Do the "Dead Sea Scrolls" prove the Bible wasn't altered?

[Hazel]

Originally Posted by CplFerro

Dear All,

A common Christian claim is that the Bible has never been altered from the time of its writing until today. I've heard it said that the so-called Dead Sea Scrolls proves this. Is this true?

Cpl Ferro

Since the Bible is a collection of books written by many different people in many different time periods, it depends on what you mean by altered. The New Testament alters the Old Testament. Details about when or where something happened can be misquoted when rewriting a story. Words can be mis-translated.


Then there is the question of which Bible you refer to. The Douay version? The King James version? Any of the other versions? I'd say the Bible is still being altered today.


Books have been added to and removed from the Bible over thousands of years and will probably continue to be according to the times we live in and the authority (or would be) figures who make decisions as to what they want us to believe.

[CplFerro]

Originally Posted by tsig

If the church is under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit then why do they need a bible?

Dear tsig,

I'm guessing, because the Holy Spirit doesn't act like the God-energy from Raiders of the Lost Ark transfixing the Nazis. It's a subtle entity, and God prefers least action.

And without the Bible how would we know anything of Jesus?

How do you do the text highlighting, by the way?

Cpl Ferro

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by CplFerro

I meant that for some people the KJV is their primary religious text. Revelations of unfaithfulness would be, if taken seriously by said, traumatic.

No. The god botherers are in two groups; though who already know the KJ translation is terrible and those who'll refuse to accept that it's flawed.

Originally Posted by CplFerro

Third, no, I don’t accept that the Bible in its present form is significantly different from whatever the originals was. This understanding bases on the guess that the original composers composed what amounts to “the real thing” and that this “real thing” is what has descended virtually intact down to today.

Then you would have no understanding of its transmission process.

[Hazel]

Originally Posted by tsig

If the church is under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit then why do they need a bible?

If what I've read and heard is correct, the Bible was written by religious authorities to tell the rest of us how God wants us to live.

Did you know that, at one of their meetings about what to include in the Bible, there was a great argument about Book of Revelations. Some said - and still say - that Revelations is not an inspired Word of God and should not be there.

There are other books that are not in the Bible for the same reasons. And, the Douay version has books that the King James version does not have.

Food for thought?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Originally Posted by CplFerro

Dear tsig,

I'm guessing, because the Holy Spirit doesn't act like the God-energy from Raiders of the Lost Ark transfixing the Nazis. It's a subtle entity, and God prefers least action.

And without the Bible how would we know anything of Jesus?

How do you do the text highlighting, by the way?

Cpl Ferro

Three words: World Wide Flood. Destroying every living thing except for the few that could be stuffed in a large wooden box seems a excessive to me. But then, I did not create the Whole Damn Universe and, having done so, see "that it was good".

[CplFerro]

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

Three words: World Wide Flood. Destroying every living thing except for the few that could be stuffed in a large wooden box seems a excessive to me. But then, I did not create the Whole Damn Universe and, having done so, see "that it was good".

Dear Gord,

Extreme times call for extreme measures, it seems. If the whole world were reprobate save a tiny handful, and God wishes both that man as that handful survive, and that the destruction of the remainder should be carried out as naturalistically as possible, then a flood sounds like a good idea.

Cpl Ferro

[CplFerro]

Originally Posted by catsmate1

No. The god botherers are in two groups; though who already know the KJ translation is terrible and those who'll refuse to accept that it's flawed.

Then you would have no understanding of its transmission process.

Dear catsmate1,

No to you. I didn't know the KJV was so flawed, and I am willing to accept that it was.

And you apparently have no understanding of faith.

Cpl Ferro

[CplFerro]

Originally Posted by Hazel

Since the Bible is a collection of books written by many different people in many different time periods, it depends on what you mean by altered. The New Testament alters the Old Testament. Details about when or where something happened can be misquoted when rewriting a story. Words can be mis-translated.


Then there is the question of which Bible you refer to. The Douay version? The King James version? Any of the other versions? I'd say the Bible is still being altered today.


Books have been added to and removed from the Bible over thousands of years and will probably continue to be according to the times we live in and the authority (or would be) figures who make decisions as to what they want us to believe.

