Rewriting the bible

[Aractus]

If that is the most damaging review of his work, it doesn't seem to actually deny anything. Saying something is exaggerated isn't the same as calling it false. It sounds to me like an apologetic trying to discredit him through wordplay. This review appears to be saying that "who cares if changes have been made?" That's hardly grounds to dismiss the changes. It even admits to one forgery in the review. Equating it to Homer or whatever is ridiculous, Homer isn't meant to be some innerrant word of god.

You simply don't understand modern textual criticism. In my view you'd be much better informed by Daniel B Wallace even though he is strong theist; Wallace admits that much of the NT is uncorroborated and requires faith, but he has a much better approach to explaining NT textual variance than Ehrman does. Or better yet watch the two debate each other so you can actually understand what the real facts are:

http://youtu.be/kg-dJA3SnTA

Some of Ehrman's claims are valid, others are sensationalised rubbish which he struggles to defend against other scholars.

I wasn't claiming the whole bible has been rewritten or that a large percentage is forgeries or errors, just that a significant enough amount of such things exist as to put paid to the idea that this is identical, or even close enough, to the original texts. If this really was "gods word" then it would be perfect.

The fact is that in 2,000 years neither the OT or the NT has changed in its composition. Not a single addition to the OT later than the second-first centuries BC has ever been identified. And as I mentioned, the only addition to be found in the NT later than the second century is the Comma Johanneum. Your claims as stated in the op are completely wrong. Not just a little bit wrong - completely wrong.

Most of the stories in the bible are fictional anyway, with only die-hard literalists ignoring all the scientific and historic evidence.

It depends when you break it down book-for-book. The NT is not mostly fiction, although much of the four gospels is legend and not history - there is still quite a bit of actual history in there as even Ehrman points out.

None of the gospels were written by people who were even alive when Jesus died, and we don't know who wrote them either.

That's just simply not true. They were not written by eye-witnesses (i.e. the 12), but we do know who at least one of the authors was - Luke. Most scholars (including critical scholars) recognise Paul's companion Luke as the author of Luke-Acts. As for the other three, you're right we don't know who wrote them.

And it's pretty unlikely Jesus even existed in the form described (a man).

That's completely the opposite to what Ehrman claims and to what most scholars think.

The Paul guy never once mentions him being a man,

Yes he does! He mentions him several times as a man.

Romans 5:15-17
But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgement following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

Read your Bible before claiming nonsense.

And Matt Dillahunty is a freaking bible expert, having studied the bible for 20+ years and almost became a minister. He has said how one version of the bible has notes in it, mentioning mistranslations, noting forgeries and etc. And he refers to the fact that the virgin birth was added to the jesus story well after it was originally written.

That's not a fact that's just speculation. And if it was "added later" it had to have been added sometime before the mid second century, since there is an extant mss of Luke-John which includes it. Furthermore no ancient manuscripts have ever been found missing the nativity, further proving that if it was an addition it had to have been added very early on. It is very very unlikely (although technically possible) that it could have been added as late as the mid-2nd century.

There's many other instances of them going back and fluffing things up (adding December 25th and such) he has mentioned.

That's not in the bible.

And oh yeah, there's several versions of the bible.

According to who? Again you've got your facts very wrong.

The Hebrew canon at the time was 22 scrolls (39 books as counted by Christians) - I've researched that thoroughly. Not only does Josephus record it, but the DSS also proved very convincing evidence that no other books were considered a part of the Palestinian Jew's canon. I'm not saying it was ever "fixed", but it was not changed for whatever reason since that time, it was 22 scrolls and is still 22 scrolls.

I don't care what information you're listening to - you do not have your facts right.

Last point; the bible was compiled from a larger number of books, people having decided over a period of time which to keep and which to exclude. That's about the biggest fuckery I could imagine.

That's really not relevant. The NT was mostly compiled in its present form in the late 2nd-century AD, that's true. But most of the texts that the early Christians rejected were thought to have been written in the 2nd century and not the first. Besides 1 and 2 Peter and possibly Revelations it appears all the NT books were written in the first century. Luke, in my view, wrote Luke-Acts c.61 AD, Matthew and John were probably written around the same time and I think Mark was written not too long before.

There's no consensus on exactly when they were written, but the simple fact is that Acts fails to record the death of Paul - or any events that happen after 61 AD, or the death of Peter, and it was written by a close companion of Paul, and I think we can take it on the authority of the early 2nd century church officials that Paul and also Peter did indeed die around 67 AD.

[robvalue]

It seems you know a lot more about this than I do, and I may well have got some things mixed up or misjudged them. If so, apologies. I'm not qualified to continue a debate of this intensity, so I will just agree to disagree about how "accurate" the bible is. You clearly think it's almost dead on, and I respect your opinion. I am not convinced, but if my points haven't made any impact on you then there's no point repeating them. Thanks for your feedback.

I shall do some more research and reconsider things.

[Minimalist]

Danny, Danny, Danny... you were doing so well for a while.

Cistercian Studies Quarterly, founded in 1966, is an international review of the Christian monastic and contemplative spiritual tradition.

Yes. What POSSIBLE reason could there be for these monks to dispute Ehrman's facts about their fucking fairy tales? I agree with you that he has touched off a war with the theology crowd. Big deal. Dawkins nailed theologians to the wall. They have a vested interest in maintaining the illusion that their bullshit is real. It's how they make their living.

For a while you seemed to be getting over it. Sad to see you backsliding into jesus-freak nonsense.

[vorlon13]

Just about every picture of Kim Jong Il I've seen has all his toadies jotting down everything he says.

Considering Christ's self understood importance to the world, ain't it odd He didn't keep reminding the disciples to write things down ??

[Godscreated]

Just about every picture of Kim Jong Il I've seen has all his toadies jotting down everything he says.

Considering Christ's self understood importance to the world, ain't it odd He didn't keep reminding the disciples to write things down ??

He told them the Holy Spirit would bring all those things back to their memory.
You should read the Bible before making comments such as this.

GC

[vorlon13]

Then why 4 gospels that don't even agree on Bethlehem's zip code, let alone anything else important ?

[Godscreated]

Then why 4 gospels that don't even agree on Bethlehem's zip code, let alone anything else important ?

I do not believe they had Bethlehem in different places and, the important stuff is for those who desire Christ as their savior.

GC

[robvalue]

Er, yeah.

Check out this video from 31:00 onward- (as well as the whole thing, very interesting).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mwUZOZN-9dc

He is asserting that Paul referring to an Earthly Jesus only happens in forgeries.

I'm not trying to get into a huge debate about it, just wanted to show where I got some of my arguments. The whole video is about Jesus (possibly) not being a real historical figure.

[Minimalist]

Jesus is as mythical as the fucking tooth fairy.

[robvalue]

It would certainly seem so to me. Otherwise, there's an awful lot of coincidence with mythology at that time. This video is pretty convincing.

I'm surprised to hear that Bart apparently thinks otherwise, I'll have to dig into that.