Greg Boyd on New Testiment Reliablity

[AlP]

Thats going to segue back on topic though (well not back on topic but back on current discussion).  What is considered a dimension? Dictionary.com gives the word dimension a broad range of meaning.  Can anyone think of a good way to define dimension with an example (preferably one thats not time ^_^ but can apply to time)?

Lol. If you ask this in another thread I'll answer. Maybe tomorrow though. I'm getting tired.

[Reginus]

First, I have an alternative definition of "supernatural being": A free agent that is not restrained by the laws of physics.

That's not quite the same thing. We live in a 4-dimensonal world, but that doesn't mean it's impossible for us to not only comprehend, but test and verify physics in the 5th dimension.

An analogy seeks to capture one aspect of the truth, not the entire truth. Since dimensions are naturalistic, a 5 dimensional world could be modeled mathematically for sure. However, I think that very few in the world (if any) could actually imagine what it would be like to exist in such a universe.

If god is ever discovered and can be tested using natural laws, god will never have been supernatural at all. Why is that a problem? God is supernatural by definition. Supernatural by definition means something can never ever be tested and demonstrated using science.

Agreed. I doubt that God can be scientifically tested.

So the definition, if I get it, is the natural is not a cause of the supernatural but the supernatural can presumably be a cause of the natural? The natural would be the universe, both in space and time? By this definition, does time also apply to the supernatural? Does the supernatural also have a kind of space like the natural?

If it has space and time then it seems like Plato's ideal realm that I linked earlier. If not then it seems more like the paranormal. I don't mean to use paranormal as a dysphemism for the supernatural. I am not attempting to portray the supernatural in a poor light with rhetoric. I simply do not know another comparable word.

First, I would like to say that just as I find it hard to imagine what it would be like to live in a 5 dimensional universe, I find it just as hard to imagine what a supernatural realm might be like. However, the point of Mr. Boyd's first article is not to say exactly what the supernatural might be like, but simply that we ought to be open to the possibility that Jesus wasn't a normal human being.

Edit:
So I've been trying to make sense of this... The first article is about the futility of looking for a non-supernatural Jesus. Suppose Jesus was supernatural. Then by the definition you provided, it seems that he would not be affected causally by the natural world. But he lived in it and was presumably influenced by it right? You believe, among other things, that he was crucified right? Would this not be a contradiction? I'm going to speculate and guess that this is the reason for the Trinity? That would allow the natural and supernatural worlds to interact while keeping a clear non-causal relationship from natural to supernatural? Sorry to press you. People throw around the word supernatural all the time and I would like an accurate definition. This stuff interests me. Thanks again.

Christians generally believe that Christ (supernatural) was manifested through a person named Jesus. It would have certainly been possible for Christ to allow his body to be influenced by the natural world. In other words, Christ could exist without there being a person named Jesus, but Jesus could not have existed without Christ (or at least couldn't have preformed miracles, etc.).

Thinking about the supernatural can you demonstrate supernatural exists?

If you mean something like "can we take a photograph of it?" or "can we scientifically test to see if there is such a thing?" then the answer is no. However, that doesn't mean that it's impossible for something supernatural to exist. If there is evidence suggesting that Jesus might have been (at least partly) supernatural, then we should be open to the possibility.

Btw, you don't have to worry about be leaving (at least for a while.) There's far too much to learn here.

[AlP]

Thanks Reginus. I will reread the first article with that definition in mind. Unfortunately the author's web site seems to be down right now. Hopefully it will be back up soon.

[LoneMateria]

First, I have an alternative definition of "supernatural being": A free agent that is not restrained by the laws of physics.

Can you demonstrate that is different then imaginary?  If a "free agent" is not restrained by the laws of physics and is able to interact we would have documented scientific evidences of this whether we could explain it or not (that is assuming the "free agent" can interact in this world).  There would be lots of these documented scientific mysteries if the "free agent" cares for us and changes the laws of physics on our behalf for a moment.  We'd have amputees with mysteriously regenerated limbs, bullets being stopped in mid air instead of killing someone and other things.  We don't see that.

An analogy seeks to capture one aspect of the truth, not the entire truth. Since dimensions are naturalistic, a 5 dimensional world could be modeled mathematically for sure. However, I think that very few in the world (if any) could actually imagine what it would be like to exist in such a universe.

