Bart Ehrman - Coast to Coast - Part 1

[wongjogja]

Hi, i wonder

what is the reaction of common christian when they know that the bible was not error free ?

just need to know, please don't insult anyone

peace...

[redflw]

Islam is the only true religion of our Creator. Go to my channel to learn more, peace.

[judecas13]

@redflw Islam is a man-made religion like any other. Go to the library and learn more! Ehm, sorry, probably not a muslim library, I heard you have some difficulties translating stuff to arabic lately (since 12. century) but you can try google instead.

[LQQJ]

@judecas13

It looks like you are the one who need to go to a library and read more

12 centuries, the whole world was translating Arabic books, moron

Second of all, insulting someone for knowing more than his native language is stupid, are you a retard!

Knowing more than one language widen your horizon and expand your mental limits which obviously, needs a lot more expanding don't you think!

Again I feel sorry for you.

[judecas13]

@LQQJ look at the mirror when saying moron. I speak 6 lags and go to the library quite often. Islam was invented in 7. cent., stopped translating books to arabic in 12.

Based on UN report Greece annually translates five times more books from English than the entire Arab world, Spain does more annually than the entire arabic world did in 1000 years and currently, 65 million Arab adults are illiterate. You are an ignoramus. Shame if the truth insults you, but it won't stop it being truth.

[gsschoenfeld]

I don't think the bible is the problem nearly as much as how it gets twisted in translation and interpretation to fit the pre-assumed values of organized religion. Those who want to know what the translators and publishers REALLY believe about the bible only need to look at the footnotes of a modern translation. There the reader will discover many verses are discredited and even deleted based on the publishers "expert" opinion.

[MrViTopol]

@gsschoenfeld in the original, the bible is even worse than in translations.

[gsschoenfeld]

@MrViTopol I don't know how you define better or worse, but I do agree it is substantially different on matters that organized religion claims to be important.

[TheyDontSee]

He will be on Coast again tonight!! Make sure to listen!

[prierias]

when you start with a fundie notion of sola scripture you inevitably finish up with atheism

[MrNickKane]

@prierias Then explain the thousands of theologians who went to their graves believing in both...Sola Scriptura...and in God. That wasn't very honest or intellectual of you. Better yet, look up the meaning to the word "inevitable".

[craigblack1234]

@MrNickKane

The human mind has a tendency toward religion. This religious tendency evolved because, in general, religion is helpful to human nature. Religion provides well defined morality, purpose, community, etc. That said, statistics indicate that faith in religion is inversely proportional to scientific education. Even so, there are still many intelligent, well educated people who are religious. This is evidence that this evolutionary religious tendency is very powerful.

[Darkhorse21x]

How ironic

Bart D. Ehrman

Bart de Err Man.

He was destined to find these errors.

[202rickh]

Yes...long before Ehrman was born...as Ehrman frequently says. You are already down to 99.9 percent. By definition, we do not "know" what the originals said. You've as much as admitted that.

[nighthawk7878]

@202rickh Those two examples do not get at the main definition of a variant. A variant is "any variation" basically. That is,  if I happen to misspell "area" thus "are", then scholars have to determine by looking at the context and comparing several manuscript sets whether the accurate translation should be "area" or "are". That is what the 99.99% in my former message referred to.

[nighthawk7878]

@202rickh (cont) The above example accounts for 99.99% of the variants. In every one of the 25000+ manuscripts where the above difference is considered a variant. That is why critics like Ehrman can say accurately that there are 100,000s of variants. They are right!!! But please understand the difinitions and context of those numbers to also be able to understand the significance--there is no significance in 99.99% of the cases.

[nighthawk7878]

@202rickh (cont) Yes, your two examples are variants and probably were not in the original autographs. BUT, tell me what difference they make in my belief or in any theology of any Christian.

We've know for decades that 1 John 5:7 was not original. It affects no understanding of the Trinity at all.

Have a great (cold, if you are near me) day!!!

