what to do with ehrman's book? if i had to spend time and effort with every heretical piece of nonsense that came out i would have nothing else to do but read this stuff.
I would ignore it.
this is only "brittle fundamentaliism" if it is not genuine conviction. I can safely ignore ehrman , and propose to do, chiefly as every other controversial lbook i have looked at has been weighed and found wanting, and why should i expect this one to be different?
How more real can I be? The argument here is the Torah of Moses, the Gospel of Jesus and the Quran. Except for the most ignorant every textual critic of the old and the new Testament testify that they are the works of anonymous writers; they are neither the words of God nor of His prophets except for a few quotations here and there. To top up that they are not the writings of the people who claim to have written them. Let's be real, can you please addressed this issue.
@mfaume46 Preserved as in the copies of the Quran after Uthman had the first "burn the Quran" day by burning the original quranic manuscripts and getting rid of the evidence so that people would not have different recitations and start fighting over it. How can anyone think that a murderous pedophile who tried commiting suicide repeated times by throwing himself off a mountain and lied to his wife so she would leave the house and he could have sex with her female slave is a prophet? Get real
What Wallace and the new liberals don't understand is that the fundamental problem is not Ehrman's conclusions, but his questions themselves. That they legitimize his questions reveals that they are skeptics in Christian garb and that they have the same starting points: Human rationale and modern empirical verification. Where Wallace went wrong so many years ago is when he allowed modern epistemology to dictate the knowledge which can only come from the faith once delivered through the Son.
Spam Fail in 30 seconds: "I think you should read Ehrmans' book" and then he goes and immediately encourages viewers to buy *his own book* to compare the two. Ehrman is a NYT bestseller -- and this bozo I've never heard of before. Buy me! Buy me!
The question that Dr. Ehrman states in the first few pages remains. If the writings of the Bible are the result of divine origin from an omnipotent god, than why didn't that god also preserve them, wholly intact?
"What should students do with Bar Ehrman's book?" was NEVER a question, we do as we please, NO permission is needed. Are they really recommending Lee Strobel's book? LOL! He clearly rejects evolution and most modern science though he's NOT a biologist and doesn't know enough to even comment intelligently. Save you money and read Bruce Metzger, who was Bart Ehrman's mentor.
I tend to agree with you qarohc, but I have an entire family of 40+ fundamentalists and trust me, the subtle jabs about communism will get you no where :)
Qar, Ehrman had his own presuppositions WHEN STARTING the study of variants. Neutrality doesn't exist. Erhman's problem is that he wanted to "PROVE" the Bible (as if God's word needs his conformation). He started the study with an ASSUMPTION do you see? He didn't believe the Bible is self-authenticating. Let me GUARANTEE qar, when you read ANY book about ANYTHING, you START the study WANTING your own thoughts/mind and conclusions to be true, you aren't neutral and neither was Ehrman.
i think you can boil down your point to this statement -he wanted to "PROVE" the Bible (as if God's word needs his conformation)"
I dont think you can honestly be this delusional and if so im sorry that some random internet person is the one that points it out to you.
YOU must prove to yourself that this is indeed the word of god. If not you are in no better position than the Muslim or the Hindu, or the countless of religious people.
These people are as sure of their faith as you are.
Qarohc, this is why Ehrman reached the conclusiions he did. He never revered Christ above his own intellect. If he did, he would still believe as Wallace does. I must PROVE the Bible true do I? When did you prove LOGIC true? You see, some things are self-proving. How do I know the Koran is not self-authenticating? Because it doesn't account for all of reality, the Bible does.
Check out Dr. White's video: "Ehrman vs Look vs Mark0", its his review of Ehrman's latest book: "Jesus Interrupted".
Ask a Muslim why they belive the Koran, or go to my page and watch the Why Islam video. that video -
He creates strawmen - claims that ehrman's position is that in mark jesus was out of control and wild. Ehrman never said that. He said that the acounts of jesu's actions on the cross are different and in mark he was quiet and seemily afraid.
+ argument of incredulity, again not addresing the real issue.
Would be refreshing to see some one honestly try to refute Ehrman's points.
Qar, every hand copied book in history, including the Quran and the Bible, has textual variants in its manuscripts. If the Bible can't be trusted because of variants neither can the Quran. If Ehrman was consistent he should say :"We don't know what anyone in history before the printing press was invented actually said!" and he he wouldn't quote Homer or Suetonius and say: "Wait, they didn't actually say this!" But he doesn't do that. He only applies his standard to the Bible: I wonder why?
