| Christian Apologetics A forum to discuss the systematic defense of the Christian belief system with other Christians. |
 | | 
24th May 2009, 09:33 PM
|  | Psalms 23
39    
| | Join Date: 1st March 2009 Location: Montgomery, AL
Posts: 2,097
Blessings: 1,092,221 My Mood 
Reps: 24,083,028,636,731,672 (power: 24,083,028,636,736) | | Originally Posted by Matthewj1985  Ehrman actually mentions something funny about this that he does in his class. On the first day he asks his students "Who thinks the bible is the inspired word of the creator of the universe", almost all hands shoot up. He the asks "who has read one of the Harry Potter books or the Da Vinci Code" to which many hands go up. He then asks "Who has read the bible cover to cover" to which very few hands go up. He then asks "if you really do think you have the inspired word of God at your fingertips why the heck would you not read it"?
Thats a good question, and its a shame more Christians have not read the Bible. It would help if more of us did so we could learn more about what God is trying to tell us. I just recently finished reading the Bible for the first time all the way thru. I had thought I had learned all I could when I was younger about the Bible. But while I read it God showed me my spiritual maturity was just beginning. I read it for the love of my God and to seek his truth. He has revealed more to me in the last two and a half years than I have ever known about Him since I have decided to seek Him out in my heart. I find answers to life that others overlook as they attempt to disprove what God has revealed to them in the Bible.
__________________
Matthew 11:28 (KJV)
"Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest."
Psalms 139:23-24 (KJV)
"Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts: And see if there be any
wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting." |
24th May 2009, 11:04 PM
|  | Contributor
68    
 | | Join Date: 10th June 2008 Location: Maryborough, QLD, Australia
Posts: 7,692
Blessings: 1,406,482
Reps: 294,981,184,141,909,888 (power: 294,981,184,141,920) | | Originally Posted by Matthewj1985 Ehrman actually mentions something funny about this that he does in his class. On the first day he asks his students "Who thinks the bible is the inspired word of the creator of the universe", almost all hands shoot up. He the asks "who has read one of the Harry Potter books or the Da Vinci Code" to which many hands go up. He then asks "Who has read the bible cover to cover" to which very few hands go up. He then asks "if you really do think you have the inspired word of God at your fingertips why the heck would you not read it"?
Neat party trick but hardly conclusive.
I have never read Da Vinci or HP - where does that leave me?
But then again, I've never read the Bible. I seem to get bogged down in some piece of scripture which takes two or three years to work my way through. At the moment I'm in James. I suspect I'll be there for another year or so.
__________________
Not all those who wander are lost |
24th May 2009, 11:31 PM
|  | Woe those who call evil good + good evil. Is 5:20
37  
| | Join Date: 29th July 2007
Posts: 5,825
Blessings: 21,069,529
Reps: 398,724,314,321,260,160 (power: 398,724,314,321,270) | | Originally Posted by wayseer I have never read Da Vinci or HP - where does that leave me?
According to the apparent logic of this Ehrman fellow, it means those books are useless, and since you read the Bible it is inspired. |
25th May 2009, 04:41 AM
|  | Regular Member
 
| | Join Date: 15th October 2005 Location: Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Posts: 3,117
Blessings: 4,098,299 My Mood 
Reps: 77,190,266,873,464,144 (power: 77,190,266,873,474) | | Wayseer, Hmmmm...... How can you have 'historical verification' if you are claiming particular pieces of history as 'God breathed'?
You have jumbled the steps that I stated. |
25th May 2009, 04:49 AM
| | Regular Member
| | Join Date: 15th October 2005 Location: Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Posts: 3,117
Blessings: 4,098,299 My Mood
Reps: 77,190,266,873,464,144 (power: 77,190,266,873,474) | | Richterforest, Thats a good question, and its a shame more Christians have not read the Bible. It would help if more of us did so we could learn more about what God is trying to tell us. I just recently finished reading the Bible for the first time all the way thru. I had thought I had learned all I could when I was younger about the Bible. But while I read it God showed me my spiritual maturity was just beginning. I read it for the love of my God and to seek his truth. He has revealed more to me in the last two and a half years than I have ever known about Him since I have decided to seek Him out in my heart. I find answers to life that others overlook as they attempt to disprove what God has revealed to them in the Bible.
Thank you for a delightful confirmation of what happens when you take the Bible seriously and because of your love for God. With all the doubt that has been expressed in this thread, your post was a breath of fresh air. May God encourage you in your commitment to Him. I look forward to reading more of your posts on this Forum.
