Thankful for the Dead Sea Scrolls but what does their discovery truly mean as evidence ?

[at the altar]

hello

As Christians can we believe the truth that the Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament are what God himself has preserved ?

as Jesus had explained to his Hebrew speaking people that neither a jot nor one tittle would pass away from the Law….

Jesus was never propagating a Greek Septuagint of the Old Testament, the Jot is a Hebrew letter, the Tittle is a small mark distinguishing Hebrew verbs. (third - person singular simple present… ect...

A Greek Septuagint would not have any jots nor any tittles for Jesus to be vindicating.


What many people do not know is that 4 times the Roman Catholic Douay Rheims Translation deletes or removes the word Lord or Yahweh in the Old Testament and replaces it with the Greek word Christ

Here are the 4 times the word Christ is inserted into the Old Testament
Lam 4:20 …… Christ the Lord, is taken in our sins...
2Sa 23:1 ….. Christ of the God of Jacob.
Psa 84:9 ….. look on the face of thy Christ.
Hab 3:13 ….. for salvation with thy Christ.

Again, the Roman Catholic Douay Rheims deletes or removes the word Anointed in the Old Testament and replaces it with the Greek word Christ

Here are the 4 other times the word Christ is inserted into the Old Testament

Psa 2:2 …..against the Lord, and against his Christ.
1Sa 2:10 ..... exalt the horn of his Christ
Dan 9:25 unto Christ, the prince
Dan 9:26 ….. Christ shall be slain


The Catholic Translation takes 8 select passages from the Old Testament that Catholics feel could be considered a prophetic future foretelling of Jesus and they remove the original words of " Lord " and " Anointing " and replace it with Christ

Catholics are correct and right - to identify Christ - in the Old Testament - but this is not the way the Bible was transmitted in the original language – to take titles and names of the New Testament that were written in another language and make cuts and selected preferences of a few choice - personal doctrinal passages where these titles and names should be applied and where they would be left out –

Catholics have removed the original meaning and application in how the scripture was given, applied and understood by the Jewish people and have inserted a future - event back inside the Old Testament, completely removing the way it was understood and what it means and says.

The original message of the Old Testament is written to keep hidden that Jesus the Son Of God would someday be manifested, the Old Testament Prophets and Saints of old knew absolutely nothing about the Son Of God nor of his future role in salvation.

Yes, he is mysteriously secretly concealed and hidden in the Old Testament

Col 1:26 Jesus Christ is a mystery which hath been hidden from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:

Rom 16:25 Jesus Christ is a mystery, which was kept secret since the world began.


Does changing the word Lord into the word Christ in the Catholic Old Testament discredit and remove the way its prophecy was written to be as hidden and as concealed, to insert the idea that the Jews had discovered the Lord himself was the Christ before his arival ?


IN CONCLUSION

I mention this because the claim is made that for hundreds of years before the birth of Jesus was born the Jews used a Greek Septuagint of the Old Testament and if this truth the Greek word Christos would have been truly used to indicate the Anointed

but the truth is the Catholic Church took the word Anointed that is used 80 + times in the Old Testament and translated this word into Christos / Christ only 4 random times in their English translation but the other 76 + times they translated it as the English word Anointed

because there were no known manuscripts claimed to be Greek Septuagint until 1947


Carbon dating ink is not 100 % precise, and direct radiocarbon dating of historical ink is rarely done because inks are mineral-based and lack enough carbon, while carbon dating ink and organic material can be off by a few centuries

In fact, some of the Dead Sea Scroll parchments are proven to have been written after Christ and even then, carbon dating is not exact - it provides a statistical range of centuries.

The truth is that the Dead Sea Scrolls contain many fragments, some, that were produced during the First Jewish-Roman War, and these fragments could have been produced decades or a full - century after Jesus Christ

- and the evidence that is provided of all BC material is not from carbon dating = THE MAIN EVIDENCE GIVEN IS THE HANDWRITING STYLES - - SOMEONE WITH A DIFFERENT STYLE OF HANDWRITING CAN BE PROOF OF CATALOG AS 100 % PROOF FOR DATING MANUSCRIPTS.