Go read the bible yourself , see if the things that Erhman points out are there or not, the crucifixion differences, the tomb differences, the date differences for his death and make up your own mind.
We have records of things happening in the past that come from varied sources and that coroborate each other. Maybe they are incorect and maybe not. If Alexander the Great did not conquer asia it has no impact on your life, if it did i would do more research on it.
The reason why you come to the conclusions you do, for the same reason as Ehrman, is that you START the study of the NT with a presupposition that goes like this: "Jesus is the Son of God? NO, that can't be who he is!' and then you go on from there. Thus you push your radical skepticism inconsistancies that you would NEVER apply to any other writing(just the Bible for some odd reason), and make it say whatever you want. This is now honoring the text and this is why Wallace is correct.
@Dejan2116; Wow, complete FAIL here - you've not read Ehrman, have you? His *presupposition* is the exact opposite of your statement: i.e. he starts with *the Bible is absolutely true*, but then questions the fact as to why do the accounts differ? Once you understand that, the whole thread of the NT falls apart like a snowball in the summer sunlight.
I wrote that a year ago, but I stand by what I said. The problem here is you don't know what a presupposition is. A presupposition is a prior idea you hold to subconsciously that guides your interpretation of everything you suppose to be true-- hence a "Pre"- "supposition." Hence, Ehrman does NOT start with the presupposition that the NT is true, otherwise he wouldn't be arguing against its truthfulness. The accounts can differ and still be true in my presuppositions.
@Dejan2116; Well, the problem here as I see it is that you presuppose that I'm a dumb fuck who does not understand the word 'presupposition'. Erhman plainly states that he began his journey as a bible-believing Xtian; for you to judge his heart otherwise is to place yourself in the Great White Throne of Judgement of which, as I understand it, only Xhrist is to sit, no? You're attempting to weigh Erhman's heart, wherein you fail abysmally, no?
I do presuppose that your worldview is inconsistent and self-contradictory. Great, Ehrman was a Bible-believing fundamentalist "Christian." So what? I don't have to sit in judgement over Mr. Ehrman. That's not my place. My place is to answer any objections people might have based on Ehrman's studies. Ehrman's heart is not the issue; his methods and presuppositions are the problem. He's a nice guy and a great scholar, but I wouldn't trust his views on reality.
I may read the lotery results in the newspaper "WANTING your own thoughts/mind and conclusions to be true"
But when i see i dint win i dont think this conclusion is flawed because i wanted something else.
You are showing your own inability to set aside your opinion when you think critically.
Btw the Koran is self-authecating. How do i decide what book is correct? Oh wait i know it must be the one i was raised on, and never bothered to think critically about
Tabeledo, I hate to say that Erhman's problem is that his assumptions reinterpret the evidence. His views are not strictly based on evidence though he does make factual claims, but those true claims are REinterpreted in the light of his assumptions thus his skepticism. This is why people who know what he knows like Wallace are still able to believe-- not because the "evidence" makes it impossible to believe but because Erhman's presuppositions control his findings. (sadly cf. Hebrews 3:12).
"Erhman's problem is that his assumptions reinterpret the evidence"
He had assumptions (the bible is the word of god with no errors and contradictions) and due to his studies (evidence) he had to change this view.
You are doing exactly what you are accusing this man of. Your world view can not be challenged with evidence so that if any one shows you evidence they must be wrong regardless of the facts.
Wallace will always "believe" for the same reason you will, because you want it to be true.
His assumptions make up the bulk of his books. He reasons "If one word is changed in the Bible it cannot be the word of God". Then I remind myself "Wait, before the printing press was invented this is impossible! (Erhman guility of pushing skepticism INTO the 1st century). When he says: "Since there are mistakes we can't know what they said!" I remind myself "Is he willing to put that standard to his own writings? If there's 1 mistake in his book does that mean I can't know what Ehrman said?
"If there's 1 mistake in his book does that mean I can't know what Ehrman said? "
Well, of course you can know what he said. We can kindof know what the Biblical authors said too.
Bart is just trying to point out the inconsistency of saying:
God inspired only the originals. We don't have the originals.