Dear Hazel,

Is there any text from two and three thousand years ago, that have been translated and copied as often as the Old and New Testaments, that have its fidelity?

Cpl Ferro

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by CplFerro

Dear Gord,

Extreme times call for extreme measures, it seems. If the whole world were reprobate save a tiny handful, and God wishes both that man as that handful survive, and that the destruction of the remainder should be carried out as naturalistically as possible, then a flood sounds like a good idea.

No. If god is a moral monster then a flood sounds like a good idea. God could have snapped his fingers and killed instantly anyone he wanted to and avoid the gratuitous suffering of drowning children. What bothers me about theists is that they are so eager to justify atrocity. If you are going to play that game then you have to concede that the 9/11 hijackers were justified in what they did. They got their authority from god, so they say.

[Craig B]

Originally Posted by CplFerro

Dear Hazel,

Is there any text from two and three thousand years ago, that have been translated and copied as often as the Old and New Testaments, that have its fidelity?

Cpl Ferro

Dear Cpl Ferro,

Is there any text from two and three thousand years ago, that have been translated and copied as often as the Old and New Testaments, full stop?

[CplFerro]

Dear Dinwar,

Nothing, I’m afraid, would disprove the validity of the essence of the Bible, because I take its essence or “real thing’ on faith. The main message has survived, so, even if huge amounts of its text were revealed to be miscopied, redacted, or mistranslated, it would be either inconvenient or liberating depending on one’s tastes, but the fundamentals would remain.

Note that I don’t view the whole Bible as necessarily divinely inspired. The text orbits a divine occurrence, receiving its radiation, but, it does not necessarily have exactitude down to every period and comma. Nevertheless, I think it, for the sheer number of copies of it that have been made, has been the, or among the, most faithfully translated and copied of all texts.

I’m not contradicting myself, only stating the problem in terms more and then less sympathetic to the thrust of my opponents here. I accept that the gist of the Christian message has survived all human failing to arrive here today.

Whether people pay lip service to “the belief that Christ was right” is hardly to the point. Right about what? Without the aforementioned four mysteries, Christianity is a shell.

Dirty doodles aside, if you think the Church failed in its duty to faithfully preserve the Bible, can you point to any example of any grievous (e.g. non-typographical) error it committed?

Cpl Ferro

[CplFerro]

Originally Posted by Craig B

Dear Cpl Ferro,

Is there any text from two and three thousand years ago, that have been translated and copied as often as the Old and New Testaments, full stop?

Not to my knowledge, Craig. The Bible is unique.

Cpl Ferro

[Hazel]

Originally Posted by CplFerro

Dear Hazel,

Is there any text from two and three thousand years ago, that have been translated and copied as often as the Old and New Testaments, that have its fidelity?

Cpl Ferro

I am not sure I understand your question. What do you mean by "have its fidelity"? If you mean there have been no changes, I rather doubt that. What kind of changes? Re-wording? Books removed; books added? Or, are you speaking only of the general message of the Bible? The general message stays the same but the ways the message is written has changed many times.

What about the books that are missing from one or more versions? Who removed the Maccabes (and some others) from the Old Testament? Or, to reword that, who included those books in at least one version while others did not?

I am trying to be sure I understand what you mean by "altered" but I do believe the Bible has been altered in many ways many times as someone decided "this should be; this should not be". I also do not believe the smaller alterations were deliberate or caused any great harm. It's just a matter of what happens when something is copied over and over as well as what happens when someone translates and mistranslates.

So, which alterations are you talking about? And what do you mean by its fidelity?

[CplFerro]

Originally Posted by RandFan

No. If god is a moral monster then a flood sounds like a good idea. God could have snapped his fingers and killed instantly anyone he wanted to and avoid the gratuitous suffering of drowning children. What bothers me about theists is that they are so eager to justify atrocity. If you are going to play that game then you have to concede that the 9/11 hijackers were justified in what they did. They got their authority from god, so they say.

Dear RandFan,

Life is an atrocity that man struggles to understand: The suffering of the innocent, the prospering of the wicked, the meaninglessness of death and the void of the universe. And then we are told of, and, in some cases, come to faith in, a God who is said to be at once loving, just, and meaningful.

