What is Digg?169 Comments
- bjornski, on 08/27/2008, -7/+76I have nothing but awesome things to say for the people that made this possible.
I may be an atheist, but history is still fascinating. - ironeus, on 08/26/2008, -3/+67I saw the Dead Sea Scrolls in an exhibit, despite excellent preservation due to their age they are most sensitive. Bringing the scrolls online for all the world to see is remarkable .
- KarlH, on 08/27/2008, -2/+44Good. The copyrights have FINALLY expired.
- repmekevets, on 08/26/2008, -0/+41It's amazing to think we will soon be able to view a direct translation of a 2000+ year-old text.
- inactive, on 08/27/2008, -3/+38There's no such thing as a direct translation sadly...
The translation will reflect the authority that is in charge of the translation.
I'm a technical translator. Even a common news article will never be translated the same twice. Words change meaning, words disappear, expressions disappear, expressions change meaning, analogies can lose their reference, etc. etc. A text this old is about as difficult as translation can get. You don't have anything to refer to, it requires a host of people with a great amount of specialized knowledge.
I guess we'll have to wait and see. - inactive, on 08/26/2008, -1/+32The Dead Sea Scrolls are amazing documents that have been hidden for years from the public view. I think it is incredible that modern technology and the Internet are now allowing the general populace to be able to study this work in detail.
- paross2, on 08/27/2008, -1/+31of course it won't be the same as what we have. the modern day bible has dozens of translations. Greek and Hebrew had multiple meanings for the same word in many many instances. but the important stuff won't change. I have a friend whose Dad works at Asbury Theological Seminary, and he was part of a team that translated the bible from the oldest known text to a popular Christian translation. The number of people working on the project, and the level of scrutiny each passage goes under is enough to make me believe that translations are accurate.
Faith is not about translations anyway, it's about wether you choose to accept what those texts say or not. I think this is a great project. - LeviTheSmith, on 08/27/2008, -0/+26Dead_Sea_Scrolls_RAW_Tiff.torrent
- seltaeb4, on 08/27/2008, -0/+21Snippets from the Dead Sea Scrolls would likely make excellent Captcha verification words.
- MillionsLivio, on 08/27/2008, -1/+19Perhaps now we'll finally figure out what the hell happened in the End of Evangelion.
- nesagwa, on 08/27/2008, -1/+17Youre not the sharpest knife in the drawer are you?
- doom777, on 08/27/2008, -0/+13ulpan
- macwac, on 08/27/2008, -0/+13Please upload in RAW file format, thanks!
- bigmarc27, on 08/27/2008, -0/+13They were at Balboa Park last year in San Diego - I made sure to stop by on the trip out there. It was very cool.
The only bad thing was that my allergies were acting up. There were a lot of people walking around knowing they were looking at something sacred and I'm sneezing constantly for the better part of an hour. - cawpin, on 08/27/2008, -2/+14Hidden except that they've been on tour for the last 3 years. I saw them in San Diego. They are quite amazing.
- inactive, on 08/27/2008, -0/+12You didn't click the box next to Ancient Hebrew?
- drewniverse, on 08/27/2008, -0/+12Seriously, I live in SD and I was there at that exhibit and couldn't help but notice the guy that couldn't stop sneezing/coughing.
If that were you, that is pretty damn funny. - inactive, on 08/27/2008, -2/+13Wow.. cheer up man.
- ApokalypseNow, on 08/27/2008, -0/+9Actually, a few of the manuscripts found within the Scrolls differ significantly from the Masoretic texts.
Prior to the Nicean Councils of 325 CE and after, there were many regional variations of biblical material - the closest thing to a "standard" was more or less what was being preached in Rome at the time. With the Scrolls dating to the 2nd century BCE, it should come as no surprise that there are differences.
There are actually many instances of biblical editorializing in the past. One such revisions relates to the King of Ugarit about 3500 years ago. As his followers were the primary competition with the then-emerging religion of Moses, scribes working on the text of the religion chose to demonize Ba'al Zebul (or "The Lord on High") by distorting his name to Ba'al Zebub (or "The Lord of the Flies") - so the Bible has indeed been deliberately and deceptively altered for both religious and political reasons, even during the original writing process. - vladsmiljanic, on 08/27/2008, -4/+13that is a matter of opinion
- Smaulz, on 08/27/2008, -0/+9Rosetta has a Hebrew module, I think.
- bhicks11, on 08/27/2008, -0/+9Amazing - look forward to viewing them. I'm fascinated by the prophecies in Isaiah that predate their fulfillment.
- nitsuj, on 08/27/2008, -2/+10"...critics of the Bible always shouted how there was no way that our modern Bible could be even remotely accurate to the original texts 2,000 years ago."
They did? I thought the real critics were pointing out that the bible is a book of mythology and only a moron would take it literally.
