Total Posts:87|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Christians: Watch and Think

annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 11:10:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
https://www.youtube.com...

Christians, I ordinarily wouldn't post a video link (I rarely look at them myself when someone else posts them), but I thought it would be beneficial if in your spare time you would watch and see if you can (or make sure you can) reply one-by-one to the statements of Dr. Ehrman. He isn't reporting anything new, really (This video is from 2007), but it is surprising that some of his statements qualify as scholarship. Perhaps he brings up some points that you haven't considered lately.

You will run across these statements by Dr. Ehrman again and again, and you (we) need to be able to quickly separate fact from fiction - or fact from radical speculation.

Dr. Ehrman is noteworthy not only because he is a scholar and author, but because he is self-described as a once-"evangelical" Christian who "studied" his way out of it.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 11:44:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The first few minutes of the video, seems to an old and boring argument of how do you know, or how can you be sure, so on and so forth of the questionable accuracy of the Bible. His reference to bible belt general public is nonsense. You could ask the same of the constitution of the US to the general public. And get the same type of results. Does the original copy of the US Constitution have to exit, in order for it to be trusted that the remaining copies are acuate? If the spirit of the original document is maintained from one generation to another, are the copies thereof sufficient to trust?

Is seems the guy has a problem with the faith of the people, that don"t ponder the history of how the scriptures are maintained to date. It could easy be that they trust that the Lord their God can find men that can honestly maintain and translate the scriptures. In order for an acuate Spirit of the text to be maintained in the world, it is men"s job to do, because the world is given for them to do in. And there are those who do and would serve faithfully, or the system of belief isn"t really in the world.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 12:10:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/10/2014 11:44:11 AM, DPMartin wrote:
The first few minutes of the video, seems to an old and boring argument of how do you know, or how can you be sure, so on and so forth of the questionable accuracy of the Bible.

I was referring more to the specific examples he cites, e. g. Luke 2, Mark 16, John 3, etc.

His reference to bible belt general public is nonsense. You could ask the same of the constitution of the US to the general public. And get the same type of results. Does the original copy of the US Constitution have to exit, in order for it to be trusted that the remaining copies are acuate? If the spirit of the original document is maintained from one generation to another, are the copies thereof sufficient to trust?

I do not maintain that we merely have "the spirit of the original". I maintain that we have near-copies of the original, and that by careful processes of textual critique and criticism, we can successfully eliminate 99% of the additions/errors/rewordings/eliminations.

Is seems the guy has a problem with the faith of the people, that don"t ponder the history of how the scriptures are maintained to date. It could easy be that they trust that the Lord their God can find men that can honestly maintain and translate the scriptures. In order for an acuate Spirit of the text to be maintained in the world, it is men"s job to do, because the world is given for them to do in. And there are those who do and would serve faithfully, or the system of belief isn"t really in the world.

The fact of the matter is that Christians themselves, not people like Dr. Ehrman, are their own worst enemies. Ehrman writes/speaks to the shallow-minded, not because he can't do any better, but because that's what sells. Note that he repeatedly points out, "We do not have the originals" - as if anyone actually thought we did.

It's still a good idea, if one has free time, to listen as he rattles off his points and mentally make notes of what the reply would be.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 1:17:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Sorry I didn"t make it to the scripture quotes, its hard to concentrate when "what a moron" keeps coming to mind. You seem to have concern that may be legitimate but the enemy's trick is in this case is to get you to entertain the thought that it may take hold in the heart, and you are correct about the shallow, no matter though, some times the church needs weeded out anyway.

Its just the same old same old, for example the KJV has with stood 400 yr"s of criticism and other public scrutiny but yet just about every English translation that claims to be better is based on it. Every time you turn around in this case every one turns into a translation expert mainly based on their own speculations of there judgement of what should be. But in the case of KJV one can look to OED and see how a English word was used in the early 1600's to even consider why the translators used that word in the first place. Which is consistent, do to, in the case of English many Americans think the words were used in the fashion they are used today and can"t seem to understand what it means because American especially in these resent times want to redefine what everything they don"t like is, or means. (Ok I"m getting into an old fart rant)

don"t worry so much his kind have been around as long as there have been bibles and scripture or in this case the Torah.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 2:15:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/10/2014 1:17:22 PM, DPMartin wrote:
Sorry I didn"t make it to the scripture quotes, its hard to concentrate when "what a moron" keeps coming to mind. You seem to have concern that may be legitimate but the enemy's trick is in this case is to get you to entertain the thought that it may take hold in the heart, and you are correct about the shallow, no matter though, some times the church needs weeded out anyway.

Its just the same old same old, for example the KJV has with stood 400 yr"s of criticism and other public scrutiny but yet just about every English translation that claims to be better is based on it. Every time you turn around in this case every one turns into a translation expert mainly based on their own speculations of there judgement of what should be. But in the case of KJV one can look to OED and see how a English word was used in the early 1600's to even consider why the translators used that word in the first place. Which is consistent, do to, in the case of English many Americans think the words were used in the fashion they are used today and can"t seem to understand what it means because American especially in these resent times want to redefine what everything they don"t like is, or means. (Ok I"m getting into an old fart rant)

don"t worry so much his kind have been around as long as there have been bibles and scripture or in this case the Torah.

Oh, I'm not worried about it myself, particularly. My major concern - and I see it on here all the time - is that Christians willingly embrace many of the prefatory concepts of Dr. Ehrman. They allow infidels or semi-infidels to date the books of the NT for them, then we come to find out that a MAJOR reason for assigning these dates is to avoid any proof that Jesus accurately prophesied anything. In other words, "Jesus couldn't have prophesied the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 with such pinpoint accuracy. It's inconceivable. Therefore, we'll have to date the books post- AD 70!" I have seen Christians side with infidels in an effort to get rid of Mark 16: 9-20, for the sole reason that they do not like what it teaches concerning baptism. I have seen Christians openly embrace the idea that not a one of the gospel writers ever knew or saw Jesus of Nazareth. I have seen Christians adopt the idea that Matthew and Luke (whoever they were) merely plagiarized from Mark. Not only that, but Peter didn't write II Peter. I have seen Christians state that Jesus misled His disciples into thinking that His bodily return would be within their lifetimes.

With supporters like that, who needs infidels?

Dr. Ehrman repeatedly quotes passages from Matt 24, then states "this is wrong" and "that is wrong" or "Christianity has this wrong." But as one listens, he comes to find out that Dr. Ehrman is confusing what Matt 24 teaches with a bunch of premillennialist speculative nonsense. OF COURSE it looks as if those prophesies are a mixed up mess from that standpoint. (A premillennialist sacrifices every verifiable prophetic fulfillment in the NT in order to continue with his speculating.)

The reasons listed above would be the reason for assessing answers to Dr. Ehrman. I haven't seen an example of Dr. Ehrman correctly applying a passage. I'm sure he often does; I just haven't seen it.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,087
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 3:49:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/10/2014 1:17:22 PM, DPMartin wrote:
Sorry I didn"t make it to the scripture quotes, its hard to concentrate when "what a moron" keeps coming to mind. You seem to have concern that may be legitimate but the enemy's trick is in this case is to get you to entertain the thought that it may take hold in the heart, and you are correct about the shallow, no matter though, some times the church needs weeded out anyway.

