Never mind fundamentalists who think the King James is the best translation - I've met people who think the King James is the actual original bible. They don't realise it's a translation of the original Hebrew and Greek. From what I've been told, this is quite a common misunderstanding in the USA.
Yeah, the KJV-only crowd are a strange bunch, typically hyper conservative. There's one KJV-only pastor I know about who regularly prayed the imprecatory prayer when Barack Obama was president -- essentially praying for his death.
@@EnglishMike Wow - that is really something. Whatever you think of his politics, Obama is obviously a sincere Christian, and a decent, moral family man. And this pastor is literally praying for his death. While he supports a man who is the living embodiment of the Deadly Sins of Lust , Gluttony, Greed, Sloth, Wrath, Envy and Pride. What this presidency has brutally exposed is the way that for so many Americans, Christianity is just a mask for intolerance, racism and smug superiority. The hypocracy is jaw-dropping...
Bart Ehrman has long been my favourite biblical historian. His qualifications are impeccable, his research exhaustive, his presentation compelling... and his sense of humour highly amusing. I always learn several points when listening to him ~ even on subjects with which I am strongly experienced. THANK YOU, Dr. Bart, for all your efforts: you have a huge throng of admirers out here !
None of those christian biblical scholars who responded to Prof Ehrman could provide a convincing answers indeed. Watch it yourself..find out yourself..wch scholar responded well..without spinning n swirling.. none!
Several of these mistranslations have formed the basis of an entire sermon of various fundamentalist preachers I have heard. Amazing ignorance out there. Thanks, Bart.
@@jonathannorburg1376 "Typical rejection of expertise in favor of folk understanding" Would that be typical rejection of expertise in the translation and interpretation of unproven supernatural claims in favor of folk understanding of the translation and interpretation of unproven supernatural claims?
@@jonathannorburg1376 Christian Republicans: Genesis is meant to be taken literally, earth is 6000 years old, Adam and Eve existed, Noahs flood happened. Christian Democrats: Genesis isn’t meant to be taken literally, it is a story about the human condition and the sinful nature of man. Atheists: Genesis is clearly meant to be taken literally... but it’s just wrong, like so many other parts of the Bible.😂
What I see is the obvious of The Bible presenting to us a MORAL LAW which is the 10 COMMANDMENTS. A MIRROR for our behavior in LIFE. And that IS A SPIRITUAL DISCERNMENT. FOR ME CHRIST DIED SO ALL OF US WOULDNT END ETERNALLY AT THE FINAL JUDGEDMENT IN THE LAKE OF FIRE. FOR NOW THOSE WHO COMMITTED HORRIBLE CRIMES ARE IN SHEOL( God's underground PRISON) AWAITING FOR THE LAKE ETERNAL FIRE FOR NOT REPENTING NOR TRUSTING IN A SAVIOR. THE REDEMMED BY JESUS WON'T BE IN THE SAME PLACE AS THE CRIMINALS, ETC.
Just like on earth WE have JUDGES WHO ARE SENDING TO THE GAS CHAMBER, OR ELECTRIC CHAIR THOSE COMMITING MURDERS. GOD WILL GIVE WHAT HE SAYS THE WAGES OF SIN IS DEATH. WHAT YOU SOW YOU WILL REAP.
I'm a life long atheist, wasnt brought up with religion but as a child growing up in England you are exposed to Christianity constantly at school (primary schools are almost exclusively attached to a church of some kind). While I never believed any of it, I did like the stories. And as an adult, Ive read the King James bible several times. I agree with Bart, the prose is fantastic. Up there with Shakespeare, Wordsworth and Kipling.
accept him today Yahshuah into your heart and confess that what you read about his suffering for the punishment of our sins is true ask His father abba Yahuah to teach you why this is real and how it can be and that you do wish to believe but its a little foggy outside and Yahuah will clear the path for you if you just accept His love he wants to fill and overflow u with beyond time as we know it. ❤
The betrayal, arrest, imprisonment, and execution of William Tyndale is the quintessential true story of a profound and noble martyr. Tyndale could read, write, and speak 8 languages. He used his prodigious skills for the betterment of the common Christian through the production of an English translation of the Bible. For that magnificent gift to the English speaking world, crafted in poverty, Tyndale was tortured and murdered.
@@Downlead No authentic Christian would have executed Tyndale. Any claim to the Christian faith by a Tyndale executioner would be in name only. In other words, except as a bloody example of hypocrisy, such a claim is absolutely meaningless .
@@arthurmontana8791 How do you keep it all straight who's true or not? Many, most even, legitimately THOUGH they were defending God's work and intentions, time and again.
s b f "I've watched many videos with Bart Ehrman". I am here confused and wondering.......... Was Bart sitting on your left or right side when you were watching the video with him? Were both of you sitting on a couch or sohva?........Now I can understand the dilemma and difficulty the scribes went through. No doubt there so much discrepancies in the bible.😇😇😀😀
Yes -- but with north of 300,000 viewers by 2022, isn't he entitled to the courtesy of a competent recording? Bart Ehman didn't make that echo: it was created by the people who decided to record a speech against a hard, sound-reflecting background. If you're not going to take the trouble of learning the art and science of audio （which would mean you could get away easily -- just a decent microphone） then you owe it to us all to put up curtains on the walls and padding and carpeting on the floors. Seriously: you have just shown hundreds of thousands of people that LMU library does not take its public presentation of itself seriously. Just assign a couple of people to learn audio recording, OK?
As an Atheist, I think we non-believers should follow Bart's example in giving reverence to the Bible for the historically, culturally and artistically relevant contributions that it has made to western civilization without having to believe it to be divine. I hate to see my fellow non-believers deriding an otherwise important and impressive collection of literature for the simple fact that some deluded people still use it to cite crazy ideas. We're better than that, or at least we should be, and it's about time we start acting like it.
The problem is it doesn't present accurate historical accounts, there is more than enough evidence that Jesus didn't exist, the Israelites were never captive in Egypt and the Israelites worshipped several gods. Yahwists hi-jacked the bible rewriting it to reflect their belief that only Yahweh the god of war was worthy of worship. Culturally, the bible fails to reflect the actual culture of the Israelites for the same reasons. We can not even accurately reflect what the people believed or how they practiced from the text. While inspiring art, the book itself is not artistic at all. The problem is deluded people have been involved in every phase. It has no more value than a collective of mythology from any other culture, possibly less as none of it is original and all of it is heavily altered!
SpittDragons "there is more than enough evidence that Jesus didn't exist" Not really. Feel free to cite said 'evidence.' You might say there is insufficient evidence that he did exist, and I would disagree. But that is irrelevant to anything I said in the post you responded to. "Culturally, the bible fails to reflect the actual culture of the Israelites" Seeing as it is the number 1 source for assessing the culture of the ancient Israelites, I'd be very curious to see which historical sources you are basing this claim on. If your point is that the Hebrew bible represents multiple conflicting theological perspectives then I would agree. Yet biblical scholars are able to dissect the text to evaluate the competing philosophies and thus the bible is an invaluable source of information about the ancient Israelite religious and cultural customs. That said, my point was more that as people born into western civilization the bible has had a tremendous impact on our culture and is a vital source of cultural information for us. Richard Dawkins has said this much himself. If you wish to contest the impact the bible has had on christian europe then feel free to do so. It should be interesting to read. "While aspiring art, the book itself is not artistic at all." I disagree, and since this is a matter of subjective taste I don't see any reason to expand on that point. "It has no more value than the collective mythology from any other culture" And those collective mythologies are extremely interesting and important! The bible is privileged above them in our culture (the west) only for the disproportionate impact it has made specifically on our culture, but that doesn't diminish the overall importance of the mythologies that were endorsed by other cultures.
Thank you. I see it the same way. I am a lifelong non believer but I do respect and enjoy many religious texts and esteem their historical, literary and cultural value. It has an account of a hermit from Roman times high on mushrooms. That has to be worth something. It has a first hand account of Cyrus the great. Why can't I enjoy these writings? I cannot stand the new holier than thou arrogant and dismissive atheist minority as dogmatic and judgmental as any believer ever was. Their reductionist and revisionist simplicity makes me cringe. I actually call myself agnostic just to avoid being thought of as one of them. I may not believe in God but I do not believe in shitting all over those that do. Good on you. Hopefully your sort of thinking catches on.
Oners82 I think it's a result of the 'us vs them' mentality that some adopt. You can easily argue against people who take the bible literally without trying to degrade it for what it is. I think some atheists see the bible as something the other side holds dear and thus set their sights to attack it, sort of like some christians do to the books of other religions like the quran. I don't care about pointing out flaws, especially to people who try to say the book is flawless. It's this condescending casting aside of the entire book as an antiquated and backwards collection of useless nonsense that disturbs me.
reggiejax What it is is the rise of a new sort of fanaticism, an atheistic version. Zealotry, after all is not monopolized by the faithful. The bible is a fascinating example of ancient writings, replete with historical and cultural value. I do not need faith in order to see that. And I most certainly do not need some rabid anti-christian Jacobin telling me to throw it on the pyre.
Fascinating talk. I actually went to the same school in Oxford as William Tyndale - it's still going and is over 700 years old now. NB I wasn't there when Tyndale was!
Lol....so was I a few years ago....he is brilliant for dawah purposes to help prove to the xtian world there bible contains corruptions....which is exactly what we muslims say.....be careful though...his point is that the bible is not a historically reliable document...his reasons for leaving xtianity though dont hold weight imo, and that's what xtians try and attack him over... They say that the Gospels at least agree on the jist of what went on, so it must be true. Good luck with your studies. Asalaamu Alaykum
There was an interesting programme about William Tyndale on the BBC a few months ago. Apparently when he was caught and tried for his crime of translating the bible into English, his captors took pity on him before he was about to be burned at the stake, and they strangled him as they tied him to the stake, but when they lit the bonfire he wasn't quite dead, and he still suffered the flames. A horrible way to die I would imagine.