We just have copies and cannot demonstrate - without faith or appeals to probability - that the copies we have accurately reflect the inspired originals when there is evidence of tampering.
Scholars have looked at the same manuscripts that Ehrman has looked at for centuries (Tischendorf and Barbara and Kurt Aland, Metzger) and NONE of them reached the conclusions that Ehrman did. This battle is influenced by our post-modern skeptical culture.
God inspired the Bible in the entirity of the manuscript tradition, not just one manuscript. This is called TENACITY. If the mistakes were never lost in the manuscripts THEN neither were the orignal readings. This is what the Aland's held.
no it's not really the same thing since modern culture is reading itself BACK into the past, when no historian is supposed to do that. Let the past be the past. The fact that those textual scholars who knew the same info as Ehrman shows that this is a battle of presuppositions. I know Ehrman is not right because his arguments are inconsistent and because the Bible is the word of God. Jesus revered the OT as the word of God even though there were textual variants, as must I the NT.
Guitar, when u say we can't know Jesus revered the OT u assume that the New Testament is SO RADICALLY corrupted(though you have no basis for doing so) that we can't even trust one word of it! You are a radical skeptic, sorry but it's true. Do you apply that standard to other historical people? Such as Alexander the Great,etc. If the NT(the most widely attested ancient book) is SO CORRUPTED that we cannot trust it, then wouldn't it follow that we can't trust ANYTHING AT ALL in the ancient world?
Dejan2116, I do not believe it is so radically corrupted, all I am saying is that it is wise to start with a healthy level of skepticism, especially when people are claiming anything supernatural.
I would just propose that people should be consistent when it comes to claims of the supernatural and hold all the claims to the same level of critique. So yes, I hold supernatural claims about Alexander the Great to the same level to which I hold supernatural claims about Jesus.
Do you start with a healthy level of skepticism when you watch Ehrman? Of course you don't. You only do it for the Bible.
You start the study of the NT with an anti-supernatural presupposition so your view of the unrelialability of the NT is already established before the study begins! You don't come into the study neutral: "Well, I'm gonna let the evidence speak and come to a conclusion." Neutrality in thought doesn't exist even though you've been taught it does by a decieving world.
This is what is known as an ad hominim attack from ignorance.
You do not *know* this.
Quite frankly, I was reading Ehrman's book the other day and I think his argument against miracles being defensible by history has a serious flaw.
Please do not resort to accusations based upon the interpretation that your view of the world must be accurate. Please do not interpret my actions through your moral framework which is dependent upon the very issue in question.
Guitar, how do you know what you know?My view of the world is the only view that can make sense of morality, logic, reason, and ultimately all of reality, your's cannot. Only in Christ Jesus is reality intelligeble. I don't believe that the autographs exist and I am still a believer in Biblical inerrancy. Why? Because I believe, like all believing scholars, that God preserved the original WORDINGS in the ENTIRETY of the manuscript tradition, and it's our job to do textual criticism by God:)
In context, that's not what Wallace is saying at all. He means that we aren't to read the NT manuscripts with an unbelieving skeptical presupposition/assumption. If Christ thought of the OT as inspiried even though there were textual variants, so should we. We are to START the study of variants with a reverence for Christ and interpret things in light of that, instead of starting with a skeptical non Christ honoring presupposition.
This is what he means by "Christ is more important."
"He means that we aren't to read the NT manuscripts with an unbelieving skeptical presupposition/assumption."
What does this mean? We assume they were telling the truth until we show they are in error?
Should we also do the same when dealing with any religious leader or other religious text?
I don't understand what you are saying, except that if this is what Wallace is saying, he is arguing that we should have a trustful disposition by default. My fear is that this...
We are to assume Christs truth before we start the study. Now you may think that's "begging the question" but it 's not in this case since the Bible is the ultimate authority. NOBODY comes studying the NT with a "NEUTRAL/maybe" stance. Neutrality is a myth and is not intellectually true. In light of that, you should ask yourself: "Is the evidence convincing me to go against the Bible, or is it my assumption that REinterprets the evidence?" You'll go far if you are able to discern which is which.
what to do with ehrman's book? if i had to spend time and effort with every heretical piece of nonsense that came out i would have nothing else to do but read this stuff.
I would ignore it.
this is only "brittle fundamentaliism" if it is not genuine conviction. I can safely ignore ehrman , and propose to do, chiefly as every other controversial lbook i have looked at has been weighed and found wanting, and why should i expect this one to be different?
