Misquoting Jesus

[endlessabyss]

I'm a chapter away from finishing Bart Ehrman's, "Misquoting Jesus", and he definitely demonstrates that the bible cannot be the inherent/inspired word of God.

 

I read a great book by Christine Hayes, "Introduction to the bible", which shows the unreliability of the Hebrew bible. The archeology doesn't support the biblical narrative, and she goes on to demonstrate the parallels between the bible, and myths told in the Ancient Near East. In addition, she puts together a compelling argument that Judaism is actually the evolution of the ancient Canaanite religion. El (the chief god of the Canaanite Pantheon) was the God of the patriarchs, which gradually evolved into the worship of Yahweh, beginning in the book of Exodus.

 

I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as El, but I didn’t make myself known to them by my name, Yahweh.

 

-Exodus 6:3

 

I could go on about this in much further detail, but back to Ehrman's book. The NT has accumulated many errors over time, due to scribes making copying errors, as well as verses/stories being added and subtracted to manuscripts, to support certain theological ideologies/agendas. Currently, we have thousands of manuscripts, with many variants. The more the variants, the more difficult it is to construct an original. There are so many views, that different Christian sects had of Jesus. Some Jewish Christians thought He was purely human. Some Christians, such as Marcion, put together canon, demonstrating Jesus to be purely divine. Other Christians thought Jesus was a mix of both. Scribes altered the text many times to support their particular orthodoxy.

 

I think it is safe to say that the bible can't be the inspired word of God, because if it was, we would have a preserved copy of the original autographs. If the bible is the inspired word of God, how could He let mere mortals add and subtract to texts He had His hands in?

 

I have another one of Ehrman's books on deck: Jesus Interrupted. This book looks even more promising.

 

Would any Christian's, that participate in this part of the forum, like to explain why they believe the bible to be inspired by God, when textual criticism has shown the bible to be untrustworthy?

 

Interested in replies.

Edited August 23, 2014 by endlessabyss

[M30USA]

I'm a chapter away from finishing Bart Ehrman's, "Misquoting Jesus", and he definitely demonstrates that the bible cannot be the inherent/inspired word of God.

 

I read a great book by Christine Hayes, "Introduction to the bible", which shows the unreliability of the Hebrew bible. The archeology doesn't support the biblical narrative, and she goes on to demonstrate the parallels between the bible, and myths told in the Ancient Near East. In addition, she puts together a compelling argument that Judaism is actually the evolution of the ancient Canaanite religion. El (the chief god of the Canaanite Pantheon) was the God of the patriarchs, which gradually evolved into the worship of Yahweh, beginning in the book of Exodus.

 

I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as El, but I didn’t make myself known to them by my name, Yahweh.

 

-Exodus 6:3

 

I could go on about this in much further detail, but back to Ehrman's book. The NT has accumulated many errors over time, due to scribes making copying errors, as well as verses/stories being added and subtracted to manuscripts, to support certain theological ideologies/agendas. Currently, we have thousands of manuscripts, with many variants. The more the variants, the more difficult it is to construct an original. There are so many views, that different Christian sects had of Jesus. Some Jewish Christians thought He was purely human. Some Christians, such as Marcion, put together canon, demonstrating Jesus to be purely divine. Other Christians thought Jesus was a mix of both. Scribes altered the text many times to support their particular orthodoxy.

 

I think it is safe to say that the bible can't be the inspired word of God, because if it was, we would have a preserved copy of the original autographs. If the bible is the inspired word of God, how could He let mere mortals add and subtract to texts He had His hands in?

 

I have another one of Ehrman's books on deck: Jesus Interrupted. This book looks even more promising.

 

Would any Christian's, that participate in this part of the forum, like to explain why they believe the bible to be inspired by God, when textual criticism has shown the bible to be untrustworthy?

 

Interested in replies.

 

Your resources and information are 25-30 years out of date. The Bible, especially the Gospels, are the single most reliable ancient documents in existence on the planet. This is verified by the staggering amount of manuscripts (over 2500), the greater than 99.9% accuracy of each in comparison with one another, and the fact that we now know the Gospels (especially Mark) were written earlier than 55 AD.

