The Truth about Bible exposed by a Bible Scholar (MISQUOTING JESUS)

Bart D. Ehrman is an American New Testament scholar, currently the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

'Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why' is a book by Bart D. Ehrman, a New Testament scholar at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The book introduces lay readers to the field of textual criticism of the Bible. Ehrman discusses a number of textual variants that resulted from intentional or accidental manuscript changes during the scriptorium era. This book made it to the New York Times Best Seller list.

This Christmas gift this book or this video to your Christian friends.

Bart D. Ehrman , a former bible scholar is an agnostic now. May Allah guide him to Islam. Please make dua for him as he has given us this beautiful book refuting falsehood of Christianity and making things easy for us. What could be more wonderful than a christian bible scholar exposing the contradictions in his own book.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Bible exposed
• Misquoting Jesus
• Bible changed
• Bart D. Ehrman
• Christianity

[crucisnh]

@UPplRSick Or C. they may have happened in a way that the Bible doesn't accurately describe. Maybe Jesus was never really dead? Maybe his "resurrection" was actually a revival just like reviving someone with CPR and/or mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. Or maybe his body was missing from the tomb because some other jews didn't think that he deserved such a good tomb. (I've heard this theory before.) Heck, the NT even contradicts itself at times as Dr Ehrman regularly points out.

[crucisnh]

@UPplRSick I don't need to define "good christian". Yes, allegories can be read different ways. So can parables. And yet Jesus used a lot of parables. Don't be a hypocrite.

[crucisnh]

@UPplRSick I don't care. I'm being picky because language is a precise tool that should be used precisely. To say that as a "creationist" takes the entire bible literally is making an assumption. Saying that a literalist takes entire bible literally is simply applying the term accurately. One term (listeralist) is an accurate use of the language, the other (creationist) sloppy. To be a creationist is to believe in the creation story, nothing more.

[UPplRSick]

@crucisnh - The stories in the bible either A. Happened, and need to be taken seriously. or B. Did not happen and should not be taken more seriously than one's attempts to derive an understanding about humanity through it. There is no allegorical truth to Jesus claiming to be the son of god. So when you say, 'who is to say that one is more right than another?' I believe you make my point for me about the objective literal truth of the bible.

[UPplRSick]

@crucisnh - C. What is an allegorical truth? Again, an allegory strives to teach a moral lesson through story; which can have mixed results. People interpret stories differently. How can you derive an objective truth from that? What christians don't realize is that their truth is entirely subjective. Not to say my views aren't biased, but they claim their views are non-biased because god gave them those views. Again, how do you derive truth from allegories?

[UPplRSick]

@crucisnh - B. Again, define 'good christian.' If you can interpret the bible to say what you want, how can you know the truth of what the bible says is good? How can you know you're doing god's work, or good, if you look at some parts of the bible but not others. What would you be missing? Who are you to say what is in the bible is wrong? Allegories can mean different things to different people. I don't dispute there are good people who call themselves christian, and not so good.

[UPplRSick]

@crucisnh A. You would disagree. I would then ask, what parts of the bible do you think a 'biblical creationist' would not take literally? I would say that someone who interprets the creation myth literally, would also accept every other part of the bible as literal historical truth, not allegorical stories. Also making them 'literalist.' Which is a weird thing to say of someone. These two terms we applied to christians, if not equal, are very close.

[crucisnh]

@UPplRSick I'd say that people who take the bible literally are creating a different theology than those than who take the bible allegorically. And exactly who on Earth is to say that one is more right than the other?

For that matter, maybe the Gnostics were right and the believers in Christian orthodoxy were wrong.

[crucisnh]

@UPplRSick A. I disagree. "Semantics" is a cop out. I hold that Creationist does NOT equal Literalist. Creationism only speaks to a single book in the OT. Literalism speaks to the entire bible.

B. One can read the Bible allegorically, rather than literally. And there are many good Christians with that view, I imagine.

C. Some stories are clearly more allegorical while other may have more literal truth rather than allegorical truth to them.

[UPplRSick]

@crucisnh - Why does someone have to reject certain parts of the bible to feel like a 'good person?' If someone does feel that way, how can they accept the rest of it as 'good,' let alone truth? The bible is self supporting, if you remove some of it, you bring the whole theology down. You might as well be inventing your own version of christianity, as many have, including the initial perpetrator who invented the theology. I don't know what a good christian is, they say different things.