Strefanasha 1 month ago
How more real can I be? The argument here is the Torah of Moses, the Gospel of Jesus and the Quran. Except for the most ignorant every textual critic of the old and the new Testament testify that they are the works of anonymous writers; they are neither the words of God nor of His prophets except for a few quotations here and there. To top up that they are not the writings of the people who claim to have written them. Let's be real, can you please addressed this issue.
mfaume46 3 months ago
Where is the Gospel of Jesus Christ? And the Torah of Moses? All that the
Christians have now is the new Testament and the old Testament, neither of which is
the Gospel of Jesus nor the Torah of Moses. Yet you have the time to waste debating
on books that were written by anonymous writers who have been proven to be forgers.
If you are honest and truthful in your quest for the inerrant word of God as
revealed to Jesus and Moses it is preserved in the final Testament the Holy Quran.
mfaume46 4 months ago
@mfaume46 Preserved as in the copies of the Quran after Uthman had the first "burn the Quran" day by burning the original quranic manuscripts and getting rid of the evidence so that people would not have different recitations and start fighting over it. How can anyone think that a murderous pedophile who tried commiting suicide repeated times by throwing himself off a mountain and lied to his wife so she would leave the house and he could have sex with her female slave is a prophet? Get real
Refutingnonsense 4 months ago
What Wallace and the new liberals don't understand is that the fundamental problem is not Ehrman's conclusions, but his questions themselves. That they legitimize his questions reveals that they are skeptics in Christian garb and that they have the same starting points: Human rationale and modern empirical verification. Where Wallace went wrong so many years ago is when he allowed modern epistemology to dictate the knowledge which can only come from the faith once delivered through the Son.
ic2705 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 7 months ago
Spam Fail in 30 seconds: "I think you should read Ehrmans' book" and then he goes and immediately encourages viewers to buy *his own book* to compare the two. Ehrman is a NYT bestseller -- and this bozo I've never heard of before. Buy me! Buy me!
MsGingergingercat 8 months ago
Is anyone besides me tired of being told what attitude to take when looking at certain holy books. I'll take my own attitude, thank you very much.
littlteapot 1 year ago
The question that Dr. Ehrman states in the first few pages remains. If the writings of the Bible are the result of divine origin from an omnipotent god, than why didn't that god also preserve them, wholly intact?
MrSteveSpears 1 year ago
"Skeptical friends" - Look, buddy. Science is skeptical, so anyone who isn't skeptical is not acting logical, meaning not acting intelligent.
raoskaos 2 years ago
It's so amusing when religious people try to be skeptical, acting like "skeptics".
raoskaos 2 years ago
"What should students do with Bar Ehrman's book?" was NEVER a question, we do as we please, NO permission is needed. Are they really recommending Lee Strobel's book? LOL! He clearly rejects evolution and most modern science though he's NOT a biologist and doesn't know enough to even comment intelligently. Save you money and read Bruce Metzger, who was Bart Ehrman's mentor.
Naked4Jesus 2 years ago
This seems like a lot of hog wash to me and im sorry if it offends any one but i feel it must be said.
He wants you to take a critical look of the bible aslong as you can maintain your belief.
This reminds me of communist propaganda.
Read the book do your own research make up your mind on the subject FOR YOURSELF.
If you need people to tell you what to read, what to think, and what is true and is not true we are in alot of trouble.
qarohc 2 years ago
I tend to agree with you qarohc, but I have an entire family of 40+ fundamentalists and trust me, the subtle jabs about communism will get you no where :)
guitarstrummr 2 years ago
Qar, Ehrman had his own presuppositions WHEN STARTING the study of variants. Neutrality doesn't exist. Erhman's problem is that he wanted to "PROVE" the Bible (as if God's word needs his conformation). He started the study with an ASSUMPTION do you see? He didn't believe the Bible is self-authenticating. Let me GUARANTEE qar, when you read ANY book about ANYTHING, you START the study WANTING your own thoughts/mind and conclusions to be true, you aren't neutral and neither was Ehrman.
Dejan2116 2 years ago
"Neutrality doesn't exist."
Neutrality exists where no threat comes from either position.
I'm neutral on the speed of sound, because the speed of sound is not a threat.