In the UK, much the best known service is the Xmas carol service from Kings College Cambridge. And the readings contain one of the key mistranslations highlighted by Ehrman. So much of popular Christianity is based on misunderstandings of the original texts, or has nothing to do with the texts at all (such as the US evangelicals' obsession about abortion).
Would have to categorize him as a Latin apologist with a pseudo Logic that belies a revisionist bent that is after all the stock in trade of all theologians and especially those of Roman bent.
Marvelous presentation by Ehrman, although the audio was not of the best tough most of it. As a former University lecturer myself, I truly admire his public speaking talent, and his relaxed comfort (including the jokes, always on point) comes from a through mastery of his subject. I really admire him.
I'll be honest. This man is the best non biased professor in theology , especially New Testament. He's agnostic and atheists. Still good info. NON biased info
The Talmud/Mishnah states that the Masoretic Text, used by the KJV, NIV, NASB, etc, was corrupted showing conflicting texts, contradictions, and multiple, competing rabbis intentionally altering scriptures thus corrupting it)* though Jews also used the Septuagint (translated from Square Hebrew in the mid third century BC), and older than the MT; The MT aren't original scriptures and not a BC text; see Jeremiah 8:8. Paleo Hebrew, used from the 12th to 6th century BC (around 2,000 years older than the MT), gave way to Square Hebrew (around 1,300 years older than the MT), which then eventually gave way to Greek, as evidenced by the Septuagint, which is around 1,000 years than the MT. The Septuagint predates Christianity, used when Greek became the lingua franca, and its use in synagogues by Jews around the Mediterranean was substantial. Paleo Hebrew, Square Hebrew, and the Septuagint (LXX) within the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) preserve the originals, and overwhelmingly disagree with the MT in numerous instances; the Septuagint predates Christianity and scrolls from it are found within the Dead Sea Scrolls. 1.) Exodus 1:5 in the DSS Square Hebrew agrees with the Septuagint against the MT/KJV/NABRE/NASB/NIV/RSV/RSVCE/ that all the souls from Jacob were 75, not 70, thus agreeing with St. Stephen in Acts 7:14. 2.) The older DSS, the Samaritan Pentateuch, Aramaic Targums, etc, agree with the Septuagint against the MT (and KJV/NASB/NIV) for Deut. 32:8-9 in using sons/angels of God and not sons of Israel. 3.) The DSS for Deuteronomy 32:43 lines up with the Septuagint against the MT (and KJV/NABRE/NASB/NIV/RSV/RSVCE) saying the angels are to worship messiah. 4.) The Septuagint for 1 and 2 Samuel are backed up by 3 DSS and the MT is known among scholars as botching 1 and 2 Samuel badly. 5.) The MT wrongly (some evidence for #4) has Saul becoming king at age one and ruling for two years. 6.) The MT actually left out an entire line from Psalm 145 that the DSS and the Septuagint preserved, thus the so-called masters of vowel memorization not only forgot vowels but also consonants. 7.) Psalm 40:6(7): a messianic proof text for the Incarnation: The MT (and KJV/NABRE/NASB/NIV/RSV/RSVCE): Thou hast dug out my ears. The Septuagint: A body thou hast prepared me. 8.) Concerning another messianic psalm, Psalm 22:16, the DSS agrees with the Septuagint against the MT. 9.) Baruch, Sirach, Tobit, and Psalm 151 are written in Hebrew in the DSS. 10.) ▪︎The chronology of Genesis 11 and the year of the flood of the Paleo Hebrew and the Septuagint line up against the MT. Shem is not Melchizedek: ▪︎Literary sources before 100 AD that agree with the LXX: 2 Esdras, Josephus and Philo (30/70 AD) did not use the Septuagint to come to their conclusion that lines up with the Septuagint. ▪︎Eupolemus, the Jewish 2nd century BC historian's chronology, comes close to aligning with the Paleo Hebrew and Septuagint and not the MT. ▪︎Jewish Demetrius the Chronicler's (3rd century BC) chronology comes very close to the Paleo Hebrew and Septuagint and against the MT. *Justin Martyr said the Jews in his time period were altering their scriptures.* ▪︎biblearchaeology.org/research/biblical-chronologies/4349-mt-sp-or-lxx-deciphering-a-chronological-and-textual-conundrum-in-genesis-5 Since synagogues around the Mediterranean used Septuagint and Square Hebrew, even in Palestine, Greek was the lingua franca, Jesus grew up near Sepphoris where Hebrew and Greek were both spoken and where Joseph could ply his trade, Christ quoted the scriptures, spoke to the Syrophoenician woman, and Mark/Luke were written to Romans/Greeks, some will be hard-pressed to prove Jesus used only Hebrew. Outside Judea, close to 100% of the diaspora synagogue inscriptions are in Greek. In Judea, where the default language is Aramaic, 80% of synagogue inscriptions are Greek. Some Jews have said the Deuterocanon was never written in Hebrew but the DSS (Dead Sea Scrolls) proved that to be false as at least 3 so far (Baruch, Sirach, and Tobit of the Deuterocanon), have been found within the DSS written in Hebrew, and using the word "recension" against them is a continual knee-jerk reaction to the Deuterocanon being written in Hebrew and moving the goal posts. Concerning key messianic scriptures, Catholics, Copts, Orthodox, and Protestants see that the leaven of the rabbis and then the Masoretes seemed to target scriptures that point to Jesus Christ. (Matthew 16:6). The Paleo Hebrew, Square Hebrew, and the Septuagint all agree with each other against the MT far more than they disagree, thus the starting point is to sideline the MT. There are dozens and dozens of instances where the Paleo Hebrew, Square Hebrew, and the Septuagint agree against the MT: By the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses let every word be established. Deut. 19:15; 2 Cor. 13:1. Given that Septuagint scrolls were found with Paleo Hebrew and Square Hebrew scrolls in the DSS, one would again be hard-pressed to prove that Christians composed the Septuagint and, as well, the Torah was translated into Greek from 283-246 BC under Ptolemy II Philadelphus and the prophets and writings within the next 100 years. Chronicles is quoted by Eupolemos in the middle of the 2nd century BCE, and Job by Pseudo-Aristeas in the beginning of the 1st century BCE. Septuagint fragments found at Qumran (Lev.), the Nahal Hever (Habbakuk, near Ein Gedi), dated 50 BC, Deut. fragments dates 2nd century BC. Prosuche (forerunner to the synagogue) foundation stones in Egypt are dated 120 to 240 BC. If you gather in a church or synagogue, its origins are found in Hellenistic Egypt as they are foreign to temple-only thought. The synagogue ultimately spread to Israel along with the Septuagint (Theodotus inscription, in Greek, a synagogue in Jerusalem, 1st century AD).
I don't see how anyone with a brain can watch something like this and not question their belief system.....which is based 100% on a book that is demonstrably not what they think it is.....at best. At worst it is a copy of a copy of a copy of a translation of a copy of a copy of a translation etc., which has been accidently and/or intentionally modified/changed/amended and added to by numerous people often with an agenda.
@@diverguy3556 ya, not a very good post i should have deleted it before any saw my foolishness, I am working on that but it seems to be a slow process of changing habits that were decades in the making.
You are absolutely right sir..we dont comprehend the mindset n views of those believers..obviouzly the inherited it from parents..great grand parents 4 genereration..wth out questions wht so ever..
@@norzilahaziz6695 These are some scriptures I wholeheartedly believe in putting in practice, I assemble myself in a local church as per Heb 10:25 but I do not hold everything they do and I have said so several times. Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. 1Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 2Ti 2:16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. 2Ti 2:17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenæus and Philetus; 2Ti 2:18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some. I read my KJV literally without any interpretation, www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a106.htm 33,000 denominations, sects, non-denominational churches, and cults, all because of interpretation, I hate interpretation with a passion, it is vile and wicked to me and I will not have it.
+Brother Charles that's called begging the question. e.g. the bible is the word of God. how do you know? because it was written by prophets. it's circular reasoning.
+Brother Charles interesting how you post such assertions in a Bart Ehrman video. he knows 1000x more than you will ever know about the prophecies etc, and yet he believes it's all man made. kinda like the book of Timothy saying the only way for women to be saved is to submit to her husband, stay home and have children. sounds like "god's" word to be.
41:41 Even though Goliath is indeed carrying a kind of weapon in this verse, the word "target" used to refer to it in the KJV means buckler. "Target" has never referred to a javelin or anything similar, so it's a mistranslation as well as a word that has changed in meaning over the centuries.
Edo Marinus, It is not a mistranslation. It is dead on correct, and the meaning is still used today. When a word has multiple meanings, the context becomes important. The translators were very careful, and multiple translators had to be in agreement. People who try and tear down the KJV have an agenda. Buckler and Target are the same thing, and are still in use today. target H3591 H3591 כִּידוֹן kı̂ydôn kee-dohn' From the same as H3589; properly something to strike with, that is, a dart (perhaps smaller than H2595): - lance, shield, spear, target.
@@blkjet117 Buckler and target are definitely not the same thing. I would not want to defend myself with a target in my hand instead of a buckler, and I certainly wouldn't want to shoot my arrows at a buckler instead of a target.
Wycliffe followed the Septuagint and Vulgate and translated it as "target" and noted it as "gorget" from French, which means "a piece of armor to protect the throat." However, most scholars agree that "javelin" is the correct translation.
@@Iaminnocentlol No, the Bible didn't know and hasn't "foretold" anything. Try to name ONE prophecy that is REALLY A PROPHECY, and is SPECIFIC to today. None of this "wars and rumors of wars" garbage.
@@JM-ot8ux 1 Corinthians 15 : 1 - ... Hosea 6 : 1 - 3. Colossians Ephesians Romans Speaking of Matthew 24.. Compare With ZECHARIAH Chapter's 12 - 14. Could Go On And ON HOWEVER: Matthew 7:6-8 [6]Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. [7]Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: [8]For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. John 3 1 Corinthians Chapter's 1 & 2. 🤔 💖📖💝✝️..☝🏽💗💞 ⬆️👆 ↗️ ⬆️ ↖️✅️💖
Hello jps101574, Eugene here. I think that only you can decide the answer because the answer is always subjective, depending on what your theology is. If you have no prior beliefs, then how a particular Greek or Hebrew word is translated will not much matter to you. Bart is not interested in choosing one faith over another, but he is interested in giving us historical and grammatical information so we can answer your question for ourselves. His teaching preference is to put "truth" first, and he seems to use "reason" as his primary tool in his search for it. If a translation or explanation makes no sense, it might be wise to consider it "nonsense", at least until you can make some sense out of it. One example is "Strain at a gnat and swallow a camel" which should have read, "Strain out a gnat...". May you be blessed in your studies. Make Jesus' God and Father your God and Father.
