Freethought & Rationalism Archive

-Jay- · 02-15-2008, 02:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

He concluded that the Bible(s) we have are too far removed from the original manuscripts to be accurate. Our copies have been altered as a result of honest mistakes and religious biases, which casts doubt on much of what Jesus taught.

I'm sorry to repeat myself, but I don't feel that you engaged with what I wrote. As I said, if the above, then the same applies far more so to all classical literature. Such an argument is equivalent to obscurantism. Please, think about this for a moment. I'm not being rude here, but I don't get the impression that you've picked up what I'm saying.

Do we have any real interest in the curious spectacle of a man who is paid to restore old texts pretending in public that they're all rubbish (if that is what he is doing), for religious reasons?

Roger -

Have you actually read the book in question?

If not, then you lack standing to make valid commentary on both Ehrman's intent and any consequences of his writing style, and further comments from you on the matter are merely hypothetical speculation.

If so, then please back up your assertions of obscurantism with some specific examples and we can discuss them.

In any case, this line of discussion is a digression from the original topic, and probably bears splitting out.

regards,

NinJay

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.