|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Isaiah and the Dead Sea Scrolls | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Taqless Member (Idle past 5939 days) Posts: 285 From: AZ Joined: |
Faith writes: Yes that line appears to confirm the idea... That line as well as the other (date not that ambiguous) support the idea that the changes many, such as PaulK, point to occur before the DSS which, in turn, makes your subsequent claim that since the Isaiah DSS backs up the modern version of Isaiah, post-DSS, irrelevant.
...but I don't think it amounts to much myself. As I said I personally rely on my own spiritual judgment that the verses are consistent with the whole. That is fine. That's why humans have your namesake. It does not have to make sense to everyone else.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1469 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Sorry, duplicate post.
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-11-2005 07:02 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1469 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
quote: Fine. He has his very vague unprovable date and I have the fact that the huge preponderance of manuscripts contain the passage. I'd say this trumps his appeal to a date he focused on out of the entire discussion of the merits of the Mark passage. We're talking something like 45 texts that don't have the passage to more than 5000 that do. {MUCH LATER EDIT: I had this wrong. It's 600+ that include the passage to 2 that don't.} AND the passage has the weight of historical Church support behind it too. Vague date on the one hand, super majority and authority on the other. He wants to go with a vague date, fine, I'll go with the historical majority AND authority. We'll call it a matter of taste I guess.
quote: Nonsense. The relevance is to the reliability of the Biblical scribes, and therefore to the reliability of the Christian Bible text from that time. One book's having been preserved so well through thousands of copyings and recopyings through the many distributions of the Christian Bible over the centuries, is an excellent indication that Biblical copying in general is quite reliable for that same span of time and can be inferred to be the case for the entire Bible. Hence complaints about supposed changes from that time are refuted. You claim all that is meaningless if there were changes made to Isaiah prior to the DSS, but that is another subject. I repeat, my topic was the RELIABILITY OF THE SCRIBES since the Isaiah scroll, period. 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. NOW, if you/PaulK want to discuss the integrity of the Old Testament books prior to the DSS, fine, bring up your objections and I'll try to answer them. This message has been edited by Faith, 04-15-2005 10:00 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1469 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Whatever. You win. Making sense you don't, but win, hey, whatever.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1469 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Which assertion have I failed to support ? I didn't say you failed to support anything. You don't read very well. I said that *I* had failed to support *your* assertion, not my own as the whole thing was your assertion, not mine.
quote: quote: quote: This message has been edited by Faith, 04-11-2005 07:25 PM This message has been edited by Faith, 04-11-2005 07:27 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kapyong Member (Idle past 3467 days) Posts: 344 Joined: |
Greetings,
quote: ONE book ?What about the OTHER books found in the DSS which show considerable corruption to the MT ? The Great Isaiah scroll (with "only" 1375 differences to the MT), is the LEAST corrupt of the books recovered from the DSS. The various other books found there are much more variant than Isaiah. Your biased argument is based on skewed, limited data - the ONE book that is "almost identical", whle ignoring the books which are quite variant. Quotes from:
IBSS - Biblical Archaeology - Dead Sea Scrolls Consider the book of Daniel, the several DSS versions are often different to the MT :
quote: The MT books of Samuel were long considered corrupt, the DSS versions of Samuel proved it -
quote: Places where the DSS fixed MT Samuel corruptions include :
quote: There are many other places where the DSS proved the MT had been corrupted :
quote: This evidence shows conclusively that the MT was NOT "preserved so well", the copying was not "reliable" at all. Iasion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1469 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The other books are not relevant, the Isaiah scroll is. The corruptions were not inherited by us for some reason. Even their being recognized as corruptions implies that we know the authentic from the corrupt in order to judge. They are interesting as the state of things at Qumran but not as pertaining to our texts. The Isaiah scroll just happened to be pertinent however. I didn't make any claims about anything, not about the Masoretic Text or anything BUT the Isaiah scroll. All the rest is simply not relevant to the point I was making.
I posted this to somebody here. It answers lots of questions about the reliability of our current texts and about textual criticism:
TheologyWeb Campus
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1469 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
quote: OK, this SHOULD clear this up. They can date Sinaiticus and Vaticanus to the fourth century and that is somewhat earlier than the other text sources. I didn't look up their dates but it shouldn't be hard to find. While it is true that the older the better, if the difference in time is not much it is much less important, THE REASON BEING that ALL Of these texts are COPIES, and there is NO way to tell which were copied from the originals. You are apparently assuming that the later copies we have must have been copied FROM Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and that is a big mistake. That WOULD imply a change between. But that is not how the copies were made. I don't know how much is known about the lineage of the extant manuscripts but I do know that there were many many lineages, meaning originating points that were not THE originals. This is because many copies of the autographs were made at one time and distributed to many different churches. Many different books. Apparently Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are compilations and include the Old Testament as well. The various books could have been gathered from many sources, copies of copies of copies over the three hundred previous years. Meanwhile in other parts of the Roman Empire whole other groups of manuscripts were being collected and copied and passed on in pieces and chunks and collections. There is no way to know which of all the extant texts is truest to the original autograph. The oldest is not necessarily the most authentic although in principle it SHOULD be better. But really it's only the oldest that happened to survive. And if others are just SLIGHTLY less old their claim to authenticity is just as significant. {EDIT: In other words, it could just as easily be Sinaiticus and Vaticanus that changed the original, deleted those verses of Mark, as the other way around, and considering the overwhelming testimony of the Church is in favor of the passage that adds to the likelihood that the change was on their side, not the majority text side} Then add to that the fact that over 5000 of the extant mss contain the disputed verses of Mark 9 and only 45 do not; and add again the fact that the authorities of the Church affirmed the Mark 9 verses as inspired. {MUCH LATER EDIT: Again, it's 600+ that contain it, to 2 that do not; and it's Mark 16:9-20, not Mark 9}. I hope I said this clearly. This message has been edited by Faith, 04-11-2005 09:22 PM This message has been edited by Faith, 04-15-2005 10:05 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 419 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
The clarity of what you say is not the issue.
