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

October 22, 2006 | By | 729 Replies More

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 (729)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. A “famine of hearing” came from the initial prophecy of Amos, I said “prophets” to show it is an ongoing problem. Insisting on my hypocrisy is a red herring.

    Now, what *do* Paul, Luke and Matthew (as cited above) say? It seems obvious to me that it all came true. Perhaps we should consider Erhman a modern day prophet.

    • Edgar Montrose says:

      “Insisting on my hypocrisy is a red herring.”

      No, actually; it was the fundamental basis for my initial comment, and continued through all that followed. NOW who is diverting the topic?

      Look in the mirror. What do you see? Are you able to scrutinize yourself in the same way that you scrutinize others? No need to answer. The question is rhetorical.

  2. grumpypilgrim: “…we are asked to invent more gods as scapegoats.”

    “For though there be that are called gods many, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many), But to us (israel) there is but one God the Father, of whom are all things, and we (believers/all men who will obey – for all eventually will) by him. How be it there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour (some remember when their forefathers invented statues of stone, silver and gold = and called the gods)

    What of Azazel and The True Goat?


  3. “…it was the fundamental basis of my comment, and continued through all that followed.”

    Your comment was the beginning of one discussion and the leading away from another – in fact, a detraction from Erhman’s questions.

    You have apparently scutinized my “demonstrably false religious beliefs” far more thoroughly than I. I am at a loss to determine which one you would have me repent.

  4. If you feel “denigrated” by reading Ez. 14, that occurred in your own mind, not mine. I was simply showing grumpypilgrim that people who are unwilling to change their mind, because of clinging to falsehood, will be lead into further deception, which he seems to think cannot happen if you are reading a bible.

    I fully understand that Christians can set up idols in their own hearts (doctrines, denominations, pagan influences, worshipping other g-o-d-s) and thus will not be able to hear (shema) the Word of God. Even reading the bible, if it is a poor, misleading or designed to incorporate the idols of men’s hearts into the text will keep one from hearing the Word.

    You seem to be insisting that I have failed to “scutinize” the idols of my heart. Actually, I am the only one that can, since no one can know another’s heart.

    If someone asks you a question or makes a statement that you believe is incorrect, how does providing them with a portion of Scripture that may answer their question “denigrate” them? Should you say nothing of being *willing* to change your mind?

    • Edgar Montrose says:

      “If you feel “denigrated” by reading Ez. 14, that occurred in your own mind, not mine.”

      I never said that I, or anyone else, was denigrated by reading Ezekiel. I referred to the fact that practitioners of religion admonish others for clinging to falsehoods (as you did), while clinging tenaciously to a whole set of their own.

      That is the issue at hand, at least in this thread. That is the elephant in the room — it is huge, it gets in the way, and you carefully step around it without ever admitting that it’s even there. Quotes from Scripture in response to observations of behavior are at best irrelevant, at worst have the appearance of trying to justify hypocrisy with Grace.

      Please, for your own sake, employ some introspection on this. I’ve grown weary of a discussion with a closed mind.

  5. grumpypilgrim says:

    I asked (back on March 3), “Exactly who are these other gods?” Larry replied, “Are you really going to pretend that there are no other religions [g-o-d-s] in the world?”

    My question was not about other religions, it was about the “other gods” that Larry mentioned in his previous comment — the “other gods” that Larry said mislead people. I’m just wondering how many gods Larry believes are out there. Gods are not the same as religions. There is a whole lot of evidence for the existence of religion; there is not one iota of evidence for the existence of gods. So, I’m wondering how many gods Larry imagines are out there, and who these gods are.

  6. All religions are based on a g-o-d. The religious documents of each religion describe the g-o-d, his, laws, teachings, commandments, how to worship, spend money, care for orphans and widows , etc.

    Judges and rulers were called Elohim (gods). Each society has it’s “nicolaitans”. Those who attempt to rule over others. Some people have been convinced they need another man, smart or not, to decide write and wrong for them, and charge them tithes and offerings ( corbin ) via contract.

    Is this helping? Perhaps you are using the word g – o – d , in a more restrictive manner, as in a deity.


