Posts
I find it always a shame that every year as we near the Paschal season some pseudo-scholar has to come out with a new book trying destroy the historic Christian Faith. This years pseudo-scholar is Bart Erhman who is hilariously interviewed and even challenged by Steven Colbert on the apparent allegation that Scripture is filled with contradictions and therefore untrustworthy, as well he is challenged on the doctrine of the Holy Trinity which Erhman denies:
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Bart Ehrman | ||||
| ||||
As one of my professors, Dr. Norman Geisler in 'When Critics Ask', says: The Bible is without mistake, but the critics are not. All their allegations of error in the Bible are based on some error of their own. Their mistakes fall into the following main categories.
1. Assuming that the unexplained is not explainable
2. Presuming the Bible guilty until proven innocent
3. Confusing our fallible interpretations with God's infallible revelation
4. Failing to understand the context of the passage.
5. Neglecting to interpret difficult passages in the light of clear ones
6. Basing a teaching on an obscure passage
7. Forgetting that the Bible is a human book with human characteristics
8. Assuming that a partial report is a false report
9. Demanding that NT citations of the OT always be exact quotations
10. Assuming that divergent accounts are false ones
11. Presuming that the Bible approves of all its records
12. Forgetting that the Bible uses non-technical, everyday language
13. Assuming that round numbers are false
14. Neglecting to note that the bible uses different literary devices
15. Forgetting that only the original text, not every copy of scripture, is without error
16. Confusing general statements with universal ones
17. Forgetting that latter revelation supersedes previous revelation
John,
ReplyDeleteI saw a debate on the reliability of the New Testament he did with Daniel Wallace. He is an example of someone who "lost" their faith as they became educated in the liberal Protestant machinery.
After the debate he dialogued with top scholars from all over the world. They kept mentioning his personal testimony in their discussions/debates. He finally complained, "can be talk about the content of my books and not my life." A certain scholar quipped, "you placed your religious journey prominently in your books, therefore you made it part of this discussion." Needless to say Ehrman was not amused by the truthful retort.
-Cyril
From the many debates Ive seen him in, including one in person a few years ago,Ehrman doesn't come off as a very amusing man. He went to highly conservative seminaries that required belief in the inerrancy of Scripture. It was the issue of inerrancy that troubled him and overturned his testimony. His scholarship is basically a reaction to his early seminary training and they go hand in hand. And his scholarship is based on the presuppositions that miracles do not happen and God does not exist, or at least you can't factor these into a historical model. By denying one philosophical presupposition for his own, his own historical model becomes self-refuting to the point of meaninglessness. And somehow he is making a lot of money being self-refuting and meaningless.
ReplyDeleteJohn
That was funny. It's too bad that folks like this give up the very thing that they need to find joy and meaning in this life that is sinking as i write. God bless him that he finds his joy.
ReplyDeleteDemetris