Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Isaiah and the Dead Sea Scrolls
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 16 of 204 (198164)
04-10-2005 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by jar
04-10-2005 10:32 PM


Re: I still don't understand what you're saying.
Do you agree that the Bible has been edited, revised, added to, subtracted from including both the Old and New Testament?
Only in ways that don't affect the message.
I anticipated you. See my message #15.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by jar, posted 04-10-2005 10:32 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by jar, posted 04-10-2005 10:50 PM Faith has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 17 of 204 (198166)
04-10-2005 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Faith
04-10-2005 10:36 PM


Re: I still don't understand what you're saying.
Yeah but your message #15 is simply wrong.
Shall we talk about Mark and the additions to it? If Mark, a New Testament Gospel, had significant additions made (as they were), would that influence your opinion?
For example, the early copies of Mark end at Mark 16:8. But some time later all of the mysticism and the tale of Jesus appearing to the disciples in Mark 16:9-20 was added. This significantly changed both the message of Mark and to so extent, Christianity as a whole.
Look at the added material:
9: Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.
10: And she went and told them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept.
11: And they, when they had heard that he was alive, and had been seen of her, believed not.
12: After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.
13: And they went and told it unto the residue: neither believed they them.
14: Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.
15: And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17: And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18: They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
19: So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.
20: And they went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.
If you take that out Mark ends dramatically differently with simply a message to be taken to the disciples and no mention of Jesus actually appearing to the apostles.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Faith, posted 04-10-2005 10:36 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Faith, posted 04-11-2005 12:45 AM jar has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 18 of 204 (198168)
04-10-2005 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Faith
04-10-2005 10:26 PM


OK, so I gather that the Masoretic is a specific lineage of Hebrew texts as it were. Post-Christian. I looked this up too and found it's such a huge and somewhat controversial topic I'm not up to thinking about it for now.
actually, it's not that controversial at all. the accepted date for the masoretic text is between 300 and 600 ad.
we know the text itself as a whole unit (the tanakh) dates back to at least 200 bc. no one is contending, i think, that the masoretes just made it up. it certainly comes from a longer tradition. how long exactly we do not know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Faith, posted 04-10-2005 10:26 PM Faith has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 19 of 204 (198171)
04-10-2005 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Faith
04-10-2005 10:34 PM


Of course not. There is plenty of evidence that the transmission of the entire Bible has been remarkably reliable for the last 2000 years
not exactly. the old testament has been more or less solidified for the last 2200 years, and no significant changes have been made for at least 1400 years. some churches still differ here and there, and the catholics have some books that were apparenly eliminated between the greek and masoretic texts.
the new testament is a different story.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Faith, posted 04-10-2005 10:34 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Faith, posted 04-10-2005 11:52 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 20 of 204 (198190)
04-10-2005 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by arachnophilia
04-10-2005 10:57 PM


the new testament is a different story.
According to whom?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by arachnophilia, posted 04-10-2005 10:57 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by arachnophilia, posted 04-10-2005 11:55 PM Faith has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 21 of 204 (198192)
04-10-2005 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Faith
04-10-2005 11:52 PM


According to whom?
uhh. anyone.
the gospels were written around the first century ad at their earliest. paul and revelation might have been earlier.
and even then the first consolidation of texts occured under the reign on constantine in about 330 ad. it has since been editted down to it's current form.
basically, the ot has at least 500 years on the nt, as whole collections.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Faith, posted 04-10-2005 11:52 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 04-11-2005 12:50 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 22 of 204 (198194)
04-11-2005 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by jar
04-10-2005 10:50 PM


