I have to say I can identify with this post, though I’d skip the scatological language in his assessment. Still, it sums up the typical “interest trajectory” you’ll see with the scrolls.
By the way, if you want to be exposed to the worst (most bone-headed and theologically self-serving) that Christianity has to offer. the Scotteriology blog I link to above has it. The blog tends to focus on the kind of insanity within the church that simultaneously makes you laugh and cry.
I may have to put this in an endorsement on my front page, “if you want to be exposed to the worst (most bone-headed and theologically self-serving) that Christianity has to offer. the Scotteriology blog I link to above has it.”
Are you talking about me or the material I link to? 😉
The material! (At least now anyway!)
haha my god that blog is funny…thanks for the link
This not directed to anyone in particular, but to the general elitist mean spirited tone of the linked post and responses.
In defense of Nigel, he is doing what Christians are encouraged to to do in 1 Peter 3:15. He is speaking to the general public, most of whom do not not have any exposure to, or care much for scholarly criticism. If that bothers anyone, perhaps you should step up and do a better job of it. The general idea is sound. The following is a quote from “A General Introduction to the Bible”,
“Of the 166 words in Isaiah 53, there are only 17 letters in question. Ten of these letters are simply a matter of spelling, which does not affect the sense. Four more letters are minor stylistic changes, such as conjunctions. The three remaining letters comprise the word LIGHT, which is added in verse 11 and which does not affect the meaning greatly. Furthermore, this word is supported by the Septuagint (LXX). Thus, in one chapter of 166 words, there is only one word (three letters) in question after a thousand years of transmission – and this word does not significantly change the meaning of the passage.” (Norman Geisler & William Nix, “A General Introduction to the Bible”, Moody Press, Page 263).
Isaiah 53 is arguable the best prophetic description of Jesus in the Hebrew Bible. I believe there is apologetic value in the Isaiah scroll, especially since it is dated at 120 BCE.
If using prophecy to authenticate the message bothers you, take it up with God as he is the one who makes the challenge,
“remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,’ ” (Isaiah 46:9–10, ESV)
Geisler and Nix are absolutely the wrong people to quote on anything to do with the scrolls (or textual criticism). And I’m a Geisler fan in many respects (still my favorite professor that I ever had). They simply are not text scholars and have no real feel for the realia of the manuscripts themselves. They do none of this kind of work and have to quote others (who often did none of the work).