Who changed the Bible and why? Bart Ehrman’s startling answers

| October 22, 2006 | 660 Replies

How often do we hear people “explaining” religious beliefs by stating “The Bible says so,” as if the Bible fell out of the sky, pre-translated to English by God Himself?  It’s not that simple, according to an impressive and clearly-written book that should be required reading for anyone who claims to know “what the Bible says.”

The 2005 bestseller, Misquoting Jesus, was not written by a raving atheist.  Rather, it was written by a fellow who had a born-again experience in high school, then went on to attend the ultraconservative Moody Bible Institute in Chicago.  Bart Ehrman didn’t stop there, however.  He wanted to become an evangelical voice with credentials that would enable him to teach in secular settings.  It was for this reason that he continued his education at Wheaton and, eventually, Princeton, picking up the ability to read the New Testament in its original Greek in the process.

As a result of his disciplined study, Ehrman increasingly questioned the fundamentalist approach that the “Bible is the inerrant Word of God.  It contains no mistakes.”  Through his studies, Ehrman determined that the Bible was not free of mistakes:

We have only error ridden copies, and the vast majority of these are centuries removed from the originals and different from them, evidently, in thousands of ways.

(Page 7).  At Princeton, Ehrman learned that mistakes had been made in the copying of the New Testament over the centuries.  Upon realizing this, “the floodgates opened.”  In Mark 4, for example, Jesus allegedly stated that the mustard seed is “the smallest of all seeds on the earth.”  Ehrman knew that this simply was not true.  The more he studied the early manuscripts, the more he realized that the Bible was full of contradictions.  For instance, Mark writes that Jesus was crucified the day after the Passover meal (Mark 14:12; 15:25) while John says Jesus died the day before the Passover meal (John 19:14).

Ehrman often heard that the words of the Bible were inspired.  Obviously, the Bible was not originally written in English.  Perhaps, suggests Ehrman, the full meaning and nuance of the New Testament could only be grasped when it was read in its original Greek (and the Old Testament could be fully appreciated only when studied in its original Hebrew) (page 6).


Because of these language barriers and the undeniable mistakes and contradictions, Ehrman realized that the Bible could not be the “fully inspired, inerrant Word of God.”  Instead, it appeared to him to be a “very human book.”  Human authors had originally written the text at different times and in different places to address different needs.  Certainly, the Bible does not provide an an “errant guide as to how we should live. This is the shift in my own thinking that I ended up making, and to which I am now fully committed.”

How pervasive is the belief that the Bible is inerrant, that every word of the Bible is precise and true?

Occasionally I see a bumper sticker that reads: “God said it, I believe it, and that settles it.”  My response is always, what if God didn’t say it?  What if the book you take as giving you God’s words instead contains human words.  What if the Bible doesn’t give a foolproof answer to the questions of the modern age-abortion, women’s rights, gay rights, religious and supremacy, western style democracy and the like?  What if we have to figure out how to live and what to believe on our own, without setting up the Bible as a false idol–or an oracle that gives us a direct line of communication with the Almighty.

(Page 14).  Ehrman continues to appreciate the Bible as an important collection of writings, but urges that it needs to be read and understood in the context of textual criticism, “a compelling and intriguing field of study of real importance not just to scholars but to everyone with an interest in the Bible.”  Ehrman finds it striking that most readers of the Bible know almost nothing about textual criticism.  He comments that this is not surprising, in that very few books have been written about textual criticism for a lay audience (namely, “those who know nothing about it, who don’t have the Greek and other languages necessary for the in-depth study of it who do not realize there is even any “problem” with the text).

Misquoting Jesus provides much background into how the Bible became the Bible.  It happened through numerous human decisions over the centuries.  For instance, the first time any Christian of record listed the 27 books of the New Testament as the books of the New Testament was 300 years after the books have been written (page 36).  And those works have been radically altered over the years at the hands of the scribes “who were not only conserving scripture but also changing it.”  Ehrman points out that most of the hundreds of thousands of textual changes found among the manuscripts were “completely insignificant, immaterial, of no real importance.”  In short, they were innocent mistakes involving misspelling or inadvertence.

