Question for aaronshaf

[Jeff Lebowski]

Most of us here recently finished reading "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart Erhman.

http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jes...6993512&sr=8-1

Have you read that book? Any thoughts?

What is your opinion on biblical inerrancy?

Thanks in advance.

[livecoug]

is shaf still around?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by livecoug

is shaf still around?

There was a brief sighting last night and this morning. Kind of a "hit and run" if you will.

[SteelBlue]

I think he forgot where he was briefly. The first quote that he cut and pasted was from MoDoc.

[aaronshaf]

By "Biblical inerrancy" Christians are referring to the original manuscripts. The issue, of course, is whether the Bible can be reconstructed via textual criticism as to be basically reliable for knowing the gospel and having a relationship with Christ. Of what I've read of Bart D. Ehrman's work, it seems to be a rehash of what scholars have already been dealing with for quite some time, much of it simply made popular and accessible. I haven't seen anything that would shake a basic trust in the reliability of what reconstructions Biblical scholars put together in modern translations.

http://www.theopedia.com/Inerrancy

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

By "Biblical inerrancy" Christians are referring to the original manuscripts. The issue, of course, is whether the Bible can be reconstructed via textu criticism as to be basically reliable for knowing the gospel and having a relationship with Christ. Of what I've read of Bart D. Ehrman's work, it seems to be a rehash of what scholars have already been dealing with for quite some time, much of it simply made popular and accessible. I haven't seen anything that would shake a basic trust in the reliability of what reconstructions Biblical scholars put together in modern translations.

http://www.theopedia.com/Inerrancy

Thanks.

Two follow-up questions:

1) Why is Erhman's book seen as such a threat to many evangelicals?

2) The article you linked contains the following quote:

"Likewise, the Bible has proved itself reliable through prophecy, historical events, archaeology, and in many other areas." (my emphasis)

How literally do you believe the old testament? Age of the earth, deluge, etc.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

By "Biblical inerrancy" Christians are referring to the original manuscripts. The issue, of course, is whether the Bible can be reconstructed via textu criticism as to be basically reliable for knowing the gospel and having a relationship with Christ. Of what I've read of Bart D. Ehrman's work, it seems to be a rehash of what scholars have already been dealing with for quite some time, much of it simply made popular and accessible. I haven't seen anything that would shake a basic trust in the reliability of what reconstructions Biblical scholars put together in modern translations.

http://www.theopedia.com/Inerrancy

I have a question for you:

1. Is God all powerful?

2. If yes, then can God give us additional scripture?

[aaronshaf]

Why is Erhman's book seen as such a threat to many evangelicals?

I don't think a lot of people understand the history and status of textual criticism and the Bible. I'm not an expert, but I'd say Bart is hitting a niche that I don't think popular Christian literature has.

"Likewise, the Bible has proved itself reliable through prophecy, historical events, archaeology, and in many other areas." (my emphasis) How literally do you believe the old testament? Age of the earth, deluge, etc.

Certainly archaeology doesn't conclusively prove every event in the Bible in the eyes of secular academia, but it sure helps to show a degree of overall plausibility (that I of course don't see with the BofM). I tend to believe the flood was global, but I'm ambivalent over what kind of the literary devices or genre were used in the creation account (taking something "literal" can have a variety of meanings). John Walton's presentation here is of interest to me:
http://www.wheaton.edu/physics/confe...3/Sci_Sym.html ... but I'm not solid in my opinion.

1. Is God all powerful?

2. If yes, then can God give us additional scripture?

Yes, I believe he is all powerful in accordance with his promises, word, logic, etc. Yes, he has the power to give us additional scripture, but given the definitiveness of the New Testament writings seemingly spoken of in Hebrews 1:1-2 and John 14 I doubt he would give us more scripture. I think a more primary issue is that of comparing purported new revelation with already-established revelation (cf. Acts 17:11). That's the angle I first go with when examining Mormonism.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

I don't think a lot of people understand the history and status of textual criticism and the Bible. I'm not an expert, but I'd say Bart is hitting a niche that I don't think popular Christian literature has.

Well, that doesn't really answer my question.

But I suppose if it doesn't threaten you, it is not fair to ask you to respond for others. Moving on...

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

Certainly archaeology doesn't conclusively prove every event in the Bible in the eyes of secular academia, but it sure helps to show a degree of overall plausibility (that I of course don't see with the BofM). I tend to believe the flood was global, but I'm ambivalent over what kind of the literary devices or genre were used in the creation account (taking something "literal" can have a variety of meanings). John Walton's presentation here is of interest to me:
http://www.wheaton.edu/physics/confe...3/Sci_Sym.html ... but I'm not solid in my opinion.

Wow. There's a lot to discuss in that statement.

But before getting to that, you can't just post a link to an audio lecture. Give us the Cliff Notes version at least.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

I don't think a lot of people understand the history and status of textual criticism and the Bible. I'm not an expert, but I'd say Bart is hitting a niche that I don't think popular Christian literature has.



Certainly archaeology doesn't conclusively prove every event in the Bible in the eyes of secular academia, but it sure helps to show a degree of overall plausibility (that I of course don't see with the BofM). I tend to believe the flood was global, but I'm ambivalent over what kind of the literary devices or genre were used in the creation account (taking something "literal" can have a variety of meanings). John Walton's presentation here is of interest to me:
http://www.wheaton.edu/physics/confe...3/Sci_Sym.html ... but I'm not solid in my opinion.



Yes, I believe he is all powerful in accordance with his promises, word, logic, etc. Yes, he has the power to give us additional scripture, but given the definitiveness of the New Testament writings seemingly spoken of in Hebrews 1:1-2 and John 14 I doubt he would give us more scripture. I think a more primary issue is that of comparing purported new revelation with already-established revelation (cf. Acts 17:11). That's the angle I first go with when examining Mormonism.

You might have a future here if you could remain civil and moderately respectful as you are here in this reply.