2/7/10

Accurately Quoting Bart Ehrman, part 2

This post has been moved to True Freethinker were it resides at this link

Share |

TwitThis

Posted by Ken
Labels: , , , ,

5 comments:

  1. MaskedMarauderFebruary 7, 2010 at 8:41 AM

    Mariano:

    Why don't you blow Jesus dry!

    ReplyDelete
  2. BathTubFebruary 7, 2010 at 2:00 PM

    Um 'it's a big one' because it's an entire story added into the book of John. It's an addition over two chapters, and it's the origin of some well known theological ideas, like 'casting the first stone'.

    So in the scale of things including spelling mistakes, or word switches, and small alterations, yes 'it's a big one'.

    ReplyDelete
  3. mmcelhaneyFebruary 7, 2010 at 6:24 PM

    @MakedMarauder

    Mariano is too busy refuting Ehrman and making u look bad.

    @BathTub:

    If you take the story out, does it matter or have any effect on doctrine or theology? Nope.

    ReplyDelete
  4. BathTubFebruary 7, 2010 at 6:37 PM

    And? The point was that the vast majority of the edits/alterations/mistakes etc are tiny. In scale an entire story of many verses over 2 chapters is comparatively 'big'. Is there really any debate there?

    ReplyDelete
  5. ChrisFebruary 8, 2010 at 10:34 AM

    @bathtub:

    Um 'it's a big one' because it's an entire story added into the book of John.

    As was pointed out by Marcus, even if it were granted to you, it changes nothing in light of doctrine.

    It's an addition over two chapters,

    Not quite, it spans 12 verses. The last verse of John 7 and the first 11 verses of John 8. It's a short passage that doesn't even span a complete chapter, let alone two.

    and it's the origin of some well known theological ideas, like 'casting the first stone'.

    Hardly. The whole issue of casting the first stone comes from Deuteronomy 17:2-7 and elsewhere. You see it in action in Acts 7:58 Further Romans 2 discusses the issue that no one is without sin and the moral man is just as guilty as the natural man.

    So in the scale of things including spelling mistakes, or word switches, and small alterations, yes 'it's a big one'.

    On the scale of things, its minor, and the claim has little to no foundation. The text is referenced plenty by early church fathers. Most of those references are earlier than the very manuscripts used to reject the passage. The earliest record of any doubt regarding the passage doesn't come about until a thousand years after the fact.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)