"Forged" by Bart Ehrman

by Dagney 133 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  EntirelyPossible

  Bart or his publishers knew that putting the term on the cover would create controversy and controversy sells.

  You have an agenda and cherry pick just as much, bro, make excuses, used wierd twisted reasoning to get over and past obvious contradictions (not interpretations, DIRECT contradictions). It's OK, I don't agree with you, I 100% respect your right to worship as you see fit as long as you don't hurt someone else that insn't consenting to it (as in, I belong to the church of spanking, consentual women with nice bottoms welcome ;)), but I do get mildly irritated when people call out people for the very thing they are doing, cherry picking.

  P.S. I am not really into spanking. I really meant that if a native american wants to sit in a sweat lodge and smoke peyote as part of his religious experience, fine by me as long as he isn't hurting anyone.
• 

  PSacramento

  Ah...you do realise that I do NOT view the bible as inerrant and that I personally agree with many of the things that Bart writes and support his writings.

  That I made an issue with HOW he packaged this book, aiming at being sensationalist, is just my opinion of course.

  DO I cherry pick? of course, we all do.

  That doesn't chaneg the fact that is Bart titled his book, "Who really wrote the NT documents, one scholars opinion", he would most certainly get LESS publicity than the word FORGED !

  See for yourself:

  
• 

  Dagney

  Actually, I do get the point. I'm just presenting my opinion.

  As far as cherry picking, now I personally try NOT to do that. I don't think everybody does that, not in my experience.

  If I saw the book "Evolution: Forged," I would realize that is the author's opinion, and I would be interested in why he has that opinion. If in reading his book I found it to be selective, conclusive and narrow, like a Watchtower, I would lose interest.
• 

  PSacramento

  Dagney, weren't you a JW?

  Of course you cherry picked ;)

  We got into this discussion because I accused Bart of being "sensationalist" and as an exampel I stated the forged thing.

  Bart is a cool guy and an excellent scholar, probably why I hold him to a higher ideal.

  I don't want anyone to think I don't like Bart or am against him expressing his views, far from that.

  And I will try to be less of a cherry picker :)
• 

  Dagney

  @PSac: Boy was I!!! And yes I absolutely cherry picked.

  As I said, now I try not to. That's all.

  Did you listen to the audios?
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  Ah...you do realise that I do NOT view the bible as inerrant and that I personally agree with many of the things that Bart writes and support his writings.

  I do know that, quite well. If not's not the inerrant word of a perfect god and his perfect son, then why would I bother reading it? Those are issues you have to get around if you take the "it's not inerrant route" to being a Christian. God could take out some air time during the superbowl or write in the sky or cause all of the world to perfectly hear his message and recall it perfectly if he really wanted us to know what it was, presuming he exists.

  See for yourself:

  Dude, I OWN the book. I have said many times that he presents a LOT of the stuff as his opinion, some of it as his and some others, some of it as "generally accepted".

  It seems this whole thing comes down to your dislike of his use of the word "forged", which is a perfectly reasonable use of the word since it does mean exactly what he used it for.
• 

  Band on the Run

  They were not forged in the commonly accepted modern usage of the word.

  It is not unusual, but, somehow this thread has turned vicious. I see nothing in this discussion to warrant such feelings. People are entitled to opinions, outside of JW land.

  It no longer becomes the merits of a person's opinion, a person you respect, but a fighting match with nastiness.

  There are many positions between literal truth directly from God to forgeries. Many. I would not say anyting nasty about anyone's reasoning throughout the entire spectrum of positions.
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  They were not forged in the commonly accepted modern usage of the word.

  In what sense were they forged, then? Written in someone elses name without their approval means forged. Authors railed against people doing that to them all the time back then. In what sense do you proposed it doesn't make sense to use that word?

  It no longer becomes the merits of a person's opinion, a person you respect, but a fighting match with nastiness.

  It's not viscious at all. I haven't attacked anyone for their beliefs or for having them.

  There are many positions between literal truth directly from God to forgeries. Many. I would not say anyting nasty about anyone's reasoning throughout the entire spectrum of positions.

  No one has said anything nasty.
• 

  Terry

  I once tore a check out of my grandfather's checkbook and traced his signature using a lightbox.

  When he turned me over to the police they seemed to think I had done something wrong.

  I told them "But, it IS his signature--because I TRACED it exactly!"

  Can you believe the authorities would not accept this reasonable explanation?

  One officer, red in the face, screamed at me: "But HE didn't INTEND that signature to appear on the OTHER check made out to YOU."

  ---From Flatterly's Excuse by Thomas Pynchon

  p.s. I just made those quotes up and falsely attributed them to Thomas Pynchon
• 

  Band on the Run

  I was wondering how someone could remember such a quote from Pynchon.