Bart Ehrman vs. James White Debate P2
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 25 апр 2014
- Dr. Bart D. Ehrman continues the debate with 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.
First Part of the debate is found here: • Bart Ehrman vs. James ...
Program discussed on Bart Ehrman's Foundation Blog: ehrmanblog.org/?p=7250
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.
I don’t think Dr. Ehrman expected this much of a challenge. Both are very scholarly in their debate and it’s much appreciated this day and age. Well done, gentlemen!
It would be nice if RUclips comments had a filter option to filter out comments that use words such as "schooled," "slaughtered," "destroyed," "annihilated," etc. in debate videos so we could eliminate a lot of the immature comments.
I'd add a filter to block "text talk" as well.
Best moment in the debate: James giving Bart the P52 tie. Bart seems genuinely thrilled by it!
I only listened to an audio version of this debate earlier, so I thought that White actually took off the tie that he was wearing and gave that to Ehrman.
I totally see why he geeks out about that. I would, too, as I do about my Book of Kells tie. And I too would want to hug the person who understood me so well!
Indeed. That was touching!!!
They dont like each other .Thats clear.
They don't like each other's conclusions. Doesn't mean they don't like each other
@@kyleisbored7465 I don't know. I certainly felt animosity, and I doubt I care enough to project.
How can two people who hardly know each other, dislike each other? Hang on a minute you're a gooner........
They don't like each other, that is clear.
Ehrman has said he won't debate White again because White has a mean streak. He mentioned it in a recent interview called "on debating" or something similar.
I love the experts in the comment sections of these videos
Amazing debate they we’re both going at it. Two intellectual scholars both very educated and knowledgeable going back and forth great debate
One of the greatest debates ever in tone, professionalism, scholarship, and argument. Excellent job on both sides!
I felt the same, tone, professionalism and arguments went down quite well from both sides. 👍
Damn, this "back and forth" bethween this two is so technical that I have no idea what in the world all this distinctions make reference to! Thanks for the video though.
It is like defending one's dissertation before the boards.
It's actually simple. Word variance does not matter in collation, meaning does. Bart is presenting a false flag argument in an attempt to confuse Dr. White. White is on to him.
Hope that helps.
@Paul Wright thank you for the summary in simple language, sir.
If you follow James White's channel, he discusses these kinds of issues all the time, you come up to speed over time.
@@pontiuspilate7631 Have you read Misquoting Jesus?
This debate was instructive. Dr. White knew that he was up against a formidable opponent for textual criticism.
Great debate and I've learned tremendously from both Dr.Bart Ehrman and Dr.James White.
I don't even know if White is making good points during Ehrman's examination because Ehrman consistently fails to actually address the point being made.
No, actually White is pressuring Ehrman into using his convoluted scheme instead of trying to find a common language. Most debates like this one end in two people exposing their view and an audience accepting the one side they can understand.
For example, White was trying to force Ehrman to talk about the Koran, where Ehrman would have to give ignorant responses.
White has no scientific basis for his allegations. Instead, he has rhetoric tricks.
You are just banging your head against a brick wall, of course the resurrection isn't scientific, it's a supernatural experience which simply means "beyond science". It's just like how people try to explain the existence of our universe "scientifically" it's impossible. Why? Because if the universe was really created by God, we wouldn't be able to explain it scientifically because it would've been created "supernaturally". However, we still try to force science to explain how "nothing can create something" which leaves unscientific claims that are disguised as scientific. It is such a delusion, and absurd in it's very foundations. So just like in the existence of our universe, trying to explain something supernatural, naturally, will get you no where and you'll never find an answer because there is no answer to be found. So unless you accept that science can't explain everything, you continue to stay ignorant. God bless.
Ehrman fails?!!!!
White creates "false arguments" and denies any attempt Ehrman makes to get him back to common ground. it is a useless debate.
@@teamjesus5652You talk about magic, don't you?
Perhaps I am slightly biased as a theist (everyone is slightly biased), but I think that James White won this particular debate. I think that Bart was actually had a stronger showing against William Lane Craig than he did against James White.
I think that you made some good points. I think that Bart makes some good points too. I don't know if I am exactly a fan of Bart, but I do like him and I respect some of the work that he has done. (So does Michael Licona.) Bart is also a very good debater. Personally, I think that William Lane Craig is a much better at debate than Ehrman or White; but I think that Bart gave a VERY good account of himself against Craig, yet he seems to have some problems with White's particular style of debate. In any case, a debate can't make one position right or wrong in and of itself.
Did anyone notice how during the cross-examintation Bart Ehrman kept interrupting James White while he was answering Ehrman's questions? James White on the other hand kept his cool and allowed Ehrman to answer his questions without interrupting in between. That is how you do an honest debate. If you keep interrupting your opponent while it is his chance to speak, it only shows that you are scared of something.
Winston Xavier This a debate. Not church.
Winston Xavier Not when your opponent is talking obvious nonsense or trying to dodge the question.
I don't believe Dr. Ehrman crossed the line. He may have been inconsiderate or even semi-brash, but that's not tantamount to crossing the line.
great debate, love listening to all of these.
I want to see a round 2!
Bart started off nice and respectful and seemed to grow very irritable and condescending
Nicholas Cone
Bart DESTROYED that moron White beyond the shadow of a doubt; better luck next time - lol :P
Nicholas Cone I noticed that too. I think he was frustarted by James white's ignorance and arrogance.
+Jason C.White seems aware of the rational weaknesses in his argument, which he makes up for in obvious conviction to apologetics in the faith.
Elr James NOT sure how James white thought he had a chance. Ehrman does this stuff for a living. He is one of the foremost experts in the world on New Testament textual criticism.
Elr James LOL
So many big words and my so little knowledge in this area make this really hard to follow along lol. Regardless it’s probably one of the best debates I’ve heard along with the part 1 video of this debate. They actually speak to each other’s points and questions to attempt to answer specific points. I do think a lot of their opening statements have strong assertions that when questioned in the cross examined portion, they were not prepared to answer with specific detail. Example when Bert asked about the 12 documents or whatever it was and White could only give about 2-3 examples out of said 12 in that very moment.
If you claim the miracle of divine inspiration, that sets a higher standard of evidence. Apart from the grammatical mistakes, if the story of the woman taken in adultery can be fabricated, then what else did the writers lie about in the earliest manuscripts we don't have?
+uncleanunicorn Indeed. With inspiration there should be no mistakes at all, none whatsoever, not even grammatical ones..
Nocturnalux 'Divine Inspiration' looks an awful lot like fallible human authorship defended apriori on the basis of tradition.
uncleanunicorn
So true. I found it amusing when Dr. White was being derisive, saying that God could not simply make the copyist get it right, ignoring completely that God has untold power and can even raise Jesus from the dead. A God that created all things, his word included, should be able and willing of making sure it got transmitted correctly.