@@originalhigene I have heard its the new world bible but 8 books removed from catholic bible and 22 from ethiopian. But its the old testament..the gospels are probably the same
Hello Jane Slater, Eugene here. Consider the problem of there being more than one English word that can be the right word because either fits into the sentence but, only one of the English words have the correct meaning. Take the Greek work "dia". It is sometimes translated "by" and sometime "for the sake of". This presents a major problem. Should the passage read "by" or "for the sake of" if both are possible? Did God make the cosmos "by" Jesus or "for the sake of" Jesus. It all depends on how we choose to translate "dia". That most likely depends on our pre held beliefs. I think the New World translation is Jehovah's Witness. I would not use one except to see what is in it. In John, the logos is said to be a "god" with lower case "g" giving the meaning that Jesus is a minor god less that God his father. Of course I do not believe that Jesus is God or a god. Jesus is a man and God is never a human. Jesus died, God can not die. There is only one God and there is only one go-between us and that person is the Man Jesus.
Bart is slanting everything toward the extreme skeptical view. For example, the reason the Greek Septuagint translates Isaiah 7: 14 "almah" as "virgin" is because in Israel an "almah" is an unmarried woman, and if not a virgin she would have been a harlot. For example, Genesis 24:43 is using "almah" clearly referring to a virgin. In fact in every case where the word "almah" is used in the Hebrew bible it is ALWAYS referring to an unmarried virgin. So why it's true that "almah" isn't specified as "virgin" in the context of every other passage in the Hebrew bible it is ALWAYS referring to a virgin. For example if I said "I bought a car at the new car lot" your impression wouldn't be, "oh that must mean a used car" even though there might be a used car on such a lot from time to time that would be an odd understanding of the context. Same for Isaiah 7:14, nobody would assume this woman is a young widow or something of that nature unless specified as such. And it should be noted that the Greek Septuagint was translated by Jewish scholars before the New Testament was written. So the understanding that an "almah" is synonymous with "virgin" wasn't a Christian invention, that is how the native speakers of the Hebrew language translated the text. But why? Look at the CONTEXT of the passage "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin (almah) will conceive and give birth to a son, and[ will call him Immanuel." So if Isaiah 7: 14 merely means "young women", as Bart love to assert, how is that a sign to king Ahaz from God? That interpretation of that passage would be completely unremarkable and a sign to nobody. Matthew is quoting Isaiah using a kind of typological parallel, much like Jesus compares himself to Jonah and we see similar comparisons with say Isaac and Joseph in Genesis, the Isaiah story in is also a prophetic parallel.
Funny, the Hebrew scholars, from the people who actually wrote the book, would disagree with you. What are your credentials to say these things, or are you just making stuff up
@@danielsnyder2288 Have you considered the New Testament writers themselves were bilingual Hebrews? Bart Ehrman is arguing with the understanding of native speakers of the language. Find a single example where "almah" definitively does not refer to an unmarried virgin in the bible. You can't, I've looked at every example. Bart is even arguing with the translators of the Septuagint, native speakers of both languages. This while Bart himself admits he gets around in Greek and Hebrew with a concordance in one hand, as do most scholars. I appreciate his honesty.
My favourite quote from this is from the introduction: "textual criticism is not the sexiest subject but Bart managed to pull it off!" Too much information my friend.
The Comma Johanneum was inserted in Erasmus' 3rd edition of 1522; which is the edition used by Tyndale. Luther's translation does not have the Comma Johanneum because he used the 2nd edition of Erasmus of 1519.
The misinformation that this verse is not found in any Greek mss. and was added by late copyist as a gloss, is now a myth with anti-Trinitarian agenda that has been accepted as fact by most people. This verse, often called the Johannine Comma, is found in the following Greek mss.: #61, #88, #629 and Codex Ravianus. Further, it was quoted in 250AD by Cyprian, Spanish Bishop Priscillian before 385 AD, Idacius Clarus and Cassadorious in the fourth and fifth centuries and Facundus in the sixth century. For your benefit
@@ishiftfocus7295 The Comma did not exist in any extant Greek mss for almost 1400 years. Erasmus inserted the Comma in his 3rd edition and noted his concerns about the source in his Annotations. Stephanus noted that the Comma was missing from several of his Greek mss. Tyndale set 1 John 5:7 in parentheses indicating doubt about the verse. Coverdale set 1 John 5:7 in parentheses indicating doubt about the verse. An edition of the Great Bible omitted 1 John 5:7. Cyprian quotes John 10:30 then wrote a prepositional phrase then quotes a portion of 1 John 5:8 How do you account for the Comma's absence from about 1400 years of Greek mss witnesses? How do account for the absence of the Comma in the earliest extant mss witnesses of the ancient translations including the Old Latin, Latin Vulgate, Syriac, Coptic, Arabic, and Ethiopic? You may accept the Comma as Holy Writ as a matter of faith, without objection.
The fact that the KJV translators only used 92% of Tyndale tells me that a)the KJV translators were doing an actual translation and not just copying Tyndale and b) Tyndale must have done a very good translation to only have 8% of it changed.
Alot of the remaining 8 percent was making sure the book endorsed the teaching and sanctions of the church of England also known as as Anglican Including the sanction of the belief in the divine right or kings or queens
I am glad Ehrman went over exactly the examples and types of later additions to the biblical texts and the way the interpreters' biases affected the word choices. A very fun lecture!
Suggested rewrite and improvement of his joke: "As it was a revision of the RSV, I recommended to the committee that they call it the RSVP, but they never got back to me."
Bart is such a pleasure to listen to as his presentations are clear and precise - not loaded with jargon. Bart didn’t mention the (yes incomplete but still extremely important) Wycliffite translation (into English), which predates Tyndale by *well* over a century - I know his wife (being a superb medievalist) and colleagues and friends have probably reminded him of the Wyclif Bible etc (it’s a big deal for medievalists!). There are also translations into Anglo-Saxon but hey we medievalists can’t have everything…
You know what English linguist types call “Anglo-Saxon”? Old English. Sooo…there are partial translations, in English, that predate Wycliff by more than 300 years. They predate the Norman Conquest by around 50 years. But pretty sure he’s referring to “English” as either late Middle English to Early Modern English and readable as such by modern understanding rather than Old English.
Mr. Ehrman, why does it not strike you as presumptuous that modern-day translators should think they have a better sense of the ancient idiom than did the Septuagint's Hebrew translators of the 3rd century B.C. when they translated "almah" (Isaiah 7:14) as "virgin" into the Greek? I mean, be consistent. You did speak on how words change even within the space of a generation. How much more over millenia?
Modern translators “should” have a better sense because they SHOULD be aware of all of the differences and changes to language over time. Giving them a better understanding of why something was translated to what it was during a certain period. He’s presuming the modern translator is translating free from theological biases, because that’s how Dr Ehrman approaches his work.
I need three books: 1) King james - for the literature 2) Some more accurate translation of the Bible 3) Some kind of "Bible Dictionary" Any recommendations? Thanks in advance
The first one is wrong . the king james bible is not literature its Psychotic psycho babble. two i can help you with, Any thesis involving an atheist or anti theist attack on any of the religious text. Rewarding shit from believer is not going to get you to the truth. MY recommendation is get a copy of the Ot, NT, Koran, Torah and then put them in a pile, pour petrol over them and light them.
@@davesisonn Thanks, Dave. I'll put the NET on my book list. I have "The Illustrated Bible Dictionary," by George W Knight and Rayburn W Ray. It is an incredibly useful reference for me. It says, on the back - in very large letters - "BASIC. CLEAR. UNCOMPLICATED." I suspect I might do better.
I listened to the whole intro too, thinking it would just take a moment. I know now to jump to the comments and look for the shortcut that someone inevitably posts.
Apart from the KJV in particular, I found a good discussion of NT textual criticism that mentions Bart Ehrman a few times. It's posted on RUclips May 6, 2020 with the title Avoiding Big Mistakes in Defending the Bible: Interview with Dr. Peter Gurry.
James snapp ya what does Bart know he has only devoted 30 years of his life to this study and started as a practicing christian and training to be a pastor. Which I dare say is much more cred than you have in your young earth creationist years. But yeah lets disregard what Bart preaches and lets run with your theories which you have tirelessly spent your past 30 years researching ! Cant wait to hear them
Bart is the man! I love how people question his historical, paleographical and philological authority! It blows my fucking mind! Please, make a god damn video of your own (with pertinent and ACCURATE citations) if you run your mouth and question his years of study. Lets not forget, most of what he is referring to has been well known by historical and biblical scholars. He's finally been open enough to lay it out in terms people can understand. (Sigh...)
4:50 IIRC a targe or target was a small round shield, a buckler, definitely not a javelin I don't think. Edit, also 'meat' = food in general; 'knit' means joined together. Don't we still speak of waiting for a fractured bone to knit?
If these translators of the KJV were so well versed in Greek and Hebrew, how did they make so many mistakes in translating. John 1:1 is a very good example of purposely mistranslating something to fulfill a bias. Matthew 24:3 is a deliberate inserting a word that was never used in the text, again to fulfill a bias. It was obvious that these men were not as concerned with producing a faithful word of God as they were in producing something that King James would find useful in controlling people and factions.
Because translating from one language to another during the same time period isn’t a direct 1:1 translation. A word in one language could be multiple in another. Take the modern English word “left”. You’d need to know the context of its use to know if its a direction or past tense of leave. If you’re translating a text that’s centuries old to a foreign language, a lot is lost in translation.
