"Misquoting Jesus," Ehrman

[robinriley]

[Replying to post 300 by robinriley]

I can understand why some Christians would hate the point of view and inconvenient facts of many of Ehrman's books. However, your piece appears to merely be opinion. Tho' you make detailed complaints, you have failed to present evidence to support your opinion.

I join in recommending Misquoting Jesus..
http://infidels.org/library/modern/thom ... rstcoming/

(Robin)
Ehram is a hack!
He'd be a hack wheather the observant reader of his pandering was a christian or anything else ... but he is good at selling books to people already of the same bias.

And no, I didn't "fail" to provide supporting evidence ... fact of the matter, I provided a couple valid points, which you've conviently not addressed ...? ...

And, this being a debate forum, I'd now like to hear your specific points about why he isn't just a peddler of junk ideas, which some do willingly allow themselves to be sold ....? ...

But Ehram aside, perhaps you didn't notice the earlier post where I've analyized Paul's epistles, specifially looking at the variations ...and it's obvious to the most casual observer, the one who doesn't approach the subject with their minds already made up ...
that there's no way that the innane conjecture could possibly be valid ... that is, there be more errors than words, because in just the sample universe of all 13 Paulien epistles, there are only 895 verses with any variations, and the relitive few variations within these can be catergorized into those areas where the variation makes abolutly no real difference (said groupings accounting for over half of all the variations), and then the other variations, which do, indeed, merit a closer look.

That is, I know that there are variations that are, indeed, problematic, and being more open minded, am willing to look closer into just how these might affect our reliance upon certain specific scriptural verses ... That is, I dont just lump, willy-nilly "variations" all together, as so-called proof against the the totality of NT scripture, like your silly Ehrman. In other words, we should be using a scientific approach, not depending upon the unvarifiable bias-based propoganda here-say of a ... pandering liar, looking to sell books to those who like their ideas pre-chewed, and packaged in shinny wrappings.

So then, deep thinker ... I've listed the few variations in each of Paul's letters, why dont you pick a paticular epistle, and then show all of us how said variations do damn the lot, are "evidence" of said scriptures not being God-breathed?

Guess what I'm saying, dear Danmak, is ..."SHOW ME THE MONEY!" ...
Present YOUR evidence to support YOUR opinion ... since I've already given you mine!

Note: I think I'm getting the hang of this so-called "christian" debate site!

***


The Layman’s Companion (TLC) is compiled from “The New Testament In The Original Greek - Byzantine Textform 2005,� (BT2005) by Maurice Robinson and William Pierpoint; with all differences noted (verses are asterisked) between it and Greek Critical Texts (*GCT), such as the “Greek New Testament SBL Edition,� (GNTSBL) by Michael Holmes (as compared against Westcott and Hort, Tisehendorf, and the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum). In these thirteen epistles of Paul there are 895 verses with variations (some with multiple variations); there are 519 Word Deletions, and these are the highest source of variation in every epistle. There are 232 Different Words variations; then 196 Syntax/ Verse Order/ Verse Breaks; then 172 Simple Spelling differences; then 137 Declensions; 109 Parsings; 104 Words Added; and 38 Crasis variations.

[Danmark]

.
[Replying to post 297 by robinriley]

Thanks for the response.

While I digest what you send, I recommend "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman (available Amazon Kindle or paperback for $10 range)


Z

(Robin)
Really ... you actually recommend that nonsense; I'll remember this when you recommend something else, something which I haven't read. The errors he makes are harder to state to a layperson than the falsehoods he propogates, but a couple stand out like a sore thumb ... thumbs!

1) He assumes that copies of documents were made in a linear fashion, but this assumption is both wrong and very mileading (again, I recommend that you read Maurice Robinson's "The Case for Byzanting Priority" ... it online and free, and if you'd like I can introduce you to him, so you can tell him all about the scolastic wonders of Bart Ehrman ... But back to item #1: Documents were copied geometrically. The difference between a mistake in copying when there is only one copy, and a mistake in a copy when there are ten or twenty copies, is enormous. If there are ten copies, the exact same mistake must be made in five or six of them for the mistake to become entrenched and irreversible; for if there are ten copies and a mistake is made in only one, or two, it is entirely possible to see it as an error by "reverse engineering"; and, in fact, this is what thousands of scholars have spent their lives doing.

