Former fundamentalist 'debunks' Bible

[freeny]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/05/15/bible.critic/index.html
-----------------
Just so you know, Bart Ehrman says he's not the anti-Christ.
Bart Ehrman says most of the New Testament is a forgery but it's still an important body of work.

Bart Ehrman says most of the New Testament is a forgery but it's still an important body of work.

He says he's not trying to destroy your faith. He's not trying to bash the Bible. And, though his mother no longer talks to him about religion, Ehrman says some of his best friends are Christian.

Ehrman, a best-selling author and a professor of religious studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, is a biblical sleuth whose investigations make some people very angry. Like the fictional Robert Langdon character played by actor Tom Hanks in the movie "Angels & Demons," he delves into the past to challenge some of Christianity's central claims.

In Ehrman's latest book, "Jesus, Interrupted," he concludes:

Doctrines such as the divinity of Jesus and heaven and hell are not based on anything Jesus or his earlier followers said.

At least 19 of the 27 books in the New Testament are forgeries.

Believing the Bible is infallible is not a condition for being a Christian. "Christianity has never been about the Bible being the inerrant word of God," Ehrman says. "Christianity is about the belief in Christ."
------------------


thoughts?....

[leekohler]

This-guy-is-looking-for-an-early-grave.

(my-space-bar-is-broken)

[Gelfin]

Just so you know, Bart Ehrman says he's not the anti-Christ.

In the like vein of general interest, I want to impress upon you that I am not Fenrir, Slayer of Odin, Herald of Ragnarok.

[adrianblaine]

thoughts?....

What are your thoughts? I always have a hard time diving into things like this without a starting point...

I don't consider myself a fundamentalist. I'm one of those "liberal" Christians so I guess I don't disagree with this guy completely. I'm of the opinion that no one has all the answers and we always have to pick and choose things from the world around us or nothing would make sense (some people are just better at what they choose to believe...). There are things that are indisputable like water is made of H20. But then it comes to other things, say health, where "experts" are constantly contradicting themselves about what IS the healthiest way to live and the correct answer is always a little vague.

[Zombie Acorn]

I take the bible (new testament) as a hollywood version of a true story. The old testament is about 80% :confused:

[Macaddicttt]

thoughts?....

This article is useless for discussion since there is no evidence for the things he claims. In fact, it doesn't even have very many claims in it. The biggest one is in the title (with no evidence or even discussion along the lines of "debunking"). It's a poor article if you ask me with a headline designed specifically so that tons of people will click on it. I was really curious as to what this guy had to say, but this article was useless.

The article lost me when it started talking about Paul and women. It's obvious to anyone who studies the Bible professionally that Paul wrote letters, not books he thought would be codified in a Bible, and tailored his message to his audience (and society has changed a lot in 2000 years).

It sounds to me (without really knowing this guy's works) that he was told by fundamentalists that the Bible was absolutely literal, and when he did some research and found out what most Christians know (that it is not literal), he overreacted and decided that it was 80% "forgeries."

[freeny]

What are your thoughts? I always have a hard time diving into things like this without a starting point...

I don't consider myself a fundamentalist. I'm one of those "liberal" Christians so I guess I don't disagree with this guy completely. I'm of the opinion that no one has all the answers and we always have to pick and choose things from the world around us or nothing would make sense (some people are just better at what they choose to believe...). There are things that are indisputable like water is made of H20. But then it comes to other things, say health, where "experts" are constantly contradicting themselves about what IS the healthiest way to live and the correct answer is always a little vague.
I am an Atheist and find the whole thing as bunk.
But to be truthful, I have no idea...

[adrianblaine]

I am an Atheist and find the whole thing as bunk.
But to be truthful, I have no idea...

Since I started participating in the PRSI forum, I've found that it is difficult for everyone to discuss and argue over every topic that comes up.

A subject like this will almost always turn out to be Christians vs. everyone else simply because in order to really discuss this topic, it requires the assumption that there is validity to the Bible. Without that agreement, it will always turn out to be one side trying to convince the other side they are wrong that there is any validity to begin with. IMO, I see three separate arguments that could take place where this would not happen and a more meaningful discussion would ensue.

1. Christians who the believe the Bible to be without error
vs.
Christians who believe that there is some error

2. Christians (either side)
vs.
Athiests (or other non-Bible religions) who believe there might be some truth to the Bible

3. Athiests (or other non-Bible religions) who believe there might be some truth to the Bible
vs.
Athiests (or other non-Bible religions) who believe the entire Bible is a fraud

Because there is no separation here, the argument almost always turns out the same with most of the same arguments appearing again and again. I'm just curious if there is a better way to do this. I guess I'm always hoping for one of these threads to go more in depth.

But, that may be what makes this forum so interesting....

[CorvusCamenarum]

Do we really need another "yay let's crap on Christianity" circlejerk thread? This is getting old, and lame.

[Rodimus Prime]

to me is just some guy trying to get attention to make a buck. Does not care about the truth.

[adroit]

to me is just some guy trying to get attention to make a buck. Does not care about the truth.

Bart Ehrman? Or Christ?

[freeny]

This is not a bashing thread. Someone who was once a Christian Fundamentalist claims to have debunked the Bible...
Thats a pretty bold statement. Even I, as an Atheist, finds it quite a bold claim.
People have been trying to "debunk" the Bible for hundreds of years. what spectacular evidence has this man discovered to finally crack the code?
I dont see where the bashing is.... :confused:

Why do the religious see any questioning of the Bible as "bashing"???

