Sam Harris interviews Bart Ehriman

Guyver

BANNED
Banned
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

!

You could say that. But, if you wanted to be more factually correct, what you should say is that some books of the modern bible, or more specifically the Book of Isaiah closely matches the oldest known version of the Bible which is the works of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
 

carolus magnus

New member
LIFETIME MEMBER
You could say that. But, if you wanted to be more factually correct, what you should say is that some books of the modern bible, or more specifically the Book of Isaiah closely matches the oldest known version of the Bible which is the works of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

oookaaay. sooo, we're in agreement??
 

Guyver

BANNED
Banned
oookaaay. sooo, we're in agreement??

I don't believe so. If I understand you correctly, you're attempting to assert that the New Testament has been preserved faithfully, to the original autographs, as some of the works from the Dead Sea Scrolls appear to. Yet, there are no New Testament writings preserved in the Dead Sea Scrolls for examination, so that claim can't be made.

What does exist is earlier manuscripts of the New Testament, which have been discovered since the time of the writing of the King James bible, which demonstrate that the New Testament has been changed over time, and these edits have made their way into modern bibles.
 

carolus magnus

New member
LIFETIME MEMBER
I don't believe so. If I understand you correctly, you're attempting to assert that the New Testament has been preserved faithfully, to the original autographs, as some of the works from the Dead Sea Scrolls appear to. Yet, there are no New Testament writings preserved in the Dead Sea Scrolls for examination, so that claim can't be made.
Woah, not even close. I had to reread my posts to see how you came to that conclusion and cannot figure out where you got the idea I was saying that. YOU mentioned the Dead Sea scrolls, not me! If we were having a discussion about the Old Testament then I'd be talking about them.

What does exist is earlier manuscripts of the New Testament, which have been discovered since the time of the writing of the King James bible, which demonstrate that the New Testament has been changed over time, and these edits have made their way into modern bibles.

This is much closer to what I've been saying, but I was emphasizing that the Bible we have today is the most accurate to the original autographs that we've ever had. And it has shown the differences are largely spelling and word order, and very little that affects doctrine, and nothing that affects the core doctrines and claims of Christianity (those that hold to the Nicene Creed).
 

Lon

Active 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.

I'm a little late, but a few scriptures for consideration:
To the second: 1 John 2:19 "...could not..."
What does the verse say, if they 'were?' :think:

What does 1 Corinthians 2:14 say about Bart's knowledge? 1 Corinthians 1:27?
 

Guyver

BANNED
Banned
What does 1 Corinthians 2:14 say about Bart's knowledge? 1 Corinthians 1:27?

Nothing, in my book. He's a scholar. What I have read by him is his professional opinion of points based on facts. Facts can be checked and verified, confirmed by others. If such were not the case, then he would just be offering his opinions. And, I'm sure that it would be no problem to find statements of his opinions, just as it is no problem finding statements of your opinion or my own.
 

Guyver

BANNED
Banned
Woah, not even close. I had to reread my posts to see how you came to that conclusion and cannot figure out where you got the idea I was saying that. YOU mentioned the Dead Sea scrolls, not me! If we were having a discussion about the Old Testament then I'd be talking about them.

I used the Dead Sea Scrolls because they are the oldest known form of the bible that exists at this time. It may be that there will be other discoveries in the future, but for now...the Dead Sea Scrolls are the oldest bible writings.

This is much closer to what I've been saying, but I was emphasizing that the Bible we have today is the most accurate to the original autographs that we've ever had. And it has shown the differences are largely spelling and word order, and very little that affects doctrine, and nothing that affects the core doctrines and claims of Christianity (those that hold to the Nicene Creed).

It is impossible to know if the bible we have today is the most accurate to the original autographs, because there is no such thing as an original autograph. They didn't survive. What did survive are copies of copies of original autographs. And what those copies show is variance within text over time, and it's not just spelling and word order. There are passages found in bibles now, that were not in the oldest copies of manuscripts.
 

