Idk why Bart would use so much of his time to tell the audience that only a couple of them will have an open mind. It's not his job to estimate his chances of winning but to make a case that wins.
If the universe was created by some unknown deity and it came to earth to reveal itself for the first time, I have no doubt that the theists would think it's Satan trying to trick them. They need their belief because it gives them hope, meaning and purpose regardless if it's false. A lot of them are willfully ignorant and if anybody has seen this on display it's Bart so I get where he's coming from.
@@Alpine1996 Whites arguments were better and had substance, so what you're saying here actually makes no sense. Ehrman knew from the beginning that his arguments were poor, so he was at least smart enough to know he had to convince with a plea. Yet, his convincing should've been with facts, not a mere plea.
@@blacksabbath1022 Good point you've made here. If that's the case, then neither atheists nor Christians grasped the truth of this universe correctly. However, if the biblical account of the universe happened to be true, if the universe was created by the origin of everything, and he sent his son to this earth once, and again he shall return. When he returns, I have no doubt that the atheists would think it's some kind of material/scientific event that can be explained away. They need their belief because it gives them hope, meaning, and purpose regardless if it's false. You see, the same can be said about atheism, of course, your response is going to be something like: well, I don't have any faith, I just followed the evidence, and if that's what happens, I'll surely believe then. The key is evidence and faith, both you and I need both, to you the experiential, biblical, and theological, even scientific evidence I hold is trash, that's alright, I can respect that. However, it's dishonest for you to judge people for being ignorant when you're essentially doing the same thing in order to hold any thought or belief at all. Good day, love from China.
Yes. Dr. White, you are correct in saying that all ancient writings are of questionable veracity and that the standard for these writings is probability rather than certainty. The role of historians is to determine the most probable likelihood of interpretation based upon very meager sources recorded for a variety of motivations. There is far from necessary and sufficient documentation to validate what is found in ancient and often fragmentary texts.
This is one of the best debates I have heard. I love listening to debates and have listened to many. I actually learned some things in this debate.... it was more than just entertaining... it was educational. Who cares who technically wins or loses (each side always thinks their side won) I care more about if it is fair, respectful, fun and educational. This one gets high marks in each of those areas. I've listened to it going on 3 times now. Wish these two would debate again.
Every time Bart Ehrman made a joke about textually variants he was the only one laughing. I'm a Christian and to make you feel better about your jokes Bart, I laughed to.
Thank you for posting this, Mr. Ehrman. I appreciate that you took time out of your schedule to show us both sides of this issue. I am solidly on the side of Mr. White's take on the issue but I do want you to know that I wouldn't know as much about this if it weren't for you. I will continue to study and follow the truth, as I understand it, where it leads.
Mr Ehrman won the debate by far. “Ye shall not add unto the word which I (God) command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.” (Deuteronomy 4:2)
@@SA-mw5om Those books of the Torah were DIRECTLY SPOKEN AND DICTATED by God to Moses, it was not just inspired by God. So it's normal God expected Moses to write word for word what he heard from God, and Moses did. That has nothing to do with those cases of the New Testament Mr Ehrman mentionned, which were not DIRECTLY DICTATED by God to Matthew or John, but were inspired, and did not have that command of deuteronomy 4v2. Another book which has parts that were directly dictated by God is the book of Revelation and there you'll see the same divine expectation as in the torah: "I testify to everyone who hears the words of prophecy in this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes away from the words of this book of prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and the holy city, which are described in this book" Revelation 22v18-19. If you base yourself on this argument to say Mr Ehrman "won" the debate, I'm afraid you need to listen to the debate once again, especially Dr White's explanations.
These debates will go on forever but if you really want to get to the bottom line, it's this: 1) If Jesus didn't rise from the dead, it's over. Christianity is fake. 2) If Jesus rose from the dead, you better get in line and realise that Christianity is the only way to salvation. Text variations or the story about the adulteress being fake (we don't know it's fake - we just know it's added later) are meaningless. You have to decide what you believe - either 1 or 2 above. Have a nice day and God Bless.
^^^^ That made my day. When you give a serious argument, in most cases the opposition's response is frivolous. This obviously to any serious intellect is one of those cases, Santa Clause = Saint Nicholas who is a "made up character promoting a fake God" Really the big questions are why do atheist choose not believe in a divine force or God. Why do they actively choose to live in a purposeless, meaningless chaos in which no one's actions has any real significance, no hope of any justice and all lives end abruptly at death? The atheists believe God is made up, if that is the case, God was made up for a reason. Probably society and cultural issues. Remove it and you will end up with a Communist government. Whoever is in charge is your god. An example not given much, Tibet. The Dali Lama was exiled from Tibet by Communist China. North Korea is another prime example. Atheists want to live with all the joys and benefits provided by Christianity but not pay the dues.
Convincing evangelicals of that is a very difficult task. I used to be one until I did research and changed my mind. Unless these people decide they really want to know and research actual history, it won't happen. Most church goers don't know what's in the bible they believe in. They're happy going to church and hearing the niceties their pastor tells them. When I was going to church, I never heard one thing about how the bible endorses slavery in Exodus, Leviticus and Ephesians. Or how it endorsed killing homosexuals, adulterers and disobedient children. Or in Numbers about Balaam's talking donkey( Probably where they got the idea for the old sitcom Mr. Ed). And we know why.
My review of this part of the debate: Bart had a stronger opening statement. He got straight to the point, explained his position well, and was easy to understand while James’s was scripted and kind of hard to parse. Both bring up solid arguments though. James had stronger rebuttals to Bart, though both kind of floundered with personal attacks. James addressed the flaws Bart brought up pretty well. Bart didn’t do that particularly well, but it’s understandable given his audience and probably really high-pressure circumstances. In the end i feel the jabs against each other was a little unprofessional but the content was pretty enlightening. Definitely not a simple subject matter. James is seemingly more lenient with his acceptance of the bible, because he is satisfied with a wholistic overview of the text. Bart i feel struggles more with the nitty gritty. He needs absolutely solid evidence for this, which unfortunately I don’t think James managed to articulate effectively. Great debate in the end
I believe that Bart argued using the I don't know argument, some how I believe it is more strong than I thought, it depends on our ignorance if the places where there are no variants in the manuscripts we have today agree or disagree with the originals since it is possible to be different. So if the disagreements are possible we can't decide if they are significant variants. These possibilities are proved by the manuscripts under our hands. The best we can say today is that the nt text is better than other text of the same period. But be careful, Bart didn't say that every statement in the nt is not reliable, since he himself believe in the historical Jesus and his crucifixion depending on the NT it self as you can see in other debates. So all he was trying to do here is to show that we can't rid off the possibility using the many manuscripts argument, it is the variants in these many manuscripts that raise this possibility. So I believe Bart made his case.
@@Wadshammadi i agree, Bart has a point. But what James said was that it doesn’t matter in the end. His argument was that even if we have different manuscripts, the original is still there. And the way we know what the original said is by comparing all the variants. He points out that virtually all of the differences have no impact on Christian theology, but for the 1% that does matter, they put both versions, either as footnotes or extra passages just in case. Bart would have to argue that the originals were lost at some point somehow, which I’m pretty sure he tries to convey, but he doesn’t do it well. Their analogy is pretty good for this: Bart is saying we have like 70-80% of the actual originals, but James says we have 102%. Who is correct? In order for Bart to make a solid case, he’d have to show or at least describe a reasonable explanation as to how such a significant portion of the text had been lost. He says this is through successive changes over time. But James says because the original manuscripts were never all compiled, nor in the same locations, even if there were copyist errors (which I agree with Bart - were many), they all changed differently. But even so, looking at all of them now, 99% of the manuscripts correlate. He has the stronger case. Not foolproof, but stronger.
@@kennylee6499 Thank you for responding, If u r intrested i would like to continue on this subject not in youtube, but on facebook or any other place, i still see that Bart is right, and James didn't refute him well, but i respect his viewpoint and if u can offer even more to support his case it will be intresting.
James White didn't talk anything about the complete addition of verses at the end of the Gospel of Mark: (Verses about the resurrection of Jesus), As Dr Bart has clearly pointed out, these verses weren't there in the early manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark, I think adding verses to someone's book and then later trying to attribute those writing to the original author is not acceptable!
Dr. White won this debate hands down. I've watched all of Ehrmans debates and he clearly has won them all, until this one. Hats off to Dr. White for keeping it scholarly and classy. Ehrman was heated the whole time. Lol
I am a Christian but I think Bart did a great job. A lot of Christians claim the bible is a perfect book and contains no errors. I think Bart proves this can’t be the case. This doesn’t disprove Christianity.
If we haven't got the originals and we know that things were put in and left out later, how can we possibly know that something absolutely crucial hasn't been left out?
@@duguoqing84 No, he only enumerated the list again. He didn't actually show in the variant texts where those doctrinal points are impacted specifically. He didn't want to go there because he didn't have anything to substantiate the claims, or else he would have done it.
What a terrible rebuttal by Bart. Totally skipped over the major points of White's opening statement just to reiterate his own opening statement. He also completely missed the point of the similarities of the manuscripts on opposing ends of the spectrum of threads of transmission.
I agree. What a weak rebuttal. And what's the deal with that "appeal"? He sounded desperate. Then he continues to hammer away at the point about textual differences that White refuted better than Ehrman argued either time.
Bankhead 1 And whats worse is that James White is Unsure whether or not his convoluted observations are are On point, Ensuring his Ego to win this debate when in reality he did Lost to Ehrmans well educated form of Observations not Only from himself but from Other Expert Scholars that agreed with him as a whole.
I wholly disagree with Antoine Mason. Keeping an open mind to both sides. Dr. White gets my vote. Logically speaking, if Ehman decides to discredit copies of the originals, then he would have to discredit general contemporary history of that time altogether. By reasons that written history on Christ was continuous & ongoing through time. More than any other ancient antiquities of that same time period. Its silly to expect ancient scribers to possess the technology to preserve such "original" written materials. Which is why written copies was needed. It's like Ehman expects someone from 1895 to preserve a can of "original" beans up until this day. How rational is that argument?
Mark Ingersoll not all atheists think abiogenesis happened, or the big bang, or evolution. those are separate theories and positions from atheism; not to mention you'd be hard pressed to find an atheist who has ever said abiogenesis solves everything
@1:02:00 Bart stated that there are other points of view and don't write them off because there're uncomfortable. This is so true. I was brought up as a Pre-Triber and now that I am learning Greek and actually studding the Bible, I see that what I was taught is wrong. Has that ruffled some feathers
To Dr Ehrman, as an evangelical Christian of IMHO strong faith, I agree more with the arguments of James White than with yours. However, there is one area where I grant you complete superiority. You allow ratings and comments on your videos and Dr James does not. He claims to hate com boxes because people act like second graders. But to me this is an area where his skin is too thin. He is also filtering out praise for his work and constructive and gracious criticism. So Kudos to you for permitting ratings and comments.
@Jasper Jack Did you watch the videos? LOL. The problem with your view is the errors do not touch any of the major teachings of Christianity! See Daniel Wallace on this perhaps the equal of Erhman on the manuscripts.
It’s not about his skin being too thin. It’s about proffering. Christians in the comments calling each other “faggots” and “assholes”. It’s a poor representation for both sides of any discussion and he doesn’t want his platform to be used to host it. I personally prefer to leave comments open but I’m not about to misrepresent James White because I am mad that I can’t get my two cents in the comment section of his videos.
@Jasper Jack 30,000 'errors'? that number you gave shows you have no idea what you are talking about. there are actually over four-hundred-thousand 400,000 textual variants, not just 30,000. 99,5 % of them being typos and grammar mistakes in other words nontheological issues.
Mrreciprocat to make it worse.............the very first manuscript of any of them would have been the result of writing down what had been transpired as oral tradition (can you say gossip among hopeful believers) for decades over thousands of miles and different languages as story telling before its even documented.................what kind of inspired process is that? We are arguing of the most accurate manuscript of superman comic books here.........trying to get the story right of something in which the supernatural of its contents are fiction.
@@philsterthephilster Did you know that all we have for ALL of the classical works of antiquity is copies of copies of copies? Bart Ehrman takes advantage of people's ignorance of history and the process of textual criticism to bring the most reliable text in history into doubt.
Jessica Miller All the classical works don’t make claims about a messiah. There’s a big difference between excepting historical and theological claims from antiquity.
Dr. White is a very intelligent scholar in the New Testament. Bart Ehrman sees the New Testament out of the apologetic bubble. Even though Dr. White can prove the consistency of the ancient text, it does not prove that they were factual. He just shows consistency in the oral tradition.
When Ehrman got rude, condescending, insulting, interrupting and nearly began yelling he showed to everyone his personal hostility on the issue so he cannot honestly claim that his views are merely a result of scholarly study devoid of emotion or personal motivation. This guy has personal issues coming out of his ears.
@@abraarhussain786 Your assertion "about Christianity" being "base on man mad lies". I presume you meant "based on man made lies", this being so, could you be so kind as to elucidate further on your assertion, for I fear you may be in error, especially since many of the doctrines and teachings of Christian thought and practice, far from being the basis of trivial mirth have indeed been the basis of a most rich and diverse means of personal development, as has been the testimony of many a great saint and mystic.
I thought Ehrman would win this one but it was just the opposite ,white overwhelmed ehrman with incredible points ,and It’s effects could clearly been seen in ehrmans mannerisms during his rebuttal
He invites students to take a crack at copying over a text to see how easy it was to introduce errors, but he doesn't establish that that is how the transcription process worked. In fact, even today, when working on things like serious academic papers and business quality proposals, the process usually involves several people work together simultaneously. It was a slow and simple process, but it didn't have to be as haphazard as his students are led to believe.
You cannot discount the reality that there were easily many complete manuscripts that we don’t have, that the early copyists did have. Who knows what passages may have been added that were missing from some, and present in others that have not been found yet. It is a goal post that could move depending on new discoveries. This is a complex, and ever changing pursuit.
lol! it will be fun to watch. Bart will convert to islam and then after 2 or 3 days, he realizes how painful it is to be in that religion. He then denounces islam and continues his journey destroying islam as an ex Muslim.omg! it will be hilarious!!
Abu taj md mahbub Ul alam you must then disregard the Quran since Shabir Ally leaned on numerical miracles proving the 1900's Quran is the true word of God. So much of the Quran has been changed its asinine to believe it is without error.
I wasn’t sure whether I should post this debate or not. Frankly, it was not a good experience. I normally do not have an aversion to the people I debate. But James White is that kind of fundamentalist who gets under my skin. To be fair, he would probably not call himself a fundamentalist. Then again, in my experience, very few fundamentalists *do* call themselves fundamentalists. Usually a “fundamentalist” is that guy who is far to the right of *you* - wherever you are! Someone on the blog can correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe White does hold to the absolute inerrancy of the Bible. If so, given what else I know about him, I’d call him a fundamentalist. In any event, he’s a smart fellow and came to the debate loaded for bear. But it’s good to see me at not my best as well as at my best. Bart Ehrman!
Bart Ehrman says he will not believe unless he has the original documents. I doubt that very much. If we found the original documents he would still say they were lies.
