Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 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 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 replied

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


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 replied

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

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


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 replied

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

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


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 replied

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


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 replied

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

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


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:
Page Not Found - U C G S P
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 replied

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


Message 168 of 204 (199803)
04-16-2005 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by Taqless
04-16-2005 7:22 PM


Re: Let me be perfectly clear.
That's OK.
No hard feelings.
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-17-2005 03:00 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Taqless, posted 04-16-2005 7:22 PM Taqless has not replied

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


Message 171 of 204 (201469)
04-23-2005 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by ramoss
04-23-2005 12:38 PM


Almah was correctly translated
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by ramoss, posted 04-23-2005 12:38 PM ramoss has not replied

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


Message 172 of 204 (201478)
04-23-2005 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by ramoss
04-23-2005 12:46 PM


Re: Missing the point
quote:
Why, yes it has changed. The 'bible' has been translated, and mistranslated for one.
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:
And second of all, what constitutes the 'bible' has changed. Before a certain timeframe, there was no set canon about what constituted the Bible, or what constituted the tankah.
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:
The text of Isaiah might not have changed all that much.
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:
What constitutes the Tankah has.
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:
Also, what is considered part of CHristian scriptures has changed. The council of Nicea formalised what they thought should be considered scripture. The church in rome also went on a program to destroy as much 'competing' scripture as they could.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by ramoss, posted 04-23-2005 12:46 PM ramoss has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by jar, posted 04-23-2005 2:19 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 174 of 204 (201497)
04-23-2005 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by jar
04-23-2005 2:19 PM


Re: Missing the point
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by jar, posted 04-23-2005 2:19 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by jar, posted 04-23-2005 2:38 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 176 of 204 (201503)
04-23-2005 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by jar
04-23-2005 2:38 PM


Re: Missing the point
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by jar, posted 04-23-2005 2:38 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by jar, posted 04-23-2005 2:56 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 178 of 204 (201530)
04-23-2005 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by jar
04-23-2005 2:56 PM


Re: Missing the point
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by jar, posted 04-23-2005 2:56 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by jar, posted 04-23-2005 7:24 PM Faith 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