Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This thread is now degenerating as threads do on this forum. Two posters have now questioned my integrity and one has ignored and twisted what this thread is about and has misrepresented what I have said.
Listen to the videos or don't. Disagree if you wish. I don't care. But do not resort to impugning my character because you disagree with the topic of this thread.
My sarcasm is not needed, but your snide "buy the book" comment was entirely called for I suppose?
You are using this quote to support your argument, pointing out that "even an agnostic" believes this, but in reality you never read the quoted work. You picked up the quote off of the website of someone who agrees with your perspective and who in turn held this quote out as evidence. Did the author of that website ever read the quoted work? We don't know. Does it accurately reflect Ehrman's viewpoint? We have no idea. Nonetheless you will take it at face value. You have no motivation to consider that it may (or may not) be a misrepresentation of this particular scholar because when taken at face value it says what you want it to say. Those are just the bare facts.
My sarcasm is not needed, but your snide "buy the book" comment was entirely called for I suppose?
You are using this quote to support your argument, pointing out that "even an agnostic" believes this, but in reality you never read the quoted work. You picked up the quote off of the website of someone who agrees with your perspective and who in turn held this quote out as evidence. Did the author of that website ever read the quoted work? We don't know. Does it accurately reflect Ehrman's viewpoint? We have no idea. Nonetheless you will take it at face value. You have no motivation to consider that it may (or may not) be a misrepresentation of this particular scholar because when taken at face value it says what you want it to say. Those are just the bare facts.
Thanks.
It was Dr. Dan Wallace who referenced the quote of Dr. Ehrman as was stated in post #12. Dr. Wallace's video's are the subject of this thread.
Again, if you want to read what Dr. Ehrman wrote first hand then buy the book.
Questioning my integrity and the integrity of all who acknowledge that the Bible is the Word of God does not help your argument. It is simply an ad hominem attack.
I already told you in post #12 that you are entitled to your opinion. From post #12 - ''You are welcome to your opinion, but I do not agree with it. On the other hand, I do give credence to experts in the field of Biblical textual criticism such as those mentioned above who are qualified to make the statements they have made. More than that, I believe the Word of God.''
Again, no doctrine of the Word of God has been lost or changed by any of the variants in the manuscripts.
And I don't care whether you believe that or not.
So you believe you can hold two different contrary opinions and your integrity is intact, fine to each their own.
so called experts is all you have Mike, you should learn not to lean on fallible man. do you not believe the scripture that says that the Spirit will lead us into all truth and that we do not need ANY MAN to teach us.
No doctrine is changed, try reading the dead sea scroll bible and tell me that again. I have pointed out on a number of occasion that the bibles today have a different doctrine then some of what the dead sea scrolls state, would you like to see them again? likely not
With all due respect, this quote seems suspicious; I would like to see the context in which it was written and what "scholars" Ehrman was addressing. Was he actually talking about all scholars? Some scholars? Scholars with whom he disagrees? It just seems as if it was plucked out of a larger thought.
As for the rest of this thread, I'm genuinely confused. I'm not sure how the biblical literalist takes comfort in the idea that "essential Christian beliefs are not jeopardized" by variations in the NT. I have seen debates among Christians that hinge on a single passage...even a single word within a passage. I would think that any inconsistency would be a major concern when judgements can be made based on such minutia. If one word is suspect, then any part of the writing can be suspect. I say this because we can only address the inconsistencies (or "variations" if you prefer) between texts that we have, but as far as I can tell no one in this conversation believes that we have the originals. As soon as we accept that inconsistencies exist, we must also accept that we have no way of knowing if there are inconsistencies between the copies we have and the originals. Therefore we have no way of knowing what the original (inspired) text says.
Your sarcasm is not needed. Ehrman stated what he stated. - "In spite of these remarkable differences, scholars are convinced that we can reconstruct the original words of the New Testament with reasonable (although probably not 100 percent) accuracy."
Ehrman ONCE stated he was a Christian -- as he was when he wrote the line you quoted. On the basis of his continued scholarship he is no longer a believer. He once stated he was a believer. He NOW says he is not. Which statement more accurately reflects his true views? What he wrote in 2003, or the book, Forged, which he wrote in 2011 calling the original authors of the gospels liars with regard to who they claimed to be?
Which more accurately depicts Ehrman today?
By using an old quote and not qualifying it, by trying to convince others that it is an accurate representation of Ehrman's thinking when you know it is not, YOU have brought both the credibility AND integrity of your original post into question. I would be happy for you to ask a moderator to review any and all questions of credibility on this thread. YOU are not accused of having no credibility, but your post is accused as incredible in light of all the work of two scholars that you have improperly used to support your particular point of view. YOU brought their names into play. I and others have simply pointed out to readers, " the rest of the story" behind those men.
Sorry Charlie, but that is the way even the courts in this nation handle credibility issues--- with points made by one attorney, "Did you say ABC?" And points by the other as, "But didn't you also recant and say XYZ."
Ehrman does NOT hold that scribes made no difference in the NT as we have it today. Neither does Wallace. The only thing they disagree with one another over is the extent to which those scribes made a difference.
So you believe you can hold two different contrary opinions and your integrity is intact, fine to each their own.
so called experts is all you have Mike, you should learn not to lean on fallible man. do you not believe the scripture that says that the Spirit will lead us into all truth and that we do not need ANY MAN to teach us.
No doctrine is changed, try reading the dead sea scroll bible and tell me that again. I have pointed out on a number of occasion that the bibles today have a different doctrine then some of what the dead sea scrolls state, would you like to see them again? likely not
"For the Spirit giveth life, but the letter killeth!" ~ Paul of Tarsus (who's letters are now idolized, ironically).
