Evidence for God from Science

FWIW too, I have the main "spotlight" review for Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus on Amazon.

It's here for any who wish to take a look at it.

http://www.amazon.com/review/R3L9D4Y81N ... &linkCode=

Canuckster1127 wrote:FWIW too, I have the main "spotlight" review for Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus on Amazon.

It's here for any who wish to take a look at it.

http://www.amazon.com/review/R3L9D4Y81N ... &linkCode=

I bought "Misquoting Jesus" and found the first part very interesting. The rest of it put me in a tail-spin that lasted for about 3 days, until I began reading other scholars opinions of his book.

http://www.tektonics.org/books/ehrqurvw.html

http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blog ... us_31.html

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=3452

I really feel sorry for Bart. He lost his faith, but he told me personally he is happier with what he believes now -- he's an Agnostic.

Even his own wife doesn't agree with his conclusions.

But I'm sure he makes a lot of money writing books.

I read in one of my books about a Christian (I think he was a Pastor) who after reading some book that challenged his beliefs -- beliefs he held more of his life -- he was so upset he committed suicide.

After reading some of the scholarly reviews of Misquoting Jesus, I wonder if Bart Ehrman knows the consequence of some of the stuff he has written.

Bart did tell me that Bruce Metzger was a good example that being a textual critic does not have to destroy one's faith, but what about the novices like the average Christian who does not have the resources I have?

Canuckster1127 wrote:FWIW too, I have the main "spotlight" review for Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus on Amazon.

It's here for any who wish to take a look at it.

http://www.amazon.com/review/R3L9D4Y81N ... &linkCode=

I'm sure I read your review before I bought the book. Thanks for identifying yourself as the author of that review.

That's neat that you know Ehrman as well and have spoken with him. I haven't. I haven't read any more of him since then, but I should. He's made a transition from academic writer to popular author in this field and that's not an easy thing to do, even if I'm not with him on many of his conclusions.

Canuckster1127 wrote:That's neat that you know Ehrman as well and have spoken with him. I haven't. I haven't read any more of him since then, but I should. He's made a transition from academic writer to popular author in this field and that's not an easy thing to do, even if I'm not with him on many of his conclusions.

Some years ago I had a question for him based on something he supposedly said. I emailed him and asked the question. He answered right away.

We had about 5 exchanges. I must admit that I was disappointed in him -- what he wrote in some of his books -- Misquoting Jesus for instance. All my contacts with him were before I read Misquoting Jesus. I bought 7 of his books.

I'm sure he'd answer you as well.

Problem is I really like him! He seemed so stiff at first, but then softened up.

But, I am mad at him right now. LOL

PS: Have you read "Misquoting Truth" (A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus) by Timothy Paul Jones? I have that book, too.

@Christian2 Hi dyeager. I just read the article you cited. I would like to add something Bart Ehrman said in his book, "Misquoting Jesus."

"The King James Version is filled with places in which the translators rendered a Greek text derived ultimately from Erasmus's edition..."

I'm not sure what Ehrman means by "filled" --- it's true Textus Receptus Revelation has some Greek translated from Latin, instead of copying the original text.

As to Ehrman's scholarship, I think it rests on quicksand (at best); I've written on it a few times if you're interested in problems with Ehrman's positions.

My position on Bible translation comes closer to the "Majority Text" position, commonly labeled Textus Receptus (even though that's not exactly correct, more people are familiar with it, same as using Westcott & Hort instead of UBS or Nestle-Aland) --- loosely called "Byzantine". The majority of texts exist in the Byzantine line, while the Alexandrian line relies on fewer (one of which was dug out of the trash).

Since the major differences occur between Alexandrian and Byzantine lines, the following are *roughly* equivalent:

* Byzantine, Textus Receptus, Majority
* Alexandrian, Westcott & Hort, UBS, Nestle-Aland, Critical

For specifics, the 1967 Scofield KJV would be preferred, followed by the NKJV, but any translation based on the Byzantine line would be acceptable (if reasonable translation methods are used).

In other words, it's not KJV-Only by any means, but definitely a rejection the Alexandrian versions of Westcott & Hort for reasons the previous article details.

In short, I get disagreements from both extremes --- the KJV-Only side, and the Westcott-Hort side!

Nice to meet you dyeager and welcome to the forum.

I got the impression at first glance too that you might be coming from a KJV only position, but when I started to answer you in that vein, I looked closer at your post and realized you weren't.

What do you positively argue for in tems of the best textual foundation to translate from. Is there a particular overall method you advocate or is it on a case by case basis?

What would you say about this document?

http://www.holybible.com/resources/vers ... _chart.htm

It looks like it was produced by the King James Only person.

I looked quick at the main page and it is a KJV Only site.

It's looks like a good catalog of differences. THe intent of the author is obviously with the intent of the KJV established as a standard and an indictment against the other translations. It could equally serve as a demonstration of the deficiencies of the Textus Receptus and the translation into 1611 english, versus modern English.

@Canuckster1127 What do you positively argue for in tems of the best textual foundation to translate from. Is there a particular overall method you advocate or is it on a case by case basis?

Well, I'm mainly in the Majority camp. The "pure" Textus Receptus has some issues regarding using the Latin (like in Revelation), but I'd take the Byzantine line over the Alexandrian one. Since the majority of texts occur in the Byzantine line, I prefer it.

Normally, I call it Textus Receptus because that's what people understand, but really I favor more of a majority text. Any translation using decent methods on the Majority text I'd likely find acceptable.

Specifically, I like the 1967 Scofield KJV, which drives the KJV-Only people crazy. Or the NKJV. If I'm dealing with a new Christian, I get them a New Living Translation, and then tell them when they're used to reading the Bible and Christan terminology, get a NKJV to be on a more literal foundation.

The KJV is a good (arguably the best) translation, but I don't see any evidence it's inspired by God and should be on the same plane as the original Greek as the KJV-Only people claim --- like any translation, it's got its problems.

The other reason I like it is it's *stable*. For memory work, I think we can be confident it's going to be around for a while, while the ASV, RSV, and the latest fads seem to lack staying power. Even the NIV is going to disappear soon, to be replaced by the TNIV in 2011. So if you've done memory work in the NIV, in 2011 you'll find it no longer matches the text.

Finally, I grew up when it was basically only KJV and RSV, and just like the way KJV reads

I like the KJV too and I grew up with it, so I understand that. I think the Alexandrian line is more reliable overall than the Byzantine in terms of comparison and based on textual methodology, which obviousl includes most of Westcott and Hort, but then I recognize as well that those are guidelines not absolutes and have to be subjected in the end to the situations of the text itself.

Almost all of my memory work growing up was KJV and I understand how that becomes the basis for standardization on something of an emotional level too. When I hear familiar passages in other translations, it just doesn't sound "right."

Anyway, again, glad you're here and welcome to our community.

bart