Christians are the Great Deceivers!


Christians are the Great Deceivers!  

When it comes to biblical forgeries, Christians act dumb, and refuse to acknowledge the fact, saying the Bible is without error.  Yet, when it comes to rebuke and debunk scholarly text, their deceitfulness comes out, not only are the so-called Christians blind to biblical anomalies, they know about them, and revel in their deception to belittle and mock their opponent.  I am not surprised, as over the years I have had Christians tell me one thing, and saying something different later. Contradicting themselves as they forget their past deception in a labyrinth of lies. My topic concerns a Christian blogs site doing their utmost to destroy the reputation of Bart D. Ehrman, and demean his work through what this Christian site calls a Critical Review of Ehrman’s book Misquoting Jesus.  Their utter disdain for the man, and their so-call critical review, was nothing more than to hamper the sales of the book.  I copied and pasted an extract on review, the rest can be gleaned from the link.  

The author of the blog—Daryl Wingerd an ex-deputy sheriff and now a self-made founder pastor of a House Church, in Kansas City. His day job is Senior Security Investigator for Evergy in Kansas City, Missouri.  Wingerd wrote:

Bart Ehrman’s “Shocking” News

As I said earlier, Bart Ehrman seems to think he has caught the Christian world by surprise when he informs us that we do not possess the original writings of the biblical authors, and that there are variances between ancient Greek manuscripts. But most informed Christians were well aware of such things before Ehrman came along. Moving from general information to specific texts, Ehrman spends essentially the rest of the book “shocking” Chistians [sic] with one piece of news after another. For example, he “informs” the reader that John 7:53-8:11 (the woman caught in adultery) was not originally a part of John’s gospel. Thanks, but most of us were already aware of the problems related to that text, as were the translators of the NASB, ESV, NKJV, and NET Bibles (among others). In my Bible (NASB) the passage is bracketed in the text and a marginal note informs the reader that these verses were added in later manuscripts but are not contained in the earliest and best manuscripts. The NET Bible actually prints this passage in brackets and in a smaller font, separate from the rest of the text of John. The same is true of the last twelve verses in Mark’s gospel, as Ehrman kindly “reveals” to the reader.

Ehrman then “informs” us that a single sentence in 1 John 5:7-8 was added by scribes who wished to more solidly affirm the doctrine of the Trinity. Again, thanks Mr. Ehrman, but we already knew those were not original. Most modern translations don’t even contain the disputed words in that passage, but rather mention them in the margin along with a note that only a few late manuscripts contain them. Yet another example is 1 Timothy 3:16. Did Paul write, “God who was revealed in the flesh,” or “He who was revealed in the flesh”? Ehrman insists on the latter as though his view were totally radical and overlooked by Christians everywhere. He wants the reader to believe that Christians have grounded a critical doctrine (i.e., the deity of Christ) on a questionable text. But again, the NASB says, “He who was revealed in the flesh,” precisely as Ehrman says is correct. The same is true of the ESV and NET, among others.

Contrary to what Bart Ehrman seems to think, most Christians are not completely ignorant of the problems related to the New Testament manuscripts. Also contrary to what he would have you believe, essential Christian doctrines are not grounded on questionable texts like the ones mentioned above. The doctrines of the deity of Christ and the Trinity, for example, stand firm, based on dozens, if not hundreds of textually uncontested passages in the Bible. Yet Ehrman portrays these two passages (i.e., John 1:18 and 1 Timothy 3:16), neither of which are even an issue in modern translations, as if the doctrines in question would collapse without them.[Christian Communicators] or see link.  Wingerd in his ignorance of Greek biblical text, had omitted Ehrman’s reasoning on 1 Timothy 3:16, on why Ehrman as a scholar preferred the reading “He who was revealed in the flesh?”  Ehrman took the rendering from the Greek Codex Alexandrinus (5th-century MS), where the scholar Johann J. Wettstein, in 1715, found anomalies.  Ehrman wrote: One portion of the manuscript particularly caught Wettstein’s attention: it was one of those tiny matters with enormous implications.  It involved the text of a key passage in the book of 1 Timothy.  The passage in question, 1 Timothy 3:16, had long been used by advocates of orthodox theology to support the view that the New Testament itself calls Jesus God.  For the text, in most manuscripts, refers to Christ as “God made manifest in the flesh, and justified in Spirit.”  As I point out in chapter 3, most manuscripts abbreviated sacred names (nomina sacra), and that this is the case here as well, where the Greek word God (ΘΕΟΣ) is abbreviated in two letters, theta and sigma (ΘΣ), with a line drawn over the top  to indicate that it is  an abbreviation.  What Wettstein noticed in examining Codex Alexandrinus was that the line over the top had been drawn in a different ink from the surrounding words, and so appeared to from a later hand (i.e., written by a later scribe).  Moreover, the horizontal line in the middle of first letter, Θ, was not actually a part of the letter but was a line that had bled through from the other side of the old velum.  In other words, rather than being the abbreviation (theta-sigma) for “God” (ΘΣ), the word was actually an omicron and a sigma (ΟΣ), a different word altogether, which simply means “who.”  The original reading of the manuscript thus did not speak of Christ as “God made manifest in the flesh” but of Christ “who was made manifest in the flesh.”[Bart D. Ehrman(2005), Misquoting Jesus, Ch. 4, page 113, HarperOne, New York]

One has to understand that Ehrman and other scholars attested that 1 and 2 Timothy are disputed (not written by Paul) Pauline epistles.  

1Timothy 3:16 was written by someone who wanted Jesus to be a God. 

What do you say?



Article URL :

%d bloggers like this: