Jump to content

Misquoting Jesus?


Olavarria

Recommended Posts

Interesting. I guess he is no longer inspired. I wonder what would have happened if he was on the Council of Nicea? You think Constantine would agree or have him disposed? Anyhow he should learn the AoF

AoF

8 We believe the aBible to be the bword of God as far as it is translated ccorrectly; we also believe the dBook of Mormon to be the word of God.

Which makes me wonder how he would deal with the Gospel of Thomas which are supposedly the direct quotes of Christ form the Disciple himself.

Link to comment

Ehrman asks some valid questions, and makes some valid points. However, certain publications (namely "A Reexamination of the text of P.Oxy 2949" by Thomas A. Wayment-JBL 128:2) provide new evidence to question his current assumptions. He is correct to note the absence of any New Testament or Old Testament autographs. However, an English autograph for the Book of Mormon does exist, and viewed in light of a context of continuing revelation, complete abandonment of any biblical authenticity is irrational. It is easy, when confronted with apparent contradictions to beliefs, to reject them outright. Dealing less destructively with cognitive dissonance can produce a result inverse to that of Ehrman.

Link to comment

Amazing to think that if he could embrace the LDS understanding of the Bible, as noted above, he might still be a Christian.

It forever puzzles me that anyone could go all frothy at the mouth when we state that we believe the Bible is the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. Would an incorrect translation still be the word of God, such as the infamous mistranslation of the Ten Commandments that promoted adultery? Of course not, at least in the mistaken part. . And who with a straight face could insist that an incorrect translation is impossible? I could go out tomorrow and create a Bible that replaced Joshua with Homer Simpson.

Link to comment

Amazing to think that if he could embrace the LDS understanding of the Bible, as noted above, he might still be a Christian.

IIRC, Ehrman's over-riding concern which ultimately led to his exodus from Xtian faith was theodicy, the problem of evil in the world versus the proclaimed goodness/omnipotence of God. Problems with scripture and inerrancy was, he says, very secondary.

Link to comment

IIRC, Ehrman's over-riding concern which ultimately led to his exodus from Xtian faith was theodicy, the problem of evil in the world versus the proclaimed goodness/omnipotence of God. Problems with scripture and inerrancy was, he says, very secondary.

After reading his book, God's Problem, I concur.

Link to comment

Not if one doesn't read it as encouraging self-flagellation (like me).

I think the whole statement is depressing but like you said, it's probably how I'm reading it. To me, it basically says, "Life sucks. But don't worry, you'll get a reward after it's over."

I much prefer "Man is that he might have joy."

Link to comment

Professor Ehrman ["..for a long time I thought the Bilble was inspired and inerrant...."] should compare notes with Professor Daniel Peterson....

"We [FARMS] do not believe necessarily that the Book of Mormon is inerrant. We don't believe that it's without any errors at all.

We have a high view of the Book of Mormon, but we aren't inerrantists; we don't believe that it's infallible."

http://www.pbs.org/m...s/peterson.html

Seems to be the latest academic buzz word: "inerrant" said 4 times in one breath.

just saying...ohmy.gif

Link to comment

Not if one doesn't read it as encouraging self-flagellation (like me).

OTOH, I think it can promote the attitude of looking for obstacles in one's life, that this is a sign that one is doing the right thing.

And I think that attitude can be very problematic, not only because when we look for problems we will be sure to find them (and thus inflate their actual importance in our lives).

Link to comment

Professor Ehrman ["..for a long time I thought the Bilble was inspired and inerrant...."] should compare notes with Professor Daniel Peterson....

"We [FARMS]

Are you equally critical of BYU's board of trustees that pay for not only Dr. Peterson's salary, but support and fund the Maxwell Institute (formerly known as FARMS) as well?

After all it's only the academics that talk about inerrancy, right?

http://lds.org/ldsor...0004d82620aRCRD

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bm/ttlpg (see last sentence)

Link to comment

Professor Ehrman ["..for a long time I thought the Bilble was inspired and inerrant...."] should compare notes with Professor Daniel Peterson....

"We [FARMS] do not believe necessarily that the Book of Mormon is inerrant. We don't believe that it's without any errors at all.

We have a high view of the Book of Mormon, but we aren't inerrantists; we don't believe that it's infallible."

http://www.pbs.org/m...s/peterson.html

Seems to be the latest academic buzz word: "inerrant" said 4 times in one breath.

just saying...ohmy.gif

Take a week off and review the board guidelines.

Skylla

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...