Much-needed help in simple translation as part of my conversion process

[Kei]

I believe it was during his teen or preteen years that he became fundy. Like 12. There is still a lot of development to go on.

Are you trying to say Ehrman isn’t biased but those who refute him and show that he displays information in a way that might be misleading to the uninformed public are?

We also don’t just make traditions up out of thin air.

Ehrman is relatively normal within scholarship on some issues, but not all.

 

[FiveLinden]

Are you trying to say Ehrman isn’t biased but those who refute him and show that he displays information in a way that might be misleading to the uninformed public are?

He is an objective scholar. I am aware of people rebutting his arguments, but not of anyone refuting them on major points.

 

[FiveLinden]

Ehrman doesn’t even Google apologetics on some of his claims of human error. For example, he uses the refuted claim that the author of Matthew, in chapter 21, misunderstood the prophecy of the donkey and the colt.

Colts go through a period when they should not be separated from its mother. Then they put coats on both the donkey and the colt because that’s a custom of decoration. For example, if a car is following the limousine of the president of the U.S., it won’t be an old, beat-up car, but another limousine. When it says that ‘he sat on them’ it means the coats - not both the donkey and the colt

So who was right? ‘Matthew’ who says there were two animals, or ‘Luke’ and ‘Mark’ who say there were one?

 

[Mintaka]

Look, it’s not about whether he’s an atheist or whatever. Bart Ehrman is an embarrassment to other atheist professors of biblical studies, Hebrew, Greek, etc. Every time a book of his comes out, the professorial blogs spend a long, exasperated time picking out all his mistakes – but what really offends them is the way his arguments are constructed.

For example, in one of his books, Ehrman has a long section on how Epiphanius (in his opinion) is a terrible, biased source on what various heretical sects believed and practiced. Ignore him! Don’t use him!

And then, he proceeds to quietly quote from Epiphanius, and reference information only found in Epiphanius, throughout the rest of the book.

Ehrman does this all the time, in all his books. He clearly thinks you can have your cake and eat it too.

The only reason he can play these games is that most ordinary readers are not familiar with the sources. Scholars who work with them all the time, or even hobbyists, find him dishonest. He discredits himself.

Don’t ever buy a used car from that man.

 

[squaferno]

So who was right? ‘Matthew’ who says there were two animals, or ‘Luke’ and ‘Mark’ who say there were one?

They didn’t say there was only one. They mentioned the colt, but the mother isn’t necessary to mention.