Bart and the Bible: What Made Bart Ehrman Change His View on Biblical Inerrancy?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 окт 2022
- Wondrium allows you to stream 8,000+ hours of lectures and documentaries in the areas of history, religion, and science, including several courses by Dr. Ehrman. *Sign up for a free trial at bartehrman.com/wondrium
Visit www.bartehrman.com/courses/ to shop from Bart Ehrman’s online courses and get a special discount by using code: MJPODCAST on all courses
In this introductory episode, Professor Bart Ehrman discusses the roots of his academic career and some of the issues and contradictions in the New Testament with co-host Megan Lewis: the subtleties of inerrancy, the nuances of translation, scribal changes to New Testament manuscripts, the paradox of evangelical scholars.
*Advertising Disclaimer: We are an affiliate partner for Wondrium, so if you sign up for a paid plan with them, we will earn a commission. This in no way affects your price and you’ll be supporting our show, so we thank you.
Love the way Bart nerds out on tiny stuff. He's still enthusiastic after decades of doing this stuff. Great!
Agreed. I don't know many people who read ancient works in Greek every morning just for the fun of it!
@@user-fq4yz5ek3r Ah, reading the New Testament in Greek, which I learned as a Theology student, is thrilling !! It really is. Somehow I, and others who have done the same have told me this, feel much more in touch with the text. And the differences in style and even competence in Greek between the various NT books is quite striking, something you cannot see in the translations.
This is my new “homework.” I plan on watching these videos everyday until I get through them all. 🙂
.
Mee too. I found this series last week...and I will start from no1 and move forward. Excellent podcast
This is a great book. I’ve read it twice, and religious books are not usually my thing. Brilliant. Everyone should read it, especially so-called Christian Nationalists. I am so glad I found this series.
sadly, Christian Nationalists are the least likely to read it, or if they do, they'll drown it out with "alternative facts". 🤣
What is a Christian nationalist?
Brilliant! I read Misquoting Jesus years ago, and recently revisited it while writing a chapter on the King James Bible. Off to listen to part II. Thank you both!
"chapter"? What is the book about, if I may ask?
Great conversation. I learned a lot!
Learning so much…every time I go searching.
I love your book Misquoting Jesus it changed my mind and opened my eyes thank you very much.
Wouldn’t the originals be somewhat irrelevant since they would be based on decades of oral “copies”?
If written copies couldn’t be copied accurately, certainly the oral versions were far more distorted as they were passed along.
Good point.
@fr0gger Well, you can tell god to do a better job at "preserving" his word. Otherwise, the stupidity of great concern for inerrant preservation of the originals v. no concern to inerrantly preserve the copies, will continue to give skeptics justification to say the whole mess has nothing to do with god and everything to do with overly zealous religious fanatics.
@@gregbooker3535 this is why I eventually gave up my belief. Most people just assume you fall away because and use these problematic issues with Bible as an excuse to indulge in sin.
I am not convinced a deity would do it this way. That’s all it is.
If god wanted his word to be preserved he could have easily done it. But it appears to be the work of fallible men. It appears as though there are irreconcilable contradictions in this inerrant book. It appears as though there are conceptual issues with biblical teachings. It appears the world is very old and thus death entered the human race well before Adam and Eve. It appears as though the Bible permitted slavery. It appears as though prayer has no bearing on outcomes. It appears as though when people say god told them this or that, that they are making it up. It appears as though god made some people for eternal torment. It appears as though paul won over Jesus i determine salvation. It appears as though praying to god answering your prayer about getting the right carpet contractor for your church carpet being answered while someone’s prayer for food for their starving child going unanswered is quite warped.
And on and on. And then people just assume that these genuine intellectual problems you have with Christian belief is just a cover so you can sin.
@@justinabajian1087 Dr. Frank Turek answers your good criticisms by blindly presupposing classical theism, assuming God is all-good, and therefore, knew that in the ripple-effect, his answering prayers about carpets was more important than answering prayers for food from children. The answer is that Turek doesn't do a very good job of making this 'ripple-effect' the least bit convincing to anybody outside of his predominantly classical theist Christian audiences. We have to wonder how much less evil would exist in the world had god given a road-to-Damascus experience to all doubters.
