logo
Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
View
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline sirgodfrey  
#1 Posted : Tuesday, February 24, 2009 11:44:37 AM(UTC)
sirgodfrey
Joined: 10/2/2008(UTC)
Posts: 512
Location: North Carolina

I know, I know... the title of the thread is utterly amazing, you don't have to tell me lol. But my question is regarding the Textus Receptus and how much of the modern translations of the bible are based on this. Someone please outline some history of the Textus Receptus for me, what makes it horrible, and how much of current translations rely on this literature. I don't know much of anything about the Textus Receptus, but it seems to be a pretty big ripoff from what I've heard from Yada when I listened on the 'No Compromise' show not too long ago. Thank you brothers and sisters.


YHWH Sid-Que(?)-Knew
Offline James  
#2 Posted : Wednesday, February 25, 2009 8:45:14 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,616
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 216 time(s) in 149 post(s)
I know for a fact that the KJV and NKJV new testaments are entirely based on the TR. And from what I understand the NIV tries to use other sources. I know Yada says that it is the basis for most every English translations.

I did some research on this a while ago, and have a few good articles, but they are on my home computer, I will have to get them and post them later. I remember that the 2 people who compiled it were humanist, and did almost no research into the validity of the text the used, instead going for expediency they used what was close at hand. Large portions, they had no Greek text available, so they took the Latin Vulgate and translated it back to Greek. Then when the Catholic church protested, because some of what they deemed divine writ was not included, the compilers added in to make it more sell able.

And Yada has noted that there are 300,000 known variants between the TR and the oldest Greek Renewed Covenant Scriptures. And while I tend to take him at his word, I don't know where he got this statistic from, but I didn't really look for it.
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline sirgodfrey  
#3 Posted : Wednesday, February 25, 2009 10:03:57 AM(UTC)
sirgodfrey
Joined: 10/2/2008(UTC)
Posts: 512
Location: North Carolina

thank you so much for this information. of course i could wikipedia it, but im not sure of the accuracy of a lot of its imformation. i figure this forum may have some knowledgable persons here that would have some information they could share. i really appreciate it and if there are any more persons with valuable information, please hollaaa! much love in Yahuweh the Most High.
Offline sirgodfrey  
#4 Posted : Monday, March 9, 2009 4:23:45 PM(UTC)
sirgodfrey
Joined: 10/2/2008(UTC)
Posts: 512
Location: North Carolina

Swalchy wrote:

Quote:
because, you know, it's like super-awesome and the New Testament that Jesus read OMLROFLMAOPIMP%$%*&^1!!!



LOLOL
Offline BiynaYahu  
#5 Posted : Monday, March 9, 2009 6:35:03 PM(UTC)
BiynaYahu
Joined: 4/5/2008(UTC)
Posts: 314
Man
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Swalchy wrote:
And you don't find many websites that do a good critical analysis of the TR - because, you know, it's like super-awesome and the New Testament that Jesus read OMLROFLMAOPIMP%$%*&^1!!!


That's funny because Jesus didn't write the Textus Receptus until the Sunday before he was crcified while he was at church.
Someone who does not dearly love or welcome, entertain, look fondly upon or cherish people with strong affection or highly esteem them with great favour, goodwill or benevolence, be loyal to or greatly adore them has not known or understood, perceived or realized, noticed or discerned, discovered or observed, experienced or ascertained, learned about or distinguished, comprehended, acknowledged or recognized God*, for concerning this, God* is and exists as brotherly love and affection, good will, esteem and benevolence.
Offline Matthew  
#6 Posted : Tuesday, March 10, 2009 5:44:11 AM(UTC)
Matthew
Joined: 10/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,191
Man
Location: São Paulo, Brazil

Was thanked: 3 time(s) in 2 post(s)
Swalchy wrote:
Seriously - just Google "KJV Onlyism" or "Textus Receptus Onlyism" and you'll see many of the ridiculous things people say regarding the KJV and the TR.

I actually heard one preacher, whilst lifting up his KJV bible, specifically state "This is the Bible version that we shall be reading in heaven!"

I mean, seriously...