In the Flood’s case, what we face is a reprobate world, a world of corrupt both fully broad and fully deep, so that even the children were infected by it. So God is in essence pruning a diseased rosebush down to the stump. The same goes for Sodom and Gomorrah, which is a Flood scenario writ small: wholly evil save for a tiny group of (borderline) righteous people.

Who is to tell God it is not within His rights to perform such pruning? Such isn’t a demand from justice, it is a demand from greed: greed for eternal life, greed for a purely pain-free life. I am not trying to belittle people’s suffering, but noting that all men are doomed to die, and saying that God killed X “too soon” is really immaterial.

In the end, God has all the cards, and can play the game as He likes. I wonder what I would say if I were on the other end of a severe trauma, but, I hope my faith would be strong enough to accept the spirit of what I have just said, even then.

Cpl Ferro

PS.
To avoid frogpiling I request that no one else respond to this post save RandFan, at hir pleasure.

[ddt]

Originally Posted by CplFerro

Dear Hazel,

Is there any text from two and three thousand years ago, that have been translated and copied as often as the Old and New Testaments, that have its fidelity?

Cpl Ferro

Define "fidelity". According to Aland and Aland, only 62.9% of the NT verses do not differ among the seven main variants. With a twist on "do not differ":

Quote:

Verses in which any one of the seven editions differs by a single word are not counted.

and neither are orthographic differences.

What is your opinion on the fidelity of the ending of Mark?

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by CplFerro

Life is an atrocity that man struggles to understand: The suffering of the innocent, the prospering of the wicked, the meaninglessness of death and the void of the universe. And then we are told of, and, in some cases, come to faith in, a God who is said to be at once loving, just, and meaningful.

A god that has also been said that, if it existed, would be a moral monster. I agree with that sentiment and can find no justification for drowning children. That's the work of a mass murderer not a moral being.

Quote:

In the Flood’s case, what we face is a reprobate world, a world of corrupt both fully broad and fully deep, so that even the children were infected by it. So God is in essence pruning a diseased rosebush down to the stump. The same goes for Sodom and Gomorrah, which is a Flood scenario writ small: wholly evil save for a tiny group of (borderline) righteous people.

What could they have possibly done that was more vulgar than drowning children? Genocide is among the most heinous of crimes. Yet theists are so quick to jettison their morality and defend atrocity. Might does not make right. That god can torture and kill children doesn't make it okay.

Quote:

Who is to tell God it is not within His rights to perform such pruning?

Me. I am. It was once asked, who is it to tell the king that he is not within his rights to kill his subjects at whim? Answer, his subjects.

Quote:

Such isn’t a demand from justice, it is a demand from greed: greed for eternal life, greed for a purely pain-free life. I am not trying to belittle people’s suffering, but noting that all men are doomed to die, and saying that God killed X “too soon” is really immaterial.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

Quote:

In the end, God has all the cards, and can play the game as He likes. I wonder what I would say if I were on the other end of a severe trauma, but, I hope my faith would be strong enough to accept the spirit of what I have just said, even then.

Granting the premise of a god, for sake of argument, then that god could be an evil god and it would also hold all of the cards. That is a possibility that theists unjustifiably ignore. The evidence is such that if there is a god then it is clearly a malevolent being that either enjoys watching children suffer and die or is indifferent to suffering.

If I created beings that could suffer and I tortured them it would make me a moral monster. The fact that I created the beings does not give me an excuse to act monstrously.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Originally Posted by CplFerro

Dear Gord,

Extreme times call for extreme measures, it seems. If the whole world were reprobate save a tiny handful, and God wishes both that man as that handful survive, and that the destruction of the remainder should be carried out as naturalistically as possible, then a flood sounds like a good idea.

Cpl Ferro

If I screwed up by creating a "good" Universe that turned out to be not so good, I would try and fix it without being cruel to those who are innocent.

This silly story makes God out to be a clueless idiot.

[ddt]

Originally Posted by Craig B

Dear Cpl Ferro,

Is there any text from two and three thousand years ago, that have been translated and copied as often as the Old and New Testaments, full stop?

