"Misquoting Jesus"

[champion110]

Let me start out by stating that I am a Christian, as many of you know. I am not a ultra conservative Christian, however, and am not a fundamentalist. I believe that the Bible is interpreted in different ways by different people. We need God to help us interpret the Bible in prayer and it has been misinterpreted throughout history. Sometimes misinterpreted by people for good and sometimes for bad. We grow up in a certain church and in a certain culture, usually dictated by a region that we live in. We listen to our preacher and friends within our culture. That dictates our understanding of the Bible many times. It is difficult to step away from that cultural view and get to a real meaning sometimes. We may think we are going in the right direction and we are not. There is a movement, of which many of you belong, that takes every word literal that you read in the Bible. I believe, on the other hand, that the Bible is a guide, but is often misinterpreted by mainstream religion. Sometimes this is an innocent mistake to begin with and, sometimes, it has political motives.

Anyway, there is a book out now by a once ultra conservative Christian that was the Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill - Bert D. Ehrman. The name of the book is called "Misquoting Jesus". I have not read the book yet, but am going to read it. I think it will be extremely interesting.

I know that some of you will not give it a second thought, because it could challenge some of your beliefs. However, I believe that challenge is good. I like to read everyting that I can, no matter if I agree with it or not. Here is a link to a short summary of the book:
http://www.harpercollins.com/global_...sbn=0060738170

Tell me what you think. Don't just blast me because I think it is interesting, though.

[Dirtydawg]

I might read it if it's not too long simply so I can see what he has to say in order to see if it is truly unbiased or if he is simply putting his spin on it. I truly feel that there are those who have succumbed to the influence of Satan that were once strong in their faith and now are buying into the more "intellectual" movements of religion, especially Christianity, and are now going public using their credentials to profit from their new dissenting views. Somehow, I find it incredibly amazing, or should I say incredulosly amazing, that this man was an esteemed scholar for a very long time and only recently is learning about the translation methods of the Bible and the influence early scribes had on it. After reading the following paragraph from the summary of the book, I have to wonder just how accurate his translations are. Here is the paragraph:

Since the advent of the printing press and the accurate reproduction of texts, most people have assumed that when they read the New Testament they are reading an exact copy of Jesus's words or Saint Paul's writings. And yet, for almost fifteen hundred years these manuscripts were hand copied by scribes who were deeply influenced by the cultural, theological, and political disputes of their day. Both mistakes and intentional changes abound in the surviving manuscripts, making the original words difficult to reconstruct. For the first time, Ehrman reveals where and why these changes were made and how scholars go about reconstructing the original words of the New Testament as closely as possible.

Apparently, the originals are no longer in existence, so all that one has left to use are copies that were made by the scribes who, according to Ehrman, have made both intentional changes and inadvertent mistakes. I don't necessarily dispute that claim. The question I have, is if that is all he has to go by, how can he claim that he really knows what the originals were to have said? All he can do is see what the surviving manuscripts, with all their flaws, say and state that it in his opinion that in some areas certain passages were really to have said something else and is instead a mistake. What makes him so much more correct than the others? How can he say with final authority that he knows what passages were mis-copied? I don't believe he can. I think he needs to make some money, and he is taking advantage of the crusade against Christianity to do it. Unfortunately, he might just get some of my money, although, I might see if the library has a copy.

Now, onto one of your points, Champ. I've made this statement before, but I'll restate it as been years and other bulletin boards since. I think that because of Jesus' use of parables that people mistakenly think that the entire Bible, especially the New Testament, is open for interpretation. That is not the case. Regardless of whether the current interpretations are correct or not, about the only parts that are allegorical or the parables. The rest is definitive statements that should be taken at face value. I find it interesting that those who feel that the Bible is up for interpretation only accept the interpretations that fit their qualifications. When I give my son a directive, it is not up for intepretation. The same is true for the Bible.

When you open up the epistles and Gospels to interpretation, you allow them to change with the times and be influenced by the values and morals prevalent in those times. That is not how the Bible is to be accepted. The Bible is the Word of God with one of His most known qualities. God is immutable, which means unchangeable. As such, His word reflects His quality. It is unchangeable. It is not to be warped and shaped to fit the desires and whims of man which is what happens when accepted as mere interpretations of whoever is reading it at the time. Christ as the only way to the Father is as true for dogtek as it is for me regardless of whether I'm comfortable with that or not. Regardless of how much disdain I have for him, it's comforting to know that Christ loves him as much as He does me and does not base His redemptive sacrifice on what man wants Him to, but rather offers it to all. That's comforting because I know there are those with much disdain towards me who will not be able to affect my salvation. When we are told we have been justified and sanctified through Christ, it is true and no one or nothing can interject their or its meaning on that to change it from the simple truth. There is no societal stipulation that can be put on that to require a person to be a certain way to receive that gift. It just is as are the rest of the truths in the Bible.

