Howdy all! Long time lurker, first post. Am I correct that the DSS support the KJV bible, and say nothing even close to Mormonism? If that is correct, why all the Mormon talk of priesthood and gospel restoration. The scrolls discount every thing Joseph Smith wrote in his inspired version, and since no restoration was necessary, doesn't it eliminate the need for Mormonism altogether?

The dead sea scrolls refute christinsanity.

Ask yourself why they are kept hidden and unavailable for viewing.

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The dead sea scrolls refute christinsanity. (sic)

Clever.

> Ask yourself why they are kept hidden and
> unavailable for viewing.


What are you talking about? They have been extensively studied. The text, including translations, have been published. The collection is being scanned and placed online at the Israel Museum Digital Dead Sea Scrolls site. At least five of the scrolls are complete and more are on their way. Anyone with a web browser can access said.

Hidden? Nonsense.

When did you view them ?

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When did you view them ?

Illuminating as always.

I've seen them....the real thing. They're on display in Jerusalem in a museum dedicated to that purpose. I don't recall the name of the museum off hand, but they're not being hidden away.

nolongercounted Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Howdy all! Long time lurker, first post. Am I
> correct that the DSS support the KJV bible, and
> say nothing even close to Mormonism?

Um, not really.

In fact, the DSS illustrate a fairly large number of *problems* with the KJV. Places where the KJV translators screwed up, inserted their own ideas, and used probably poor choices of manuscripts.

Keep in mind that the DSS aren't "originals" of any OT books. And contain no NT books at all.
Most of the DSS copies of OT books are fragmentary, there are very few complete "books" in the collection. There are multiple copies of quite a few OT books (at least copies of parts of them), and the various copies in the DSS collection themselves show differences. Sometimes minor, sometimes major differences.

What one (christian) scholar who's examined much of the DSS collection stated was that the main conclusion we can draw from them is that "...the books in the OT were in flux at the time the Qumran community copies were made."

But, yes, they certainly don't contain anything that supports mormonism.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There are multiple copies of
> quite a few OT books (at least copies of parts of
> them), and the various copies in the DSS
> collection themselves show differences. Sometimes
> minor, sometimes major differences.


Out of curiousity, could you cite some "major" differences? I'm aware of quite a number of small textual variations with them, but I've not seen anything that was a wild departure from the other copies.

Thanks.

Lurk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Out of curiousity, could you cite some "major"
> differences? I'm aware of quite a number of small
> textual variations with them, but I've not seen
> anything that was a wild departure from the other
> copies.

Tens of thousands of textual variations is indeed "quite a number."

I guess "major" and "minor" are subjective, but as one example:

"An example of the problems he and others ponder: In two of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Psalm 33 directly follows Psalm 31, skipping number 32. Did the scribes who wrote those manuscripts believe 32 was not God’s Word?p. And the opposite situation: Various scrolls include 15 psalms that are not found in standard Bibles. Sample: ‘’Blessed be he who has made the earth by his power, who has established the world in his wisdom…’’ Was this Scripture that was later lost, or did Dead Sea scribes merely collect devotional poetry and mix it with biblical psalms?p. ‘’If Ulrich is on the right track, we’ve got some major thinking to do,‘’ acknowledges John H. Walton, a staunchly conservative professor at Chicago’s Moody Bible Institute. The problem as he sees it: ‘’If it could be demonstrated we have two biblical traditions arising independently of one another, instead of one being a revision or corruption of the other, then which one are you going to call God’s Word?‘"

http://news.nd.edu/news/dead-sea-scrolls-yield-major-questions-in-old-testament-understanding/

15 "extra" Psalms -- is that "major?"
You decide.
And that's just one example of many hundreds of similar differences.

Thanks for the response and link. I was aware of the variation in Psalms. The content of that particular body of text has never been completely uniform. I don't consider it major, though as you pointed out, that is a subjective term. I can see how an Evangelical theologian like the fellow from Moody might disagree.

It's been stated that there are 11 full copies of the Book of Isaiah . The KJV uses the proper name Lucifer in chapter 14 . That name is nowhere to be found in any of the copies . So when Smith incorporated that name into both the BoM and the D&C , it's another testament to the fact he was a charlatan , and the KJV was his source material .

