I don’t think Dr. Ehrman expected this much of a challenge. Both are very scholarly in their debate and it’s much appreciated this day and age. Well done, gentlemen!
Ehrman has said he won't debate White again because White has a mean streak. He mentioned it in a recent interview called "on debating" or something similar.
I only listened to an audio version of this debate earlier, so I thought that White actually took off the tie that he was wearing and gave that to Ehrman.
I totally see why he geeks out about that. I would, too, as I do about my Book of Kells tie. And I too would want to hug the person who understood me so well!
Perhaps I am slightly biased as a theist (everyone is slightly biased), but I think that James White won this particular debate. I think that Bart was actually had a stronger showing against William Lane Craig than he did against James White.
I think that you made some good points. I think that Bart makes some good points too. I don't know if I am exactly a fan of Bart, but I do like him and I respect some of the work that he has done. (So does Michael Licona.) Bart is also a very good debater. Personally, I think that William Lane Craig is a much better at debate than Ehrman or White; but I think that Bart gave a VERY good account of himself against Craig, yet he seems to have some problems with White's particular style of debate. In any case, a debate can't make one position right or wrong in and of itself.
I don't even know if White is making good points during Ehrman's examination because Ehrman consistently fails to actually address the point being made.
No, actually White is pressuring Ehrman into using his convoluted scheme instead of trying to find a common language. Most debates like this one end in two people exposing their view and an audience accepting the one side they can understand. For example, White was trying to force Ehrman to talk about the Koran, where Ehrman would have to give ignorant responses. White has no scientific basis for his allegations. Instead, he has rhetoric tricks.
You are just banging your head against a brick wall, of course the resurrection isn't scientific, it's a supernatural experience which simply means "beyond science". It's just like how people try to explain the existence of our universe "scientifically" it's impossible. Why? Because if the universe was really created by God, we wouldn't be able to explain it scientifically because it would've been created "supernaturally". However, we still try to force science to explain how "nothing can create something" which leaves unscientific claims that are disguised as scientific. It is such a delusion, and absurd in it's very foundations. So just like in the existence of our universe, trying to explain something supernatural, naturally, will get you no where and you'll never find an answer because there is no answer to be found. So unless you accept that science can't explain everything, you continue to stay ignorant. God bless.
Elr James NOT sure how James white thought he had a chance. Ehrman does this stuff for a living. He is one of the foremost experts in the world on New Testament textual criticism.
If you claim the miracle of divine inspiration, that sets a higher standard of evidence. Apart from the grammatical mistakes, if the story of the woman taken in adultery can be fabricated, then what else did the writers lie about in the earliest manuscripts we don't have?
uncleanunicorn So true. I found it amusing when Dr. White was being derisive, saying that God could not simply make the copyist get it right, ignoring completely that God has untold power and can even raise Jesus from the dead. A God that created all things, his word included, should be able and willing of making sure it got transmitted correctly. But in a case of extra irony, Dr. White thinks that the fact that a lot manuscripts were preserved is a miracle. The threshold for what counts as a 'miracle' is oddly arbitrary.
Exactly! This is why I find it disingenuous when Christian scholars cry foul when more skeptic scholars nit pick at various aspects of the gospels that show they have errors. They complain that the same practice isn't applied to other ancient texts. This is true but only because there are no that believe The Iliad to be inerrant!!
Actually, I have a better question for you: "How do we know that this story was not originally apart of John's Gospel?" We don't have the originals to compare, and if Dr. Ehrman is right about not being able to reconstruct the original text, then how can ever "know" what the original have or didn't have? This is a question you should all ask yourselves. We know this because the manuscript evidence for the New Testament is so good (it is factually considered the best attested work in antiquity, as Ehrman, himself, contends) that from this mountain of evidence we can reconstruct the original text. If we could not do this, then without the originals we could not even tell what was originally written, or not written, and any skepticism we apply to the New Testament would have to be applied a thousand times for all other works of antiquity. Just something for you to think about!
Did anyone notice how during the cross-examintation Bart Ehrman kept interrupting James White while he was answering Ehrman's questions? James White on the other hand kept his cool and allowed Ehrman to answer his questions without interrupting in between. That is how you do an honest debate. If you keep interrupting your opponent while it is his chance to speak, it only shows that you are scared of something.
I just find it interesting that Bart Ehrman plainly states, "Yes, the Bible misquotes Jesus." Of course, this statement implies that he knows what Jesus actually said in the first place...
So then I guess it really does go back to the definition of "Misquote" - does it depend on literal, perfect, 100% accuracy, or does it suffice if the message is preserved (in its full integrity, with only minor, semantic differences)?
So then again, the only standard we can hold to is absolute 100% certainty?? That's exactly what James White was saying was absolutely ridiculous. I mean, you can't even be 100% certain that you're not actually just a brain in a vat being programmed to believe that everything happening to you is real, when it's actually just an illusion. It's literally impossible for you to really know 100%, but that doesn't mean we have to take that reality seriously. If we're being completely intellectually honest here, I know that there's no way for us to definitively KNOW what Jesus said word for every word. But I don't think anybody has to take that reality very seriously, because you can look at the general preservation of the message and arrive at what is an extremely reasonable conclusion: that Jesus' message really WAS ultimately preserved and that we can trust the Bible's authenticity. Why on earth would anyone throw that into question, given the amount of scholarship that has gone into examining this very idea?
so you actually believe that a god that punishes you for the slightest thought crime, is also loose enough with his definition of misquoting that he would allow people to copy his very words wrong. ROFL
Well that's the point though isn't it, if your expected to base your eternal salvation on what a book says, shouldn't that book be reliable? Shouldn't its authorship be verifiable? People murder, martyr, and go to war over what this book says. I'd venture that thousands, if not millions of people have been tortured or lost their lives because of this book. Unlike other scholarly works, the accuracy of the new testament can mean life or death or even an eternity of damnation. For these reasons, I think it needs to be held to a higher standard than any other piece of historical record. And Ehrman's findings perfectly articulate why I value my soul and the souls/lives of others over this blatantly unreliable "record".
39:04 Wrong claim, The Quran hasn`t textual variations even though there are too many ways to write the same word in Arabic, that is why they start using diacritical marks "Tashkeel or Harakat", There are different ways of recitation but all they lead to the same meaning.
White scored huge points by bringing up the fact that Jesus quoted the Greek Septuagint. Ehrman's expectations of inspiration is just not realistic among any scholars.
I'm a college math professor giving a lecture to a couple dozen people. They are all taking notes. Some people are writing a lot, some people are writing a little less. Some leave out certain parts, others add in those parts. I ask to see their notes if they want extra credit for class by the end of the semester. I expect to see accuracy and good clarification on what I have been lecturing. I see what they have written and even though their words differ from what I originally said and there are some things that were and were not included by some, they ALL have the same basic meaning of what I was teaching in the subject of math. They all get an A and 30 extra credit points. Is what I was teaching inaccurate and not reliable just because the students differed on what to include in their notes? In high school, I studied with my peers using each other's notes and even though the notes all had different word structures in them, the basic idea was still there resulting in me getting an A+
+Alex Grachek it's not barts standard. it's the consensus standard in the field of textual criticism. all barts really doing is relating how most in the field view the reliability of texts.
Your argument is fundamentally flawed. Transferring texts from one person to another once is not even remotely comparable to transferring through multiple people over thousands of years. And yes, going from you to a student is only one to another even if there are 20 students since they are not copying from another. You have committed the fallacy of false equivalence. The situations are not similar merely because people are copying.
+Alex Grachek and what about the students who got an A but failed to answer some of the questions correctly? what if their tests were set into circulation and their failed answers became the backbone of an incorrect understanding of what the mathematical theory initially (and correctly) was? some students may have arrived at the same answers using different words (in this case, more appropriately - different methods, formulas, calculations etc) but others may have arrived at false answers.
I’d agree that Bart was clearly better in this section, but in the first section White was the clear winner... Overall I’d say that White won the debate, and Bart would probably agree with that.
Damn, this "back and forth" bethween this two is so technical that I have no idea what in the world all this distinctions make reference to! Thanks for the video though.
It's actually simple. Word variance does not matter in collation, meaning does. Bart is presenting a false flag argument in an attempt to confuse Dr. White. White is on to him. Hope that helps.
I would have to totally agree that Bart Ehrman went from being respectful and I think very scholarly in the way he was approaching the debate that he became more personal adgitated and disrespectful in even the way that he was questioning dr. white in the sense in you can see for yourself that while dr. White was trying to answer the question Bart would immediately cut him off that's called steamrolling where you continually ask questions that nobody can answer that quickly in its assumed that you might be right because they can answer them quickly that's very juvenile
+Jewaun Glenn You should relisten the answers given by Bart and James White I think. White is really pivoting around and not answering directly. Bart's answers are much more concise. For a debate that is probably not the best strategy by Bart, it''s a pretty school teacher like questioning. But White is constantly dodging questions and I don't see a valid reason for him to do so. But maybe I missed it. For me it seemed more like White simply couldn't defend his position.
I have so much respect for Dr. Bart Ehrman and he clearly won the debate. Dr. White tried to use the cross examination session as an opportunity to pressurise Dr. Ehrman into attacking the Qur'an by making a false analogy between the Bible and the Qur'an. Unlike the Bible, the Qur'an was preserved both in the oral form and written form. Hundreds of early Muslims memorised large portions of the Qur'an in its original language and would recite these during their daily prayers. The majority of the text was even written during the lifetime of Muhammad by the likes of Zaid ibn Thabit (Muhammad's adopted son). This is remarkably different to the Bible which is said to be written many decades after Jesus, for example the Gospel of John around 90-100AD. The Qur'an was first compiled in the written form within one year after Muhammad by the leader Abu Bakr whilst hundreds still memorised and recited the Qur'an. This is remarkably different to the bible which was first compiled 300 years after Jesus. The point about Uthman was completely irrelevant to the debate and also a misrepresentation. Uthman died around 30 years after Muhammad. All that happened was that the text was standardised: "txt u l8r" would have become "text you later". The oral form did not change. The overwhelming majority of Muslim and Non Muslim scholars agree that the Qur'an we have today is at the very least a faithful representation of Uthman's standardised version, which would have been within 30 years after Muhammad. The Gospel of John was not even written within 30 years after Jesus. Dr. Bart Ehrman should be applauded for his intellectual honesty and it is irrelevant if Muslims "use" his books. Ultimately, truth is truth no matter where it comes from. Keep up the good work Dr Bart Ehrman!
Here's the problem Yusuf: Surat Maryam (19:30-35) says: "He [Jesus] said: 'I am indeed a servant of God. He has given me revelation and made me a prophet; He has made me blessed wheresoever I be; and He has enjoined on me prayer and charity as long as I live. He has made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable. So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)!' " The Quran quotes Jesus 600 years after he supposedly said those words, how do you justify the validity of this quote these so many hundred years later ? SECOND: "157And because of their saying (in boast), “We killed Messiah ‘Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allah,” - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of ‘Iesa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man), and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not [i.e. 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary)]: 158But Allah raised him ['Iesa (Jesus)] up (with his body and soul) unto Himself (and he is in the heavens). And Allah is Ever All-Powerful, All-Wise. (An-Nisa 4:157-158, Muhsin Khan) " This is just outright plain lies and contradicts recorded non-christian historical evidence that Jesus indeed did die on the cross. So which Holy Book can you consider to be more true? The Holy Bible or the Holy Quran?
Tacitus (non-biblical, non-christian) in his book 'Annals' provides the following historical report: "Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular." In his book, 'Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium', Bart Ehrman writes: "Tacitus's report confirms what we know from other sources, that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, sometime during Tiberius's reign." From the Gospel of Luke: "Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip was tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene, 2in the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John, the son of Zacharias, in the wilderness.…" Two independent sources confirming Tiberius Caesar as ruler and Jesus' crucifixion. This is sufficient for a historian to establish these two facts. By the way, there are more than 2 sources attesting to this, I have just met the minimum requirements. So you tell me now, what is your conclusive evidence that Jesus did not die on the cross?
BeyondSkys09 Tacitus book written ca. AD 116, so what does that prove, where is the archaeological evidence? Its like saying John said Jesus died therefore Jesus died, well where is the Cross of the men responsible for one of the major religions of the world, where is the Tomb of his burial, where is the site of his Grave or Birth? do we have that? no. Tacitus was born 25 years after Jesus' death.Scholars have also debated the issue of hearsay in the reference by Tacitus.
I'm a bit floored at how frequently Dr. Ehrman interrupted Dr. White. I also found it interesting that Dr. Ehrman had a defensive posture throughout this. He states that he's not hot and bothered at one point, but his body language and tone of voice say otherwise. He must have been really crushed when he decided that Biblical variation was enough to invalidate the faith he grew up with (or so it seems, given the amount of bitterness and anger he displayed throughout).
Wow, you get it wrong. Bart never decided that. The only faith he left behind because of variations, errors and contradictions in the Bible was that of Biblical inerrancy. It was addressing the problem of evil that caused him to awaken from his religious indoctrination.
Ehrman's only point is that it might be possible that there is a variation between extant texts and the originals. He goes on to agree that every text we have corroborates White's perspective that there is almost no meaningful variation in the texts, and that the body of evidence makes it very clear what is being said. Ehrman doesnt deal with the important point that White made about multiple stream attestation and the fact that it is almost certain that the original texts mirror exactly what we have preserved today. White gave solid textual criticism and evidence, whereas Ehrman gave an unprovable hypothesis. The fact that Ehrman does this for a living and was unable to follow Whites argumentation was a bit disappointing. If you thought Ehrman won this debate, I would encourage you to study what was said more thoroughly. I dont think you really understood White's argumentation.
That's funny, I said something similar on pt 1 of this video but from the opposite perspective before I saw your comment. I don't think that YOU have thought this through and I can see the cognitive dissonance in your comment. You said it yourself "almost no meaningful variation in the texts". In other words, there are meaningful variations in the text. That isn't a little problem. That's a big deal. However, even if there weren't "meaningful" variations, it would still be a big deal when it comes to the question of whether we can know if we have precise copies of the original manuscripts. Not only are there a mountain of variations in the text, thousands of them, but some of them are important. Therefore, the illusion that we know exactly what was in the original text, vanishes. We don't. We don't have the original texts, and what we do have leads us to believe that there was not a perfect transmission of the text, therefore it is safe to conclude that we can't know what was in the original texts. The only way that we could know what was in the original texts for certainty would be if we possessed the original texts (which wouldn't have been impossible).
36:55 Ehrman asks a legitimate question? OK, but there is enough of the text of the NT where there's complete agreement between the manuscripts and if we go by that alone, we still have enough knowledge of God to know Him enough to come to Him, be saved and have a relationship with Him. By Ehrman's standards of perfection, I would have to ask for a refund from the college I went to, they told me when I read Plato that it was what Plato actually wrote
Ehrmam fails to provide any compelling reason why the manuscripts we have survived versus some "hypothetical original ". ..There are thousands of textual manuscript that are highly consistent .. There is also the writings of the early church founders who quote quote the NT at length (within the first century )--they too are consistent
After listening to both parts of this debate my conclusions are unchanged. Ehrman's pov stems from his emotions. He makes it sound intellectual, but a trained psychologist can easily see it isn't. Without a thorough knowledge of his past as a believer I can't say exactly why he has such anger towards the Bible and people who believe it. But his anger is apparent. He lost his faith and he wants every other believer to lose theirs too. I submit Ehrman never really knew God. He was merely taught about God. Having never experienced God himself, he always had doubts. As an intelligent adult he decided to use his knowledge to scrutinize the Almighty. As if his human mind could actually comprehend a Being that exists further above us than we do an ant. I feel sorry for Ehrman and I hope that someday he searches for God with his spirit, and not his intellect. If and when he does that he will find God. I know this because many people have done so including myself.
Well John I am a trained psychologist and I assume you are not. Ehrman has used his intellect to come to the conclusion that he doesn't believe the bible is the word of God. Many Christians use their intellect and logical to discredit other faiths. However when it comes to their own faith this all flies out the window. You say that you think Ehrman never really knew God because you believe that once a person has been given belief through grace that this can never be changed. Ehrman and countless others (Dan Barker) are living proof you are wrong.
