BART EHRMAN answers my question

by TerryWalstrom 66 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Finkelstein

    JWs of as late have been boasting how the recent revision of the KJV bible has used the name of God as Jehovah.

    " See we were right all along " if they only knew the truth to where the name Jehovah was derived from.

    The majority of JWS are poorly educated particularly on bible theology, yet are complacently arrogant of themselves.

    Unfortunately mentally indoctrinating people with ignorance is the game the WTS. plays onto people.

  • Perry

    Bart Ehrman is a tragic figure, and a heretic.

    "Ehrman rejects the deity, sinlessness, miracles, and bodily resurrection of Jesus. He believes that the Christian faith is a myth and that at least 19 of the books in the New Testament are forgeries"

    - Way of Life

  • Village Idiot
    Village Idiot
    @ Perry:

    Bart Ehrman is a tragic figure, and a heretic.

    "Ehrman rejects the deity, sinlessness, miracles, and bodily resurrection of Jesus. He believes that the Christian faith is a myth and that at least 19 of the books in the New Testament are forgeries"

    There are plenty of Atheist, Agnostic and non Judeo-Christian scholars with a deep interest and understanding of the Bible. Those who study mythology don't have to believe in the myths. Your calling them "heretic" is no different than the Watchtower calling us apostates.

  • Finkelstein

    I find Perry a heretic to intellectual honesty .

    But then again he's saved so I guess that doesn't concern him

  • Phizzy

    All Perry can muster is an Ad Hominem attack on Prof Ehrman that is, as shown, pathetic in itself.

    No attempt to address the reasoning and proofs that Prof Ehrman offers. Why not ?

    Maybe there are none.

    Far from a "tragic" figure Prof Ehrman is an accomplished explainer/teacher of a complex subject, that even a simple poorly educated layman like myself can understand once he gets to work.

    The man is a Hero.

  • EdenOne

    To Perry:

    Wash your potty mouth and cleanse your brain before you make a pathetic personal attack on Dr. Ehrman's integrity. Just because he was once an evangelical Christian who realized the tragic errors of the Bible, and who could not reconcile anymore the problem of evil with the existence of the Christian God, doesn't make him a dishonest person. Dishonest are those who refuse to acknowledge the super abundant evidence that the Bible is nothing more than a collection of texts created by humans, speaking about a deity they invented to embody their wishes, aspirations and acrimonies. At least Dr. Ehrman was intellectually honest to acknowledge as much as evidence presented itself to him during his academic research. On the other hand, Christian pseudo-scientists refuse evidence, resort to magical thinking and go to absurd lengths to justify what's written in the Bible as factual history and the greatest moral guide ever produced. THAT is where the bold-faced dishonesty lies, in face of all evidence. And you, Perry, are the embodiment of such a blind and coward attitude.


  • Perry

    He writes stuff like a child throwing a tantrum:

    "Though Ehrman claims to hold the high ground of scholarship and intellect, he makes childish errors of fact. For example, he says that the belief in the Bible as infallibly inspired began in the 19th century.

    “Church historians have traced the view, rather precisely, to the Niagara Conference on the Bible, in the 1870s, held over a number of years to foster belief in the Bible in opposition to liberal theologians who were accepting the results of historical scholarship. In 1878 the conference summarized the true faith in a series of fourteen statements. The very first one -- to be believed above all else -- was not belief in God, or in the death and resurrection of Jesus. It was belief in the Bible” (Ehrman, “Jesus Saves, Not the Bible,”, May 1, 2009).

    In fact, the writers of the New Testament taught that the Scripture is infallible. Paul said, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). And Peter wrote, “For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Peter 1:21).

    Even if it were true that Paul and Peter didn’t write those epistles, it is still true that whoever wrote them taught the infallibility of biblical inspiration 2,000 years ago!

    Further, ancient creeds described the infallible inspiration of Scripture long before 1870. Consider the Westminster Confession of 1646, which stated not only the infallible inspiration but also the providential preservation of Scripture:

    “The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), BEING IMMEDIATELY INSPIRED BY GOD, and by His singular care and providence, KEPT PURE in all ages, are therefore AUTHENTICAL; so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.”

    IMO, Ehrman seems like he has an axe to grind at God:

    Article Excerpt

    "In describing his spiritual background, Ehrman describes an event that occurred when his father was dying of cancer. His charismatic youth group leader visited the hospital and “used a bottle of hotel shampoo to ‘anoint’ his father, and tried to persuade his father to confess specific sins” (“Former Fundamentalist ‘Debunks’ Bible,” CNN, May 15, 2009). Ehrman says he was angry at the man for acting “self-righteous” and “hypocritical.” This event, though, does not reflect negatively on a biblicist faith. It simply proves that this particular youth leader was a misguided man. The Bible does not instruct us to anoint people with shampoo."

  • Witness My Fury
    Witness My Fury

    People who read and understand the bible tend to be the ones who stop believing in it.

  • OnTheWayOut
    He writes stuff like a child throwing a tantrum:

    I immediately thought of what Perry writes when I read that.

  • Terry

    In an honest debate over facts, each side argues the evidence.

    In a debate without honest rebuttal, one side argues ad hominem.

    "Address the issues under discussion? No way--I'd rather poison the well."

    A group of fundamentalist Christians started a YouTube propaganda smear effort called THE BART EHRMAN PROJECT to undermine the Professor personally. You can still see some of their videos. That effort has been abandoned now.

    I feel it demonstrates the pettiness and poverty of honest engagement over evidence which has left evangelicals in the sorry state they are in. What is that state? Clinging to pre-Enlightenment ideas despite advancing scholarship.

    Why not simply argue the facts and let the viewer decide?

Share this