On the other hand, the very meaning of the text changed in some instances.  Some Bible scholars have even concluded that it makes no sense to talk about the “original” text of the Bible.  (Page 210).  As a result of studying surviving Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, Ehrman concluded that we simply don’t have the original words constituting the New Testament.

Not only do we not have the originals, we don’t have the first copies of the originals.  We don’t even have copies of the copies of the originals, or copies of the copies of the copies of the originals.  What we have are copies made later-much later.  In most instances, they are copies made many centuries later.  And these copies all differ from one another, and many thousands of places . . . Possibly it is easiest to put it in comparative terms: there are more differences among our manuscripts and there are words in the New Testament.

In Misquoting Jesus Bart Ehrman spells out the ways in which several critical passages of the New Testament were changed or concocted.  They are startling examples:

A.) Everyone knows the story about Jesus and the woman about to be stoned by the mob.  This account is only found in John 7:53-8:12.  The mob asked Jesus whether they should stone the woman (the punishment required by the Old Testament) or show her mercy. Jesus doesn’t fall for this trap.  Jesus allegedly states “Let the one who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her.”  The crowd dissipates out of shame.  Ehrman states that this brilliant story was not originally in the Gospel of John or in any of the Gospels.  “It was added by later scribes.”  The story is not found in “our oldest and best manuscripts of the Gospel of John.  Nor does its writing style comport with the rest of John.  Most serious textual critics state that this story should not be considered part of the Bible (page 65).

B) after Jesus died, Mary Magdalene and two other women came back to the tomb to anoint the body of Jesus, according to Mark 16:1-2).  They were met by a man in a white robe who told them that Jesus had been raised and was no longer there.  The women fled and said nothing more to anyone out of fear (16:4-8).  Everyone knows the rest of Mark’s Gospel, of course.  The problem with the remainder of the story is that none of it was originally in the Gospel of Mark.  It was added by a later scribe.  Those additions include all of the following:

Jesus himself appeared to Mary Magdalene.  She told the eleven apostles (minus Judas) about this vision, but they did not believe her.  Jesus then appeared to the apostles, chastising them for failing to believe.  He tells them that those who believe will be saved and those who don’t will be condemned.  Then follows a critically important passage of the Bible.

And these are the signs that will accompany those who believe: they will cast out demons in my name; they will speak in new tongues; and they will take up snakes in their hands; and if they drink any poison, it will not harm them; they will place their hands upon the sick and heal them.

Jesus is then allegedly taken up into heaven and sits at the right hand of God, while the disciples go forth into the world to proclaim the Gospel in miraculous fashion.

Without the above passages (which, again, were not written by Mark) the Pentecostals lose their justification for speaking in “tongues.”  And the Appalachian snake handlers have no basis for their dangerous practices.

C) John 5:7-8 is the only passage in the entire Bible “that explicitly delineates the doctrine of the Trinity (that there are three persons and God but that all three constitute a single God):

There are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Spirit and these three are one; and there are three that bear witness on earth, the spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one.

Ehrman cites strong evidence that this Trinity passage was entirely concocted and foisted upon Erasmus by outraged theologians who needed support for their prized theological doctrine (page 81).

Ehrman reveals numerous other difficulties with the popular assumption that the Bible was perfectly handed down from its original written expression.

Many believers rely fervently on the King James version of the Bible, for instance.  They sometimes even say “If the King James was good enough for St. Paul, it’s good enough for me.”  Ehrman points out many problems with the King James version, warning that “we need to face up to the facts.”

The King James was not given by God but was a translation by a group of scholars in the early 17th century who based their rendition on a faulty Greek text.

(Page 209).

So what should we make of the Bible?  Ehrman argues that the attacks of the New Testament are not simply collections of obvious, self-interpreting words.  It’s the same problem we have with other important documents, such as the United States Constitution:

Texts do not simply reveal their own meanings to honest inquirers.  Texts are interpreted and they are interpreted (just as they were written) by living, breathing human beings, who can make sense of texts only by explaining them in light of other other knowledge, explicating their meaning, putting the words of the text “in other words.”

(Page 217) The scribes changed the original words of the New Testament by putting them in other words.