[202rickh]

@nighthawk7878 You asked me to "define a variant for us and we will then all know how trivial the issue of variants is...". I named, among others, 1 Jn 5:7. I then asked you if you found the only explicit ref to the Trinity to be insignificant. Apparently you do. I don't. Ehrman states both of your premises: that the vast majority of vars are insignif, and that the data presented is old. I object to your attempt to trivialize what is actually quite signficiant. Seems defensive to me.

[202rickh]

@nighthawk7878 That's just plain silly. Here's your apparently argument: "I'll define 'variant' as an insignificant difference. Next, I'll claim that 99.99% of variants are insignificant!". Self-indulgent BS! Come out from behind your sophistry and defend your point. "Variant" is a widely defined term. It means "differences". Many early and high quality mss don't have the last 12 vs of Mk. Same for the 1 John 5:7 ref to the Trinity. These are significant theological differences.

[nighthawk7878]

@202rickh Do you get a definition of variant from Ehrman's books??? I've read several of them but I don't remember him getting into a definition. Maybe he did in "Misquoting" I didn't read that one yet. There is no BS above in my comments. it is well established in the science of TC that the masses of variants are misspellings and typos. Those are the facts. I am making nothing up.

[nighthawk7878]

@202rickh No Christian I know gets their doctrine nor understanding of the trinity from 1 John 5:7. AND, as I stated we have known for decades that it was not in the original autographs. BUT, that does not stop pop culture writers like Ehrman scamming the gullible and making lots of money doing it. That has been going on for decades too and it is not original with him ;0)

[202rickh]

@nighthawk7878 Yes...you DO base it on 1 John ! Though, as we both know, it has been removed from modern translations, for the vast majority of Christian history (99.99% lol) IT WAS considered part of the text and has thus shaped Christian thinking and custom! You believe the "mystery" of the Trinity because it is part of your tradition, a tradition shaped by this scripture! It was, essentially, negotiated, to solve conflicting theological problems of the early (and diverse) church.

[202rickh]

@nighthawk7878 I agree that the masses of variant are misspelling and typos. So? If you want to say that by COUNT they are "99.99%" (meaning, colloquially, "damn near all") then, cautiously, OK. But in terms of SIGNIFICANCE you're missing the boat. Answer the question: Do you think the VARIATIONS in the mss regarding 1 Jn 5:7 are theologically insignificant?

[nighthawk7878]

@202rickh Okay, I believe you have asked an honest question here so I will continue. I can't say that there are no Christians today who do not use or hold on to 1 John 5:7 to "prove" to themselves or others that there is a Trinity. But, I can say that I nor anyone in my church would never use that verse and we dont need to. Why? because the Trinity is portrayed in the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles. Don't hold us hostage today for what some stupid scribe did hundreds of years ago!

[202rickh]

@nighthawk7878 Where, in the Gospels or Acts? Seriously, where? Yes, all these books refer to the Holy Spirit, and to the Son. But where, specifically, does it say that the three are one, EXPLICITLY. You can get to two of three with John 1:1-5, but where EXPLICITLY do you get to 3 of 3? This 3 but still 1 idea evolved gradually, hence the "stupid scribe" who was trying to give it credibility.

[nighthawk7878]

@202rickh I would state it in an opposite way. We are UP TO 99.99%. That is we understand and know what the originals said for up to 99.99% of the New Testament. That is why the discipline of Textual Criticism exists. The science of Textual Criticism was developed to ensure correct methods were employed to get back to the original texts. Bart Ehrman does not own Textual Criticism, he is a tiny player.

[202rickh]

@nighthawk7878 Correct, he is a small player. And he openly states that he is not saying anything new. He merely is attempting to bring to popular awareness what has been in academia for over 100 years. But still, I simply don't know how on Earth you can even say we're up to 99.99%. You can only know if we're almost there if you know what "there" is. What the heck are you basing this on, even if I cut you slack on the mathmatical 99.99% thing, how do you figure we're anywhere near done?

[wachnathan]

The bible is writen by too many unknown sorces to be reliable period.

[nighthawk7878]

@wachnathan What?????

[wachnathan]

@nighthawk7878 You disagree i know like everyone else does but thats what i think no disrespect for anyone.

