Refutations?

[wth1257]

Of the book, “Misquoting Jesus”?

here’s a lecture from the author

quicksilverscreen.com/watch?video=34888

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Of the book, “Misquoting Jesus”?

here’s a lecture from the author

quicksilverscreen.com/watch?video=34888

Nothing to refute as far as I can see according to some of his reveiws. Seems he wanted to sell books more than seek the real truth. Only those who wouldn’t research it would be fooled. And, I sincerely hope you didn’t think the average person would sit through an hour and a half of this?

…the idea that the variants in the NT manuscripts alter the theology of the NT is overstated at best. Unfortunately, as careful a scholar as Ehrman is, his treatment of major theological changes in the text of the NT tends to fall under one of two criticisms: Either his textual decisions are wrong, or his interpretation is wrong. These criticisms were made of his earlier work, Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, which Misquoting Jesus has drawn from extensively. Yet, the conclusions that he put forth there are still stated here without recognition of some of the severe criticisms of his work the first go-around. For a book geared toward a lay audience, one would think that he would want to have his discussion nuanced a bit more, especially with all the theological weight that he says is on the line. One almost gets the impression that he is encouraging the Chicken Littles in the Christian community to panic at data that they are simply not prepared to wrestle with. Time and time again in the book, highly charged statements are put forth that the untrained person simply cannot sift through. And that approach resembles more an alarmist mentality than what a mature, master teacher is able to offer. Regarding the evidence, suffice it to say that significant textual variants that alter core doctrines of the NT have not yet been produced.

In conclusion, we find this book to be more of a political treatise that takes too many liberties when it comes to offering half-truths and in finding significance where none exists.

He reminds me of the people who found the dead sea scrolls and were going to disprove Christianity. After years of research they don’t beat their chests anymore. Seems there was too much of a match of what has been taught for years.

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

 

[wth1257]

Nothing to refute as far as I can see according to some of his reveiws. Seems he wanted to sell books more than seek the real truth. Only those who wouldn’t research it would be fooled. And, I sincerely hope you didn’t think the ave rage person would sit through an hour and a half of this?

No, his work seems to be largely in the mainstream. Now, you have not refuted any of his points, nor did that selection you quoted. e is a well respected academic who holds a professorship at a prestigious University and is an expert in his field. You response consisted in quoting the vague polemics of a Christin Apologist. I’d hardly call that sufficient.

He reminds me of the people who found the dead sea scrolls and were going to disprove Christianity. After years of research they don’t beat their chests anymore. Seems there was too much of a match of what has been taught for years.

He’s drawing on an unbroken line of scholarly proof of the gross textual imperfections of the Gospels, from Erasmus to John Mill in 1707 to the present. What he’s saying HAS been taught for years.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

No, his work seems to be largely in the mainstream. Now, you have not refuted any of his points, nor did that selection you quoted. e is a well respected academic who holds a professorship at a prestigious University and is an expert in his field. You response consisted in quoting the vague polemics of a Christin Apologist. I’d hardly call that sufficient.

He’s drawing on an unbroken line of scholarly proof of the gross textual imperfections of the Gospels, from Erasmus to John Mill in 1707 to the present. What he’s saying HAS been taught for years.

Sorry but I have more faith in the Holy Spirit’s ability to protect the truth than someone who is interested in selling books, no matter if his translations are incorrect as well as his interpretations.

It’s just another Da Vinci Code artist at work, in my opinion. Only people who have qualms about Christianity would buy into that sort of thing. Just like those who think if they found life on Mars it would end belief in God. People are always looking for angles to discredit God for their own personal glorification. They been trying since the beginning of time. Eve was the first one to buy into the deceiver’s spin. Look where he got us all.

A lot of dissenters, atheists and agnostics hold degrees. They have ulterior motives and normally a lack of common sense. It means nothing.

Read some Scott Hahn, Tim Staples or any other person with degrees in Biblical languages as well as theology. If there was something fishy people like them wouldn’t have converted, they would have left their faith all together.

By the way, you said I haven’t refuted his points but I haven’t seen your endorsements of his points? What are your qualifications to judge the validity of his argument? Saying someone is well qualified isn’t really much of an argument as well. Your only refutation was to say the quotes I provided were of unqualified people. What’s the difference? Pot meet kettle.

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1

 

[wth1257]

Sorry but I have more faith in the Holy Spirit’s ability to protect the truth than someone who is interested in selling books, no matter if his translations are incorrect as well as his interpretations.

Firstly you have absolutely no proof what his motives are. Regardless of his motives little of his research is original; it goes back to the 16th century when Erasmus noted that no Greek Texts prior to the 8th century actually contained 1 John. It goes through the 18th century Biblical scholars who noted 30,000 discrepancies in the thus far discovered Greek texts, look up John Mill, not John Stuart Mill, just John Mill 1707, it has continued through the 19th century German Theologians to the present day.

It’s just another Da Vinci Code artist at work, in my opinion.

In your very poorly founded opinion I would add. If you cannot distinguish between a poorly researched fictional work and an non-fiction work drawing on several centuries of academic scholarship then you have little objective context.

Only people who have qualms about Christianity would buy into that sort of thing.

He was a very serious Evangelical, his wife still is I believe.