Its just the same old same old, for example the KJV has with stood 400 yr"s of criticism and other public scrutiny but yet just about every English translation that claims to be better is based on it. Every time you turn around in this case every one turns into a translation expert mainly based on their own speculations of there judgement of what should be. But in the case of KJV one can look to OED and see how a English word was used in the early 1600's to even consider why the translators used that word in the first place. Which is consistent, do to, in the case of English many Americans think the words were used in the fashion they are used today and can"t seem to understand what it means because American especially in these resent times want to redefine what everything they don"t like is, or means. (Ok I"m getting into an old fart rant)

don"t worry so much his kind have been around as long as there have been bibles and scripture or in this case the Torah.

I believe you are completely missing his point. You mentioned the KJV, and stated "every English versions that claims to be better is based on it" as if that is sufficient to explain away the criticism against KJV. I think that maybe a significant problem! The KJV was translated from the Latin Vulgate which had been translated 1000 years earlier. So basically, every Englishusing the KJV is a copy of a copy. Everyone knows when it comes to keys, if you make a copy of a copy, the key may not open the original lock. So why is the Bible different?

Also, I should point out the problem is technically worse than just a copy of a copy. Scribes commonly made changes to scripture, both accidently and intentionally. There are verses in the Bible which are not in the earliest manuscripts such as 'The woman taken in adultery' in John, and Mark 16: 9-20. Obviously, these would be intentional changes. Then there are smaller issues such as words being mistranlated ('woman' being changed to 'virgin' in Isaiah 7:14), and contradictions due to copy errors (1 Kings 4:26 40,000 stalls/ 2 Chron. 9:25 4000 stalls). Copy errors make up a majority of the textual discepancies. There are spelling/nonsense errors where a mispelled word makes no sense in context, minor changes (leaving a 'the' out of a sentence), word changes with an obvious different meaning than the orignal message, and word changes where the difference is plausible even though the message may have changed slightly from the original. The are 130,000 words in the New Testament, yet there are an estimated 400,000 times when the wording disagrees between the manuscripts. With so many discrepancies, Erhman states it is impossible to reconstruct the autographs (the originals), and he is right. The Bible we have today is not the exact words of the original writers who were said to be inspired by the Christian god. So what did god say? 2 Samuel 3:16 says scripture is the inspired word of God, does this apply to the mistakes of men and flawed copies pf copies?

You can knock Bart Erhman all you like, but that does not change the very real problem he points out.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 3:54:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Obviously, I'm not a Christian. I'm an atheist. So any Christian who fears what atheists have to say can skip right on by this post.

I'm familiar with the video/lecture as I've seen it a few times in the past. Firstly, it demonstrates that Ehrman is no t a skilled public speaker. Clearly, one of his favorite words is "uh". But it should be understood that he is asked to speak for his expertise on the subject, rather than his skill as a public speaker. (And yes, I recognize that the OP made no reference to his speaking ability.)

We should understand that Ehrman is in no way, an isolated example of what an honest education can do to faith. Ehrman was a devout Christian pastor, and unlike many, he craved learning more about the religion, the events, the manuscripts... everything. Rather than simply wanting to hide in the corner with the security of his faith, he demonstrated so much faith that he didn't fear learning more about the foundation of his beliefs. So he began actively pursuing an honest education. As much as it pained him to find the scriptures have not been maintained, he continued to maintain his beliefs and continued to learn. And little by little, he allowed his newly gained knowledge to become part of his cognitive process in his understanding of his beliefs. Some other notable examples of this process are;

Robert M Price
Former Catholic Priest >> Earned 2 Ph Ds in theology >> Now, an outspoken theist author

Dan Barker
Former Christian Pastor >> Five years of intense personal study >> President of the Freedom from Religion Society

Matt Dillahunty
Planning to attend Seminary College >> Engaged in Theological Study >> now, the lead host for "The Atheist Experience"

And yet thousands of people attend Seminary colleges and go on to teach and follow the faith. So there is clearly a difference in how the information is handled. And we can see those same differences among the people of this forum. Some only learn of the discrepancies, difficulties and corruption to the texts with a predetermination to discounting the importance of this reality, while others are so genuine about wanting to learn about Christianity, Jesus and the Bible., that they reluctantly accept the reality as being far different than what the churches tend to teach, and what most Christians believe the reality to be.

It's a perfectly fair point to state that you can't know what the words mean, if you don't have the words. Christians can claim that they can mostly reconstruct the original message by using multiple manuscripts and some of the oldest Bible commentary. And anyone with an understanding can counter in pointing out that the alteration of the manuscripts runs as far back as we have manuscripts. The alterations may well have begun with the very first copies made. So were the commentaries based on the originals? Can we know if we have a commentary based on an original? What we can know is that people have preferences for given versions of verses and scripture. One of the most famous variations of scripture came from a fraud perpetrated in the 1600s, and yet, it is maintained in one of the most popular western Bible versions common to the Western world, the KJV. Many Christians adhere to the KJV as the "last uncorrupted version". Of course, among honest scholars, it is known to be fraught with errors, alterations, forgeries and fables. So the most popular versions can't be assumed to be the most correct, and in fact, may be examples of the least loyal to the originals.

So to note that the contents of the Bible are the cherry-picked preferences of a group of men in the 4th century, certainly isn't "wild speculation", nor is it "wild speculation" to recognize that the Bible manuscripts (particularly the New Testament manuscripts) have been undergoing substantial changes for as far back as we have copies. And since we don't have the originals, we can't be certain what the originals said. What we can be certain of, is that we don't have the original message. And to suggest that where one verse contains a change but latter making similar references do not, somehow negates the fact that changes were made, seems to be far closer to "wild speculation" in trying to claim that no one was trying to alter the meaning. If a scribe (or anyone else), made a change, there was likely a reason for doing so.

But I agree with the O.P. in urging that Christians become familiar with these arguments. A certain percentage of those Christians are going to be in for a very rude awakening. And at first, they will likely cling to the security of other Christians who will attempt to belittle or dismiss the importance of the information. But for those with the intellectual integrity to admit the truth, it will be a life changing experience to learn a bit more about the shaky foundation of the scriptures, the Bible, and Christianity itself.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,087
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 4:04:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/10/2014 11:44:11 AM, DPMartin wrote:
The first few minutes of the video, seems to an old and boring argument of how do you know, or how can you be sure, so on and so forth of the questionable accuracy of the Bible. His reference to bible belt general public is nonsense. You could ask the same of the constitution of the US to the general public. And get the same type of results. Does the original copy of the US Constitution have to exit, in order for it to be trusted that the remaining copies are acuate? If the spirit of the original document is maintained from one generation to another, are the copies thereof sufficient to trust?

If the original Constitution disappeared, we would have much higher quality copies than the copied manuscripts of the NT. In fact, the copies would be word for word exact, since we do not need to rely on hand written copies. Maybe in this day and age, we take for granted how easy it is to make a copy, but the ancients didn't have a Xerox machine to make copies, and we are talking about these documents being copied over ~ 1000's of years. Also, I would think the Constitution is not of comparable importance when compared to the NT, at least from the Christian point of view.

Is seems the guy has a problem with the faith of the people, that don"t ponder the history of how the scriptures are maintained to date. It could easy be that they trust that the Lord their God can find men that can honestly maintain and translate the scriptures. In order for an acuate Spirit of the text to be maintained in the world, it is men"s job to do, because the world is given for them to do in. And there are those who do and would serve faithfully, or the system of belief isn"t really in the world.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 4:06:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/10/2014 1:17:22 PM, DPMartin wrote:
don"t worry so much his kind have been around as long as there have been bibles and scripture or in this case the Torah.

