Posted on 05/15/2009 12:18:43 PM PDT by JoeProBono
Just so you know, Bart Ehrman says he's not the anti-Christ. Bart Ehrman says most of the New Testament is a forgery but it's still an important body of work. Bart Ehrman says most of the New Testament is a forgery but it's still an important body of work. He says he's not trying to destroy your faith. He's not trying to bash the Bible. And, though his mother no longer talks to him about religion, Ehrman says some of his best friends are Christian. Ehrman, a best-selling author and a professor of religious studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, is a biblical sleuth whose investigations make some people very angry. Like the fictional Robert Langdon character played by actor Tom Hanks in the movie "Angels & Demons," he delves into the past to challenge some of Christianity's central claims. In Ehrman's latest book, "Jesus, Interrupted," he concludes: Doctrines such as the divinity of Jesus and heaven and hell are not based on anything Jesus or his earlier followers said. At least 19 of the 27 books in the New Testament are forgeries. Believing the Bible is infallible is not a condition for being a Christian.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
I was raised as an evangelical Christian and graduated from a evangelical fundamentalist Bible College.
I have never heard of this man.
This is the case of a guy who was very religious, but lost it after extensive study of history. I always thought it was pretty sad if you base your faith on the infallibility of book written by humans. He probably grew up under inerrantists and lost it all when he found out that wasn't true.
In that it's not God's dictation, but His inspiration through his children, he's correct. Christians, as an orthodox whole, do not have the same view of the Scripture as Muslims for the Koran, for example. The Muslim dogma is seen as idolatry, and in Christians, bibliolatry specifically.
From reading the article, my impression is that this man was taught differently, and when he learned the difference, rejected his whole teaching. An understandable, though foolish, reaction.
Something that Christian teachers should be careful of.
The simple fact that there are apocryphal texts that the church voted out of the bible would seem to be a form of validation that the bible is a book by men and not the true and infallible word of a supreme being.
Some questions:
If the world was flooded in the old testament and the Noah’s Ark story is real, where did the water come from and to where did it recede?
Why would God put Job through all those hardships just to prove a point to the devil? If He’s omnipotent, he could do something else (not involving cruelty to a faithful servant) to show the devil the truth of things.
Jesus’ mother was a virgin when she gave birth, yet science tells us that a woman can get pregnant without penetration as long as there is exposure to semen. Isn’t it possible that Mary and Joseph did some fooling around (of a sexual nature, but without intercourse) that resulted in her pregnancy?
That's what I see from the article as well.
His premise is that this central tenet is the one that evolved after all these years based on false information. It's Christianity as you know it, not as it was originally. Apparently his take is that it doesn't matter and shouldn't affect your faith.
From the wiki bio: "Ehrman began studying the Bible and its original languages at the Moody Bible Institute and is a 1978 graduate of Wheaton College in Illinois. He received his Ph.D and M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary, where he studied under Bruce Metzger."
I would say yes, definitely.
Faith in what? I’m not sure what Christianity is if it’s not about Jesus, salvation, etc.
Sky, earth.
Why would God put Job through all those hardships just to prove a point to the devil?
Job is one of the most intriguing books in the Bible, and has been analyzed through the eyes of religion, literature and psychology. It's often referred to as the first short story. Your reading is literal; give the book a bit more credit artistically and read it again.
Jesus’ mother was a virgin when she gave birth, yet science tells us that a woman can get pregnant…
First, there are very rare examples in nature of very similar birth events. (If you watch House, he used it in an episode.) Second, the "science tells" part is based on inferential logic not deductive - as are most miracles which violate what "science tells us" (the definition of a miracle BTW). It is very strong evidence, but it is not technically (formal logic) proven true.
I just wonder why the Egyptians didn't notice it. They had a pretty big kingdom going around 4,300 years ago (about the time of the flood).
He was also lying.
Because that is the definition you were given.
As far as I can tell, Ehrman is right about that point. The earliest versions we have of the books of the Bible are very different from the versions we all read today.
At least 19 of the 27 books in the New Testament are forgeries.
Forgeries is a very strong word, stronger than I would choose. But the evidence is clear that these books have been significantly and substantially altered. Sometimes it was a transcription error; often it was insertion or deletion to fit a particular audience or a particular agenda.
“I thank the God that is that the God tehy told me about isn’t.” — Dr. Ernest Holmes.
Then YOU explain to me what Christianity is and why I should bother with it.
I think Ehrman is saying that even though his scholarship persuades him that much of the Bible isn’t literally true, there is still much wisdom in it and we can learn from it.
Do you believe Jesus is the only doorway to God, that no man cometh to the Father but by Him?
Do you believe there is in fact a communication that God desires with individual humans?
Do you believe that the God Who can create this complex and so very delicately balanced Universe (an accident so rare as to be a 1 in 10120 possibility) is able to have His communication conveyed through this Bible which Ehrman denegrates as 'man-made'?
Whom do you suppose is served by this not so subtle insult to God's integrity as the 'Jesus Seminar' (which is Ehrman supported as I understand it) conveys?
Actually, they're textual analysis, much of it comparison of the earliest versions of the texts to what they say now. then he analyses how the differences may have occurred.
You may not like his conclusions, but they're based on much more substance than "unsubstantiated speculations and wishful thinking."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.