Actually, G-C you are wrong again but you must be used to that by now.
So, even though the copies at Qumran (which are the earliest Hebrew versions we have of any of this bullshit) were copied by practiced scribes (as opposed to the early xtian copyists who seem to have been amateurs, according to Bart Ehrman) there is still a 5% error rate.
At this point I have to assume that all of the data you spout is tainted by xtian bullshit. You need to develop some credibility.
Quote:The Isaiah scrolls found at Qumran closed that gap to within 500 years of the original manuscript. Interestingly, when scholars compared the MT of Isaiah to the Isaiah scroll of Qumran, the correspondence was astounding. The texts from Qumran proved to be word-for-word identical to our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The 5 percent of variation consisted primarily of obvious slips of the pen and spelling alterations
So, even though the copies at Qumran (which are the earliest Hebrew versions we have of any of this bullshit) were copied by practiced scribes (as opposed to the early xtian copyists who seem to have been amateurs, according to Bart Ehrman) there is still a 5% error rate.
At this point I have to assume that all of the data you spout is tainted by xtian bullshit. You need to develop some credibility.
