I must admit I haven't read the article (way too long for my limited time at the moment), but it's definitely on my to-do list. However, considering the question of the debate - Is there historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus? - the matter of Biblical inerrancy seems to be a Red Herring. It appears a ploy to try and discredit the source, rather than an actual attempt to deal with the question.
Biblical inerrancy states that nothing in the Bible can be wrong. But in a Court of Law, no such Inerrancy laws exist. The testimonies of witnesses may contradict each other (and often do) based on the different points of view of each person witnessing the event (a car crash, for example - witnesses of car crashes often give things in different orders, going so far as getting the colours of the car different from each other). So for the purpose of the debate, at this point as far as I can see, biblical inerrancy is a non-issue, and I would agree with Craig on this one. As I said, Red Herring....
Just a thought,
Full Version: Bart Ehrman and Bible
Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums > Unexplained Mysteries > Spirituality, Religion and Beliefs
QUOTE (Paranoid Android @ May 25 2008, 06:28 PM) 
I must admit I haven't read the article (way too long for my limited time at the moment), but it's definitely on my to-do list. However, considering the question of the debate - Is there historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus? - the matter of Biblical inerrancy seems to be a Red Herring. It appears a ploy to try and discredit the source, rather than an actual attempt to deal with the question.
Biblical inerrancy states that nothing in the Bible can be wrong. But in a Court of Law, no such Inerrancy laws exist. The testimonies of witnesses may contradict each other (and often do) based on the different points of view of each person witnessing the event (a car crash, for example - witnesses of car crashes often give things in different orders, going so far as getting the colours of the car different from each other). So for the purpose of the debate, at this point as far as I can see, biblical inerrancy is a non-issue, and I would agree with Craig on this one. As I said, Red Herring....
Just a thought,
Biblical inerrancy states that nothing in the Bible can be wrong. But in a Court of Law, no such Inerrancy laws exist. The testimonies of witnesses may contradict each other (and often do) based on the different points of view of each person witnessing the event (a car crash, for example - witnesses of car crashes often give things in different orders, going so far as getting the colours of the car different from each other). So for the purpose of the debate, at this point as far as I can see, biblical inerrancy is a non-issue, and I would agree with Craig on this one. As I said, Red Herring....
Just a thought,
Well that makes me think of the following
"someday the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality,
and of our frightful position therein,
that we shall either go mad from the revelation
or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety
of a new dark age."
H.P. Lovecraft
Probably no short exchange could change many people's minds about positions that are so personally important and which folks have built up through years of thought, prayer, and devotion.
So, I think most people will vote for the debater with whom they agreed beforehand. I will not be an exception.
But there is more to life than winning and losing a poll. Ehrman gains something by receiving a thoughtful hearing for his view. However he expresses it, and whether or not his listener is persuaded to follow him to the same conclusion, Ehrman makes a point about history.
No matter how good a record you have for a "miracle," to account the event as such requires some faith. The "improbability" of miraculous explanations is not the only problem. Fully ruling out naturalistic explanations based on 2000 year-old records is a practical impossibility.
My understanding is that in the Christian world view, faith is a vitue.What issue could there possibly be in acknowledging that faith serves a function for the faithful? What function would that be if not to add something to the records left to us, in order to derive from those records a conclusion beyond what reason alone compels?
For example, the records say that Jesus' tomb was guarded by men who took at least one bribe. Confidence that they took only one bribe requires faith.
Ehrman, in a walk.
So, I think most people will vote for the debater with whom they agreed beforehand. I will not be an exception.
But there is more to life than winning and losing a poll. Ehrman gains something by receiving a thoughtful hearing for his view. However he expresses it, and whether or not his listener is persuaded to follow him to the same conclusion, Ehrman makes a point about history.
No matter how good a record you have for a "miracle," to account the event as such requires some faith. The "improbability" of miraculous explanations is not the only problem. Fully ruling out naturalistic explanations based on 2000 year-old records is a practical impossibility.
