Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 89 (8876 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-10-2018 2:19 PM
188 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Bill Holbert
Post Volume:
Total: 843,762 Year: 18,585/29,783 Month: 530/2,043 Week: 82/386 Day: 32/50 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
910
11
121314Next
Author Topic:   Isaiah and the Dead Sea Scrolls
Taqless
Member (Idle past 3888 days)
Posts: 285
From: AZ
Joined: 12-18-2003


Message 151 of 204 (199653)
04-15-2005 7:41 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Monk
04-14-2005 10:59 PM


Re: Bible inerrancy in what sense?
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).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Monk, posted 04-14-2005 10:59 PM Monk has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Faith, posted 04-15-2005 8:49 PM Taqless has not yet responded
 Message 154 by Monk, posted 04-15-2005 9:19 PM Taqless has responded
 Message 155 by Faith, posted 04-16-2005 12:47 AM Taqless has responded
 Message 166 by Taqless, posted 04-16-2005 7:26 PM Taqless has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 30162
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 152 of 204 (199668)
04-15-2005 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Taqless
04-15-2005 7:22 PM


Re: Bible inerrancy in what sense?
"throughout history" ONLY SINCE THE DSS.
quote:
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").


"FROM THAT TIME" ought to have made that clear. No way a text found at a particular time can testify to alterations made BEFORE that time. Maybe it would have helped if you'd asked a question for clarification's sake, though I can't tell what your problem was so I don't know what to suggest. In fact your above paragraph is sloppily enough worded that I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Perhaps you could try to state it more clearly? {I think I start to make more sense of this as this post proceeds however, so read on}

quote:
So, for you to state that the "accusations are unfounded" in the original is a bit superfluous.

I have NO idea what you are talking about. It would really help if you'd quote me using the word "unfounded" in context so I could see what you are referring to. I'm having to wing it here, having very little idea what you are trying to say. Also I haven't used the term "original" in reference to the DSS at all, as it ISN'T original -- they are all copies, so again, what are you saying? It appears to me that you simply haven't taken the time to grasp my points and have managed to mangle them completely in this attempt at reconstruction.

quote:
This certainly explains the misundertsanding that PaulK and myself had initially about what you were trying to claim was support for what.

Nothing you've said explains much of anything. It is completely incomprehensible. I have not been unclear. I've repeated my points over and over, clarifying where necessary, and from my point of view it's NOT difficult to understand at ALL, but you are MAKING it difficult. Perhaps you have some preconceptions that are interfering with simply READING what I've actually said? Perhaps you don't know what some words mean? Perhaps you should have asked a question about how I use this or that word to help clarify an ambiguity? That's the best I can do to understand this.

In addition, when I asked you about changes prior to the DSS you extrapolated to me as follows in post #49:

One cannot "extrapolate to" a person, Tagless. Now you are showing that you have trouble with the English language.

Faith writes:
You claim all that is meaningless if there were changes made to Isaiah prior to the DSS, but that is another subject.

quote:
Since your original post was to refute "over the centuries" not it is not.

Why? This refers to the centuries AFTER the DSS which I would think would be obvious after all, especially since I've repeated the phrase "SINCE THE DSS" I don't know how many times, as well as "the INTERVENING centuries" and other attempts to make the time period clear. I'm obviously referring to my point that the texts AFTER the intervening centuries (our modern Bible) are the same as the texts BEFORE the intervening centuries (the Dead Sea Scrolls).

Also, you didn't quote enough for starters here. I'm saying "you claim all that is meaningless" but I have no idea what "all that" is as you don't quote back far enough. In any case, I go on to say that something here (I can't tell what) is "another subject" so why are you addressing it as if it were the main topic?

quote:
Faith(cont'd) writes:
I repeat, my topic was the RELIABILITY OF THE SCRIBES since the Isaiah scroll, period.

quote:
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.

Again, apparently you are having a problem with the phrase "over the centuries" which is in fact the same thing as saying "the reliability of the scribes since the Isaiah scroll." I have NEVER referred to any "centuries" except those between the DSS and the present, and again, I have used many qualifying phrases to be sure it is clear that that is the period I'm talking about. I think you simply haven't been reading carefully enough.

quote:
THEN the extrapolation part:

Faith(cont'd) writes:

This DOES have implications for the reliability of the scribes prior to that too, especially since the Jewish scribes were known for their obsessional-to-superstitious methods of accuracy.