Does that include the preface to the original 1611 KJV version that starts with the words "To the most high and mightie Prince, James by the grace of God, King of Great Britaine, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith , &c"? Source
Offline James  
#7 Posted : Tuesday, March 10, 2009 6:42:45 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,616
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 216 time(s) in 149 post(s)
I once saw a bumper sticker that said "The King James Bible IS The Inerrant Word Of GOD."

My jaw dropped, and this was before I found out just how errant the KJV was.
To say the bible is the inerrant word of god is one thing, even though it never claims such, but to claim a translation is inerrant...
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline sirgodfrey  
#8 Posted : Tuesday, March 10, 2009 6:52:41 AM(UTC)
sirgodfrey
Joined: 10/2/2008(UTC)
Posts: 512
Location: North Carolina

James wrote:
I once saw a bumper sticker that said "The King James Bible IS The Inerrant Word Of GOD."



HAHHAHAALOLOLOL

And "This is the Bible version that we shall be reading in heaven!" dang yo, thas crazy. What a quote.
Offline James  
#9 Posted : Tuesday, March 10, 2009 8:14:12 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,616
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 216 time(s) in 149 post(s)
Yeah i guess it was a good thing Jesus was able to give the Jews in 33 a translation of the bible that wasn't compiled for another 1600 years.

and I don't really recall where it says that Yahweh, who revealed himself mostly in Hebrew, actually spoke King James English, can any one remind me of where that is?

Edited by user Wednesday, March 11, 2009 4:57:30 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline kp  
#10 Posted : Tuesday, March 10, 2009 9:22:58 AM(UTC)
kp
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,030
Location: Palmyra, VA

"Reviled Himself mostly in Hebrew?" Gotta watch that spelling, James. :-) I was just thinking that since "Jesus" had the King James to go by, He knew exactly what to say... He just read the stuff printed in red ink.

kp
Offline In His Name  
#11 Posted : Tuesday, March 10, 2009 11:36:09 AM(UTC)
In His Name
Joined: 9/7/2008(UTC)
Posts: 550

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
kp wrote:
......I was just thinking that since "Jesus" had the King James to go by, He knew exactly what to say... He just read the stuff printed in red ink.

kp


For sure KP. That made it much easier for him to keep his place.. LOL
“Because he clings to Me, is joined to Me, loves and delights in Me, desires Me, therefore I will deliver him, carry him safely away, cause him to escape from harm making him inaccessible and strong, and delivering him safely to heaven, because he has known, observed, cared for, recognized, instructed and advised others to use, designated, acknowledged, discerned, answered in, My name, authority, character, report, mark, and nature." Psalm 91:14
Offline James  
#12 Posted : Wednesday, March 11, 2009 4:56:43 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,616
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 216 time(s) in 149 post(s)
My bad, spelling has always been my WEEK point.

I think it was Yada made the quip that God gave Adam and Eve a copy of the king James bible on there way out of Eden and said, "Good luck kid, I put the good stuff in red, there's going to be a test."
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline sirgodfrey  
#13 Posted : Wednesday, March 11, 2009 4:59:01 AM(UTC)
sirgodfrey
Joined: 10/2/2008(UTC)
Posts: 512
Location: North Carolina

James wrote:
"Good luck kid, I put the good stuff in red, there's going to be a test."


LOL, i put the good stuff in red. :) def brought a smile to my morning. thank you.
Offline Theophilus  
#14 Posted : Wednesday, December 30, 2009 2:49:13 AM(UTC)
Theophilus
Joined: 7/5/2007(UTC)
Posts: 544
Man

Thanks: 4 times
I read through this thread in hopes that it may give me a good starting point in answering a post made regarding the KJV and the Textus receptus on another forum. I thought I'd ask here how you might answer a sincere Chrisitan who holds to the following:

Quote:
Really quick, I gotta say this first; that I'm not against other Bible versions but believe that it's ok to use them
in order to aid your understanding of God's word--however, there must be a standard established that is as faithful and as true to the original texts as possible. None other is as faithful as the KJV.

The reason for this is because the KJV is the "Received Text": it was the text that was translated as faithfully as possible from the manuscripts that had been circulated from one church to the next during the Early Church Era. These
manuscripts had been read by the folks in the Early Church and had been accepted by them LONG before the Council of Nicea ever took place! That's what makes the KJV so special. Another thing; the Bible had not been translated into English until King James had gotten the throne. These scholars valued and highly treasured the scriptures and they tried their best to translate it as accurately as possible (in fact, you can read all about it in the introduction to some KJV Bibles).

