Continued Discussion With Lnc

[Ouroboros]

I agree with you that it is just as important for Christians to interpret and apply the Bible correctly. God does reveal his true intentions when we take the time to understand his word in context and when the words are properly studied.

The problem for me is that my understanding of God's true intentions changed over time, and did so several times. And I came to the point where I realized there is no God with any intentions at all. My understanding as such was just my imaginations of what I thought was the right way of interpreting God's intentions. Right now, if there is a God, it is that God's hands to show me otherwise, and he/she/it has had the chance to do so for many years now. My last prayer was to God to give me something, anything, to convince me that he/she/it existed. It's quiet. Very quiet.

 

Regarding the "faith movement", I would say that there is a lot of abuse of the Bible going on within that movement. Again, a person can rip a verse or passage out of context and make it say just about anything they want it to say; however, that is not a fair treatment of the text or a wise treatment either. It seems to be why the leaders are able to fulfill their material lusts and the followers, for the most part, are not. They prey on the poor rather than praying for the poor.

Finally we are coming to some kind of agreement. I only took... what... a year?

 

Yes, I was once wrong and did believe that I was right back then. It was through a study of the evidence and being convinced by that evidence that I changed my mind.

And in a couple of years, you will have changed your mind about things you believe strongly today, so which "truth" is the right one? The one you preach today and ask people to believe, or the "truth" you will preach next year and ask people to believe?

 

All of us should hold our views to be probabalistic truths since we cannot epistemically know truth at 100% on this earth. However, with that being said, I am not implying that objective truth does not exist or cannot be known, just that we cannot know anything with 100% certainty. That is why we need to continue to examine the evidence and to test our beliefs and assumptions to make sure that they still hold up to the evidence. That is what I did with my YEC view and it didn't hold up to the evidence and I changed my belief. I also agree with you that we should not believe in something just because it feels good, that has gotten us into too much trouble since the 60s. I also believe that it is the driving force that could destroy our country in our times if we don't do a reality check soon.

Agree.

 

I already said that I am not being persecuted, even if and when suspended. However, there is real persecution of Christians and people of other faiths in this world. I get reports about this type of physical persecution on a regular basis happening both in Communist and Islamic countries.

True.

 

However, the fact that they do find these sites is confirmation of the history of the biblical accounts. The Book of Jonah does not indicate a Hebrew revival, just that the people repented, so I wouldn't expect to find evidence indicating otherwise. So, I don't think you have advanced your case on this account, nor does your conclusion that the story is fiction follow from what you have said. The best you could say is that we don't have evidence to corroborate that story, but it doesn't follow from that that the story is fiction.

Hmm.. but is it probable? If we talk about probability then I'd say that it is more likely that the story is a fiction than a fact, because if the story was true, the evidence should be there. There isn't evidence of any revival of any monotheistic religion at all. They kept to their polytheistic religion and were fine with that. So did Jonah come with an alternative version of their existing polytheistic religion? Did he revive the belief in Ishtar?

 

Put it this way. Lets say I have a story that says that America bombed Hawaii to obliteration, and we check and see that the island is still there. What does that do to the story? It would prove that the story was wrong.

 

And that's how I see it with Jonah. If there was any kind of revival with the whole city turning to "God" (any kind of monotheistic or special version of God), there would be some evidence for that. Unless that God was one of their preexisting gods already. But then... what does that story do in the Bible then? A pagan God revival story?

 

To me, the story is only about religious chest-beating. It is a fictitious story about how "My God is so great, so one day, he did this and so and so, and it's oh, wow, so cool. Haha. The bad guys deserved that, didn't they? Because my God, which I believe in, is bigger than their god. Muahaha!!!" That's all that story is about.

 

First, there is a wide ranging debate over the dating of the Gospel of Thomas and I am convinced that the better arguments are on the side of later dating as that is when these types of apocalyptic texts began to appear. Second, Q is debated as to whether it is an actual source, and if so, whether it was ever a written document as opposed to the verbal accounts that were being preserved.

So then we can conclude that it's shaky to argue Q or Thomas as alternative eyewitness stories?

 

N.T. Wright, in his recent work, The Resurrection of the Son of God, doubts its existence as a text, and we don't have any evidence of it in the manuscript evidence. I don't doubt that it was based on early sources but would lean to the idea that it was the preservation of early verbal source information rather than a written document.

With other words, it is not certain. We can't really know for sure.

 

Ehrman does account for some changes and additions, most of which are common knowledge with regular Bible readers; however, in his book Lost Christianities he says, "In spite of the remarkable differences among our manuscripts, scholars are convinced that we can reconstruct the oldest form of the words of the New Testament with reasonable (though not 100 percent) accuracy." So, although the changes appear, he and other scholars are confident that they know where they appear and which were the originals, otherwise he wouldn't have much to write about in his books. So, I am confident that we can know what was in the originals.

Okay. I wonder if he really means that "oldest form of the words of the New Testament" is the same as "the original eyewitness stories and testaments." I can see a slightly different meaning between those two statements. It's one thing to be certain that we can reconstruct the original form of Avasta, but there is a different thing all together to claim that it is the original events.

 

Put it this way, if Mark was written around 70 CE, and Ehrman is certain we can come to a point where we have an almost identical copy of the original from 70 CE, how do we handle the possibility that this original was written with inspiration and input from one or two other stories, or if the author just made up 90% of it?

