Paula may be back and putting Satan on notice but I don't think he is too worried. Paula has no power and is not a match for Satan. He will continue to win with her because she is weak and self-centered and depending on her own power - with God's "help" of course. Always a recipe for disaster.

Please excuse my blathering on the below post. I should not have written that last night when I really needed sleep. Of course it wasn't Nazareth as you both pointed out my obvious error. Please accept my apology for being too tired to think properly and writing about something unconnected well past my bedtime.

Oops, J is back again making inane and irrelevant comments and then going 2nd grade with a foolish retort. Carry on!

NF, Nice cop-out but you have demonstrated no scholarly attitude whatsoever. Saying only fundies attack Ehrman is ridiculous, there are plenty of non-fundies who have picked up on Ehrman's poor work. Witherington is certainly not a fundie (nor is he a secularist). Your assertion is based on circular reasoning - because you believe anyone who disagrees with Ehrman MUST be a fundie than anyone wh...more

NF,

Nice cop-out but you have demonstrated no scholarly attitude whatsoever. Saying only fundies attack Ehrman is ridiculous, there are plenty of non-fundies who have picked up on Ehrman's poor work. Witherington is certainly not a fundie (nor is he a secularist). Your assertion is based on circular reasoning - because you believe anyone who disagrees with Ehrman MUST be a fundie than anyone who demonstrates Ehrman as a poor scholar at best (especially since his work is aimed at the biblically ignorant as he has stated numerous times) Ehrman uses facts very loosely and in a way that is nothing short of academic "sophomorism" MUST be a fundie.

Logic 101 is a course that should be in your future my friend.less

JUst don't do business with them. Hopefully no one starts a boycott...

If the KJV is inerrant than I am a llama...and everyone who knows, knows that llama can't type...

I remember so well all the calls for Collins to not be the head of NIH or his removal from that position because he wasn't a "real" doctor due to his beliefs. Amazing how many atheists called him incompetent and unfit for the position as well as not being scientist or professional. Hitch seems to disagree. Imagine that, one of the 4 Horsemen understands that Collins is so competent that he goes to...more

I remember so well all the calls for Collins to not be the head of NIH or his removal from that position because he wasn't a "real" doctor due to his beliefs. Amazing how many atheists called him incompetent and unfit for the position as well as not being scientist or professional. Hitch seems to disagree. Imagine that, one of the 4 Horsemen understands that Collins is so competent that he goes to Collins for experimental treatment....less

Witherington is not a fundamentalist....fundamentalists have made that clear for many a year now. He certainly isn't a secularist but he is far from a fundie. If Witherington is a fundie than Hitler was a Hindu.

What is taught presently is from an atheistic worldview already....

He must be following in the footsteps of Bart Ehrman...

Wrong NF, only those who do not have the ability or the few hours to study the texts think that only inerrantists have an issue with Ehrman. The dude is not a biblical scholar, his work is torn apart due to the obvious errors and lies he makes known clearly.

gd, All evidence thus far points to Nazareth being a very small back-country village with a correspondingly small population. There might have been 20 infants tops (as far as we can tell by the evidence) so your assertion that this would have been recorded (or should not have been missed by Josephus) is far from accurate. Much of what Herod did was not recorded by Josephus and a massacre of 10-...more

gd,

All evidence thus far points to Nazareth being a very small back-country village with a correspondingly small population. There might have been 20 infants tops (as far as we can tell by the evidence) so your assertion that this would have been recorded (or should not have been missed by Josephus) is far from accurate. Much of what Herod did was not recorded by Josephus and a massacre of 10-12 infants would have seemed an insignificant thing during Herod's reign if one looks at the history written. In fact, it would be expected to be missed due to the other far more sensational acts of Herod.less

J, Nice, irrelevant and silly comment. At best that makes Ehrman a non-scholar in your eyes.

2. The supposed conflict between John and the Synoptic on the day of Jesus death is another issue. Ehrman claims that John states that Jesus died on the day of Preparation FOR Passover when the texts do NOT make that assertion. IN fact, in verse 31 John makes a very curious statement if the Preparation day was for Passover, John's wording would be different and not just speaking of a day of prepar...more

2. The supposed conflict between John and the Synoptic on the day of Jesus death is another issue. Ehrman claims that John states that Jesus died on the day of Preparation FOR Passover when the texts do NOT make that assertion. IN fact, in verse 31 John makes a very curious statement if the Preparation day was for Passover, John's wording would be different and not just speaking of a day of preparation for the Sabbath.

Bart knows that his assertion is the least likely of the possibilities for the day of Preparation Day issue and that there is no contradiction as he claims repeatedly. COULD it be a contradiction? Yes. Is that most explanation for the passage differences? No. And that is why it is not stated by biblical scholars too often because although it is a possibility, it is far less probable than the other explanations.

Bart states a contradiction where there is no contradicition and he states it emphatically that there is (and claims that most biblical scholars agree with his claim although it is NOT a contradiction and the majority of biblical scholars (conservative or not, believers or not) do NOT agree with his claim. His claim was accepted wisdom a hundred years ago but the archeology and textual finds have relegated this theory (not based on the evidence but on a theory that is not borne from the evidence) to an also-ran status like the Swoon Theory.