In my experience, many people who cherry pick excerpts from the Bible as the proper way to determine what is moral are in utter denial that we don’t have accurate copies of the original writings.   Most of them refuse to acknowledge that current popular versions of the Bible contain numerous discrepancies, even compared to the earliest manuscripts we do have.  This is on top of the fact that their are hundreds of patent contradictions in the English version of the Bible.  To most believers, none of this matters.  Stay the course!  In fact, in my experience most believers rarely read what the consider to be God’s own inspired word.

Ehrman’s book points out numerous troublesome issues that demand attention even assuming that the original writers of the Bible accurately reported the events described in their original writings (whatever those writings were).   The elephant in the room, however, is that none of the authors of the Gospels ever claimed to witness any of the events they were reporting.  Further, the extraodinary nature of Biblical claims demands extraordinary proof that ancient self-contradictory writings are simply incapable of providing, except to those of us who believe that the Bible is completely true “because it says so in the Bible.”

For all of those people who continue to go around clentching and thumping those Bibles they bought at Wal-Mart, and for all the rest of us who want to get the story straight, Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus should be required reading.

[Administrator’s Note: More than 540 comments were quickly contributed to this post, making this page too long to download and display. Therefore, on March 23, 2007, I closed off new comments. Last night (February 4, 2009), I discovered a WordPress plugin that allows me to paginate comments, thereby protecting the site from the sudden and repeated load of 540 comments.   Here's the good news, then.   Anyone who has not yet had his or her say on Bart Ehrman's book may now jump in at the original post and post a comment.   That's right!  If none of the 540 comments that have come before you didn't address an important aspect of Bart Ehrman's book, you may now remedy that omission, right here in the comments to this original post.  Godspeed. ]


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Category: American Culture, Education, History, Reading - Books and Magazines, Religion

About the Author ()

Erich Vieth is an attorney focusing on consumer law litigation and appellate practice. He is also a working musician and a writer, having founded Dangerous Intersection in 2006. Erich lives in the Shaw Neighborhood of St. Louis, Missouri, where he lives half-time with his two extraordinary daughters.

Comments (660)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Sophia says:

    @kristy Nelson no they xant as there are too many contradictions in the bible and the bible is man made!

  2. grumpypilgrim says:

    Rami said, “It’s simple, read both books and decide which makes more sense….”

    Alas, it’s not that simple. Reading just two books will not reveal the truth on a subject as abstract as that contained in self-proclaimed holy books. Indeed, thousands of books have been written to supplement our many holy books and yet nothing (beyond secular history) has been proven to be true in any of them. Moreover, the supernatural claims made in “scriptures” can be found, virtually without exception, in earlier texts, raising the question of whether any of it was “revealed” by a divine deity or merely adopted from earlier popular stories. Accordingly, “read both books and decide which makes more sense” merely sidesteps the possibility that both are mere fictional nonsense.

  3. Good post here. I had a similar path to Ehrman and try to help folks understand the depth of the Bible. One interesting group of stories is in Genesis regarding Abraham and Isaac. Here it is if you want to check it out http://www.christianevolution.com/2013/06/bible-inerrant-wife-sister-narrative-genesis.html

  4. gary says:

    Baptists: Please throw your Greek lexicons in the trash!

    Why do Baptist always want to go to the Greek to understand the Bible? It is as if Baptists do not trust their English Bibles: “Sorry, hold on a minute, I need to check the original Greek before we can believe that God really loves the whole world as your English Bible seems to say in John 3:16…we can only know for sure if we understand and read ancient Greek.”

    When God promised to preserve his Word…did he really mean that he would only preserve it on 2,000 year old parchment and papyrus in ancient forms of Greek and Aramaic?? Did God really intend that the only people who could REALLY know what he had to say to mankind…would be ancient Greek-educated Baptist Churchmen?? Is the non-ancient-Greek- speaking layperson sitting in the pew supposed to just shut his English language Bible and sit at the feet of these Baptist Greek scholars to learn what God couldn’t explain himself in plain, simple ENGLISH??

    Do you REALLY believe that God intended for only Baptist, Greek-speaking Churchmen to understand the Gospel? Because that is really what Baptists are saying, because the Greek scholars of the Greek Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church, the Presbyterian Church, and the Methodist Church think that Baptist Greek scholars are all WET on their positions that the Bible does not support infant baptism and that baptism MUST be by immersion!