 

--edit--

 

I just realize that you're wrong about Ehrman. NG pointed me in the direction and I saw that you are misconstruing Ehrman's argument. He says: "In spite of the remarkable differences among our manuscripts, scholars are convinced that we can reconstruct the oldest form of the words of the New Testament with reasonable (though not 100 percent) accuracy." Let me rephrase that: even though there are so many differences in the manuscripts, scholars [in general, not necessarily including Ehrman, and not necessarily a uniform belief or opinion, but as a general statements that there are some or many who are included in this group] are convince ... In other words, he doesn't say he agrees with the scholars (in general), but rather that it's a common opinion. So how can you conclude from that quote that he believes that too? It doesn't necessarily follow that he includes himself in "scholars", does it?

[Ouroboros]

This Wiki article about the Assyro-Babylonian religion is very interesting. Ishtar was the goddess of Nineveh, Ashur the god of Assur, and Marduk of Babylon, and the two mail gods got into a fight and eventually Ashur won and became the patriarch god. Some see a link between this and Yahweh and the birth of monotheism.

 

So perhaps the Jonah story is about an Ashur revival in Nineveh, where Ishtar was replaced by the patron god of Assur. I can accept that. However, it means that we have some more evidence that the Bible stories are based on non-Christian/non-Jewish pagan myths/stories

[Neon Genesis]

 

Okay. I wonder if he really means that "oldest form of the words of the New Testament" is the same as "the original eyewitness stories and testaments." I can see a slightly different meaning between those two statements. It's one thing to be certain that we can reconstruct the original form of Avasta, but there is a different thing all together to claim that it is the original events.

 

Put it this way, if Mark was written around 70 CE, and Ehrman is certain we can come to a point where we have an almost identical copy of the original from 70 CE, how do we handle the possibility that this original was written with inspiration and input from one or two other stories, or if the author just made up 90% of it?

I've read Lost Christianities and nowhere does Ehrman say we have the original manuscripts or that we're even coming close to having the originals. Even in the quote LNC posted, he only says that it's possibel that one day we might be able to come close to having the most accurate copy of the originals, but this is not the same as saying we have the originals themselves. In fact, Ehrman states in both Misquoting Jesus and Jesus Interrupted that one of the reasons why he stopped believing in the inerrancy of the bible is because we don't have the originals, so how can we know what these divinely inspired words are if we don't have them? LNC's post is just more proof to me that as I said earlier, LNC either can only understand what people say if they speak in Christianeze and he doesn't understand a word Ehrman said in his books or he's purposely misconstruing Ehrman's arguments for his own agenda. Either way, LNC is a liar if he's claiming Ehrman thinks we have the originals because nowhere does Ehrman say that.

[LNC]

The problem for me is that my understanding of God's true intentions changed over time, and did so several times. And I came to the point where I realized there is no God with any intentions at all. My understanding as such was just my imaginations of what I thought was the right way of interpreting God's intentions. Right now, if there is a God, it is that God's hands to show me otherwise, and he/she/it has had the chance to do so for many years now. My last prayer was to God to give me something, anything, to convince me that he/she/it existed. It's quiet. Very quiet.

 

Maybe it is not as quiet as you think.

 

Finally we are coming to some kind of agreement. I only took... what... a year?

 

Let's hang in there and see where this goes.

 

And in a couple of years, you will have changed your mind about things you believe strongly today, so which "truth" is the right one? The one you preach today and ask people to believe, or the "truth" you will preach next year and ask people to believe?

 

If evidence has led me here, what evidence is there that could lead me elsewhere? Why are you so confident that I will change my convictions? I have held them for nearly 30 years now and haven't found evidence in that time that has convinced me otherwise, other than minor adjustments along the way.

 

Agree.

 

Great, we are making progress.

 

Hmm.. but is it probable? If we talk about probability then I'd say that it is more likely that the story is a fiction than a fact, because if the story was true, the evidence should be there. There isn't evidence of any revival of any monotheistic religion at all. They kept to their polytheistic religion and were fine with that. So did Jonah come with an alternative version of their existing polytheistic religion? Did he revive the belief in Ishtar?

 

Put it this way. Lets say I have a story that says that America bombed Hawaii to obliteration, and we check and see that the island is still there. What does that do to the story? It would prove that the story was wrong.

 

And that's how I see it with Jonah. If there was any kind of revival with the whole city turning to "God" (any kind of monotheistic or special version of God), there would be some evidence for that. Unless that God was one of their preexisting gods already. But then... what does that story do in the Bible then? A pagan God revival story?

 

To me, the story is only about religious chest-beating. It is a fictitious story about how "My God is so great, so one day, he did this and so and so, and it's oh, wow, so cool. Haha. The bad guys deserved that, didn't they? Because my God, which I believe in, is bigger than their god. Muahaha!!!" That's all that story is about.

 

 

Right, as I said, it wasn't a revival, it was a repentance, and temporary at that. This is why the Book of Nehemiah records further and later judgment against Nineveh. Nowhere in Jonah does it indicate that the people changed their beliefs, they simply repented in light of the knowledge that they had, it was a type of syncretistic repentance. This is not much different than some of the practices in South and Central America where they will add the worship of Jesus and Mary into their pagan practices. However, God saw the meager repentance that they did have and spared them at that time from judgment.

