Sit back and enjoy Bart Ehrman’s research regarding what we know about the origin of the Bible. Ehrman is a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill . I’ve previously posted about Ehrman’s 2007 book, Misquoting Jesus.
Ehrman starts by telling the audience about a question that he asked his students recently: If the Bible is really the inerrant word of God, why aren’t all believers actually reading it? Many of Ehrman’s own students truly believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, but large numbers of them haven’t yet read the entire Bible. Ehrman asks: “If God wrote a book, wouldn’t you want to see what He said?”
Most of this lecture concerns the origin of the modern version of the Bible. Ehrman presents a fascinating history of a book based upon thousands of incomplete and conflicting earlier versions. These versions are riddled with mistakes. The oldest copy that we have of any book of the new testament is a tiny scrap from the Gospel by “John” called “P52). It is about the size of a credit card and it only contains a couple sentences. It is dated at “the first half of the second century” (minute 15 of the video). Our earliest surviving complete copy of the Gospel of “John” was created about the year 200 A.D.
Most of our manuscripts of the Bible are not anywhere near this old. Most of our manuscripts were created around the beginning of the third century (around the year 200). The earliest manuscripts of most of the books of the Bible date from the 7th or 8th century. By the time that a man named John Mill actually tracked the conflicts among the 100 manuscripts he reviewed (about 300 years ago), he noted about 30,000 differences. We now have about 7,000 manuscripts, and nobody has been able to add up all the differences among these copies (21:30). “There are more differences in our existing Greek manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament.” So, then how can we really know what any of the writers really said? Ehrman characterizes this as “a problem.” Most of these differences are “completely insignificant . . . mistakes.”
I especially enjoyed Ehrman’s description of one scribe’s mistaken version of the alleged genealogy of Jesus all the way back to Adam and Eve (27:00). Many other more significant translation problems have been detected by modern scholars (32:00).
Unfortunately, this video has a glitch and it ended at the 34-minute mark. This is as far as I got tonight. I now see that there are other versions of Ehrman’s lectures available in ten-minute chunks, starting here. I’m planning on viewing the remainder of Ehrman’s lecture, and I’ll report on it in the comments.
I would add a few questions to the one Ehrman asked at the top of his lecture: If the Bible really is the inspired word of God, why aren’t more believers taking the time to understand the genesis of the Bible itself? Why aren’t they more interested in learning about the things that Ehrman has researched throughout his career. Why don’t they care more about the inaccuracies and contradictions? As Ehrman asked, don’t you need to be confident that you know the accurate version of the Bible before telling others how “important” it is? I raise these questions because, in my experience of having discussed the Bible with hundreds of Christian believers, almost none of them know about these critically important issues raised by Ehrman, and it’s a rare American Christian believer who exhibits any curiosity regarding these issues. How strange, unless, as Daniel Dennett suggested, that most believers believe in belief, rather than in the religious stories that they claim to be true.
Ehrman has also published, Jesus, Interrupted, in which he argues that “the Bible is riddled with inconsistencies and outright forgeries, but that many fundamental stories and doctrines don’t actually exist within its pages–they were later inventions by people trying to make sense of a disconnected collection of texts.” At his website, Ehrman further states:
Only 8 of the 27 books of the New Testament were actually written by the authors to whom they’re attributed. Others are likely forgeries.
The gospels provide remarkably divergent portrayals of Jesus.
The message of the Apostle Paul and the message of gospel writer Matthew are completely at odds over the question of whether a follower of Jesus also had to observe the Jewish law.
The Nicene Creed and the Trinity were constructs of the later church and are not found in the pages of the Bible.
Traditional doctrines such as the suffering Messiah, the divinity of Christ, and the notion of heaven and hell are not based on the teachings of the historical Jesus.
The commonly told story of Jesus — his birth, death, and resurrection is actually a composite of four vastly different gospel narratives.
