Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 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 5 of 204 (198142)
04-10-2005 8:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by PaulK
04-10-2005 5:01 PM


I would have thought I made the simplest possible statement, nothing that could possibly have led to the confused exchange that followed. This is ALL I said:
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.
quote:
So which proposed changes does it ACTUALLY rule out ? As was pointed out in the following discussion it isn't even relevant to the allegations of major additions to Isaiah itself. So what are these "charges" that it does refute and who made them ?
Where did you get that I was talking about any "PROPOSED" changes? 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.
Here is the entire extremely confusing exchange:
My #163 to Nighttrain.
quote:
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.
Paul K in #164 then decides to challenge that one simple statement.
quote:
Can you explain that ? Which changes in Isaiah are you talking about ? When are they thought to have been made ? And when was the Isaiah scroll written ?
My answer #166:
quote:
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. 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. The changes are supposed to have been made willy nilly over the centuries by both scribal error and unscrupulous fraudulent rewriting according to the accusers (who fail to grasp that there were so many manuscripts in circulation over the centuries, such discrepancies would have become apparent and documented long before they made up their accusation). The Dead Sea scrolls are considered to be pre-Christian by a hundred to two hundred years or so as I understand it.
Of course the original Isaiah was written by Isaiah some 700 years before Christ and the one found is a copy. What is remarkable about the Dead Sea scrolls is that the conditions of their storage allowed them to be preserved for over two thousand years, while normally such parchments would disintegrate in a few hundred years or so...
But PaulK goes on in #167 with his challenge, apparently referring to changes considered to have been made PREVIOUS to the Isaiah copy in the DSS which was irrelevant to what I had said:
quote:
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.
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? So he goes on with this totally irrelevant information:
quote:
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.I stress this point to indicate that you badly need to learn how to make a rational assessment of the evidence instead of jumping to conclusions without considering key facts. 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.
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.
My answer #170 TRIES to set the record straight AGAIN:
quote:
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. And I don't recall using the term "total proof" and putting it in quotes as if I did is very bad forum form...
quote:
: 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 ...HOWEVER, I suspect you are gleaning your information from sources I consider bogus.
quote:
: I stress this point to indicate that you badly need to learn how to make a rational assessment of the evidence instead of jumping to conclusions without considering key facts.
========
Let me see. Since you have misrepresented my post so tendentiously, and are now rebuking me for your own straw man reconstruction, and have been pursuing this off-topic series despite many mentions of it, I would suggest that if anyone needs to learn to make a rational assessment of anything it is you.
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. What is your problem? As for proof back before that I would refer you to the knowledge of the work habits of the scribes of Israel, known for their obsessional methods of copying and near-superstitious concern never to tamper with scripture. And I would suggest that reliance on recent academic as opposed to Church-authorized Bible scholarship is the refuge of a fool.
His #175 doesn't skip a beat, acknowledges not ONE thing in my attempts at correction and goes on and on with this notion of his own about the pre-DDS period:
quote:
Yes, actually you did claim that the scroll was proof that the Bible had not changed. So I point ouu that it has nothing to do with the major changes that Biblical Scholars beleive have occurred in the book of Isaiah.As for your claim that I ma using sources you consider bogus I cannot think what you are referring to. Sources which allege that addiitons to Isaiah are only relevent to my point in so far as they describe those allegations. Even if you reject the allegatiosn you cannot deny the validity of using thsoe sources. Or is it the dating of the scroll you object to ? If so then what source do you consider valid and what date do they propose and on what basis ?As to your assertion of "misrepresentation" are you really claiming that when you said:
"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."
You actually did NOT mean to include the major changes that are actually alleged to have ocurred to the very book in question ? I suppose next you'll say that you did not actually mean the WHOLE Bible, just Isaiah. Because that is every bit as obvious. Especially when we consider that some NT texts were probably not even written until later and no NT texts have been definitely found at Qumran.But even then the Dead Sea Scrolls indicate that there have been changes in the Bible - variants of several books have been found there. Including Isaiah.Finally there is nothing wrong with accepting modern scholarship over ideas with nothing to recommend them but antiquity. Indeed it would be foolish for anyone who really wished to understand the Bible to neglect mainstream Bible scholarship.
His 199
quote:
So you say that I should be banned because you don't know what you are talking about. What an interesting idea.Instead of ranting and raving you could simply have admitted that the scroll of Isaiah has very little to tell us and that you were wrong to tout it so highly. After all you don't know of a single proposed change to the Bible that the scroll DOES rule out.