But in a case of extra irony, Dr. White thinks that the fact that a lot manuscripts were preserved is a miracle. The threshold for what counts as a 'miracle' is oddly arbitrary.
Exactly! This is why I find it disingenuous when Christian scholars cry foul when more skeptic scholars nit pick at various aspects of the gospels that show they have errors. They complain that the same practice isn't applied to other ancient texts. This is true but only because there are no that believe The Iliad to be inerrant!!
Actually, I have a better question for you: "How do we know that this story was not originally apart of John's Gospel?" We don't have the originals to compare, and if Dr. Ehrman is right about not being able to reconstruct the original text, then how can ever "know" what the original have or didn't have? This is a question you should all ask yourselves. We know this because the manuscript evidence for the New Testament is so good (it is factually considered the best attested work in antiquity, as Ehrman, himself, contends) that from this mountain of evidence we can reconstruct the original text. If we could not do this, then without the originals we could not even tell what was originally written, or not written, and any skepticism we apply to the New Testament would have to be applied a thousand times for all other works of antiquity. Just something for you to think about!
Who were the New Testament scholars name's that ehrman was referring to when debating white on the original source?
Well this was quite spicey lol. Good to listen to such a lively and challenging debate.
My inner-nerd is so happy. Enjoyed the debate....and the discussion. The story of the Bible is fascinating.
I'm 3 minutes into the debate and my phone paused and I can't help but conclude this is the kind of debate people wanna see. A mix of subtle tension with a hence of animosity from 2 highly informative men. It would be a complete dis-justice to myself to not completely remain open minded to both sides. I will biasedly comment on my own comment on the official winner of the debate!
Whenever I've had informal debates on this subject with doubters, I always give them one simple challenge -- can you name me a set of NT manuscripts that would lead me to a different faith? So far none of the people who attack the credibility of scripture can answer that. That's because there is none.
Here is the problem...people always want to attack the peripheral details about stuff but what about the main point. Do these new manuscripts or copied or whatever deny prophecy, deny the resurrection, etc? Remember the point, Jesus said that the "gospel" must be preach throughout the whole world? So until these "variants" change the meaning of the gospel message, everything else is just window dressing.
It is 2 years already but I need to correct for the sake of mankind.
See this summary, you will know the whole thing.
"As the result, any book that considered “late date” or non-authorize by apostle(s) would reject from canon. For example; Epistle of Barnabas (90 - 130 A.D) and Apocalypse of Peter (about 125 - 150 A.D) were rejected from canon. Many or all of these rejected books were lost and some of them were rediscovered in the 19th and 20th centuries."
Thus, if the book of Mark is that bad, why didn't they picked, for instance, Barnabas.
Bart Ehrman sounds like a senator questioning someone in a Senate hearing
Mr. Bart Ehrman clearly has no respect for Mr. James White in this debate. Just watch the first cross-examination and you can see it all over his face and body and you can hear it in his voice. He clearly hasn’t studied Mr. White’s works whereas Mr. White has clearly studied Mr. Ehrman’s works.
He didn't prepare at all and it tells.
Dr Bart has no burden of proof as he has demonstrated historically and factually that New Testament was made up by highly educated Greek speaking writers who never saw Jesus and wrote hundreds of years after Jesus. On the other hand James White has to claim New Testament is what Jesus said actually because it means money for people like him
Respect isn't a prerequisite of a good debate. I could care less if they like and respect each other just as long as I'm presented enough information to ponder their arguments.
>The arguments are more important than the people making them
>How come only people of this theological persuasion make this argument?
Pick one
His argument regarding theological persuasion is criticizing a sect of Christianity who choose a position based on theological reasoning rather than historical, which is what their job is. If your job is history, you should look at it through the lens of historian even if it contradicts your own religion. Otherwise you are going to corrupt information to allign with your beliefs.
I'm a college math professor giving a lecture to a couple dozen people. They are all taking notes. Some people are writing a lot, some people are writing a little less. Some leave out certain parts, others add in those parts. I ask to see their notes if they want extra credit for class by the end of the semester. I expect to see accuracy and good clarification on what I have been lecturing. I see what they have written and even though their words differ from what I originally said and there are some things that were and were not included by some, they ALL have the same basic meaning of what I was teaching in the subject of math. They all get an A and 30 extra credit points.
Is what I was teaching inaccurate and not reliable just because the students differed on what to include in their notes? In high school, I studied with my peers using each other's notes and even though the notes all had different word structures in them, the basic idea was still there resulting in me getting an A+
Which is why I think Bart's standard of biblical reliability is flawed.
+Alex Grachek it's not barts standard. it's the consensus standard in the field of textual criticism. all barts really doing is relating how most in the field view the reliability of texts.
Your argument is fundamentally flawed. Transferring texts from one person to another once is not even remotely comparable to transferring through multiple people over thousands of years. And yes, going from you to a student is only one to another even if there are 20 students since they are not copying from another. You have committed the fallacy of false equivalence. The situations are not similar merely because people are copying.
+Alex Grachek
and what about the students who got an A but failed to answer some of the questions correctly? what if their tests were set into circulation and their failed answers became the backbone of an incorrect understanding of what the mathematical theory initially (and correctly) was? some students may have arrived at the same answers using different words (in this case, more appropriately - different methods, formulas, calculations etc) but others may have arrived at false answers.
Well. I have watched both parts of this debate and found them to be very informative.
It is indeed true to say that we, each one of us, have a wide range theological persuasions which govern how we see/ perceive things. How else can (specifically, these) two scholars come to two such differing opinions?
I personally come down on the side of White. I thought his arguments were sound and logical.
Though there are many variants in the manuscripts, the essence of the gospel HAS been preserved. Essentially, a person in these days can come to know the truth of the gospel that salvation is found in Jesus through the words we have within the Bible.
Reading the comments below, I can see that I am in a minority with this view.
Thanks for the presentation.
Let me guess, the "real" parts are the parts you feel are real?
Amazing.....
@@myjizzureye the guy to whom you are replying didn't even use the word "real". What are you even asking?
I have seen many of Barts debates and I have never seen him get so snippy he seems pretty irritated
White was nipping at his heels.
I just find it interesting that Bart Ehrman plainly states, "Yes, the Bible misquotes Jesus." Of course, this statement implies that he knows what Jesus actually said in the first place...
How can you know if someone is misquoted if you don't know what they said originally?
So then I guess it really does go back to the definition of "Misquote" - does it depend on literal, perfect, 100% accuracy, or does it suffice if the message is preserved (in its full integrity, with only minor, semantic differences)?
