New Dead Sea scrolls found hidden in desert cave in Israel

Israeli archaeologists on Tuesday announced the discovery of dozens of new Dead Sea scroll fragments bearing a biblical text found in a desert cave and believed hidden during a Jewish revolt against Rome nearly 1,900 years ago.

The fragments of parchment bear lines of Greek text from the books of Zechariah and Nahum and have been dated around the 1st century AD based on the writing style, according to the Israel Antiquities Authority. They are the first new scrolls found in archeological excavations in the desert south of Jerusalem in 60 years.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/new-dead-sea-scrolls-1.5951332?fbclid=IwAR1gCn7udh5pZhPZ1y9tmB1-iQ7M2_Ox39uryPrpjzA8xL-D_Y_LAaTGBi4


And reads after translation. Any resemblance to real persons or other real-life entities is purely coincidental. All characters and other entities appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, dead or alive, or other real-life entities, past or present, is purely coincidental

Quite a find.

I have swum in the Dead sea....well floated more like, and it smells awful.

Syl wrote:Quite a find.

I have swum in the Dead sea....well floated more like, and it smells awful.

Is swum even a word Ms Scrabble?

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:Quite a find.

I have swum in the Dead sea....well floated more like, and it smells awful.

Is swum even a word Ms Scrabble?  

Haha...I first put SWAM and my pop up word checker corrected it.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:Quite a find.

I have swum in the Dead sea....well floated more like, and it smells awful.

Is swum even a word Ms Scrabble?  

yup

swim
/swɪm/

verb
past participle: swum

1.
propel the body through water by using the limbs, or (in the case of a fish or other aquatic animal) by using fins, tail, or other bodily movement.
"they swam ashore"

I wish more people knew that the early Christian church leaders took a bunch of these books and edited them into the Bible, meaning that they left out plenty of stories they thought either were too unbelievable or in which someone acted completely out of character.

They left out a story in which Jesus killed a dragon as a boy, and another where he killed a boy who had knocked him down, for example.

There are other weird discrepancies, like how God and Satan have lengthy conversations in the book of Job, but nowhere else in the Bible.

Ben Reilly wrote:I wish more people knew that the early Christian church leaders took a bunch of these books and edited them into the Bible, meaning that they left out plenty of stories they thought either were too unbelievable or in which someone acted completely out of character.

They left out a story in which Jesus killed a dragon as a boy, and another where he killed a boy who had knocked him down, for example.

There are other weird discrepancies, like how God and Satan have lengthy conversations in the book of Job, but nowhere else in the Bible.

They also left out the story of how the fly was created (not by god or jesus) The also took out all references to women
as priests but yea they left out a load of stuff and changed a lot to fit the morals and "beliefs" of the time

As you say the bible consists of 3 books squashed in to one that's why its so contradictory
the whole thing is a male dominated fantasy with the sole intention of subjugating women and imposing a moral philosophy of the church

Interestingly Satan who was actually a Arch angel and brother of the other arch angel's played a minimal role in Christian theology and it wasn't till much later he became more prevalent as evil personified .

Ben Reilly wrote:I wish more people knew that the early Christian church leaders took a bunch of these books and edited them into the Bible, meaning that they left out plenty of stories they thought either were too unbelievable or in which someone acted completely out of character.

They left out a story in which Jesus killed a dragon as a boy, and another where he killed a boy who had knocked him down, for example.

There are other weird discrepancies, like how God and Satan have lengthy conversations in the book of Job, but nowhere else in the Bible.

This is why there must be appreciation for a wider spectrum of Christianity.  We only know about Christianity for reasons of history and politics.  Actually, Christ was a member of only a small part of the Jewish reform movement, called the Church of Jerusalem.  It was the Apostle Paul—who was not a disciple, and who never even met Christ—who took the doctrines to Rome, where they were accepted (for political reasons) by the emperor Constantine.

Once the religion took hold in Rome, the religious authorities created the Council of Nicea in 325 AD, which decided what books to include in the New Testament, and what books to reject.  So, the Pauline, or Roman Bible is only a very small part of the Christian doctrine.  Unfortunately, it was largely accepted by protestant reformers, and thence handed down to us in the UK and US.

But, in addition to the Jerusalem and African factions, there was a huge independent faction in southern France, where Mary the Magdalen settled with her daughter, Sarah.  The Magdalen was more-or-less the second leader (after Jesus) of the original Jerusalem church, and her word carried a lot of weight.  The Pauline Church in Rome did a lot to suppress the French faction, and other factions which it perceived to be a threat, which started the inquisitions in France and Spain.  But to say that the Roman Church was all there was to Christianity, or the Nicean Bible is the sole, authoritative text, would be like saying that Rome was all there was to the European and Mediterranean world.

The books and writings we are finding in these new troves in desert caves, etc., are the suppressed documents of these factions...if they were even known.

Religion won't have it in the house, bloody nonsense

Ben Reilly wrote:I wish more people knew that the early Christian church leaders took a bunch of these books and edited them into the Bible, meaning that they left out plenty of stories they thought either were too unbelievable or in which someone acted completely out of character.

They left out a story in which Jesus killed a dragon as a boy, and another where he killed a boy who had knocked him down, for example.

There are other weird discrepancies, like how God and Satan have lengthy conversations in the book of Job, but nowhere else in the Bible.

Eh?

These are non-Christian texts Ben and fail to see your point?

You are right that Christians decided that either a book was part of their new Christian faith or not centuries later

All of which is irrelevant here

What is relevant here is the history

Was these texts part of a Jewish sect called the Essenes

I am more interesting in the possible knowledge of history here of peoples for the time before the Romans committed ethnic cleansing of the Jewish people when they revolted in 70ad

As much as I am an atheist these works shed light for the time of history of how people believed back then in this time

That is historically important

I think you are laying down boundaries where none exist, didge.  Yes, Christianity was influenced by the Essenes, and the various sects were emerging and forming, influencing each other.  As one commentator said:

Richard McBrien wrote:In addition to the Latin, or Roman, tradition, there are seven non-Latin, non-Roman ecclesial traditions: Armenian, Byzantine, Coptic, Ethiopian, East Syriac (Chaldean), West Syriac, and Maronite. Each to the Churches with these non-Latin traditions is as Catholic as the Roman Catholic Church. Thus, not all Catholics are Roman Catholic...

McBrien, Richard, The Church: The Evolution of Catholicism (2008).

In this situation, the writings of many different sects can be important to any of them, whether or not included in the specific doctrines of one of them.