 

So then we can conclude that it's shaky to argue Q or Thomas as alternative eyewitness stories?

 

Well first, we don't have any manuscript evidence of Q, it is a theory to explain early source documentation and similarities between Matthew and Luke. Second, I think that the best dating of Thomas is the later dating. So, we can't argue Q as a document and I would say that Thomas is later so it is not the best source. It is probably too late to be direct eyewitness testimony or even 2nd hand.

 

With other words, it is not certain. We can't really know for sure.

 

We don't have it as a document and it was based on a 19th century theory to harmonize Matthew and Luke. So, I would lean against its existence as an actual source document. However, I wouldn't have a problem if such a document did exist.

 

Okay. I wonder if he really means that "oldest form of the words of the New Testament" is the same as "the original eyewitness stories and testaments." I can see a slightly different meaning between those two statements. It's one thing to be certain that we can reconstruct the original form of Avasta, but there is a different thing all together to claim that it is the original events.

 

Put it this way, if Mark was written around 70 CE, and Ehrman is certain we can come to a point where we have an almost identical copy of the original from 70 CE, how do we handle the possibility that this original was written with inspiration and input from one or two other stories, or if the author just made up 90% of it?

 

--edit--

 

I just realize that you're wrong about Ehrman. NG pointed me in the direction and I saw that you are misconstruing Ehrman's argument. He says: "In spite of the remarkable differences among our manuscripts, scholars are convinced that we can reconstruct the oldest form of the words of the New Testament with reasonable (though not 100 percent) accuracy." Let me rephrase that: even though there are so many differences in the manuscripts, scholars [in general, not necessarily including Ehrman, and not necessarily a uniform belief or opinion, but as a general statements that there are some or many who are included in this group] are convince ... In other words, he doesn't say he agrees with the scholars (in general), but rather that it's a common opinion. So how can you conclude from that quote that he believes that too? It doesn't necessarily follow that he includes himself in "scholars", does it?

 

Wouldn't the oldest form be the originals? I mean if there were an older form of the documents, then the ones that were called the "oldest" would not truly be the oldest. I don't know what kind of gymnastics you have to perform with the words to get to your conclusion, but it is not the intent of Ehrman in the book. If Ehrman didn't think that we could reconstruct back to the originals, then his books would be a sham and a joke since he is trying to argue that what we have in our modern translations varies from the originals. He makes elaborate arguments to make his case, which means that he believes that we can get back to what was in the originals. That would also be the opinion of his mentor, Bruce Metzger, of Princeton University. He tells us that no doctrines of the church are in doubt due to variants in the manuscripts.

 

On top of all this is the breadth of manuscripts available. There are thousands of manuscripts in various languages that allow for comparing and matching to determine where and when variants occurred and which is the best reading of the originals. Textual criticism is a refined science that allows us to get back with an extremely high degree of confidence to what was in the originals.

[LNC]

This Wiki article about the Assyro-Babylonian religion is very interesting. Ishtar was the goddess of Nineveh, Ashur the god of Assur, and Marduk of Babylon, and the two mail gods got into a fight and eventually Ashur won and became the patriarch god. Some see a link between this and Yahweh and the birth of monotheism.

 

So perhaps the Jonah story is about an Ashur revival in Nineveh, where Ishtar was replaced by the patron god of Assur. I can accept that. However, it means that we have some more evidence that the Bible stories are based on non-Christian/non-Jewish pagan myths/stories

 

I see no reason to jump to this unfounded conclusion. There seems to be nothing more than mere speculation that would lead to that conclusion in against the documented history. I would be more inclined to go with what we have documented rather than this type of ad hoc speculation.

[LNC]

I've read Lost Christianities and nowhere does Ehrman say we have the original manuscripts or that we're even coming close to having the originals. Even in the quote LNC posted, he only says that it's possibel that one day we might be able to come close to having the most accurate copy of the originals, but this is not the same as saying we have the originals themselves. In fact, Ehrman states in both Misquoting Jesus and Jesus Interrupted that one of the reasons why he stopped believing in the inerrancy of the bible is because we don't have the originals, so how can we know what these divinely inspired words are if we don't have them? LNC's post is just more proof to me that as I said earlier, LNC either can only understand what people say if they speak in Christianeze and he doesn't understand a word Ehrman said in his books or he's purposely misconstruing Ehrman's arguments for his own agenda. Either way, LNC is a liar if he's claiming Ehrman thinks we have the originals because nowhere does Ehrman say that.

 

You didn't read what I wrote closely enough. I never said that of Ehrman, I put in a direct quote from the book where he says that scholars believe that we can get back with a high degree of accuracy to what was in the oldest manuscripts. If Erhman doesn't believe that we can get back to what was in the originals, then he is misleading millions of people in his enterprise to try to explain where the variants are and what is the proper reading of the original. Do you want to tell him that?

 

Ehrman throws out a red herring argument by saying that because we don't have the originals we can't know what is in them. He proves this throughout the rest of MJ when he argues for what was in the originals. Didn't you find that rather strange when you read it? I did. He seems to want it both ways. BTW, he also argues against himself when he contradicts himself in MJ from his more scholarly works like LC. His own mentor, Bruce Metzger also finds his arguments specious. On top of that, people like Daniel Wallace have shown the flaws of his arguments.