_"Without a thorough knowledge of his past as a believer I can't say exactly why he has such anger towards the Bible and people who believe it. But his anger is apparent."_ He makes no secret about this, although "anger" is a silly description. He's upset that people lied to him for most of his early life. _"He lost his faith and he wants every other believer to lose theirs too."_ Yes, because the biblical literalism that he was taught is in fact blatantly false and Ehrman now is one of the leading scholars in the field that demonstrates why this is the case. _"I submit Ehrman never really knew God. He was merely taught about God. Having never experienced God himself, he always had doubts."_ I submit that you are stating an unfalsifiable hypothesis that can allow you to disregard any critic what so ever without ever engaging with their arguments. _"As an intelligent adult he decided to use his knowledge to scrutinize the Almighty."_ No, he used it to study the bible, and its shocking badness on multiple levels. _"As if his human mind could actually comprehend a Being that exists further above us than we do an ant. I feel sorry for Ehrman and I hope that someday he searches for God with his spirit, and not his intellect. If and when he does that he will find God. I know this because many people have done so including myself."_ The idea that you're more likely to arrive at what's true if you throw your brain in the garbage is pretty laughable. If you have to be a gullible fool to qualify as a "righteous believer", then I'm sure many people wouldn't want anything to do with your god anyway, even if they knew it existed.
Francis Duggan how do you know what all those people really believed to begin with? Are we to just go by what they say? Does being a psychologist gives you the power to read minds? Ehrman clearly did not have faith in God.....he had faith in the Bible which is not perfect, only God is perfect. Ehrman provides solid proof that the bible has variations, but how does that stop it from being a sufficient representation of the Word of God?
Ehrman has said elsewhere that he lost faith in God because of the problem of evil, not this. Bruce Metzger, Bart's PhD dissertation advisor, knew everything that he does, and yet it he didn't come to the same conclusion.
I'm a theist and a big fan of James White. I also love Bart Ehrman and what he has to say. I don't think there was a clear winner. Good points were made on both sides. When someone says 'so and so got crushed' it normally says more about them than it does either debater.
Regarding Ehrman's issue with divine inspiration of the Bible, couldn't it be resolved by saying that the original version given to man WAS inspired by God but we screwed it up by not preserving it?
maybe but God's original thought, intent and message has been preserved. we do know what God has revealed to men. the message of redemption by the cross is still the same.
brain washing is going great. better than having that dirty one. gotta get yours clean up now. you said mountains of evidence like what? we don't have the originals? gotta do better than that.
Whenever I've had informal debates on this subject with doubters, I always give them one simple challenge -- can you name me a set of NT manuscripts that would lead me to a different faith? So far none of the people who attack the credibility of scripture can answer that. That's because there is none.
Here is the problem...people always want to attack the peripheral details about stuff but what about the main point. Do these new manuscripts or copied or whatever deny prophecy, deny the resurrection, etc? Remember the point, Jesus said that the "gospel" must be preach throughout the whole world? So until these "variants" change the meaning of the gospel message, everything else is just window dressing.
Why is James White, bringing in the Quran in such discussion; as if he wants Bart D. Ehrman to study it & write against it as well? If by mentioning "documented fact that there are textual variants in the manuscript of the Quran" he means the 7 or 10 different ways of reciting it, then he is doing the wrong comparisons between the history of the Bible & the Quran. The Quran is in tact & hasn't been changed since the companions of the Prophet (PBUH) wrote it. & it's the only book that has been memories verbatim. Should not compare it with the bible & its history.
Mr. Bart Ehrman clearly has no respect for Mr. James White in this debate. Just watch the first cross-examination and you can see it all over his face and body and you can hear it in his voice. He clearly hasn’t studied Mr. White’s works whereas Mr. White has clearly studied Mr. Ehrman’s works.
Dr Bart has no burden of proof as he has demonstrated historically and factually that New Testament was made up by highly educated Greek speaking writers who never saw Jesus and wrote hundreds of years after Jesus. On the other hand James White has to claim New Testament is what Jesus said actually because it means money for people like him
Respect isn't a prerequisite of a good debate. I could care less if they like and respect each other just as long as I'm presented enough information to ponder their arguments.
I am Muslim, I would love DR. Bart to study, research and be critical early Islam,Quran and Hadith and the life of prophet Mohammad , you would enrich our Islam life.
An axe head floats, the seas part, Samson alone kills innumerable enemies, two are struck dead by God in the new testament for lying (so why not for scribal errors), Elijah flies away, water into wine, feeding the 5,000, and so and so on. Why is it unreasonable to ask the original text to be preserved? One additional, relatively easy miracle? Really? Stop the sun in the sky but preserve some manuscripts is too hard? B.S. And given the extraordinary claims of this text, we MUST have a stronger standard, James. We won't hold the same standards as we would for Plato because the claims in the Biblical text demand incredible and impeccable originals.
Well I think White's point was that he often debates Muslims and they very often will bring up Ehrman's works to refute Christianity (e.g. Shabir Ally), while ignoring what the same methodology would do with the Quran (critical scholarship on the leveI as with the Bible simply does not exist in the Muslim world). I guess he wanted a statement by Ehrman on that inconsistency from the Muslim side. I don't buy that Ehrman does not know anything about the Quran, as he said in this debate ;) He said on another occasion that he'll deal with Islam when he stops valuing his life. You make good money writing this books on Christianity, it's a lot more dangerous though doing so on the Quran. I think he avoids making honest statements about his opinion for that reason.
mawa89g /I think he avoids making honest statements about his opinion for that reason./ I think that "when (I) stops valuing (my) life" is a pretty honest opinion of what he thinks of Islam.
mawa89g You said that critical scholarship (on the level as with the bible) simply does not exist this is simply not true. We have dozens of volumes of books dealing with the variant readings of the qur'an and why they are not accepted. They detail everything; whether it is the grammar behind those variant or the trustworthiness of the recitators. The problem in my opinion is that western scholars wants to start criticizing the Qur'an without even looking at the tremendous scholarly work done by Muslim scholars in the first centuries of Islam. You said that it is dangerous to criticize the Qur'an. This is simply not true, there are hundreds of western scholar out there that do so (in a respectful manner) and they are not faced with death threats and things of this nature.
RonJohn63 Oh sure, I was talking about his opinion on the scriptural preservation of the Quran (or also sira or ahadith) specifically, as it was the context in this debate, and that he claimed here to not know anything about it. Not about Islam and how it deals with critics (actually Muhammad himself often had them killed) generally ;) I think that was not entirely honest, because I can hardly imagine total ignorance here by a scholar who deals with ancient religious texts, although of course he's focusing on the NT scriptures.
mawa89g /I can hardly imagine total ignorance here by a scholar who deals with ancient religious texts/ Well, the word "total" is, by definition, absolute. Thus, I'm sure that he has *some* knowledge. But, seeing as how he spends all of his time focusing on the NT (and not wanting to get killed by jihadists), I fully believe that he doesn't know enough about the Koran to speak knowledgeably about it. Think also about this: he could have very little knowledge about it, yet spin up firm, "appeal to authority" pronouncements from the ether. That would be *Bad*, no matter what he said, because it's Right to be intellectually honest. (That's not to say that he doesn't have *opinions* about the Koran. Maybe he even thinks it's as fraudulent as the Book of Mormon. But without research, it is Good And Right of him to keep his mouth shut, since he's a Recognized Authority.)
James White's faith in Christianity rests solely on the premise that Islam cannot be right and therefore Christianity must be right or else nothing could possibly be right besides atheism. What kind of reasoning is this?
Uwot Mate I think J White is a professional who knows his job & only speaks for Christianity & the trinity, not a matter of faith. He undermines & ignores many valid points against xtianity & 3nity, which a true believer would confront sincerely without resorting to tactics & slippery ways. Nothing looks like truth except truth itself.
Dude, you really misunderstood his comments on Islam. In fact, he wasn't commenting on Islam itself, but the Karan, and only as an ancient text. He also mentioned Tacitus. If you follow James White at all you would know that is not what he believes, and that is not why he thinks Christianity is true.
This part of the debate just show how close minded and harsh is Mr Ehrman, he is just interested of his question and disregarded the answer of James White
James White's ulterior motive becomes so clear. How many times did he bring up Islam, Muhammad, the Qur'an, and even Muslims he has debated. He desperately wanted one consolation in this debate; to hear Bart Eherman bash Islam or at the very least make a claim that Muslims were mischaracterizing his works so that in his next debate against a Muslim as soon as they cite Ehrman as an authority he can say, Aha! I spoke with Ehrman and he said Muslims are mischaracterizing his work! He wants to be able to say, Aha! you quote Ehrman, but do you know _his_ opinion on the Qur'an?? -- It's so transparent and I kind of lost some respect for him after watching this. Ehrman may have come across a tad condescending in this but I think he got annoyed when White started rattling off manuscripts and claims based off of faulty logic. He (As a real textual scholar) didn't do this because he wanted the audience to follow his arguments as lay people; but White is a more skilled debater and he knows if he compliments the audience "You guys get it! You're smart!" and then feeds them some bogus stats (e.g., 95% agreement) then they will think he's just as qualified as Ehrman, which he clearly isnt.
I have been a qualified fan of both these men in the past. James has a more multi-discipline expertise that is honed in battles of apologetics and debate. Bart is a surprisingly good debater and demonstrates to all his superior knowledge and experience in textual criticism. When he crosses into biblical interpretation and theology he does not demonstrate the same methodical expertise. More assertions without the same academic grounding. I have learned something significant and that concerns the earliest period of 50-75 years after writing. We have no idea what, how many, or what significance were the accidental/intentional changes that took place. Both debaters presented hypothesis on what occurred. Bart seems to be that we cannot know the words of Jesus. Seems to be a all or nothing viewpoint. No certainty verses total certainty of ever word.
How can anyone be certain of any verse when there are no originals? Sure I feel a lot of certainty about most verses in my heart but that is my own feeling and maybe I might find one day that I am wrong.
@@John17230 How could we ever be sure what we are looking at are the originals? Even if we found a text that was carbon dated within 5 years of Jesus's death we still could not be sure it is the original. I think, for me, the key point is that it is easy to forget there was a robust Christian community around these texts that knew Jesus, Paul and his apostles, and those directly taught by them The early Christian community were willing to die for their faith and contained people directly taught by or privy to the original authors. If there were significant deviations in the texts which substantially altered their meaning I would expect these early Christians in authority to have recognised the departure from the original. Its hard to believe they did not realise the importance of these texts. I also disagree with Bart in his point that Paul was just simply writing a letter and did not realise the significance of these in the community.
@@Dom20002007 How do you think other religions have originated? What does being willing to die for your ideas (especially in a religious context) have to do with whether something is true or not? Haven't you heard of Jonestown? At that time people believed in all kinds of absurd reasoning and didn't seem to know how to differentiate what was real from what was pure fantasy or legend. I recommend that you read "Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew" because what you've said about those communities doesn't seem to fit the evidence we have.
Bart erhmans position is based on a premise made purely out of assumption of what God would want. That assumption is that God wants a pure and perfect transmission of manuscripts. And from this he has created his critique. Bob erhman thinks he personally knows what God would want and because he doesn’t know why God wouldn’t want, or allowed it, he comes to the conclusion that it is not Gods word. His perspective is based purely on assumption.
As an atheist. I think dr. White and dr. Ehrman did a good job. As Bart said history is about probability. It's a scale. The bottom line is any question that says "how do you know" is useless without the originals.
""We live in an age where people are looking for a reason not to believe." That statement is completely absurd. Waking up to the truth about the bible and losing faith in Christianity is a BIG deal and not something a person seeks. Quite the contrary, people research to back up and reaffirm their faith, not lose it. This is almost always the case.
This world is in fact increasingly looking for reasons to reject god what are you blind can you not see the movement to destroy Christians or are you a part of that movement so you deny the obvious truth
Ehrman's entertainment value is supported by his focus on historicity and seemingly exhaustive biblical knowledge and technical incisiveness in the academic discipline.
James is debating an X Christian, but at the back of his mind he is thinking about the Muslims reaction on Bart Ehrman's evidence (facts and figures)... Bart Erman is giving evidence upon evidence in the Bible to Prove his case, which he couldn' t respond to. It seems the only response he had is to discredits the Quran in other for him to Prove the Bible is 100% the inspired word of God. Unfortunately the Quran was not in question in this debate.
Yeah James was trying to use a deflection strategy, which I was taught last semester in school but he failed miserably. The percentage stats were desperation too, all you need to do is change 1 word in a phrase or sentence and that changes the whole meaning. James kept saying oh look the texts are 95% the same. The divine intervention stories have bothered me because.. since ancient times god never stepped in since and we have had lots of deadly earthquakes, and other natural disasters. I can go on but I will stop.
Sorry but Ehrmann is a coward for claiming not to know anything about the quran. He knows a lot about multiple religions and their books but only attacks Christianity simply because it sells, its politicall correct and because nobody will chop his head off for that.
why dr. James White often bring faith in this scientific debate? is attacking personal believe is common in debate? its not explicitly stated by dr. James but often he said something related to faith of christian and mention muslims scripture too
The reason Dr. Erhman is hesitant to write a book on misquoting the Quran, I think, is because he's not a scholar on the Quran. I was staggered by the fact that there is only about 50% agreement between the earlier Alexandrian and Byzantine texts. If that's true and the more earlier the texts are, the more discrepancies, then the logical conclusion is to say that the earlier texts are more unreliable.
it is so far out of left field, to even think any of the biblical text is worth two shits, that I don't know where to start. thankfully, this can't be forced on my children in school.
Did you see the first part of the debate? White even quotes Ehrmann, that we know what the NT text looked like. Old greek has very different structure, than english. You could write: "Ehrmann is smart; smart Ehrmann is; is Ehrman smart" and it would mean the exact same thing, but it would count as three variants. Writing John without "h" would be an variant and so on. The moveable "nu" is another one. I was used put into the texts to avoid two vowels in a row. It doesnt change the meaning, but also counts as a variant, if a writer didn`t copy it. Thats why White pointed out, that 99% the texts are same, if you discount such mistakes or variants of writing.
First based on my point of view. it would be dangerous for him since you know what happen with Zakaria Botros. second i thought Mr. Bart Ehrman give the christian an eye opening i mean i'm christian i do believe in Jesus but it gave me motivation to question something and went to learn something even i'm not expert like him and we are not at the same page i respect him.
Actually, Dr. James simply rehearses the same nonsense that all Evangitical Scholar says that we can reconstruct the NT. At first, what James is saying seems very intelligent response. Yet, once you start understanding the textual criticism field. Bart Ehrman's claim makes the most sense. The simple truth is impossible to reconstruct the original text. The reconstruction that we can do is the most probable account of the original text. Yet, there are the difference that exists in the textual tradition that can change the entire meaning of the text. Some of these examples were shown in the video. Think about this difference that transforms an important message in the Gospel of Mark. During Jesus Baptism God said TOday I begotten you. In some textual tradition, it is there and in others it is absent. Why did the passage matter? Well if Jesus became God at his baptism it would imply an exaltation Christianology. This means that the Doctrine of the Trinity cannot be true. After all, the Doctrine of the Trinity maintains that Jesus has always been God.
At a very minimum it would be incorruptible, no part of it would contradict another and all dating methods would place it right at the time it should date to.
This debate shows that whether you're a scholar or not the bible is one of the greatest source of confusion and disagreement. Even if people are historians, scholars and are knowledgeable of Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew that they won't necessarily agree on the bible. If god is not the author of confusion then why is there so much confusion surrounding the "inspired word of god"? God could clear up all this mess yet chooses not to. Why would he have to have a mouthpiece like James White to argue for him or defend the flaws contained in the bible?
Well. I have watched both parts of this debate and found them to be very informative. It is indeed true to say that we, each one of us, have a wide range theological persuasions which govern how we see/ perceive things. How else can (specifically, these) two scholars come to two such differing opinions? I personally come down on the side of White. I thought his arguments were sound and logical. Though there are many variants in the manuscripts, the essence of the gospel HAS been preserved. Essentially, a person in these days can come to know the truth of the gospel that salvation is found in Jesus through the words we have within the Bible. Reading the comments below, I can see that I am in a minority with this view. Thanks for the presentation.
Okay, so I gave Mr. White the benefit of the doubt, listening to part 1, but now I'm sure that he's dishonest, underhanded, he smears Ehrman by associating him with boogeymen (Islam, new atheists, postmodernism), and he's hiding the truth about himself: he's an apologist, not a scholar. His sales pitch is a facade of scholarship.
I think Ehrman won the debate, but I think White made the crucial point at 1:00:00: the Church community maintained the accuracy of the Apostolic writings by referring back to the Apostles and the disciples of the Apostles. This destroys the Protestant presupposition that Scripture alone is sufficient to know the Gospel, but it is the only position that makes sense in light of Ehrman's confirmation that Scripture has been modified in transcription.
Ehrman is making the mistake at 37:00 that God was primary not interested in giving a scripture at all for the Christians, the scripture is just a witness of what he did. Jesus never wrote a letter down and christianity would also have existed without the NT. But the NT is inspired because it contains an accurate description about God, it helps therefore a lot of people to understand what Jesus did. This is wrong philosophical reasoning, that is a different discipline then scholarship.
