Yeah, but at least he has made it available (by books and other things) to find out that information that was "unprotected".
As pointed out by Thomas Paine I think, writing isn't necessarily a good way to communicate eternal truths. It is entirely one-sided unless the writer is still around when the reader reads it, the meanings of words and phrases are subject to change over time, its very hard to understand the nuances of different cultures, especially those that don't exist anymore, its incredibly easy to change, etc.
Given the multitude of denominations we see around us, I'd say he was on to something.
I mean, even TWI said that understanding God's will was easy, yet we had to take all these classes to know what the heck it was God wanted to communicate to us?? And let's not even get into all the things God requires of us.... <_<
Seems awfully complicated, convoluted and corrupt to me. I mean, I'm glad we have all these historical documents, but I don't think what's in the Bible is any more important than the Nag Hammadi scrolls and all the other ancient writings that have been found. I certainly don't think it's "God breathed" and "written by the hand of God". I'd think the God churches teach could do a better job than what we're left with.
I'm inclined to play Parcheesi with George. If Gawd Almighty, creators of the heavens and earth, IS God Almighty, then why all the confusion and contention?
Seems to me that it boils down to "Love God and love your neighbor." The rest is superfluous and irrelevant other than for mere historical value - which, so much of what's in the Bible can't even be verified. :huh: So where does that leave us?
for those of us who have come to boil things down to love
i would have to say that that leaves us resting on yet another rung of jacob's ladder
perhaps even one of the more overloaded rungs these days
and tho it typically doesnt seem to feel good for us to hear such things for various reasons
i can only sit on my butt with us and marvel how so many of us have made it this far at all
:mellow:
as it pertains to "Misquoting Jesus"..i have not read the book, but i have read many related books
but as it pertains to all the books, Books, and BOOKS in the universe on the subject
i suppose one could say something like this about most of our mainstream american christian english dialogues on the topic of jesus...
- we do not have access to many vast swathes of relevent information on the topic
- there are many vast swathes of relevent information on the topic
- many vast swathes of information have been destroyed throughout history
- mountains of valuable information is currently being uncovered for the first time in this era of history
- we often justify not having access to all of it by declaring the vast majority of it unimportant or unneccesary ...or even downright evil ..
- if we did have access to all the information...most of us would most likely not be able to comprehend it as a whole...at first
- tho we often justify our fairly decent comprehension by saying greater degrees of comprehension are somehow counterproductive or perhaps even wrong or dangerous...
- we often avoid or suppress the possibility that some people are actually more able to understand and explain such large bodies of information ..its parts and wholes
- these kinds of freaks are often considered a) somewhat terrifying or b) quite boring
- as with all traits ...greater degrees of comprehension comes with a price and other unique challenges
- we really cant know how much we dont know...so "mostly ignorant" is perhaps our most useful stance to take ...in spite of how much we do know
- we typically avoid and hate the very information that will help us the most
- we can actually know quite clearly when someone is uninformed and does not know it
- vast swathes of information created in response to the original occasions of Jesus are incredibly valuable as information even if they are not accurate or perfect
- other stuff i missed...
so...what i do is...
practice precision
practice compassion
practice curiousity
play at holding all 3 of them
and read whatever the heck you want
cuz satan IS to be transformed into an angel of light...by YOU
we need not be as darkness seeking light
but be can be as light and enter the darkness
cuz most all radical Truth is mostly always already always hiding right there ... naked in the dark
...
plz forgive for being offensive, unclear, or somehow wasteful and boring
Not sure what you mean by "practice precision", but the rest I get and agree with wholeheartedly.
And, I do read whatever the heck I want - including Harry Potter and "Many Lives Many Masters" and many other "heretical" books. :o Best one lately, for me, is "What God Wants" Darn thing is there's more that I want to read than there is time these days.
and i hear ya...i work in a multimedia bookstore, manage a lending library, read a lot in my studies, with a stack of books i want to read but cant get to, as well as a stack of books others say i should read that i cant get to, as well as a stack of books people want me to carry in the bookstore that i must read
and well...what i mean by "practice precision"
is to allow yourself to be precise ..play at ways of being precise....brings an element of artistry and craftmanship
which involves things like measurements and details and making as many severely critical distinctions as one find to make
i find that greater depths and degrees of precision allows for greater depths and degrees of sophisticated understanding
and one can be very precise about any given thing in life
That's why I do not believe that God will judge us based on how much of the accuracy of the text we had right, per se. What God will reward us for is the fruit of the spirit and the character of Christ in our lives.