  7. “That is the issue at hand, at least in this thread.”

    There was no elephant in the room until you lead it in here. We were answering Erhman’s questions. But it seems your questions are all rhetorical, and the questions of others are ignored.

    If quotes from scripture are irrelevant to a discussion of the bible or the behaviors of Erhman’s subjects, then the whole article must be irrelevant.

    Pot, kettle, clay. Again.

    • Edgar Montrose says:

      “There was no elephant in the room until you lead it in here.”

      Oh, that reply is so indicative of denial that it would be hilarious if it weren’t so sad. That’s the very nature of an “elephant in the room” — it’s real; everybody knows that it’s there; it is taboo to talk about it or even acknowledge its presence. And should someone dare to break that taboo, they are blamed for “creating” the problem.

      “There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know.” – John Heywood

      Were I a subscriber to your faith I would say, “I’ll pray for you.” No, that is not sarcasm.

  8. grumpypilgrim says:

    Larry wrote, “All religions are based on a g-o-d….”

    No, they aren’t. Buddhism is a well-known example of a non-theistic religion. Confucianism is also considered a religion by many. Other religions (e.g., Hinduism, Shintoism) have holy writings, but are not considered to be revealed religions, so there is no divine author to blame.

    In any case, my question remains unanswered. Instead of continuing this debate, perhaps an easier one will suffice. Larry asserts that the “Word of God” is corrupted by humans. So, I’m curious…of the 10,000 or so different recognized divisions of Christianity, please explain the analysis (based on Biblical references) that eliminates all the corrupted ones, so that we might all know which one is the true one.

    Larry also states, “The bible [Jude – among others] warn that evil men would corrupt the Word of God and make it “of none effect”, thus answering Erhman’s question. His book only serves as an excuse to those that need one for their indifference.”

    To the contrary. Erhman (as do other Biblical scholars) backs up his assertions with many specific examples taken directly from literal, explicit text of the Bible. Such examples expose vast numbers of contradictions, with no “corruption” needed. For example, one of the Gospels (Mark? Luke?) asserts that salvation requires good actions in addition to faith, whereas another gospel (John?) asserts that salvation is based on faith alone. Another example is that Acts (which is often said to be authored by Paul) says that the Old Testament Laws are still important, whereas Paul’s letters say that the Laws no longer matter. Many other such examples exist. On what basis should we believe that pointing out these contradictions is a “corruption?”

  9. “On what basis should we believe that pointing out these contradictions is a “corruption”.

    If we are not aware of the errors then we might be caught up in them and waste a lot of time.

    One example is the last one you alluded to, the “law”. I believed for most of my life that “law” meant the “old covenant” because the people I grew up around taught that the old covenant (law) was “nailed to the cross” and “taken out of the way”. Nobody told me that the single word “law” was translated into words that were similar and used in similar ways.

    When you are reading you are guessing because most words have more than one meaning. Context is a critical element when guessing what someone else

    The Law matters because it shows God’s character, while the covenant (of Moses) does not because it was temporary, a teacher of children until they grew spiritually to adoption of Sons.

    Salvation is taught in three parts pictured in the three feasts of Israel. Justification (of our spirit) happens once at Passover. Sanctification (salvation of our soul/life) is an ongoing process lasting from just after justification (by blood), until our body dies, and is pictured in Pentecost wherein the laws of God are written on our hearts. The third step of salvation (of our body) occurs at and continues beyond the First Resurrection.

    When you know the steps of Salvation you can respond to new information with a more concise word which applies to that step, as well as understanding the writer’s intent.

    As to your proposal for a simpler debate – the one your propose would take a lifetime and I suspect this is why things are the way they are; so we can spend a lifetime finding new things in the Word of God as our faith is increased. But he that comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him.

    I’m not interested in years of debate with someone who doesn’t accept the possibility that a Creator God who can speak things into existance, may actually have more “going on” than our little minds can comprehend.

    If the “humans” are corrupted that are attempting the new translations, why is it such a stretch to imagine that the product might be corrupted? Why assume it is all corrupted?