This is why belief is given by God. Both these gentlemen are debating something that they cannot prove with certainty. Bart Ehrman point was clearly proven - We do not have the original manuscripts and there are many variations in the earliest manuscripts that we do have. This does not prove scripture is not inspired, it simply one of many logical reasons not to believe. However, those who God has truly chose to believe knows the Holy Spirit is the true inspirer of God's word not man. James White tried to step outside the realm of this very foundation of the Gospel, therefore he was defeated in this debate. However the points he made on the written tradition, and that God's word is in all of the manuscripts is true. It is indeed a work of God to have so many different manuscripts from 100-200 years from the original writings, but most importantly still keep the same teachings in tact. We have to remember that these writings are taken from all over the world in many languages, but we still have the same Gospel.
+Robert Brooks What do you mean when you say "Those who God has chose to believe"? Why did God give us free will if his plan was to choose who believes and who doesn't? Doesn't god want us to make that choice ourselves?
It's a two-way street. If you want to reject God, He won't force you to accept Him, but if He doesn't reach out and open your mind to the truth, there's no way you can get born again.
+Chad Ellis The answer to your question starts in Genesis 1-3, with a special focus on Genesis 2. If we understand this chapter correctly we would come to understand that our will, not "Free Will", was actually God's will. The creation that God deemed to be "very good" is a mankind that was totally dependent on God. If we look at Genesis 2, the only way you infer that man has free will is in the context of God giving the command telling man what is Good to eat, oppose to what is not Good to eat. The will of man was totally enslaved to the creator, therefore they could only do what the creator said was good. I believe we see God placing man in the Garden; God placing man in the center of the garden to cultivate it; God told man what to eat and what not to eat. Lastly we see man not knowing any shame from being naked. So it seems that in the beginning our "Free Will" was not so free, but enslaved to the creator. The will that you refer to as "Free Will" is due to the corruption of having our own knowledge of Good and Evil. We see in Genesis 3 that the knowledge of Good and Evil external of what God provides is what corrupts the will, it leads the woman to sin; and by eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge and good evil, it becomes apart of our nature. Hence, it is the reason we lose fellowship with God. So: 1.) No God did not create us with "Free Will", he created us with a will that is dependent upon Him. 2.) God shows us that throughout the Tanakh (OT) and the NT that we cannot "choose" him. We have our own knowledge of Good and Evil which corrupts our will, causing us to seek our own desires (will) versus God's will. Hence - God 3:22 NASB - "Then the Lord God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"- **VERY IMPORTANT** - The Hebrew transliterate word of "might" - pen, is not describing God as not knowing what man will do. Every time this word is used it is describing something being put in place to avoid a contingency that is certain to occur. Genesis 3:3 for example - "...God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.'" If the story of our salvation was about our "Free Will" then God would have left us in the Garden. However, as we continue reading to the right you see a plan and purpose for God to redeem a people that He has chosen for Himself, because the path of destruction that comes from man's corrupted will shows us why we are only very good when our will is enslaved to God's will. Therefore, God receives all the glory.
+Sofiya Karpina When God works he doesn't fail. He tells us: Ephesians 2:4-5 - "But God, ..., even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)...". This is also a promise of salvation to Israel - the body of Christ Ezekiel 36: 25-27 NASB - "Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances" God does not hand out conditions. He says he will do it, you will be clean because God will do it for His name's sake.
Sofiya Karpina Does God wan't us to exercise our free will by choosing to believe in Jesus? _______ "but if He doesn't reach out and open your mind to the truth, there's no way you can get born again" Does he open peoples minds to the truth before or after they get born again?
In his opening address James White seems to think that the so-called "tenancity" of the new testament ensures that the original reading is there. But what is the logic for this? And what is the use of it if we can't identify what that original reading is. He establishes this solely by appealing to authorities who happen to agree with him - Wallace mainly. Simply putting up images of NT fragments is not a reasoned argument as some have stated.
Why don't we have the originals? You asked this several times. I think the answer is very simple - so that man would not idolize them. Look at how so many people enter into crass idolatry when they believe they hold in their hands a supposed "holy relic." Think how many more people would enter into it if they knew they were looking at the handwriting of Paul...
If we had what we thought were originals would you be saying "these can't be orginal, because God wouldn't give us these idols"? I doubt it. Hence your explanation is ad hoc.
Lawrence Stanley I know just what you mean. In a similar manner, the reason why Christianity and Islam are false is because they promise vast rewards(Eternal life etc) for certain behaviors and vast punishments(Hell) for others, but this makes the behaviors morally vacuous, so they can't be true. No real god would reveal such information - just look at how people act after having been exposed to it.
P Foster I'm not trying to make a good or bad argument, I'm merely making an observation. There are some things that we may only make conjecture, and the "why" questions, unless we are told directly, are always conjecture.
Lawrence Stanley Well why would you say that you think you have the "answer" when, by your own admission, all you have is conjecture? If you want to believe things that are actually true its a bad idea to come up with baseless ad hoc rationalisations like this. Maybe we don't have the "originals" (to the extent that heavily edited composite documents have originals) because there was no divine hand preserving them so they just got lost?
If you don’t understand Half of what James says it’s because his talking nonsense, he answers questions with very long explanations that either doesn’t actually answer the question that was asked or answers A question that wasn’t asked at the time. James agrees that a lot of things in the new testament was add-ons, but in his View he believes all of the original is still within the text even though we don’t have any originals to base that off of so it’s only his opinion. So even if all or some of the original text is in there, how would someone determine what is original from What was added? There’s just no way to divide the original from add-ons. James ask Bart so you would need a perfect copy of the original to believe it? Well yes lol when people call it the perfect word of God we would like to have it like that perfect, without all the Jesus is God theology added.
I find it a bit remarkable that Dr. Ehrman bases so much of his disbelief on the premise that the original Gospels were no miraculously preserved. Such a thing would require not really even a miracle, but a permanent suspension of the laws of nature, as the text would have to be completely indestructible and incorruptible - its very existence would negate the need for faith in Christ, since you could just point to its existence. If demands for such things are to be made, why not say "If Jesus was resurrected, why didn't he stay on Earth so everyone would have to acknowledge his resurrection." It's certainly the case that there were controversies in the early Church and that we don't have a definite versions of the original texts, and that the development of orthodoxy seems to have shaped what was included and excluded, and this leads to doubt. Yet, if that's his standard, God could not possibility have pleased Dr. Ehrman unless he had directly twisted the will of everyone involved into perfect agreement.
Oh, and I would love to ask Dr. Ehrman about these questions directly, but his blood is behind a paywall. Which he donates to charity, though I don't know if there's any real proof of that, so I must remain agnostic.
It is 2 years already but I need to correct for the sake of mankind. See this summary, you will know the whole thing. "As the result, any book that considered “late date” or non-authorize by apostle(s) would reject from canon. For example; Epistle of Barnabas (90 - 130 A.D) and Apocalypse of Peter (about 125 - 150 A.D) were rejected from canon. Many or all of these rejected books were lost and some of them were rediscovered in the 19th and 20th centuries." Thus, if the book of Mark is that bad, why didn't they picked, for instance, Barnabas.
I think that there is an assumption that scribal transmission is the only way that the gospels were recorded. Variants could come about by disciples teachings being recorded by followers to the best of their recollection, from many mouths and many hands could come many words and phrases, misspoken, and recorded incorrectly.
Dr. White clearly won the debate. The bottom line is that with all the variants only 1/4 of 1% actually changes any meaning of the text. Meaning the resurrection of Jesus, not effected. The divinity of Jesus, not effected. The second coming of Jesus, not effected. And on and on, no mainline essential belief of the Christian faith is affected by any variant. All the texts agree when it comes to the points that mean anything. NOW, if you want to ride the train with Ehrman, then sure, whether Jesus said: "prayer and fasting" or just "prayer" in one text. Or whether or not Jesus got mad at a leper or felt compassion for him, sure have a hay day. But the bottom line is that if 99.75% preservation of the actual core meaning of the next is not the preservation of a text, then preservation does not exist.
Bart CRUSHED James' arguments throughout the entire debate and then he annihilated him in the cross examination! I mean he handed James his own ass on a silver platter! Only the loyal Christians are going to say James won.NO WAY!HE LOST AND HE LOST HORRIBLY!
White comes off as an angry, testy, passive-aggressive, obnoxious and clearly less informed. He was outmatched here and I think he realized it. Ehrman is not somebody he can snow with his usual apologist, pseudo-academic bullshit. By the way, it totally IS like telephone. No two copies will be exactly the same. There will be mistakes even in the first transmission.
His argument regarding theological persuasion is criticizing a sect of Christianity who choose a position based on theological reasoning rather than historical, which is what their job is. If your job is history, you should look at it through the lens of historian even if it contradicts your own religion. Otherwise you are going to corrupt information to allign with your beliefs.
Dr.Ehrman : "I'm not drawing theologian conclusion and I don't really appreciate you linking me to a muslim. I'm not making any stand about the Koran, I don't know anything about the Koran" James White just throwing a stupid question as a sample trying to make the same perception about Dr. Ehrman's point of view ... Dr. Ehrman won't playing with this game lol .... Bravo Dr.Ehrman !!
@1D 1R A C U 1L A 209 !! we do have the origionals weve had them since 632 AD google brimingham quran we have thousands of early quran manuscripts no discrepancies over hundred of years time of prophet and just after it ... sorry for mispellings
1D 1R A C U 1L A 209 !! Go ahead write the book. We have original manuscripts of the Quran from the time of Mohammad. And hundreds from the decades after Mohammad. Not a single change of meaning is there, not a single omission. Because Muslims use oral memory. Currently there are over 10 million people who know the Quran word for word, letter fir letter. Do you have one person who knows the bible like this? Excluding Muslim scholars? You’re genuinely wrong about @ we all know”. Clearly you don’t.
All the bibles we have misquote Jesus. We have no original manuscripts. The bibles are errant. What about the Holy Spirit? Does he not guide the Christian into all truth? Is not he the one that is sent to Christians reveal the truth of God? I mean if Origen thought that the scribes erred through inspiration that could show where God hides His word from the world and gives divine revelation to His chosen. Of couse, I have heard that Origen was a gnostic. Does that make sense? Is that logical that God would hide the truth?
After watching multiples debates of Bart Ehrman with James White, Mike licona, Wallace, William lain Craig (both of them), I Realized that, Bart is extremely Intelligent for drawing his conclusion which led him his leaving Christianity, as NT and manuscripts(both together) failed to provide answers to simple Questions raised by Typical Christian Scholars. I thought Bart left Christianity bcz it failed to answer, however He left after studying in its depth and I can see, he's Extremely aware of what he's done in talk and debates. Enjoyed listening to both, but Bart always on Top, no offence to those who Just doing like or are obsessed with his view on NT and its manuscripts.
I can see James trying to be patient and feeling a bit annoyed, but Bart doesn't seem to try at all to contain his contempt and rudeness. Come on man, there's no need for the attitude. Just have a polite and scholarly debate.
really enjoyed this debate. one of my favorites. I'm a Christian and believe what we have is God's word. variants haven't changed the gospel message. Christ lived and dies rose again 3 days later. he did so that for those who would believe would have eternal life. variants have not changed that message. I understand where dr erhman is coming from. but he said it's his own opinion and not scholarly. great debate non the less.
I am a Christian even went to an all girls private catholic school till grade 8 I am now in University. The Bible is so full of problems and suspicions, I don't follow blind I think. Not like silly people who just say and swear on every single word in the bible. But that is there choice.
+Abu taj md mahbub Ul alam may you please tell which contradictions you are talking about that change the message of the Bible and where all the problems are. if being a Muslim and I assume you are love to see Bart slam the bible then you my friend use double standard for the Quran. He would do the same to the Quran.
mk crown son of Mary did not die so no questions of resurrection. Not a single piece of bible Wes was written during Jesus. Bibles written by anonymous drunk and idolatrous Greek and Roman reflecting their belief system and lifestyle. Bible differs each other with latest ones most corrupted. Christian uses latest corrupted bible gospel according to John ( not written by John) which made son of Mary man Jesus into son of God and God. Jesus has no idea who wrote bible what’s in it as they were written in foreign language by foreigner 100s years after he left. He was basically a follower of Moses in his lifetime. His name was not Jesus Christ. It is the translation of his name which is a crime. Names should never be translated. Christianity and it’s doctrine was invented by Greek so son of Mary Easa/ Eshua/ Jesus will not assume any responsibility of Christian who follows doctrine by Paul and gongs.
White seems to be used to say whatever he wants, mostly in a theological/ philosophical way. Ehrman deals day by day with the very sources. White does have no idea. Not even Wallace has the level of scientiffical approach that Ehrman has. Their minds are totally different. Ehrman is very conscious of the assumtions one can do, cause he controls all the sources. White has already chosed what to believe. I know this cause of his commentaries on Servetus in other lectures, in whiches he does not hesitatein lying on what happened, in order to preserve the fairly damaged Calvin's fame.
The father of lies has done a serious number on Bart Ehrman...possibly non-reversible. He said during part 1 that he prayed to God to help him disprove His word! Thus disarming himself and opening himself to the wiles of the devil (Ephesians 6:11-17).
+Phobos Anomaly I'm sure you will yawn and roll your eyes at the great white throne judgment, at which time you will understand that you are deserving of what's in store for you.
I know you said you study the Bible, but I see that you have poor knowledge when it comes to what it says. God did not create an evil being. The devil was not evil to begin with, but he rebelled against God when he grew in pride. Also, evil is not created. It is simply the absence of good. When you rebel against God, you separate yourself from His goodness and, therefore, become evil.
Here's my problem with Bart Ehrman's stance: Because we don't have origninal manuscripts of anything from antiquity they can't be accepted as authortative, and as Bart admitted, we're also "misquoting" ancient philosophers like Plato because we don't have his original writings.Yet, most schools in the world who teach ethics and philosphy will ALWAYS lecture the ideas that were originated by Plato.Why? Because the works that we have are thoughtful,coherent and life changing. Bart Ehrman has an unreasonable standard for what we can accept and dismiss as authoritative in regards to ancient writings, especially the bible..
Mr James needs to do more research on the "variation" on the Quran. If he is referring to the readings of the Quran then they are considered scripture anyways. They dont change the meaning in any way.
Scribal copying mistakes certainly present one problem, but the main problem is that we don't have a clue who wrote any of the original Gospel manuscripts or what their sources are. They are not eyewitness accounts (all written in the third person), and don't claim to be. Therefore, we have no reason to be confident that we can quote Jesus with any reasonable degree of accuracy. James White points out that the thousands of NT manuscripts available, from diverse geographical locations, and mostly with only minor textual variations, lead us back to the accuracy and veracity of the originals. To me this argument based on manuscript quantity is fallacious and does not confirm authenticity. The reason is that it is the EARLIEST manuscripts which have the most variations (as Ehrman pointed out), so that the closer we get to the originals, the more discrepancies they show. Related to this is that there has been a filtering out of the important manuscript discrepancies with time, so that the later copies tend to become more uniform or orthodox, as a result of Church control and manipulation as to which copies get re-copied and which are either destroyed or left to rot. So only the conformist (orthodox) copies do get preserved and handed down to us, not those with the hallmarks of any "heresy". Given the huge labour and cost of copying a Gospel, only those copies that are authorised or approved by the Church would have been considered worth re-copying. No scribe is going to want to copy a Gospel that does not meet with Church approval (or approval by some authority), and no one would commission the copying of UNORTHODOX, "heretical" manuscripts, which would have no sale value (who would want to spend a huge sum of money on a copy that had no authoritative approval?). In summary, it is Church control over the manuscripts that has led to the relative homogeneity of the manuscript copies we have, and their huge number does not reflect accuracy with the original, only a process of filtering out unwanted or heretical doctrine. We can't extrapolate backwards with confidence to the originals on the basis of our NT manuscripts as James White wishes us to believe, since the re-copying has been subjected to a filtering process.
No relegion has the original copy from which they are referring to. Christians,muslims,hindus,buddhist doesnt have their original sayings...they are copies of copies....so on. God want him to believe without the originals.
Ehrman exhibits every aspect of a slimy, defense attorney which is extremely annoying. Throw out a question, cut off the answer with an off statement, followed up by misrepresenting what the answerer said, twist factual evidence into falsehoods and blow in some smoke and mirrors, bring up totally irrelevant points and cover it all with high sounding words to made it look like you're really know the truth and falsely give the impression to the listener (jury) that they're telling you the truth.
LuvBorderCollies I wouldn’t call Ehrman “slimy” but I would say he is ingenious. His personal opinion on Scriptures has colored the presentation of his research. He is a top scholar. There is no doubt about that. But his loss of faith is based on a naive the view of Biblical of inerrancy which didn’t allow for the explanation of textual variants in the written word. Ehrman will tell you that he did not lose his faith as a result of his research. His lose if faith was based on the theodicy of why a loving God allows such pain and evil to exist in the world. There is a childish view of supernaturalism that carries over into his research when he asks the question of why God wouldn’t preserved His word. A statement that is based on a presumption of how God is to act. The same presumption that arrogantly allows him to assume these Jesus was misquoted when he knows there is no original available that would allow the statement to be made (how does he know what Jesus “really” said based upon his own research. One can see this type of cartoon supernaturalism online statements of why God hates amputees (because if he cared, he would regenerate legs for them). Now Ehrman’s research should stand in its own and asking the question about preservation is legitimate, but he argues against those who point out that this has no effect on theology. Ehrman says that is not his interest in theology but only in historical research. But he argues toward a theological conclusion and debates those who take a theological view of the cannon. White’s presuppositions are theological in nature. He sees the cannon 1 or scripture 1, if you will, that self-disclosure that has been made by God Himself. It is a type of cannon or scriptural “ontology” only to be recognized (however imperfectly by the people of God). The “God-breathed” nature of Scripture is a theological premise. Ehrman doesn’t just do historical research as he would like you to believe. He “aims” the research as an attempt to discredit the theological presumption based upon his naive view of how God acts in the world. That is why he goads the audiences at Evangelical venues by asking “who is here to see me get creamed?” And the laughs off the challenge he set up. I have read almost all the Ehrman’s books. His research is impeccable even if his conclusions are overstated. But make no mistake, Ehrman is on a crusade.
It is interesting to see what happens when you get someone off script. That is why the question portion of debates are my favorite. I would prefer to see this format for the entire debate. I think James white did a good job of presenting his case outside of the Q&A session. Many Christians are practiced speakers and I found his speeches to be intelligent and well thought out. In the end I side with Ehrman as he was looking to see what the text actually said and not what people needed it to mean.
For some reason James can not understand that original is what God revealed,and everything else is not. As soon is not,it is not divine. Yes it keeps traces,but revelation as a whole is lost.
I'm 3 minutes into the debate and my phone paused and I can't help but conclude this is the kind of debate people wanna see. A mix of subtle tension with a hence of animosity from 2 highly informative men. It would be a complete dis-justice to myself to not completely remain open minded to both sides. I will biasedly comment on my own comment on the official winner of the debate!
In my opinion, where Bart really is at his best is in the direct questioning phase. That's where he really shows off his scholarship and starts to outclass opponents. I felt like that happened here as well.
@@cyn3rgy759 I saw the same. During both questioning parts, Bart's performance was very good. To not see this is to be closed minded. I've often thought that White is superb, and I personally believe that Bart struggles to argue an easy position. But to not see differences where one is doing better at some moments, and worse at other times, is to not be paying attention
Great Debate & a very well educated scholar by Bart Ehman who studied Christian religion for almost over three decades & believed in it as his religion for years then he found out there is completely clear contradictions in it & he has the right to question the mistakes that are in the Bible. This guy Bart Ehmarn he is sharply educating people the truth & reasoning the Christian scholars in a very reasonable and most effective way of debating the Christian scholars.
The debate heavily emphasizes on variants that may or may not change the theology. What about certain expunged verses like 1 John 5:7 on the Trinity; Mark 16:9-20 on the Resurrection narrative; the woman caught in act of adultery; Jesus' sweats mixed with blood drops in the garden of Gethsemane; and the like???
+rocky balboa Everything you've said condemns the Qur'an because of its contradictions not explained:- S1:4 says Allah is the judge on the day of recompense. S35:31 says the Qur’an verifies the Bible but the Bible clearly says that Jesus is the judge, John5:22, Mt25:31f. Thus the Qur’an is either saying Jesus is Allah which contradicts S5:72 or is saying that Allah and not Jesus is the judge which contradict S35:31. There are many other examples where the Qur’an contradicts the Bible rather than verifying it. S 2:106 says we do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten but we bring a better one. So also 16:101.S6:34 says none can alter the words of Allah. So the Qur’an can’t be the words of Allah. But S85:22 says it was on preserved tablets S19:33 on the Dome of the Rock says Jesus said "Blessings be upon me the day I was born the day I die and the day I shall be raised alive. S4:157 says he didn't die. If 19:33 is supposed to refer to him coming a second time when he comes a second time will he be raised alive? Those who break an oath come to harm 48:10 but not Mohammed 66:1-2 Forbidden to take women against their will 4:19 Mohammed did 33:50,52 “those whom your right hand possesses” are slaves. Also 4:3 and 4:24 Muslims can have sex with those whom their right hand possesses. “Those to whom we gave the scripture recognised him.” 2:146 No they don’t “Jesus gave tidings of a messenger to come after him named Ahmad.” 61:6 No he didn’t. Not anywhere. Scriptures foretell Mohammed’s coming 7:157 (No they don’t) 2:142 to 2:144 Allah changed his mind over the direction of prayer. Allah's wife and 2 daughters mentioned which are apparently verses from Satan 53:19-21. Elsewhere Allah does not have a wife. Wine is Satan’s handiwork 5:90 but appears in paradise 47:15, 56:18 “In the Gardens of delight a multitude of those will be from the first generations, Few from later generations.” 56:12-14, 56:39 (56:40 contradicts 56:14) S36:56 "...they and their spouses" but 44:52-54 "we will marry them to fair women with large eyes" Do they enter paradise with their spouses or are they married in paradise? Creation 6 days or 8 days? Cf 7:54 & 10:3 with 41:9-12 The punishment for adultery is life imprisonment 4:16 or 100 lashes 24:2 and the hadith says death. The wives of Mohammed are the mothers of believers 33:6 but they are all dead. 28:88, “Everything will perish save his face.” 55:26-27 “The face of your Lord full of majesty and honour will remain for ever. 57:4 “He it is who created the heavens and earth in six days then he mounted the Throne.” 11:7 “His throne was upon the water.” So it was a bit unstable. But if Allah has a throne he must have a bottom to sit on it or since everything perishes save his face is it only his face on the throne? But why then has he got a throne? 75:22-23 Can be seen in paradise “Faces that day will be radiant looking at their lord.” but 6:103 “Vision perceives him not.” So is Allah invisible? When looking at Allah can you only see his face? Or is he a full person with hands seated on his throne because the Qur’an also talks of his hands? 4:48,116 “Allah does not forgive association with him” Cf.2:51-54 4:153 “They took the calf after clear evidence had come to them and WE pardoned that.” But this is associating a calf with him. Sura 10:94, "If you are in doubt concerning that which we have revealed to you then ask those who have been reading the scripture before you. The truth has certainly come to you from your Lord..." Also S29:46 & 47 and 5:43,44 and 5:46,47 & 48. and 21:7 All these verses are contradicted by S 4:51,52 "Have you not seen those who were given a portion of the Scripture...those are the ones whom Allah has cursed." Are we cursed for having the truth? And what about paradise? “…those who were Jews or Christians or Sabeans…will have their reward with their Lord…” (S2:62) “If only the people of the Scripture had believed…they have drawn upon themselves anger from Allah…” (S3:110,112). “No one knows its interpretation except Allah” S3:7 “it is easy to understand” S54:17,22,32,40 Why does the Qur’an say it is only for Meccans in Arabic.S42:7,14:4? Should you fight unbelievers. S60:8 says “no”. S8:39, 47:4, 9:5 says “yes” If the Qur’an is from Allah why does it say,”I have been commanded to worship the Lord of this city…” (S27:91). This would appear to be someone reporting Allah’s command to him. Why also if Allah is speaking does it say, “There is no deity except him. He will surely assembly you on the day of resurrection…” (S4:87) This would appear to be someone talking about Allah not Allah speaking. Why does the Qur’an keep reporting that people are saying it is a falsehood he has invented? So 25:4, 32:3, 46:8, 32:3, 10:38. Who is the “he”? Is it Muhammad? If so why is Allah telling us people are saying “he invented it.” It must have been written at the time people were saying it was invented. It cannot be an eternal book.
atmz97 No S35:31 says "And that which We have revealed to you, of the Book is the truth, confirming what was before it. Indeed, Allah , of His servants, is Acquainted and Seeing." Now the Qur'an was written in the 7th century. WE need to ask what books existed in the 7th century that the Qur'an was confirming. Certainly we have completed manuscripts of the Bible from the 4th century so there is no problem if the Qur'an is confirming the Bible. You say that the Injeel is not the Gospel in the Bible.OK. So please show us the Injeel that the Qur'an is talking about.
Extremely good debate, shame about White's ad hominem attacks on the basis of Ehrman's work being used by Muslim apologists. And even if White's ad hominem attack held water, which it doesn't, I'd enjoy listening to him applying his guilt by association argument to his own faith, with its rich history of pogroms culminating in the Holocaust, to name but one unsavory aspect of Christianity. White's conclusion speech, in my opinion, is a disgrace to anyone claiming to be a scholar. White should be ashamed of himself. It does show his priorities between actual study and conformity with his theology among his audience. As always, the man who thinks he acts to save the souls of others will do truly anything.
You should realize that James told the truth and many muslim 'scholars' and 'apologists' use Ehrmann more than any other source and even more than their oh so holy quran to harass random people on the streets who never heard of textual criticism and that way destroy what ever little bit of faith is left in them. The fact that Ehrmann has still not made a public statement about his books and conclusions not being results of scholarship is mindblowing. He is literally an egostistical coward.
White pulls some very dishonest word play, tweaking definitions so that they don't exactly match how scholars use the words which quietly changes the argument. When Ehrman calls him on it, he dodges or acts like Ehrman is intentionally misrepresenting his argument.
James White was struggling with the preservation question. lol..His argument goes like this: if there are many differences between the manuscripts then one must be the right... my question is, what if they are all wrong?:-)
25.8.18. 1. This is a very interesting intellectual biblical debate. However, to address Dr Ehrman in saying, e.g.: part 2, @ 44:19: "It does matter whether the Gospel of John calls Jesus...'The Unique God!'. That's very different from saying that Jesus is Divine if Jesus is 'The Unique God!'", and @ 45:03: "When Jesus was going to His death in the gospel of Luke, that He became so distressed as to began to sweat as if drops of blood;...it depends on which manuscript you read,...and it matters whether Jesus went through that experience or not...": 2. Yes, it very much does matter. Jesus Christ did not write down what He taught or did because He *Knew*, as He said, that we were not *ready* for, and that we would *distort* His Word. That was why, in various reports, Jesus is said to have clearly directed us, for explanation of His *Word*, to the coming: "The Spirit of The Truth", "The Everlasting Comforter", "The Holy Spirit" and "The Son of Man", Who would *replace* Jesus Christ as our Mediator - ("I must go in order for Him to Come"), Who would Judge the World - (because we did not believe Him Jesus Christ), Who would *remind us again* of what Jesus Christ had previously actually Taught, and Who would guide us into *All The Truth* : 3. "8 When He comes, he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness and Judgment: 9 about sin, because people do not believe in me; 10 about righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can *see me no longer* ; 11 and about Judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned. 12 I have much more to say to you, [than] you can now bear. 13 But when He, the Spirit of Truth, comes, He will guide you into *all The Truth*. He will not speak on His own; He will speak only what He hears, and He will tell you what is yet to come". - Jesus Christ (John 16:8-13). 4. It is very unfortunate and extremely sad that Jesus Christ's Prophesy has once again come true, because hardly anyone, Christian or otherwise, is *seeking, "He, The Spirit of The Truth"* Who would guide us into *all* The Truth, as advised and admonished by Jesus Christ in John 16:8-13 above: 5. "6And the Lord said, “Listen to what the unjust judge says. 7And will not God bring about Justice for His chosen ones, who cry out to Him day and night? Will He keep putting them off? 8I tell you, He will see that they get Justice, and quickly. However, when the Son of Man (Who will Judge) comes, will *He* find faith *(Conviction)* on the earth?” - Jesus Christ - Luke 18:6-8. 6. Jesus Christ's Promise of sending "He, The Spirit of The Truth" in John 16:13 is separate and different to His promise of sending "Power" at Pentecost, which had already occurred before Paul's admission of "only knowing in part", in his anticipation of also encountering The Spirit of The Truth in the future, 1Corinthians 13:12. 7. Therefore, according to Jesus Christ, *only* "He", The Spirit of The Truth, Whom we should all be Seeking, will lead us into *all* The Truth. All else is, unfortunately, speculative intellectual groping in the dark.
If you'd actually listened to the debate you will know that Bart Ehrman is saying that no-one knows what the originals words of Jesus were, as reported in the gospels.
I don’t think Dr. Ehrman expected this much of a challenge. Both are very scholarly in their debate and it’s much appreciated this day and age. Well done, gentlemen!
They dont like each other .Thats clear.
They don't like each other's conclusions. Doesn't mean they don't like each other
@@kyleisbored7465 I don't know. I certainly felt animosity, and I doubt I care enough to project.
How can two people who hardly know each other, dislike each other? Hang on a minute you're a gooner........
They don't like each other, that is clear.
Ehrman has said he won't debate White again because White has a mean streak. He mentioned it in a recent interview called "on debating" or something similar.
Best moment in the debate: James giving Bart the P52 tie. Bart seems genuinely thrilled by it!
I only listened to an audio version of this debate earlier, so I thought that White actually took off the tie that he was wearing and gave that to Ehrman.
I totally see why he geeks out about that. I would, too, as I do about my Book of Kells tie. And I too would want to hug the person who understood me so well!
Indeed. That was touching!!!
Perhaps I am slightly biased as a theist (everyone is slightly biased), but I think that James White won this particular debate. I think that Bart was actually had a stronger showing against William Lane Craig than he did against James White.
I think that you made some good points. I think that Bart makes some good points too. I don't know if I am exactly a fan of Bart, but I do like him and I respect some of the work that he has done. (So does Michael Licona.) Bart is also a very good debater. Personally, I think that William Lane Craig is a much better at debate than Ehrman or White; but I think that Bart gave a VERY good account of himself against Craig, yet he seems to have some problems with White's particular style of debate. In any case, a debate can't make one position right or wrong in and of itself.
I don't even know if White is making good points during Ehrman's examination because Ehrman consistently fails to actually address the point being made.
No, actually White is pressuring Ehrman into using his convoluted scheme instead of trying to find a common language. Most debates like this one end in two people exposing their view and an audience accepting the one side they can understand.
For example, White was trying to force Ehrman to talk about the Koran, where Ehrman would have to give ignorant responses.
White has no scientific basis for his allegations. Instead, he has rhetoric tricks.
You are just banging your head against a brick wall, of course the resurrection isn't scientific, it's a supernatural experience which simply means "beyond science". It's just like how people try to explain the existence of our universe "scientifically" it's impossible. Why? Because if the universe was really created by God, we wouldn't be able to explain it scientifically because it would've been created "supernaturally". However, we still try to force science to explain how "nothing can create something" which leaves unscientific claims that are disguised as scientific. It is such a delusion, and absurd in it's very foundations. So just like in the existence of our universe, trying to explain something supernatural, naturally, will get you no where and you'll never find an answer because there is no answer to be found. So unless you accept that science can't explain everything, you continue to stay ignorant. God bless.
Ehrman fails?!!!!
White creates "false arguments" and denies any attempt Ehrman makes to get him back to common ground. it is a useless debate.
@@teamjesus5652You talk about magic, don't you?
I love the experts in the comment sections of these videos
Bart started off nice and respectful and seemed to grow very irritable and condescending
Nicholas Cone
Bart DESTROYED that moron White beyond the shadow of a doubt; better luck next time - lol :P
Nicholas Cone I noticed that too. I think he was frustarted by James white's ignorance and arrogance.
+Jason C.White seems aware of the rational weaknesses in his argument, which he makes up for in obvious conviction to apologetics in the faith.
Elr James NOT sure how James white thought he had a chance. Ehrman does this stuff for a living. He is one of the foremost experts in the world on New Testament textual criticism.
Elr James LOL
This debate was instructive. Dr. White knew that he was up against a formidable opponent for textual criticism.
If you claim the miracle of divine inspiration, that sets a higher standard of evidence. Apart from the grammatical mistakes, if the story of the woman taken in adultery can be fabricated, then what else did the writers lie about in the earliest manuscripts we don't have?
+uncleanunicorn Indeed. With inspiration there should be no mistakes at all, none whatsoever, not even grammatical ones..