Just because I can't discern from the text whether Eber or Abraham was the first Hebrew matters nothing when it comes to forgiving my brother who has sinned against me even though he doesn't deserve it.
It is the state of our hearts and whether or not we are behaving Christ-like that is and always should be the center of our focus, not whether or not the past particple of some such Hebrew word is...blah, blah, blah. Don't get me wrong, those things are there to be investigated if so desired. But God is much more concerned with integrity of the heart, not whether you can read the Greek text or not.
A scripture comes to mind.
John 7:17-18
Jesus answered, "My teaching is not my own. It comes from him who sent me.
If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.
People can argue about the texts their whole lives and get nowhere spiritually. The real key to knowing if what we have as the Bible is indeed God's word is to get busy DOING it (not intellectualizing, not philosophising, etc.) and then Christ will PROVE to you that it is indeed the word of God.
That's really the only way to know for sure. And as for my life, he's proved himself to me and that's why it doesn't matter how many people come around wanting to bash the text and constantly question it's reliability. If Christ has proved himself to me, then I know it to be true.
John 8:32
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.
The greek word "know" is ginosko. Only by experience and application can we come to know the truth. And the proof of whether or not we have the truth is if we take what we know as the truth (oida) and then go and do it (ginosko), I should be set free. If I am set free, then I know I have the truth and therefore now I know that the source of my truth is reliable (The Bible).
Skeptics (a.k.a. those without faith) will never do the Word and that's why they can "study" the texts all they want to and never come to a spiritual understanding. God unlocks the "hidden meaning" and the understanding to those who are meek and humble in heart.
And I have been set free from many things. There's a whole lot I don't know about church history and there's a whole lot I don't know about all the different texts floating around out there, but I know this, the books that are in that Bible, God put those there. How do I know? Because I have been set free. I went and did his will, and now I know Jesus' teaching is from God (John 7:17).
That's why I do not believe that God will judge us based on how much of the accuracy of the text we had right, per se. What God will reward us for is the fruit of the spirit and the character of Christ in our lives.
Way doctrine teaches you'll be "rewarded" according to how "much" of the "Word" you're "faithful" to.
Italics provided, as those word would require some definition I think.
"Rewards" = how good of a life you will have in the future, after the return of Christ and the gathering together. Somewhere down the line anyway, you'll be living a life based on what you believed of the bible in this one.
"much" - based on what you knew, the amount of it that you knew.
"Word" - accurate bible information.
"faithful" - an interesting term - Way doctrine implies a continuous faithing, so to speak. If you knew and were faithful at one time, but developed a different understanding of what they taught you at one time - you're S.O.L. A little doesn't go a long way, in the Way. You need to stack up some seniority to have tenure. If you leave their nest, you're a bad bird. Faithful to the Word means faithful to accepting the knowledge.
---
That's using normal English, and is probably very debatable by a Wayfer. But - IMO one of the downfalls of putting such an emphasis on knowledge is that it takes the shine off behavior. Knowing something that's right becomes more important than doing something that's right.
Again - Wayfers' would argue against that. But action does speak louder than words, and what do Wayfers do?
Only one thing is considered worthwhile to do. Ask any B.O.T. member or whatever they consider a high-ranking officer of the Way that can quote their doctrine to you and speak with authority on it and they'll tell you - the only thing they're required by "God" to do is "speak his Word, accurately divided".
That's it. Doing it is another thing entirely. To Wayfers speaking the Word is doing the Word. That's it.
There's plenty of things for Wayfers to do in regards to that one thing and it accounts for and amounts to the incredibly one-dimensional, flat, somewhat inhuman lifestyle they've come to represent. They don't do anything really worthwhile with what they know, other than respeak it to each other and the odd person who will listen to what they have to say. It's much easier to preach to the choir though, so not that many birds outside the nest get any worms, which may be a good thing.
------
To me, faith is a very individual thing, not the least bit blind. Acceptance is a matter of choice. Once a choice is made, movement flows in that direction.
Blind means nothing is seen. I'd describe it as - different people can see different things when they look, and some don't see anything at all.