This is just speculation, but it occurs, He mentioned Shakespeare being the origin of so much; yet no mention of the facts that he was well involved with King James, "The King`s Men" being the name of Will`s troupe. The 1st KJV was published in 1611, revised soon after, all well before Shakespeare died in 1616. ( it turns out he was a Catholic ) Also the plague years disrupted the theatrical business. Giving plenty of time and opportunity in isolation, to take a hand, at least, in this Ultimate Word-smithing job. I can find Nothing to support this, but neither to disprove it. "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak". sounds like Wm S` doesn`t it? also translated into another language (I forget which one, let`s say Russian!) and back again, it came back as "The whisky is good, but the meat is off" just saying....
True. I used to go to bible studies. My search led me to the Quran and today I found God. There is no God but Allah, Jesus was his messenger and Muhammad is his final messenger
There are other ways of understanding existence. They are deeply moving; their virtue is that they don't engage with power systems, expecring inevitable conflict. Mostly with practice, there are ways of coping with this life,and our deaths. But denying these realities only brings more suffering.
remove one more god, then you need to take full responsibility for your choices. It sucks to become an adult human. but be kind, be mindful, be willing to be foolish.
Third time I've tried to reply to your post. I know you have a good heart, perhaps you seek certainty. You are on the right path, but short one god. Once you know this, that the universe was not "made" for you, you are nevertheless a wonderful thing! You have free will: Do no harm, be kind, Help others. Or not.
Regarding Daniel 3:25, even Theodotion's text renders it υιω θεου. The Septuagint renders it differently, as αγγελου θεου. Nonetheless, if I'm not mistaken, both these ancient Greek translations renders "God" in the singular, correct?
With the King James Version the same problems occur compared to the use of the Dutch "Statenvertaling". Of course we can laugh about all these "old" words but the good thing is that these old words point out precisely to the Hebrew or Greek text and are, in that sense, reliable. When we study Hebrew or Greek Bible texts seriously we must always go back to the original text to find out the meaning of the word, both literally and in its context. Sometimes one Hebrew word can have two meanings, e.g. "admiration" and "astonishment" and in Hebrew it is even possible that one piece of text can be translated in two really different ways.
I enjoyed this. I’m a Christian. I enjoy facts. The text information shared is well known in most any Bible outside of the KJV in the margin and foot notes. We do not need or desire to hide and variances in the text.
A smaller state in India. A ship's radio officer from there told me he sees many from his home state in the same occupation (neither of us could figure why.)
As a matter of fact, there are no extant manuscripts that render mark 14:62 as "you say that I am". I just checked the NET translation, which mentions all the alternate greek renderings. The ESV footnotes don't have this either. You may be confusing this with another verse.
You keep making blatant assertions. I've given you the evidence, and you haven't dealt with it. I've given you the evidence of the empty tomb, the genuine belief of the disciples in the resurrection, the genuine belief of Paul, the genuine belief of James. We've been over all of this. We've been over why simply lying about it wouldn't work-we're dealing with this in a Jewish context. Meaning it's foolish to think these people would lie and get brutally persecuted for something they knew
47 highly skilled in Hebrew yet they translate re'em as unicorn. facepalm. Odd, because the aurochs or wild ox was still extant, I believe and the misleading part I think was the fact that one verse used "horn" in the singular but that doesn't necessitate the animal having only one horn. And there are verses that use horns instead of horn. I wouldn't call that highly skilled in Hebrew or reasoning. KJV has many errors.
That this worst of all VERSIONS of the bible still exists and is venerated by funny-mentalists makes me believe that President Lincoln's statement that you can fool some of the people all the time, all of the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. Some people have been convinced that the KJV is THE ONLY TRUE BIBLE to the exclusion of all others. That mindset eliminates the Hebrew Tenach, and all other versions of the bible in any other languages. I once heard a man say that the KJV was the bible that Jesus and the apostles read and if it was good enough for Jesus and the apostles, it was good enough for him. I thought that was the single most idiotic statement I'd ever heard and began laughing so hard that I simply could not stop. Having read the scriptures in the original languages, I know that any similarity that the KJV and the scriptures in the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek is only conisidential. I pity the people who venerate the KJV; they are mislead into believing myths.
The 1611 Authorized Version Holy Bible is the most amazing thing I ever experienced , it's the living words of God , he changed my life and delivered me from a very wretched state of being . I thank the Lord Jesus Christ for his Holy Spirit bearing witness on my soul and impacting me at a very dark hour with four words " The Bible is True " about 9 years ago at 46 years of age. Amen
But king james removed books that were in the catholic and ethipopian orthodox bible .8 books in catholic and 22 in ethiopian. Martin luther had the 8 books removed from.catholic bible that became the king james
@@florrie8767 Hi . the apocrypha is in the 1611 King James Bible if thats what you are referring to but more importantly i learned God promises to preserve his word and God says He exalts his word above all his name ....God made English , ....there's two lines of Bibles , the pure seed of the woman and the perverted seed of the serpent
Keep the Faith Ken and keep the King James Version . Yes , you are right .... There is something special about the King James Bible . I wonder how many people at this lecture believed that Jesus Christ rose from the dead .
@@Don-dz5wr Here's two simple multiple choice questions for people that say Jesus certainly existed have trouble answering that logically follows in context of what Paul the Apostle wrote. 1) Who would most likely kill Jesus just for looking like, and believed to be just a human as related in the Kenosis Hymnal in Philippians? Note: Jesus empties his powers by taking on flesh being a slave to the elemental spirits (Gal. 4:8-9). Philippians 2:7-8 NRSV "but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death - even death on a cross." YLT "but did empty himself, the form of a servant having taken, in the likeness of men having been made, and in fashion having been found as a man, he humbled himself, having become obedient unto death -- death even of a cross," A) Romans B) Jews C) Satan 2) Who would most likely not kill Jesus if they were made known that killing him would fulfill God's preordained secret plan for mankinds salvation as per God's will? Note: Rulers of this Age (Principalities); Rulers of the Earth realm is interchangeable with rulers of the spiritual realm to the ancient reader. 1 Corinthians 2:6-8 NRSV "Yet among the mature we do speak wisdom, though it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to perish. But we speak God's wisdom, secret and hidden, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." YLT "And wisdom we speak among the perfect, and wisdom not of this age, nor of the rulers of this age -- of those becoming useless, but we speak the hidden wisdom of God in a secret, that God foreordained before the ages to our glory, which no one of the rulers of this age did know, for if they had known, the Lord of the glory they would not have crucified;" A) Romans B) Jews C) Satan Taking these verses all together; We have Jesus not taking equality with the Father, but lowered himsellf taking on a flesh disguise, and ventured where it is a crime punishable by death for being a human. In this same place of being found in human form whoever it is would not kill Jesus if it was made known to them. Whoever it is does not want the gift of immortality for mankind from the Creator. Who best describes killing humans on site, and not wanting eternal life for them? Jews/Romans: Did they go around enforcing death sentences for the crime of looking like a flesh & blood human? If they were made known with no doubt, and whatever misconceptions they had were corrected of the plan of the Highest God? Would they be for their own destruction, or for their own immortality (a gift from an all loving God)? Satan: Would Satan attack flesh? Would Satan be against humans gaining a chance at immortality? Paul (earliest extant Xtian writings) is adamant that his Gospel is not from humans, but from scripture, and visions/dreams (Gal. 1:11-12, Rom. 15:4, 1 Cor. 15:3-8). A secret hidden through the ages now revealed (Rom. 16:25-26, 1 Cor. 2:7, :13). Also Paul says his apostleship is by the same means as the founding Pillars (Gal. 2:6-9). Paul's preexisting being was killed for looking like a human (Phili. 2:7), and his killers would not have killed him if they knew it was God's secret plan (1 Cor. 2:6-8). This makes more sense when looking at the Joshua/Jesus in the OT who tricks Satan and is exalted by God. Note that these verses have what can be perceived as symbolisms for flesh (dirty clothes= sinful flesh & Five Kings= Five Senses that enslaves one to sin & rules over you). So Zech. 3:1-9, 6:11-13, & Jos. 10:22-27 all together symbolically has a Jesus in a flesh disguise getting hung in a tree, shoved into a tomb, and exalted by God to remove guilt of the land. Remember that a physical flesh ressurection is not Pauline; 1 Cor. 15:50bc "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable." Zechariah 3:1-9 "1 Then he showed me the high priest Joshua (Savior) standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan (Adversary) standing at his right hand to accuse him. 2 And the LORD said to Satan, "The LORD rebuke you, O Satan! The LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is not this man a brand plucked from the fire?" 3 Now Joshua was dressed with filthy clothes as he stood before the angel. 4 The angel said to those who were standing before him, "Take off his filthy clothes." And to him he said, "See, I have taken your guilt away from you, and I will clothe you with festal apparel." 5 And I said, "Let them put a clean turban on his head." So they put a clean turban on his head and clothed him with the apparel; and the angel of the LORD was standing by. 6 Then the angel of the LORD assured Joshua, saying 7 "Thus says the LORD of hosts: If you will walk in my ways and keep my requirements, then you shall rule my house and have charge of my courts, and I will give you the right of access among those who are standing here. 8 Now listen, Joshua, high priest, you and your colleagues who sit before you! For they are an omen of things to come: I am going to bring my servant the Branch. 9 For on the stone that I have set before Joshua, on a single stone with seven facets, I will engrave its inscription, says the LORD of hosts, and I will remove the guilt of this land in a single day." Zechariah 6:11-13 11 Take the silver and gold and make a crown, and set it on the head of the high priest Joshua son of Jehozadak (Savior Son of the Righteous God); 12 say to him: Thus says the LORD of hosts: Here is a man whose name is Branch: for he shall branch out in his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD. 13 It is he that shall build the temple of the LORD; he shall bear royal honor, and shall sit upon his throne and rule. There shall be a priest by his throne, with peaceful understanding between the two of them." Joshua 10:22-27 "22 Then Joshua (Savior) said, "Open the mouth of the cave, and bring those five kings out to me from the cave." 23 They did so, and brought the five kings out to him from the cave, the king of Jerusalem, the king of Hebron, the king of Jarmuth, the king of Lachish, and the king of Eglon. 