Nocturnalux 'Divine Inspiration' looks an awful lot like fallible human authorship defended apriori on the basis of tradition.
uncleanunicorn
So true. I found it amusing when Dr. White was being derisive, saying that God could not simply make the copyist get it right, ignoring completely that God has untold power and can even raise Jesus from the dead. A God that created all things, his word included, should be able and willing of making sure it got transmitted correctly.
But in a case of extra irony, Dr. White thinks that the fact that a lot manuscripts were preserved is a miracle. The threshold for what counts as a 'miracle' is oddly arbitrary.
Exactly! This is why I find it disingenuous when Christian scholars cry foul when more skeptic scholars nit pick at various aspects of the gospels that show they have errors. They complain that the same practice isn't applied to other ancient texts. This is true but only because there are no that believe The Iliad to be inerrant!!
Actually, I have a better question for you: "How do we know that this story was not originally apart of John's Gospel?" We don't have the originals to compare, and if Dr. Ehrman is right about not being able to reconstruct the original text, then how can ever "know" what the original have or didn't have? This is a question you should all ask yourselves. We know this because the manuscript evidence for the New Testament is so good (it is factually considered the best attested work in antiquity, as Ehrman, himself, contends) that from this mountain of evidence we can reconstruct the original text. If we could not do this, then without the originals we could not even tell what was originally written, or not written, and any skepticism we apply to the New Testament would have to be applied a thousand times for all other works of antiquity. Just something for you to think about!
Did anyone notice how during the cross-examintation Bart Ehrman kept interrupting James White while he was answering Ehrman's questions? James White on the other hand kept his cool and allowed Ehrman to answer his questions without interrupting in between. That is how you do an honest debate. If you keep interrupting your opponent while it is his chance to speak, it only shows that you are scared of something.
Winston Xavier This a debate. Not church.
Winston Xavier Not when your opponent is talking obvious nonsense or trying to dodge the question.
I don't believe Dr. Ehrman crossed the line. He may have been inconsiderate or even semi-brash, but that's not tantamount to crossing the line.
I just find it interesting that Bart Ehrman plainly states, "Yes, the Bible misquotes Jesus." Of course, this statement implies that he knows what Jesus actually said in the first place...
How can you know if someone is misquoted if you don't know what they said originally?
So then I guess it really does go back to the definition of "Misquote" - does it depend on literal, perfect, 100% accuracy, or does it suffice if the message is preserved (in its full integrity, with only minor, semantic differences)?
So then again, the only standard we can hold to is absolute 100% certainty?? That's exactly what James White was saying was absolutely ridiculous. I mean, you can't even be 100% certain that you're not actually just a brain in a vat being programmed to believe that everything happening to you is real, when it's actually just an illusion. It's literally impossible for you to really know 100%, but that doesn't mean we have to take that reality seriously.
If we're being completely intellectually honest here, I know that there's no way for us to definitively KNOW what Jesus said word for every word. But I don't think anybody has to take that reality very seriously, because you can look at the general preservation of the message and arrive at what is an extremely reasonable conclusion: that Jesus' message really WAS ultimately preserved and that we can trust the Bible's authenticity. Why on earth would anyone throw that into question, given the amount of scholarship that has gone into examining this very idea?
Have you read the book? Fibonacci is correct.
so you actually believe that a god that punishes you for the slightest thought crime, is also loose enough with his definition of misquoting that he would allow people to copy his very words wrong. ROFL
Well that's the point though isn't it, if your expected to base your eternal salvation on what a book says, shouldn't that book be reliable? Shouldn't its authorship be verifiable? People murder, martyr, and go to war over what this book says. I'd venture that thousands, if not millions of people have been tortured or lost their lives because of this book. Unlike other scholarly works, the accuracy of the new testament can mean life or death or even an eternity of damnation. For these reasons, I think it needs to be held to a higher standard than any other piece of historical record. And Ehrman's findings perfectly articulate why I value my soul and the souls/lives of others over this blatantly unreliable "record".
39:04 Wrong claim, The Quran hasn`t textual variations even though there are too many ways to write the same word in Arabic, that is why they start using diacritical marks "Tashkeel or Harakat", There are different ways of recitation but all they lead to the same meaning.
White scored huge points by bringing up the fact that Jesus quoted the Greek Septuagint. Ehrman's expectations of inspiration is just not realistic among any scholars.
I'm a college math professor giving a lecture to a couple dozen people. They are all taking notes. Some people are writing a lot, some people are writing a little less. Some leave out certain parts, others add in those parts. I ask to see their notes if they want extra credit for class by the end of the semester. I expect to see accuracy and good clarification on what I have been lecturing. I see what they have written and even though their words differ from what I originally said and there are some things that were and were not included by some, they ALL have the same basic meaning of what I was teaching in the subject of math. They all get an A and 30 extra credit points.
Is what I was teaching inaccurate and not reliable just because the students differed on what to include in their notes? In high school, I studied with my peers using each other's notes and even though the notes all had different word structures in them, the basic idea was still there resulting in me getting an A+
Which is why I think Bart's standard of biblical reliability is flawed.
+Alex Grachek it's not barts standard. it's the consensus standard in the field of textual criticism. all barts really doing is relating how most in the field view the reliability of texts.
Your argument is fundamentally flawed. Transferring texts from one person to another once is not even remotely comparable to transferring through multiple people over thousands of years. And yes, going from you to a student is only one to another even if there are 20 students since they are not copying from another. You have committed the fallacy of false equivalence. The situations are not similar merely because people are copying.
+Alex Grachek
and what about the students who got an A but failed to answer some of the questions correctly? what if their tests were set into circulation and their failed answers became the backbone of an incorrect understanding of what the mathematical theory initially (and correctly) was? some students may have arrived at the same answers using different words (in this case, more appropriately - different methods, formulas, calculations etc) but others may have arrived at false answers.
In this section Ehrman destroyed White who could not answer a single question properly and admitted there were many variations in th early manuscripts
Totally disagree, God bless you and open your eyes
@Joel Rodriguez Where?
Variations aren’t a big deal. A change in meaning does however... which does not happen
I’d agree that Bart was clearly better in this section, but in the first section White was the clear winner... Overall I’d say that White won the debate, and Bart would probably agree with that.
@@christianchannel8755 I hope science and reason open yours.
Damn, this "back and forth" bethween this two is so technical that I have no idea what in the world all this distinctions make reference to! Thanks for the video though.
It is like defending one's dissertation before the boards.
It's actually simple. Word variance does not matter in collation, meaning does. Bart is presenting a false flag argument in an attempt to confuse Dr. White. White is on to him.
Hope that helps.
@Paul Wright thank you for the summary in simple language, sir.
If you follow James White's channel, he discusses these kinds of issues all the time, you come up to speed over time.
@@pontiuspilate7631 Have you read Misquoting Jesus?
I would have to totally agree that Bart Ehrman went from being respectful and I think very scholarly in the way he was approaching the debate that he became more personal adgitated and disrespectful in even the way that he was questioning dr. white in the sense in you can see for yourself that while dr. White was trying to answer the question Bart would immediately cut him off that's called steamrolling where you continually ask questions that nobody can answer that quickly in its assumed that you might be right because they can answer them quickly that's very juvenile
+Jewaun Glenn You should relisten the answers given by Bart and James White I think. White is really pivoting around and not answering directly. Bart's answers are much more concise.
For a debate that is probably not the best strategy by Bart, it''s a pretty school teacher like questioning. But White is constantly dodging questions and I don't see a valid reason for him to do so. But maybe I missed it. For me it seemed more like White simply couldn't defend his position.
I have so much respect for Dr. Bart Ehrman and he clearly won the debate.
Dr. White tried to use the cross examination session as an opportunity to pressurise Dr. Ehrman into attacking the Qur'an by making a false analogy between the Bible and the Qur'an. Unlike the Bible, the Qur'an was preserved both in the oral form and written form. Hundreds of early Muslims memorised large portions of the Qur'an in its original language and would recite these during their daily prayers.
The majority of the text was even written during the lifetime of Muhammad by the likes of Zaid ibn Thabit (Muhammad's adopted son). This is remarkably different to the Bible which is said to be written many decades after Jesus, for example the Gospel of John around 90-100AD.
The Qur'an was first compiled in the written form within one year after Muhammad by the leader Abu Bakr whilst hundreds still memorised and recited the Qur'an. This is remarkably different to the bible which was first compiled 300 years after Jesus.
The point about Uthman was completely irrelevant to the debate and also a misrepresentation. Uthman died around 30 years after Muhammad. All that happened was that the text was standardised: "txt u l8r" would have become "text you later". The oral form did not change. The overwhelming majority of Muslim and Non Muslim scholars agree that the Qur'an we have today is at the very least a faithful representation of Uthman's standardised version, which would have been within 30 years after Muhammad. The Gospel of John was not even written within 30 years after Jesus.
Dr. Bart Ehrman should be applauded for his intellectual honesty and it is irrelevant if Muslims "use" his books. Ultimately, truth is truth no matter where it comes from.
Keep up the good work Dr Bart Ehrman!
Here's the problem Yusuf:
Surat Maryam (19:30-35) says:
"He [Jesus] said: 'I am indeed a servant of God. He has given me revelation and made me a prophet; He has made me blessed wheresoever I be; and He has enjoined on me prayer and charity as long as I live. He has made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable. So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)!' "
The Quran quotes Jesus 600 years after he supposedly said those words, how do you justify the validity of this quote these so many hundred years later ?
SECOND:
"157And because of their saying (in boast), “We killed Messiah ‘Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allah,” - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of ‘Iesa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man), and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not [i.e. 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary)]: 158But Allah raised him ['Iesa (Jesus)] up (with his body and soul) unto Himself (and he is in the heavens). And Allah is Ever All-Powerful, All-Wise. (An-Nisa 4:157-158, Muhsin Khan) "
This is just outright plain lies and contradicts recorded non-christian historical evidence that Jesus indeed did die on the cross.
So which Holy Book can you consider to be more true? The Holy Bible or the Holy Quran?
I now see where your respect for Bart Erman stems from
BeyondSkys09
What is your conclusive proof that Jesus died on the cross?
I have not come across any.
Tacitus (non-biblical, non-christian) in his book 'Annals' provides the following historical report:
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."
In his book, 'Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium', Bart Ehrman writes:
"Tacitus's report confirms what we know from other sources, that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, sometime during Tiberius's reign."
From the Gospel of Luke:
"Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip was tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene, 2in the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John, the son of Zacharias, in the wilderness.…"
Two independent sources confirming Tiberius Caesar as ruler and Jesus' crucifixion. This is sufficient for a historian to establish these two facts. By the way, there are more than 2 sources attesting to this, I have just met the minimum requirements.
So you tell me now, what is your conclusive evidence that Jesus did not die on the cross?
BeyondSkys09 Tacitus book written ca. AD 116, so what does that prove, where is the archaeological evidence? Its like saying John said Jesus died therefore Jesus died, well where is the Cross of the men responsible for one of the major religions of the world, where is the Tomb of his burial, where is the site of his Grave or Birth? do we have that? no. Tacitus was born 25 years after Jesus' death.Scholars have also debated the issue of hearsay in the reference by Tacitus.
I'm a bit floored at how frequently Dr. Ehrman interrupted Dr. White. I also found it interesting that Dr. Ehrman had a defensive posture throughout this. He states that he's not hot and bothered at one point, but his body language and tone of voice say otherwise. He must have been really crushed when he decided that Biblical variation was enough to invalidate the faith he grew up with (or so it seems, given the amount of bitterness and anger he displayed throughout).
Wow, you get it wrong. Bart never decided that. The only faith he left behind because of variations, errors and contradictions in the Bible was that of Biblical inerrancy.
It was addressing the problem of evil that caused him to awaken from his religious indoctrination.
Ehrman's only point is that it might be possible that there is a variation between extant texts and the originals. He goes on to agree that every text we have corroborates White's perspective that there is almost no meaningful variation in the texts, and that the body of evidence makes it very clear what is being said. Ehrman doesnt deal with the important point that White made about multiple stream attestation and the fact that it is almost certain that the original texts mirror exactly what we have preserved today. White gave solid textual criticism and evidence, whereas Ehrman gave an unprovable hypothesis. The fact that Ehrman does this for a living and was unable to follow Whites argumentation was a bit disappointing.
If you thought Ehrman won this debate, I would encourage you to study what was said more thoroughly. I dont think you really understood White's argumentation.
That's funny, I said something similar on pt 1 of this video but from the opposite perspective before I saw your comment. I don't think that YOU have thought this through and I can see the cognitive dissonance in your comment. You said it yourself "almost no meaningful variation in the texts". In other words, there are meaningful variations in the text. That isn't a little problem. That's a big deal. However, even if there weren't "meaningful" variations, it would still be a big deal when it comes to the question of whether we can know if we have precise copies of the original manuscripts. Not only are there a mountain of variations in the text, thousands of them, but some of them are important. Therefore, the illusion that we know exactly what was in the original text, vanishes. We don't. We don't have the original texts, and what we do have leads us to believe that there was not a perfect transmission of the text, therefore it is safe to conclude that we can't know what was in the original texts. The only way that we could know what was in the original texts for certainty would be if we possessed the original texts (which wouldn't have been impossible).
@@joachimwest3217 but do any of the variants change any core doctrine- the gospel itself- and could you give an example?
36:55 Ehrman asks a legitimate question? OK, but there is enough of the text of the NT where there's complete agreement between the manuscripts and if we go by that alone, we still have enough knowledge of God to know Him enough to come to Him, be saved and have a relationship with Him.
By Ehrman's standards of perfection, I would have to ask for a refund from the college I went to, they told me when I read Plato that it was what Plato actually wrote
Well it wasn't
Does Plato claim to be the irrefutable word of God?
Ehrmam fails to provide any compelling reason why the manuscripts we have survived versus some "hypothetical original ". ..There are thousands of textual manuscript that are highly consistent ..
There is also the writings of the early church founders who quote quote the NT at length (within the first century )--they too are consistent
I thought that Evangelicals asserted that the Bible was "the inspired word of God", not "as good as any other manuscript tradition"?
@Shayneby Shaynebi The Big Bang theory was proposed by a Christian...
After listening to both parts of this debate my conclusions are unchanged. Ehrman's pov stems from his emotions. He makes it sound intellectual, but a trained psychologist can easily see it isn't. Without a thorough knowledge of his past as a believer I can't say exactly why he has such anger towards the Bible and people who believe it. But his anger is apparent. He lost his faith and he wants every other believer to lose theirs too. I submit Ehrman never really knew God. He was merely taught about God. Having never experienced God himself, he always had doubts. As an intelligent adult he decided to use his knowledge to scrutinize the Almighty. As if his human mind could actually comprehend a Being that exists further above us than we do an ant. I feel sorry for Ehrman and I hope that someday he searches for God with his spirit, and not his intellect. If and when he does that he will find God. I know this because many people have done so including myself.
Well John I am a trained psychologist and I assume you are not. Ehrman has used his intellect to come to the conclusion that he doesn't believe the bible is the word of God. Many Christians use their intellect and logical to discredit other faiths. However when it comes to their own faith this all flies out the window.
You say that you think Ehrman never really knew God because you believe that once a person has been given belief through grace that this can never be changed. Ehrman and countless others (Dan Barker) are living proof you are wrong.
_"Without a thorough knowledge of his past as a believer I can't say exactly why he has such anger towards the Bible and people who believe it. But his anger is apparent."_
He makes no secret about this, although "anger" is a silly description. He's upset that people lied to him for most of his early life.
_"He lost his faith and he wants every other believer to lose theirs too."_
Yes, because the biblical literalism that he was taught is in fact blatantly false and Ehrman now is one of the leading scholars in the field that demonstrates why this is the case.
_"I submit Ehrman never really knew God. He was merely taught about God. Having never experienced God himself, he always had doubts."_
I submit that you are stating an unfalsifiable hypothesis that can allow you to disregard any critic what so ever without ever engaging with their arguments.
_"As an intelligent adult he decided to use his knowledge to scrutinize the Almighty."_
No, he used it to study the bible, and its shocking badness on multiple levels.
_"As if his human mind could actually comprehend a Being that exists further above us than we do an ant. I feel sorry for Ehrman and I hope that someday he searches for God with his spirit, and not his intellect. If and when he does that he will find God. I know this because many people have done so including myself."_
The idea that you're more likely to arrive at what's true if you throw your brain in the garbage is pretty laughable. If you have to be a gullible fool to qualify as a "righteous believer", then I'm sure many people wouldn't want anything to do with your god anyway, even if they knew it existed.
I dont think dr.ehrman needs or wants your sympathy.
Francis Duggan how do you know what all those people really believed to begin with? Are we to just go by what they say? Does being a psychologist gives you the power to read minds? Ehrman clearly did not have faith in God.....he had faith in the Bible which is not perfect, only God is perfect.