[takewhole]

Christians cannot say that the NT is the WORD OF GOD. That has been totally deconstructed. This is not saying to christians that their belief in jesus is wrong, but christians simply cannot claim it is the WORD OF GOD as it has too many contradictions and discrepancies that any lay person can pick up a copy of the bible and read for themselves. Conclusion: THE BIBLE IS NOT THE WORD OF GOD. Which then begs the question, who wrote the Bible??? And how much is truth and how much is fiction

[nighthawk7878]

@takewhole Why do you feel you need to declare whether the books of the bible be considered to word of God by me?

[nighthawk7878]

@SOAS007 It is okay if you say "claim".  Some have come to know that there are historical data related to the "claim"

[takewhole]

@nighthawk7878 My comment is not directed specifically at you, it is s general point to be read by all, that's what the comment section is there for. I don't really understand your response to my comment??

[nighthawk7878]

@takewhole That's okay but I like to comment.

[Aquariansevenone]

@Cliner98 I can't help but laugh at your comment. Not because you're full of shit but because iy was funny. The truth sometimes has a way of making us cry and other times make us laugh. This is one of those times for me. The funny time... Short simple and to the point. Truth from start to finish

[elhijodeloscalzones]

The truth is sometimes the hardest thing to face.

[nighthawk7878]

@Cliner98 "those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.—C. S. Lewis" If this quote refers to a god--CS Lewis is not your example. He later caved to the God Almighty who had tormented him earlier. The nice thing is that he found is life--he even got married. You need to read his later works.

[nighthawk7878]

@Cliner98 Hmmmm!!! priests, preachers, rabbis and Imams usually come back to god followers time and time again--so, I don't quite get the thought you have???

[letsberational]

Loved this book.  Very revealing. Very readable.

[leondponce1]

I loved the book

[maddcow666ink]

This was an excellent book... Everyone needs to read it, no matter your beliefs!

[MlSTERPRESlDENT]

Noory would certainly refuse to interview such a spin-doctor. It is unfair to Ian to get another one of these. He is so enthusiastic, entertaining and polite, not fair. "God doesn't exist because there's too much evil on the planet." This I heard from people before who cannot understand the nature of Earth experience and cannot understand the message of the Bible or freedom of will. I feel sorry for Bart for he will be held personally responsible for the weak people he manages to dissuade.

[kevinscales]

@MlSTERPRESlDENT There is no good explaination of why there is 'evil' in the world from a biblical perspective. I hardly think it is 'weak' to realise this.

[nighthawk7878]

@julieveggie: "Ehrman has proven in his books that the bible is not the inerrant word of God and most biblical scholars know this to be true" Oh, Ho, Ho, not so fast. He has not proven anything. You just swallow so easily. His treatment of the actual texts is deplorable in this book. You need to read very closely. He obviously sucked you in first time around!

[julieveggie]

There are going to be some differences in the 4 accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke & John. But the details are too different that the four accounts don't validate the resurrection of Jesus.

You can't have Jesus dying on different days or different people showing up at the tomb or not showing up at the tomb, different things being said at the tomb, different thing happening after they leave the tomb.

[julieveggie]

Christian arguments are invalid because the Bible is NOT the word of God. To make you case, first you would have to PROVE with substantial evidence that the bible is the word of God. Ehrman has proven in his books that the bible is not the inerrant word of God and most biblical scholars know this to be true, too, but refuse to come clean and are in denial because it would be the beginning and the end of Christianity as we know it!

[1984vrs]

@julieveggie ?? To say it is not also requires substantial evidence. When .you come at any subject with an opinion based bias you will rarely come to a proper conclusion. Second the end of Christianity? If this is the case then why would the end of not come yet?

[julieveggie]

If all Christians would read Ehrman's books, reason would sink in, we would have a cultural shift and I do think that would be the end of Christianity. People would realize it's one big myth that has been perpetuated by deceit for 2,000 years.

[nighthawk7878]

@julieveggie This is a joke. I have read several of his books. Phd does not mean you interpret data any better than if you do not have one. Ehrman's text have their problems and I am not the only one with that conclusion. Read the book of Acts and you will come across the Gamaliel theorum which is very similar to yours. Jesus still lives and His followers are still around 2000 years later.