24 When they brought the kings out to Joshua, Joshua summoned all the Israelites, and said to the chiefs of the warriors who had gone with him, "Come near, put your feet on the necks of these kings." Then they came near and put their feet on their necks. (see Psa. 110:1/Heb. 10:13) 25 And Joshua said to them, "Do not be afraid or dismayed; be strong and courageous; for thus the LORD will do to all the enemies against whom you fight." 26 Afterward Joshua struck them down and put them to death, and he hung them on five trees. And they hung on the trees until evening. 27 At sunset Joshua commanded, and they took them down from the trees and threw them into the cave where they had hidden themselves; they set large stones against the mouth of the cave, which remain to this very day. (see also Deut. 21:22-23/Gal. 3:13)" Image of God (2 Cor. 4:4, Phili. 2:6), Agent of creation (Rom. 11:36, 1 Cor. 8:6) Philo: THE SPECIAL LAWS, I "XVI ...Now the image of God is the Word, by which all the world was made..." Celestial high priest (Heb. 2:17, 4:14), God's Word (Heb. 1:3, 11:3), Firstborn son (Rom. 8:29) Philo: ON DREAMS, THAT THEY ARE GOD-SENT "XXXVII ...the high priest is the Divine Word, his own firstborn son." Philo: ON ABRAHAM "XLI These things, then, are what are contained in the plain words of the scriptures. But as many as are able to contemplate the facts related in them in their incorporeal and naked state, living rather in the soul than in the body, will say that of the nine kings (Gen.14:1-2) the four are the powers of the four passions which exist within us, the passion of pleasure, of desire, of fear, and of grief; and that the other five kings are the outward senses, being equal in number, the sense of sight, of hearing, of smell, of taste, and of touch. For these in some degree are sovereigns and rulers, having acquired a certain power over us, but not all to an equal extent; for the five are subordinate to the four, and are compelled to pay them taxes and tribute, such as are appointed by nature. For it is from the things which we see, or hear, or smell, or taste, or touch, that pleasures, and pains, and fears, and desires arise; as there is no one of the passions which has any power to exist of itself, if it were not supplied by the materials furnished by the outward senses." Philo: WHO IS THE HEIR OF DIVINE THINGS "XXXVIII ...Now, the craters of the sense of seeing are the eyes, those of hearing are the ears, those of smelling are the nostrils, and so on with the appropriate receptacles for each of the senses. On these craters the sacred word pours a portion of blood, thinking it right that the irrational part of us should become endowed with soul and vitality, ...purifying itself from the deceitful alluring powers of the objects of the outward sense which aim to overcome it." Philo: QUESTIONS & ANSWERS ON GENESIS, III "(51) What is the meaning of, “And it shall be my covenant (or agreement) in your flesh?” (Gen. 17:13). God is willing to do good, not only to the man who is endued with virtue, but he wishes that the Divine Word should regulate not only his soul but his body also, as if it had become its physician. And it must be its care to prune away all excesses of seeing, and hearing, and taste, and smell, and touch, and also those of the instrument of voice and articulation, and also all the redundant and pernicious impulses of the genitals, (morning cross? Rom. 7:23) as also of the whole body, the effect of which is, that at times we are delighted by our passions and at times pained by them."
His claim around the 22 minute mark that the translators could speak Greek fluently, and read Hebrew texts like the newspaper, was surprising. I have no grounds on which to dispute the claim, but I must confess that I do wonder if the translators' reliance on earlier translations was rooted in them being unsure how to render certain texts.
The kjv translators could have asked jews to help, but instead, do to antisemitism, chose to mistranslate some passages. I doubt they were that fluent. Maybe they could speak it, but how well is debatable.
Blaster Master There are two important passages in the Word of God concerning the origin and fall of Satan. The first passage relating to Satan’s fall is found in Ezekiel 28:12-19 where Ezekiel describes the creation and judgment of a vile and vicious non-human creature whose name we find out later to be Lucifer. The second passage relating to Satan’s fall is found in Isaiah 14:12-14 where the prophet Isaiah presents the origin and fall of Satan. From what theological college did you graduate from? I will not waste my time educating and uneducated atheist. Please go an educate yourself, then come back and we can have an intelligent conversation; until then piss off.
Atheist- some below- please refrain from making opinion comments. .. historically across the field both atheists a fundamentalist scholars of the bible agree that Jesus existed. Research scholars views. That said- they have opinions of agreement as to the claims that cannot be historical ally proven. Hold a good standard in your arguments.
mPky1 well said. Keep arguments factual and not fairy tale or totally inaccurate. Kindness- a higher standard- is key. I don't want to take away someone's faith- I would rather lead them to their own discovery. It's hard to swallow- we are on our own to discovery of our spirit or lack of - that sends some into panic!
".... scholars of the bible agree that Jesus existed" It would be more accurate to say that scholars either believe that Jesus existed or accept that he existed in the absence of any strong evidence to the contrary. "Hold a good standard in your arguments" Do you consider an argument from authority to be a "good standard"?
mPky1 But that's exactly my point. When NT scholars and historians claim that it's almost certain that there was a historical Jesus they are putting forward personal belief as though it were a scholarly conclusion based on knowledge and evidence.
Shieena Living Waters _"Keep arguments factual and not fairy tale or totally inaccurate. Kindness- a higher standard- is key."_ The idea that those two goals come in conflict just seems bizarre to me. The fact of the matter is that this agreement of existence you are appealing to is methodologically worthless because such agreements all presuppose that history can be extracted from stories about magic and have essentially no grounding in archaeology. There simply is no archaeological evidence of a historical Jesus - all there is is the claims of Christian cultists and people who almost certainly got their information from those Christians. _"I don't want to take away someone's faith- I would rather lead them to their own discovery."_ That's fine, but personally I care about people and the consequences of holding false beliefs - so I believe that it's an immoral disregard for other people to not inform them about false beliefs they hold when said beliefs cause significant harm, which they certainly do in the case of Christianity. The vast amount of resources wasted on the con games of Churches worldwide are staggering. _" It's hard to swallow- we are on our own to discovery of our spirit or lack of - that sends some into panic!"_ And that statement just seems bizarre to me. You live in a world where all kinds of religious leaders spend all their waking hours pushing indoctrination onto believers. If that is not opposed visibly in the public space, then their indoctrination will win out. It's as simple as that. The idea that this is some kind of personal journey is just laughably naive.
I didn't realize we were discussing religious leaders. I was sticking to the available scholar papers, Greek literature. And yes, they all agree someone named Jesus existed - someone who caused a great uproar. He may have just been a political activist or a spiritual teacher- so much so he threatened the system. Enough that the gnostics had to flee, the mystery schools were burned. It's on record that Jesus- was used to create a religious faction called the Catholic church in order to grab up his followers. and the Catholic Church invented his veneration as a diety- the hook. Far As My opinions- I am not concerned if you find them bizarre. And If you are on a mission to challenge what you perceive as someone's false believe you are no different than the religious who think your belief is false. As far as the harm being caused by many institutions- we can handle that one person at a time if they are open. Else the world ends up sparring as to who holds the standard of what is right and wrong. Good luck with achieving anything besides argument- as you do seem good at picking one.
15:45 But from where did he translate? have ALL manuscripts survived? 16:09 How did he have manuscripts with him in jail? he was put in jail because of manuscript translation and they allowed the manuscripts with him? it doesn't make sense.
00:18:26 But everyone know that a camel and a three-legged donkey are a thoroughbred race horse designed by committee. So what does that say about these Bible translations? [:-:-:]
But you can be proud that you changed your mind after 40 years. Changing your world-view after 40 years is a heroic feat not many can accomplish, whether it's related to religion or not. These days you usually see the same stubbornness in politics.
You might be a victim of man's stupidity, but I don't see how forgiveness and other teachings of Christ made you a victim. So exactly what made you a victim. America is based on Judeo- Christian values. Of course the biggest problem just like anything written people interpret and twist meaning whether on purpose or accidentally.
35:24 almug is a type of wood, trow is to believe, wimple is a folded head wear, habergeon is a shorten chain mail, chode presently has much different contexts verse a conjugation of chide as gat is a conjugation of get.
Making fun of the word of God and adding to the Bible is heretical and scripture says let him that does these things be accursed. So I need to point out that this needs to be repented of to get into right doctrine.
@@scoops2382 2. Peter 1:20-21 KJB 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
They’re not making fun or mocking “the word of god”. They’re having a laugh at the English language during the time period a group of scholars plagiarized the another scholar’s work that used words and sentence structures of his time when translating from manuscripts using words and sentence structure of their time when copying manuscripts from a time when that language was much different. If it’s the word of god, why is it so difficult to know the exact translation from ancient Hebrew and Ancient Greek? An infallible god shouldn’t be writing in a way that’s left up to translation, interpretation, and interpolation of the person reading it in that moment.
The Gospel of Jesus was the true book of history. Jesus never taughts the Gospels according to Mark, Mathew, Luke, or John, etc. Believe Ehrman or not- the Bibles we are carrying today are the wrong books of history.
It's called the Injil. When Jesus return to Earth in his 2nd coming, he will expose all those who misinterpreted, deviated, interpolated the supposed words of Jesus, peace be upon him.
47:50 What he is not telling you is that the hebrew bible we have today is the hebrew Masoretic, which was compiled over 600-1000 years after Jesus in Babylon , the Septuagint is an older source , not that it is necessarily better,
The Septuagint (or LXX) is a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, done by a group of Jewish scholars. It was in circulation in Israel in the first century AD, along with the original languages.
Where can I find textual critics like Ehrman but for the Quran? Would love to learn more. Or are those guys still being burned at the stake these days?
rst789, I'm sorry; I thought I was addressing people who believe that the veracity of one's statements should be measured by how well they correspond to reality, not by how many degrees one has beside one's name. As for scientific evidence, I presented it plainly in my critique. Where are your corrections of anything I said? Oh right -- they're non-existent.
{ Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands and then say, “ This is from Allah ( God ), “ to purchase with it a little price, Woe to them for what their hands have written and Woe to them for that they earn thereby. } The Qur’an [ 2:79 ].
wonder land Islam is not a joke rather it is a religion of total Submission and Surrender to God's will in Obedience to Him with sincerity in order to have peace in this life and the next life. { They say, "Be Jews or Christians [so] you will be guided." Say, "Rather, [we follow] the religion of Abraham, inclining toward truth, and he was not of the polytheists." Say, [O believers], "We have believed in Allah and what has been revealed to us and what has been revealed to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the Descendants and what was given to Moses and Jesus and what was given to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and we are Muslims [in submission] to Him." So if they believe in the same as you believe in, then they have been [rightly] guided; but if they turn away, they are only in dissension, and Allah will be sufficient for you against them. And He is the Hearing, the Knowing.}
Lecture starts at 9:30
^ hero!
An introduction for the introducer. Sigh. Thank you sir.
you know you can use sponsorblock to skip it, right?
our savior
Skip to 9:26
Monkof Magnesia thank you!
Am glad I helped.
Hero!
Thank you.
@aaronsdavis no kiddin!!
Never mind fundamentalists who think the King James is the best translation - I've met people who think the King James is the actual original bible. They don't realise it's a translation of the original Hebrew and Greek. From what I've been told, this is quite a common misunderstanding in the USA.
Yeah, the KJV-only crowd are a strange bunch, typically hyper conservative. There's one KJV-only pastor I know about who regularly prayed the imprecatory prayer when Barack Obama was president -- essentially praying for his death.
In the Baptist church I grew up in, everyone was very insistent on KJV :/
@@EnglishMike Wow - that is really something. Whatever you think of his politics, Obama is obviously a sincere Christian, and a decent, moral family man. And this pastor is literally praying for his death. While he supports a man who is the living embodiment of the Deadly Sins of Lust
, Gluttony, Greed, Sloth, Wrath, Envy and Pride.
What this presidency has brutally exposed is the way that for so many Americans, Christianity is just a mask for intolerance, racism and smug superiority. The hypocracy is jaw-dropping...
@@tullochgorum6323 Obama's unforgivable sin in the eyes of that pastor is that he is a liberal.
@@EnglishMike Not to mention that he is black...
Bart Ehrman has long been my favourite biblical historian. His qualifications are impeccable, his research exhaustive, his presentation compelling... and his sense of humour highly amusing. I always learn several points when listening to him ~ even on subjects with which I am strongly experienced. THANK YOU, Dr. Bart, for all your efforts: you have a huge throng of admirers out here !
None of those christian biblical scholars who responded to Prof Ehrman could provide a convincing answers indeed. Watch it yourself..find out yourself..wch scholar responded well..without spinning n swirling.. none!
Didja ever wonder how research was done with scrolls.?
No such thing as biblical history.
@@ossiedunstan4419You are right. The history of the bible is part of the real history.
It is always a pleasure to listen to Ehrman's lectures.
True
Several of these mistranslations have formed the basis of an entire sermon of various fundamentalist preachers I have heard. Amazing ignorance out there. Thanks, Bart.
Typical rejection of expertise in favor of folk understanding. It's the Republican way!
@@jonathannorburg1376 "Typical rejection of expertise in favor of folk understanding"
Would that be typical rejection of expertise in the translation and interpretation of unproven supernatural claims in favor of folk understanding of the translation and interpretation of unproven supernatural claims?
@@jonathannorburg1376
Christian Republicans: Genesis is meant to be taken literally, earth is 6000 years old, Adam and Eve existed, Noahs flood happened.
Christian Democrats: Genesis isn’t meant to be taken literally, it is a story about the human condition and the sinful nature of man.
Atheists: Genesis is clearly meant to be taken literally... but it’s just wrong, like so many other parts of the Bible.😂
What I see is the obvious of The Bible presenting to us a MORAL LAW which is the 10 COMMANDMENTS. A MIRROR for our behavior in LIFE. And that IS A SPIRITUAL DISCERNMENT. FOR ME CHRIST DIED SO ALL OF US WOULDNT END ETERNALLY AT THE FINAL JUDGEDMENT IN THE LAKE OF FIRE. FOR NOW THOSE WHO COMMITTED HORRIBLE CRIMES ARE IN SHEOL( God's underground PRISON) AWAITING FOR THE LAKE ETERNAL FIRE FOR NOT REPENTING NOR TRUSTING IN A SAVIOR. THE REDEMMED BY JESUS WON'T BE IN THE SAME PLACE AS THE CRIMINALS, ETC.
Just like on earth WE have JUDGES WHO ARE SENDING TO THE GAS CHAMBER, OR ELECTRIC CHAIR THOSE COMMITING MURDERS. GOD WILL GIVE WHAT HE SAYS THE WAGES OF SIN IS DEATH. WHAT YOU SOW YOU WILL REAP.
I'm a life long atheist, wasnt brought up with religion but as a child growing up in England you are exposed to Christianity constantly at school (primary schools are almost exclusively attached to a church of some kind).
While I never believed any of it, I did like the stories. And as an adult, Ive read the King James bible several times. I agree with Bart, the prose is fantastic. Up there with Shakespeare, Wordsworth and Kipling.
The translators deserve as much credit as Shakespeare for their contributions to our language. Good stuff whether you’re spiritually inclined or not
accept him today Yahshuah into your heart and confess that what you read about his suffering for the punishment of our sins is true ask His father abba Yahuah to teach you why this is real and how it can be and that you do wish to believe but its a little foggy outside and Yahuah will clear the path for you if you just accept His love he wants to fill and overflow u with beyond time as we know it. ❤
I was raised Atheist and ended up converting to Judaism. The Bible stories are wonderful! Though I do like the Hindu epics a bit better
@bipolarminddroppings you should watch the video called is the Bible actually true with J Warner Wallice
@@emmettdonkeydoodle6230you should watch it too
The coolest thing was to hear the Bible text read by Bart Ehrman! :) ...and the lecture outstanding as usual
The betrayal, arrest, imprisonment, and execution of William Tyndale is the quintessential true story of a profound and noble martyr. Tyndale could read, write, and speak 8 languages. He used his prodigious skills for the betterment of the common Christian through the production of an English translation of the Bible. For that magnificent gift to the English speaking world, crafted in poverty, Tyndale was tortured and murdered.
I think his executor is a Christian.
@@Downlead No authentic Christian would have executed Tyndale. Any claim to the Christian faith by a Tyndale executioner would be in name only. In other words, except as a bloody example of hypocrisy, such a claim is absolutely meaningless .
@@arthurmontana8791 No true Scotsman fallacy.
@@arthurmontana8791 How do you keep it all straight who's true or not? Many, most even, legitimately THOUGH they were defending God's work and intentions, time and again.
No good deed goes unpunished.
I've watched many videos with Bart Ehrman; this is certainly one of his best. Thanks for uploading this, LMU Library
Probably his most entertaining.
s b f
"I've watched many videos with Bart Ehrman".
I am here confused and wondering..........
Was Bart sitting on your left or right side when you were watching the video with him? Were both of you sitting on a couch or sohva?........Now I can understand the dilemma and difficulty the scribes went through. No doubt there so much discrepancies in the bible.😇😇😀😀
Yes -- but with north of 300,000 viewers by 2022, isn't he entitled to the courtesy of a competent recording?
Bart Ehman didn't make that echo: it was created by the people who decided to record a speech against a hard, sound-reflecting background. If you're not going to take the trouble of learning the art and science of audio （which would mean you could get away easily -- just a decent microphone） then you owe it to us all to put up curtains on the walls and padding and carpeting on the floors.
Seriously: you have just shown hundreds of thousands of people that LMU library does not take its public presentation of itself seriously.
Just assign a couple of people to learn audio recording, OK?
@@TheDavidlloydjones calm yourself, please. This was made near a decade ago; be glad that it is audible whatsoever.
@@grantlauzon5237wfb (
As an Atheist, I think we non-believers should follow Bart's example in giving reverence to the Bible for the historically, culturally and artistically relevant contributions that it has made to western civilization without having to believe it to be divine.
I hate to see my fellow non-believers deriding an otherwise important and impressive collection of literature for the simple fact that some deluded people still use it to cite crazy ideas. We're better than that, or at least we should be, and it's about time we start acting like it.
The problem is it doesn't present accurate historical accounts, there is more than enough evidence that Jesus didn't exist, the Israelites were never captive in Egypt and the Israelites worshipped several gods. Yahwists hi-jacked the bible rewriting it to reflect their belief that only Yahweh the god of war was worthy of worship.
Culturally, the bible fails to reflect the actual culture of the Israelites for the same reasons. We can not even accurately reflect what the people believed or how they practiced from the text.
While inspiring art, the book itself is not artistic at all.
The problem is deluded people have been involved in every phase. It has no more value than a collective of mythology from any other culture, possibly less as none of it is original and all of it is heavily altered!
SpittDragons "there is more than enough evidence that Jesus didn't exist"
Not really. Feel free to cite said 'evidence.' You might say there is insufficient evidence that he did exist, and I would disagree. But that is irrelevant to anything I said in the post you responded to.
"Culturally, the bible fails to reflect the actual culture of the Israelites"
Seeing as it is the number 1 source for assessing the culture of the ancient Israelites, I'd be very curious to see which historical sources you are basing this claim on. If your point is that the Hebrew bible represents multiple conflicting theological perspectives then I would agree. Yet biblical scholars are able to dissect the text to evaluate the competing philosophies and thus the bible is an invaluable source of information about the ancient Israelite religious and cultural customs.
That said, my point was more that as people born into western civilization the bible has had a tremendous impact on our culture and is a vital source of cultural information for us. Richard Dawkins has said this much himself. If you wish to contest the impact the bible has had on christian europe then feel free to do so. It should be interesting to read.
"While aspiring art, the book itself is not artistic at all."
I disagree, and since this is a matter of subjective taste I don't see any reason to expand on that point.