    Is it really possible that ONLY Baptist Greek scholars truly understand ancient Greek, and that the rest of the world’s Greek scholars completely bungle the translation of the New Testament? How is that possible? It defies common sense. And if I hear another Baptist start talking about how the Greek genitive case proves that the Baptist position is correct, I swear I’m going to puke! Seriously, every time I get into a discussion about Biblical translation with a Baptist he starts in with the genitive case nonsense. If you want to understand the genitive case in a Greek document…I suggest you confer…not with a Baptist…but with a GREEK!

    Instead of all this ancient Greek nonsense, which Baptists seem to have a fixation on, I suggest that every Christian layperson do this:

    1. Obtain a copy of four different English language translations of the Bible. Read each one of these “problem passages”, as Baptists and evangelicals refer to them, in each of these English translations.
    2. God’s true meaning of the passage will be plainly understandable after comparing these four English translations.

    You do NOT need to read the ancient Greek text unless you want to delve into the study of ancient Greek sentence structure or some other nuance. God promised he would preserve his Word, and the English-speaking people of the world have had the Word of God IN ENGLISH since at least William Tyndale (1300″s??). Dear Baptists…PLEASE stop insisting on using the ancient texts to confuse Christian laypeople of God’s simple, plain message of the Gospel!

    Luther, Baptists, and Evangelicals
    an orthodox Lutheran blog

    • Larry J. Carter says:

      People tend to disagree about what the Bible does not say much more than what it does say. The word ‘lost'{apollumi} lacks defintion the english does not portray in a single word, so a visit to greeks, who made up a new word for every new idea, instead of adapting and merging words. The idea is thereby better preserved in a single word that does not there after change. ‘Lost’ in greek becomes “put away in punishment”, with its own roots and meanings, in even older languages.

  5. J says:

    Do you really believe that God intended only christians to go to heaven while all the other people regardless of morals go to hell. Pretty small thinking if you ask me.
    Would it not make more sense to just pardon all as none could withstand the transformative power of the almighty.

    • We own and are responsible for what we create. So is He.

      The propitiation for all law – less – ness {1John 3:4} has been made. All we do is acknowledge {and then learn to benefit from} it. Despite all the commandments and doctrines of men, all will be made right in due time.

      “We are not saved by believing, we realize we are saved by believing.” Oswald Chambers

    • J says:

      Its much better to believe in the God I know and not the one I’m told about. I only wish others were fortunate enough to have that recognition at an early age that I did.
      I believe Jesus is the son of God as we all are sons and daughters of God. And we are capable of seeking the Father and knowing the truth. I did not first know God thru Jesus but thru God. Jesus had a desire to share Gods truth and did so perfectly. It is only after copy upon copy from scribe to scribe and political agenda have we the scriptures. Many great truths are found in the pages of the Bible. Their are also things added or covered and taken away. My own experience contradicts the rules of salvation in its pages.

  6. grumpypilgrim says:

    Tim wrote, “I believe God’s grace gives all a path to salvation.”

    I have always been puzzled by the expression, “God’s grace.” What, exactly, does it mean? Elegance? Beauty? Favor? Mercy? Kindness? Love? Forgiveness? Charity? Goodwill? The god of the Bible appears to lack all of these qualities, except for favor, which the god of the Bible seems to bestow solely for narcissistic reasons. “Be obsequious and maybe I won’t make you burn in hell for all eternity. Or, maybe I will — you never know.”

  7. God’s grace is His ‘unmerited favor’, which is extended to all Adam’s children.

    The reason for your puzzlement is in missing an important piece of the of the puzzle.


  8. grumpypilgrim says:

    So, according to Larry, in order to understand god’s grace, we must first posit the existence of platoons of fallen angels…who had rampant sexual relations with human women…who then gave birth to giant, hybrid offspring…and there is not a shred of evidence (not even anecdotal reports) for any of this. In fact, it’s not even clearly supported by the Bible. Is this really the story you want to stick with?

