Monday, January 01, 2007
Don't Newly Discovered Manuscripts Prove the Bible Inerrant?
Proponent's of biblical inerrancy often imply that the Dead Sea Scrolls prove that our Bible today has changed very little, even after centuries of recopying. They usually point to the relatively infrequent differences which exist between the Isiah text and Modern Hebrew version of Isaiah. We are also led to believe that the Dead Sea Scrolls prove the accuracy of the entire Old Testament - but this is not the case. Those who try to persuade us to believe these claims ignore some significant details about the Dead Sea Scrolls and other important discoveries made this century. We will first clarify what the Dead Sea Scrolls actually reveal.
Although fragments of all Old Testament books except Esther have been found in 11 Dead Sea caves, most of the 200 Biblical manuscripts which have been identified were not scrolls but fragments of scrolls. Over 80,000 fragments representing seven to eight hundred different manuscripts were found in one cave alone. The work of assembling these fragments has gone on for more than 40 years and will probably continue another 40 years.
At the time of the initial discovery, seven major scrolls were made available to scholars. Within ten years of their discovery a translation of these scrolls was also made available. This included a translation of a compete Isaiah Scroll originally recorded on leather - the only complete Bible book found. A second partial Isaiah scroll was also among these seven scrolls. The other five scrolls contained the Habakkuk Commentary, the Manual of Discipline, the Thanksgiving Hymns, and War Scroll [also known as the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness], and the Genesis Apocryphon [See Vernon W. Jattson Jr. , The Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Important Discoveries, pp. 13-14]. Two or more or less compete Bible Scrolls have since been added to the Isaiah scrolls: a Psalm scroll and an Aramaic Job scroll.
The remainder of the Old Testament is represented only by fragments and will never be totally complete. No New Testament books, of course, were found in any of the Dead Sea caves. Although translations of the more complete scrolls were quickly made available to all, the fragmented manuscripts have only recently been published and made available. What has been published indicates that the Qumran library contained a canon which is not identical to traditional Judaism but which instead preserved a "variety of textual traditions" [Geza Verms, Dead Sea Scrolls - Qumran in Perspective, pp. 204-06].
The two Isaiah scrolls are typical of the variety fond in the rest of the manuscripts. One scroll corresponds to the Modern Hebrew Bible while the other corresponds more closely to the Masoretic or traditional Hebrew text relied upon heavily by King James scholars. Detailed examination of the Dead Sea Scroll Isaiah texts leads up to conclude that although these two Isaiah manuscripts were undoubtedly preserved by God for the last 2000 year, they were not as well preserved by man from 700 BC to 200 BC [the time the Qumran texts were produced]. Otherwise, there would not have been two very different versions after the first 500 years.
Proponents of biblical inerrancy seldom mention that scholars have found evidence of an effort by ancient scribes to eliminate discrepancies by comparing three model texts and "choosing as official and binding the reading attest by at least two of the model scrolls. Thereafter, every text which departed from the canonized scripture was held to be an unauthorized version" [Ibid, 208-09]. This might explain how so many later texts were said to have matched, even though they consistently contained obvious contradictions and errors.
We should further note that among the writings discovered at Qumran, there were about five times more non biblical texts as there were biblical texts, and yet many of the non biblical texts appear to have been valued as highly as modern scriptures. Today many of these valued texts are classified as apocryphal and pseudepigraphal writings. While the words such as Jubilees, the Testament of Levi, the Book of Enoch and other found at Qumran have proven their antiquity and their value to understanding the inter-Testamental period, they remain largely ignored by modern Christianity.
The discoveries of Jewish writings at Qumran were quickly followed by discoveries of previous unknown Jewish and Christian writings at other Middle East locations. These included the discovery of the Nag Hammadi library in Egypt, fifteen thousand clay tablets at Ebla, gold and silver tablets at Persepolis, manuscripts at Masada, and others. Hugh Nibley noted some twenty important manuscript finds between 1844 and 1947 in his book Since Cumorah pages 52 and 53. Through these finds, the world has been provided with an unblemished and unaltered record of early Christian beliefs along with their scriptural library. Though all of these writings were discovered prior to 1975 and much of it prior to 1950, most of Christianity remains ignorant of what these discoveries have to teach us.
Although fragments of all Old Testament books except Esther have been found in 11 Dead Sea caves, most of the 200 Biblical manuscripts which have been identified were not scrolls but fragments of scrolls. Over 80,000 fragments representing seven to eight hundred different manuscripts were found in one cave alone. The work of assembling these fragments has gone on for more than 40 years and will probably continue another 40 years.