"One by one, the supposed fallacies, contradictions, and critiques of the Bible fail in the light of science, especially archaeology."
Yes because science completely supports the idea of a global flood, ressurection, walking on water, virgin births and all the other magical stuff in there? Errr, no. - jordanlgta, on 08/27/2008, -1/+9THEY ARE GOING TO STUFF THE SCROLLS IN THE TUBES?!?!
- raptordrew, on 08/27/2008, -3/+11....That was out of bounds.
- LeviTheSmith, on 08/27/2008, -1/+9Where do I learn Hebrew?
- OMGIAMTHEMAN, on 08/27/2008, -0/+8I've also talked to a few people who take great pains to translate each word and phrase of ancient religious texts as accurately as possible; they are usually the first to tell you that numerous expressions, words, ideas, parallels, and metaphors are lost in translation.
I'll give you an example, somewhat relevant to our times. when the bible says the world was created in seven days, the word for day being translated from the hebrew is "yom." However, a 24-hour day is only one meaning of the hebrew word "yom" which can also refer to an era, or any time period really. It has roughly the same meaning in arabic incidentally, and similarly, the word "yom" is translated as day in the Quran, i.e. "day of judgement" not literally referring to a 24-hour day, but a time period. - AVigorVermin, on 08/27/2008, -5/+13you don't understand the history of this document if you think it's not accurate. That's where it's historical bed lies: it's the only set of documents to have been nigh perfectly translated when compared with versions we found 1500 years after these. When I studied it, there were less then 100 differences, and most of them were due to punctuation, or outdated words. It makes sense to assume these were translated correctly as well then.
- MysticSavage, on 08/27/2008, -3/+11Spoiler alert: the Ten Commandments are actually just suggestions.
- Remelox, on 08/27/2008, -3/+10Better to find a nearby ancient Jew.
- bieber, on 08/27/2008, -0/+7What, afraid they're gonna get the white balance wrong?
- inactive, on 08/27/2008, -1/+8the dead sea scrolls predate christianity
- raptordrew, on 08/27/2008, -3/+10Find a nearby Jew
- nitsuj, on 08/27/2008, -1/+8But doesn't rule out that a lot of the Jesus story was later manufactured and remodelled to fit earlier so-called prophecies.
- ApokalypseNow, on 08/27/2008, -2/+9Archeology supports at most the general background of the Bible and some relatively recent details. It does not support every biblical claim. In particular, archeology does not support anything about creation, the Flood, or the conquest of the Holy Land.
If a few instances of historical accuracy are so significant, then an equal claim for accuracy can be made for the Iliad and Gone with the Wind.
In fact, archeology contradicts significant parts of the Bible:
* The Bible contains anachronisms. Details attributed to one era actually apply to a much later era. For example, camels, mentioned in Genesis 24:10, were not widely used until after 1000 B.C.E.
* The Exodus, which should have been a major event, does not appear in Egyptian records. There are no traces in the Sinai that one would expect from forty years of wandering of more than half a million people. And other archaeological evidence contradicts it, showing instead that the Hebrews were a native people
* There is no evidence that the kingdoms of David and Solomon were nearly as powerful as the Bible indicates; they may not have existed at all.
Many claims that archeology supports the Bible, especially earlier ones, were based on the scientists trying to force the evidence to fit their own religious preconceptions. - larissa13, on 08/27/2008, -0/+6Saw the scrolls in Charlotte~an amazing experience!
- l0tharnt, on 08/27/2008, -1/+7Even then everyone translates things differently. Something used as a metaphor in one language can end up being translated in a literal sense, losing not only the point but a lot of the substance.
- inactive, on 08/28/2008, -1/+7"And I believe, and have posted evidence in Diggland, about how DNA could never have statistically come about on its own via natural random processes. Thus, intelligence would have been needed."
Could you post that "evidence" again? That bit is hilarious and never gets old. - Charlotte_Web, on 08/27/2008, -5/+11Got Troll?
- glockman69, on 08/27/2008, -1/+6And I thought the internet was just for porn...
- pintomp3, on 08/27/2008, -5/+10obvious troll is obvious.
- feliks2, on 08/27/2008, -1/+6I ***** hate allergies so much.
- ApokalypseNow, on 08/28/2008, -0/+5"Well, it's actually geology that supports the flood given that fossils have been found on top of mountains."
Um, no - the fossils on top of mountains are bivalves, sea shells and the like - you know, oceanic creatures? Had they been washed up there by violent flood waters, they would have been split apart, broken and fractured, etc. However, the majority of these fossils on top of mountains are whole.
Shells on mountains are easily explained by uplift of the land. Although this process is slow, it is observed happening today, and it accounts not only for the seashells on mountains but also for the other geological and paleontological features of those mountains. The sea once did cover the areas where the fossils are found, but they were not mountains at the time; they were shallow seas.
