Bart Ehrman vs. James White Debate P1
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ย. 2024
- Dr. Bart D. Ehrman debates Dr. James R. White on the question "Did the Bible Misquote Jesus?" This debate took place at the Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, Sheraton Airport Hotel on January 21, 2009. The discussion stems from Bart's book, "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why." The book which made the New York Times Best Seller list, introduces lay readers to the field of textual criticism of the Bible. Ehrman discusses a number of textual variants that resulted from intentional or accidental manuscript changes during the scriptorium era. James White provides a detailed rebuttal to counter Bart's claims.
Program discussed on Bart Ehrman's Foundation Blog: ehrmanblog.org/...
Bart D. Ehrman is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He came to UNC in 1988, after four years of teaching at Rutgers University. At UNC he has served as both the Director of Graduate Studies and the Chair of the Department of Religious Studies. A graduate of Wheaton College (Illinois), Professor Ehrman received both his Masters of Divinity and Ph.D. from Princeton Theological Seminary, where his 1985 doctoral dissertation was awarded magna cum laude.
James White is the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, a Christian apologetics organization based in Phoenix, Arizona. He is a professor, having taught Greek, Systematic Theology, and various topics in the field of apologetics. He has authored or contributed to more than twenty books. He is an elder of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church.
Copyright © Bart D. Ehrman and James R. White. All Rights Reserved. Unauthorized use, re-posting and/or duplication of this media without express and written permission from Bart D. Ehrman and James R. White is strictly prohibited. Video production copyright American Vision, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
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.
Excellent lecture!! Thanks for uploading it and make it available to us all.
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
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.
@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?
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?
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 the greatest debate I have ever seen. Great arguments from both sides. I like how precise Dr. Bart Ehrman communicates.
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%.
Thank you James
I agree and I'm a Muslim
I agree with Bart Ehrman
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!
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.
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.
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
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
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.
The debate was informative and highly educational I love this two debater
Dr. Ehrman doesn't emphasize his most important point. The thousands of differences he speaks of are from comparing copies we have found, manuscripts from the third century and on. We do not have access to the manuscript tradition between the period between when they were written (first century) and the third century, all we have is a few scraps. That's two centuries. If anyone believes their version of the NT contains exact quotes from Jesus - it's an assertion based on faith, not on evidence. We do not have the original NT, and the fact there is clear evidence of tampering with the manuscripts in later copies suggests tampering was also occurring in first century, probably to a greater degree given the theology was in a state of flux.
James simply doesn't care about the real problems of these manuscripts. He jumps forward 15 centuries, to make his points on the "new source material" and forgets the fact that the copies are wrong to begin with
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
Dr. White compared the transmission of the Bible to that of the Quran! I'm sorry but you could maybe try comparing it with the Hadith cause that could be at least closer in terms of transmission, but even that would be generous since the Hadith has the transmission written down. Not only that but the biographies of each of the transmitters including their personalities and so on, and it goes back directly to Muhammad (pbuh).
Thank God, in Jesus' name, for men like Dr. James White. We need more faithful scholars like him in our time and coming generations. We pray for him and all like him that present irrefutable evidence from incessant scholarship in defense of the Gospel of Christ. Protect him Father!
The gospel of Mark with its two different endings does not inspire confidence that the resurrection is an historical event. It is a matter of conjecture why he ends the gospel at Chapter 16, verse 8 with no post-resurrection appearances by Jesus. It certainly does not inspire me to believe that it actually took place!
Ehrman got owned. :)
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.
Ehrman lets his imagination to lead him so far away that it baffles all description !!!
All his conclusions are based on surmises and endlees guessings NOT on facts !!!
He assumed on no reasons whatever that surviving manuscripts must (because Ehrman thinks so) inevitably
have differences with origins !!!
It is a straight road to deny ALL historical information we have concerning not only Biblical History
but all history of mankind !!!
A real shame for scientific man !
*****
The subject-matter was about authenticity of manuscripts not about whether you believe in their contents or not !!)))
i dont think that Ehrman was in any way better. The whole thing is that it is much easier
to assault and cast doubts (reasonable and ureasanoble ones) than to prove that 2+2=4 !
Ehrman showed no evidences whatsoever except Jesus getting angry according to ONE
manuscript out of thousands !!
