Happy Atheist Forum

The Dead Sea Scrolls
The 3 holes atop the ground in Golgotha
Tombs containing the coffins of biblical characters such as the mother of Jesus
The fact that you can't find the city of Sodom
The remains of a massive boat craft that were recently found in Pakistan
(Most of those were basically quotes from what he said)

I am just wondering.. What are people trying to prove with these, and really, what are they and are they good in a debate?
I know what the Dead Sea Scrolls are, just like the basic thing of em.. Scrolls that contain text of the Hebrew Bible is all I really know, and the tombs are pretty self explanatory.
But I am really interested about the Dead Sea Scrolls, and what are they supposed to prove?

Thanks

Many theists believe that if they can prove the historical accounts in the Bible, it makes the supernatural claims automatically true.

It's inherently flawed logic but, then again, it's the Bible we're talking about; it's not exactly Logic 101.

Yeah at one point I basically said scientific proof > historical proof

But I was also thinking, and tell me if this is wrong
But the Dead Sea Scrolls were written, I do believe , up to about 70AD, right? And the Bible was written close to there, wasn't it? So them mentioning the same things wouldn't be really proof would it?
^ I think that's wrong.

In my view that first thing you need to ask for is evidence that these things are so ... the kind of sources people get this crap from are generically known for twisting the truth, dragging up old (outdated) evidence, appeals to authority and plain lies. From there you can move on to a proper rebuttal.

The problem is that these things are all too easy for them to claim but not so easy to refute ... it's an easy thing to say "the remains of a massive boat craft that were recently found in Pakistan" (I've never heard of it and TBH, given the circles I move in, I would have thought I would have) but a comprehensive refutation take time and effort.

Kyu

Yeah, and the problem I have is trying to get what people are trying to prove with this stuff.. =\

I was watching a show the other day about the search for Jesus' tomb.  The one that had names on it was likely a forgery created a long time ago.  That's why when it was found they initially thought it was the real thing.  Basically they have now been able to analyze the depth of the inscriptions, 'font,' age, etc and found that some parts had been changed to look like it was the Jesus' family tomb.

Quote from: "laetusatheos"I was watching a show the other day about the search for Jesus' tomb.  The one that had names on it was likely a forgery created a long time ago.  That's why when it was found they initially thought it was the real thing.  Basically they have now been able to analyze the depth of the inscriptions, 'font,' age, etc and found that some parts had been changed to look like it was the Jesus' family tomb.

So the Jesus family tombs were fake, and what about like the Dead Sea Scrolls? What do you have to say about them?

Quote from: "Kevin"So the Jesus family tombs were fake, and what about like the Dead Sea Scrolls? What do you have to say about them?

I don't know much about them, but I don't think they date back to the claimed time of Jesus.  It would be like writing an 'eye witness' account of  WW1 based on stories your great-granddad told you.

I was thinking that; because, from what I think, people try and say that like they fulfill the prophcies told in the Bible.. Which wouldn't be that hard, because they were estimated to be hidden away in like 64AD, which means that the Bible was written before it, so they could just make stuff up, and act like the Bible fulfilled them.. It isn't that hard.

QuoteThe Dead Sea Scrolls consist of roughly 900 documents, including texts from the Hebrew Bible, discovered between 1947 and 1956 in eleven caves in and around the Wadi Qumran near the ruins of the ancient settlement of Khirbet Qumran, on the northwest shore of the Dead Sea. The texts are of great religious and historical significance, as they include some of the only known surviving copies of Biblical documents made before 100 AD, and preserve evidence of considerable diversity of belief and practice within late Second Temple Judaism. They are written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, mostly on parchment, but with some written on papyrus. [1] These manuscripts generally date between 150 BC to 70 AD.

That's a direct copy from Wikipedia.  There is a lot more info there.

Quote from: "Faithless"

QuoteThe Dead Sea Scrolls consist of roughly 900 documents, including texts from the Hebrew Bible, discovered between 1947 and 1956 in eleven caves in and around the Wadi Qumran near the ruins of the ancient settlement of Khirbet Qumran, on the northwest shore of the Dead Sea. The texts are of great religious and historical significance, as they include some of the only known surviving copies of Biblical documents made before 100 AD, and preserve evidence of considerable diversity of belief and practice within late Second Temple Judaism. They are written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, mostly on parchment, but with some written on papyrus. [1] These manuscripts generally date between 150 BC to 70 AD.

That's a direct copy from Wikipedia.  There is a lot more info there.

So really, they don't prove anything?

Quote from: "Kevin"So really, they don't prove anything?

They are a way for biblical scholars to determine what is "original" in the canon. Before the DSS, some of the books in the bible were only known by their oldest manifestations dating just as far back as 700CE. For them to get their hands on what can be considered a "first draft" was an amazing thing. Unfortunately for them, as you pointed out, it doesn't prove anything. It just gives them more information with which to work. Consider it like finding a preliminary sketch of the Mona Lisa: doesn't change the picture we all know and love, but it gives some insight into what the artist was thinking during its creation.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"

Quote from: "Kevin"So really, they don't prove anything?

They are a way for biblical scholars to determine what is "original" in the canon. Before the DSS, some of the books in the bible were only known by their oldest manifestations dating just as far back as 700CE. For them to get their hands on what can be considered a "first draft" was an amazing thing. Unfortunately for them, as you pointed out, it doesn't prove anything. It just gives them more information with which to work. Consider it like finding a preliminary sketch of the Mona Lisa: doesn't change the picture we all know and love, but it gives some insight into what the artist was thinking during its creation.

That actually just cleared it up for me... Thanks.

Quote from: "Kevin"That actually just cleared it up for me... Thanks.

Did it really? Haha, I'm so proud of myself!  

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"

Quote from: "Kevin"That actually just cleared it up for me... Thanks.

Did it really? Haha, I'm so proud of myself!  :)
I understand now, really, that they are just parts of the Bible (Which I knew), but really prove nothing, since they were just missing and earlier parts.
Gracias, senor.