Draconis

Or, to put things another way, if you allege a legendary figure like Robin Hood was at a
particular place like a tavern one night, then you find archeological evidence of a tavern
in the right place, why is that conclusive evidence that Robin Hood really existed and was there?

Martian Astronomer

So, you're claiming that you base your doctrine on scripture, but you're okay with it when someone edits scripture in a way that agrees with (your interpretation of) biblical doctrine...:constern01:

Deus Ex

Mark
16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Where is the indication that this is meant to be a metaphor? I say: Demonstrate your power!

temporalillusion

He's an evangelical Christian and a professor at Trinity, that seems pretty fundamentalist.

What I couldn't find about him was any list of academic papers he's written in textual criticism journals, maybe you know of a list?

Maybe someone more familiar with the field can comment on his reputation as a scholar.

Regardless, posting links to books isn't really a form of discussion.

Doug Shaver

If you think David was changing the subject or failing to address your arguments, then you don't know what your subject is and you don't understand your own arguments.

Doug Shaver

Prove it. Your say-so doesn't make it so.

ApostateAbe

I already accept that the writings of the Bible, including the Gospels, are roughly based on historical characters and events. I believe that William Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" is much the same--containing plenty of history with plenty of embellishments. The challenge, I think, is to corroborate the most extraordinary claims, not the normal and expected claims that anyone can believe. If Tom Cruise wants to prove Scientology, then he needs to show recorded evidence of the ghostly body thetans. It is not enough to prove that volcanoes exist, even though volcanoes are found in a scientologist's version of history. Does this make sense? Presumably, you proved that Herod's temple existed. That is great, but Herod is already well-corroborated in Jewish history, through the writings of Josephus (I believe). A better thing to do is to show evidence of Herod's "Massacre of the Innocents," which is decidedly not corroborated in any extant historical documents. Or how about the zombies of Matthew 27:50-53? Or, for that matter, the plagues on Egypt and the Jewish Exodus. How about the Sun staying still in the sky for a die? Do you think the Egyptians and the Chinese wouldn't have made a religion out of that? I am not asking you to limit yourself to that, but I am talking about the stuff like it, you know, the unbelievable things of the Bible.

Roger Pearse

I'm not clear what is being argued. "arguments for the bible"? For the bible, what?

The Greek New Testament is certainly the best preserved ancient literary text known to us. But I don't see how that affects the question of whether what it says is true or not. The argument appears to confuse the two issues.

Again, the argument seems confused. The NT records a great deal of information about ancient Judaea, as might be expected from a text composed in that period. But so do other texts of the period. So while the statement made is correct, it doesn't prove anything.

Please think your position through more clearly. Christianity may be true, or not, but neither of these statements demonstrates either, whether true or false.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Kapyong

Gday,

Bill, many of us HAVE studied the NT MSS,
and
t.i. is correct - every single Greek papyrus is different from every other.

The claim is frequently made that the Isaiah found in the DSS was exactly the same as modern copies.

The facts are very different - there were several copies of Isaiah found - including two large copies. One is very different from modern copies, the other is also different.

The differences are so significant that some modern bibles have CHANGED as a result of those differences.

Here are some of these differences explained :

Isaiah 3:24
The RSV and NRSV consider the meaning of the MT difficult and find clarification in 1QIsaa, which adds bsht (shame) following ky, understood in its usual meaning of “for” or “because,” translating, “for shame shall take the place of beauty.” However, HOTTP points out that ky can be understood as a noun meaning “branding mark,” and the MT can be translated, without resorting to the 1QIsaa reading, as does the NJV, “a burn instead of beauty.” This would mean that the 1QIsaa scribe may have been unfamiliar with the rare meaning of ky as a noun and supplied the Hebrew word for “shame” as a reasonable complement.

Isaiah 7:14
NIV, alone, makes note of the 1QIsaa reading, wqr’ (masculine) for the MT wqr’t (apparently second person feminine singular, but perhaps third person). It seems clear that 1QIsaa is once again seeking to simplify a difficult form (Rosenbloom 1970:125). There seems little reason to provide a textual note here.

Isaiah 8:2
The MT and 4QIsae have a first person future verb form for “I will call as witness(es),” while 1QIsaa reads wh’d, an imperative form, “and have it attested,” as in NRSV. The NIV translates the MT (with 4QIsae), “And I will call in Uriah the priest and Zechariah … as reliable witnesses for me.” Some translations translate the consonants of the MT, but change the vowel of the first letter from we to wa, changing it to the past tense. The future tense of the NIV, however, is a legitimate tense shift in prophetic literature, reflecting the prophet’s certainty that he will be the agent of God’s message. In any case, it does not seem necessary to resort to the 1QIsaa reading.

Isaiah 11:6
The MT and 4QIsac add to the list of two animals, “calf and beast of prey (lion),” a third, wmry’ “and the fatling.” Early commentators proposed that this noun be emended to a verb, ymr’w “will feed.” This reading is now found in 1QIsaa and is recommended by the HOTTP committee for translation, as in the GNB, “Calves and lion cubs will feed together.” The NJV mentions this Qumran reading in a note. The NIV also notes this reading in a footnote but fails to mention the Qumran evidence.

