Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sam Harris interviews Bart Ehriman

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Lon, in post #56 you answered my question about Fred Price. Thank you.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
      His "incomplete sentences" were completions of his corrections to your post, and were meant to be read as such.

      I bet you didn't even bother to look at his quote of your post when you read his post.
      Ok fine. My post didn’t need correcting, but thank you for clearing that up. Would you mind clearing this one up? Please read post 47 and see if he used sentences.

      Comment


      • #63
        Lon, in post 57 you mentioned Amy Grant again. Let’s just forget Amy Grant, and move on. Let’s get to the real issue. The real issue is variations with and among New Testament manuscript writings. Now, if I read you correctly regarding this point...you take issue with Dr. Ehrmans claims regarding this point, and you have criticized the information he has provided as “not true.” Is that correct?

        Assuming it is....then all we have to do is research that piece. Let us see if we can find factual information that will corroborate his claims, or if they should be refuted. Does that sound fair enough? I should have time to research the topic later this afternoon and I will be happy to report back what I have discovered.

        Would you like to do the same?

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Guyver View Post
          Ok fine. My post didn’t need correcting, but thank you for clearing that up. Would you mind clearing this one up? Please read post 47 and see if he used sentences.
          aspie or ocd?

          or both?

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Guyver View Post
            Ok fine. My post didn’t need correcting, but thank you for clearing that up. Would you mind clearing this one up? Please read post 47 and see if he used sentences.
            Post 47 is yours.

            Do you mean 48?

            If so, he's lacking punctuation, but they pass as sentences.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by ok doser View Post
              here's a complete sentence for you:

              you're an idiot
              Isn’t this post 47 JudgeRightly?

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Guyver View Post
                Isn’t this post 47 JudgeRightly?
                #48

                Comment


                • #68
                  JudgeRightly, I just checked it again, and my computer shows his response as post 47. I don’t know why there is confusion, maybe your screen is different because you’re a moderator? IDK. I just go by the number in the upper right corner of the frame that has the time stamp.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Lon, I didn't hear back from you, but I went ahead and researched the topic to some degree myself, just so that I would be able to comment here. I will begin by posting your post from earlier and italicize it for reference.

                    "A little different. First of all, none of the N.T. is involved in the Dead Sea Scrolls except for there being some corroborated time-frame materials. It is O.T. studies and that belongs to the Jews. It is Christian history by extension, but it is a peripheral. Next, there is no problem of anyone 'corroborating' truth. Ehrman is 'attacking' truth in obvious ways that have already, long ago, been rejected by scholars. Ehrman joined ranks with German higher criticism and the likes of James Cameron in trying to debunk the N.T. It'll never be seen as good scholarship. It is an attempt to rewrite history. It is sad he didn't/doesn't actually READ the books themselves. There is no way to get into them, and them into you, without pouring into them daily."

                    You have stated here that Ehrman is "attacking" truth by offering opinions that have been long rejected by scholars. Assuming you are referring to noted variations in New Testament manuscripts, I'm going to go ahead and argue against this as being a factual statement and instead, an opinion of yours based upon your own internal bias against Ehrman.

                    In Misquoting Jesus page 101, Ehrman offers a fact that as early as 1707 AD as many as 30,000 variations in New Testament texts had been identified.

                    Here is a link verifying this fact. Link.

                    In this link from Wikipedia referencing the historical reliability of the New Testament, and checking the sources, I see that they are actually current and this would argue against your comment that these issues have been rejected by scholars. Assuming you are referring to modern scholarship at large. LINK II

                    Here is an excerpt from that document.

                    "Historians subject the gospels to critical analysis, attempting to differentiate, rather than authenticate, reliable information from possible inventions, exaggerations, and alterations.[1] Since there are more than 15,000 New Testament manuscripts which present hundreds of thousands of textual variants,[23] scholars use textual criticism to determine which gospel variants could theoretically be taken as 'original'. To answer this question, scholars have to ask who wrote the gospels, when they wrote them, what was their objective in writing them,[24] what sources the authors used, how reliable these sources were, and how far removed in time the sources were from the stories they narrate, or if they were altered later. Scholars can also look into the internal evidence of the documents, to see if, for example, the document is misquoting texts from the Hebrew Tanakh, is making claims about geography that were incorrect, if the author appears to be hiding information, or if the author has made up a certain prophecy.[25] Finally, scholars turn to external sources, including the testimony of early church leaders, writers outside the church (mainly Jewish and Greco-Roman historians) who would have been more likely to have criticized the early churches, and to archaeological evidence."

                    I bolded the specifically relevant portion for emphasis.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Guyver View Post
                      No, he didn’t use complete sentences Lon, and as an educated person you should know this. I hate to be “that” guy, but again I must correct you.
                      You haven't corrected me on TOL. You've asked for clarifications but misread a lot. With Doser, the three ellipses meant he was continuing your thoughts. IOW, he was completing your sentences with the addition/correction.