Re: I still don't understand what you're saying.
If you take that out Mark ends dramatically differently with simply a message to be taken to the disciples and no mention of Jesus actually appearing to the apostles.
Yes, modern scholars have apparently decided that its supernatural content is offensive and have determined by mindreading that Mark didn't write it, although it was included in all the old translations and only changed rather recently -- on the bogus notion that it wasn't originally part of the book. Their evidence for this is not very convincing.
My judgment, in a word, is that it is completely consistent with the whole New Testament spirit and belongs there.
But there is also objective evidence for my view. A couple of references:
http://www.studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/markend.html
quote:
Looking at the evidence, we see that there is little reason to question Mark 16:9-20. The witness in its favour is nearly as old as that opposed. Further, we should note that the near uniform testimony of the Greek manuscript evidence is in favour of these verses (the Byzantine majority). Additionally, while manuscript 2386 is listed as lacking this verse, we should note (as Terry does) that the reason for this lack is due to the fact that this manuscript is missing the sheet upon which these verses would appear (which makes one wonder why textual critics would bother to include it pro or con at all). Essentially, the primary Greek witness opposed to these verses consists of the vaunted "oldest and best" manuscripts, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Thus, on the basis of these two preferred texts and little else, textual scholars hope to overturn the vast body of manuscripts in favour (which are buttressed by additional evidences, as we shall see below).
Mark 16:9-20 (quoted in the following:
quote:
One of the most attacked portions of Scripture is Mark 16:9-20. This portion of Mark is found in 618 extant manuscripts. The two manuscripts which they are not found in are the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, which are the two primary underlying manuscripts used in every modern version. This means that the evidence is overwhelming in favor of Mark 16:9-20, 618 versus 2. Keep in mind that the modern versions are based on 45 manuscripts out of 5255 which is less than 1% of all available manuscripts. This is why they can say that this portion of Mark is not part of Scripture because they reject 5210 of the 5255 manuscripts.
There is plenty more on my side if you google Mark 16:9-20 textus-receptus Some on your side too of course.
There is a big controversy about the Greek texts used by the old vs. the newer translations and I've been persuaded over the years that the Textus Receptus, which was the basis of the Authorized King James, is superior to the texts of the Westcott-Hort translations.
Credenda Agenda debate on the Textus Receptus
quote:
DW: If a problem with the TR is variant readings, then how does it help to expand the field so that we have thousands more variant readings? The "errors" you cite are a wonderful example of the power of paradigms. How is "Christ" instead of "Lord" a mistake? Or Mary's purification? The issue is not whether careful scholarship goes into the formation of the text, but rather who is qualified to do that scholarship, and who is responsible for authoritatively receiving it. The Church has been entrusted with the oracles of God, not autonomous scientists. We have agreed that a traditional manuscript bridge is necessary. Who stands guard at the bridgethe Church or autonomous science?
DW:...the confessing historical Church has determined that the Bible contains 66 books and that Mark 16:9_20 is in one of them. A few readings remain to be settled, but the settling is to be done by the confessing historical Churchnot Zondervan. Individualistic efforts may be believing work, and yet not submitted to the authority of the Church. Secular canons of academic text criticism do not require ecclesiastical review. Incidentally, admitting that no one form of the TR is perfect and admitting error in the TR are two distinct things. [Douglas Wilson]
You may of course agree with James White, his opponent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by jar, posted 04-10-2005 10:50 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by jar, posted 04-11-2005 12:38 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 23 of 204 (198195)
04-11-2005 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by arachnophilia
04-10-2005 11:55 PM


I may not have time to get into this with you but it is far from "anyone" who agrees that the NT has been subjected to anything remotely like "editing." Nicaea merely compiled the books determined to have been inspired by God by the churches that had used them for 300 years. There were some controversies but actually very few. What we have today is what they had then, with only negligible differences.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by arachnophilia, posted 04-10-2005 11:55 PM arachnophilia has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Kapyong, posted 04-11-2005 1:36 AM Faith has replied

  
Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3442 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 24 of 204 (198196)
04-11-2005 1:08 AM


1375 differences in Isaiah scroll
Greetings all,
A quick check regarding The Great Isaiah scroll shows that various sites claim the DSS version has a total of about 1375 differences to the MT, e.g. :
IBSS - Biblical Archaeology - Dead Sea Scrolls
That is hardly "almost identical".
I am trying to find more exact details on the differences.
Many apologist sites say these differences are "mostly unimportant", suggesting some ARE important.
I think this is another case of wishful thinking and un-critical repetition - Christians like Faith believe it is "almost identical" because other Christians tell them it is "almost identical", without checking the facts.
Iasion

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Kapyong, posted 04-11-2005 1:13 AM Kapyong has not replied
 Message 32 by Faith, posted 04-11-2005 4:32 AM Kapyong has not replied

  
Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3442 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 25 of 204 (198198)
04-11-2005 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Kapyong
04-11-2005 1:08 AM