This is incorrect. Ehrman has stated that even if the originals were found he would not be a believer - he does not believe in the Christian God due to the issue of suffering in the world.
ianrwood21 Sorry for not seeing your reply and sorry for the delay in responding. "he does not believe in the Christian God due to the issue of suffering in the world." Ehrman is the worst theologian I have ever seen. That there is suffering in the world is spoken about ALL THROUGH THE BIBLE! Excuse my shouting. Suffering is very much a part of the Biblical narrative and to believe God doesn't exist because of suffering is ignorance of the Biblical narrative. Since Bart went to these classes in University I can only assume he was A: looking out the window during his classes, B: was looking at the cute brunett during classes, C: was asleep or stoned out of his mind during classes or D: is just being difficult.
it's weird how Bart's comments don't pull me further into disbelief of the new testament, but rather Jame's comments and attempts to dismiss things. when he says "people don't believe the bible is 100% accurate" (paraphrasing)......I'm like, yeah everyone in my entire church attending life in numerous churches believe it like that. i'm re-evaluating all my sunday school teachers with a side eye right now.
I agree with White that the other side needs to be told. This is encouraging me more to know the history of the bible. A shift from simply reading and obeying. Knowing this kind of detail provides more confidence in proclaiming you are a Christian.
There is nothing to substantiate this claim. It is a fool hearted gambit to cling on a human declaration for absolute truth. Paul is a great example; contradicts the Christ nearly every place he writes. Hod gave us truth and love to sift through the world; not only is the NT a VITALLY important document with wise insight spoken by the Holy Christ, but it is also layered in flaws of man. The Bible is like an egg. You must crack open, discard the shell and cook the contents before it can be nutritious. As a matter if fact, a raw egg may be harmful. Buying into the NT being wholly inerrant is like tossing whole eggs in your gullet and hoping not to get a stomach ache.
@@espositogregory Interesting comment. How do you personally feel Paul contradicts Jesus in the NT? I agree there are human errors, seems like a fusion of divine inspiration in its original form, which is in Aramaic and not Greek, but meshed with human fingerprints and potentially some manipulation over time. I've uncovered some crazy mistranslations of lines and words that are so deeply ingrained into Christian culture..I am a believer in Christ 100% no matter how many issues with any texts there may be though in what we have today.
@D O It's much closer to the time for one. Secondly, the narratives of their death quite clearly assume that they believe this man is God. Remember these deaths took place in the first century.(As Bart said its the best kept book in the ancient world). Additionally, you can quote church fathers from many many letters. And these are persons directly after the apostles. In fact, you can look at the church father's disciples writings as well. The story isn't developing or changing. Check out Polycarp,Ireaneus and continue. Ireaneus in fact seems to communicate to persons in the late second century, that memoirs of the apostles are still present and they can check them. So this idea, that hey this persecuted sect was just copying and throwing away their sacred scriptures.
***** There's not such thing ''Islamic world'' cz If muslims live in a country whether in minority or majority Doesn't mean, it's ''Islamic'' country or world. Their Government doesn't run by Islamic law, except republic, monarchy, theocracy, etc, but not Abide by Islamic laws. These Muslims leaders might use Islamic law to grant punishments for crimes, but not as a WHOLE do those countries run by Islamic Law. Likewise, you have this stereotypical conception in which, you don't know whether Debates have taken place in India, Pakistan, Dubai, or not. ahmad deedat's debates, and Zakir Naik's debate. Up here in western and European world, these Scholars are arguing over their ''word of God'' whereas in Muslim world, we don't have an Iota of doubt what Qur'an is, it's 100% pure in its nature, and word and revelation from Allah(God), so that's why Muslim Scholars don't argue or Question he validity of Qur'an cz it's preservation can't be compare to any of the book in this World, it's exceptional. you may wanna disagree, it's your choice. Thnx anyways ! Idk why you're scared of Death when you know you can't escape from it can't you? As for last sentence, if You think conduction a marriage with 6yrs old wasn't appropriate, then the Whole Muslims, and Muslim women won't be Believing in such a thing. You're being ignorant of learning about Islam, cz you know Truth hurts. Indeed Jesus (PBUH) said ''seek it the truth, and truth shall set you free'' Thnx !
Oh, so you have problem with Islam, well you know what, go do what you want, or do what you like, it doesn't affect me nor Islam. When you read something with negativity, you find nothing but negative due to your mentality. Man go enjoy your coffee (which you got cz of Muslims), but have a little cup of coffee and watch soccer. Idk where r u even here lol Thnx !
I'm taught to be kind, no matter how much you criticize and I have no problem taking criticism cz according to Hadith tradition, it's Ok to take criticism cz the person who criticizes you; his good deeds are taken away and the one who's being criticized gets add into his account, so at the day of Judgment, I'll have them as a reward. In times of difficulties, we're taught to be patient, so you know. Thnx anyway I like your comments cz they're not too abusive, cz I don't like to chat or talk with those who use abusive language cz nither of us or them gonna benefit from it !
This is very interesting in-depth debate. I myself am not too familiar with the fact how the New Testament manuscripts have been preserved over time. Many things mentioned did go way over my head, but anyway, this great insight into New Testament textual critism and serves as a good reference.
Matthew 24:4 James’ opening statement was basically agreeing with Bart on everything he said except there being major changes. How is that “tearing to pieces?”
The very basic point that Bart seems to be missing is this: just because something isn't "perfect" doesn't mean its underlying message isn't real and the historical events it alludes to didn't take place. (the fact that so many thousands of manuscripts DO say basically the same thing indeed strengthens the notion that the gospels are based on real events.). Nothing he said makes me doubt Jesus was a historical figure who died and resurrected; Bart's observations are fine and well, and it's indeed a fact that errors occurred during translation. But none of those errors change the overall message of the gospels in the SLIGHTEST.
Sure they do, if we're being honest with ourselves! The people who wrote the bible cared about when Jesus (AS) died. They cared about if He said "God, God! Why hast thou forsaken me?" or "Father into your hands I commend my spirit.". If it matters enough to them to write it, then it should matter to you what actually happened that day.
The idea that a person died and resurrected himself at will isn’t by definition a historical event. This is a supernatural claim that needs a supernatural amount of evidence to be proven historically.
It seems that James mostly throws out numbers and generalizations without giving examples which Bart gives plenty of, making his argument much stronger in my opinion. James has a very weak case.
I think Dr Bart Ehrman is saying, do your own research and reading and you will find the errors yourself. Some so outrageous that you will question the authenticity of the book. Once you’re open to truly examine, the possibility of misguided humans altering and sometimes creating word of God will open up. By whom and why would be the next question.
It seems that most opponents of the idea that God has preserved His word begin with the problematic expectation that God would use a certain method to preserve His word. This strikes me as a prideful way to approach the issue.
The King James Only movement is notorious for doing that. It has even been deemed a cult and has done more damage than it ever did good. One Bible Only? is a good book that shows their deceptions. James White has a good book refuting Gail Riplinger's claims and shows intentional misquotes in her book.
If they simply say: "It is a collection of stories that we create a narrative to understand God, there were man that wrote it". It would be okay. But when they say it is the word of God and who doesn't believe it will die and go to hell forever, then you better have every single letter perfect.
Seek Wisdom Are we throwing the baby out with the bath water? I find a defect therefore I don’t believe? What in this world is with out defect ? So do you believe anything at all?
Perhaps someone can help me with this. Why would an atheist feel the need to say God is evil, a dictator, makes people suffer, etc., if they know He does not exist? Why do the spend so much time and energy trying to refute something they claim does not exist? if they are so sure of their position, why not be involved in more useful educational/scientific/philosophical pursuits. in listening to most debates, it seems as if not mqtter what evidence a Christian presents, the atheist will either ignore it or position a theory designed solely to refute it, regardless of whether the theory is plausible or logically sound.
Steve Woods They do it to make people look foolish. But they usually are nothing more than superficial and revert to ad hominem attacks which are in fact not arguments.
As a person of science, if the Bible is the only empirical evidence you have for the existence of God.. then obviously it's going to be scrutinized and looked at for its authenticity.. for historical fact.. for truth.. When you call it "the truth".. and tell me that my soul depends on it.. it better be accurate. Not everyone in the world is ok with being conned out of their time and money.. Two things religion demands of you.. now I can live my life as a good person and still have good values and morals without religion.. it's not like the human species were just killing each other non-stop until the Bible was written.. truth of the matter is it was in humanity's best interest to co exist..have communities.. work together.. We Now call the Greek gods "Greek mythology".. so it makes sense that eventually this will be called Christian mythology.. the division of religion has been one of the biggest reasons for war in our history.. even to this day.. so hopefully in the future we will become enlightened and have no more need for religion, superstition or borders.. and realize that we have a very short time on earth and we should all treasure that.. no afterlife this is what you got.. so stop killing eachother and enjoy the things that really matter.. Family, Community, People..
Because religion (not just christianity) indoctrinates children with superstitions, hatred and intolerance. Wait until people are 18 until you start telling them about an immaterial being that knows everything you do, and then see how many join.
I think James won this part of the debate. I do appreciate Barts invitation to openness and attempts but the standard he's using isn't consistent with how Jesus and the apostles used their writings.
Of course he brings in Islam... because Bart agrees unintentionally that the way to preserve scripture is exactly how the Quran is preserved, so Thank you very much Mr White 👌🏽
Having been raised evangelical I've been down the same road as Bart. For Catholics, episcopalians and anyone else who doesn't believe the bible is meant to be taken literally, none of this matters. Proving the Bible has errors doesn't mean that God isn't real. But when you are raised to believe that the Bible is the literal word of God, without error, without contradiction, that it was dictated by God to the people and then find out differently, it's very easy for your faith to come crumbling down. I was taught that evolution isn't real, the earth is 6,000 years old and was led to believe that the bible has been around since the beginning of time. Finding out that it wasn't actually written until 300 years after Jesus died....that alone made me upset. It's been very hard putting faith in God back together after realizing the bible is not what evangelicals make it out to be. I guarantee you that 99% of evangelicals don't know that the Crucifixion is different in each of the gospels or that Jesus only claims to be God in the book of John, no other book. Words have meaning. Inerrant means without error. Period. You can't say, "Well that story doesn't matter who said what or who was there" Yes it does matter? If you are claiming something to be literal it needs to all match up. You can't have different gospels saying different things and still call the book "inerrant". They can't both be right!
The bottom line is that people believe what they choose to believe. Everyone has the same evidence presented to them which is why everyone will be held to the same standard of accountability.
There are appreciable differences, other than personal choice, that result in the varied outcomes. For example, there are differences in how well-equipped each individual is to process any given piece of evidence (background knowledge, critical thinking tools, etc). There are also different goals: a scientist is likely to have a different objective when processing the evidence than a spiritual guru. There is also extreme social pressure in many cases. It's not a coincidence that religions tend to be highly concentrated geographically, where society can impose or reinforce a particular belief.
Dr. White’s presentation shows how God can keep His Word preserved while allowing man to continue on doing what we do best: mess up. God still brings forth His message through fallen man which in essence brings glory to God. Amen.
Agreed. And so many miss that exact emphasis found all throughout Scripture. Have you not read... Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. 1 Corinthians 1:20-21
Dr. Ehrman's contention seems to be that the Bible cannot be Inspired unless it was Preserved. Now, he doesn't exactly explain what he means by "preserved." It seems to be that he could mean... 1. We have the original version still with us today. 2. We have a verifiable copy of the original version still with us today. 3. Or, we would have copies but none of them would be different. Now, let's put it in argument form... 1. A work can only be Inspired if it is Preserved 2. The New Testament is not Preserved 3. The New Testament is not Inspired So, how might we address this argument? The method James White provides is to give a 4th definition of Preserved which would defeat (P2). He argues that among all the variations, the original words are still preserved. The analogy he gives is like a 1000 piece jig-saw puzzle where you have 1010 pieces. The whole thing is there, but there are some extras as well. If you accept this definition of Preservation, (P2) stands refuted and Dr. Ehrman's argument fails. However, I think there is a more fatal flaw in this argument, which is that (P1) is simply undefended. Why must an Inspired work be a Preserved work, especially among one of the 3 definitions I provided above? Where does Dr. Ehrman get this definition of Inspiration? The doctrine is "that the human authors and editors of Bible were led or influenced by God with the result that their writings many be designated in some sense the word of God". No part of that doctrine requires preservation. God could inspire a writing meant only for some people for some short amount of time. Or God could allow his inspired word to be spread imperfectly but sufficiently such that the primary message is retained. His first contention is simply a statement of his personal opinion, nothing more, nothing less.
Ehrman never said it couldn't be the word of god because it wasn't preserved, he just said that personally his biblical studies made him realise that there wasn't a good enough reason to view these texts as divine or divinely inspired above another other ancient manuscripts and that personally led him away from his religious beliefs over time. He didn't say others had to agree with him and he never tried to argue that others shouldn't be believers if they want to be.
@@JohnDoe-ov9ib - What ever the reason there's no way you can study the bible and out saying it's not inspired or the word of god and you don't have to be a christian to believe that
You’re assuming you have all 1000 pieces, which is something you can’t confirm anyway. So you lose regardless of which argument you make. We know it wasn’t preserved, and there’s no evidence we have 100% of the original words. Not to mention the fact that there are no original words for certain books in the Bible, as they are edited versions of letters. Letters we do not have and will never have. Sadly, religion loses all arguments. For obvious reasons. It’s mythology.
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".
@@TheIncognitusMe You don’t need everything. That doesn’t undermine the argument at all. Let’s say that 1/2 of the Bible was lost. We actually only have 1/2 of it now. If God does indeed exist, and directed the writing of the Bible, then how is that changed by the fact that half of it is now missing? It isn’t. It isn’t whatsoever. It doesn’t follow that if the Bible is the inerrant word of God then that means it must be 100% accurately preserved. It doesn’t follow whatsoever. That’s why many errancy statements say that the Bible is inerrant in the original texts. We have what we have. We base the religion on what we have. I really don’t see how your point changes anything. We could have entire books missing from the Bible, and it wouldn’t change the fact that the God of the Bible exists (if indeed that is true). I’m really not sure why this is a debate. If a flying cat was the true God and that cat divinely inspired 1000000 pages in a holy book, but we now only have 1 sentence of that book, that wouldn’t change the fact that that one sentence was the word of God. You need to base your argument on whether God even exists or not and whether the Bible was written by the people it was claimed to have been written by. You can hold to the views you hold, but using the, or even remotely seeming like you defend the, “it hasn’t been perfectly preserved so therefore the Christian God doesn’t exist” makes no sense. It’s really just a bad argument
Dr. White's presentation was far more concise. Dr. Ehrman made assertions and presented claims and backed none of them up. He simply said "They matter" over and over and didn't demonstrate how they do, or give evidence that neither understanding of the text that are on the table are valid. Dr. White makes sense of the data and presents a backed argumentation for his position while Dr. Ehrman seems to fall into a presuppositional skepticism and just throws out a lot of skeptical statements. If he is an expert he should have had more information regarding why his position is valid.
If it " can't" be translated, so you leave it out,, how does that not possibly terribly affect the text?? And if you have a lot of copies, that means you have almost virgin text equivelant??? " accidental ommissions" could mean potentially critical scripture ommission...and " uncontrolled" distribution means just that, total lack of control, order, oversight over reprinting by hand and distribution,,how on earth could this support preservation?? Terrible arguments. So tired of supposed pros who blow off the obvious, dogg someone who points it out, and then insist there's no problem.
I think Dr. Ehrman's anger shows he has an emotional reason for wanting others to give up their faith, as he did. It's sad he didn't maintain his faith as he explored the minor differences. I too went through this 30 years ago. At first I too thought 1 minor difference meant the entire Bible was false. My faith grew weak for up to 10 years. But I never abandoned it as Ehrman has done. In that time I came to see what Dr. White is saying. Minor differences don't make the whole Bible false. God didn't mean to prove His existence by perfectly preserving ancient writings. The purpose of the Bible is to teach us about God. And it does this. We need faith to please God, and especially faith that Jesus died for us. This is another purpose of the Bible. It wasn't meant to teach us physics, chemistry, mathematics, nor even about the cosmos. When unbelievers expect this they will always be disappointed. The Bible teaches us about God and how we are to relate to Him if we want to gain eternal life. For this, it's very reliable.