The precepts of evolution have been acknowledged in agriculture for centuries. Early farmers realized that by saving the seeds of the best plants for the next planting, the crops would grow stronger and more bountiful over the years, but if the best seeds were eaten and the bad seeds were planted, they would be less productive each year.
In agriculture, the farmer selects the traits which make the plants and animal species more useful to human beings, and eventually this selection process gives rise to domesticated species.
The selection process is a filter. On a farm, the farmer controls the selection criteria to determine which individuals are allowed to reproduce It is a simple conclusion that evolution may be achieved under the conditions set forth by an intelligent farmer. It is then a simple projection that evolution can only be achieved through order contrived by an intelligent being.
This projection is errant because it fails to take interspecies competition and limiting factors into account. Simple worded, the environmental conditions of a species habitat provides selective criteria.
Evolution is often misconstrued as a gradual change from primitive, less complex forms to the higher, more complex forms. This is not the case. Evolution is the progression over many generations from a population less adapted to the selection criteria to a population more adapted to the the selection criteria. ( a "more adapted" population being a a population comprising a greater percentage of adapted individuals than found in the "less adapted" population).
All of this adaptability is driven by mutation. Mutations are not simple recombinations of genetic traits, but are new traits resulting from the biochemical corruption of DNA sequences, usually from environmental stressors. Some mutations appear at statistically stable but low rates and may be caused by normal background radiation. Some are known to be the result of environmental toxins, and even from interactions of viral infections.
A large number of mutations are non-viable, meaning that no offspring can develop with the mutation, Of the viable mutations, most are benign, having no effect on adaptability. A few are less adaptive and a few are more adaptive.
Individual DNA sequences may express more than one trait. Consider a mutation that partially inhibits the development of the inhibitory neuron layer in the corpus callosum (the structure connecting the two halves of the brain), resulting in a condition where independent use of ones hands is impossible.
I have this. It makes it very difficult to type, but at the same time my neural response time is considerably faster than someone without this trait.
In the current environment, the outward presentation of the genetic trait is neither an advantage or an disadvantage.
Walter nailed you guys to your zoologist-cross…sorry, but there's NO "step or gap filled proof" in the matter of fossil evidence to support your claims about human evolution, or I would throw my Bible away and live like a heathen…I mean what is your point on living? Just shoot, end the madness.
A simple dental surgeon shattered the theory of 'Neanderthal'.
Question: If Neanderthal lived approx. 50,000 years, then where is all the roof-carbon in the French caves that are now closed to the public? Why did the scientist file the teeth down of the claimed skull findings? …please answer with proof, please.
Walter is right, the BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU!
Come on Tony, quit crying to Erich,
just because Walter cornered you and threatened your Religious beliefs, does not make him rude…
If you cannot handle a little errored personality…I mean, we are not perfect; and don't expect people to act like you want them. Look at what Christians have to put up with, a bunch of carnal,'Human Animals'.
Life is tough…quit the crying and show some real argument to Walter's questions?
Rabel: Please read the comment I issued to Walter. That entire comment also applies to you.
Neanderthal children's fossils
Huge problems have been uncovered in evolutionary reconstructions of Neanderthal children's fossils.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/n…
Evolutionary apeman/fossil evidence, is the result of mass manipulation; this should concern some of you.
Please read the aforementioned link, before you can be intellectually honest in your arguments.
I notice, when faced with fact, Tony quickly concedes, with "gain an understanding of what the terms mean, then get back to us" or Erichs,"I am urging you to have the courage to allow the evidence guide you. Go hence to understand the basics of evolution, then return for a meaningful conversation".
…an 'inconvenient truth', Erich and Tony!
Be honest guys, learned that from my Bible.
Rabel Fibel: I've said all that I'm going to say about evolution in response to your taunts and misinformation. BTW, Answers in Genesis is not a peer-reviewed scientific publication.
Rabel writes:—"Walter nailed you guys to your zoologist-cross…sorry, but there’s NO “step or gap filled proof” in the matter of fossil evidence to support your claims about human evolution, or I would throw my Bible away and live like a heathen…I mean what is your point on living? Just shoot, end the madness"
No you wouldn't. You'd find another clever way to misread the evidence.