 

As I said, your resources and information don't hold up to the most recent discoveries. What you are saying was taught in the 1980s.

 

And incidentally the "Word of God" is technically Jesus Christ, not the Bible. The Bible was merely written for your benefit. Even if the Bible didn't exist, you would still be accountable because the Holy Spirit of God is alive and present on earth, teaching all men the truth who are willing to hear.

Edited August 23, 2014 by M30USA

[endlessabyss]

Your resources and information are 25-30 years out of date. The Bible, especially the Gospels, are the single most reliable ancient documents in existence on the planet. This is verified by the staggering amount of manuscripts (over 2500), the greater than 99.9% accuracy of each in comparison with one another, and the fact that we now know the Gospels (especially Mark) were written earlier than 55 AD.

 

As I said, your resources and information don't hold up to the most recent discoveries. What you are saying was taught in the 1980s.

 

And incidentally the "Word of God" is technically Jesus Christ, not the Bible. The Bible was merely written for your benefit. Even if the Bible didn't exist, you would still be accountable because the Holy Spirit of God is alive and present on earth, teaching all men the truth who are willing to hear.

 

Dr. Ehrman is a leading New Testament scholar, who's arguments are clearly not "out of date". He has dedicated 30 years of his life to studying the gospels. once a evangelical Christian, now agnostic.

 

Here is a link to debunk your first claim that the gospels are reliable:

 

 

Dr. Ehrman explains shortly in about three minutes.

 

Just because there are a lot of manuscripts in circulation, doesn't make them historically reliable.

 

We have no way of determining what Jesus said or did, accurately. As stated previously, the gospels have been altered many times, by different Christian sects, to support their particular orthodoxy.

 

I won't argue that Jesus didn't exist, or wasn't crucified, because that doesn't seem to be the case, but we'd have to accept every naturalistic explanation of what happened to Jesus after his death, because a miracle is the least likely explanation.

[M30USA]

Dead Sea scrolls. End of story. They are from BC and proved that what we have today is identical. I have no idea how a "scholar" can make the claims he is making. I do know he's in the minority if that's what he believes.

[TheFinalWord]

Currently, we have thousands of manuscripts, with many variants. The more the variants, the more difficult it is to construct an original. There are so many views, that different Christian sects had of Jesus. Some Jewish Christians thought He was purely human. Some Christians, such as Marcion, put together canon, demonstrating Jesus to be purely divine. Other Christians thought Jesus was a mix of both. Scribes altered the text many times to support their particular orthodoxy.

 

Hey bro,

 

I think we have discussed this before?

 

Did you watch Ehrman's debate against James White? They discuss textual variation to a great degree.

[Ronni_W]

I have another one of Ehrman's books on deck: Jesus Interrupted. This book looks even more promising.

Of similar nature, you may also find interesting:

~ Jesus in Heaven on Earth

~ The Talmud of Jmmanuel (from scrolls of Aramaic writings discovered in Jerusalem, in 1963.)

~ Christ's Letters (also available as a free PDF...a Google search will get you to the website)

 

I think it's in 'Jesus in Heaven on Earth', the question is asked: If Jesus was born in Bethlehem...which great lengths are gone to, to ensure that we all know that...then why is he called Jesus of Nazareth?

 

I'd never even wondered about that...but I now I do wonder what is the real, true, accurate, factual answer It's interesting to contemplate, in any event, even if we can only speculate, theorize, guess at this point.

[M30USA]

I think it's in 'Jesus in Heaven on Earth', the question is asked: If Jesus was born in Bethlehem...which great lengths are gone to, to ensure that we all know that...then why is he called Jesus of Nazareth?

 

Less than 5 minutes of research will give you the answer. Good luck.

[endlessabyss]

Hey bro,

 

I think we have discussed this before?

 

Did you watch Ehrman's debate against James White? They discuss textual variation to a great degree.

 

 

Hey!!

 

Yes, I remember we touched on this briefly in a thread I created about the Resurrection of Jesus.

 

Since then, I watched the full debate, and read Dr. Ehrman's book. In reference to the debate, during the cross examination portion, imho, Ehrman got the best out of White:

 

 

Even though White put together a compelling argument, Ehrman still remains the heavyweight champ in these battles.