We should be clear on what is suggested with the term "his kind".

"His kind", is used here to reference the kind of person who learns new information and assimilates it into their overall understanding, rather than simply rejecting it because it doesn't fit with what they have grown comfortable believing.

People who discount what doesn't fit with their preconceptions have no interest in the truth. They're only interested in the emotional pacification attained through certain beliefs, fraudulent, or not. And that is exposed in the OP where we read, "You will run across these statements by Dr. Ehrman again and again, and you (we) need to be able to quickly separate fact from fiction - or fact from radical speculation." Clearly, the suggested reason to learn more about the history and corruption of the scriptures isn't to gain a better understanding of what is contained in the Bible, but only as a means to prepare to discount the new information. That's not really a means to separate fact from fiction, it's a means to excuse away facts which expose inconvenient realities.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 4:11:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/10/2014 3:54:08 PM, Beastt EDIT....

Robert M Price
Former Catholic Priest >> Earned 2 Ph Ds in theology >> Now, an outspoken theist author

CORRECTION: That should read, "Now, an outspoken ATHEIST author".
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
skinker
Posts: 345
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 4:27:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/10/2014 4:11:35 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/10/2014 3:54:08 PM, Beastt EDIT....

Robert M Price
Former Catholic Priest >> Earned 2 Ph Ds in theology >> Now, an outspoken theist author

CORRECTION: That should read, "Now, an outspoken ATHEIST author".

Why are you all beating the dead horse of Pauline Christianity? It was a fraudulent religion to begin with as the authors refused to be identified and there's no other historical record of the author's stories' impossible invents. The Gospels do contain great spiritual information but to link it to historical events that no one on earth can prove ever happened is a waste of time, especially now that the Celestial Torah information is available and there's a new Spirit of Christ Messiah revelation happening. If you want to be passe and have no part in the New Christian theology of the New Age, then go ahead and play out the End Times of Pauline Christianity scenario as none of you seem to know about or care about the fact that Paul has the same spiritual authority as Muhammad which is zip, both Paul and Muhammad believing in the old Jewish myths of origin, the Torah/Tanach stories about people and events that never happened. This is the basis of Pauline Christianity and Muhammadism which will fall with the historical discovery of Jewish myth-making now proven to be such as the writers of the Bible can only be traced back as a separate Canaanite ethnic group to 700 B.C..

Do any of you understand what this means when you "believe in" Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon? Well, try Jesus Christ and think about Yeishu ben Pantera while you do so and know that Christian bible scholars still really don't know much at all about the real origins of Christianity.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 4:42:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/10/2014 4:27:17 PM, skinker wrote:
At 7/10/2014 4:11:35 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/10/2014 3:54:08 PM, Beastt EDIT....

Robert M Price
Former Catholic Priest >> Earned 2 Ph Ds in theology >> Now, an outspoken theist author

CORRECTION: That should read, "Now, an outspoken ATHEIST author".

Why are you all beating the dead horse of Pauline Christianity?
Why are you accusing me of attacking "Pauline Christianity" when I've never even mentioned it? I simply listed a former Catholic Priest who is now an outspoken atheist author (with two Ph Ds in theology). You seem to be missing the point; he didn't switch from Pauline Christianity to some other form of Christianity. And he doesn't base his atheism purely upon a rejection of Pauline Christianity. He's not off in some tiny bubble where he considers only Pauline Christianity and atheism". He rejects all forms of Christianity as well as other religions.

It was a fraudulent religion to begin with
All religions are fraudulent. They're based on claims which are - in many cases - utterly devoid of supporting objective evidence.

If you want to be passe and have no part in the New Christian theology of the New Age
Add a sub-woofer, blue-tooth and Internet connectivity to a unicorn, and it's still a unicorn.

Do any of you understand what this means when you "believe in" Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon? Well, try Jesus Christ and think about Yeishu ben Pantera while you do so and know that Christian bible scholars still really don't know much at all about the real origins of Christianity.

It sounds like you're trying to peddle "light blue" as the totally new and corrected form of "medium blue". It's all based in bull. You have only the flimsiest shreds of evidence for a historical Jesus and no evidence whatsoever for a divine Jesus.

Back to topic.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 4:53:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/10/2014 3:54:08 PM, Beastt wrote:
Obviously, I'm not a Christian. I'm an atheist. So any Christian who fears what atheists have to say can skip right on by this post.

I'm familiar with the video/lecture as I've seen it a few times in the past. Firstly, it demonstrates that Ehrman is no t a skilled public speaker. Clearly, one of his favorite words is "uh". But it should be understood that he is asked to speak for his expertise on the subject, rather than his skill as a public speaker. (And yes, I recognize that the OP made no reference to his speaking ability.)

We should understand that Ehrman is in no way, an isolated example of what an honest education can do to faith. Ehrman was a devout Christian pastor, and unlike many, he craved learning more about the religion, the events, the manuscripts... everything. Rather than simply wanting to hide in the corner with the security of his faith, he demonstrated so much faith that he didn't fear learning more about the foundation of his beliefs. So he began actively pursuing an honest education. As much as it pained him to find the scriptures have not been maintained, he continued to maintain his beliefs and continued to learn. And little by little, he allowed his newly gained knowledge to become part of his cognitive process in his understanding of his beliefs. Some other notable examples of this process are;

Robert M Price
Former Catholic Priest >> Earned 2 Ph Ds in theology >> Now, an outspoken theist author

Well, he's no worse off, is he? (assuming you mean "atheist" author)

Dan Barker
Former Christian Pastor >> Five years of intense personal study >> President of the Freedom from Religion Society

Matt Dillahunty
Planning to attend Seminary College >> Engaged in Theological Study >> now, the lead host for "The Atheist Experience"

And yet thousands of people attend Seminary colleges and go on to teach and follow the faith. So there is clearly a difference in how the information is handled.

Hopefully you won't merely assume that those who "leave the faith" are the ones who "handled the information correctly."

And we can see those same differences among the people of this forum. Some only learn of the discrepancies, difficulties and corruption to the texts with a predetermination to discounting the importance of this reality, while others are so genuine about wanting to learn about Christianity, Jesus and the Bible., that they reluctantly accept the reality as being far different than what the churches tend to teach, and what most Christians believe the reality to be.

Oops, I should have continued reading before I typed the preceding.

It's a perfectly fair point to state that you can't know what the words mean, if you don't have the words. Christians can claim that they can mostly reconstruct the original message by using multiple manuscripts and some of the oldest Bible commentary. And anyone with an understanding can counter in pointing out that the alteration of the manuscripts runs as far back as we have manuscripts.

The alterations may well have begun with the very first copies made. So were the commentaries based on the originals? Can we know if we have a commentary based on an original? What we can know is that people have preferences for given versions of verses and scripture. One of the most famous variations of scripture came from a fraud perpetrated in the 1600s, and yet, it is maintained in one of the most popular western Bible versions common to the Western world, the KJV. Many Christians adhere to the KJV as the "last uncorrupted version". Of course, among honest scholars, it is known to be fraught with errors, alterations, forgeries and fables. So the most popular versions can't be assumed to be the most correct, and in fact, may be examples of the least loyal to the originals.