So then again, the only standard we can hold to is absolute 100% certainty?? That's exactly what James White was saying was absolutely ridiculous. I mean, you can't even be 100% certain that you're not actually just a brain in a vat being programmed to believe that everything happening to you is real, when it's actually just an illusion. It's literally impossible for you to really know 100%, but that doesn't mean we have to take that reality seriously.
If we're being completely intellectually honest here, I know that there's no way for us to definitively KNOW what Jesus said word for every word. But I don't think anybody has to take that reality very seriously, because you can look at the general preservation of the message and arrive at what is an extremely reasonable conclusion: that Jesus' message really WAS ultimately preserved and that we can trust the Bible's authenticity. Why on earth would anyone throw that into question, given the amount of scholarship that has gone into examining this very idea?
Have you read the book? Fibonacci is correct.
so you actually believe that a god that punishes you for the slightest thought crime, is also loose enough with his definition of misquoting that he would allow people to copy his very words wrong. ROFL
It is interesting to see what happens when you get someone off script. That is why the question portion of debates are my favorite. I would prefer to see this format for the entire debate.
I think James white did a good job of presenting his case outside of the Q&A session. Many Christians are practiced speakers and I found his speeches to be intelligent and well thought out.
In the end I side with Ehrman as he was looking to see what the text actually said and not what people needed it to mean.
White scored huge points by bringing up the fact that Jesus quoted the Greek Septuagint. Ehrman's expectations of inspiration is just not realistic among any scholars.
Well that's the point though isn't it, if your expected to base your eternal salvation on what a book says, shouldn't that book be reliable? Shouldn't its authorship be verifiable? People murder, martyr, and go to war over what this book says. I'd venture that thousands, if not millions of people have been tortured or lost their lives because of this book. Unlike other scholarly works, the accuracy of the new testament can mean life or death or even an eternity of damnation. For these reasons, I think it needs to be held to a higher standard than any other piece of historical record. And Ehrman's findings perfectly articulate why I value my soul and the souls/lives of others over this blatantly unreliable "record".
I would have to totally agree that Bart Ehrman went from being respectful and I think very scholarly in the way he was approaching the debate that he became more personal adgitated and disrespectful in even the way that he was questioning dr. white in the sense in you can see for yourself that while dr. White was trying to answer the question Bart would immediately cut him off that's called steamrolling where you continually ask questions that nobody can answer that quickly in its assumed that you might be right because they can answer them quickly that's very juvenile
+Jewaun Glenn You should relisten the answers given by Bart and James White I think. White is really pivoting around and not answering directly. Bart's answers are much more concise.
For a debate that is probably not the best strategy by Bart, it''s a pretty school teacher like questioning. But White is constantly dodging questions and I don't see a valid reason for him to do so. But maybe I missed it. For me it seemed more like White simply couldn't defend his position.
Where you got those numbers!
In my opinion, where Bart really is at his best is in the direct questioning phase. That's where he really shows off his scholarship and starts to outclass opponents. I felt like that happened here as well.
It is easy to argue against someone when they cannot respond immediately. It becomes less easy when they can refute your bs claims.
@@cyn3rgy759 I saw the same. During both questioning parts, Bart's performance was very good. To not see this is to be closed minded. I've often thought that White is superb, and I personally believe that Bart struggles to argue an easy position. But to not see differences where one is doing better at some moments, and worse at other times, is to not be paying attention
Regarding Ehrman's issue with divine inspiration of the Bible, couldn't it be resolved by saying that the original version given to man WAS inspired by God but we screwed it up by not preserving it?
maybe but God's original thought, intent and message has been preserved. we do know what God has revealed to men. the message of redemption by the cross is still the same.
mk crown how's that brainwashing going?
Do you just ignore mountains of evidence to the contrary or what?
brain washing is going great. better than having that dirty one. gotta get yours clean up now. you said mountains of evidence like what? we don't have the originals? gotta do better than that.
@@NoKingButChrist1689 'redemption by the cross' was certainly Paul's message, how can you ever prove it was God's?
Do not try to convince Bart. He has in his mind the text has been changed. He wanted the original text, without it he won't change his mind.
I think that there is an assumption that scribal transmission is the only way that the gospels were recorded. Variants could come about by disciples teachings being recorded by followers to the best of their recollection, from many mouths and many hands could come many words and phrases, misspoken, and recorded incorrectly.
I have been a qualified fan of both these men in the past. James has a more multi-discipline expertise that is honed in battles of apologetics and debate. Bart is a surprisingly good debater and demonstrates to all his superior knowledge and experience in textual criticism. When he crosses into biblical interpretation and theology he does not demonstrate the same methodical expertise. More assertions without the same academic grounding. I have learned something significant and that concerns the earliest period of 50-75 years after writing. We have no idea what, how many, or what significance were the accidental/intentional changes that took place. Both debaters presented hypothesis on what occurred. Bart seems to be that we cannot know the words of Jesus. Seems to be a all or nothing viewpoint. No certainty verses total certainty of ever word.
How can anyone be certain of any verse when there are no originals? Sure I feel a lot of certainty about most verses in my heart but that is my own feeling and maybe I might find one day that I am wrong.
*It has to be* an _All Or Nothing point of view_ when it comes to the bible!
@@UnimatrixOne Why?
@@John17230 How could we ever be sure what we are looking at are the originals? Even if we found a text that was carbon dated within 5 years of Jesus's death we still could not be sure it is the original. I think, for me, the key point is that it is easy to forget there was a robust Christian community around these texts that knew Jesus, Paul and his apostles, and those directly taught by them The early Christian community were willing to die for their faith and contained people directly taught by or privy to the original authors. If there were significant deviations in the texts which substantially altered their meaning I would expect these early Christians in authority to have recognised the departure from the original. Its hard to believe they did not realise the importance of these texts. I also disagree with Bart in his point that Paul was just simply writing a letter and did not realise the significance of these in the community.
@@Dom20002007 How do you think other religions have originated? What does being willing to die for your ideas (especially in a religious context) have to do with whether something is true or not? Haven't you heard of Jonestown?
At that time people believed in all kinds of absurd reasoning and didn't seem to know how to differentiate what was real from what was pure fantasy or legend.
I recommend that you read "Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew" because what you've said about those communities doesn't seem to fit the evidence we have.
It's clear that dr. White treats debates as formal events while Bart refers to treat them as friendly casual conversations. I think Bart took White's approach as aggressive and personal and so he got mad and then was rude to White
all athiests get mad at something they dont believe in, because deep down they know its true.