  9. No, you must first have an open mind. Many Christians understand God’s grace without understanding the lengths to which the Adversary has went to mislead, obfuscate and destroy.

    The Creator warned us to have no other gods [ rulemakers ] before Him. Who do you think He was talking about?

    To understand why God ordered Israel to destroy these creatures and their offspring, you must first realize that they exist [which has been pretty well hidden]. He was not commanding the deaths of other Adamites.

    Ancient mythologies from many cultures contain accounts of “deities” with extraordinary powers and attributes who taught men to do things in exchange for homage and sacrifice. Whole religions are based on their worship.

    • Mark W. Tiedemann says:

      The Bible is not history, it is literature. As such it can be used as a source for all manner of instruction, but it is the principle mistake of the last couple of millennia to take what is written literally. The whole point of Mr. Ehrman’s work is not to deceive or obfuscate but to place matters in context.

      However, when someone becomes so invested in the arcana of essentially occult interpretations of a work of literature, leading them out of the rabbit hole is a trick few have learned. We see here, in the responses of Mr. Carter, a dedication to a form of obsession best defined by the image of Ouroboros.

      Mr. Carter has long demonstrated his devotion to tautology as the key to self-conviction.

      There is no “hidden history” such as you describe. And the failure to recognize that your own religion is one and same, structurally and epistemologically, with all those others you decry as false is a clear testament to the ability of people to fool themselves and refuse to have the “open mind” they exhort others to have.

  10. grumpypilgrim says:

    Larry wrote, “The Creator warned us to have no other gods [ rulemakers ] before Him. Who do you think He was talking about?”

    I don’t think “He” was “talking” in the first place, since there is no evidence that “He” exists, much less that “He” was ever “talking” to anyone. Moreover, Tim asserts that faith is belief in the absence of evidence, so logic and reason play no role in the process. Accordingly, what any of us might “think” also doesn’t appear to be part of the process.

    My previous comment to Larry was in response to the link that Larry provided in his earlier comment. That link points to a rambling, wildly imaginative, conclusory essay that posits the existence of all sorts of non-human beings, both supernatural and human-hybrid, for which (whom?), again, there isn’t a shred of evidence. Indeed, there is barely any support for it in the Bible, yet Larry stated that the essay is essential to understanding the “grace” (which Larry labels “unmerited favor”) of the god-of-the-Bible. Larry’s last comment adds nothing to my understanding. The fact that ancient people worshiped other deities, and the fact that one of the Ten Commandments bans worshiping other gods, proves nothing about the existence of any of them, nor does it provide any clarity on the explanation of “grace,” which was my original question. To the contrary, Larry merely asserts that Christians already understand the concept (which is of no help to the rest of us), and that a precondition to such understanding is to have an “open mind.” Unfortunately, in the context of Larry’s comment, having an “open mind” is merely a circular reference to already being a Christian, so that is no help, either. Given that “grace” is central to Christian theology, I remain puzzled why there appear to be no Christian out there who can even begin to explain it.

  11. “I remain puzzled why there appear to be no Christian[s] out there who can even begin to explain it.”

    Maybe its because you speak of them like they are lab rats, or maybe its because to explain God’s Grace, one has to talk about God – which you refuse to contemplate because you “don’t think” He has or ever does communicate with anyone since you KNOW He doesn’t exist.

    Even when I agree with you about someone changing the Bible, and point out that the Bible itself said this would take place and that there would be a “famine of hearing the Word” you still can’t bring yourselves to consider it might be true. Instead it is relegated to “literature”.

    I wasn’t telling you the article was important. I was telling you being aware of all the players involved is important. Its no wonder none of it makes any sense to you.

  12. Edgar Montrose says:

    >>Maybe its because you speak of [Christians] like they are lab rats …

    How do you prefer that we observe them, if not in a clinical, objective fashion?

    >>or maybe its because to explain God’s Grace, one has to talk about God – which you refuse to contemplate because you “don’t think” He has or ever does communicate with anyone since you KNOW He doesn’t exist.

    It is impossible to prove that something does not exist, but we can say that the evidence is overwhelmingly against it. If, someday, God showed himself to us, then that new, extremely compelling evidence would change our assessment. The faithful, on the other hand, would not change their beliefs even if it really was possible to prove that they were wrong. That is the fundamental difference between reason and belief.

