Very good, thanks for the update. This continues to show me that the NT writings are good and valid events and my belief in Jesus is solid and valid since the events were recorded and pass onto the current time in good condition and accurately kept. Thanks again.
Ehrnan actually does state in his videos most corruptions are irrelevent and that bible scholars know about the additions. He does say that layman Christians do not know this though.
Mr Niles says these additions are known about. Who put them there? What was the purpose? And why are they still there if it is known not to be true?
Is it correct to say have come from God when you know it is not true?
Great video, thanks for posting it. This guy Bart Erman who wrote Misquoting Jesus reminds me of Paul's thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan sent to buffit believers. And your way of looking at all these differences in these manuscripts is like Paul rejoicing in his weaknesses in order to become strong in the Lord and overcome any obsticle set in his way by the enemy.
Your conclusion is unfounded. Agreed, most variants are irrelevant. But some are not. The strongest verse supporting the Trinity is in 1 John, and it's not in the original variants. Whether there's a trinity or not matters.
Furthermore, Bart's point is that if we already know there are errors and in some cases forgeries, how do we know there aren't even more in the earliest scripts, of which we have no copies. Your confidence in the bible is unfounded by simple logic.
if youd known that for hundreds of years why arent they made known to your followers?cmon face it it was and is still misleading to add things that werent there in the first plce.
The problem with the Bible is that we don't have copies going all the way back. Before the copies we have, we just don't know what changes were made and what ideas were eliminated. In his other book "Lost Christianities" he points out a number of groups that held ideas that would barely be considered Christian in current times, but they did exist, and they had books, too. We don't even know who the original authors were.
So how can we say we know what was "originally" written?
@bonnie43uk You have hit on the highest of spiritual attributes. This will stand you in good stead in the life to come. Read "Life in the World Unseen", free download from the internet.
The mistakes and contradictions in the texts show clearly that the authors often made up 'facts' which they did not check. And they had NO idea that they were living on a spinning planet, which circles the sun. They had no idea what a day really is!
He pretty much just proved that Bart Ehrman is right by saying that the bible changed at all since corruption can be defined as the alteration of a text. A holy book could NEVER be altered unless it was corrupt,hence making the bible corrupt.
Jesus loved Paul??? Really? Just proof that "you can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep-seated need to believe.
This video proves that Bart E. is right. The speaker defends the reliability of the NT using an expression " Jesus loved Paul" Which is not found in the NT. The scribes did the same thing, they added expressions to implement their own view of Jesus. I think Jesus would not have loved Paul or any of his teachings, especially for trashing the law of Moses.
can you give historical evidence that the Bible is corrupted. Give me list of bibles that are not compatible with each other. If you can`t, then you fail to prove your point.
Are you saying that mistakes(by the way, they are not just textual but contradicting statements too!) and additions to the "word of God" are not a big deal? Some might say that it is not the literal 'word of God' but it is "inspired"....well...for me that's the same! In any case, it is serious! A so called book 'from' God cannot and should not have any contradictions in it!
Why do critics always harp on the numbers Dr- Ehrman used and not the content??? He was simply using those numbers to demonstrate just how much variance there is and never (in my copy) said that so many errors proves the Bible is wrong. There is proof that the bible was changed for political reasons. There are mistakes in the bible between chapters. If this was a court trial, the bible "witnesses" would have long ago been deemed unreliable.
hey sir i dont know your background but here this!!!!! NO ONE IN MY LUTHERAN CHURCH KNEW ABOUT THOSE 40 things added in the bible! so you still have not backed up your claim that he is wrong..... it is a HUGE DEAL that there are falacies and no one knows about. kind of makes you wonder hu?you cant call the new testament the WORD OF GOD. only the old testament is! and what about the apocrypha and pseudopigrapha? why are they not in the protestant canon? you need to think logically man....
You make some good points. But you said that those certain passages were "not in the original manuscripts" when a more accurate way to say it is that they were not in what we call the "earliest extant" manuscripts. But I'm not impressed with that argument from age. Older manuscripts CAN be less reliable than younger ones, depending on certain factors. People tend to forget that. Early doesn't always mean better and more accurate. This fallacy permeates much of modern textual criticism.
99% of the variants in the NT manuscripts are just spelling differences that don't change the meaning of the text. There are VERY few variants that are truely controversial.
But most evangelicals do not know this===most importantly they do not understand how internally inconsistent the NT is and how often it mistranslates the Hewbrew scriptures. How can God mistranslate his own word
"We've known about these [interpolations] for a hundred years"?
Obviously not. Otherwise the apologists, wouldn't have been preaching the 'Trinity' based on the Johannine Comma all this time. Or writing sermons on the compassion of Jesus as evidenced by the Pericope adulterae.
By the way, the 30,000 variants were from John Mill from 1707. That's 300 years!
When are Evangelicals going to get around to explain these texts?
Good stuff, reflect7. Keep up the good work. Your demeanor is inviting and your points are precise... good stuff.
I want to comment after reading much of the "debates" going on here, but it's kind of pointless in the end.... Your mirror my thoughts and views on the Bible and more importantly the Resurrection.
The story of Jesus and the Woman Caught in Adultery is not found in the earliest manuscripts. That story is found only in later copies. Why?
