# The orthodox corruption of scripture, by Bart Erhman



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 9, 2011)

Has anyone read this yet? Mine is on the way. I have enjoyed reading Barts work in the past, although I don't agree with everything, but enjoyed the thought pervoking aspect of his studies. Looking for someone who has read it or willing to.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 14, 2011)

Got my copy. Gonna be a good read. Anybody want to get a copy and chat about it?


----------



## Huntinfool (Jul 14, 2011)

I'll be honest.  I have no desire.  But I hope you enjoy the read.  Take it for what it is though....highly agenda driven literature.  I would be stretching to call his work research.


----------



## bullethead (Jul 14, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> I'll be honest.  I have no desire.  But I hope you enjoy the read.  Take it for what it is though....highly agenda driven literature.  I would be stretching to call his work research.



That sounds like another book we discuss a lot on here.....


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 14, 2011)

bullethead said:


> That sounds like another book we discuss a lot on here.....



 Yeah no kidding. Doubt we'll see Ehrman living in anything comparable to the Vatican any time soon. A man writes a book that tells a history you don't like so you dismiss it as agenda driven. Hypocrites.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 14, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> I'll be honest.  I have no desire.  But I hope you enjoy the read.  Take it for what it is though....highly agenda driven literature.  I would be stretching to call his work research.


 I'm hardheaded and don't agree with everything he says but I find his work extremely thought pervoking. It kind of takes me back to the first century mindset


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 14, 2011)

The history of Christianity has a terrible background. Those who know about it try to sweep it under a rug like a hidden family secret. But it's still there. Strange that 95% of claiming Christians don't know or care to know about the history of the faith they have invested in. I find it captivating. I would love to find it again, something that blew me away. When Hitler was pressed about killing the Jews, he commented something like, He was only doing what the Christians had been doing for years. Now that's staggering. While I consider myself Christian to the fullest extent, completly giving up trying to be good enough or trying to help God save me, and resting completly in the finished work of his Son, I do not deny the facts that have plauged the different so called sects of Christianity as it has been evolving over the generations


----------



## atlashunter (Jul 14, 2011)

You should be proud to be in that other 5%.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jul 16, 2011)

I love toread his work, BUT, Here he has come to the wrong conclusion based on misinterperating the data. Bart says; "the deviant Christians that Jude oppposes are licentious [v4] unduldge in unnatural lust [v7] and corruptions [v8] they carouse together [v12] and follow ungodly passions." end quote.... Jude is not about sheep. It is about the Shepherds. See vs 12, "Shepherds who feed only themselves". So here we see barts incorrect data. This can be seen on pg 16 of the book


----------



## Huntinfool (Jul 21, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Yeah no kidding. Doubt we'll see Ehrman living in anything comparable to the Vatican any time soon. A man writes a book that tells a history you don't like so you dismiss it as agenda driven. Hypocrites.



A God writes a book that tells a history you don't like so you dismiss it as agenda driven.  Hypocrites.



Hello Pot?.....well you know the rest.


----------



## ambush80 (Jul 21, 2011)

Huntinfool said:


> A God writes a book that tells a history you don't like so you dismiss it as agenda driven.  Hypocrites.
> 
> 
> 
> Hello Pot?.....well you know the rest.



People wrote a book and claim that they heard God speak to them and only them.  I think I can dismiss that (regardless of the talking donkeys), or at very least classify it as mysticism.


----------



## Huntinfool (Jul 21, 2011)

As one of my favorite preachers says...

"if ya cain't say amen, ya oughta say OUCH!"


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 1, 2011)

I'm about halfway through. Bart points out the "variants" found in the early manuscripts. He shows the different readings and points out the likely correct reading. It reveals the agendas of the early scribes as they tried to change the bible to fit their beliefs and to win against their opposition. Very interesting. Lots of these points he brings out are not in our bibles today. some still remain


----------



## stringmusic (Aug 2, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> I'm about halfway through. Bart points out the "variants" found in the early manuscripts. He shows the different readings and points out the* likely correct *reading.


"Likely correct" by whom?