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> nolongercounted Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Howdy all! Long time lurker, first post. Am I
> > correct that the DSS support the KJV bible, and
> > say nothing even close to Mormonism?
>
> Um, not really.
>

Quite so. And I, vaguely, remember some of the Mormon hierarchy making all kinds of noises that the discovery would prove the BoM, BoA, etc. I'm guessing that is now long since down the memory whole.

Anyone else remember those prognostications? Are they preserved somewhere? If so, it would be interesting and, dare I say, a little funny. ;)

Lurk Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anyone else remember those prognostications? Are
> they preserved somewhere? If so, it would be
> interesting and, dare I say, a little funny. ;)

Oh, I absolutely remember.
And of course, now...crickets.

I'll have to see if I can find some.
Mormons will just use the old, "Oh, that was just (whatever mormon leader) speaking as a man..." to dodge them.

If you do happen to find references to those claims that could be posted, that would be great. :)

some fragments of the DSS contain new testament passages

the ethereal them Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> some fragments of the DSS contain new testament
> passages

Do you mean that the Dead Sea Scrolls contain [what amounts to] identical, word-by-word, passages which also (word-by-word) appear in the NT?

Or, alternatively, do you mean that the CONTENT of certain passages in the DSS is identical, or very similar, to the CONTENT as exists in the NT?

Can you reference any passages in which either of the above occur?

(It just occurred to me that, unless the passages in the DSS and the NT are word-by-word identical, the gematria (number equivalents of the Hebrew letters) would change, and this would change the layered, sub-textural meanings of each modified word or passage in some way.)

the ethereal them Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> some fragments of the DSS contain new testament
> passages

Well, sort of, but really...no.

There are no "word for word" equals to anything in the NT.
There *are* some places where the OT is either quoted or "interpreted" in the NT, and the same quotations (usually with wording changed) or a similar "interpretation" is in the DSS.
But those aren't NT passages.

As one DSS scholar (Raymond Brown) points out:

"We note that the Qumran interpretation takes out select lines from II Sam 7, just as Luke apparently did. It has shifted the focus of Nathan's promise from a continual line of kings to a single Davidic king, the messianic 'shoot' who will arise in the last days, even as Luke has applied the Samuel passage to Jesus. The 'forever' of both Qumran and Luke is, then, not an endless series of reigns by different kings, but an eschatological redemption. And so there is nothing distinctively Christian in Gabriel's words in vss. 32-33 of Luke, except that the expected Davidic Messiah has been identified with Jesus."

So...no, there aren't any NT passages in the DSS.

Thanks, Hie...your response is appreciated!!

:)

I have forgotten about those and now don't remember what they are or are supposed to be.

Is there a good place to read up on them?

And what does 'OT' and 'NT' refer to?

Thanks!

OT = Old Testament
NT = New Testament

Here's a link to get you started:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls

Following links to some of the references at the bottom of that page will keep you reading for days :)

Thanks Hie!

Yes, the KJV is one of the most incorrect translations of the Bible that you can find.

The KJV was translated from Latin (after first being translated from the original Greek and Hebrew)... telephone game anyone?

That's why many churches use a new translation from the Greek and Hebrew like the ESV or NIV.

Also, the newer Bibles are translated in part from older texts found over the centuries, older than what King James had when his Bible was translated.

Some of those NT texts were within 20 years of Christ.

Now... about Joseph Smith..

Joseph Smith didn't translate squat. He made it all up with Oliver... published the BOM in 1830 and tried to SELL it!

When he was out peddling his book, those who knew the Bible well, objected and pointed out Matthew 24. This became such a problem for Joseph that he "re-translated" Matthew 24 in 1831, on year later, and now you can find it in the Pearl of Great Price called Joseph Smith - Matthew.

He then started "re-translating" the other parts of the Bible that disagreed with his new church, and then realizing that people will catch on, he made lots of minor changes to cover his tracks.

Simply put, Joseph Smith is nothing more than an author that tried to sell a book, and when that didn't work, he started a religion.

-Simply put, Joseph Smith is nothing more than an author that tried to sell a book, and when that didn't work, he started a religion.


And a plagiarized one at that! And from a book published just two years prior to Joe Smith BoM, by an author from his same home town! ("View of the Hebrews")

I've mentioned this in another post. But I am going to reiterate here that I have seen the book View of the Hebrews. And original copy from the BYU library locked cases. One of the two left remaining in print (both owned by the LDS church). Weird to me that they only keep them locked up and don't just destroy the evidence!

