The case for Adam & Eve.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I have already pointed out that this is not true. Would you care to back up this claim with a reference?

[b]are you saying that is not evidence of a textual integrity? If so on what basis are you saying that it is not, for as yet, you have produced no evidence to the contrary.
Are we discussing textual integrity? If so, why? It has nothing to do with the original topic of whether or not the actual content is supported by archeology.[/b]

Huh? you don't think that finding hundreds of fragments of thousand year old scrolls preserved intact has anything to do with archaeology or the textual integrity of scripture may be corroborated by such, my goodness if God himself were to appear and with his finger inscribe the ten commandments on a piece of stone i think you would call into question whether he was indeed God and ask to see hid I.D. or that the stone was real stone and not a plaster cast! Your cynicism knows no bounds and it has devoured your ability to reason!

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]it has remained unchanged almost to the letter.

That's not true.[/b]

As usual you will not take my word for it, sigh,

seeing that we are referring specifically to the scroll of Isaiah, please consider this,

Professor Julio Trebolle Barrera, a member of the international team of editors of the Dead Sea Scrolls, states: “The Isaiah Scroll [from Qumran] provides irrefutable proof that the transmission of the biblical text through a period of more than one thousand years by the hands of Jewish copyists has been extremely faithful and careful.”

Professor Yigael Yadin , “Not more than about five or six hundred years elapsed between when the actual words of Isaiah were said and this scroll was copied in the 2nd century B.C. It is an amazing thing that although the original scroll in the museum is more than 2,000 years old how close it is to the Bible we read today either in Hebrew or in the translations which were made from the original.”

In one study, scholars compared the 53rd chapter of Isaiah in the Dead Sea Scroll with the Masoretic text produced a thousand years later. The book A General Introduction to the Bible, explains the results of the study: “Of the 166 words in Isaiah 53, there are only seventeen letters in question. Ten of these letters are simply a matter of spelling, which does not affect the sense. Four more letters are minor stylistic changes, such as conjunctions. The remaining three letters comprise the word ‘light,’ which is added in verse 11, and does not affect the meaning greatly. . . . Thus, in one chapter of 166 words, there is only one word (three letters) in question after a thousand years of transmission—and this word does not significantly change the meaning of the passage.”7

Professor Millar Burrows, who worked with the scrolls for years, analysing their contents, came to a similar conclusion: “Many of the differences between the . . . Isaiah scroll and the Masoretic text can be explained as mistakes in copying. Apart from these, there is a remarkable agreement, on the whole, with the text found in the medieval manuscripts. Such agreement in a manuscript so much older gives reassuring testimony to the general accuracy of the traditional text.”*


*Not all the manuscripts found at the Dead Sea agreed so exactly with the surviving Bible text. Some showed quite a lot of textual variance. However, these variations do not mean that the essential meaning of the text has been distorted. According to Patrick W. Skehan of the Catholic University of America, most represent a “reworking [of the Bible text] on the basis of its own integral logic, so that the form becomes expanded but the substance remains the same . . . The underlying attitude is one of explicit reverence for a text regarded as sacred, an attitude of explaining (as we would put it) the Bible by the Bible in the very transmission of the text itself.”

Another commentator adds: “In spite of all uncertainties, the great fact remains that the text as we now have it does, in the main, represent fairly the actual words of the authors who lived, some of them, nearly three thousand years ago, and we need have no serious doubt on the score of textual corruption as to the validity of the message which the Old Testament has to give us.”


need i go on, sigh. . . . . .you will now explain why i should accept the idea that in the case of the dead sea scrolls they cannot be submitted as archaeological evidence of the textual integrity of scripture, good luck, you'll need it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
you made the statement Fabian not me, you stated that the book of genesis and the book of revelation were written at different times, so what? you have failed to state why this is significant and i fail to see any reason for it myself.

Because one of the sources is an interpretation of the other.
The first one is written literary, no hint that it is symbolic. The other one, long time after devalidize the other, saying that it should be taken symbolically.

