Isaiah and the Dead Sea Scrolls

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

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

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

Yes, I object to the claim that such "accusations" as could be refuted by the Isaiah scroll are commonly made.The reasoning is simple. The Isaiah scroll could refute specific claims - but you have already admitted that you are not talking about those. But it can only refute general claims if they are conveniently limited to what the Isaiah scroll COULD disprove. And it seems very unlikely that such claims would be made - why bother adding specifics which don't help the argument unless there is a specific claim in mind ? And it is certainly false to say that the websites you listed make a point of answering such claims. They don't.So no I DON'T think that anyone claims that Isaiah or many of the canonical OT texts have changed significantly since the middle of the 2nd Century BC. The major changes are dated earlier.

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

At least you've dropped your harping on the irrelevant question of pre-DSS changes to Isaiah. I will content myself with that much. Have a good day.

Mostly because Moeller's page doesn't refer to them. That list appears to intend to be inclusive. That is what the problem is, that nobody lists them. Since Moeller doesn't even refer to them it is a fair guess that they are included in that page of insignificant differences, and since the sites that refer to 13 "significant" differences do not bother to describe them, they can't be all that significant.

No, the pre-DSS changes are relevant because they ARE the major changes proposed for Isaiah. And that also means that the DSS can't disprove general claims that Isaiah has changed.Like I say unless and until you find somebody who conveniently limits their claims of changes so that the DSS can disprove them you have no evidence for your claim at all.

Well you seem to enjoy having this argument that you made up all by yourself. It really has nothing to do with me or anything I said. The DSS Isaiah is used by many, and I cited a couple -- many more where those came from -- to show that at least one Bible book has remained unchanged since then, and that this has implications for general complaints about Biblical changes since then. Nobody would claim this applies to possible changes prior to that, and I certainly didn't. I also didn't refer to specific charges because I wasn't thinking of specific charges, only general charges. There probably ARE some specific charges but it wasn't my topic. You want to hold me to some argument of your own about specific charges but it isn't my argument so I think I should just leave you to your argument. I'm sorry you can't follow this. I really don't get it. It's quite simple and you are making it into something it just isn't and never was.{EDIT: Perhaps I should add that I'm just talking about charges made by the average person, not by scholars. Maybe that is the problem here, I really don't know. It's similar to the situation with the Nicene Council. That became a big issue because somehow the average person got the idea that that Council threw out valid Biblical books, so the answer is that no, the books that were not included in the canon were excluded because they were NOT valid. Now maybe the Nicene Council didn't actually determine the canon to any such extent in any case, but the principle is still true -- the answer to the average person is that the canon was not established by political or otherwise nefarious means, but on the basis of church determination of what was valid. With this Isaiah scroll thing I'm also just referring to "what people say" about the supposed alterations in the Biblical text over the centuries, the kinds of complaints about the Bible that come up on message boards all over the internet for instance, not from scholars. The scroll proves that at least for one book since the time of the DSS that idea is false. There are many other issues involved and many other answers, but for this one point it ought to be clear enough on its own.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-11-2005 11:12 AM

No, I haven't made up any argument by myself.Your initial claim was wrong because you have neither examples of specific claims nor of general claims that are actually refuted by the Isaiah scroll. Yet you asserted that such claims were common. You even asserted that your point had been unfairly dismissed despite the fact that you STILL have offered no real support for it.It's time to admit that you were wrong, instead of trying to find some blame to pin on me.

No, Mr. K, it is LONG PAST time for YOU to admit you were wrong as you have done nothing but blame me for some bizarre misunderstanding of your own. Sorry but that's the way it is.

Sorry but even your sources support the contention that Mark was redacted and the verses were added in.From your own sources: Nearly as old. A clear admission that the older versions do not contain the additions. Once again, a clear admission that the verses do not exist in the oldest and most basic versions.Faith, even your very own sources admit the verses were added although they go on to try to deny the fact that they just admitted. This is a classic example of the Doublethink of the Fundamentalist. They simply ignore the evidence that doesn't fit THEIR particular idea of TRUTH.It is the basic failing that classifies and defines the YEC and Fundamentalist, ignore any evidence that doesn't meet the needs of propaganda.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Why exactly should I admit any error when you have failed utterly to support your assertion ? So far as I can tell I was entirely correct - the really common "charges" are not refuted by the DSS for the reasons I havce already given.You've been given a fair chance to support your assertions. And you have failed to do so, and appear to have given up trying.

Yeah, that line bothered me there too. It's a strange one, because there is no way to establish which are the older versions since the earliest manuscripts have long since disintegrated. I don't know what they base that on. The idea is silly too because there were many many many different lines of manuscripts from the earliest times and who knows which version went which direction. All the churches had copies of at least some of the books.Yes that line appears to confirm the idea but I don't think it amounts to much myself. As I said I personally rely on my own spiritual judgment that the verses are consistent with the whole. How so? There is nothing in that statement to say how old those two are. Actually you have ignored the evidence that counts by focusing on this one line and a quote that doesn't even mention age at all. The fact is that the enormous majority of the texts in existence include the passage and it has been affirmed by major Christian authorities over the centuries, and that evidence outweighs that one unprovable assertion that the noninclusion is older, and the opinion of mere scholars who don't have the authority of the Church behind them.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-11-2005 12:59 PM

No I have merely "failed to support" YOUR assertion, not my own. You are the one who made up the whole nonsense about specific charges. I never said a word about specific charges. And the DSS does refute the common charges just fine, as the fact that many many many Christian sources use it for just that purpose.But yeah, after a while a person can only give up on this Madhatter's tea party here.