I'm not neutral on Islam, because the truthfulness of Islamic claims determine threat level.
So, you are only partially right.
guitarstrummr 2 years ago
i think you can boil down your point to this statement -he wanted to "PROVE" the Bible (as if God's word needs his conformation)"
I dont think you can honestly be this delusional and if so im sorry that some random internet person is the one that points it out to you.
YOU must prove to yourself that this is indeed the word of god. If not you are in no better position than the Muslim or the Hindu, or the countless of religious people.
These people are as sure of their faith as you are.
qarohc 2 years ago
Qarohc, this is why Ehrman reached the conclusiions he did. He never revered Christ above his own intellect. If he did, he would still believe as Wallace does. I must PROVE the Bible true do I? When did you prove LOGIC true? You see, some things are self-proving. How do I know the Koran is not self-authenticating? Because it doesn't account for all of reality, the Bible does.
Check out Dr. White's video: "Ehrman vs Look vs Mark0", its his review of Ehrman's latest book: "Jesus Interrupted".
Dejan2116 2 years ago
Ask a Muslim why they belive the Koran, or go to my page and watch the Why Islam video. that video -
He creates strawmen - claims that ehrman's position is that in mark jesus was out of control and wild. Ehrman never said that. He said that the acounts of jesu's actions on the cross are different and in mark he was quiet and seemily afraid.
+ argument of incredulity, again not addresing the real issue.
Would be refreshing to see some one honestly try to refute Ehrman's points.
qarohc 2 years ago
Qar, every hand copied book in history, including the Quran and the Bible, has textual variants in its manuscripts. If the Bible can't be trusted because of variants neither can the Quran. If Ehrman was consistent he should say :"We don't know what anyone in history before the printing press was invented actually said!" and he he wouldn't quote Homer or Suetonius and say: "Wait, they didn't actually say this!" But he doesn't do that. He only applies his standard to the Bible: I wonder why?
Dejan2116 2 years ago
You are being dishonest.
Go read the bible yourself , see if the things that Erhman points out are there or not, the crucifixion differences, the tomb differences, the date differences for his death and make up your own mind.
We have records of things happening in the past that come from varied sources and that coroborate each other. Maybe they are incorect and maybe not. If Alexander the Great did not conquer asia it has no impact on your life, if it did i would do more research on it.
qarohc 2 years ago
The reason why you come to the conclusions you do, for the same reason as Ehrman, is that you START the study of the NT with a presupposition that goes like this: "Jesus is the Son of God? NO, that can't be who he is!' and then you go on from there. Thus you push your radical skepticism inconsistancies that you would NEVER apply to any other writing(just the Bible for some odd reason), and make it say whatever you want. This is now honoring the text and this is why Wallace is correct.
Dejan2116 2 years ago
@Dejan2116; Wow, complete FAIL here - you've not read Ehrman, have you? His *presupposition* is the exact opposite of your statement: i.e. he starts with *the Bible is absolutely true*, but then questions the fact as to why do the accounts differ? Once you understand that, the whole thread of the NT falls apart like a snowball in the summer sunlight.
MsGingergingercat 8 months ago
@MsGingergingercat
I wrote that a year ago, but I stand by what I said. The problem here is you don't know what a presupposition is. A presupposition is a prior idea you hold to subconsciously that guides your interpretation of everything you suppose to be true-- hence a "Pre"- "supposition." Hence, Ehrman does NOT start with the presupposition that the NT is true, otherwise he wouldn't be arguing against its truthfulness. The accounts can differ and still be true in my presuppositions.
Dejan2116 8 months ago
@Dejan2116; Well, the problem here as I see it is that you presuppose that I'm a dumb fuck who does not understand the word 'presupposition'. Erhman plainly states that he began his journey as a bible-believing Xtian; for you to judge his heart otherwise is to place yourself in the Great White Throne of Judgement of which, as I understand it, only Xhrist is to sit, no? You're attempting to weigh Erhman's heart, wherein you fail abysmally, no?
MsGingergingercat 8 months ago
@MsGingergingercat
I do presuppose that your worldview is inconsistent and self-contradictory. Great, Ehrman was a Bible-believing fundamentalist "Christian." So what? I don't have to sit in judgement over Mr. Ehrman. That's not my place. My place is to answer any objections people might have based on Ehrman's studies. Ehrman's heart is not the issue; his methods and presuppositions are the problem. He's a nice guy and a great scholar, but I wouldn't trust his views on reality.
