What other versions of the bible does the dead sea scrolls confirm?

Question

When the Dead Sea scrolls were discovered it put 1000 years of light upon the archaeological evidence of the PERFECTION of the Scriptures, and God’s PLENARY INSPIRATION AND PRESERVATION. The Dead Sea scrolls were 1000 years older than what was previously known. Aside from them being more difficult to read, THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE IN SUBSTANCE FROM THE WORDS OF THE KJV OLD TESTAMENT WHICH WE HAVE TODAY.

Answer 1

grandfather raven is, of course, wholly inaccurate. There are no fragments confirmed related to events or people of the New Testament, and certainly nothing identified as pdeudepigraphal New Testament. There *are* 1 or 2 fragments that are contested to be from the Gospel of Mark - but this is hardly certain. It should also be noted that there are *very few* complete, or even nearly complete, canonical Old Testament books in the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS). There are two complete scrolls of Isaiah, I believe, but only fragments of (most) other books. There are not even fragments of some books positively identified (for example, Esther). Although we can surmise from these DSS manuscripts (mostly fragments) that the Masoretic Text is *very* little changed from the DSS, we do *not* have the complete text of the Old Testament in the DSS (not even close), and so *cannot* accurately and positively evaluate the amount of change that has occurred since that time. Indeed, the two Isaiah scrolls contain differences (though, as you claim, not "substantive")!

Of course, the claim you made can be made for *any* English version Old Testament translated from Hebrew: namely, "THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE IN SUBSTANCE FROM THE WORDS OF THE (insert version here) OLD TESTAMENT WHICH WE HAVE TODAY". All of our English translations from the original languages (not paraphrases or re-translations) are essentially the same *in substance*, particularly with respect to the Old Testament. There *are* specific examples in the King James Old Testament which can be stated with authority to have been translated incorrectly, but the KJV translators, in their defense, did not have access to a copy of the Masoretic Text.

So, to answer your question: every modern English version translated from the original languages.

Jim, http://www.jimpettis.com/wheel/

Answer 2

Err...first the Vatican still hasn't released all of them. Second there were disagreements like the inclusion of several Psalms that weren't known before. Most of the text isn't in the Bible at all.

It is also of note that although the community was there during the time of Jesus they make no mention of him at all.

Answer 3

FYI, old versions of Zorostrain text and Egyptian sun worshipers text still exist, therefore they are obviously proven correct.

Answer 4

The Old Testament. It does not affect English versions, old or modern.

Answer 5

heh, they "confirm" a whole lot of books that aren't in KJV, too ... including the gospels of Mary and Thomas and Judas, as well as entire scrolls of non-biblical commentary

but somehow i think that fact will continue to be overlooked

Answer 6

Ummm... they were difficult to read because they weren't in English...

They don't really confirm the existence of a cosmic "poofer"...