Lon

Active member
Nothing, in my book. He's a scholar.
:nono: He 'thinks' he's a scholar. I listened to the interview and didn't hear much but "Bart's Opinions." Take a look:
"Feeling of elation"( is not conversion).


English, BA


Greek Hebrew Greek, English MA and PhD


Doubt came from other scholars' doubts (laughs uncontrollably at every Christian doctrine). Look at the ARROGANCE at the standard Christian belief that I get to go to heaven while my neighbor goes to hell. It isn't what Jesus taught.




Every claim of Christianity 'probably didn't happen.' (In other words, Bart is a sensory blind man. A man, truly, "without the Spirit." What caused his doubt? A lack of being 'able' to see spiritual things. I'm sorry the Bible isn't your book).


Critical scholars don't believe the texts were written by the Apostles.


Bart says believers tell him he "has an 'anti-supernatural' bias keeping you from believing."


"No christian hold the right line, all are in disagreement."


1 Corinthians 15:14


"I know lots and lots of ' sophisticated Christians' that don't believe Christ rose from the dead." -Bart Ehrman
He was this smart guy who was able to read the languages, and then he started missing the easy stuff. He literally asks questions and says things, that are answered in the Bible and he seems completely oblivious to having read them.
What I have read by him is his professional opinion of points based on facts. Facts can be checked and verified, confirmed by others. If such were not the case, then he would just be offering his opinions. And, I'm sure that it would be no problem to find statements of his opinions, just as it is no problem finding statements of your opinion or my own.
I've always had reservations about Ehrman, both pre and post. He was able to report what he was reading and what was affecting his thinking, but he has no way of acknowledging Christ barring His Spirit in Him. I've told you the same thing. There is absolutely NO way an unbeliever can grasp God, if He does not abide in them. It is actually insane and disreputable for him to doubt the gospels and the letters of Paul. Sorry, it needs to be stated this blatantly. I truly believe Ehrman is insane (and enjoying his agnosticism and fame). He's a sad story.

What the Apostle Paul stated so long ago 1 Corinthians 15:14 stands as firm today. Bart can doubt all he likes. I too have read many of the problems having gone through seminary myself. It, frankly, is the foolish that go this route. Psalm 14:1 He just isn't THAT great of a scholar. Can he run circles around me in Greek? Sure. It doesn't mean anything when he rejects what they say, clearly. He is a lost man and has my pity. Like many 'ex's 1 John 2:19 He simply never met the living God. Have you? Jeremiah 29:18 "God," Bart. God is the one who can tell you the standard of who is a Christian or who is not. You obviously don't know your bible as well as you think. Mark 7:22 (and sadly, Bart laughed :( ).
 
Last edited:

Guyver

BANNED
Banned
:nono: He 'thinks' he's a scholar. I listened to the interview and didn't hear much but "Bart's Opinions." Take a look.

Lon, he doesn’t have to think he’s a bible scholar, he knows he is because he has the PhD credentials hanging on his wall.

That you would even suggest otherwise demonstrates your bias in this topic. To not even acknowledge his credentials is a poor choice on your part.

That you differ in opinion with his exegesis is irrelevant. And I think you’d be hard pressed to find ANY other human who interprets the Bible exactly the way you do. He is a bible scholar who is expert in textual criticism. To deny that means you don’t have the ability to view this topic with the lens of truth.
 

Lon

Active member
Lon, he doesn’t have to think he’s a bible scholar, he knows he is because he has the PhD credentials hanging on his wall.
I have an MA, just a couple more years....

That you would even suggest otherwise demonstrates your bias in this topic.
Had I heard of Ehrman when I was in seminary? Yes. Had I quoted or read him? Not really. He is one of many many fish in the theological sea.