No two people can have the same faith, even if they have it towards the same thing IMO. The relationship to the other thing - in this case God, Jesus Christ, the bible, writings thought to be inspired, etc. - is individual and one-to-one.
How those things that are chosen and pursued respond will be completely unique to that individual, even when the response is the same, I think. It has to be - I'd compare it to two people drinking water from the same glass. Goes in a similar way, goes out a similar way, but what the water does inbetween is entirely different for both people.
Similarly what a person does with what they choose to believe is going to determine the quality of that in their lives, to a great extent.
Christians say, typically, they're "followers of the Lord Jesus Christ". That being so, there would be a lot of things to do. Speaking "the Word" would be one. Doing it would absolutly have to follow, since that's what Jesus did with what He knew. He did stuff. Lots of stuff.
Yeah, but at least he has made it available (by books and other things) to find out that information that was "unprotected".
I haven't read the book yet but here is an excerpt from a review. Read the entire review by clicking below:
From: The Bible, the Qur'an, Bart Ehrman, and the Words of God by Mark Roberts:
If my numbers are anywhere near accurate, or if the footnotes in Bible translations are to be believed, this means there are two ways of conveying the same basic fact:
"There are more differences among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament."
– Bart Ehrman
"We can have a high level of confidence that the vast majority of the words in the Greek New Testament appeared in the original manuscripts."
– Mark Roberts
Both of these statements are true. And both are based on the same evidence. And both reflect the bias of the writer. But the simple fact is that most of the time most of the New Testament manuscripts are in agreement with each other. And when there is a disagreement, most of the time text critics are able to discern, with a high degree of probability, which reading is original. This leaves a very small percentage, maybe 1% of the New Testament, where we have genuine textual ambiguity. All of these passages, by the way, could be removed from the Bible without any major impact on Christian theology. I know this for a fact because I've been a teacher and preacher of orthodox (well, I hope) Christian theology for more than 20 years, and I've always made a special effort not to base anything I'm preaching or teaching on a text for which there isn't sufficient manuscript support.
Ehrman is clever in his use of language to favor his argument, yet I fear his cleverness may mislead many readers. In his conclusion, for example, Ehrman states, "even if God had inspired the original words, we don't have the original words" (p. 211). Yes, we don't have the manuscript of 1 Thessalonians, for example, and in this sense we can't look at the original words Paul wrote on the page. But virtually every responsible New Testament scholar believes that the critically-reconstructed Greek text of 1 Thessalonians is very close to what Paul once wrote. This can't be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, of course. But there's no reason to believe that what we read today, if we can read Greek, is substantially different from what Paul wrote. Where we're not sure about which words Paul wrote, we actually have the words, we just aren't positive which ones were original. Moreover, at any rate, the disputed words contribute very little to our understanding of 1 Thessalonians.
I don't think Ehrman is being intentionally deceptive when he writes things like "There are more differences among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament" and "we don't have the original words." Rather, I think he is himself confused. He became confused, according to his own witness, as a young college student, and especially while in seminary. And that confusion has stayed with him for thirty years. Though Ehrman's an expert in the craft of text criticism, and thought he's an exemplary communicator, the philosophical and theological implications he draws from text criticism are poorly reasoned and quite unconvincing.
If my numbers are anywhere near accurate, or if the footnotes in Bible translations are to be believed, this means there are two ways of conveying the same basic fact:
"There are more differences among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament."
– Bart Ehrman
"We can have a high level of confidence that the vast majority of the words in the Greek New Testament appeared in the original manuscripts."
– Mark Roberts
Hmmm, a powerful way to say it but is he wrong? Ehrman also notes that the majority of these differences are inconsequential. He seems very honest in his research, at least to me.
What does Mark Roberts' statement really mean? I don't see the significance of just having the words. I would also add that 'vast majority' negates God-breathed, no? What words are missing? How significant are they? How would we know? If some are missing, could some have been added? The questions are endless...
I don't think Ehrman is being intentionally deceptive when he writes things like "There are more differences among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament" and "we don't have the original words." Rather, I think he is himself confused. He became confused, according to his own witness, as a young college student, and especially while in seminary. And that confusion has stayed with him for thirty years. Though Ehrman's an expert in the craft of text criticism, and thought he's an exemplary communicator, the philosophical and theological implications he draws from text criticism are poorly reasoned and quite unconvincing.
