Quote:
Originally Posted by southward bound
Oh, please spare the insults. You'd have so much more credibility if you did.
|
Insults? What insults?
Quote:
Originally Posted by southward bound
Nobody said that there are NT texts among the Scrolls. Where did you read that?? The Scrolls ARE packed with prophecy, including Messianic prophecies. The scroll of Isaiah is virtually intact, "providing absolute evidence that Messianic prophecies contained in today’s Old Testament are the same Messianic prophecies that existed prior to the time Jesus walked on this earth."
|
I refer you again to the subject of the thread, and the discussion to which you were responding. We were speaking specifically
of the Gospels, none of which are contained among the Dead Sea Scrolls. So your introduction of the Scrolls into the discussion is an entertaining diversion, but a diversion none the less.
The scrolls are certainly "packed with prophecy." This observation warrants a resounding, "Duh." That has nothing to do with our discussion of the Gospels, and Jesus's own failed prophecy concerning his own return.
Returning to the thread's disussion, though, the Gospels are certainly packed with
claims of prophecy fulfilled. But that's hardly a difficult trick when your authors know what the prophecies were, and they were highly motivated to portray Jesus as fulfilling them. The authors of the Gospels were in fact falling over themselves trying to cram in so many "fulfilled prophecies" that they even took credit for fulfilling prophecies that didn't even exit.
But they also credited Jesus with prophecies of his own that were not fulfilled. And that was the discussion underway here.
Back to your diversion, regarding your selection of Isaiah as an example of fidelity between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic text:
Yes, among the 22 Dead Sea manuscripts that contained fragments of the book Isaiah, 2 are 75% or more complete, and they show a version of Isaiah that is very similar (though not identical to) the Masoretic version. The "Great Scroll of Isaiah" alone contains many instances of different spellings, grammatical constructions, is missing in some places entire verses, and in others has extra words that cannot be found in the Masoretic version.
In other words, it is exactly what you would expect of
any ordinary document that had been repeatedly copied by hand over many years.
That it contains "Messianic prophecies" is perhaps the most profound "Duh moment" in your post. I have no idea who you arguing with when you make that point with such passion. Who has ever pretended otherwise?
Quote:
Originally Posted by southward bound
The Scrolls provide evidence for the credibility of biblical scripture -- the nearly intact Isaiah scroll is almost identical to the most recent manuscript version of the Masoretic text from the 900's AD, with only a handful of spelling and tense-oriented scribal errors found by scholars “but nothing of significance”.
|
Only a handful you say? You must have very strange hands. Mine have only five fingers each.There are more than 5 variations from the Masoretic text
in the first six lines of the "Great Scroll of Isaiah" alone. There are more than 30 variations in the first page. There are
multiple hundreds of variations in the single "Great Scroll" entire.
As I said... it is exactly what you would expect of
any ordinary document that had been repeatedly copied by hand over many years.
And again, I point out that only about 35% of the Biblical material from Qumran agrees with the Masoretic text. Another 5% reconciles with the Septuagint, and 5% agrees with the Samaritan Pentateuch. This leaves 55% of the Biblical material from the Dead Sea Scrolls with no "home"
per se. In other words, they are so wildly variant from what you previously called "the original" that your core argument cannot stand.