To not even acknowledge his credentials is a poor choice on your part.
He doesn't acknowledge mine, doesn't even know me. It isn't a matter of 'acknowledging.' I already said he can translate circles around me. What I rather said, was that he gets some of the hard stuff, but then doesn't really KNOW his bible, and definitely doesn't know his God. Sorry, Guy. It is true. I'm not mean or wrong. Did you hear him laughing and chuckling? Definitely not the sentiments of a scholar, he doesn't even value his own education at that point, just trying to toss off his 'wasted' years. Sorry about that too. He is ruining his own credibility.

That you differ in opinion with his exegesis is irrelevant.
Only if you happen to have a doctorate or masters as we do, right? :think: When does it count? When is it relevant?

And I think you’d be hard pressed to find ANY other human who interprets the Bible exactly the way you do.
:nono: Incredibly easy. They are called doctrinal statements and most of us 'scholars' have signed off on them. Do we have to be exact? :nono: The larger evangelical and orthodox circles are what most of us agree to. It really isn't that hard. What separates us is practicum rather than doctrine. Ehrman used to hold to the same exact doctrinal statement that most of us adhere to.

He is a bible scholar who is expert in textual criticism.
Every degree has a direction. Some are concerned with the variants. Some are concerned with the languages and translations. The PhD is narrow and select. Erhman was mostly concerned with translation work. One guy? No way is he THE authority. He is a voice in a large sea. Many of my professors worked on the NASB and the NIV. Their names are better known than Ehrman because of the association with ISB and other well-known publishers.
To deny that means you don’t have the ability to view this topic with the lens of truth.
Ah, there you go. YOUR bias is showing. BA? MA? PhD?
 

Guyver

BANNED
Banned
Lon, everything you said in the post above is completely unrelated to the point I made. We were not discussing your credentials or aspirations. You made a false claim, I called you out on it. You should have just admitted you misspoke.

You said Ehrman was not a scholar, and you were wrong. I’m not offended, people make mistakes. But a wise man will acknowledge his own. FWIW.
 

Lon

Active member
Lon, everything you said in the post above is completely unrelated to the point I made.
I thought you said his degrees impressed you?

We were not discussing your credentials or aspirations.
Not mine, just his? :think:

You made a false claim, I called you out on it. You should have just admitted you misspoke.
:nono: you misread. I said "...thinks he is a scholar...." See, he's not anymore. At least not in Christian circles. We are sad, but he cut his influence with us. Its gone.

You said Ehrman was not a scholar, and you were wrong. I’m not offended, people make mistakes. But a wise man will acknowledge his own. FWIW.
Are you a wise man? I said "...thinks he is a scholar...." Did you want it to read '...knows he is a scholar..?" When Ehrman has denied the faith, he is no longer a reputable scholar. He isn't the first or last sad guy that went off the deep end, but he's no longer reputable among us. My next sentence after the quote however, was:
:nono: He 'thinks' he's a scholar...didn't hear much but ... opinions."
Then:

He was this smart guy who was able to read the languages, and then he started missing the easy stuff. He literally asks questions and says things, that are answered in the Bible and he seems completely oblivious to having read them.
See, I recognize the guy knows language, but he certainly is going beyond his degree. All of us who have Koine Greek get a New Testament with all variants listed. We are all quite aware of what is different. Guess how many of us 'scholars' who are apparently no match for Ehrman, have denied the faith? Guess how many of us were ever convinced, by our translation studies, that the scriptures didn't represent what Jesus or the Apostles said? You guessed right, just Ehrman (and few others who, like me, aren't well known). The rest of us can read those variants any time in our Greek NT and we do. None of us agree with Ehrman (neither did Metzger, his mentor).