My understanding is that in the Christian world view, faith is a vitue.What issue could there possibly be in acknowledging that faith serves a function for the faithful? What function would that be if not to add something to the records left to us, in order to derive from those records a conclusion beyond what reason alone compels?
For example, the records say that Jesus' tomb was guarded by men who took at least one bribe. Confidence that they took only one bribe requires faith.
Ehrman, in a walk.
QUOTE (eight bits @ May 26 2008, 09:43 AM)
Probably no short exchange could change many people's minds about positions that are so personally important and which folks have built up through years of thought, prayer, and devotion.
So, I think most people will vote for the debater with whom they agreed beforehand. I will not be an exception.
But there is more to life than winning and losing a poll. Ehrman gains something by receiving a thoughtful hearing for his view. However he expresses it, and whether or not his listener is persuaded to follow him to the same conclusion, Ehrman makes a point about history.
No matter how good a record you have for a "miracle," to account the event as such requires some faith. The "improbability" of miraculous explanations is not the only problem. Fully ruling out naturalistic explanations based on 2000 year-old records is a practical impossibility.
My understanding is that in the Christian world view, faith is a vitue.What issue could there possibly be in acknowledging that faith serves a function for the faithful? What function would that be if not to add something to the records left to us, in order to derive from those records a conclusion beyond what reason alone compels?
For example, the records say that Jesus' tomb was guarded by men who took at least one bribe. Confidence that they took only one bribe requires faith.
Ehrman, in a walk.
Thanks again, eight bits,So, I think most people will vote for the debater with whom they agreed beforehand. I will not be an exception.
But there is more to life than winning and losing a poll. Ehrman gains something by receiving a thoughtful hearing for his view. However he expresses it, and whether or not his listener is persuaded to follow him to the same conclusion, Ehrman makes a point about history.
No matter how good a record you have for a "miracle," to account the event as such requires some faith. The "improbability" of miraculous explanations is not the only problem. Fully ruling out naturalistic explanations based on 2000 year-old records is a practical impossibility.
My understanding is that in the Christian world view, faith is a vitue.What issue could there possibly be in acknowledging that faith serves a function for the faithful? What function would that be if not to add something to the records left to us, in order to derive from those records a conclusion beyond what reason alone compels?
For example, the records say that Jesus' tomb was guarded by men who took at least one bribe. Confidence that they took only one bribe requires faith.
Ehrman, in a walk.
After re-reading your earlier post regarding the use of the probability formula; taking into consideration seanph’s comments – and reading your post now, I must admit that I now have changed my mind as to the score being “even” on the debate. I now concede that Ehrman’s arguments were more convincing, and that he would have scored higher than Dr. Craig.
Having said that, I still have faith that Jesus was resurrected after being dead in the tomb for three days and three nights,
Karlis
A tip o' the hat, Karlis.
Many of the believer versus non-believer discussions hereabouts could take place at a lower temperature if some of the non's recognized that there is such a thing as faith. And, while not equally palatable for everybody, faith has long held an honored place in the history of human thought.
It is one thing to question the application of faith to secular matters, but when it comes to religious teachings, witnessed faith deserves respect, even when it is not shared.
Good thread. See you out there.
Many of the believer versus non-believer discussions hereabouts could take place at a lower temperature if some of the non's recognized that there is such a thing as faith. And, while not equally palatable for everybody, faith has long held an honored place in the history of human thought.
It is one thing to question the application of faith to secular matters, but when it comes to religious teachings, witnessed faith deserves respect, even when it is not shared.
Good thread. See you out there.
When accepting a statement as true, there are two basic methods. The first is reason. It is when the known evidence points to the statement being true, and when the truth of the statement doesn't contradict other knowledge. The second is faith. It is when one accepts a statement as true without evidence for it, or in the face of evidence against it.
There's a lot of confusion about what exactly faith is. Many people confuse belief with faith. It's said that if you believe something, you must be taking it on faith. This is a denial of the fundamental distinction between reason and faith. It pretends that evidence for or against an idea is irrelevant.
