|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Isaiah and the Dead Sea Scrolls | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taqless Member (Idle past 5941 days) Posts: 285 From: AZ Joined: |
Hi Monk,
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. I then asked about changes prior to the DSS and was informed by Faith that since the scribes did such a great job post-DSS that one could conclude that the same could be said about the texts prior to the DSS. I happen to disagree with this and I do not think that a more "modern" text (DSS), relatively speaking of course, indicates that an earlier time was JUST AS EFFICIENT (One needs to take into consideration imprisonment, loss of personal articles, etc that the Israelites are well-known to have gone through). I don't think anyone of us utilizes our logic in this manner in our normal everyday lives. Not the least of which I would like to ask you, what you think it means that there are scrolls that are not found in our modern text. What does one conclude in that case? I don't think one can start crying foul play or other excuses since as a whole the DSS seem to be supportive of consistency across that time frame, but then apparently the DSS, not matter how supportive, are not the basis for the modern text. Do you happen to have a reference for why this is believed? I certainly don't know enough of the details. Anyway, thank you for your reply. For me the message is the most important...not verabtim, regurgitation, but then I feel the same about Confucius. Too many of us on this planet not to try to get along (forcing others not being an option).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
"throughout history" ONLY SINCE THE DSS.
quote: "FROM THAT TIME" ought to have made that clear. No way a text found at a particular time can testify to alterations made BEFORE that time. Maybe it would have helped if you'd asked a question for clarification's sake, though I can't tell what your problem was so I don't know what to suggest. In fact your above paragraph is sloppily enough worded that I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Perhaps you could try to state it more clearly? {I think I start to make more sense of this as this post proceeds however, so read on}
quote: I have NO idea what you are talking about. It would really help if you'd quote me using the word "unfounded" in context so I could see what you are referring to. I'm having to wing it here, having very little idea what you are trying to say. Also I haven't used the term "original" in reference to the DSS at all, as it ISN'T original -- they are all copies, so again, what are you saying? It appears to me that you simply haven't taken the time to grasp my points and have managed to mangle them completely in this attempt at reconstruction.
quote: Nothing you've said explains much of anything. It is completely incomprehensible. I have not been unclear. I've repeated my points over and over, clarifying where necessary, and from my point of view it's NOT difficult to understand at ALL, but you are MAKING it difficult. Perhaps you have some preconceptions that are interfering with simply READING what I've actually said? Perhaps you don't know what some words mean? Perhaps you should have asked a question about how I use this or that word to help clarify an ambiguity? That's the best I can do to understand this.
In addition, when I asked you about changes prior to the DSS you extrapolated to me as follows in post #49: One cannot "extrapolate to" a person, Tagless. Now you are showing that you have trouble with the English language.
Faith writes: You claim all that is meaningless if there were changes made to Isaiah prior to the DSS, but that is another subject. quote: Why? This refers to the centuries AFTER the DSS which I would think would be obvious after all, especially since I've repeated the phrase "SINCE THE DSS" I don't know how many times, as well as "the INTERVENING centuries" and other attempts to make the time period clear. I'm obviously referring to my point that the texts AFTER the intervening centuries (our modern Bible) are the same as the texts BEFORE the intervening centuries (the Dead Sea Scrolls). Also, you didn't quote enough for starters here. I'm saying "you claim all that is meaningless" but I have no idea what "all that" is as you don't quote back far enough. In any case, I go on to say that something here (I can't tell what) is "another subject" so why are you addressing it as if it were the main topic?
quote: quote: Again, apparently you are having a problem with the phrase "over the centuries" which is in fact the same thing as saying "the reliability of the scribes since the Isaiah scroll." I have NEVER referred to any "centuries" except those between the DSS and the present, and again, I have used many qualifying phrases to be sure it is clear that that is the period I'm talking about. I think you simply haven't been reading carefully enough.
quote: I'm simply not following you. I believe I have taken pains to be as clear as possible. I have, however, come to recognize that it is dangerous around here to dare to insert a parenthetical phrase, an aside, a remark in passing, a hint as to a possible future subject, and the like, as it will not be regarded as such. I shouldn't have risked any reference whatever to the pre-DSS period, however parenthetical, as there was enough confusion already. In any case, overall I get the impression that you ascribe your own idiosyncratic meanings to words I have used, that are not the same meanings I ascribe to them, and you want to make that my fault rather than your own. Since it is very hard to follow you I can't determine whether any of it IS in fact my fault, something I could have prevented. All I know is that I have taken pains to be clear. Possibly if you would take the time to reread a few previous posts of mine very very carefully you might begin to see what I've been saying from the beginning.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3952 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
taqless writes: Not the least of which I would like to ask you, what you think it means that there are scrolls that are not found in our modern text. What does one conclude in that case? All the books of the modern bibles are represented by the DSS including those books that Protestants consider apocraphal. In addition, there were two other books found in the DSS that are not part of most modern texts. The Book of Jubilees and 1 Enoch. Most Christian denominations consider these two books to be apocraphal. They were obscure but known before the DSS was found and they are considered in high regard to this day by the Ethiopic Christian church. What can I conclude from this? Only that they were not sufficiently acceptable to be declared Scripture by most of the early Christian churches. Of course they weren’t the only ones, there were many other ancient texts that were excluded from the Bible, but that’s probably a topic for another thread. My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind. ---Albert Einstein
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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: 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: 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: 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: Then I quote myself from the earlier thread where I was already trying to get this point across to deaf ears:
quote: "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: And again:
quote: 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: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Since my position has NOT changed on that matter at all, it is NOT a "big step". It is no step at all.
quote: 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. 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.
quote: 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 ? 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 ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tsig Member (Idle past 2936 days) Posts: 738 From: USA Joined: |
The Isaiah scroll in the DSS is virtually identical with our Isaiah texts and that demonstrates that our text has not suffered from changes over the centuries. So what? Some old scrolls match up with other old scrolls. Well that's just amazing since they were written by they same group.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
What can I say. Enjoy your ignorance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
quote: 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: "Over the years" means "since the DSS" as it always has.
quote: 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: I've NEVER been talking about changes before the DSS. The common charges are refuted for the post-DSS OT.
quote: Again, the common charges are refuted for the post-DSS OT. This message has been edited by Faith, 04-16-2005 09:15 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tsig Member (Idle past 2936 days) Posts: 738 From: USA Joined: |
What can I say. Enjoy your ignorance. So some writing from the past is the same as the bible?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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: From a link I supplied in Post #5: Page Not Found - U C G S P
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I too believe this thread is over.
The answer to the question posed in the first thread is "none at all". There are no commonly-made charges that are refuted by the DSS Isaiah scroll. Rather than admit this Faith has resorted to numerous personal attacks and misrepresentations, typical of the bad behacviour of a creationist caught in an error.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taqless Member (Idle past 5941 days) Posts: 285 From: AZ Joined: |
Hi Monk,
Thanks for your reply. Fair enough, you answered my question nicely and I understood it. Glad that you understood where I was coming from. Of course, you're right about addressing why or why not apocryphal documents were not included in the collection that make up the bibles most often found in the U.S. Regards
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taqless Member (Idle past 5941 days) Posts: 285 From: AZ Joined: |
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?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024