If you want to know more, you can go to Wikipedia and type in Received Text.


I can agree that having a common reliable source for Scripture would be immensly helpful in understanding God's message. Is the TR based KJV more reliable than any other translation? After considering so much evidence raised in YY I'm convinced it is not, but would struggle to point to a popular translation that I could say is more accurate. To answer this, I'm considering distilling the TR material from the revised Introduction chapter to YY unless there is a better source I can direct people to.

Any thoughts?

Offline kp  
#15 Posted : Wednesday, December 30, 2009 4:05:02 AM(UTC)
kp
Joined: 6/28/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,030
Location: Palmyra, VA

Quote:
Another thing; the Bible had not been translated into English until King James had gotten the throne.


You've gotta wonder about somebody who's got such a light grasp on historical reality. John Wycliffe and friends completed their common-English translation of the Bible in 1382, translated from the Latin Vulgate mostly. I understand that about 85% of the KJV is word-for-word Wycliffe.

kp
Offline James  
#16 Posted : Wednesday, December 30, 2009 6:57:03 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,616
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 216 time(s) in 149 post(s)
You can't fix stupid.
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline Robskiwarrior  
#17 Posted : Wednesday, December 30, 2009 7:13:42 AM(UTC)
Robskiwarrior
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,470
Man
Location: England

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
James wrote:
You can't fix stupid.


But I have my fixing stick, can't I have a go?!
Signature Updated! Woo that was old...
Offline James  
#18 Posted : Wednesday, December 30, 2009 10:00:08 AM(UTC)
James
Joined: 10/23/2007(UTC)
Posts: 2,616
Man
Location: Texas

Thanks: 5 times
Was thanked: 216 time(s) in 149 post(s)
Robskiwarrior wrote:
But I have my fixing stick, can't I have a go?!

You can try. But anyone who believes that is so illogical and misinformed it's probably futile.
Don't take my word for it, Look it up.

“The truth is not for all men but only for those who seek it.” ― Ayn Rand
Offline RidesWithYah  
#19 Posted : Wednesday, December 30, 2009 11:13:38 AM(UTC)
RidesWithYah
Joined: 6/10/2008(UTC)
Posts: 331

Quote:
I can agree that having a common reliable source for Scripture would be immensly helpful in understanding God's message.


This is why I'm anxiously awaiting Swalchy's complete "simplified" amplified; what's that called, version 3?
I struggle with the fully amplified, but fully applaud the work!

Offline bitnet  
#20 Posted : Wednesday, December 30, 2009 9:45:52 PM(UTC)
bitnet
Joined: 7/3/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,120

Shalom,

Hahahaha! I'd personally like to see Robski use his fixing stick to crack this guy's stupid. I'd also rather wait for Robski's edition of Scripture (I suspect somewhat akin to a Monty Python verson but historically and etymologically accurate if edStueart and I help to co-write) than to waste time with people who think they know the truth when they clearly do not. "Come back here, I'll bite your kneecaps off!"
The reverence of Yahweh is the beginning of Wisdom.
Offline Theophilus  
#21 Posted : Thursday, December 31, 2009 2:45:37 AM(UTC)
Theophilus
Joined: 7/5/2007(UTC)
Posts: 544
Man

Thanks: 4 times
I've been peicing together my answer as I'm guessing that she's been taught KJV-oly and the innerancy of the TR as a matter of faith.

From YY Intro chapter, Reshith we have:

Quote:
The reason they are all errant and inadequate is that they all come from the same polluted well and familiarity sells. The Textus Receptus serves as the original foundation of all English translations of the Renewed Covenant and yet it was an intellectual fraud and financial hoax. In October of 1515 CE a Dutch secular humanist, Desiderius Erasmus, and Johann Froben, a publisher of low repute, took five months to mark up, adding and taking away from, a highly flawed 12th century Medieval Greek manuscript and set type directly from those arbitrary scribbles. Then in the places where they didn’t have possession of a Greek text, they filled in the blanks by translating the Latin Vulgate. Worse, when Roman Catholics protested that some of their pet passages weren’t included, to quiet their critics, Erasmus and Froben added them without any Scriptural basis.