White`s goal was to induce ehrman to consider not to crash him.
ivan vasilev I advice all people to investigate Gods perfect final revelation the Quran which itself says the bible was corrupted by scribes who diefied Jesus(as). Investigate for yourself if its From God or not
002.079 Quran
Then woe to those who write the Book(Bible) with their own hands, and then say:"This is from God, to traffic with
it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.
ivan vasilev On the contrary, Ehrman's reasoning is very sound - and is the product of over 30 years of reserach and biblical scholarship. Also, Ehrman is not a scientist and has never claimed to be. He is a biblical scholar. Your comment is just silly.
Silly is to say "reasoning is very sound" without any evidences!
To say we dont have original gospel because of 3-4 tiny differences in THOUSANDS manuscripts it is like saying we dont know anything about history of Humanity before invention of photo coping !)))
Even Publishing house makes misprints...
James white presented the stronger case. Bart Ehrman lost this one, and someone agrees with me:
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
Seriously?!? One of those words that are used in the text is correct (meaning the others are not) means that god has preserved his word?!?
"If you want to say that God inspired the text, then why couldn't He preserve it?!?"
Excellent, Dr. Ehrman! My refusal to be honest with this question has shackled my intellect for over four decades, giving deference to the scholastic two-steps of the likes of James White, etc. Thank you, Dr. Ehrman. Your integrity and scholarship truly put Dr. White to academic shame.
Yes, Dr. White ... I will ONLY accept a Divine preservation of the text that mirrors in integrity it's alleged inspiration. ANYTHING less is inconsistent with the alleged Providence of God. It is not unreasonable at all to expect this from God. In fact, it is EXACTLY what I would expect from a sovereign God who was banking the salvation of His entire creation on the veracity and integrity of a text.
It is now very clear to me. Debate over, case closed.
Thank you, Dr. Ehrman.
P.S. The fact that you allow comments on your videos and Dr. White allows NONE ... speaks volumes.
Very well said. I might add that 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.
Therese C. - this is a bogus way to think
You’re not even translating the idea of “inspired text” properly. The authors all had their own style of writing that came through in each book, obviously.
You’re acting as if god himself wrote it. INSPIRED. The Holy Spirit worked on ancient men to tell the word of god, as they were taking account of the events happening around them.
Even the originals probably had grammatical errors and the like
Imagine discarding ancient holy knowledge that leads to eternal joy because your standard for God is that he act like a weird alien or poltergeist or something
You should reconsider your logic
It is a travesty that this debate is in an abridged form;the exchange of dialogue and questioning between Dr.Ehrman and Dr.White has been completely omitted! Why? At any rate,in my view,that was the highlight of both their performances. You can search for this debate on other channels and capture it in its entirety. I highly suggest you do so;it's awesome!
Hello, Mark. Please note that part two was delayed, posted later at: th-cam.com/video/K2Mp4v8VQwQ/w-d-xo.html Thank you for your passionate commentary in this regard, it motivated immediate action!
Bart D. Ehrman hello dr ehrman. I would like to know if we can set up a similiar dialogue with you and dr shabir ally. As you know many muslims purchase and read your books. If you are interested than we would like to make this happen. Recently he did a.dialogue with john dominic crossan.
*****
Proof if any were needed that God doesn't love us all.
***** your so called "prophet" was a pedophile, an idolater, an adulterer, a murderer, a liar, blasphemer, and was deceived by satan to spread a false religion. Good luck on judgement day.
Ignorant? please elaborate
5000 points for Bart for just showing up to face the giant. 1 million points for James for the landslide victory.
You didn't watch the debate....right?
Jeff Paul oooohhh nooooo😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂🙈👍
He went into the Den of Christians too, lol. this is Pensacola FL, fundamentalists on every block
Is White's voice similar to Ehrman's? Or is it just me?
Great debate! Have to say Dr. James White took this one.
White Absolutely demolished Prof. Ehrman:
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.
The issue with Dr. White's argument is that he sees this as a divinely inspired book. He believes his entire faith and ministry is based on it. And so did Dr. Ehrman at one time but his historical study seems to be what challenged it. Its an unprecedented field of study to decide a texts divinity and when a text looks like any other work of the ancient world, how can we determine its inspiration based on historical study? All we can say is what Dr. Ehrman says, that we can't even see an original to determine what was there. How can we discuss divinity
Salute and like for Professor Bart D.Ehrman. . 👍👍👍
Dr White is such a debate rockstar !
