Who to believe , Ham or Ross?

quote:

---

...I've read up on the issues involving the Bible we have. Other writings are not relevant. 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.

​

Can you explain that ? Which changes in Isaiah are you talking about ? When are they thought to have been made ? And when was the Isaiah scroll written ?

---

I'm talking about the common accusation that the Bible has supposedly been altered over the centuries so that it is no longer the original, not any particular changes, just a general accusation. The existence of any scroll from that time that has the same text as our text is proof that such accusations are unfounded.The changes are supposed to have been made willy nilly over the centuries by both scribal error and unscrupulous fraudulent rewriting according to the accusers (who fail to grasp that there were so many manuscripts in circulation over the centuries, such discrepancies would have become apparent and documented long before they made up their accusation).The Dead Sea scrolls are considered to be pre-Christian by a hundred to two hundred years or so as I understand it. Of course the original Isaiah was written by Isaiah some 700 years before Christ and the one found is a copy. What is remarkable about the Dead Sea scrolls is that the conditions of their storage allowed them to be preserved for over two thousand years, while normally such parchments would disintegrate in a few hundred years or so.{EDIT: Why do the regulars here allow threads to get so off topic?}This message has been edited by Faith, 04-05-2005 09:35 AM

Your claim that the scroll represents "total proof" is unfounded unless you are familiar with the dates in question. The scroll cannot prove that Isaiah was not changed before the scroll was written.Isaiah is thought to have had one or two major additions since the original writing, the first in the 6th Century BC and the possible second in the 5th Century BC. The Isaiah scroll from the Dead Sea is dated to the 2nd Century BC and so cannot disprove either.I stress this point to indicate that you badly need to learn how to make a rational assessment of the evidence instead of jumping to conclusions without considering key facts. In this case the key facts are the dates I asked for - they rule out any possibility that the scroll can be taken as the proof you say it is. Yet you were happy to make that claim without even knowing what the dates were - even after being asked for them.

quote:

---

You really can't judge the writer's honesty, sincerity, integrity, groundedness, grasp of reality, concern with fact etc. from his writing?

​

That is quite a handicap.

---

I'd really like you to determine the "honesty, sincerity, integrity, groundedness, grasp of reality, concern with fact" from the above story, Faith.

Because the writer could use his own natural humanity to pull the wool over your eyes. Literally every factor you mentioned previously can be spoofed by anybody with even a small talent for falsehood. You don't even know who these writers are! How can you possibly expect me to take you seriously? Well, which is it, Faith? Can you discern the truth value of statements from the writing itself, or can't you? I'm asking you to apply it to a situation where I already know the answer. If you can do it, I'll be very impressed, I assure you. And you've certainly claimed that you are able to.But I find it quite illuminating that you refuse to even take part. That's usually what happens when people who claim psychic powers, or ESP, or any other bullshit ability are put to a controlled test. C'mon, Faith. Drop the act. Nobody's going to take you seriously in regards to your mind-reading claim. How stupid do you think we are? Respond to the argument. Name-calling doesn't carry much weight with me. So apply that judgement to my test. Or, for that matter, apply that judgement to a book full of talking snakes, people made out of dirt and other people's ribs, water that turns into wine, and a zombie messiah who rises from the dead."Taking leave of your senses" would be an unfailing belief in the literal truth of a book full of things that can't literally be true. In other words, what you have. How stupid do you think we are around here?

quote:

---

Your claim that the scroll represents "total proof" is unfounded unless you are familiar with the dates in question. The scroll cannot prove that Isaiah was not changed before the scroll was written.

---

I did not claim it did, now did I? I said the fact that we have the same text that was found from a couple hundred years BC shows that it has not changed since then as so many debunker types like to claim. And I don't recall using the term "total proof" and putting it in quotes as if I did is very bad forum form, and probably a violation of guidelines concerning misrepresentation -- as in fact is your whoe statement here since I did not claim proof for anything back beyond the scrolls. All you "proof" worshipers really should learn to do a better job of it.

quote:

---

Isaiah is thought to have had one or two major additions since the original writing, the first in the 6th Century BC and the possible second in the 5th Century BC. The Isaiah scroll from the Dead Sea is dated to the 2nd Century BC and so cannot disprove either.

---

Again, I did not claim it did and you should be upbraided by Admin for your misrepresentation, besides continuing this off-topic baiting thing you are doing.HOWEVER, I suspect you are gleaning your information from sources I consider bogus.

quote:

---

I stress this point to indicate that you badly need to learn how to make a rational assessment of the evidence instead of jumping to conclusions without considering key facts.

---

Let me see. Since you have misrepresented my post so tendentiously, and are now rebuking me for your own straw man reconstruction, and have been pursuing this off-topic series despite many mentions of it, I would suggest that if anyone needs to learn to make a rational assessment of anything it is you.

quote:

---

In this case the key facts are the dates I asked for - they rule out any possibility that the scroll can be taken as the proof you say it is. Yet you were happy to make that claim without even knowing what the dates were - even after being asked for them.

---

My dear Mr. Paul K. My claim was that there have not been any changes SINCE THE DEAD SEA SCROLL. What is your problem?As for proof back before that I would refer you to the knowledge of the work habits of the scribes of Israel, known for their obsessional methods of copying and near-superstitious concern never to tamper with scripture.And I would suggest that reliance on recent academic as opposed to Church-authorized Bible scholarship is the refuge of a fool.