Maybe his confusion comes from the discrepancy between the facts he has discovered and what Christians et al. claim regarding their holy books. Seems to me his claim that we don't have the original words matches even what Mark Roberts is saying. We don't! I'm not sure I see 'poorly reasoned' in that.
I'm inclined to play Parcheesi with George. If Gawd Almighty, creators of the heavens and earth, IS God Almighty, then why all the confusion and contention?
I agree, Belle. Now, we just need a fourth player. How about it, Oak?
...Rather, I think he is himself confused. He became confused, according to his own witness, as a young college student, and especially while in seminary. And that confusion has stayed with him for thirty years. Though Ehrman's an expert in the craft of text criticism, and thought he's an exemplary communicator, the philosophical and theological implications he draws from text criticism are poorly reasoned and quite unconvincing.
Confused? Not so much as changed his beliefs. Ehrman was at one time in the "god-breathed" camp. He gradually changed his position as he spent time studying the various New Testament texts.
That being said, there is without a doubt disagreement among textual critics regarding the scope and importance of the differences among the manuscripts. Reasonable people are always going to differ over whether the textual variations make any difference in the overall message of Christianity, and the point of view that one brings to the table is going to influence how one interprets the evidence. If you believe that the "originals" were given by inspiration from God, then you will find some way to make it all fit together. If you don't, discrepancies might be viewed as just that: discrepancies.
One thing about this book, and some others written by Ehrman that surprised me: Ehrman believes that Jesus did in fact exist and that an historical Jesus is the basis for the gospel accounts; he does not throw out the gospels as complete fabrications. Granted, his view of the gospels as man-made documents that reflect the theology and prejudices of their writers is likely considered blasphemous by some believers, but he believes that one can determine what the "real" Jesus taught by using the gospels and other early Christian writings.
Have read it and found it enlightening. Definitely food for thought. It is not, however, IMO a Here are all the answers book, it gives insights and ideas for critical thought but is not a panacea for all questions one has about interpretation of the NT.
... It is not, however, IMO a Here are all the answers book...
I would agree templelady. In fact, I think it might have raised more questions for me than it provided answers. This book was the first time I've heard of significant stories being fabrications. I was a bit surprised when he said he didn't believe the woman taken in adultery was part of the original text. Jeesh, I still remember Loy 'expounding' on that story endlessly.
I was also surprised by the sheer number of writings that were circulating among the churches in the early centuries. I would think the odds astronomical that those in charge actually picked the God-breathed words for inclusion in the bible.
Recommended Posts
JumpinJive
As pointed out by Thomas Paine I think, writing isn't necessarily a good way to communicate eternal truths. It is entirely one-sided unless the writer is still around when the reader reads it, the meanings of words and phrases are subject to change over time, its very hard to understand the nuances of different cultures, especially those that don't exist anymore, its incredibly easy to change, etc.
Given the multitude of denominations we see around us, I'd say he was on to something.
-JJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Which brings us back to "blind faith", no?
I mean, even TWI said that understanding God's will was easy, yet we had to take all these classes to know what the heck it was God wanted to communicate to us??
And let's not even get into all the things God requires of us.... <_<
Seems awfully complicated, convoluted and corrupt to me. I mean, I'm glad we have all these historical documents, but I don't think what's in the Bible is any more important than the Nag Hammadi scrolls and all the other ancient writings that have been found. I certainly don't think it's "God breathed" and "written by the hand of God". I'd think the God churches teach could do a better job than what we're left with.
I'm inclined to play Parcheesi with George. If Gawd Almighty, creators of the heavens and earth, IS God Almighty, then why all the confusion and contention?
Seems to me that it boils down to "Love God and love your neighbor." The rest is superfluous and irrelevant other than for mere historical value - which, so much of what's in the Bible can't even be verified. :huh: So where does that leave us?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
for those of us who have come to boil things down to love
i would have to say that that leaves us resting on yet another rung of jacob's ladder
perhaps even one of the more overloaded rungs these days
and tho it typically doesnt seem to feel good for us to hear such things for various reasons
i can only sit on my butt with us and marvel how so many of us have made it this far at all
:mellow:
as it pertains to "Misquoting Jesus"..i have not read the book, but i have read many related books
but as it pertains to all the books, Books, and BOOKS in the universe on the subject
i suppose one could say something like this about most of our mainstream american christian english dialogues on the topic of jesus...
