|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Isaiah and the Dead Sea Scrolls | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Kapyong Member (Idle past 3443 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 3443 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 3443 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kapyong Member (Idle past 3443 days) Posts: 344 Joined: |
Well,
I see claims that the differences are trivial,and I see claims that there are 13 significant differences. Do YOU think those 13 differences are significant?If not, why not? Considering the way claims of faith are bandied about on these subjects, I would like to see these 13 differences for myself. Moeller's page does not seem to specifically list them as such, I am still trying to determine what these 13 alleged significant differences are. Iasion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kapyong Member (Idle past 3443 days) Posts: 344 Joined: |
Greetings,
quote: ONE book ?What about the OTHER books found in the DSS which show considerable corruption to the MT ? The Great Isaiah scroll (with "only" 1375 differences to the MT), is the LEAST corrupt of the books recovered from the DSS. The various other books found there are much more variant than Isaiah. Your biased argument is based on skewed, limited data - the ONE book that is "almost identical", whle ignoring the books which are quite variant. Quotes from:
IBSS - Biblical Archaeology - Dead Sea Scrolls Consider the book of Daniel, the several DSS versions are often different to the MT :
quote: The MT books of Samuel were long considered corrupt, the DSS versions of Samuel proved it -
quote: Places where the DSS fixed MT Samuel corruptions include :
quote: There are many other places where the DSS proved the MT had been corrupted :
quote: This evidence shows conclusively that the MT was NOT "preserved so well", the copying was not "reliable" at all. Iasion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kapyong Member (Idle past 3443 days) Posts: 344 Joined: |
Greetings,
quote: I beg your pardon?You claimed the similarity of the DSS Isaiah to the modern Isaiah shows the texts were copied accurately without changes. But the other DSS books prove just the opposite -that the modern versions HAVE been corrupted. This is EXACTLY relevant -it just proves you wrong, so you try to dismiss this evidence. quote: What?So, you are claiming that the modern versions are correct, but the differences in the DSS are "corruptions" which did not make it into the MT? quote: Pardon?The early DSS versions are different to the modern MT versions. Are you really claiming we don't know which is earlier? If the DSS and the MT are different, this disproves your claim that the copying was accurate. quote: You mean the Isaiah scroll supports your claim, so you champion that MSS,But, the OTHER books proves you are wrong, so you pretend they are not relevant? What nonsense. quote: Rubbish.You claimed the Isaiah similarity proved the reliability of MSS copying. Then when I pointed out the OTHER books show just the opposite,you try to brush them aside with a hand-wave. This is transparent apologetics,your claim is proven false, regardless of your attempts to dismiss the evidence that disagrees with your claim. Iasion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kapyong Member (Idle past 3443 days) Posts: 344 Joined: |
Greetings all,
So,we have the ancient DSS copies, we have the modern copies, we see many differences between them. Isaiah has over a 1000 differences, including 100s of copying errors - missing letters and words, even multiple lines missed in places. The other DSS MSS show much more serious variation, as I pointed out. But somehow Faith thinks this proves the copying was accurate? Even though Isaiah was clearly NOT copied that accurately,and the other books show much corruption has occured. Now Faith claims the DSS are NOT the basis for our modern MSS? If so, Faith's whole argument crumbles, as PaulK and Tagless mentioned. Furthermore, this means our modern MT was based on ANOTHER scripture tradition than the DSS MSS. In other words, according to Faith,in ancient times there were (at least) two scripture traditions - 1) the DSS family (a corrupt version) 2) the other version (identical to ours) Yet we have NO evidence for this other version that was identical to ours (apart from Faith's faith). All we have is the DSS family of MSS - which according to Faith was a corrupt variant. In other words,Faith ignores all the differences we do see, dismisses the DSS MSS as "corrupt", pretends there was a scripture tradition identical to the modern, then pretends this proves the copying was accurate ! Honestly,this is nonsense. Iasion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Kapyong Member (Idle past 3443 days) Posts: 344 Joined: |
Greetings all,
The issue of changes to the bible e.g. Isaiah touched upon the NT also - I hope its ok to give a brief list of changes to the NT to show that it clearly has been changed over the years, just like the OT. If this belongs in a new topic, that's fine :-) Mark 16:9-20The Resurrection Appearances Most of the earliest witnesses have G.Mark ending at 16:8 - with the empty tomb scene, but no resurrection appearances etc.Intriguingly, an empty tomb scene was not unknown in other 1st century dramatic writings - e.g. Chariton's novel Chareas and Callirhoe included an empty tomb scene - as did some other documents AFAIR. G.Mark ends at 16:8 in the very important early MSS Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, and also in others such as : Latin Codex Bobiensis, the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, and the two oldest Georgian translations and many Armenian manuscripts. In later versions however, there are several DIFFERENT endings to G.Mark after 16:8 -* the longer ending (16:9-20 in many Bibles) * the shorter ending (also found in some study bibles) * another minor variant of a few verses (Many modern Bibles now indicate this with brackets or a marginal note.) Origen and Clement of Alexandria and Victor of Antioch quote and discuss G.Mark WITHOUT mentioning the appendix.Eusebius mentions that most MSS do not have the appendix. Jerome also notes the passage can not be found in most Greek MSS. This, this evidence is fairly clear that the post-resurrection stories were NOT original, but added later.This helps to explain why the stories in G.Luke and G.Matthew and G.John are so wildly different - they did not have G.Mark to follow, so each made-up a different story. Mark 1:1Jesus Christ [Son of God] Early MSS do not have "son of God". John 9:35Son of Man/God Early MSS have :"Jesus heard that they had cast him out, and having found him he said, Do you believe in the Son of man?" Later versions have :"Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?" Acts 8:37JC is the Son of God "And Phillip said, if thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God" This passage is missing from all the early MSS. Mark 1:2As written in [Isaiah] The early MSS have :"As it is written in Isaiah the prophet..." But most later versions have :"As it is written in the prophets..." Probably because the quote is NOT really from Isaiah (its composited from Isaiah, Malachai, and Exodus) - the eariest MSS were wrong, so later versions fixed this error by using just "prophets". Luke 3:22The words of God at the Baptism Early MSS and quotes have the same as the Psalm :"...and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou are my son, this day have I begotten thee" But later versions have changed it to :"...and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved son; in thee I am well pleased" 1 John 5:7The Trinity "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. " This passage is not found in any Greek MSS, and was therefore not included in the original Textus Receptus of Erasmus. But it then appeared in a Greek MSS and was then included in the KJV. Matthew 6:13The Lord's Prayer Early and important MSS (Aleph, B, D, Z, 205, 547) as well as some fathers (Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian) have :"And lead us not into temptation, But deliver us from evil" Other MSS have :"And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen" And a few MSS have another version :"And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, of the father, the son, and the holy spirit for ever. Amen" A few MSS exclude the words "the power" or "the glory" or "the kingdom". The Lord's Prayer is one of the more variant parts of the NT. Colossians 1:14Redemption by blood All early MSS have the shorter :"in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins" But later copies have added "through his blood" :"In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins" This is an important proof-text for the doctrine of redemption by Chist's blood - but its a later addition. This shows quite clearly that the NT was often changed during its history. Iasion
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024