Faith from this post writes:

NO HE WAS IN ERROR AS I *WAS* DISCUSSING ONLY THE POST-DSS PERIOD AND HE KEPT INSISTING ON HIS PRE-DSS IRRELEVANCY.

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.


I'm simply not following you. I believe I have taken pains to be as clear as possible. I have, however, come to recognize that it is dangerous around here to dare to insert a parenthetical phrase, an aside, a remark in passing, a hint as to a possible future subject, and the like, as it will not be regarded as such. I shouldn't have risked any reference whatever to the pre-DSS period, however parenthetical, as there was enough confusion already.

In any case, overall I get the impression that you ascribe your own idiosyncratic meanings to words I have used, that are not the same meanings I ascribe to them, and you want to make that my fault rather than your own. Since it is very hard to follow you I can't determine whether any of it IS in fact my fault, something I could have prevented. All I know is that I have taken pains to be clear. Possibly if you would take the time to reread a few previous posts of mine very very carefully you might begin to see what I've been saying from the beginning.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Taqless, posted 04-15-2005 7:22 PM Taqless has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 30162
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 153 of 204 (199677)
04-15-2005 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Taqless
04-15-2005 7:41 PM


No, the qualification was IMMEDIATE
quote:
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.

You may be harsh, but the main problem here is that you are not expressing yourself very well, not reading carefully and not willing to pay attention.

The fact is you are wrong that there was "no qualification until later." There were many qualifications from the earliest posts in this dispute and your ignoring them has been probably 80% of the confusion here. From my Message #5 on this thread:

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.

Already, in this my very very very first statement, the one that sent off this whole miserable odyssey from confusion to confusion, isn't it clear that if "the Isaiah text we have today" is "just about identical" to the Isaiah scroll of the DSS, that I'm talking about the INTERVENING centuries, the centuries SINCE the DSS, the centuries BETWEEN THEN AND NOW, and couldn't POSSIBLY be referring to any time period BEFORE the DSS??? I can't find any other implication from this very first statement of mine. I can see that someone might want to ask a question of clarification to be sure of the meaning, but I cannot see that the time period implied in that statement is all that ambiguous if you actually read what it says.

Then after a quote from PaulK I am very clear about the time period in my answer to him:

...As I reread our exchange it seems clear to me that from the beginning I was talking ONLY about "common accusations" that the Bible has been changed many times over the years SINCE the time of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

And there is the QUALIFICATION you say was not offered "until later:" "SINCE THE TIME OF THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS."

What could be clearer than that?

How did you miss it?

And that same qualification was stated in the previous thread before this one began as well.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Taqless, posted 04-15-2005 7:41 PM Taqless has not yet responded

    
Monk
Member (Idle past 1899 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 154 of 204 (199682)
04-15-2005 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Taqless
04-15-2005 7:41 PM


Re: Bible inerrancy in what sense?
taqless writes:

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?

All the books of the modern bibles are represented by the DSS including those books that Protestants consider apocraphal. In addition, there were two other books found in the DSS that are not part of most modern texts. The Book of Jubilees and 1 Enoch.

Most Christian denominations consider these two books to be apocraphal. They were obscure but known before the DSS was found and they are considered in high regard to this day by the Ethiopic Christian church.

What can I conclude from this? Only that they were not sufficiently acceptable to be declared Scripture by most of the early Christian churches. Of course they werent the only ones, there were many other ancient texts that were excluded from the Bible, but thats probably a topic for another thread.


My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind. ---Albert Einstein
This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Taqless, posted 04-15-2005 7:41 PM Taqless has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Taqless, posted 04-16-2005 4:57 PM Monk has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 30162
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 155 of 204 (199702)
04-16-2005 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Taqless
04-15-2005 7:41 PM


More on Immediate Qualification
Since my Message #5, the first in this thread, made so many attempts to emphasize that I was only referring to the post-DSS "centuries" I would like to emphasize it again. This has been driving me crazy from the beginning. It makes no sense. I say something and it's as if I am not heard at ALL. Over and over I got this response to something completely different, to something I DID NOT SAY and a refusal to grasp what I had said clearly so many times. PaulK after all this time is finally getting it. Wow, what a relief after all that. But you have been insisting on it still. So here is the proof how wrong you are. Oh there's plenty more after this post too. It's been my theme song that was nevertheless totally ignored. Amazing but true. Explain?