So to note that the contents of the Bible are the cherry-picked preferences of a group of men in the 4th century, certainly isn't "wild speculation", nor is it "wild speculation" to recognize that the Bible manuscripts (particularly the New Testament manuscripts) have been undergoing substantial changes for as far back as we have copies. And since we don't have the originals, we can't be certain what the originals said. What we can be certain of, is that we don't have the original message. And to suggest that where one verse contains a change but latter making similar references do not, somehow negates the fact that changes were made, seems to be far closer to "wild speculation" in trying to claim that no one was trying to alter the meaning. If a scribe (or anyone else), made a change, there was likely a reason for doing so.

But I agree with the O.P. in urging that Christians become familiar with these arguments. A certain percentage of those Christians are going to be in for a very rude awakening. And at first, they will likely cling to the security of other Christians who will attempt to belittle or dismiss the importance of the information. But for those with the intellectual integrity to admit the truth, it will be a life changing experience to learn a bit more about the shaky foundation of the scriptures, the Bible, and Christianity itself.

We do not get a rude awakening, other than the fact that most posters' FIRST POST, the one containing the boldest assertions, is generally their strongest. On subsequent posts, more specific posts, on the same subject, when the evidence underpinning those bold, high-handed assertions is challenged, one ascertains the weakness of the position. The usual "rude awakening" is that there's no answer at all: most of 'em just took Mr. Ehrman's word for it.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 5:18:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/10/2014 4:53:18 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/10/2014 3:54:08 PM, Beastt wrote:
Obviously, I'm not a Christian. I'm an atheist. So any Christian who fears what atheists have to say can skip right on by this post.

I'm familiar with the video/lecture as I've seen it a few times in the past. Firstly, it demonstrates that Ehrman is no t a skilled public speaker. Clearly, one of his favorite words is "uh". But it should be understood that he is asked to speak for his expertise on the subject, rather than his skill as a public speaker. (And yes, I recognize that the OP made no reference to his speaking ability.)

We should understand that Ehrman is in no way, an isolated example of what an honest education can do to faith. Ehrman was a devout Christian pastor, and unlike many, he craved learning more about the religion, the events, the manuscripts... everything. Rather than simply wanting to hide in the corner with the security of his faith, he demonstrated so much faith that he didn't fear learning more about the foundation of his beliefs. So he began actively pursuing an honest education. As much as it pained him to find the scriptures have not been maintained, he continued to maintain his beliefs and continued to learn. And little by little, he allowed his newly gained knowledge to become part of his cognitive process in his understanding of his beliefs. Some other notable examples of this process are;

Robert M Price
Former Catholic Priest >> Earned 2 Ph Ds in theology >> Now, an outspoken theist author

Well, he's no worse off, is he? (assuming you mean "atheist" author)
No, he's certainly no worse off as an atheist than he was as a theist. In fact, he can now lay claim to utilizing his intelligence honestly. And yes, I made the correction (theist / atheist), in a latter post, since the forum lacks the capacity to edit once posts are submitted.


Dan Barker
Former Christian Pastor >> Five years of intense personal study >> President of the Freedom from Religion Society

Matt Dillahunty
Planning to attend Seminary College >> Engaged in Theological Study >> now, the lead host for "The Atheist Experience"

And yet thousands of people attend Seminary colleges and go on to teach and follow the faith. So there is clearly a difference in how the information is handled.

Hopefully you won't merely assume that those who "leave the faith" are the ones who "handled the information correctly."
Of course not, but there is a pattern emerging. People who engage in greater degrees of study regarding religion tend to either apply what they learn and deconvert, or learn to block what they have learned in order to prevent it from altering their beliefs. You're an example of the latter. It's easy to assume that there's a reason that most churches are so limited in the information they present to the congregation.

And we can see those same differences among the people of this forum. Some only learn of the discrepancies, difficulties and corruption to the texts with a predetermination to discounting the importance of this reality, while others are so genuine about wanting to learn about Christianity, Jesus and the Bible., that they reluctantly accept the reality as being far different than what the churches tend to teach, and what most Christians believe the reality to be.

Oops, I should have continued reading before I typed the preceding.
Of course, you could have simply made the necessary change instead of typing this statement. Which reveals your desire to post the former statement.

It's a perfectly fair point to state that you can't know what the words mean, if you don't have the words. Christians can claim that they can mostly reconstruct the original message by using multiple manuscripts and some of the oldest Bible commentary. And anyone with an understanding can counter in pointing out that the alteration of the manuscripts runs as far back as we have manuscripts.

The alterations may well have begun with the very first copies made. So were the commentaries based on the originals? Can we know if we have a commentary based on an original? What we can know is that people have preferences for given versions of verses and scripture. One of the most famous variations of scripture came from a fraud perpetrated in the 1600s, and yet, it is maintained in one of the most popular western Bible versions common to the Western world, the KJV. Many Christians adhere to the KJV as the "last uncorrupted version". Of course, among honest scholars, it is known to be fraught with errors, alterations, forgeries and fables. So the most popular versions can't be assumed to be the most correct, and in fact, may be examples of the least loyal to the originals.

So to note that the contents of the Bible are the cherry-picked preferences of a group of men in the 4th century, certainly isn't "wild speculation", nor is it "wild speculation" to recognize that the Bible manuscripts (particularly the New Testament manuscripts) have been undergoing substantial changes for as far back as we have copies. And since we don't have the originals, we can't be certain what the originals said. What we can be certain of, is that we don't have the original message. And to suggest that where one verse contains a change but latter making similar references do not, somehow negates the fact that changes were made, seems to be far closer to "wild speculation" in trying to claim that no one was trying to alter the meaning. If a scribe (or anyone else), made a change, there was likely a reason for doing so.

But I agree with the O.P. in urging that Christians become familiar with these arguments. A certain percentage of those Christians are going to be in for a very rude awakening. And at first, they will likely cling to the security of other Christians who will attempt to belittle or dismiss the importance of the information. But for those with the intellectual integrity to admit the truth, it will be a life changing experience to learn a bit more about the shaky foundation of the scriptures, the Bible, and Christianity itself.

We do not get a rude awakening, other than the fact that most posters' FIRST POST, the one containing the boldest assertions, is generally their strongest. On subsequent posts, more specific posts, on the same subject, when the evidence underpinning those bold, high-handed assertions is challenged, one ascertains the weakness of the position. The usual "rude awakening" is that there's no answer at all: most of 'em just took Mr. Ehrman's word for it.
Which is your unsupportable assertion, but not necessarily the truth. And I didn't say that all theists receive a rude awakening. I said "a certain percentage" are in for a rude awakening. Others have learned to do what you have a habit of doing... the same thing the Catholic Church did with the data offered by Galileo, the same thing creationists do with the evidence for evolution, the same thing some politicians do in regard to global warming, and the same thing Flat-Earthers do with the evidence showing Earth to be an oblate spheroid.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 5:36:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/10/2014 5:18:28 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/10/2014 4:53:18 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/10/2014 3:54:08 PM, Beastt wrote:
Obviously, I'm not a Christian. I'm an atheist. So any Christian who fears what atheists have to say can skip right on by this post.

I'm familiar with the video/lecture as I've seen it a few times in the past. Firstly, it demonstrates that Ehrman is no t a skilled public speaker. Clearly, one of his favorite words is "uh". But it should be understood that he is asked to speak for his expertise on the subject, rather than his skill as a public speaker. (And yes, I recognize that the OP made no reference to his speaking ability.)

