Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Happened to come across this little video from 2015.
Do such changes make any difference to your regard of the Bible?
Absolutely not. As I first listened to the video, I found it highly suspect. When it then quoted Bert Erhman, an agnostic atheist, it simply sealed the reality that it is a biased video.Happened to come across this little video from 2015.
Do such changes make any difference to your regard of the Bible?
Absolutely yes. It allows it to be understood in a rational context instead of a magical context which tries to make the book something of supernatural origins. The latter magical/mythical context demands that those who think in in terms of critical thought suspend such nagging questions of contradictions and instead try to find creative means to either explain them away or deny they exist. The former rational/scientific context allows the contradictions to stand while not demanding the sacrifice of critical understandings for the sake of faith. In other words, "faith in the Bible" is not a prerequisite of faith for those who embrace what a modern understanding of the texts reveals. Faith is not based in magical stories taken as literal facts of science and history for them.Do such changes make any difference to your regard of the Bible?
Simply put, the ones that advanced the standardized system of beliefs that they could administer more easily were deemed valid texts, and others that weren't were deemed heretical. Think of it as editors who cut out the director's visions of the movie in order to make it something they knew they could more easily market to the widest range of audiences without going over their heads too much. The editing process crafted a different sort of movie than what was originally put on to their cutting-room tables before it got released into theaters. Something like that.I sometimes wondered how they edited the Bible, why they include some books, but then exclude others or regard them as "apocryphal." How do they tell which books are "official" and which ones are "apocryphal"?
I mean, it's all "apocryphal," isn't it?
Am I the only one who believes he made people at least before animals.Happened to come across this little video from 2015.
Do such changes make any difference to your regard of the Bible?
that's interesting cause I was also of the thought that Jesus came as He and they didn't recognize him because many believed in evolution constantly and thought of Jesus too.Happened to come across this little video from 2015.
Do such changes make any difference to your regard of the Bible?
The Theory of Evolution was not believed by anyone back then. No one even knew what that was. It wasn't until the time of Charles Darwin in the 1800's that anyone "believed" in evolution when he proposed it based on observations. Quit trying to demonize something you have no understanding of, blaming it for everything that scares you.that's interesting cause I was also of the thought that Jesus came as He and they didn't recognize him because many believed in evolution constantly and thought of Jesus too.
Which makes some sense of why nero went too far believed evolution to being inside your head and whatever else out there.
Judging an entire video by the remarks of just one of its sources isn't very broadminded, particularly when that source has excellent credentials.Absolutely not. As I first listened to the video, I found it highly suspect. When it then quoted Bert Erhman, an agnostic atheist, it simply sealed the reality that it is a biased video.
A true study of the matter, would have given both sides of a position and not tilt it towards a biased position.
Ah ha, a bit of innuendo. So what bias is this, and what is your evidence that it would affect the validity of what is presented in the video?NPR isn't exactly a unbiased source.
As I recall, translations were often done at the behest of some monarch or other reigning authority, religious and otherwise, and necessarily reflected the particular theology of that authority.I sometimes wondered how they edited the Bible, why they include some books, but then exclude others or regard them as "apocryphal." How do they tell which books are "official" and which ones are "apocryphal"?
I mean, it's all "apocryphal," isn't it?
That's a GREAT question.... Not sure what Bible you are using, but does Mark have the "Lord's Prayer"? It may be the reason it isn't found in the oldest copy. I'm not sure it is in the newest copy eitherBTW, the ending of what became called the "Lord's Prayer" in Mark does have an ending that isn't found in the oldest copy ("... for Thine is the kingdom...").
I am aware of his credentials... have a book by him. But much like some of the Pharisees in the times of Jesus, you can know a lot and miss the point entirely. As an agnostic atheist... he definitely missed it.Judging an entire video by the remarks of just one of its sources isn't very broadminded, particularly when that source has excellent credentials.
FYI.
Professor Ehrman completed his M.Div. and Ph.D. degrees at Princeton Seminary, where his 1985 doctoral dissertation was awarded magna cum laude.
Bart D. Ehrman has written or edited thirty books, including five New York Times bestsellers: How Jesus Became God, Misquoting Jesus, God’s Problem, Jesus Interrupted and Forged. Ehrman is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and is a leading authority on the New Testament and the history of early Christianity.
His work has been featured in Time, the New Yorker, the Washington Post and other print media, and he has appeared on NBC’s Dateline, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, CNN, The History Channel, National Geographic, the Discovery Channel, the BBC, major NPR shows, and other top media outlets.
source
During his graduate studies, however, he became convinced that there are contradictions and discrepancies in the biblical manuscripts that could not be harmonized or reconciled. He remained a liberal Christian for 15 years but later became an agnostic atheist after struggling with the philosophical problems of evil and suffering.
Source: Wikipedia
Think that just because he was unable to overcome a particular philosophical problem with Christianity theology that it taints his exceptional scholarship and objectivity with the "nuts and bolts" of the religion? ......................... No doubt you do.
Ah ha, a bit of innuendo. So what bias is this, and what is your evidence that it would affect the validity of what is presented in the video?
.
By which I assume you're implying that had he remained a Christian he wouldn't have missed it. Interesting connection you're making here.I am aware of his credentials... have a book by him. But much like some of the Pharisees in the times of Jesus, you can know a lot and miss the point entirely. As an agnostic atheist... he definitely missed it.
Brilliant...By which I assume you're implying that had he remained a Christian he wouldn't have missed it. Interesting connection you're making here.
.
Yep, I got the wrong source.That's a GREAT question.... Not sure what Bible you are using, but does Mark have the "Lord's Prayer"? It may be the reason it isn't found in the oldest copy. I'm not sure it is in the newest copy either