 

If I could ask, who do you think made the better argument in the debate, and why?

 

As for the actual book, Ehrman has definitely demonstrated, imo, that the bible isn't inerrant. Most honest Christians, now of days, will concede to this point.

 

Does this mean the bible is not inspired by God? Not at all, but to me it does.

 

 

Some interesting feedback on Dr. Ehrman's blog as well (in regards to his debate with White): http://ehrmanblog.org/video-bart-ehrman-vs-james-white-debate/

Edited August 24, 2014 by endlessabyss

[TheFinalWord]

If I could ask, who do you think made the better argument in the debate, and why?

 

Looking at that Q&A, I don't think either did remarkably well. A lot of it seemed to appeal to who can drop the most names. Appealing to authority isn't exactly a great debate tactic to me.

 

I don't think it's any one point, per say. I basically agree with Craig, that Ehrman, often steps beyond his expertise (in a similar way as when Dawkin's attempts philosophy).

 

Generally speaking, my issue with Ehrman is his claim he is "

". He tries to present himself as an objective critic, when IMHO he has obvious biases. When Ehrman takes that stance, it comes across as misleading to me. Norm Geisler seems to agree with me on this in his writings and in this lecture. I prefer when popular scholars are forthcoming about their biases and presuppositions. For example, I love Christopher Hitchens. I don't agree with him, but I like that he doesn't play politics and pretend he has no biases about religion.

 

Interestingly, Ehrman says in the linked video it's not problems with the bible that caused him to lose his faith, it's the problem of suffering. To me, that speaks volumes. I could get into why, but not sure if it really matters.

 

Anyway, glad to see you are looking deeper into these issues. All the best in your quest.

Edited August 24, 2014 by TheFinalWord

[Mirages]

I recall in the 1990's the Smithsonian Institute wrote a piece on the Bible as a whole, that was positive. i.e. it was able to be tied to other evidences in enough ways that they gave it a positive review. Bear in mind S.I. is very secular, they are not getting marketing dollars from God on this one.

 

Smithsonian: " … On the other hand, much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian, or Greek histories.

‘These Biblical records can be and are used as are other ancient documents in archeological work. For the most part, historical events described took place and the peoples cited really existed. This is not to say … that every event as reported in the historical books happened exactly as stated."

[BetheButterfly]

 

Would any Christian's, that participate in this part of the forum, like to explain why they believe the bible to be inspired by God, when textual criticism has shown the bible to be untrustworthy?

 

Interested in replies.

 

Jesus Christ did not promise people a book. While Jesus Christ quoted the Scriptures of his people (the Tanakh), he promised his obedient followers the Spirit of God. (John 14-16)

 

Scribes who copied the Scriptures made some mistakes, as they are mortal. However, God leads people through His Spirit. Spiritual people who are led by the Heavenly Father understand the Bible's messages, even though humans have made errors in copying the original manuscripts.

 

As a follower of Jesus Christ, the errors in the copies of the Bible do not deter me but rather convince me of the fact that human scribes are prone to error, but God's message remains in spite of human errors. God's Spirit convicts me that Jesus Christ is truly the Messiah, the Son of God who died once for all, who rose again, and will return someday.

 

I understand that to those who are not led by God's Spirit, that sounds ridiculous. If I did not have a relationship with the Heavenly Father through Jesus Christ, I would think Christians are ridiculous too.

[M30USA]

"Misquoting Jesus"

 

...appropriately titled.

Edited September 11, 2014 by M30USA

[mightycpa]

I think strictly speaking, if you aren't doing it in the ancient Aramaic language, whatever you attribute to Jesus is a misquote at worst, and a paraphrase at best.

 

Even "Good News" might be somewhat off, even though it gets the idea across.

[todreaminblue]

edit ............................the bible is true......deb

Edited September 11, 2014 by todreaminblue

[CaliGuy]

I'm a chapter away from finishing Bart Ehrman's, "Misquoting Jesus", and he definitely demonstrates that the bible cannot be the inherent/inspired word of God.