[SOAS007]

@nighthawk7878 "Read the book of Acts and you will come across .." a similar story to galations, an undisputed Pauline book, but the details are different. Anyone can see there are incosistancies and Histical lies in the bible.

[nighthawk7878]

@SOAS007 Glad to hear you are reading Acts and Galatians. Acts was authored by Luke and Galatians by Paul. Quotes were foreign to Koinonia greek writers. That means that no quote marks are used in koinonia greek. That speaks much to your potential issue but I don't know what that issue is since you didn't really say what it is.

[SOAS007]

@nighthawk7878 "Acts was authored by Luke" erm.. by the same author as the gospel of Luke,. It is unlikely that like the other gospels that that was luke. This is accepted by scholars.

Then two naratives that are very different is the supernatural 'road to Damascas' meeting. The people that were there, what they saw , and what PAul did afterwards, are, like many other NT stories very different accounts of , supposedly the same event.

[nighthawk7878]

@SOAS007 "1 In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach" Beginning of Acts. "

[SOAS007]

@nighthawk7878 "Beginning of Acts. "" yes acts of the apostle, not acts of peter or acts of John. The same author as the 'gospel according to' luke, but unlikey to be Luke. According to experts.

[nighthawk7878]

@SOAS007 But what experts are we talking about?

[nighthawk7878]

Beginning of Luke:  1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus

[nighthawk7878]

@SOAS007 Sorry, I think I put the beginning of Luke, not as a reply to you, so here it is again: 1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus...

[nighthawk7878]

@SOAS007 So you may not have read the Book of Acts nor Galatians. Forgive my wrong assumption.

[SOAS007]

@nighthawk7878 "Forgive my wrong assumption" The differing naratives arise and are there to anyone who reads them . Like many of the errors in the NT , you have to concoct some unlikely, implausable , although not technically impossible explanations to make it believable. And in some cases there are flat out contridictions,

[nighthawk7878]

@SOAS007 The wrong assumption was about you reading the book of Acts. You may not believe that Luke authored Acts and Luke but the author addressed both to Theophilus and is most assuredly 1 person.

The real issue that most people have with what they read is not the accuracy of the test--no, it is that they WANT to SIN.  They have a pet and they want to keep that pet. Well, I am a sinner but I have been overwhelmed by the love that has been shown to my for no reason and no merit in me.

[SOAS007]

@nighthawk7878 "The real issue that most people have with what they read is not the accuracy of the test--no, it is that they WANT to SIN. " No they don't! I think claiming to KNOW the truth by waving a holy book, that is tampered with erroneous , is not truthful. Most people are unaware of all the historical inaccuracies, and dodgy motivations of holy books. But they can be demonstrated, by experts.

[nighthawk7878]

@SOAS007 We may have different definitions of sin, but in my sampling of literally hundreds of people. The issue of sources and reliability is just not there. Our nature leads us to "what to do what we want to do" and not submit to someone.

[nighthawk7878]

I am one of those I want to do what I want to do. But I also realize that what I want is not the best. That has lead me down a trail to want more than "what I want." I don't always know what is best for me and for everyone involved. Therefore, it makes sense most of the time to yield to a wiser person.

[nighthawk7878]

@SOAS007 You are saying that Jesus or his disciples had dodgy motivation? No, I don't think so. But, we know what the original texts said. That, from the writings of people like Bart Ehrman--but not in his public speaking--in his academic works. And from many other reputable scholars who do textual criticism as well as or better than some critic like Ehrman.

[SOAS007]

@nighthawk7878 " But, we know what the original texts said. " there are no copies of original texts.! Only much later copies of copies which have 'omossions, additions, and ammendments ' in them, and can be shown and compared.

[nighthawk7878]

@SOAS007 I believe you meant to say no originals or no autographs as they are referred to--we DO have copies of the originals. And, I will say it again, we know what the originals said/stated. That per some of the most liberal scholars of Greek around. The science of textual criticism is exactly that--determining what the originals said. Ehrman knows that--Tabor knows that. That's was Ehrman's work--to determine what the originals said through science.