Ehrman knows this and makes false claims by asserting things that are not true. Once again, shoddy work but it fits well into a biblically-illiterate culture (as Bart acknowledges) that gloms onto personality and assured-ness even because people don't know better.

Those are only two instances of outright fraud because Ehrman does know better because he knows the Greek. So, Bart misleads (that is on purpose) people on many issues but on these two instances, all one needs is a knowledge of the language, the context and the tools to show he is making false claims and he does so in a way that fools the illiterate through sensationalism. Careful exegesis trumps his popularity.less

Ala, Hope you are well this evening! I'm not going to go into all the details of all his errors because there is limited time and space. But a couple come to mind immediately (from the "great Courses" NT lecture series). 1. The "variant" issue - he makes claims about 200,000 variants and how this shows that the copyists corrupted the texts over time. He never explains why (and there is a ...more

Ala,

Hope you are well this evening!

I'm not going to go into all the details of all his errors because there is limited time and space. But a couple come to mind immediately (from the "great Courses" NT lecture series).

1. The "variant" issue - he makes claims about 200,000 variants and how this shows that the copyists corrupted the texts over time. He never explains why (and there is a reason for that). HE makes a claim and doesn't back it up which is shoddy work.
As for the variant issue itself. As one who knows Koine Greek, Ehrman knows that well over 80% of the variants have ZERO meaning and offer absolutely no textual problems - at all. Greek is an inflected language where word order matters not because there is no way to confuse the sentence. This is not a biblical issue and no one makes this claim in regard to Greek literature where this is just as normal and happens with the same frequency as within the covers of Scripture.

Ehrman is doing nothing but putting forth an unwritten but obvious attempt to use the variants as an issue against Scripture being trustworthy. He uses underhandedness in order to make his case - that is shoddy "scholarship."

continuedless

God's instructions about elders and deacons in Timothy may be addressing the issue from a "default" position but that doesn't mean that being married is the biblical default. When one considers the time and cultural expectations as the context of the Scriptures written (context is always key), one doesn't come up with marriage as a mandate and maybe not even the "default" from God's instructions. ...more

God's instructions about elders and deacons in Timothy may be addressing the issue from a "default" position but that doesn't mean that being married is the biblical default. When one considers the time and cultural expectations as the context of the Scriptures written (context is always key), one doesn't come up with marriage as a mandate and maybe not even the "default" from God's instructions.

Although generally speaking, getting marriage or family counseling from someone who has experience and can speak from experience with the biblical commands is generally preferable over those who have never been there. It is not doctrine that is the issue but how it is worked out in life that becomes the issue. A person with experience can speak with more clarity on the subjects and be able to speak of the difficulties and the pitfalls to avoid as well as the demonstration of how biblical principles work out.less

The real issue is that Ehrman's work is light and based on not what the evidence is but as he wishes it to be. He is easily debunked. Of course, when he gets an ignorant and captive audience who (as he has repeatedly testified to their ignorance personally on record), he can propagate this old, tired, 19th century theory which must ignore the actual evidence and be a slave to a debunked theory. ...more

The real issue is that Ehrman's work is light and based on not what the evidence is but as he wishes it to be. He is easily debunked. Of course, when he gets an ignorant and captive audience who (as he has repeatedly testified to their ignorance personally on record), he can propagate this old, tired, 19th century theory which must ignore the actual evidence and be a slave to a debunked theory.

Biblical scholars don't take Ehrman seriously for many reasons, his playing fast and loose with known truths (such as variants among many other things) so he can be more popular with the illiterate in the Scriptures is just one of them. Slightly better than Dan Brown but still a fiction writer nonetheless.less

Certainly not contradicting what they say they believe. A biblical and proper education (as the apostle Paul received and used greatly in his ministry) is understanding all the theories one can learn in order to be well rounded and educated. One cannot speak intelligently about a subject when one does not understand the subject RTJ. Calling them hypocrites is making a false accusation becaus...more

Certainly not contradicting what they say they believe. A biblical and proper education (as the apostle Paul received and used greatly in his ministry) is understanding all the theories one can learn in order to be well rounded and educated.

One cannot speak intelligently about a subject when one does not understand the subject RTJ.

Calling them hypocrites is making a false accusation because in order for them to BE hypocrites, they MUST be teaching one thing while they ACTUALLY believe another thing and there CERTAINLY isn't enough information in this article to come to a rational and intelligent conclusion.

Making unfounded and unproven accusations is not godly, it is sinful my friend. Repentance is neededless

sorry JB, I don't follow in your footsteps and lie and hate continually as you do. But keep it up, you remove all doubt when you continue to troll CP spreading hate and lies and attempting to say others are doing what you are doing. Old tired tactics you bring, wisdom and truth you do not possess...

Proph, Of course you are familiar with it, JB displays it virtually every day on CP when he hates God and people enough to continually lie to others. We ALL see that from JB and some others...