Isaiah 14:4
The NJV, RSV, NRSV, and NIV all follow 1QIsaa in the text. It is the only Qumran reading followed by all eight of the translations studied by Clark (1984). The NJV provides the explanation of this remarkable unanimity: “madhebah (the MT) is of unknown meaning.” It is likely that one letter, d, in the MT is incorrect, and the text should read r, a letter that is quite similar in shape. In fact, this is the reading of 1QIsaa: marhebah, and is translated “insolence” (NRSV), “fury” (NIV), or in similar terms. In many cases the MT presents difficulties for the translator because of certain obscurities in Hebrew grammar or lexicography. But in some cases, as here, the difficulty is created by textual corruption, and the Qumran evidence provides valuable assistance.

Isaiah 14:30
The RSV and NRSV follow 1QIsaa in translating, “I will slay,” instead of “he/it will slay.” The Isaiah scroll seems to better fit the context in which this passage is preceded by another first person singular verb. Among the ancient versions, only the Latin agrees with 1QIsaa. Burrows finds the Qumran reading quite convincing (1955:307), and the NEB/REB concur. However, HOTTP prefers the MT, explaining the shift to third person as a reference back to “the venomous serpent” of 14:29.

Isaiah 15:9
In Isaiah’s oracle against Moab, the well-known Moabite city of Dibon is mentioned in 15:2. In 15:9 Dimon is mentioned twice in the MT. 1QIsab agrees with the MT, but is only extant for the first occurrence. The RSV and NRSV follow the 1QIsaa reading, “Dibon,” and the NIV cites this Qumran evidence in a note. Should the translator follow 1QIsaa or 1QIsab? Dimon may be understood as an alternate name for Dibon, using this name as a literary device to sound like the Hebrew word dam (blood) in the same verse. This explanation is plausible, since name puns are used elsewhere in the OT. It is also possible that this is another city in Moab, although it is otherwise unknown. The RSV opted for the 1QIsaa harmonization with 15:2. Burrows (1955:307–308) implies that this is one of the thirteen 1QIsaa readings adopted by the RSV committee that he would reject upon later reflection. However, the NRSV retains Dibon. The NEB translates “Dimon,” while the REB renders “Dibon,” but fails to offer any textual note, in contradiction to their general policy of citing Qumran evidence.

Isaiah 19:18
In a note, NIV cites Q (= Qumran), along with some MSS of the MT in support of the reading “City of the Sun.” Other versions, including RSV and NRSV, read “City of the Sun” in the text without adding a textual note. This follows the general practice of many translations that do not cite textual variants if there is any manuscript support in the Masoretic tradition.

Isaiah 21:8
The NJV offers an English rendering of the difficult MT, “And [like] a lion he called out.” The bracketed “like,” which is not part of the MT, makes “lion” a simile and helps it to fit the context. Otherwise, “lion” hardly seems appropriate here. Earlier translations resorted to conjectural emendation here, but now 1QIsaa offers a more intelligible reading, hr’h (the lookout/watcher/sentry) for the MT ’ryh (lion). The NIV, GNB, RSV, and NRSV all follow the Qumran reading in the text. HOTTP suggests that translators may follow 1QIsaa, although it believes that this is “certainly not the original text.”

Isaiah 23:2–3
1QIsaa differs from the last word of verse 2 in two letters, adding kaph and reading yodh instead of waw, “your messengers,” instead of “they filled you.” 1QIsab appears to offer the same reading, although 4QIsaa reads ml’k, probably in agreement with the MT. The NAB, RSV, and NRSV follow Qumran, connecting “messengers” with the “merchants” of the previous line. The NJV and NIV translate the MT, and NIV gives the Qumran reading in a note. It is reasonable to assume that 1QIsaa preserves the better reading here.

Isaiah 29:5
The RSV translates the first line of the verse, “But the multitude of your foes,” adding a footnote to explain that “foes” is based on a conjecture for the MT zryk (your strangers). The NRSV has made no change here, but the NAB follows 1QIsaa zdyk “your arrogance,” and the NJV cites the same Qumran evidence in a footnote. Apparently, the NRSV did not find the Qumran evidence compelling and retained the conjecture to clarify the more difficult reading of the MT. The GNB translates it “foreigners,” a rendering that is appropriate to the context.

Isaiah 33:8
The RSV, NRSV, NAB, and NIV follow 1QIsaa in reading ’dym “witnesses” instead of the MT ’rym “cities.” “Witnesses” seems appropriate to the meaning of the passage, and the interchange of resh for daleth is understandable in light of the similarity of the letter shapes. The NJV also calls attention to this reading in a footnote.

Isaiah 34:5
The NJV cites the 1QIsaa variant, “be seen,” in a note. The NEB and REB place the Qumran reading, tr’h, in the text. Other modern translations follow the MT, “be drunk,” although the GNB, “The Lord has prepared his sword in heaven” may be based on a conjecture that adds mem to the beginning of the word.