[202rickh]

@nighthawk7878 "And, I will say it again, we know what the originals said/stated." This is not a true statement. Even you, later in your paragraph state that point of textual criticism is to get as close as we can to the original. Implicitly, you are admitting that we do not yet know "what the originals said". Why would the ongoing science exist if we already know? Yes we DO have copies but they all have variants.

[nighthawk7878]

@202rickh Define a variant for us and we will then all know how trivial the issue of variants is in 99.99% of the cases. We know what the originals said thanks to textual criticism done long before Ehrman was born.

[202rickh]

@nighthawk7878 How about these variants: The debate over the existence of the last 12 verses of Mark...the debate over the text of 1 John 5:7, which is the only explicit statement of the trinity....variants that conflict on what the "voice" after Jesus's baptism said....Do these only add up to you ridiculously fabricted .001 percent of relevance?

[202rickh]

@nighthawk7878 I've defined several variants, none of which are "trivial". Do you consider the debate about the mss containing the only EXPLICIT reference to the Trinity in 1 John 5: 7 trivial? Do you consider the account of the resurrection in the first Gospel (and the source of the 2nd and 3rd) to be a trivial matter? We're not talking only a few misplaced commas and misspelled words here.

[Antisyncretism]

Real scholars who arent nearly as grossly praised by a populist audience (and not nearly as disagreed with by other scholars) include F.F. Bruce and Ben Witherington III

[Antisyncretism]

in a sentence its pretty obvious which one is the right reading.

Also his understanding of Church history is just a joke

[Antisyncretism]

hmm how did Bart get famous, o thats right NOT because of anything revolutionary but because he hopped on the 'bash the Bible' wagon.

He shows there are variants in the manuscripts, so what, what do you expect, of course scribes could could make a mistake in copying, but as scribes more often than not copy correctly all that needs to be done is compare the thousands of manuscripts to get the right result.

So if 100 manuscripts from early say A and 2 from later say B [cont]

[julieveggie]

Seriously!!! how can anyone still believe the bible is the word of God with all the mistakes and intentional tampering by the Scribes of the new testament, that's what proves the Bible is NOT the word of God!

[aaronk1994]

Ehrman is not in the mainstream of scholarship.

Read mainstream scholars like Wright or Evans.

[letsberational]

"Jesus Interrupted" is one of the most fascinating books I have read on the subject of early Christianity and the New Testament. I highly recommend it.

[Graphaks]

Bart Ehrman is THE man. Face it.

[prostock69]

Yes he is. Have most of his books.

[harpo103]

I took Bart's class as an undergraduate.

He knows his stuff-mind like a steel trap.

[dichotomyofone]

Bart Ehrman is the man, I can't get enough of his books and his style of critically analyzing history and what evidence we have to work with. As opposed to learning about the bible from out loud atheists or bible believing zealots, he has a refreshing honesty I suppose I'm trying to say.

[hawklanzs]

Interesting material but. There is always a BUT. Its all conjectures.'CHANNELING GOD?' sounds very New Age.

[nighthawk7878]

Hey Ian, just reading Jesus Interupted and have read God's Problem. Ehrman says that God's Problem is the real reason why he moved away from faith, well, his rational, bases, thought process, line of reasoning--all that just did not come together in the book. It could possibly his worst work.

J. I. ???? there is no evidence for any propositions he puts forth--just glowing generalities--not that he does not have any and I like some of his points.

[mysty0]

Im a believer in the bible who's faith was slipping.., this mans lectures have done nothing to help me slide but infact quite the opposite., it has helped rekindle my faith and I look forward to reading the book :)

[dichotomyofone]

that's too bad. But I guess that was what you were hoping for in the first place, regardless of the message.

[StevenErnest]

To make it easier for people to watch the whole interview, you might want to post these as video responses to each other.

For example, post part 2 as a response to part 1, etc., on up to part 12 as a response to part 11.

You don't have to re-upload them to do that.

[StevenErnest]

Thank you very much for posting this!

I'd missed hearing the show. Very interesting material. I'll put on a pot of coffee and listen... ^_^