"It has no more value than the collective mythology from any other culture"
And those collective mythologies are extremely interesting and important! The bible is privileged above them in our culture (the west) only for the disproportionate impact it has made specifically on our culture, but that doesn't diminish the overall importance of the mythologies that were endorsed by other cultures.
Thank you. I see it the same way. I am a lifelong non believer but I do respect and enjoy many religious texts and esteem their historical, literary and cultural value. It has an account of a hermit from Roman times high on mushrooms. That has to be worth something. It has a first hand account of Cyrus the great. Why can't I enjoy these writings?
I cannot stand the new holier than thou arrogant and dismissive atheist minority as dogmatic and judgmental as any believer ever was. Their reductionist and revisionist simplicity makes me cringe. I actually call myself agnostic just to avoid being thought of as one of them. I may not believe in God but I do not believe in shitting all over those that do. Good on you. Hopefully your sort of thinking catches on.
Oners82 I think it's a result of the 'us vs them' mentality that some adopt. You can easily argue against people who take the bible literally without trying to degrade it for what it is. I think some atheists see the bible as something the other side holds dear and thus set their sights to attack it, sort of like some christians do to the books of other religions like the quran.
I don't care about pointing out flaws, especially to people who try to say the book is flawless. It's this condescending casting aside of the entire book as an antiquated and backwards collection of useless nonsense that disturbs me.
reggiejax What it is is the rise of a new sort of fanaticism, an atheistic version. Zealotry, after all is not monopolized by the faithful.
The bible is a fascinating example of ancient writings, replete with historical and cultural value. I do not need faith in order to see that. And I most certainly do not need some rabid anti-christian Jacobin telling me to throw it on the pyre.
This guy giving the introduction actually managed to give an introduction I wanted to listen to, not skip. Well done, Sir.
I skipped it 😂 but you made me want to listen to it so I'm going to do it, thanks
I always skip the Intro of Tedium, but I won't this time. Because of you. Don't let me down! :D
{:-:-:}
Okay, going back now to listen to the intro.
He’d better not be your Dad
@@markgearing He's not.
Who's *your* daddy, btw?
@@LiViro1 - Is it… is it DARTH VADER?
53:29. They literally produced a manuscript about the trinity and added to it even though Erasmus never found one!
Trinity a mystery n mask inf the face of the true … faith
@@qarulxira8697 This Guy may be, he is work for Allah.
A brilliant man. I learned so much by listening to this lecture.
+1! more here (for a great cause too;))
google for ehrmanblog
@@user-tt6be2zx3h Not so brilliant and certainly not a man of faith.
I feel bad for you..
@@reghartt
*_"certainly not a man of faith"_*
No, he's a Man of Letters. And of Facts.
{:-:-:}
@@ansfridaeyowulfsdottir8095In other words, a man who passes on the knowledge of the faith.
Pure Dr. Bart, 9:34 and on.
Thank you.
Fascinating talk. I actually went to the same school in Oxford as William Tyndale - it's still going and is over 700 years old now.
NB I wasn't there when Tyndale was!
I am addicted to listening to Bart Ehrman.
Lol....so was I a few years ago....he is brilliant for dawah purposes to help prove to the xtian world there bible contains corruptions....which is exactly what we muslims say.....be careful though...his point is that the bible is not a historically reliable document...his reasons for leaving xtianity though dont hold weight imo, and that's what xtians try and attack him over...
They say that the Gospels at least agree on the jist of what went on, so it must be true.
Good luck with your studies.
Asalaamu Alaykum
There was an interesting programme about William Tyndale on the BBC a few months ago. Apparently when he was caught and tried for his crime of translating the bible into English, his captors took pity on him before he was about to be burned at the stake, and they strangled him as they tied him to the stake, but when they lit the bonfire he wasn't quite dead, and he still suffered the flames. A horrible way to die I would imagine.
Kinda ironic that the "Canonical" KJV is 92% a copy from a text by a guy who was burned at the stake for his translation of the Bible.
In the UK, much the best known service is the Xmas carol service from Kings College Cambridge. And the readings contain one of the key mistranslations highlighted by Ehrman. So much of popular Christianity is based on misunderstandings of the original texts, or has nothing to do with the texts at all (such as the US evangelicals' obsession about abortion).
Whether u agree with this guy or not; he is HIGHLY educational, and an INCREDIBLE lecturer!
Mnkmmmjkm8n
Kk v0 mmmjmn mñ9n jnk ñmnnmnk nmmm mnmn9mim bnjnmm nkmn9mnnnn8m0 0
@Charles Edward Cheese Oh YES he is, and he knows an awful lot ABOUT the Bible; he just doesn't KNOW the Bible!
Would have to categorize him as a Latin apologist with a pseudo Logic that belies a revisionist bent that is after all the stock in trade of all theologians and especially those of Roman bent.
Wisdom of God and wisdom of man, 2 entirely different things.
Marvelous presentation by Ehrman, although the audio was not of the best tough most of it.
As a former University lecturer myself, I truly admire his public speaking talent, and his relaxed comfort (including the jokes, always on point) comes from a through mastery of his subject.
I really admire him.
Obviously, you didn’t lecture on English studies.
@@williamwilson6499 I lectured on evolutionary biology, and probability and statistics, after which I became a professional writer.
Why do you ask?
Introductions are over by about 9:30
A Brief History of Bible Translation 10:10
The Making of the King James Version 19:18
Problems with the KIV 43:01
Later Revisions and Editions 58:06
I'll be honest. This man is the best non biased professor in theology , especially New Testament. He's agnostic and atheists. Still good info. NON biased info
For those living or visiting London the British Library has the KJ bible and Tyndale's bible on display
Interesting study
Intetesting No J in the King James Bible.
The Talmud/Mishnah states that the Masoretic Text, used by the KJV, NIV, NASB, etc, was corrupted showing conflicting texts, contradictions, and multiple, competing rabbis intentionally altering scriptures thus corrupting it)* though Jews also used the Septuagint (translated from Square Hebrew in the mid third century BC), and older than the MT; The MT aren't original scriptures and not a BC text; see Jeremiah 8:8.
Paleo Hebrew, used from the 12th to 6th century BC (around 2,000 years older than the MT), gave way to Square Hebrew (around 1,300 years older than the MT), which then eventually gave way to Greek, as evidenced by the Septuagint, which is around 1,000 years than the MT. The Septuagint predates Christianity, used when Greek became the lingua franca, and its use in synagogues by Jews around the Mediterranean was substantial.
Paleo Hebrew, Square Hebrew, and the Septuagint (LXX) within the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) preserve the originals, and overwhelmingly disagree with the MT in numerous instances; the Septuagint predates Christianity and scrolls from it are found within the Dead Sea Scrolls.
1.) Exodus 1:5 in the DSS Square Hebrew agrees with the Septuagint against the MT/KJV/NABRE/NASB/NIV/RSV/RSVCE/ that all the souls from Jacob were 75, not 70, thus agreeing with St. Stephen in Acts 7:14.
2.) The older DSS, the Samaritan Pentateuch, Aramaic Targums, etc, agree with the Septuagint against the MT (and KJV/NASB/NIV) for Deut. 32:8-9 in using sons/angels of God and not sons of Israel.
3.) The DSS for Deuteronomy 32:43 lines up with the Septuagint against the MT (and KJV/NABRE/NASB/NIV/RSV/RSVCE) saying the angels are to worship messiah.
4.) The Septuagint for 1 and 2 Samuel are backed up by 3 DSS and the MT is known among scholars as botching 1 and 2 Samuel badly.
5.) The MT wrongly (some evidence for #4) has Saul becoming king at age one and ruling for two years.
6.) The MT actually left out an entire line from Psalm 145 that the DSS and the Septuagint preserved, thus the so-called masters of vowel memorization not only forgot vowels but also consonants.
7.) Psalm 40:6(7): a messianic proof text for the Incarnation:
The MT (and KJV/NABRE/NASB/NIV/RSV/RSVCE): Thou hast dug out my ears.
The Septuagint: A body thou hast prepared me.
8.) Concerning another messianic psalm, Psalm 22:16, the DSS agrees with the Septuagint against the MT.
9.) Baruch, Sirach, Tobit, and Psalm 151 are written in Hebrew in the DSS.
10.) ▪︎The chronology of Genesis 11 and the year of the flood of the Paleo Hebrew and the Septuagint line up against the MT. Shem is not Melchizedek:
▪︎Literary sources before 100 AD that agree with the LXX: 2 Esdras, Josephus and Philo (30/70 AD) did not use the Septuagint to come to their conclusion that lines up with the Septuagint.
▪︎Eupolemus, the Jewish 2nd century BC historian's chronology, comes close to aligning with the Paleo Hebrew and Septuagint and not the MT.
▪︎Jewish Demetrius the Chronicler's (3rd century BC) chronology comes very close to the Paleo Hebrew and Septuagint and against the MT.
*Justin Martyr said the Jews in his time period were altering their scriptures.*
▪︎biblearchaeology.org/research/biblical-chronologies/4349-mt-sp-or-lxx-deciphering-a-chronological-and-textual-conundrum-in-genesis-5
Since synagogues around the Mediterranean used Septuagint and Square Hebrew, even in Palestine, Greek was the lingua franca, Jesus grew up near Sepphoris where Hebrew and Greek were both spoken and where Joseph could ply his trade, Christ quoted the scriptures, spoke to the Syrophoenician woman, and Mark/Luke were written to Romans/Greeks, some will be hard-pressed to prove Jesus used only Hebrew.
Outside Judea, close to 100% of the diaspora synagogue inscriptions are in Greek. In Judea, where the default language is Aramaic, 80% of synagogue inscriptions are Greek.
Some Jews have said the Deuterocanon was never written in Hebrew but the DSS (Dead Sea Scrolls) proved that to be false as at least 3 so far (Baruch, Sirach, and Tobit of the Deuterocanon), have been found within the DSS written in Hebrew, and using the word "recension" against them is a continual knee-jerk reaction to the Deuterocanon being written in Hebrew and moving the goal posts.