EdwardMWolfe, you think not God's thoughts, but those of men. Jehovah created the universe. Writing a book is easy in contrast.
Bart is always a treat to listen to. Excellent show!!
I'm 78,been a believer most of my life,I lost my oldest son October 12th 2023.Now I question everything the Bible has ever said, I enjoy listening to Bart and have learned so much.Thank you.
My condolences to you for the loss of your son.
You have my condolences. Also want to point out that even if the Bible isn’t what it claims to be that doesn’t necessarily mean there is no afterlife. Keep an open mind about the possibilities reality may hold even post Christianity :)
I’m definitely buying the book. This videos are awesome.
love them both
Brilliant. Appeals to believers as well as atheists. I loved the book.
Love Bart's work but it's so hard to believe people don't seem to pick up on the Bible's problems. My first read through as a teenager made me think this book doesn't make sense as i immediately noticed contradictions even in the first paragraph. I aslo didn't get an all loving god feeling he seemed a rather narcissistic dictator.
Hey Bart, has the order of the MJP playlist changed? I think I was listening in chronological order, but now the list seems to have scrambled...
I'm in.
I remember reading "Misquoting Jesus" years ago and being gobsmacked (ok, I'm American not British, but it's such a fabulous word) by the sheer number of differences in the biblical manuscripts. And even more surprised to learn that scribes often deliberately changed the texts for their own religious or political reasons. But hearing now that most Christians, including Christian scholars, insist that these differences and contradictions don't matter adds a new level of "Really??!!" So what they are really saying is that the Christian doctrine is not rooted in the bible. I guess I already knew that (the word "trinity" doesn't actually appear in the bible), but it seems completely contradictory (some might say hypocritical) that so many Christians quote chapter and verse from the bible in support of various arguments and then turn around and say that the hundreds of thousands of errors in the bible don't matter.
For the marketing and communications person on this show - might want to consider holding the graphic with the book titles way longer....I had to pause to try to catch them.
At 24:00, he talks about a passage in 1 Timothy 3:16, and the crucial distinction among texts of the same Biblical passages, with some texts using a relative pronoun ("who"/Ὃς) and others a nominative noun ("God"/θεὸς). In the video, he's portraying the possible typographical error as hinging on whether a single letter is either an omicron (o) or a theta (θ, o-with-a-line-through-it). But in consulting the Greek texts, the issue is rather whether the actual word is a 2-letter word (Ὃς) or a 4-letter word that begins with a theta (θεὸς). So in this instance, we observe not just the errancy of the Bible, but - horrors - the errancy of Bart Ehrman. Could this be intentional? He is being inconsistent to demonstrate meta-consistency? ( _Edit:_ My comment is invalid - and Ehrman remains infallible - if early scribes used "θς" as an abbreviation for θεὸς.)
Thanks for clarifying.
@@brockgeorge6437hah.. clarifying..
@@user-fq4yz5ek3r
"gerund or present participle: clarifying
1.
make (a statement or situation) less confused and more clearly comprehensible."
You are correct. As it turns out, Ehrman is a human being and humans commit mistakes. The original authors of the texts of the New Testament were also human beings, and so were the countless scribes that produced the copies of copies of copies of the texts that we have today.
All humans commit mistakes, however great the effort that they make not to.
In any event, I believe you misinterpreted Bart's words. At 26:00 he explains what he means: there was a scholar that studied the oldest manuscripts and concluded that the variation that says God (θεὸς) exists because some scribe mistook an omicron with a theta because of a line that was on the other side of the page.
But it is fair to say that he explained it badly at 24:00.
Dr Ehrman i'm not sure if you read any of these you tube comment but i have a question for you. As an agnostic/atheist do you still read the bible daily as a devotional as it still contains some great moral truths or do you only read it for your research?
That "Isn't it POSSIBLE?" approach (around 19:30) is one of the many common logical fallacies of apologists and their audiences. As pointed out in this video, it isn't reasonable to believe something, against much more likely alternatives, just because one cannot show it to be IMPOSSIBLE. Taking that approach would allow anyone to justify believing just about anything.
@Bart D. Ehrman
Can you present a Bible which represents that which the scribes have not changed, since you feel so strongly that the present Bible is a change from the original??