I love you Champ, and I really do fear that you are allowing yourself to be misled, and it hurts my heart. I truly feel there is no one on the board who is more full of love than you. I'm sure you feel the same way about me and everyone else, well except for being more full of love . However, I do take comfort in the fact that, as far as I can tell, you accept Christ as your Lord and Savior and the Son of God which is really all you need to do to be with our Father. Keep reading, as will I, and I will pray that neither of us will be tempted by the Deceiver to insert what we want to believe as opposed to what we should believe.

[champion110]

Thanks for the post, Dirty. I agree with many of your points. I am going to buy the book, because this subject really interests me. Nothing will shake my faith in Christ, though. That will always be there.

My only interest in this is seeing how so many people use the Bible as a weapon against the political topic of the day. I have always known that there are different translations and those translations have been handed down time after time, with some interpreting. That is why, I try my best to pray as I read the Bible and ask for guidance. I try not to just listen to what others around me say. That is why I have a different take on some things than some others on here. I don't know if I am right or not, but I would rather trust what is in my heart than some people on here and that goes for some of the fundamentalist Christians out there right now.

You are right about the author not having any more information about what the original stated than anyone else. I just want to know how different some of the later translations are to what we have now.

He was interviewed on NPR yesterday. I didn't catch the whole thing, though. I only caught the last 10 minutes, but that was enough for me to go look up the book.

Again, thanks for the post. Maybe, if you read it, we can compare what we think. I have put it on my Christmas list.

[Rooster]

Sounds like a good read. I am a Christian and a capitalist. My Christian beliefs I received from a strict Catholic upbringing, now I go to a Southern Baptist Church. I have never questioned the being of God. I have questioned why people w/ good jobs and Christian values can't be pregnant, but 12 year olds can. That is just one example of how I used to think. Then I have learned in my young 29 years, who in the heck am I to question the almighty. I have had spiritual peaks and valleys, and through it all, it goes back to one issue. Jesus is the son and only son of God, he died on a cross for our sins. God is real. I have had too many prayers answered, and too many events that were not coincidences (misspelled I think). I do like to read, of course they are mostly Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, Ann Colter, Bill O'Reilly, Larry Elder books. :icon_wink This does look like a book I may try. Thanks for the link.

[champion110]

Looks like a book club forming.:icon_wink

[Dwayne From Minden]

Anyway, there is a book out now by a once ultra conservative Christian that was the Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill - Bert D. Ehrman. The name of the book is called "Misquoting Jesus". I have not read the book yet, but am going to read it. I think it will be extremely interesting.

He might have been a self-PROFESSED ultra conservative - but odds are that if he held a Chair at UNC - he was far from "conservative"...

Now if it would have said Duke - then my original thoughts might have been different -

UNC is a renowned bastion of liberal thinking - some say it borders on socialism/communism...

[sik-m-boi]

... Somehow, I find it incredibly amazing, or should I say incredulosly amazing, that this man was an esteemed scholar for a very long time and only recently is learning about the translation methods of the Bible and the influence early scribes had on it...

i agree with your statement...but the man does have the credentials.

http://www.unc.edu/depts/rel_stud/faculty/Ehrman1.html
http://www.unc.edu/depts/rel_stud/fa...EhrmanCV1.html

also, here's the npr stuff...i have not listened to it yet (they are both audio files)...maybe i'll get to it tomorrow:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=1703612
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=1551896

[champion110]

I hope some others on here get the book. Maybe we could get together before a game next year and discuss it. On second thought, it doesn't sound like good tailgaiting discussion. Maybe we could discuss it on here. :icon_wink

[TechDawgMc]

I hope for the author's sake, that it's the guy who wrote up the review who's showing his ignorance here. I suspect the review is just a publicity blurb from a hack from Harper Collins marketing group. The notion that any understanding of the fact that there are "copies of copies" is new is just silly.

The texts we have consider all of the copies and all of the variations. They are a consensus of very good scholars from a broad spectrum of viewpoints (with probably more leaning liberal than leaning conservative) about what is the most likely original text. Anyone who looks at those texts gets exposed to the significant variations and possibilities. Whatever the book actually claims, I doubt it claims what the reviewer says it does.

There are two seriously contested passages in the gospels: the last half of Mark 16 and the Luke passage telling the story of woman caught in adultery. Neither of those have any real bearing on such things as the resurrection, the Virgin birth, etc.

There is seldom any money to be made in academic publishing. Prestige is often dolled out by doing something "new" however. Still, you have to be very careful about the difference between what a scholare actually claims, and what reporters who aren't scholars sometimes say they claim. See the whole Da Vinci Code silliness for another example

[aubunique]

Dirty, where is the crusade against Christianity? I assume you are talking about the Muslim terrorists who are willing to blow themselves up to kill others of whatever religious or political bent.