BUT - WHAT IF THE WRITER WAS ATTEMPTING TO COPY A HANDWRITING STYLE ?
THEN THE PROOF IS A FALSE EVIDENCE.

The Jews were not aware of the coming of Jesus in any way and were not trying to produce Greek scripture to coincide and batch up with the prophecy fulfilled in a New Testament changing the word Lord into the word Christ as Catholics have done in their translation .

These prophetic meanings were kept secret, hidden and concealed by God himself until Jesus revealed them, not revelation found in a Greek Septuagint hundreds of years before.

The Greek Septuagint is a theory built entirely upon assumption and imagination without a single factual proof for evidence and the Roman Catholic Church attempts to insert Christ and replace Lord into the Old Testament as if the Old Testament expressed something that was kept secret and hidden by God himself. - to suggest that even the jews had previous Septuagint knowledge of what God himself had hidden.

 

[Lamb]

hello

As Christians can we believe the truth that the Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament are what God himself has preserved ?

as Jesus had explained to his Hebrew speaking people that neither a jot nor one tittle would pass away from the Law….

Jesus was never propagating a Greek Septuagint of the Old Testament, the Jot is a Hebrew letter, the Tittle is a small mark distinguishing Hebrew verbs. (third - person singular simple present… ect...

A Greek Septuagint would not have any jots nor any tittles for Jesus to be vindicating.


What many people do not know is that 4 times the Roman Catholic Douay Rheims Translation deletes or removes the word Lord or Yahweh in the Old Testament and replaces it with the Greek word Christ

Here are the 4 times the word Christ is inserted into the Old Testament
Lam 4:20 …… Christ the Lord, is taken in our sins...
2Sa 23:1 ….. Christ of the God of Jacob.
Psa 84:9 ….. look on the face of thy Christ.
Hab 3:13 ….. for salvation with thy Christ.

Again, the Roman Catholic Douay Rheims deletes or removes the word Anointed in the Old Testament and replaces it with the Greek word Christ

Here are the 4 other times the word Christ is inserted into the Old Testament

Psa 2:2 …..against the Lord, and against his Christ.
1Sa 2:10 ..... exalt the horn of his Christ
Dan 9:25 unto Christ, the prince
Dan 9:26 ….. Christ shall be slain


The Catholic Translation takes 8 select passages from the Old Testament that Catholics feel could be considered a prophetic future foretelling of Jesus and they remove the original words of " Lord " and " Anointing " and replace it with Christ

Catholics are correct and right - to identify Christ - in the Old Testament - but this is not the way the Bible was transmitted in the original language – to take titles and names of the New Testament that were written in another language and make cuts and selected preferences of a few choice - personal doctrinal passages where these titles and names should be applied and where they would be left out –

Catholics have removed the original meaning and application in how the scripture was given, applied and understood by the Jewish people and have inserted a future - event back inside the Old Testament, completely removing the way it was understood and what it means and says.

The original message of the Old Testament is written to keep hidden that Jesus the Son Of God would someday be manifested, the Old Testament Prophets and Saints of old knew absolutely nothing about the Son Of God nor of his future role in salvation.

Yes, he is mysteriously secretly concealed and hidden in the Old Testament

Col 1:26 Jesus Christ is a mystery which hath been hidden from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:

Rom 16:25 Jesus Christ is a mystery, which was kept secret since the world began.


Does changing the word Lord into the word Christ in the Catholic Old Testament discredit and remove the way its prophecy was written to be as hidden and as concealed, to insert the idea that the Jews had discovered the Lord himself was the Christ before his arival ?