We should understand that Ehrman is in no way, an isolated example of what an honest education can do to faith. Ehrman was a devout Christian pastor, and unlike many, he craved learning more about the religion, the events, the manuscripts... everything. Rather than simply wanting to hide in the corner with the security of his faith, he demonstrated so much faith that he didn't fear learning more about the foundation of his beliefs. So he began actively pursuing an honest education. As much as it pained him to find the scriptures have not been maintained, he continued to maintain his beliefs and continued to learn. And little by little, he allowed his newly gained knowledge to become part of his cognitive process in his understanding of his beliefs. Some other notable examples of this process are;

Robert M Price
Former Catholic Priest >> Earned 2 Ph Ds in theology >> Now, an outspoken theist author

Well, he's no worse off, is he? (assuming you mean "atheist" author)
No, he's certainly no worse off as an atheist than he was as a theist. In fact, he can now lay claim to utilizing his intelligence honestly.

Why, any fool can "lay claim to utilizing intelligence honestly". So he went from Catholicism to atheism. I'm sure the opposite has been true many times. So what? It's a side-ways move.


Dan Barker
Former Christian Pastor >> Five years of intense personal study >> President of the Freedom from Religion Society

Matt Dillahunty
Planning to attend Seminary College >> Engaged in Theological Study >> now, the lead host for "The Atheist Experience"

And yet thousands of people attend Seminary colleges and go on to teach and follow the faith. So there is clearly a difference in how the information is handled.

Hopefully you won't merely assume that those who "leave the faith" are the ones who "handled the information correctly."

or learn to block what they have learned in order to prevent it from altering their beliefs. You're an example of the latter.

I have never once "blocked" what I have learned. And I'm not afraid in the least of folks like Bart Ehrman. The only reason for directing folks to his video is that they need to consider his assertions. Look and see how much proof he has. See if his guesses even make much sense.

It's easy to assume that there's a reason that most churches are so limited in the information they present to the congregation.

And we can see those same differences among the people of this forum. Some only learn of the discrepancies, difficulties and corruption to the texts with a predetermination to discounting the importance of this reality, while others are so genuine about wanting to learn about Christianity, Jesus and the Bible., that they reluctantly accept the reality as being far different than what the churches tend to teach, and what most Christians believe the reality to be.

Oops, I should have continued reading before I typed the preceding.
Of course, you could have simply made the necessary change instead of typing this statement. Which reveals your desire to post the former statement.

I could have. I didn't want to scroll up.

It's a perfectly fair point to state that you can't know what the words mean, if you don't have the words. Christians can claim that they can mostly reconstruct the original message by using multiple manuscripts and some of the oldest Bible commentary. And anyone with an understanding can counter in pointing out that the alteration of the manuscripts runs as far back as we have manuscripts.

The alterations may well have begun with the very first copies made. So were the commentaries based on the originals? Can we know if we have a commentary based on an original? What we can know is that people have preferences for given versions of verses and scripture. One of the most famous variations of scripture came from a fraud perpetrated in the 1600s, and yet, it is maintained in one of the most popular western Bible versions common to the Western world, the KJV. Many Christians adhere to the KJV as the "last uncorrupted version". Of course, among honest scholars, it is known to be fraught with errors, alterations, forgeries and fables. So the most popular versions can't be assumed to be the most correct, and in fact, may be examples of the least loyal to the originals.

And all of that means nothing. Most of it is just a statement of the obvious.

So to note that the contents of the Bible are the cherry-picked preferences of a group of men in the 4th century, certainly isn't "wild speculation", nor is it "wild speculation" to recognize that the Bible manuscripts (particularly the New Testament manuscripts) have been undergoing substantial changes for as far back as we have copies. And since we don't have the originals, we can't be certain what the originals said. What we can be certain of, is that we don't have the original message. And to suggest that where one verse contains a change but latter making similar references do not, somehow negates the fact that changes were made, seems to be far closer to "wild speculation" in trying to claim that no one was trying to alter the meaning. If a scribe (or anyone else), made a change, there was likely a reason for doing so.

But I agree with the O.P. in urging that Christians become familiar with these arguments. A certain percentage of those Christians are going to be in for a very rude awakening. And at first, they will likely cling to the security of other Christians who will attempt to belittle or dismiss the importance of the information. But for those with the intellectual integrity to admit the truth, it will be a life changing experience to learn a bit more about the shaky foundation of the scriptures, the Bible, and Christianity itself.

We do not get a rude awakening, other than the fact that most posters' FIRST POST, the one containing the boldest assertions, is generally their strongest. On subsequent posts, more specific posts, on the same subject, when the evidence underpinning those bold, high-handed assertions is challenged, one ascertains the weakness of the position. The usual "rude awakening" is that there's no answer at all: most of 'em just took Mr. Ehrman's word for it.

Which is your unsupportable assertion, but not necessarily the truth. And I didn't say that all theists receive a rude awakening. I said "a certain percentage" are in for a rude awakening. Others have learned to do what you have a habit of doing... the same thing the Catholic Church did with the data offered by Galileo, the same thing creationists do with the evidence for evolution, the same thing some politicians do in regard to global warming, and the same thing Flat-Earthers do with the evidence showing Earth to be an oblate spheroid.

And what did they do? When faced with assertions, realize that there are two types of those: (1) wildly speculative, pure guesswork, prejudicial, and unfounded and (2) within reason, well-founded and more honest. I'll give you an example of #1, and you can demonstr
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 6:35:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Interesting that two of the christians in this thread talk about fear and enemies.

Instructive?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 6:38:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Here's the example. I'll show you how these folks like Dr. Ehrman purposefully try to mislead their audience. Watch carefully his "spin" as he assigns motives, among other things.

Dr. Ehrman cites Luke 2: 33:

"And his father and his mother were marveling at the things which were spoken concerning him."

He cites textual variations of the same passage, basically amounting to "and Joseph and his mother".

So far. So good. Dr. Ehrman is 100% correct so far, as we would expect him to be. But watch him start guessing. (Guessing is permissible, as long as one identifies it as guessing. He didn't)

Dr. Ehrman presents a case that would leave a listener believing that:

(1) The passage originally read "his father and his mother"
(2) Scribes noticed a "contradiction" (or a false statement) and attempted to correct it.
(3) Scribes inserted the name "Joseph" in place of "his father", and did so to correct a perceived error.

That's how he builds his case. Is "his father and his mother" the original wording? Dr. Ehrman said it was. He forgot to mention that Tatian's Diatessaron (c150 AD) reads, "Joseph and his mother." So how does he know which reading came first? The answer? The answer is largely dependent upon Dr. Ehrman's almost complete dependance on the Sinaitic text from the 4th century!

Another thing: if one drops down but 15 verses, to verse 48, he will find, "And when they saw him, they were astonished; and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I sought thee sorrowing."

Dr. Ehrman would have us to believe that in verse 33, a scribe noticed a "contradiction" and fixed it - but forgot all about it by the time he got to verse 48! Now does anybody honestly believe that such an explanation is a likelihood?

Of course, the truth of the matter is that "thy father" and "his father" are of no theological significance whatsoever. Joseph could rightly be called the father of Jesus whether he was the biological father or not. He still acted as His father. The variation, thus, is insignificant as strongly suggested by the lack of variation in v 48.

Suppose one person was reading a copy of Luke aloud as his comrade produced the copy. It is conceivable that a misunderstanding occurred without any motivation at all. Also, it is possible that "Joseph and His mother" was the original rendering. Dr. Ehrman simply does not know.

