|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Isaiah and the Dead Sea Scrolls | |||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 612 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
At this point, it is very certain that the DDS are authentic. They used archelogical, palenography, and carbon 14 dating.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Checkmate Inactive Member |
quote: hamm, but there is a problem, about which perhaps you may not be aware. the greatest problem that confronts the Judeo-Christian scholars in dating these caves is the existence of Arabic fragments which were found in the same cave of Wadi Murraba’at. Of these Arabic fragments, one has a clear Hijrah dating 327 A.H. (938 C.E.) This fragment reads: — — — — ‘ — English translation of the above quoted one of the fragments is cited below in purple text. In the name of Allaah Most Gracious Most Merciful I have collected from the inheritors of Abu Ghazzan the taxes that were due on the Sunan property, totaling one-third and one-eighth of one Dinar for the year seven and twenty and three hundred (327 A.H. {938 C.E.}) Written by Ibrahim bin Hammaz in the month of Rabi al-Awwal of this same year, and I have placed my faith in Allaah. {Source: R. H. Eiseman and J.M. Robinson, A Facsimile Edition of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Biblical Archaeology Society, Washington, DC, 1991, Vol. 1, plate No. 294. For more samples please refer to plates Numbers 643-648} How this can be explained? P.S.I am sorry I can make the Arabic text appear, and being new, I don't know how? I tried to paste it, which words almost always. This message has been edited by Checkmate, 04-25-2005 09:09 AM "An uninformed person cannot conceptualize the essence of knowledge nor its sublimity. One who fails to conceptualize something, its significance will never become rooted in the heart."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 612 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Source? The links I have to that refer to that does not mention that.
The only source I find about your claim is an Islamic site that is claming a lot of Christian and Jewish forgeries.. and is hardly whatI consider an unbiased site. This message has been edited by ramoss, 04-25-2005 02:07 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Checkmate Inactive Member |
The source I already posted in my post above in the bottom. Here that is again:
{Source: R. H. Eiseman and J.M. Robinson, A Facsimile Edition of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Biblical Archaeology Society, Washington, DC, 1991, Vol. 1, plate No. 294. For more samples please refer to plates Numbers 643-648} "An uninformed person cannot conceptualize the essence of knowledge nor its sublimity. One who fails to conceptualize something, its significance will never become rooted in the heart."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 612 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
The only place I can find that quote in that source is an fundamentalist
islamic site, and not from the source. All other references I can find to that source does not have those references in it. Do you have a link that discusses it that is NOT an fundamentalist islamic web site?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Checkmate Inactive Member |
quote: Hi There is no such thing as "fundamentalist" or "fundamentalism" in Islaam or among Muslims. This is a Christian thing, which you have projected on the Islaamic website as your diversionary tactics. Perhaps, you are a fundi-Christian and are in denial. You have been given the source or reference, therefore, what was or is needed from you to check the source/reference to verify the authenticity of claim and then either admit it or reject it by proving otherwise. This proves that you are also alien to debate etiquettes. Again the source/reference is as follows:
{Source: R. H. Eiseman and J.M. Robinson, A Facsimile Edition of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Biblical Archaeology Society, Washington, DC, 1991, Vol. 1, plate No. 294. For more samples please refer to plates Numbers 643-648} Also try to augment your knowledge on the subject matters you like to speak or respond. Another suggested reading is: *The Dead Sea Scrolls DeceptionBy Michael Baigent & Richard Leigh Published by: Simon & Shuster 1991 NY USA *** I have read this book and I posses it, mind you that I have not quoted anything from this book yet. It will shock your imagination about Dead Sea Scrolls. It is actually either a fundi-Jewish or fundi-Christian source, either way; if you have anything worthy to add then please do. Otherwise I will ignore your posts on this subject matters. Checkmate This message has been edited by Checkmate, 04-27-2005 12:07 PM "An uninformed person cannot conceptualize the essence of knowledge nor its sublimity. One who fails to conceptualize something, its significance will never become rooted in the heart."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Just a question, have you checked out this reference yourself or are you relying on what others say ?
If the latter please list your sources. In general, it is best to be open about the use of secondary sources.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Checkmate Inactive Member |
quote: Hi Yes, I have verified the sources and much more. In fact, I do have the copies and/or images as well. Anyone can get this information from: Biblical Archaeology Society, Washington, DC, Reference:1991, Vol. 1, plate No. 294. For more samples please refer to plates Numbers 643-648} "An uninformed person cannot conceptualize the essence of knowledge nor its sublimity. One who fails to conceptualize something, its significance will never become rooted in the heart."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 612 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
I checked that source, and can't find the information you are claiming.
