# Bart D. Erhman



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 3, 2011)

I just recently came across his site, While I have for the last decade been aware of bible inconsistences, I was surprised to see that he pointed out several that I was unaware of. I spent in excess of 10hrs going through his material by clicking on his radio/video links off his homepage. I'm surprised that I've never heard of him before. For my first question; Is he popular among atheist? I first thought that since he found errors that he concluded that all of it was false, which is not the only option, but upon further investigation, it seems that the problem of evil and suffering ultimately lead to his deconversion. Just fishing for some opinions of those familiar with Erhman.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 3, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> I just recently came across his site, While I have for the last decade been aware of bible inconsistences, I was surprised to see that he pointed out several that I was unaware of. I spent in excess of 10hrs going through his material by clicking on his radio/video links off his homepage. I'm surprised that I've never heard of him before. For my first question; Is he popular among atheist? I first thought that since he found errors that he concluded that all of it was false, which is not the only option, but upon further investigation, it seems that the problem of evil and suffering ultimately lead to his deconversion. Just fishing for some opinions of those familiar with Erhman.


 Correction; I don't recall Erhman speaking of evil, just suffering. I don't think that suffering would prove that God doesn't exist as was Erhmans conclusion but I can see how some would question "the God of love" as spoken of in the bible.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 3, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> Correction; I don't recall Erhman speaking of evil, just suffering. I don't think that suffering would prove that God doesn't exist as was Erhmans conclusion but I can see how some would question "the God of love" as spoken of in the bible.



I'm unfamiliar with him. But you've piqued my curiosity.  Pick a specific subject that he discusses and I will read about it and we can hash it out.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 3, 2011)

ambush80 said:


> I'm unfamiliar with him. But you've piqued my curiosity.  Pick a specific subject that he discusses and I will read about it and we can hash it out.


 You can listen or watch his debates from his home page. He does have several books but I suspect that his best smoking guns are used in his talks or debates


----------



## Madman (Jan 3, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> I first thought that since he found errors that he concluded that all of it was false, which is not the only option, but upon further investigation, it seems that the problem of evil and suffering ultimately lead to his deconversion. Just fishing for some opinions of those familiar with Erhman.



I have not read much he has written, but from what I have read he appears to be from the same cloth as so many who are unable to reconcile evil with a loving god.

He then proceeds to attempt to pick apart ANYTHING that does not appear to be in agreement on a superficial level.  Every argument I have ever seen by him has been put forth and refuted many times by many people.  

I have yet to see any argument that would change the "theology" of Christianity, each argument is simply put forth to place doubt from a grammatical and translation stand point.  He puts forth arguments yet when answered, I have never seen him admit that the answer may be a solution to his question, he simply moves to the next point.

At least Christopher Hitchens is honest enough to admit there is some chance of a creator.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 3, 2011)

I don't agree with some of his conclusions or interpertations but since he is now not affilated with any one group, he has no motivation to sway anyone. He is "tradition free". So his historian attitude in which he presents his opinions about his findings are rare. Most people today, as much as I admire their innocense, somehow think God wrote the bible and handed it off to Peter to which he gave to the church. They don't realize how many lost their lives over the raging debates as uninspired men, 2 and 3 hundred years later picked and chose which writings best described their own beliefs and then banned all else and banished and killed everyone who did not agree. There I go, getting all worked up, again.  Anyway, Erhman discourses on this topic also. I think I might buy his book simply for the early church development aspect.


----------



## Madman (Jan 3, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> but since he is now not affilated with any one group, he has no motivation to sway anyone.



He's got you convinced to buy his book hasn't he.

Just like politics, FOLLOW THE MONEY.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 3, 2011)

Madman said:


> I have not read much he has written, but from what I have read he appears to be from the same cloth as so many who are unable to reconcile evil with a loving god.
> 
> He then proceeds to attempt to pick apart ANYTHING that does not appear to be in agreement on a superficial level.  Every argument I have ever seen by him has been put forth and refuted many times by many people.
> 
> ...


 I  agree that lots of his material can have a logical answer. I observed that rather quickly, yet when we try so hard to make it fit, it becomes an issue of probability. Now, if we find only one unreliable instance, then are probability figures skyrocket since it only takes one to prove that the bible isn't perfect. Take for example, Judas death. Many try to say that Judas's rope must have broke and he fell and was busted into and his guts came out because of the difference of his death accounts. One being that he hanged himself, another that he fell headlong and his guts came out. That would be possible. But we must also look at more. ???Is it likely that after throwing the money back that Judas did not go directly out and hang himself, but waited for the scribes to go out and buy the field and then he went and hanged himself in that field. I can overlook the difference of the scribes bought the field contrary to Judas buying the field said by Peter as an expression but with the recorded evidence, Judas had to hang himself, rope had to break in the same field that Judas or the scribes bought with the thirty pices of silver. Probability, not good.


