Quote:

---

If I may respectfully ask my friend, what is the nature of the God as you understand it and the relationship with man that is so different than other religions?

---

Very legitimate question. Some examples.

The Buddhist faith is more of a philosophy of life that does not require a god.

The Hindus are polytheists and so believe in many (millions!) of gods as were the ancient Greeks and Romans.

The Jewish and Muslim faiths believe in one God, but man must engage in good works to please Him. Righteousness is an accomplishment of man. Man does not really engage in a personal relationship, as such, with God.

The Christian faith believes in one God as well, but righteousness is an accomplishment of God, not of man. "All we like sheep have gone astray, each one has turned to his own way, but the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall upon Him." Isaiah 53. Man and God walk together in a love relationship enabled by faith in the work of Jesus, not in our own works.

Quote:

---

I think that TRUTH is to be sought, so we can make better choices and honor the gift of CHOICE given to us as humans.

---

I tend to agree with that, but might I suggest that you need to take it further. Who gave us that gift of choice, and what does He intend us to do with it?

Hey, you might all be happy to know that I met a man last Wednesday whose wife is a PASTOR! He had been a pastor, but recently retired, so his wife took over for him. We had a great conversation. I haven't changed by belief on the matter, but I figured it would make some of you happy to know that I have broadened my horizons!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Hey, you might all be happy to know that I met a man last Wednesday whose wife is a PASTOR! He had been a pastor, but recently retired, so his wife took over for him. We had a great conversation. I haven't changed by belief on the matter, but I figured it would make some of you happy to know that I have broadened my horizons!

---

You write that your "belief on the matter" hasn't changed, but you have "broadened your horizons". How have you broadened your horizons?

Quote:

---

You write that your "belief on the matter" hasn't changed, but you have "broadened your horizons". How have you broadened your horizons?

---

I meant that post to be a light-hearted one, so the conversation perhaps marginally expanded my horizons, but I've met female ministers before. I have nothing against them. As I stated earlier, I just don't see it as being any of my business. It's an issue between them and God. If they don't ask my opinion, and they typically don't, then I don't offer it. But it was a nice conversation.

Quote:

---

It's an issue between them and God.

---

Why would God have any concern over this?

Quote:

---

Why would God have any concern over this?

---

Are you serious?? I'm tempted to simply say go back and read the 103 posts before yours, but I guess I can at least add that God is interested in everything we do and we should certainly be interested in what He has to say about this, especially where there is good reason to think that He would not approve.

And please, please don't ask why He would not approve, because then I would only be willing to suggest you read the 103 posts before yours.

I have a problem taking any man's or woman's word for their having divine advice, or instruction.

Quote:

---

I have a problem taking any man's or woman's word for their having divine advice, or instruction.

---

I agree completely. That's why we should appeal to the Bible.

Quote:

---

there is good reason to think that He would not approve.

---

Au contraire! He very much approves!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I agree completely. That's why we should appeal to the Bible.

---

Written by MAN? Same thing. Doesn't matter what man... not even ME! What do I know?

Quote:

---

Written by MAN? Same thing. Doesn't matter what man... not even ME! What do I know?

---

I tell you what. Read the 53rd chapter of Isaiah and see if you really believe that was written by man.

Quote:

---

Au contraire! He very much approves!

---

Says WG, but not the Bible. I think I'll just go with the Bible. And if you ask what the Bible has to say about this, I'll just say go back and read the previous 103... well, you know.

Quote:

---

And if you ask what the Bible has to say about this

---

The Bible has nothing to say about women as SS superintendents. That's called adiaphora.

Wikipedia: "In Christianity, 'adiaphora' are matters not regarded as essential to faith, but nevertheless as permissible for Christians or allowed in church."

Please reread this thread. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Read the 53rd chapter of Isaiah and see if you really believe that was written by man.

---

Like all of Isiah, Chapter 53 is a powerful statement. But why do you question whether it could have been written by man?

Quote:

---

Like all of Isiah, Chapter 53 is a powerful statement. But why do you question whether it could have been written by man?

---

Because of its very plainly prophetic nature. How could man have written anything so accurately predictive of the ministry and vicarious death of Christ? No other religious book has anything like it.

Quote:

---

The Bible has nothing to say about women as SS superintendents. That's called adiaphora.

Wikipedia: "In Christianity, 'adiaphora' are matters not regarded as essential to faith, but nevertheless as permissible for Christians or allowed in church."

---

You must pay attention. We've already covered that ground.

I don't question your right to the peace and comfort of your bible my friend, nor the guidance it gives you to being a good human. All are free to make that choice of how to conduct themselves and where that comfort comes from no matter what book they get it from, or what they perceive is the right path to take on the journey through the reality of their life.

All humans have the gift of choice doesn't matter the region, language, or history.

Comfort does not interest me nearly as much as the truth does. Now we all get to choose, but if the Bible is true, and we are all going to appear before the judgement seat of Christ, then we better choose wisely. If it is not true, then I can't imagine why anyone would pay attention to it. And yet God has left His fingerprints in the Bible in places such as Isaiah 53 and many others. You would be wise, my friend, to consider it well.

Best wishes.

"Dwashbur, I just saw your earlier response. Didn't intend to ignore it."

Ditto. I saw your post and am working on a reply, it's just going to take a while.

"So far as the OT goes, I would like to hear your thinking on how the DSS do not give evidence of the faithful copying which took place over the centuries. Most of the material I have read on the topic point to the book of Isaiah since there had been one scroll (now two) of that book found complete. A comparison of that scroll with the Masoretic Text, dated at least a thousand years later, showed remarkable agreement between the two texts."

