capnkirk

Dr. Ehrman was NOT a fundamentalist Xtian. He clearly states that he was an evangelical Xtian. I don't recall what denomination he was raised in, but it was not one of those normally associated with fundamentalism. I remember being surprised when he named it, because it wasn't even a denomination I considered evangelical. It was something like Methodist, or Presbyterian. Hardly fundamentalist. He actually started out on the path to becoming ordained, and it was his seminary studies that began to erode his faith. The more he learned, the more he doubted. One might be surprised how many young seminary students become disillusioned as they come face to face with the inconvenient facts of biblical scholarship and cease altogether to be believers.

Amaleq13

The Clouseau-inspired digression has been split off and locked here.

Amaleq13, BC&H moderator

capnkirk

Amaleq13,

I have just atarted posting here again after about a three year sabbatical. I trust that you remember capnkirk. I see you've upgraded the site since I was last a regular here. I started posting some to the History of Xtianity forum on The History Channel site, but soon bored of low quality of dialog there. Kinda like trying to roller skate in a buffalo herd.

Anyway, good to see you're still here. I still have the photos you sent me right after you moved to AK.

Amaleq13

Of course I remember you. You're my gun dude.

Welcome back!

Gudjonsson

According to Evans (see my post above), Ehrman was converted as a teenager, and nurtured in a very conservative setting. He went to Moody Bible Institute, Wheaton College, and Wheaton College graduate school. He later went to Princeton. Evans view is that if Ehrman had not been so conservative, thinking that the Bible was not a human book when he began his studies, he would not have deconverted. If he had been a moderate or a liberal Christian it would not have been such a shock for him to discover that the Bible was a human book with errors and additions... I don't know if Evans is right here.

How one describes fundamentalism depends. I would call anyone who says that the Bible is "inerrant" for example a "fundamentalist", even though he does not belong to a church that was a part of the old fundamentalist movement. Maybe it would not technically be a correct label to put on the person.

Ray Moscow

Erhman gives a brief "spiritual" bio in the introduction to Misquoting Jesus.

As I recall, he was raised Episcopalian but became somewhat fundamentalist in his teens through a youth group. He went to Moody Bible Institute for his first degree, which is definitely fundamentalist. Then, despite warnings from his Moody comrades, he went to evangelical Wheaton College. Finally, he wound up doing real biblical scholarship at Princeton.

He was too smart to stay at the Moody level of biblical studies.

Like many of us, he lost his "faith" after learning some facts about the Bible.

Ray

Clouseau

<attempt to derail this thread again removed>

Clouseau

The angle between evangelicalism and fundamentalism is 180 deg. The fundamentalist promotes YEC, anti-abortionism, the KJV, at the expense of the gospel. Evangelicalism is the promotion of the gospel only, and make of the Bible and abortion what you will.

How many do so?

youngalexander

And so, the saga of X plays out. Who amongst us may say where it will end.

Magdlyn

Correct. I read Misquoting Jesus and was indicating by my (now edited...) post what he stated about his own history as a Christian.

He believed the book was divinely inspired and inerrant (IMO, a cornerstone of fundamentalism), but began to doubt that when he realized it was sourced from manuscripts with over 30.000 inconsistencies between them.

As indicated in the article and in the speech on youtube, Dr Ehrman's experience, as a college professor in the "buckle of the Bible Belt," has been that the majority of his students believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, but few have actually read it. He seems to find this ironic.