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Irrational_Faith.html
There's a lot of confusion about what exactly faith is. Many people confuse belief with faith. It's said that if you believe something, you must be taking it on faith. This is a denial of the fundamental distinction between reason and faith. It pretends that evidence for or against an idea is irrelevant.
http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Irrational_Faith.html
QUOTE
I must admit I haven't read the article (way too long for my limited time at the moment), but it's definitely on my to-do list. However, considering the question of the debate - Is there historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus? - the matter of Biblical inerrancy seems to be a Red Herring. It appears a ploy to try and discredit the source, rather than an actual attempt to deal with the question.
Biblical inerrancy states that nothing in the Bible can be wrong. But in a Court of Law, no such Inerrancy laws exist. The testimonies of witnesses may contradict each other (and often do) based on the different points of view of each person witnessing the event (a car crash, for example - witnesses of car crashes often give things in different orders, going so far as getting the colours of the car different from each other). So for the purpose of the debate, at this point as far as I can see, biblical inerrancy is a non-issue, and I would agree with Craig on this one. As I said, Red Herring....
Just a thought,
Biblical inerrancy states that nothing in the Bible can be wrong. But in a Court of Law, no such Inerrancy laws exist. The testimonies of witnesses may contradict each other (and often do) based on the different points of view of each person witnessing the event (a car crash, for example - witnesses of car crashes often give things in different orders, going so far as getting the colours of the car different from each other). So for the purpose of the debate, at this point as far as I can see, biblical inerrancy is a non-issue, and I would agree with Craig on this one. As I said, Red Herring....
Just a thought,
Morning Paranoid. Mr. Ehrman did not toss Craig a red herring here IMHO. You have to read the question within the context of which it was asked -- during the Q&A session. You'll quickly see why Craig danced around the issue like a ballerina. And Craig, if I'm not mistaken, never accused Ehrman of setting up a red herring.
Most kindly,
Sean
QUOTE (Supra Sheri @ May 23 2008, 12:03 PM)
There are many problems with Dr. Craigs argument as in 'beleivable' and will best work on a group that has no other thought systems to drawn on..... IMO....Technically its in sound form but few argue formally and a theodicy is a counter or a defense to a posit that is in stasis....it is written with a vested interest and for a particular group..most notably a group that is looking to a 'designated authority' for what to think....
theodicys work on the the basis you can't prove them either way, yet in essence in reality one can never be absolute on anything we just really get as close as we can to it probalby did happen or it probably didn't theodicys the very best ones have been refutted...i think DR. Craig hedges hsi bets heavily on the fact that most are not real educated( meaning in philosophyu, bible hsitory etc) .........yet the thing is once one starts to research and explore minds change ,but if you keep them limited you keep them subservient.... the way tot do that is discredited the character of the other or exploit fears and insecurities....... its part and parcel of religion .. but one must remember it has a vested interest in staying in business.....
Dr.Erhman not a philosophy student per say yet the argument is as excellent as they come on many levels.....you get a great persepctive from both pov..he masterfully appeals to both groups.....he simply says based on his expertise which he has incidentlaly ( Craig has no other background except religion from the beleivers stance...) that there isn't anything substantial to daw on or to conclude that the ressurection is a fact.....Its fair on every level... simple as that ...
wht you decide is on you that is what he infers with his argument.....i conclude he makes great use of his critical skills and in my opinion he is justified in his reasoning.....and has supported it...
theodicys work on the the basis you can't prove them either way, yet in essence in reality one can never be absolute on anything we just really get as close as we can to it probalby did happen or it probably didn't theodicys the very best ones have been refutted...i think DR. Craig hedges hsi bets heavily on the fact that most are not real educated( meaning in philosophyu, bible hsitory etc) .........yet the thing is once one starts to research and explore minds change ,but if you keep them limited you keep them subservient.... the way tot do that is discredited the character of the other or exploit fears and insecurities....... its part and parcel of religion .. but one must remember it has a vested interest in staying in business.....