[leekohler]

This is not a bashing thread. Someone who was once a Christian Fundamentalist claims to have debunked the Bible...
Thats a pretty bold statement. Even I, as an Atheist, finds it quite a bold claim.
People have been trying to "debunk" the Bible for hundreds of years. what spectacular evidence has this man discovered to finally crack the code?
I dont see where the bashing is.... :confused:

Why do the religious see any questioning of the Bible as "bashing"???

I don't know. But I think this guy has put a huge target on his back. If I were him, I'd be very careful.

[MacNut]

This is not a bashing thread.Maybe not at first but give it time.:p

[skunk]

What on earth does he mean by "forgeries"? :confused:

[Macaddicttt]

This is not a bashing thread. Someone who was once a Christian Fundamentalist claims to have debunked the Bible...
Thats a pretty bold statement. Even I, as an Atheist, finds it quite a bold claim.
People have been trying to "debunk" the Bible for hundreds of years. what spectacular evidence has this man discovered to finally crack the code?
I dont see where the bashing is.... :confused:

Why do the religious see any questioning of the Bible as "bashing"???

This thread didn't start as bashing, but I see it very easily turning into it, since just about every thread on Christianity in these forums does. And you're right, claiming to have "debunked" the Bible is a bold statement, almost as bold as it is nebulous. As Skunk pointed out, we don't even know the biggest claim in the article is (what the heck makes something in the Bible a "forgery?"). As I said before, it's a very bad article that includes nothing that can be debated (since it is so vague), and the only purpose I can see of posting it is to bash Christianity since even "one of our own" "debunked" the Bible.

This thread just doesn't make any sense or serve any purpose. Keeping in mind the trend on this forum of Christian bashing, I think it's understandable if Christians get a little defensive.

[reubs]

What on earth does he mean by "forgeries"? :confused:

I don't know what he means, but my guess would be that they are not written by the people whose names are attached to them. Again, anyone who has bother to read anything objective about the Biblical text would say to this, "Yes, that is correct."

Ehrman is interesting and insightful to read, but after Misquoting Jesus and Peter, Paul, and Mary I think he's gotten a bit bold. He's got every right to make whatever claim he wants to, but now he appears to be trying to make a push into the realm of "celebrity author" who basically writes the same thing a few dozen different ways.

[Macaddicttt]

He's got every right to make whatever claim he wants to, but now he appears to be trying to make a push into the realm of "celebrity author" who basically writes the same thing a few dozen different ways.

This.

I had a professor who would always joke about making up some ridiculous claim just so he could get the big bucks writing a sensationalist book. He always ended up valuing his integrity more... :)

[adrianblaine]

Why do the religious see any questioning of the Bible as "bashing"???

I don't think anyone took it as bashing, I'm just a little cynical as to what course this thread would take. I'd be happy to be wrong though.

I agree with others here. The article title is about the only thing that claims to debunk to anything. There were no facts presented anywhere. To really talk about this we'd all have to go read his book... which I'm sure some will do, but not most.

[FreeState]

thoughts?....

Sounds like an argument for the LDS Faith. The Church believes the Bible - while holy - is not 100% correct and that is why they use the Book of Mormon/D&C/Pearl of Great Price. Im not sure if any other Christian sect does this.

[Macaddicttt]

Sounds like an argument for the LDS Faith. The Church believes the Bible - while holy - is not 100% correct and that is why they use the Book of Mormon/D&C/Pearl of Great Price. Im not sure if any other Christian sect does this.

Not even close. Mormon teachings on the Bible are extremely similar to those held by all Christians. Everyone (except fundamentalists) say that the Bible needs to be interpreted. For Mormons, this interpretation is the Book of Mormon; for Catholics, it is the Church and the Magisterium; for Protestants it's the various synods and personal interpretation (depending on the sect). I won't speak in more detail for Protestants, but Catholics and Orthodox believe in scripture and sacred tradition. The Bible was created to support the tradition, not to base the religion on.

Except for fundamentalists, every Christian would agree with the Mormon statement that the Bible is the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. We all know that there are transcription errors, scribal additions, and mistranslations. The only thing this guy's argument is good for (if it is good for anything, which I seriously doubt based on this article) is debunking fundamentalism. As I said earlier, it sounds like this guy saw the very obvious errors in fundamentalism, and instead of taking the mainstream Christian tack, he overreacted and rejected the entire Bible and claimed that most of it was "forgeries" (and we've already pointed out what a silly claim that is).

EDIT: And the Book of Mormon is exactly the same as the Bible in terms of inaccuracies. Members of the LDS would dispute this, but it certainly is not without debate: Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Book_of_Mormon)

To claim that Mormonism clears up all concerns about inaccuracies in the Bible is just as valid as any similar claims made by Protestants and Catholics and Orthodox and their respective theologies. In essence, this guy's "findings" do not favor Mormonism anymore than they favor any other version of Christianity. Mormonism just has the added "bonus" of not having the original texts around for any serious textual criticism that can't/won't be dismissed merely by saying, "Joseph Smith was just trying to put it into words and concepts his contemporaries would understand."

[ViciousShadow21]

Religion is dumb. Faith is what's important.

[djellison]

Religion is dumb. Faith is what's important.

In what?

[LouisBlack]

I don't know. But I think this guy has put a huge target on his back. If I were him, I'd be very careful.

Congratulations on fixing your space bar.

The problem with threads about religion is that nothing ever comes out of it. No one is going to have their opinion changed by someone on an internet forum and discussing anything can quickly lead to offence.

I can't see how this guy managed to even get any publicity as Richard Dawkins covered most of this subject many years before him in The God Delusion.