|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Isaiah and the Dead Sea Scrolls | |||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
the new testament is a different story. According to whom?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1374 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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: Mark 16:9-20 (quoted in the following:
quote: 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: You may of course agree with James White, his opponent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Kapyong Member (Idle past 3472 days) Posts: 344 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Kapyong Member (Idle past 3472 days) Posts: 344 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Kapyong Member (Idle past 3472 days) Posts: 344 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Whatever. You didn't get it and you still don't get it. OK. Way it goes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
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 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024