    Why not assume that the promise of a guide into “all truth” might actually occur?

    I don’t see any reason to change the subject. I have given you answers which you have failed to comprehend for which I take full responsibility. You are using the word “god” in a limited sense. However the founder of a religion need not actually be a divine being. A great teacher or a competent pretender will suffice nicely.

    Try using the word “god” as ‘one who makes [provides] rules [teachings] for others’, read the link above, and see if some of what we have discussed might fit the facts as we “know” them. lol

  10. grumpypilgrim says:

    Larry wrote, “… Why assume it is all corrupted? Why not assume that the promise of a guide into “all truth” might actually occur?”

    Actually, I have not declared anything to be corrupted. That was Larry’s term. Larry seems to believe that any interpretation of the Bible other than his own is a corruption. I asked why. I’m still looking for an answer.

    As regards the rest, there is no evidence that any of the supernatural events in the Bible ever happened, and massive evidence — both within the Bible itself and from contemporary writings — that the stories about supernatural events were fraudulent and fabricated. Ehrman has compiled a good summary of the latter. I urge interested parties to read Ehrman’s books, preferably in the order he published them, and then decide what is corrupted.

  11. “Larry seems to believe that any interpretation of the bible other than his own is a corruption.”

    If this were true there would be no reason to look further. I am not asking you to believe anything because it is my interpretation. I will point out things so you can consider them and make up your own mind. Making judgments about my motivations will only fuel debate. Let everyone be fully convinced in his own mind. I am not a g-o-d giving you rules or teachings to obey. I am just another schmuck asking questions, groping my way through redemption.

    Grumpypilgrim seems to believe that any interpretation of the bible other than Erhman’s is a corruption.

    Maybe corruption is the wrong word to be using. We all try to be right 100% of the time. Maybe a word that means “based on ignorance” would be better.

  12. Edgar: We are talking about the problem and trying to define it. Your charge of hypocrisy is the part that is not real, not my advice to be willing to change your mind when confronted with new information.

    If “quotations of Scripture in response to behavior are at best irrelevant” then this whole discussion is irrelevant.

    • Edgar Montrose says:

      “Your charge of hypocrisy is the part that is not real, not my advice to be willing to change your mind when confronted with new information.”

      Do you really not even see the hypocrisy in your own statement, above? The only way that you could top it would be to exclaim, “I am NOT in denial!”

      “If ‘quotations of Scripture in response to behavior are at best irrelevant’ then this whole discussion is irrelevant.”


  13. grumpypilgrim says:

    Larry suggested, “Grumpypilgrim seems to believe that any interpretation of the bible other than Erhman’s is a corruption.”

    I don’t know where Larry gets his ideas. I’m urging interested readers to investigate the facts for themselves, and Ehrman’s books are a great place to start.

    What I still don’t see is an explanation from Larry concerning how to reasonably distinguish the Bible, and its god, from the “corruptions” that Larry mentioned.

  14. grumpypilgrim says:

    Going back to a previous post by Larry, he wrote, “Salvation is taught in three parts pictured in the three feasts of Israel. Justification (of our spirit) happens once at Passover. Sanctification (salvation of our soul/life) is an ongoing process lasting from just after justification (by blood), until our body dies, and is pictured in Pentecost wherein the laws of God are written on our hearts. The third step of salvation (of our body) occurs at and continues beyond the First Resurrection.”

    Can anyone make sense of that explanation? What, exactly, is “justification (of our spirit)?” What, exactly, is “sanctification?” (Notice, in particular, that defining “salvation”, step two, as “salvation of our soul/life,” is an obviously circular definition.) What, exactly, is is that third step, which has no explanation whatsoever? And what, exactly, is the “First Resurrection?” Are there more?

  15. Without a doubt, the mystery of our salvation is immense. The answers are available but they must come to you in a way you will appreciate them. This obviously ain’t it. You seem to be performing an interview for someone instead of talking to me. I am tired of it.