Dejan2116 8 months ago
I may read the lotery results in the newspaper "WANTING your own thoughts/mind and conclusions to be true"
But when i see i dint win i dont think this conclusion is flawed because i wanted something else.
You are showing your own inability to set aside your opinion when you think critically.
Btw the Koran is self-authecating. How do i decide what book is correct? Oh wait i know it must be the one i was raised on, and never bothered to think critically about
qarohc 2 years ago
Tabeledo, I hate to say that Erhman's problem is that his assumptions reinterpret the evidence. His views are not strictly based on evidence though he does make factual claims, but those true claims are REinterpreted in the light of his assumptions thus his skepticism. This is why people who know what he knows like Wallace are still able to believe-- not because the "evidence" makes it impossible to believe but because Erhman's presuppositions control his findings. (sadly cf. Hebrews 3:12).
Dejan2116 2 years ago
"Erhman's problem is that his assumptions reinterpret the evidence"
He had assumptions (the bible is the word of god with no errors and contradictions) and due to his studies (evidence) he had to change this view.
You are doing exactly what you are accusing this man of. Your world view can not be challenged with evidence so that if any one shows you evidence they must be wrong regardless of the facts.
Wallace will always "believe" for the same reason you will, because you want it to be true.
qarohc 2 years ago
"I hate to say that Erhman's problem is that his assumptions reinterpret the evidence."
So? It is your job to explain why his assumptions are incorrect, not just assert they are wrong as if you have authority to do so.
guitarstrummr 2 years ago
His assumptions make up the bulk of his books. He reasons "If one word is changed in the Bible it cannot be the word of God". Then I remind myself "Wait, before the printing press was invented this is impossible! (Erhman guility of pushing skepticism INTO the 1st century). When he says: "Since there are mistakes we can't know what they said!" I remind myself "Is he willing to put that standard to his own writings? If there's 1 mistake in his book does that mean I can't know what Ehrman said?
Dejan2116 2 years ago
If God can send one person to hell for one tiny mistake, why is His Word still holy if it has one tiny mistake?
guitarstrummr 2 years ago
"If there's 1 mistake in his book does that mean I can't know what Ehrman said? "
Well, of course you can know what he said. We can kindof know what the Biblical authors said too.
Bart is just trying to point out the inconsistency of saying:
God inspired only the originals. We don't have the originals.
We just have copies and cannot demonstrate - without faith or appeals to probability - that the copies we have accurately reflect the inspired originals when there is evidence of tampering.
guitarstrummr 2 years ago
Scholars have looked at the same manuscripts that Ehrman has looked at for centuries (Tischendorf and Barbara and Kurt Aland, Metzger) and NONE of them reached the conclusions that Ehrman did. This battle is influenced by our post-modern skeptical culture.
God inspired the Bible in the entirity of the manuscript tradition, not just one manuscript. This is called TENACITY. If the mistakes were never lost in the manuscripts THEN neither were the orignal readings. This is what the Aland's held.
Dejan2116 2 years ago
Dejan2116, you appear to be holding a double standard.
Would it not be just as easy to say that the battle is influenced by pre-modern faith-based culture?
"and NONE of them reached the conclusions that Ehrman did."
So what? How does that invalidate what Ehrman is saying? Appeals to authority will get you no where.
People are wrong. People are sometimes wrong for centuries. Then someone comes along and is right. How do we know that Bart Ehrman is not right?
guitarstrummr 2 years ago
Guitar,
no it's not really the same thing since modern culture is reading itself BACK into the past, when no historian is supposed to do that. Let the past be the past. The fact that those textual scholars who knew the same info as Ehrman shows that this is a battle of presuppositions. I know Ehrman is not right because his arguments are inconsistent and because the Bible is the word of God. Jesus revered the OT as the word of God even though there were textual variants, as must I the NT.
Dejan2116 2 years ago
Dejan2116, your argument - as I understand it - is demonstrably unsound.
No one can demonstrate whether Jesus revered the OT unless the NT is trustworthy.
If the NT is trustworthy, we know that Jesus revered the OT.
You trust the NT in the same way that Jesus revered the OT? But you cannot know that Jesus revered the OT unless the NT is trustworthy!