2) If you think that his errors are unintentional, they are not. Ehrman has an anti-Christian agenda. The proof of this is his assertion that the enormous number of gross errors (he states 400,000 and adds that there are more differences between manuscripts than there are words in the NT) is at all significant. But they are not significant. Practically all of these "errors" are meaningless. An omitted accent in some copies might be counted as 2,000 "errors" but in koine Greek is meaningless. Very large errors -- such as "homeoteleuton," which can result in an entire line or more being omitted in a copy -- are correspondingly easy to see and correct.

There are some very large headaches in regards to understanding the original meaning of parts of the New Testament; there are also some serious errors of intentional miscopying, such as the "Trinity" verse in John's first epistle. But Ehrman buries them in what can only be called intentionally misleading misstatements, which is to say, lies. He must know that what he is writing is nonsense.

[Danmark]

[I'm not expert at splitting topics. This one should be added. These are out of order, sorry.]

.
[Replying to post 297 by robinriley]

Thanks for the response.

While I digest what you send, I recommend "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Ehrman (available Amazon Kindle or paperback for $10 range)


Z

(Robin)
Really ... you actually recommend that nonsense; I'll remember this when you recommend something else, something which I haven't read. The errors he makes are harder to state to a layperson than the falsehoods he propogates, but a couple stand out like a sore thumb ... thumbs!

1) He assumes that copies of documents were made in a linear fashion, but this assumption is both wrong and very mileading (again, I recommend that you read Maurice Robinson's "The Case for Byzanting Priority" ... it online and free, and if you'd like I can introduce you to him, so you can tell him all about the scolastic wonders of Bart Ehrman ... But back to item #1: Documents were copied geometrically. The difference between a mistake in copying when there is only one copy, and a mistake in a copy when there are ten or twenty copies, is enormous. If there are ten copies, the exact same mistake must be made in five or six of them for the mistake to become entrenched and irreversible; for if there are ten copies and a mistake is made in only one, or two, it is entirely possible to see it as an error by "reverse engineering"; and, in fact, this is what thousands of scholars have spent their lives doing.

2) If you think that his errors are unintentional, they are not. Ehrman has an anti-Christian agenda. The proof of this is his assertion that the enormous number of gross errors (he states 400,000 and adds that there are more differences between manuscripts than there are words in the NT) is at all significant. But they are not significant. Practically all of these "errors" are meaningless. An omitted accent in some copies might be counted as 2,000 "errors" but in koine Greek is meaningless. Very large errors -- such as "homeoteleuton," which can result in an entire line or more being omitted in a copy -- are correspondingly easy to see and correct.

There are some very large headaches in regards to understanding the original meaning of parts of the New Testament; there are also some serious errors of intentional miscopying, such as the "Trinity" verse in John's first epistle. But Ehrman buries them in what can only be called intentionally misleading misstatements, which is to say, lies. He must know that what he is writing is nonsense.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 305 by Danmark]

Sorry. Not impressed. How about you take one point, one paragraph from the book, actually quote it; then demonstrate how it is inaccurate or misleading, rather than just give your generalizations that it wrong?

Perhaps, more importantly, you move this off topic issue from the 'Welcome!' thread to a new topic where we can address Ehrman's book. [Maybe I should do that for you.]

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 4 by Danmark]

The original poster is no longer with us and I am no fan of book debates. However, I have read the book and the OP was directed at a reference to it that I made.

It is understandable that Bible Believers would attack in general rather than attempt to show evidence that what is presented is incorrect. At the very least it seems prudent for Apologists / Christians to read what is said and compare it to what they think they know about the Bible. Doing so would provide some information about criticisms made by Non-Believers (and some Believers).

If someone presented a reasoned and specific rebuttal to sections of the book I might be enticed to debate such issues (emphasis on might).