> It reveals* the agendas *of the early scribes as they tried to change the bible to fit their beliefs and to win against their opposition. Very interesting. Lots of these points he brings out are not in our bibles today. some still remain


I imagine this book reveals Mr. Erhmans agenda as well. Not saying it's a bad book or he is uninformed, but I'm sure there is an agenda towards whatever he wants it to be.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 2, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> Bart points out the "variants" found in the early manuscripts.



So does the NKJV.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 2, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> "Likely correct" by whom?
> 
> 
> I imagine this book reveals Mr. Erhmans agenda as well. Not saying it's a bad book or he is uninformed, but I'm sure there is an agenda towards whatever he wants it to be.



No one doesn't have an agenda but everyone automatically puts up a wall. Everyone's scared of the facts. But it's a broad range of variants. It involves the conflict of gnoctics, seperationist, doecists, etc. All of these were originally in the fight for orthodox. Your side won. Bart shows why these mentioned failed the true variant. Their really is a expertise to this. It's not just Barts opinion. Metezer as a trinitarian, addresses these same things. It's a shame that everyone resists the facts. The history of Christianity and the fight for orthodoxy is very interesting. Everyone claiming to be Christian should know these things yet no one wants to know


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 2, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> So does the NKJV.



I think it's interesting that Bart never mentions the KJ version because his focus is on the early greek manuscripts. He does well to keep his opinions out of the picture. Keeping it professional. I have been captivated by the things he shows. So many people have believed the lie that the manuscripts were copied with great precision. Bart has shown this to be an untrue


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 2, 2011)

What makes this so interesting is the fact that no one seems to want to know. But these variants are everywhere in the thousands of manuscripts of the earliest centurys. Modern scholarship has already weeded through most of them resulting in the scriptures we have today. But to have Bart point them out as they were before they were corrected by our modern day translators is most revealing. It shows how corrupt scribes tried to force the scriptures to say what they wanted, sometimes to fit their doctrine and sometimes worded to condem another view. It's actually not that hard to pin point when these things happened. We have tons of writings fro the early church fathers as they wrote volumes of rebutal against opposing beliefs. In these writings, they quote scripture constantly so a change different from these is a red flag as to when the variants crept in. I say this in hopes that those reading will have a shift in thinking about those who write about the bible. It's not an effort to dismiss to validity of the scriptures, not an attack on our modern translations, just a look at the history that used to be


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 2, 2011)

stringmusic said:


> "Likely correct" by whom?
> 
> 
> I imagine this book reveals Mr. Erhmans agenda as well. Not saying it's a bad book or he is *uninformed*, but I'm sure there is an agenda towards whatever he wants it to be.


 Even Metzer admits that no one is more qualified that Bart. He does say though that Bart overstates his case many times


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 2, 2011)

I'm trying to recall which book it is, the trinitarian version of Bart, named Metzer got with Bart and they co-authored a book together. Maybe one day people will realize that this is a honorable work and not an attack.


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 2, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> I think it's interesting that Bart never mentions the KJ version because his focus is on the early greek manuscripts. He does well to keep his opinions out of the picture. Keeping it professional. I have been captivated by the things he shows. So many people have believed the lie that the manuscripts were copied with great precision. Bart has shown this to be an untrue



Six months ago, I had never heard of Bart Erhman, but I've known of textual variations for years.  They're not something he discovered.  As I said, my Bible shows variant readings on virtually every page.  None of them affect any doctrines, however.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 3, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> Six months ago, I had never heard of Bart Erhman, but I've known of textual variations for years.  They're not something he discovered.  As I said, my Bible shows variant readings on virtually every page.  None of them affect any doctrines, however.


Yes, I realize that he did not discover them. He has shown me those that have long been corrected. But to see those old ones reveals what was going on back in that day. Everyone wanted to change or add or delete a word wherever they could in order to trump their opposition.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Aug 3, 2011)

centerpin fan said:


> Six months ago, I had never heard of Bart Erhman, but I've known of textual variations for years.  They're not something he discovered.  As I said, my Bible shows variant readings on virtually every page.  None of them affect any doctrines, however.


 I'm courious, does your bibles references refer to greek variants or variants in modern day translations?


----------



## centerpin fan (Aug 3, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> I'm courious, does your bibles references refer to greek variants or variants in modern day translations?



It shows variations between the Nestle-Aland text, the Majority text, and the Textus Receptus.


----------