----------



## apoint (Jan 3, 2011)

I read on Bart's bull and don't find his rhetoric anything new.
  Nothing new under the sun. He just digs up old junk, he's not even original. What a farce.


----------



## Madman (Jan 3, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> Probability, not good.



If you read Matthew's account it seems God ordained the purchase of the field years before Judas, and Jeremiah the prophet spoke of it.

The majority comes back to what you choose to believe,  what the evidence shows, and how God has worked in your life.


----------



## Madman (Jan 3, 2011)

Madman said:


> He's got you convinced to buy his book hasn't he.
> 
> Just like politics, FOLLOW THE MONEY.



1gr8bldr,

do you see his motivation yet?


----------



## Madman (Jan 3, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> I  agree that lots of his material can have a logical answer. I observed that rather quickly, yet when we try so hard to make it fit, it becomes an issue of probability.



My last post was not a "jab" I'm just fun ‘in with that one.  The point being that EVERYONE has an agenda.

I will agree with you to a point.  That being that on the surface there appears to be some discrepancies; however I am not a linguist nor a Hebrew or Greek scholar so I am forced to yield to their knowledge on the subject.

Over the years I have been forced to “lay aside” some verses until God has seen fit to reveal their meaning to me.  I have no problem with that.  I still have a few that pop up every now and then.  For years the Corinthian’s passages about women’s hair made no sense but after a lengthy study on Corinth it fit perfectly.

What I do know is what the God of the Bible has promised to do.  I know what he has done in my life, what he has done in other’s lives, he is good and faithful.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 3, 2011)

Madman said:


> He's got you convinced to buy his book hasn't he.
> 
> Just like politics, FOLLOW THE MONEY.





Madman said:


> 1gr8bldr,
> 
> do you see his motivation yet?



Sure you want to go there?


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 3, 2011)

apoint said:


> I read on Bart's bull and don't find his rhetoric anything new.
> Nothing new under the sun. He just digs up old junk, he's not even original. What a farce.



I doubt you've read much. If you had you would know that he doesn't claim to be original. He is putting out information that has been widely known to biblical scholars for many years but isn't taught in the pulpit (one can only guess why) in a format friendly to the layperson, and he says as much.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 3, 2011)

Madman said:


> I have not read much he has written, but from what I have read he appears to be from the same cloth as so many who are unable to reconcile evil with a loving god.
> 
> He then proceeds to attempt to pick apart ANYTHING that does not appear to be in agreement on a superficial level.  Every argument I have ever seen by him has been put forth and refuted many times by many people.
> 
> ...



As with apoint, it is obvious you haven't read any of his books. Since you are passing judgment on his work while still ignorant of it I can only chalk it up to a closed mind.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 3, 2011)

Madman said:


> My last post was not a "jab" I'm just fun ‘in with that one.  The point being that EVERYONE has an agenda.
> 
> I will agree with you to a point.  That being that on the surface there appears to be some discrepancies; however I am not a linguist nor a Hebrew or Greek scholar so I am forced to yield to their knowledge on the subject.
> 
> ...


I did not take it as a jab, I'm sure that money had something to do with it. By the way, I like to laugh and I don't get offended easily. Lots of the posters, what I'd better term as "newer to the faith" take offense at my views so I am not offended because opinions sometimes do change over time. But you seem to have an open mind, firmly grounded. I too wondered about that verse but I think I understand now. I appreciate the discussion and look foward to more.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 3, 2011)

Hey Atlashunter, them pics, that's funny and the truth


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 3, 2011)

Madman said:


> At least Christopher Hitchens is honest enough to admit there is some chance of a creator.