Ehrman's only point is that it might be possible that there is a variation between extant texts and the originals. He goes on to agree that every text we have corroborates White's perspective that there is almost no meaningful variation in the texts, and that the body of evidence makes it very clear what is being said. Ehrman doesnt deal with the important point that White made about multiple stream attestation and the fact that it is almost certain that the original texts mirror exactly what we have preserved today. White gave solid textual criticism and evidence, whereas Ehrman gave an unprovable hypothesis. The fact that Ehrman does this for a living and was unable to follow Whites argumentation was a bit disappointing.
If you thought Ehrman won this debate, I would encourage you to study what was said more thoroughly. I dont think you really understood White's argumentation.
That's funny, I said something similar on pt 1 of this video but from the opposite perspective before I saw your comment. I don't think that YOU have thought this through and I can see the cognitive dissonance in your comment. You said it yourself "almost no meaningful variation in the texts". In other words, there are meaningful variations in the text. That isn't a little problem. That's a big deal. However, even if there weren't "meaningful" variations, it would still be a big deal when it comes to the question of whether we can know if we have precise copies of the original manuscripts. Not only are there a mountain of variations in the text, thousands of them, but some of them are important. Therefore, the illusion that we know exactly what was in the original text, vanishes. We don't. We don't have the original texts, and what we do have leads us to believe that there was not a perfect transmission of the text, therefore it is safe to conclude that we can't know what was in the original texts. The only way that we could know what was in the original texts for certainty would be if we possessed the original texts (which wouldn't have been impossible).
@@joachimwest3217 but do any of the variants change any core doctrine- the gospel itself- and could you give an example?
I wonder what Bart thinks about the Turin Shroud?
In his opening address James White seems to think that the so-called "tenancity" of the new testament ensures that the original reading is there. But what is the logic for this? And what is the use of it if we can't identify what that original reading is. He establishes this solely by appealing to authorities who happen to agree with him - Wallace mainly. Simply putting up images of NT fragments is not a reasoned argument as some have stated.
Ehrman's entertainment value is supported by his focus on historicity and seemingly exhaustive biblical knowledge and technical incisiveness in the academic discipline.
And by the fact that he is absolutely right and god (I mean man) has been lying for 2000 (I mean 5000) uears!
@Wai too Low
So where is your early Manuscripts!
You believe in paul the pagan!
Thank you so much for uploading this. This is great stuff. I could listen to Dr Erhman all the time.
Me too!
Grow up
It only took him year and years to upload this and it was uploaded after many other debates and events he did after this debate were already uploaded.... I wonder why?
@@matthewmanucci You wander why...?
I bet you believe to have the answer but you don't really want to know if it's true or not, you just assumed it is. Otherwise you would have checked the publication dates of other similar events and you would have realized that the time it took him to upload this video was totally common.
This debate should have been "Bart explains history of bible and White going over Barts books"
Great Debate & a very well educated scholar by Bart Ehman who studied Christian religion for almost over three decades & believed in it as his religion for years then he found out there is completely clear contradictions in it & he has the right to question the mistakes that are in the Bible. This guy Bart Ehmarn he is sharply educating people the truth & reasoning the Christian scholars in a very reasonable and most effective way of debating the Christian scholars.
imraan kamaal Ridwaan, he must be right and seen the light, according to your analysis:-).
Erhman is the exact definition of an apostate.
He never said anything about contradictions, he mentions textual errors. Two distinct different things.
James Grey do you actually believe that crap you wrote???
Steve Jaxson lol read his article on the Birmingham Manuscript, fool 😂😂😂
I'm a theist and a big fan of James White. I also love Bart Ehrman and what he has to say. I don't think there was a clear winner. Good points were made on both sides. When someone says 'so and so got crushed' it normally says more about them than it does either debater.
Amen. Each side landed some punches.
In this section Ehrman destroyed White who could not answer a single question properly and admitted there were many variations in th early manuscripts
Totally disagree, God bless you and open your eyes
@Joel Rodriguez Where?
Variations aren’t a big deal. A change in meaning does however... which does not happen
I’d agree that Bart was clearly better in this section, but in the first section White was the clear winner... Overall I’d say that White won the debate, and Bart would probably agree with that.
@@christianchannel8755 I hope science and reason open yours.
Ehrman has said elsewhere that he lost faith in God because of the problem of evil, not this. Bruce Metzger, Bart's PhD dissertation advisor, knew everything that he does, and yet it he didn't come to the same conclusion.
Thank you, Dr. Ehrman, for your excellent work. All of your books, debates and interviews have been fascinating, educational and illuminating!
I'm a bit floored at how frequently Dr. Ehrman interrupted Dr. White. I also found it interesting that Dr. Ehrman had a defensive posture throughout this. He states that he's not hot and bothered at one point, but his body language and tone of voice say otherwise. He must have been really crushed when he decided that Biblical variation was enough to invalidate the faith he grew up with (or so it seems, given the amount of bitterness and anger he displayed throughout).
Wow, you get it wrong. Bart never decided that. The only faith he left behind because of variations, errors and contradictions in the Bible was that of Biblical inerrancy.
It was addressing the problem of evil that caused him to awaken from his religious indoctrination.
This part of the debate just show how close minded and harsh is Mr Ehrman, he is just interested of his question and disregarded the answer of James White
There may have been multiple lines of transmission, but we don't know how the scribes got their info. Perhaps one biblical writer was told an oral tradition. Others may have copied the writings of other scribes. We cannot ask the authors where they got the information. White assumes there was no body of people controlling the text, so there was nobody changing the theology. I say that there may or may not have been somebody controlling the theology, so the claim that the text was changed is just as plausible as the claim that it wasn't. I take the view that no conclusion can be drawn about the historical Jesus. If he did exist, we don't know anything about him. I would like to ask Dr. Ehrman why he thinks there was a historical Jesus given the dubious consistency/reliability of the text?
I have so much respect for Dr. Bart Ehrman and he clearly won the debate.
Dr. White tried to use the cross examination session as an opportunity to pressurise Dr. Ehrman into attacking the Qur'an by making a false analogy between the Bible and the Qur'an. Unlike the Bible, the Qur'an was preserved both in the oral form and written form. Hundreds of early Muslims memorised large portions of the Qur'an in its original language and would recite these during their daily prayers.
The majority of the text was even written during the lifetime of Muhammad by the likes of Zaid ibn Thabit (Muhammad's adopted son). This is remarkably different to the Bible which is said to be written many decades after Jesus, for example the Gospel of John around 90-100AD.
The Qur'an was first compiled in the written form within one year after Muhammad by the leader Abu Bakr whilst hundreds still memorised and recited the Qur'an. This is remarkably different to the bible which was first compiled 300 years after Jesus.
The point about Uthman was completely irrelevant to the debate and also a misrepresentation. Uthman died around 30 years after Muhammad. All that happened was that the text was standardised: "txt u l8r" would have become "text you later". The oral form did not change. The overwhelming majority of Muslim and Non Muslim scholars agree that the Qur'an we have today is at the very least a faithful representation of Uthman's standardised version, which would have been within 30 years after Muhammad. The Gospel of John was not even written within 30 years after Jesus.