- we do not have access to many vast swathes of relevent information on the topic
- there are many vast swathes of relevent information on the topic
- many vast swathes of information have been destroyed throughout history
- mountains of valuable information is currently being uncovered for the first time in this era of history
- we often justify not having access to all of it by declaring the vast majority of it unimportant or unneccesary ...or even downright evil ..
- if we did have access to all the information...most of us would most likely not be able to comprehend it as a whole...at first
- tho we often justify our fairly decent comprehension by saying greater degrees of comprehension are somehow counterproductive or perhaps even wrong or dangerous...
- we often avoid or suppress the possibility that some people are actually more able to understand and explain such large bodies of information ..its parts and wholes
- these kinds of freaks are often considered a) somewhat terrifying or b) quite boring
- as with all traits ...greater degrees of comprehension comes with a price and other unique challenges
- we really cant know how much we dont know...so "mostly ignorant" is perhaps our most useful stance to take ...in spite of how much we do know
- we typically avoid and hate the very information that will help us the most
- we can actually know quite clearly when someone is uninformed and does not know it
- vast swathes of information created in response to the original occasions of Jesus are incredibly valuable as information even if they are not accurate or perfect
- other stuff i missed...
so...what i do is...
practice precision
practice compassion
practice curiousity
play at holding all 3 of them
and read whatever the heck you want
cuz satan IS to be transformed into an angel of light...by YOU
we need not be as darkness seeking light
but be can be as light and enter the darkness
cuz most all radical Truth is mostly always already always hiding right there ... naked in the dark
...
plz forgive for being offensive, unclear, or somehow wasteful and boring
though its quite ok with me if you dont...
thanks
with luv
+ODD
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Love the post, +odd!
Not sure what you mean by "practice precision", but the rest I get and agree with wholeheartedly.
And, I do read whatever the heck I want - including Harry Potter
and "Many Lives Many Masters" and many other "heretical" books. :o Best one lately, for me, is "What God Wants" Darn thing is there's more that I want to read than there is time these days.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
ha..too cool Belle
and i hear ya...i work in a multimedia bookstore, manage a lending library, read a lot in my studies, with a stack of books i want to read but cant get to, as well as a stack of books others say i should read that i cant get to, as well as a stack of books people want me to carry in the bookstore that i must read
and well...what i mean by "practice precision"
is to allow yourself to be precise ..play at ways of being precise....brings an element of artistry and craftmanship
which involves things like measurements and details and making as many severely critical distinctions as one find to make
i find that greater depths and degrees of precision allows for greater depths and degrees of sophisticated understanding
and one can be very precise about any given thing in life
engineering, horticulture, business, writing, research...etc.
also thoughts, dreams, feelings, imagination, insights, language ...etc
i also think that a bigger part of being precise involves at least having the will to include as much related info as possible into the equation
of course...its not hard to imagine and see how precision alone can be so sharp it is rather dull
...but one can see where precision mingled with the other 2 i mentioned becomes a whole different game
i would say that curiosity allows us to imagine new ways
while compassion allows us to break old ways
and we sure do need new ways to navigate all this information
cuz the old ways are not cutting it
which has had me tinkering for awhile
Edited by sirguessalotLink to comment
Share on other sites
Lone Wolf McQuade
That's why I do not believe that God will judge us based on how much of the accuracy of the text we had right, per se. What God will reward us for is the fruit of the spirit and the character of Christ in our lives.
Just because I can't discern from the text whether Eber or Abraham was the first Hebrew matters nothing when it comes to forgiving my brother who has sinned against me even though he doesn't deserve it.
It is the state of our hearts and whether or not we are behaving Christ-like that is and always should be the center of our focus, not whether or not the past particple of some such Hebrew word is...blah, blah, blah. Don't get me wrong, those things are there to be investigated if so desired. But God is much more concerned with integrity of the heart, not whether you can read the Greek text or not.
A scripture comes to mind.
John 7:17-18
Jesus answered, "My teaching is not my own. It comes from him who sent me.
If anyone chooses to do God's will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.
People can argue about the texts their whole lives and get nowhere spiritually. The real key to knowing if what we have as the Bible is indeed God's word is to get busy DOING it (not intellectualizing, not philosophising, etc.) and then Christ will PROVE to you that it is indeed the word of God.