So does Ehrman. I've seen very few non-believers who would disagree. Now are you honest enough to admit there is some chance there could be leprechauns?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 3, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> I  agree that lots of his material can have a logical answer. I observed that rather quickly, yet when we try so hard to make it fit, it becomes an issue of probability. Now, if we find only one unreliable instance, then are probability figures skyrocket since it only takes one to prove that the bible isn't perfect. Take for example, Judas death. Many try to say that Judas's rope must have broke and he fell and was busted into and his guts came out because of the difference of his death accounts. One being that he hanged himself, another that he fell headlong and his guts came out. That would be possible. But we must also look at more. ???Is it likely that after throwing the money back that Judas did not go directly out and hang himself, but waited for the scribes to go out and buy the field and then he went and hanged himself in that field. I can overlook the difference of the scribes bought the field contrary to Judas buying the field said by Peter as an expression but with the recorded evidence, Judas had to hang himself, rope had to break in the same field that Judas or the scribes bought with the thirty pices of silver. Probability, not good.


 Been thinking about this. What may be more likely, assuming my NIV has "where he fell" meaning that Judas fell in the field [same] is that Judas hung himself, then the rope broke later, he fell into a field where his guts poured out and then the scribes purchased that same field with the money that he returned. It is possible that the field was so offensive to the community, called the field of blood, that the scribes saw this as the only use of it. So did he hang himself in this field? Maybe????


----------



## apoint (Jan 3, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> I doubt you've read much. If you had you would know that he doesn't claim to be original. He is putting out information that has been widely known to biblical scholars for many years but isn't taught in the pulpit (one can only guess why) in a format friendly to the layperson, and he says as much.



 I have read plenty enough to see he spreads the same garbage that atheist love to feed on. Nothing original about him, he just gets rich off other atheist rhetoric.
  I'm smart enough not to waste much time with his garbage. Why would the pulpit teach his insanity? Glad  to know you put your faith in man.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 3, 2011)

Madman said:


> If you read Matthew's account it seems God ordained the purchase of the field years before Judas, and Jeremiah the prophet spoke of it.
> 
> The majority comes back to what you choose to believe,  what the evidence shows, and how God has worked in your life.


 Hello Madman, something just came to me, The reference to Jeremiah in Matthew that you made about purchasing a field for 30 pieces of silver, Matthew was wrong, he incorrectly quoted Jeremiah when it is actually Zechariah 11:12+13. How ironic being that we were discussing bible errors.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 3, 2011)

apoint said:


> I have read plenty enough to see he spreads the same garbage that atheist love to feed on. Nothing original about him, he just gets rich off other atheist rhetoric.
> I'm smart enough not to waste much time with his garbage. Why would the pulpit teach his insanity? Glad  to know you put your faith in man.



He doesn't claim originality so what is your gripe that his work isn't original to him?

An academic publishes books in the field he specializes in and he's a bad guy because he makes a profit on his books? What about all the con artists who make millions selling false hopes and delusions to the weakest among us?

Who knew teaching the history of christianity amounted to insanity for christians? I've seen you level personal attacks at him but none at the actual content of his books. Of course you can't do that without actually knowing the content so maybe that would be asking too much. What are you so afraid of? The truth IS on the side of christians right? As a christian shouldn't you be glad he is educating people about early christianity and the history surrounding the origins of the bible?

I don't know if he is getting rich off his books but I hope he is. He will never make the kind of money the Left Behind authors or Rick Warren has but his work is much more worth reading.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 3, 2011)

Hey gr8bldr here is another one. This is the sort of insanity apoint doesn't want to learn about.

Mark 2:23-27

      23 And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn. 24 And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful? 25 And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?

      26 How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him? 27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: 28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.



1 Samuel 21

1Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech the priest: and Ahimelech was afraid at the meeting of David, and said unto him, Why art thou alone, and no man with thee?

 2And David said unto Ahimelech the priest, The king hath commanded me a business, and hath said unto me, Let no man know any thing of the business whereabout I send thee, and what I have commanded thee: and I have appointed my servants to such and such a place.

 3Now therefore what is under thine hand? give me five loaves of bread in mine hand, or what there is present.

 4And the priest answered David, and said, There is no common bread under mine hand, but there is hallowed bread; if the young men have kept themselves at least from women.

 5And David answered the priest, and said unto him, Of a truth women have been kept from us about these three days, since I came out, and the vessels of the young men are holy, and the bread is in a manner common, yea, though it were sanctified this day in the vessel.

 6So the priest gave him hallowed bread: for there was no bread there but the shewbread, that was taken from before the LORD, to put hot bread in the day when it was taken away.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 3, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Hey gr8bldr here is another one. This is the sort of insanity apoint doesn't want to learn about.
> 
> Mark 2:23-27
> 
> ...


 Never seen that one before. This is so offensive to some people. They get mad cause they want it to be without error.