Isaiah 37:25
Although the NIV generally follows the MT more often than other modern translations, in this case the NIV alone puts the reading of 1QIsaa, zrym (foreign), in its translation, “I have dug wells in foreign lands and drunk the water there.” While this is a plausible reading, it may be a case of assimilation to a parallel passage in 2 Kings 19:24. 1QIsaa contains a number of other examples of assimilation to parallel passages in Kings.

Isaiah 37:27
The RSV and NRSV translators were influenced in their translation here by the parallel passage of 2 Kings 19:26, preferring “blighted” for the MT “field.” The NJV and NIV cite 1QIsaa’s reading, hnshdp, and translate “blasted/scorched,” which appears to be the preferred reading.

Isaiah 45:2
The second line in the MT reads, “I will level the swellings/rough places.” The Hebrew word rendered “swellings” occurs only here in the OT. 1QIsaa reads hrrym “mountains,” which is followed by the NIV, NAB, and RSV/NRSV.

Isaiah 45:8
The RSV and NRSV follow the 1QIsaa reading wyprch for the MT wyprw, a difference of only one letter, cheth for waw, which yields the translation, “that salvation may sprout forth [RSV]/spring up [NRSV],” instead of, “that they may bring forth salvation.” The NAB follows the same Qumran reading. The NEB and GNB, in dynamic equivalent renderings, demonstrate that both the MT and Qumran express a common idea. The NEB translates, “that it may bear the fruit of salvation,” and the GNB has, “[it] will blossom with freedom and justice.” Neither translation has a textual note here. HOTTP prefers the Qumran reading, but as can be seen, there may be little difference in the translation of the MT or Qumran.

Isaiah 49:12
The MT says that the people of “Sinim” will come to Zion, but this place name is otherwise unknown. 1QIsaa gives the name as “Syene” which is located in Egypt and is known today as Aswan. This was the location of a Jewish settlement known as Elephantine. The NAB, NIV, and RSV/NRSV all follow the Qumran reading here. The NEB also translates “Syene,” identifying this as a scroll reading. The REB retains “Syene,” but has dropped the footnote. This is either an oversight or an exegetical decision on the part of the translators to identify the MT “Sinim” as “Syene/Aswan,” without resorting to a textual variant. The NJV cites the variant in a footnote.

Isaiah 49:24
The phrase “captives of the just” in the second half of 49:24 is somewhat awkward in this context. The NIV, RSV/NRSV, NEB/REB, and NAB all follow the 1QIsaa reading, ’ryts (tyrant/ruthless), citing the manuscript evidence from Qumran. GNB also translates “tyrant” without a textual note, since GNB does not cite textual variants that have the support of at least one Hebrew manuscript. HOTTP recommends that translations follow the Qumran reading.

Isaiah 51:19
This verse ends in the MT with the question, “How can I comfort you?” In 1QIsaa the word for “comfort” begins with the letter yod instead of aleph (third person instead of first). The NAB, NIV, RSV/NRSV, and NEB/REB all follow the Qumran reading, although HOTTP believes the MT should be followed in translation and considers the 1QIsaa reading an assimilation to the third person verb used earlier in the verse. There is no compelling reason to doubt that in the prophetic style, God would be speaking in the second half of the verse. The acceptance by most modern translations of this Qumran variant illustrates how an evaluation of manuscript evidence can be combined with a decision regarding literary appropriateness. This has been the traditional approach of translators when dealing with textual problems. A newer trend, as exemplified by HOTTP, tends to evaluate variants such as found in 1QIsaa here, as just as likely to be the result of an ancient scribe adjusting the text in response to some perceived difficulty. Accordingly, modern translators would be advised to be a bit more cautious in accepting textual variants of this type.

Isaiah 53:11
Many recent translations, including the NIV, NAB, NEB/REB, and NRSV, accept the addition of the word ’wr “light,” in both 1QIsaa and 1QIsab. Not only is the weight of the manuscript convincing to these translators, but the balance of the parallelism is improved as well. HOTTP agrees that translators should follow the Qumran reading here. Morrow (1973:143), however, disagrees, calling attention to the fact that “light” plays a significant role in the theology of the Qumran community. The assumption that the Qumran scribes would have added “light” to the text presupposes that both copies were made at Qumran, which is not necessarily the case.

Isaiah 60:19
The NJV and RSV/NRSV follow the addition of blylh “in the night” in 1QIsaa. As in several other cases such as 53:11, this Qumran addition gives the parallelism of the verse better balance. However, one must be cautious about accepting readings that could have been motivated by the scribe’s sensitivity to Hebrew poetic style. This is why HOTTP does not advise translators to follow 1QIsaa here, even though many modern translations do.

Harold P. Scanlin, The Dead Sea Scrolls and Modern Translations of the Old Testament (or via: amazon.co.uk), ( Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers, 1993).


K.

bleubird

I am about half way through:Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (or via: amazon.co.uk)
If he is right,than the bible is mess.
I am sorry Billy.
You have been fucked with.

truebleu