A flood cannot explain the presence of marine shells on mountains for the following reasons:
*Floods erode mountains and deposit their sediments in valleys.
*In many cases, the fossils are in the same positions as they grow in life, not scattered as if they were redeposited by a flood. This was noted as early as the sixteenth century by Leonardo da Vinci.
*Other evidence, such as fossilized tracks and burrows of marine organisms, show that the region was once under the sea. Seashells are not found in sediments that were not formerly covered by sea.
"And I believe, and have posted evidence in Diggland, about how DNA could never have statistically come about on its own via natural random processes."
Which I have refuted, because your calculations are flawed. See here: http://digg.com/general_sciences/Charles_Darwin_Sc ...
"Please provide evidence that camels were not widely used until 1000 BC."
Egyptian texts of that era mentioned nothing of them. Even in Mari; the kingdom that is situated next to the Arabian deserts; which would have had the greatest use for camels; and of which archaeologists have a large collection of documents; not a single mention is made of camels in contemporaneous text.
In fact, it was only in the 11th century BC that references to camels started to appear in cuneiform texts and reliefs. After the 11th century, references to camels become more and more frequent. This suggests that camels were domesticated around the 12th or 11th century BC.
"What evidence are you talking about where the Jewish people were thought to be native to Egypt?"
Here's my sources, in MLA format no less:
Finkelstein, Israel and Neil A. Silberman, 2001. The Bible Unearthed, New York: Free Press.
Lazare, Daniel, 2002. False testament: archaeology refutes the Bible's claim to history. Harper's 304(1822) (Mar.): 39-47.
"You mean other than the Bible itself? Why summarily dismiss the Bible as an ancient document? Because you have already made up your mind?"
No, because it has not been shown to be an accurate source of information, historical, scientific, or otherwise. The bible cannot be used to justify itself - that is circular logic. - paross2, on 08/27/2008, -0/+5Non-denominational Christian.
- nitsuj, on 08/28/2008, -0/+5ApokalypseNow can handle your issues one bible accuracy elsewhere but..
"Both ideas have gone by the wayside due to science."
You seem to have a very loose definition of what is science. What 'science' are you talking about?
"Yes and no. There is signficant evidence of a global flood. How do you explain fossils on the top of mountains? Keep in mind that the fossils in question are much younger than the mountains' accent from sea level due to tectonic plate action."
I'm calling you on this. There is not one piece of evidence for a global flood. The Earth's geology does not support it one bit.
Fossils require mineralization, often through being encased is sedimentation under the right conditions. The idea that this process actually occurred at the top of mountains is quite frankly ludicrous.
Fossils at the top of mountains are carried there through plate tectonics.
You claim that the fossils are younger than the mountain's accent from sea level. Please provide peer reviewed evidence for this claim.
There are so many problems with a global flood that it's hard to know where to begin:
1. Impossibility of a few humans gathering two, somtimes seven, of all known species aboard a boat(!). Exactly how does that work?
2. Most animals perish when taken out of their natural habitat unless extreme care is take to model their environments and diets. Given now what we know about animals, the very idea of stuffing a few examples from all known species onto a wooden boat is literally insane.
3. The total destruction of natural animal habitats. Environments are fragile. Imagine all jungles, plains and deserts covered in salinated water leading to total devistation of flora and fauna. Sea water chemistry would be radically altered and most sea life would perish as a result. All previous mass extinctions would pale into insignificance. There is ABSOLUTELY no evidence for any of this.
4. After the flood, how are animals returned? Teleported? Just dropped off and find their own way back? Never mind that they have no habitat to return to.
5. A global flood would leave very specific trace in the geological record EVERYWHERE. This is not present.
That's just off the top of my head. There's a lot more than that.
"Many of the supernatural accounts have scientific evidence that supports their happening."
Please present this 'scientific' evidence. Present the hard peer reviewed science that supports bible 'magic'.
"Take a look at Lee Strobel's book A CASE FOR CHRIST"
Is it a peer reviewed scientfic journal providing evidence for 'magic' or is it another christian evangelical apologetics book? - Quaterni0n, on 08/27/2008, -2/+7By significant, you mean unfortunate, right? Those ancient Hebrew urban legends embraced by the powerful to control the masses have done more harm than good. Anybody with a good imagination, a pen and some paper can start a religion, because people are too willing to believe in the supernatural. Just look at Scientology. Ugh!
- intro211, on 08/27/2008, -0/+5Dead_Sea_Scrolls_[Eng_Sub].torrent
- KingKeys, on 08/27/2008, -0/+5Are there any sort of controversy's between the sea scrolls and the modern day bible? I had thought that once the scrolls were found and translated, that one would expose the other as inaccurate or completely incorrect.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 169 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is