Through string theory there are up to 11 different dimensions.  We live in those dimensions.  Heres a thought say we only sense 4 dimensions (reasonable based on our senses) but we can mathematically show theres 11.  Even if we don't understand we live in 11 dimensions wouldn't the view of that many dimensions look just like our view right now?

First, I would like to say that just as I find it hard to imagine what it would be like to live in a 5 dimensional universe, I find it just as hard to imagine what a supernatural realm might be like. However, the point of Mr. Boyd's first article is not to say exactly what the supernatural might be like, but simply that we ought to be open to the possibility that Jesus wasn't a normal human being.

The link is down for this article do you have another one?  I need a reference point to begin discussing this >.<

Christians generally believe that Christ (supernatural) was manifested through a person named Jesus. It would have certainly been possible for Christ to allow his body to be influenced by the natural world. In other words, Christ could exist without there being a person named Jesus, but Jesus could not have existed without Christ (or at least couldn't have preformed miracles, etc.).

You said nothing here.  I'm going to note by your choice of words you imply you do not believe this so if you do please correct me.  Other then that this just seems like a bunch of assertions without really addressing AlP's concerns.

If you mean something like "can we take a photograph of it?" or "can we scientifically test to see if there is such a thing?" then the answer is no. However, that doesn't mean that it's impossible for something supernatural to exist. If there is evidence suggesting that Jesus might have been (at least partly) supernatural, then we should be open to the possibility.

Btw, you don't have to worry about be leaving (at least for a while.) There's far too much to learn here.

Glad you are staying ^_^.  If something interacts with our physical world we can measure it.  We don't need a photograph.  We can't take a photograph of gravity or of the wind.  But we can measure the effects the have on the world.  Same thing would be true with some mysterious supernatural being that watches over us and helps us.  By the way you didn't answer my more important question, how can you tell the difference between supernatural (big foot, alien abductions, telekinesis, dowsing, gods, etc) and whats imaginary?   Now you just said we can't scientifically measure anything supernatural (evidence for this please) does that lend credit to any of these?  I'd say in order for something to exist we must have scientific evidence for its existence and that is the only way to tell what is real from what is imaginary.

[Reginus]

Stuff

The article seems to be working fine for me. Try one more time, and if it still isn't working I'll copy and paste it here. A few thoughts:

---->1. Jesus is the center of evidence for supernaturalism (for me at least). Many Christians would say that there is other evidence for miracles, but arguing about this with an atheist would be pointless. Christian supernaturalism comes into play because there is evidence that Jesus preformed miracles, and because he says there there are demonic influences on the world.

2. If it's possible that the physical universe is really part of a larger picture, then we should be open to the possibility if evidence seems to support it. We shouldn't try to side-step it by saying naturalism is the only possibility.

3. Hardly any Christians believe that supernatural powers except for God have infinite power to change the physical world at any time they feel like it.

4. If there are supernatural influences on this world, then they have to "get the job done" somehow. I find it very hard to imagine a demonic/angelic influence simply stopping a bullet in mid-air without some sort of naturalistic mechanism. Perhaps they do this by somehow influencing natural particles who's nature is based on "randomness". Perhaps they are limited to spiritual influence. These guesses are likely wrong, but my original point stands.

[Heretical Rants]

...So basically, all this supernatural stuff might as well be happening in a parallel universe.  It has no effect on us, except perhaps our spirits, which also exist separately in that other realm...

[LoneMateria]

Stuff

The article seems to be working fine for me. Try one more time, and if it still isn't working I'll copy and paste it here. A few thoughts:

Its up now, i'll post about it later.

---->1. Jesus is the center of evidence for supernaturalism (for me at least). Many Christians would say that there is other evidence for miracles, but arguing about this with an atheist would be pointless.

Wow you act like atheists aren't open to evidence.  I'm going to correct what you are saying.  Arguing this with a non-Christian is pointless.  I'm pretty sure Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims and so on would ask for some evidence as well regardless if they do the same for their religion.  Christianity is no different.

Christian supernaturalism comes into play because there is evidence that Jesus preformed miracles, and because he says there there are demonic influences on the world.

What evidence?

2. If it's possible that the physical universe is really part of a larger picture, then we should be open to the possibility if evidence seems to support it. We shouldn't try to side-step it by saying naturalism is the only possibility.