    >>… you still can’t bring yourselves to consider it might be true …

    Why can you not bring yourselves to consider that it might not be true? There is far more evidence that it is not true than that it is.

    It “might be true” that the Norse Gods exist; there is no less (or more) evidence for it than for any other religious beliefs, and some of the stories are really interesting.

    >>Its no wonder none of it makes any sense to you.

    Really? An ad hominem attack? That is generally an admission of defeat.

  13. Mark W. Tiedemann says:

    you still can’t bring yourselves to consider it might be true. Instead it is relegated to “literature”

    Don’t mock. The whole point of “literature” is to tell the truth. Truth and fact are related but not the same. Truth is about meaning. Literature—fiction—serves the purpose of conveying truth outside the oft-times stifling constraint of fact. When I say that the Bible is a work of literature, this is no insult or even demotion, but a way of recognizing what it has of value apart from the usual catalogue of its presumed failings. When certain people insist that it is, indeed, a repository of fact, that’s when it begins to lose its relevance, because it cannot be defended on those grounds. Creation did not happen that way, time did not stop for Joshua, a virgin did not give birth, and it’s beginning to look like there were not Hebrew “slaves” in Egypt at the time suggested by the Pentateuch. If you base the legitimacy of the text on such things, it crumbles.

    As literature, though, as parable, as epic, as “novel” it more than succeeds. It also makes the changes subsequently made to it irrelevant.

    But it also places provenance elsewhere than where it has traditionally been placed and suggests that maybe interpretation is more important than dogma. In this way, the Bible makes a great deal of sense to me.

    It’s just not the particular sense you want it to mean.

  14. Erich Vieth says:

    Mark: I very much enjoyed this analysis of literature, truth and facts.

  15. Mark: You and I are not that far apart. I must resist being constantly drawn into arguments about things I no longer believe.

    I still believe there are facts in the bible, as far as whatever bible is being discussed is faithful to the Word inspired in the original authors.

    “Really? An ad hominem attack? That is generally an admission of defeat.”

    I should have said, “Its no wonder none of it makes sense to you, as it does to me.” It was certainly not meant as an attack. I would prefer it not be considered a battle.

    My point in responding over the last week is to encourage seekers to keep seeking because many parts of the puzzle of life, which we all are trying to solve, will be uncovered when all the players are correctly identified – or even acknowledged.

    If you refuse to use a crescent wrench because your neighbor uses his as a hammer or an anchor you are limiting your possibilities.

  16. grumpypilgrim says:

    I also like Mark’s analysis. It’s a more compelling argument for the “truth” of the Bible than to dogmatically assert that everything in the Bible must be literally true, despite massive evidence that it isn’t. I would take issue with his suggestion that seeing the Bible as literature, “makes the changes subsequently made to it irrelevant,” but I’ll leave that for now.

    As regards Larry’s comment, I am finding little there to help my understanding of “god’s grace.” One does not need to prove that the god-of-the-Bible exists, in order to explain the concept of “god’s grace.” They are separate subjects. It is also not necessary for me to believe in the god-of-the-Bible, nor is it necessary for me to speak of Christians differently than I do. Christians use the phrase, “god’s grace” often, but I have yet to find anyone who can tell me what they mean by it.

    As for “being aware of all the players involved,” I fail to see how this is necessary. No other Christian I have ever met has asserted their belief in fallen angel armies, giants or human-hybrids.

  17. grumpypilgrim says:

    Mark wrote, “As literature, though, as parable, as epic, as “novel” it more than succeeds. It also makes the changes subsequently made to it irrelevant.”