  16. Larry,

    First you have to define “salvation.” From what and for what? I have never been given a sensible answer other than the childhood one of “salvation means you go to heaven instead of hell.” Fine, but the more sophisticated sects have decided hell doesn’t actually exist and is really more a “separation from god” state of non-being. In that case, what is heaven? But even that is simplistic, since what determines a soul that “deserves” going to heaven is never really defined other than “accepting Jesus.” Which is also nebulous in the extreme. Accepting him for what? That he existed? Or that he is somehow a portal to salvation? Which brings it right back to what is salvation? From what?

    Which leads into a whole examination of “sin” which is also so ill-defined that the only sensible definition is the human propensity to make bad choices/decisions. Mistakes, errors in judgment, or stubbornness?

    And if there is in fact no god? Then all of this is meaningless twaddle. But even if there is, my reading of the whole Passion is that all this sin stuff was taken care of by Jesus’ sacrifice. Now, was it or wasn’t it? Why are we still having to concern ourselves with it when he supposedly took care of it? The whole “embrace Jesus for your salvation” line implies that it wasn’t taken care of, that we have to recapitulate it, at least symbolically, time and again.

    Which once more brings us back to “salvation from what for what?” From life? From misery? From stupidity?

    It’s not obtuseness on the part of all those above who keep calling this into question, it is the fact that no one has ever explained this in any terms that conform to any kind of logic or reality. Every time you say it’s a mystery you basically admit you have no idea what it means. But you would surely like all us questioners to shut up about it, embrace Jesus, and stop asking uncomfortable questions.

    Define your terms or admit you can’t. It’s that simple. There’s no mystery here, only a desire to present a state of mind as if it contained cosmic significance visible only to the elect. That is the essence of occultism and alchemy. If you are tired of it, just think how we feel.

  17. Mark,
    Since I am not interested in promoting man-made religion, the only way to define the terms I am using is to refer to what the Creator has said about Himself. Those that draw near to him must believe that He exists and that there is benefit in knowing him.

    If we can’t agree to at least consider this possibility, we have no basis to proceed.

    Some of your questions may be answered by:


    • And he punts.

      Here’s the thing, Larry. You’re making the case here. To say that “if we can’t agree I might be right, I can’t answer your questions” is ducking the question and probably a tacit admission that you don’t have an answer, at least not one that would make sense to a skeptic. And after all, it is, by definition, the skeptic that must be swayed by your argument, so it behooves you to address the skeptic on their terms. But you punt. Don’t bother denying it, you punted. You want your work more than half done for you before you even begin, which is what this sentence means:

      “If we can’t agree to at least consider this possibility, we have no basis to proceed.”

      I recent read a pretty good book addressing this subject, my review of which is here:


      Mind you, when you go there I’m not trying to sell anything, which is not the case on the link you provided.

      Once more you offer a tautology. “Those that draw near to him must believe that He exists and that there is benefit in knowing him.”

      So, according to this, you already have to believe god exists before you can learn anything about whether or not he exists. Circular.

      I admire you tenacity in sticking with this for so long, but really, if you can’t see that all your arguments are circular, based on the most tenuous of ground—the Creator has said nothing about himself, all those words were written by actual people who were pretty much speaking their own thoughts about what they hoped was true—and in the final analysis epistemologically bankrupt and substanceless.

      Personally, I have been listening to this kind of verbal handwaving since I was a child and it has always amazed me how the simplest request for proof is always met with the most byzantine of dodges, if not outright anger.

      But in closing, I find it interesting that you claim not to be interested in promoting “man-made religion” since by definition there is no other kind. Even by your lights, if we did not exist, there would be no point in religion, and since it embodies man’s quest to understand god, it is necessarily our creation. Consistent in its tautology.

  18. Tim Hogan says:

    Why has this waste of space and bandwidth gone on for eight years? Neither the fascist neo-atheists nor the fundies can give it up. Take a break, live your lives justly and do good. Good day to you all!

    • Edgar Montrose says:

      “Neither the fascist neo-atheists nor the fundies can give it up.”

