Bart Ehrman: Certain to Piss Off Fundies

[leo-rcc]

Yes, a professor of religious studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, he probably has no clue what he is talking about.

[Judas BentHer]

Yes, Professor Ehrman is not credible at all.

Bart D. Ehrman (born 1955) is an American New Testament scholar, currently the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. (Full Article - Wiki) And Ehrman is not an atheist. He's agnostic.
Everyone but deluded enraged Fundy's know the difference.

You know how Ray Comfort claims the "well made" banana is the atheists nightmare? (Only when we picture repressed gay Fundy nut jobs like Comfort using them as cheap sex toys) Well, Professor Ehrman is the Fundy's nightmare, because he use to be a Fundy. Having graduated from Moody Bible Institute, which doesn't get any more Fundy and stands almost shoulder to shoulder with Liberty University save that Liberty, per Moody, could be said to be far too worldly in some things.
Now that is scary!

[coffeeveritas]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehr...40301.html

Apart from the most rabid fundamentalists among us, nearly everyone admits that the Bible might contain errors -- a faulty creation story here, a historical mistake there, a contradiction or two in some other place. But is it possible that the problem is worse than that -- that the Bible actually contains lies?

Most people wouldn't put it that way, since the Bible is, after all, sacred Scripture for millions on our planet. But good Christian scholars of the Bible, including the top Protestant and Catholic scholars of America, will tell you that the Bible is full of lies, even if they refuse to use the term. And here is the truth: Many of the books of the New Testament were written by people who lied about their identity, claiming to be a famous apostle -- Peter, Paul or James -- knowing full well they were someone else. In modern parlance, that is a lie, and a book written by someone who lies about his identity is a forgery.

Most modern scholars of the Bible shy away from these terms, and for understandable reasons, some having to do with their clientele. Teaching in Christian seminaries, or to largely Christian undergraduate populations, who wants to denigrate the cherished texts of Scripture by calling them forgeries built on lies? And so scholars use a different term for this phenomenon and call such books "pseudepigrapha."

You got it, Bart. A tissue of lies!!!

Bart Ehrman is actually pointing out some valid things. There certainly are questions about who wrote several of the New Testament books. There are also books who claim certain authorship that seems unlikely. The problem with Bart is that he is a little bias. He takes a valid area of study and leans as hard toward being critical as possible. Don't get me wrong, he is an expert, and he has to use his trademark tone. Books that are more strongly worded sell better. I would say that is isn't exactly making anything up, but his case in this book is a little . . . overstated.

The fact is we really just don't know who wrote some of the books of the New Testament. We do our best to draw conclusions, but not a lot is one hundred percent. For example: Biblical scholars used to say that John was second century without a doubt, but a papyrus find dated very early second century led scholars to believe that John was almost certainly late first century. The date for John was one of the more certain dates, but it changed. So Biblical scholarship is not as exact a science as we would like. Scholars don't think John actually wrote the book of John, but they can't rule it out.

Second, the question of authorship in the ancient world really is more complicated than Ehrman would lead everyone to believe. Someone writing a letter from dictation (a scribe) would still sign the author's name. Sometimes the person composing the letter would give the scribe an outline and tell him to write a letter to that effect. Sometimes someone working for someone else would use their master's name because they were sending letters on his behalf. Sometimes an author's name would be included even if all he did was approve the letter. If someone belonged to a group led by someone of authority they would learn everything from him and use his name. Also the practice of psuedopigrapha was not always seen as deceitful, especially given the history of it in the Jewish community.

This is the gist of the issue as I've gotten it from other New Testament scholars. Bart Ehrman does have his supporters but a lot of NT scholars don't quite follow him on this one.

I was so used to your other picture this one is throwing me off min! Well, it is good to be back on the forums. I was wondering when someone was going to talk about the new Ehrman book.

Cordially yours,

Sir Coffee Veritas Esq.

[Godscreated]

Why Christians persist in not spelling "sense" correctly I don't know. Maybe it's because they're so bad at having any.

>This man has no idea what he's talking about
Which man? Also, if you mean the Pope, I would say he has a pretty damn good idea what he's talking about, being the boss.

>Why should I or any christian get upset at the ravings of a deluded atheist lunitic.
Was that a question? I think it must have been because it started with "Why", but I was confused by the lack of a question mark (?) which is the standard method of denoting a question. Mind you, experience of your respect for spelling and grammar should have taught me to be on my guard by now, so my bad, I guess.

In answer to your maybe-question: Why shouldn't you? Doesn't the Bible go on about spreading the good news (one of the nicer ways it says it. Others are more along the lines of "Kill Heathens! ")? I would have thought, if your antecedents failed to spread the good news to their own leader, that should lead you to question whether their good news was in fact a load of bollocks.

1) Both- Min and Ehrman
2) Pope is not my boss.
3) It was a statement that's why no question mark. See why can be used to make a positive statement.
4) I did not ask a question.

[The Grand Nudger]

Being as critical as possible about an idea is a bias? Sounds like good science to me.

[Godscreated]

Why should I or any christian get upset at the ravings of a deluded atheist lunitic. This man has no idea what he's talking about and in the little statement posted I see his deceptive wording, no since in paying any real attention to this man.

Far from deluded Bart Ehrman is a respected scholar of the New Testament, whose opinion of the New Testament is in accordance with the majority of his profession. I have read Bart Ehrman's works and I find little in them what other biblical scholars have not said before.

Also you misspelt lunatic by the way.

I've read Ehram too and the only thing he is good at is the manipulation of the english language to fit his deluded beliefs. Lunatic = Insane = Nutjob

[The Grand Nudger]

Lunatic = Insane = Nutjob

Quoted (and edited) for truth.

[Minimalist]

Poor G-C..it must hurt to have Ehrman cram your own fucking bible up your ass. Here's a guy who not only has read the final compilations....after all the mistakes and editing done by pious assholes and holy liars over the years but who has read the intermediate texts which show how those versions were doctored to make sure the ignorant ( that means YOU, G-C) sheep don't get any ideas.

G-C, Ehrman is so far beyond you and your pitiful capability to understand this stuff that you could be a bacterium on his shoe.

And Coffee, I have no doubt that other "religious scholars" oppose him...he is threatening their livelihood and these holy joes hate that.

If he was attacking muslim writings they'd be issuing fatwas against him!

[The Grand Nudger]

Muslims like Bart
http://muslimsunrise.com/dmddocuments/20...df#page=37
lol.

[Rayaan]

Muslims like Bart
http://muslimsunrise.com/dmddocuments/20...df#page=37
lol.

Yeah, we like to quote him because, you know, it gives us more arguing points that our own holy book is better than the Bible.