Sorry, but this is still crap you're spouting. Have a nice day.
So Tony,
being a mechanic as you say, is that wrong to be one? Or is it beneath you to talk to a technician, because of being lower on the evolutionary scale? What, a mechanic isn't or shouldn't question such royalty as yourself?
~Or maybe, I may be a Private School Teacher, who could challenge your own kids behaviors, and really teach cirlces around your own Spongebob brain?
Be it from me, to talk to someone like Tony, who thinks Status is more important than Truth…
Sorry Erich…I'm here to challenge and argue constructively like yourself, and I thank you for this website! I have learned a great deal from postings, articles. blogs and so forth…thanks again.
Walter, Rabel:
Review my response to Karl, here http://dangerousintersection.org/2010/08/18/some-…
When you've done that, and reviewed the sites listed, then perhaps we can talk. Until then, you show me no basis upon which we can have a meaningful dialog.
Into the sack with you.
Rabel – there is absolutely nothing wrong with being a technician, or a mechanic. I never said there was. There is a great deal wrong in conflating being a technician or mechanic with being a scientist. This is what you do. Their roles are fundamentally different, with different approaches and requirements, different expectations, and different 'criteria for success'. Technicians and mechanics execute based on current practice. They do (essentially) what they did yesterday, to the best of their ability, as accurately as possible, as perfectly as their instruments and skill allow. Scientists, on the other hand, seek to break things. They devise and execute experiments (often with the physical support of technicians and mechanics) to identify new 'truths', uncover new understanding, refine knowledge. They, as much as possible, do not do what they did before.
If you don't understand that, and instead take my comment as a dig at technicians rather than a dig at your level of understanding, then that is your issue.
Lastly, my comment had nothing to do with status, but had everything to do with approach, knowledge, and application of knowledge. But, I suppose, for you knowledge is only worthwhile if it comes with the stamp of Authority. Right? Your literalist bias is showing clearly in your inanity and your grasping at straw(men).
Rabel writes:—"If Neanderthal lived approx. 50,000 years, then where is all the roof-carbon in the French caves that are now closed to the public?"
From this article: http://www.memo.fr/en/article.aspx?ID=PRE_PAL_009
"Yesterday like today, one could not penetrate in a cave without having a means of lighting. The prehistoric men of Lascaux made use of lamps with tallow, the ones nonworked, the others worked. The first, found in great number on the site, are generally of vulgar stones limestones to concave face dug of a natural basin; visible traces of ashes, soot, coal and rubéfaction attest of their use at ends of lighting. The seconds are extremely rare; of the two witnesses delivered by Lascaux, there remains only one lamp today, left roaster machine in the shape of racket, finely cut in pink sandstone. In addition to the lamps, Magdaléniens de Lascaux undoubtedly used torches and fires of lighting."
and—"Why did the scientist file the teeth down of the claimed skull findings?"
so… http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3322035
"Gross and microscopic examination of the Krapina Neanderthal dental remains reveals the presence of artificial grooves along the cemento-enamel junction of 14 teeth representing ten different individuals. The grooves display distinct morphological features including their consistent location (primarily on the mesial and/or distal root walls), their troughlike appearance, striations and/or polishing in the channel, and the ridges of reactive cementum bordering the groove. These grooves occur only on erupted, permanent teeth, and except for a single occurrence on a lower I2, all are located on mandibular or maxillary P4-M3. The morphological nature of the grooves is distinct and has been used to distinguish these grooves from root caries and other pathological or natural causes. Based on the close resemblance between artificial grooves at Krapina and those which have been attributed to toothpick use in other fossil and recent populations, we argue the Krapina Neanderthals were habitually probing the interproximal dental spaces with tools."
Next?
Mark, Those translations from French academese (academish?) are painful to read.
A simple answer to the roof carbon taunt is that any geologist can tell you that roof particles are always spalling off. Walls are hardier.