At the time of the initial discovery, seven major scrolls were made available to scholars. Within ten years of their discovery a translation of these scrolls was also made available. This included a translation of a compete Isaiah Scroll originally recorded on leather - the only complete Bible book found. A second partial Isaiah scroll was also among these seven scrolls. The other five scrolls contained the Habakkuk Commentary, the Manual of Discipline, the Thanksgiving Hymns, and War Scroll [also known as the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness], and the Genesis Apocryphon [See Vernon W. Jattson Jr. , The Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Important Discoveries, pp. 13-14]. Two or more or less compete Bible Scrolls have since been added to the Isaiah scrolls: a Psalm scroll and an Aramaic Job scroll.
The remainder of the Old Testament is represented only by fragments and will never be totally complete. No New Testament books, of course, were found in any of the Dead Sea caves. Although translations of the more complete scrolls were quickly made available to all, the fragmented manuscripts have only recently been published and made available. What has been published indicates that the Qumran library contained a canon which is not identical to traditional Judaism but which instead preserved a "variety of textual traditions" [Geza Verms, Dead Sea Scrolls - Qumran in Perspective, pp. 204-06].
The two Isaiah scrolls are typical of the variety fond in the rest of the manuscripts. One scroll corresponds to the Modern Hebrew Bible while the other corresponds more closely to the Masoretic or traditional Hebrew text relied upon heavily by King James scholars. Detailed examination of the Dead Sea Scroll Isaiah texts leads up to conclude that although these two Isaiah manuscripts were undoubtedly preserved by God for the last 2000 year, they were not as well preserved by man from 700 BC to 200 BC [the time the Qumran texts were produced]. Otherwise, there would not have been two very different versions after the first 500 years.
Proponents of biblical inerrancy seldom mention that scholars have found evidence of an effort by ancient scribes to eliminate discrepancies by comparing three model texts and "choosing as official and binding the reading attest by at least two of the model scrolls. Thereafter, every text which departed from the canonized scripture was held to be an unauthorized version" [Ibid, 208-09]. This might explain how so many later texts were said to have matched, even though they consistently contained obvious contradictions and errors.
We should further note that among the writings discovered at Qumran, there were about five times more non biblical texts as there were biblical texts, and yet many of the non biblical texts appear to have been valued as highly as modern scriptures. Today many of these valued texts are classified as apocryphal and pseudepigraphal writings. While the words such as Jubilees, the Testament of Levi, the Book of Enoch and other found at Qumran have proven their antiquity and their value to understanding the inter-Testamental period, they remain largely ignored by modern Christianity.
The discoveries of Jewish writings at Qumran were quickly followed by discoveries of previous unknown Jewish and Christian writings at other Middle East locations. These included the discovery of the Nag Hammadi library in Egypt, fifteen thousand clay tablets at Ebla, gold and silver tablets at Persepolis, manuscripts at Masada, and others. Hugh Nibley noted some twenty important manuscript finds between 1844 and 1947 in his book Since Cumorah pages 52 and 53. Through these finds, the world has been provided with an unblemished and unaltered record of early Christian beliefs along with their scriptural library. Though all of these writings were discovered prior to 1975 and much of it prior to 1950, most of Christianity remains ignorant of what these discoveries have to teach us.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Ed,
Most of your recent topics have centered on attacking the cannonized Bible containing sixty-six books as being incomplete or in error. You have even commented on my blog about an error in Luke 16:16 about John the Baptist being the final prophet and Joseph Smith's ammendment to correct the error. One could look to Joseph Smith as merely perpetuating his own claim to be a prophet. Your argument found in Ephesians 4:11 is flawed. Are we not all called to be evangalists in spreading the good news of Jesus to all nations, kindreds, tongues and peoples? Why then could not every believer be called to be his or her own priest, under the submission of the High Priest, Jesus Christ?
The main reason I see for attacking the cannonized Bible is that the message found in it is just as it says. It is like a two-edged sword that is cutting the heart of the reader. The reader must respond either by having his or her heart changed by the grace of Jesus or ignore it. One way to ignore it is to give yourself permission by disclaiming its words as incomplete or full of error. This is a dangerous path to start down. Once you convince yourself that there is one error in the bible, then you can easily start to find others. In a downward spiral ultimately nullifying all of it and leaving you without the way, the truth, and the light of Jesus and no way to get into the Kingdom of Heaven. I trust God and His ability to protect all of His words cannonized in the Holy Scripture of the Old and New Testaments. It gives me joy, peace, and hope. Because of the path it outlines. The path that is Jesus. By confessing Him as Lord and believing in Him that joy, peace, and hope can lead anyone through anything.
Jonathan,
Thank you for your comments: However I have several articles that answer the above questions and prove the Bible to be not infallible. Infallible meaning "incapible of error" does not lend itself to any errors of any kind.
