Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian

In 1947 the Dead Sea Scrolls were found in a cave. They had remained there for over 2000 years untouched. The Bible we have today reads the same as the scrolls. If there were major differences it would of been front page news.
The scrolls are a testament to the accuracy of the Bible.

 

Half of the earth's history was recorded in other languages. You whine and moan about the accuracy of the Bible's translations (and yes, there are mistranslations, no one is denying that), yet do you question your little history book's claims? Half (if not more) of what this world believes is most likely as invalid as you believe the Bible to be.

Yes, I read the first statement wrong. I have yet to entertain sleep, and I was at error in my initial response to what I thought stated that one man wrote the Bible.

 

In 1947 the Dea Sea Scrolls were found in caves in the middle east. The scrolls remained there untouched for over 2000 years. When the scrolls were finally read, they discovered that the Bible we read today is the same as the wording of the scrolls. If it were not so, it would of been front page news. The scrolls are a testament to the accuracy of the Bible.

 

Correction ~ The bible is not identicle to Dead Sea scrolls or visa-versa by any stretch of the imagination.
~ quote ~ "Comparative study of biblical manuscripts (to dead sea scrolls) display the same text, and of sectarian works, attested in a number of sometimes startlingly different redactions, has revealed in one leading scholar's words* "insifficiently controlled copying'." ~ The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English, Geza Vermes, Penguin 1962-1998; * S Talmon, Quamran and the Origin of Biblical Text Cambridge 1975

 

Yes you are correct, the Dead Sea Scrolls were not written in english and that im sure everyone understands. The point of my comment was there was know deviation from the orginal meaning.

 

like chinese whispers. 'it definately said this'

 

The point you were making was based on the lie you chose to tell by manipulating the truth into what you wanted it to suggest in support of your unsupportable argument. Now you decide to change (manipulate) your original meaning.
In doing so you've shown yourself to be deceiptful in purpose and execution. Your were stating something as a known fact that was in fact a lie.
The Scrolls, and indeed most ancient scriptural texts, are well known to be entirely different in wording, phrasing, and sentence construct to that of books incorporated into the bible despite. Your futile attempt to translocate some nefarious point toward language using the preposterous citation of scrolls not being written in english (sic) is, well......... pathetic.
The texts have similarity, but none are identical as you dishonestly claim in support of your falacious assertion.

The referential quotation read ~:Comparative study of biblical manuscripts (to dead sea scrolls) display the same text, and of sectarian works, attested in a number of sometimes startlingly different redactions

In respect of truth I find it simply impossible to be anything other than outraged by your false claims and subsequent manipulation.

 

Well now that you have sunk to the level of character assination show me a comparative text from the Dead Sea Scroll that proves the Bible is in error. I would also point out that many of these books were written before the birth of Christ which only confirms that it was Christ alone who fulfilled the prophecies that will be found in the scrolls written before His birth. And as far as my dishonesty, that could only be true if I read the scrolls myself and made a comparative study myself, which I have not. Only in recent years have the scrolls been made even public. I speak about scrolls based on what I feel is trusted information. And I'm sure you are speaking from the same prespective. If what you are saying is true please do not give me some general statement, but rather give me a chapter and verse that would support your argument. And I would further state that if you can't find such an error, I will not automatically state that you are being purposely deceiptful.

 

the dead sea scrolls contain fragments of all the jewish canon (old testament) with the exception of the book of ester. i dont know any one that would argue that the old testament has changed much since it was first comprised a few thousand years ago. but it does prove little else other than the same ot was in use 2000 years ago.

 

What it proves is that before Christ came into this world His whole life is spoken of and duplicated in prophecies that were written before His birth. Jesus Christ fulfilled all 300+ prophecies of the coming messiah which proves everything. No other man on earth has done this, and there was only a small window in time that would allow this to occur.

 

Just letting YOU know, that yes it does.

But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day with the Lord is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as one day. (2 PE 3:8)


​

 

No, Fundementalist here, just a Catholic, who is hated by fundementalists

 

Thre is no "character assination" as you put it my friend. I merely point to your
methodology which is deceiptful. Take or leave my observations as you will. That you will deny what you do speaks more of you than it does of myself.

The reference was cited from the beginning ~ The referential quotation read ~:Comparative study of biblical manuscripts (to dead sea scrolls) display the same text, and of sectarian works, attested in a number of sometimes startlingly different redactions
which you now ignore for the 3rd time. Your "chapter/verse" demand is simply pedantic given that scholarly criticism is already cited attesting startlingly different redactions
Which part of startlingly different redactions are you having trouble understanding?