Bart Ehrman is a great comedian. I am so glad people bring up such great information. He doesn't realize how he proves the validity of scripture. Ultimately we either realize whether God has the power to preserve what he wanted and to allow the controversial or humanity single handedly produced the view of God created by the New Testament. The inspiration to prove or disprove the bible testifies to its divine mystery. A perfect word may not have inspired the kind of revelation or the desire to search for truth that controversy draws out of the searcher. . In fact God could have made us perfect then we wouldn't need any scripture. The wrestling (Israel) with God produces the perfecting of the Soul, within controversy God is found, the mind and spirit is stretched beyond natural conditions, in combination with the pain and suffering of this life. The human experience breaks the will and those of us who drop the walls and face reality find the arms of Jesus, in him, human logic falls along the wayside where the life in the spiritual realm becomes more important than the natural. That said, information like that which is being debated here, is exciting and valuable, by confronting the web of deception and strongholds the world has over people, it should act as a diviner to deliver people from the error that is keeping them from having a relationship with Jesus.
39:36....wow LOL
I've seen Dr. White, and others, quote him during debates. Nothing like using your own comments against yourself.
Misquoting Jesus was published in 2005. Clearly since Bart is having this debate has he changed his point of view. And it's useless from James's side referring to Bart's book. It is not helping him. I mean the dude is there and he is telling you that there are differences which do matter.
@@AhmedSher1 The book was written only 4 years prior to this debate, and he has not recanted any mistake or change of opinion thereafter.
AnarchoRepublican is a HATheist a theological milliner?
Leave it to stupid people to think this was a gotcha.
I hate the way James debates. As someone who loves to read multiple translations of ancient text, just to get a "better meaning" or "fuller understanding" I wish James would have said: "The inspiration comes from both the teller & from the reader. The inspiration is in the rational mind's ability to reason & come to conclusions about meaning. Reasoning is a gift. It is a matter of faith. Just as when reading Julius Caesar's Gaulic Wars, or Sun Tzu's Art of War; either you trust in your own understanding or you don't." I think a Nietzscheian argument would have served James and believers better than the circular reasoning that he always falls back on. And, yes. I realize the irony in using Nietzsche to prove the Bible.
Notice at 1:13:40 a serious error in Dr. Ehrman's reasoning. He said, "if God could inspire people to write His text, why couldn't He inspire people to preserve it?" Imagine the implications of this response. Imagine how God would have to intervene at every moment anytime anyone wished to misquote the manuscripts. THIS IS A SERIOUS IMPLICATION HERE. Does Dr. Ehrman wish for God to send a lightning bolt down from heaven each time someone misquotes or mistranslates the scriptures? Or imagine anytime someone were about to mistranslate the scripture that there hand would stop doing what Dr. Ehrman admits is impossible for even his class, probably including himself, could attempt. Yet, at the same time his argument remains on the other side. God wishing not to have to preform a miracle to preserve the text the way Dr. Ehrman believes God should allows what is mention all over the scripture, OT and NT, that God's Holy Spirit guides us to the truth or God's intangible intervention comes into the situation to do what is necessary to give mankind what it needs. The message of the Gospels remains firm and solid. The methodology on how Dr. Ehrman wishes God to preserve the scripture is illogical and creates an artificial and contradicting creation. If I wished to translate the scripture as correctly as possible but everytime I made a mistake God pushed or stopped my arm, it would make a glitch in the program that is creation. I still appreciate Dr. Ehrman's willfulness to bring theses issues to the surface. I think these issues should be widely known so that both sides could be more certain of their options logic and the severity of their consequences. Always remember "God has put enough into the world to make faith in Him a most reasonable thing. But He has left enough out to make it impossible to live by sheer reason or observation alone." - R. K. Zacharias
Matt Wedd no he doesn’t have to send down a lightning bolt each time. But what he did do was send a final messenger with a book stating
“ Woe, then, unto those who write down, with their own hands, [something which they claim to be] divine writ, and then say. "This is from God," in order to acquire a trifling gain thereby; woe, then, unto them for what their hands have written, and woe unto them for all that they may have gained! “
I also think he assumes that if they copied them down they'd copy them down casually, without attention to originality. He assumes the copiers would be copying it like a grad student would copy a book, rather than how a person who is religiously convinced of its truth would most likely copy it.