John283T Well said. Sad thing is that Ehrman largely acknowledges the incredible accuracy of the bible and is hung up on a handful of verses that do nothing to change any of the teachings of the church. It's tragically sad.
***** What's sad is that the worlds leading, most recognized unbelieving textual critic will tell you that there are no more than 1 to 2 dozen passages in all of scripture that he believes is questionable and that NONE of the variants have ANY BEARING (None, nothing what so ever) on the beliefs of Christianity (Thus, the beliefs are perfectly maintained) and yet I am the one who is a coward. What's sad is that the greatest example of manuscript evidence outside of the bible existing from the same period as the Bible is Homer's Illiad and there are at most 1800 extent copies available with the oldest copy dating to with 400 years of the original and no scholar doubts that we can know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the current version is accurate to the original writing and yet there are in excess of 24,000 manuscripts in 15+ languages dating back to within 100 years of the original writings and you assert that it is ME who can't face reality. Were that not so sad, it would be comical.
Joe Orsak Bullshit, Ehrman is being civil. No one claims that Homer is god's word. Besides, there is corroborating evidence in the form of frescoes, statues, written dramas and other historical references. There is no corroborating evidence from the first 300 years because Constantine made it up. Any corroborating evidence, "Gnostic Gospels," is so at odds with the Bible that they couldn't be talking of the same thing. The gospel of Mary doesn't even mention the crucifixion. Christianity is a deliberate lie. Faith is not a virtue. Constantine knew this. Common sense, which is a virtue, would turn people into free thinking, educated citizens, not sheep. Time to find true spiritualism Joe. This farce is at an end. My advice- Don't give them your money!
***** "Bruce Metzger is one of the great scholars of modern times, and I dedicated the book to him because he was both my inspiration for going into textual criticism and the person who trained me in the field.... If he and I were put in a room and asked to hammer out a consensus statement on what we think the original text of the New Testament probably looked like, there would be very few points of disagreement - *MAYBE ONE OR TWO DOZEN PLACES OUT OF MANY THOUSANDS*. The position I argue for in ‘Misquoting Jesus’ does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger’s position that *the essential Christian beliefs are NOT AFFECTED BY TEXTUAL VARIANTS in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament*." Say what you want... that's the facts from a highly trained expert in the field who isn't a believer.
He (Bart)😘 sounds like he comes from a place of hurt (I heard a hint of cynicism, the kind that runs like an undercurrent, in a person who is filled with pride, anger, and insecurities (although by the world's academic standards, he's "accomplished."). He also, at times, comes off as condesending (for example, when he refers to his students). That's what I picked up on.
Excellent presentation by James White specially the PowerPoint evidence clearly Bart erhman was shaken in one of rare instances . James did touch Bart's painful part in his scholarly intelligence .
If you haven’t read it, you owe it to yourself to read “The King James Only Controversy.” I’m not getting paid to say that, I just enjoyed it. I even gave it to my mother to read.
Great debate. I agree with White. Why do all the manuscripts have to be perfectly in sync in order for the bible to be credible and believable. This is where faith comes in.
edbtzkhud - not one single doctrine is altered based on textual variants in manuscripts and mainstream bible translations of those manuscripts. Considering Christianity was outlawed by the Roman Empire for 300 years that’s remarkable.
Matthew 24:4 oh really???? At 1 John 5:7, some older Bible translations contain the following words: “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” However, reliable manuscripts confirm that these words were NOT in the original text. They were ADDED later. * Thus, reliable modern Bible translations have EXCLUDED them. God’s personal name appears thousands of times in ancient manuscripts of the Bible. Yet, numerous Bible translations have REPLACED it with titles such as “Lord” or “God.” why is that???? Are you aware of the 16 omitted verses in the NIV RV and KJV? You’re talking about textual variants and im talking added and omitted verses. Apples and oranges my friend. Not to mention the oldest manuscript called the codex sinaiticus, which has more books than your typical bible and more verses than your new bible has.
Because differences is texts signify errors and additons/omissions being made. If there are errors and omissions, than how can you trust that what is being said is the word of God and not human interpretation? Pretty simple.
James While doesn't seem to trust his argument... he keeps dis'ing npr, muslims, muslim apologists, media instead presenting a clean clear set of points that leads to a conclusion.
I think the biggest thing Dr. White is ignoring is that generational copies form a branching structure, a hierarchy. Trying to understand the roots means comparing the earliest places the texts branch out from each other. That's how I think White got that strange statistical model that paints such a positive light in contrast to Ehrman's model which paints such a negative one. White is including intra-commonalities between later generations which have the least trivial impact in terms of differences, while Ehrman is looking at inter-differences at the earliest generations which have the largest impact. The truth is probably somewhere in between. The biggest hints about the original are found in the commonalities between the earliest sources, and that's where they apparently differ the most. Though I think White has a point that there is a convergence between each branch towards later generations. The methods to copy seem to be increasingly reliable with fewer non-trivial differences the further out we go, though that's not a point that Ehrman contested.
I mostly agree with Dr. Bart. His criteria for credibility seems way more clear, simple, straightforward and, logical. Several of his opponent's go around strawmaning his position and just seem interested in confirming what they want not what the evidence and Bart's arguments show. The best point, for me, that White proposed, was that it's better to have no authority or control over the transmission, which I think is partially true, unless there is an oral tradition that's precise down to the letter that existed in the ancient Arab culture and still exists. Then we would have thousands of simultaneous orally transmitted and preserved threads that can be a judge over any corruption in writing, the thing which seems evidently to be missing from the old Greek or Latin cultures that transmitted the text with heavy dependence on written texts, thats why they had to change when they weren't sure, simply because they had no better ways of verification.
Bart Ehrman: " I had never *heard* of James White before I agreed to debate him. He’s a big person in his own small little world, but unknown among scholars of the Bible, which is the world of people I live with…." LOL
Although Dr. Ehrman professes himself to be a New Testament scholar (and I am not one to contest his profession), he seems to be extremely lacking in his understanding of the profession of scribe in the ancient world. The title of scribe is akin to the title of lawyer today. These were extremely well-educated and well-trained individuals. Ehrman's insistence on pushing the assumption that the scribes who made copies of these ancient texts were, somehow, illiterate, unprofessional, or extremely lacking in their ability to perform their duties makes his presuppositions extremely suspect.
Same thoughts crossed my mind. And even if they were not Scribe by trade, a devote Christian with the intent of sharing God's Word wouldn't skip verses and sentences to save time because they were bored.
I actually quite dig Ehrmanns debates but he once made a huge mistake on Mark 1,3 when he claimed that it references Isaiah but Isaiah supposedly didnt say it but exodus did but actually Isaiah 40,3 proves that the reference is correct and he literally bashed the Bible over a ssooo simple thing thag he could have easily read up on but he didnt.. kinda lost a bit of respect there.
Everybody go look for Erhmann debating gnostics and zoroatrianism, he defends Jesus way better than many of us Christians ever have. Sure he still denies the Words of the Bible and the deity of Jesus but he really nails it when it comes to history. Watch him literally destroy gnostics.
TheEmoney321 Bart is not saying that the scribes were somehow innately incompetent... He says that even devoted people at that time made mistakes because that is the nature of manually written copying - they just couldn't help making unintentional mistakes. It happened. Importantly he argues that scribes in the MIDDLE AGES were indeed trained professionals. NOT the scribes in LATE ANTIQUITY - who were the first redactors of the early Christian writings. These earliest christian writers did not hold to the same rigors. Especially before the advent of the printing press. He further mentions that some changes were literally intentional. The scribe wasn't incompetent - the scribe added extra stuff. Did God inspire them to add this stuff? Why wouldn't God just make sure this stuff doesn't get lost in the original writings?
This is very important issue yes but my favorite topic from Dr bart erchman was from his book forged i would love to know more about the actual authors
The problem of this debate is that the underlying issues that form the heart of their difference of opinion are not really debated. Bart Ehrman summarises it correctly at 1:03:51 till 1:06:55: the difference of opinion is not so much about the facts but about the meaning of the facts. What is the meaning and significance of these facts for the Christian faith and theology in general and the doctrine of inspiration in particular? These questions are not really debated, but are the only reason why this debate receives so much attention and comments. Of course Ehrman is right that we cannot know with certainty what the exact words of the original New Testament were and in fact James White acknowleges that. The other way around both speakers acknowledge that the New Testament has much earlier (see for instance part two of the debate at 27:17) and abundant attestation than any other work from antiquity and that the vast majority of variances in the manuscript tradition are without meaning. (The New Testament might actually - compared with other works from antiquity - be one of the most trustworthy works from antiquity that we have, is my impression, notwithstanding that there are meaningful variances in the manuscript tradition). But where does that lead us? James White and Bart Ehrman frame the same facts almost in an opposite way. It is in how they frame the facts that they differ. It would have been interesting if that would have received more emphasis in the debate, but this (difference in) framing wasn't hardly discussed.
Believe it or not, after Bart accused him of talking over everyone's head, he actually spoke differently the 2nd time around. Still a little over my head, but I did understand a few things. Ha.
I come from germany, and dont speak english very good, but one thing is very clear for me after this discusion - James White has won this debate towering. Bart Ehrman cannot longer see the wood for the trees. 1. Corinthians 3: Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. 20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain."
How can you argue against historical fact? The 27 bibles are not from the original source. Wheres the argument? There is none. They are all adulterated. Sorry, but the truth is the truth
Hu Chay You would think it would be that simple. The best argument you could say is that the general gist of the text is correct, but to say it’s 100% accurate to the original is just absurd.
@TJordan14 Assumption 1: they existed. Assumption 2: they died proclaiming the resurrection Assumption 3: they saw what they thought was a resurrection Assumption 4: they correctly understood what they saw Assumption 5: they could not convince themselves of something untrue
@@iamihop1123 by the way assumption 1,2,3 aren't debated anymore.. I don't get assumption 5.. Assumption four is unlikely given the context and other evidence as well. You're free to reject it and combine some other theory and believe that but just telling you
To those thinking Ehrman won, you may not understand that this is not a debate against religion but rather skepticism of the texts and the history of translation. There are skeptics today that believe the earth is flat, among dozens of other conspiracies in a world with video, audio recordings, and copy machines. The historical accuracy of the bible is absolutely amazing to a historian. If only there were so many texts about other nations, we would know much more about Rome, Babylon, Egypt, Persia and Greece, etc. Ehrman assumes that there should be no mistakes because the book is inspired.
Daniel Malinovskiy ehrman assumes that God must protect the bible to a perfect degree of accuracy. How is this assumption justified? The purpose of the bible is not to be perfectly preserved... the purpose of the bible is to redeem humans and guide them through life. It still accomplishes both of these and ehrman puts a needless requirement on the bible that every miniscule detail be correct. Why? It's not important to the purpose of the bible...
Daniel Malinovskiy you say they are skeptics today that believe the world is flat. Doesn't it say in your Bible that the world is flat with a firmament???
Calling scientific inaccuracies "mistakes" is an anachronism that ignores authorial intent. Imagine someone trying to argue that Buddhist Enlightement is impossible because we cannot prove that the Buddha really killed a five headed demon in one of his previous incarnations.
Yeah the historical accuracy of a book that describes places that never existed, things that never existed and an exodus that never happened. Very historically accurate. Christians recognize the hits and ignore the misses.
I am only at the 5:23 mark and already find the basis of Dr. Ehrman's argument to be extremely lacking. His entire argument is reliant on the assumption that, just because one copies a document by hand, he/she will invariably make mistakes, additionally requiring the further assumption that such mistakes would not immediately be corrected. As an elementary school student, my fellow classmates and I were routinely required to make handwritten copies of the Declaration of Independence, the Gettysburg Address, and the Bill of Rights. Even as young students, we took care to meticulously copy every word correctly, and this with only the probable consequence of a reduced letter grade for failing to do so. Christians in the early church, believing that they were copying the text of a document containing a narrative of the life of their Messiah, would (I am sure) have taken much more of an extremely meticulous effort to ensure that what they were copying was correct. Thus far, the entire basis of his argument hinges on the assumption that, because ancient peoples did not have the luxury of our more modern, "advanced" printing technologies, they lacked the capability of taking proper, extremely detailed care to ensure that the information they were copying was correct. That his position relies on this assumption is, in itself, fallacious.
Ezine Anderson ok genius... now explain why there’s more books found in the codex sinaiticus and why the Bible of the Catholics has more books than any other bible. Why are there missing verses in the New international version?I’ll be waiting to hear your explanation. This is gonna be good.
Ehrman points all the time goes like this: One Gosple says "a" the other says "b" and the rest say nohting. So what did really happen? Was it "a" or was it "b". Did Jesus saaid this or did He not, was Jesus here or was He there. According to Ehrman because of these kind of differencies in the Gosples the Gosples are not considered as historic accounts. So my question to him is: Since by his own criteria something which is historic needs to have all 4 Gosples agree on the account does he accept the Resurrection of Christ since all 4 Gosples agree? Is that a historical fact to him? He set the criteria and the Resurrection account fulfills his criteria. I know that there are differencies such as if there was 2 women, 3 women in the Tomb etc. but that doesn't change the fact that they all agree that the Ressurection did happen.
If New Testament is from God Almighty, then this scripture shouldn’t have any CONTRADICTIONS. If Gospel of Mark says "A" then Other Gospels should also say "A", not "B". Bcz God doesn’t make Contradictions.
I've heard him address your question in other debates, so just to paraphrase him: Ehrman does not accept the resurrection as a historical fact because it is a supernatural event. Historians do not have access to assessing supernatural events so the resurrection cannot be proved to be historical. The reason historians do not have access to assessing the resurrection is because the resurrection is a very rare event. He states the example that if one tries to repeatedly walk on liquid water they will repeatedly fail. Jesus may have walked on water but because the event of walking on water is extremely rare today the historian cannot assess whether Jesus walked on water or rose from the dead. Ehrman says there is a theological case to be made for the Resurrection of Christ and he is willing to accept theological explanations of the resurrection but not historical accounts. I hope I was able to capture his view for you.
