Isaiah and the Dead Sea Scrolls

Since Faith claims that her arguments on this point have not been fairly addressed I think we need a topic so that she can calmly make her point in a clear and rational fashion.The original assertion is hereThe claim is about the discovery of the Isaiah scroll: 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 ?Edited by AdminJar to fix link.This message has been edited by AdminJar, 04-10-2005 03:12 PMThis message has been edited by PaulK, 04-10-2005 05:14 PM

The point to this is not to investigate anything I am claiming - it is about Faith's claims. Since she has already complained about discussion of this being off-topic in other threads it appears that I must start a new thread to get her to back up her assertions.Since I am not aware of ANY serious proposals of changes to Biblical texts that are ruled out by the Isaiah scroll it seems entirely reasonable to ask Faith to provide examples.So far as I can tell Faith's response is that it doesn't actually rule out any supposed changed but it is wrong to actually know that, because she hates the scholars who actually study the Bible and find evidence that contradicts her beliefs. If Faith has a real point - as she still claims - she needs to present it and I am offering her an opportunity to do so.

So in fact we now know that in fact the Isaiah scroll does not refute ANY "charges" that you have any record of. But we do not have any reason to suppose that the actual "charges" you claim to have read were restricted to changes to Isaiah after the DSS scroll was written.Ket us also note that you attempt to back up your back up claim that these "charges" are "common" by referring to sites which are interested in the claim that the books of the Bible have not been changed since they were first written. None mentions ANY significant change to ANY OT book that is supposed to have ocurred after the Isaiah scroll has been written. None of them show any awareness of this supposedly "common charge" having been levelled at all.Let me also note that there was no need to get angry or "tear your hair out" when confronted with the simple fact that major changes to Isaiah are supposed to have occurred centuries before the DSS Isaiah scroll was written. If you knew that the scroll was not relevant to that issue it was up to you to explain that your "general" claim excluded the major changes that actually were prposed. If you were not then it is surely relevant to point out that your "general" claim is significantly less "general" than you supposed.

No, you're the one who isn't "getting it". But it is really quite simple. You can't find a single example of a "charge" disproved by the Isaiah scroll nor even any evidence that anyone in particular is making such "charges".Therefore any "charges" it does disprove are rare or non-existent.Therefore your claim was false.Where's the problem ?

Yes, I object to the claim that such "accusations" as could be refuted by the Isaiah scroll are commonly made.The reasoning is simple. The Isaiah scroll could refute specific claims - but you have already admitted that you are not talking about those. But it can only refute general claims if they are conveniently limited to what the Isaiah scroll COULD disprove. And it seems very unlikely that such claims would be made - why bother adding specifics which don't help the argument unless there is a specific claim in mind ? And it is certainly false to say that the websites you listed make a point of answering such claims. They don't.So no I DON'T think that anyone claims that Isaiah or many of the canonical OT texts have changed significantly since the middle of the 2nd Century BC. The major changes are dated earlier.

No, the pre-DSS changes are relevant because they ARE the major changes proposed for Isaiah. And that also means that the DSS can't disprove general claims that Isaiah has changed.Like I say unless and until you find somebody who conveniently limits their claims of changes so that the DSS can disprove them you have no evidence for your claim at all.

No, I haven't made up any argument by myself.Your initial claim was wrong because you have neither examples of specific claims nor of general claims that are actually refuted by the Isaiah scroll. Yet you asserted that such claims were common. You even asserted that your point had been unfairly dismissed despite the fact that you STILL have offered no real support for it.It's time to admit that you were wrong, instead of trying to find some blame to pin on me.

Why exactly should I admit any error when you have failed utterly to support your assertion ? So far as I can tell I was entirely correct - the really common "charges" are not refuted by the DSS for the reasons I havce already given.You've been given a fair chance to support your assertions. And you have failed to do so, and appear to have given up trying.

Which assertion have I failed to support ?You claim to be talkng about general "charges" that the Bible have changed, but as you have admitted the DSS CANNOT disprove GENERAL "charges" unless they are limited to areas where the DSS are relevant. The fact that the main claims of major changes to Isaiah do not fall into that category perfectly illustrates how limited the DSS is as evidence for an unchanging Bible.And you have produced not one example of such "charges" - which in the case of the Isaiah scroll would be changes to Isaiah post dating the writing of the scroll (paleogrpahically dated to 150-122 BC). All you do is repeat your assertion that it is commonly claimed, although you have not produced a single example. But is there any reasn to think that such a claim is remotely common. If anyone were making a general charge that the Bible had changed why would they limit to Isaiah and ignore changes prior to the middle oiof the 2nd Century BC ?Well my point is proven. Whatever your original claim meant it was false. and quite obviously so. And this is a point you chose to single out as being "terrific".

That's your attempt to support your claims.The simple fact that most of the NT is around 2000 years old explains the figure of 2000 years in the first quote.The second doesn't even provide that. The proposed additions to Isaiah are certainly included in the claim that the books have been modified over the centuries.Both talk about the Bible in general when as you know the Isaiah scroll is not relevant to NT books at all, and is not even good evidence that OT books other than Isaiah have not changed.Thus neither answers any claims - general or specific - that could be refuted by the Issiah scroll.

The fact is that your quotes do NOT show that it is commonly claimed that the Hebrew text of Isaiah has been significantly changed since the DSS Isaiah scroll was written. They deal with MORE general claims covering the entire Bible.Maybe the whole relationship between general and specific is too difficult for you ?

So now from a general claim you jump to a universal. Please learn the difference.But the fact is that you still have not got one example of commonly made claim that is disproved by the DSS Isaiah scroll.

Let's be very clear. The ISAIAH scroll can't prove that there were no changes in other books. There are, I believe other scrolls in the DSS that indicate that some other books are at least substantially the same(although at least one - a version of Jeremaiah - indicates significant variations have occurred in transmission, being 1/8th shorter than the Masoretic version).

quote:

---

You seem to have trouble grasping how the existence of one DSS scroll that has the identical text to ours proves the integrity of the text of the whole Bible that has come down to us. If you don't get this after all this time I don't suppose I can get it across now either.

---

Like I said your problem is that your claim is obviously false. Not only does the scroll fail to prove that there were not earlier changes it CANNOT prove that other documents were not changed later.

quote:

---

Whether or not they are identical to the one "Aunt Sally" originally wrote down can't be ascertained for sure from this of course. This is the point PaulK kept bringing up. But I hadn't claimed any certainty past the one found in the old house as it were.

---

No, it is not. If you think that I have been arguing about changes to the Book of Isaiah AFTER the writing of the DSS scroll then you really, really haven't been paying attention.