Its possible we live inside the rectum of a pink unicorn, its not probable but its possible.  What is this evidence you refer to?  If memory serves you said it was impossible to have evidence for supernatural events.

3. Hardly any Christians believe that supernatural powers except for God have infinite power to change the physical world at any time they feel like it.

Is this an argument from majority?  Just because many people believed the earth was flat was it flat?

4. If there are supernatural influences on this world, then they have to "get the job done" somehow.

You are making a lot of assumptions in this statement.  You are assuming (given there is such a thing as supernatural) that the influence is intelligent, that they are assigned a job, and that this job is somehow related to us.  Proof please.

I find it very hard to imagine a demonic/angelic influence simply stopping a bullet in mid-air without some sort of naturalistic mechanism.

THEN THE INFLUENCE ISN'T SUPERNATURAL IT'S NATURAL!!!!!!  You said supernatural exists outside physics and that they actively affect things, but now you are saying, "oh well it can't be done without something natural but supernatural influences it".  You are freaking missing the point of the term SUPERNATURAL.  If the only way a bullet can be stopped is by something natural then either bullets are stronger then the supernatural (aka GOD), or there is no supernatural.  Which is it?

Perhaps they do this by somehow influencing natural particles who's nature is based on "randomness". Perhaps they are limited to spiritual influence. These guesses are likely wrong, but my original point stands.

So now are you saying these supernatural things can influence randomness but can't stop a bullet without some natural force?  If supernatural things like GOD can't directly influence the world what is the point of cowering in fear and worshiping it?  Reginus I know you are busy with school but I've brought up a lot of questions about this and flaws in your arguments please address these so I know our conversation is going somewhere.  It feels like you are trying to talk in circles and make stuff up otherwise.

[Reginus]

Wow you act like atheists aren't open to evidence.  I'm going to correct what you are saying.  Arguing this with a non-Christian is pointless.  I'm pretty sure Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims and so on would ask for some evidence as well regardless if they do the same for their religion.  Christianity is no different.

The reason rallying for evidence in miracles is pointless is because it always comes down to the "God of the Gaps."

What evidence?

Heh now we are getting somewhere. I will now direct you to the 8 or so articles in the opening post.

Its possible we live inside the rectum of a pink unicorn, its not probable but its possible.  What is this evidence you refer to?  If memory serves you said it was impossible to have evidence for supernatural events.

I think I said "scientific evidence", meaning always testable. Perhaps I have too narrow of a definition of scientific evidence?

Is this an argument from majority?  Just because many people believed the earth was flat was it flat?

No, it's just that the world would not be like it is if all supernatural influences had unlimited power.

You are making a lot of assumptions in this statement.  You are assuming (given there is such a thing as supernatural) that the influence is intelligent, that they are assigned a job, and that this job is somehow related to us.  Proof please.

I make these assumptions based on what is depicted in the bible.

THEN THE INFLUENCE ISN'T SUPERNATURAL IT'S NATURAL!!!!!!  You said supernatural exists outside physics and that they actively affect things, but now you are saying, "oh well it can't be done without something natural but supernatural influences it".  You are freaking missing the point of the term SUPERNATURAL.  If the only way a bullet can be stopped is by something natural then either bullets are stronger then the supernatural (aka GOD), or there is no supernatural.  Which is it?

If you blow out a candle, then it is essential because you made up your mind to do it. Of course, you could say that the candle went out because fast-flowing air put it out, but if you hadn't made the decision in your brain to blow, the candle would have remained burning. Now, all I'm saying is that I think it is possible for there to be middle ground between natural and supernatural.

So now are you saying these supernatural things can influence randomness but can't stop a bullet without some natural force?

I really don't know, this is just a hypothesis.

If supernatural things like GOD can't directly influence the world what is the point of cowering in fear and worshiping it?

I have been mostly talking about supernatural beings other than God (ex. demons as shown in the Bible.) I don't think that God him self often (with the exception of Jesus) choices to directly interfere. Why? Well in the OT, he DID. Guess what? It didn't work and the Israelites still miserably disobeyed him.