If her point is carbon dating, it is only good from about 150 to 25,000 years. Older than that the error bars get very wide. Younger and we have fossil fuel contamination, increasing the age result. A C-14 date of 50,000 years should always be preceded by "at least", because a million or a billion years would give the same result.
The soot from the Victorian kerosene lamps or paraffin candles would read as 50,000 (the carbon in kerosene is millions of years old). But soot from whale-oil lamps or beeswax candles would read at whatever age the animals involved were breathing. Both of these types of lamps were used in there.
Dan,
Sorry, but I lifted the appropriate paragraphs with the intent of not letting the deniers off the hook. The claim was there is no evidence.
I'm not actually sure what the point was about filed teeth, but the article I found referenced artificial filing as had been done by the Neanderthal.
The very wildness of Rabel's (and Walter's) charges makes answering them perhaps problematic. It's like trying to discuss the finer points of Russian literature with someone who only reads comic books (and not good ones).
Which brings up a real difficulty in this sort of thing. Making spurious charges that "there is no evidence" takes a few keystrokes and a paragraph or two, but refuting the charges could take a few volumes and painstaking logic trees that begin with dashing the misconception and then rebuilding the legitimate case. It's a one-sided encounter under these conditions.
Believe me, I'd rather just call them for what they are and move on.
Erich, I thank you too for this site and I understand that I am invading your territory and I respect your rules. I wasn't trying to be rude with my comment. I was asking some serious questions. Richard Dawkins is a brilliant man. The problem with evolution is not only the process, but the origin. Evolutionists claim that everything came from nothing. Stephen Hawking is claiming "spontaneous generation" by using the m theory, except that Laws in the absence of a force has no power. This is just another assertion on Professor Hawking's part. Also, the only thing the fossil records show is that something lived and died. No one knows for sure how the universe came into being and how it became so fine tuned.
Walter: Thank you for your follow-up. I must say, though, that I have never read any biologist claim that "everything came from nothing." That is certainly not part of any legitimate theory of evolution, which holds, instead, that there is a unified tree of life, and that all life forms come from prior life forms, until you get to the simplest life form(s), and scientists who are not using principles of evolution are grappling with the origin of those earliest life forms.
You'll need to write to Mr. Hawking about the ultimate claim that "everything came from nothing," because I don't understand such a claim. My gut feeling is that there always was something. I call it the universe, whereas you presumably say that God always was. My contention is that adding God to the equation stirs in unnecessary complications, violating Ockham's Razor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor
Again, the question of where the universe came from is not part of the field of biology. The theories that I have heard ring of rank speculation, not science, even when uttered by scientists. Perhaps you have that same view toward evolution, but I see a distinction based upon the many types of real-life evidence supporting evolution, and the lack of much of anything suggestion why there is a universe rather than no universe.
Walter – not to answer for Erich, but evolution is not abiogenesis, nor does it have anything to do with cosmology.
Perhaps you need to do some even more fundamental reading before you comment further on this particular topic.
There are a host of sites on evolution (see previous comments including this
There are similar sites related to abiogenesis. Talk Origins is a great starting point for what it is, and isn't, and provides a lifetime's worth of reading once you get started on the link)
There are many, many great physics/cosmology sites:
map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/
<a href="http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm” target=”_blank”>www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
superstringtheory.com/cosmo/index.html
<a href="http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/intro/cosmo-frame.html” target=”_blank”>www.pbs.org/faithandreason/intro/cosmo-frame.html
<a href="http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/gr/public/cos_home.html” target=”_blank”>www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/gr/public/cos_home.html
and many others… (google is your friend)
But do be careful – cosmology seems to attract as many crazies (extreme outliers) as evolution and AGW. Take care to confirm what you read by looking at the source of the statements – are they portraying real published peer-reviewed research or are they stating a layman's opinion (a hint is that the crazy opinion ones tend to use HTML c. 1985, with lots of 'blink' and color.)
Your opinion is always your own. If you want to counter ours, please do so with regard to facts and evidence.
