XKV8R

exactly. if 'inerrancy' is redefined as 'not significantly erroneous,' then it's not really 'inerrant,' is it. the christian scholars on this site are backpedaling, attempting to appease the website's producers' (and their christian audience's) beliefs, but not wanting to get laughed out of the next professional conference they attend.

what's wrong with acknowledging that the text has huge issues, and may not be completely historical, and is often times contradictory, but that the xn faith is still a worthwhile way of living? answer: it's not exclusive, and xn universities rake in millions of dollars with claims of how our theological understanding is better than 'theirs.'

judge

But dont xtian aplogists circumvent this issue, not by claiming that inerrancy is not signifigantly erroneous, but rather that the bible is inerrant "in its original autographs"?


Well one wonders just what is the xtian faith, if one doubts the history, of the events?
How, I would ask, does any admission of any thing being historical increase its worthwhileness as way of living?

Its possible of course, if xtianities interperetation of 1st century history is correct, that encouraging people out of a way of life that had outworn any usefulness it may have had, might have been worthwhile.
But today how can its historical claims be worthwhile?
Tales of blood sacrifices to atone for my errors mean nothing to me, and I as dont look to or rely on a priesthood to access anything so called "divine", what can the passing away of that possibly mean to me.


But xtians (or any religion most likely) will argue against one another and promote one view over another regardless of "inerrancy"

aa5874

But you must admit that religious authorities have met some with more than an "uplifted finger".

I thought you should have TURNED the other "cheek".

XKV8R

that's the question. if one plays out the chess game, it ends with a distant, deist god who set the universe in motion, and not an exclusively xn god, which is why fundies don't give an inch.

it turns xnty into a philosophy, and not a soteriological necessity, meaning there is no consequence for not adhering to xnty.

judge

Like chess games there seems to more than one variation possible to play though. Philosophically anyway.

Whether god is exclusively xtian or is distant in a deistic sense doesn't seem to have any clear connection to the historical reliabilty of the bible, or to be the only conclusion one might draw from it being unreliable or inerrant.


Seems xtianity has been a philosophy at least since Nicea. At least the line seems blurred. I need salvation but I need to profess a certain christology in order to receive it (and condemn those who disagree).

And, if " a man reaps what he sows", what connection does that have to adhering to xtianity?

Just some question that come to me, on this topic. Sorry if im getting too off topic.

Frank

I watched a debate a while back between Ehrman and Dr. William Craig, and it's probably the only debate I've seen where Craig really got it handed to him (and I've seen Craig debate guys like Hitchens, and he faired much better against garden variety atheists compared to someone like Ehrman, who came from the same background, and is probably one of the most if not the most accomplished biblical scholar in the country).

What Ehrman does that someone like a Hitchens can't do is shake the core arguments of Christian apologists. Craig comes out with his big four items he views as well supported from a historicity perspective, and Ehrman is able to counter with a detailed and rich argument showing exactly why those presuppositions cannot be supported under historical method (and why in fact the new testament has no evidentiary advantages over the panoply of other mythic legends that fill our history books).

From there it becomes a matter of sheer statistical probability (and naturalistic explanations like hoax, legend accumulation, interpolations, blending of narratives, etc. has much more explanatory force than the stories themselves).

That being said, there's enough obscurity in the history to leave the door open for Christians to keep on keeping on. At least there's a claim to something more than a single man who while alone in a cave had an angelic vision, or a known con man who dictated from the inside of his hat to his gullible followers (claiming he possessed magical golden tablets ... that of course he allowed no one else to view), or the man who while alone on a mountain top supposedly had a conversation with a burning bush (drawn from an Exodus narrative mainstream archeologists, including many Jewish archeologists, have concluded never happened). Plus, I still have lingering admiration for Paul (and his seemingly insurmountable determinism). There's still some value in it ... even though it's mythic. We still read Greek and Norse mythology (and there's valuable lessons we can glean from many of those stories, not to mention the fact that at this point Christianity is pretty benign).

DCHindley

Well,

I wouldn't go as far as to say he's the best biblical scholar in the US of A. He's kind of average, actually, and as yet has not earned a reputation for cutting-edge scholarship like John Dominick Crossan, Edward P Sanders, Richard Horsley, or John Kloppenborg (and I don't necessarily agree with everything these scholars say, but I do respect many aspects of their scholarship).

Ehrman does, however, have a knack for presenting the common knowledge of textual critics in a manner that is accessible to normal folks (that's us). What he is saying is not radical or new. However, he is asking the questions that should necessarily follow. "What do these changes in the text produced in the course of normal textual transmission (i.e., as it is copied by successive copyists) tell us about the development of Christian dogma? If such development of dogma was going on, and it is being retrofitted into the textual tradition, how do we identify it and consequently enhance the source for for the purposes of historical-critical analysis?"

I am not sure whether he is minimalizing the value of the texts for use by analysts (which leaves more room for speculation, and I suppose this is why he is so popular here), or setting the stage for analysis less influenced by traditional dogma of later ages.

DCH

George S

Actually, as it happens, Ehrman was an evangelical Christian. He is criticizing his own former strongly held belief. He identifies the moment. Having written a paper justifying a particular passage in Mark, he was looking at the instructor's notes. Among them "Couldn't Mark just have gotten it wrong?" A few seconds after reading this he was atheist. (after introduction to Misquoting Jesus)

show_no_mercy

Erhman became an agnostic years after that anecdote. This episode is what shattered his belief in inerrancy, not what made him an "atheist".

XKV8R

i blogged it here.