Originally Posted by CplFerro

Not to my knowledge, Craig. The Bible is unique.

Cpl Ferro

What about Homer's Iliad and Odyssey? Not many manuscripts may have survived the Dark Ages, but he was certainly widely read and studied by the classics.

And what about Confucius? His writings may be lacking here in the "translated" part, but then, old translations are not relevant as long as you have a reliable source text.

[Sherman Bay]

Originally Posted by CplFerro

Is there any text from two and three thousand years ago, that have been translated and copied as often as the Old and New Testaments, that have its fidelity?

Leaving aside the question of what "fidelity" means, I can't think of another example. Why is that significant?

All it means is we have a partial and human-selected collection of related works that, because of the belief, justified or not, that they are special, have been rather well preserved for a long time. Not preserved as you might think, where the original is kept in a climate-controlled, limited-access vault, but preserved by hand copying, rewriting and deliberate alteration over many centuries.

It's wonderful for historical reasons that such preservation has been done, but it is meaningless as to their value otherwise. Their value lies in the window they provide into 2000-3000 year old community values, or maybe just the thoughts of a few whacked-out scribes and not consensus at all. That needs to be seriously taken into consideration before you hang any label on the truthiness of the text.

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by CplFerro

...
That there is, or at least recently was, a large body of people organised into countries that collectively was called "Christendom" is a fact, whatever signficance we make of it. ...

Until the 16th century, 'Christendom' was unified by Latin and Greek. Do you see that any sort of pre-eminence of the KJV is relatively recent to 'Christendom'?

Originally Posted by CplFerro

Dear Craig B,

It's only a seriously problem if the translators and copyists were, to a man, expected to be influenced by the Holy Spirit unto infallibility. I'm not convinced they were. Without such, we're left with a potentially real message that is prone to mistranslation and typographical errors. I suppose that the ensuring of faithfulness would fall to...a church, say?--which may well be under the influence of the aforementioned Spirit.

Cpl Ferro

Are you positing divine intervention for the biblical text as we know it?

Originally Posted by CplFerro

... Nevertheless, I think it, for the sheer number of copies of it that have been made, has been the, or among the, most faithfully translated and copied of all texts. ...

And?

Originally Posted by CplFerro

...PS.
To avoid frogpiling I request that no one else respond to this post save RandFan, at hir pleasure.

CplFerro- this is a public forum and you do not have the right to dictate the terms on which a discussion is conducted here.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by CplFerro

Dear Gord,

Extreme times call for extreme measures, it seems. If the whole world were reprobate save a tiny handful, and God wishes both that man as that handful survive, and that the destruction of the remainder should be carried out as naturalistically as possible, then a flood sounds like a good idea.

Cpl Ferro

Trust me, you don't want to go down that road, at least not in this thread. If you want to discuss Deluge Geology, we can--but be prepared to be soundly spanked. There's precisely no evidence for it outside of the Bible.

Quote:

Who is to tell God it is not within His rights to perform such pruning?

Irrelevant. It never happened. Researchers in the 1700s--long before Darwin--demonstrated conclusively that it didn't happen. You may as well be talking about the War of the Ring as a historic event. LOCAL floods, sure, but there hasn't been a global flood since life arose on Earth.

[CplFerro]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

Trust me, you don't want to go down that road, at least not in this thread. If you want to discuss Deluge Geology, we can--but be prepared to be soundly spanked. There's precisely no evidence for it outside of the Bible.

Irrelevant. It never happened. Researchers in the 1700s--long before Darwin--demonstrated conclusively that it didn't happen. You may as well be talking about the War of the Ring as a historic event. LOCAL floods, sure, but there hasn't been a global flood since life arose on Earth.

I agree with you, Dinwar. I'm speaking hypothetically.

Cpl Ferro

[CplFerro]

Originally Posted by pakeha

CplFerro- this is a public forum and you do not have the right to dictate the terms on which a discussion is conducted here.

Dear pakeha,

Neither do you have the right to frogpile me and expect my response. My current concern is with RandFan alone and it is to hir I shall reply. Peanut gallery all you wish.

Cpl Ferro

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by CplFerro

I agree with you, Dinwar. I'm speaking hypothetically.

