A lively debate over the Dead Sea Scrolls

[snopes]

As the ancient documents are readied for a San Diego exhibition, scholars clash over just who wrote them and what they represent.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,2722654.story

[Base Ten]

Sorry, no lively debate here.

Base "Move along folks, nothing to see..." Ten

[Quantum Leap2]

Who wrote them hardly matters; they are the oldest copies of the Bible as I understand it and being the text matches what we have now it shows they were not altered in any way as some people had claimed.

As to what they represent I think they represent the Bible. Someone will always try and refute what things mean. I think the Bible says what it says and means what it says.

[Elbe]

Originally Posted by Quantum Leap2

I think the Bible says what it says and means what it says.

I know what you mean, but I find something amusing about "the bible says what it says". The copy of red mars sitting in front of me says what it says too, though now I'm trying to figure out if it means what it says too.

[Jonny T]

Originally Posted by QuantumLeap2

Who wrote them hardly matters; they are the oldest copies of the Bible as I understand it and being the text matches what we have now it shows they were not altered in any way as some people had claimed.

As to what they represent I think they represent the Bible. Someone will always try and refute what things mean. I think the Bible says what it says and means what it says.

Um, you do know there's a *lot* more to the Dead Sea Scrolls than just the bible, right*? And given how diverse opinion of the scriptures is and has been for millenia, "it says what it says and means what it says" is pretty empty IMO.

I find the dead sea scrolls interesting as first hand accounts of one of the many Jewish sects that were around at the time; given the time period assumed for them, partially coinciding with the formation of Christianity, they provide an interesting bit of context. some of their hymns are particularly beautiful. The War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness is another interesting one.

I'd always assumed the Essene theory was taken as a given, tho; this should be interesting to follow.

(* "just" as in "only", not as in "the bible's trivial".)

[Grand Illusion]

A lot of Christians are excited about the DSS because they affirm that the Bible has been essentially unaltered over the centuries, lending credence to the doctrine that God preserves his Word. They also affirm that that the Bibles Christians have been using for centuries are indeed based on faithful manuscripts, rather than on corrupted or altered texts a la DaVinci Code.

However, the "King James only" crowd will have no interest in the DSS because they are not part of the Textus Receptus, which is considered by them to be the divinely mandated body of manuscripts.

Other Christians might be apprehensive because the scrolls were done by a sect (which would be vulnerable to heresy). Thus, any discrepancies between the more modern texts and the DSS might be heresy rather than correcting what we already have.