If the Bible is the perfect, inerrant word of God, then why were there so many changes like this? Why didn't God prevent the Word from being so dramatically altered?
I've come to the conclusion that my God is not false, but the commonly accepted Christian dogma certainly is. It's time to stop worshiping the Bible.
Sorry, but I have heard sermons that hinge upon the use of the word, 'if' vs 'is' etc. Those little words DO matter. 'All' vs 'some' is a huge difference. IT MATTERS!!!!
Addressing the line of thought below (ending with MrFacet), I didn't say that Ehrman calls all the variants "Big Things" -- In fact, he's clear to indicate that most of the variants are insignificant (and I agree). However, each time he delivers this simple statement, he follows it with a loaded conclusion.
Misquoting, p. 208 -- "To be sure, of all the hundreds of thousands of textual changes found among our manuscripts, most of them are completely insignificant, immaterial, of no real importance for anything other than showing that scribes could not spell or keep focused any better than the rest of us.
"It would be wrong, however, to say—as people sometimes do—that the changes in our text have no real bearing on what the texts mean or on the theological conclusions that one draws from them. We have seen, in fact, that just the opposite is the case.
"In some instances, the very meaning of the text is at stake, depending on how one resolves a textual problem: Was Jesus an angry man? Was he completely distraught in the face of death? Did he tell his disciples that they could drink poison without being harmed? Did he let an adulteress off the hook with nothing but a mild warning?
"Is the doctrine of the Trinity explicitly taught in the New Testament? Is Jesus actually called the "unique God" there? Does the New Testament indicate that even the Son of God himself does not know when the end will come? The questions go on and on..."
It's the above list that I refer to as Ehrman's biggies -- Mark 1:41, Hebrews 2:8-9, Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53-8:11, 1 John 5:7-8, John 1:18, Matthew 24:36 -- and he ends this discussion of known variants with the open-ended statement, "the questions go on and on..." Sorry, I'm not that slick -- I'm just pointing things out. (By the way, I have no idea what he said in some lecture you attended.)
YOu cannot just throw out the variant readings, because we have no original manuscripts. You don't know what a standard is unless you have something to compare it to. Your Jesus loves Paul example is too simple. Read his Orthodox Corruption of Scripture which argues that Christians changed manuscripts to read what they knew the lines meant.
This slick bloke in the vid accuses dr. Ehrman for pretending all differences are Big Things. If you actually listen to him, e.g. in his Stanford Lecture, the very first thing he says after telling how many differences are found, is telling by far the most of them are insignificant, and of the others many are non intentional. So go forth and be ashamed, slick one.
Ha! 25000 manuscripts. Sure, but they're all copied from only a few 'originals' and the earliest 'originals' are from decades and decades after the books were written. These issues RIGHTLY challenge people's faith, because it begs the question: what on earth happened to the stories in the decades that they were passed on orally? Why, for instance, does Paul (pre-gospels) say nothing at all about the resurrection being the ticket to salvation!?
Furthermore, Mr. Niles seems to argue that the premise of Dr. Ehrman's book is to show these New Testament variations as revelations. Wrong. You are misreading the thesis Mr. Niles. The basic premise of this book is to show that the texts are not perfect, were written by man-and by man's nature-are imperfect. Henceforth, one cannot quote the New Testament as if it were the exact word of God. Thanks and goodnight.
First, I would like to know Niles credentials. Where did he graduate from? Does he have PhD? Has he every published ANYTHING that has stood up against academic scrutiny? My guesses are probably no. And if he has published, let's see who has examined his work. Are they scholars at accredited institutions? Or are they Bible Colleges who very often lack the intense academic atmosphere of other institutions?
like bart said when something was changed then the next would have been changed becuased it was copied from copies we dont have the original just bad copies from bad copies
Theologian 27- I agree. But it does matter in terms of the very very many at the moment (as in the USA or Northern Ireland) who claim that it is the exact word of God. It is very important in that case because it effectively destroys their position.
So why don't we throw out all the "Gospels" except Mark? Because it doesn't have nonsense like the Virgin birth and the Resurrection, which the other ones added in later on, and Mark's agreed to have been written earlier. "No major theological differences"? Hah.
Hi Randal. Nice try, but you are nothing more than a critical text scholar who does not believe The Bible (any bible in any language) is now the preserved, complete and infallible word of God. Your NIV continues to change its text every few years and often rejects the Hebrew texts.
Google search "the Bible is not the inspired and inerrant word of God'. Look for brandplucked. The King James Bible is, but surely not the niv.
this has been known for ages, These so called Muslim Scholars and christian scholars always debated regarding this issue, all the holy books has been corrupted as written text.the term Son Of God has been added in the bible at an early time.
It is true that there are a lots of variants through all the manuscripts regarding the NT.. but we should have in mind that none of them changes its theology and its message.
Would that be the horrible message of "Every human is sinful and deserving of eternal damnation" and only through accepting a human blood sacrifice can we be "saved"? I am particularly fond of the idea that God must sacrifice himself, to himself to wash away the sins of his creatures who breaks the rules god knows are impossible to follow.
theologian27: when there are contradictions between the gospels, i think finding out which one has the best authory certainly does change the message!