Thanks
The following article was written after the 2008 debate betwee Richard Dawkins and John Lennox at the Oxford's National History Museum. In it He states that a serious case could be made for a deistic God and that he indeed believed the first particle arose spontaneously from nothing. http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/254343…
Walter: Thank you, I think. Too bad the original video from the debates is missing, and all we really have is highly charged commentary from a fellow who is not a big fan of Richard Dawkins. I prefer to allow Dawkins speak for himself rather than have someone else interpret what he says. For instance, consider this series of videos http://dangerousintersection.org/2010/09/04/how-t… There are many others out there on the Internet.
Keep in mind that Dawkins has not placed himself in the "strong atheist" category. http://dangerousintersection.org/2007/03/03/the-s…
Walter
The "first particle spontaneously arising from nothing" is cosmology. In cosmology, Prof. Dawkins is a layman (as am I, as are you, I warrant)
Therefore whatever he says on that subject is merely his opinion. Not the opinion of 'Science' (although in this case he is pretty close to mainstream, he is nowhere near the bleeding edge of current theories and research).
Try some of the links I suggested as a start on cosmology – you'll see how inane it is to call out any educated or informed person for that statement.
Tony, I think you may have inflated your 200 lb and 800 lb gorillas.
http://bigthink.com/ideas/20583
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/800_lb_gorilla
Ben
I know I referred to the Harvard '200lb gorilla that no-one sees' experiment in passing – but can't find the comment now.
And regarding the "Gorilla in the room" that is too big to ignore … can't seem to find that comment either.
Can you help an addled fool who's google-fu seems to have (like the thief) vanished in the night? I'd be very appreciative.
Tony: Here is your gorilla comment "in passing" (unintentional pun?). http://dangerousintersection.org/2010/08/22/if-bi…
thanks Erich
Re-reading my comment, I think I actually made sense!
Our evidence (reality based) is an 800lb gorilla (too big to ignore) walking across the basketball court of life (ignored because the observers are too busy with other perceptually demanding tasks).
Honest! This is not simply a posteriori revisionism!
Conflation of two ideas to engender a third is the hallmark of genius (or something)! LOL 😀
Caveman in man's Image or imagination?
Thanks Mark, for the link and info…good stuff! The cave art is more advanced than I imagined, not as cavemanish as one would think…
I would like to expose you all to a Dr. Cuozzo, who wrote "Buried Alive", has findings of European museum manipulating of anthro-features, this is Dr Cuozzo's rebuttal to a Australian anthpologists book review:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/cuozzoreply….
I've read the book years back, but he has good findings that need reviewing. Is there problems with scientist and museums making caveman in their image?
Cave man: in museum man's own image?
A personal rebuttal of Dr. Cuozzo 'Buried Alive' book:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/cuozzoreply….
Rabel
Every age has depicted our ancestors differently, depending on the current vogue. It is only recently that some effort has been taken to apply significant rigor to the process of 'fleshing out the bones', both of critters (such as dinosaurs) and people (your eponymous caveman). See Elisabeth Daynès' recent work on the hyper realistic reconstruction of early humans
Can you provide examples (other than per the apocryphal Cuozzo book) where museums have purposefully depicted our neolithic ancestors badly? (I presume that is what you mean by "making cavemen in their image")
One parting comment about Cuozzo's book: if one is to believe Cuozzo, then almost the entirety of the paleoanthopologic field are complicit in a conspiracy to alter evidence and hide the facts of such alteration.
I tend towards Occam's razor in cases like this – one voice in the wilderness may be true, but saying so doesn't make it so. I'd need some compelling alternative evidence and corroboration from other than Cuozzo's known associates. That such evidence is lacking, is claimed by supporters of Cuozzo as confirmation of conspiracy. I read it simply as a lack of evidence.
Your mileage may vary.
oops – paleoanthRopologic
For more information on this topic, I can highly recommend two books: "Why the Jews Rejected Jesus," by David Klinghoffer, and "The Portable Atheist," by Christopher Hitchens.