 

Having access to the pictures of the scrolls is only the first step, however; it is also necessary to transcribe and translate them, and to provide appropriate philological, historical, literary, and theological comments. Robert Eisenman and Michael Wise in 1992 infuriated many of their scholarly colleagues by providing introductions, transcriptions, and translations for fifty Cave 4 documents.[9] The problem was that they skimmed off the "cream" of the Cave 4 texts and did their work badly:[10] their transcriptions and translations are often inaccurate, and the introductions place the texts within a hypothesis that almost all scholars reject: that the Qumran scrolls came from the "messianic movement" in Palestine that included Palestinian or "Jamesian" Christianity.............................
The biblical manuscripts from Qumran provide an eloquent witness to the variety of Hebrew textual traditions in Jesus' time. This textual diversity should not be exaggerated to the point of imagining radically different books of Genesis, Exodus, or whatever. But the Qumran manuscripts make clear that there was no uniform or official version of the Hebrew Scriptures such as the Masoretic Version came to be in Judaism; there is a significant amount of textual variation in the Qumran biblical scrolls. What once had been attributed to the free or poor translation techniques of those who produced the Greek Septuagint or other ancient versions in many cases turned out to be accurate renderings of different Hebrew originals.

Source ~
http://www.crosscurrents.org/deadsea.htm

 

I see, so when you call some one a liar based on information he has read from another source an you automatically say that person is deceiptful. And then you say that is not character assination. OK, and the moon is made out of green cheese.

I am not ignoring anything. I have seen Christian reviews of the text but if you can demonstrate for me the error which you claim are there, could you show them to me. You can take your scholarly studies and shove it, because for every 10 scholars that will say the sky is blue I can find 10 scholars that will say it is orange. Chapter and verse is what I want. I don't need He said she said. I want facts, not gibberish my friend.

 

Thanks seahorse, saved me a post. Wish some of these people would have studied their Bible a little more.

 

There you go again ~ you quoted no source. As well, you changed tack and appointed a different meaning to your original statement that you claimed was fact!
You have been given quotes which (due to your state of self-righteous denial) you refute on the presupposition that you can (but as yet have not will not can not cite!).
So cite your 10 scholars campbell34 (chapter line & verse) which attest to your statement ~

<LI>Who are the "they" in your assertion? ~ name the scholars
<LI>What is it that "they" said?
<LI>Cite "their" statments in testimony of your argument that "the wording of the scrolls is the same as the bible we read today."
<LI>In leiu of "their" statements, cite facts attesting to your claim from sources outside of self.
<LI>Otherwise ~ stop lying and deceiving

 

Home.houston.rr.com/apologia/sec5p2.htm-26k-

When comparing the two copies of Isaiah (in Hebrew) discovered in Qumran cave one with the oldest dated manuscript previously known (AD 980) they proved to be word for word identical to today's standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95% of the text. The 5% of variation consisted mostly of obvious slips of the pen and spelling variations.

From evidence Bible by William F. Albright
The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran in 1949 had significant effects in corroborating evidence for the scriptures. (and confirm the reliability of the Old Testament text.

Apologetics Press:: Scripturally Speaking by Thomas Tarpley
Thanks to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, we are able, with greater confidence, to believe in the Bible.

If time pemitted, I could cite many, but here are three of them. And could you please stop with your false statements about me. For I have cited sources, which clearly indicate that I am not lying or deceiving. This I believe is reliable information and can be trusted.

 

Absolutely none of which substantiates your false claim "the wording of the scrolls is the same as the bible we read today."

 

Probe Ministries by Jimmy Williams

The Dead Sea Scrolls include a complete copy of the book of Isaiah, a fragment copy of Isaiah, containing much of Isaiah 38-6, and fragments of almost every book in the Old Testament. A comparison of Isaiah 53 shows that only 17 letters differ from the Massoretic text. Ten of these are mere differences in spelling (like our "honor" and the English "honour") and produce no change in the meaning at all. Four more are very minor differences, such as the presence of a conjunction (and) which are stylistic rather than substantive. The other three letters are the Hebrew word for "light." This word was added to the text by someone after "they shall see" in verse 11. Out of 166 words in this chapter, only this one word is really in question, and it does not at all change the meaning of the passage. We are told by biblical scholars that this is typical of the whole manuscript of Isaiah."
CONCLUSION
In his book, Can I trust My Bible, R. Laird Harris concluded, "We can now be sure that copyists worked with great care and accuracy on the Old Testament, even back to 225 B.C....indeed, it would be rash skepticism that would now deny that we have our Old Testament in a form very close to that used by Ezra when he taught the word of the Lord to those who had returned from the Babylonian captivity.
I have one question for you. Are you only intrested in the letter of the law, or the spirit of the law? The Dead Sea Scrolls prove, that the Bible we have today is the same Bible they had 2,000 years ago.