Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Isaiah and the Dead Sea Scrolls
Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3443 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 24 of 204 (198196)
04-11-2005 1:08 AM


1375 differences in Isaiah scroll
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

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Kapyong, posted 04-11-2005 1:13 AM Kapyong has not replied
 Message 32 by Faith, posted 04-11-2005 4:32 AM Kapyong has not replied

  
Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3443 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 25 of 204 (198198)
04-11-2005 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Kapyong
04-11-2005 1:08 AM


Differences in Isaiah - MT vs DSS
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

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Faith, posted 04-11-2005 4:34 AM Kapyong has replied

  
Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3443 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 26 of 204 (198201)
04-11-2005 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Faith
04-11-2005 12:50 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 04-11-2005 12:50 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Faith, posted 04-11-2005 4:17 AM Kapyong has not replied

  
Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3443 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 35 of 204 (198244)
04-11-2005 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Faith
04-11-2005 4:34 AM


Re: Differences in Isaiah - MT vs DSS
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Faith, posted 04-11-2005 4:34 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Faith, posted 04-11-2005 11:24 AM Kapyong has not replied

  
Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3443 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 52 of 204 (198402)
04-11-2005 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Faith
04-11-2005 8:00 PM


DSS proved MT corruptions
Greetings,
quote:
One book's having been preserved so well through thousands of copyings and recopyings through the many distributions of the Christian Bible over the centuries, is an excellent indication that Biblical copying in general is quite reliable for that same span of time and can be inferred to be the case for the entire Bible. Hence complaints about supposed changes from that time are refuted.
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:
There are eight copies of the Book of Daniel found in Qumran Caves 1, 4, and 6. They are 1Q71-2, 4Q112-116, and 6Q7pap. The Hebrew and Aramaic sections are preserved. Generally the texts follow the Masoretic tradition, but there are some important differences (See Charlesworth, The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Vol.1, p.161).
The MT books of Samuel were long considered corrupt, the DSS versions of Samuel proved it -
quote:
The Book of Samuel varies widely and frequently from the Masoretic Text. 4QSama preserves a number of superior readings that help correct errors in the Masoretic Text (DSS Bible, 213). Let's look at some of these.
One dramatic example is in I Samuel 11 where the MT and KJV left out the first paragraph. The Longer reading in the DSS explains what happens in this chapter. It says:
"Nahash king of the Ammonites oppressed the Gadites and the Reubenites viciously. He put out the right eye of all of them and brought fear and trembling on Israel. Not one of the Israelites in the region beyond the Jordan remained whose right eye Nahash king of the Ammonites did not put out, except seven thousand men who escaped from the Ammonites and went to Jabesh-gilead" (The Dead Sea Scroll Bible translated by Abegg, Flint, and Ulrich page 225). Then verse one of I Samuel 11 starts.
Places where the DSS fixed MT Samuel corruptions include :
quote:
1 Samuel 14:30
There is a mis-division of words here in the MT. The 4QSama divides it differently which makes better sense. The MT has hkm htbr rather than hkmh hbr in the 4QSama.
1 Samuel 14:47
There is a singular instead of a plural noun in 4QSama. 4QSama is the better reading.
1 Samuel 15:27
There is an omission of the subject in the MT. According to 4QSama Saul is the subject who grabbed the garment, not Samuel.
1 Samuel 17:4
How tall was Goliath? The MT says, "six cubits and a span" while 4QSama says, "four cubits and a span." People don't usually grow to be over 9 foot tall, so the "four cubits"(7 feet) seems the most reasonable height of Goliath.
1 Samuel 26:22
The MT preserves two variant readings by combining them while the 4QSama just records the one correct word. The MT has an ungrammatical reading
There are many other places where the DSS proved the MT had been corrupted :
quote:
Genesis 1:9
4QGenk has added "and dry land appeared" indicating that the longer reading of the LXX is from an ancient Hebrew text that the MT lost by haplography. The LXX addition says, "and the waters below heaven gathered into their gathering place and dry land appeared" (See Charlesworth, 2000, p.200).
Genesis 4:8
Genesis 4:8 leaves us with the unanswered question about What did Cain say to Abel? The Samaritan Pentateuch and the LXX have what Cain said. The LXX says, "Let us go out into the field." 4QGenb does not have this reading, but scholars think the sentence dropped out because of scribal error (Ibid., 15).
Exodus 1:3
4QExodb in Exodus 1:3 has "Joseph and Benjamin" while the MT, SP, and LXX have only "Benjamin." Frank Cross thinks 4QExodb reading should be preferred (Ibid., 201-203).
Deuteronomy 32:8
4QDeutj and the LXX say, "according to the number of the sons of God" while the MT and SP say, "according to the number of the sons of Israel." "Sons of Israel" does not make sense here. This is probably a theological change. The 4QDeutj and the LXX seem to preserve the older reading that implies a god, or guardian angel for each nation.
Joshua 8:34-35
4QJosha locates the paragraph about Joshua's construction of an altar (Joshua 8:30-35, MT) at the beginning of Joshua 5. The LXX locates this paragraph at Joshua 9:7-8. Josephus follows the 4QJosha tradition which is probably the earliest or original order of Joshua.
Judges 6:6-11
4QJudga is different from the MT and the LXX in that it lacks Judges 6:7-10. These missing verses are said to be a literary insertion added by an editor. Here is clear evidence of scribal expansion of the MT.
Psalms
There are a number of additional Psalms in the DSS than in our Bible. Psalms 1-89 are basically the same as ours in the DSS (Psalm 32, and 70 are absent). From Psalm 91 on there are radical differences in arrangement, and/or in different Psalms that have never been seen before (Psalm 90 is not preserved). There are a total of 15 different Psalms which are not included in our present Bible, nine of which were completely unknown. None of the Psalm scrolls found has our present day arrangement of the Book of Psalms.
Psalm 22
Psalm 22:17 in the MT "like a lion are my hands and feet" which does not make sense. The LXX and 5/6HevPs read "They have pierced my hands and feet."
Psalm 145 is an alphabetical psalm. Each verse begins with the next letter in the alphabet, but "N" verse is missing in the MT and KJV. In the DSS it is there, so somehow a scribe left this verse out.
This evidence shows conclusively that the MT was NOT "preserved so well", the copying was not "reliable" at all.
Iasion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Faith, posted 04-11-2005 8:00 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Faith, posted 04-11-2005 9:55 PM Kapyong has replied