You people crack me up. You're so defensive, when Bart's book is surprisingly neutral in tone and amazingly unbiased. So much so that it's hard to know if it was even written by a Christian or agnostic (everything he points out was reinforced in Bruce Metzger's works too). Bart doesn't 'toss' these things out there as 'new discoveries'. He says they're old and spends pages talking about J. Mill's work in 1707.
Psandberqnz, those "snippets" add up to the whole way before the 5th century. In fact, all of the New Testament except eleven minor verses can be reconstructed outside the Biblical manuscripts from the writings of the early church leaders in the second and third centuries AD.
reflect7, you make a fair point regarding the extra-biblical sources. I know there are quotations from the NT in early Church letters, notably Clement of Rome (died in ca. 100 AD). However, I am skeptical of the authenticity of many of these references, since the manuscripts are very late - nowhere near the originals. However, I am not in a position to make a value judgment on this.
Mediaetc, a primary point of Misquoting Jesus is to question the underlying Christian theology. Did you read his personal story at the beginning of the book? When it comes to his Christian faith, he had a "radical rethinking," a "seismic change" -- Indeed, he went from Christian to the "happy agnostic." How can you say nothing in Misquoting attacks Christian theology?
"To be sure, of all the hundreds of thousands of textual changes found among our manuscripts, most of them are completely insignificant, immaterial, of no real importance for anything other than showing that scribes could not spell or keep focused any better than the rest of us. It would be wrong, however, to say—as people sometimes do—that the changes in our text have no real bearing on what the texts mean or on the theological conclusions that one draws from them." (Misquoting, 208)
There is not just the small problem of variant manuscripts. The major problem is that we don't have manuscripts from before the Council of Nicaea in the 5th century (except the occasional snippet), so we can't claim to know Jesus' words. We have much historical evidence of the corruption of the early church, in whose custody the sacred texts were - should sound alarm bells! Bart doesn't claim that the textual additions you mention are "new discoveries".
My point of the "new discoveries" statement was the tone of the second half of the book for those who haven't examined textual criticism -- The narrative is delivered as "new discoveries" for the public (those who haven't had the benefit of residing in the Academy).
You are beeng misleading. Ehrman says that he is presenting nothing new and he highlights that scholars have known these problems for a long time. He never says that the addition of the last lines of Mark are a "new discovery". He also goes to great length to say, as does his mentor Bruce Metzger, that nothing presented in the book changes Christian theology. It's fine to respond and offer criticisms of Ehrman's book, but be honest in representing his argument before you knock it down.
I don't think I'm being misleading at all. Ehrman spends years with Metzger working on editions of "The Text Of The New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, And Restoration" (fourth edition, 2005; first edition starts in 1964). In Misquoting Jesus, Ehrman puposefully forgets the "Restoration" part of textual criticism. He only presents the "Transmission" and "Corruption" pieces.
Theological seminaries are very sad.You can not do honest research because you cant contradict anyones doctrine.Historians and scholars such as Erhamn do not care of the outcome from their research.Unlike folks like Strobel who have an agenda.
Homer is fiction, it doesn't matter if its not accurate as people don't base their life on the Iliad.
Christians base their beliefs on a book that is not accurate and when its proven to be so don't seem to care or trivialize it as a simple 'THE' here or there in greek.
Continuing my thread to 'Bible Truth' from below...
My 100 years comment on these scriptures relates to when traditional Christian scholars started footnoting mainstream Bibles, teaching this material in seminaries, etc. The traditional populace of Christianity has no problem questioning these 40 lines of text -- Pick up an NIV Bible today and read the footnotes.
Again, my problem with Bart isn't addressing the 40 lines of problem text, it's his argument that we throw out Christianity based on these 40 questionable lines -- That's all textual critics have come up with -- They have nothing to do with core doctrine.
Nile's facts are wrong. Bart Erhman didnt just throw any information out there. The info has been around for 300 years NOT 100 as Niles pretends to be authority over. Ehrman's question is why hasn't the populous of Christianity every questioned it. Niles even admits to the added lines in the Gospel of Mark and seems perfectly content with it although there are Christian denominations and Churches founded around these scriptures.
Where do I say Bart just throws information out there? He's a brilliant textual critic who studied for years under the best, Bruce Metzger. My argument is that his conclusion is wrong -- Just because a couple of Christian sects/cults handle snakes as part of their rituals (end of Mark), I'm supposed to throw out the rest of the biblical text?
Sorry, for my using 'throw' as you stated, "Tosses out a hanging notion" is the exact quote at 1:19 of the video. 'a couple of sects' is an understatement when most major charismatic denominations use these scriptures regularly and NO you are NOT to throw the rest out, just be certain of what your adhering to as truth as it pertains to scripture because one still has to study to show one's self approved.
Indeed, we don't have the originals of Plato, Homer, or Caesar, either. Thus the need for testing the integrity of any ancient work through manuscripts, history, witnesses, archaeology -- textual criticism itself. It's interesting that Bart spent so many years analyzing the textual variants in scripture with Metzger if the point was to reject it all anyway bc we don't have the autographs.
Bart Ehrman and Metzger analyze the textual variants to discover earliest readings we can possible find. It is reasonable for Ehrman to look for the earliest surviving reading and still be concerned because there's no guarantee that the earliest SURVIVING reading is the original. Therefore, it is very possible, quite probable actually, that Jesus has been "misquoted" and Ehrman should be praised for bringing this up.