 

I have not lied, you have simply not read my posts closely. I wonder if you are doing the same when you read Ehrman.

[Guest Davka]

LNC, you are currently incapable of thinking outside the Christian box. Everything you read here is seen through that filter.

 

And that means that we cannot communicate with you. Because you're not there to be communicated with. Anything that contradicts your current paradigm will be discounted as "of the devil."

 

The irony is that this is exactly where Muslims, Pagans, Mormons, and JWs are in relation to you. Anything you say that contradicts their worldview is "of the devil."

 

Funny how life works, ain't it?

[Kuroikaze]

 

I see no reason to jump to this unfounded conclusion. There seems to be nothing more than mere speculation that would lead to that conclusion in against the documented history. I would be more inclined to go with what we have documented rather than this type of ad hoc speculation.

 

By that logic we would need to assume that the Iliad is a real historical account of the Trojan war. After all its the only documented history of the event we have, disagreeing with it is just speculation.

[Ouroboros]

Maybe it is not as quiet as you think.

Oh, no, it's very quiet. I still myself... and chirp, chirp. My thoughts... going around... but then what? Are you saying that God is my thoughts? Interesting. I am God.

 

If evidence has led me here, what evidence is there that could lead me elsewhere? Why are you so confident that I will change my convictions? I have held them for nearly 30 years now and haven't found evidence in that time that has convinced me otherwise, other than minor adjustments along the way.

I held my convictions from age 7 to age 39. That's 32 years. Then I realized that all that time I had spent trying to find a God who doesn't answer. I never saw a miracle. I never heard a voice. Even though I wanted to. I even prayed, fasted, and went to Bible school etc... but still... nothing. I have been in prayer sessions which lasted a whole day. Some nights too. But still.. nothing...

 

Right, as I said, it wasn't a revival, it was a repentance, and temporary at that. This is why the Book of Nehemiah records further and later judgment against Nineveh. Nowhere in Jonah does it indicate that the people changed their beliefs, they simply repented in light of the knowledge that they had, it was a type of syncretistic repentance. This is not much different than some of the practices in South and Central America where they will add the worship of Jesus and Mary into their pagan practices. However, God saw the meager repentance that they did have and spared them at that time from judgment.

Okay. I can accept that.

 

Wouldn't the oldest form be the originals? I mean if there were an older form of the documents, then the ones that were called the "oldest" would not truly be the oldest. I don't know what kind of gymnastics you have to perform with the words to get to your conclusion, but it is not the intent of Ehrman in the book. If Ehrman didn't think that we could reconstruct back to the originals, then his books would be a sham and a joke since he is trying to argue that what we have in our modern translations varies from the originals. He makes elaborate arguments to make his case, which means that he believes that we can get back to what was in the originals. That would also be the opinion of his mentor, Bruce Metzger, of Princeton University. He tells us that no doctrines of the church are in doubt due to variants in the manuscripts.

Okay. Lets say they manage to produce a 99% version of the original, and lets say it didn't include the resurrection. Would you accept it?

 

On top of all this is the breadth of manuscripts available. There are thousands of manuscripts in various languages that allow for comparing and matching to determine where and when variants occurred and which is the best reading of the originals. Textual criticism is a refined science that allows us to get back with an extremely high degree of confidence to what was in the originals.

All those manuscripts are later, and there are differences, but even so, they are copies of the original with additions and changes, and I'm not sure what they really prove.

[Ouroboros]

This Wiki article about the Assyro-Babylonian religion is very interesting. Ishtar was the goddess of Nineveh, Ashur the god of Assur, and Marduk of Babylon, and the two mail gods got into a fight and eventually Ashur won and became the patriarch god. Some see a link between this and Yahweh and the birth of monotheism.

 

So perhaps the Jonah story is about an Ashur revival in Nineveh, where Ishtar was replaced by the patron god of Assur. I can accept that. However, it means that we have some more evidence that the Bible stories are based on non-Christian/non-Jewish pagan myths/stories

 

I see no reason to jump to this unfounded conclusion. There seems to be nothing more than mere speculation that would lead to that conclusion in against the documented history. I would be more inclined to go with what we have documented rather than this type of ad hoc speculation.

The documented history is that Ishtar was the god of Nineveh, and later the Ashur religion took over. (If I understood the articles I read correctly). So if I understand them right, it's not a speculation, but archeology.

[Neon Genesis]

If Erhman doesn't believe that we can get back to what was in the originals, then he is misleading millions of people in his enterprise to try to explain where the variants are and what is the proper reading of the original. Do you want to tell him that?

Where in any of his books does Ehrman claim to know with certainty what the proper reading of the original is? Nowhere in his writings does he say we know for certain as far as I'm aware. He argues in Jesus Interrupted that we can only probably know what the originals say but without the originals, we cannot know for certain but apparently you've never learned what the words probably and hypothetical mean when you were in elementary school since they don't seem to exist in your dictionary. You're also lying again when you deny you said Ehrman thinks we have the originals but then turn around in the same post and claim Ehrman proved we have the originals when he did no such thing.