----------



## apoint (Jan 3, 2011)

Well sir's, I'm not a miracle worker, I cant make you blind see.
 Every piece of truth I give you, you throw in the mud. Have a nice life trying to destroy God, at least you have a large agenda.. Sounds pretty miserable to me. After all you dont have to believe in the truth. Some like the darkness, I hear misery loves company.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 3, 2011)

apoint said:


> Well sir's, I'm not a miracle worker, I cant make you blind see.
> Every piece of truth I give you, you throw in the mud. Have a nice life trying to destroy God, at least you have a large agenda.. Sounds pretty miserable to me. After all you dont have to believe in the truth. Some like the darkness, I hear misery loves company.



Taking your ball and going home now?


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 4, 2011)

apoint said:


> Well sir's, I'm not a miracle worker, I cant make you blind see.
> Every piece of truth I give you, you throw in the mud. Have a nice life trying to destroy God, at least you have a large agenda.. Sounds pretty miserable to me. After all you dont have to believe in the truth. Some like the darkness, I hear misery loves company.


Hello apoint, can you give a reasonable explanation for my last post and Atlashunter's last post of bible contridictions? Most have some sort of answer when bent out of shape. But maybe you can surprise me with something logical. I used to be in your same position, highly offended when anyone would dare say the bible had errors. We as mature bible students have to learn to deal with this.


----------



## fish hawk (Jan 4, 2011)

Heres a verse I love and it applies very well here                                                   

Matthew 7:6 
"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces. 
 Some will never be saved!!!!


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 4, 2011)

How ironic that you should quote that scripture fish. It Aldo is referenced in the videos I posted on the other thread.


----------



## johnnylightnin (Jan 4, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> As with apoint, it is obvious you haven't read any of his books. Since you are passing judgment on his work while still ignorant of it I can only chalk it up to a closed mind.



I'm a little busy to participate in this discussion, but your post raised my interest.  In the spirit of open-mindedness, why don't you let me send you some books that present a consistent evangelical view on the topic.  

I have NO problem buying and sending the books straight to your door, all I ask is that you actually read them.

If you're okay with that, in the spirit of open-mindedness of course, PM me with your address.


----------



## fish hawk (Jan 4, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> How ironic that you should quote that scripture fish. It Aldo is referenced in the videos I posted on the other thread.



Do you mind telling me about it?I dont have time to watch the videos.


----------



## Madman (Jan 4, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Sure you want to go there?



I'd be glad too!!!


----------



## Madman (Jan 4, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> Hey Atlashunter, them pics, that's funny and the truth



I never said a lot of the "christians" don't have and aggenda also.  

Follow the Money!!!!

I will say the priest at my church works a secular job.
Paul was a tent maker.


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 4, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Taking your ball and going home now?



Imaginary ball.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 4, 2011)

johnnylightnin said:


> I'm a little busy to participate in this discussion, but your post raised my interest.  In the spirit of open-mindedness, why don't you let me send you some books that present a consistent evangelical view on the topic.
> 
> I have NO problem buying and sending the books straight to your door, all I ask is that you actually read them.
> 
> If you're okay with that, in the spirit of open-mindedness of course, PM me with your address.



Johnny I appreciate the offer. That's very generous of you. I'm not inclined to give out my personal information to people I don't know on the internet. I also wouldn't want to waste your money and my time reading arguments that I am already familiar with. Just a quick note on my background. I was raised in an evangelical christian home. My father, grandfather, and great grandfather were all Assembly of God pastors. My great great great grandfather was a Church of Christ pastor. So I grew up steeped in christianity, usually in church every time the doors were open. It took years of consideration, reading, listening to both sides of the debate to get to where I am today. The point is, I'm no biblical scholar but I also didn't reach my views on a whim.

All of that being said, I'm not above being persuaded. What I would suggest is that you take part in the conversation when time allows and present what you think are some of the most compelling arguments from the books you would like me to read. You can also post youtube links, blogs, etc. If it is something new that gives pause for thought then I will agree to purchase and read a book that you recommend.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 4, 2011)

fish hawk said:


> Do you mind telling me about it?I dont have time to watch the videos.



Just that he would use that scripture when he was unsuccessful in convincing non-believers who he thought hadn't yet reached his level of understanding.

It's a way to use scripture to denigrate those who don't accept your views as swine.