                      Originally posted by Guyver View Post
                      Proper sentence structure requires the use of capital letters at the beginning of each sentence Lon, what okdoser did was write in incomplete sentences....which is the same thing as saying “not using sentences.” FWIW.

                      Let's look again:

                      Originally posted by ok doser View Post
                      corrected your flawed analogy:
                      Originally Posted by Guyver
                      Lon, if you were able to successfully ... complete your course of study and residency to become a certified ... doctor, practice many years, become a reputable expert in your field...then suddenly ....




                      and then suddenly reject modern medicine and start treating patients with leeches and hex signs, burning smudge and chanting sacred chants over the ill ....



                      Originally Posted by Guyver
                      ... do you think you would be suddenly unqualified in your field?




                      yes, of course
                      Okay, he missed an "I" for his first to count as a complete sentence. In the second, take of 'and then suddenly' because it was a stutter keeping it from being a well-constructed sentence, but it was yet a sentence. He also should not have used the three extra ellipses, just a period at that end, but then you are merely talking about formatting, he did frame a complete thought.

                      Let me entertain your pedantics for a moment: Even if the sentence structure is poor, it is not generally a problem in short burst responses on forums. Rather, it is better to look at what the point was he was trying to make. If you don't want to listen to him on a sentence structure technicality, I think it's a bit petty and misses the intent and mark of the post. He does know how to write a cogent sentence. At times his formatting is off, but it did convey a completed thought (similar or the same as the one we were talking about regarding a doctor's credentials).

                      I think you sufficiently grasp the point so this is all academic. It really doesn't move the thread along. Perhaps it'll help with moving along from here to have it addressed. -Lon
                      My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
                      Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
                      Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
                      Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
                      No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
                      Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

                      ? Yep

                      Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

                      ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

                      Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Guyver View Post
                        Lon, in post 57 you mentioned Amy Grant again. Let’s just forget Amy Grant, and move on. Let’s get to the real issue. The real issue is variations with and among New Testament manuscript writings. Now, if I read you correctly regarding this point...you take issue with Dr. Ehrmans claims regarding this point, and you have criticized the information he has provided as “not true.” Is that correct?

                        Assuming it is....then all we have to do is research that piece. Let us see if we can find factual information that will corroborate his claims, or if they should be refuted. Does that sound fair enough? I should have time to research the topic later this afternoon and I will be happy to report back what I have discovered.

                        Would you like to do the same?
                        Yes. That'd be along the thread premise
                        Originally posted by Guyver View Post
                        Lon, I didn't hear back from you, but I went ahead and researched the topic
                        Spoiler
                        to some degree myself, just so that I would be able to comment here. I will begin by posting your post from earlier and italicize it for reference.

                        "A little different. First of all, none of the N.T. is involved in the Dead Sea Scrolls except for there being some corroborated time-frame materials. It is O.T. studies and that belongs to the Jews. It is Christian history by extension, but it is a peripheral. Next, there is no problem of anyone 'corroborating' truth. Ehrman is 'attacking' truth in obvious ways that have already, long ago, been rejected by scholars. Ehrman joined ranks with German higher criticism and the likes of James Cameron in trying to debunk the N.T. It'll never be seen as good scholarship. It is an attempt to rewrite history. It is sad he didn't/doesn't actually READ the books themselves. There is no way to get into them, and them into you, without pouring into them daily."

                        You have stated here that Ehrman is "attacking" truth by offering opinions that have been long rejected by scholars. Assuming you are referring to noted variations in New Testament manuscripts, I'm going to go ahead and argue against this as being a factual statement and instead, an opinion of yours based upon your own internal bias against Ehrman.

                        In Misquoting Jesus page 101, Ehrman offers a fact that as early as 1707 AD as many as 30,000 variations in New Testament texts had been identified.

                        Here is a link verifying this fact. Link.

                        In this link from Wikipedia referencing the historical reliability of the New Testament, and checking the sources, I see that they are actually current and this would argue against your comment that these issues have been rejected by scholars. Assuming you are referring to modern scholarship at large. LINK II

                        Here is an excerpt from that document.

                        "Historians subject the gospels to critical analysis, attempting to differentiate, rather than authenticate, reliable information from possible inventions, exaggerations, and alterations.[1] Since there are more than 15,000 New Testament manuscripts which present hundreds of thousands of textual variants,[23] scholars use textual criticism to determine which gospel variants could theoretically be taken as 'original'. To answer this question, scholars have to ask who wrote the gospels, when they wrote them, what was their objective in writing them,[24] what sources the authors used, how reliable these sources were, and how far removed in time the sources were from the stories they narrate, or if they were altered later. Scholars can also look into the internal evidence of the documents, to see if, for example, the document is misquoting texts from the Hebrew Tanakh, is making claims about geography that were incorrect, if the author appears to be hiding information, or if the author has made up a certain prophecy.[25] Finally, scholars turn to external sources, including the testimony of early church leaders, writers outside the church (mainly Jewish and Greco-Roman historians) who would have been more likely to have criticized the early churches, and to archaeological evidence."