In the absence of a viable competitor, the highly errant rendering was said to be “a text received by all in which we have nothing changed or corrupted.” This rubbish was thus rendered “the Textus Receptus.” And from this trash, the King James was printed in 1609 CE for purely political reasons. The KJV in turn became so popular, no English translation has yet been offered which dares to correct its familiar phrasing.

It wasn’t until 1707 that the Textus Receptus was challenged—effectively undermining the basis of the Reformation and Protestantism. John Mill, a fellow of Queens College in Oxford, invested 30 years comparing the Textus Receptus to some one hundred Greek manuscripts in his possession. In so doing, he discovered and documented 30,000 variations between them. And even this was just the tip of the iceberg. Known variations between the oldest manuscripts of the Renewed Covenant, and that which serves as the basis for most English translations, exceed 300,000. (Even though some improvements were made in the later Westcott and Hort (1881) and Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (1898 (also known as Novum Testamentum Graece)), both texts remain more in sync with the Textus Receptus than with the earliest extant (and recently discovered and published) Greek manuscripts.) So while Christian pastors hold up their favorite English translation of the Bible and proclaim that it is “the inerrant word of God,” factually, the book they are touting isn’t even remotely consistent with the earliest witnesses.


The wikipedia article may not be as useless as I feared:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus

Quote:
John Mill (1645-1707), collated textual variants from 82 Greek manuscripts. In his Novum Testamentum Graecum, cum lectionibus variantibus MSS (Oxford 1707) he reprinted the unchanged text of the Editio Regia, but in the index he enumerated 30,000 textual variants.[10]

...

The majority of textual critical scholars since the late 19th Century, have adopted an eclectic approach to the Greek New Testament; with the most weight given to the earliest extant manuscripts which tend mainly to be Alexandrian in character; the resulting eclectic Greek text departing from the Textus Receptus in around 6,000 readings. A significant minority of textual scholars, however, maintain the priority of the Byzantine text-type; and consequently prefer the "Majority Text". No school of textual scholarship now continues to defend the priority of the Textus Receptus; although this position does still find adherents amongst the King-James-Only Movement, and other Protestant groups hostile to the whole discipline of text criticism—as applied to scripture; and suspicious of any departure from Reformation traditions.


While I'm doubtful such material will impact a KJV Only devote, it might make others re-think the matter.
Offline Theophilus  
#22 Posted : Monday, January 4, 2010 5:45:11 AM(UTC)
Theophilus
Joined: 7/5/2007(UTC)
Posts: 544
Man

Thanks: 4 times
The discuission has moved on some and I'm contemplating approriate replies.

In defense of the KJV and Textus Receptus she shared the following:

Having recently reanalyzed the situation, I have discovered that the overall scholarly world views the TR rather skeptically, stating that it's "just like the rest of the texts that are out there" and dismissing its uniqueness entirely. Here are some things worth noting:

Quote:
1. The Gnostics loved hanging out in Egypt, reading "secret" or "mystical" literature.
2. It was a few of the Gnostics in Egypt who faked some of Paul's letters.
3. The Gnostics "created" their OWN version of the scriptures, leaving out certain portions of text here and there.
4. Later, Westcott and Hort built on that legacy that they had left behind, taking out even more scriptures then they had!

Quote:
Quote:
1. The differences between the various editions of the Greek Received Text are extremely slight and cannot be compared to the differences found in the Alexandrian manuscripts.

According to Scrivener’s extensive comparisons, there are only 252 places in which the Erasmus, Stephanus, Elzevir, Beza, and Complutensian Polyglot disagree sufficiently to affect the English translation. The 3rd edition of Stephanus and the 1st edition of Elzevir differ only 19 times in Mark. The editions of Beza differ from the 4th edition of Stephanus only 38 times in the entire New Testament.

In contrast, consider three of the chief Alexandrian manuscripts, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Codex D. In the Gospel of Mark alone, Vaticanus disagrees with Sinaiticus 652 times and with Codex D 1,944 times. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus disagree with one another in more than 3,000 places in the four Gospels alone!

