Bart Ehrman's work is criticized

[thebrucebeat]

They are never the "source". They are simply an easy way to retrieve data.
You wouldn't begin to know how to value a source if it didn't start with "God did it".

Considering the fact that I believe God is the Author of all that exists then I suppose I must agree with your post. God is the Creator therefore nothing that is "did" could have been done without Him. Sorry if you disagree.

Enough said.
I won't be coming to you to assess a source, as you have already done so before engaging them.
Your opinions become useless as they are predetermined.

 

[Chuckt]

70% to 80% Variants are Spelling Variations

Dr. Daniel Wallace, whose qualifications match Ehrman's and Witherington's states that Ehrman's motives are clearly spelled-out in the introduction while the last three chapters reveal his agenda. In these chapters he is "given to overstatement and non sequitur." Wallace concludes that "70 to 80 percent of all textual variants are spelling differences that can't even be translated into English and have zero impact on meaning" (Strobel 2007, 86).

Spelling Destroys Faith?

Sadly, Ehrman's Christian education began at Moody's and Wheaton College, both fine schools. He completed his M.Div. and Ph.D. at Princeton Seminary. After he presents the heart of his book in chapters 5, 6, and 7 Ehrman finally concludes, "It would be wrong...to say - as people sometimes do - that the changes in our text have no real bearing on what the texts mean or on the theological conclusions that one draws from them. We have seen, in fact, that just the opposite is the case."

Choosing to Believe or Disbelieve

It comes down to this: If a person wants to disbelieve the Bible he or she can read and believe the conclusions of someone like Ehrman and refuse to read any other critique or viewpoint. This happens all the time. In the end we all "choose" to believe or disbelieve. It's a matter of personal faith. The evidence to back-up our faith is out there for anyone who wants it.

However, again and again we have seen some former believers turn hostile to their earlier faith once they encounter a personal crisis which involves a moral choice.

Ehrman's Errors

 

[Chuckt]

Bart Erhman's journey has taken him from orthodox to liberalism to agnosticism. He has been theologically drifting throughout his career and now, his drifting has finally taken him to his most recent shipwrecked work, Misquoting Jesus.

Bart was a classmate of mine at Moody in 1976. We attended the same courses, took many of the same teachers, and read the same texts. Yet, somehow he seems to have received a far different education that I received. You would think from reading his book that he never heard of textual criticism, hermenuetics and textual variants until his seminary years. That could not be more inaccurate. What Erhman does is to set up a strawman version of biblical authority and inerrancy and then attacks it with the same old arguments.

Bart's goals were to once to be an evangelical voice in secular circles. Goals he alludes in the senior section of 1976 Moody yearbook. Hate to tell him, he failed. Unfortunately, he is determined to take others with him on his journey.

Review of Bart Ehrman, <i>Misquoting Jesus</i> | Evangelical Textual Criticism

 

[Chuckt]