Indeed, as I mentioned below, we don't have any autographs of any ancient history we "trust" as authentic everyday -- Since scholars didn't have computers and printing presses, they copied the most important writings. We can either reject everything from the ancient world or analyze the ancient texts according to the same rules of textual criticism.
Textual criticism in this case is not about finding the autographs - the original reading. It's about finding the earliest SURVIVING reading. Ehrman studies the Bible for this reason. It makes sense to look for the earliest surviving reading even though we can never be sure that it's the original reading. Whether or not he "rejects" something has nothing to do with his mission - finding the earliest reading.
The reason professor Ehrman says that we can't trust the scriptures is because we don't have the originals. Everyone admits that, even Josh McDowell. It is a fact that our version of Mark is badly corrupted. J.D. Crossan said it best and I paraphrase: "All gospels were Apocrypha before 180 AD." i.e. copied without care. The surviving versions of Matthew, Mark and Luke are like branches on a tree - a family tree - and the common ancestor has been lost. See "Ancient Christian Gospels" by Koester.
I don't have any autographs of any ancient texts -- I have copies of copies because people deeply cared to make copies. Plato, Homer, Tacitus... no different. We use textual criticism on those texts all the time. We don't have even autographs of Shakespeare...
Yes yes tacitus has mayjor problems also, and all these authors dont claim to be the word of God or inspired. Im not sure but I highly doubt that the copies of those have as many problems as the bible do.
Remember, the issue here isn't "interpretation," but integrity of the translations. Also, this 4-minute piece wasn't intended to be a comprehensive review of the book -- Go to the article linked in the above text for the complete review. Thanks.
Hey I also noticed on most of your videos you dont approve comments.. you want everything to be one sided as much as you want others to say Bart is one sided.
If you speak up.. be ready to debate what you have said.. otherwise go take a seat buddy!
Facts are.. even if the bible is scripturally accurate from the originals that doesnt mean that men today are interpretating it correctly.. We see evidence of this with so many denominations and offshoots of christianity..
If you say no that has been interpreted as being for only that time and period.. then it leads us into what other scripture is open to interpretation? Who determines what gets interpretated? Certainly someone holding a diploma doesnt.. we have airheads filling the pulpit every month fresh out of colleges who are less qualified to lead, serve and teach than someone who strolls into a church gathering.
I think he is missing the biggest point in the book. Namely that the 'fragments' he is talking do not even come close to the manuscripts the original authors wrote, due to the letter for letter copying by hand in that time.
You would get a better understanding yes, but come close to the originals from 2000 years ago? I don't think so.
Very good, thanks for the update. This continues to show me that the NT writings are good and valid events and my belief in Jesus is solid and valid since the events were recorded and pass onto the current time in good condition and accurately kept. Thanks again.
MRGV7373 1 month ago
Ehrnan actually does state in his videos most corruptions are irrelevent and that bible scholars know about the additions. He does say that layman Christians do not know this though.
Mr Niles says these additions are known about. Who put them there? What was the purpose? And why are they still there if it is known not to be true?
Is it correct to say have come from God when you know it is not true?
wizard99uk 3 months ago
Great video, thanks for posting it. This guy Bart Erman who wrote Misquoting Jesus reminds me of Paul's thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan sent to buffit believers. And your way of looking at all these differences in these manuscripts is like Paul rejoicing in his weaknesses in order to become strong in the Lord and overcome any obsticle set in his way by the enemy.
AMATTEROFTRUTH 7 months ago
Your conclusion is unfounded. Agreed, most variants are irrelevant. But some are not. The strongest verse supporting the Trinity is in 1 John, and it's not in the original variants. Whether there's a trinity or not matters.
Furthermore, Bart's point is that if we already know there are errors and in some cases forgeries, how do we know there aren't even more in the earliest scripts, of which we have no copies. Your confidence in the bible is unfounded by simple logic.
paulinator61 10 months ago
lol...this guy isnt biased at all, is he....ahem.
JudahsLion99 1 year ago
I dont think this idiot actually read the book because he is misquoting Ehrman.
cjjt2000 1 year ago
if youd known that for hundreds of years why arent they made known to your followers?cmon face it it was and is still misleading to add things that werent there in the first plce.
salemslot777 1 year ago
The problem with the Bible is that we don't have copies going all the way back. Before the copies we have, we just don't know what changes were made and what ideas were eliminated. In his other book "Lost Christianities" he points out a number of groups that held ideas that would barely be considered Christian in current times, but they did exist, and they had books, too. We don't even know who the original authors were.
So how can we say we know what was "originally" written?
ManicEightBall 1 year ago
It's almost comic... if it wasn't sad that people will content themselves with this tripe instead of reading the scholarly material.
CadaverSplatter 2 years ago
My own personal bible .. "Be nice to eachother" : The End!
bonnie43uk 2 years ago
@bonnie43uk You have hit on the highest of spiritual attributes. This will stand you in good stead in the life to come. Read "Life in the World Unseen", free download from the internet.
k0smon 1 year ago
The mistakes and contradictions in the texts show clearly that the authors often made up 'facts' which they did not check. And they had NO idea that they were living on a spinning planet, which circles the sun. They had no idea what a day really is!
