Fake Dead Scrolls

I'm sure they are fakes. All that nonsense.

Your initial statement is merely information.

The conclusion you offer does not follow, because it places in doubt an allegation that is not in evidence. That the forgeries found at the museum are concluded to be forgeries due to the use of more modern paper and ink than displayed by earlier scrolls and fragments in no way disauthenticates the condition of the earlier scrolls and fragments. Your conclusion is opinion, failing even to achieve an academic status.

Speak for yourself. My "opinion" is based upon the fact that the Dead Sea scrolls were located some 300 to 1600 years after the events depicted in them. The authors have not been identified and it is impossible to verify the contents. By default the Scrolls are "fake".

Of course, biblical nuts are always going to argue that "Oh, yes they are authentic because we had them carbon-dated you know". Maybe so and la-de-da, but the contents, i.e. what was written has not and never will be authenticated. The stories contained therein are no different from any of the other myths and extreme hyperbole that were the vogue of scribes in that era.

I mentioned to Fuxlaw that I consider them to be fakes by default. Sure, some of them have been authenticated as to having been written in those times however it is the content and the writers that are questionable and can never be verified.

Referring to your #4:

I once found a book ripped from its binding, as well as loss of quite a few of its printed pages. It was immediately apparent to me, because I am more than a little familiar with the subject, that it was a cookbook; a book of recipes of meals; grilling, as it happened. I am an accomplished cook and use this medium quite often. So, reading through the recipes, I found one for grilling salmon fillet that, while the salmon was thus on the grill, offered time to make an apple brandy cream sauce. The two elements of the main course were prepared so that each was done at the same time, and turned out to be an excellent meal, worthy of fine  restaurant production. 

What should I conclude? I had no book title, no publishing information, not even the author's name in order to find the entire book, because this one recipe confirmed to me the author knew their stuff and had delicious recipes. I made quite a few of the other dishes offered in what I had of the book. Do I conclude the book is "fake" because I lack the information I mentioned. No, I don't, because the recipe told a true story of a delicious meal.

Is that is the sense of other types of information, such as contained in the Holy Bible? Is that volume a complete volume? Several centuries ago, some alleged experts in the subject picked and chose from volumes had, and created a "canon" that is not all that was available to be had. Did God decide which books to include? Maybe; maybe not, by inspiration, but it is what it is. So, what do we do with it? How about the same thing as my incomplete cookbook: try it. Apply the principles in it and see if they result in being in a good place for body and soul.

You get the point. It is not going to declare its true value by sitting on the shelf and our doing nothing about it, making claims of either its authenticity, or its worthlessness. You seem to be willing to take that worthless approach, but not all of us agree with you. Better yet, some of us have applied the principles contained in what may be an incomplete book, and they prove their worth, just as my salmon with apple brandy cream sauce.

 I couldn't agree more. You are absolutely spot on with that comment. I will always give credit where it is due;  it is  your best comment by far under your new or any of your previous pseudonyms. WELL DONE!

They absolutely love the fact that their Jesus and many of his follower are mentioned outside of the New Testament, don't they?

That is until, one brings up the verses such as how  Mary was frightened to death of the misogynistic  Peter( the lords "rock") and hated Mary Magdalene venomously saying things such as:

" I won't let this woman talk before me"

“ let Mary leave us, for woman are not worthy of life” 

Yes , Peter! He that - it is alleged - upon whom the lord said he  would build his church.  The scrolls prove this to be utter bollocks.  Peter hated Mary Magdalene with a passion  and probably because Jesus had shared and entrusted many of the "mysteries" to her and not him.

This is the same Peter in the Christian scriptures that lied, and denied even knowing Jesus. The same Peter the traitor that conveniently just happened to fall asleep when he was supposed to be guarding his master that led to Jesus' arrest, trail and barbaric torture and execution..  Yes good ole' Pete the coward, what a lad.   Christians should have a closer look at Peter and read closely what THE BIBLE actually has to say about his part in Jesus' trial.  But they will even deny what it is they are reading although it is there in black on white. They are cowards, just like Peter was.

Yes, Mandrakel,  it is when such  verses are highlighted from these scrolls then it is back to the usual shite of , "context"  and  "having to understand ancient Greek".

Great questions. 

After Dead Sea Forgeries Exposed, How Do We Know the Scrolls in Israel Are Authentic?
All scroll fragments at the Museum of the Bible in Washington turn out to be fakes: Experts explain how we know the massive trove of scrolls held in Jerusalem is genuine