The actual issue is not whether the original messages are still contained in the current gospels or not. Bart Ehrman went into this debate with essentially one question: "Does God allow interpreters of Christianity to make mistakes?" The answer to this question is the entire foundation of Christianity, and, unfortunately for Christians, no matter how you answer this question, huge problems arise. Now, James White was asserting in this debate that God does allow interpreters of Christianity to make mistakes when he stated that God is not going to control the scribe's hand, or enter the scribe's mind and tell the scribe the truth, or appear and give the scribe some sort of revelation to ensure the scribe writes the truth, nor is God going to send scribes that write something incorrect to the depths of hell or anything like that. That is great for this particular topic. Religious apologists try to only debate in this kind of forum. One where you just give your side and no questions can be asked. Because, when they make an assertion on one religious topic, this assertion will bite them in the butt on another religious topic. The best example for James White's assertion that Christian interpreters can make mistakes without God intervening coming back to haunt him, are the chosen Gospels themselves. There were hundreds of Gospels floating around after Constantine declared that Christianity would be the official religion of the Roman Empire. How were the 27 books of the New Testament chosen from the hundreds that were available? Athanasius in 367 C.E. gave Constantine and the Church a list of books that would essentially become the New Testament. Now, according to James White, Athanasius could have been mistaken. Athanasius was trying to interpret what God wanted humans to read and worship. According to James White, God does not intervene if a human mis-interprets Christianity. It wasn't that God gave Athanasius a revelation, or went into his head to reveal which Gospels were the true Gospels of Christianity, God did not control Athanasius' hand when he wrote his list of books according to James White, so, according to James White, Athanasius could have been wrong when he chose these 27 books. Maybe 1 or 2 books shouldn't be included. Maybe 4 or 5 other Gospels that were not included should have been included. Maybe, none of the 27 chosen are the books that God wanted humans to read or follow. After James White gave his speech, if questions could be asked, all Bart Ehrman had to ask was: "Are you saying that Athanasius could have been mistaken and chosen the wrong books for the New Testament?" No matter how James White answered, it would have been confusing for religious apologists. If James White had answered no, God would have intervened and ensured that Athanasius chose the right books, then, that answer makes Bart Ehrman's original question: "Why would God allow scribes to copy the gospels incorrectly?" a question that would require an answer. Forcing James White to explain this, no matter how he answered, would hurt his assertion that God wouldn't intervene when someone made a mistake in copying Christian Gospels. If James White had answered yes, it is possible that Athanasius chose the wrong books and God would not intervene when someone was trying to interpret Christianity, then he would also have had to admit that the books within the New Testament might not make God happy, and could even make God angry. That is why religious apologists try to only enter discussions where questions are not on the agenda or not allowed. I know, Christian apologists want to say: "God wouldn't interfere with someone trying to copy scripture, but God would definitely interfere and ensure that Athanasius chose the right books." That makes no sense and you cannot have it both ways. If God is concerned with humans having the correct books, and worshiping correctly, then you also have to answer: Why would God allow these scribes to make a mistake when copying the gospels, and why would God not preserve the original gospels and allow them to be lost or destroyed? God either doesn't intervene when humans make a mistake in interpreting Christianity, or God does. Pick one, I don't care which. If you are going to choose God's actions so they fit your current argument, based on the current religious topic, and then change God's behaviour given a similar or even identical situation, without any explanation, so the infinitely changing actions you are attributing to God are not based on reason or evidence, just based on fulfilling your feelings towards Christianity, not only are your arguments, but Christianity as a whole, would be built on absolutely nothing and would be meaningless. This is the tactic that James White is basing his argument. I cannot answer who is right or who is wrong. I can say this: One presenter's argument, even though gospels have been lost and we cannot know the entire history of Christianity, is based on the evidence we do possess. This presenter does not make any conclusions about God's behaviour, he simply asks "Why would God allow this?". The other presenter's argument is based on their feelings towards Christianity and makes conclusions about God's behaviour, which, given a similar situation could change based on the presenter's feelings towards different aspects of Christianity.
36:32 This methodology of reversing the graph to try and re-sway is very shallow and unsubstantial. Meaningful variants is not defined. It shows a very elementary and borderline pathetic attempt at persuasion. When you are talking about Inerrancy, the size of the meaningful variants bar means NOTHING. Something is either 100% absolutely perfect or it is not.
That’s why they say “inerrant in the original texts”. Everyone knows there’s some human error in translating and transcribing things. I’m not even sure why this is as large of a debate as it is
“These differences matter!” As a non-Trinitarian believer, I'm inclined to agree. They don't destroy my faith in the text, but they do destroy my faith in the Trinity.
@@juri8723 I grew up in a sect of christianity with several million people in it, taught the bible and that jesus was my savior my entire life, and I literally never even heard of the trinity until I was in high school, and I was baffled about where people possibly could have gotten such an idea since it's nowhere in the bible. So yeah, there's non-trinitarian believers.
Fantastic debate. Dr Ehrman and Dr White presented their arguments well. I felt disappointed with Dr Ehrmans rebuttal; it doesn't seem that he fully understood Dr Whites arguments or was familiar with his work which is why he seemed to repeat a lot of his original statement. His thesis of perfect transmission as the qualifier for inspiration is unrealistic and would in fact disqualify us from having a reasonable certainty of what the contents of the autograph of any work of antiquity is since the new testament is foremost the most well attested. Multiple lines of transmission do in fact bring robustness into the manuscript tradition so that the original text is not lost. More data points brings in more variance but also helps to establish the proper trends more conclusively. This is in fact what happened in the time early church as they sought to obey the commandment to go into all the world and spread the gospel...
Strange comments from Ehrman on this debate from his site. "I wasn’t sure whether I should post this debate or not. Frankly, it was not a good experience. I normally do not have an aversion to the people I debate. But James White is that kind of fundamentalist who gets under my skin. To be fair, he would probably not call himself a fundamentalist. Then again, in my experience, very few fundamentalists *do* call themselves fundamentalists. Usually a “fundamentalist” is that guy who is far to the right of *you* - wherever you are! Someone on the blog can correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe White does hold to the absolute inerrancy of the Bible. If so, given what else I know about him, I’d call him a fundamentalist. In any event, he’s a smart fellow and came to the debate loaded for bear. But it’s good to see me at not my best as well as at my best." Also "He’s not a scholar because he does not have scholarly training, does not have scholarly credentials, and never publishes any works of scholarship. My aversion to him is simply rooted in the fact that he does not seem to be a nice guy. I have no problem with him being a committed Christian believer; but when someone is that offensive, I tend to take offense!" Sounds like he thinks that he lost.
"He’s not a scholar because he does not have scholarly training, does not have scholarly credentials, and never publishes any works of scholarship. " Wow, if he really stated that, that's ridiculous. I have some of White's publications, they are great scholarly works, among the best I read in the field of theology. Unless you define as "scholarly" nothing that defends God rather than cutting him out as a presupposition. About not being a nice guy...well that's personal opinion. I like White far better than Ehrman in regards of personality (I don't like at all the way Ehrman seeks to convince people - I think Craig is fairly accurate in his critique with "good Bart" and "bad Bart"), but here people really might differ. The great thing about White is how well prepared he goes into debates like this. He doesn't rely on cheap debating tricks, but really studies his opponents and tries to represent them with accuracy. Many could and should learn from him here.
***** You miss my point. James White got the better of Bart in this one (has have many other debaters with Bart) and all Bart can do is then engage in insults, lies and character assassination. If Bart felt that he done badly in the debate (which he states on his blog) and feels that he was misquoted or has something to add then fine. But instead Bart resorts to words and statements about White like 'fundamentalist', 'he does not have scholarly training', 'he is not a nice guy' etc. He has said similar things about other scholars like William Lane Craig who he said made fun of him (Craig did not do so he just explained how the modern probability calculus shuts down many of Bart's argument). This is Bart's problem he debates, often loses and then writes about the character, scholarly background of his opponent to undermine his opponents' argument (my opponent is a jerk do not listen to him, I am not a jerk listen to me). None of Bart's opponents do this, it is not normal even for debaters to engage in such boorish behaviour (even for the loser). The problem is Bart's and his alone.
Goddamn, do you James White fans and James White himself have to whine and moan about every person he debates? You idiots said the same thing about Sungenis, Armstrong, Stafford, and Staples. It's always, "The opponent was outlandish..boorish..blah blah blah." Utter nonsense. James White has acted like a complete you know what in most debates (That's not an exaggeration) and generally his opponents are actually pretty nice. Ehrman was being pretty cool. White kept asking bizarre questions about the Qu'ran which quite literally had nothing to do with the debate. James White is not a doctor, not a scholar, has never written anything peer-reviewed. He's a shock jock apologist. Not taken seriously by people in the "real world," just some radical fundamentalist parts of the Web.
I find Dr. Ehrman's expectation on the need for the ORIGINAL manuscript.....for example, the actual letter Paul wrote to the Romans or the actual letter Paul wrote to the corinthians to be highly unrealistic...
For a book of philosophy or wisdom, or any text, other than one that threatens you with hell for not getting everything right, it would be crazy to demand the literal original from the pen of the author, but with a text threatening you with hell for all eternity unless you get everything right, that text sure as hell better be perfectly preserved as in all manuscripts agree 100% and the original from the pen of the author still around to check this perfect preservation.
David Brainerd I don't see how the standard of reasonable believability changes depending on the subject. Is the claim supported or not? The amount of support needed to justify belief doesn't depend on the claim
Bart said that the printers had to decided which text to print when it came to printing the Bible since there were so many different texts at that time. He is wrong. Actually, this never happened because the predominate church (The Catholic Church) at that time used the Latin Vulgate. So the printers just chose the primary text used throughout Europe, the Latin version of the text and printed it. It was the first thing that was ever printed on the first printing machine.
Its amusing that Bart criticizes his students. Is anyone here s member of his blog? I'm often amazed at how many spelling mistakes I find in his blog posts. And he has spell check too!
I deeply appreciate the work Dr Bart Ehrman has done. It has helped me to understand my own faith and the claim in the Quran about bible discrepancies and corruption. Thank you
Bart, you are putting "all" of history on notice by stating that "a copy of a copy" is unreliable. That means that all historical documents that we have (religious or otherwise) are riddled with mistakes and we cannot trust any of them. In one simple but fatal sweep, you destroyed the reliability of all texts. We can also suggest the opposite. That many of these scholars were efficient in their labor of copying techniques. Yes, some mistakes, but not unreliable. What do you call this type of argument? Oh yes, Strawman fallacy.
If the text is not "perfectly preserved," and falls under the same criteria for analysis and imperfection as other scholarly work of the time, as Dr. White contends, then it's just another book, as they are, and not divinely inspired. You can't have it both ways. And, no, it's absolutely not beyond God's capability to preserve it 100%, if that is what He wanted to do.
What do you mean by "perfectly preserved". By being preserved Dr. White is saying that the books we have are not corrupted by people trying to intentionally askew the texts to a different meaning. If I say " I have a brown cat that eats dog food" for instance, and that gets recorded somewhere as me saying "I have a dog food eating cat that is brown" you can see the multitude of variants, but the word is preserved. The meaning is not changed though the text is.
You’re misunderstanding the Bible, the Bible is truly Divine and truly human. The faulty Muslim perspective about the Quran has no basis to have confidence in who the author/s was. They just have to trust what woodman gave them. The Bible On the contrary has been preserved by God far more beautifully and sophisticated than you can imagine.
This is actually a pretty asinine comment for there isn't a single verse that alludes that every single word written will be maintained precisely and that the consequence of scribal error would be proving its validity or lack thereof, in fact, it couldn't be because that's not how linguistics work at all. So, it's simply a self proposed straw-man with more self proposed implications. The essence of scripture in itself is important but not necessary for there were many illiterate individuals who believed and understood the Gospel before the "Bible" as we know it in its fully collected form was developed. The biggest mistakes in the translations are ones such as a scribe missing a line, or reiterating something slightly different. Common human mistakes, it wasn't like God's Hand came down from the clouds with the ink pen of holiness to write every single manuscript translation even within the concept of inspiration.
Idk why Bart would use so much of his time to tell the audience that only a couple of them will have an open mind. It's not his job to estimate his chances of winning but to make a case that wins.
You can lead a zealot to reason but you can’t make them think
If the universe was created by some unknown deity and it came to earth to reveal itself for the first time, I have no doubt that the theists would think it's Satan trying to trick them. They need their belief because it gives them hope, meaning and purpose regardless if it's false. A lot of them are willfully ignorant and if anybody has seen this on display it's Bart so I get where he's coming from.
@@Alpine1996 Whites arguments were better and had substance, so what you're saying here actually makes no sense. Ehrman knew from the beginning that his arguments were poor, so he was at least smart enough to know he had to convince with a plea. Yet, his convincing should've been with facts, not a mere plea.
@@blacksabbath1022 Good point you've made here. If that's the case, then neither atheists nor Christians grasped the truth of this universe correctly. However, if the biblical account of the universe happened to be true, if the universe was created by the origin of everything, and he sent his son to this earth once, and again he shall return. When he returns, I have no doubt that the atheists would think it's some kind of material/scientific event that can be explained away. They need their belief because it gives them hope, meaning, and purpose regardless if it's false. You see, the same can be said about atheism, of course, your response is going to be something like: well, I don't have any faith, I just followed the evidence, and if that's what happens, I'll surely believe then. The key is evidence and faith, both you and I need both, to you the experiential, biblical, and theological, even scientific evidence I hold is trash, that's alright, I can respect that. However, it's dishonest for you to judge people for being ignorant when you're essentially doing the same thing in order to hold any thought or belief at all. Good day, love from China.
@@LoveYou-xi1mh exactly
Yes. Dr. White, you are correct in saying that all ancient writings are of questionable veracity and that the standard for these writings is probability rather than certainty. The role of historians is to determine the most probable likelihood of interpretation based upon very meager sources recorded for a variety of motivations. There is far from necessary and sufficient documentation to validate what is found in ancient and often fragmentary texts.
This is one of the best debates I have heard. I love listening to debates and have listened to many. I actually learned some things in this debate.... it was more than just entertaining... it was educational. Who cares who technically wins or loses (each side always thinks their side won) I care more about if it is fair, respectful, fun and educational. This one gets high marks in each of those areas.
I've listened to it going on 3 times now. Wish these two would debate again.
Apparently Ehrman admitted to this not being his best debate...hmmm
Laurie Ann I completely agree with you! This is my first time watching this one but have watched many of James White debates.
yay and amen!
@@Vae07 even when it wasn't his best debate he still destroyed White hands down
White totally destroyed Ehrman who is essentially a pseudo-theosophical hack.
Every time Bart Ehrman made a joke about textually variants he was the only one laughing. I'm a Christian and to make you feel better about your jokes Bart, I laughed to.
One of Ehrman's more challenging debate opponents.
Thank you for posting this, Mr. Ehrman. I appreciate that you took time out of your schedule to show us both sides of this issue. I am solidly on the side of Mr. White's take on the issue but I do want you to know that I wouldn't know as much about this if it weren't for you. I will continue to study and follow the truth, as I understand it, where it leads.
👌🏾👌🏾
Mr Ehrman won the debate by far. “Ye shall not add unto the word which I (God) command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.” (Deuteronomy 4:2)
@@SA-mw5om there was no competition to win or lose the debate here, however I can see Mr White made much stronger points. 41.49 👌
@@SA-mw5om
Those books of the Torah were DIRECTLY SPOKEN AND DICTATED by God to Moses, it was not just inspired by God. So it's normal God expected Moses to write word for word what he heard from God, and Moses did.
That has nothing to do with those cases of the New Testament Mr Ehrman mentionned, which were not DIRECTLY DICTATED by God to Matthew or John, but were inspired, and did not have that command of deuteronomy 4v2.
Another book which has parts that were directly dictated by God is the book of Revelation and there you'll see the same divine expectation as in the torah: "I testify to everyone who hears the words of prophecy in this book: If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19And if anyone takes away from the words of this book of prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and the holy city, which are described in this book" Revelation 22v18-19.
If you base yourself on this argument to say Mr Ehrman "won" the debate, I'm afraid you need to listen to the debate once again, especially Dr White's explanations.
James White and Walter White have the same barber.
Lol
Ha!
@M Y don't be silly !! Of course James and Walter aren't brothers. They're the same person !!!
@@mr4nders0n No they two person from different world
Old age ?
These debates will go on forever but if you really want to get to the bottom line, it's this:
1) If Jesus didn't rise from the dead, it's over. Christianity is fake.
2) If Jesus rose from the dead, you better get in line and realise that Christianity is the only way to salvation.
Text variations or the story about the adulteress being fake (we don't know it's fake - we just know it's added later) are meaningless.
You have to decide what you believe - either 1 or 2 above.
Have a nice day and God Bless.
Well that will do it..Santa Claus has more validity than the ressurection..
Emperor Atheist I don't what is more ignorant and stupid, the unsupported non historical idea of a spaghetti monster or your statement.