The effort to be inclusive and open-minded isn't a crusade against Christianity. The crusade wouldl appear to be against people who would think for themselves, gather all the INFORMATION they can and develop opinions based on facts.

Religion cannot replace science. And faith cannot replace research in seeking facts. The process of education is under attack by those who would cut off discussion after stating what they believe.
I believe in continuing to learn throughout life and letting my opinions grow and change as experience and knowledge dictate.

The book Champion cites sounds interesting. I hope to become facmiliar with it. Similar works, of course, have been available for a long time.

[aubunique]

We have all been exposed to various amounts of biblical teaching. Being unable to read the original manuscripts if I could see them, I have to simply refer to the words the apostles tell us Jesus spoke. I interpret and accept them in the same way a student of literature does any literature: I do my best based on what I read and take literally what appears to be intended to be taken that way. Historically, all literature has to be judged that way. We know the apostles lacked our scientific knowledge and we don't know their actual ability to use language, although it would appear they were highly literate people. However, they make reference to Jewish literature and appear to ignore or be unaware of other cultures. The similarities of creation stories in the old testament and other literature are detailed by scholars. The insistence on a human-like creator varies worldwide.
But none of that can be determined.

What is most compelling about Christianity is Jesus' teachings on how human beings should relate to one another. Jesus' teachings in that area are so compelling and so in keeping with the experience of thinking people that their value can't be disputed.

The possibility of an after-life and whether the living things on earth were created as they appear or followed the CREATOR'S plan of evolving within the laws of physics, chemistry and biology the CREATOR established are not as important as accepting the concept of that CREATOR as a loving father and mother whose progeny all have a right and duty to survive.
HIS EYE is on the sparrow. Do unto others as you would have them do to you. These notions we assume are based on Jesus' words and teachings. They are important concepts to me.

[tylerdawg]

Dirty, where is the crusade against Christianity? I assume you are talking about the Muslim terrorists who are willing to blow themselves up to kill others of whatever religious or political bent.

The effort to be inclusive and open-minded isn't a crusade against Christianity. The crusade wouldl appear to be against people who would think for themselves, gather all the INFORMATION they can and develop opinions based on facts.

Religion cannot replace science. And faith cannot replace research in seeking facts. The process of education is under attack by those who would cut off discussion after stating what they believe.
I believe in continuing to learn throughout life and letting my opinions grow and change as experience and knowledge dictate.

The book Champion cites sounds interesting. I hope to become facmiliar with it. Similar works, of course, have been available for a long time.

Science has not proven 1 thing wrong in the Bible. In contrast over time science has proven that many things in the Bible were factual although we could not prove it and had to accept these things by FAITH.

Give science the time and it will prove the Bible correct.

The theory of evolution will be put to rest VERY shortly......if it hasn't already been put to rest. Noah's flood, the parting of the Red Sea, the finding of the dead sea scroll's, archealogists are digging up things today that will prove the Bible correct tomorrow.

[aubunique]

You believe the world was created as is, despite your having studied geology.

I believe the world has developed.

We believe Tech should go undefeated every year.

One out of three ain't bad.

[Bill Pup60]

Good post Aub.............

As a Christian conservative capitalist, I very much believe in the message conveyed in the Bible.

However, it goes without dispute that the meaning and translation of words has changed enormously over time in all languages. There have been many translations of the Bible over the years to try to tie the original meaning of certain words into the "current" defintions.

For many years, we -- especially in the South -- considered that the King James version was the ONLY TRUE translation, conveniently forgetting that the King James version was only one of many succeeding translations. Over the years many have come to accept some of the more modern translations that convey the meaning with use of more recent translations of various words.

The newer translations do not attempt to change the message, but only to make it easier to understand with words we know and use today. I personally think anyone who takes a particular translation -- particularly one from the past -- and dogmatically declares that every word is literally true based on our current meaning of words has his/her head in the sand.

In this respect, I have to think that the book by Dr. Ehrman might be a worthwhile read. I plan on getting it and seeing what he has to say.

[tylerdawg]

You believe the world was created as is, despite your having studied geology.

I believe the world has developed.

We believe Tech should go undefeated every year.

One out of three ain't bad.

Aub,

Wrong Tyler. TYLERTECHSAS is the geologist.

The world has developed. The world in it's present state is not the world that God first created. We are living in the world after the fall of man and God's first judgement. The world changed significantly from God's first judgement and the resulting flood during Noah's time. Remember God cursed man, woman, the serpent, and the EARTH when he kicked Adam and Eve out of the garden.

Now if you are refering to evolution that is a whole other ballgame. There are more holes in that Theory than a loaf of swiss cheese.