BjornPalmen 2 years ago
He pretty much just proved that Bart Ehrman is right by saying that the bible changed at all since corruption can be defined as the alteration of a text. A holy book could NEVER be altered unless it was corrupt,hence making the bible corrupt.
sandslasher4 2 years ago 5
@sandslasher4 Very true. Just further evidence of an absentee landlord.
Mirror4u2 1 year ago
Jesus loved Paul??? Really? Just proof that "you can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep-seated need to believe.
-Carl Sagan
pianodon 2 years ago
what can you say about the critique made by mark d. roberts, james snapp, ff bruce, craig blomberg?
tikbalang65 2 years ago
cognitive dissonance.........LOL. Sorry, although I am a believer I must say that this is a poor attempt to sweep a serious matter under the rug.
YahoshuaMyLord 3 years ago 4
This video proves that Bart E. is right. The speaker defends the reliability of the NT using an expression " Jesus loved Paul" Which is not found in the NT. The scribes did the same thing, they added expressions to implement their own view of Jesus. I think Jesus would not have loved Paul or any of his teachings, especially for trashing the law of Moses.
1MoreMuslim 3 years ago
can you give historical evidence that the Bible is corrupted. Give me list of bibles that are not compatible with each other. If you can`t, then you fail to prove your point.
kiddo500 2 years ago
Go back to Grad School and this is not an Insult.
Ckordobah 2 years ago
Are you saying that mistakes(by the way, they are not just textual but contradicting statements too!) and additions to the "word of God" are not a big deal? Some might say that it is not the literal 'word of God' but it is "inspired"....well...for me that's the same! In any case, it is serious! A so called book 'from' God cannot and should not have any contradictions in it!
gazkour 3 years ago
Why do critics always harp on the numbers Dr- Ehrman used and not the content??? He was simply using those numbers to demonstrate just how much variance there is and never (in my copy) said that so many errors proves the Bible is wrong. There is proof that the bible was changed for political reasons. There are mistakes in the bible between chapters. If this was a court trial, the bible "witnesses" would have long ago been deemed unreliable.
jimmo42 3 years ago
hey sir i dont know your background but here this!!!!! NO ONE IN MY LUTHERAN CHURCH KNEW ABOUT THOSE 40 things added in the bible! so you still have not backed up your claim that he is wrong..... it is a HUGE DEAL that there are falacies and no one knows about. kind of makes you wonder hu?you cant call the new testament the WORD OF GOD. only the old testament is! and what about the apocrypha and pseudopigrapha? why are they not in the protestant canon? you need to think logically man....
GiftofGod18 3 years ago
You make some good points. But you said that those certain passages were "not in the original manuscripts" when a more accurate way to say it is that they were not in what we call the "earliest extant" manuscripts. But I'm not impressed with that argument from age. Older manuscripts CAN be less reliable than younger ones, depending on certain factors. People tend to forget that. Early doesn't always mean better and more accurate. This fallacy permeates much of modern textual criticism.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
You have completely misrepresented Prof Ehrman's work.
dfarmer1584 3 years ago
I agree he has, why to protect his faith, as he doesnt know who he is once he finds out that bart is right in what he has found..
myfacevids 3 years ago
99% of the variants in the NT manuscripts are just spelling differences that don't change the meaning of the text. There are VERY few variants that are truely controversial.
braino2000 3 years ago
So the bible thumpers are thumping their heads now ?
tudungsenduk 3 years ago
Why don't the churches teach us these history?
Most of the American Christians don't even know that was how the New Testament construsted.
If the Bible is truely the Word of God, why then extra verses were added by men?
espms290 3 years ago 2
not every christian holds this sort of view of scripture. the bible is not the word of God it CONTAINS the word of God. big difference.
migkillertwo 3 years ago
??? I can go add to the Bible right now...that says nothing about whether the Bible is the word of God or not.
marephrem 3 years ago
But most evangelicals do not know this===most importantly they do not understand how internally inconsistent the NT is and how often it mistranslates the Hewbrew scriptures. How can God mistranslate his own word
ShalomYal 3 years ago
"We've known about these [interpolations] for a hundred years"?
Obviously not. Otherwise the apologists, wouldn't have been preaching the 'Trinity' based on the Johannine Comma all this time. Or writing sermons on the compassion of Jesus as evidenced by the Pericope adulterae.
By the way, the 30,000 variants were from John Mill from 1707. That's 300 years!
When are Evangelicals going to get around to explain these texts?
dread77706 3 years ago
what are the variants?
BillRatio 1 year ago
sorry about my last comment about paul what I meen that jesus never met anyone who wrote the bible
lbwwotsw 3 years ago
for your information jesus never met paul
and never met any body who wrote the bible
lbwwotsw 3 years ago
He kind of met him on the road to Damascus.
canudigit63 3 years ago
Good stuff, reflect7. Keep up the good work. Your demeanor is inviting and your points are precise... good stuff.
I want to comment after reading much of the "debates" going on here, but it's kind of pointless in the end.... Your mirror my thoughts and views on the Bible and more importantly the Resurrection.
DelGriffith10 4 years ago
Bible is inspired by "GOD" but written by man and whatever is manmade is flawed.
o0n1 4 years ago
One hundred added Bible verses in the sixteenth century? Which ones are they?