Isnt it true that there are two nonidentical stories of creation, and two non-identical stories of the flood, in the first chapters of Genesis?
Yes, the creation stories are separate but the flood stories are combined, and separating the two is tricky.
In all seriousness.. the Main issue for myself is being taught by Evangelical/Pentecostal/Baptist teachers is that the KJV is "the true" word of God as God himself has written. As Bart so clearly points out it's a load of crap given all the misquotes, inconsistencies and contradictions. This caused me to heavy defect from Christian teachings given that the main crux of the issue is built on a house of cards. If these bastards would've said "ehh you know its basically correct but the problem is some Chinese Whispers issues" I wouldn't be on this journey I am right now.
He disproves Islam easily on this channel. Islam is even more corrupt.
Think on this catholics believe in the same God as jews, and Muslims.
They disagreement is the man made explanation for God. I don't get onto all that. I believe inGod and there are truths in all interpretations and man made corruption. If you pray and seek God when you hear the truths you know them. The bible is stories from different people. It's not the bible is flawed. It's that humans are.
2 peter 1:20
knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
Your thesis is the changes don’t matter as your peers defended: you agree that your thesis changes no core theology yet your thesis is relevant because of a hypothetical? IF a hypothetical that 3 Books missing matters so insignificant discrepancies must be vital as well?
Idk how it is so easy to justify a thesis which crumbles in its defense and yet apologist never see it’s/your brilliance? As far as If/Then propositions reflect reality this reflects your biases thereof
@bartdehrman 27:58
Not sure that I understand the problem with the references to Abiathar in Mark 2:26 and Samuel and Chronicles. The OT references to Abiathar and his father/son Ahimelech are far from clear, whether these are father/son/grandson and in what order. It is not clear where the problem is or even if there is a problem. I cannot understand how this would pose a problem to anyone's faith in Christ.
at 29:30. If the NT did not have Mark, Hebrews, and James, would it be good enough? Certainly. We could also do without all of John's writings, which would also help to reduce the number of contradictions and errors. We could remove all passages that are contradictory. If it is not widely supported (such as passages in Luke 24) we would remove them. Everything should be moved to a note so we know what was removed, but it would be out of the way and we could get onto the task at hand and forget the argument over inerrancy.
I would be all for that. Truly. But I don't think that would bring anybody back. There are other reasons, as you honestly and thoughtfully explain starting at 32:15.
We listen to sermons that I hope no pastor would claim are inerrant and infallible, yet people depend on what their pastors preach. University and seminary students learn from professors who I hope do not claim to be inerrant and infallible. Everyone wants the Bible to be 100% perfect, but they don't require that of anyone who explains the Bible to them, yet they accept what they are told as truth.
The people of the 1st century did not have a NT and apparently did okay. Why do we need something bigger and better? Do we have such a huge undertaking before us that we need something so much more grand than they had?
The debate over inerrancy and infallibility is a red herring. It sends people away, it does not accomplish the work of God, and countless trees have paid the ultimate price to print the books. It's all about everyone getting what they want, except God.
Ok, I accept your argument. Why, then, study the bible at all? As you said, early Christians certainly didn't, as it didn't exist then. But then, there were many forms of early Christianity with competing doctrines: some thought Jesus was human only. Some divine only, etc. Does it matter? Well, yes, if you believe in the trinity, as no early Christian did. You are right to point out that Christian doctrine is not rooted in the bible. So if the Nicene creed has no scriptural support, how did it win out among all the early competing beliefs? Is it because it is the true doctrine given by God? I can't speculate on that. But I do know that on the earthly plane it won out because it had political clout behind it. That fact makes it far more difficult for a non-Christian like me to accept it.
@@hannahstraining7476 . You probably shouldn't. 2 Tim 3:16 says Scripture is given for teaching, reproof, correction, and training. If you work at Amazon, knowing the rules is important, but if you don't, studying their workplace policy statement is a bit silly. Yes, it is the perception of many--especially in the church--that Scripture is to be used for evangelism. Nowhere does Scripture say that. The new testament church had no New Testament.