 

Ehrman throws out a red herring argument by saying that because we don't have the originals we can't know what is in them. Didn't you find that rather strange when you read it? I did. He seems to want it both ways. BTW, he also argues against himself when he contradicts himself in MJ from his more scholarly works like LC. His own mentor, Bruce Metzger also finds his arguments specious. On top of that, people like Daniel Wallace have shown the flaws of his arguments.

 

This is what Ehrman says himself about Bruce Metzger in the faq in the paperback edition of Misquoting Jesus

Bruce Metzger is one of the great scholars of modern times and I dedicated the book to him because he was both my inspiration for going into textual criticism and the person who trained me in the field. I have nothing but respect and admiration for him. And even though we may disagree on important religious questions-he is a firmly committed Christian and I am not-we are in complete agreement on a number of very important historical and textual questions. If he and I were put in a room and asked to hammer out a consensus statement on what we think the original text of the New Testament probably looked like, there would be very few points of disagreement-maybe one or two dozen places out of many thousands. The position I argue for in Misquoting Jesus does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger's position that the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament. What he means by that (I think) is that even if one or two passaes that are used to argue for a belief have a different textual reading, there are still other passages that could be used to argue for the same belief. For the most part, I think that's true.

 

But I was looking at the question from a different angle. My question is not about traditional Christian beliefs, but about how to interpret the passages of the Bible. And my point is that if you change what the words say, then you change what the passage means. Most textual variants (Prof. Metzger and I agree on this) have no bearing at all on what a passage means. But there are other textual variants (we agree on this as well) that are crucial to the meaning of a passage. And the theology of entire books of the New Testament are sometimes affected by the meaning of individual passages. From my point of view, the stakes are rather high: Does Luke's Gospel teach a doctrine of atonement (that Christ's death atones for sins)? Does John's Gospel teach that Christ is the "unique God" himself? Is the doctrine of the Trinity ever explicitly stated in the New Testament? These and other key theological issues are at stake, depending on which textual variants you think are original and which you think are creations of early scribes who were modifying the text.

Even in this passage, Ehrman says we can only PROBABLY know what was in the originals, but without the originals themselves, we cannot know for certain but you want to claim that we do know what the originals say and claim Ehrman is saying something he isn't, then denying you ever said that in the same post where you do. Not only are you lying about Ehrman, but you're also lying about the disagreement between Ehrman and his mentor and trying to over-exaggerate it into something it's not and make it seem like Metzger supports your delusion, even though Ehrman himself says he and Metzger have more agreements than disagreements.

[Mriana]

If Erhman doesn't believe that we can get back to what was in the originals, then he is misleading millions of people in his enterprise to try to explain where the variants are and what is the proper reading of the original.

 

Proper reading? And that would be what? You're interpretation? You're dogmatic ideology of what they say? IMHO, that is not a proper reading of religious texts. That is a bias, twisted view of religious text, in particularly Xian texts. You do realize there were other denominations of Xianity before "canon" as created by humans that were killed or forcefully assimilated into one collective thought.

[LNC]

LNC, you are currently incapable of thinking outside the Christian box. Everything you read here is seen through that filter.

 

And that means that we cannot communicate with you. Because you're not there to be communicated with. Anything that contradicts your current paradigm will be discounted as "of the devil."

 

The irony is that this is exactly where Muslims, Pagans, Mormons, and JWs are in relation to you. Anything you say that contradicts their worldview is "of the devil."

 

Funny how life works, ain't it?

 

Hey, we all see through the filter of our worldviews, so I am not sure what your complaint is here. You also see through the filter of your worldview.

 

You say that you cannot communicate with me, which means that you communicated that to me and I understood that communication as you intended it to be understood. This also means that I was here to be communicated with. I have not brought the "devil" into the conversation, I believe you did. I simply consider ideas for their validity and am open to debate my viewpoints, which is why I am here to interact with you. If you really thought this, then I don't know why you would take the time to communicate these ideas to me. Or, were you just venting?

 

I won't speak for Muslims, Pagans, Mormons, or JWs. I know people who ascribe to most of these worldviews and I actually get along well with most of them. The devil doesn't seem to come up in our conversations as it has from you in this conversation. It is funny how life works...

[LNC]

 

I see no reason to jump to this unfounded conclusion. There seems to be nothing more than mere speculation that would lead to that conclusion in against the documented history. I would be more inclined to go with what we have documented rather than this type of ad hoc speculation.

 

By that logic we would need to assume that the Iliad is a real historical account of the Trojan war. After all its the only documented history of the event we have, disagreeing with it is just speculation.

 

Why, is that how you believe Homer intended it to be understood? Is there no other way to confirm or disconfirm the events recorded in the account than to offer speculation? I am not sure what point your are trying to make here, maybe you could be more specific.

[LNC]

Oh, no, it's very quiet. I still myself... and chirp, chirp. My thoughts... going around... but then what? Are you saying that God is my thoughts? Interesting. I am God.

 

It is interesting to see your progression of thought here. It says more about you than me.

 

I held my convictions from age 7 to age 39. That's 32 years. Then I realized that all that time I had spent trying to find a God who doesn't answer. I never saw a miracle. I never heard a voice. Even though I wanted to. I even prayed, fasted, and went to Bible school etc... but still... nothing. I have been in prayer sessions which lasted a whole day. Some nights too. But still.. nothing...

