To Richard

Submitted by Matthew 10:34 (Egypt), May 10, 2006 at 20:20

Thanks for telling me about the "Da Vinici Code" though I already heard about all that in the news and from my friends. Its funny thought that the same book was mentioned for the opposite purpose when a friend of mine was trying to convince me about what he believes to be the truth. Its true that the book is a fictional story and i think its the people's mistake not the writer's when they take things so seriously as if they are facts (who knows!). Its not like Dan Brown did the same as James Frey who wrote "A Million little Pieces" to make lots of money out of lies! But back to the point. Any book on earth was made to make money, thus it can't be used as a way to assess its facts. I mean people claim that the Bible is the best selling book of all time, but you can't make the same argument (if you know what I mean)! I am not making any claims here but we need a better standard to determine whether the book says the truth or not. Money, is at least one motive for all people who work on earth, unless they can obtain food and housing using other means. We shouldn't expect a writer to distribute his book for free just to believe him (and you may not believe him if he actually does so!). Thus, you did speak the truth when you said "everyone can see that these guys were motivated by money." But Bart D. Herman never said he was writing fiction. Its a different case here. "Da Vinci Code" is a fictional story, and so was "The Satanic Verse" by Salman Rushide. Not because I said so, but because these books were published as fiction. Thus I know both Muslims and Non-Muslims who read these books without being offended. Its about making this simple distinguishment .But "Misquoting Jesus" is different. I am sure you agree that not all best selling books are fiction and full of lies.

Sure! You believe in what is written in the Old Testemant, but what does that has to do with the book! The Old testemant never talks about what Jesus did or said. It may have prophicied his coming, but it never talks about Jesus himself. Can you find the word "Jesus" in the Old Testemant? But lets say that he was mentioned in one way or another.

The book's title is Misquoting Jesus : The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why?

As clearly seen from the title, the writer says that the Bible has been changed. Its not anything against Jesus. Its simply against those who made copies of the bible back in history and had the chance to change what Christians believe today to be the word of God. The guy doesn't make claims about Jesus, he simply says that the bible is not a reliable source for information about Jesus. Notice I didn't make any claims here, thats what the author said.

"Richard Lion heart" I hope you see now that motives are not enough for proving lies. The book isn't fiction. What you need to show us what the author's arguments were. Did he or did he not open ancient scribes of the Bible and found them different? You started this whole conversation when you said that my answer to someone's question was wrong; that is the bible wasn't ultered. I told you that this was said by Bart D. Ehrman. If you want to continue debating and proving this person wrong, then I would like to see that happen. But you need to show us convincing "facts" and crticizing motives and dignity. Is there a good book that proves that the bible is the exact word of God. How does it prove it. But don't think you are trying to defend the whole faith. Even if the bible is proven to be ultered and unreliable, that doesn't destory anything. Faith is Faith, and I am sure a lot of people knows that. Hindu is a major religion today, though there is no founder to be traced back and criticized.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".