sky4it

Douglas, greetings.

No, I never was a member of "The Way Int." I did take the Power For Abundant Living Class when I was 18 years old. I also met Peter Wade and some people who had recently parted ways with the group.

I can tell you uncategorically that the women taken in adultry can be found in TWI stuff,(where exactly I cannot say its been years) in fact i heard people talk about it. In all honesty I never did hear about the last 12 verses of Mark. (I think Ehrman pointed out that they are ear marked in the KJV however) I do not recall TWI, earmarking any other scripture as non-original, but I think there was something in I John, however I dont remember if it was the one Erhman recited.

When I say Wierwille was an innerant, yeah you can bank on it that he was. He continually droned on about "the accuracy and integrity of the word of God. He called it "matchless" From the which he built a cult. Weirwille also believed that 4 people were crucified with Christ. The irony is this, some people know about the things Erhman said, and are inherants anyway. ouch?

A lot of Weirwille's stuff was high jacked from other authors. (Some of it from scholar EW Bullinger) Wierwille also claimed supernatural divine intervention, and that it snowed on him in Oklahoma for proof.

Since I have 15 credits of Biblical Greek I am also aware of some of the things Erhman talks about. Most translators are more concerned about the words being one or two languages removed from the text, than finding discrepancies because there are few descripencies when you put together all the different copies. Like Ehrman said, most of it is simple spelling and transpositional error.

I wouldnt be too concerned about Erhmans credentials vs Dr. Weirwille. I think there are still some people who question "the Doctors" training and methods. ie( Erhman > Weirwille) perhaps however by not too much.

The skinny is for me, I didnt find anything at all difficult in what Ehrman said. Erhman is a rather eloquent speaker, and nice to listen too.

Diogenes the Cynic

Because they cater to fundamentalists. Ehrman's book (which doesn't really present "his" conclusions so much as stock information which has long been known in NT scholarship) does not present anything radical or new and even mainstream Christian scholars would not find it "significant" in terms of new information (Ehrman's mentor, Bruce Metzger, was a clergyman himself), but fundies always oppose criticl methodology and objective scholarship as a matter of course. Since much of what is in Ehrman's book had not been popularly know before, it came as a shock to rank and file lay fundies who are seldom, if ever, exposed to any genuine scholarship.

In short, Ehrman's books are not significant in terms of breaking new schoalrly ground or presenting new theories. Their significance lies entirely within the fact that he's bringing this information into public awareness.

Strobel's new book is crap, by the way. One strawman after another, as usual. I don't know why he would want to conflate Ehrman with his (very poorly executed) treatise on the historicity of Jesus, though. Ehrman is no mythicist.

douglas

Thanks for the response, and I agree with the irony. As a lawyer friend of mine likes to say "You can't seperate a fool from his mission." If someone foolishly believes in the inerrancy of the bible, there is little reason to think that common sense is going to throw them off course.

sky4it

James Brown, Greetings

Yeah, I understand what your saying. I spent one year at a Lutheran college. I used to tell some people some things like this who had never heard some of these things. Want to know what there response was? They thought I was a divisive person, you know a rabble rouser. Its sort of the same response you are getting now. People who dont have the material too sort it out, initially think it is a wholesale attack on the bible which it is NOT. To them it's like some new "Divinci code story" or some such thing or some recently discovered document which it is NOT. Its an understandable response because they are not people who have background information available to them.

I would suggest that the hysteria that is created over it, is something more along these lines. BTW, I dont have a problem with the concept of the trinity even tho it the term "trinity" is not mentioned in the bible. To me it is just a simple paradigm. Ehrman discusses this issue, but it really is a non-issue in terms of the scripture people use to base it on, it isnt the one (in my experience) that Ehrman recited.

sky4it

One thing I did not hear Ehrman say, is that in some of the manuscripts there is neither Chapter or verse subheading. Does it make a difference? In fact in some cases yes it does. For example, the last verse of II Corinthians 12 more appropriately belongs in Chapter 13, if one wants to know the definition of a reprobate.

