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.
Hi Colossus! Maybe you need to read about Bart Erhman's background and all his published books and works, including textbooks on Biblical historical-textural criticism used in colleges and seminaries, before calling his work "DanBrownomics."
I've read 3 of his books including his textbook "The New Testament- A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writing" and he sure beats that hack Josh McDowell. I could only force myself to read one of his -ETDAV- it was simplistic and used endless quote mines after quote mines from other fundamentalist Christian Apologists, no original work of his own, plus some quotes used VERY misleadingly out of their original context.
I remember back in the day debating critics of the Christian faith using Josh McDowell's, Henry Morris and Norm Gisler's apologetics using what basically amounted to circular logic. There were a few well read atheists who were, themselves, former fundamentalist and they used to turn my sorry arguments upside down every time primarily by showing me time and time again I was using circular logic and "goddidit"/"godmusthavedoneitthen" explanations. Of course, I could not see this initially and when I did, I either preferred not to admit it OR keep mum and ease out of such threads.
He dosen't debunk the bible, he just dosen't believe in it. Just saying "I don't think the resurection happened" dose mean anything. That is not scholarly!
The article claims he knows the culture of the times, yet he dosen't understand why Paul said that women couldn't talk in Church. It was not that woman could not be preachers, but in that particular church that Paul addressed, the woman were all talking while the service was taking place. Paul was saying tell them to be quite when others are talking!
I think Ehrman is just miss guided. He needs to come to Jesus first, then study the scriptures. Rather he has thrown out the Christ and now is trying to rip apart the accounts written of the Christ.
I believe he is a Christian. He's just not a fundamentalist anymore, and apparently has done quite a lot of research on the validity of the bible. I'd need to dig deeper into it to give a really studied opinion on the subject, but as I understood it, the man is not saying Christianity is bad or wrong, he's merely pointing out flaws in the bible.
Anyway, DanBrownomics is more of a field of business, on a larger perspective. Like economics. I didn't pull the term out for this particular gentleman.
He is on track towards multi-millionnaire-hood. Imagine the pain of having to deal with mortgages, debts and putting kids through college, otherwise.
Why didn't the mainstream media beat his drum when he was a Biblical scholar for so many years?
He's a smart man. He understands how it all works. Controversy sells. Like Pink Floyd (or Roy Harper) will sing:
And did we tell you the name of the game, boy?
We're callin' it riding the gravy traiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiin.
And did we tell you the name of the game, boy?
We're callin' it riding the gravy traiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiin.
So just because he's making money from it means he's lying? Great to know, I'll remember that the next time I'm flicking through channels and see a religious show, or the next time one of you talks about giving tithe or monetary offerings to your church.
Remember, if someone is getting paid...they're lying!!
Think about it, it's business logic - Bible-bash is more lucrative than faithful study
It's DanBrownomics.
Obviously, you are aware the the concepts put forth by Dan Brown in The DaVinci Code were well researched ideas that had been around for decades before he wrote it. Most notably in the book "Holy Blood, Holy Grail", to which Brown pay tribute to the authors (who later sued him) by creating anagrams of the authors names in characters.
Just because you haven't heard of the research that went into it, doesn't mean it just emerged as fiction and can be dismissed that easily.
That said - Erhman is FAR from a fiction writer.
I don't know why scholarly research of the nature discussed in that article threatens religious people so much. If you speak the truth, it should withstand any scrutiny. Is your faith that fragile? Must we simply turn a blind eye in order to take your faith at face value?
I know I have tested my spirituality through experimentation and welcome any others to do the same. It will withstand.
P.S. By the "logic" expressed in this thread, we should all agree that the "Left Behind" series is a pack of lies as well because they're making some major bank. Not to mention, pretty much every mega-church or evangelist. Ridin' off the rails on the GRAVY TRAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNN
I believe he is a Christian. He's just not a fundamentalist anymore, and apparently has done quite a lot of research on the validity of the bible. I'd need to dig deeper into it to give a really studied opinion on the subject, but as I understood it, the man is not saying Christianity is bad or wrong, he's merely pointing out flaws in the bible.
Sounds like he is going ap...that is apostate! He may know a few things about the bible, but finding flaws with the bible is a slippery slope. It just means that he has given more authority to writting of man (non-biblical writting), then to the veracity of scripture.
He dosen't debunk the bible, he just dosen't believe in it. Just saying "I don't think the resurection happened" dose mean anything. That is not scholarly!
The article claims he knows the culture of the times, yet he dosen't understand why Paul said that women couldn't talk in Church. It was not that woman could not be preachers, but in that particular church that Paul addressed, the woman were all talking while the service was taking place. Paul was saying tell them to be quite when others are talking!
I think Ehrman is just miss guided. He needs to come to Jesus first, then study the scriptures. Rather he has thrown out the Christ and now is trying to rip apart the accounts written of the Christ.
So, as a scholar, he must convince himself something is true because he wants it to be, and then construct evidence around his beliefs?
I doubt he would retain his position at UNC. Academia doesn't work on faith. It works on scholarly research.
(on a side note - I'll say it again, Dan Brown's fiction was based on extensive research done by others. He just made it popular and that's when you all finally heard about it. Those theories had been around for years).
At face value without me knowing anything about this guy.. I'd have to say he knows.. lots of things about the bible.
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.