Amazon wants as many people as they need to do the work. A non-employee cannot just show up for work and cannot expect salary or benefits. And, what a non-employee thinks of Amazon's workplace policies is not terribly relevant. Yes, it is the current policy of the govt to let as many people in as possible, to give them a better life, and that is the general perception of God too, but Scripture never says that. God does not beg people to come to heaven. That makes no sense. Nor is it the work of God to make our lives better. That makes God our servant. Scripture is the word of God, telling us what he is doing (we have no way to know unless he tells us) and what he expects of his people (we have no way to know unless he tells us). The fact that his people do it poorly, or not at all, is on them, not God. He is pretty clear on what he expects of us. What we expect of him is irrelevant.
Does anyone know the full name of the 18th century scholar that Bart references at 26:05?
I'd like to know that too... I'm hearing Bechstein (or Wechstein, and maybe ck not ch)
Got him: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Jakob_Wettstein
Episode 1.
where does the Aquarian Gospel come from Akashic records ????
They’re great people and I love Bart’s approach. What I find interesting is that the things that caused him disquiet about the Bible were relatively minor in some ways. So both other Christian scholars and, for some time for himself too, it was no big deal. I agree. As long as you don’t want to maintain a position of inerrancy of scripture or Sola Scriptura, which are clearly absurd in the light of overwhelming evidence, it’s still possible to know the facts while believing in Christ. What’s interesting is that we never quite get to the nub of why Bart no longer believes, of what took him from being a believer with reservations, through scepticism all the way to atheism. I think it’s fair enough. Although he mentions the issue of suffering, and God’s apparent complete lack of involvement, which, granted, are major issues, one still senses there are reasons that are either too personal to share in this kind of setting or so deep that they can’t be articulated. I think this may be the way with many of us who feel our relationship with God is personal. Perhaps the reasons for both belief and indeed unbelief, at the end of the day are less rational than we think.
"One still senses"? Please speak for yourself. I don't sense it. If you have reasons to suggest that theodicy isn't really the problem for Bart, please articulate them, otherwise your "sense" is your own subjective reaction, which is of no value to the rest of us. If it is impossible to square bedrock Christian theology, that there is an all-powerful and all-benevolent god, with the massive suffering in life--and not just from supposed exercise of human free will--then that's a sufficient reason to reject the existence of the Christian god, it's not just a "major issue" as you call it.
Jesus didn't speak Greek. He spoke Aramaic. You need to know Aramaic and the culture at that time to truly understand Jesus and the nature of God. For instance, in Aramaic, the word for Evil means "unripe" or "ignorant." It makes sense that evil is ignorance because ignorant people can do evil things. In the Lord's Prayer, the line "deliver us from evil" really means "deliver us from ignorance." Paul was delivered from evil.
Another problem is the Aramaic word for Camel. It is also the same word for rope. Hmmmm.
@2:21 I find it … “interesting “ to say the least how the lady here can laugh with Bart and then she just shuts it off like that! 😂
Just funny lol
Woman moment
I wonder what his take on Islam and the Quran is? Many of his questions are answered in the Quran
The omniscient yahweh says he is the beginning and the end, so why does the Bible start with, in the beginning.
Why don't other Bible scholars write books for the public
knowledge is always kept secretive , because it’s valuable
There are few others as well like Dr. James Tabor, look up.
There are many. Dale B Martin, Hector Avalos, Dan McClellan to name a few.
They don’t have a strong of a marketing arm as fundamentalist publishers.
Wonder what thinks of kjv only
Is his laughing natural or podcast
style?
I noticed how hyper he is in this video, it tends to distract me.
@@gregbooker3535 in all his video. I stopped watching his vlog.
it is a sign of nervousness or excitement or both. Don't be so judgemental
@@electricityofmind6300 I'm sorry, I didn't know that Ehrman's tendency to distract me with his laughing was "judgmental".
@@gregbooker3535 he's the one judging.
Probably should try to avoid agendas. Its hard to do, getting unstuck with story lines of one type or another. Like a ship without a rudder. See that in an a number of other Bart RUclips videos. Interesting up to a point, until we see its going nowhere. There is really no big picture - just nitpicking here and there. Bart is really good at that. It reminds me of penmanship - unless you cross your t's and dot your i's your not going to get passed me in grade school. But of course learning has to start somewhere and for some Bart is the place.
Can't tell you what comes next. We find that for ourselves when we're looking.
Need to unsubscribe.