                        I bolded the specifically relevant portion for emphasis.
                        Yes, there are variations. No, not hundreds of thousands by everyone's count. There are only a few hundred thousand partial manuscripts out there. Next, variations are mostly words missing (this sentence misses 'the' and you hardly notice and it certainly isn't 'misquoting Jesus' worthy). The hundreds of thousands isn't in the variants, but also in quotes of the ECFs. They are saying that often the ECF's quoted differently than the manuscripts and these account for a lot of these counted (not actual text variations, but 'quote' variations).

                        If you can follow, here is an abbreviated list of those variants (if you follow, they are mostly spelling errors or like your problem with Doser's syntax errors).

                        There are two families (sometimes three depending on the scholar's classification) of N.T. texts. It depends upon which one accepts as authoritative, as to how many variations there are and so counting is problematic. Rather we have 'estimates' for numbers and some are exponentially higher because they count variations as 'two' for instance.
                        My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
                        Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
                        Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
                        Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
                        No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
                        Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

                        ? Yep

                        Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

                        ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

                        Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Lon View Post

                          Let's look again:
                          Lon, I grant in that one particular instance you are correct. Alright? JudgeRightly pointed it out yesterday and I accepted it. OK?


                          I think you sufficiently grasp the point so this is all academic. It really doesn't move the thread along. Perhaps it'll help with moving along from here to have it addressed. -Lon
                          Yes, I do sufficiently grasp, and yes, I’d like to move along. Except for one reiteration. Doser does not use complete sentences. It seems people around here besides myself don’t understand this point, which I find perplexing.

                          Lon, in posts 36, 38, 40, and 47 (by my computers rendering) okdoser used sentence fragments to communicate.

                          Here is an exact quote of what he said in post 47 which demonstrates that he doesn’t even know what a complete sentence is. I quote.

                          “here’s a complete sentence for you: you’re an idiot.”

                          There. Now we can move on. Anyone who has studied the English language to at least the third grade level should be able to understand why that is improper. Now that I have said my part on that issue, I rest my case on that point. I would like to move forward to the actual substantive elements of this thread, if it’s alright with you.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Guyver View Post
                            Doser does not use complete sentences. It seems people around here besides myself don’t understand this point, which I find perplexing.

                            Lon, in posts 36, 38, 40, and 47 (by my computers rendering) okdoser used sentence fragments to communicate.

                            Here is an exact quote of what he said in post 47 which demonstrates that he doesn’t even know what a complete sentence is. I quote.

                            “here’s a complete sentence for you: you’re an idiot.”

                            Anyone who has studied the English language to at least the third grade level should be able to understand why that is improper.
                            Doser said (expanded the contractions to make it easier for anyone above a third grade level to read:

                            "Here is a complete sentence for you: you are an idiot."

                            Please show how that entire string of words is not a sentence (and a compound sentence at that).

                            The first part has a subject: "sentence"
                            A verb: "is"

                            That's literally all that is needed for a complete sentence. But there's even a predicate: "here"

                            And the second part has a subject: "You"
                            And a verb: "are"
                            And a predicate: "idiot"

                            Who's the real idiot, Guy, you or doser?

                            My money's on you.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Lon View Post

                              If you can follow, here is an abbreviated list of those variants (if you follow, they are mostly spelling errors or like your problem with Doser's syntax errors).
                              What do you mean if I can follow Lon? Why would it be hard for me to follow that point? I know how to read Lon. If I didn’t know better, and I don’t; I’d consider that a veiled insult.

                              Lon, based on the qualifications you have outlined in this thread, I’m going to inform you that I am actually more formally educated than you are.

                              Now, regarding your actual point. Yes, the vast majority of descrepancies are in single word variations. Yet, many of these errors change the intended meaning of the text. So, that is one problem. Now, let us move on the the real issue.

                              Some of these variations show vast changes to the text, demonstrating that the Bible has literally been rewritten by unknown authors. I will offer two passages for discussion.

                              1. The woman taken in adultery.

                              2. The last chapter of Mark.

                              Please elaborate on your understanding regarding the passages above and how they do/do not show that the text of the Bible has been altered at will by unnamed authors.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                                Doser said (expanded the contractions to make it easier for anyone above a third grade level to read:

                                "Here is a complete sentence for you: you are an idiot."

                                Please show how that entire string of words is not a sentence (and a compound sentence at that).

                                The first part has a subject: "sentence"
                                A verb: "is"

                                That's literally all that is needed for a complete sentence. But there's even a predicate: "here"

                                And the second part has a subject: "You"
                                And a verb: "are"
                                And a predicate: "idiot"

                                Who's the real idiot, Guy, you or doser?

                                My money's on you.
                                You just called me an idiot and you would like me to respond? Wow. OK. Those are not sentences because they do not begin with a capital letter. That’s it. It really is that simple. You gave him a capital letter to make it a complete sentence. Kinda like the guys who’ve changed the Bible. Sometimes they edit the text to make it correct, and they don’t even know they did it...as you have just done.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X