 

I read a great book by Christine Hayes, "Introduction to the bible", which shows the unreliability of the Hebrew bible. The archeology doesn't support the biblical narrative, and she goes on to demonstrate the parallels between the bible, and myths told in the Ancient Near East. In addition, she puts together a compelling argument that Judaism is actually the evolution of the ancient Canaanite religion. El (the chief god of the Canaanite Pantheon) was the God of the patriarchs, which gradually evolved into the worship of Yahweh, beginning in the book of Exodus.

 

I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as El, but I didn’t make myself known to them by my name, Yahweh.

 

-Exodus 6:3

 

I could go on about this in much further detail, but back to Ehrman's book. The NT has accumulated many errors over time, due to scribes making copying errors, as well as verses/stories being added and subtracted to manuscripts, to support certain theological ideologies/agendas. Currently, we have thousands of manuscripts, with many variants. The more the variants, the more difficult it is to construct an original. There are so many views, that different Christian sects had of Jesus. Some Jewish Christians thought He was purely human. Some Christians, such as Marcion, put together canon, demonstrating Jesus to be purely divine. Other Christians thought Jesus was a mix of both. Scribes altered the text many times to support their particular orthodoxy.

 

I think it is safe to say that the bible can't be the inspired word of God, because if it was, we would have a preserved copy of the original autographs. If the bible is the inspired word of God, how could He let mere mortals add and subtract to texts He had His hands in?

 

I have another one of Ehrman's books on deck: Jesus Interrupted. This book looks even more promising.

 

Would any Christian's, that participate in this part of the forum, like to explain why they believe the bible to be inspired by God, when textual criticism has shown the bible to be untrustworthy?

 

Interested in replies.

 

Since I am late to this:

 

The Bible is the INSPIRED word of God. God speaks to everyone differently but the same "delineation" is always there. Think of the 10 commandments and the words of Jesus. I do not see any historical errors in Jesus words (but welcome to see them if you have them).

 

However, if you need some historical data, look at the Dead Sea Scrolls (keeping in mind there WERE some strange sects who wrote doctrine NOT inspired by God -- such as the Gospel of Mary or the Gospel of Judas).

 

God is perfect. Man and the copying of text, not so perfect. But let me ask you something. If you feel that a few people think that the Bible is nonsense, and you're right, no big deal right? Well, if it is and you're wrong, that's a big deal when you have to answer to the Big Man Upstairs.

 

Now, I am saying this from an intellectual standpoint. Having my own NDE, I can tell you having been on the other side, I am 100% positive in my belief in God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit and the fact Islam is a satanic religion.....

[Arieswoman]

endlessabyss,

I am am curious as to why you would want to spend so much time looking for proof that the Bible is flawed? If you think that the book is so inaccurate/misleading whatever, why not just ignore it?

 

If you really want a challenge, try disproving the Koran, and see how long your head stays on your shoulders

[Mirages]

The bible along with the koran belongs in a fireplace.

Actually one good place to read the Bible is in front of a fireplace. It reminds me of the Shekinah Glory, as well as God's warmth and providence!

[CaliGuy]

endlessabyss,

I am am curious as to why you would want to spend so much time looking for proof that the Bible is flawed? If you think that the book is so inaccurate/misleading whatever, why not just ignore it?

 

If you really want a challenge, try disproving the Koran, and see how long your head stays on your shoulders

 

Usually when people wish to try and disprove the Bible -- and Jesus in the process, they think they're actually more intelligent than our Creator.

 

As for the Qu'ran and Islam, it's neither the "Religion of Peace" their followers claim (1.2 billion Muslims, 300 million of them radical) or even the truth. It's a fabricated religion Muhammad used as an excuse to be a child molester (factual) and conquer land (true).

 

Not sure how many peaceful religions say "Behead someone who refuses to believe this farce!"

 

Actually one good place to read the Bible is in front of a fireplace. It reminds me of the Shekinah Glory, as well as God's warmth and providence!

 

I thank God when I wake up.

I read my devotionals with my cup of coffee.

I read my Bible before I go to bed.

I pray as I fall asleep thanking God for another day in His glory.

I try never to miss a service -- simply because I love my Pastor and our Church and to be in fellowship with others.

 

Any time is a perfect time to read His word

Edited October 5, 2014 by CaliGuy