As a Christian, what is your Opinion of Biblical Scholar Bart Ehrman?
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
His agnostic viewpoint is what colors his interpretation of the Bible.
I don't see any contradictions in scripture. But I'll never convince an atheist or agnostic of this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Way
It's difficult to see anything when you refuse to open your eyes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
The Bible is riddled with them. Not seeing any reflects a lack of rational thinking, IMO. I am a Christian, NOT an atheist or agnostic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaveOnn
If you are constantly criticizing Bible believers, why do you also want to use their label?
As I see it, Mystic is indeed a Bible believer, as is Michael Way. Their interpretations seem to be different from the way you interpret the Bible (Make no mistake about it. Everyone interprets.). That certainly does not contraindicate their belief in Jesus. Anyone that follows the teachings of Jesus should be referred to as a Christian, even if they disagree with you about some things. To refer to them as anything is would be an arrogant insult.
BTW, there are numerous documented contradictions in the Bible. Go to your favorite Internet search engine and look for "contradictions in the bible." There are a vast number of web sites discussing them, from a variety of angles.
Note: As a personal policy, I do not post links to any individual site. Most of them include issues that are quite trivial or questionable. So, when a person who thinks there are no contradictions sees that site, he finds two issues that he can refute, and then discounts the entire site, even though he is ignoring the other 498 contradictions that are not so easily disputed.
Among other reasons, those contradictions re why the Bible must mot be taken literally. Read the stories as allegorical and take the moral lessons from them. You don't have to believe in a talking snake (or any other clearly impossible event) to learn the morals.
My guess is that you will not look into this, but at least you have been notified that such contradictions exist and are well documented. Maybe some of the lurkers will find this information useful.
His agnostic viewpoint is what colors his interpretation of the Bible.
Mr Ehrman's viewpoint was shaped by serious biblical studies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaveOnn
I don't see any contradictions in scripture.
Naturally, you haven't even looked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaveOnn
But I'll never convince an atheist or agnostic of this.
You can't prove a negative, no one can. You can't actually PROVE there are no contradictions, there is nothing to offer a skeptic.
The burden of proof therefore, is upon the persons who will claim that there ARE contradictions. It is simple enough, all you have to do is study the bible seriously, or read the works of others who have already done the studies. Read Mr Ehrman (not just him, but he is the topic of this thread), he can explain it all in layman's terms. If your faith is strong you have nothing to fear by reading the scholarship.
If you are constantly criticizing Bible believers, why do you also want to use their label?
It seems that from your perspective, the only kind of Christian is your kind of Christian. Am I reading this right?
There was a time when Christians believed the earth was flat, and later once that idea went out the window they still thought the sun revolved around the earth. These concepts came from assuming the bible was accurately depicting the physical world. Challenging the prevailing belief was dangerous, but in fact we now know with absolute certainty that the earth is not only round, but not even close to the center of anything.
In Genesis God offers two different reasons for His decision to destroy all creatures in a flood. Also, there are two different assignments of animals into the ark. This is clearly a result of redactors trying to include two different traditions into their work. It was a cut and paste job.
IF the bible was supposed to be inerrant, as so often claimed, this would not have happened. It would constitute a botched retelling of a much older oral tradition passed down from generation to generation. Clearly the authors (or redactor) did not consider this work to be inerrant, that quality wasn't important to them. What WAS important to them was to include both stories, even though they are in clear contradiction, for whatever reason they might not have felt the right to cancel one and keep the other.
If God doesn't care, and the original scribes who compiled Genesis didn't care, and all the rabbis, monks and ministers for the next several thousand years didn't seem to care ... why should any Christian care about the contradictions? It is not necessary to build your house on sand that is bound to shift under pressure. Inerrancy is not the hill to die on.
If your faith is strong, you will accept the contradictions and not pretend they don't exist. You will adapt to the reality of it, and accept the fact that there are things you cannot know and things the bible cannot tell you.
Mr Ehrman's viewpoint was shaped by serious biblical studies.
Naturally, you haven't even looked. You can't prove a negative, no one can. You can't actually PROVE there are no contradictions, there is nothing to offer a skeptic.
The burden of proof therefore, is upon the persons who will claim that there ARE contradictions. It is simple enough, all you have to do is study the bible seriously, or read the works of others who have already done the studies. Read Mr Ehrman (not just him, but he is the topic of this thread), he can explain it all in layman's terms. If your faith is strong you have nothing to fear by reading the scholarship.
I listened to hours of Bart Ehrman when I deconstructed in the past. As I've already mentioned. I never agreed fully with his view on alleged contradictions. They are an interpretation based on nonbelief.
If you are constantly criticizing Bible believers, why do you also want to use their label?
Christians are supposed to be Christ believers, NOT Bible believers. The description of the "mind of Christ" matched the God I encountered which is why I am a Christian.
Christians are supposed to be Christ believers, NOT Bible believers. The description of the "mind of Christ" matched the God I encountered which is why I am a Christian.
But most are Bible believers. No one would be interested in Jesus at all if not for them.
But most are Bible believers. No one would be interested in Jesus at all if not for them.
CS Lewis has written extensively about this.
How many Bible believers do you think go beyond the Bible in research or ask uncomfortable questions ?
The story may change based on evidence but that doesn't mean the message changes as well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