What are the central Christian teachings? Wasn't the NT created from religious books and letters by Emperor Constantine? What is this idea of "Doctrine"? I thought Jesus was pretty clear about Judaism as portrayed in the four gospels of Ireneus's genius logic.
So you believe you can hold two different contrary opinions and your integrity is intact, fine to each their own.
so called experts is all you have Mike, you should learn not to lean on fallible man. do you not believe the scripture that says that the Spirit will lead us into all truth and that we do not need ANY MAN to teach us.
No doctrine is changed, try reading the dead sea scroll bible and tell me that again. I have pointed out on a number of occasion that the bibles today have a different doctrine then some of what the dead sea scrolls state, would you like to see them again? likely not
Again you resort to making ad hominem attacks. My integrity is not the issue and there are no contrary opinions involved in recognizing that the Bible is the Word of God but also recognizing that the manuscript copies have variants. And yes, they are experts.
You are taking 1 John 2:27 ( you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things,) out of context. Those to whom John wrote were already relatively spiritually mature from teaching they had already received and needed no further teaching to guard them against the false teachers. In contrast, those to whom the writer of Hebrews wrote were in need of again being taught the elementary principles of the oracles of God when they should have been teachers themselves (Hebrews 5:11-12).
The Dead Sea Scrolls deal with the Old Testament. The subject is the New Testament Scriptures and whether our New Testament text is reliable.
Your sarcasm is not needed. Ehrman stated what he stated. - "In spite of these remarkable differences, scholars are convinced that we can reconstruct the original words of the New Testament with reasonable (although probably not 100 percent) accuracy."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wardendresden
Ehrman ONCE stated he was a Christian -- as he was when he wrote the line you quoted. On the basis of his continued scholarship he is no longer a believer. He once stated he was a believer. He NOW says he is not. Which statement more accurately reflects his true views? What he wrote in 2003, or the book, Forged, which he wrote in 2011 calling the original authors of the gospels liars with regard to who they claimed to be?
Which more accurately depicts Ehrman today?
By using an old quote and not qualifying it, by trying to convince others that it is an accurate representation of Ehrman's thinking when you know it is not, YOU have brought both the credibility AND integrity of your original post into question. I would be happy for you to ask a moderator to review any and all questions of credibility on this thread. YOU are not accused of having no credibility, but your post is accused as incredible in light of all the work of two scholars that you have improperly used to support your particular point of view. YOU brought their names into play. I and others have simply pointed out to readers, " the rest of the story" behind those men.
Sorry Charlie, but that is the way even the courts in this nation handle credibility issues--- with points made by one attorney, "Did you say ABC?" And points by the other as, "But didn't you also recant and say XYZ."
Ehrman does NOT hold that scribes made no difference in the NT as we have it today. Neither does Wallace. The only thing they disagree with one another over is the extent to which those scribes made a difference.
Ehrman's personal beliefs at the time he wrote the college textbook 'The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian writings', 3rd edition, 2003, are not the issue. However, Ehrman was already pretty much a skeptic, if not already agnostic at the time he wrote it. His statement, "In spite of these remarkable differences, scholars are convinced that we can reconstruct the original words of the New Testament with reasonable (although probably not 100 percent) accuracy.", concerns the beliefs of other scholars. What Ehrman believed or didn't believe when he wrote that has nothing to do with his statement concerning other scholars.
Dan Wallace who has known Ehrman for over 30 years says this about Ehrman. ''It seems that Ehrman puts a far more skeptical spin on things when speaking in the public square than he does when speaking to professional colleagues.'' [Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament, p. 25.] It was Dan Wallace who referenced Ehrman's statement in which he said "In spite of these remarkable differences, scholars are convinced that we can reconstruct the original words of the New Testament with reasonable (although probably not 100 percent) accuracy."
And once again, Ehrman stated in the Appendix of the paperback version of his book 'Misquoting Jesus' that ''Essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.'' The agnostic Ehrman wrote that.
Your statement that I bolded misrepresents what has been said on this thread. Once again, the subject, the very title of the first video is ''How Badly Did Scribes Change the New Testament.'' And Dr. Wallace addresses that issue. You seem intent on trying to make it seem that I am denying that. I posted this thread to present the two video's in which Dr. Wallace speaks on the stated subject.
This was my only comment in post #1.
I like listening to Dr. Dan Wallace speak. In this video he addresses the issue stated in the title of this thread.
He states that no essential Christian belief is jeopardized by any viable variant in the New Testament manuscripts. By the way, Bart Ehrman agrees with this. At 41:47 into the video Dr. Wallace quotes what Dr. Ehrman stated in the Appendix of the paperback version of his book 'Misquoting Jesus.' Ehrman states, ''Essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.''
Well, here's the video.
And this was my only comment in post #2.
The material in this presentation of Dr. Wallace is largely the same as in his speech in the video in the OP since the subject is, ''Is what we have now what they wrote then'', but he provides some information which is not in the first. Plus there is a good question/answer session during the last 26 minutes of the session.
The video's were then posted after the respective comments. You are making false claims about my purpose in posting this thread.
Last edited by Michael Way; 07-19-2014 at 08:59 AM..
GINOLJC, to all
Addressing the OP only. I haven’t read all of the posting to this topic, which is a good topic. but the Lord Jesus Christ, God, know how to preserve his word. for he have spoke it. Psalm 12:6 “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever”. so let the unbelieving be, as Revelation 22:11 states, “He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still”. so let those who question the bible stay in unbelief, for John 3:16 states, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life”. and the New Testament is about Jesus the Christ. so this subject really separates those who are guided by the Holy Spirit, or unbelieving scholars. bless are they who have not seen but "BELIEVE".
be blessed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