Anyway, here's the point that I feel like I need to get back to. Many liberal scholars start with the assumption that Jesus really did no supernatural acts. Instead of examining the evidence to see if this assumption is supported, they examine the evidence to see how he got away with looking so supernatural (and in the process are forced to discount the majority of the Gospel passages and other associated texts). Greg Boyd simply says that this is futile. That is the entire point of the first article.

Thank you for baring with me. It is hard to support a stance that supernatural powers actually exist, but I think that partly because of the Gospels, this is quite likely.

[AlP]

Anyway, here's the point that I feel like I need to get back to. Many liberal scholars start with the assumption that Jesus really did no supernatural acts. Instead of examining the evidence to see if this assumption is supported, they examine the evidence to see how he got away with looking so supernatural (and in the process are forced to discount the majority of the Gospel passages and other associated texts). Greg Boyd simply says that this is futile. That is the entire point of the first article.

Thank you for baring with me. It is hard to support a stance that supernatural powers actually exist, but I think that partly because of the Gospels, this is quite likely.

I reread the first article and also read some of the other articles. First, if the author is criticizing historians who are asserting conclusions on the basis of poor evidence or bad arguments, and this is in fact the case (I don't know), then I think he would be making a fair point. If he is criticizing them simply for not making supernatural assumptions, I do not agree. I doubt there are many theologians who will disagree that a natural explanation is better than a supernatural explanation. By being skeptical, a scholar is more likely to find the simpler natural explanation.

As to whether I think it is most reasonable to interpret the bible historically on the basis of purely natural assumptions or on the basis of both natural and supernatural, I need a definition for the supernatural interventions claimed by the bible (of which I am not particularly familiar but also not entirely ignorant of). I'm going with this as a definition:

Under what circumstances can supernatural agency be said to
meet the minimum criteria of acceptability as an explanation?
Although precise specification of the threshold is no more here to be
had than in the science laboratory, a general list of criteria can be
offered. Obviously God could do practically anything. So, nothing is
implausible on account of being beyond God’s power. An event can
plausibly be attributed to supernatural intervention, however, only
to the extent that it meets one or more of the following criteria:

(1) it seems consistent with divine wisdom and providence,
(2) it was the object of prayer, and
(3) it is the kind of intervention for which there is precedent
in Scripture and tradition.

Some inexplicable events will clearly fail the criteria.

Link here. Is this reasonable?

So I think that if you want to find a supernatural interpretation of the bible, I agree with the author, it is better to make supernatural assumptions, otherwise you will likely not come to the supernatural conclusion. To me, the problem with this is that it is circular. Let's suppose the miraculous events in the bible are true by the criteria above. They would be true because they are consistent with divine wisdom and providence, are the object of prayer or are the kind of intervention for which there is a precedent in Scripture and tradition. The supernatural would be true only by its own definition. One must make specific supernatural assumptions, such as those above, in order to come to a supernatural conclusion. It is the logical fallacy of begging the question.

There is also the problem that Christianity is not the only religion that does this. It is not not simply a case of deciding whether or not one assumes the supernatural. There is the question of which supernatural. It is a matter of faith in one's own particular supernatural.

[LoneMateria]

The reason rallying for evidence in miracles is pointless is because it always comes down to the "God of the Gaps."

So it comes down to a fallacy?  Then if you still believe in it you are building information upon a fallacy.  Everything you build on a fallacy is equally fallacious.

Heh now we are getting somewhere. I will now direct you to the 8 or so articles in the opening post.

Can you give me something specific?  Some point where you see it as evidence?  What i've read of those articles i'm not impressed and I see fallacies in them.  

I think I said "scientific evidence", meaning always testable. Perhaps I have too narrow of a definition of scientific evidence?

Looking back you did.  But that doesn't change anything.  That just means before you assume we are part of a "larger picture" then you'd have to have testable evidence to prove it.  Saying we are part of a larger picture with no evidence is just as valid as saying we live inside the ass of a pink unicorn with no evidence.

No, it's just that the world would not be like it is if all supernatural influences had unlimited power.

I know you said further down that you didn't include God.  However God is supernatural, so are you saying there is no God here?

I make these assumptions based on what is depicted in the bible.

By saying that you are making even more assumptions.  You are assuming the bible is accurate.  You are assuming its correct in matters of the supernatural (evidence).  And you are assuming your particular interpretation of it is just as correct and accurate.  The more assumptions you make the more you have to demonstrate they are all right or the conclusion you draw is flawed.