Ehrman provides solid proof that the bible has variations, but how does that stop it from being a sufficient representation of the Word of God?
Why god has the need to write books. Or is man wrote the book and attributed to the gods.
Ehrman has said elsewhere that he lost faith in God because of the problem of evil, not this. Bruce Metzger, Bart's PhD dissertation advisor, knew everything that he does, and yet it he didn't come to the same conclusion.
I'm a theist and a big fan of James White. I also love Bart Ehrman and what he has to say. I don't think there was a clear winner. Good points were made on both sides. When someone says 'so and so got crushed' it normally says more about them than it does either debater.
Amen. Each side landed some punches.
Regarding Ehrman's issue with divine inspiration of the Bible, couldn't it be resolved by saying that the original version given to man WAS inspired by God but we screwed it up by not preserving it?
maybe but God's original thought, intent and message has been preserved. we do know what God has revealed to men. the message of redemption by the cross is still the same.
mk crown how's that brainwashing going?
Do you just ignore mountains of evidence to the contrary or what?
brain washing is going great. better than having that dirty one. gotta get yours clean up now. you said mountains of evidence like what? we don't have the originals? gotta do better than that.
@@NKBC1689 'redemption by the cross' was certainly Paul's message, how can you ever prove it was God's?
Do not try to convince Bart. He has in his mind the text has been changed. He wanted the original text, without it he won't change his mind.
Whenever I've had informal debates on this subject with doubters, I always give them one simple challenge -- can you name me a set of NT manuscripts that would lead me to a different faith? So far none of the people who attack the credibility of scripture can answer that. That's because there is none.
Here is the problem...people always want to attack the peripheral details about stuff but what about the main point. Do these new manuscripts or copied or whatever deny prophecy, deny the resurrection, etc? Remember the point, Jesus said that the "gospel" must be preach throughout the whole world? So until these "variants" change the meaning of the gospel message, everything else is just window dressing.
Why is James White, bringing in the Quran in such discussion; as if he wants Bart D. Ehrman to study it & write against it as well?
If by mentioning "documented fact that there are textual variants in the manuscript of the Quran" he means the 7 or 10 different ways of reciting it, then he is doing the wrong comparisons between the history of the Bible & the Quran. The Quran is in tact & hasn't been changed since the companions of the Prophet (PBUH) wrote it. & it's the only book that has been memories verbatim. Should not compare it with the bible & its history.
Zionist JewTube
He Does Not Know What Actually The Topic Is About 😂
1:11:56 RiP to the girls question.
Lol
Mr. Bart Ehrman clearly has no respect for Mr. James White in this debate. Just watch the first cross-examination and you can see it all over his face and body and you can hear it in his voice. He clearly hasn’t studied Mr. White’s works whereas Mr. White has clearly studied Mr. Ehrman’s works.
He didn't prepare at all and it tells.
Dr Bart has no burden of proof as he has demonstrated historically and factually that New Testament was made up by highly educated Greek speaking writers who never saw Jesus and wrote hundreds of years after Jesus. On the other hand James White has to claim New Testament is what Jesus said actually because it means money for people like him
Respect isn't a prerequisite of a good debate. I could care less if they like and respect each other just as long as I'm presented enough information to ponder their arguments.
I am Muslim, I would love DR. Bart to study, research and be critical early Islam,Quran and Hadith and the life of prophet Mohammad , you would enrich our Islam life.
Amazing debate they we’re both going at it. Two intellectual scholars both very educated and knowledgeable going back and forth great debate
Great debate and I've learned tremendously from both Dr.Bart Ehrman and Dr.James White.
An axe head floats, the seas part, Samson alone kills innumerable enemies, two are struck dead by God in the new testament for lying (so why not for scribal errors), Elijah flies away, water into wine, feeding the 5,000, and so and so on. Why is it unreasonable to ask the original text to be preserved? One additional, relatively easy miracle? Really? Stop the sun in the sky but preserve some manuscripts is too hard? B.S.
And given the extraordinary claims of this text, we MUST have a stronger standard, James. We won't hold the same standards as we would for Plato because the claims in the Biblical text demand incredible and impeccable originals.
JOSH Smalley...well said. Any normal person should ponder this.
54:00 Why "Misquoting Jesus", not "Misquoting Mohammed"? Because we live in the West, which springs from the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Well I think White's point was that he often debates Muslims and they very often will bring up Ehrman's works to refute Christianity (e.g. Shabir Ally), while ignoring what the same methodology would do with the Quran (critical scholarship on the leveI as with the Bible simply does not exist in the Muslim world). I guess he wanted a statement by Ehrman on that inconsistency from the Muslim side.
I don't buy that Ehrman does not know anything about the Quran, as he said in this debate ;) He said on another occasion that he'll deal with Islam when he stops valuing his life. You make good money writing this books on Christianity, it's a lot more dangerous though doing so on the Quran. I think he avoids making honest statements about his opinion for that reason.
mawa89g /I think he avoids making honest statements about his opinion for that reason./
I think that "when (I) stops valuing (my) life" is a pretty honest opinion of what he thinks of Islam.
mawa89g
You said that critical scholarship (on the level as with the bible) simply does not exist this is simply not true. We have dozens of volumes of books dealing with the variant readings of the qur'an and why they are not accepted. They detail everything; whether it is the grammar behind those variant or the trustworthiness of the recitators. The problem in my opinion is that western scholars wants to start criticizing the Qur'an without even looking at the tremendous scholarly work done by Muslim scholars in the first centuries of Islam.
You said that it is dangerous to criticize the Qur'an. This is simply not true, there are hundreds of western scholar out there that do so (in a respectful manner) and they are not faced with death threats and things of this nature.
RonJohn63 Oh sure, I was talking about his opinion on the scriptural preservation of the Quran (or also sira or ahadith) specifically, as it was the context in this debate, and that he claimed here to not know anything about it. Not about Islam and how it deals with critics (actually Muhammad himself often had them killed) generally ;)
I think that was not entirely honest, because
I can hardly imagine total ignorance here by a scholar who deals with ancient religious texts, although of course he's focusing on the NT scriptures.
mawa89g /I can hardly imagine total ignorance here by a scholar who deals with ancient religious texts/
Well, the word "total" is, by definition, absolute. Thus, I'm sure that he has *some* knowledge.
But, seeing as how he spends all of his time focusing on the NT (and not wanting to get killed by jihadists), I fully believe that he doesn't know enough about the Koran to speak knowledgeably about it.
Think also about this: he could have very little knowledge about it, yet spin up firm, "appeal to authority" pronouncements from the ether. That would be *Bad*, no matter what he said, because it's Right to be intellectually honest.
(That's not to say that he doesn't have *opinions* about the Koran. Maybe he even thinks it's as fraudulent as the Book of Mormon. But without research, it is Good And Right of him to keep his mouth shut, since he's a Recognized Authority.)
James White's faith in Christianity rests solely on the premise that Islam cannot be right and therefore Christianity must be right or else nothing could possibly be right besides atheism. What kind of reasoning is this?
Uwot Mate
I think J White is a professional who knows his job & only speaks for Christianity & the trinity, not a matter of faith. He undermines & ignores many valid points against xtianity & 3nity, which a true believer would confront sincerely without resorting to tactics & slippery ways. Nothing looks like truth except truth itself.
Islam says it's okay to marry and have sex with little girls as the swine false prophet Muhammad ( Piss be upon him ) did.
Dude, you really misunderstood his comments on Islam. In fact, he wasn't commenting on Islam itself, but the Karan, and only as an ancient text. He also mentioned Tacitus. If you follow James White at all you would know that is not what he believes, and that is not why he thinks Christianity is true.
That wasn't even what the debate was over, let alone what James White actually believes.
James White spinning truth and facts by running away from "logic" and "context"?
This part of the debate just show how close minded and harsh is Mr Ehrman, he is just interested of his question and disregarded the answer of James White
I have seen many of Barts debates and I have never seen him get so snippy he seems pretty irritated
White was nipping at his heels.
James White's ulterior motive becomes so clear. How many times did he bring up Islam, Muhammad, the Qur'an, and even Muslims he has debated. He desperately wanted one consolation in this debate; to hear Bart Eherman bash Islam or at the very least make a claim that Muslims were mischaracterizing his works so that in his next debate against a Muslim as soon as they cite Ehrman as an authority he can say, Aha! I spoke with Ehrman and he said Muslims are mischaracterizing his work! He wants to be able to say, Aha! you quote Ehrman, but do you know _his_ opinion on the Qur'an?? -- It's so transparent and I kind of lost some respect for him after watching this.
Ehrman may have come across a tad condescending in this but I think he got annoyed when White started rattling off manuscripts and claims based off of faulty logic. He (As a real textual scholar) didn't do this because he wanted the audience to follow his arguments as lay people; but White is a more skilled debater and he knows if he compliments the audience "You guys get it! You're smart!" and then feeds them some bogus stats (e.g., 95% agreement) then they will think he's just as qualified as Ehrman, which he clearly isnt.
That diatribe was cute. How about you call in on Dr. Whites podcast and tell him that?
I have been a qualified fan of both these men in the past. James has a more multi-discipline expertise that is honed in battles of apologetics and debate. Bart is a surprisingly good debater and demonstrates to all his superior knowledge and experience in textual criticism. When he crosses into biblical interpretation and theology he does not demonstrate the same methodical expertise. More assertions without the same academic grounding. I have learned something significant and that concerns the earliest period of 50-75 years after writing. We have no idea what, how many, or what significance were the accidental/intentional changes that took place. Both debaters presented hypothesis on what occurred. Bart seems to be that we cannot know the words of Jesus. Seems to be a all or nothing viewpoint. No certainty verses total certainty of ever word.
How can anyone be certain of any verse when there are no originals? Sure I feel a lot of certainty about most verses in my heart but that is my own feeling and maybe I might find one day that I am wrong.
*It has to be* an _All Or Nothing point of view_ when it comes to the bible!
@@UnimatrixOne Why?
@@John17230 How could we ever be sure what we are looking at are the originals? Even if we found a text that was carbon dated within 5 years of Jesus's death we still could not be sure it is the original. I think, for me, the key point is that it is easy to forget there was a robust Christian community around these texts that knew Jesus, Paul and his apostles, and those directly taught by them The early Christian community were willing to die for their faith and contained people directly taught by or privy to the original authors. If there were significant deviations in the texts which substantially altered their meaning I would expect these early Christians in authority to have recognised the departure from the original. Its hard to believe they did not realise the importance of these texts. I also disagree with Bart in his point that Paul was just simply writing a letter and did not realise the significance of these in the community.
@@Dom20002007 How do you think other religions have originated? What does being willing to die for your ideas (especially in a religious context) have to do with whether something is true or not? Haven't you heard of Jonestown?
At that time people believed in all kinds of absurd reasoning and didn't seem to know how to differentiate what was real from what was pure fantasy or legend.
I recommend that you read "Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew" because what you've said about those communities doesn't seem to fit the evidence we have.
Bart erhmans position is based on a premise made purely out of assumption of what God would want. That assumption is that God wants a pure and perfect transmission of manuscripts. And from this he has created his critique. Bob erhman thinks he personally knows what God would want and because he doesn’t know why God wouldn’t want, or allowed it, he comes to the conclusion that it is not Gods word. His perspective is based purely on assumption.
As an atheist. I think dr. White and dr. Ehrman did a good job. As Bart said history is about probability. It's a scale. The bottom line is any question that says "how do you know" is useless without the originals.
I want to see a round 2!
""We live in an age where people are looking for a reason not to believe."
That statement is completely absurd. Waking up to the truth about the bible and losing faith in Christianity is a BIG deal and not something a person seeks. Quite the contrary, people research to back up and reaffirm their faith, not lose it. This is almost always the case.
This world is in fact increasingly looking for reasons to reject god what are you blind can you not see the movement to destroy Christians or are you a part of that movement so you deny the obvious truth
@@ID10tT32T strawman fallacy
Ehrman's entertainment value is supported by his focus on historicity and seemingly exhaustive biblical knowledge and technical incisiveness in the academic discipline.
And by the fact that he is absolutely right and god (I mean man) has been lying for 2000 (I mean 5000) uears!
@Wai too Low
So where is your early Manuscripts!
You believe in paul the pagan!
James is debating an X Christian, but at the back of his mind he is thinking about the Muslims reaction on Bart Ehrman's evidence (facts and figures)...
Bart Erman is giving evidence upon evidence in the Bible to Prove his case, which he couldn' t respond to. It seems the only response he had is to discredits the Quran in other for him to Prove the Bible is 100% the inspired word of God. Unfortunately the Quran was not in question in this debate.
Yeah James was trying to use a deflection strategy, which I was taught last semester in school but he failed miserably. The percentage stats were desperation too, all you need to do is change 1 word in a phrase or sentence and that changes the whole meaning. James kept saying oh look the texts are 95% the same. The divine intervention stories have bothered me because.. since ancient times god never stepped in since and we have had lots of deadly earthquakes, and other natural disasters. I can go on but I will stop.
Sorry but Ehrmann is a coward for claiming not to know anything about the quran. He knows a lot about multiple religions and their books but only attacks Christianity simply because it sells, its politicall correct and because nobody will chop his head off for that.
James don't know that the Qur'an has no difference...prove it if he can...
why dr. James White often bring faith in this scientific debate? is attacking personal believe is common in debate? its not explicitly stated by dr. James but often he said something related to faith of christian and mention muslims scripture too
One of the greatest debates ever in tone, professionalism, scholarship, and argument. Excellent job on both sides!
I felt the same, tone, professionalism and arguments went down quite well from both sides. 👍
Bart Ehrman sounds like a senator questioning someone in a Senate hearing
The reason Dr. Erhman is hesitant to write a book on misquoting the Quran, I think, is because he's not a scholar on the Quran.
I was staggered by the fact that there is only about 50% agreement between the earlier Alexandrian and Byzantine texts. If that's true and the more earlier the texts are, the more discrepancies, then the logical conclusion is to say that the earlier texts are more unreliable.
it is so far out of left field, to even think any of the biblical text is worth two shits, that I don't know where to start. thankfully, this can't be forced on my children in school.
Did you see the first part of the debate? White even quotes Ehrmann, that we know what the NT text looked like. Old greek has very different structure, than english. You could write: "Ehrmann is smart; smart Ehrmann is; is Ehrman smart" and it would mean the exact same thing, but it would count as three variants. Writing John without "h" would be an variant and so on. The moveable "nu" is another one. I was used put into the texts to avoid two vowels in a row. It doesnt change the meaning, but also counts as a variant, if a writer didn`t copy it. Thats why White pointed out, that 99% the texts are same, if you discount such mistakes or variants of writing.
First based on my point of view. it would be dangerous for him since you know what happen with Zakaria Botros. second i thought Mr. Bart Ehrman give the christian an eye opening i mean i'm christian i do believe in Jesus but it gave me motivation to question something and went to learn something even i'm not expert like him and we are not at the same page i respect him.
Dr. James clearly cane in well prepared and more knowledgable than Dr. Bart.
Actually, Dr. James simply rehearses the same nonsense that all Evangitical Scholar says that we can reconstruct the NT. At first, what James is saying seems very intelligent response. Yet, once you start understanding the textual criticism field. Bart Ehrman's claim makes the most sense. The simple truth is impossible to reconstruct the original text. The reconstruction that we can do is the most probable account of the original text. Yet, there are the difference that exists in the textual tradition that can change the entire meaning of the text. Some of these examples were shown in the video.
Think about this difference that transforms an important message in the Gospel of Mark. During Jesus Baptism God said TOday I begotten you. In some textual tradition, it is there and in others it is absent. Why did the passage matter? Well if Jesus became God at his baptism it would imply an exaltation Christianology. This means that the Doctrine of the Trinity cannot be true. After all, the Doctrine of the Trinity maintains that Jesus has always been God.
@@ericmacrae6871 Where does any text, or any Trinitarian, say that Jesus *became* God at his baptism?
How would you know if the original is the original?
At a very minimum it would be incorruptible, no part of it would contradict another and all dating methods would place it right at the time it should date to.
Corroboration?
This debate shows that whether you're a scholar or not the bible is one of the greatest source of confusion and disagreement.
Even if people are historians, scholars and are knowledgeable of Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew that they won't necessarily agree on the bible.
If god is not the author of confusion then why is there so much confusion surrounding the "inspired word of god"?
God could clear up all this mess yet chooses not to. Why would he have to have a mouthpiece like James White to argue for him or defend the flaws contained in the bible?
Well. I have watched both parts of this debate and found them to be very informative.
