To Matthew

Submitted by Richard Lion heart (United States), May 13, 2006 at 01:28

You asked me to proove to you that Bart D. Herman's book is based on false information or not. Well when you read a book that is supposedly telling a true story there are several facts you have to look for.

1) where does the author get is information

2) Is it a reliable source

3) Can it be accurately and physically prooven

(1) Where does Herman get his information from? Actually this might surprise but he doesn't get it from anywhere. All his assertions about the Bible are based on conjecture and suppositions. What happens to an argument when it's based on conjecture? Well that argument turns out to be nothing but the hypothesis of an individual. Herman's book can be summerized very simply. He basically believes that some where during the centuries Jesus's words were lost in translation. Yet in his book he makes no comparison between present day bibles and the greek text they derive from. That would have been the ultimate evidence and yet he does not present it. Obviously he does not have it. In his book he never points to any passage or book in the bible that might be corrupted. From begining to end he sticks to his conjectures and suppositions. Sorry, but that does not proove anything. Only Bart Herman's on hypothesis.

(2) Is that book based on reliable sources? I think you already know the answer to that. Bart Herman is his own source. He made a few references to other biblical writers but without showing how they disagree with the bible. It is funny how he is so quick to accuse the early biblical writers without a shred of evidence and yet he puts full trust in unreliable gnostic accounts. Well all his book is based on gnostic claims and his own biased anti-Christian views. To me Bart Herman and gnostic text are hardly reliable sources. I don't know if they are to you.

(3) Can Bart Herman's claims be accurately and physically prooven? Well for a book that is based on conjecture and suppositions we already know that's not possible. Can Herman produce an early Christian text and compare it to what we have now? Ofcourse not. How accurate are his claims? Herman's book itself is full of errors. The whole book is nothing but an hypothesis created by Herman. One thing is for sure. He's not a big fan of historical accuracy and he's definetely not a big fan of Jesus nor Christianity.

P.S: If you can show me a mistake in the Bible I would reconsider my position.

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".