This is viciously circular reasoning!
guitarstrummr 2 years ago
Guitar, when u say we can't know Jesus revered the OT u assume that the New Testament is SO RADICALLY corrupted(though you have no basis for doing so) that we can't even trust one word of it! You are a radical skeptic, sorry but it's true. Do you apply that standard to other historical people? Such as Alexander the Great,etc. If the NT(the most widely attested ancient book) is SO CORRUPTED that we cannot trust it, then wouldn't it follow that we can't trust ANYTHING AT ALL in the ancient world?
Dejan2116 2 years ago
Dejan2116, I do not believe it is so radically corrupted, all I am saying is that it is wise to start with a healthy level of skepticism, especially when people are claiming anything supernatural.
I would just propose that people should be consistent when it comes to claims of the supernatural and hold all the claims to the same level of critique. So yes, I hold supernatural claims about Alexander the Great to the same level to which I hold supernatural claims about Jesus.
guitarstrummr 2 years ago
Do you start with a healthy level of skepticism when you watch Ehrman? Of course you don't. You only do it for the Bible.
You start the study of the NT with an anti-supernatural presupposition so your view of the unrelialability of the NT is already established before the study begins! You don't come into the study neutral: "Well, I'm gonna let the evidence speak and come to a conclusion." Neutrality in thought doesn't exist even though you've been taught it does by a decieving world.
Dejan2116 2 years ago
This is what is known as an ad hominim attack from ignorance.
You do not *know* this.
Quite frankly, I was reading Ehrman's book the other day and I think his argument against miracles being defensible by history has a serious flaw.
Please do not resort to accusations based upon the interpretation that your view of the world must be accurate. Please do not interpret my actions through your moral framework which is dependent upon the very issue in question.
guitarstrummr 2 years ago
Guitar, how do you know what you know?My view of the world is the only view that can make sense of morality, logic, reason, and ultimately all of reality, your's cannot. Only in Christ Jesus is reality intelligeble. I don't believe that the autographs exist and I am still a believer in Biblical inerrancy. Why? Because I believe, like all believing scholars, that God preserved the original WORDINGS in the ENTIRETY of the manuscript tradition, and it's our job to do textual criticism by God:)
Dejan2116 2 years ago
@Dejan2116 Bart let the words speak to him; you speak to the words.
k0smon 1 year ago
Daniel's statement does not make any sense. He argues that the person of Christ is more important than a fundamentalist view of Scripture.
But the person of Christ (or our understanding) is intimately dependent upon our understanding of Scripture.
Scripture informs our understanding of the person of Jesus, therefore the person of Jesus is less important than Scripture.
To say what Wallace is saying is to put the cart before the horse and then argue the horse is not as important.
guitarstrummr 2 years ago
In context, that's not what Wallace is saying at all. He means that we aren't to read the NT manuscripts with an unbelieving skeptical presupposition/assumption. If Christ thought of the OT as inspiried even though there were textual variants, so should we. We are to START the study of variants with a reverence for Christ and interpret things in light of that, instead of starting with a skeptical non Christ honoring presupposition.
This is what he means by "Christ is more important."
Dejan2116 2 years ago
"He means that we aren't to read the NT manuscripts with an unbelieving skeptical presupposition/assumption."
What does this mean? We assume they were telling the truth until we show they are in error?
Should we also do the same when dealing with any religious leader or other religious text?
I don't understand what you are saying, except that if this is what Wallace is saying, he is arguing that we should have a trustful disposition by default. My fear is that this...
tabeledo 2 years ago
We are to assume Christs truth before we start the study. Now you may think that's "begging the question" but it 's not in this case since the Bible is the ultimate authority. NOBODY comes studying the NT with a "NEUTRAL/maybe" stance. Neutrality is a myth and is not intellectually true. In light of that, you should ask yourself: "Is the evidence convincing me to go against the Bible, or is it my assumption that REinterprets the evidence?" You'll go far if you are able to discern which is which.
Dejan2116 2 years ago
"We are to assume Christs truth before we start the study."
Why?
guitarstrummr 2 years ago
The most important thing to notice here is that NO one refutes that the bible is full of contradictions.
It is personal attacks on any one daring to study it in such a fashion. Damn atheist and blasphemers!
I only see attempts at distraction.
If you had truth on your side why would you do everything in your power to silence criticism?
Sunlight is the only disinfectant.
qarohc 2 years ago