 

What evidence changed your mind? Was it that you asked God for something and he didn't answer in a way that you expected? How do you know that you didn't overlook some miracles? I am sorry that you didn't experience God as you expected that he should have made himself known to you. Still, that doesn't mean that God doesn't exist or doesn't make himself known, just that he didn't do so in a way that you expected him to.

 

Okay. I can accept that.

 

Great.

 

Okay. Lets say they manage to produce a 99% version of the original, and lets say it didn't include the resurrection. Would you accept it?

 

However, that is not the case. We can reasonably infer the resurrection based upon the minimal set of facts, accepted even by skeptics, that I laid out earlier. So, I don't know why this hypothetical would be even justified. The resurrection is multiply attested, even beyond the Gospels. 1 Cor. 15 has creedal sayings about the resurrection that historians date back to within 24 months of the events.

 

All those manuscripts are later, and there are differences, but even so, they are copies of the original with additions and changes, and I'm not sure what they really prove.

 

Yes, but they give us a wealth of copies to compare which allow us to get back to the originals. This is highly prized in lower critical methodology.

[Ouroboros]

Oh, no, it's very quiet. I still myself... and chirp, chirp. My thoughts... going around... but then what? Are you saying that God is my thoughts? Interesting. I am God.

 

It is interesting to see your progression of thought here. It says more about you than me.

Eh? So God not talking to me says more about me than about you? I'm not sure what you're getting at.

 

 

What evidence changed your mind?

No, it was lack of evidence that changed my mind. Nothing in my life was showing of any God interacting with my life or anyone else for that matter. It was really like God didn't exist.

 

Was it that you asked God for something and he didn't answer in a way that you expected?

I asked God to give me any kind of sign that he had heard me or that he existed. I wanted to be convinced, because I had spent 30 years and never seen one single thing.

 

 

How do you know that you didn't overlook some miracles?

Like what? Miraculously healed from a flu within 1.5 weeks instead of 1.7? Or that we didn't have to spray for ants once a month, but it was enough with once every second? No. I really didn't see anything. Not even Jesus or Mary on a toast.

 

I am sorry that you didn't experience God as you expected that he should have made himself known to you. Still, that doesn't mean that God doesn't exist or doesn't make himself known, just that he didn't do so in a way that you expected him to.

Exactly. He doesn't exist according to what I believed. I believe God was God of Jesus and that if you ask God for anything which is according to his plan he will fulfill it. Meaning:

 

1) God either did not mean to really answer prayers according to his will

2) Or it was not God's will to show evidence of his existence to me.

 

In either case, I am exactly where I'm supposed to be, with or without a God. i.e.: in all practical terms, I should live and think like an atheist, because if God exists, it is his plan.

 

 

Okay. Lets say they manage to produce a 99% version of the original, and lets say it didn't include the resurrection. Would you accept it?

 

However, that is not the case.

See what you did? It's called a cop-out. You are afraid to think of the possibility. Instead of answering my question, you redirect it.

 

We can reasonably infer the resurrection based upon the minimal set of facts, accepted even by skeptics, that I laid out earlier. So, I don't know why this hypothetical would be even justified. The resurrection is multiply attested, even beyond the Gospels. 1 Cor. 15 has creedal sayings about the resurrection that historians date back to within 24 months of the events.

That wasn't my question. My question was if they restored the originals and they discovered that the resurrection story wasn't part of it, would you accept it and change your mind?

 

All those manuscripts are later, and there are differences, but even so, they are copies of the original with additions and changes, and I'm not sure what they really prove.

 

Yes, but they give us a wealth of copies to compare which allow us to get back to the originals. This is highly prized in lower critical methodology.

 

 

And also, you do know that Ehrman also states: "Making these decisions is obviously a complicated business; as a result, there are numerous places of textual variation where scholars continue to disagree concerning the 'original' form of the text."

 

It doesn't sound too clear yet which version of the "100%" is the accurate one, if the scholars disagree.

[agnosticator]

 

I am sorry that you didn't experience God as you expected that he should have made himself known to you. Still, that doesn't mean that God doesn't exist or doesn't make himself known, just that he didn't do so in a way that you expected him to.

 

Exactly. He doesn't exist according to what I believed. I believe God was God of Jesus and that if you ask God for anything which is according to his plan he will fulfill it. Meaning:

 

1) God either did not mean to really answer prayers according to his will

2) Or it was not God's will to show evidence of his existence to me.

In either case, I am exactly where I'm supposed to be, with or without a God. i.e.: in all practical terms, I should live and think like an atheist, because if God exists, it is his plan.

 

or 3) God moved to another universe. (sorry, I couldn't resist)

 

No matter what, christians can't see, hear, or feel anything that will validate any ex-christian's experiences. It's always our fault or we didn't see god's footprints next to us. This invisible god expects us to trust a total lack of evidence, and a bible full of unbelievable stories and anti-human morals? The beliefs cannot be questioned, but swallowed hook, line, and sinker, even though they are "bitter in our belly". Faith really is blind!

[Ouroboros]

I walked in the sand, and Jesus walked next to me. Then I discovered that Jesus didn't leave any footprints, and I asked "why?" He told me, "because I'm only in your imagination."