If you blow out a candle, then it is essential because you made up your mind to do it. Of course, you could say that the candle went out because fast-flowing air put it out, but if you hadn't made the decision in your brain to blow, the candle would have remained burning. Now, all I'm saying is that I think it is possible for there to be middle ground between natural and supernatural.

There is nothing supernatural about me.  There is nothing supernatural about me blowing out a candle.  In order for that to be true you need to demonstrate there is more then the natural world, and that there is a halfway point.

I have been mostly talking about supernatural beings other than God (ex. demons as shown in the Bible.) I don't think that God him self often (with the exception of Jesus) choices to directly interfere. Why? Well in the OT, he DID. Guess what? It didn't work and the Israelites still miserably disobeyed him.

So much for being all knowing and all powerful :-/  You would think he would know this would happen so either he wanted this to happen, he didn't know it would happen, or there was nothing he could do about it.

Anyway, here's the point that I feel like I need to get back to. Many liberal scholars start with the assumption that Jesus really did no supernatural acts. Instead of examining the evidence to see if this assumption is supported, they examine the evidence to see how he got away with looking so supernatural (and in the process are forced to discount the majority of the Gospel passages and other associated texts). Greg Boyd simply says that this is futile. That is the entire point of the first article.

That is the point of skepticism and science.  You start out doubting something until there is sufficient evidence to prove it true.  It is futile to say something exists when there isn't sufficient evidence for it.

[

NP.  I realize we are all busy so if I came off as pissy i'm sorry.  I think you would like Misquoting Jesus, I see you posted a link that discredits it, and i'm going to go over it eventually and i'll post what I think about that link.

[LoneMateria]

Okay this is my thorough response to the Misquoting Jesus link.  If anyone wants to add or correct something i'm saying please feel free to do so.  ^_^  I'm going to start with the first paragraph under ANSWER.  I will number it as paragraph 1, and the number will represent each paragraph after that, if I have nothing to say or comment on a paragraph I will skip that number and go on. Just to clear up any possible confusion If I can't say anything about paragraph 3 my post will look like this.

Paragraph 2:
StuffStuffStuff
Paragraph 4:

Okay now to begin.

Paragraph 1:
Just a basic introduction to his history with the author attempting to lend credibility to himself saying he "knows" the person.  Of course he says he knew Bart when he was a fundamentalist.  Other then that he ends the paragraph by setting up an an ad hominem by calling Bart bias.  Which is true of everyone to an extent including this author.  Bart was a fundi Christian and was biased because of that, and when he finally became an atheist his views are biased based on that.  Just like everyone else.  The question becomes does his bias cause him to distort evidence in his favor or ignore evidence against his position?  I'd say after reading his book the answer is no, though he is an atheist he doesn't ignore counter points to his arguments, he addresses them head on.

Paragraph 2:
The author is attributing Bart's deconversion to the belief in inerrancy of the bible which in his book he says that is partly right.  There is a second part to this.  In order for us to know what the original authors were saying we need their words.  If we don't have their words we don't know what the original messages of the bible were.  Whether or not the bible has errors in it we can find out if the message survived from the originals which we don't have.

Paragraph 3:
Again the author is trying to blame this on inerrancy.  The main point of Misquoting Jesus isn't to show that our bible is wrong compared to older variations of the text (though it does).  Its point is to show that the meaning has changed from our oldest copies to our most recent ones, and that it hasn't changed a little it's changed a lot.  The author is trying to take this a different direction.  Now before I keep going I want to note that the author hasn't given us any of his credentials and his background which makes him qualified to say way Bart. Ehrman is wrong.  If he doesn't have the credentials then his opinion isn't worth anything, and it would be like a dietitian telling a biologist why evolution isn't real.  Our author ends this by saying its good enough for him to believe the bible is "inspired" and historically trustworthy.  Thats nice but lets see some evidence.

Paragraph 5:
Yes, i'm counting the one line sentence as a paragraph.  Our author says Bart's conclusions outrun the evidence, but this is an assertion that doesn't cite evidence.  From what I remember of the book his examples and his thoughts were clear and connected however I'd be happy to review this if I was presented evidence.  Bart doesn't treat the information as the Scholars are hiding something from you (like the author here implies).  He presents the evidence in a "most people who aren't scholars don't know this" sort of way.  The author finishes up this paragraph by asserting that Bart is in the minority (which may be true I don't know for sure) and that Ehrman is an extremist.  Notice how I use the word assert, this is because the author is failing to give any evidence to support his accusations and is instead trying to discredit Ehrman's work by name calling.