IN CONCLUSION

I mention this because the claim is made that for hundreds of years before the birth of Jesus was born the Jews used a Greek Septuagint of the Old Testament and if this truth the Greek word Christos would have been truly used to indicate the Anointed

but the truth is the Catholic Church took the word Anointed that is used 80 + times in the Old Testament and translated this word into Christos / Christ only 4 random times in their English translation but the other 76 + times they translated it as the English word Anointed

because there were no known manuscripts claimed to be Greek Septuagint until 1947


Carbon dating ink is not 100 % precise, and direct radiocarbon dating of historical ink is rarely done because inks are mineral-based and lack enough carbon, while carbon dating ink and organic material can be off by a few centuries

In fact, some of the Dead Sea Scroll parchments are proven to have been written after Christ and even then, carbon dating is not exact - it provides a statistical range of centuries.

The truth is that the Dead Sea Scrolls contain many fragments, some, that were produced during the First Jewish-Roman War, and these fragments could have been produced decades or a full - century after Jesus Christ

- and the evidence that is provided of all BC material is not from carbon dating = THE MAIN EVIDENCE GIVEN IS THE HANDWRITING STYLES - - SOMEONE WITH A DIFFERENT STYLE OF HANDWRITING CAN BE PROOF OF CATALOG AS 100 % PROOF FOR DATING MANUSCRIPTS.

BUT - WHAT IF THE WRITER WAS ATTEMPTING TO COPY A HANDWRITING STYLE ?
THEN THE PROOF IS A FALSE EVIDENCE.

The Jews were not aware of the coming of Jesus in any way and were not trying to produce Greek scripture to coincide and batch up with the prophecy fulfilled in a New Testament changing the word Lord into the word Christ as Catholics have done in their translation .

These prophetic meanings were kept secret, hidden and concealed by God himself until Jesus revealed them, not revelation found in a Greek Septuagint hundreds of years before.

The Greek Septuagint is a theory built entirely upon assumption and imagination without a single factual proof for evidence and the Roman Catholic Church attempts to insert Christ and replace Lord into the Old Testament as if the Old Testament expressed something that was kept secret and hidden by God himself. - to suggest that even the jews had previous Septuagint knowledge of what God himself had hidden.

What do you mean the Jews were not aware of the coming of Jesus? They had been awaiting the promised Savior from the very beginning...since the fall.

 

[jswauto]

Before 1947, the oldest complete Hebrew Bible was the Leningrad Codex (1008 CE).

The Scrolls changed everything.

They revealed hundreds of Hebrew manuscripts dating from the 3rd century BCE to the 1st century CE

 

[at the altar]

that is truly amazing that we have Hebrew Scriptures of the Old Testament dating back to 1000 AD

I believe that these copies of ancient Hebrew manuscripts are the preserved word of God and truth. the sad part that breaks my heart is that only one biblical scroll from the Dead Sea Scroll material was found as a complete book -

—the Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaᵃ)—Isaiah is the only Book preserved in its entirety from beginning to end, believe to have been written as early as 125 AD and possibly even copied a few years after Jesus was born.

Carbon dating can be off by 200 years

the style of handwriting in how the author writes is the main method that experts use to date within a range of 200 years, the Dead Sea Scrolls could have possibly been written after Jesus was born.

As for the rest of the Old Testament in the Dead Sea Scrolls there are only tiny fragments or pieces of shards, thumb nail crumbs, tiny portions from every single book of the Hebrew (Old Testament) except for the Book of Esther,

all other biblical manuscripts survive only as fragments of partial texts, partial verses and as scattered book fragments.

Before 1000 AD there is not a full complete Old Testament Hebrew Bible nor a complete book of the Bible except for the Book Of Isaiah alone .



for the wonderful comment made by " Lamb " i would agree as the Bible does make mention of a savior who will rise from the house of Israel, I was not trying to deny this this fact - all i was trying to do is - ask the question

my question was - is it truthful, right or good for the Roman Catholic Church to replace the word Hebrew word " Lord " with the Greek word " Christ " as they have done in their English translation.

removing original Hebrew words and altering them and changing them repeatedly, inserting and changing words into verses that were not revealed at that time and made completely clear in identifying the full plan of God in the original Old Testament ?