I listened to his explanation three times. 90% is merely his opinion. However, he presents THIS as a prime example, one of his best examples, of textual variation caused by purely theological slants. The average person listening would say, "Gee. I didn't realize that men rewrote certain passages just to suit their theological whims." That's exactly what Dr. Ehrman intends! And we come to find out that Dr. Ehrman can't even prove which variation came first, and he SURE didn't tell us that what he calls the variant text was seen as early as 150 AD. Did he prove a motive for "tampering"? Of course not. He assumed it. Then to top it off, we drop down 15 verses and see that nobody thought "thy father and I" was worth touching!

I do not know the descriptor for a person who is less than honest, yet is not dishonest. I do know that if someone like me knows enough to spot his loaded language, his guesses presented as facts, then I'd hate to see what a real expert thinks of it.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,087
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 7:03:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/10/2014 5:36:33 PM, annanicole wrote:

I have never once "blocked" what I have learned. And I'm not afraid in the least of folks like Bart Ehrman. The only reason for directing folks to his video is that they need to consider his assertions. Look and see how much proof he has. See if his guesses even make much sense.

What do you think he is guessing about? It is fairly well known there are discrepancies in the Bible related to copy errors, as well as additions which were not in the oldest manuscripts we have. Textual critics of the NT manuscripts agree on this.

The usual "rude awakening" is that there's no answer at all: most of 'em just took Mr. Ehrman's word for it.

There is no need to take anyone's word for it. A brief search on google establishes Christian scholars agree there are discrepancies. So, I'm not sure exactly what you think he is guessing about.

That being said,I have not had time to watch more than 5 minutes of this video, so if there is something specific in the video in which you feel he is guessing, then let me know, and I will watch it completely.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 7:17:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/10/2014 7:03:13 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/10/2014 5:36:33 PM, annanicole wrote:

I have never once "blocked" what I have learned. And I'm not afraid in the least of folks like Bart Ehrman. The only reason for directing folks to his video is that they need to consider his assertions. Look and see how much proof he has. See if his guesses even make much sense.

What do you think he is guessing about? It is fairly well known there are discrepancies in the Bible related to copy errors, as well as additions which were not in the oldest manuscripts we have. Textual critics of the NT manuscripts agree on this.

See above. Sure there are variations due to copy errors. We all know that. Dr. Ehrman, for one thing, fails to inform his listeners than "manuscripts" are but one source of the NT text. It's one thing to tell the truth concerning textual variations; it's quite another to pop off a ridiculous, sweeping conclusion that we can't know what the NT means because we do not know what the NT says.


The usual "rude awakening" is that there's no answer at all: most of 'em just took Mr. Ehrman's word for it.

There is no need to take anyone's word for it. A brief search on google establishes Christian scholars agree there are discrepancies. So, I'm not sure exactly what you think he is guessing about.

Define "discrepancies". Are you using the word "discrepancy" as a synonym for "variation"?

That being said,I have not had time to watch more than 5 minutes of this video, so if there is something specific in the video in which you feel he is guessing, then let me know, and I will watch it completely.

See the previous post. If you have a reasonable explanation, then I'd love to see it. The above-cited example is very early-on in the video, and I chose it simply because it is first. All the rest, by the way, follow essentially the same pattern although some are more blatant than others.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
bulproof
Posts: 25,184
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 7:23:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/10/2014 7:17:54 PM, annanicole wrote:
"manuscripts" are but one source of the NT text.

????
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 7:45:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/10/2014 5:36:33 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/10/2014 5:18:28 PM, Beastt wrote:
No, he's certainly no worse off as an atheist than he was as a theist. In fact, he can now lay claim to utilizing his intelligence honestly.

Why, any fool can "lay claim to utilizing intelligence honestly". So he went from Catholicism to atheism. I'm sure the opposite has been true many times. So what? It's a side-ways move.
Any fool can just call things a "sideways move" because they disagree with them. And while some atheists become Catholics, they rarely (if ever) do so on the basis of higher education.

or learn to block what they have learned in order to prevent it from altering their beliefs. You're an example of the latter.

I have never once "blocked" what I have learned.
That's really all I ever see you doing. When you claim "in the day" means "it's certain", rather than offering a time frame for an event to occur, it's just your way of disregarding the discrepancy.

And I'm not afraid in the least of folks like Bart Ehrman.
No one who relies upon causeless rejection and irrational dismissal has any reason to fear any logical arguments against their beliefs.

The only reason for directing folks to his video is that they need to consider his assertions. Look and see how much proof he has. See if his guesses even make much sense.
He offers some conjecture, but unlike the purely conjectural nature of religion, his is based on the objective evidence. First he provides the objective evidence, and then sometimes, he engages in some conjecture within the confines of that evidence. Religion offers conjecture then dismisses the need for evidence.

Of course, you could have simply made the necessary change instead of typing this statement. Which reveals your desire to post the former statement.

I could have. I didn't want to scroll up.
And somehow, you either don't realize how lame that excuse is, or you're just being flippant and snarky for your own entertainment.

The alterations may well have begun with the very first copies made. So were the commentaries based on the originals? Can we know if we have a commentary based on an original? What we can know is that people have preferences for given versions of verses and scripture. One of the most famous variations of scripture came from a fraud perpetrated in the 1600s, and yet, it is maintained in one of the most popular western Bible versions common to the Western world, the KJV. Many Christians adhere to the KJV as the "last uncorrupted version". Of course, among honest scholars, it is known to be fraught with errors, alterations, forgeries and fables. So the most popular versions can't be assumed to be the most correct, and in fact, may be examples of the least loyal to the originals.

And all of that means nothing. Most of it is just a statement of the obvious.
In light of the excuses you employ, such as suggesting that we can reconstruct the originals, it means quite a lot. In fact, it demonstrates that we cannot reconstruct the originals. So we end up right back where Dr. Ehrman stated - unable to state what the words mean, because we don't have the words.

Which is your unsupportable assertion, but not necessarily the truth. And I didn't say that all theists receive a rude awakening. I said "a certain percentage" are in for a rude awakening. Others have learned to do what you have a habit of doing... the same thing the Catholic Church did with the data offered by Galileo, the same thing creationists do with the evidence for evolution, the same thing some politicians do in regard to global warming, and the same thing Flat-Earthers do with the evidence showing Earth to be an oblate spheroid.

And what did they do?
They ignore, dismiss or pretend to explain away all evidence they dislike, then claim it's not important that there isn't any evidence to support the beliefs they do like.

When faced with assertions, realize that there are two types of those: (1) wildly speculative, pure guesswork,
An apt description of "religion".

prejudicial, and unfounded a
Yeah, the character counter doesn't work all that well. And when you stop when you're supposed to have 50 or so characters left, it trims them off the quote in the response text box.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 7:52:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/10/2014 7:23:26 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/10/2014 7:17:54 PM, annanicole wrote:
"manuscripts" are but one source of the NT text.

????

I would guess that she's suggesting we can obtain the text from Bible commentaries. But her logic is... well, rather devoid of logic.

1. Someone writes the text.

2. Someone copies the text... with changes.

3. Someone comments on the text, often including quotations.

4. She takes these comments made on alterations of the texts and suggest the original can be reconstructed from them.

The assertion (which she has made in other threads), that we can reconstruct the original wording from commentaries, relies upon commentaries made on the basis of the original texts. But we can't know that any of the commentaries weren't based on altered versions of the text. In fact, there is little likelihood that many of them were, and we can't know which (if any) might of been based on originals.

