tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-117970412806233818.post5155651150147914705..comments2024-03-24T12:43:16.575-04:00Comments on Truthbomb : Bart Ehrman Got You Down? These Resources May Help...Chadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16449550583016519343noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-117970412806233818.post-67224865410166335352009-11-02T20:29:57.397-04:002009-11-02T20:29:57.397-04:00Yes. Thanks for the correction. I fell asleep at w...Yes. Thanks for the correction. I fell asleep at wheel.<br /><br />SteveSteve S.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-117970412806233818.post-86267851682050816342009-10-22T04:40:17.161-04:002009-10-22T04:40:17.161-04:00That book is entitled: "Misquoting Truth"...That book is entitled: "Misquoting <i>Truth</i>"Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14939074645029376866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-117970412806233818.post-37018476771888344352009-10-21T21:01:03.620-04:002009-10-21T21:01:03.620-04:00Steve,
Great to hear from you and thanks! I have...Steve,<br /><br />Great to hear from you and thanks! I have that book on my shelf and haven't gotten around to reading it.<br />I will add it to the list!<br /><br />I'll be in touch.<br /><br />GodspeedChadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16449550583016519343noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-117970412806233818.post-43697372726584691652009-10-21T20:41:26.800-04:002009-10-21T20:41:26.800-04:00Chad,
I highly recommend Misquoting Jesus: A Guid...Chad,<br /><br />I highly recommend <i>Misquoting Jesus: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus</i> by Timothy Paul Jones as a great resource to add to your list.<br /><br />Blessings,<br />Steve S.Steve S.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-117970412806233818.post-2072846254591336722009-10-19T18:50:03.664-04:002009-10-19T18:50:03.664-04:00Chad V.,
I'm grateful that you found it helpf...Chad V.,<br /><br />I'm grateful that you found it helpful! Appreciate you man!<br /><br />GodspeedChadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16449550583016519343noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-117970412806233818.post-18597409768485883572009-10-19T12:37:29.557-04:002009-10-19T12:37:29.557-04:00Chad,
Thanks for sharing this resource. I found ...Chad,<br /><br />Thanks for sharing this resource. I found it helpful. I especially enjoyed hearing Licona's comparison of eyewitness testimony during the times of the gospel to a war veteran recalling what happened 30 years ago (ie Vietnam). I also thought his comparison of someone recording history at that time is similar to a martial arts instructor being requried to pass along a certain formed they learned in the same fashion as they learned from their instructor. <br /><br />Thanks again!Chad V.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-117970412806233818.post-18959202693069594032009-10-15T15:08:59.584-04:002009-10-15T15:08:59.584-04:00Hey Mike,
No problem; I also think it's worth...Hey Mike,<br /><br />No problem; I also think it's worth noting that most of the so-called "changes" or difficulties that Ehrman brings into light are not new. The church has simply done a very poor job educating the body of Christ about their existence and how to respond to them.<br /><br />Dan Wallace does a great job explaining this in Lee Strobel's "The Case for the Real Jesus."<br /><br />God BlessChadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16449550583016519343noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-117970412806233818.post-87320062436941919642009-10-15T11:01:13.177-04:002009-10-15T11:01:13.177-04:00Thanks for posting this. I think more Christians ...Thanks for posting this. I think more Christians need to be able to be more familiar with these arguments, as they will only become more rampant as our country becomes more secular. <br /><br />Personally, I found the best refutation of Ehrman's thesis to be in his own book. Namely, at least 90 percent of his book is filled with indisputable facts about the manuscript tradition. Thus, he gives practically no basis for which the historian should reject the manuscripts as anything but faithful to the "originals." The only one who has any sort of basis for which to reject the manuscripts as reliable is the postmodernist who insists that we can't know anything about the past at all. Unfortunately, this seems to be the direction that "modern scholarship" is going with regards to textual criticism.Mike Felkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01974482615713418707noreply@blogger.com