It is indeed true to say that we, each one of us, have a wide range theological persuasions which govern how we see/ perceive things. How else can (specifically, these) two scholars come to two such differing opinions?
I personally come down on the side of White. I thought his arguments were sound and logical.
Though there are many variants in the manuscripts, the essence of the gospel HAS been preserved. Essentially, a person in these days can come to know the truth of the gospel that salvation is found in Jesus through the words we have within the Bible.
Reading the comments below, I can see that I am in a minority with this view.
Thanks for the presentation.
Let me guess, the "real" parts are the parts you feel are real?
Amazing.....
@@myjizzureye the guy to whom you are replying didn't even use the word "real". What are you even asking?
Okay, so I gave Mr. White the benefit of the doubt, listening to part 1, but now I'm sure that he's dishonest, underhanded, he smears Ehrman by associating him with boogeymen (Islam, new atheists, postmodernism), and he's hiding the truth about himself: he's an apologist, not a scholar. His sales pitch is a facade of scholarship.
I think Ehrman won the debate, but I think White made the crucial point at 1:00:00: the Church community maintained the accuracy of the Apostolic writings by referring back to the Apostles and the disciples of the Apostles. This destroys the Protestant presupposition that Scripture alone is sufficient to know the Gospel, but it is the only position that makes sense in light of Ehrman's confirmation that Scripture has been modified in transcription.
Ehrman is making the mistake at 37:00 that God was primary not interested in giving a scripture at all for the Christians, the scripture is just a witness of what he did. Jesus never wrote a letter down and christianity would also have existed without the NT. But the NT is inspired because it contains an accurate description about God, it helps therefore a lot of people to understand what Jesus did.
This is wrong philosophical reasoning, that is a different discipline then scholarship.
This debate should have been "Bart explains history of bible and White going over Barts books"
This is why belief is given by God. Both these gentlemen are debating something that they cannot prove with certainty. Bart Ehrman point was clearly proven - We do not have the original manuscripts and there are many variations in the earliest manuscripts that we do have. This does not prove scripture is not inspired, it simply one of many logical reasons not to believe. However, those who God has truly chose to believe knows the Holy Spirit is the true inspirer of God's word not man. James White tried to step outside the realm of this very foundation of the Gospel, therefore he was defeated in this debate. However the points he made on the written tradition, and that God's word is in all of the manuscripts is true. It is indeed a work of God to have so many different manuscripts from 100-200 years from the original writings, but most importantly still keep the same teachings in tact. We have to remember that these writings are taken from all over the world in many languages, but we still have the same Gospel.
+Robert Brooks What do you mean when you say "Those who God has chose to believe"? Why did God give us free will if his plan was to choose who believes and who doesn't? Doesn't god want us to make that choice ourselves?
It's a two-way street. If you want to reject God, He won't force you to accept Him, but if He doesn't reach out and open your mind to the truth, there's no way you can get born again.
+Chad Ellis The answer to your question starts in Genesis 1-3, with a special focus on Genesis 2. If we understand this chapter correctly we would come to understand that our will, not "Free Will", was actually God's will. The creation that God deemed to be "very good" is a mankind that was totally dependent on God. If we look at Genesis 2, the only way you infer that man has free will is in the context of God giving the command telling man what is Good to eat, oppose to what is not Good to eat. The will of man was totally enslaved to the creator, therefore they could only do what the creator said was good. I believe we see God placing man in the Garden; God placing man in the center of the garden to cultivate it; God told man what to eat and what not to eat. Lastly we see man not knowing any shame from being naked. So it seems that in the beginning our "Free Will" was not so free, but enslaved to the creator.
The will that you refer to as "Free Will" is due to the corruption of having our own knowledge of Good and Evil. We see in Genesis 3 that the knowledge of Good and Evil external of what God provides is what corrupts the will, it leads the woman to sin; and by eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge and good evil, it becomes apart of our nature. Hence, it is the reason we lose fellowship with God.
So:
1.) No God did not create us with "Free Will", he created us with a will that is dependent upon Him.
2.) God shows us that throughout the Tanakh (OT) and the NT that we cannot "choose" him. We have our own knowledge of Good and Evil which corrupts our will, causing us to seek our own desires (will) versus God's will. Hence - God 3:22 NASB -
"Then the Lord God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"-
**VERY IMPORTANT** - The Hebrew transliterate word of "might" - pen, is not describing God as not knowing what man will do. Every time this word is used it is describing something being put in place to avoid a contingency that is certain to occur. Genesis 3:3 for example - "...God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.'"
If the story of our salvation was about our "Free Will" then God would have left us in the Garden. However, as we continue reading to the right you see a plan and purpose for God to redeem a people that He has chosen for Himself, because the path of destruction that comes from man's corrupted will shows us why we are only very good when our will is enslaved to God's will. Therefore, God receives all the glory.
+Sofiya Karpina When God works he doesn't fail. He tells us: Ephesians 2:4-5 - "But God, ..., even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved)...".
This is also a promise of salvation to Israel - the body of Christ
Ezekiel 36: 25-27 NASB -
"Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances"
God does not hand out conditions. He says he will do it, you will be clean because God will do it for His name's sake.
Sofiya Karpina Does God wan't us to exercise our free will by choosing to believe in Jesus?
_______
"but if He doesn't reach out and open your mind to the truth, there's no way you can get born again"
Does he open peoples minds to the truth before or after they get born again?
In his opening address James White seems to think that the so-called "tenancity" of the new testament ensures that the original reading is there. But what is the logic for this? And what is the use of it if we can't identify what that original reading is. He establishes this solely by appealing to authorities who happen to agree with him - Wallace mainly. Simply putting up images of NT fragments is not a reasoned argument as some have stated.
Why don't we have the originals? You asked this several times. I think the answer is very simple - so that man would not idolize them. Look at how so many people enter into crass idolatry when they believe they hold in their hands a supposed "holy relic." Think how many more people would enter into it if they knew they were looking at the handwriting of Paul...
If we had what we thought were originals would you be saying "these can't be orginal, because God wouldn't give us these idols"? I doubt it. Hence your explanation is ad hoc.
I think you make an excellent point
Lawrence Stanley I know just what you mean. In a similar manner, the reason why Christianity and Islam are false is because they promise vast rewards(Eternal life etc) for certain behaviors and vast punishments(Hell) for others, but this makes the behaviors morally vacuous, so they can't be true. No real god would reveal such information - just look at how people act after having been exposed to it.
P Foster I'm not trying to make a good or bad argument, I'm merely making an observation. There are some things that we may only make conjecture, and the "why" questions, unless we are told directly, are always conjecture.
Lawrence Stanley
Well why would you say that you think you have the "answer" when, by your own admission, all you have is conjecture?
If you want to believe things that are actually true its a bad idea to come up with baseless ad hoc rationalisations like this.
Maybe we don't have the "originals" (to the extent that heavily edited composite documents have originals) because there was no divine hand preserving them so they just got lost?
If you don’t understand Half of what James says it’s because his talking nonsense, he answers questions with very long explanations that either doesn’t actually answer the question that was asked or answers A question that wasn’t asked at the time. James agrees that a lot of things in the new testament was add-ons, but in his View he believes all of the original is still within the text even though we don’t have any originals to base that off of so it’s only his opinion. So even if all or some of the original text is in there, how would someone determine what is original from What was added? There’s just no way to divide the original from add-ons. James ask Bart so you would need a perfect copy of the original to believe it? Well yes lol when people call it the perfect word of God we would like to have it like that perfect, without all the Jesus is God theology added.
Where you got those numbers!
I find it a bit remarkable that Dr. Ehrman bases so much of his disbelief on the premise that the original Gospels were no miraculously preserved. Such a thing would require not really even a miracle, but a permanent suspension of the laws of nature, as the text would have to be completely indestructible and incorruptible - its very existence would negate the need for faith in Christ, since you could just point to its existence. If demands for such things are to be made, why not say "If Jesus was resurrected, why didn't he stay on Earth so everyone would have to acknowledge his resurrection." It's certainly the case that there were controversies in the early Church and that we don't have a definite versions of the original texts, and that the development of orthodoxy seems to have shaped what was included and excluded, and this leads to doubt. Yet, if that's his standard, God could not possibility have pleased Dr. Ehrman unless he had directly twisted the will of everyone involved into perfect agreement.
Oh, and I would love to ask Dr. Ehrman about these questions directly, but his blood is behind a paywall. Which he donates to charity, though I don't know if there's any real proof of that, so I must remain agnostic.
Dr. James R. White & Dr. Bart D. Ehrman are very smart!
It is 2 years already but I need to correct for the sake of mankind.
See this summary, you will know the whole thing.
"As the result, any book that considered “late date” or non-authorize by apostle(s) would reject from canon. For example; Epistle of Barnabas (90 - 130 A.D) and Apocalypse of Peter (about 125 - 150 A.D) were rejected from canon. Many or all of these rejected books were lost and some of them were rediscovered in the 19th and 20th centuries."
Thus, if the book of Mark is that bad, why didn't they picked, for instance, Barnabas.
I think that there is an assumption that scribal transmission is the only way that the gospels were recorded. Variants could come about by disciples teachings being recorded by followers to the best of their recollection, from many mouths and many hands could come many words and phrases, misspoken, and recorded incorrectly.
Dr. White clearly won the debate. The bottom line is that with all the variants only 1/4 of 1% actually changes any meaning of the text. Meaning the resurrection of Jesus, not effected. The divinity of Jesus, not effected. The second coming of Jesus, not effected. And on and on, no mainline essential belief of the Christian faith is affected by any variant. All the texts agree when it comes to the points that mean anything. NOW, if you want to ride the train with Ehrman, then sure, whether Jesus said: "prayer and fasting" or just "prayer" in one text. Or whether or not Jesus got mad at a leper or felt compassion for him, sure have a hay day. But the bottom line is that if 99.75% preservation of the actual core meaning of the next is not the preservation of a text, then preservation does not exist.
Bart CRUSHED James' arguments throughout the entire debate and then he annihilated him in the cross examination! I mean he handed James his own ass on a silver platter!
Only the loyal Christians are going to say James won.NO WAY!HE LOST AND HE LOST HORRIBLY!
White comes off as an angry, testy, passive-aggressive, obnoxious and clearly less informed. He was outmatched here and I think he realized it. Ehrman is not somebody he can snow with his usual apologist, pseudo-academic bullshit.
By the way, it totally IS like telephone. No two copies will be exactly the same. There will be mistakes even in the first transmission.
>The arguments are more important than the people making them
>How come only people of this theological persuasion make this argument?
Pick one
His argument regarding theological persuasion is criticizing a sect of Christianity who choose a position based on theological reasoning rather than historical, which is what their job is. If your job is history, you should look at it through the lens of historian even if it contradicts your own religion. Otherwise you are going to corrupt information to allign with your beliefs.
Dr.Ehrman : "I'm not drawing theologian conclusion and I don't really appreciate you linking me to a muslim. I'm not making any stand about the Koran, I don't know anything about the Koran" James White just throwing a stupid question as a sample trying to make the same perception about Dr. Ehrman's point of view ... Dr. Ehrman won't playing with this game lol .... Bravo Dr.Ehrman !!
@1D 1R A C U 1L A 209 !! we do have the origionals weve had them since 632 AD google brimingham quran we have thousands of early quran manuscripts no discrepancies over hundred of years time of prophet and just after it ... sorry for mispellings
Nothing to do with Muslim, why you twisted your Bible problem to Koran?
1D 1R A C U 1L A 209 !!
Go ahead write the book. We have original manuscripts of the Quran from the time of Mohammad. And hundreds from the decades after Mohammad. Not a single change of meaning is there, not a single omission. Because Muslims use oral memory. Currently there are over 10 million people who know the Quran word for word, letter fir letter. Do you have one person who knows the bible like this? Excluding Muslim scholars? You’re genuinely wrong about @ we all know”.
Clearly you don’t.
All the bibles we have misquote Jesus. We have no original manuscripts. The bibles are errant.
What about the Holy Spirit? Does he not guide the Christian into all truth? Is not he the one that is sent to Christians reveal the truth of God? I mean if Origen thought that the scribes erred through inspiration that could show where God hides His word from the world and gives divine revelation to His chosen.
Of couse, I have heard that Origen was a gnostic.
Does that make sense? Is that logical that God would hide the truth?
After watching multiples debates of Bart Ehrman with James White, Mike licona, Wallace, William lain Craig (both of them), I Realized that, Bart is extremely Intelligent for drawing his conclusion which led him his leaving Christianity, as NT and manuscripts(both together) failed to provide answers to simple Questions raised by Typical Christian Scholars.
I thought Bart left Christianity bcz it failed to answer, however He left after studying in its depth and I can see, he's Extremely aware of what he's done in talk and debates.
Enjoyed listening to both, but Bart always on Top, no offence to those who Just doing like or are obsessed with his view on NT and its manuscripts.
Jalal Ahmad
Indeed, Ehrman won this debate beyond the shadow of a doubt :)
Jalal Ahmad Textual critics believe the same thing about the bible that we Muslims do. :-)
@@BeholderGuard Nope
I can see James trying to be patient and feeling a bit annoyed, but Bart doesn't seem to try at all to contain his contempt and rudeness. Come on man, there's no need for the attitude. Just have a polite and scholarly debate.
really enjoyed this debate. one of my favorites. I'm a Christian and believe what we have is God's word. variants haven't changed the gospel message. Christ lived and dies rose again 3 days later. he did so that for those who would believe would have eternal life. variants have not changed that message. I understand where dr erhman is coming from. but he said it's his own opinion and not scholarly. great debate non the less.
I am a Christian even went to an all girls private catholic school till grade 8 I am now in University. The Bible is so full of problems and suspicions, I don't follow blind I think. Not like silly people who just say and swear on every single word in the bible. But that is there choice.
+Low Key there is not a manuscript that doesn't carry the weight of the trinity. if there is may you show which one.
+Abu taj md mahbub Ul alam may you please tell which contradictions you are talking about that change the message of the Bible and where all the problems are. if being a Muslim and I assume you are love to see Bart slam the bible then you my friend use double standard for the Quran. He would do the same to the Quran.
+Kirsten Rollins it's hard to understand what you mean. the bible is trust worthy. I'm a Christian and I believe all its truths.
mk crown son of Mary did not die so no questions of resurrection. Not a single piece of bible Wes was written during Jesus. Bibles written by anonymous drunk and idolatrous Greek and Roman reflecting their belief system and lifestyle. Bible differs each other with latest ones most corrupted. Christian uses latest corrupted bible gospel according to John ( not written by John) which made son of Mary man Jesus into son of God and God. Jesus has no idea who wrote bible what’s in it as they were written in foreign language by foreigner 100s years after he left. He was basically a follower of Moses in his lifetime. His name was not Jesus Christ. It is the translation of his name which is a crime. Names should never be translated. Christianity and it’s doctrine was invented by Greek so son of Mary Easa/ Eshua/ Jesus will not assume any responsibility of Christian who follows doctrine by Paul and gongs.
White seems to be used to say whatever he wants, mostly in a theological/ philosophical way. Ehrman deals day by day with the very sources. White does have no idea. Not even Wallace has the level of scientiffical approach that Ehrman has. Their minds are totally different. Ehrman is very conscious of the assumtions one can do, cause he controls all the sources. White has already chosed what to believe. I know this cause of his commentaries on Servetus in other lectures, in whiches he does not hesitatein lying on what happened, in order to preserve the fairly damaged Calvin's fame.
The father of lies has done a serious number on Bart Ehrman...possibly non-reversible. He said during part 1 that he prayed to God to help him disprove His word! Thus disarming himself and opening himself to the wiles of the devil (Ephesians 6:11-17).
*yawn*, *eyeroll*.
+Phobos Anomaly I'm sure you will yawn and roll your eyes at the great white throne judgment, at which time you will understand that you are deserving of what's in store for you.
I know you said you study the Bible, but I see that you have poor knowledge when it comes to what it says. God did not create an evil being. The devil was not evil to begin with, but he rebelled against God when he grew in pride.
Also, evil is not created. It is simply the absence of good. When you rebel against God, you separate yourself from His goodness and, therefore, become evil.
My inner-nerd is so happy. Enjoyed the debate....and the discussion. The story of the Bible is fascinating.
Here's my problem with Bart Ehrman's stance: Because we don't have origninal manuscripts of anything from antiquity they can't be accepted as authortative, and as Bart admitted, we're also "misquoting" ancient philosophers like Plato because we don't have his original writings.Yet, most schools in the world who teach ethics and philosphy will ALWAYS lecture the ideas that were originated by Plato.Why? Because the works that we have are thoughtful,coherent and life changing. Bart Ehrman has an unreasonable standard for what we can accept and dismiss as authoritative in regards to ancient writings, especially the bible..