----------



## johnnylightnin (Jan 4, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Johnny I appreciate the offer. That's very generous of you. I'm not inclined to give out my personal information to people I don't know on the internet. I also wouldn't want to waste your money and my time reading arguments that I am already familiar with. Just a quick note on my background. I was raised in an evangelical christian home. My father, grandfather, and great grandfather were all Assembly of God pastors. My great great great grandfather was a Church of Christ pastor. So I grew up steeped in christianity, usually in church every time the doors were open. It took years of consideration, reading, listening to both sides of the debate to get to where I am today. The point is, I'm no biblical scholar but I also didn't reach my views on a whim.
> 
> All of that being said, I'm not above being persuaded. What I would suggest is that you take part in the conversation when time allows and present what you think are some of the most compelling arguments from the books you would like me to read. You can also post youtube links, blogs, etc. If it is something new that gives pause for thought then I will agree to purchase and read a book that you recommend.



That's disappointing.  I do hope you'll reconsider.  In my line of work, I'm going to be pretty busy until the end of March, so I'm afraid I can't devote too much time to the topic anytime soon.

I will say that there is rampant misunderstanding concerning the topic of inerrancy and infalliability even in VERY conservative churches that would describe themselves as evangelical.  

I imagine what you were taught in an AOG setting is VASTLY different than what I hold regarding the Scripture.

Anyway, here is a blog that talks about presuppositions in this discussion and I think it's worth a look for skeptics and believers alike.

http://www.albertmohler.com/2009/04/13/fighting-words-about-the-bible/


----------



## formula1 (Jan 4, 2011)

*Re:*



atlashunter said:


> Hey gr8bldr here is another one. This is the sort of insanity apoint doesn't want to learn about.
> 
> Mark 2:23-27
> 
> ...



No contradiction as supposed:

Mark says 'in the time of Abiathar the high priest' which is factual (1 Samuel 23:9) as there was such a priest.  The passage in Mark never says David went to Abiathar, and the account in Samuel clearly shows David went to Ahimelech for the showbread.

You gotta do better than that one!


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 4, 2011)

formula1 said:


> No contradiction as supposed:
> 
> Mark says 'in the time of Abiathar the high priest' which is factual (1 Samuel 23:9) as there was such a priest.  The passage in Mark never says David went to Abiathar, and the account in Samuel clearly shows David went to Ahimelech for the showbread.
> 
> You gotta do better than that one!



"How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread"

Who was the high priest when David went into the house of God and ate the shewbread? Was it Abiathar?


----------



## Madman (Jan 4, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> Hello Madman, something just came to me, The reference to Jeremiah in Matthew that you made about purchasing a field for 30 pieces of silver, Matthew was wrong, he incorrectly quoted Jeremiah when it is actually Zechariah 11:12+13. How ironic being that we were discussing bible errors.



Notice Matthew writes: "Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: “They took the thirty pieces of silver, the price set on him by the people of Israel,"

It doesn't say Jeremiah wrote it, just that he spoke it.

That comes from 15 years of inductive Bible study.


----------



## gtparts (Jan 4, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> I doubt you've read much. If you had you would know that he doesn't claim to be original. He is putting out information that has been widely known to biblical scholars for many years but isn't taught in the pulpit (one can only guess why) in a format friendly to the layperson, and he says as much.





atlashunter said:


> As with apoint, it is obvious you haven't read any of his books. Since you are passing judgment on his work while still ignorant of it I can only chalk it up to a closed mind.



So, which is it ??? Original, his work??? The work of "widely known to biblical scholars"???


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 4, 2011)

Madman said:


> Notice Matthew writes: "Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: “They took the thirty pieces of silver, the price set on him by the people of Israel,"
> 
> It doesn't say Jeremiah wrote it, just that he spoke it.
> 
> That comes from 15 years of inductive Bible study.



 Hello Madman, That is a hard one to sell considering that  Jeremiah lived so long before Peter. The only way that Peter could know what Jeremiah said would be if it were written. Word of mouth that far apart is worthless.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 4, 2011)

Hey guys, we got multiple topics going on here by many different viewpoints so try and be clear which one your refering to. --  Bart D. Erhman --   bible errors??? --  youtube topic  --  religious money


----------



## johnnylightnin (Jan 4, 2011)

gtparts said:


> The work of "widely known to biblical scholars"???



Another drive-by post...but GT brings up a good point when he puts biblical scholars in quotes.  I don't know if anybody clicked on my link, but it talks about this a little.  There is no consensus among "bible scholars" across the board.  There is, in general, consensus between liberal Bible scholars (those who bring in an anti-supernatural presupposition to their study) that supports Ehrman's claims, but there are numerous scholars who have refuted the claims that Ehrman repeats.