 

[at the altar]

the main point is that 8 times the Roman Catholic Douay Rheims Translation deletes or removes the word Messiah in the Old Testament and replaces it with the Greek word Christ


Here are the 8 times the word Messiah is inserted into the Old Testament


Lam 4:20 …… Christ the Lord, is taken in our sins...
2Sa 23:1 ….. Christ of the God of Jacob.
Psa 84:9 ….. look on the face of thy Christ.
Hab 3:13 ….. for salvation with thy Christ.
Psa 2:2 …..against the Lord, and against his Christ.
1Sa 2:10 ..... exalt the horn of his Christ
Dan 9:25 unto Christ, the prince
Dan 9:26 ….. Christ shall be slain


8 select passages from the Old Testament that Catholics feel could be considered a prophetic future foretelling of Jesus and they remove the original word Messiah



The word Messiah is used 110 times in the Old Testament manuscripts but translated into Christos / Christ only 8 random times in the Catholic English translation, the other 102 times they translated it as the English words Anointed or Messiah

The Greek Septuagint however always translates the Hebrew word Messiah into Greek using the word Christ -

 

[jswauto]

What the Dead Sea Scrolls Actually Prove​

Here is a couple of the key points:

✔ The Dead Sea Scrolls confirm the antiquity of the Hebrew Bible.​

The Scrolls contain Hebrew biblical manuscripts dating from 250 BC to 70 AD, over a thousand years older than the medieval Masoretic Text. This means we now possess Hebrew Scripture from the era of Jesus, the apostles, and the Second Temple period. People have claimed the Scrolls “could have been written after Jesus,” but even the latest Scrolls still predate the Masoretic tradition by centuries. Their existence proves that the Hebrew Bible used by ancient Jews was far older and far more diverse than previously known.

✔ They confirm the Septuagint’s accuracy in many places.​

Some have claimed the Septuagint is “a theory built entirely upon assumption,” but the Scrolls contain Hebrew readings that match the Septuagint against the Masoretic Text. Examples include Deuteronomy 32:8, Psalm 22:16, Jeremiah’s shorter text, and many others. This shows the Septuagint was translated from real Hebrew manuscripts that actually existed — manuscripts now confirmed by archaeology. The Scrolls validate the Septuagint’s antiquity and accuracy, not undermine it.

✔ They show Jews used multiple textual traditions.​

It's been assumed one single Hebrew text existed, but the Scrolls reveal three major Hebrew textual families: proto‑Masoretic, proto‑Septuagintal, and proto‑Samaritan, plus non‑aligned texts. This proves ancient Jews did not use one uniform Hebrew Bible. They used multiple traditions simultaneously. This destroys the idea that the Masoretic Text alone represents “the preserved word of God,” and it explains why the Septuagint sometimes differs — it reflects a different ancient Hebrew tradition.

✔ They show “Messiah” was a known concept long before Jesus.​

People have thought “the prophets knew absolutely nothing about the Son of God,” but the Scrolls contain messianic expectations: a Davidic Messiah, a priestly Messiah, a prophetic Messiah, and an eschatological deliverer. The Qumran community wrote about “the Messiah of Aaron and Israel,” “the Branch of David,” and the coming “Son of God” (4Q246). This proves Jews were expecting a Messiah centuries before Jesus — exactly as the Old Testament teaches.

✔ They show “Christos” is simply the Greek translation of “Messiah.”​

Several have argued: Catholics “insert Christ” into the Old Testament, but Christos is simply the Greek word for Messiah — used by Greek‑speaking Jews long before Christianity. The Septuagint consistently translates Mashiach as Christos. The New Testament does the same. The Douay‑Rheims did not invent this; they followed the ancient Jewish translation tradition. “Christ” is not a doctrinal insertion — it is the standard Greek equivalent of “Messiah.”