1. Ehrman does much to disqualify his voice when he starts the article with these words: &#8221;Apart from the most rabid fundamentalists among us, nearly everyone admits that the Bible might contain errors.&#8221; At this point, what chance does any alternative to Ehrman&#8217;s conclusions really have? Although I hate to invoke argumentative fallacies (they are just not classy and are way overused), this is a classic case of &#8220;poisoning the well.&#8221; It is an attempt to discredit any alternatives by lumping them together with the most unholy of associations. But from the standpoint of any honest observer, this simply reveals the author&#8217;s emotionalism and/or timidity. If and when arguments are not present (or not very strong), just poison the well to achieve the same result. However, this only works with those who are not really seeking the truth.
2. Ehrman sees no need to present any sort of argument for his case. It is true &#8211; there are many scholars who agree with Ehrman that many New Testament works are pseudepigrapha, and they have good reasons. But these reasons are hardly as compelling as Ehrman assumes. A good case can also be made that each letter is authentic. I suggest picking up a copy of Donald Guthrie&#8217;s New Testament Introduction to see the evidence for and against each book in question. One can not easily dismiss Guthrie as a &#8220;rabid fundamentalist.&#8221; At the very least, you will get a much clearer picture of the issues than Ehrman seeks to give.
3. The implications are overstated. Even if one were to grant that 2 Peter were a pseudepigraph (and while I disagree, I admit it is the best candidate), what does this do? According to Ehrman, it means that the Bible contains lies. But this is not true. It would simply prove that 2 Peter was a lie. It is not scholarly in the least, in this type of argument, to treat the entire canon of Scripture (or just the New Testament) as one book written by one author (as the title of Ehrman&#8217;s article, &#8220;Who Wrote the Bible and Why It Matters,&#8221; does). Ironically, in such cases, skeptics like to attribute a unity to the Bible which they would never grant in any other situation! The truth is that even if 2 Peter and certain Pauline epistles were written by someone else, they alone would be deceptive. The rest of the books would be untouched.
4. The implications are not stated. Let us assume that the letters in question are not authentic. Let us grant Ehrman&#8217;s unsupported theses (just because we like the guy). What does this mean? The implications are rather unremarkable. No cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith is affected in the least. All the major doctrines of orthodox Christianity remain intact, finding their support in the authentic books. I am not saying that these letters are of no value, I am simply saying that Ehrman continually fails to mention, in all of his &#8220;pastoral revelations&#8221; to us poor unsuspecting people, that the message of the Christian faith is largely unaffected.
Unfortunately, I believe Ehrman&#8217;s style is much more &#8220;rabid&#8221; and far more &#8220;fundamentalist&#8221; than just about anyone else out there these days, believer or non. But, more than that, I would say his imbalanced treatment of this topic is the only &#8220;lie&#8221; I can see clearly in this article. Ehrman seems to have sold out the respect and contribution that his level of scholarship could demand, Christian or not. He is increasingly trading in his respectability as a scholar for some sort of crusade against Christianity, in which he may be seeking to solve his bitterness toward his own fundamentalist upbringing. He is a far cry from his mentor Bruce Metzger, and more and more resembles the lack of balance, meekness, and poise of so many in the New Atheist camp. I think a comment in the article from an atheist sums this up well:
&#8220;I would love to believe this article on its face. I am an Atheist, after all. But I would also love some references and citations for what are obviously some controversial claims. Otherwise it sounds a bit like Christian apologists.&#8221;
I suppose these days Bart Ehrman thinks his own musings are enough of a reference to support his claims.

Thoughts on Bart Ehrman?s Article in the Huffington Post | Parchment and Pen

Don?t Put the Bart Before the Horse | Parchment and Pen

 

[DriftingSand]

They are never the "source". They are simply an easy way to retrieve data.
You wouldn't begin to know how to value a source if it didn't start with "God did it".

Considering the fact that I believe God is the Author of all that exists then I suppose I must agree with your post. God is the Creator therefore nothing that is "did" could have been done without Him. Sorry if you disagree.

Enough said.
I won't be coming to you to assess a source, as you have already done so before engaging them.
Your opinions become useless as they are predetermined.

And your opinions AREN'T predetermined? Break me off a piece of that Kit Kat Bar. You deny God; therefore, every opinion you present from this moment forward will be biased against God. You and I and the world know it.

 

[Chuckt]

Considering the fact that I believe God is the Author of all that exists then I suppose I must agree with your post. God is the Creator therefore nothing that is "did" could have been done without Him. Sorry if you disagree.

Enough said.
I won't be coming to you to assess a source, as you have already done so before engaging them.
Your opinions become useless as they are predetermined.

And your opinions AREN'T predetermined? Break me off a piece of that Kit Kat Bar. You deny God; therefore, every opinion you present from this moment forward will be biased against God. You and I and the world know it.

We have the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. They are written on paper, right? What happens when that paper turns to dust over age? His default would be that it didn't exist because it isn't the original that we have. He can come to no other conclusion. How do you know our founders wrote the Declaration of Independence? Can you prove they actually signed it, you know?

 

[thebrucebeat]

Considering the fact that I believe God is the Author of all that exists then I suppose I must agree with your post. God is the Creator therefore nothing that is "did" could have been done without Him. Sorry if you disagree.

Enough said.
I won't be coming to you to assess a source, as you have already done so before engaging them.
Your opinions become useless as they are predetermined.

And your opinions AREN'T predetermined? Break me off a piece of that Kit Kat Bar. You deny God; therefore, every opinion you present from this moment forward will be biased against God. You and I and the world know it.

But I don't.
I'm not an atheist.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Enough said.
I won't be coming to you to assess a source, as you have already done so before engaging them.
Your opinions become useless as they are predetermined.

And your opinions AREN'T predetermined? Break me off a piece of that Kit Kat Bar. You deny God; therefore, every opinion you present from this moment forward will be biased against God. You and I and the world know it.

We have the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. They are written on paper, right? What happens when that paper turns to dust over age? His default would be that it didn't exist because it isn't the original that we have. He can come to no other conclusion. How do you know our founders wrote the Declaration of Independence? Can you prove they actually signed it, you know?

I have never once said the originals never existed, so your comeback is stupid.