You can't speculate about something until you prove its existence.

And if the Bible is wrong here, it can be wrong elsewhere.

[CplFerro]

Originally Posted by Gord_in_Toronto

If I screwed up by creating a "good" Universe that turned out to be not so good, I would try and fix it without being cruel to those who are innocent.

This silly story makes God out to be a clueless idiot.

Dear Gord,

God created a world that was very good, filled with self-willed beings who rebelled against Him and were (in this story) annihilated to allow history to begin again. How is that God's fault? And who says anyone was innocent? I already addressed that.

Cpl Ferro

[CplFerro]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

You can't speculate about something until you prove its existence.

And if the Bible is wrong here, it can be wrong elsewhere.

Now that's something to chew on, Dinwar.

Similarly, how does the story of Eden square with human evolution?

This is why I only assented to a faith based on a single divine Occurrence, and not slavish bibliolatry.

Cpl Ferro

[CplFerro]

Originally Posted by ddt

What about Homer's Iliad and Odyssey? Not many manuscripts may have survived the Dark Ages, but he was certainly widely read and studied by the classics.

And what about Confucius? His writings may be lacking here in the "translated" part, but then, old translations are not relevant as long as you have a reliable source text.

Dear ddt,

I think the Bible still has many more extant copies than either Homer's works or Confucius'.

By fidelity I would have to say the Atonement and the Incarnation. The rest of the Bible could have been added later but so long as the account of that is there, the essence is there. Are there any versions or variants that lack these? As I said elsewhere I'm not a biliolator, I'm after the essence of Christianity.

I'll read your suggestion about Mark later and get back to you, thanks.

[Dinwar]

Originally Posted by CplFerro

Similarly, how does the story of Eden square with human evolution?

How does vanilla ice cream square with the maintenance procedures for a 747? You're talking two different things here--not even apples and oranges, but more akin to apples and Jupiter. Eden is a myth, quite clearly intended to relay moral messages. Human evolution is historic (prehistoric, really) fact, with no inherent moral applications.

[CplFerro]

Originally Posted by Dinwar

How does vanilla ice cream square with the maintenance procedures for a 747? You're talking two different things here--not even apples and oranges, but more akin to apples and Jupiter. Eden is a myth, quite clearly intended to relay moral messages. Human evolution is historic (prehistoric, really) fact, with no inherent moral applications.

Yes, Dinwar, I agree.

Cpl Ferro

[twinstead]

Don't Muslims claim the same thing of the Quran, that it hasn't been altered?

[CplFerro]

Originally Posted by Sherman Bay

Leaving aside the question of what "fidelity" means, I can't think of another example. Why is that significant?

All it means is we have a partial and human-selected collection of related works that, because of the belief, justified or not, that they are special, have been rather well preserved for a long time. Not preserved as you might think, where the original is kept in a climate-controlled, limited-access vault, but preserved by hand copying, rewriting and deliberate alteration over many centuries.

It's wonderful for historical reasons that such preservation has been done, but it is meaningless as to their value otherwise. Their value lies in the window they provide into 2000-3000 year old community values, or maybe just the thoughts of a few whacked-out scribes and not consensus at all. That needs to be seriously taken into consideration before you hang any label on the truthiness of the text.

Dear Sherman,

I don't know if this answers your question, but here's a shot: What I'm concerned about is a certain Occurrence that happened ~2000 yrs ago. The New Testament is the only record remaining, or perhaps ever, that such a thing is true. I ask you this question: If It did happen, and people were fallible, and history happened in all its messiness and confusion, how much of this Occurrence would we expect to have survived down to us?

Cpl Ferro

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by CplFerro

Dear pakeha,

Neither do you have the right to frogpile me and expect my response. My current concern is with RandFan alone and it is to hir I shall reply. Peanut gallery all you wish.

Cpl Ferro

Again, this is a public forum.
You do not dictate the terms of the discussion.
If you want to ignore me, do so.
But under no circumstances may you tell me or anyone else when we may post nor dictate the content.

Are you going to ignore my comments about Latin and Greek?