Just like those who think if they found life on Mars it would end belief in God. People are always looking for angles to discredit God for their own personal glorification. They been trying since the beginning of time. Eve was the first one to buy into the deceiver’s spin. Look where he got us all.

That’s a whole lot of rhetoric with no substance and nothing to do with an actual critique of his work.

A lot of dissenters, atheists and agnostics hold degrees. They have ulterior motives and normally a lack of common sense. It means nothing.

No, it means there are extraordinarily good reason’s to believe the present canonical scripture is corrupted. If you lack intellectual honesty that’s your problem, however living a lie that consists of shoving your fingers in your ears whenever contrary evidence is presented is not healthy.

Read some Scott Hahn, Tim Staples or any other person with degrees in Biblical languages as well as theology. If there was something fishy people like them wouldn’t have converted, they would have left their faith all together.

If you read Scott Hahn’s spiritual autobiography “Rome Sweet Home” you will se he was already a committed Christian who did not examine the evidence objectively, but as a Christian finding the correct denomination with an implicit assumption of the integrity of those given religious texts.

Hahn is a good academic; however he was a economics, theology, philosophy triple major who did doctoral work in theology, not textual criticism, focusing on the concept of the covenant in Christianity.

He’s an interesting Theologian; however this is not his area.

By the way, you said I haven’t refuted his points but I haven’t seen your endorsements of his points? What are your qualifications to judge the validity of his argument? Saying someone is well qualified isn’t really much of an argument as well. Your only refutation was to say the quotes I provided were of unqualified people. What’s the difference? Pot meet kettle.

No, I called them the vague polemics of a Christian Apologist.

My criticisms were not of his qualifications per se, but of his criticisms. He did not engaged in a scholarly rebuttal, he simple rambled on, avoided the key issues, spoke in ambiguous languages and vague references, and generally avoided his key issues.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Firstly you have absolutely no proof what his motives are. Regardless of his motives little of his research is original; it goes back to the 16th century when Erasmus noted that no Greek Texts prior to the 8th century actually contained 1 John. It goes through the 18th century Biblical scholars who noted 30,000 discrepancies in the thus far discovered Greek texts, look up John Mill, not John Stuart Mill, just John Mill 1707, it has continued through the 19th century German Theologians to the present day.

In your very poorly founded opinion I would add. If you cannot distinguish between a poorly researched fictional work and an non-fiction work drawing on several centuries of academic scholarship then you have little objective context.

He was a very serious Evangelical, his wife still is I believe.

That’s a whole lot of rhetoric with no substance and nothing to do with an actual critique of his work.

No, it means there are extraordinarily good reason’s to believe the present canonical scripture is corrupted. If you lack intellectual honesty that’s your problem, however living a lie that consists of shoving your fingers in your ears whenever contrary evidence is presented is not healthy.

If you read Scott Hahn’s spiritual autobiography “Rome Sweet Home” you will se he was already a committed Christian who did not examine the evidence objectively, but as a Christian finding the correct denomination with an implicit assumption of the integrity of those given religious texts.

Hahn is a good academic; however he was a economics, theology, philosophy triple major who did doctoral work in theology, not textual criticism, focusing on the concept of the covenant in Christianity.

He’s an interesting Theologian; however this is not his area.

No, I called them the vague polemics of a Christian Apologist.

My criticisms were not of his qualifications per se, but of his criticisms. He did not engaged in a scholarly rebuttal, he simple rambled on, avoided the key issues, spoke in ambiguous languages and vague references, and generally avoided his key issues.

I at least offer a link to the source I quoted.

By the way, those reveiws stated his motives. Did you read them?

One may suspect that editors, not Ehrman, chose this title for salability.

Here’s another review.

But it sells well: since its publication on November 1, 2005, it has been near the top of Amazon’s list of titles. And since Ehrman appeared on two of NPR’s programs (the Diane Rehm Show and “Fresh Air” with Terry Gross)—both within the space of one week—it has been in the top fifty sellers at Amazon…

…Unfortunately, the average layperson will leave this book with far greater doubts about the wording and teachings of the NT than any textual critic would ever entertain. A good teacher doesn’t hold back on telling his students what’s what, but he also knows how to package the material so they don’t let emotion get in the way of reason. A good teacher does not create Chicken Littles.6

Yet another review by, as you say, a well respected academic who holds a professorship at a prestigious University and is an expert in his field.

I’m sure he has a list of people who he used in his “research” to write his bestseller with the misleading title, which I’m also sure he selectively chose. I wouldn’t trust them no more than I would trust what Martin Luther did and wanted to do with scriptures. I use several Bibles. One is an Aramaic translated to English, I also have a Greek translation to English, Hebrew to English and Latin Vulgate to English, all saying pretty much the same thing. How many scholars and theologians do you think my Church had/has working on the scriptures, since the first century to present day? It’s nice having a Holy Spirit protected Church to help me sort through it all.

Do you really believe his “reasearch”? Are you considering giving up your faith over it? What I mean, is what is your point of pushing this as if it were gospel?

Attacking my intellectual abilities doesn’t bother me. I have a bucket full of common sense, enough not to blindly follow every one who yells the sky is falling. Also, I have alot more faith than I do common sense or intellectual ability. :extrahappy:

May the peace of the Lord be with you,
Prodigal Son1