^^^^ That made my day. When you give a serious argument, in most cases the opposition's response is frivolous. This obviously to any serious intellect is one of those cases, Santa Clause = Saint Nicholas who is a "made up character promoting a fake God"
Really the big questions are why do atheist choose not believe in a divine force or God. Why do they actively choose to live in a purposeless, meaningless chaos in which no one's actions has any real significance, no hope of any justice and all lives end abruptly at death?
The atheists believe God is made up, if that is the case, God was made up for a reason. Probably society and cultural issues. Remove it and you will end up with a Communist government. Whoever is in charge is your god. An example not given much, Tibet. The Dali Lama was exiled from Tibet by Communist China. North Korea is another prime example.
Atheists want to live with all the joys and benefits provided by Christianity but not pay the dues.
sosalpha A very good answer.
Convincing evangelicals of that is a very difficult task. I used to be one until I did research and changed my mind. Unless these people decide they really want to know and research actual history, it won't happen. Most church goers don't know what's in the bible they believe in. They're happy going to church and hearing the niceties their pastor tells them.
When I was going to church, I never heard one thing about how the bible endorses slavery in Exodus, Leviticus and Ephesians. Or how it endorsed killing homosexuals, adulterers and disobedient children. Or in Numbers about Balaam's talking donkey( Probably where they got the idea for the old sitcom Mr. Ed).
And we know why.
My review of this part of the debate:
Bart had a stronger opening statement. He got straight to the point, explained his position well, and was easy to understand while James’s was scripted and kind of hard to parse. Both bring up solid arguments though.
James had stronger rebuttals to Bart, though both kind of floundered with personal attacks. James addressed the flaws Bart brought up pretty well. Bart didn’t do that particularly well, but it’s understandable given his audience and probably really high-pressure circumstances.
In the end i feel the jabs against each other was a little unprofessional but the content was pretty enlightening. Definitely not a simple subject matter. James is seemingly more lenient with his acceptance of the bible, because he is satisfied with a wholistic overview of the text. Bart i feel struggles more with the nitty gritty. He needs absolutely solid evidence for this, which unfortunately I don’t think James managed to articulate effectively. Great debate in the end
I believe that Bart argued using the I don't know argument, some how I believe it is more strong than I thought, it depends on our ignorance if the places where there are no variants in the manuscripts we have today agree or disagree with the originals since it is possible to be different.
So if the disagreements are possible we can't decide if they are significant variants.
These possibilities are proved by the manuscripts under our hands.
The best we can say today is that the nt text is better than other text of the same period.
But be careful, Bart didn't say that every statement in the nt is not reliable, since he himself believe in the historical Jesus and his crucifixion depending on the NT it self as you can see in other debates.
So all he was trying to do here is to show that we can't rid off the possibility using the many manuscripts argument, it is the variants in these many manuscripts that raise this possibility.
So I believe Bart made his case.
@@Wadshammadi i agree, Bart has a point. But what James said was that it doesn’t matter in the end. His argument was that even if we have different manuscripts, the original is still there. And the way we know what the original said is by comparing all the variants. He points out that virtually all of the differences have no impact on Christian theology, but for the 1% that does matter, they put both versions, either as footnotes or extra passages just in case.
Bart would have to argue that the originals were lost at some point somehow, which I’m pretty sure he tries to convey, but he doesn’t do it well. Their analogy is pretty good for this: Bart is saying we have like 70-80% of the actual originals, but James says we have 102%. Who is correct? In order for Bart to make a solid case, he’d have to show or at least describe a reasonable explanation as to how such a significant portion of the text had been lost. He says this is through successive changes over time.
But James says because the original manuscripts were never all compiled, nor in the same locations, even if there were copyist errors (which I agree with Bart - were many), they all changed differently. But even so, looking at all of them now, 99% of the manuscripts correlate. He has the stronger case. Not foolproof, but stronger.
@@kennylee6499 Thank you for responding,
If u r intrested i would like to continue on this subject not in youtube, but on facebook or any other place, i still see that Bart is right, and James didn't refute him well, but i respect his viewpoint and if u can offer even more to support his case it will be intresting.
I have to disagree. I thought White's opening statement was devastating to Ehrman's argument.
Bart is unquestionably one of the most respectful secular scholars in the world.
He puts it into perspective, that is for sure!
James White didn't talk anything about the complete addition of verses at the end of the Gospel of Mark: (Verses about the resurrection of Jesus), As Dr Bart has clearly pointed out, these verses weren't there in the early manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark, I think adding verses to someone's book and then later trying to attribute those writing to the original author is not acceptable!
Dr. White won this debate hands down. I've watched all of Ehrmans debates and he clearly has won them all, until this one. Hats off to Dr. White for keeping it scholarly and classy. Ehrman was heated the whole time. Lol
Excellent lecture!! Thanks for uploading it and make it available to us all.
I am a Christian but I think Bart did a great job. A lot of Christians claim the bible is a perfect book and contains no errors. I think Bart proves this can’t be the case. This doesn’t disprove Christianity.
No, you're just unfamiliar with the subject. I'd suggest paying closer attention to White's presentation.
If we haven't got the originals and we know that things were put in and left out later, how can we possibly know that something absolutely crucial hasn't been left out?
Bart could have spent his time better giving specific examples where variants *do* make a difference.
vicachcoup
The Bible has been shown to be historized Fiction not Fact
Uh.... He did......You weren't listening...:)...
Read Mark and John, see if you notice any differences. Someone misinterpreted the word of god in those two books.
he did at 1:06:00
@@duguoqing84 No, he only enumerated the list again. He didn't actually show in the variant texts where those doctrinal points are impacted specifically. He didn't want to go there because he didn't have anything to substantiate the claims, or else he would have done it.
What a terrible rebuttal by Bart. Totally skipped over the major points of White's opening statement just to reiterate his own opening statement. He also completely missed the point of the similarities of the manuscripts on opposing ends of the spectrum of threads of transmission.
I agree. What a weak rebuttal. And what's the deal with that "appeal"? He sounded desperate. Then he continues to hammer away at the point about textual differences that White refuted better than Ehrman argued either time.
I disagree. I think White lost this debate.
i agree with you disagreeing. i think Bart's rebuttal is strong, altho he might skip some important points, but he smashed a lot of White's arguments
Bankhead 1 And whats worse is that James White is Unsure whether or not his convoluted observations are are On point, Ensuring his Ego to win this debate when in reality he did Lost to Ehrmans well educated form of Observations not Only from himself but from Other Expert Scholars that agreed with him as a whole.
I wholly disagree with Antoine Mason. Keeping an open mind to both sides. Dr. White gets my vote. Logically speaking, if Ehman decides to discredit copies of the originals, then he would have to discredit general contemporary history of that time altogether. By reasons that written history on Christ was continuous & ongoing through time. More than any other ancient antiquities of that same time period. Its silly to expect ancient scribers to possess the technology to preserve such "original" written materials. Which is why written copies was needed. It's like Ehman expects someone from 1895 to preserve a can of "original" beans up until this day. How rational is that argument?
It would be fun to see a rematch between Dr. Ehrman and Dr. White now that White is doing a PhD on the subject.
Love watching intelligent debates where both sides are well informed. God bless!
Well, one side was well-informed. The other side still has imaginary friends.
Robert D well I suppose you believe in evolution then 😂 which is worse than a religion, it's a scam
FLAT EARTH BIBLE i feel sorry for you .. I genuinely do. On the other hand : blessed are the poor in spirit. Yeah you might be a quite happy chap
@@flatearthblackswan3603 abiogenesis can account for everything, said the atheist.
Mark Ingersoll not all atheists think abiogenesis happened, or the big bang, or evolution. those are separate theories and positions from atheism; not to mention you'd be hard pressed to find an atheist who has ever said abiogenesis solves everything
Very good from James White! So much more informations. He really used his time extremly good! Like!
@1:02:00 Bart stated that there are other points of view and don't write them off because there're uncomfortable. This is so true. I was brought up as a Pre-Triber and now that I am learning Greek and actually studding the Bible, I see that what I was taught is wrong. Has that ruffled some feathers
So what in the Greek changed your mind? Are you saying the English is accurate?
Which Greek words convinced you that pre-trib is untrue?
To Dr Ehrman, as an evangelical Christian of IMHO strong faith, I agree more with the arguments of James White than with yours. However, there is one area where I grant you complete superiority. You allow ratings and comments on your videos and Dr James does not. He claims to hate com boxes because people act like second graders. But to me this is an area where his skin is too thin. He is also filtering out praise for his work and constructive and gracious criticism. So Kudos to you for permitting ratings and comments.
@vctjkhme They would fail logic classes as well.
I'm not a NT scholar, but the way Ehrman supposes certain ideas is on a second grade level.
@Jasper Jack Did you watch the videos? LOL. The problem with your view is the errors do not touch any of the major teachings of Christianity! See Daniel Wallace on this perhaps the equal of Erhman on the manuscripts.
It’s not about his skin being too thin. It’s about proffering. Christians in the comments calling each other “faggots” and “assholes”. It’s a poor representation for both sides of any discussion and he doesn’t want his platform to be used to host it.
I personally prefer to leave comments open but I’m not about to misrepresent James White because I am mad that I can’t get my two cents in the comment section of his videos.
@Jasper Jack
30,000 'errors'? that number you gave shows you have no idea what you are talking about.
there are actually over four-hundred-thousand 400,000 textual variants, not just 30,000.
99,5 % of them being typos and grammar mistakes in other words nontheological issues.
I wished that James enabled comments. Agree 100%.
This debate was won by James at 41:50
1:27:04 Why should we believe that this standard is unreasonable? What makes this more unreasonable than other miracles, including divine inspiration?
I wish I had a £1 for every time Bart says "copy of the copy of the copy", I'd be a very rich person.
You probably would be, as there indeed copies of copies of copies..
Mrreciprocat to make it worse.............the very first manuscript of any of them would have been the result of writing down what had been transpired as oral tradition (can you say gossip among hopeful believers) for decades over thousands of miles and different languages as story telling before its even documented.................what kind of inspired process is that?
We are arguing of the most accurate manuscript of superman comic books here.........trying to get the story right of something in which the supernatural of its contents are fiction.
@@philsterthephilster Did you know that all we have for ALL of the classical works of antiquity is copies of copies of copies? Bart Ehrman takes advantage of people's ignorance of history and the process of textual criticism to bring the most reliable text in history into doubt.
Jessica Miller All the classical works don’t make claims about a messiah. There’s a big difference between excepting historical and theological claims from antiquity.
another christian loser, defending a fairy tale book;
and if god is perfect, what's the point of having a debate...?
This is the greatest debate I have ever seen. Great arguments from both sides. I like how precise Dr. Bart Ehrman communicates.
Dr. Ehrman has opened my eyes. Thank you so much for your candor, knowledge and sincerity.
Dr. White is a very intelligent scholar in the New Testament. Bart Ehrman sees the New Testament out of the apologetic bubble. Even though Dr. White can prove the consistency of the ancient text, it does not prove that they were factual. He just shows consistency in the oral tradition.
Such a good debate. Love Dr. White and his ministry.
Thank you Bert for stranghtening my faith!! God must have worked overtime when preserving the Word
MO MO explain the prophecies within the Bible if this is the case ?
When Ehrman got rude, condescending, insulting, interrupting and nearly began yelling he showed to everyone his personal hostility on the issue so he cannot honestly claim that his views are merely a result of scholarly study devoid of emotion or personal motivation.
This guy has personal issues coming out of his ears.
He is 100% correct about Christianity it is a joke and is base on
man mad lies!!!!
A Shah Nope try again
🙈
@@abraarhussain786 Your assertion "about Christianity" being "base on
man mad lies". I presume you meant "based on
man made lies", this being so, could you be so kind as to elucidate further on your assertion, for I fear you may be in error, especially since many of the doctrines and teachings of Christian thought and practice, far from being the basis of trivial mirth have indeed been the basis of a most rich and diverse means of personal development, as has been the testimony of many a great saint and mystic.
@@abraarhussain786 you truly choose to ignore history or even seeking God yourself..the joke will be on you unless you change.
I thought Ehrman would win this one but it was just the opposite ,white overwhelmed ehrman with incredible points ,and It’s effects could clearly been seen in ehrmans mannerisms during his rebuttal
I'm a Bible-believing Christian, but I appreciate Ehrman's debate skills. He's very good.
What about the truth?
That's something worth appreciating too.
He invites students to take a crack at copying over a text to see how easy it was to introduce errors, but he doesn't establish that that is how the transcription process worked. In fact, even today, when working on things like serious academic papers and business quality proposals, the process usually involves several people work together simultaneously. It was a slow and simple process, but it didn't have to be as haphazard as his students are led to believe.
You cannot discount the reality that there were easily many complete manuscripts that we don’t have, that the early copyists did have. Who knows what passages may have been added that were missing from some, and present in others that have not been found yet. It is a goal post that could move depending on new discoveries. This is a complex, and ever changing pursuit.
i'd never seen this debate. it surprised me to see that white actually comfortably won it.
+rocco flavioni This is a usage of the word 'won' with which I am unfamiliar.
lol! it will be fun to watch. Bart will convert to islam and then after 2 or 3 days, he realizes how painful it is to be in that religion. He then denounces islam and continues his journey destroying islam as an ex Muslim.omg! it will be hilarious!!
Abu taj md mahbub Ul alam you must then disregard the Quran since Shabir Ally leaned on numerical miracles proving the 1900's Quran is the true word of God. So much of the Quran has been changed its asinine to believe it is without error.
I wasn’t sure whether I should post this debate or not. Frankly, it was not a good experience. I normally do not have an aversion to the people I debate. But James White is that kind of fundamentalist who gets under my skin. To be fair, he would probably not call himself a fundamentalist. Then again, in my experience, very few fundamentalists *do* call themselves fundamentalists. Usually a “fundamentalist” is that guy who is far to the right of *you* - wherever you are! Someone on the blog can correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe White does hold to the absolute inerrancy of the Bible. If so, given what else I know about him, I’d call him a fundamentalist.
In any event, he’s a smart fellow and came to the debate loaded for bear. But it’s good to see me at not my best as well as at my best. Bart Ehrman!
I thought Bart won the debate...his facts were clear and evident. I believe his finding to be evidence that the Bible was not written by God.
Bart Ehrman says he will not believe unless he has the original documents. I doubt that very much. If we found the original documents he would still say they were lies.
This is incorrect. Ehrman has stated that even if the originals were found he would not be a believer - he does not believe in the Christian God due to the issue of suffering in the world.
ianrwood21 This makes sense to me because it seems that his logic is driven by something besides the facts.
ianrwood21 Sorry for not seeing your reply and sorry for the delay in responding.
"he does not believe in the Christian God due to the issue of suffering in the world."
Ehrman is the worst theologian I have ever seen. That there is suffering in the world is spoken about ALL THROUGH THE BIBLE!
Excuse my shouting. Suffering is very much a part of the Biblical narrative and to believe God doesn't exist because of suffering is ignorance of the Biblical narrative. Since Bart went to these classes in University I can only assume he was A: looking out the window during his classes, B: was looking at the cute brunett during classes, C: was asleep or stoned out of his mind during classes or D: is just being difficult.
Paul B.
That there is huge suffering in the world and this makes no sense under a supposedly all powerful benevolent God is a fact
ianrwood21 If there was no suffering in the world the Bible would be inert.
it's weird how Bart's comments don't pull me further into disbelief of the new testament, but rather Jame's comments and attempts to dismiss things. when he says "people don't believe the bible is 100% accurate" (paraphrasing)......I'm like, yeah everyone in my entire church attending life in numerous churches believe it like that. i'm re-evaluating all my sunday school teachers with a side eye right now.