  
Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3443 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 56 of 204 (198425)
04-12-2005 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Faith
04-11-2005 9:55 PM


Re: DSS proved MT corruptions
Greetings,
quote:
The other books are not relevant, the Isaiah scroll is.
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:
The corruptions were not inherited by us for some reason.
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:
Even their being recognized as corruptions implies that we know the authentic from the corrupt in order to judge.
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:
They are interesting as the state of things at Qumran but not as pertaining to our texts. The Isaiah scroll just happened to be pertinent however.
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:
I didn't make any claims about anything, not about the Masoretic Text or anything BUT the Isaiah scroll. All the rest is simply not relevant to the point I was making.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Faith, posted 04-11-2005 9:55 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Faith, posted 04-12-2005 6:55 AM Kapyong has not replied
 Message 63 by Faith, posted 04-12-2005 7:35 AM Kapyong has not replied

  
Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3443 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 77 of 204 (198804)
04-12-2005 9:07 PM


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Faith, posted 04-13-2005 11:19 PM Kapyong has not replied

  
Kapyong
Member (Idle past 3443 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 78 of 204 (198893)
04-13-2005 7:58 AM


Changes to the NT
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 16:9-20
The 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 1:1
Jesus Christ [Son of God]
Early MSS do not have "son of God".
John 9:35
Son 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 8:37
JC 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 1:2
As 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 3:22
The 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 5:7
The 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 6:13
The 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 1:14
Redemption 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

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Nighttrain, posted 04-13-2005 8:27 PM Kapyong has not replied
 Message 82 by Faith, posted 04-13-2005 11:59 PM Kapyong 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