[LNC]

Where in any of his books does Ehrman claim to know with certainty what the proper reading of the original is? Nowhere in his writings does he say we know for certain as far as I'm aware. He argues in Jesus Interrupted that we can only probably know what the originals say but without the originals, we cannot know for certain but apparently you've never learned what the words probably and hypothetical mean when you were in elementary school since they don't seem to exist in your dictionary. You're also lying again when you deny you said Ehrman thinks we have the originals but then turn around in the same post and claim Ehrman proved we have the originals when he did no such thing.

 

I never said that Ehrman claims to know anything with 100% certainty; however, one can still argue from the position of a high degree of probability. Even to claim a high degree of probability means that we can get back to (within a high degree of probability) what was in the originals. He also argues quite strongly for his view of the variant readings, which means that he believes that he has a high degree of (although not 100%) certainty. You again show an amazing ability to misread my posts. Could you quote me where I say that Ehrman believes that we have the originals? I never said that because I have read Ehrman and know that he says that we don't have the original documents. However, he believes that we can get back to what was in the originals to a high degree (although, not 100%) certainty. I have put in a quote from his book, Lost Christianities, to that effect. Really, you need to read my posts a couple of times before responding as you consistently misrepresent them in your replies.

 

This is what Ehrman says himself about Bruce Metzger in the faq in the paperback edition of Misquoting Jesus

 

Bruce Metzger is one of the great scholars of modern times and I dedicated the book to him because he was both my inspiration for going into textual criticism and the person who trained me in the field. I have nothing but respect and admiration for him. And even though we may disagree on important religious questions-he is a firmly committed Christian and I am not-we are in complete agreement on a number of very important historical and textual questions. If he and I were put in a room and asked to hammer out a consensus statement on what we think the original text of the New Testament probably looked like, there would be very few points of disagreement-maybe one or two dozen places out of many thousands. The position I argue for in Misquoting Jesus does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger's position that the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament. What he means by that (I think) is that even if one or two passaes that are used to argue for a belief have a different textual reading, there are still other passages that could be used to argue for the same belief. For the most part, I think that's true.

 

But I was looking at the question from a different angle. My question is not about traditional Christian beliefs, but about how to interpret the passages of the Bible. And my point is that if you change what the words say, then you change what the passage means. Most textual variants (Prof. Metzger and I agree on this) have no bearing at all on what a passage means. But there are other textual variants (we agree on this as well) that are crucial to the meaning of a passage. And the theology of entire books of the New Testament are sometimes affected by the meaning of individual passages. From my point of view, the stakes are rather high: Does Luke's Gospel teach a doctrine of atonement (that Christ's death atones for sins)? Does John's Gospel teach that Christ is the "unique God" himself? Is the doctrine of the Trinity ever explicitly stated in the New Testament? These and other key theological issues are at stake, depending on which textual variants you think are original and which you think are creations of early scribes who were modifying the text.

 

Even in this passage, Ehrman says we can only PROBABLY know what was in the originals, but without the originals themselves, we cannot know for certain but you want to claim that we do know what the originals say and claim Ehrman is saying something he isn't, then denying you ever said that in the same post where you do. Not only are you lying about Ehrman, but you're also lying about the disagreement between Ehrman and his mentor and trying to over-exaggerate it into something it's not and make it seem like Metzger supports your delusion, even though Ehrman himself says he and Metzger have more agreements than disagreements.

 

Sure, all knowledge is ultimately based upon probabilities, there is nothing for which we can claim 100% certainty. I don't know why that is surprising to you. I am claiming that he knows with a high degree of certainty (although, not 100%) what is in the originals. That is why he makes the arguments that he does in his books. If he didn't believe he could get back with a high degree of certainty, then his works would be just making guesses and would not sell. Again, before claiming that I am lying, why don't you first read carefully what I am actually wrote so as not to embarrass yourself by claiming that I said something that I did not. You apparently didn't read what Ehrman wrote carefully either as he says, "there would be very few points of disagreement[between he and Metzger]-maybe one or two dozen places out of many thousands." Certainly, in a dozen or two places one can change the meaning of a verse, chapter and whole book, which is what Ehrman argues with some of the variants for which he comes to different conclusions than Metzger. So, I think you either don't understand textual criticism, haven't read Ehrman and Metzger closely enough, or have a point of view that you are trying to advance that clouds your vision. I won't speculate on which is the case.

[LNC]

If Erhman doesn't believe that we can get back to what was in the originals, then he is misleading millions of people in his enterprise to try to explain where the variants are and what is the proper reading of the original.

 

Proper reading? And that would be what? You're interpretation? You're dogmatic ideology of what they say? IMHO, that is not a proper reading of religious texts. That is a bias, twisted view of religious text, in particularly Xian texts. You do realize there were other denominations of Xianity before "canon" as created by humans that were killed or forcefully assimilated into one collective thought.

 

Apparently, you are not aware of the methods of textual criticism that are used to determine the best reading of the variants. It should have nothing to do with personal biases; however, I think that Ehrman has been caught on this a few times. BTW, denominationalism has nothing to do with textual criticism either. You apparently are not familiar with church history either. But maybe you could enlighten me as to what those denominations were that existed before the NT canon was established and point me to your historical evidence showing that people were killed or forcefully assimilated into one collective thought. BTW, The Da Vinci Code does not count as historical evidence - it is fiction.