Mr James needs to do more research on the "variation" on the Quran. If he is referring to the readings of the Quran then they are considered scripture anyways. They dont change the meaning in any way.
Scribal copying mistakes certainly present one problem, but the main problem is that we don't have a clue who wrote any of the original Gospel manuscripts or what their sources are. They are not eyewitness accounts (all written in the third person), and don't claim to be. Therefore, we have no reason to be confident that we can quote Jesus with any reasonable degree of accuracy. James White points out that the thousands of NT manuscripts available, from diverse geographical locations, and mostly with only minor textual variations, lead us back to the accuracy and veracity of the originals. To me this argument based on manuscript quantity is fallacious and does not confirm authenticity. The reason is that it is the EARLIEST manuscripts which have the most variations (as Ehrman pointed out), so that the closer we get to the originals, the more discrepancies they show. Related to this is that there has been a filtering out of the important manuscript discrepancies with time, so that the later copies tend to become more uniform or orthodox, as a result of Church control and manipulation as to which copies get re-copied and which are either destroyed or left to rot. So only the conformist (orthodox) copies do get preserved and handed down to us, not those with the hallmarks of any "heresy". Given the huge labour and cost of copying a Gospel, only those copies that are authorised or approved by the Church would have been considered worth re-copying. No scribe is going to want to copy a Gospel that does not meet with Church approval (or approval by some authority), and no one would commission the copying of UNORTHODOX, "heretical" manuscripts, which would have no sale value (who would want to spend a huge sum of money on a copy that had no authoritative approval?). In summary, it is Church control over the manuscripts that has led to the relative homogeneity of the manuscript copies we have, and their huge number does not reflect accuracy with the original, only a process of filtering out unwanted or heretical doctrine. We can't extrapolate backwards with confidence to the originals on the basis of our NT manuscripts as James White wishes us to believe, since the re-copying has been subjected to a filtering process.
No relegion has the original copy from which they are referring to. Christians,muslims,hindus,buddhist doesnt have their original sayings...they are copies of copies....so on. God want him to believe without the originals.
Ehrman exhibits every aspect of a slimy, defense attorney which is extremely annoying. Throw out a question, cut off the answer with an off statement, followed up by misrepresenting what the answerer said, twist factual evidence into falsehoods and blow in some smoke and mirrors, bring up totally irrelevant points and cover it all with high sounding words to made it look like you're really know the truth and falsely give the impression to the listener (jury) that they're telling you the truth.
LuvBorderCollies I wouldn’t call Ehrman “slimy” but I would say he is ingenious. His personal opinion on Scriptures has colored the presentation of his research. He is a top scholar. There is no doubt about that. But his loss of faith is based on a naive the view of Biblical of inerrancy which didn’t allow for the explanation of textual variants in the written word. Ehrman will tell you that he did not lose his faith as a result of his research. His lose if faith was based on the theodicy of why a loving God allows such pain and evil to exist in the world. There is a childish view of supernaturalism that carries over into his research when he asks the question of why God wouldn’t preserved His word. A statement that is based on a presumption of how God is to act. The same presumption that arrogantly allows him to assume these Jesus was misquoted when he knows there is no original available that would allow the statement to be made (how does he know what Jesus “really” said based upon his own research. One can see this type of cartoon supernaturalism online statements of why God hates amputees (because if he cared, he would regenerate legs for them). Now Ehrman’s research should stand in its own and asking the question about preservation is legitimate, but he argues against those who point out that this has no effect on theology. Ehrman says that is not his interest in theology but only in historical research. But he argues toward a theological conclusion and debates those who take a theological view of the cannon. White’s presuppositions are theological in nature. He sees the cannon 1 or scripture 1, if you will, that self-disclosure that has been made by God Himself. It is a type of cannon or scriptural “ontology” only to be recognized (however imperfectly by the people of God). The “God-breathed” nature of Scripture is a theological premise. Ehrman doesn’t just do historical research as he would like you to believe. He “aims” the research as an attempt to discredit the theological presumption based upon his naive view of how God acts in the world. That is why he goads the audiences at Evangelical venues by asking “who is here to see me get creamed?” And the laughs off the challenge he set up. I have read almost all the Ehrman’s books. His research is impeccable even if his conclusions are overstated. But make no mistake, Ehrman is on a crusade.
It is interesting to see what happens when you get someone off script. That is why the question portion of debates are my favorite. I would prefer to see this format for the entire debate.
I think James white did a good job of presenting his case outside of the Q&A session. Many Christians are practiced speakers and I found his speeches to be intelligent and well thought out.
In the end I side with Ehrman as he was looking to see what the text actually said and not what people needed it to mean.
I love Ehrman's work both written and in debate, but he seems a little too condescending here. Not his best performance, in my opinion.
Bart said this of himself on his blog -- so I think he learnt from this errors.
Who were the New Testament scholars name's that ehrman was referring to when debating white on the original source?
For some reason James can not understand that original is what God revealed,and everything else is not. As soon is not,it is not divine. Yes it keeps traces,but revelation as a whole is lost.
I'm 3 minutes into the debate and my phone paused and I can't help but conclude this is the kind of debate people wanna see. A mix of subtle tension with a hence of animosity from 2 highly informative men. It would be a complete dis-justice to myself to not completely remain open minded to both sides. I will biasedly comment on my own comment on the official winner of the debate!
In my opinion, where Bart really is at his best is in the direct questioning phase. That's where he really shows off his scholarship and starts to outclass opponents. I felt like that happened here as well.
It is easy to argue against someone when they cannot respond immediately. It becomes less easy when they can refute your bs claims.
@@cyn3rgy759 I saw the same. During both questioning parts, Bart's performance was very good. To not see this is to be closed minded. I've often thought that White is superb, and I personally believe that Bart struggles to argue an easy position. But to not see differences where one is doing better at some moments, and worse at other times, is to not be paying attention
Great Debate & a very well educated scholar by Bart Ehman who studied Christian religion for almost over three decades & believed in it as his religion for years then he found out there is completely clear contradictions in it & he has the right to question the mistakes that are in the Bible. This guy Bart Ehmarn he is sharply educating people the truth & reasoning the Christian scholars in a very reasonable and most effective way of debating the Christian scholars.
imraan kamaal Ridwaan, he must be right and seen the light, according to your analysis:-).
Erhman is the exact definition of an apostate.
He never said anything about contradictions, he mentions textual errors. Two distinct different things.
James Grey do you actually believe that crap you wrote???
Steve Jaxson lol read his article on the Birmingham Manuscript, fool 😂😂😂
The debate heavily emphasizes on variants that may or may not change the theology. What about certain expunged verses like 1 John 5:7 on the Trinity; Mark 16:9-20 on the Resurrection narrative; the woman caught in act of adultery; Jesus' sweats mixed with blood drops in the garden of Gethsemane; and the like???
+rocky balboa
Everything you've said condemns the Qur'an because of its contradictions not explained:-
S1:4 says Allah is the judge on the day of recompense. S35:31 says the Qur’an verifies the Bible but the Bible clearly says that Jesus is the judge, John5:22, Mt25:31f. Thus the Qur’an is either saying Jesus is Allah which contradicts S5:72 or is saying that Allah and not Jesus is the judge which contradict S35:31. There are many other examples where the Qur’an contradicts the Bible rather than verifying it.
S 2:106 says we do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten but we bring a better one. So also 16:101.S6:34 says none can alter the words of Allah. So the Qur’an can’t be the words of Allah. But S85:22 says it was on preserved tablets
S19:33 on the Dome of the Rock says Jesus said "Blessings be upon me the day I was born the day I die and the day I shall be raised alive. S4:157 says he didn't die. If 19:33 is supposed to refer to him coming a second time when he comes a second time will he be raised alive?
Those who break an oath come to harm 48:10 but not Mohammed 66:1-2
Forbidden to take women against their will 4:19 Mohammed did 33:50,52 “those whom your right hand possesses” are slaves. Also 4:3 and 4:24 Muslims can have sex with those whom their right hand possesses.
“Those to whom we gave the scripture recognised him.” 2:146 No they don’t
“Jesus gave tidings of a messenger to come after him named Ahmad.” 61:6 No he didn’t. Not anywhere.
Scriptures foretell Mohammed’s coming 7:157 (No they don’t)
2:142 to 2:144 Allah changed his mind over the direction of prayer.
Allah's wife and 2 daughters mentioned which are apparently verses from Satan 53:19-21. Elsewhere Allah does not have a wife.
Wine is Satan’s handiwork 5:90 but appears in paradise 47:15, 56:18
“In the Gardens of delight a multitude of those will be from the first generations, Few from later generations.” 56:12-14, 56:39 (56:40 contradicts 56:14)
S36:56 "...they and their spouses" but 44:52-54 "we will marry them to fair women with large eyes" Do they enter paradise with their spouses or are they married in paradise?
Creation 6 days or 8 days? Cf 7:54 & 10:3 with 41:9-12
The punishment for adultery is life imprisonment 4:16 or 100 lashes 24:2 and the hadith says death.
The wives of Mohammed are the mothers of believers 33:6 but they are all dead.
28:88, “Everything will perish save his face.” 55:26-27 “The face of your Lord full of majesty and honour will remain for ever.
57:4 “He it is who created the heavens and earth in six days then he mounted the Throne.” 11:7 “His throne was upon the water.” So it was a bit unstable. But if Allah has a throne he must have a bottom to sit on it or since everything perishes save his face is it only his face on the throne? But why then has he got a throne?
75:22-23 Can be seen in paradise “Faces that day will be radiant looking at their lord.” but 6:103 “Vision perceives him not.” So is Allah invisible? When looking at Allah can you only see his face? Or is he a full person with hands seated on his throne because the Qur’an also talks of his hands?
4:48,116 “Allah does not forgive association with him” Cf.2:51-54 4:153 “They took the calf after clear evidence had come to them and WE pardoned that.” But this is associating a calf with him.
Sura 10:94, "If you are in doubt concerning that which we have revealed to you then ask those who have been reading the scripture before you. The truth has certainly come to you from your Lord..." Also S29:46 & 47 and 5:43,44 and 5:46,47 & 48. and 21:7 All these verses are contradicted by S 4:51,52 "Have you not seen those who were given a portion of the Scripture...those are the ones whom Allah has cursed." Are we cursed for having the truth?
And what about paradise? “…those who were Jews or Christians or Sabeans…will have their reward with their Lord…” (S2:62) “If only the people of the Scripture had believed…they have drawn upon themselves anger from Allah…” (S3:110,112).
“No one knows its interpretation except Allah” S3:7 “it is easy to understand” S54:17,22,32,40
Why does the Qur’an say it is only for Meccans in Arabic.S42:7,14:4?
Should you fight unbelievers. S60:8 says “no”. S8:39, 47:4, 9:5 says “yes”
If the Qur’an is from Allah why does it say,”I have been commanded to worship the Lord of this city…” (S27:91). This would appear to be someone reporting Allah’s command to him. Why also if Allah is speaking does it say, “There is no deity except him. He will surely assembly you on the day of resurrection…” (S4:87) This would appear to be someone talking about Allah not Allah speaking.
Why does the Qur’an keep reporting that people are saying it is a falsehood he has invented? So 25:4, 32:3, 46:8, 32:3, 10:38. Who is the “he”? Is it Muhammad? If so why is Allah telling us people are saying “he invented it.” It must have been written at the time people were saying it was invented. It cannot be an eternal book.
The quran says it confirm the Injeel not the bible
atmz97
No S35:31 says "And that which We have revealed to you, of the Book is the truth, confirming what was before it. Indeed, Allah , of His servants, is Acquainted and Seeing."
Now the Qur'an was written in the 7th century. WE need to ask what books existed in the 7th century that the Qur'an was confirming. Certainly we have completed manuscripts of the Bible from the 4th century so there is no problem if the Qur'an is confirming the Bible. You say that the Injeel is not the Gospel in the Bible.OK. So please show us the Injeel that the Qur'an is talking about.
Extremely good debate, shame about White's ad hominem attacks on the basis of Ehrman's work being used by Muslim apologists.
And even if White's ad hominem attack held water, which it doesn't, I'd enjoy listening to him applying his guilt by association argument to his own faith, with its rich history of pogroms culminating in the Holocaust, to name but one unsavory aspect of Christianity.
White's conclusion speech, in my opinion, is a disgrace to anyone claiming to be a scholar. White should be ashamed of himself. It does show his priorities between actual study and conformity with his theology among his audience. As always, the man who thinks he acts to save the souls of others will do truly anything.
You should realize that James told the truth and many muslim 'scholars' and 'apologists' use Ehrmann more than any other source and even more than their oh so holy quran to harass random people on the streets who never heard of textual criticism and that way destroy what ever little bit of faith is left in them. The fact that Ehrmann has still not made a public statement about his books and conclusions not being results of scholarship is mindblowing. He is literally an egostistical coward.
james white is talking in circles. he dodges every questions
Mike Jones NOT sure how I missed that. Good spot @Mike! :-)
White pulls some very dishonest word play, tweaking definitions so that they don't exactly match how scholars use the words which quietly changes the argument. When Ehrman calls him on it, he dodges or acts like Ehrman is intentionally misrepresenting his argument.
Sadly the fact is Bart was circling although I like the guy. James white totally makes more sense.
And you appeared to have dodged English grammar class.
James White was struggling with the preservation question. lol..His argument goes like this: if there are many differences between the manuscripts then one must be the right... my question is, what if they are all wrong?:-)
thousands of copies coming from different root telling you the same thing what that tells you
Nash, They "DON'T" tell you the same thing. That is the point. Sometimes it is the very opposite.
John Grove Could you give an example?
25.8.18. 1. This is a very interesting intellectual biblical debate. However, to address Dr Ehrman in saying, e.g.: part 2, @ 44:19: "It does matter whether the Gospel of John calls Jesus...'The Unique God!'. That's very different from saying that Jesus is Divine if Jesus is 'The Unique God!'", and @ 45:03: "When Jesus was going to His death in the gospel of Luke, that He became so distressed as to began to sweat as if drops of blood;...it depends on which manuscript you read,...and it matters whether Jesus went through that experience or not...":
2. Yes, it very much does matter. Jesus Christ did not write down what He taught or did because He *Knew*, as He said, that we were not *ready* for, and that we would *distort* His Word. That was why, in various reports, Jesus is said to have clearly directed us, for explanation of His *Word*, to the coming: "The Spirit of The Truth", "The Everlasting Comforter", "The Holy Spirit" and "The Son of Man", Who would *replace* Jesus Christ as our Mediator - ("I must go in order for Him to Come"), Who would Judge the World - (because we did not believe Him Jesus Christ), Who would *remind us again* of what Jesus Christ had previously actually Taught, and Who would guide us into *All The Truth* :
3. "8 When He comes, he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness and Judgment: 9 about sin, because people do not believe in me; 10 about righteousness, because I am going to the Father, where you can *see me no longer* ; 11 and about Judgment, because the prince of this world now stands condemned.
12 I have much more to say to you, [than] you can now bear. 13 But when He, the Spirit of Truth, comes, He will guide you into *all The Truth*. He will not speak on His own; He will speak only what He hears, and He will tell you what is yet to come". - Jesus Christ (John 16:8-13).
4. It is very unfortunate and extremely sad that Jesus Christ's Prophesy has once again come true, because hardly anyone, Christian or otherwise, is *seeking, "He, The Spirit of The Truth"* Who would guide us into *all* The Truth, as advised and admonished by Jesus Christ in John 16:8-13 above:
5. "6And the Lord said, “Listen to what the unjust judge says. 7And will not God bring about Justice for His chosen ones, who cry out to Him day and night? Will He keep putting them off? 8I tell you, He will see that they get Justice, and quickly. However, when the Son of Man (Who will Judge) comes, will *He* find faith *(Conviction)* on the earth?” - Jesus Christ - Luke 18:6-8.
6. Jesus Christ's Promise of sending "He, The Spirit of The Truth" in John 16:13 is separate and different to His promise of sending "Power" at Pentecost, which had already occurred before Paul's admission of "only knowing in part", in his anticipation of also encountering The Spirit of The Truth in the future, 1Corinthians 13:12.
7. Therefore, according to Jesus Christ, *only* "He", The Spirit of The Truth, Whom we should all be Seeking, will lead us into *all* The Truth. All else is, unfortunately, speculative intellectual groping in the dark.
If you'd actually listened to the debate you will know that Bart Ehrman is saying that no-one knows what the originals words of Jesus were, as reported in the gospels.
1689BaptistCigarsandTheology That's your claim. Do you have any evidence to back up your claim?
bart ehrman says all scholars agree with him on this except evangelicals I would say more liberals and non Christians will agree with him