At the least you were unaware of the fact that the alleged major changes to Isaiah are dated to long before the scroll was written - to the point where you didn't even feel the need to restrict your calim of "proof" to changes later than that date - even after it has been mentioned.And if that wasn't enough your insistance that Bibe scholars are "BLITHERING IDIOTS" for NOT accepting that the scroll disproves the claim that the Bible has changed at all badly undermines your claim that you meant the date restriction at all.BTW there is no need to insult me over the point that NT documents are not found at Qumran - firstly because you are wrong to say there is no overlap in the dates, but more importantly because the point is that the Isaiah scroll is NOT proof that there have been no changes to NT documents, nor is there any other document at Qumran that supports such idea.Oh by the way if you hate being shown to be wrong so much that you respond with such anger and venom it would be much better for you to open your mind and learn what you are talking about. If you are going to throw tantrums whenever your ignorance and irrationality are exposed it would be far better for you to respect the limits of your knowledge and learn to argue rationally.
I don't have the patience to try to point out the misunderstandings here. I hope they are obvious. If not, maybe we can comb through them later.
Meanwhile, I will TRY to back up what I WAS saying:
I have been challenged with this "common accusation" as I put it on other forums, and would have assumed it's also a common challenge to believers at this forum, although I haven't run across it here yet. I guess if I could track down examples of these common accusations it would help since apparently you haven't run across any yourself, but here are some ANSWERS to the charge, that Christians often feel obliged to supply, that may make it clear that the accusation IS pretty common:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorg.html
Page Not Found - U C G S P
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/8449/two.html
From the above link:
Has the text of the Bible Been Altered Over the Centuries?
One last test investigates whether or not the Bible has been corrupted down through the ages in its transmission. If it has been significantly changed, then it would not be relevant to us since inspiration does not extend to any manuscript copy. How can we know whether or not the Bible we have today is the same as what was written?
This question is answered by the bibliographical test. This test looks at the number of existing manuscript copies there are, their agreement with each other concerning the text that they are copies of, and the time interval between these copies and the date of the original writing. All scholars agree that this test has conclusively established that the biblical text which we have now is nearly identical to what was originally recorded (for both Old and New Testaments).
And concerning the lack of substantive changes between the DSS Isaiah and today's Isaiah:
A popular account of the fact that the Isaiah scroll found in the DSS is virtually identical to the one we read today:
Error | ChristianityToday.com
Take the Isaiah scroll. Until 1947, the oldest manuscript of Isaiah was a Masoretic text that had been copied in the late 900s. Although any book or scroll produced 1,000 years ago is very old, the Masoretic text is actually very "young" when you consider the prophet Isaiah lived 1,600 years before that (around 700 B.C.). This means it had been recopied many times during that interim, with plenty of opportunity for errors to be introduced. With the Qumran Isaiah text, 1,000 years older than the Masoretic text, how accurate was the later text? How significant was "the telephone game" problem?
"Despite the fact that the Isaiah scroll was about a thousand years older than the Masoretic version of Isaiah," says James VanderKam of the University of Notre Dame, "the two were nearly identical except for small details that rarely affected the meaning of the text." In other words, a word like "over" in one text might read "above" in the othernot the kind of difference that rocks your faith in the reliability of the Bible texts. Though the Isaiah text had been "whispered" down the telephone line through generations of scribes, God had carefully protected his Word.
A bit of a longer more scholarly account:
http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/qum-1.htm
4. The gaps in the text caused by disintegration of the leather on which the text was written are called "lacunae" In each lacuna as in this one on the page above it is possible to reproduce the missing text from the Masoretic text which is absolutely always consistent with the context. Although there are some variation from the Masoretic text, these are very infrequent and most often involve only a word and more often person and number of a verb or number of a noun, but even this is infrequent and can not be considered substantial.
5. There are several places where an extra word or two is added to the text. These are infrequent in relation to the total text and they add no real content that is not already in the text. One such addition of 2 words can be seen on this page in the last word in line 18 and the first word in line 19 These words are especially interesting because of their Aramaic origin and are discussed under Variations below.
6. Rarely, a verse is missing altogether. There is no example of this on the first page here but you can see in the portion of the next page , between the second and third line up from the lacuna there are editor's marks indicating where verse 10 of Isaiah 2 is completely omitted. Whoever the editor was he marked the text circa 100 BCE. before it was "bottled" Thus the original Isaiah text was understood at that time to contain some words which were not written by the original Qumran scribe and the elision was taken (in BCE) to be a scribal error. This is also the case in other places where there is an omission or a redundancy where the scribe has copied the same text twice and an editor has marked the error
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by PaulK, posted 04-10-2005 5:01 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by jar, posted 04-10-2005 8:41 PM Faith has replied
 Message 27 by PaulK, posted 04-11-2005 2:36 AM Faith has replied
 Message 180 by Checkmate, posted 04-25-2005 2:11 AM Faith has not replied