Paragraph 6:
Argument from authority.  The author is saying Bart's teacher from a long time ago doesn't agree with him regardless of the evidence.  First off, how many of us have disagreed with our teachers?  I know I have.  The author treats this as something big even though Metzger made a book with Ehrman in 2005, their relationship obviously wasn't hostile over this disagreement and it isn't as big of a deal as our author is trying to make.  The author finishes off this paragraph by once again asserting that Ehrman is in the minority.  Even if it is true he acts like this is a big deal, what does that have to do with Ehrman being wrong?  He is attempting to divert attention from the facts presented by using another ad hominem argument and an appeal to majority argument.  Ehrman says X, Ehrman is in the minority so X must be wrong.  Again I see no examples here just assertions.

Paragraph 7:
Again the author is attacking Ehrman for something that I don't see.  I will admit my hard jumped a little when I heard there were thousands upon thousands of variations (which the author admits is true in the next paragraph).  But the tone was still, "did you know there are thousands upon thousands of variations in the bible".  The author then tries to say we are uninformed that not every text is called into question which Ehrman makes a specific point of this right afterwards.  Obviously the author just skimmed that part of the book.

Paragraph 8:
 

But it’s also the case that the vast majority of these thousands of variations are simply copies of copies of copies, etc… In other words, once a variation enters the textual tradition, it gets copied over and over and over again.

Ehrman specifically states this at multiple points throughout his book and here this author is treating it like Ehrman is hiding information from you (how dishonest).  Now i'm convinced the author just skimmed this if he read it at all.  Then he compounds this by asserting Ehrman treats each copy as a distinct variation which is only a half-truth (worst kind of lie).  Ehrman says in his books that you can trace different variations back to single books which the works were copied from originally and that this is the whole point of trying to restore the "originals" of the Gospels.  However mistakes, "corrections", and outright frauds are added to bibles later on and part of restoring the text is trying to figure out what has changed and if its a major change.  Ehrman admits that a lot of these variations and changes are minute ones that show scribes could spell about as good as the rest of us.  However some of these are major.  But his point into saying that there are thousands of variations to show how human the bible really is.  Its pretty damn effective.

Paragraph 9:
I'd like him to cite where these numbers come from because we all know 95% of statistics are made up on the spot.  Also Ehrman notes that there are more textual variations then words in the NT that the conservative estimates of variations is around 200,000 and the more liberal variations are around 500,000+.  I want to make a special note of his last sentence since he is obviously lying.  He says that if the text is not 100% certain its put into a questionable category, when is that true of anything?  In science nothing is 100% certain does that mean its truth is questionable?  Our theory of gravity isn't 100% certain does that make it false?  No the author is lying both about the numbers he made up and the outcome.

Paragraph 10:
The author claims we have a lot of early works which isn't true.  The thing is the early bibles were copied not by scribes but by literate Christians in the area.  Literate had a different meaning back then, you were considered literate if you could sign your name.  The thing is we have a lot of works after the NT was canonized and small few before that.  So we have a lot of works about 250 years or so after the bible was first written that was preserved by people who could pass as literate by being able to sign their name.  Now on to the point about the Iliad.  We don't have people actively looking to make laws and enforce laws based on the Iliad.  If you ask this author about the Iliad and ask him if he believed Achilles wounded the god Ares on the battlefield he will tell you no.  We don't trust the supernatural things in the Iliad actually happened, and we also don't trust that a lot of the natural things happened like Achilles could hold a spear that was too heavy for everyone else to hold.  On top of that we don't base our lives around the Iliad.  We do on the bible.  I agree with the author 100% when he says we should distrust the information presented by any ancient author.  The bible is included, if you want to read it read it like a work of literature written and embellished by people who didn't have our understanding of the world.

