Slashdot Mirror
Computers Decipher Burnt Scroll Found In Ancient Holy Ark (nationalgeographic.com)
bsharma writes: Scientists have formally announced their reconstruction of the Ein Gedi Scroll, the most ancient Hebrew scroll since the Dead Sea Scrolls. This was done by CAT scanning the burnt scrolls and virtually reconstructing the layers of scrolls with ink blobs on them. National Geographic reports: "For decades, the Israel Antiquities Authority guarded the document, known as the Ein Gedi Scroll, careful not to open it for fear that the brittle text would shatter to pieces. But last year, scientists announced that they had scanned, virtually unrolled, and translated the scroll's hidden verses -- a feat now formally described in the scientific literature. Based on preliminary scans, [Brent Seales of the University of Kentucky, who specialized in digitally reconstructing damaged texts,] and his colleagues announced in 2015 that the Ein Gedi Scroll was a biblical text from the sixth century A.D. containing a column of text from the book of Leviticus. But the full CT scan results, published on Wednesday in Science Advances, tell a deeper story. Further analysis revealed an extra column of text, ultimately fleshing out the first two chapters of Leviticus -- ironically, a book that begins with God's instructions for burnt offerings. What's more, radiocarbon dating of the scroll suggests that it may be between 1,700 and 1,800 years old, at least 200 years older than previously thought. In fact, the scroll's distinctive handwriting hearkens back to the first or second century A.D., some five centuries earlier than the date ascribed to the scroll last year." University of Cambridge lecturer James Aitken told Smithsonian's Devin Powell in 2015: "There's little of surprise in finding a Leviticus scroll. We probably have many more copies of it than any other book, as its Hebrew style is so simple and repetitive that it was used for children's writing exercises."
More generally, "name calling" should be the expected behavior when asking almost any complex question to any large group of persons.
However, in that specific case, Richard Dawkins has the expected default position of any atheist (including me): The existence of an invisible unproven magic being cannot be the answer to any complex phenomena observed in the real world (in that case, that would be the origin of life). That position implies that there are things that we cannot explain with our current understanding of nature (you know, that thing called science).
Improving science by looking for more clues in the real world is the right way to handle those mysteries. Claiming "Magic", "God", "Taboo" or "Holy Book" is not.
It's called abiogenisis and there are various plausible hypotheses. But even if someone were to demonstrate a self assembling and self replicating molecule through one of these processes it doesn't say that's how they occured on Earth over 3.5 billion years ago. But just because something is unknowable does it become god-did-it.
This thread is a perfect example of what's becoming of Slashdot. Instead of comments and insights on the awesome science and tech it took to read an up-to-now unreadable ancient document, almost every comment here is a comment about whether religion is fact or fiction and is *completely* off topic. The science behind this is pretty amazing, and could lead to being able to read other ancient burned documents like those found at Herculaneum from the time of its destruction by Vesuvius. But you people are apparently more interested in bashing religion than celebrating actual science and technical advances.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
The obvious conclusion is that we need to get rid of the reddit atheist kiddies who feel the need to shit up every decent discussion with their euphoric fedoras.
Well, the closer it is to the original
Actually, something left out of the summary is the textual significance of this find. Some of the researchers involved have noted that this is the earliest text found so far that is identical to the Masoretic text, a medieval version which is the standard Hebrew edition often used today (not only in the original but as the basis of many modern translations, etc.).
Previous finds have shown that a set of "proto-Masoretic" variants begins to emerge as a standard around 2000 years ago (before that, there were wider textual variants). But previous fragments actually identical to the Masoretic were only known to date to centuries after this one. Depending on whose dating you believe, this scroll places the origin of this standard text version perhaps back to 1700-2000 years ago.
It's also significant because it's a biblical fragment recovered from an ark in a synagogue, where it may have actually been used, as opposed to the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were preserved in desert caves and might represent a less 'standard" source tradition.
Again, a lot of this is speculative, but in this case the find is actually significant in pushing back the date when a "standard" Hebrew text may have begun to emerge.
How did the first self-replicating molecule originate? Know one knows, but "I don't know" is a lot better answer than "God did it".
Atheism is no more a religion than an empty glass contains a kind of beer.
I tend to leave religious people strictly alone, so long as they aren't harming or advocating harming anyone else. I think the notion of believing in a religion, and especially an afterlife, would be very comforting. Certainly, a lot of my extended family find it so. Really, the only time I ever want to argue against religion is when people use it as a weapon against others.
No, he was suggesting exactly the opposite: that any sort of tolerance (let alone support) for war is anti-Christian, so priests etc. should be condemning armies instead of blessing them.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
The Bible has many WTF moments when you read it, but for some reason back then it must've seemed ok to the people back then. I mean, if god supports Jacob's trick and doesn't punish him for being an asshole and swindling his brother out of his firstborn rights, does god condone such behaviour?
Then again, when you look at Job, God can be quite the asshole himself.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Not to be pedantic, just precise, the wording of the passage you mention about "taking up the sword" refers specifically to criminality and not to war.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
"And He who made kittens put snakes in the grass"