The biggest problem is, your information is horribly out of date. Those scrolls were found in 1947. Since then, ten more caves were found in the region, as well as several others in different locations around the Dead Sea, and the number of scrolls and fragments they yielded is staggering. We're talking hundreds, possibly thousands. Cave 4 held an unbelievable trove of scrolls, all buried under a several-inch layer of bat guano.

The entire body of the scrolls show at least three textual strains: one similar to the Masoretic text, one similar to the Septuagint, and one similar to the Samaritan Pentateuch. There are also tons of unique readings, ones that only appear in one scroll and nowhere else. If you want to get a feel for just how jumbled the picture is, I can refer you to my book, available from SBL Press. There's a hardcover available from E.J. Brill but it's overpriced, ugly, and not worth the difference in price.

If you don't read some Hebrew, the books usefulness may be limited. But with it you can look up a passage, find out of it's preserved anywhere, and get a general idea of how it compares to the Masoretic text et al. I would also suggest you check out some general introductions to the DSS, but look for ones written after the turn of the century.

Here's the link to my book:

https://secure.aidcvt.com/sbl/ProdDe...ype=BL&PCS=SBL

Fascinating reply. I don't intend to buy your book (no offense), but I did go to the site and it's plainly a serious academic work, so I commend you for it. Please allow me to address one paragraph at a time.

Quote:

---

The biggest problem is, your information is horribly out of date. Those scrolls were found in 1947. Since then, ten more caves were found in the region, as well as several others in different locations around the Dead Sea, and the number of scrolls and fragments they yielded is staggering. We're talking hundreds, possibly thousands. Cave 4 held an unbelievable trove of scrolls, all buried under a several-inch layer of bat guano.

---

I am aware that there were a number of caves discovered after Cave 1. However, all of the caves at Qumran were discovered by the mid 1950's. Cave 4 that you reference was discovered, for instance, in 1952, which puts it only 5 years later. So to say my information is horribly out of date strikes me as puzzling if your concern is the date of the cave discovery. Perhaps you were referring to the Gleason Archer quote.

My understanding is that the contents of Cave 4 were abundant in number (thousands, but most non-Biblical) but poor in quality, and that while about 15 copies of Isaiah were found,they were in tattered condition and quite fragmentary and incomplete. The two scrolls from Cave 1 appear to be far and away the best quality and most complete, but you might have more current information. To be clear, are you saying the copies of Isaiah in Cave 4 do not support the Masoretic text as well as the two scrolls from Cave 1? I ask because I am not able to find information on that. However, I would think you would agree that the agreement of the two intact scrolls is truly remarkable.

Your comments did make me consider something. I have read many articles and watched a number of documentaries about the DSS, but no books written for that sole purpose. So, taking your advice, I ordered this: Christian Beginnings and the Dead Sea Scrolls.​ I'll look at others after that.

I wouldn't expect you to buy my book, that was just for reference. We're badly overdue for a new edition, but SBL has other things on its plate at the moment.

(For comparison, when I gave a copy to my pastor, I said "This will become the most useless book in your library. I doubt you will ever find occasion to open it." I know the audience for that book, and this ain't it.)

There's a lot more than Isaiah. Portions of every book except Esther are preserved, including a near-complete copy of Job translated into Aramaic. A number of non-biblical materials were found, too.

I met Gleason Archer and listened to him present a paper back in the 80's. He was sincere, but didn't always do his homework. While he did take a high view of the Bible, he didn't always do the best job of defending it. He was also one of the most monotone speakers I ever heard, but that's another topic.

But back to the DSS. Example: the books of Samuel, in the Masoretic text, have a problem. In technical scholarly terms, they're a mess. Scholars have thought for nearly two centuries that the Septuagint preserved a more accurate text, and if you look at the marginal or footnotes in the average recent translation, you'll see the "LXX" represented more often than not.

Some pieces of both books were found in Cave 4, and they support that idea. They're in Hebrew, but their text is distinctly LXX. This tells us that the textual strain in the LXX came from an earlier Hebrew textual strain that ultimately fizzled out in Hebrew due to lack of copying. But it also tells that our suspicions were correct: the Greek text of the Septuagint is much closer to the original Hebrew text than the Masoretic text is.

The situation with scrolls from various parts of the Torah is a jumble. Most resemble the MT, but about 10% follow the Septuagint, and about 5% include unique readings from the Samaritan Pentateuch.

The reason I said your information is out of date is because so far we were only talking about Isaiah. Around the time that Archer et al were writing, those first couple of scrolls (two Isaiah scrolls and a commentary on Habakkuk) were just about all that had been released. Editing and publishing was going at a molasses pace, and all this was happening while I was working on that book (it was my Masters thesis). This was 1982-3, before the Internet. So finding the material to put in the book was a serious adventure. When Hershel Shanks of BAR fame announced that the entire body of material was going to be released, I wrote to one of the scholars, described my project, and asked how to get hold of images of the ones he was working on.

I still have his reply somewhere, because it was exemplary for its rudeness. He took a swipe at Hershel Shanks, basically said I sounded like an excited child in my letter, and then essentially told me to go away and quit bothering him.

This is what we were up against with the Dead Sea Scrolls for decades. Gleason Archer and the others wrote about what they knew, they just hadn't had the opportunity to know a whole lot.

Another book you might find interesting is Norman Golb, "Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls?" That book caused a firestorm in the DSS community because it basically challenges everything the scholars thought they knew. Whether you come out agreeing or not, it's an excellent book.

More to follow.