Differences in Isaiah - MT vs DSS
For example,
Here is a site which gives the exact differences in Isaiah 52-53 :
Welcome michaelsheiser.com - BlueHost.com
There are a LOT of differences, mostly minor.
This site claims there are 13 significant variations :
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.bibletexts.com/glossary/deadseascrolls.htm
"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,"
Here is a superb site which gives a full analysis of Isaiah and the differences :
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/qumdir.htm
1375 total variations, 13 significant differences - if correct, that is not what I would call "almost identical".
Also, there were TWO different scrolls of Isaiah found in the DSS - they are NOT exactly the same (one is fragmentary, and is in another dialect.)
Iasion
This message has been edited by Iasion, 04-11-2005 12:26 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Kapyong, posted 04-11-2005 1:08 AM Kapyong has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Faith, posted 04-11-2005 4:34 AM Kapyong has replied

  
Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3442 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 26 of 204 (198201)
04-11-2005 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Faith
04-11-2005 12:50 AM


The COuncil of Nicea did NOT choose the books of the Bible
Greetings Faith,
You claimed "Nicaea merely compiled the books determined to have been inspired by God by the churches that had used them for 300 years."
That is NOT true - the council of Nicea did NOT have anything to do with the books of the bible - yet Christians frequently this false claim. I suggest you check your facts in future.
The documents (Creed, Canons, Synodal Letter) produced by this Council still exist, you can read them here -
CHURCH FATHERS: First Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325)
NONE of these documents say ANYTHING about the books of the Bible.
There are also accounts of the meeting by :
Theoderet, Socrates Scholasticus, Sozomen, Eusebius, Athanasius, Epiphanius, Philostorgius, Rufinus, and Gelasius. You can read these accounts from Roger Pearse' page below.
NONE of these writers say ANYTHING about the books of the Bible
Roger Pearse does an excellent analysis of this false claim here -
The Council of Nicaea (Nicea) and the Bible
Such is the quality of Christian apologetics that this old chestnut is repeated endlessly by Christians who obviously never bother to check their sources.
Iasion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 04-11-2005 12:50 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Faith, posted 04-11-2005 4:17 AM Kapyong has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 27 of 204 (198210)
04-11-2005 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Faith
04-10-2005 8:32 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Faith, posted 04-10-2005 8:32 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Faith, posted 04-11-2005 4:00 AM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 28 of 204 (198212)
04-11-2005 4:00 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by PaulK
04-11-2005 2:36 AM


Whatever. You didn't get it and you still don't get it. OK. Way it goes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by PaulK, posted 04-11-2005 2:36 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by PaulK, posted 04-11-2005 4:06 AM Faith has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 29 of 204 (198214)
04-11-2005 4:06 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Faith
04-11-2005 4:00 AM


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 ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Faith, posted 04-11-2005 4:00 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Faith, posted 04-11-2005 4:24 AM PaulK has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 30 of 204 (198215)
04-11-2005 4:17 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Kapyong
04-11-2005 1:36 AM


Re: The COuncil of Nicea did NOT choose the books of the Bible
Well, it's nice to get that sorted out. But your second link does say this much about the issue:
NEW: Jerome, Biblical Preface to Judith. No English translation of this has been published, but it reads as follows:
"Among the Jews, the book of Judith is counted/considered [legitur] among the apocrypha; the basis for affirming those [apocryphal texts] which have come into dispute is deemed less than sufficient. Moreover, since it was written in the Chaldean [he means Old Aramaic] language, it is counted among the historical books. But the Nicene Council is considered to have counted this book among the number of sacred Scriptures, I have acquiesced to your [pl.] request (or should I say demand!): and, my other work set aside, from which I was vehemently restrained, I have given a single night's work (lucubratiuncula), translating according to sense rather than verbatim. I have cut back the most error-ridden of many codices: I was able to discover only one with coherent expression in Chaldean words, to be expressed in Latin. ..."
However, this only indicates that people at the Council had an idea that books might be considered scripture, or not. This is not different from the use of works in the fathers, discussing individual works rather than canon as a whole. It does not state that lists were drawn up, or necessarily that any debate on canon went on. But it does suggest some action by the council in discussing whether the Old Testament apocrypha were canonical. Or is Jerome merely confused here with the Council of Laodicea? If the Council did discuss books in general, why do none of the councils like Laodicea which include canon lists mention it? It is possible that the wide circulation of this preface is responsible for the idea, though.
The Council of Nicaea (Nicea) and the Bible

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Kapyong, posted 04-11-2005 1:36 AM Kapyong has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024