I enjoy reading my bible almost everyday, I have read it four times already and now am doing a more systematic (with extra research on something I don't understand) approach with a view to understanding it and applying what I can.
reason people don't read it varies if I would meander a guess? first they don't read it with the right purpose, so they don't benefit and lose interest, second the science community si discrediting it with no proof of their statments, many people go by their word, so many feel it is just a book of oppression for the priests who wrote it.
thirdly it is a deep book, requirng alot of time to understand it. it took me over a year to read it through the first time. 9 months the second time and less than that the third time. teh bible is not meant to be casual reading. in fact I am still learning new things, connecting more dots etc.
I hear alot of discrediting statements about the bible on tv, the net, and yet they present no proof of their statements.
it is understandable the bible would be discredited after all it is the only book that tells you God'name, some translations it is found at ps 83:18, sometimes you can find out about it in the appendix or introduction, especially older books. it is the only book that tells why man is suffering like he is, why wickedness abounds, why we grow old and die, the only book that describes in detail Gods will and purpose of mankind, that satan exists who he is where he came from, what God's kingdom is, what the future holds, what God has done in the past and why, What God requires of us to be in has favor etc.
tells you why man desires a paradise no matter what culture he is in, why paradise was lost how it will be regained, etc, satan doesnt want people to read it know it and have faith in it. (trust it). it explains the condition of the dead, about the resurrection, it basically has everything anyone could ever need to satisfy his spiritual needs.
it is the only book I have ever read that the writtings cover a long span of centuries and that existed before christ was even born. isa and jeremiah existing and writting long before jesus ever came on the scene. jesus many times quoted from isaiah psalms, genesis, etc.
my favorite books are revelation, ezekiel, the smaller books or prophets they are called like malachi and jonah, and habakkah. these are my all time favorites tho I like jeremiah too almost as much.
lest favorites are the chronicles and if you ever read them you would understand why. to tedious for me.
if you want to know if the bible is God's word try reading it yourself and dont rely on others to tell you it is not Gods word or not. look at the history of the isrealites, how they acted benefitted or punished accordingly, how other nations were dealt with, the genesis account with the order of creation of life, not the planet, life on it, creation account.
take brief notes and as you come across scriptures that deal with the subject you read before, connect the dots so to speak on subjects that are the same.
you could as you read scriptures that describe God's view of time, days years. many scriptures give clues as to how he view one day. ps 90 for example and number talks about time. or connect the dots about the differnce of what it says and what people belived at that time, like job (moses wrote job there lifespans overlapped) talking about the circle of the earth or the earth hanging on nothing in isaiah. during the time people believed differently.
stuff like that. you can't appreciate something unless you taste it or use it yourself. plese don't take peoples word for it that it is not what it say it is.
Dear Rosa,
The science community discredits the Christian bible with no proof, because science doesn't deal with proof, it deals with evidence and evidence never proves anything.
You say the Christian bible is the only book that does a number of things, but it is not. There are many, many holy books that do all of the things you mentioned, some even older than the oldest parts of the Christian bible. Nothing in the Christian bible is particularly extraordinary, the Christian god's morality is primitive even for the surrounding times and cultures. Where is the denunciation of genocide, slavery, or rape in the Christian bible?
You equate faith with trust, but they are not the same thing. Faith is defined by belief regardless of evidence or lack thereof, whereas trust is defined by belief on the basis of past experience (evidence).
You look to the history of the Israelites for evidence, but I wonder where you are getting this history? From the Christian bible perhaps? Or maybe from Christians who are just interpreting the bible? In either case, it is circular reasoning to use the grandiose claims made in the Christian bible to corroborate the grandiose claims made in the Christian bible. I encourage you to find some critiques of biblical history based on real, archeological evidence.
How does the fact that people believed differently support your hypothesis that god exists? I would think it supports the exact opposite conclusion.
You say, "if you want to know if the bible is God’s word try reading it yourself." I say if you want to know if something is true, read the critics, not the supporters. A critical eye is the only protection against delusion.