Dr. Bart Ehrman should be applauded for his intellectual honesty and it is irrelevant if Muslims "use" his books. Ultimately, truth is truth no matter where it comes from.
Keep up the good work Dr Bart Ehrman!
Here's the problem Yusuf:
Surat Maryam (19:30-35) says:
"He [Jesus] said: 'I am indeed a servant of God. He has given me revelation and made me a prophet; He has made me blessed wheresoever I be; and He has enjoined on me prayer and charity as long as I live. He has made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable. So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)!' "
The Quran quotes Jesus 600 years after he supposedly said those words, how do you justify the validity of this quote these so many hundred years later ?
SECOND:
"157And because of their saying (in boast), “We killed Messiah ‘Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allah,” - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of ‘Iesa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man), and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not [i.e. 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary)]: 158But Allah raised him ['Iesa (Jesus)] up (with his body and soul) unto Himself (and he is in the heavens). And Allah is Ever All-Powerful, All-Wise. (An-Nisa 4:157-158, Muhsin Khan) "
This is just outright plain lies and contradicts recorded non-christian historical evidence that Jesus indeed did die on the cross.
So which Holy Book can you consider to be more true? The Holy Bible or the Holy Quran?
I now see where your respect for Bart Erman stems from
BeyondSkys09
What is your conclusive proof that Jesus died on the cross?
I have not come across any.
Tacitus (non-biblical, non-christian) in his book 'Annals' provides the following historical report:
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."
In his book, 'Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium', Bart Ehrman writes:
"Tacitus's report confirms what we know from other sources, that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, sometime during Tiberius's reign."
From the Gospel of Luke:
"Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip was tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene, 2in the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John, the son of Zacharias, in the wilderness.…"
Two independent sources confirming Tiberius Caesar as ruler and Jesus' crucifixion. This is sufficient for a historian to establish these two facts. By the way, there are more than 2 sources attesting to this, I have just met the minimum requirements.
So you tell me now, what is your conclusive evidence that Jesus did not die on the cross?
BeyondSkys09 Tacitus book written ca. AD 116, so what does that prove, where is the archaeological evidence? Its like saying John said Jesus died therefore Jesus died, well where is the Cross of the men responsible for one of the major religions of the world, where is the Tomb of his burial, where is the site of his Grave or Birth? do we have that? no. Tacitus was born 25 years after Jesus' death.Scholars have also debated the issue of hearsay in the reference by Tacitus.
Dr. James R. White & Dr. Bart D. Ehrman are very smart!
24:20 - That's why Dr. White specified _meaningful_
The debate heavily emphasizes on variants that may or may not change the theology. What about certain expunged verses like 1 John 5:7 on the Trinity; Mark 16:9-20 on the Resurrection narrative; the woman caught in act of adultery; Jesus' sweats mixed with blood drops in the garden of Gethsemane; and the like???
Why is James White, bringing in the Quran in such discussion; as if he wants Bart D. Ehrman to study it & write against it as well?
If by mentioning "documented fact that there are textual variants in the manuscript of the Quran" he means the 7 or 10 different ways of reciting it, then he is doing the wrong comparisons between the history of the Bible & the Quran. The Quran is in tact & hasn't been changed since the companions of the Prophet (PBUH) wrote it. & it's the only book that has been memories verbatim. Should not compare it with the bible & its history.
Zionist JewTube
He Does Not Know What Actually The Topic Is About 😂
Dr. James clearly cane in well prepared and more knowledgable than Dr. Bart.
Actually, Dr. James simply rehearses the same nonsense that all Evangitical Scholar says that we can reconstruct the NT. At first, what James is saying seems very intelligent response. Yet, once you start understanding the textual criticism field. Bart Ehrman's claim makes the most sense. The simple truth is impossible to reconstruct the original text. The reconstruction that we can do is the most probable account of the original text. Yet, there are the difference that exists in the textual tradition that can change the entire meaning of the text. Some of these examples were shown in the video.
Think about this difference that transforms an important message in the Gospel of Mark. During Jesus Baptism God said TOday I begotten you. In some textual tradition, it is there and in others it is absent. Why did the passage matter? Well if Jesus became God at his baptism it would imply an exaltation Christianology. This means that the Doctrine of the Trinity cannot be true. After all, the Doctrine of the Trinity maintains that Jesus has always been God.
@@ericmacrae6871 Where does any text, or any Trinitarian, say that Jesus *became* God at his baptism?
It looks like bart ehrman is jumping while he is talking :)
good discussion btw!
Bart erhmans position is based on a premise made purely out of assumption of what God would want. That assumption is that God wants a pure and perfect transmission of manuscripts. And from this he has created his critique. Bob erhman thinks he personally knows what God would want and because he doesn’t know why God wouldn’t want, or allowed it, he comes to the conclusion that it is not Gods word. His perspective is based purely on assumption.
1:11:56 RiP to the girls question.
Lol
James White's faith in Christianity rests solely on the premise that Islam cannot be right and therefore Christianity must be right or else nothing could possibly be right besides atheism. What kind of reasoning is this?
Uwot Mate
I think J White is a professional who knows his job & only speaks for Christianity & the trinity, not a matter of faith. He undermines & ignores many valid points against xtianity & 3nity, which a true believer would confront sincerely without resorting to tactics & slippery ways. Nothing looks like truth except truth itself.
Islam says it's okay to marry and have sex with little girls as the swine false prophet Muhammad ( Piss be upon him ) did.
Dude, you really misunderstood his comments on Islam. In fact, he wasn't commenting on Islam itself, but the Karan, and only as an ancient text. He also mentioned Tacitus. If you follow James White at all you would know that is not what he believes, and that is not why he thinks Christianity is true.
That wasn't even what the debate was over, let alone what James White actually believes.
James White spinning truth and facts by running away from "logic" and "context"?
I am Muslim, I would love DR. Bart to study, research and be critical early Islam,Quran and Hadith and the life of prophet Mohammad , you would enrich our Islam life.
excellent debate! thanks for posting!
White would do well to attend Prof. Ehrman's classes. He might learn something.
No BE has alot to learn from Dr. White
Ehrman got completely schooled here dude
He says in part 1 that he’s heard all his classes
Ehrman: i am an authority. I am therefore worthy of your belief and approval..
" by and large, we always make sure to turn things about us... What we believe, what we feel, what we think. Us...us... Us... "
Ehrman is a good example of what man is and always have been.
@@JohnSmith-zs1bf He was spanked by Dr. White!