    I would argue that changes to the Bible are relevant, because the Bible, even as literature, is still cloaked with a supposedly divine origin. Changes to the Bible that help enhance that cloak therefore bear directly on the issue. The Bible was written, and re-written, by people who had religious biases and political agendas. Many of the parables and miracles (e.g., being born of a virgin, raising the dead, healing the blind, dying for the sins of others, being raised from the dead, being seen by followers three days later, etc.) that are credited to Jesus appear to be mere adaptations, or outright copies, of earlier myths. Many were taken from earlier religions, presumably because they worked — i.e., they were effective in persuading large numbers of people to believe in the divine origin of the subject. Or, as Mark said, “…it more than succeeds.” Thus, as literature, the Bible is materially plagiaristic, a fact that undermines its supposed divine origin. In addition, many stories (e.g., the gnostic gospels) were later omitted or written out of the Bible, with the obvious goal of, among other things, reducing inconsistencies that, again, would tend to undermine the Bible’s supposed divine origin. Bottom line: as long as the Bible is asserted to have divine authority, changes to the Bible are relevant regardless of the extent to which it is seen as mere literature.

    • Perhaps I should have said “irrelevant in this debate”, that is the one where we are trying to defend or deny infallibility of the text. Naturally, such changes are relevant to the point I was making, namely that the worth of the text is thematic rather than factual, and theme changes over time. Just as fairy tales have been altered to address contemporary values and still retain their innate power.

      I make no defense of the supposed divine origin of the books of the Bible. As asserted by literalists, I find this a ridiculous idea, especially when the supposed divinity of competing texts are denied. In this regard, we adhere to the “you get out of it what you put into it” school, and since my belief is that The Divine is—whatever it may be—a human created, human experienced phenomenon, then, again metaphorically, the Bible is as divine as the divinity the reader brings to it.

      As for Mr. Carter’s assertion that he and I are not so far apart, this may be true in certain regards, but in the primary one that the Bible is somehow a historical document revealing the reality of a superbeing known as “God” he and I are quite at odds. Should your description of that god emerge from a Spinozan reading of it, then we have a basis to talk, but if it is closer to the traditional notion of, as I said, a Superbeing, then no, I find that completely insupportable.

  18. “It is impossible to prove that something does not exist, but we can say that the evidence is overwhelmingly against it.”

    We can say that the evidence that you have considered is overwhelmingly against it.

    “If, someday, God showed himself to us, then that new, extremely compelling evidence would change our assessment.”

    It comes to ‘What will you accept as evidence?’ If some believe they can see God at work in the world, who are you to tell them they are idiots?

    “The faithful, on the other hand, would not change their beliefs even if it really was possible to prove that they were wrong.”

    I have been wrong and I have changed. I may still be wrong. When another idol of mine is pointed out to me I will burn it. You insist that “the faithful” are wrong, yet admit that you can’t prove it.

    “The Bible was written, and re-written, by people who had religious biases and political agendas.”

    I know the “bible” contains errors. It is obvious to me how they got there. An example would be Augustine and Jerome who brought the concept of “eternal damnation” into the church. Their pagan beliefs were adapted to scaring people into the church. This has been repeated countless times as converts, perhaps unknowingly and perhaps with malice, blended old beliefs with new, and when it was their turn, interpreted them into the canon.

    We were told to “try the spirits whether they be of God, for many false spirits are gone out into the world” which seems to me a direct warning that some would attempt to deceive. What better way to discredit the bible than to mistranslate it, misuse it and place pagan ideas and practices right in {supposedly} christian doctrine. The ignorant and unlearned would not know the difference.

    “Those that are unaware are unaware of being unaware” Some folk’s paradigms would force them to find it comical that I would use such a quote, but I assure you that I AM aware of how little I understand.

    “It “might be true” that the Norse Gods exist; there is no less (or more) evidence for it than for any other religious beliefs,..”

    Of course they existed but they were not immortal. Religion is manmade. Beliefs that are manmade are idols. Idols are things that are given respect without deserving it. Angels that rebelled against their Creator are not fit to be adored or respected by any.

    “No other Christian I have ever met has asserted their belief in fallen angel armies, giants or human-hybrids.”

    What does this prove?

    “I make no defense of the supposed divine origin of the books of the Bible. As asserted by literalists, I find this a ridiculous idea, especially when the supposed divinity of competing texts are denied.”

    If we are calling nonhuman entities “divine” then I acknowledge that some “holy” books are of divine origin. My information is that these nonhuman entities are not to be trusted. Only the Creator has the right to dictate rules to His creation. Those that hate Him and are in rebellion to Him should be opposed.


Leave a Reply

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.