|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
Has anyone read Misquoting Jesus? - 6/22/2008 4:34:32 AM
|
|
|
Casper22
Posts: 68
Joined: 3/29/2008
Status: offline
|
I just bought this book recently at a Baptist bookstore and I read the 1st chapter but im very confused about what im reading so ive put it down and would like anyones opinion on this book. Should I continue reading it? Some of what ive read is not what ive been taught from childhood but I picked it up trusting it was a good read since it was in a Christian bookstore.
Any thoughts on this book and how to take it would be great
Thanx
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Has anyone read Misquoting Jesus? - 6/22/2008 12:59:25 PM
|
|
|
vicsemprini
Posts: 1
Joined: 6/22/2008
Status: offline
|
Interesting that you bought it at a Baptist bookstore...I suspect the store's buyer didn't look into the book or the author and just thought the title looked adequately Baptist...
The author is a former evangelical, and the book is an argument for a skeptical approach to the accuracy and authority of the Bible. You should take it with a pretty large grain of salt.
It's been rebutted in numerous articles and books. Check out Misquoting Truth by Timothy Paul Jones for a systematic rebuttal of Ehrman's views.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Has anyone read Misquoting Jesus? - 6/22/2008 3:46:19 PM
|
|
|
colliefan
Posts: 2578
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: Raleigh, NC
Status: offline
|
Pitch the book. The book was written by a grad of a good Christian college. For some reason all he had was head faith. Guessing buyer saw the author was from a good Christian school and assumed the book was solid.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Has anyone read Misquoting Jesus? - 6/23/2008 12:31:55 PM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2657
Joined: 11/16/2007
Status: offline
|
I actually liked the book. A lot of the reviews don't actually capture the essence of the book. Yes, he's trying to say that the translations we have today don't always capture the essence of the original scripts. What he ends up proving though (and he even says this outright) is that the body of manuscripts that we have to day that form the basis of our current knowledge base are probably better than 99% close to the original. He points to some of the places where folks have altered manuscripts and changed meanings. Most of that appears to be factual. What he also points out though is that we've been able to ferret out those alterations and get back to a reasonable approximation of the original.
I actually walked away with a profound sense of comfort in that the bible we have today really is a reliable document. Not exactly the lesson the author intended....
The author is actually a very gifted biblical scholar with a PhD (though not a Christian - awkward, eh?). He attended Moody's for a time and got turned off I suspect by some unnecessary rigidity he encountered there.
I actually recommend the book for those that are confident in their faith and able to read a book skeptically and separate fact from opinion. The author has a clear axe to grind, but once you get past it there's some good information there.
< Message edited by GroupW -- 6/23/2008 12:40:16 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Has anyone read Misquoting Jesus? - 7/15/2008 8:52:45 AM
|
|
|
danielmount
Posts: 7572
Joined: 2/28/2006
From: Ohio
Status: offline
|
I've read the book. It is quite off-base. Ehrman tries to take what in many instances are scattered manuscripts, almost never more than 5% or 10% of the evidence in any given passage, and base a case off a few corrupt manuscripts that don't even agree with each other.
_____________________________
Author of The Faith of America's Presidents
http://www.danielmount.com/
http://www.southerngospelblog.com/
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Has anyone read Misquoting Jesus? - 7/18/2008 7:36:41 PM
|
|
|
GroupW
Posts: 2657
Joined: 11/16/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: danielmount
I've read the book. It is quite off-base. Ehrman tries to take what in many instances are scattered manuscripts, almost never more than 5% or 10% of the evidence in any given passage, and base a case off a few corrupt manuscripts that don't even agree with each other.
That seemed to be his point. There are indeed a multitude of changes to the manuscripts we've used for our translations.
That said, he also does a marvelous job of shooting himself in the philosophical foot when he admits that the vast, vast majority of the changes are insignificant and do not change meaning. He goes on to exacerbate his own problem by noting that we are relatively confident that our current body of knowledge accurately reflects the likely wording of the originals.
He's actually brought us some good news!
Personally, I think the book is worth the read under the condition that:
a) you can read a book critically and don't expect the author to agree with you or be of the same mind.
b) you can read something that challenges your positions without necessarily being shaken in your faith.
c) you are willing to read the works of authors that are antagonistic to your faith in order to be challenged to think more deeply.
d) you can objectively judge the quality of an argument and extract that which appears to be valid and discard the rest.
I would not recommend this to those who do not intend to chew on it. I would also not recommend it to those who are relatively unsure of their faith. I would however recommend it to people who like intellectual challenges and can see past the antagonism to extract some real gems of understanding.
_____________________________
“For every problem, there is a solution that is simple, elegant and wrong.” -H.L. Mencken
"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so." -Bertrand Russell
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