After listening to both parts of this debate my conclusions are unchanged. Ehrman's pov stems from his emotions. He makes it sound intellectual, but a trained psychologist can easily see it isn't. Without a thorough knowledge of his past as a believer I can't say exactly why he has such anger towards the Bible and people who believe it. But his anger is apparent. He lost his faith and he wants every other believer to lose theirs too. I submit Ehrman never really knew God. He was merely taught about God. Having never experienced God himself, he always had doubts. As an intelligent adult he decided to use his knowledge to scrutinize the Almighty. As if his human mind could actually comprehend a Being that exists further above us than we do an ant. I feel sorry for Ehrman and I hope that someday he searches for God with his spirit, and not his intellect. If and when he does that he will find God. I know this because many people have done so including myself.
Well John I am a trained psychologist and I assume you are not. Ehrman has used his intellect to come to the conclusion that he doesn't believe the bible is the word of God. Many Christians use their intellect and logical to discredit other faiths. However when it comes to their own faith this all flies out the window.
You say that you think Ehrman never really knew God because you believe that once a person has been given belief through grace that this can never be changed. Ehrman and countless others (Dan Barker) are living proof you are wrong.
_"Without a thorough knowledge of his past as a believer I can't say exactly why he has such anger towards the Bible and people who believe it. But his anger is apparent."_
He makes no secret about this, although "anger" is a silly description. He's upset that people lied to him for most of his early life.
_"He lost his faith and he wants every other believer to lose theirs too."_
Yes, because the biblical literalism that he was taught is in fact blatantly false and Ehrman now is one of the leading scholars in the field that demonstrates why this is the case.
_"I submit Ehrman never really knew God. He was merely taught about God. Having never experienced God himself, he always had doubts."_
I submit that you are stating an unfalsifiable hypothesis that can allow you to disregard any critic what so ever without ever engaging with their arguments.
_"As an intelligent adult he decided to use his knowledge to scrutinize the Almighty."_
No, he used it to study the bible, and its shocking badness on multiple levels.
_"As if his human mind could actually comprehend a Being that exists further above us than we do an ant. I feel sorry for Ehrman and I hope that someday he searches for God with his spirit, and not his intellect. If and when he does that he will find God. I know this because many people have done so including myself."_
The idea that you're more likely to arrive at what's true if you throw your brain in the garbage is pretty laughable. If you have to be a gullible fool to qualify as a "righteous believer", then I'm sure many people wouldn't want anything to do with your god anyway, even if they knew it existed.
I dont think dr.ehrman needs or wants your sympathy.
Francis Duggan how do you know what all those people really believed to begin with? Are we to just go by what they say? Does being a psychologist gives you the power to read minds? Ehrman clearly did not have faith in God.....he had faith in the Bible which is not perfect, only God is perfect.
Ehrman provides solid proof that the bible has variations, but how does that stop it from being a sufficient representation of the Word of God?
Why god has the need to write books. Or is man wrote the book and attributed to the gods.
This debate shows that whether you're a scholar or not the bible is one of the greatest source of confusion and disagreement.
Even if people are historians, scholars and are knowledgeable of Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew that they won't necessarily agree on the bible.
If god is not the author of confusion then why is there so much confusion surrounding the "inspired word of god"?
God could clear up all this mess yet chooses not to. Why would he have to have a mouthpiece like James White to argue for him or defend the flaws contained in the bible?
bart ehrman is really a genius. i have followed most of his debate and he is always on point. these are the question i have been asking but still i have no answer to them. thank you ehrman
Benjamin Mccarthy Bart lost this one. Even he knows that. That’s why it took him so many years to upload the debate, while uploading many other videos which occurred after this debate. When he finally uploaded it years later, he uploaded it with the caption “Not my best debate”.
@@matthewmanucci May not be his best debate, but when he's arguing with someone with an obvious confirmation bias, he still outclassed his opponent in this part of the debate. Not that it should matter. At the end of the day, none of this debate bullshit helps or advances humanity
@@jpwjr1199, Bart has said elsewhere that he lost faith in God because of the problem of evil, not this. It's confirmation bias vs. confirmation bias, I'm afraid. Bruce Metzger, Bart's PhD dissertation advisor, knew EVERYTHING that Bart does, and yet it he didn't come to the same conclusion.
@@matthewmanucci You are not the first person I read in the comments section expressing that same belief about the delay in uploading this debate. Why do you believe what others tell you without bothering to check whether it is true or not? Don't you see that this makes it more likely that if someone tries to manipulate you (for whatever reason) they will succeed?
See the publication dates of the debates with Wallace or Craig. Go and see for yourself before falling for the lies that others need you to believe.
@@bowrudder899 It is difficult to leave behind a religious belief, not everyone is capable of doing so. That's why initiatives like The Clergy Project are so important.
Bart you are correct, we should ask the questions as there are reasons to question things. However the basic beliefs are consistent in my opinion of Christian beliefs. We need to remember that we live by faith.
The way you believed in Santa Claus when you’re where a kid. That’s faith explained in 1 minute.
Faith is not a reliable pathway to truth.
really enjoyed this debate. one of my favorites. I'm a Christian and believe what we have is God's word. variants haven't changed the gospel message. Christ lived and dies rose again 3 days later. he did so that for those who would believe would have eternal life. variants have not changed that message. I understand where dr erhman is coming from. but he said it's his own opinion and not scholarly. great debate non the less.
I am a Christian even went to an all girls private catholic school till grade 8 I am now in University. The Bible is so full of problems and suspicions, I don't follow blind I think. Not like silly people who just say and swear on every single word in the bible. But that is there choice.
+Low Key there is not a manuscript that doesn't carry the weight of the trinity. if there is may you show which one.
+Abu taj md mahbub Ul alam may you please tell which contradictions you are talking about that change the message of the Bible and where all the problems are. if being a Muslim and I assume you are love to see Bart slam the bible then you my friend use double standard for the Quran. He would do the same to the Quran.
+Kirsten Rollins it's hard to understand what you mean. the bible is trust worthy. I'm a Christian and I believe all its truths.
mk crown son of Mary did not die so no questions of resurrection. Not a single piece of bible Wes was written during Jesus. Bibles written by anonymous drunk and idolatrous Greek and Roman reflecting their belief system and lifestyle. Bible differs each other with latest ones most corrupted. Christian uses latest corrupted bible gospel according to John ( not written by John) which made son of Mary man Jesus into son of God and God. Jesus has no idea who wrote bible what’s in it as they were written in foreign language by foreigner 100s years after he left. He was basically a follower of Moses in his lifetime. His name was not Jesus Christ. It is the translation of his name which is a crime. Names should never be translated. Christianity and it’s doctrine was invented by Greek so son of Mary Easa/ Eshua/ Jesus will not assume any responsibility of Christian who follows doctrine by Paul and gongs.