----------



## Madman (Jan 4, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> Hello Madman, That is a hard one to sell considering that  Jeremiah lived so long before Peter. The only way that Peter could know what Jeremiah said would be if it were written. Word of mouth that far apart is worthless.



For all I know it could be in "extra-Biblical " writings attributing the spoken word to Jeremiah.  All I can go on is what the passage says.  Anything else is reading something into the Word that is not there.

Sometimes I have to say "That's all I know about that."


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 4, 2011)

Madman said:


> For all I know it could be in "extra-Biblical " writings attributing the spoken word to Jeremiah.  All I can go on is what the passage says.  Anything else is reading something into the Word that is not there.
> 
> Sometimes I have to say "That's all I know about that."


 Fair enough, I appreciate that you give your opinions and don't just get mad as most do when talking about this topic.


----------



## Madman (Jan 4, 2011)

Thanks and back at you.  All I know is what I know.

One thing I do know, the creator of the universe made an appearance in my life.  I can put it no better than John does:   

1 john 1:1-4
1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2 The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. 3 We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. 4 We write this to make our joy complete.
No need for me to get upset, the arguments are not against me, but against the Word of God.  Trust me; I have been called much worse by people whose opinions I value more than many of the folks on here.  I can be friends with anyone as long as they are civil.  Some on both sides can get out of hand.


Looking forward to good thoughtful dialog.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 4, 2011)

gtparts said:


> So, which is it ??? Original, his work??? The work of "widely known to biblical scholars"???



Are you kidding me???? The books that he authors is his work. Ehrman says the content of his books is not new among scholars but not widely known by your average christian. If you still can't comprehend that then forget it. Don't even bother asking.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 4, 2011)

Madman said:


> For all I know it could be in "extra-Biblical " writings attributing the spoken word to Jeremiah.  All I can go on is what the passage says.  Anything else is reading something into the Word that is not there.
> 
> Sometimes I have to say "That's all I know about that."



You're the one reading something into the book that isn't there.

It's amazing the lengths that you guys will go to in order to avoid the obvious.


----------



## Madman (Jan 4, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> You're the one reading something into the book that isn't there.
> 
> It's amazing the lengths that you guys will go to in order to avoid the obvious.



Really?  What have I read into the verse?  Matthew uses the word "spoke".


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 4, 2011)

Madman said:


> Really?  What have I read into the verse?  Matthew uses the word "spoke".



The words of Jeremiah are recorded in the book of Jeremiah. Where in Jeremiah do you find the words Matthew is referring to? Oh wait, those words are found in Zechariah? So you think Jeremiah spoke the words but they weren't recorded under his name so we have no way of knowing this for sure but Matthew somehow did know this (God told him perhaps?), the words ARE recorded as a prophecy of Zechariah but that is just a coincidence, and rather than Matthew referring readers to the recorded prophecy that they could confirm, he intentionally referred them to the unrecorded prophecy that there is no evidence of so that he could gain credibility for his story.

Or....

Matthew made a mistake.

And you find the former more probable than the latter.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 4, 2011)

Madman said:


> Really?  What have I read into the verse?  Matthew uses the word "spoke".


 Matt used this same context 7 times. I did not ck the other gospels


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 4, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> Hey Atlashunter, them pics, that's funny and the truth


 What a testimoney


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 4, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> What a testimoney





To Gold be the glory! I mean God! God! hahaha


----------



## Madman (Jan 4, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> And you find the former more probable than the latter.



What is written is written.


----------



## johnnylightnin (Jan 4, 2011)

Madman said:


> What is written is written.



This is where presuppositions come shining through.  Speak and write aren't even remotely close in the Greek, but AH has no trouble equivocating here because his presuppositions lead him to do so.


----------



## Madman (Jan 4, 2011)

1gr8bldr said:


> Matt used this same context 7 times. I did not ck the other gospels



1gr8bldr,

Those posting here, not just you and me, can spend eternity with the back and forth, but we must remember we are using 21st century western minds in an attempt to process 1st century eastern thoughts and expressions.  that only gets us 

Perhaps some of the more passionate posters here would be well served to study some of the study methods such as "rabbi Hillel's seven rules of interpretation".  It helps us understand the writtings and thoughts in eastern writing. 

Then again there are many who believe 21st century americans are the most intelligent people to ever live.  No matter how uneducated we really are.


----------



## Madman (Jan 4, 2011)

johnnylightnin said:


> This is where presuppositions come shining through.  Speak and write aren't even remotely close in the Greek, but AH has no trouble equivocating here because his presuppositions lead him to do so.