✔ They show the Masoretic Text is not the only preserved Hebrew tradition.​

Previously,it was assumed: the Masoretic Text is the original Hebrew Bible, but the Scrolls show it is one tradition among several. In many places, the Masoretic Text preserves the older reading; in other places, the Septuagint preserves the older reading. The Scrolls prove that textual preservation occurred through multiple streams, not one. This is why modern Bibles use DSS, MT, LXX, SP, and other witnesses to reconstruct the earliest text.
✔They show: The Irony of MT‑Only = Medieval Catholic Textual Tradition
The irony is that MT‑only arguments actually align with medieval Catholic textual history, not with the apostles or the early church. The Western church standardized the proto‑Masoretic tradition when Latin replaced Greek and the Septuagint faded from use. The Dead Sea Scrolls show that Jesus’ world used multiple Hebrew traditions — not just the one the later Catholic Church inherited. So MT‑only is not “original Hebrew”; it’s medieval Latin Christianity.

✔ They show the OT did not hide the Messiah — it anticipated Him​

It was believed: the OT “kept Jesus hidden,” but the Scrolls show the opposite: ancient Jews interpreted Scripture messianically. They expected a coming king, a suffering servant, a heavenly Son of Man, and a priestly redeemer. The OT does not hide Christ — it foreshadows Him. The Scrolls reveal how Jews before Jesus already saw messianic patterns in Isaiah, Psalms, Daniel, and the Prophets. The NT does not invent messianic interpretation; it continues it.

✔ How the Early Church Standardized One Hebrew Tradition​

One more thing the Dead Sea Scrolls reveal — and this matters for later church history: After the time of Jesus, the early Catholic Church eventually standardized the proto‑Masoretic Hebrew tradition as the primary Old Testament text for the Western church. This wasn’t corruption — it was consolidation. But the Scrolls show that long before that standardization, Jews used multiple textual traditions: proto‑Masoretic, proto‑Septuagintal, proto‑Samaritan, and non‑aligned texts. The Catholic Church inherited only one of these streams. The Dead Sea Scrolls prove that the Western church did not preserve the full diversity of ancient Hebrew readings — not because of malice, but because of historical narrowing.
The Dead Sea Scrolls clarify the early church’s shift from Hebrew and Greek into Latin. When Jerome produced the Latin Vulgate, he relied almost entirely on the proto‑Masoretic Hebrew tradition — not because it was the only ancient text, but because it was the one available to him. As Latin became dominant in the Western church, the Septuagint and other Hebrew traditions faded from use. The DSS show that the Western church did not preserve the full ancient textual diversity simply because its linguistic world narrowed. The Scrolls reopen that world and confirm that multiple Hebrew traditions — not just the proto‑Masoretic — were ancient, authentic, and widely used.
The Scrolls reopen that diversity and confirm that the Septuagint and other traditions preserve readings just as ancient as the Masoretic Text.
This is why modern scholarship uses DSS + MT + LXX + SP together — not just one tradition.

✦ In Summary ✦​

The Dead Sea Scrolls prove that the Hebrew Bible is ancient, diverse, and faithfully preserved across multiple textual traditions. They confirm the Septuagint’s legitimacy, reveal that “Messiah” was a known concept long before Jesus, show that “Christos” is simply the Greek translation of “Messiah,” and demonstrate that the DSS, MT, LXX, and SP Texts are not the only preserved Hebrew traditions. Far from hiding the Messiah, the Old Testament anticipated Him — and the Scrolls show that ancient Jews already recognized those messianic patterns.

 

[at the altar]

The focus for me, personally, is upon the truth regarding all things,


this particular subject that deals with the Dead Sea Scrolls is to present full evidence that the Greek Septuagint is truly a fraud without a single shred of evidence of its existence before Jesus Christ ..