Jonathan stated...
This is a dangerous path to start down. Once you convince yourself that there is one error in the bible, then you can easily start to find others. In a downward spiral ultimately nullifying all of it and leaving you without the way, the truth, and the light of Jesus and no way to get into the Kingdom of Heaven.
Wer62 Responds:
Here is the problem let me point out that not one protestant or catholic has been able to answer "which Bible is the correct Bible and give proof texts to back up their claim.
"The real Achilles heal of canonical exclusion . . . lies in the idea that there is one single Christian Canon or one single Christian Bible, for historically there has not been one Christian canon or one Christian Bible, but many. For example, just before 200 AD someone in the Christian Church at Rome wrote a list of books that were accepted as canonical by the Roman church at that time. A copy of this canon list was discovered in 1740 by Lodovico Muratori in the Ambrosian Library in Milan, and for this reason it is called the Muratorian Canon. According to it, the Roman church at the end of the second century did not consider Hebrews James, 1 Peter, or 1 Peter to be scripture, and they accepted only two of the letters of John, although we cannot be sure which two. They did accept as canonical, however , two works now considered to be outside the New Testament, the Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon. Clearly their canon of scripture was different from that of modern Christians, but does that mean that the second and third century Roman Church was not Christian? Remember that they were the same people who were dying in the arenas for the sake of Christ. Can anyone seriously argue that they weren't Christians just because their canon was different? Among Protestants, Martin Luther suggested that the new Testament books were of varying worth and divided them up into three separate ranks. In the prefaces of his early editions of the New Testament, Luther denied that the lowest rank [Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation] belonged among "the true and noblest books of the New Testament" and went so far as to call the Epistle of James "a letter of straw."
Finally, it should be understood that there is still no single Christian canon or Bible, for Protestants and Catholics disagree on whether the "Deuteroncanonical books" [what Protestants call the Apocrypha] are scripture. At the Council of Trent in 156, Roman Catholics officially adopted a canon of scripture that included the Apocrypha as fully inspired and fully the word of God.
This leaves out the countless number of different versions of the Modern Bible that are out there today.
Jonathan stated...
argument found in Ephesians 4:11 is flawed. Are we not all called to be evangalists in spreading the good news of Jesus to all nations, kindreds, tongues and peoples? Why then could not every believer be called to be his or her own priest, under the submission of the High Priest, Jesus Christ?
Wer62 Responds:
First let me state in this article I never mentioned Eph 4:11. That stated, one cannot claim priesthood authority out of thin air and without the laying on of hands by someone of authority. The doctrine of "priesthood of all believers" cannot be of God and definitely is not Biblically supportable based on their standard proof texts when applied to the rest of the scriptural support concerning the subject.
For more information concerning the priesthood see Do Bible Teachings Contradict Modern Revelation Regarding the Need for the Priesthood?
Jonathan, one can bear their testimony and speak of Christ and his atoning sacrafice without being in the priesthood. That stated Eph 4:11 was definitely speaking to Christ's authorized priesthood. Protestants fail in showing any preisthood authority as directed by Christ. In fact the notion of a "preisthood of all believers" lends itself to anyone claiming authority of Christ and starting different denominations causing more confusion. Christ \ God is not the author of Confusion.
Jonathan stated...
The main reason I see for attacking the cannonized Bible is that the message found in it is just as it says. It is like a two-edged sword that is cutting the heart of the reader.
Wer62 Responds:
First let me say this: We as Latter-day Saints do use the Bible as scripture. As such I believe in Christ and therefore your argument is flawed. We do find the Bible "reliable" just not "infallible". To find the Bible infallible regardless of the errors that have been pointed out is unreasonable since you should be following Christ by decernment of the Scriptures. It is unrealistic to believe that no translation errors, punctuation errors, changes in doctrine by men have not occured. The Lord does not take away mens free agency even when it comes to our modern day Bible. How many Bibles are out there? Lots of different versions. Why would that be if "all of them say the exact same thing or doctrines are all alike." If that is the case we all would be at a unity of faith and all one denomination under Christ in an authorized priesthood. This simply is not the case.
See the following articles:
Is the Bible Complete? - Portions are Missing Nephi Said So
What Are Some of the Errors in the Bible?
The Bible Fraud
The Bible does contain errors and just as the Bible has warned people not to change the texts why would this be in the Bible if authors were not worried about God protecting his word on Earth. I do believe God does protect his words but not on Earth but his words live eternal and are recorded in heaven.
Jonathan - as a side note, I hope you are doing well after the loss of your pastor. I do enjoy our conversations and I am looking forward to many more over the 2007 year. I wish you and your family the best for 2007 and beyond.