Spot on.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 4, 2011)

johnnylightnin said:


> This is where presuppositions come shining through.  Speak and write aren't even remotely close in the Greek, but AH has no trouble equivocating here because his presuppositions lead him to do so.



If a prophet gives a prophecy by word and those words are recorded in the book named after them is it spoken or written? Where is the scriptural confirmation of Matthew's claim of what Jeremiah spoke? Absent any evidence supporting Matthew why would he knowingly attribute something to Jeremiah which his readers couldn't confirm? That makes no sense if his intention is to show that a prophecy was fulfilled. And oh by the way over here in another part of the bible a different prophet just happened to say the exact same thing. Presuppositions indeed.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 4, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> If a prophet gives a prophecy by word and those words are recorded in the book named after them is it spoken or written? Where is the scriptural confirmation of Matthew's claim of what Jeremiah spoke? Absent any evidence supporting Matthew why would he knowingly attribute something to Jeremiah which his readers couldn't confirm? That makes no sense if his intention is to show that a prophecy was fulfilled. And oh by the way over here in another part of the bible a different prophet just happened to say the exact same thing. Presuppositions indeed.


 Sounds most logical


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 4, 2011)

johnnylightnin said:


> That's disappointing.  I do hope you'll reconsider.  In my line of work, I'm going to be pretty busy until the end of March, so I'm afraid I can't devote too much time to the topic anytime soon.
> 
> I will say that there is rampant misunderstanding concerning the topic of inerrancy and infalliability even in VERY conservative churches that would describe themselves as evangelical.
> 
> ...



I read this article. As a general rule what he says about presuppositions is true. However we should keep in mind that while presuppositions can shape opinions it has no bearing on the truth of those opinions one way or the other. The critical question for me is, is there any truth to the points Ehrman raises? If the answer is no then bible literalists (don't have to be a literalist to be a christian) would be better served addressing that than trying to discredit him based on his presuppositions. Especially considering that the presupposition he took into his studies of the bible was that of an evangelical christian who believed the bible was the inerrant inspired word of God. I wonder if Mohler is aware of that? What do you think Johnny? Think he knows Ehrman started out an evangelical and his views changed BECAUSE of his education in spite of his favorable presuppositions? If he does, then he is deceiving his readers when he writes, 



> Of course, if you are coming to the Bible from the perspective of one who has rejected Christianity, you are likely to see the kind of pattern Ehrman alleges.  Of course, if he did see the Bible as the perfect and completely truthful Word of God, he would not remain a rejecter of the Christian Gospel.



If he doesn't then who is really forming their opinions based on presuppositions here?

Also if two people approach the study of a subject with certain preconceived notions, one's study confirms their preconceptions, the other changes their view as a result of their studies, which one should be looked on with the greatest suspicion of self serving viewpoints?


----------



## johnnylightnin (Jan 5, 2011)

Mohler is aware of Ehrman's story.  There is no deception as Ehrman's view in his writing is very STRICTLY anti-supernatural (as a result of his liberal theological education).

As for the questions of truth, the more you get into this, the more you will see that definitive proof is elusive and what must be weighed is evidence.

The point that Mohler is making is that the presuppositions of the liberal theologians (who shaped Ehrman's current presuppositions) weigh incredibly heavily on how they approach the evidence.  There is virtually no way to definitively validate many of the claims of the liberal scholars.  They find their validation in their presuppositions.  

How this plays out is that Ehrman has certain ideas about the world in general, so he looks at the Scripture within those parameters.  When he comes to something that would stretch those parameters (like Jesus's claims of divinity in John), he must attribute it to some unprovable hypothesis about later addition.  Any evidence for that?  No, but his system goes screwy if Jesus claims his divinity.  So, he must deny the divinity claims in John.  He must make guesses about the Jewish understanding of Messiah.  He must fall back on the default position of the higher critics.

I really do urge you to look into this from a more open minded position.  I pray you'll take me up on my offer.  Tell me what you've read and I'll be sure not to replicate anything in your library.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 5, 2011)

I don't recall what he had to say about Jesus' claims of divinity so I would have to take the time to track that down. But as to the part where Mohler writes about Jesus placing what he says on par with Torah, Ehrman cites the exact same thing in Misquoting Jesus when discussing the canon. So either Ehrman contradicts himself, or Krattenmaker/Mohler are confused about what he was actually saying.