Doing history is about paying rigorous attention to detail. If your beliefs can’t stand up to that, the problem is with your beliefs, not with the rigorous method.
As for the rest of your comment, it seems like vague handwaving to me. I can’t really figure out what your complaint is, and I’m not sure you really know either, other than you simply don’t want to hear what he’s saying.
I would say reading the Bible as a book would convince any rational person that it is not without errors. People typically only read it one verse at a time. Not saying there isn’t good stuff in there but inerrant? No way.
Interesting, the point of preservation of scripture was mentioned by Mohammed Hijab during the interview with him, yet you disputed that as not being a basis for divine revelation, yet you are explaining here that that's what made you leave Christianity as you saw it not from God.
What passages in the Bible claim that it's inerrant?
The Bible is full of mistakes.
Here is one that I found.
In 2 Kings 8 v 26 it's states that King Ahaziah was 22 years old when he became King.
2 Kings 8 v 26 (KJV)
"Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel".
But in 2 Chronicles 22 v 2 it states that King Ahaziah was 42 when he became King.
2 Chronicles 22 v 2 (KJV)
"Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri".
The Bible is full of these types of mistakes.
Christians use verbal gymnastics to try and explain these contradictions by saying one verse is talking about the physical maturity of Kinghood whilst the other verse is talking about the spiritual maturity of Kinghood.
NONE of this is stated in text.
Its a clear mistake and contradiction.
Heres another mistake in the Bible i found.
In 1 Kings 4 v 26 it states that Solomon had FORTY thousand stalls of horses.
1 Kings 4 v 26 (KJV)
"And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen" .
But in 2 Chronicles 9 v 25 it states that Solomon had FOUR thousand stalls of horses.
2 Chronicles 9 v 25 (KJV)
"And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem" .
Again Christians use verbal gymnastoc by saying that the 40,000 stalls of horses were housed in a wider configuration of 4000 primary stalls of horses.
NONE of this is in the text.
Yet ANOTHER mistake in the Bible.
Like i said, the Bible is full of these types of mistakes - so it is NOT the perfect, inerrant word of God.
Bart said, "God said it's inerrant, so it's inerrant!" WHERE does God say the Bible is inerrant???"
You're missing the point. Believing in inerrancy is an irrational belief. Evidence, proof or a chain of logic is not required. For example, just because God didn't say the words of the Bible are inerrant, doesn't mean God didn't say the words of the Bible are inerrant. Do you get it? You believe it, because you believe it. It requires no beginning.
Bart concludes that if the bible is a "very human book" written by scribes who changed it, then it must not be God's inspired words at all.
But could God not inspire these words in a different way then we think he should?
Bart even said it himself, most of the 500,000 manuscript differences are incredibly unimportant word misspellings or punctuations.
Can we not allow for some level in variation? Even Bart said when he was an evegelical he believed there could not be any contradictions in the bible at all.
But If God inspired the bible, it doesn't mean it has to be 100% inerrant of any differences or errors or contradictions.
For God to inspire the bible, it just means he has to be Real!
We could still believe the bible is inspired by God, even if human biblical depictions aren't exact representations of reality all the time.
Iin other words what if the bible is not 100% inerrant, but there are truths in some areas and pieces of truth in other areas. And what if we are still called to meditate on these truths either way.
well it does matter because how can we tell what passages are true? if we should live according to the bible we need to know which passages are actually from God and which are not
Copies of copies of copies. 500,000 differences. Most don't matter some do matter. Tranlation. From Greek to Latin to English problematic. Interpretation more problematic. Inerrancy? Contradictions? Apolgetics. Letter of the Jewish Law(original intent). Spirit of the Law. Was the law made for man or man from the law? Conservative vs Liberal. Conservative Christians inerrancy. Moderates minor differences. Bart did not leave the faith because of "minor differences". Contradictions did not lead him from the faith. John Mill remained a Christian till his death. If you criticize the text you are not a real Christian. Deist reason is more important than revekation. God Bless Bart Ehrman! 😎😇😉
I did not know there were different variants of Shakespeare. I have been told that his wife is a Christian.
Agree, textual variants never go to basic theological issues. Is this nit-picking to make a meal out of textual variants? I wonder how textual variants would cause anyone to change their faith, Can't see it.