LifeIsABigPuzzle 4 years ago
The story of Jesus and the Woman Caught in Adultery is not found in the earliest manuscripts. That story is found only in later copies. Why?
If the Bible is the perfect, inerrant word of God, then why were there so many changes like this? Why didn't God prevent the Word from being so dramatically altered?
I've come to the conclusion that my God is not false, but the commonly accepted Christian dogma certainly is. It's time to stop worshiping the Bible.
UltraSWG 4 years ago
Sorry, but I have heard sermons that hinge upon the use of the word, 'if' vs 'is' etc. Those little words DO matter. 'All' vs 'some' is a huge difference. IT MATTERS!!!!
Entropy56 4 years ago
Addressing the line of thought below (ending with MrFacet), I didn't say that Ehrman calls all the variants "Big Things" -- In fact, he's clear to indicate that most of the variants are insignificant (and I agree). However, each time he delivers this simple statement, he follows it with a loaded conclusion.
reflect7 4 years ago
Misquoting, p. 208 -- "To be sure, of all the hundreds of thousands of textual changes found among our manuscripts, most of them are completely insignificant, immaterial, of no real importance for anything other than showing that scribes could not spell or keep focused any better than the rest of us.
reflect7 4 years ago
he also says it in the introduction p10 at the bottem
nailo1 3 years ago
"It would be wrong, however, to say—as people sometimes do—that the changes in our text have no real bearing on what the texts mean or on the theological conclusions that one draws from them. We have seen, in fact, that just the opposite is the case.
reflect7 4 years ago
"In some instances, the very meaning of the text is at stake, depending on how one resolves a textual problem: Was Jesus an angry man? Was he completely distraught in the face of death? Did he tell his disciples that they could drink poison without being harmed? Did he let an adulteress off the hook with nothing but a mild warning?
reflect7 4 years ago
"Is the doctrine of the Trinity explicitly taught in the New Testament? Is Jesus actually called the "unique God" there? Does the New Testament indicate that even the Son of God himself does not know when the end will come? The questions go on and on..."
reflect7 4 years ago
It's the above list that I refer to as Ehrman's biggies -- Mark 1:41, Hebrews 2:8-9, Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53-8:11, 1 John 5:7-8, John 1:18, Matthew 24:36 -- and he ends this discussion of known variants with the open-ended statement, "the questions go on and on..." Sorry, I'm not that slick -- I'm just pointing things out. (By the way, I have no idea what he said in some lecture you attended.)
reflect7 4 years ago
YOu cannot just throw out the variant readings, because we have no original manuscripts. You don't know what a standard is unless you have something to compare it to. Your Jesus loves Paul example is too simple. Read his Orthodox Corruption of Scripture which argues that Christians changed manuscripts to read what they knew the lines meant.
samuelmorrison 4 years ago
This slick bloke in the vid accuses dr. Ehrman for pretending all differences are Big Things. If you actually listen to him, e.g. in his Stanford Lecture, the very first thing he says after telling how many differences are found, is telling by far the most of them are insignificant, and of the others many are non intentional. So go forth and be ashamed, slick one.
MrFacet 4 years ago
Ha! 25000 manuscripts. Sure, but they're all copied from only a few 'originals' and the earliest 'originals' are from decades and decades after the books were written. These issues RIGHTLY challenge people's faith, because it begs the question: what on earth happened to the stories in the decades that they were passed on orally? Why, for instance, does Paul (pre-gospels) say nothing at all about the resurrection being the ticket to salvation!?
peanutaxis 4 years ago
Furthermore, Mr. Niles seems to argue that the premise of Dr. Ehrman's book is to show these New Testament variations as revelations. Wrong. You are misreading the thesis Mr. Niles. The basic premise of this book is to show that the texts are not perfect, were written by man-and by man's nature-are imperfect. Henceforth, one cannot quote the New Testament as if it were the exact word of God. Thanks and goodnight.
mindgame87 4 years ago
First, I would like to know Niles credentials. Where did he graduate from? Does he have PhD? Has he every published ANYTHING that has stood up against academic scrutiny? My guesses are probably no. And if he has published, let's see who has examined his work. Are they scholars at accredited institutions? Or are they Bible Colleges who very often lack the intense academic atmosphere of other institutions?
mindgame87 4 years ago
like bart said when something was changed then the next would have been changed becuased it was copied from copies we dont have the original just bad copies from bad copies
nailo1 4 years ago
Theologian 27- I agree. But it does matter in terms of the very very many at the moment (as in the USA or Northern Ireland) who claim that it is the exact word of God. It is very important in that case because it effectively destroys their position.
karlobarlo 4 years ago
So why don't we throw out all the "Gospels" except Mark? Because it doesn't have nonsense like the Virgin birth and the Resurrection, which the other ones added in later on, and Mark's agreed to have been written earlier. "No major theological differences"? Hah.
RolfLarsson 4 years ago
Hi Randal. Nice try, but you are nothing more than a critical text scholar who does not believe The Bible (any bible in any language) is now the preserved, complete and infallible word of God. Your NIV continues to change its text every few years and often rejects the Hebrew texts.
Google search "the Bible is not the inspired and inerrant word of God'. Look for brandplucked. The King James Bible is, but surely not the niv.