The truth is that the Roman Catholic Church does not posses nor did it preserve any manuscripts whatsoever of the Masoretic Hebrew Text - yet, its own Latin Vulgate and English Douay Rheims translations are both claimed as translated from the Masoretic Hebrew Text




yet, the only manuscripts that The Catholic Church has possesses for the Old Testament is Greek Codex Vaticanus


The Vatican holds Codex Vaticanus as one of its most prized historical biblical manuscripts and a primary witness to the text of the Septuagint, but yet the Vatican claims that the Latin Vulgate is based directly upon a translation of the Hebrew Masoretic Text- yet, the Vatican only has preserved and made copies of the Greek alone


and has no Hebrew texts, disregarding everything in Hebrew regarding manuscripts for the last 1000 years


there are very major differences between the Hebrew Masoretic Text and Codex Vaticanus


Numbers and Chronology: different lengths of lifespans.
Certain books of the Hebrew Torah are noticeably different in size.
Missing or Added Verses between the two




Codex Alexandrinus— specifically changes the " Sons of God " to say " the angels of God" but the Codex Vaticanus does not - - -

Codex Vaticanus leaves the term as " Sons of God " again contradicting the Septuagint.



the conflict and contradictions is the fact that the Catholic Church promotes a deceptive message becasue - .....as the Catholic Church proclaims the the Codex Vaticanus as a prized manuscripts and primary witness to the text of the Septuagint but the truth is that this Vaticanus manuscript actually agrees more with with the Hebrew Masoretic Text in Numbers and Chronology


BUT THE VATICAN USES THE MISSING VERSES OF CODEX VATICANUS AS SOLID PROOF FOR ITS CONNECTION TO THE SEPTUAGINT


WHILE YET ITS CONTENT AGREES MORE WITH THE HEBREW MASORETIC TEXT


and because the Greek language is used in both Codex Vaticanus and the Septuagint the Catholic Church points to this as proof for the evidence of the Septuagint - as evidence and proof.


We see that the Catholic Church has always promoted the Apocrypha as a part of its Bible translations and uses this fact to also point to proof of the Septuagint



- simply based on the foolish fact that Hebrew Masoretic Text does not include the Apocrypha -

the Catholic Church points to this fact as proof that it was a part of the Greek


this is all circular reasoning

.the real answer to the question is



# 1. If the Apocrypha was not added into the Codex Vaticanus in the 4th to 6th century, possibly 600 years after Jesus Christ, the Vatican would not have a validation to promote it as a Septuagint manuscript ?


400 - 600 years after Jesus Christ the Apocrypha was added into a complete Greek book


before this, the Apocrypha was nothing more than scattered, independent books, - IN FACT - before being added and compiled into { Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus } , the books of the Apocrypha existed as individual, independent literary scrolls rather than a unified, bound collection, they circulated loosely across the Mediterranean world and then were later collected and put together 400 - 600 years after Jesus Christ ?


- Apocrypha was never included within the rest of any Greek or Hebrew Bible -
- Apocrypha never even gathered together themselves in a circulated book or scroll !

until 400 - 600 years after Jesus Christ


and

# 2. Does the evidence pointing to similarity between the style of Greek for the Codex Vaticanus and the Dead Sea Scrolls truly prove that a Septuagint existed before Jesus Christ,


could not this be a argument completely against the Septuagint as the Codex Vaticanus was not copied or written until the 4th to 6th century and the same Style of Greek would have been used for both.


the truth is that the Dead Sea Scrolls contain Greek texts make up a small minority (roughly 3%) of the overall Dead Sea Scrolls collection.

and these Dead Sea Scrolls do not even account for even 0.1% of the Septuagint

the truth is that the first five books of the Torah are all that were supposedly translated as Septuagint - yet the Vatican promotes the entire Old Testament plus + the Apocrypha as the real Septuagint that was not made into a complete book until 400 - 600 years after Jesus Christ.


is this real evidence or rather imagination and fantasy ?

 

[jswauto]

Codex Vaticanus

The Dead Sea Scrolls contain Hebrew
“The Dead Sea Scrolls contain Hebrew readings that match the Septuagint against the Masoretic Text — which proves the LXX was translated from real Hebrew manuscripts that existed long before Jesus. This isn’t Vatican history, it’s archaeology. The DSS predate Codex Vaticanus by 400–600 years, and they confirm multiple Hebrew traditions: proto‑Masoretic, proto‑Septuagintal, proto‑Samaritan, and non‑aligned. That’s why modern scholarship uses DSS + MT + LXX together. The existence of these Hebrew variants is the evidence — not later codices.”