Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Elfman · 08-11-2008, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

For more on this subject, I suggest Misquoting Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Bart D. Ehrman, a textual critic that posters on this board are familiar with. In his book he claims that there are about 5700 original NT manuscripts, with at least 200,000 discrepencies. While he admits that most of them are insignificant wrt doctrine, that still leaves a large number of serious disagreements between the manuscripts.

Yes, and while Ehrman is well trained, he isn't perfect. He starts with certain premises such as "miracles are not the best historical explanation because we know they dont happen" and then interprets scripture from there. Don't be fooled by a big number like 200,000 discrepancy, not only is it true that the vast majority of these are small things like spelling errors and copying mistakes, but every time that same error is copied, it is counted again. So the same spelling error may get counted numerous times! More documents, more "errors" even if they are in the same family. And these errors are not major doctrinal things like Jesus not rising from the dead....

Toto · 08-11-2008, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elfman

...
Yes, and while Ehrman is well trained, he isn't perfect. He starts with certain premises such as "miracles are not the best historical explanation because we know they dont happen" and then interprets scripture from there. ....

Actually, Ehrman started as a fundamentalist, but reading the Bible turned him into an agnostic.

But is there something wrong with the observation that miracles are not the best explanation of historical evidence? Even if we can't say that they don't happen, we can say that we require much better evidence of a miracle than a copy of a copy of a document that was written at an unknown time by an unknown person.

Adonael · 08-11-2008, 02:50 PM

What Ehrman actually said was that miracles are always the least probable explanation and hence a historian couldn't infer them as the most probable explanation.

mountainman · 08-11-2008, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alias

Why does the Bible only focus on the Middle East? Why is the rest of the world ignored?

To be a Christian does this mean that Israel is the most important place in the world?

It appears that God is only interested in one specific region. Or that the supposed divine authors of the Bible did not have knowledge of anything outside their geographic location.

I think that you will find that one of the bits of the pieces in this jigsaw puzzle of a thread is an issue related to the problem of the antipodes. The church fathers apparently excluded the people of the southern hemisphere thank christ. Sorry I dont have the info at hand, but I'll dig it out later if you like. There was thread on this sometime back....

Best wishes,

Pete

Joan of Bark · 08-12-2008, 04:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elfman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

For more on this subject, I suggest Misquoting Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Bart D. Ehrman, a textual critic that posters on this board are familiar with. In his book he claims that there are about 5700 original NT manuscripts, with at least 200,000 discrepencies. While he admits that most of them are insignificant wrt doctrine, that still leaves a large number of serious disagreements between the manuscripts.

Don't be fooled by a big number like 200,000 discrepancy, not only is it true that the vast majority of these are small things like spelling errors and copying mistakes, but every time that same error is copied, it is counted again. So the same spelling error may get counted numerous times! More documents, more "errors" even if they are in the same family. And these errors are not major doctrinal things like Jesus not rising from the dead....

Ehrman himself makes this very point. He also points out, however, that some of the discrepencies are major and do affect doctrine. If the Bible was the inerrant word of God, we would expect Him to make sure there were no major discrepencies in the text.

mountainman · 08-12-2008, 04:47 PM

FROM HERE: http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/lactantius.php

Quote:

The question of the existence of the antipodes[9] had posed a problem for all Christian theologians. Russell, who has researched the "flat error" in some detail, explains:

Christian doctrine affirmed that all humans must be of one origin, descended from Adam and Eve and redeemable by Christ, "the Second Adam." The Bible was silent as to whether antipodeans existed, but natural philosophy had demonstrated that if they did, they could have no connection with the known part of the globe, either because the sea was too wide to sail across or because the equatorial zones were too hot to sail through. There could be no genetic connection between the antipodeans and us. Therefore any alleged antipodeans could not be descended from Adam and therefore could not exist.(10)

Again the opportunity arises for me to sake thank f****g christ for that. It would appear therefore that if you were born in the southen hemisphere (eg: Australia) you may have some form of innate terrestrial immunity to christian doctrine/dogma and all its attendant philosophical abberations.

Christianity seemed to stay close during its epoch of origins -- in the strict ancient historical sense, and in the strict ancient geographical sense -- to Roman imperial tax exemptions. In the year 350 CE land tax (under the christian imperial regimes had tripled in living memory).

Best wishes,

Pete

Alias · 08-24-2008, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

FROM HERE: http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/lactantius.php

Quote:

The question of the existence of the antipodes[9] had posed a problem for all Christian theologians. Russell, who has researched the "flat error" in some detail, explains:

Christian doctrine affirmed that all humans must be of one origin, descended from Adam and Eve and redeemable by Christ, "the Second Adam." The Bible was silent as to whether antipodeans existed, but natural philosophy had demonstrated that if they did, they could have no connection with the known part of the globe, either because the sea was too wide to sail across or because the equatorial zones were too hot to sail through. There could be no genetic connection between the antipodeans and us. Therefore any alleged antipodeans could not be descended from Adam and therefore could not exist.(10)

Again the opportunity arises for me to sake thank f****g christ for that. It would appear therefore that if you were born in the southen hemisphere (eg: Australia) you may have some form of innate terrestrial immunity to christian doctrine/dogma and all its attendant philosophical abberations.

Christianity seemed to stay close during its epoch of origins -- in the strict ancient historical sense, and in the strict ancient geographical sense -- to Roman imperial tax exemptions. In the year 350 CE land tax (under the christian imperial regimes had tripled in living memory).

Best wishes,

Pete

Perhaps they have their own competing diety. :Cheeky:

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-11-2008, 02:50 PM	#23
Adonael Banned Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: S. Canada Posts: 1,252	What Ehrman actually said was that miracles are always the least probable explanation and hence a historian couldn't infer them as the most probable explanation.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.