How would you know if the original is the original?
At a very minimum it would be incorruptible, no part of it would contradict another and all dating methods would place it right at the time it should date to.
Corroboration?
As an atheist. I think dr. White and dr. Ehrman did a good job. As Bart said history is about probability. It's a scale. The bottom line is any question that says "how do you know" is useless without the originals.
Worth every minute of my time. I thoroughly enjoyed this debate. Both men were respectful of each other.
I thought it was awesome that Dr. White gave Dr. Ehrman a gift.
In my opinion, I think Dr Ehrman under estimated his opponent by not reading his material or carefully listening to what he said. Which made him waste valuable time in his cross examination.
I think Dr. White was definitely the under dog in this debate but seemed to have done his homework and was prepared. In my opinion I think because Dr. Ehrman underestimated Dr. White and didn’t have a counter attack ready he lost the debate. I think if he did his homework and had a rematch it would be very interesting.
You must be joking?
An axe head floats, the seas part, Samson alone kills innumerable enemies, two are struck dead by God in the new testament for lying (so why not for scribal errors), Elijah flies away, water into wine, feeding the 5,000, and so and so on. Why is it unreasonable to ask the original text to be preserved? One additional, relatively easy miracle? Really? Stop the sun in the sky but preserve some manuscripts is too hard? B.S.
And given the extraordinary claims of this text, we MUST have a stronger standard, James. We won't hold the same standards as we would for Plato because the claims in the Biblical text demand incredible and impeccable originals.
JOSH Smalley...well said. Any normal person should ponder this.
When I listened to Bert's illustration of transmission, he describe a scenario of a person copied a NT book and then that copy was copied with an error and as soon as the original and first copy are gone then the only copy that is transmitted is from the errored copy which leads to what we have today is not the word of God because God words cannot have errors. However, what if for example that the letter to Colossians was copied more then once from the original. Let's say 10 times and that all those copies were accurately. Then you would have to ask of these 10 how many copies would be copied from each of these with errors and without errors. Does Bert allow for this possibility? Plus can Bert prove his illustration of transmission? It would seem that the manuscript transmission tradition seems to be the reliable foundation to stand on to believe we have what the originals had in them.
39:04 Wrong claim, The Quran hasn`t textual variations even though there are too many ways to write the same word in Arabic, that is why they start using diacritical marks "Tashkeel or Harakat", There are different ways of recitation but all they lead to the same meaning.
Top class talk!
I love this stuff!
Me too!!
Good stuff👍
These two despise each other, ehrman delivers the one two, like usual, in a lively way.
jon Legend of you watched part 1,
I think James White’s presentation was powerful and stronger than Bart’s. The back in forth was slighted leaned towards Bart. Walking away from the subject, I feel more confident in White’s answers.
Also, why did Bart get heated. He got so angry in Part two. Smh
@@joshbane7671 He was beginning to become hostile in his first rebuttal in part 1 so I’m not surprised 🤣
why dr. James White often bring faith in this scientific debate? is attacking personal believe is common in debate? its not explicitly stated by dr. James but often he said something related to faith of christian and mention muslims scripture too
White comes off as an angry, testy, passive-aggressive, obnoxious and clearly less informed. He was outmatched here and I think he realized it. Ehrman is not somebody he can snow with his usual apologist, pseudo-academic bullshit.
By the way, it totally IS like telephone. No two copies will be exactly the same. There will be mistakes even in the first transmission.
""We live in an age where people are looking for a reason not to believe."
That statement is completely absurd. Waking up to the truth about the bible and losing faith in Christianity is a BIG deal and not something a person seeks. Quite the contrary, people research to back up and reaffirm their faith, not lose it. This is almost always the case.
This world is in fact increasingly looking for reasons to reject god what are you blind can you not see the movement to destroy Christians or are you a part of that movement so you deny the obvious truth
@@ID10TT32T3 strawman fallacy
Scribal copying mistakes certainly present one problem, but the main problem is that we don't have a clue who wrote any of the original Gospel manuscripts or what their sources are. They are not eyewitness accounts (all written in the third person), and don't claim to be. Therefore, we have no reason to be confident that we can quote Jesus with any reasonable degree of accuracy. James White points out that the thousands of NT manuscripts available, from diverse geographical locations, and mostly with only minor textual variations, lead us back to the accuracy and veracity of the originals. To me this argument based on manuscript quantity is fallacious and does not confirm authenticity. The reason is that it is the EARLIEST manuscripts which have the most variations (as Ehrman pointed out), so that the closer we get to the originals, the more discrepancies they show. Related to this is that there has been a filtering out of the important manuscript discrepancies with time, so that the later copies tend to become more uniform or orthodox, as a result of Church control and manipulation as to which copies get re-copied and which are either destroyed or left to rot. So only the conformist (orthodox) copies do get preserved and handed down to us, not those with the hallmarks of any "heresy". Given the huge labour and cost of copying a Gospel, only those copies that are authorised or approved by the Church would have been considered worth re-copying. No scribe is going to want to copy a Gospel that does not meet with Church approval (or approval by some authority), and no one would commission the copying of UNORTHODOX, "heretical" manuscripts, which would have no sale value (who would want to spend a huge sum of money on a copy that had no authoritative approval?). In summary, it is Church control over the manuscripts that has led to the relative homogeneity of the manuscript copies we have, and their huge number does not reflect accuracy with the original, only a process of filtering out unwanted or heretical doctrine. We can't extrapolate backwards with confidence to the originals on the basis of our NT manuscripts as James White wishes us to believe, since the re-copying has been subjected to a filtering process.
For some reason James can not understand that original is what God revealed,and everything else is not. As soon is not,it is not divine. Yes it keeps traces,but revelation as a whole is lost.
Erhman said in Part One is that he wanted us to keep an open mind and entertain the notion that there might be a different line of thinking than what we normally think regarding the NT. Well this debate certainly opened up my mind. The question is, “ HOW DO WE KNOW, if we haven’t got the originals?” Well, despite James White view that because of the different lines of transmission in 95% agreement we can be fairly sure of the originals, I’m going to go with Erhman and conclude, “ We don’t know!”
If your ultimate authority is textual perfection, with magical textual perfection needed for anything to matter, then you believe in magic to. Yes, you and bart believe in magic.
My ultimate authority is that God teaches the same thing, and is the same. It is clear that textual perfection is not needed for God to teach the same thing.
@@RussianBot4Christ How is it clear that textual perfection is not needed for God to teach the same thing? How would you know this? You have to take this position because it's your belief. Like Bart said, if God could apply "magic" in any other form inside the text, surely he could perform that in keeping the text original from the get go so there wouldn't be any debate about this. It looks like a heads I win, tails you lose scenario.