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


Message 7 of 204 (198145)
04-10-2005 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by jar
04-10-2005 8:41 PM


Does the fact that Mark, as just one example, shows significant changes that totally modifies the whole feel and content of the Gospel and that those changes came long after Isaiah have any bearing on this discussion?
No. All I want is acknowledgment that I made an extremely simple statement about the Isaiah scroll and have now backed it up and that PaulK misunderstood what I said.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by jar, posted 04-10-2005 8:41 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by jar, posted 04-10-2005 9:06 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 10 of 204 (198155)
04-10-2005 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by jar
04-10-2005 9:06 PM


So you agree that the Bible has been edited and changed almost continuously and continued being edited long long after Isaiah. You are only saying that Isaiah has not be significantly edited since the Isaiah scroll?
Literally, yes to your last sentence. But I also infer that it has implications for the reliability of the copying and transmission of ALL the texts since then. You might give a glance at the links I supplied.
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-10-2005 08:51 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by jar, posted 04-10-2005 9:06 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by jar, posted 04-10-2005 10:32 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 11 of 204 (198156)
04-10-2005 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by arachnophilia
04-10-2005 9:32 PM


if i recall, the copy of isaiah found in the dead sea scrolls is close to identical to modern masoretic text.
That's what the links I gave confirm.
however, i will counter with a similar point.
TWO copies of jeremiah were found in the scrolls. and they are very, very different. which one is older?
I'm not a DSS scholar but I did look this up -- briefly. Found that there is a Septuagint Jeremiah that is quite a bit shorter than the Masoretic text which is the basis for our copies of Jeremiah, though it wasn't clear that a Masoretic version was actually found in the DSS. Which is older? On what basis? They'd both be copies in any case. And if one is Septuagint and one Masoretic obviously the Hebrew (Masoretic) would be the older.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by arachnophilia, posted 04-10-2005 9:32 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by arachnophilia, posted 04-10-2005 10:17 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 13 of 204 (198160)
04-10-2005 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by arachnophilia
04-10-2005 10:17 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by arachnophilia, posted 04-10-2005 10:17 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by arachnophilia, posted 04-10-2005 10:54 PM Faith has not replied

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


Message 15 of 204 (198162)
04-10-2005 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by jar
04-10-2005 9:06 PM


So you agree that the Bible has been edited and changed almost continuously and continued being edited long long after Isaiah.
Of course not. There is plenty of evidence that the transmission of the entire Bible has been remarkably reliable for the last 2000 years, that the differences between old and recent texts and between different "lineages" of texts as it were, are negligible. There is some evidence offered in the links I already gave in my first post but if you want more proof I won't have time to track it down for a while.
As for changes prior to the DSS or prior to Christianity, that's a whole nother set of arguments. If you want to try it, muster your charges and I may get around to trying to answer them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by jar, posted 04-10-2005 9:06 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by arachnophilia, posted 04-10-2005 10:57 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 16 of 204 (198164)
04-10-2005 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by jar
04-10-2005 10:32 PM


Re: I still don't understand what you're saying.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by jar, posted 04-10-2005 10:32 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by jar, posted 04-10-2005 10:50 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 20 of 204 (198190)
04-10-2005 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by arachnophilia
04-10-2005 10:57 PM


the new testament is a different story.
According to whom?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by arachnophilia, posted 04-10-2005 10:57 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by arachnophilia, posted 04-10-2005 11:55 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 22 of 204 (198194)
04-11-2005 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by jar
04-10-2005 10:50 PM