I accept what God says about His Word: "All Scripture is breathed out by God" (2 Time. 3:16).
What has caused you to be impacted by the Word of God? I'd be interested in what motivated you to read the Bible right through. I try to do it over a 2-year period. I'm a bit behind at the moment. Reading through some of the passages of the Pentateuch and the historical books of the OT can be a challenge at times. But all of these Scriptures are "breathed out by God" and are profitable while they sometimes seem laborious when reading through them.
You were such a blessing to me. |
25th May 2009, 07:51 AM
| | Is Prayer Your First or Last Action?
40  
| | Join Date: 15th September 2007
Posts: 15,021
Blessings: 1,120,367
Reps: 88,668,966,576,487,184 (power: 88,668,966,576,507) | | That's not Ehrman's point or logic. The question is designed to reveal how people do not stand behind the claim. Originally Posted by MrPolo According to the apparent logic of this Ehrman fellow, it means those books are useless, and since you read the Bible it is inspired.
__________________
The only reason I am not pure evil is because it is impossible for a human to achieve perfection. |
25th May 2009, 08:03 AM
| | Is Prayer Your First or Last Action?
40
| | Join Date: 15th September 2007
Posts: 15,021
Blessings: 1,120,367
Reps: 88,668,966,576,487,184 (power: 88,668,966,576,507) | | Reading the bible is great but doing it without some fundamentals can be more harmful than if it wasn't read at all. Misinformation can be unwittingly spread thus accidental false witnessing about scripture is almost guaranteed. Ie: the tax question posed to Jesus is often claimed as evidence Jesus said to pay taxes. Another is claiming homosexuality played a role in the destruction of two unknown cities. Originally Posted by richterforest Thats a good question, and its a shame more Christians have not read the Bible. It would help if more of us did so we could learn more about what God is trying to tell us. I just recently finished reading the Bible for the first time all the way thru. I had thought I had learned all I could when I was younger about the Bible. But while I read it God showed me my spiritual maturity was just beginning. I read it for the love of my God and to seek his truth. He has revealed more to me in the last two and a half years than I have ever known about Him since I have decided to seek Him out in my heart. I find answers to life that others overlook as they attempt to disprove what God has revealed to them in the Bible.
__________________
The only reason I am not pure evil is because it is impossible for a human to achieve perfection. |
25th May 2009, 09:06 AM
| | Regular Member
| | Join Date: 15th October 2005 Location: Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Posts: 3,117
Blessings: 4,098,299 My Mood
Reps: 77,190,266,873,464,144 (power: 77,190,266,873,474) | | RealDeal, Reading the bible is great but doing it without some fundamentals can be more harmful than if it wasn't read at all. Misinformation can be unwittingly spread thus accidental false witnessing about scripture is almost guaranteed. Ie: the tax question posed to Jesus is often claimed as evidence Jesus said to pay taxes. Another is claiming homosexuality played a role in the destruction of two unknown cities.
This statement comes loaded with your presuppositions, which include:
1. Reading the Bible can be harmful if read by itself, without "some fundamentals" (are these your assumptions also?)
2. Misinformation could be spread from reading the Bible without your kind of "fundamentals";
3. Accidental false witnessing about Scripture is "almost guaranteed" without your kind of fundamentals;
4. It is wrong to suggest that homosexuality had any role in "the destruction of two unknown cities." This is another one of your presuppositions that is contrary to the historical fact of what caused the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah (Genesis 19:23ff).
This latter point is an example of audacity, I believe. Here's why. Even if Sodom & Gomorrah have not been discovered by archaeologists, that should not be of major concern.
The way you are trying to justify your scepticism about the veracity of the biblical records is by indicating that because names of cities and the reason for their destruction because of homosexuality have not been found, you are basing your claim on the fact that there are no other extant secular records to these events, thus demonstrating your wanting to treat the Bible as inferior. But wait a minute!
You seem to be assuming that because these two cities recorded in Genesis 19 are not elsewhere, then they did not exist and that homosexuality's association with their destruction is false.
You need to be reminded that the number of unverified events and places from the biblical record has been reduced considerably by archaeological discoveries in the last 150 years. If you go back to 1850, many scholars were so confident that the Hittites and the Horites of Sargon II of Assyria and Belshazzar of Chaldean Babylon, or even Sodom and Gomorrah, were not historical.