I don't play idiot games about serious subjects, and if you don't grasp that it is an idiot game you are challenging me with, I am very sorry for you. I fervently hope that this sort of needling ditsy trivia is not respected by Admin as "science." Good grief.

I HEREBY ANNOUNCE THAT I WILL NO LONGER RESPOND TO ANY POSTS ON THIS THREAD THAT ARE NOT ABOUT THE TOPIC OF DIFFERENT KINDS OF CREATIONISM.

but Schraf's question is not an "idiot game" but rather a reasonable request. If you wish to show how what you claim for the Bible is different than what she asked of you, you are free to do so. But it was a legitimate question and one you should address.

---

I DISAGREE and if you do not see why, I'm sorry for you too. I cannot believe the sheer idiocy that is promoted here as "science." I cannot believe the utter inability to THINK that I find on this site. I cannot believe the ridiculous self-serving assumptions that disqualify creationist thinking without a word's being said.So ban me. I'm sure it would be a great favor. Then you can all sit around and congratulate yourselves on your perspicacity and I can breathe a sigh of relief that I escaped from this loony bin.

Yes, actually you did claim that the scroll was proof that the Bible had not changed. So I point ouu that it has nothing to do with the major changes that Biblical Scholars beleive have occurred in the book of Isaiah.As for your claim that I ma using sources you consider bogus I cannot think what you are referring to. Sources which allege that addiitons to Isaiah are only relevent to my point in so far as they describe those allegations. Even if you reject the allegatiosn you cannot deny the validity of using thsoe sources. Or is it the dating of the scroll you object to ? If so then what source do you consider valid and what date do they propose and on what basis ?As to your assertion of "misrepresentation" are you really claiming that when you said:

quote:

---

I'm talking about the common accusation that the Bible has supposedly been altered over the centuries so that it is no longer the original, not any particular changes, just a general accusation. The existence of any scroll from that time that has the same text as our text is proof that such accusations are unfounded.

---

You actually did NOT mean to include the major changes that are actually alleged to have ocurred to the very book in question ? I suppose next you'll say that you did not actually mean the WHOLE Bible, just Isaiah. Because that is every bit as obvious. Especially when we consider that some NT texts were probably not even written until later and no NT texts have been definitely found at Qumran.But even then the Dead Sea Scrolls indicate that there have been changes in the Bible - variants of several books have been found there. Including Isaiah.Finally there is nothing wrong with accepting modern scholarship over ideas with nothing to recommend them but antiquity. Indeed it would be foolish for anyone who really wished to understand the Bible to neglect mainstream Bible scholarship.

No one has mentioned banning you yet. LOLAnd you are free to simply wander off into the dark as most YECs do when presented with evidence. It's not unexpected behavior. That's fine, you're free to disagree. But that has nothing to do with the validity of Scraf's request. If you are incapable of supporting yet another of your unfounded assertions that will simply be obvious to the readers.But Schraf has made a resonable request and I have shown you a way to respond. All you need to do is show why what see requests is different than what you are doing with the Bible. If you cannot do that then it is reasonable to assume you are also unable to support your position regarding Biblical authors reliability.

---

Please stick around my friend. I have read NONE of this thread but I am living proof that they aren't so tough. Lot of talk around here, but we need good ID creos like yourself because we have a shortage, as Buz would say. (banned creo Buz who done nothing wrong).

Blah blah blah. In other words if we don't think exactly like you, we're idiots who can't think at all.Faith, I'm not impressed. You should know that this is the sort of attitude that drives people out of your religion. But that's not on topic. What is on topic is why you refuse to apply the same "methodologies" you claim to use to validate the Bible to any other subject whatsoever.Why do you think the Bible gets special rules? You'll find we're not too enthusiastic around here about facilitating your martyrdom. If posting here is such a trial for you, well, nobody's twisting your arm, are they?

There is no way to judge the truthfulness of Crashfrog's report because1) There is not enough information for judging the trustworthiness of the statements from the writing itself,2) The writer is KNOWN to be setting up a test of an opponent with this "story"3) The writer is KNOWN to be hostile to the opinions of the opponent being tested4) There is no corroborating or contradictory witness testimony availableThe gospels are extensive reports of complex events in which thousands participated. There are four separate reports of these events. Also, hundreds of thousands of Jews believed the gospel reports (this is established from my own conservative count of some 30,000 Jewish converts reported in the Book of Acts for only the evangelism of a very few of the apostles, and extrapolated to likely results of the unreported work of the other apostles and the spinoff from all these conversions to others as well). That so many Jews believed is important evidence as they are not easy to convince about reports of their Messiah, especially not a claimant who failed to meet what most of them thought at the time was the basic requirement of becoming a great king and military leader who would deliver them from Roman domination. Beyond these tests of the veracity of the gospel accounts there is the extraBiblical history of Christianity's spread in the Roman empire, their persecutions under Nero and other Caesars for rejecting Roman religions, and the historical accounts only increase from there, all validating the gospel witness accounts.You really think a trivial little "test" of the value of such witness reports concocted on the spur of the moment by a crass opponent of the Bible carries some kind of validity? What's "funny" is the self-congratulatory tunnelvisioned idiocies you all indulge in.And what's the matter with you, Mr. Admin, Sir, that you are not enforcing the rule of staying on topic?Time this thread started discussing the differences between Ken Ham and Hugh Ross and other points relevant to classifying those called "creationists."

Good! Maybe that will give you time to answer Jazzens questions to you in the sedimentation thread? Message 98