Brandplucked 4 years ago
this has been known for ages, These so called Muslim Scholars and christian scholars always debated regarding this issue, all the holy books has been corrupted as written text.the term Son Of God has been added in the bible at an early time.
brodamo 4 years ago
Your belief is both helpful and encouraging. I hope to eventually end up being of the same mind.
dovad16 4 years ago
great
theologian27 4 years ago
It is true that there are a lots of variants through all the manuscripts regarding the NT.. but we should have in mind that none of them changes its theology and its message.
theologian27 4 years ago
Would that be the horrible message of "Every human is sinful and deserving of eternal damnation" and only through accepting a human blood sacrifice can we be "saved"? I am particularly fond of the idea that God must sacrifice himself, to himself to wash away the sins of his creatures who breaks the rules god knows are impossible to follow.
kev3d 4 years ago 2
theologian27: when there are contradictions between the gospels, i think finding out which one has the best authory certainly does change the message!
MrFacet 4 years ago
You people crack me up. You're so defensive, when Bart's book is surprisingly neutral in tone and amazingly unbiased. So much so that it's hard to know if it was even written by a Christian or agnostic (everything he points out was reinforced in Bruce Metzger's works too). Bart doesn't 'toss' these things out there as 'new discoveries'. He says they're old and spends pages talking about J. Mill's work in 1707.
dookdawg214 4 years ago
Psandberqnz, those "snippets" add up to the whole way before the 5th century. In fact, all of the New Testament except eleven minor verses can be reconstructed outside the Biblical manuscripts from the writings of the early church leaders in the second and third centuries AD.
reflect7 4 years ago
reflect7, you make a fair point regarding the extra-biblical sources. I know there are quotations from the NT in early Church letters, notably Clement of Rome (died in ca. 100 AD). However, I am skeptical of the authenticity of many of these references, since the manuscripts are very late - nowhere near the originals. However, I am not in a position to make a value judgment on this.
sandbergnz 4 years ago
Mediaetc, a primary point of Misquoting Jesus is to question the underlying Christian theology. Did you read his personal story at the beginning of the book? When it comes to his Christian faith, he had a "radical rethinking," a "seismic change" -- Indeed, he went from Christian to the "happy agnostic." How can you say nothing in Misquoting attacks Christian theology?
reflect7 4 years ago
"To be sure, of all the hundreds of thousands of textual changes found among our manuscripts, most of them are completely insignificant, immaterial, of no real importance for anything other than showing that scribes could not spell or keep focused any better than the rest of us. It would be wrong, however, to say—as people sometimes do—that the changes in our text have no real bearing on what the texts mean or on the theological conclusions that one draws from them." (Misquoting, 208)
reflect7 4 years ago
There is not just the small problem of variant manuscripts. The major problem is that we don't have manuscripts from before the Council of Nicaea in the 5th century (except the occasional snippet), so we can't claim to know Jesus' words. We have much historical evidence of the corruption of the early church, in whose custody the sacred texts were - should sound alarm bells! Bart doesn't claim that the textual additions you mention are "new discoveries".
psandbergnz 4 years ago
My point of the "new discoveries" statement was the tone of the second half of the book for those who haven't examined textual criticism -- The narrative is delivered as "new discoveries" for the public (those who haven't had the benefit of residing in the Academy).
reflect7 4 years ago
You are beeng misleading. Ehrman says that he is presenting nothing new and he highlights that scholars have known these problems for a long time. He never says that the addition of the last lines of Mark are a "new discovery". He also goes to great length to say, as does his mentor Bruce Metzger, that nothing presented in the book changes Christian theology. It's fine to respond and offer criticisms of Ehrman's book, but be honest in representing his argument before you knock it down.
mediaetc 4 years ago
I don't think I'm being misleading at all. Ehrman spends years with Metzger working on editions of "The Text Of The New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, And Restoration" (fourth edition, 2005; first edition starts in 1964). In Misquoting Jesus, Ehrman puposefully forgets the "Restoration" part of textual criticism. He only presents the "Transmission" and "Corruption" pieces.
reflect7 4 years ago
Theological seminaries are very sad.You can not do honest research because you cant contradict anyones doctrine.Historians and scholars such as Erhamn do not care of the outcome from their research.Unlike folks like Strobel who have an agenda.
jbduke52 4 years ago
Homer is fiction, it doesn't matter if its not accurate as people don't base their life on the Iliad.
Christians base their beliefs on a book that is not accurate and when its proven to be so don't seem to care or trivialize it as a simple 'THE' here or there in greek.
iamleavingchina 4 years ago 2
Continuing my thread to 'Bible Truth' from below...
My 100 years comment on these scriptures relates to when traditional Christian scholars started footnoting mainstream Bibles, teaching this material in seminaries, etc. The traditional populace of Christianity has no problem questioning these 40 lines of text -- Pick up an NIV Bible today and read the footnotes.
reflect7 4 years ago
Again, my problem with Bart isn't addressing the 40 lines of problem text, it's his argument that we throw out Christianity based on these 40 questionable lines -- That's all textual critics have come up with -- They have nothing to do with core doctrine.
reflect7 4 years ago
Nile's facts are wrong. Bart Erhman didnt just throw any information out there. The info has been around for 300 years NOT 100 as Niles pretends to be authority over. Ehrman's question is why hasn't the populous of Christianity every questioned it. Niles even admits to the added lines in the Gospel of Mark and seems perfectly content with it although there are Christian denominations and Churches founded around these scriptures.
