You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Reading the Bible is "Like Picking Out Diamonds from Dunghills"--Part 1
Erhman doesn't have an "anti-Bible agenda". He's a life-long student of the Bible, and he had build his career around its study. He was originally a fundamentalist, Literalist Christian who started out attending a Bible College.
Read my dialogue with @stan in the comments to this post and you'll better understand why I think your confidence in the Bible is misplaced. When you can only arrive at your conclusions regarding the Bible's message by interpreting it in ways that you'd refuse to interpret any other collection of documents in any other context, you can know that your interpretation is almost certainly contrived.
Simply because someone starts out as a fundamentalist Christian doesn't mean they're not now out to prove that the Bible can't be trusted with an agenda. In retrospect I might change anti-Bible to anti-Legalist/Literalist agenda. But in his quest to prove that Legalism is wrong because the Bible has contradicitons (which many Christian theologians would agree with. Legalism/Literalism seems to be slowly on the decline thanks to our information age), Erhman has taken a stance in opposition to the Bible en masse as any sort of truth on his own fundamental level. Something happened in his life that planted the seeds of doubt in his Christian faith, and he surely found lots of people corroborating that doubt which led to his bias in his research of discrediting, in the video's case, the New Testament. He had a confirmation bias from the moment he found an argument in opposition to Legalism/Literalism. I just don't think any of those arguments stand up to scrutiny where he does and you do.
I didn't "refuse" to interpret any other literature in the same way as the Bible. I'm actually under no obligation to do so considering no other literature asks me to interpret it in the same way. Christianity is the only religion that says God bridged the gap to us by becoming our servant. No other religion that I've studied (limited, again I admit. But also ongoing) has that same message. Every other is a works-based approach of impressing a god or gods in some way to achieve enlightenment or get in to some version of heaven. The counter-culture of Christianity best explains a loving God and the human plight to me. It's not almost certainly contrived, it was the natural progression from simply reading, interpreting, and digesting in the only ways I knew how. I just happened to agree and believe in it. It's just begging the question to say anyone who interprets a religious text differently than, say, a novel or textbook has an interpretation that is almost certainly contrived.
Your "argument" in the second paragraph is entirely circular. Essentially you say that you're not under any obligation to interpret the Bible as you would any other text. Why? Because the Bible says so.
The question isn't whether Christianity's message is different or not (and it's not nearly as different as you suppose) but rather whether we can believe that message. Believing just because you like the story, or because the story is different, or because it bests soothes your existential angst doesn't make the story any more likely to be "true". It just makes the story convenient.