Official Democrat Compliment\Complaint Form

servantofone said:
... Obviously the Old Testament has been copied extremely accurately for the past 2,000 years based on what was in the Dead Sea Scrolls which represents all but one book we have in our Old Testament [spelling corrected for clarity] today. That doesn't mean it is truth, but it does mean that it hasn't changed in the past 2,000 years. ...
Click to expand...

You're partially correct, partially incorrect, and potentially misleading.
A key word is that the Dead Sea texts from caves around Qumran REPRESENT, but do not contain all but one book. Use of the word "represent" is to emphasize that, for some books, only tiny fragments exist. (It's ironic that the whole megillah represented includes every book except for the Megillah.) This is the part that was potentially misleading.
You are partially correct in that some of the texts correspond very closely with the 9th century Masoretic texts, which had become a primary source for biblical study.
You are partially incorrect in that some others of the texts show dramatic difference in both language and content. This fact would support the argument that what you call the "Old Testament" experienced many, many changes, until canonization.
 
monkfish said:
You're partially correct, partially incorrect, and potentially misleading.
A key word is that the Dead Sea texts from caves around Qumran REPRESENT, but do not contain all but one book. Use of the word "represent" is to emphasize that, for some books, only tiny fragments exist. (It's ironic that the whole megillah represented includes every book except for the Megillah.) This is the part that was potentially misleading.
Click to expand...

I'm aware that the pieces are highly damaged, that's why I used the word "represent" and not "contain". You act as if that wasn't in my original statment. I would also assume that most educated people realize the Dead Sea Scrolls are not 100% intact.

I will actually be at Qumran in May, and I'm quite excited about that. Are you an expert on this or something? You should come along.

EDIT: This post seems angry, but it wasn't intended that way. I guess I wrote it too quickly.
 
Last edited:
monkfish said:
You are partially incorrect in that some others of the texts show dramatic difference in both language and content. This fact would support the argument that what you call the "Old Testament" experienced many, many changes, until canonization.
Click to expand...

Please provide what you are looking at here. I'm aware of some possible Septuagint influences on the text and minor things that I feel are unimportant. If you can show me what you are looking at to say that "many, many changes" were made, I'd like that info.
 
servantofone said:
... You act as if that wasn't in my original statment. ...
Click to expand...

That's certainly on odd statement. I quoted you, and clearly included the phrase with the word "represents." So I'm acting as though it was in your original. Not a hard act, considering it was in your original.
 
monkfish said:
That's certainly on odd statement. I quoted you, and clearly included the phrase with the word "represents." So I'm acting as though it was in your original. Not a hard act, considering it was in your original.
Click to expand...

I realize you quoted me with that, but you said my statement was "partially correct, partially incorrect, and potentially misleading." Seeing as I said "represent" very clearly, I don't see how it was misleading or incorrect. The Dead Sea Scrolls attest to the fact that the Old Testament we have today is extremely accurate. I'm not claiming it's a perfect copy. I apologize if my tone came off as angry. I didn't intend it that way, but reading the post now, it does come across that way.

I am still interested in whatever evidence you have. I like to study these things. I am going to be part of an excavation at Qumran in May. You should come.
 
Awe...please don't ruin it guys....I was so enjoying the discussion. I have so much I could say but...timewise I really just want to point out the following. If we start with belief in Jesus as God's son, the rest kinda falls into place. I for one have no doubts. As CS Lewis said, he's either a liar, a lunitic or the Lord. With all the eyewitness testimony from the New Testiment and the factual and historical accompanyments...I'm good. He's the Lord. In which case it's all or nothing. He said the Bible (All of it) is inspired by God. I believe him.

As for any changes that would/could have been made by man. In order to negate the validity, for me, it would have to have been changed to say something actually different. The whole thing, all the prophacys of the Old Testiment, and all the historical content, still point to Jesus as being the one sent by God. Can you imagine anyone else being born and fullfilling every single one of those prophacys on their own? Without God's help? And for what purpose? I mean, he didn't get rich. HE DIED!

