Here now is my second post on that intriguing little article by Louis Markos in the journal First Things, which he entitled “Errant Ehrman.” If you’ll recall from my last post, Markos starts the article by indicating that he felt “great pity” for me because I was the wrong kind of fundamentalist back when I was a conservative Christian. My problem, he indicates, is that I applied modern standards to decide whether the Bible was inerrant. Here are his words: He [Ehrman] was taught, rightly, that there are no contradictions in the Bible, but he was trained, quite falsely, to interpret the non-contradictory nature of the Bible in modern, scientific, post-Enlightenment terms. That is to say, he was encouraged to test the truth of the Bible against a verification system that has only existed for some 250 years….. Read by Petra Ortiz
Have you ever wondered why fundamentalists are adamant Zionists? (Did you know they were and historically always have been?) It seems to outsiders a...
Mitch Jeserich, of the Letters and Politics podcast, recently interviewed Bart about his book "Journeys to Heaven and Hell: Tours of the Afterlife in...
Bart's hypothesis of how and when the names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John became connected to the Gospels. Read by Mike Johnson. Link to...