Searching for the Truth in the King James Bible;
Finding it, and passing it on to you.




EDITOR:
Steve Van Nattan

HOME PAGE

HOME - TABLE OF CONTENTS - WAR ROOM - THE GOSPEL - BIBLE STUDY - MORAL ISSUES - KING JAMES BIBLE - CULTS
HUMOR - PROPHECY - WORLD AFFAIRS - QUIET PLACE - STEVE'S YARNS - STEVE'S BIO - HEALTH - LADIES' PAGE - HEROES


THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS ISSUE

THE BOOK OF ISAIAH IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS COLLECTION
IS EXPOSED AS WORK BY CHRISTIAN ERA COPYISTS


There is a very serious issue in the Dead Sea Scroll discussion. This is that men are desperately eager to discredit the Bible today, especially the King James Bible. These men, who are passed off as "scholars" like to imagine that the Dead Sea Scrolls carry more weight than the Bible in our hands, the King James Bible.

They imply by this trick that the KJV was NOT preserved and needs help to validate it further. Thus, these men exalt the Dead Sea Scrolls above the English Bible.

Another problem is the diddle heads who read about how closely the DSS copy of Isaiah is to the Masoretic Hebrew text. They then conclude the DDS confirm the Masoretic, and thus the KJV. The DSS Isaiah text has many treacherous changes. A few scholars believe the DSS were a dump of all things considered untrusted-- not safe to read, but too believable to burn. That is just as possible as the notion that they were there to hide them from the Romans.

As to the red ink used in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and possibly Isaiah, this was ONLY found in Coptic and early Church era copies. It was an innovation used where the names of God, Christ, Mary, and other divine entities were found. I have an Ethiopian Coptic prayer book I bought in Ethiopia which was hand written on vellum (animal skin), and it has the red ink for names of deity and Mary and titles. See the Coptic prayer book example at the right.

 

Here are some men who now have egg on their face for believing the Dead Sea Scrolls predated the time of Christ:

John MacArthur .... James White .... James White and Dave Hunt together .... Peter LaLonde in "Startling Proofs" .... Ted Montgomery .... John Hagee .... Here is how people now think due to the presupposition that the Dead Sea Scrolls predate Christ .... Mark Roberts .... All About Archaeology .... Randall Niles .... Ex-Catholics For Christ .... Example of bad information as presupposition .... The NASV translation which John R. Rice and Stewart Custer approved of

Dr. Randall Price, a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary: "The number of Old Testament manuscripts discovered among the Dead Sea scrolls (about 223-233) is more than twice the number of New Testament Greek papyri (96). However, despite this abundance of ancient witnesses to the text of the Bible, few English translations of the Old Testament have been affected. The reason is that generally the biblical Qumran texts are so close to the Hebrew text behind the Masoretic Text that they lend support to, rather than emend, those versions that rely upon the Received Text."

Here is the biggest blow hard of them all-- Hank Hanegraff -- "In fact, interestingly enough, when the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered at Qumran, they predated the earliest extant text, the Masoretic text, by almost one thousand years." When did Isaiah live? Answer 700 BC. Hank does well at the use of "almost".

 

New King James Version Translators:

"Dr. Farstad implied that the Masoretic Old Testament Traditional Hebrew text of the NKJV is the identical text to that used in the King James Bible. If you read the preface of the New King James you will find that they do not use ONLY the Masoretic Traditional Hebrew. They compare and use upon occasion the readings of the following: (1) the Latin Vulgate, (2) the Septuagint, (3) ancient versions, and (4) the Dead Sea Scrolls." (Foes of the King James Bible Refuted, p. 17) Quoted from D.A. Waite

 

Men with correct instincts on the Dead Sea Scrolls:

D.A. Waite .... Long before the article above about Isaiah, Texe Marrs gave a warning

Will Kinney-
THE DEAD SEA SCROLL OF ISAIAH IS NOT A CONFIRMATION
OF THE MASORETIC HEBREW TEXT
--
It trashes it, and modern Bible version are rapidly all grabbing
the differences to corrupt the Word of God in English.

 

Final Question:

If you believe that the King James Bible is the preserved Word of God, why do you need to exalt anything newly discovered? So what, why, and wherefore? If an Arab finds a mummy of a Jew in Cairo that is dated 4000 yeas old, would you dance in the street and wave your Bible in the air? Can you keep on believing the Bible without mummies?

 

BACK TO KING JAMES DEFENSE PAGE

BACK TO ENTRY PAGE OF THE JOURNAL