I agree with White that the other side needs to be told. This is encouraging me more to know the history of the bible. A shift from simply reading and obeying. Knowing this kind of detail provides more confidence in proclaiming you are a Christian.
I am a muslim and i agree but there is no trinity in the entire bible and you don't have to be muslim to believe that
He didn't leave a book he left a church! The New testament was a sacrament before it was a document.
Michael Lawlor agreed
There is nothing to substantiate this claim. It is a fool hearted gambit to cling on a human declaration for absolute truth.
Paul is a great example; contradicts the Christ nearly every place he writes.
Hod gave us truth and love to sift through the world; not only is the NT a VITALLY important document with wise insight spoken by the Holy Christ, but it is also layered in flaws of man.
The Bible is like an egg. You must crack open, discard the shell and cook the contents before it can be nutritious. As a matter if fact, a raw egg may be harmful.
Buying into the NT being wholly inerrant is like tossing whole eggs in your gullet and hoping not to get a stomach ache.
@@espositogregory Interesting comment. How do you personally feel Paul contradicts Jesus in the NT? I agree there are human errors, seems like a fusion of divine inspiration in its original form, which is in Aramaic and not Greek, but meshed with human fingerprints and potentially some manipulation over time. I've uncovered some crazy mistranslations of lines and words that are so deeply ingrained into Christian culture..I am a believer in Christ 100% no matter how many issues with any texts there may be though in what we have today.
So because it had to be copied, bart has a hard time.... such a strong argument.
@D O It's much closer to the time for one. Secondly, the narratives of their death quite clearly assume that they believe this man is God. Remember these deaths took place in the first century.(As Bart said its the best kept book in the ancient world). Additionally, you can quote church fathers from many many letters. And these are persons directly after the apostles. In fact, you can look at the church father's disciples writings as well. The story isn't developing or changing. Check out Polycarp,Ireaneus and continue. Ireaneus in fact seems to communicate to persons in the late second century, that memoirs of the apostles are still present and they can check them. So this idea, that hey this persecuted sect was just copying and throwing away their sacred scriptures.
My favorite Speaker, Bart. Ehrman !
***** There's not such thing ''Islamic world'' cz If muslims live in a country whether in minority or majority Doesn't mean, it's ''Islamic'' country or world. Their Government doesn't run by Islamic law, except republic, monarchy, theocracy, etc, but not Abide by Islamic laws.
These Muslims leaders might use Islamic law to grant punishments for crimes, but not as a WHOLE do those countries run by Islamic Law.
Likewise, you have this stereotypical conception in which, you don't know whether Debates have taken place in India, Pakistan, Dubai, or not. ahmad deedat's debates, and Zakir Naik's debate.
Up here in western and European world, these Scholars are arguing over their ''word of God'' whereas in Muslim world, we don't have an Iota of doubt what Qur'an is, it's 100% pure in its nature, and word and revelation from Allah(God), so that's why Muslim Scholars don't argue or Question he validity of Qur'an cz it's preservation can't be compare to any of the book in this World, it's exceptional. you may wanna disagree, it's your choice.
Thnx anyways !
Idk why you're scared of Death when you know you can't escape from it can't you?
As for last sentence, if You think conduction a marriage with 6yrs old wasn't appropriate, then the Whole Muslims, and Muslim women won't be Believing in such a thing.
You're being ignorant of learning about Islam, cz you know Truth hurts.
Indeed Jesus (PBUH) said ''seek it the truth, and truth shall set you free''
Thnx !
Oh, so you have problem with Islam, well you know what, go do what you want, or do what you like, it doesn't affect me nor Islam.
When you read something with negativity, you find nothing but negative due to your mentality.
Man go enjoy your coffee (which you got cz of Muslims), but have a little cup of coffee and watch soccer. Idk where r u even here lol
Thnx !
Ohhh Enlightenment Ideals, you know what good for you.
So is Islam threat or the Muslims ??
I'm taught to be kind, no matter how much you criticize and I have no problem taking criticism cz according to Hadith tradition, it's Ok to take criticism cz the person who criticizes you; his good deeds are taken away and the one who's being criticized gets add into his account, so at the day of Judgment, I'll have them as a reward.
In times of difficulties, we're taught to be patient, so you know.
Thnx anyway I like your comments cz they're not too abusive, cz I don't like to chat or talk with those who use abusive language cz nither of us or them gonna benefit from it !
Ohhh, thnx for your concern for dragging ISlam from its hair lol
You can talk, but do nothiing I'm 100% sure !
This is very interesting in-depth debate. I myself am not too familiar with the fact how the New Testament manuscripts have been preserved over time. Many things mentioned did go way over my head, but anyway, this great insight into New Testament textual critism and serves as a good reference.
James White, i want that tie!
What is on it? Looks like a coffee stain on the bottom of it lol - my eye sight not the best so i am trying to legit figure it out
@@TheGEOPOLITICIANGUY 53:33
I understood James, but I have also been reading about translation. I think Bart may be used to students who may not be engaged in class.
Bart was being condescending to the audience. James tore his opening statement to pieces and he knew it.
Matthew 24:4 James’ opening statement was basically agreeing with Bart on everything he said except there being major changes. How is that “tearing to pieces?”
Matthew 24:4 - now James can’t find the original bible ..
The very basic point that Bart seems to be missing is this: just because something isn't "perfect" doesn't mean its underlying message isn't real and the historical events it alludes to didn't take place. (the fact that so many thousands of manuscripts DO say basically the same thing indeed strengthens the notion that the gospels are based on real events.). Nothing he said makes me doubt Jesus was a historical figure who died and resurrected; Bart's observations are fine and well, and it's indeed a fact that errors occurred during translation. But none of those errors change the overall message of the gospels in the SLIGHTEST.
Sure they do, if we're being honest with ourselves! The people who wrote the bible cared about when Jesus (AS) died. They cared about if He said "God, God! Why hast thou forsaken me?" or "Father into your hands I commend my spirit.". If it matters enough to them to write it, then it should matter to you what actually happened that day.
The idea that a person died and resurrected himself at will isn’t by definition a historical event. This is a supernatural claim that needs a supernatural amount of evidence to be proven historically.
@@sirsaltalot5480 Do you believe in the supernatural?
Fallacy. They do. A lot.
I must say I'm disappointed with James. He mostly attacked ehrmans character in all his rebuttals
It seems that James mostly throws out numbers and generalizations without giving examples which Bart gives plenty of, making his argument much stronger in my opinion. James has a very weak case.
Jay does not have an argument to defeat Ehrman's opinion
That’s all White does in all his debates from what I’ve seen
normal response for Christians defending their faith.
I think Dr Bart Ehrman is saying, do your own research and reading and you will find the errors yourself. Some so outrageous that you will question the authenticity of the book. Once you’re open to truly examine, the possibility of misguided humans altering and sometimes creating word of God will open up. By whom and why would be the next question.
Did you do this?
It seems that most opponents of the idea that God has preserved His word begin with the problematic expectation that God would use a certain method to preserve His word. This strikes me as a prideful way to approach the issue.
The King James Only movement is notorious for doing that. It has even been deemed a cult and has done more damage than it ever did good.
One Bible Only? is a good book that shows their deceptions. James White has a good book refuting Gail Riplinger's claims and shows intentional misquotes in her book.
If they simply say: "It is a collection of stories that we create a narrative to understand God, there were man that wrote it". It would be okay. But when they say it is the word of God and who doesn't believe it will die and go to hell forever, then you better have every single letter perfect.
Seek Wisdom well what we believe is divine inspiration, which is not the same as God dictation.
What you better have is the gift of faith to believe in the deity of Christ given only by the Holy Spirit.
Seek Wisdom Are we throwing the baby out with the bath water? I find a defect therefore I don’t believe? What in this world is with out defect ? So do you believe anything at all?
@@jasonbiggs1624 but how can we be sure we have what was originally written? There is no guarantee.
Agreed. I don’t think accurate dictation is a lot to ask for if we’re talking about eternal life and all.
Perhaps someone can help me with this. Why would an atheist feel the need to say God is evil, a dictator, makes people suffer, etc., if they know He does not exist? Why do the spend so much time and energy trying to refute something they claim does not exist? if they are so sure of their position, why not be involved in more useful educational/scientific/philosophical pursuits. in listening to most debates, it seems as if not mqtter what evidence a Christian presents, the atheist will either ignore it or position a theory designed solely to refute it, regardless of whether the theory is plausible or logically sound.
Steve Woods.,they like hearing themselves talk no matter how uneducated they are..
Steve Woods
They do it to make people look foolish. But they usually are nothing more than superficial and revert to ad hominem attacks which are in fact not arguments.
Steve Woods. Lets not forget that Bart Ehrmann is not an atheist but an agnostic.
As a person of science, if the Bible is the only empirical evidence you have for the existence of God.. then obviously it's going to be scrutinized and looked at for its authenticity.. for historical fact.. for truth.. When you call it "the truth".. and tell me that my soul depends on it.. it better be accurate. Not everyone in the world is ok with being conned out of their time and money.. Two things religion demands of you.. now I can live my life as a good person and still have good values and morals without religion.. it's not like the human species were just killing each other non-stop until the Bible was written.. truth of the matter is it was in humanity's best interest to co exist..have communities.. work together.. We Now call the Greek gods "Greek mythology".. so it makes sense that eventually this will be called Christian mythology.. the division of religion has been one of the biggest reasons for war in our history.. even to this day.. so hopefully in the future we will become enlightened and have no more need for religion, superstition or borders.. and realize that we have a very short time on earth and we should all treasure that.. no afterlife this is what you got.. so stop killing eachother and enjoy the things that really matter.. Family, Community, People..
Because religion (not just christianity) indoctrinates children with superstitions, hatred and intolerance. Wait until people are 18 until you start telling them about an immaterial being that knows everything you do, and then see how many join.
I think James won this part of the debate. I do appreciate Barts invitation to openness and attempts but the standard he's using isn't consistent with how Jesus and the apostles used their writings.
Of course he brings in Islam... because Bart agrees unintentionally that the way to preserve scripture is exactly how the Quran is preserved, so Thank you very much Mr White 👌🏽
Having been raised evangelical I've been down the same road as Bart. For Catholics, episcopalians and anyone else who doesn't believe the bible is meant to be taken literally, none of this matters. Proving the Bible has errors doesn't mean that God isn't real. But when you are raised to believe that the Bible is the literal word of God, without error, without contradiction, that it was dictated by God to the people and then find out differently, it's very easy for your faith to come crumbling down. I was taught that evolution isn't real, the earth is 6,000 years old and was led to believe that the bible has been around since the beginning of time. Finding out that it wasn't actually written until 300 years after Jesus died....that alone made me upset. It's been very hard putting faith in God back together after realizing the bible is not what evangelicals make it out to be. I guarantee you that 99% of evangelicals don't know that the Crucifixion is different in each of the gospels or that Jesus only claims to be God in the book of John, no other book. Words have meaning. Inerrant means without error. Period. You can't say, "Well that story doesn't matter who said what or who was there" Yes it does matter? If you are claiming something to be literal it needs to all match up. You can't have different gospels saying different things and still call the book "inerrant". They can't both be right!
The bottom line is that people believe what they choose to believe. Everyone has the same evidence presented to them which is why everyone will be held to the same standard of accountability.
There are appreciable differences, other than personal choice, that result in the varied outcomes. For example, there are differences in how well-equipped each individual is to process any given piece of evidence (background knowledge, critical thinking tools, etc). There are also different goals: a scientist is likely to have a different objective when processing the evidence than a spiritual guru. There is also extreme social pressure in many cases. It's not a coincidence that religions tend to be highly concentrated geographically, where society can impose or reinforce a particular belief.
Dr. White’s presentation shows how God can keep His Word preserved while allowing man to continue on doing what we do best: mess up. God still brings forth His message through fallen man which in essence brings glory to God. Amen.
Agreed. And so many miss that exact emphasis found all throughout Scripture.
Have you not read...
Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.
1 Corinthians 1:20-21
Dr. Ehrman's contention seems to be that the Bible cannot be Inspired unless it was Preserved. Now, he doesn't exactly explain what he means by "preserved." It seems to be that he could mean...
1. We have the original version still with us today.
2. We have a verifiable copy of the original version still with us today.
3. Or, we would have copies but none of them would be different.
Now, let's put it in argument form...
1. A work can only be Inspired if it is Preserved
2. The New Testament is not Preserved
3. The New Testament is not Inspired
So, how might we address this argument? The method James White provides is to give a 4th definition of Preserved which would defeat (P2). He argues that among all the variations, the original words are still preserved. The analogy he gives is like a 1000 piece jig-saw puzzle where you have 1010 pieces. The whole thing is there, but there are some extras as well. If you accept this definition of Preservation, (P2) stands refuted and Dr. Ehrman's argument fails.
However, I think there is a more fatal flaw in this argument, which is that (P1) is simply undefended. Why must an Inspired work be a Preserved work, especially among one of the 3 definitions I provided above? Where does Dr. Ehrman get this definition of Inspiration? The doctrine is "that the human authors and editors of Bible were led or influenced by God with the result that their writings many be designated in some sense the word of God". No part of that doctrine requires preservation. God could inspire a writing meant only for some people for some short amount of time. Or God could allow his inspired word to be spread imperfectly but sufficiently such that the primary message is retained. His first contention is simply a statement of his personal opinion, nothing more, nothing less.
Ehrman never said it couldn't be the word of god because it wasn't preserved, he just said that personally his biblical studies made him realise that there wasn't a good enough reason to view these texts as divine or divinely inspired above another other ancient manuscripts and that personally led him away from his religious beliefs over time. He didn't say others had to agree with him and he never tried to argue that others shouldn't be believers if they want to be.
@@JohnDoe-ov9ib - What ever the reason there's no way you can study the bible and out saying it's not inspired or the word of god and you don't have to be a christian to believe that
You’re assuming you have all 1000 pieces, which is something you can’t confirm anyway. So you lose regardless of which argument you make. We know it wasn’t preserved, and there’s no evidence we have 100% of the original words. Not to mention the fact that there are no original words for certain books in the Bible, as they are edited versions of letters. Letters we do not have and will never have.
Sadly, religion loses all arguments. For obvious reasons. It’s mythology.
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".
@@TheIncognitusMe You don’t need everything. That doesn’t undermine the argument at all. Let’s say that 1/2 of the Bible was lost. We actually only have 1/2 of it now. If God does indeed exist, and directed the writing of the Bible, then how is that changed by the fact that half of it is now missing? It isn’t. It isn’t whatsoever. It doesn’t follow that if the Bible is the inerrant word of God then that means it must be 100% accurately preserved. It doesn’t follow whatsoever.
That’s why many errancy statements say that the Bible is inerrant in the original texts. We have what we have. We base the religion on what we have. I really don’t see how your point changes anything. We could have entire books missing from the Bible, and it wouldn’t change the fact that the God of the Bible exists (if indeed that is true).
I’m really not sure why this is a debate. If a flying cat was the true God and that cat divinely inspired 1000000 pages in a holy book, but we now only have 1 sentence of that book, that wouldn’t change the fact that that one sentence was the word of God. You need to base your argument on whether God even exists or not and whether the Bible was written by the people it was claimed to have been written by. You can hold to the views you hold, but using the, or even remotely seeming like you defend the, “it hasn’t been perfectly preserved so therefore the Christian God doesn’t exist” makes no sense. It’s really just a bad argument
Dr. White's presentation was far more concise. Dr. Ehrman made assertions and presented claims and backed none of them up. He simply said "They matter" over and over and didn't demonstrate how they do, or give evidence that neither understanding of the text that are on the table are valid.