@@RussianBot4Christ well atleast it has to be close to perfection. atleast for 90%. it's not, not by far.
The Wall Demon Of Kentucky you’re assuming God should have done something another way. Who are we to demand God to have done something in a manner we wish would have happened? If we had the originals, and someone actually had possession of them, the literal original could be changed and from there the copies be made of complete incorrect original manuscripts. We have textual variations yes, but though we do not have the actual original itself, the copies we have still give us the general consensus of the New Testament and what it would best have looked like as an original because we have so many copies and every main story of what the NT says, all concludes to Jesus being our savior. I’m no expert what so ever in this subject, but regardless of variations or changes in words, they all still portray the same overall message throughout no matter what. From that I conclude that the originals, though lost, would have a high probability of containing very similar contents and messages within them as the copies we have today.
@@RussianBot4Christ _Tū quoque_ + _straw man_ fallacy.
The reason Dr. Erhman is hesitant to write a book on misquoting the Quran, I think, is because he's not a scholar on the Quran.
I was staggered by the fact that there is only about 50% agreement between the earlier Alexandrian and Byzantine texts. If that's true and the more earlier the texts are, the more discrepancies, then the logical conclusion is to say that the earlier texts are more unreliable.
it is so far out of left field, to even think any of the biblical text is worth two shits, that I don't know where to start. thankfully, this can't be forced on my children in school.
Did you see the first part of the debate? White even quotes Ehrmann, that we know what the NT text looked like. Old greek has very different structure, than english. You could write: "Ehrmann is smart; smart Ehrmann is; is Ehrman smart" and it would mean the exact same thing, but it would count as three variants. Writing John without "h" would be an variant and so on. The moveable "nu" is another one. I was used put into the texts to avoid two vowels in a row. It doesnt change the meaning, but also counts as a variant, if a writer didn`t copy it. Thats why White pointed out, that 99% the texts are same, if you discount such mistakes or variants of writing.
First based on my point of view. it would be dangerous for him since you know what happen with Zakaria Botros. second i thought Mr. Bart Ehrman give the christian an eye opening i mean i'm christian i do believe in Jesus but it gave me motivation to question something and went to learn something even i'm not expert like him and we are not at the same page i respect him.
Bart has stated publicly that he would not debate him again because he was disrespectful.
I feel a bit disorientated with how they sitting, it seems Dr. Bart is looking the other way in continuous contempt.
bart ehrman says all scholars agree with him on this except evangelicals I would say more liberals and non Christians will agree with him
Why don't we have the originals? You asked this several times. I think the answer is very simple - so that man would not idolize them. Look at how so many people enter into crass idolatry when they believe they hold in their hands a supposed "holy relic." Think how many more people would enter into it if they knew they were looking at the handwriting of Paul...
If we had what we thought were originals would you be saying "these can't be orginal, because God wouldn't give us these idols"? I doubt it. Hence your explanation is ad hoc.
I think you make an excellent point
Lawrence Stanley I know just what you mean. In a similar manner, the reason why Christianity and Islam are false is because they promise vast rewards(Eternal life etc) for certain behaviors and vast punishments(Hell) for others, but this makes the behaviors morally vacuous, so they can't be true. No real god would reveal such information - just look at how people act after having been exposed to it.
P Foster I'm not trying to make a good or bad argument, I'm merely making an observation. There are some things that we may only make conjecture, and the "why" questions, unless we are told directly, are always conjecture.
Lawrence Stanley
Well why would you say that you think you have the "answer" when, by your own admission, all you have is conjecture?
If you want to believe things that are actually true its a bad idea to come up with baseless ad hoc rationalisations like this.
Maybe we don't have the "originals" (to the extent that heavily edited composite documents have originals) because there was no divine hand preserving them so they just got lost?
These guys hate each other at a cellular level.
Ehrman seems to be saying he can't accept the doctrine of inspiration if there isn't a corresponding doctrine of preservation that meets his particular expectations of preservation. His examples of variants (Hebrews, Mark) seem kind of trivial when measured up against the totality of New Testament doctrine, or even the doctrine of the individual books. It's sort of like if I said to my kid, "Hey I said be home before midnight!" and he replied, "Can you prove those were your exact words? Mom said you said "be home BY 12" ". White's point is that it is amazing how consistent the manuscripts are. Ehrman wants us to be disturbed by variants. White wants us to see that the UNCONTROLLED copying demonstrates an amazing amount of consistency.
James is debating an X Christian, but at the back of his mind he is thinking about the Muslims reaction on Bart Ehrman's evidence (facts and figures)...
Bart Erman is giving evidence upon evidence in the Bible to Prove his case, which he couldn' t respond to. It seems the only response he had is to discredits the Quran in other for him to Prove the Bible is 100% the inspired word of God. Unfortunately the Quran was not in question in this debate.
Yeah James was trying to use a deflection strategy, which I was taught last semester in school but he failed miserably. The percentage stats were desperation too, all you need to do is change 1 word in a phrase or sentence and that changes the whole meaning. James kept saying oh look the texts are 95% the same. The divine intervention stories have bothered me because.. since ancient times god never stepped in since and we have had lots of deadly earthquakes, and other natural disasters. I can go on but I will stop.
Sorry but Ehrmann is a coward for claiming not to know anything about the quran. He knows a lot about multiple religions and their books but only attacks Christianity simply because it sells, its politicall correct and because nobody will chop his head off for that.
James don't know that the Qur'an has no difference...prove it if he can...
After watching multiples debates of Bart Ehrman with James White, Mike licona, Wallace, William lain Craig (both of them), I Realized that, Bart is extremely Intelligent for drawing his conclusion which led him his leaving Christianity, as NT and manuscripts(both together) failed to provide answers to simple Questions raised by Typical Christian Scholars.
I thought Bart left Christianity bcz it failed to answer, however He left after studying in its depth and I can see, he's Extremely aware of what he's done in talk and debates.
Enjoyed listening to both, but Bart always on Top, no offence to those who Just doing like or are obsessed with his view on NT and its manuscripts.
Jalal Ahmad
Indeed, Ehrman won this debate beyond the shadow of a doubt :)
Jalal Ahmad Textual critics believe the same thing about the bible that we Muslims do. :-)
@@BeholderGuard Nope
So if I quote a text after saying it may not have said that originally I no longer can quote that text? That is a stupid assertion by Pastor James White.
Ehrman is making the mistake at 37:00 that God was primary not interested in giving a scripture at all for the Christians, the scripture is just a witness of what he did. Jesus never wrote a letter down and christianity would also have existed without the NT. But the NT is inspired because it contains an accurate description about God, it helps therefore a lot of people to understand what Jesus did.
This is wrong philosophical reasoning, that is a different discipline then scholarship.