Back to the point of presuppositions, IF (I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt) Mohler is aware of Ehman's background I think he is deceiving his readers and here is why.

Most of his readers are going to be conservative christians just like him and as such are unlikely to be familiar with Ehrman's work. When he says what I quoted earlier he isn't just stating the obvious that if someone viewed the bible as the perfect word of God they wouldn't reject christianity. A reader, especially one of his own, reading that is going to think that Ehrman is someone who rejected christianity first, then approached their biblical education with that mindset, and continues to reject christianity because their preconceived notions led them to a skewed view of scripture. But in Ehrman's case nothing could be further from the truth. Mohler has the cart in front of the horse. Is it knowingly? Well he doesn't mention Ehrman's evangelical background any where in the article. That's pretty relevant information. Why did he leave it out? Sure seems like he's trying to shoot the messenger lest the message get delivered.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Jan 5, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> I don't recall what he had to say about Jesus' claims of divinity so I would have to take the time to track that down. But as to the part where Mohler writes about Jesus placing what he says on par with Torah, Ehrman cites the exact same thing in Misquoting Jesus when discussing the canon. So either Ehrman contradicts himself, or Krattenmaker/Mohler are confused about what he was actually saying.
> 
> Back to the point of presuppositions, IF (I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt) Mohler is aware of Ehman's background I think he is deceiving his readers and here is why.
> 
> Most of his readers are going to be conservative christians just like him and as such are unlikely to be familiar with Ehrman's work. When he says what I quoted earlier he isn't just stating the obvious that if someone viewed the bible as the perfect word of God they wouldn't reject christianity. A reader, especially one of his own, reading that is going to think that Ehrman is someone who rejected christianity first, then approached their biblical education with that mindset, and continues to reject christianity because their preconceived notions led them to a skewed view of scripture. But in Ehrman's case nothing could be further from the truth. Mohler has the cart in front of the horse. Is it knowingly? Well he doesn't mention Ehrman's evangelical background any where in the article. That's pretty relevant information. Why did he leave it out? Sure seems like he's trying to shoot the messenger lest the message get delivered.


 Bart claims that Jesus's divinity is only found in John. That John's audience was different than the other writers. I find that strange coming from a critical thinker, historian such as Bart. One only needs to understand John's point of view which was not his own. He was simply referencing Philo who wrote before John. Scholars have concluded thaT John had to have known Philo's writings about "logos". Why Bart missed this, I don't know. The point is that John could not reinvent the meaning of that which he is referencing. Philo in no way gave any indication of what it has become. Google  Did John copy Philo


----------



## johnnylightnin (Jan 10, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Back to the point of presuppositions, IF (I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt) Mohler is aware of Ehman's background I think he is deceiving his readers and here is why.
> 
> Most of his readers are going to be conservative christians just like him and as such are unlikely to be familiar with Ehrman's work. When he says what I quoted earlier he isn't just stating the obvious that if someone viewed the bible as the perfect word of God they wouldn't reject christianity. A reader, especially one of his own, reading that is going to think that Ehrman is someone who rejected christianity first, then approached their biblical education with that mindset, and continues to reject christianity because their preconceived notions led them to a skewed view of scripture. But in Ehrman's case nothing could be further from the truth. Mohler has the cart in front of the horse. Is it knowingly? Well he doesn't mention Ehrman's evangelical background any where in the article. That's pretty relevant information. Why did he leave it out? Sure seems like he's trying to shoot the messenger lest the message get delivered.



Sorry it's taken me so long.  You seem to be equating conservative Christianity with ignorance about "higher" criticism.  Molher is an impressive academic in his own right (mainly in the area of Systematic Theology) and his writing garners the attention of academics primarily.  Sure, there are some uninformed people who read what he writes, but it's not the majority.  There's not a person that graduates from Mohler's seminary without being exposed to Ehrman, Kant, Dawkins, Dennet, ect...

That was a really long way for me to say that I imagine a large portion of Mohler's reading audience is familiar with Bart.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 10, 2011)

Fair enough. It would be interesting to know what percentage of his readers have first hand knowledge of Ehrman's work. If you're only exposure was through Mohler you would come away with a very skewed view.


----------



## johnnylightnin (Jan 10, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Fair enough. It would be interesting to know how what percentage of his readers have first hand knowledge of Ehrman's work. If you're only exposure was through Mohler you would come away with a very skewed view.



At least at the school, you read primary sources and respond to them directly. Nothing is filtered through the faculty. You address opposing opinions for what they are.


----------