Dr. White makes sense of the data and presents a backed argumentation for his position while Dr. Ehrman seems to fall into a presuppositional skepticism and just throws out a lot of skeptical statements. If he is an expert he should have had more information regarding why his position is valid.
Abu taj md mahbub Ul alam he says the same thing about the Quran, but look at the man that's saying this, he thinks it's all fairytales .. lol
39:32 Didn't see that coming
He had us in the first half not gonna lie
If it " can't" be translated, so you leave it out,, how does that not possibly terribly affect the text?? And if you have a lot of copies, that means you have almost virgin text equivelant??? " accidental ommissions" could mean potentially critical scripture ommission...and " uncontrolled" distribution means just that, total lack of control, order, oversight over reprinting by hand and distribution,,how on earth could this support preservation?? Terrible arguments. So tired of supposed pros who blow off the obvious, dogg someone who points it out, and then insist there's no problem.
9:00 Marks gospel is quoted by Ireneas in "Against the herresies" and he quotes from the ending.
Edid: forgot this, that book was writen in AD 180.
I think Dr. Ehrman's anger shows he has an emotional reason for wanting others to give up their faith, as he did. It's sad he didn't maintain his faith as he explored the minor differences. I too went through this 30 years ago. At first I too thought 1 minor difference meant the entire Bible was false. My faith grew weak for up to 10 years. But I never abandoned it as Ehrman has done. In that time I came to see what Dr. White is saying. Minor differences don't make the whole Bible false. God didn't mean to prove His existence by perfectly preserving ancient writings. The purpose of the Bible is to teach us about God. And it does this. We need faith to please God, and especially faith that Jesus died for us. This is another purpose of the Bible. It wasn't meant to teach us physics, chemistry, mathematics, nor even about the cosmos. When unbelievers expect this they will always be disappointed. The Bible teaches us about God and how we are to relate to Him if we want to gain eternal life. For this, it's very reliable.
John283T Well said. Sad thing is that Ehrman largely acknowledges the incredible accuracy of the bible and is hung up on a handful of verses that do nothing to change any of the teachings of the church. It's tragically sad.
What's sad is you can't face reality. If the bible was inspired then there would be no differences, period. Wishwashy cowards.
*****
What's sad is that the worlds leading, most recognized unbelieving textual critic will tell you that there are no more than 1 to 2 dozen passages in all of scripture that he believes is questionable and that NONE of the variants have ANY BEARING (None, nothing what so ever) on the beliefs of Christianity (Thus, the beliefs are perfectly maintained) and yet I am the one who is a coward.
What's sad is that the greatest example of manuscript evidence outside of the bible existing from the same period as the Bible is Homer's Illiad and there are at most 1800 extent copies available with the oldest copy dating to with 400 years of the original and no scholar doubts that we can know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the current version is accurate to the original writing and yet there are in excess of 24,000 manuscripts in 15+ languages dating back to within 100 years of the original writings and you assert that it is ME who can't face reality.
Were that not so sad, it would be comical.
Joe Orsak Bullshit, Ehrman is being civil. No one claims that Homer is god's word. Besides, there is corroborating evidence in the form of frescoes, statues, written dramas and other historical references. There is no corroborating evidence from the first 300 years because Constantine made it up. Any corroborating evidence, "Gnostic Gospels," is so at odds with the Bible that they couldn't be talking of the same thing. The gospel of Mary doesn't even mention the crucifixion. Christianity is a deliberate lie. Faith is not a virtue. Constantine knew this. Common sense, which is a virtue, would turn people into free thinking, educated citizens, not sheep.
Time to find true spiritualism Joe. This farce is at an end. My advice-
Don't give them your money!
*****
"Bruce Metzger is one of the great scholars of modern times, and I dedicated the book to him because he was both my inspiration for going into textual criticism and the person who trained me in the field....
If he and I were put in a room and asked to hammer out a consensus statement on what we think the original text of the New Testament probably looked like, there would be very few points of disagreement - *MAYBE ONE OR TWO DOZEN PLACES OUT OF MANY THOUSANDS*. The position I argue for in ‘Misquoting Jesus’ does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger’s position that *the essential Christian beliefs are NOT AFFECTED BY TEXTUAL VARIANTS in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament*."
Say what you want... that's the facts from a highly trained expert in the field who isn't a believer.
Bart gets a little too emotional in a debate for me
Because he knows Christianity isn't really true that he once believed in. Sad to say.
He (Bart)😘 sounds like he comes from a place of hurt (I heard a hint of cynicism, the kind that runs like an undercurrent, in a person who is filled with pride, anger, and insecurities (although by the world's academic standards, he's "accomplished.").
He also, at times, comes off as condesending (for example, when he refers to his students). That's what I picked up on.
Excellent presentation by James White specially the PowerPoint evidence clearly Bart erhman was shaken in one of rare instances .
James did touch Bart's painful part in his scholarly intelligence .
I agree and I'm a Muslim
Enjoyable debate. Thanks for uploading.
allways a pleasure hearing Dr. Ehrman debating..
If you haven’t read it, you owe it to yourself to read “The King James Only Controversy.” I’m not getting paid to say that, I just enjoyed it. I even gave it to my mother to read.
I will second that. I'm not even a Christian but it's a good read and I still own the book. I always love a good debunking.
Great debate. I agree with White. Why do all the manuscripts have to be perfectly in sync in order for the bible to be credible and believable. This is where faith comes in.
jennifer because it would prove consistency genius! Consistency proves authenticity and the book to be uncorrupted.
edbtzkhud - not one single doctrine is altered based on textual variants in manuscripts and mainstream bible translations of those manuscripts. Considering Christianity was outlawed by the Roman Empire for 300 years that’s remarkable.
Amen! and faith is perfect, and for salvation, and amen to those brethren who believe, GOD WILL GIVE WORDS TO EACH OF YOU
Matthew 24:4 oh really????
At 1 John 5:7, some older Bible translations contain the following words: “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” However, reliable manuscripts confirm that these words were NOT in the original text. They were ADDED later. * Thus, reliable modern Bible translations have EXCLUDED them.
God’s personal name appears thousands of times in ancient manuscripts of the Bible. Yet, numerous Bible translations have REPLACED it with titles such as “Lord” or “God.” why is that????
Are you aware of the 16 omitted verses in the NIV RV and KJV?
You’re talking about textual variants and im talking added and omitted verses. Apples and oranges my friend.
Not to mention the oldest manuscript called the codex sinaiticus, which has more books than your typical bible and more verses than your new bible has.
Because differences is texts signify errors and additons/omissions being made.
If there are errors and omissions, than how can you trust that what is being said is the word of God and not human interpretation?
Pretty simple.
James While doesn't seem to trust his argument... he keeps dis'ing npr, muslims, muslim apologists, media instead presenting a clean clear set of points that leads to a conclusion.
Take a shot of Whiskey every time Bart Ehrman says the word "copy." You'll pass out drunk on the couch in less than 5 minutes.
So what's your point? That repeated copying in an illiterate society of a story that evolved over time is not important?
Lol 😆 I take a copy of that drink
The debate was informative and highly educational I love this two debater
I think the biggest thing Dr. White is ignoring is that generational copies form a branching structure, a hierarchy. Trying to understand the roots means comparing the earliest places the texts branch out from each other.
That's how I think White got that strange statistical model that paints such a positive light in contrast to Ehrman's model which paints such a negative one. White is including intra-commonalities between later generations which have the least trivial impact in terms of differences, while Ehrman is looking at inter-differences at the earliest generations which have the largest impact. The truth is probably somewhere in between.
The biggest hints about the original are found in the commonalities between the earliest sources, and that's where they apparently differ the most.
Though I think White has a point that there is a convergence between each branch towards later generations. The methods to copy seem to be increasingly reliable with fewer non-trivial differences the further out we go, though that's not a point that Ehrman contested.
I mostly agree with Dr. Bart.
His criteria for credibility seems way more clear, simple, straightforward and, logical.
Several of his opponent's go around strawmaning his position and just seem interested in confirming what they want not what the evidence and Bart's arguments show.
The best point, for me, that White proposed, was that it's better to have no authority or control over the transmission, which I think is partially true, unless there is an oral tradition that's precise down to the letter that existed in the ancient Arab culture and still exists. Then we would have thousands of simultaneous orally transmitted and preserved threads that can be a judge over any corruption in writing, the thing which seems evidently to be missing from the old Greek or Latin cultures that transmitted the text with heavy dependence on written texts, thats why they had to change when they weren't sure, simply because they had no better ways of verification.
Bart Ehrman: " I had never *heard* of James White before I agreed to debate him. He’s a big person in his own small little world, but unknown among scholars of the Bible, which is the world of people I live with…." LOL
Although Dr. Ehrman professes himself to be a New Testament scholar (and I am not one to contest his profession), he seems to be extremely lacking in his understanding of the profession of scribe in the ancient world. The title of scribe is akin to the title of lawyer today. These were extremely well-educated and well-trained individuals. Ehrman's insistence on pushing the assumption that the scribes who made copies of these ancient texts were, somehow, illiterate, unprofessional, or extremely lacking in their ability to perform their duties makes his presuppositions extremely suspect.
Same thoughts crossed my mind. And even if they were not Scribe by trade, a devote Christian with the intent of sharing God's Word wouldn't skip verses and sentences to save time because they were bored.
I actually quite dig Ehrmanns debates but he once made a huge mistake on Mark 1,3 when he claimed that it references Isaiah but Isaiah supposedly didnt say it but exodus did but actually Isaiah 40,3 proves that the reference is correct and he literally bashed the Bible over a ssooo simple thing thag he could have easily read up on but he didnt.. kinda lost a bit of respect there.
Everybody go look for Erhmann debating gnostics and zoroatrianism, he defends Jesus way better than many of us Christians ever have. Sure he still denies the Words of the Bible and the deity of Jesus but he really nails it when it comes to history. Watch him literally destroy gnostics.
TheEmoney321 Bart is not saying that the scribes were somehow innately incompetent... He says that even devoted people at that time made mistakes because that is the nature of manually written copying - they just couldn't help making unintentional mistakes. It happened.
Importantly he argues that scribes in the MIDDLE AGES were indeed trained professionals. NOT the scribes in LATE ANTIQUITY - who were the first redactors of the early Christian writings. These earliest christian writers did not hold to the same rigors. Especially before the advent of the printing press.
He further mentions that some changes were literally intentional. The scribe wasn't incompetent - the scribe added extra stuff.
Did God inspire them to add this stuff? Why wouldn't God just make sure this stuff doesn't get lost in the original writings?
@@TheEmoney321 lol right. His argument is actually one of the worst I have ever heard
This is very important issue yes but my favorite topic from Dr bart erchman was from his book forged i would love to know more about the actual authors
@demonio Azul maybe you need to read FORGED again.
Thank you James
I agree and I'm a Muslim
I agree with Bart Ehrman
The problem of this debate is that the underlying issues that form the heart of their difference of opinion are not really debated. Bart Ehrman summarises it correctly at 1:03:51 till 1:06:55: the difference of opinion is not so much about the facts but about the meaning of the facts. What is the meaning and significance of these facts for the Christian faith and theology in general and the doctrine of inspiration in particular? These questions are not really debated, but are the only reason why this debate receives so much attention and comments. Of course Ehrman is right that we cannot know with certainty what the exact words of the original New Testament were and in fact James White acknowleges that. The other way around both speakers acknowledge that the New Testament has much earlier (see for instance part two of the debate at 27:17) and abundant attestation than any other work from antiquity and that the vast majority of variances in the manuscript tradition are without meaning. (The New Testament might actually - compared with other works from antiquity - be one of the most trustworthy works from antiquity that we have, is my impression, notwithstanding that there are meaningful variances in the manuscript tradition). But where does that lead us? James White and Bart Ehrman frame the same facts almost in an opposite way. It is in how they frame the facts that they differ. It would have been interesting if that would have received more emphasis in the debate, but this (difference in) framing wasn't hardly discussed.
Believe it or not, after Bart accused him of talking over everyone's head, he actually spoke differently the 2nd time around. Still a little over my head, but I did understand a few things. Ha.
I come from germany, and dont speak english very good, but one thing is very clear for me after this discusion - James White has won this debate towering. Bart Ehrman cannot longer see the wood for the trees. 1. Corinthians 3:
Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain."
for u to say james won this debate, i say to u , u must be brain dead.
How can you argue against historical fact? The 27 bibles are not from the original source. Wheres the argument? There is none. They are all adulterated. Sorry, but the truth is the truth
Hu Chay You would think it would be that simple. The best argument you could say is that the general gist of the text is correct, but to say it’s 100% accurate to the original is just absurd.
Amen!
Because you are an Atheist that is why you sided Bart!
I'd rather drown in the truth, than remain afloat... upon an Ocean of Lies
Are you saying you want to reject Jesus and go to Hell? I'm not sure what your saying.
@TJordan14 Assumption 1: they existed.
Assumption 2: they died proclaiming the resurrection
Assumption 3: they saw what they thought was a resurrection
Assumption 4: they correctly understood what they saw
Assumption 5: they could not convince themselves of something untrue
@@iamihop1123 by the way assumption 1,2,3 aren't debated anymore.. I don't get assumption 5.. Assumption four is unlikely given the context and other evidence as well. You're free to reject it and combine some other theory and believe that but just telling you
Dr James White is reading all this out while Dr Bart Ehrman is reading it from the Heart, true.
To those thinking Ehrman won, you may not understand that this is not a debate against religion but rather skepticism of the texts and the history of translation. There are skeptics today that believe the earth is flat, among dozens of other conspiracies in a world with video, audio recordings, and copy machines. The historical accuracy of the bible is absolutely amazing to a historian. If only there were so many texts about other nations, we would know much more about Rome, Babylon, Egypt, Persia and Greece, etc. Ehrman assumes that there should be no mistakes because the book is inspired.
Daniel Malinovskiy ehrman assumes that God must protect the bible to a perfect degree of accuracy. How is this assumption justified? The purpose of the bible is not to be perfectly preserved... the purpose of the bible is to redeem humans and guide them through life. It still accomplishes both of these and ehrman puts a needless requirement on the bible that every miniscule detail be correct. Why? It's not important to the purpose of the bible...
Daniel Malinovskiy you say they are skeptics today that believe the world is flat. Doesn't it say in your Bible that the world is flat with a firmament???
Tom Dick Absolutely. Flat, stationary, with a firmament.
Calling scientific inaccuracies "mistakes" is an anachronism that ignores authorial intent.
Imagine someone trying to argue that Buddhist Enlightement is impossible because we cannot prove that the Buddha really killed a five headed demon in one of his previous incarnations.
Yeah the historical accuracy of a book that describes places that never existed, things that never existed and an exodus that never happened. Very historically accurate. Christians recognize the hits and ignore the misses.
I am only at the 5:23 mark and already find the basis of Dr. Ehrman's argument to be extremely lacking. His entire argument is reliant on the assumption that, just because one copies a document by hand, he/she will invariably make mistakes, additionally requiring the further assumption that such mistakes would not immediately be corrected.
As an elementary school student, my fellow classmates and I were routinely required to make handwritten copies of the Declaration of Independence, the Gettysburg Address, and the Bill of Rights. Even as young students, we took care to meticulously copy every word correctly, and this with only the probable consequence of a reduced letter grade for failing to do so. Christians in the early church, believing that they were copying the text of a document containing a narrative of the life of their Messiah, would (I am sure) have taken much more of an extremely meticulous effort to ensure that what they were copying was correct.