BibleTruth 4 years ago
Where do I say Bart just throws information out there? He's a brilliant textual critic who studied for years under the best, Bruce Metzger. My argument is that his conclusion is wrong -- Just because a couple of Christian sects/cults handle snakes as part of their rituals (end of Mark), I'm supposed to throw out the rest of the biblical text?
reflect7 4 years ago
Sorry, for my using 'throw' as you stated, "Tosses out a hanging notion" is the exact quote at 1:19 of the video. 'a couple of sects' is an understatement when most major charismatic denominations use these scriptures regularly and NO you are NOT to throw the rest out, just be certain of what your adhering to as truth as it pertains to scripture because one still has to study to show one's self approved.
BibleTruth 4 years ago
Are you saying his conclusion is to have the bible thrown out because of textual problems?
canudigit63 3 years ago
God has inspired and providentially preserved His word from apograph onward via His promises.
Bart Ehrman's Bible commentary is worthless.
He is an outside, insignificant footnote of history.
Listen to him teach and thus, waste your time and money.
trac4yt 4 years ago
Indeed, we don't have the originals of Plato, Homer, or Caesar, either. Thus the need for testing the integrity of any ancient work through manuscripts, history, witnesses, archaeology -- textual criticism itself. It's interesting that Bart spent so many years analyzing the textual variants in scripture with Metzger if the point was to reject it all anyway bc we don't have the autographs.
reflect7 4 years ago
Bart Ehrman and Metzger analyze the textual variants to discover earliest readings we can possible find. It is reasonable for Ehrman to look for the earliest surviving reading and still be concerned because there's no guarantee that the earliest SURVIVING reading is the original. Therefore, it is very possible, quite probable actually, that Jesus has been "misquoted" and Ehrman should be praised for bringing this up.
DoctorMurky 4 years ago
Indeed, as I mentioned below, we don't have any autographs of any ancient history we "trust" as authentic everyday -- Since scholars didn't have computers and printing presses, they copied the most important writings. We can either reject everything from the ancient world or analyze the ancient texts according to the same rules of textual criticism.
reflect7 4 years ago
Textual criticism in this case is not about finding the autographs - the original reading. It's about finding the earliest SURVIVING reading. Ehrman studies the Bible for this reason. It makes sense to look for the earliest surviving reading even though we can never be sure that it's the original reading. Whether or not he "rejects" something has nothing to do with his mission - finding the earliest reading.
DoctorMurky 4 years ago
The reason professor Ehrman says that we can't trust the scriptures is because we don't have the originals. Everyone admits that, even Josh McDowell. It is a fact that our version of Mark is badly corrupted. J.D. Crossan said it best and I paraphrase: "All gospels were Apocrypha before 180 AD." i.e. copied without care. The surviving versions of Matthew, Mark and Luke are like branches on a tree - a family tree - and the common ancestor has been lost. See "Ancient Christian Gospels" by Koester.
DoctorMurky 4 years ago
I don't have any autographs of any ancient texts -- I have copies of copies because people deeply cared to make copies. Plato, Homer, Tacitus... no different. We use textual criticism on those texts all the time. We don't have even autographs of Shakespeare...
reflect7 4 years ago
Yes yes tacitus has mayjor problems also, and all these authors dont claim to be the word of God or inspired. Im not sure but I highly doubt that the copies of those have as many problems as the bible do.
krazzylad 3 years ago
Remember, the issue here isn't "interpretation," but integrity of the translations. Also, this 4-minute piece wasn't intended to be a comprehensive review of the book -- Go to the article linked in the above text for the complete review. Thanks.
reflect7 4 years ago
Relax -- You posted your comments yesterday... Here they are.
reflect7 4 years ago
Hey I also noticed on most of your videos you dont approve comments.. you want everything to be one sided as much as you want others to say Bart is one sided.
If you speak up.. be ready to debate what you have said.. otherwise go take a seat buddy!
myfacevids 4 years ago
Facts are.. even if the bible is scripturally accurate from the originals that doesnt mean that men today are interpretating it correctly.. We see evidence of this with so many denominations and offshoots of christianity..
myfacevids 4 years ago
The question you need to answer is this..
SHould women be quiet in church?
If you say no that has been interpreted as being for only that time and period.. then it leads us into what other scripture is open to interpretation? Who determines what gets interpretated? Certainly someone holding a diploma doesnt.. we have airheads filling the pulpit every month fresh out of colleges who are less qualified to lead, serve and teach than someone who strolls into a church gathering.
myfacevids 4 years ago
I think he is missing the biggest point in the book. Namely that the 'fragments' he is talking do not even come close to the manuscripts the original authors wrote, due to the letter for letter copying by hand in that time.
You would get a better understanding yes, but come close to the originals from 2000 years ago? I don't think so.
Hao1981 4 years ago
Bart Erhman wrote "misquoting Jesus" for the lay man.Of course scholars have known this for a very long time.He never says the didnt.
jbduke51 4 years ago