I quoted this from my post #166 from the previous thread, which isn't unambiguous but since the reference point is always "that time," or the time of the DSS, I don't see how anyone could think I could be meaning that anything PREVIOUS to that time could be demonstrated by the DSS.

quote:
The existence of any scroll from that time that has the same text as our text is proof [perhaps I should have said "evidence"]that such accusations are unfounded.

And right after that I am objecting to PaulK's continuing to claim on that previous thread that I was referring to PRE-DSS changes.

Obviously over and over already in my very first post in this new thread I am struggling to get it noticed that I am talking ONLY ABOUT POST-DSS changes and yet it's only after 150 posts of this thread, today April the 15th, that anybody is even beginning to take me seriously about this endless attempt.

quote:
But PaulK goes on in #167 with his challenge, referring to changes considered to have been made PREVIOUS to the Isaiah copy in the DSS which was irrelevant to what I had said:

And after that quote I'm expressing extreme frustration with his complete stonewall refusal to acknowledge this point I've been emphasizing over and over about how it's only been POST-DSS changes I'm referring to.

quote:
At this point I'm about to tear out my hair. Where on earth is he getting the idea I could possibly have suggested ANYTHING concerning the period BEFORE THE SCROLL WAS WRITTEN?

Next is another post of PaulK's from the previous thread, again going on and on about pre-DSS changes, and again I react to this:

quote:
The "dates" PaulK is asking for are IRRELEVANT because they PRECEDE the time of the Dead Sea Scrolls. But he doesn't mind haranguing me about this total irrelevancy and there doesn't seem to be anything I can say to get him to recognize the meaning of my original statement.

Then I quote myself from the earlier thread where I was already trying to get this point across to deaf ears:

quote:

[PK] 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. ...

"SINCE THEN." not "BEFORE THEN" but only "SINCE THEN." Is "SINCE" a difficult word, an ambiguous word?

And in the next post I'm also denying referring to anything pre-DSS:

quote:

[PK]: 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 again:

quote:

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.

And my very last line on that very first post of this thread was another outburst of frustration at having my clear repeated statements ignored.

quote:
I HOPE THE POINT HAS BEEN MADE THAT I WAS ONLY REFERRING TO THE TIME FROM THE DSS ISAIAH SCROLL TO NOW, AND NOT BEFORE, AND I DON'T GET HOW YOU GOT THAT IDEA OUT OF MY VERY FIRST STATEMENT AT THE TOP OF THIS POST.

SO, Tagless, I've shown you how very wrong you were about my not making the time frame clear, supposedly "qualifying" it only very late in the discussion. No, I had been going crazy dealing with PaulK's strange refusal to acknowledge this point FROM THE BEGINNING. I don't know why YOU also failed to register it. Do you have an explanation?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Taqless, posted 04-15-2005 7:41 PM Taqless has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Taqless, posted 04-16-2005 7:22 PM Faith has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14546
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


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 responded

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

    
tsig
Member (Idle past 883 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 157 of 204 (199722)
04-16-2005 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Faith
04-14-2005 11:07 PM


Re: DSS Isaiah and reliable transmission
The Isaiah scroll in the DSS is virtually identical with our Isaiah texts and that demonstrates that our text has not suffered from changes over the centuries.

So what?

Some old scrolls match up with other old scrolls. Well that's just amazing since they were written by they same group.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Faith, posted 04-14-2005 11:07 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Faith, posted 04-16-2005 8:38 AM tsig has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 30162
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 158 of 204 (199727)
04-16-2005 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by tsig
04-16-2005 7:42 AM


Re: DSS Isaiah and reliable transmission
What can I say. Enjoy your ignorance.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by tsig, posted 04-16-2005 7:42 AM tsig has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by tsig, posted 04-16-2005 9:14 AM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 30162
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 159 of 204 (199732)
04-16-2005 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 156 by PaulK
04-16-2005 6:06 AM


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.