However, all of these places and groups have more recently become accepted by scholars. Why? They have been found in ancient documents discovered over the last 150 years.
Scepticism about the historical statements in Scripture has been demonstrated to be unjustified. Cynicism towards the Bible's accuracy has been found to come crashing down on the basis of the Bible's history being proven to be accurate over and over.
A much more solid approach would be to consider the Bible to be an excellent record of history in light of archaeological findings. I suggest that the more scholarly approach would be: Assume that any biblical record is accurate and dependable until proven otherwise.
Up to this point in history, the Bible's record has stood the test of historical and archaeological investigation with solid integrity. To my knowledge, no biblical record has been proven to be false by any spade of the archaeologist.
Are there cities, etc. that have not been found? Of course! But up to this point, I have a Bible in my hand that will withstand the best of historical scrutinies. |
25th May 2009, 09:49 AM
| | Is Prayer Your First or Last Action?
40
| | Join Date: 15th September 2007
Posts: 15,021
Blessings: 1,120,367
Reps: 88,668,966,576,487,184 (power: 88,668,966,576,507) | | Please do not put words in my mouth. I didn't claim the bible is inferior nor have I denied the destruction of the cities. There's more but lam short on time at the moment and very short on patience. Again, please do not put words in my mouth Originally Posted by OzSpen RealDeal,
This statement comes loaded with your presuppositions, which include:
1. Reading the Bible can be harmful if read by itself, without "some fundamentals" (are these your assumptions also?)
2. Misinformation could be spread from reading the Bible without your kind of "fundamentals";
3. Accidental false witnessing about Scripture is "almost guaranteed" without your kind of fundamentals;
4. It is wrong to suggest that homosexuality had any role in "the destruction of two unknown cities." This is another one of your presuppositions that is contrary to the historical fact of what caused the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah (Genesis 19:23ff).
This latter point is an example of audacity, I believe. Here's why. Even if Sodom & Gomorrah have not been discovered by archaeologists, that should not be of major concern.
The way you are trying to justify your scepticism about the veracity of the biblical records is by indicating that because names of cities and the reason for their destruction because of homosexuality have not been found, you are basing your claim on the fact that there are no other extant secular records to these events, thus demonstrating your wanting to treat the Bible as inferior. But wait a minute!
You seem to be assuming that because these two cities recorded in Genesis 19 are not elsewhere, then they did not exist and that homosexuality's association with their destruction is false.
You need to be reminded that the number of unverified events and places from the biblical record has been reduced considerably by archaeological discoveries in the last 150 years. If you go back to 1850, many scholars were so confident that the Hittites and the Horites of Sargon II of Assyria and Belshazzar of Chaldean Babylon, or even Sodom and Gomorrah, were not historical.
However, all of these places and groups have more recently become accepted by scholars. Why? They have been found in ancient documents discovered over the last 150 years.
Scepticism about the historical statements in Scripture has been demonstrated to be unjustified. Cynicism towards the Bible's accuracy has been found to come crashing down on the basis of the Bible's history being proven to be accurate over and over.
A much more solid approach would be to consider the Bible to be an excellent record of history in light of archaeological findings. I suggest that the more scholarly approach would be: Assume that any biblical record is accurate and dependable until proven otherwise.
Up to this point in history, the Bible's record has stood the test of historical and archaeological investigation with solid integrity. To my knowledge, no biblical record has been proven to be false by any spade of the archaeologist.
Are there cities, etc. that have not been found? Of course! But up to this point, I have a Bible in my hand that will withstand the best of historical scrutinies.
__________________
The only reason I am not pure evil is because it is impossible for a human to achieve perfection. |
25th May 2009, 02:09 PM
| | Woe those who call evil good + good evil. Is 5:20
37
| | Join Date: 29th July 2007
Posts: 5,825
Blessings: 21,069,529
Reps: 398,724,314,321,260,160 (power: 398,724,314,321,270) | | Originally Posted by RealDealNeverstop That's not Ehrman's point or logic. The question is designed to reveal how people do not stand behind the claim.
Well...calling people out to be hypocrites isn't an argument one way or another as to whether Scripture is inspired. It tells us nothing about the inspiration of Scripture, and I think Ehrman is using a "Bill Maher" style bait and switch to try to discredit Christianity. There are a lot of great Christians throughout history who have even memorized the Bible. But who knows...I'm only going by what I'm told about the man here by his fans. | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