Re: I still don't understand what you're saying.
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:
Looking at the evidence, we see that there is little reason to question Mark 16:9-20. The witness in its favour is nearly as old as that opposed. Further, we should note that the near uniform testimony of the Greek manuscript evidence is in favour of these verses (the Byzantine majority). Additionally, while manuscript 2386 is listed as lacking this verse, we should note (as Terry does) that the reason for this lack is due to the fact that this manuscript is missing the sheet upon which these verses would appear (which makes one wonder why textual critics would bother to include it pro or con at all). Essentially, the primary Greek witness opposed to these verses consists of the vaunted "oldest and best" manuscripts, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Thus, on the basis of these two preferred texts and little else, textual scholars hope to overturn the vast body of manuscripts in favour (which are buttressed by additional evidences, as we shall see below).
Mark 16:9-20 (quoted in the following:
quote:
One of the most attacked portions of Scripture is Mark 16:9-20. This portion of Mark is found in 618 extant manuscripts. The two manuscripts which they are not found in are the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, which are the two primary underlying manuscripts used in every modern version. This means that the evidence is overwhelming in favor of Mark 16:9-20, 618 versus 2. Keep in mind that the modern versions are based on 45 manuscripts out of 5255 which is less than 1% of all available manuscripts. This is why they can say that this portion of Mark is not part of Scripture because they reject 5210 of the 5255 manuscripts.
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:
DW: If a problem with the TR is variant readings, then how does it help to expand the field so that we have thousands more variant readings? The "errors" you cite are a wonderful example of the power of paradigms. How is "Christ" instead of "Lord" a mistake? Or Mary's purification? The issue is not whether careful scholarship goes into the formation of the text, but rather who is qualified to do that scholarship, and who is responsible for authoritatively receiving it. The Church has been entrusted with the oracles of God, not autonomous scientists. We have agreed that a traditional manuscript bridge is necessary. Who stands guard at the bridgethe Church or autonomous science?
DW:...the confessing historical Church has determined that the Bible contains 66 books and that Mark 16:9_20 is in one of them. A few readings remain to be settled, but the settling is to be done by the confessing historical Churchnot Zondervan. Individualistic efforts may be believing work, and yet not submitted to the authority of the Church. Secular canons of academic text criticism do not require ecclesiastical review. Incidentally, admitting that no one form of the TR is perfect and admitting error in the TR are two distinct things. [Douglas Wilson]
You may of course agree with James White, his opponent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by jar, posted 04-10-2005 10:50 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by jar, posted 04-11-2005 12:38 PM Faith has replied

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


Message 23 of 204 (198195)
04-11-2005 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by arachnophilia
04-10-2005 11:55 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by arachnophilia, posted 04-10-2005 11:55 PM arachnophilia has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Kapyong, posted 04-11-2005 1:36 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 28 of 204 (198212)
04-11-2005 4:00 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by PaulK
04-11-2005 2:36 AM


Whatever. You didn't get it and you still don't get it. OK. Way it goes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by PaulK, posted 04-11-2005 2:36 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by PaulK, posted 04-11-2005 4:06 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 30 of 204 (198215)
04-11-2005 4:17 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Kapyong
04-11-2005 1:36 AM


Re: The COuncil of Nicea did NOT choose the books of the Bible
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Kapyong, posted 04-11-2005 1:36 AM Kapyong has not replied

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


Message 31 of 204 (198216)
04-11-2005 4:24 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by PaulK
04-11-2005 4:06 AM


You object to my saying such accusations exist at all? So you don't think anybody ever complains that the Bible has changed substantially over the centuries {EDIT: since the DSS let's say at least}?
So it wouldn't have been any surprise to you that the Isaiah scroll is the same as the Isaiah we have? So there is simply no need to make an issue of it? {EDIT: So those Christian sources that make a point of answering such charges have no charges to answer; they're just making up charges themselves to answer?}
There have been no serious copying errors? The Bible has been passed down quite reliably? Well, great. I certainly believe that.
And nobody's ever raised doubts about that? Interesting you've never encountered them. Some of us have.
{Edited to improve clarity I hope.}
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-11-2005 03:40 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by PaulK, posted 04-11-2005 4:06 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by PaulK, posted 04-11-2005 5:06 AM Faith has replied

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


Message 32 of 204 (198218)
04-11-2005 4:32 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Kapyong
04-11-2005 1:08 AM


Re: 1375 differences in Isaiah scroll
I posted TWO links that show that the differences between the DSS Isaiah scroll and our current Isaiah are trivial.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Kapyong, posted 04-11-2005 1:08 AM Kapyong has not replied

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


Message 33 of 204 (198219)
04-11-2005 4:34 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Kapyong
04-11-2005 1:13 AM


Re: Differences in Isaiah - MT vs DSS
READ the Moeller link.
I posted it myself in my message #5
http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/qum-1.htm
It is VERY clear that the differences are NOTHING BUT trivial.
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-11-2005 03:37 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Kapyong, posted 04-11-2005 1:13 AM Kapyong has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Kapyong, posted 04-11-2005 8:12 AM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024