bobhope2112

Nope.

There are a couple of endnotes for the quoted section, but neither of them reference a source for what appears to be Ehrman's own analysis.

My apologies, then, for being an uneducated fool.

Steven Carr

By the way, 'Bible John' is the nickname of a noted serial killer...

Presumably this is just a coincidence.

Steven Avery

Hi Bob,

If Ehrman is your primary textual source 'indoctrinated' might be a better word than uneducated. And not everybody is expected to be 'educated' in the ins and outs of textual theories. Although if you recommend one viewpoint it would be good to know the counterpoints offered by others.

And there was no implication of being a 'fool'. Simply a suggestion to broaden your textual horizons. And if you do so you will demonstrate good sense.

Shalom,
Steven

Johnny Skeptic

Since neither you nor anyone else can reasonably prove that the Bible is inerrant, it doesn't matter which translation people use. In addition, since hundreds of millions if not billions of people have died with little or no knowledge of the Bible, it is obvious that God is not in the least bit concerned that everyone in the world, or even most of the people in the world have access to any translation of the Bible.

Steven Avery

And by this type of "logic" the very fact that you put so much of your daily effort into trying to disacknowledge the authority of the Bible is itself proof of its primary significance as God's written word to man.

The simple facts are
1) Nothing spiritual can ever be "proven" to those disinclined.

2) The Bible is actively translated into hundreds of languages and disseminated all over the world. (Again, by your logic that is what counts and would show the Bible as the very special book.)

However we are off-topic for the thread so Johnny Onenote can take his last words.

Shalom,
Steven

Johnny Skeptic

What do you mean by "significant"? Islam currently has over one billion adherents, and it is growing faster than Christianity is. Christianity is significant, but so is Islam. You have committed the logical fallacy of "argumentum ad populum." Christians who are wiser than you are know that there is not a necessary correlation between the truth and how many people believe it.

You made another blunder. The majority of people who visit these forums do not make posts. It is those people who you have the best chance of influencing, certainly not your debate opponents. You are more naive than I thought you were.

You have made yet another blunder. What is popular need not necessarily be true. The quality of the evidence is what matters most. Are you willing to start a new thread about inerrancy?

Technically, I am off-topic, but any translation of the Bible that cannot reasonably be proven to be inerrant is not worth reading. The astute fundamentalist Christian apologist Glenn Miller has basically admitted that.

For your information, in the first century, the Gospel message was primarily spead by word of mouth, NOT by written records, and certainly NOT in English.

Steven Avery

lol. No blunders, JS. Folks who read can see what dialogs are sincere and what are canned shpiel. There is a limited time and energy and each posters decides what dialogs are likely to really be informative and edifying and helpful. Simply put, I have never seen a Johnny Onenote thread that had any of those features. There is lots of skeptic politics and posturing, usually off-topic and uninteresting, as in this post above .. and that field is all yours, JS.

Shalom,
Steven

Johnny Skeptic

Messge to praxeus: Are you willing to start a new thread about inerrancy or not? I assume that you are not willing to start a new thread on inerrancy because you are aware that you are poorly prepared to defend it.

You are typically bold, but I am not deceived by your boldness. You would not dare go to the General Religious Discussions Forum and debate the character of God. You have one little debating niche that you are good at, which is Biblical Criticism and History. Anywhere else you are about as useful as tits on a wild boar.

Steven Avery

Thank you for the disguised compliment.
Yes my time and energy is limited and I do not run all over the map.

Shalom,
Steven

Johnny Skeptic

My compliment was not disguised. You are very intelligent and well-read, and you are very good at debating certain topics regarding Biblical Criticism and History. Regarding "...my time and energy is limited and I do not run all over the mapI do not run all over the map", considering that inerrancy is the main foundation of your religious beliefs, your statement is like Einstein, if asked to discuss the theory of relativity, would reply "my time and energy is limited and I do not run all over the map." It most certainly would not be running all over the map for a staunch inerrantist to defend inerrancy. The simple truth is that if believed that you were well-prepared to defend inerrancy, you would defend it.

It is interesting to note that whenever a skeptic starts a new thread on inerrancy at this forum, Christians seldom participate. That is because they know based upon past experience that trying to defend inerrancy doesn't work against prepared skeptics. You have admitted as much by your refusal to defend inerrancy. You are bold, but only when you get to handpick your small group of selected topics, topics which only a few people in the world are interested in, and which most people in the world have never heard of. If the God of the Bible exists, it is not likely that he ever intended for Christianity to be promoted by discussing complicated, scholarly issues like the issues that are typical at this forum.