You fail to show me if the whole genesis should be taken symbolically, because you say that some parte thereof is only symbolically, but which parts you dpn't tell me.

If I say - "Jesus is not gods real son, it is just a symbol" - can you agree with me? If not, why?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes i understand that the manner in which an argument is delivered is different from the actual content and is a secondary issue, never the less, i am under no duress to answer such an argument on the basis of its content alone, any more than i must retort to someone who has insulted me no matter how sound their logic is. It is not a strange phenome ...[text shortened]... basis are you saying that it is not, for as yet, you have produced no evidence to the contrary.

it is not an insult if it is true. sure people might be offended if someone makes a negative remark about them but in truth ideas should be able to be communicated, shared, without any party taking offence.

you have proven countless times that you are unwilling to think for yourself in any case that should contradict the bible. you seem to be thinking that god equals the bible and that god, the supreme being is required by law to spoonfeed you everything and to personally aprove everything in the bible. you refuse to consider the idea that maybe, when the bible is proven wrong, it isn't an attack on god but on a book that although has good parts, it was still written by men who might have added "their wisdom" to the ideas inspired by god.

so if you refuse to use reason to talk about the bible, doesn't that make you irrational? and if it does, why would you be offended? it is like an old man being offended of being called "old man".

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
it is not an insult if it is true. sure people might be offended if someone makes a negative remark about them but in truth ideas should be able to be communicated, shared, without any party taking offence.

you have proven countless times that you are unwilling to think for yourself in any case that should contradict the bible. you seem to be thinking t ...[text shortened]... why would you be offended? it is like an old man being offended of being called "old man".

have i not this very minute substantiated my claim? am i not at this very moment discussing the Bible? well then all this other stuff is superfluous, it was after all what you were complaining about in the first instance, well then, there it is.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
have i not this very minute substantiated my claim? am i not at this very moment discussing the Bible? well then all this other stuff is superfluous, it was after all what you were complaining about in the first instance, well then, there it is.

Okay, you don't seem to understand my question.

You say that the soty of Adam and Eve never occurred? That the story is nothing but a story? Right?

This story is then veing interpreted as a story with a symbolic touch? Right?

So some stories is to be taken symbolically, and some letter-by-letter? Right?

I ask the questions in a very simplistic fashion so we can go frther from there.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Because one of the sources is an interpretation of the other.
The first one is written literary, no hint that it is symbolic. The other one, long time after devalidize the other, saying that it should be taken symbolically.

You fail to show me if the whole genesis should be taken symbolically, because you say that some parte thereof is only symbolical ...[text shortened]... say - "Jesus is not gods real son, it is just a symbol" - can you agree with me? If not, why?

so one of the sources in an interpretation of the other, so it was written after the first part, so what? is not knowledge built upon knowledge, so that which is partial and seen through a hazy mirror may be corroborated later by that which is complete. That the tree of knowledge of good and bad while clearly being a real tree if you accept a literal interpretation of the event, is symbolic of something else, in this instance, moral independence from God. That the snake was used as a tool of the fermenter of the rebellion, Satan is also quite clear, you need not accept these ideas, they are however perfectly clear in my mind and as yet you have provided nothing to the contrary other than to state, 'if that is symbolic then who is to say this is not also symbolic', which in itself answers nothing and seems to me to be indicative of those who are forever learning and are yet unable to come to an accurate knowledge of anything.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Okay, you don't seem to understand my question.

You say that the soty of Adam and Eve never occurred? That the story is nothing but a story? Right?

This story is then veing interpreted as a story with a symbolic touch? Right?

So some stories is to be taken symbolically, and some letter-by-letter? Right?

