|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Isaiah and the Dead Sea Scrolls | |||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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: 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: 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: 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: Then I quote myself from the earlier thread where I was already trying to get this point across to deaf ears:
quote: "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: And again:
quote: 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: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
What can I say. Enjoy your ignorance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
quote: 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: "Over the years" means "since the DSS" as it always has.
quote: 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: I've NEVER been talking about changes before the DSS. The common charges are refuted for the post-DSS OT.
quote: Again, the common charges are refuted for the post-DSS OT. This message has been edited by Faith, 04-16-2005 09:15 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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: From a link I supplied in Post #5: Page Not Found - U C G S P
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
That's OK.
No hard feelings. This message has been edited by Faith, 04-17-2005 03:00 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
There are mistranslations of Isaiah being propagated to this very day, purposeful mistranslations too! For example, they are still insisting that ALmah means virgin,when it means no such thing. This was answered on this thread. There are only five or six places in the Hebrew Bible where the word "Almah" occurs. It was the JEWISH PRE-CHRISTIAN GREEK SEPTUAGINT TRANSLATION of the Hebrew Scriptures that rendered it "VIRGIN" (Greek: Parthenos) and did so in TWO places, not only in Isaiah 7:14 but also in the Song of Songs (which I'd have to look up but it shouldn't be hard for you to find.) In the four other places it was translated "young woman" or "maiden." If Jewish translators in 200+ BC translated it to mean "virgin" in those two places then that's what it means. Also, before Christ that passage was considered by Jewish leaders to be messianic. Only after Christ did they decide maybe it wasn't after all, though not all of them even then.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
quote: As people around here delight in saying, prove it. Just as the original Hebrew text has not been altered over the centuries since the Dead Sea Scrolls, which is proved by the fact that the DSS Isaiah is identical to ours, the English translation OF the DSS Isaiah is also identical to our English translation, as somebody on this thread testified, Monk I believe.
quote: No, but at some point it became necessary to establish which of the many writings had the status of being inspired by God. This is not a "change," this is a setting of standards to determine the relative importance of various writings, and it is exactly the right thing to do.
quote: Read the thread. Extremely insignificant differences, minor errors of copying, nothing that affects the meaning. We have virtually the same Isaiah word for word that was found in the DSS
quote: This thread is not about what constitutes the canon of the Old (Tanakh) or New Testaments, it's about the integrity of the actual text of various books of the Old Testament. In the Dead Sea Scrolls were found fragments of every book in the OT except Esther and they ALL contain the same text as our copies of them have now. The Isaiah scroll was simply the most complete manuscript found there, but all the books except Esther were represented.
quote: You are perpetuating pernicious myths here. In the first place, as somebody on this thread pointed out, Nicea had nothing to do with formalizing scripture. They didn't even list books they considered canonical although other Councils did do that. However, at some point the canon was determined upon and the standard for determining it was the judgment of the many churches over the previous centuries, not some arbitrary whim of the people at a council. The idea that anybody destroyed "competing" scripture is a stupid slander. There were many many writings in circulation among the churches over the first few centuries and all that happened is that the churches decided in the end which of them were authentic inspired writings and which were less important or in some cases actually heretical. The authentic became the canon, the false were excluded, which is exactly what any sane person would do given the task of determining the inauthentic from the authentic, kind of like weeding your garden -- or do you like to cultivate weeds? You might want to read more of this thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Apparently not, just lists kept by different groups, but there aren't big differences. The Apocrypha have different levels of standing and that's about it, isn't it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I am sure we will disagree then as to what constitutes a Christian church as the Gospel of Thomas is regarded as Gnostic and therefore heretical by orthodox Christianity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
It doesn't much matter what you consider a Christian Church, there simply are many Christian Churches
It doesn't much matter what you consider a Christian church either then, and that being the case I'll continue to disagree and contend that the Gospel of Thomas makes a church not Christian as most orthodox groups would. There's nothing about it that is consistent with the gospels
For example, Enoch and Jubilees, 3rd. and 4th. Ezra, 3 rd. Macabees are often included in the OT. Well now you are saying no more than I already said about the Apocrypha.
In the NT you often find John 2 & 3, Peter 2 and Revelation are considered heretical while Clement and Didascalia are included. By whom? This message has been edited by Faith, 04-23-2005 04:17 PM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024