[Neon Genesis]

Um, you claim Ehrman has the originals right here

So, although the changes appear, he and other scholars are confident that they know where they appear and which were the originals, otherwise he wouldn't have much to write about in his books. So, I am confident that we can know what was in the originals.

[LNC]

Eh? So God not talking to me says more about me than about you? I'm not sure what you're getting at.

 

The fact that somehow you believe that God has to be your thoughts rather than trying to figure out how you might be putting false expectations on God and then getting frustrated when he doesn't meet them.

 

No, it was lack of evidence that changed my mind. Nothing in my life was showing of any God interacting with my life or anyone else for that matter. It was really like God didn't exist.

 

So, you are saying that your previous Christian convictions were not based on evidence to begin with?

 

I asked God to give me any kind of sign that he had heard me or that he existed. I wanted to be convinced, because I had spent 30 years and never seen one single thing.

 

What kind of sign were you looking for? What kind of sign would have convinced you?

 

Like what? Miraculously healed from a flu within 1.5 weeks instead of 1.7? Or that we didn't have to spray for ants once a month, but it was enough with once every second? No. I really didn't see anything. Not even Jesus or Mary on a toast.

 

Again, I ask what kind of sign would convince you?

 

Exactly. He doesn't exist according to what I believed. I believe God was God of Jesus and that if you ask God for anything which is according to his plan he will fulfill it. Meaning:

 

1) God either did not mean to really answer prayers according to his will

2) Or it was not God's will to show evidence of his existence to me.

 

In either case, I am exactly where I'm supposed to be, with or without a God. i.e.: in all practical terms, I should live and think like an atheist, because if God exists, it is his plan.

 

Again, what kind of sign specifically did you ask for?

 

 

See what you did? It's called a cop-out. You are afraid to think of the possibility. Instead of answering my question, you redirect it.

 

No, you set up a false analogy. OK, let me play your game. If I was convinced that the resurrection was made up, I would have to abandon Christianity. If that part of the Bible was proved to not be original and I knew that the story was made up, it would make Christianity false. However, that is not the case in reality.

 

That wasn't my question. My question was if they restored the originals and they discovered that the resurrection story wasn't part of it, would you accept it and change your mind?

 

OK, answered above, now what is your next move?

 

And also, you do know that Ehrman also states: "Making these decisions is obviously a complicated business; as a result, there are numerous places of textual variation where scholars continue to disagree concerning the 'original' form of the text."

 

It doesn't sound too clear yet which version of the "100%" is the accurate one, if the scholars disagree.

 

I am aware of that and both he and others make cases for the best reading of the variant. However, in those cases where there is a lack of a high degree of certainty over the variant, no core doctrines of Christianity are involved. In other words, the variant could be read either way and nothing would change in the core meaning to Christianity. This is the case with those variants that Ehrman points to in Misquoting Jesus.

[LNC]

or 3) God moved to another universe. (sorry, I couldn't resist)

 

No matter what, christians can't see, hear, or feel anything that will validate any ex-christian's experiences. It's always our fault or we didn't see god's footprints next to us. This invisible god expects us to trust a total lack of evidence, and a bible full of unbelievable stories and anti-human morals? The beliefs cannot be questioned, but swallowed hook, line, and sinker, even though they are "bitter in our belly". Faith really is blind!

 

That is a good one, but I guess I am not too convinced by the multiverse hypothesis either (but let's not open up that can of worms here ).

 

Listen, I am willing to discuss your experiences and to test them against the evidence, as I am doing with mine here. I think we all need to test our assumptions to see if they hold up under scrutiny. We are all on a quest for truth and not after blind leaps of faith as you seem to think. I think that I have demonstrated here that I go where the evidence leads me, whether that means to an old universe perspective, accepting the parts of evolution that have evidential support, or any number of other positions on which I have changed my perspective over the years. I prefer to speak of my convictions rather than faith as faith is a loaded term that skeptics seem to think only applies to religious people, when in fact, it applies to all of us to one degree or another.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

I am aware of that and both he and others make cases for the best reading of the variant. However, in those cases where there is a lack of a high degree of certainty over the variant, no core doctrines of Christianity are involved. In other words, the variant could be read either way and nothing would change in the core meaning to Christianity. This is the case with those variants that Ehrman points to in Misquoting Jesus.

It is you who is missing Ehrman's point. The point Ehrman is arguging is not that no key Christian doctrine is affected by the variants. He says you can use other verses to argue Christian doctrines but the changes DO matter because they completely change the meaning of the texts. One example he uses is when some variants of Luke omit the verses that say Jesus bled when he was at the garden completely change Luke's portrayal of Jesus. Whether it effects Christian doctrine or not, it is clearly a major change as it gives you a completely different perspective of Jesus' character and to claim Luke is the "great" historian" or that there is no mythology in the gospels when the variants don't agree on whether or not Jesus suffered in the garden is ridiculous.

[LNC]

I walked in the sand, and Jesus walked next to me. Then I discovered that Jesus didn't leave any footprints, and I asked why. He told me, "because I'm only in your imagination."

 

It is funny that so many historians and scholars believe that he was more than an imaginary figure.