Oh well. My mistake. I'll be careful to avoid imputing rationality to you again. {EDIT: Correction: I'll try to avoid making insulting remarks like this. But it's hard to avoid that considering the way you deal with me.}

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.


"Over the years" means "since the DSS" as it always has.

quote:
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.

Common charges are at least refuted in PART with the DSS, for the OT from the DSS on, although as I've said they usually focus on the NT period in any case. The rest of the refutation would have to do with the supposed pre-DSS changes and with the NT. These involve other arguments.

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 ?


I've NEVER been talking about changes before the DSS. The common charges are refuted for the post-DSS OT.

quote:
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 ?

Again, the common charges are refuted for the post-DSS OT.

This message has been edited by Faith, 04-16-2005 09:15 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by PaulK, posted 04-16-2005 6:06 AM PaulK has not yet responded

    
tsig
Member (Idle past 883 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 160 of 204 (199735)
04-16-2005 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by Faith
04-16-2005 8:38 AM


Missing the point
What can I say. Enjoy your ignorance.

So some writing from the past is the same as the bible?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Faith, posted 04-16-2005 8:38 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Faith, posted 04-16-2005 9:26 AM tsig has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 30162
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 161 of 204 (199736)
04-16-2005 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by tsig
04-16-2005 9:14 AM


Re: Missing the point
Some claim that the Bible has changed over the last 2000 years. The "writing from the past" proves that it has not changed at all, or at least that the Old Testament hasn't changed in the time since the "writing from the past." If this topic interests you, please read some of the thread. Carefully.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by tsig, posted 04-16-2005 9:14 AM tsig has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by ramoss, posted 04-23-2005 12:46 PM Faith has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 30162
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 162 of 204 (199749)
04-16-2005 10:46 AM


Summary
I believe this thread is over and that it has been shown that the DSS, and particularly the Isaiah scroll, authenticate the text of the Old Testament we have.

Here's some of the proof as given in this thread:

From my post #142 a document sent me by a friend:

quote:
THE SCROLLS AND THE MASORETIC TEXT

Critical scholars questioned the accuracy of the MT, which formed the basis of our English versions of the Old Testament, since there was
such a large chronological gap between it and the autographs. Because of this uncertainty, scholars often corrected the text with oconsiderable freedom. Qumran, however, has provided remains of an early Masoretic edition predating the Christian era on which the traditional MT is based. A comparison of the MT to this earlier text revealed the remarkable accuracy with which scribes copied the sacred texts.

Accordingly, the integrity of the Hebrew Bible was confirmed, which
generally has heightened its respect among scholars and drastically
reduced textual alteration.

Most of the biblical manuscripts found at Qumran belong to the MT tradition or family. This is especially true of the Pentateuch and some of the Prophets. The well-preserved Isaiah scroll from Cave 1 illustrates the tender care with which these sacred texts were copied. Since about 1700 years separated Isaiah in the MT from its original source, textual critics assumed that centuries of copying and recopying this book must have introduced scribal errors into the document that obscured the original message of the author.The Isaiah scrolls found at Qumran closed that gap to within 500 years
of the original manuscript.


From a link I supplied in Post #5:

http://www.ucgstp.org/lit/gn/gn053/biblepreserved.htm

quote:
What do we know from the field of textual criticism?

"Textual criticism" is the field of study in which experts compare the various manuscripts in existence to one another, seeking to come as close as possible to what the original author wrote. The original manuscripts are called "autographs," literally "self writings." Today, with the passage of so much time, no autographsoriginal copiesexist of any of the Old or New Testament books.

Over the centuries minor differences (called variants) often make their way into successive copies of handwritten documents, even with the greatest of care of the scribes involved. Thus, the field of study called textual criticism exists to try to identify these variations and determine what the original texts said.

After 1455 and Johannes Gutenberg's invention of the first movable metal type printing press, the Bible could be printed over and over again with predictable accuracy, so variants no longer were a concern. However, before that time manuscripts still had variants. Thus the period before 1455 is where textual criticism comes into play.

Because of the strict requirements and few locations where the Old Testament was copied, few variants or versions of the Old Testament ever came into existence. When the Dead Sea Scrolls (primarily portions of the Old Testament dating mostly from the first century B.C.) were discovered in 1947, many people were initially concerned that they would show marked differences with the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament.