I ask the questions in a very simplistic fashion so we can go frther from there.

this was in reference to Zhalansi, your answer is below, i mean above now and just for the record i said nothing of the sort. I accept a literal interpretation of the events recorded.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
As usual you will not take my word for it, sigh,

seeing that we are referring specifically to the scroll of Isaiah, please consider this,

Professor Julio Trebolle Barrera, a member of the international team of editors of the Dead Sea Scrolls, states: “The Isaiah Scroll [from Qumran] provides irrefutable proof that the transmission of the bibli ...[text shortened]... ed as archaeological evidence of the textual integrity of scripture, good luck, you'll need it.

seeing that we are referring specifically to the scroll of Isaiah, please consider this

I see you referred to the book of Isaiah specifically in a previous post, but not so when you typed this -

I presented an instance of this integrity, the dead sea scrolls, which to my mind, having been preserved for over a thousand years in its original form a comparison has been made with the text in our hands today and it is found that indeed it has remained unchanged almost to the letter.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]seeing that we are referring specifically to the scroll of Isaiah, please consider this

I see you referred to the book of Isaiah specifically in a previous post, but not so when you typed this -

I presented an instance of this integrity, the dead sea scrolls, which to my mind, having been preserved for over a thousand years in its origin ...[text shortened]... our hands today and it is found that indeed it has remained unchanged almost to the letter.[/b]

oh i see once again we must cross every t and dot every i to make up for your inability to read minds! Well you should have ascertained which scroll i was referring to when you stated in a previous post, that's not true! cause it is!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
oh i see once again we must cross every t and dot every i to make up for your inability to read minds! Well you should have ascertained which scroll i was referring to when you stated in a previous post, that's not true! cause it is!

Just to clarify here Rob, as i've not completely been following the thread as it's taken me a few days to get over the fact that a grown mans 'argument', and i use that in the loosest sense of the word, for the beginnings of man is -

The Bible says God made man out of clay, oxygen is the most predominant element in clay and humans so therefore the Bible must be true

Pure genius that one.

Your new 'argument' is that because some of the Bible can be corroborated by archaeology it must follow that the rest of the Bible must be true!!

Is that what your getting at here?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
oh i see once again we must cross every t and dot every i to make up for your inability to read minds! Well you should have ascertained which scroll i was referring to when you stated in a previous post, that's not true! cause it is!

Sorry but your wrong.

You claimed the dead sea scrolls, not the book of Isaiah from the dead sea scrollshas remained unchanged almost to the letter.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Just to clarify here Rob, as i've not completely been following the thread as it's taken me a few days to get over the fact that a grown mans 'argument', and i use that in the loosest sense of the word, for the beginnings of man is -

[i]The Bible says God made man out of clay, oxygen is the most predominant element in clay and humans so therefore the ...[text shortened]... st follow that the rest of the Bible must be true!!

Is that what your getting at here?

Look, luckily for you my dear old thing i am listening to Henry Blofeld, what a genius he is!

these little elements, dear Noobster, are in themselves nothing, we are trying to weave a tapestry and the individual threads themselves are nothing in themselves, when weaved into a whole then yes, in specific instances we can corroborate certain biblical accounts as being trustworthy.

i have refered consitently to

the fall of Tyre,
the fall of Babylon
the destruction of Jerusalem,
the creation of man
that the earth is spherical not flat
that the earth hinges upon an invisible force
that Christ was a real person
that Pilate was a real person
that dietary laws such as prohibitions prevent certain infections (Trichinosis)
that the scriptural integrity is sound

etc etc

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Sorry but your wrong.

You claimed the dead sea scrolls, not the book of Isaiah from the dead sea scrollshas remained unchanged almost to the letter.

look it was cited to show the textual integrity has been preserved, are you stating that the quotations that i cited don't demonstrate this, no, well either accept it or make with some reddies to the contrary, you people demand exactitude of statement and its nonsense, but not surprising, you must grasp at something!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
look it was cited to show the textual integrity has been preserved, are you stating that the quotations that i cited don't demonstrate this, no, well either accept it or make with some reddies to the contrary, you people demand exactitude of statement and its nonsense, but not surprising, you must grasp at something!

Give up Robbie. He sees some of the truth your saying but he will not admit it as that shows he's wrong.