Dr.Erhman not a philosophy student per say yet the argument is as excellent as they come on many levels.....you get a great persepctive from both pov..he masterfully appeals to both groups.....he simply says based on his expertise which he has incidentlaly ( Craig has no other background except religion from the beleivers stance...) that there isn't anything substantial to daw on or to conclude that the ressurection is a fact.....Its fair on every level... simple as that ...
wht you decide is on you that is what he infers with his argument.....i conclude he makes great use of his critical skills and in my opinion he is justified in his reasoning.....and has supported it...
karlis, Dr.craig is arguing historical evidence of the ressurrection with no history background. Erhman is one of the leading historians in the country (oy vey
)......Craig draws on those that are experts( which is exceptable in formal argument ) yet Erhman not only catches it he addrresses it....
there are great theodicys out there, Payley, Decartes, St Anslem yet they have been countered... ....
there has never been proof of any creator it remains a beleif that is taken on faith..
i think pa said it best its on the 'assumption' that the bible is inerrant.....This is a beleif, anything taken on faith just means you have been convinnced of it( enter theodicy) therefore you agree and under the umbrella of faith it is unprovable ...that is the genius of theodicys....
I have said a few times Dr. Craig 's theodicy is brilliant in the sense of any other theodicy... fast forward to modern times ...he clearly 'gets' that mathematical probablitys can give a smoke and mirrors effect which many will constitute as fact.. when in essence it really isn't??? math is a beleif system we have created it and defined based on the needs of our culture...
yes, he does have a background in Philosophy??( I know the amount of effort and time this requires i have nothing but respect for this )
I venture to guess he has put his degree to good use for the 'Catholic church...'.
Remember karlis Dr.craig began with he can prove his postion and did not....the burden of proof is on him........
I love a good argument regardless of whose it is....I am a huge fan of mr.walker he puts up really good arguments for the christian prespective...
QUOTE
karlis, Dr.craig is arguing historical evidence of the ressurrection with no history background. Erhman is one of the leading historians in the country (oy vey )......
In the world--and a personal favorite of mine.
QUOTE
... he clearly 'gets' that mathematical probablitys can give a smoke and mirrors effect which many will constitute as fact.. when in essence it really isn't??? ...
MK,
Sean
QUOTE (seanph @ May 29 2008, 11:30 PM)
~~~ ... and a personal favorite of mine.
Sean
Hi folks -- I looked up Ehrman on Google, but I could not find evidence that he is "one of the leading historians in the country". Sean
Could someone please point me in the right direction?
Regards,
Karlis
QUOTE (seanph @ May 29 2008, 06:30 AM)
In the world--and a personal favorite of mine.
MK,
Sean
mine too, http://bartdehrman.com/
Watch the Historical, Discovery, NGC et al and you will see Professor Ehrman. He is a regular.
You can get his lectures from the Teaching Company--many of which I have. You might want to try them out. Terrific scholar.
TC
http://www.teach12.com/store/professor.asp?ID=150
MK,
Sean
You can get his lectures from the Teaching Company--many of which I have. You might want to try them out. Terrific scholar.
TC
http://www.teach12.com/store/professor.asp?ID=150
MK,
Sean
QUOTE (seanph @ May 29 2008, 09:28 AM)
Watch the Historical, Discovery, NGC et al and you will see Professor Ehrman. He is a regular.
You can get his lectures from the Teaching Company--many of which I have. You might want to try them out. Terrific scholar.
TC
http://www.teach12.com/store/professor.asp?ID=150
MK,
Sean
You can get his lectures from the Teaching Company--many of which I have. You might want to try them out. Terrific scholar.
TC
http://www.teach12.com/store/professor.asp?ID=150
MK,
Sean
Indeed Seany P
on all counts TTC courses are incredible......My library carries all of them for free....I actaully want a personal library of these courses myself ..... they are so fun...
he is a terrific scholar hands down....
QUOTE (seanph @ May 30 2008, 02:28 AM)
Watch the Historical, Discovery, NGC et al and you will see Professor Ehrman. He is a regular.
You can get his lectures from the Teaching Company--many of which I have. You might want to try them out. Terrific scholar.