Wer62
Ed,
You say you find the bible reliable but not infallible, yet as a believer in the Mormon church you also find your Prophet Joseph Smith, as infallible.
I do not understand how you can see the bible as not being infallible, and yet a man as infallible. To me it really comes down to faith. I place my faith in the written word of the Bible. Words, verses, chapters, and books that can be read over and over again. I believe that the answer to all of life's difficulties and problems can be found within its pages. The word of God is infallible when coupled with the Holy Spirit of a believer. On the most important point of theology, It is clear that faith in Jesus Christ is the only way to receive eternal life.
For a Mormon, I guess, it is trust in Joseph Smith, even though there are many strange quotations by him and it is often a guessing game as to whether his words are as a man or as a spokesman for the Lord. Yet, He is still trusted by the faithful Latter-day Saint. Even though he made many mistakes, among his last was the destruction of a printing press.
The belief of a Mormon in Joseph Smith is no different than the belief of a Christian and the Bible. It really comes done to choice, Joseph or the Bible?
Jonathan,
Sorry for the slow response on this thread. Please allow me to address the topic at hand and dispel your misconceptions of our beliefs.
Jonathan Stated...
You say you find the bible reliable but not infallible, yet as a believer in the Mormon church you also find your Prophet Joseph Smith, as infallible.
Wer62 Responds:
A prophet is only a prophet when acting as such. Joseph Smith made his fair share of mistakes as a man. That stated with prophecy is concerned and doctrine of the Church you are correct I find him to be infallible in these areas. After all that is what the foundation of the Church that Jesus Christ laid down was all about. Prophets and Apostles are to "keep the doctrines of Christ together like a foundation of a building with Christ being the "chief cornerstone". This meaning that part of the reason we see so many Christian religious groups are simply because there were no prophets and apostles to keep the church together because for a time Christ (the ultimate head of "his" church) had no authorized priesthood on Earth) This is fortold in your own Bible. The light was soon to depart, leaving the great darkness “in which no man can work” while “the prince of this world” would remain, as usual, in possession of the field.
John 9:4
Matt 23:35-39
Matt 17:12
Luke 11:51
Jonathan Stated...
I do not understand how you can see the bible as not being infallible, and yet a man as infallible. To me it really comes down to faith. I place my faith in the written word of the Bible. Words, verses, chapters, and books that can be read over and over again. I believe that the answer to all of life's difficulties and problems can be found within its pages. The word of God is infallible when coupled with the Holy Spirit of a believer. On the most important point of theology, It is clear that faith in Jesus Christ is the only way to receive eternal life.
Wer62 Replies
In part I think we agree on "Jesus Christ being clearly the only way to eternal life. Any Christian religion that does not preach this is NOT a Christian religion. PERIOD!!!! That stated, While the Bible is reliable it is not infallible. You said it yourself "The word of God is infallible when coupled with the Holy Spirit" which is what I said also when I stated it had to be read with Discernment. Your statment almost goes as far as stating you agree with me in the fact the Bible is not infallible. There are many things in the Bible that that don't add up but just don't mean alot in the overall scheme of things. For example the number of Angels at the tomb. Was it one or two. It depends on which account you read John's or Pauls. How about what did the sign over Jesus Christ's head actually read. There are three versions total. If one is going to "ding" the lds faith for inconsistencies such as the "first vision" for example for not being "letter perfect" then lets judge the Bible on the same standard. Again it is with Discernment we understand and thru faith in Christ we are saved.
Jonathan Stated...
For a Mormon, I guess, it is trust in Joseph Smith, even though there are many strange quotations by him and it is often a guessing game as to whether his words are as a man or as a spokesman for the Lord.
Wer62 Replies
Actually it is trust in the Lord and his gift of the Holy Ghost. Joesph Smith is confirmed to me as a prophet by these things. Let me state one more time, The Bible is realiable just not infallible. You still have not answered "which Bible" is the infallible one for example. Some Bible vary drastically in doctrinal standards especially in interpretation of translations.
Yet, He is still trusted by the faithful Latter-day Saint. Even though he made many mistakes, among his last was the destruction of a printing press.
Wer62 Replies
You see there you go again, Applying Joesph Smith to be perfect in matters of Men and not of God. Your application of mistake is misplaced. [Big Grin]
Jonathan stated...
The belief of a Mormon in Joseph Smith is no different than the belief of a Christian and the Bible. It really comes done to choice, Joseph or the Bible?
Wer62 Responds:
Not really, we have both Prophets and the Bible. We can read and ask for discernment. You have no living prophets or apostles so therefore you have no "authorized leadership in the form of a priesthood" to hold your denomination together.
Wer62
Post a Comment