If you don’t criticize the text, then you’re not thinking for yourself. You’re just allowing yourself to be programmed. You don’t have to be a biblical literalist to be a Christian.
They Might Be Giants has destroyed my ability to hear the word Mesopotamian like a normal person.
We're the Mesopotamians
Sargon, Hammurabi, Ashurbanipal, and Gilgamesh
How do you get all these books out of a figure that you believe was a real man, baptized by John, killed by Pilot that preached he was the son of god sent by the lord to save mankind. The last bits were just in Jesus imagination. Its like turning the life of Brian into a five part movie
omicron/theta might be the most Jesus ever, it says he's god, if you see it that way, otherwise he's not, or maybe both?
Bart is more Christian than I am, and I am.
Dogma and attributing everything bad that happens to gods or devils is not Christian though Paul might disagree, that is okay, I disagree with the written Paul.
Being a true Christian requires deep study and not limiting your knowledge. ❤️
Would not want Bart to change at all.
"And God said, Let there be light." and, behold, Rabbi Yitzchak said, "There was"
Rabbi Judah said that this implies 'light' was already in existence, as indicated by "there was". It is not written, "there became light", but "there was".
When the Holy One, Blessed be He, looked over the generations of wicked men, he stored the light for the righteous ones. Thus it is written, "And from the wicked their light is withholden, (Job 38:15) and,
"light is sown for the righteous and gladness for those upright in hearts" (Ps. 97:11) And so, God said
"Let there be light" just as it is written, "Who raised up the righteous man from the east," (Is. 41:1)
You can't argue with a closed mind.
You might as well be arguing with a cat.
I enjoy listening to Bart but when trying to explain away some of these contradictions, there's one problem here in this video. Go to the 18:00 minute marker and listen to him explain 1 Samuel 21:6 and Mark 2:26 He says there's a contradiction. There is not. According to 1 Samuel 21:6, it was Abiathar's father Ahimelech who gave David the consecrated bread. However, Abiathar was certainly alive and perhaps even present when the incident occurred. Jesus says in Mark 2:26 "and gave them bread also which were with him." So no contradiction here. Sorry. Also, the phrase "in the days of Abiathar" (Mark 2:26) is strictly correct. Jesus was probably referring to Abiathar because he was so well known as one of David's chief supporters.
Wrong Grace there is definitely a contradiction on those 2 passages😅😅
Given all the mistakes in translation within the NT, I'm considering converting to Islam so I can have multiple wives. That would make me less immoral than cheating on all my girlfriends. Agree or disagree?
You came to a scholarly lecture to make dumb internet jokes? Lame.
You can, but keep in mind you would be forbidden to ever question the authenticity, origins or meaning of words, basically to pay for your higher moral ground you'd have to give up your faculties of critical thought.
You would convert to Islam because you strongly believe that the Quran is the word of God. It has no error (unlike the NT). Once you convert, yes you can marry up to 4, but God says that "marry just 1 if you fear you can't be fair to them". Be sincere in your spiritual search for the truth. Good luck.
@@electricityofmind6300this is not true. You are free to discuss and ask questions about the religion. If you are not satisfied with the answer given by an imam, you can always ask another scholar. Pick one answer that you think is the most logical and move on.
LOL. Do you have enough money to support multiple wives, each in her own household, and all the resulting children?
God is sovereign - the words in the Bible are there because He wanted them there for our time. The age of perfection hasn’t come so even inerrancy, won’t be perfect in man’s minds. Historicity also doesn’t matter at all. The scriptures are supernatural they can’t be discerned intellectually they have to be to discerned spiritually. That’s why it should be called cemetery instead of seminary.
The only person on this comment section who gets it. If people tampered the scriptures to steer people away from God, do you really think a sovereign God who created heaven and earth will just powerless against it and now He is absolute? 😂NO. You can change the scriptures all you want the holy spirit will instruct you.
@@vinylvortexvideos5935So the Jefferson bible is accurate, and Jesus wasn't god?
Nice dogma rehearsal. You believe in a god that created intelligence as an impediment to arriving at truth.
So you’re just saying “Ignore the facts and go with the doctrine, which is magically correct.” Why would you do that? Why should anyone take such a position seriously?