TC
http://www.teach12.com/store/professor.asp?ID=150
MK,
Sean
Thanks Sean -- unfortunately, these cost quite a lot of loot. I'll see if it's possible to borrow some from a library.You can get his lectures from the Teaching Company--many of which I have. You might want to try them out. Terrific scholar.
TC
http://www.teach12.com/store/professor.asp?ID=150
MK,
Sean
Regards.
Karlis
I agree Sheri. I love the Teaching Company!
You're very welcome K. Yeah, they are a little bit expensive. It would be much easier simply to go to the library. Well worth the trip!
Most kindly,
Sean
You're very welcome K. Yeah, they are a little bit expensive. It would be much easier simply to go to the library. Well worth the trip!
Most kindly,
Sean
QUOTE (seanph @ May 30 2008, 08:25 AM)
I agree Sheri. I love the Teaching Company!
You're very welcome K. Yeah, they are a little bit expensive. It would be much easier simply to go to the library. Well worth the trip!
Most kindly,
Sean
You're very welcome K. Yeah, they are a little bit expensive. It would be much easier simply to go to the library. Well worth the trip!
Most kindly,
Sean
they are very expensive, not all librarys carry them, actaully few do... I have a great l story if i may....I happen to be the adopted daughter of one of the board members of our local library, (I am a home school educater also ) and ' my adopted mom' suggested this as a purchase ( 20 thousand dollars) as a service for all the home school educaters to make continuing university level education available for us ..... the board agreed in a landslide .. thats how we got it....(true story)
Awesome! 
QUOTE (seanph @ May 30 2008, 03:25 PM)
I agree Sheri. I love the Teaching Company!
You're very welcome K. Yeah, they are a little bit expensive. It would be much easier simply to go to the library. Well worth the trip!
Most kindly,
Sean
You're very welcome K. Yeah, they are a little bit expensive. It would be much easier simply to go to the library. Well worth the trip!
Most kindly,
Sean
I actually thought the Teaching Company was a bit of a sham. Like buying no-name encyclopedias from the grocery store, one volume at a time.
If one wants to learn, why not just go to school? Or buy college books to study. Or yes, get them from the library?
QUOTE (Supra Sheri @ May 31 2008, 01:45 AM)
they are very expensive, not all librarys carry them, actaully few do... I have a great l story if i may....I happen to be the adopted daughter of one of the board members of our local library, (I am a home school educater also ) and ' my adopted mom' suggested this as a purchase ( 20 thousand dollars) as a service for all the home school educaters to make continuing university level education available for us ..... the board agreed in a landslide .. thats how we got it....(true story)
$20,000? For a series of lectures on discs? Vow!Looks like one does not have to start a tithe-paying church to make money.
Karlis
QUOTE (Karlis @ Jun 1 2008, 02:35 AM)
$20,000? For a series of lectures on discs? Vow!
Looks like one does not have to start a tithe-paying church to make money.
Karlis
Looks like one does not have to start a tithe-paying church to make money.
Karlis
Well let's hope he is donating some of it it to others in need
QUOTE
WILL I actually thought the Teaching Company was a bit of a sham. Like buying no-name encyclopedias from the grocery store, one volume at a time.
If one wants to learn, why not just go to school? Or buy college books to study. Or yes, get them from the library?
If one wants to learn, why not just go to school? Or buy college books to study. Or yes, get them from the library?
Good morning Will. Not at all! The Teaching Company is highly regarded for providing study materials from only the best universities and professors. The lectures offered are for those who wish to expound upon a college major and/or those who simply want to learn about a particular topic -- "life-learners" as the Teaching Company calls them.
Expense ... In my opinion, the hours of lectures -- the same lectures given by the professor in the classroom -- is well worth the expense. And there are a myriad of formats to choose from -- DVD, MP3, audio download, written transcript etc.. And if you do find them too expensive, just wait -- the TC puts every lecture on sale once or twice a year. That's always when I buy. Often you can get them for half price. A great deal!
