[Hodar]

The texts are of great religious and historical significance, as they include the earliest known surviving copies of Biblical and extra-biblical documents and preserve evidence of great diversity in late Second Temple Judaism. They are written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, mostly on parchment, but with some written on papyrus.[1] These manuscripts generally date between 150 BCE and 70 CE,[2] although carbon dating indicates this range extends to the third century BCE (see Carbon dating the Dead Sea Scrolls). Bronze coins found on the site form a series beginning with Hyrcanus 1 (135-104 BCE) and continue without a gap until the first Jewish revolt.[3] The scrolls are traditionally identified with the ancient Jewish sect called the Essenes, though some recent interpretations have challenged this association and argue that the scrolls were penned by priests in Jerusalem, Zadokites, or other unknown Jewish groups.[4][5]

One of the greatest "re-enforcers" of accuracy of the Old Testament, is the number of copies, independantly kept by various groups, through the centuries has worked to keep them in alignment. If we have 'x' groups that say one thing, and a single manuscript that differs substancially - we can extrapolate that the numerous copies of independant collections must be the accurate copy.

However, in the New Testament we are not so fortunate. The Bible, as we have it now, is a collection of books that were separate - with some books discarded and others accepted. The Council of Nicea essentially "cherry-picked" what books were included and which were rejected. Every council makes concessions to appease various political factions - it's the nature of man.

Perhaps the DSS are copies made by a fanatical group - but if nothing else, they give a view point that deserves some attention and comparison against the various versions of the Bible in vogue today. I believe there are over 42 different "versions" of the Bible around, each differing in some way or another from their contemporaries.

[aruanan]

One of the greatest "re-enforcers" of accuracy of the Old Testament, is the number of copies, independantly kept by various groups, through the centuries has worked to keep them in alignment. If we have 'x' groups that say one thing, and a single manuscript that differs substancially - we can extrapolate that the numerous copies of independant collections must be the accurate copy.

However, in the New Testament we are not so fortunate. The Bible, as we have it now, is a collection of books that were separate - with some books discarded and others accepted. The Council of Nicea essentially "cherry-picked" what books were included and which were rejected. Every council makes concessions to appease various political factions - it's the nature of man.

It would be a good thing if you knew enough to know that what you wrote above is almost entirely at odds with reality (such as your erroneous views of the Council of Nicea and the canon. It didn't have anything to do with establishing the canon). The Council of Nicea met in 325 AD. The canon was pretty much in its current form as long ago as 170 AD. The Apostolic Fathers (70-150AD) quoted from every book in the New Testament with the possible exception of Philemon and III John. Together with them, the Ante-Nicene Fathers (150-300 AD) quoted so extensively from the New Testament that it could essentially be reconstituted from their quotes.

Start with The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, And Restoration (1964). 2005 4th edition, by Bruce Metzger, with Bart D. Ehrman, (ISBN 0-19-516122-X), and go on from there to The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission, and Limitations (1977) and The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (1987).