@@yohei72 critical scholars abusing as much faith in their notions if not more so than Christians.
Bart is a rare breed if a honest..straight forward scholar..but many christians in state of denial..still reject him?
The Quran's preservation is attributed to both oral and written traditions. The oral tradition, passed down from generation to generation, relies on memorization and recitation. Today, millions of Muslims meticulously memorize the Quran letter by letter. Concurrently, the written tradition involved early compilations. Notable ancient manuscripts, such as the Codex Uthmanic Script, Sana'a Manuscripts, and Birmingham Quran Manuscript, provide evidence of the Quran's preservation through written records, affirming its authenticity over centuries.
Lol....ok
@@RichardGeresGerbilhi Richard, you should get a free copy of the translation of the Quran, and read it for your self. Go straight to Chapter of Joseph, read the entire chapter and ponder, can an illiterate Arab man 1400 years ago narrate such a story in such detail?
@@diahiskandarbinmohamadjani7674 I actually did read the Quran and the key word is story. I had a horrible time with the Quran it was worse than the Bible of course I read it in English so take that with a grain of salt.
That’s Islamic doctrine, but it’s historically false. There are numerous variant manuscripts of the Quran, and as it started out as oral tradition, there’s no way to prove it was handed down perfectly word for word, which seems enormously unlikely.
so going by your logic if God didn't preserve the bible and prevent mistakes from scribes or the authors He didn't inspire it in the first place.
So is the Quran then the inspired Word of The Almighty?
It is easier to be tempted to and continue to sin, than for the righteous to prevail.
Humans are driven more by the flesh and their free will than obeying God, and sanctification takes time and very good understanding of Jesus' teachings, so naturally they would be better at preserving a lie.
The Quran, frankly, is much more palatable, as a Quran owner and former believer myself.
I am definitely biased as a Christian, but I can objectively look at this and say it is much easier to believe in a man who tells the message of one God that is very similar to other messages (good behavior = life after death), than of a man purported to BE God that says you don't have to do anything but believe because HE DIED for your sins.
I followed the Quran before I became Atheist, then became Christian after God changed my heart through Jesus, saving me from sexual struggle, drugs and near death.
God knew his word would be twisted, however the Bible does not contain twisted teachings, you must understand it wholly so that you understand what the humans who were inspired by him came to tell us. You don't need a book of laws, you need God himself to speak to you and tell you his law, that is more preserved than any Quran or Bible. Quran also had more than recitation at one point, but the current version was selected out of a few, it was not the same as what Muhammad heard in the cave, this wasn't even true back when Muhammad was around, the message is not the same thing he heard in the cave, and frankly, it wasn't even God himself who told him, it was an angel claiming to be Gabriel.
@@ZacElCapitan what a fairytale. Perhaps you believe sun rises in the west every day or sky is pink. Well it is a free world you can believe whatever.
But the bible doesn't claim to be word of god, nor do the people who wrote it claimed it to be nor did they claim themselves to be inspired. As the nth person d9wn the line you are welcome to live by your fanatsies
@@DAWAHTIME1 The Quran itself claims that the Torah and Gospel was a message of God sent to men, but that Muhammad came to set the record straight with an 'unchanged' message. You cannot say it isn't so, my Quran says it right here Surah 3 Al-Imran verse 3.
@@DAWAHTIME1 All things are possible through God, how do you think an angel could even speak to Muhammad, or that water was turned to wine. There are many more miracles that happened before Muhammad, but I have never read of any miracles done by your prophet, and the Quran only speaks of his revelation by Jibril. God is not the one to deceive us, it was Shaytaan who has deceived one of us, and my faith has changed my life and performed miracles, so I am afraid that we may never truly know until the day comes.
Fallacy of denying the antecedent. (If A, then B. Not A. Therefore not B)
The logic doesn't work, because then you could argue that anything preserved from antiquity is the word of God, whether it be the Quran or that tablet from Mesopotamia about Ea-Nasir selling bad copper.
