Sam Harris interviews Bart Ehriman
- Thread starter carolus magnus
- Start date
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.
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?
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?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Post 47 is yours.
Do you mean 48?
If so, he's lacking punctuation, but they pass as sentences.
Isn’t this post 47 JudgeRightly?
#48
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.
"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.
Lon
Well-known member
:nono: 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.
Let's look again:
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.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
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
Lon
Well-known member
Yes. That'd be along the thread premise :up:
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.
Lon, I grant in that one particular instance you are correct. Alright? JudgeRightly pointed it out yesterday and I accepted it. OK?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, I just called you an idiot.
No, I want you to stop being an idiot.
So then there's no such thing as a sentence in:
Japanese, Greek, Hebrew, and any number of other languages that don't have capital letters?
You're even more of an idiot than I thought.
Here is the definition of a sentence:
"a set of words that is complete in itself, typically containing a subject and predicate, conveying a statement, question, exclamation, or command, and consisting of a main clause and sometimes one or more subordinate clauses."
Doser's string of words fit that definition.
Rather, I'm on mobile, and my phone automatically capitalizes the first word of a sentence. Then I went back and put quotes around it, to show that I was quoting someone.
But it's a moot point, because a sentence is:
"a set of words that is complete in itself, typically containing a subject and predicate, conveying a statement, question, exclamation, or command, and consisting of a main clause and sometimes one or more subordinate clauses."
The capitalization of the first letter in the sentence is not a requirement.
:blabla:
:blabla:
I didn't know that was a requirement on this forum...
:mock:
Sorry, I'm not sure how that's at all relevant to the fact that you continue to refuse to address doser's points simply because you don't like that he didn't use capital letters in his sentences, which, again, is:
"a set of words that is complete in itself, typically containing a subject and predicate, conveying a statement, question, exclamation, or command, and consisting of a main clause and sometimes one or more subordinate clauses."
Lon
Well-known member
Why so quick to such judgments? It isn't easy to follow AND it is written in Greek! I simply wasn't assuming you could read Greek!
A PhD? Great. Both Hebrew and Greek? Don't veil it. You don't 'read' for comprehension like one who has a higher degree than I do. Grades were all good too? It doesn't matter, but something isn't synching here. You are linking to Googled websites as well. The MA and PhD world is a whole different set of websites that I rarely bring to TOL (mostly laymen but great studiers). Daniel Wallace has a great response article to Ehrman along the laymen circle, but he's got the Phd. A PhD that isn't in theology doesn't help much here.
No, they really don't. Do you have your copy of the Greek text with the variants handy?
Will get to this later, I'm out of time. :e4e:
Last edited by a moderator:
Lon, we seem to be having some communication challenges. The link you sent was in English. I don’t read Greek or Hebrew, I meant I understood the link. Regarding qualifications, I thought you said you were working on a masters. I have a Bachelor of Science degree with 66 continuing education units that I have not applied toward a Masters degree and at this time I don’t plan to.
Maybe it would be helpful if we just stick to what pertains to this thread?
You made claims about Ehrmans work, as I posted earlier...claiming he was distorting truth, or rather, attacking it. We have agreed to numerous manuscript variations, 150,000 estimated via the last link I provided. I found out about the large number of manuscript variations by reading Misquoting Jesus. So, he was not speaking untruthfully in that regard.
You need to get specific about what he is saying that is not true, because I have verified those variations and they are supported by modern scholarship. So, you’ll have to explain what exactly he is lying about.
And that brings us to where we are now. I have claimed that it can be shown that large portions of bible text, found in modern day bibles have been inserted by unknown authors, and these edits have altered the Bible. Human editors have changed the Bible at will over the centuries. That is my claim.
I have specifically selected two passages, that I did in fact get from Ehrmans work Misquoting Jesus. He claims, and I have accepted at least two significant Bible texts have been changed. The last chapter of Mark, and the Woman Taken in Adultery.
Now, we need to both go about the process of determining if in fact these claims are true. That’s how I see it anyway.
Maybe it would be helpful if we just stick to what pertains to this thread?
You made claims about Ehrmans work, as I posted earlier...claiming he was distorting truth, or rather, attacking it. We have agreed to numerous manuscript variations, 150,000 estimated via the last link I provided. I found out about the large number of manuscript variations by reading Misquoting Jesus. So, he was not speaking untruthfully in that regard.
You need to get specific about what he is saying that is not true, because I have verified those variations and they are supported by modern scholarship. So, you’ll have to explain what exactly he is lying about.
And that brings us to where we are now. I have claimed that it can be shown that large portions of bible text, found in modern day bibles have been inserted by unknown authors, and these edits have altered the Bible. Human editors have changed the Bible at will over the centuries. That is my claim.
I have specifically selected two passages, that I did in fact get from Ehrmans work Misquoting Jesus. He claims, and I have accepted at least two significant Bible texts have been changed. The last chapter of Mark, and the Woman Taken in Adultery.
Now, we need to both go about the process of determining if in fact these claims are true. That’s how I see it anyway.