It's just her way of closing the door on the reality that no one knows what the Bible was originally supposed to say. In fact, since the Bible wasn't even assembled until the 4th century, the very manuscripts selected by the council were mostly (if not all), altered versions, and yet still selected for their content.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 7:59:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/10/2014 7:17:54 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/10/2014 7:03:13 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/10/2014 5:36:33 PM, annanicole wrote:

I have never once "blocked" what I have learned. And I'm not afraid in the least of folks like Bart Ehrman. The only reason for directing folks to his video is that they need to consider his assertions. Look and see how much proof he has. See if his guesses even make much sense.

What do you think he is guessing about? It is fairly well known there are discrepancies in the Bible related to copy errors, as well as additions which were not in the oldest manuscripts we have. Textual critics of the NT manuscripts agree on this.

See above. Sure there are variations due to copy errors. We all know that. Dr. Ehrman, for one thing, fails to inform his listeners than "manuscripts" are but one source of the NT text. It's one thing to tell the truth concerning textual variations; it's quite another to pop off a ridiculous, sweeping conclusion that we can't know what the NT means because we do not know what the NT says.

And yet, he is completely correct. And since we can't know of any Bible commentaries based on the originals, and since oral tradition is a horribly inaccurate way of maintaining wording, we actually don't have any way of knowing what the NT was supposed to say. And you can play this silly cat and mouse game all you like; the end result is the same - we can't know what the words mean if we don't have the words. And we don't have the words, Anna. What we have are people do desperate to cling to absolutely ridiculous ideas, that they're willing to alter, edit, and destroy the original writings, in attempting to force them to convey what they wish were true.

You've done this many times yourself. And yet, you seem to believe that somehow we can foil people who were doing the very same thing we see you doing, only they were doing it within the first few copies of the original manuscripts. "Young woman" becomes "virgin", "in the day" becomes "it is certain", "circle" becomes "sphere", "Father" becomes "Joseph". And anyone who doesn't engage in this dishonest games is admonished for engaging in what you see as the ridiculous practice of actually reading what the words say.

Define "discrepancies". Are you using the word "discrepancy" as a synonym for "variation"?
I'm not playing your word games. If you don't know what "discrepancy" means, then look it up.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 10:54:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/10/2014 7:52:10 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/10/2014 7:23:26 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/10/2014 7:17:54 PM, annanicole wrote:
"manuscripts" are but one source of the NT text.

????

I would guess that she's suggesting we can obtain the text from Bible commentaries. But her logic is... well, rather devoid of logic.

Well proven. You asserted it.

1. Someone writes the text.

2. Someone copies the text... with changes.

.... and without changes.

3. Someone comments on the text, often including quotations.

4. She takes these comments made on alterations of the texts and suggest the original can be reconstructed from them.

No, I didn't. I said that one can take quotations of passages by early Christians in, say, the year 150 or 180 AD and compare them to manuscript evidence from AD 300 and better identify and remove variations. Ditto for early translations.

The assertion (which she has made in other threads), that we can reconstruct the original wording from commentaries, relies upon commentaries made on the basis of the original texts. But we can't know that any of the commentaries weren't based on altered versions of the text. In fact, there is little likelihood that many of them were, and we can't know which (if any) might of been based on originals.

It's just her way of closing the door on the reality that no one knows what the Bible was originally supposed to say. In fact, since the Bible wasn't even assembled until the 4th century, the very manuscripts selected by the council were mostly (if not all), altered versions, and yet still selected for their content.

I never said a word about "commentaries". I have said that quotations of scripture from early Christians (pre 400 AD) could be merely utilized in conjunction with both manuscripts and early translations in an effort to more accurately reconstruct the wording of the original. The quotation may or may not be in the form of a commentary.

For instance, you have stated that Mark 16: 9-20 is not a part of the Bible. That's all you've ever done. When asked why Iranaeus quoted from it in ~ 175 AD, you do not know. When asked why Taitan included it in his Diatessaron in around 150 AD, you do not know. When asked why Papias alluded to Mark 16: 9-20 as early as AD 100, we never saw an answer. The Coptic and Sahidic translations contain it. Why? You were asked why that the only vacant column in the whole Vaticanus manuscript is right after Mark 16: 8, with just enough space left for 11 more verses to be added later? You were after "honesty", but about all you did was invent your own "defense" of the verses - then shot it down, and called it a day. And those questions won't be answered this time around either.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 12:14:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/10/2014 10:54:46 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/10/2014 7:52:10 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/10/2014 7:23:26 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/10/2014 7:17:54 PM, annanicole wrote:
"manuscripts" are but one source of the NT text.

????

I would guess that she's suggesting we can obtain the text from Bible commentaries. But her logic is... well, rather devoid of logic.

Well proven. You asserted it.
You've already demonstrated it to be true.

1. Someone writes the text.

2. Someone copies the text... with changes.

.... and without changes.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. The point is, you don't know... you CAN'T know!

3. Someone comments on the text, often including quotations.

4. She takes these comments made on alterations of the texts and suggest the original can be reconstructed from them.

No, I didn't. I said that one can take quotations of passages by early Christians in, say, the year 150 or 180 AD and compare them to manuscript evidence from AD 300 and better identify and remove variations. Ditto for early translations.
But by 150 - 180 CE, they're comparing altered passages to altered manuscripts. Anna! Anna! ANNA! Are you paying attention? When every manuscript we have has alterations, you can't know if one of them or any of them, contains the original text. And we have cases which show that people prefer the altered text and will try to flag the less altered versions as false. For example, the Johannine Coma, the Pericope Adulterae, and the last 12-verses of Mark. And since you're guilty of that, please don't attempt to claim it's not true.

It's just her way of closing the door on the reality that no one knows what the Bible was originally supposed to say. In fact, since the Bible wasn't even assembled until the 4th century, the very manuscripts selected by the council were mostly (if not all), altered versions, and yet still selected for their content.

I never said a word about "commentaries". I have said that quotations of scripture from early Christians (pre 400 AD) could be merely utilized in conjunction with both manuscripts and early translations in an effort to more accurately reconstruct the wording of the original. The quotation may or may not be in the form of a commentary.
And they may or may not be originals. And if they are originals (which is highly unlikely), you still can't know that they are. So what you're suggesting is that we take a whole bunch of written samples, some "writings", some manuscripts and "quotations", which all may be altered or unaltered, but are all different, and somehow pop up the original by comparing them. Does it work like a card trick, Anna? Please... explain EXACTLY how this would be done. In fact... show me!

Here is a line from an e-mail I received. One of them is the original. The other three are altered versions. Please pick out the original and then explain how you knew which was the original, and which ones were altered versions. Can you do it?

Example One: "They way they played was truly amazing."

Example Two: "It was amazing watching those guys play."

Example Three: "They played in the most amazing way."

Example Four: "The most awesome thing was watching the guys play."