That's really the only way to know for sure. And as for my life, he's proved himself to me and that's why it doesn't matter how many people come around wanting to bash the text and constantly question it's reliability. If Christ has proved himself to me, then I know it to be true.
John 8:32
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.
The greek word "know" is ginosko. Only by experience and application can we come to know the truth. And the proof of whether or not we have the truth is if we take what we know as the truth (oida) and then go and do it (ginosko), I should be set free. If I am set free, then I know I have the truth and therefore now I know that the source of my truth is reliable (The Bible).
Skeptics (a.k.a. those without faith) will never do the Word and that's why they can "study" the texts all they want to and never come to a spiritual understanding. God unlocks the "hidden meaning" and the understanding to those who are meek and humble in heart.
And I have been set free from many things. There's a whole lot I don't know about church history and there's a whole lot I don't know about all the different texts floating around out there, but I know this, the books that are in that Bible, God put those there. How do I know? Because I have been set free. I went and did his will, and now I know Jesus' teaching is from God (John 7:17).
Edited by Lone Wolf McQuadeLink to comment
Share on other sites
socks
That's about the size of it to me too, Loner.
Way doctrine teaches you'll be "rewarded" according to how "much" of the "Word" you're "faithful" to.
Italics provided, as those word would require some definition I think.
"Rewards" = how good of a life you will have in the future, after the return of Christ and the gathering together. Somewhere down the line anyway, you'll be living a life based on what you believed of the bible in this one.
"much" - based on what you knew, the amount of it that you knew.
"Word" - accurate bible information.
"faithful" - an interesting term - Way doctrine implies a continuous faithing, so to speak. If you knew and were faithful at one time, but developed a different understanding of what they taught you at one time - you're S.O.L. A little doesn't go a long way, in the Way. You need to stack up some seniority to have tenure. If you leave their nest, you're a bad bird. Faithful to the Word means faithful to accepting the knowledge.
---
That's using normal English, and is probably very debatable by a Wayfer. But - IMO one of the downfalls of putting such an emphasis on knowledge is that it takes the shine off behavior. Knowing something that's right becomes more important than doing something that's right.
Again - Wayfers' would argue against that. But action does speak louder than words, and what do Wayfers do?
Only one thing is considered worthwhile to do. Ask any B.O.T. member or whatever they consider a high-ranking officer of the Way that can quote their doctrine to you and speak with authority on it and they'll tell you - the only thing they're required by "God" to do is "speak his Word, accurately divided".
That's it. Doing it is another thing entirely. To Wayfers speaking the Word is doing the Word. That's it.
There's plenty of things for Wayfers to do in regards to that one thing and it accounts for and amounts to the incredibly one-dimensional, flat, somewhat inhuman lifestyle they've come to represent. They don't do anything really worthwhile with what they know, other than respeak it to each other and the odd person who will listen to what they have to say. It's much easier to preach to the choir though, so not that many birds outside the nest get any worms, which may be a good thing.
------
To me, faith is a very individual thing, not the least bit blind. Acceptance is a matter of choice. Once a choice is made, movement flows in that direction.
Blind means nothing is seen. I'd describe it as - different people can see different things when they look, and some don't see anything at all.
No two people can have the same faith, even if they have it towards the same thing IMO. The relationship to the other thing - in this case God, Jesus Christ, the bible, writings thought to be inspired, etc. - is individual and one-to-one.
How those things that are chosen and pursued respond will be completely unique to that individual, even when the response is the same, I think. It has to be - I'd compare it to two people drinking water from the same glass. Goes in a similar way, goes out a similar way, but what the water does inbetween is entirely different for both people.
Similarly what a person does with what they choose to believe is going to determine the quality of that in their lives, to a great extent.
Christians say, typically, they're "followers of the Lord Jesus Christ". That being so, there would be a lot of things to do. Speaking "the Word" would be one. Doing it would absolutly have to follow, since that's what Jesus did with what He knew. He did stuff. Lots of stuff.
Edited by socksLink to comment
Share on other sites
wrdsandwrks
I haven't read the book yet but here is an excerpt from a review. Read the entire review by clicking below:
From: The Bible, the Qur'an, Bart Ehrman, and the Words of God by Mark Roberts:
If my numbers are anywhere near accurate, or if the footnotes in Bible translations are to be believed, this means there are two ways of conveying the same basic fact:
"There are more differences among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament."