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by CplFerro

I don't know if this answers your question, but here's a shot: What I'm concerned about is a certain Occurrence that happened ~2000 yrs ago. The New Testament is the only record remaining, or perhaps ever, that such a thing is true. I ask you this question: If It did happen, and people were fallible, and history happened in all its messiness and confusion, how much of this Occurrence would we expect to have survived down to us?

If god is competent I would expect all of it.

[ddt]

Originally Posted by CplFerro

I think the Bible still has many more extant copies than either Homer's works or Confucius'.

The number of extant copies today has little relevance for the transmission process. Printing presses make it very simple to produce thousands or millions of identical copies. The early papyri of Homer's works show that there was a wide variation between copies in classical times; see the Homer Multitext Project.

Originally Posted by CplFerro

By fidelity I would have to say the Atonement and the Incarnation. The rest of the Bible could have been added later but so long as the account of that is there, the essence is there. Are there any versions or variants that lack these? As I said elsewhere I'm not a biliolator, I'm after the essence of Christianity.

As to atonement, you might want to explain to me which atonement theory you favour and which Bible verses support this.

As to incarnation: do you really want to go there? It is supported only by the birth accounts in Matthew and Luke, and these are contradictory.

Originally Posted by CplFerro

I'll read your suggestion about Mark later and get back to you, thanks.

You might also look into the Comma Johanneum, which has been used to support the Trinitarian view.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by CplFerro

Not to my knowledge, Craig. The Bible is unique.

Cpl Ferro

So's the Koran. Ask any Muslim.


In 1936, translations in 102 languages were known.[92] In 2010, the Hürriyet Daily News and Economic Review reported that the Quran was presented in 112 languages at the 18th International Quran Exhibition in Tehran.[95]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koran

[tsig]

Originally Posted by CplFerro

Dear Gord,

God created a world that was very good, filled with self-willed beings who rebelled against Him and were (in this story) annihilated to allow history to begin again. How is that God's fault? And who says anyone was innocent? I already addressed that.

Cpl Ferro

Well they didn't have Jesus and the Christian church so why wouldn't they become evil?

[CplFerro]

Dear RandFan,

If you knew a child would grow up to be Ted Bundy, would you still think the same way? We have yet to reach the same degree of wickedness imputed to the people in Noah’s time. Is it impossible for you to imagine wickedness of such expanse that even children were lost causes?

God is going to kill everyone anyway, whether through disease, famine, accident, old age, or the sword. What difference does it make whether He does it now or later? Again, your argument is a fist shaken at the sky: “Why didn’t God make me immortal?, the bastard!”

God is not a king, God is the Entity Beyond Time. He is a glorious quasi-Lovecraftian thing invading history for His pleasure. But that doesn’t make Him evil, merely higher and different, to the point where, like a parent with a superior moral code viewed of as unjust and cruel by uninsightful and disobedient children, His actions and commandments are viewed as unjust and cruel by us.

E.g. If you were a parent would you send your child to the dentist even if she screamed in protest, preferring her rotten teeth?

Evil’s nature is privation of goodness, as much as cold's is a privation of heat. An evil God would have in his nature a privation, rather than a positive quality, which would mean he were less than perfect, and therefore not God.

Cpl Ferro

[CplFerro]

Originally Posted by pakeha

Again, this is a public forum.
You do not dictate the terms of the discussion.
If you want to ignore me, do so.
But under no circumstances may you tell me or anyone else when we may post nor dictate the content.

Are you going to ignore my comments about Latin and Greek?

pakeha, I made a polite request, not a dictation, and yes, I'm ignoring your comments because you're not heeding my request.

Cpl Ferro

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Originally Posted by CplFerro

Dear Gord,

God created a world that was very good, filled with self-willed beings who rebelled against Him and were (in this story) annihilated to allow history to begin again. How is that God's fault? And who says anyone was innocent? I already addressed that.

Cpl Ferro

He created it. It didn't work out. For an infallible no-it-all that is kind of lame.

Surely someone or thing was innocent? No new born human babies? No cute puppies?

Destroying everything does not seem anything but petulant.

Anyway, as you say, it's only a story.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Originally Posted by twinstead

Don't Muslims claim the same thing of the Quran, that it hasn't been altered?

Yes they do. They are also wrong.