things off.I hope you hang around, we can learn from each other, so welcome aboard.Brian.