ONLY those who deny the faith go this direction. Pay attention: They FIRST reject, THEN go this direction. The rest of us, reading and studying the same stuff, whether we ever publish or not, recognize the difference and yet NEVER question that the copies are very comfortably close to one another in such a way that I've incredible confidence. Further, it is such a weird - odd, CRAZY notion that anyone but the original Apostles and those with them wrote these books. They aren't 'made up' nor remotely have that vibe (evidence) about them. It'd have been better to have said "Ehrman still thinks he's a scholar..." with qualifications about that. He's in a secular college and is qualified for a secular education. He isn't qualified to speak in any evangelical or orthodox university other than as one against what they hold as true and only for that purpose. If you understand this, you won't be bothered by my previous statement. He is no longer qualified to be a spokesman for the Christian community any longer. That means his scholarship is only noteworthy among people who happen to agree with him and aren't Christians themselves. He laughed, as I said, about the qualifications of being a Christian, but again, God says plainly what that is: one whom He knows. That's it. Paul gave signs of how we can tell if one is behaving as a Christian, and you can certainly tell if someone knows Christ portrayed in scripture, but the mark of a Christian is simply who Christ has a hold of. There are people who will say to Him: "Lord Lord" that He says do not know Him. Therefore, it must always come down to "does He know you?" It has to.
 

Guyver

BANNED
Banned
Lon, if you were able to successfully pass the bar exam, or complete your course of study and residency to become a certified lawyer or doctor, practice many years, become a reputable expert in your field...then suddenly change religions....do you think you would be suddenly unqualified in your field?

Like say.....let’s say you were a doctor who happened to be Jewish, but you wished to marry a woman who was Catholic, so you converted to her religion, should you be disqualified as a practicing doctor?

Obviously, that is a rhetorical question because the answer is no. A persons professional qualifications are their own achievement, and it’s not based on religion. You don’t like what he has to say, you don’t share his beliefs, but you don’t have the right to consider him not expert in his field.

It seems you wish to avoid admitting that you were mistaken regarding the comments you made about him being a bible scholar. Why? I’m not sure if it’s pride on your part, or the bias that would allow you to dismiss his work as misguided so as to not influence your own beliefs. Doesn’t make any difference to me. I only support and stand behind my statements in this thread about factual, verifiable information pertaining to manuscript variation.

Dr. Ehrmans personal beliefs are inconsequential to my understanding of truth. FWIW.
 

ok doser

Well-known member
corrected your flawed analogy:
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 ....


... do you think you would be suddenly unqualified in your field?


yes, of course
 

Guyver

BANNED
Banned
If anyone around here has been Christian long enough to remember when Amy Grant went secular, you’ll understand this.

It was a real bummer for many Christian people when Amy Grant went secular, as it was when Jimmy Swaggart got caught with prostitutes. It was a difficult thing. It was sort of a blow to the faith of many people.

But, not one could say that Amy Grant was not a musician, because she was. People probably didn’t want to listen to her music after that....but it doesn’t mean she wasn’t still making music.

It just means that people didn’t want to hear her brand anymore. I think we’re dealing with a similar situation here. As an aside to the real points of meaningful debate or discussion in this particular topic.
 

Guyver

BANNED
Banned
she wasn't a Christian contemporary musician

Right, but she was....long time.

For many years millions of Christians all around the world listened to her music, and for those kinds of Christians who believe in “praise and worship” many of them actually worshipped God along with Amy Grant. It would be no surprise that many Christians would swear to the anointing of the Holy Spirit upon her music. And then one day, she switched.

So, once she was of God and then she was not. Once, her music was worth listening to, and then it was not. Somehow she went from having God’s anointing, to no longer having it. Does that mean that for all those many years the Christians who praised God with Amy Grant were involved in false worship?

Of course not. But, whatever...Amy Grant is not the topic of this thread. Yet the same idea applies. If Bart Erhman were not atheist, most Christians would probably consider him a righteous bible scholar. But now that he is, they want to reject everything about him, just as all the people who refused to listen to Amy Grant wouldnt play her albums any more even though for years before they considered it to be of the Holy Spirit.
 

ok doser

Well-known member
I've always had reservations about Ehrman, both pre and post. He was able to report what he was reading and what was affecting his thinking, but he has no way of acknowledging Christ barring His Spirit in Him. I've told you the same thing. There is absolutely NO way an unbeliever can grasp God, if He does not abide in them.


this is the reason i don't spend much time and effort on unbelievers like guvyer
 
Top