I want to be clear here: I'm not claiming any particular thing is or is not the word of God. I'm only pointing out that your reasoning here doesn't work
As a Christian, I have listened with great intent to the arguments Dr Ehman has put forward but I cannot accept his forceful Christ and the faith. It us a Faith and it is held by billions of people. I'm OK with him being in the classroom but these podcasts seem mire of an attack than informed debate.
hello there. I have noticed a recurrring pattern amongst Christians, and it is that they mistake criticism for attacks. an attack intends to harm or destroy, whereas criticism aims for clarification and correction of deficiencies. could it be that for Christians, the idea of being attacked by enemies of God reinforces the idea they're right about their beliefs? the more wrong they are, the more people will point out their mistakes, and therefore they will believe even more they're right!
Bart said if Bible was God's word, He would have preserved it and that an amazing argument. God in the Quran says that he has revealed Quran and He will preserve it We see that even after 14 centuries, the very original Quran exists and you won't find a single difference between any Quran (which is in Arabic).
This is completely false. There are variant manuscripts of the Quran.
@yohei72 You can't argue against facts, the original Arabic manuscript is one and has no variants. This is a fact and get any Arabic Quran, and you wouldn't find a difference. For translation, it the work of translators and each might translate it differently, and you wouldn't find a Muslim use one translation as "the Quran." Translation are merely for understanding if one can't understand Arabic. While the Bible, there hundreds of thousands of sources of "copies" of what is thought to be copies of the copies of the copies.... of the original, while no one has the original, with hundreds of thousands differences between what is thought to be "copies of the original". Read from authentic sources my friend 😉
Mr Bart.. you really owe it to yourself to at least read the Quran once in your life. If you do will see how Allah (Elohim, or God) promised to reserve the text until the end of times.
Like you said, If tomorrow morning the Quran is burned across the planet, it will not make any difference for us Muslims. That is because the Quran is memorized word for word, letter for letter. We have children as young as 10 years old and even younger who memorize the whole Quran letter for letter with the page number and chapter number in the original language that it was revealed... We have millions of people across the planet that memorize the whole Quran and can recite it all from memory and it will not be difficult to rewrite it once more in the original language!
If all the bible (old and new testaments) are burned tomorrow no one will be able to rewrite it once more due to the so many discrepancies between texts and more importantly, no one has the original manuscripts!!!
Please, you owe it to yourself to at least read it, to see the difference for yourself!!
Bart Ehrman has already stated in his blog or in some interview I guess, that the Qur'an is another mere human text. Surely, he has read it. He also knows that there were times, as the Islamic tradition reports, that the numbers of those who memorized the Qur'an were well under a fifty. It doesn't matter how many Muslims memorize the Qur'an now.
If all copies and manuscripts of the Bible were to vanish from the face of the earth, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church which Christ found would still exist. This is because our faith doesn't rely on a book or a set of written revelation. Moreover, it seems that you do not know the number of monks and laity who have memorized parts of the Bible or the entirety of the Scripture. If you do not believe me, take your time, and visit an Orthodox monastery anywhere in the Middle East, in Africa, in Greece, in Russia, in Eastern Europe, or even in North America. Ask any monk, and test them if you are still blind. Or even better, visit a church and ask the laity, particularly the youth and the old.
The Scriptures are not meant to be memorized and recited in ancient Judaism and Christianity: it is only found in Islam and certain branches of Rabbinic Judaism.
Bart, I was so very impressed with your Biblical knowledge until you got to the thorny difficult issues and then you went Bible Belt Buckle.
You blew off the Reincarnation question with a denial that it never happened. What?? didn't happen. There was no change in position or the meeting never happened.
Second you clearly believe that Jesus is both human and divine yet you have zero curiosity of what happened in the 18 years before his ministry? For you He was a good little Jewish boy who learned how to Carpent. There are credible ,at least credible enough to investigate, reports that He was in India. Were you not even a little curious to know the truth.???? Even if He was there how would it diminish His Divinity??
Like I said, you have a little credibility but not a total believability
He's misquoting jesus alright
I'm bothered that you laugh off over all discrepancies.
very silly way of answering from a scholar 😮
Solid argument. Very persuasive.
Has he not hear "Inerrant in the ORIGINAL text"? That's in every major creed. Just $$$ making & wants to create himself to be a scholar on the flip side of the "ball". Never the less seems to be very person.
How do you tell the original text is inerrant? We don't have the original text. It's an unfalsifiable claim
Constantly laughing at your own humor is a very annoying verbal tic.
Thats only a you thing!