If you need something to be clarified then ask me to do so. It's really not necessary to make the personal comments.
1. Originally in the thread
Who should be believed Ham or Ross? Post #166 you wrote the following:
I'm talking about the common accusation that the Bible has supposedly been altered over the centuries so that it is no longer the original, not any particular changes, just a general accusation. The existence of any scroll from that time that has the same text as our text is proof that such accusations are unfounded.
There are three problems with what you wrote:
1. There
have been changes "over the centuries".
2.
MANY have cited specific changes, such as PaulK.
3. You citing the DSS, specifically the Isaiah scroll, is in no way "proof that such accusations are unfounded.". At best, it would support specific changes to the OLD TESTAMENT since the time of the DSS, ~2nd Century B.C.
Point #3, to my understanding, is one of the reasons why PaulK opened this thread.
AS YOUR POST #166 STOOD
the reason is obvious: Your use of the Isaiah scroll as "proof" that the "common accusation (read above if you have forgotten the entire post you made)" was "unfounded" is blatantly INCORRECT. It does not prove any such thing. AT BEST, it refutes a claim
other than the one you mentioned in your post(for example: changes between the DSS and modern day texts specifically).
So, as you can see, your post below:
Faith Post #5 Isaiah and the Dead Sea Scrolls writes:
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.
can in no way have been an intuitive jump for either PaulK or myself with respect to the time inferred by you in post #166 when compared to being clearly stated as you did in post #5. In the end, it seems that you did clear up that "irrelevant" response.
Thanks, hopefully no hard feelings?
™ Version 4.2