– Bart Ehrman
"We can have a high level of confidence that the vast majority of the words in the Greek New Testament appeared in the original manuscripts."
– Mark Roberts
Both of these statements are true. And both are based on the same evidence. And both reflect the bias of the writer. But the simple fact is that most of the time most of the New Testament manuscripts are in agreement with each other. And when there is a disagreement, most of the time text critics are able to discern, with a high degree of probability, which reading is original. This leaves a very small percentage, maybe 1% of the New Testament, where we have genuine textual ambiguity. All of these passages, by the way, could be removed from the Bible without any major impact on Christian theology. I know this for a fact because I've been a teacher and preacher of orthodox (well, I hope) Christian theology for more than 20 years, and I've always made a special effort not to base anything I'm preaching or teaching on a text for which there isn't sufficient manuscript support.
Ehrman is clever in his use of language to favor his argument, yet I fear his cleverness may mislead many readers. In his conclusion, for example, Ehrman states, "even if God had inspired the original words, we don't have the original words" (p. 211). Yes, we don't have the manuscript of 1 Thessalonians, for example, and in this sense we can't look at the original words Paul wrote on the page. But virtually every responsible New Testament scholar believes that the critically-reconstructed Greek text of 1 Thessalonians is very close to what Paul once wrote. This can't be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, of course. But there's no reason to believe that what we read today, if we can read Greek, is substantially different from what Paul wrote. Where we're not sure about which words Paul wrote, we actually have the words, we just aren't positive which ones were original. Moreover, at any rate, the disputed words contribute very little to our understanding of 1 Thessalonians.
I don't think Ehrman is being intentionally deceptive when he writes things like "There are more differences among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament" and "we don't have the original words." Rather, I think he is himself confused. He became confused, according to his own witness, as a young college student, and especially while in seminary. And that confusion has stayed with him for thirty years. Though Ehrman's an expert in the craft of text criticism, and thought he's an exemplary communicator, the philosophical and theological implications he draws from text criticism are poorly reasoned and quite unconvincing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JumpinJive
Hmmm, a powerful way to say it but is he wrong? Ehrman also notes that the majority of these differences are inconsequential. He seems very honest in his research, at least to me.
What does Mark Roberts' statement really mean? I don't see the significance of just having the words. I would also add that 'vast majority' negates God-breathed, no? What words are missing? How significant are they? How would we know? If some are missing, could some have been added? The questions are endless...
Maybe his confusion comes from the discrepancy between the facts he has discovered and what Christians et al. claim regarding their holy books. Seems to me his claim that we don't have the original words matches even what Mark Roberts is saying. We don't! I'm not sure I see 'poorly reasoned' in that.
-JJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sushi
I agree, Belle. Now, we just need a fourth player. How about it, Oak?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JumpinJive
Got room for a 5th?
-JJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
That being said, there is without a doubt disagreement among textual critics regarding the scope and importance of the differences among the manuscripts. Reasonable people are always going to differ over whether the textual variations make any difference in the overall message of Christianity, and the point of view that one brings to the table is going to influence how one interprets the evidence. If you believe that the "originals" were given by inspiration from God, then you will find some way to make it all fit together. If you don't, discrepancies might be viewed as just that: discrepancies.
One thing about this book, and some others written by Ehrman that surprised me: Ehrman believes that Jesus did in fact exist and that an historical Jesus is the basis for the gospel accounts; he does not throw out the gospels as complete fabrications. Granted, his view of the gospels as man-made documents that reflect the theology and prejudices of their writers is likely considered blasphemous by some believers, but he believes that one can determine what the "real" Jesus taught by using the gospels and other early Christian writings.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
Have read it and found it enlightening. Definitely food for thought. It is not, however, IMO a Here are all the answers book, it gives insights and ideas for critical thought but is not a panacea for all questions one has about interpretation of the NT.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JumpinJive
I would agree templelady. In fact, I think it might have raised more questions for me than it provided answers. This book was the first time I've heard of significant stories being fabrications. I was a bit surprised when he said he didn't believe the woman taken in adultery was part of the original text. Jeesh, I still remember Loy 'expounding' on that story endlessly.
I was also surprised by the sheer number of writings that were circulating among the churches in the early centuries. I would think the odds astronomical that those in charge actually picked the God-breathed words for inclusion in the bible.
-JJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.