2. Following are some of the most important of the differences between editions of the Greek Received Text:

Luke 2:22 -- Erasmus and Stephanus have “their purification,” while Beza, Elzevir, and Complutensian have “her purification”

Luke 17:36 -- Erasmus and the first three editions of Stephanus omit this verse, while Beza, Elzevir, and the 4th edition of Stephanus include it.

John 1:28 -- Erasmus, Beza, Elzevir, and the 3rd and 4th editions of Stephanus have “Bethabara beyond Jordan,” while the 1st and 2nd editions of Stephanus have “Bethany beyond Jordan.”

John 16:33 -- Beza and Elzevir read “shall have tribulation,” while Erasmus and Stephanus read “have tribulation.”

Romans 8:11 -- Beza and Elzevir read “by His Spirit that dwelleth in you,” while Erasmus and Stephanus read “because of His Spirit that dwelleth in you.”

Romans 12:11 -- Beza, Elzevir, and the first edition of Erasmus read “serving the Lord,” while Stephanus and the 2nd to the 5th editions of Erasmus read “serving the time.”

1 Timothy 1:4 -- Erasmus, Beza, and Elzevir have “godly edifying,” while Stephanus has “dispensation of God.”

Hebrews 9:1 -- Stephanus reads “first tabernacle,” while Erasmus and Beza omit “tabernacle.”

James 2:18 -- The last three editions of Beza has “without thy works,” while Erasmus, Stephanus, and the first edition of Beza have “by thy works.”


The scholarly writings failed to mention the amount of changes that had been done to their texts vs. the RT, lumping the RT in with all the rest!

In conclusion, there is a prologue at the very front of most KJV Bibles from the scholars who translated the RT (and it packs a pretty powerful punch if you ask me!) It's REALLY good! You can find it either by searching for it on google or by going to Michael Marlow's website "Bible Research", click on "English versions of Scripture", then
the "KJV", and finally, "preface".


I recall Yada going into some length on the KJV preface. I'd like to gather more information before comparing how the earliest texts differ among each other before comparing these with TR to other early sources. This seems like a subject Swalchy can speak to far better than I, but I'm open to pointers.


Offline Y.I.K.  
#23 Posted : Monday, January 4, 2010 12:23:11 PM(UTC)
Y.I.K.
Joined: 9/17/2009(UTC)
Posts: 58
Location: Dallas, Texas

quick question...

So, among NT manuscripts, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Codex D are all post-Constantine, right? Is there a name for pre-Constantine manuscripts other than "pre-Constantine" or "earliest"?

Also, the 3 codex's above were compiled/written about when?
Truth is like sandpaper. When you run across it, it can do one of 2 things: grind you down into nothing, or polish and refine you.
Offline Dominick8720  
#24 Posted : Sunday, May 2, 2010 3:56:53 PM(UTC)
Dominick8720
Joined: 4/3/2010(UTC)
Posts: 21
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Greetings and shalom everyone:

Regarding translations of early manuscripts, I like the idea of amplified and accurate Scriptures but I'm struggling reading yours, Swalchy. Maybe I'm too impatient, I don't know. Since all of the popular versions of the "bible" are filled with errors and are not worth reading, do I have any other options?

Thanks in advance for your guidance.


Offline Robskiwarrior  
#25 Posted : Sunday, May 2, 2010 8:48:25 PM(UTC)
Robskiwarrior
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,470
Man
Location: England

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Hey Dom - Yes there is a shortage isn't there...

Swalchy's current version of his translation is tough to read if you are just reading it "normally" - I think it works better if you want to actually study something, then you can read a standard version and compare it. We are doing a similar thing with the version of the TPP that James is compiling and translating - we are at Gen 6 at the moment, but man if we had just read the standard "translation" we would have missed sooo much!

I think a lot of people do recommend "The Scriptures" as a translation that has Yah's and Yahushua's name in it - but none are great I don't think... I don't think Swalchy would even call his great, maybe "a good accurate start" :)
Signature Updated! Woo that was old...
Offline Dominick8720  
#26 Posted : Monday, May 3, 2010 3:47:24 AM(UTC)
Dominick8720
Joined: 4/3/2010(UTC)
Posts: 21
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

No excuses - get 'er done, Swalchy! Whatever it takes!

Just kidding, I appreciate all of your hard work on Version 3.