I think there's also a mathematical likelihood that the amount of differences between manuscripts could occur without significant changes to the meaning of the text. With thousands of manuscripts laying around, it only takes maybe 40 grammatical differences between each manuscript to account for the large amount of differences between them. Also depends on the quality of the mistakes. Are they small or major? Do they change the meaning if the sentences being copied? Can that change be interpreted and harmonized with an overview of the differences in the manuscripts?
All of this talk, yet Jesus did not speak Greek or English, he spoke Arami/Arabi.
I had to laugh since they had to correct the misunderstandings of what they just heard each other say!!!
There is no trinity. Deut 6:4, Colossians 2:9, Isaiah 45:5, there is only ONE God!!
Stop cherrypicking. Those verses speak of the one BEING of God. Whereas Colossians 2:9, Isaiah 9:6, 2 Corinthians 3:17, John 10:30, John 1:14, Matthew 28:19, 1 Peter 1:1-2, and many others speak of the 3 divine PERSONS of God. If you believe the entire Bible is the word of God then you must believe in the trinity because the Word of God plainly affirms the fact that the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are all God. They all make up the 1 Divine Being that is God.
Great respect for your honesty Dr Erman.
Mr. Ehrman seems to won this debate.
Aida Rashid: All the Four Gospels accounts of the Crucifixion and Resurrection vary as to what happened during this period of time. And yet, supposedly, they were all witnesses to it. Definitely the reports differ as to whom exactly was gathered at the tomb after the resurrection. Why? It is surprising to me that there is only one account, what we read in the Gospel of Matthew, that mentions that the graves of saints opened, and those saints that "slept" (apparently another way of saying those saints that had died) arose, coming out of their graves and actually walked through the holy city, and "appeared unto many" ! How could something like that happening during the time of the resurrection go unwitnessed by Mark, Luke, and John ?! They don't mention this occurrence, at all, in their gospels !
In our weakness, His strenght is made perfect.
The weakness of even human scribal variance, displays His perfect power.
He would know these rhings would occur, He could have wrote Himself, but He choose not too.
Kanayo Easley -- your logic is weak, displaying nothing.
Yeah ok.....
When it’s wrong , it’s even more right
Kanayo Easley your comment is a perfect example of barts point. You tried to make a point, but the mistakes in your writing make the whole thing seem like gibberish. And this is 2020 , you still can’t get it right...
Write? Right? Rite? Amazing how spelling mistakes can change the meaning huh?
Your book should be really called "Misquoting Jesus because of personal agenda to make money".
Awesome! Erhman is ridiculous!
We don´t claim to have the original, but we do claim that the NT we have today does contain the gospel truth of the orginal. Seeing the data, there is no reason to believe that there were signifanct changes made in the time before the first manuscripts we posses.
We see zero corruption of the main gospel truth in around 1900 years of transmission.
Why should there be a courruption of the main gospel truth in the first 100 years???
Remember there was no single authority like Uthman, which could corrupt the message.
I'm led to believe the word negar was wrongly translated to mean carpenter instead of scholar .....that would seem like a significant difference to me yet it is the carpenter interpretation that has made it into our bibles ..... and that is only one example.... the fact of the matter is there are errors
James white was so frustrating to listen to. I feel like his bias is clouding his words.
Jason Theobald maybe is your bias what's clouding you. Who knows?
@Jason Theobald do you want to elaborate on specifics?
Lol I love Ehrman's rebuttal. "You guys probably aren't smart enough to follow what James was saying, so you just take his word for it. I'm asking you to take my word for it instead." I'd like to have seen someone satisfactorily answer the point about the doctrine of inspiration. Why bother inspiring the writers if you're not going to inspire the copiers?
The fact that this debate is taking place in an open forum, despite anyone's personal belief system, I think, demonstrates the effects of Christianity on our civilization... we value truth above all. Perhaps one could call this a "sociological argument" for the validity of something very positive in Christianity among other indicators. Of course, a lot of blood has been spilled to get us here.
The most important task for the Christians is not reconstruct the original of the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John; but to reconstruct the original Gospel of Jesus Christ.
If the first task seems hopeless, the second task is IMPOSSIBLE.
Fact : New Testament is not a Word of God given to Jesus Christ.
HardRockHallelujah
We dont have 2000 varaints in the quran. Where did u get this from?
The Koran claims Jesus was born of a virgin, but we know that this claims was made up by Matthew who twisted Isaiah 7:14 to be a prophecy of the Messiah, and therefore Jesus was not actually born of a virgin. Therefore, the Koran is proven to be the word of a really dumb false prophet and not the word of God.