Paragraph 11:
Finally he bring up an example.  1 John 5:7 wasn't in the bible (I can't find this example in my misquoting Jesus book and I don't remember it well, it either wasn't a very emphasized point or I somehow missed/forgot about it and if its the former the author is guilty if making a mole hill out of horse crap).  The author seems to shrug this off saying it isn't what we based the trinity on (doesn't say what its based on) and then asserts early Christians 1200 years before the addition obviously believed it.  Again its another assertion based on no evidence.  The author doesn't care about whether he is reading the word of God (inspired or otherwise) or not.  This example simply shows text was added to the bible based on the scribes current/common belief which in turn was used to fight heretics.

Paragraph 12:
Now hes saying its not in his current bible so it doesn't count.  That the whole point of this book CHRISTIANS FUCKING CHANGE THEIR BIBLE, I can't think of a better way the author could have driven this point home.  

Paragraph 13:
Um ... now the author is trying to act like the previously mentioned changes don't occur.  Again asserting that people won't grant this.  He is just asserting Ehrman is wrong without evidence.  He ends this paragraph by saying that even if there are changes they don't matter.

Paragraph 14:
Its all about faith.  He is asserting that the changes aren't big and that it doesn't affect his faith.  All he is doing is asserting that the changes, the added endings, the words that were not properly translated, the spelling errors which lead to putting the wrong words in the text don't matter.  How much blind faith is required to be a Christian I wonder.  He is the blind and he is leading the blind.

Paragraph 15:
This paragraph is the final nail in the coffin.  He didn't read the book.  Ehrman cites where the bible was changed to incite people to fight heretics.  It was changed to silence opposition and to incite Jewish hatred and discrimination.  If only the author read the damn book before writing whats wrong with it he wouldn't sound like a jackass.

Conclusion:
Misquoting Jesus is a good book and is a must read if you want to learn about the history of the bible.  As long as you read this with an open mind your conclusions are your own.  Don't let assholes like this author mislead you and say you shouldn't read the book.  This author didn't read the book or his mistakes wouldn't be so blatant.  His article is horse crap.

[AlP]

I'll add a few facts. Greg Boyd has a PhD from Princeton Theological Seminary. 1 John 5:7-8 of the King James Bible (and others) does not appear in the earlier Greek Bibles.

[LoneMateria]

I'll add a few facts. Greg Boyd has a PhD from Princeton Theological Seminary. 1 John 5:7-8 of the King James Bible (and others) does not appear in the earlier Greek Bibles.

I'm just going to note its on his site but it doesn't say its written by him (I looked up his credentials too).  I noticed it doesn't focus on textual translation of the bible.  Him arguing against this would be like Richard Dawkins arguing against quantum mechanics.  When I said I couldn't find the passage from John I meant I couldn't find it in Misquoting Jesus except a brief mention in the conclusion.  It just means I didn't find it in the chapters.

[Reginus]

In response:
1. Taking into account the length of time that the Bible has been around, and all that has happened in that time, all of these minor changes (and translations!) should be expected. With the hundreds of languages that the Bible has been translated into, I see no reason to think there could only be (and have only been) a few versions of the Bible.
2. If Christians have changed the Bible as drastically as you imply, then please point me to multiple instances of parts of the Bible that have been radically changed that are instrumental to any aspect of Christianity. I would very much like to know about them.

[AlP]

In response:
1. Taking into account the length of time that the Bible has been around, and all that has happened in that time, all of these minor changes (and translations!) should be expected. With the hundreds of languages that the Bible has been translated into, I see no reason to think there could only be (and have only been) a few versions of the Bible.
2. If Christians have changed the Bible as drastically as you imply, then please point me to multiple instances of parts of the Bible that have been radically changed that are instrumental to any aspect of Christianity. I would very much like to know about them.

From the things I've seen and read about Bart Ehrman, I don't think he would disagree with you. I watched one talk he did quite recently. His point was that the bible has changed over time due to mostly understandable accidental copying errors made by barely literate scribes. For the most part he says these changes are inconsequential and do not change the meaning in any substantial way. We're talking spelling errors and word order errors. He has some examples of seemingly deliberate modifications which change the meaning but none of these would seem to come even close to undermining the overall meaning of the Bible. Personally, I'm actually rather impressed how well it has made it down the years. Think about how quickly a meaning changes in a game of Chinese whispers.

I accused Greg Boyd of begging the question on another matter. The one you asked about. You sir have not defended him yet! =)