Thought provoking?

[HoustonG]

I'm not posting this to offend or to be "inflammatory" as some may see it. The factual historical reality of scripture is that we simply don't know its accuracy. The points he brings up are not opinion, just historical facts that you can either take from, or you can ignore them altogether.

I've been open about my skepticism when it comes to scripture being the inspired word of God. The truth is that this doesn't prove scripture wrong, but it does validate the skepticism I and others have when all the points are considered. These are not things the church on the corner will teach on Sunday mornings.

There's a video on YouTube of a debate between Bart Ehrman and Daniel Wallace on scriptural accuracy. It's far more indepth but also 2 hours long so I saw no reason to post it here. In that video, Ehrman shows pictures of our oldest scriptural text on a piece of tattered and torn paper. It was produced 150 years after Jesus' death, only contained 5 verses of Mark, and is itself a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy, etc. Yet someone had to fill in the many blanks to arrive at what our modern Bible says. There are too many points to list here so the video is worth watching to get the full effect. It's easy to find on YouTube.

I know many here will simply say these historical new testament scholars are just wrong. Yes, it's inconvenient to acknowledge these facts if your identity is wrapped up in religion. You'll no doubt defend whatever belief system you have chosen so there's no need to get defensive because I get it.

For those who believe God doesn't require robotically closed minds these are worth watching.

[HoustonG]

This is the longer video in case anyone is interested.

[godsdozer]

The Erhman Wallace debate was good. I think I have watched it twice and it is my judgment Erhman was the clear winner.

[HoustonG]

I tried to stay neutral watching it. They both make good points. Ehrman's argument is based more on historical facts about the path scripture has taken to reach us today in it's current form and structure. Wallace concedes many of Ehrman's points but in the end his argument is to state why he thinks scripture mostly stayed accurate throughout the ages of being copied and translated. Plus he also thinks many of the errors and inaccuracies are of no consequence. Can either of them really win the debate? I don't think so since neither side is provable. It's entirely possible scripture remained accurate and it's entirely possible it was misconstrued horrendously by the many hands of the scribes. It's not really a win or lose proposition with me, it's more about whether or not there's logical reason or opportunity for scripture to have been corrupted over time, and if it's good reason to be skeptical.

[LewStulePH.D.]

The Erhman Wallace debate was good. I think I have watched it twice and it is my judgment Erhman was the clear winner.

How are You scoring? Theologically or the art of debate?

because if BelowDeck™ and then 90DayFiance™ both suck I'm going to watch it and would like to know who to pull for?

[HoustonG]

No married at first sight?

[LewStulePH.D.]

No married at first sight?

Not on Mundane night... but would be a 'recorder only' to ff through the ads <---- these have a certain 'Behavioral Science™' edge to them...

[HoustonG]

Speaking of behavioral science, how about staffing a luxury super yacht with bickering millennials and then charging clients $10,000 per night hoping they don't notice?

[sdbrison]

I'm pretty sure Darrel has posted the Erlman debate before. Erlman's only argument seems to be "copies of copies of copies of copies..." Not saying he is wrong but unless I missed it he doesn't have anything to add to that perspective. The majority of archaeology thus far confirms biblical truths instead of refuting them. Since you are debating biblical accuracy, I will add the debate of the Catholic bible which includes what we protestants call the Apocrypha. Some of the church "traditions" (protestant and Catholic) come from these books considered to be Scripture by the Catholics

[godsdozer]

I'm pretty sure Darrel has posted the Erlman debate before. Erlman's only argument seems to be "copies of copies of copies of copies..." Not saying he is wrong but unless I missed it he doesn't have anything to add to that perspective. The majority of archaeology thus far confirms biblical truths instead of refuting them. Since you are debating biblical accuracy, I will add the debate of the Catholic bible which includes what we protestants call the Apocrypha. Some of the church "traditions" (protestant and Catholic) come from these books considered to be Scripture by the Catholics

You have a good memory my friend. :)

Thanks for posting the new video, I will take the time to watch it.

[godsdozer]

I am 8 minutes in and already the term anathema. That council at Trent didn't mess around I won't say a single word on the eschatological passages that have been mentioned in the first 8 minutes :).

[godsdozer]

For those who know their bibles I have this observation and question:

If the destruction of Jerusalem had not occurred in AD70, do you think we would be having this debate 2,000 years later?

In other words, Jesus' prophecies regarding his second appearing were so accurate about the utter destruction of the Judean way of life, its history, its laws, its Temple and ITS RECORDS............................ we do not even know what constitutes the Hebrew Bible!

Let that sink in for a minute.

[HoustonG]

I'm pretty sure Darrel has posted the Erlman debate before. Erlman's only argument seems to be "copies of copies of copies of copies..." Not saying he is wrong but unless I missed it he doesn't have anything to add to that perspective

He goes way beyond just the copies of copies point. He questions timelines, inconsistencies in scripture, errors, and more. Some of the same points are mentioned in the first video as well. One major point of contention is the 4 new testament books attributed to Paul that most historians agree are forgeries based on writing styles along with the fact that events are mentioned that happened after Pauls death (oops!) plus writings that contradict earlier things Paul said.

The fact that the gospels were written decades after the death of Jesus by anonymous authors truly raises the question as to their accuracy, especially when the accounts are supposed to be from the point of eye witnesses.