You're completely clueless. Those Gospels ARE the Gospel of Christ.
Bart Ehrman won this debate single handedly. CHRISTIANS believe in miracles. But when Bart Ehrman asks why God did not preserve his words the Bible CHRISTIANS cry foul. How dare he say that. Is God all powerful or is he not? How could he let people tamper with his word the Bible like that. All other ancient texts are not of God and so we accept that they are not original. But the word of the almighty God, the Bible is different.
Bart starts stuttering in his rebuttal, his lack of confidence after James White's presentation sounds terrible.
your criteria of evaluating arguments are..................weird
If god can take a pile of dirt and breath into/on it and make a man with all of the complex structures how hard would it be to keep the original document or version? If he could speak the entire universe into existence, how hard would it be to keep the Bible complete without error? Why would mankind have to even vote in what books belong in the compilation?
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.
39:32 Didn't see that coming
He had us in the first half not gonna lie
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
One of Ehrman's more challenging debate opponents.
1:27:04 Why should we believe that this standard is unreasonable? What makes this more unreasonable than other miracles, including divine inspiration?
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
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!
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.
Bart's argument rests on reproduction mistakes. Copying by hand was the latest technology at that time/era and clearly accuracy was a problem. Because the copiers, just as we are today, do not have uniform handwritings. I think the argument should be whether the mistakes were deliberate or intentional. If so, what would be the benefit or gain?
Dr. Bart should place himself in the environment of that era. If Bart was commissioned to do copies for a church group would he miscopy?
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.
@@philster611-ih8te 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...?
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.
It would be fun to see a rematch between Dr. Ehrman and Dr. White now that White is doing a PhD on the subject.
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.
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'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 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?
He says the same shit ..word for word in every video..
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 ..
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.
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.
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
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.
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!
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.
Very good from James White! So much more informations. He really used his time extremly good! Like!
main thought. The message that Jesus Christ is the son of God that saves those who believe in the blood shed on the cross have eternal life. Jesus rose from the dead. Jesus is the only way to God. Jesus will come back in the future. This message is in every text in existence which means God has preserved the good news that leads men to eternal life. God has won again.
This debate was won by James at 41:50
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.
If the Bible is a Human book .....how is it that till today miracles happen with scientific evidence when Biblical principles are applied.....
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.
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.
The elephant in the room: Maybe Christianity is a pagan religion. Maybe Jesus who was a Jew never said he was the son of god (which he would have known goes against the Old Testament) and after his death his disciples wrote about his Jewish life and teachings and later Christians who so badly wanted to believe the messiah had come, rewrote the gospels and attracted pagans to this new religion? Why else would Christmas be celebrated in December when we know Jesus was born some time around July? The reason is that many pagan religions had their own idolatrous holidays around December and this was the perfect time to show up to the "block party" and introduce a new pagan god... It's not about whether to believe or not believe in Jesus. Judaism which he followed should be your belief when you find out how the Church turned him into an idol that he never intended to become.
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
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.
The changes to end Mark may have been made earlier by those in possession of earlier versions of Mark and the snake bite/poison version may be an addition by a sect. we all have later versions and can only speculate on the events in time.
James White
There are nonsense reading but they are still there. Wow
For him it is more important what enter the text then what came out fro Jesus's mouth. He admit there are variations we do not know which are original but they are there.
He doesn't care for massage,only how to justify variations.
So then how it's the word of God??
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.
Someone should make a video which is: “Bart Erhman VS James White, but it’s only the word ‘copying’”
I'd honestly love that
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.
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.
notice how almost all of Bart’s debates include the opposing side quoting his books practically the whole time? 😂
I was literally just thinking that 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.
No, you're just unfamiliar with the subject. I'd suggest paying closer attention to White's presentation.
Ehrman sounds like an apostate who has forsaken the faith and reduced the gospel to an intellectual pursuit. We were warned by the apostles that false teachers like him would arise and bring to themselves swift destruction.
You were also warned that the end of times was near 2000 years ago and can you honestly trust a book that claims the sun rotates aground the earth? And
that stars are tiny objects in the sky that will fall down when Jesus comes back? I can go on and on but I know that will be a waste of my time I mean, if a scholar like Ehrman can’t convince you with his expertise and logic then who can? You’re obviously too far gone; religious indoctrination at its’s best. Such a waste of a beautiful life