TC
http://www.teach12.com/teach12.asp?ai=16281
My favorite lectures
http://www.teach12.com/store/professor.asp?ID=150
Most kindly,
Sean
QUOTE (seanph @ Jun 1 2008, 11:04 PM)
Good morning Will. Not at all! The Teaching Company is highly regarded for providing study materials from only the best universities and professors. The lectures offered are for those who wish to expound upon a college major and/or those who simply want to learn about a particular topic -- "life-learners" as the Teaching Company calls them.
Expense ... In my opinion, the hours of lectures -- the same lectures given by the professor in the classroom -- is well worth the expense. And there are a myriad of formats to choose from -- DVD, MP3, audio download, written transcript etc.. And if you do find them too expensive, just wait -- the TC puts every lecture on sale once or twice a year. That's always when I buy. Often you can get them for half price. A great deal!
TC
http://www.teach12.com/teach12.asp?ai=16281
My favorite lectures
http://www.teach12.com/store/professor.asp?ID=150
Most kindly,
Sean
Hi Sean -- Would you know if the material for sale is recored from the University lectures? Or specifically recorded for these programs that are being sold?Expense ... In my opinion, the hours of lectures -- the same lectures given by the professor in the classroom -- is well worth the expense. And there are a myriad of formats to choose from -- DVD, MP3, audio download, written transcript etc.. And if you do find them too expensive, just wait -- the TC puts every lecture on sale once or twice a year. That's always when I buy. Often you can get them for half price. A great deal!
TC
http://www.teach12.com/teach12.asp?ai=16281
My favorite lectures
http://www.teach12.com/store/professor.asp?ID=150
Most kindly,
Sean
The reason I ask, is to try to understand *why* the very high cost that is being asked. If the recording was done during normal/standard lectures, I would think that the cost of the DVDs etc. *should be* to cover the production costs ... not to make extra from his pre-paid lectures.
On the other hand, *if* the recordings etc. were specifically prepared for sale only, then I could well understand the asking price.
Thanks,
Karlis
Good morning K. All lectures are recorded in-house at the Teaching Company's facilities in Virginia.
Customers choose the professors. We begin with the best professors in the country—literally, the top 1% of professors in America. In the end, only 1 in 5,000 professors meets the standards set by our customers, who vote on all professors we retain.
Customers choose the courses. We interview thousands of customers to find out what titles they want and how they want courses to be made. Our course catalogs, the Harvard Law Bulletin writes, "are a four-star menu for adults still hungry to learn."
The professors carefully prepare each course. Months of preparation ensure that a course will satisfy our customers. Long before a word is spoken on stage, our professor outlines and prepares each lecture and writes the extensive guidebook. Our own producers help slate each image that will be included in the video version of the course.
We control quality by recording courses in-house. Our professors come to our in-house studio in Chantilly, Virginia (the Washington, D.C. area) to deliver their lectures.
The video of each lecture is recorded on broadcast-quality equipment and media.
The audio for each lecture is recorded on CD-quality equipment and media.
We then devote weeks to include all appropriate images and text in the videos and to professionally master the sound for the audio and video versions of the courses.
Most kindly,
Sean
Customers choose the professors. We begin with the best professors in the country—literally, the top 1% of professors in America. In the end, only 1 in 5,000 professors meets the standards set by our customers, who vote on all professors we retain.
Customers choose the courses. We interview thousands of customers to find out what titles they want and how they want courses to be made. Our course catalogs, the Harvard Law Bulletin writes, "are a four-star menu for adults still hungry to learn."
The professors carefully prepare each course. Months of preparation ensure that a course will satisfy our customers. Long before a word is spoken on stage, our professor outlines and prepares each lecture and writes the extensive guidebook. Our own producers help slate each image that will be included in the video version of the course.
We control quality by recording courses in-house. Our professors come to our in-house studio in Chantilly, Virginia (the Washington, D.C. area) to deliver their lectures.
The video of each lecture is recorded on broadcast-quality equipment and media.
The audio for each lecture is recorded on CD-quality equipment and media.
We then devote weeks to include all appropriate images and text in the videos and to professionally master the sound for the audio and video versions of the courses.
Most kindly,
Sean
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.