The things you cite, such as the fact that the additions were included in later copies also carries no weight. All it shows is that the additions got copied. The fact that there is only a small difference in time only is true from OUR current perspective. If you had been living at the time, something from 100 years earlier would be a wide gulf. The point is everywhere we look in the Bible there are multiple, often totally contradictory versions of the story. There are two Mutually Exclusive creation myths. There are two Mutually Exclusive flood myths. There are two Mutually Exclusive Nativity Stories. There are four Mutually Exclusive accounts of the crucifixion. There are indications that Mark was redacted. Much of Isaiah was simply copied from other books. The truths in the Bible are not the words. It is a very simple message. By trying to force the Bible to be accurate when it comes to history, to science, to archeology or to geography is to miss the message entirely. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kapyong Member (Idle past 3467 days) Posts: 344 Joined: |
Greetings,
quote: I beg your pardon?You claimed the similarity of the DSS Isaiah to the modern Isaiah shows the texts were copied accurately without changes. But the other DSS books prove just the opposite -that the modern versions HAVE been corrupted. This is EXACTLY relevant -it just proves you wrong, so you try to dismiss this evidence. quote: What?So, you are claiming that the modern versions are correct, but the differences in the DSS are "corruptions" which did not make it into the MT? quote: Pardon?The early DSS versions are different to the modern MT versions. Are you really claiming we don't know which is earlier? If the DSS and the MT are different, this disproves your claim that the copying was accurate. quote: You mean the Isaiah scroll supports your claim, so you champion that MSS,But, the OTHER books proves you are wrong, so you pretend they are not relevant? What nonsense. quote: Rubbish.You claimed the Isaiah similarity proved the reliability of MSS copying. Then when I pointed out the OTHER books show just the opposite,you try to brush them aside with a hand-wave. This is transparent apologetics,your claim is proven false, regardless of your attempts to dismiss the evidence that disagrees with your claim. Iasion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1469 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
quote: You seem to have missed the point. There is no proof there were any additions. If anything there may have been subtractions by the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus group. They were an island off by themselves not given any special weight by the mainstream until the unauthorized modern scholars decided to promote them. Then a compromised modern church accepted this revisionist corruption against the testimony of the true Church over the centuries.
quote: The point has to do with the authenticity of different groups of COPIES. They are ALL copies. The difference in age confers NO special authority on the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, and the weight of both the enormous preponderance of manuscripts and Church authority is against their claim.
quote: Now you are floundering around. I made my point and you want to obscure it by trotting out the usual collection of accusations against the Bible. There are answers to every single one of these accusations. I've encountered them many times. You even repeat the "indications that Mark was redacted" although I just answered that one. People have unrealistic expectations of the Biblical writers, as if they followed all the same rules we do. They were interested in the content, getting the gospel out, much more than in who wrote what. Various accounts do appear to have been combined here and there and built upon one another. Yet there is a tradition of authorship nevertheless. The creation stories are not mutually exclusive. One is chronological, the other is a focusing on particulars. The nativity stories complement each other. The crucifixion stories complement each other. You don't know if Isaiah was copied or the other books were copied from Isaiah and it doesn't matter as the material is the important thing. There are historical fragments in the prophets. Passages from the prophets are in the histories. Why not? It's all an interwoven history. There are some extremely minor apparent contradictions that are what one would expect from multiple writers. They amount to nothing, just an excuse for debunkers to make mountains out of molehills. All senseless caviling.
quote: It's a sweeping history of unbelievable consistency and beauty from Genesis through Revelation that yields its meaning only to those who believe it, and never to those who pick it apart.
quote: The only people forcing anything are the critics such as yourself, who pick it to death. If you simply take it as written with the trust of a child it will reveal its message, but not otherwise. And before you succeed at obscuring the main topic of this debate, Mark 16:9-20 is legitimate. This message has been edited by Faith, 04-12-2005 05:42 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1469 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The point was only to give you the quotes you claim I left out. I showed that this complaint is a common complaint. That was the assignment. I met it.
Since the OT was copied along with the NT over the last 2000 years, the Isaiah scroll's integrity IS relevant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1469 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
quote: Nonsense. The corruptions are in the DSS, as you showed. They are discussed at length as I recall. Many of them were caught and corrected by the Qumran people themselves as corrections are shown on the parchments. In any case ours don't have those corruptions. And the Isaiah scroll's perfection still is evidence that the ensuing 2000 years of copying is very reliable.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024