The only source seems to be the place you cut/paste this information from , which is http://www.islam-is-the-only-solution.com/scrolls.htm I would say that you are taking information from a biased, bigoted source.. and do not have access to the original material. This message has been edited by ramoss, 04-27-2005 03:08 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Primordial Egg Inactive Member |
ramoss writes: The only source seems to be the place you cut/paste this information from , which is http://www.islam-is-the-only-solution.com/scrolls.htm looking at that site, with its unusual spellings of "Islaam" and "Quraan", the inappropriate use of colour, its ever-so-slightly belligerent style and its liberal sprinkling of the Arabic codex, I'm inclined to believe that Checkmate is somehow affiliated with the site. Especially as he's now used that site a few times as source and warned of going to other Islamic sites as sources. Not that there's anything wrong with being associated with that site per se, but if one is using the source as evidence and is connected with it in some way, it should be made apparent, for good order. Checkmate - can you please confirm or deny this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 3994 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
Hi, Cm, I haven`t access to the Facsimile edition (1991) but the DDS Uncovered--Eisenmann and Wise (1992) mentions the Facsimile edition in passing but contains no reference to Arabic material. Neither does the DSS--Wise, Abegg, Cook(1996) although there is a brief mention--'Ancient writings were also found in caves near the Wadi Murabba`at and the Wadi Baliyeh and in the ruins of Masada. Except for the Masada texts, the other discoveries came from times and milieus different from those at of the Qumran texts. Whether the Arabic text was left in the deposit at a later time, or was contemporaneous with the Bible texts is not countenanced. Maybe another Christian plot, huh?
Re Whether fundamentalism is understood solely as a Christian concept would depend on your world-view. I think most cultures would accept fundies today as referring to groups adhering to the literalism of their Holy Book, and that would include Iran under the Ayatollahs, the Taliban, Wahabbism for openers. Unless YOU are in denial.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Checkmate Inactive Member |
quote: If I were you, I would contact the Musuem, where the plates do exist as evidence. So far, I have not see anyone has contacted or visited the Musuem. Regarding Ayatollahs and the Taliban, it is more political than religious issue. We do demonize these people because we have an agenda and we can reap some benefits out of that, beside our ulterios movtives against Islaam. I would not further our dialogue on political issues. Regarding "Wahabbism" it is same as the other two, but I like you to define "Wahabbism" and please answer the folllowing questions: 1. What is Wahabbism? 2. What its teachings are? 3. What is wrong in those teachings, and why it is wrong? 4. Wahabbism is based on what source, who first tossed this term? 5. How the "Wahabbism" if existed is a fundi alleged sect? Points to be noted: I will not accept any link or copy and paste from other websites. I need hardcore facts as answers. If you will use the links or CAP from other websites, I would know that. All I want is brief and to the point answers, not pages after pages to overwhelm me to sift out a worthy point out of absurd jargon. RegardsCheckmate "An uninformed person cannot conceptualize the essence of knowledge nor its sublimity. One who fails to conceptualize something, its significance will never become rooted in the heart."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Neither of those are particularly unusual; I have seen at least 8 spellings of Koran, which is merely the most used term in English. I tend to agree that projecting Fundamentalism onto Islam is probably an error. Biblical literalism is hard when the book itself is so metaphorical and reflective - it is not like the Christian bible, which appears as a pretty dry account, and to which an appeal to litralism can be made precisely becuase it is not much accompanied by metaphor or reflection.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 612 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
I don't see you using hardcore facts. Your reliance on an islamic web site for your information is showing you are using a double standard.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Primordial Egg Inactive Member |
Neither of those are particularly unusual; I have seen at least 8 spellings of Koran, which is merely the most used term in English. Fair enough - it was the first time I've seen these particular spellings. "Quran" (with or without an apostrophe) and "Koran" are the big two, in my experience. Islaam and Quraan are more accurate phonetically.
I tend to agree that projecting Fundamentalism onto Islam is probably an error. Biblical literalism is hard when the book itself is so metaphorical and reflective - it is not like the Christian bible, which appears as a pretty dry account, and to which an appeal to litralism can be made precisely becuase it is not much accompanied by metaphor or reflection. Was this a response to anything I said (and not Checkmate)? + Did you mean Quran when you said Christian Bible above? If so, I'd agree that by its very nature the Quran is more instructional than the Bible. Funadmentalism to me is more about psychological condition - I'd say it could be applied to certain adherents of Christianity and Islam in equal measure. PE
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024