There is one other biblical concept that is very interesting. Some people have argued that italics words in the KJV are provided by Holy Spirit emphasis. (By deletion of italics and subsequent consideration, I agree) Thus, where one finds italics one must consider or ponder the meaning. It also serves as a reminder, of who the author is and notifies readers that seeking, asking and knocking are prerequisites for understanding. The Way International considered itself a Biblical research and teaching ministry. Why? Because they are trying to get back to the original text (yet one can’t) Here’s the kicker, if we had the original manuscripts, there would in all likelihood be dozens of Research Ministries many debating what the meaning of what the word “was” was. This is what a slippery slope words can be. Thus, IMO, what we have is by design.

It is my view (and I believe referenced by scripture itself) that what we find in the parchments is more by God’s design, that anything else. The Apostle Paul said they were ministers not of the letter but of the spirit for the letter kills but the Spirit giveth life. (Giveth life to both people and the letter) Yet, Jesus said that not one jot or title of the law would fail. If one is looking for conflict in any writing or words one can find it. Jesus wasn’t excessive, he simply was stating that jots and titles had value. Morever, Paul never said the letter didn’t have value, he simply delegated the authority of it to the Spirit. Which also creates harmony with the need for seeking knocking and asking for an open door.

Ehrman ( and I believe this is his ehroor, pun intended) in his opening comments makes the remark (and I am paraphrasing) that if you know who was so concerned about his word, you think he would have taken better care of it. I think the Apostle Paul more than addressed that in his writings as also did John to a great extent.

I think there is some value to inerrant views. It is chiefly called the paraphrase edition. Now I am not saying the paraphrase edition doesn’t have some consoling value, but as a text it is what it says; someone reading a version and paraphrasing it. I doubt even Ehrman would disagree that the KJV or Authorized Version or other ones are quite a bit more accurate than the paraphrase.

Just as an illustration of how people’s words get hammered out to intended insult and injury, consider what Donny Duetsch did to Miss Colther just recently. He basically brow beat her to get her to talk about the differences between those of Jewish and Christian faith, then he drilled her with it. If Miss Coulter has a flaw, it is that she trusts Duetsch like people way too much. I mean the guy literally kept asking the same point from different angles over and over again, then he punches her in the face with it when done. Duetsch isn’t unlike what they did to Jesus in his day, trying to corner people through mischievous questions.

matthewthomas

There is one on Facebook...

Mt

Roger Pearse

The ancient text has no divisions by verse or chapter, and certainly no chapter headings.

The origins of chapter headings in ancient texts in general is an under-researched area. Multi-volume Greek histories tended to have summaries at the beginning of each book, which could also circulate separately (and thus may not have been prepared by the author), and medieval manuscripts sometimes transpose extracts from these into the text. But original divisions into chapters, and adding chapter headings, seems to be an innovation of the 5-6th century. Cyril of Alexandria at the end of the introduction to one of his commentaries (John or Luke) speaks of it as a novel thing.

No, these are merely words not present in the original language added for the English meaning.

Theological arguments as to what God 'must' have done made by people who do not believe in that God would seem to have limited value from almost any point of view. If Dr Ehrman really believes that a book cannot be inspired (whatever that means) by someone unless that person corrects personally every copy ever made of it for centuries, then of course we would be interested to hear his argument. But it seems unlikely to be based on anything but gut-feeling.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Julian

Shameless plug but relevant to the text division issue: http://www.textcrit.com/?CNTR=KEPHALAIA

Julian

Roger Pearse

This page displays wrongly in IE, however, losing the top of the page! (in case anyone wonders why it starts "And this is what it looks like. It is the one that looks like a "7" with.."

A useful page, tho -- these photos are worth a million words.

Roger Pearse

Magdlyn

I can see the whole page.