Because the Dead Sea Scrolls were a thousand years older than the oldest and most reliable Masoretic Text we have today (the Leningrad Codex, dating to A.D. 1008), scholars thought they might find drastic differences over that long passage of time. But did they?

After years of study, they found that the Dead Sea Scrolls they examined have only a relatively few minor, insignificant differences from today's Masoretic Text of the Old Testament.

"These oldest-known Biblical texts have one absolutely crucial feature," explains historian Ian Wilson. "Although ... a thousand years older than the texts previously available in Hebrew, they show just how faithful the texts of our present Bibles are to those from two thousand years ago and how little they have changed over the centuries. Two Isaiah scrolls, for instance, contain the Isaiah text almost exactly as it is in our present-day Bibles ...

"Although there are, as we might expect, some minor differences, these are mostly the interchange of a word or the addition or absence of a particular phrase. For example, whereas in present-day Bibles Isaiah 1:15 ends, 'Your hands are covered in blood', one of the Dead Sea pair adds, 'and your fingers with crime'. Where Isaiah 2:3 of our present-day Bibles reads, 'Come, let us go up to the mountain of [the LORD]', to the house of the God of Jacob', the Dead Sea Scroll version omits, 'to the mountain of [the LORD]'.

"Such discrepancies are trifling, and there can be no doubt that the Biblical books someone stored away so carefully at Qumran two thousand years ago were as close to those we know in our present Hebrew and Old Testament Bibles as makes no difference" (The Bible Is History, 1999, p. 205).

Where there are differences, however, this does not mean the Dead Sea Scrolls were correct and the Masoretic Text incorrect. We should keep in mind that the Dead Sea Scrolls were not necessarily transcribed with the same meticulous preservation practices as those used by the main scribes of the time. Nonetheless, the remarkable discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls is astounding confirmation that the Old Testament has indeed been accurately preserved for us today.



Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by PaulK, posted 04-16-2005 4:07 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14546
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 1.6


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 yet responded

    
Taqless
Member (Idle past 3888 days)
Posts: 285
From: AZ
Joined: 12-18-2003


Message 164 of 204 (199777)
04-16-2005 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Monk
04-15-2005 9:19 PM


Re: Bible inerrancy in what sense?
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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Monk, posted 04-15-2005 9:19 PM Monk has not yet responded

  
Taqless
Member (Idle past 3888 days)
Posts: 285
From: AZ
Joined: 12-18-2003


Message 165 of 204 (199798)
04-16-2005 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by Faith
04-16-2005 12:47 AM


Let me be perfectly clear.
If you need something to be clarified then ask me to do so. It's really not necessary to make the personal comments.

1. Originally in the thread Who should be believed Ham or Ross? Post #166 you wrote the following:

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.

There are three problems with what you wrote:

1. There have been changes "over the centuries".
2. MANY have cited specific changes, such as PaulK.
3. You citing the DSS, specifically the Isaiah scroll, is in no way "proof that such accusations are unfounded.". At best, it would support specific changes to the OLD TESTAMENT since the time of the DSS, ~2nd Century B.C.

Point #3, to my understanding, is one of the reasons why PaulK opened this thread.

AS YOUR POST #166 STOOD the reason is obvious: Your use of the Isaiah scroll as "proof" that the "common accusation (read above if you have forgotten the entire post you made)" was "unfounded" is blatantly INCORRECT. It does not prove any such thing. AT BEST, it refutes a claim other than the one you mentioned in your post(for example: changes between the DSS and modern day texts specifically).

So, as you can see, your post below:

Faith Post #5 Isaiah and the Dead Sea Scrolls writes:

As I reread our exchange it seems clear to me that from the beginning I was talking ONLY about "common accusations" that the Bible has been changed many times over the years SINCE the time of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

can in no way have been an intuitive jump for either PaulK or myself with respect to the time inferred by you in post #166 when compared to being clearly stated as you did in post #5. In the end, it seems that you did clear up that "irrelevant" response.

Thanks, hopefully no hard feelings?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by Faith, posted 04-16-2005 12:47 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Faith, posted 04-16-2005 8:15 PM Taqless has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
910
11
121314Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018