Thus far, the entire basis of his argument hinges on the assumption that, because ancient peoples did not have the luxury of our more modern, "advanced" printing technologies, they lacked the capability of taking proper, extremely detailed care to ensure that the information they were copying was correct. That his position relies on this assumption is, in itself, fallacious.
Ezine Anderson ok genius... now explain why there’s more books found in the codex sinaiticus and why the Bible of the Catholics has more books than any other bible. Why are there missing verses in the New international version?I’ll be waiting to hear your explanation. This is gonna be good.
I think you have oversimplified the situation, especially since you admit you've barely scratched the surface of the video. Sloppy and incomplete.
Ehrman points all the time goes like this: One Gosple says "a" the other says "b" and the rest say nohting. So what did really happen? Was it "a" or was it "b". Did Jesus saaid this or did He not, was Jesus here or was He there.
According to Ehrman because of these kind of differencies in the Gosples the Gosples are not considered as historic accounts.
So my question to him is: Since by his own criteria something which is historic needs to have all 4 Gosples agree on the account does he accept the Resurrection of Christ since all 4 Gosples agree? Is that a historical fact to him? He set the criteria and the Resurrection account fulfills his criteria.
I know that there are differencies such as if there was 2 women, 3 women in the Tomb etc. but that doesn't change the fact that they all agree that the Ressurection did happen.
If New Testament is from God Almighty, then this scripture shouldn’t have any CONTRADICTIONS.
If Gospel of Mark says "A" then Other Gospels should also say "A", not "B". Bcz God doesn’t make Contradictions.
I've heard him address your question in other debates, so just to paraphrase him:
Ehrman does not accept the resurrection as a historical fact because it is a supernatural event. Historians do not have access to assessing supernatural events so the resurrection cannot be proved to be historical. The reason historians do not have access to assessing the resurrection is because the resurrection is a very rare event. He states the example that if one tries to repeatedly walk on liquid water they will repeatedly fail. Jesus may have walked on water but because the event of walking on water is extremely rare today the historian cannot assess whether Jesus walked on water or rose from the dead. Ehrman says there is a theological case to be made for the Resurrection of Christ and he is willing to accept theological explanations of the resurrection but not historical accounts.
I hope I was able to capture his view for you.
@@shamimsarker839 A and B do not contradict, they complete each other.
Nice try
I thought it was pretty slick that Bart said he believed that only 2 or 3 people would be able to change their view point...
The actual issue is not whether the original messages are still contained in the current gospels or not. Bart Ehrman went into this debate with essentially one question: "Does God allow interpreters of Christianity to make mistakes?" The answer to this question is the entire foundation of Christianity, and, unfortunately for Christians, no matter how you answer this question, huge problems arise. Now, James White was asserting in this debate that God does allow interpreters of Christianity to make mistakes when he stated that God is not going to control the scribe's hand, or enter the scribe's mind and tell the scribe the truth, or appear and give the scribe some sort of revelation to ensure the scribe writes the truth, nor is God going to send scribes that write something incorrect to the depths of hell or anything like that. That is great for this particular topic. Religious apologists try to only debate in this kind of forum. One where you just give your side and no questions can be asked. Because, when they make an assertion on one religious topic, this assertion will bite them in the butt on another religious topic. The best example for James White's assertion that Christian interpreters can make mistakes without God intervening coming back to haunt him, are the chosen Gospels themselves. There were hundreds of Gospels floating around after Constantine declared that Christianity would be the official religion of the Roman Empire. How were the 27 books of the New Testament chosen from the hundreds that were available? Athanasius in 367 C.E. gave Constantine and the Church a list of books that would essentially become the New Testament. Now, according to James White, Athanasius could have been mistaken. Athanasius was trying to interpret what God wanted humans to read and worship. According to James White, God does not intervene if a human mis-interprets Christianity. It wasn't that God gave Athanasius a revelation, or went into his head to reveal which Gospels were the true Gospels of Christianity, God did not control Athanasius' hand when he wrote his list of books according to James White, so, according to James White, Athanasius could have been wrong when he chose these 27 books. Maybe 1 or 2 books shouldn't be included. Maybe 4 or 5 other Gospels that were not included should have been included. Maybe, none of the 27 chosen are the books that God wanted humans to read or follow. After James White gave his speech, if questions could be asked, all Bart Ehrman had to ask was: "Are you saying that Athanasius could have been mistaken and chosen the wrong books for the New Testament?" No matter how James White answered, it would have been confusing for religious apologists. If James White had answered no, God would have intervened and ensured that Athanasius chose the right books, then, that answer makes Bart Ehrman's original question: "Why would God allow scribes to copy the gospels incorrectly?" a question that would require an answer. Forcing James White to explain this, no matter how he answered, would hurt his assertion that God wouldn't intervene when someone made a mistake in copying Christian Gospels. If James White had answered yes, it is possible that Athanasius chose the wrong books and God would not intervene when someone was trying to interpret Christianity, then he would also have had to admit that the books within the New Testament might not make God happy, and could even make God angry. That is why religious apologists try to only enter discussions where questions are not on the agenda or not allowed. I know, Christian apologists want to say: "God wouldn't interfere with someone trying to copy scripture, but God would definitely interfere and ensure that Athanasius chose the right books." That makes no sense and you cannot have it both ways. If God is concerned with humans having the correct books, and worshiping correctly, then you also have to answer: Why would God allow these scribes to make a mistake when copying the gospels, and why would God not preserve the original gospels and allow them to be lost or destroyed? God either doesn't intervene when humans make a mistake in interpreting Christianity, or God does. Pick one, I don't care which. If you are going to choose God's actions so they fit your current argument, based on the current religious topic, and then change God's behaviour given a similar or even identical situation, without any explanation, so the infinitely changing actions you are attributing to God are not based on reason or evidence, just based on fulfilling your feelings towards Christianity, not only are your arguments, but Christianity as a whole, would be built on absolutely nothing and would be meaningless. This is the tactic that James White is basing his argument. I cannot answer who is right or who is wrong. I can say this: One presenter's argument, even though gospels have been lost and we cannot know the entire history of Christianity, is based on the evidence we do possess. This presenter does not make any conclusions about God's behaviour, he simply asks "Why would God allow this?". The other presenter's argument is based on their feelings towards Christianity and makes conclusions about God's behaviour, which, given a similar situation could change based on the presenter's feelings towards different aspects of Christianity.
36:32 This methodology of reversing the graph to try and re-sway is very shallow and unsubstantial. Meaningful variants is not defined. It shows a very elementary and borderline pathetic attempt at persuasion. When you are talking about Inerrancy, the size of the meaningful variants bar means NOTHING. Something is either 100% absolutely perfect or it is not.
Jesus is God
Jesus christ is glorious God
Christ is God
These textual variants don't matter
Hhhut Hhhjj the very claim and nature of Jesus’s divinity IS THE VERY ISSUE!
You have perfectly illustrated the Original Commenter’s point.
@@hhhuthhhjj5599
Believing false doctrine!
That’s why they say “inerrant in the original texts”. Everyone knows there’s some human error in translating and transcribing things. I’m not even sure why this is as large of a debate as it is
“These differences matter!”
As a non-Trinitarian believer, I'm inclined to agree. They don't destroy my faith in the text, but they do destroy my faith in the Trinity.
No such thing as a non-trinitarian believer.
How about everyone for the first 200 years of Christian history?
@@juri8723 I grew up in a sect of christianity with several million people in it, taught the bible and that jesus was my savior my entire life, and I literally never even heard of the trinity until I was in high school, and I was baffled about where people possibly could have gotten such an idea since it's nowhere in the bible. So yeah, there's non-trinitarian believers.
Fantastic debate. Dr Ehrman and Dr White presented their arguments well. I felt disappointed with Dr Ehrmans rebuttal; it doesn't seem that he fully understood Dr Whites arguments or was familiar with his work which is why he seemed to repeat a lot of his original statement. His thesis of perfect transmission as the qualifier for inspiration is unrealistic and would in fact disqualify us from having a reasonable certainty of what the contents of the autograph of any work of antiquity is since the new testament is foremost the most well attested. Multiple lines of transmission do in fact bring robustness into the manuscript tradition so that the original text is not lost. More data points brings in more variance but also helps to establish the proper trends more conclusively. This is in fact what happened in the time early church as they sought to obey the commandment to go into all the world and spread the gospel...
Listening to Ehrmen you would think "was ANYONE competent back then?"
Strange comments from Ehrman on this debate from his site.
"I wasn’t sure whether I should post this debate or not. Frankly, it was not a good experience. I normally do not have an aversion to the people I debate. But James White is that kind of fundamentalist who gets under my skin. To be fair, he would probably not call himself a fundamentalist. Then again, in my experience, very few fundamentalists *do* call themselves fundamentalists. Usually a “fundamentalist” is that guy who is far to the right of *you* - wherever you are! Someone on the blog can correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe White does hold to the absolute inerrancy of the Bible. If so, given what else I know about him, I’d call him a fundamentalist.
In any event, he’s a smart fellow and came to the debate loaded for bear. But it’s good to see me at not my best as well as at my best."
Also
"He’s not a scholar because he does not have scholarly training, does not have scholarly credentials, and never publishes any works of scholarship. My aversion to him is simply rooted in the fact that he does not seem to be a nice guy. I have no problem with him being a committed Christian believer; but when someone is that offensive, I tend to take offense!"
Sounds like he thinks that he lost.
"He’s not a scholar because he does not have scholarly training, does not have scholarly credentials, and never publishes any works of scholarship. "
Wow, if he really stated that, that's ridiculous. I have some of White's publications, they are great scholarly works, among the best I read in the field of theology. Unless you define as "scholarly" nothing that defends God rather than cutting him out as a presupposition.
About not being a nice guy...well that's personal opinion. I like White far better than Ehrman in regards of personality (I don't like at all the way Ehrman seeks to convince people - I think Craig is fairly accurate in his critique with "good Bart" and "bad Bart"), but here people really might differ.
The great thing about White is how well prepared he goes into debates like this. He doesn't rely on cheap debating tricks, but really studies his opponents and tries to represent them with accuracy. Many could and should learn from him here.
James White nailed this and all Erhman and his followers can do is insult not argue.
***** Why? It is because he exposed Bart as a jackass?
***** You miss my point. James White got the better of Bart in this one (has have many other debaters with Bart) and all Bart can do is then engage in insults, lies and character assassination. If Bart felt that he done badly in the debate (which he states on his blog) and feels that he was misquoted or has something to add then fine. But instead Bart resorts to words and statements about White like 'fundamentalist', 'he does not have scholarly training', 'he is not a nice guy' etc. He has said similar things about other scholars like William Lane Craig who he said made fun of him (Craig did not do so he just explained how the modern probability calculus shuts down many of Bart's argument). This is Bart's problem he debates, often loses and then writes about the character, scholarly background of his opponent to undermine his opponents' argument (my opponent is a jerk do not listen to him, I am not a jerk listen to me). None of Bart's opponents do this, it is not normal even for debaters to engage in such boorish behaviour (even for the loser). The problem is Bart's and his alone.
Goddamn, do you James White fans and James White himself have to whine and moan about every person he debates? You idiots said the same thing about Sungenis, Armstrong, Stafford, and Staples. It's always, "The opponent was outlandish..boorish..blah blah blah." Utter nonsense. James White has acted like a complete you know what in most debates (That's not an exaggeration) and generally his opponents are actually pretty nice. Ehrman was being pretty cool. White kept asking bizarre questions about the Qu'ran which quite literally had nothing to do with the debate.
James White is not a doctor, not a scholar, has never written anything peer-reviewed. He's a shock jock apologist. Not taken seriously by people in the "real world," just some radical fundamentalist parts of the Web.
I find Dr. Ehrman's expectation on the need for the ORIGINAL manuscript.....for example, the actual letter Paul wrote to the Romans or the actual letter Paul wrote to the corinthians to be highly unrealistic...
For a book of philosophy or wisdom, or any text, other than one that threatens you with hell for not getting everything right, it would be crazy to demand the literal original from the pen of the author, but with a text threatening you with hell for all eternity unless you get everything right, that text sure as hell better be perfectly preserved as in all manuscripts agree 100% and the original from the pen of the author still around to check this perfect preservation.
David Brainerd I don't see how the standard of reasonable believability changes depending on the subject. Is the claim supported or not? The amount of support needed to justify belief doesn't depend on the claim
swish 1 onu why?
But this is a book of GOD the almighty. How difficult is that?
@@davidbrainerd1520 Except the book doesnt "threaten one with hell if they dont get it right" it's obvious that you havent really read the bible.
Bart said that the printers had to decided which text to print when it came to printing the Bible since there were so many different texts at that time. He is wrong. Actually, this never happened because the predominate church (The Catholic Church) at that time used the Latin Vulgate. So the printers just chose the primary text used throughout Europe, the Latin version of the text and printed it. It was the first thing that was ever printed on the first printing machine.
Dr. James R. White won nuff said.
@josantai lol
Its amusing that Bart criticizes his students. Is anyone here s member of his blog? I'm often amazed at how many spelling mistakes I find in his blog posts. And he has spell check too!
I deeply appreciate the work Dr Bart Ehrman has done. It has helped me to understand my own faith and the claim in the Quran about bible discrepancies and corruption. Thank you
Pretty sure the Bible is the Word of God, according to the Qur'an.
Two masters of the craft. Probably the toughest debate either of them have done.
This isn't that hard for James White lol
Bart, you are putting "all" of history on notice by stating that "a copy of a copy" is unreliable. That means that all historical documents that we have (religious or otherwise) are riddled with mistakes and we cannot trust any of them. In one simple but fatal sweep, you destroyed the reliability of all texts. We can also suggest the opposite. That many of these scholars were efficient in their labor of copying techniques. Yes, some mistakes, but not unreliable.
What do you call this type of argument? Oh yes, Strawman fallacy.
If the text is not "perfectly preserved," and falls under the same criteria for analysis and imperfection as other scholarly work of the time, as Dr. White contends, then it's just another book, as they are, and not divinely inspired. You can't have it both ways. And, no, it's absolutely not beyond God's capability to preserve it 100%, if that is what He wanted to do.
Divinely inspired would mainly refer to a true devine witness towards the one and only devine God.
White addresses this with the question of why then would Jesus quote from the Septuagint.
What do you mean by "perfectly preserved". By being preserved Dr. White is saying that the books we have are not corrupted by people trying to intentionally askew the texts to a different meaning. If I say " I have a brown cat that eats dog food" for instance, and that gets recorded somewhere as me saying "I have a dog food eating cat that is brown" you can see the multitude of variants, but the word is preserved. The meaning is not changed though the text is.
You’re misunderstanding the Bible, the Bible is truly Divine and truly human. The faulty Muslim perspective about the Quran has no basis to have confidence in who the author/s was. They just have to trust what woodman gave them.
The Bible On the contrary has been preserved by God far more beautifully and sophisticated than you can imagine.
This is actually a pretty asinine comment for there isn't a single verse that alludes that every single word written will be maintained precisely and that the consequence of scribal error would be proving its validity or lack thereof, in fact, it couldn't be because that's not how linguistics work at all. So, it's simply a self proposed straw-man with more self proposed implications. The essence of scripture in itself is important but not necessary for there were many illiterate individuals who believed and understood the Gospel before the "Bible" as we know it in its fully collected form was developed. The biggest mistakes in the translations are ones such as a scribe missing a line, or reiterating something slightly different. Common human mistakes, it wasn't like God's Hand came down from the clouds with the ink pen of holiness to write every single manuscript translation even within the concept of inspiration.