Btw, it wasn't until I was in my early 20s questioning my faith that I even knew there were other versions of the bible from the King James! Of course I had seen a million times that it said 'King James' version, but never gave a thought to the possibility of other versions until my Jewish boyfriend at the time asked why we used that version? I could tell he thought it wasn't the best one.

There's a lot of speculation that King James was a homosexual. Ask your LDS friends why they use the gay bible.

yeppers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, the KJV is one of the most incorrect
> translations of the Bible that you can find.

One of them anyway. Particularly with what we know now.

> The KJV was translated from Latin (after first
> being translated from the original Greek and
> Hebrew)... telephone game anyone?

Not true. With the KJV: The Old Testament was translated from Hebrew and Aramaic. The Apocrypha from Greek and Latin. And the New Testament from Greek.

You may be thinking of the Douay–Rheims Bible, which was translated into English from the Latin Vulgate.

The need for Mormonism was eliminated before it began. It just took years for some of its members to catch up to that fact.

The rest follows.

As for the Dead Sea Scrolls, concur with your talking points there.

You too can see them here where I saw them in J town:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrine_of_the_Book

Notice that potus missed paying a visit there along with Masada.

I have in my possession the 1976 printing of the Dead Sea Scrolls Anchor press. Also the 1978 printing of The Nag Hamadi Library.

I think the point Christians should understand is that the Dead Sea Scrolls make no mention of Jesus in any way. That in and of itself is very telling. They do, however, seem to show an apocalyptic world view similar to what Jesus proclaimed, although there is no evidence Jesus was every part of their community.

David A Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think the point Christians should understand is
> that the Dead Sea Scrolls make no mention of Jesus
> in any way. That in and of itself is very
> telling. They do, however, seem to show an
> apocalyptic world view similar to what Jesus
> proclaimed, although there is no evidence Jesus
> was every part of their community.


Jesus is only discussed in the NT.
The DSS are all OT books.
Whether you believe he was divine or not, Jesus hadn't walked the Earth when the DSS books were written, so of course he isn't mentioned in them. Perhaps that's a point you should understand...

The copies of the OT books found with the Dead Sea Scrolls were just that. There were also many contemporary texts that described the life and rules of their community. These were written as late as 70 A.D.

So yes, Jesus had lived and was executed prior to these writings, yet he made no impact on them whatsoever.

So the DSS were the KJV's "View of the Hebrews"?

More manuscripts, and more nearby caves containing manuscripts, continue to be discovered...

...so there is at least the possibility of additional, and perhaps unexpected, facts and writings still to come.

From a Jewish standpoint: Any writings about the existence of, or debates about, mechitzot ("dividers" between men and women, either in the Temple which the Romans destroyed, or in any other structure of any kind) would be very much welcomed by the Jewish community.

If this issue was ever debated during those times, having access to the debates in writing would be of incredible value to Jews (especially Jewish women) today...because it would be a new starting point for debates about today's Jewish women--- ranging from local issues regarding local synagogues, to the much larger issue of women, as equal Jews, praying at the Kotel (Western Wall in Jerusalem).

[Google: Women of the Wall, and the Wikipedia article is probably the best introduction to this issue.]



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2017 07:27AM by Tevai.

The way I heard it at in religion courses at a small Presbyterian-affiliated college fifty years ago, King James was unhappy with the English Bible of his day. It was a translation of the Latin "Vulgate" bible, and had marginal notes which questioned the divine right of kings. Obviously, he wasn't having any of that. He specified that it be translated directly from the original languages--Hebrew and Greek--and that it contain NO marginal notes. Like old Joe, he had his own ulterior motives.

The translators used a style of English which was dated and archaic even in 1611, so that it would sound old and authoritative. Not surprisingly, a number of errors got through; and some of these errors made it into Joe's quoted passages from Isaiah and Matthew in the BOM.

In 1979 as an investigator, I asked the missionaries why so many long passages from the KJV are quoted word-for-word in the BOM (errors and all, but I didn't know that then.) The answer was, "that just shows that it's an accurate translation."

I think it's more likely that Joe just got tired of making stuff up and decided to pad it by copying from the Bible for a while.