I'm wrapping up a couple of projects this week and won't feel so pressed for time next week - and I'll give Version 1 another try.

Thanks for the tips.
Offline cgb2  
#27 Posted : Tuesday, May 18, 2010 3:09:54 AM(UTC)
cgb2
Joined: 5/14/2010(UTC)
Posts: 689
Location: Colorado

Thanks: 16 times
Was thanked: 24 time(s) in 18 post(s)
> Personally, I'm not a fan of "The Scriptures" translation. In fact, I wouldn't actually call it a "translation". All I can see that they've done, having read sections of "The Scriptures", is they've taken the NIV, re-worded it a bit, and then stuck in the original names of people.

Yep but for all its faults, at least it doesn't assualt you with "THE LORD" constantly. Also peoples & places names are interesting. I really like the amplified portions compiled in YY for clarity, but still only portions. As one who has all but ignored the "old" covenant and wants to read in entirety, then follow up with detailed study, I'll settle for a least worse English version.

I also like to study TWTY when in the mood to really focus. I eagerly anticipate the book of Yacohannon (John), or hoping it will be.
Offline Robskiwarrior  
#28 Posted : Tuesday, May 18, 2010 3:11:48 AM(UTC)
Robskiwarrior
Joined: 7/4/2007(UTC)
Posts: 1,470
Man
Location: England

Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
cgb2 wrote:
I also like to study TWTY when in the mood to really focus. I eagerly anticipate the book of Yacohannon (John), or hoping it will be.


*cracks the whip over swalchy*
Signature Updated! Woo that was old...
Offline lassie1865  
#29 Posted : Saturday, October 30, 2010 2:43:10 PM(UTC)
lassie1865
Joined: 2/18/2008(UTC)
Posts: 309
Woman
Location: Colorado

Has anyone discussed Bart Erhman's books? I couldn't find his name in the search.
Offline john  
#30 Posted : Sunday, October 31, 2010 12:25:28 AM(UTC)
john
Joined: 10/22/2010(UTC)
Posts: 4
Location: south australia

having a quick look at Amazon, the books he wrote look interesting enough to read but I didnt see any mention of Yahushua at all, only Jesus. So maybe his research wasn't as in depth as it could have been. I will be tempted to get them though.
Offline VaBlueRidge  
#31 Posted : Sunday, October 31, 2010 2:53:30 AM(UTC)
VaBlueRidge
Joined: 9/11/2010(UTC)
Posts: 25
Location: Virginia

lassie1865 wrote:
Has anyone discussed Bart Erhman's books? I couldn't find his name in the search.


I would approach Bart Erhman's books with caution.
My understanding is that he is an agnostic, he doesn't believe Yahushua resurrected or that He is the Son of Yahuwah.

Erhman appears to be one of the post-modern crowd that strips the scriptures to remove any restraints, and elevates Gnostic writings/'gospels' in order to justify PC liberal lifestyles.

I've read nothing that implies he is seeking to understand Yahushua as the Jewish, Torah-observant, Son of Yahuwah.
Yahuwah bless thee, and keep thee:
Yahuwah make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:
Yahuwah lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

(Numbers 6:24-26)
Offline J&M  
#32 Posted : Sunday, October 31, 2010 2:56:22 AM(UTC)
J&M
Joined: 9/5/2007(UTC)
Posts: 234
Location: Eretz Ha'Quodesh

RE Bart Ehrman

A man who has found his answers.

I came across this site

http://bible.org/article/gospel-according-bart
Offline bigritchie  
#33 Posted : Sunday, October 31, 2010 6:21:37 AM(UTC)
bigritchie
Joined: 4/15/2010(UTC)
Posts: 305
Location: USA

Ah I just saw these questions regarding Bart.

Yes, I have read many of his books, and find them to all be excellent.

Yes, Bart is Agnostic, sadly he has thrown the entire Baby out with the bathwater, that being said his books are really great reading.

In a way Bart's approach is very refreshing because he does not write with religious bias, and just states the facts as he sees them.

I may not agree with everything Bart says, but I really enjoy reading his books, and would recommend them highly. Especially regarding the nature of this board I think you would all enjoy it as you are not enslaved by religion.
Users browsing this topic
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.