Sam Harris interviews Bart Ehriman

Guyver

BANNED
No. The Bible is inspired. Christ is the only way to salvation. While some believers may be nutty kooks, belief in God is the most sane position a person can take.

You just lumped God, Jesus, and the Bible together as if they are all the same. They are not.
 

Guyver

BANNED
First of all, his name is Bart Ehrman.

Second of all, he once was just as you are now, except for one thing. He is actually a world class bible scholar, with a first rate education who happens to know what he's talking about.
 

carolus magnus

New member
First of all, his name is Bart Ehrman.

Second of all, he once was just as you are now, except for one thing. He is actually a world class bible scholar, with a first rate education who happens to know what he's talking about.

Ehrman. You really got me with that typo!

Second of all, there are plenty of first rate scholars who disagree with him.

I once thought that he came to his conclusions from his research, but he admits in the forward of one of his books that he has the same mundane reasoning typical of atheists/agnostics: that the existence of evil in the world disproves the existence of a good and loving God.

There is an excellent book that counters Ehrman's views on the New Testament that is highly recommended:
The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? by F.F. Bruce
 

Guyver

BANNED
My writing style tends to be succinct. Each of those statements were separated with a period, so I don't see the problem.

I do understand and subscribe to the doctrine of the Trinity.

Fair enough. That is your religion. It is my obligation to respect it. Peace be with you.
 

Guyver

BANNED
Ehrman. You really got me with that typo!

Second of all, there are plenty of first rate scholars who disagree with him.

I once thought that he came to his conclusions from his research, but he admits in the forward of one of his books that he has the same mundane reasoning typical of atheists/agnostics: that the existence of evil in the world disproves the existence of a good and loving God.

There is an excellent book that counters Ehrman's views on the New Testament that is highly recommended:
The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? by F.F. Bruce

The problem of evil in the world is not one that should be hand waived away. Sure, Christians have their explanation for it....but that only works for Christians.

I don’t agree with his stance as an atheist as I feel he would be better off claiming agnosticism, which is the superior intellectual view, IMO. But, I understand what it’s like to discover that what one had so completely believed in was false. In the sense that false means not as represented in this case. So, he could be having a backlash reaction to his Evangelical background, as I did also.

Anyway, I accept the scholarship of his that I have read, which is only one piece, Misquoting Jesus. That was a gentle revelation of truth....IMO.
 

Spartan

New member
Anyway, I accept the scholarship of his that I have read, which is only one piece, Misquoting Jesus. That was a gentle revelation of truth....IMO.

There are a number of books that correct a good number of Ehrman's incorrect claims and/or assumptions. Here's one:

Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus, by Timothy Paul Jones

And here's another:

Misquotes in MISQUOTING JESUS: Why You Can Still Believe
 

carolus magnus

New member
Anyway, I accept the scholarship of his that I have read, which is only one piece, Misquoting Jesus. That was a gentle revelation of truth....IMO.

After reading Misquoting Jesus many come away with the impression that the New Testament has been so corrupted it cannot be trusted, and that affects essential Christian Doctrines. But in that same book on page 252 of the paperback version Ehrman states:

"Essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament."

That is a remarkable statement. We can, despite textual variation (mostly spelling differences and what not), trust that the New Testament we have now is remarkably close to its original written version.
Whether to believe what it says or not is up to you.
 

carolus magnus

New member
Someone from before my time?

And who said TOL is dead...? Lol

Heh, yeah, I pop in from time to time. When I first discovered this site back in 2006 it was a revelation. A place to discuss Christianity, Evolution/Creation, and Politics honestly and openly. An elegant forum for a more civilized age. That was before the dark times. Before Social Media.
 

Guyver

BANNED
"Essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament."

That is a remarkable statement. We can, despite textual variation (mostly spelling differences and what not), trust that the New Testament we have now is remarkably close to its original written version.
Whether to believe what it says or not is up to you.

First of all, on your last sentence, I completely agree - people can choose to believe whatever they wish. On the essential Christian beliefs not being affected by textual variants....I also agree, for the cause of religious tradition and indoctrination. This accompanies the first point... people choose to believe what they wish.

On the point that the New Testament is remarkably close to it's original version....that is a belief people choose to accept as real or factual, based on ZERO evidence. Since there are no original manuscripts available for examination, it would be foolish to attempt to make any claims in their regard. You may hope to extrapolate from the earliest known and available writings of church fathers....but even that would provide a shadow of what actually was. What was originally written, and many case by whom, is unknown as it pertains to the bible.

On the work of Bart Ehrman, specifically Misquoting Jesus....what his work does demonstrate is that the New Testament as we know it is and has been a "work in progress" for thousands of years. He has shown that the text of the bible has been edited at will, by unnamed editors for hundreds and thousands of years. These editions include many changes to the text in many ways. These are facts that a person can research from themselves if they wish to, without even reading Bart Ehrman. Bible scholars have known this from quite some time.

The bible as it is commonly considered now, by Protestants is lacking some 14 books that used to be in the bible, and are still in some. Luther wanted to reduce it even further so that it would have less than the 66 books it has now.

The Catholics, and the Jehovah Witnesses, and probably more sects than I even know of have changed the text at will to suit their own church doctrines.

Modern translations of the bible, which come in some form each year, all make subtle changes to the text by word or phrase replacement. In some cases, these additions or edits have rendered the passage the exact opposite meaning of the original intent.

These are things that are known in the fields of biblical research and textual analysis, but not known by average Joe Q. Christian churchgoer. FWIW.
 

carolus magnus

New member
On the point that the New Testament is remarkably close to it's original version....that is a belief people choose to accept as real or factual, based on ZERO evidence.
You've just revealed that you have no understanding of the science of textual criticism. I suggest you watch Dr. Daniel Wallace, a scholar just as respected as Bart Erhman in the field (they are colleagues and friends and clearly respect each other's work when you see them together). Here is a good start where he is being very magnanimous and conservative for the skeptics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ5cgQUJnrI

These are things that are known in the fields of biblical research and textual analysis, but not known by average Joe Q. Christian churchgoer. FWIW.

I think you underestimate the education of the average church goer. Particularly those who participate in regular bible studies. I've been a Christian for over 30 years and been in many bible study groups. This is a regular topic. The average christian also knows that the variants have little to no impact on core doctrines (let's call that the Nicene Creed for sake of simplicity, which is just an updated more specific version of the earlier Apostle's Creed).

Besides, we can construct the gospel from the Old Testament. It's even found in the first genealogy in Genesis!
 
Top