      “Fascist?” From dictionary.com:

      “A system of government that flourished in Europe from the 1920s to the end of World War II. Germany under Adolf Hitler, Italy under Mussolini, and Spain under Franco were all fascist states. As a rule, fascist governments are dominated by a dictator, who usually possesses a magnetic personality, wears a showy uniform, and rallies his followers by mass parades; appeals to strident nationalism; and promotes suspicion or hatred of both foreigners and “impure” people within his own nation, such as the Jews in Germany. Although both communism and fascism are forms of totalitarianism, fascism does not demand state ownership of the means of production, nor is fascism committed to the achievement of economic equality. In theory, communism opposes the identification of government with a single charismatic leader (the “cult of personality”), which is the cornerstone of fascism. Whereas communists are considered left-wing, fascists are usually described as right-wing.”

      It appears to me that “fascism” fits traditional religion much better than it fits lack-of-religion.


      Again from dictionary.com:
      “neo: a combining form meaning “new,” “recent,” “revived,” “modified,” used in the formation of compound words”
      “atheist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.”

      OK, so what’s new, recent, revived, or modified about lack of belief in supreme beings? It’s been around longer than religion.

      Resorting to name-calling is bad enough when the names at least make sense. Name-calling with nonsense words is just puerile.

    • You’re right, Tim, this is silly. My only excuse is that I had a spot of time and had already been annoyed by someone else on the same subject, so I took a few minutes to point out what I pointed out. It felt good. I got to unload a little frustration. Not the greatest justification in the world, and I do wish I could stop scratching that itch. I’d stayed away for a long time. Serendipity. Ah, well.

      As you say, do good. Be good.

    • Larry J Carter says:

      Say No nicolaitanism. Fascism is the worship of mammon.

  19. grumpypilgrim says:

    Larry wrote, “Since I am not interested in promoting man-made religion, the only way to define the terms I am using is to refer to what the Creator has said about Himself.”

    I confess, I laughed out loud when I read this. All religions are man-made, including Christianity. *Men* wrote the Bible, using *their own words* to suit *their own purposes* at the time. The notion that the Bible dropped from the sky as a complete work of literature isn’t just wrong, it’s dishonest.

    As regards “what the Creator has said about Himself,” the god of the Old Testament mostly just issued demands and punishments. Where did “the Creator” say anything about “Himself?” In the New Testament, Jesus never called himself divine, nor equated himself with any deity in the Bible, so, again, there is nothing there about “what the Creator has said about Himself.” The alleged divinity of Jesus was inserted by later authors — none of whom had met Jesus or any of his disciples — again for their own purposes. Indeed, they didn’t even write in the same language that Jesus or his disciples used.

    Larry goes on to say, “Those that draw near to him must believe that He exists and that there is benefit in knowing him.”

    I’ve never understood what statements like this mean. How does one “believe” in something when there is no evidence that it exists? The correct term for that is “wishful thinking.” Or “delusion.” How does one “draw near to” or “know” such an (imaginary) entity? I can understand a child believing in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny, I cannot understand an adult claiming to “know” an invisible supernatural entity, especially one that, allegedly, is farther beyond humans than humans are beyond grass seeds.

    I can understand an adult regurgitating words he doesn’t understand and cannot explain, with hand-waving evasions like, “the mystery of our salvation is immense.”

    What would help is if Larry, or anyone else who believes as he does, can explain — in their own words — what life experience(s) has caused them to “believe” in this alleged “Creator” and that they can “draw near” and “know” this alleged “Creator.” A computer program can spin out Bible verses, because that doesn’t involve any human experience. Without more, it’s just empty words.

  20. Ben says:

    The fascist-moderate faux-christians have declared a draw!

  21. Are you asking me to accept the possibility that you might be right? Are you not trying to save me from belief? Are you not trying to convince me that the commandments and doctrines of men are superior to “the perfect law of liberty” which you have never witnessed?

    “…the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them for they are spiritually discerned.” Another scripture being fulfilled in your own words.

    I am not asking you to accept anything because I say it. I commend you for the integrity to hold out for proof you can accept rather than being coerced into religion, based on men’s logic and reason mixed with a few scriptures.

    The rulership of ungodly men is ruining us. I’m looking for something better. The kingdom of God is a form of government not a religion.

Leave a Reply