AND...If we believe even slightly in God, and just that even parts of the Bible are inspired by him... well don't you think he's good enough to manage to keep the Bible the way he wanted it? It's kind of like saying "I believe in God. I just don't believe he does anything."
 
cybermom said:
As for any changes that would/could have been made by man. In order to negate the validity, for me, it would have to have been changed to say something actually different.
Click to expand...

Cybermom, Christians believe that the ORIGINAL manuscripts were inspired. The original manuscripts were not copied perfectly. However, the Dead Sea Scrolls attest to the fact that they were copied extremely accurately, and any small differences are completely unimportant to your beliefs as a Christian. So although there were some small differences between later manuscripts and earlier manuscripts, they pose no worry to the Christian. And as you said, if it is God's Word, I'm confident He can handle it.
 
cybermom said:
.. If we start with belief in Jesus as God's son, the rest kinda falls into place. ...
Click to expand...

On the other hand, if we start with the belief that mortals and gods are basically different sorts of things, and that gods don't have human children, then the rest just falls apart as absurd.
 
monkfish said:
On the other hand, if we start with the belief that mortals and gods are basically different sorts of things, and that gods don't have human children, then the rest just falls apart as absurd.
Click to expand...

It would be impossible for an omnipotent God to do something?
 
Many people around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power.

He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 had decayed by electron emission to Nitorgen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of Course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.
 
I've heard about that Noodly Appendage.......it does more than just change test results. :yesnod:

:tinfoil3:
 
oldgeez said:
Many people around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. ...
Click to expand...

There are many aspects of Pastafarianism which resonate strongly with me.
 
oldgeez said:
Many people around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.
Click to expand...

And unlike other god's, he actually condones and encourages gluten-y.
 
Last edited:
monkfish said:
There are many aspects of Pastafarianism which resonate strongly with me.
Click to expand...

Hey, since you seem to be checking this thread often, any chance you could respond to my question regarding proof for the "many, many changes" to the Old Testament? That's a rather strong claim, and I'd be interested what you are basing it on.
 
servantofone said:
Hey, since you seem to be checking this thread often, any chance you could respond to my question regarding proof for the "many, many changes" to the Old Testament? That's a rather strong claim, and I'd be interested what you are basing it on.
Click to expand...

Not a strong claim at all. It's prevailing scholarly analysis of the Qumran documents. Maybe you should recheck your sources. Preferably check primary sources. There's nothing controversial in my statements. But your reaction indicates that you may have been misled about the contents.
 
monkfish said:
Not a strong claim at all. It's prevailing scholarly analysis of the Qumran documents. Maybe you should recheck your sources. Preferably check primary sources. There's nothing controversial in my statements. But your reaction indicates that you may have been misled about the contents.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing you haven't studied the actual Dead Sea Scrolls themselves. So you, like I, have to trust what other scholars say about them. If you don't mind, I would like to know which scholars you have read. I'd like to read what they have to say.
 
Serv, This is what I am seeing is the problem with this and seeking "the truth". My experience tells me that to this day NO ONE has discovered "the truth". We are all familiar with the phrase "the truth shall set you free" but if the that is "true" in its purity, then it will apply to all, whether they "believe" or not. You can "believe" anything is true but that doesn't make it "the" truth.

Did you know that if you study to be a philosophy major in college all you are taught is the history of philosophic concepts and what philosophers have philosophized. One (mainly me I suppose) would think that if one were a Dr. of Philosophy that HE would be a philosopher but that isn't the product. What WE are doing in this thread is, in fact, philosophizing.

It it similar with teaching. My wife is a teacher (Anthro Major, taught history). I once discovered in conversation that the only criteria to being a teacher is a desire to teach. There is no instruction, school, curricula, etc. where one can major or even get a certificate as "teacher". It answered my long asked question of, "how is it teacher Q is considered a "better" teacher than teacher W?" The difference?, just a knack - OMFG! Why don't we have Drs of Teaching? After all, these are the people who instruct our future races!

I agree history is facilitating (religious, philosophical, etc.) but so is our political system but when I say "truth" I am saying what is true for ALL. Democracy is good but if it were the "truth" there would be no discussion of how it is done. So far, in all the reaches of history the truth has never been realized and until it is we will keep on "arguing". I can't see how studying history can help find TRUTH. The history has bee "there" but truth is still being sought. It won't be found in history.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top