Lon, we seem to be having some communication challenges. The link you sent was in English. I don’t read Greek or Hebrew, I meant I understood the link. Regarding qualifications, I thought you said you were working on a masters.
:nono: Have an MA
I have a Bachelor of Science degree with 66 continuing education units that I have not applied toward a Masters degree and at this time I don’t plan to.
:up:
Maybe it would be helpful if we just stick to what pertains to this thread?
Well, if the degree pertains to the thread...
You made claims about Ehrmans work, as I posted earlier...claiming he was distorting truth, or rather, attacking it. We have agreed to numerous manuscript variations, 150,000 estimated via the last link I provided. I found out about the large number of manuscript variations by reading Misquoting Jesus. So, he was not speaking untruthfully in that regard.
This OP was about the interview. As far as his book? It is an appeal to those who already doubt, a kind of confirmation bias.
As Magnus said, the English bibles also have listed any problematic texts in parenthesis or with footnotes. You can read them in your own bible.
The rest of the variants are inconsequential.
Try this:
Jesus Christ is the Lord of Heaven and Earth.
Jsus, the Lord of Heaven and Earth.
Jesus Christ, the Lord over all of Heven and Earth.
Jesus Christ is the Lord of Heaven and Maker of all the Earth.
Many variants, can you grasp the meaning regardless?
You need to get specific about what he is saying that is not true, because I have verified those variations and they are supported by modern scholarship. So, you’ll have to explain what exactly he is lying about.
Well, lying is harsh. I don't believe Bart thinks he's lying, he just stopped actually reading his Bible, if he ever did. What I said was that he was ignorant 1) of the easy stuff that is found clearly in the bible and 2) that he overstates his findings (like the example above). He questions the veracity of the texts being written by the Apostles and disciples, for instance. Is he the first to make such an assumption? No. These men miss "What is the same" for their focus on 'what is different' (like the example above, they miss the meaning and intent and simply say it is untrustworthy).
And that brings us to where we are now. I have claimed that it can be shown that large portions of bible text, found in modern day bibles have been inserted by unknown authors, and these edits have altered the Bible. Human editors have changed the Bible at will over the centuries. That is my claim.
See, this is Ehrman's claim too. I do dispute this as verifiable or even substantiated by claim. It is troublesome at this point, because Ehrman is claiming this about only one family of texts: The Byzantine. There are large problems with his claim, however, like the consistency of the whole body of these saved texts: They all hold these in common. It is only when compared to the Alexandrian etc. that 'variants' become most apparent. It is a matter of categorization at that point, and to make claims is a bit hasty. Forensics, as Carol Magnus was saying, does help, but nothing is definitive for these results. If anything, I'd say Bart has overstepped his bounds of 'ability' in drawing conclusions.
I have specifically selected two passages, that I did in fact get from Ehrmans work Misquoting Jesus. He claims, and I have accepted at least two significant Bible texts have been changed. The last chapter of Mark, and the Woman Taken in Adultery.
There are two crowds you can follow at this point, both scholar communities: One that believes the text authentic and Spiritually meaningful, and the other group that does not. The data of both follows their stance in bias. If you go with the stance of unbelievers, you are going in the direction of unbelief concerning God and Jesus Christ.
Now, we need to both go about the process of determining if in fact these claims are true. That’s how I see it anyway.
Long ago, I became a believer. There was a time when I had a season of doubt, but these particulars have to be weighed upon the premise of 'who wrote these' and 'why.' Bart is not a believer/Christian. His 'reasons' for spending time on these is not the same as mine.
One challenge: Truth is always experienced, not really ratified. If you doubt Algebraic expression, nobody can 'prove' the functions are true. You have to learn it. If you believe any science claim, none of it can be proved true, you have to also hold to its long record (medicine for instance).
There are books that contend that medicine, in the long run, is not natural and kills us. There is some of what they say, that is correct. Enough to totally dismiss the medical community? :nono: Not for me.
The choice is what steers us. I'm not into relative truth. Truth is true. It can accompany misinformation, this is the path reflected here.
My contention: Say there is a latter addition: Does it affect the overall message of the scriptures adversely? Not to my thinking. Would the woman caught be a story you'd think 'shouldn't' be in your bible? Why or why not?
