1) If you meant to exclude informed views you should have said so.
I've said it many times. My first statement was apparently not precise enough, as it was really just a remark made in passing, which is why I suggested questions you might have asked about it, but by now there shouldn't be any doubt about what I meant as I have repeatedly insisted I was referring to the "average person" and gave quotes to that effect as well.
Especially if you meant views that could be adequately defeated by comparing the Septuagint with the Masoretic text. (The Septuagint was translated at about the same time as the DSS was written). Which really means that the DSS weren't that significant for the poitn you now wish to claim.
Nonsense. The fact that their texts are virtually identical to ours is the ONLY point I have EVER claimed. There are fragments of the Septuagint among the DSS scrolls too, but this is not relevant to anything. All that is relevant is that their text and ours are identical.
2) When you refer to changes in general, without qualifying the issue of the date you are implicitly including changes before the DSS - or do you think that the average person would assume that Isaiah could only have changed AFTER the DSS were written ?
I would assume that the average READER OF MY STATEMENT would have the good sense to know that I couldn't possibly be referring to changes BEFORE the DSS if I'm talking about how it demonstrates the integrity of our texts over 2000 years LATER. Mostly the "average person" IS thinking only of the Christian period as a matter of fact.
Again, if you want to discuss the PRE-DSS period, that's a completely other issue with completely other arguments to consider. It is NOT relevant to my statement about the DSS' implications for OUR TEXTS NOW.
3) For someone who likes to attack others you really aren't reading very carefully or thinking carefully yourself. I did not say "no signficant changes since Moses original text", I said "no significant changes since the time of Moses". Since the original three copies in your story were written by "Aunt Sally" then they date to the time of "Aunt Sally".
Sorry I was imprecise, but the point stands that I clearly said there was no way from the given information to know about changes within that period of time, only AFTER.
4) Since the DSS Isiaah scroll itself contains copying errors how can it be used to prove that there were no more since it was written ?
The copy errors IN the Isaiah scroll prove NOTHING. They are trivial and they are irrelevant to the point I'm making. The proof of the integrity of our Isaiah text now is in the fact that it SAYS THE SAME THING as the DSS Isaiah. It has nothing to do with the trivial errors in the DSS text. Those errors just weren't in the Isaiah texts that ours derived from or they got corrected over the years in any case, by comparison with the many other mss that were in circulation.
How can you be sure that none of the differences are copying errors in later texts or that there are none in the sections that do not survive ?
I'm not following you. Again, the point is that their text and ours are the SAME. There ARE no significant "differences" at ALL. That's the whole POINT. What "sections" do not survive? We have it ALL, just as they did. In the case of other scrolls we have MORE, but the text the DSS DOES have is nevertheless identical in meaning to ours.
5) Since the DSS Isaiah scroll is not a translation and it is being compared with the current Masoretic text which is not a translation either how can it be relevant to translation errors ?
It isn't. The POSSIBLE translation errors refer to all the SUPPOSED changes that are imagined by the "average person" to have occurred SINCE then. But NO errors of ANY kind occurred to affect the meaning of the text as our text and theirs are IDENTICAL -- no copying errors, no intentional changes, no translational errors, no changes WHATEVER of any significance. When they go to translate the DSS it ends up saying the SAME THING as our Bible. When they compare it to current Hebrew and Greek versions (for the Septuagint), and to the oldest Masoretic texts, it says the SAME THING.
6) Your examples from Message 5 are not relevant because they are not restricted to changes to Isaiah (or even the OT) after the DSS were written. If you have examples form such sources which actually DO answer the question asked in Message 1 please produce them.
THERE HAVE BEEN
NO CHANGES WHATEVER "AFTER THE DSS WERE WRITTEN" WHICH IS THE WHOLE POINT OF THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION. THIS IS PROVED BY THE FACT THAT OUR CURRENT BIBLES ARE IDENTICAL WITH THEIR TEXTS. WHAT ABOUT "IDENTICAL" ARE YOU NOT GETTING?????
7) I am undecided on whether you meant the more general claim implied by your post or not. Certainly you contine to make assertiosn that imply that my original assessment was correct (e.g. your quote from your message 5 above). As such I have given you the benefit of the doubt throughout this thread. At the minimum I would expect the same courtesy from you even if your misrepresentation were equally well supported by the evidence.
I'm sorry, I simply have NO idea what you are saying, what is so difficult about this subject, where the misunderstandings lie or what. I've done my best over and over to answer your apparent misunderstandings and there's nothing more I can do.
™ Version 4.2