For instance, you have stated that Mark 16: 9-20 is not a part of the Bible. That's all you've ever done. When asked why Iranaeus quoted from it in ~ 175 AD, you do not know. When asked why Taitan included it in his Diatessaron in around 150 AD, you do not know. When asked why Papias alluded to Mark 16: 9-20 as early as AD 100, we never saw an answer. The Coptic and Sahidic translations contain it. Why? You were asked why that the only vacant column in the whole Vaticanus manuscript is right after Mark 16: 8, with just enough space left for 11 more verses to be added later? You were after "honesty", but about all you did was invent your own "defense" of the verses - then shot it down, and called it a day. And those questions won't be answered this time around either.
But it's purely disingenuous for you to expect me to be able to tell you why the verses appeared when they did, other than to assume that they appeared after they were added. The point, Anna - which you attempt to evade - is that they're not there in so many of the oldest copies we have.

But since you insist that I tell you what no one can know, I can easily give you what is quite probably the best explanation. The original manuscript didn't contain the last 12-verses. In the few years following its production, several copies were made. Eventually (within a decade or two), someone copying one of the copies, added the last 12-verses. From there, copies continued to be made both from the shorter more original version, and from the longer newer version. And since the longer version seemed more satisfying to believers, it became the copy most wanted. As such, it quickly became the more popular version, and thusly, the version referenced by Iraneaus, Taitan, Papias, etc. This all fits perfectly with the chronology which has always been presented for those asserting that the last 12-verses were a latter addition. And you should take note that the quality of the Greek in the last 12-verses is significantly superior to that in the rest of the gospel, indicating a different author, or several different authors.

I don't know why you're so insistant about this when it changes absolutely nothing.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,087
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 1:00:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/10/2014 7:17:54 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/10/2014 7:03:13 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/10/2014 5:36:33 PM, annanicole wrote:

I have never once "blocked" what I have learned. And I'm not afraid in the least of folks like Bart Ehrman. The only reason for directing folks to his video is that they need to consider his assertions. Look and see how much proof he has. See if his guesses even make much sense.

What do you think he is guessing about? It is fairly well known there are discrepancies in the Bible related to copy errors, as well as additions which were not in the oldest manuscripts we have. Textual critics of the NT manuscripts agree on this.

See above. Sure there are variations due to copy errors. We all know that. Dr. Ehrman, for one thing, fails to inform his listeners than "manuscripts" are but one source of the NT text. It's one thing to tell the truth concerning textual variations; it's quite another to pop off a ridiculous, sweeping conclusion that we can't know what the NT means because we do not know what the NT says.

You did not adress the "additions" part of my comment. Do you agree there are additions? The woman caught in adultery in John is a disputed passage, and is not in many of the most well known, oldest, and reliable manuscripts from antiquity. I would guess an addition to the NT should be much more disconcerting than simple copy errors (although, those can be troublesome as well).

The usual "rude awakening" is that there's no answer at all: most of 'em just took Mr. Ehrman's word for it.

There is no need to take anyone's word for it. A brief search on google establishes Christian scholars agree there are discrepancies. So, I'm not sure exactly what you think he is guessing about.

Define "discrepancies". Are you using the word "discrepancy" as a synonym for "variation"?

Some of the "variations" actually change the meaning of the passage or add passages ...so, no, I believe 'discrepancy' is a much more appropriate word. Here is the definition of discrepancy I am using:

a difference especially between things that should be the same.

http://www.merriam-webster.com...


That being said,I have not had time to watch more than 5 minutes of this video, so if there is something specific in the video in which you feel he is guessing, then let me know, and I will watch it completely.

See the previous post. If you have a reasonable explanation, then I'd love to see it. The above-cited example is very early-on in the video, and I chose it simply because it is first. All the rest, by the way, follow essentially the same pattern although some are more blatant than others.

I will watch the video tomorrow night, and respond as soon as possible.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 1:05:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The fundamental problem for ALL alleged ' holy-texts ' is that the legitimate evidence even a single word in ANY of them was given or inspired by a literal Supernatural being, remains a constant zero!

Sure you can all squabble over terms, meanings, interpretations etc. however that same fundamental impediment to your various ideologies remains fatal to them all.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 1:12:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/11/2014 1:00:49 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/10/2014 7:17:54 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/10/2014 7:03:13 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 7/10/2014 5:36:33 PM, annanicole wrote:

I have never once "blocked" what I have learned. And I'm not afraid in the least of folks like Bart Ehrman. The only reason for directing folks to his video is that they need to consider his assertions. Look and see how much proof he has. See if his guesses even make much sense.

What do you think he is guessing about? It is fairly well known there are discrepancies in the Bible related to copy errors, as well as additions which were not in the oldest manuscripts we have. Textual critics of the NT manuscripts agree on this.

See above. Sure there are variations due to copy errors. We all know that. Dr. Ehrman, for one thing, fails to inform his listeners than "manuscripts" are but one source of the NT text. It's one thing to tell the truth concerning textual variations; it's quite another to pop off a ridiculous, sweeping conclusion that we can't know what the NT means because we do not know what the NT says.


You did not adress the "additions" part of my comment. Do you agree there are additions? The woman caught in adultery in John is a disputed passage, and is not in many of the most well known, oldest, and reliable manuscripts from antiquity. I would guess an addition to the NT should be much more disconcerting than simple copy errors (although, those can be troublesome as well).

The additions do not bother me one iota as they are recognized as such, and stick out like a sore thumb. To answer your questions:

"Do you agree there are additions?" Yes, with apparently different motivations. No matter the motivation, however, they are to be eliminated.


The usual "rude awakening" is that there's no answer at all: most of 'em just took Mr. Ehrman's word for it.

There is no need to take anyone's word for it. A brief search on google establishes Christian scholars agree there are discrepancies. So, I'm not sure exactly what you think he is guessing about.

Define "discrepancies". Are you using the word "discrepancy" as a synonym for "variation"?

Some of the "variations" actually change the meaning of the passage or add passages ...so, no, I believe 'discrepancy' is a much more appropriate word. Here is the definition of discrepancy I am using:

a difference especially between things that should be the same.

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

The additions (or deletions, if appropriate) are a different matter, but the discrepancies are as a rule minor. IMO, Dr. Ehrman (and others) waste everyone's time by counting and harping on what amounts to spelling errors. He lives or dies by setting up a false standard or goal to which only the most naive would strive, a goal that could only be met by having an original. If the first-generation copy contains an "en" (in) instead of an "eis" (into), he throws the whole shebang out as "unreliable" ... "untrustworthy" ... "error-riddled".


That being said,I have not had time to watch more than 5 minutes of this video, so if there is something specific in the video in which you feel he is guessing, then let me know, and I will watch it completely.

See the previous post. If you have a reasonable explanation, then I'd love to see it. The above-cited example is very early-on in the video, and I chose it simply because it is first. All the rest, by the way, follow essentially the same pattern although some are more blatant than others.

I will watch the video tomorrow night, and respond as soon as possible.

Thanks. I think I'm right on it.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 1:13:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/11/2014 1:05:58 AM, Composer wrote:
The fundamental problem for ALL alleged ' holy-texts ' is that the legitimate evidence even a single word in ANY of them was given or inspired by a literal Supernatural being, remains a constant zero!

Sure you can all squabble over terms, meanings, interpretations etc. however that same fundamental impediment to your various ideologies remains fatal to them all.


Or SHOULD remain fatal to them all. But, where people find the hope of emotional pacification, they will almost consistently dismiss reason.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 1:18:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
only 2 minutes in and Ehrman made a pretty funny joke...

How many have read the whole Bibile? scattered hands... I can see why you'd wanna read a book by Dan Brown, but, if God wrote a book.... wouldn't you want to see what he had to say???

lmao.. so true.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.