Concerning key messianic scriptures, Catholics, Copts, Orthodox, and Protestants see that the leaven of the rabbis and then the Masoretes seemed to target scriptures that point to Jesus Christ. (Matthew 16:6).
The Paleo Hebrew, Square Hebrew, and the Septuagint all agree with each other against the MT far more than they disagree, thus the starting point is to sideline the MT.
There are dozens and dozens of instances where the Paleo Hebrew, Square Hebrew, and the Septuagint agree against the MT: By the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses let every word be established. Deut. 19:15; 2 Cor. 13:1.
Given that Septuagint scrolls were found with Paleo Hebrew and Square Hebrew scrolls in the DSS, one would again be hard-pressed to prove that Christians composed the Septuagint and, as well, the Torah was translated into Greek from 283-246 BC under Ptolemy II Philadelphus and the prophets and writings within the next 100 years.
Chronicles is quoted by Eupolemos in the middle of the 2nd century BCE, and Job by Pseudo-Aristeas in the beginning of the 1st century BCE.
Septuagint fragments found at Qumran (Lev.), the Nahal Hever (Habbakuk, near Ein Gedi), dated 50 BC, Deut. fragments dates 2nd century BC.
Prosuche (forerunner to the synagogue) foundation stones in Egypt are dated 120 to 240 BC. If you gather in a church or synagogue, its origins are found in Hellenistic Egypt as they are foreign to temple-only thought. The synagogue ultimately spread to Israel along with the Septuagint (Theodotus inscription, in Greek, a synagogue in Jerusalem, 1st century AD).
@@raymack8767 interesting to understand your commentary.
I don't see how anyone with a brain can watch something like this and not question their belief system.....which is based 100% on a book that is demonstrably not what they think it is.....at best. At worst it is a copy of a copy of a copy of a translation of a copy of a copy of a translation etc., which has been accidently and/or intentionally modified/changed/amended and added to by numerous people often with an agenda.
@@diverguy3556 ya, not a very good post i should have deleted it before any saw my foolishness, I am working on that but it seems to be a slow process of changing habits that were decades in the making.
@@dennishagans6339 Liberals? Try evangelists and the other made up conservative religions.
You are absolutely right sir..we dont comprehend the mindset n views of those believers..obviouzly the inherited it from parents..great grand parents 4 genereration..wth out questions wht so ever..
@@norzilahaziz6695
These are some scriptures I wholeheartedly believe in putting in practice, I assemble myself in a local church as per Heb 10:25 but I do not hold everything they do and I have said so several times.
Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
1Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
2Ti 2:16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
2Ti 2:17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenæus and Philetus;
2Ti 2:18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.
I read my KJV literally without any interpretation,
www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a106.htm
33,000 denominations, sects, non-denominational churches, and cults, all because of interpretation, I hate interpretation with a passion, it is vile and wicked to me and I will not have it.
Totally agreed
CONCLUSION: Both the old and new testaments are FAULTY, not "God's Word", but an ancient collwction of human legends and folklore, Period!
+Brother Charles No version of the bible, none, was ever written with the help of a god. God is not real.
+Brother Charles prove god is real if you can, but of course you can't so i just take a hike with you arrogant ignorant opinions. See how easy it is?
+Brother Charles that's called begging the question. e.g. the bible is the word of God.
how do you know?
because it was written by prophets.
it's circular reasoning.
+Brother Charles interesting how you post such assertions in a Bart Ehrman video. he knows 1000x more than you will ever know about the prophecies etc, and yet he believes it's all man made.
kinda like the book of Timothy saying the only way for women to be saved is to submit to her husband, stay home and have children.
sounds like "god's" word to be.
+Brother Charles also pretty interesting there are any Jews left considering this great evidence you claim. LOL
41:41 Even though Goliath is indeed carrying a kind of weapon in this verse, the word "target" used to refer to it in the KJV means buckler. "Target" has never referred to a javelin or anything similar, so it's a mistranslation as well as a word that has changed in meaning over the centuries.
Edo Marinus, It is not a mistranslation. It is dead on correct, and the meaning is still used today. When a word has multiple meanings, the context becomes important. The translators were very careful, and multiple translators had to be in agreement. People who try and tear down the KJV have an agenda. Buckler and Target are the same thing, and are still in use today.
target H3591
H3591
כִּידוֹן
kı̂ydôn
kee-dohn'
From the same as H3589; properly something to strike with, that is, a dart (perhaps smaller than H2595): - lance, shield, spear, target.
@@blkjet117 Buckler and target are definitely not the same thing.
I would not want to defend myself with a target in my hand instead of a buckler, and I certainly wouldn't want to shoot my arrows at a buckler instead of a target.
I can't tell if there's been a correction about "target," but its older meaning is "shield," (especially a round one), not javelin.
Wycliffe followed the Septuagint and Vulgate and translated it as "target" and noted it as "gorget" from French, which means "a piece of armor to protect the throat." However, most scholars agree that "javelin" is the correct translation.
Ah, should have looked at a concordance. The Hebrew word usually meant javelin. Target was a distraction. Thanks.
Bart is an interesting person... whether you agree with him or not.
DeadKoby he’s a liar.
@@snowsnowy5039 you're religious i take it... that's what religious people call him without explanation of quote.
Snow Snowy going to offer anything to back that claim up?
@@snowsnowy5039 some basis to your claim would have added some credibility to your comment.
@@snowsnowy5039 This Guy may be, he is work for Allah.
Bart is the one scholar who has opened my eyes and made me feel even more confident in my disbelief in christianity
j t 1900’s? Are you mad people have had the bible for years that’s the stupidest thing ever heard
Sad for you... we are in the end times.. funny how the bible knew and fore told of it hundreds of years ago
@@Iaminnocentlol No, the Bible didn't know and hasn't "foretold" anything. Try to name ONE prophecy that is REALLY A PROPHECY, and is SPECIFIC to today. None of this "wars and rumors of wars" garbage.
@@JM-ot8ux
1 Corinthians 15 : 1 - ...
Hosea 6 : 1 - 3.
Colossians
Ephesians
Romans
Speaking of Matthew 24..
Compare With ZECHARIAH Chapter's 12 - 14.
Could Go On And ON HOWEVER:
Matthew 7:6-8
[6]Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
[7]Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
[8]For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
John 3
1 Corinthians Chapter's 1 & 2. 🤔
💖📖💝✝️..☝🏽💗💞
⬆️👆 ↗️ ⬆️ ↖️✅️💖
First page missing. "All characters and events in this book are fictional and any resemblance to real persons is entirely coincidental."
Why is that?
This lecture does beg one question. What modern English version of the New Testament most accurately translates the earliest Greek manuscripts?
Hello
jps101574, Eugene here. I think that only you can decide the answer because the answer is always subjective, depending on what your theology is. If you have no prior beliefs, then how a particular Greek or Hebrew word is translated will not much matter to you. Bart is not interested in choosing one faith over another, but he is interested in giving us historical and grammatical information so we can answer your question for ourselves. His teaching preference is to put "truth" first, and he seems to use "reason" as his primary tool in his search for it. If a translation or explanation makes no sense, it might be wise to consider it "nonsense", at least until you can make some sense out of it. One example is "Strain at a gnat and swallow a camel" which should have read, "Strain out a gnat...". May you be blessed in your studies. Make Jesus' God and Father your God and Father.
@Blaster Master Hello Blaster Master, Eugene here. Thanks for that info. Keep blasting.
@@originalhigene I have heard its the new world bible but 8 books removed from catholic bible and 22 from ethiopian. But its the old testament..the gospels are probably the same
Hello Jane Slater, Eugene here. Consider the problem of there being more than one English word that can be the right word because either fits into the sentence but, only one of the English words have the correct meaning. Take the Greek work "dia". It is sometimes translated "by" and sometime "for the sake of". This presents a major problem. Should the passage read "by" or "for the sake of" if both are possible? Did God make the cosmos "by" Jesus or "for the sake of" Jesus. It all depends on how we choose to translate "dia". That most likely depends on our pre held beliefs. I think the New
World translation is Jehovah's Witness. I would not use one except to see what is in it. In John, the logos is said to be a "god" with lower case "g" giving the meaning that Jesus is a minor god less that God his father. Of course I do not believe that Jesus is God or a god. Jesus is a man and God is never a human. Jesus died, God can not die. There is only one God and there is only one go-between us and that person is the Man Jesus.
I reckon ppl who want to be Christians should learn at least Hebrew and Aramaic.
Bart is slanting everything toward the extreme skeptical view. For example, the reason the Greek Septuagint translates Isaiah 7: 14 "almah" as "virgin" is because in Israel an "almah" is an unmarried woman, and if not a virgin she would have been a harlot. For example, Genesis 24:43 is using "almah" clearly referring to a virgin. In fact in every case where the word "almah" is used in the Hebrew bible it is ALWAYS referring to an unmarried virgin. So why it's true that "almah" isn't specified as "virgin" in the context of every other passage in the Hebrew bible it is ALWAYS referring to a virgin.
For example if I said "I bought a car at the new car lot" your impression wouldn't be, "oh that must mean a used car" even though there might be a used car on such a lot from time to time that would be an odd understanding of the context. Same for Isaiah 7:14, nobody would assume this woman is a young widow or something of that nature unless specified as such.
And it should be noted that the Greek Septuagint was translated by Jewish scholars before the New Testament was written. So the understanding that an "almah" is synonymous with "virgin" wasn't a Christian invention, that is how the native speakers of the Hebrew language translated the text. But why?
Look at the CONTEXT of the passage "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin (almah) will conceive and give birth to a son, and[ will call him Immanuel."
So if Isaiah 7: 14 merely means "young women", as Bart love to assert, how is that a sign to king Ahaz from God? That interpretation of that passage would be completely unremarkable and a sign to nobody.
Matthew is quoting Isaiah using a kind of typological parallel, much like Jesus compares himself to Jonah and we see similar comparisons with say Isaac and Joseph in Genesis, the Isaiah story in is also a prophetic parallel.
Septuagint was written by Romans who did know good Hebrew
Funny, the Hebrew scholars, from the people who actually wrote the book, would disagree with you. What are your credentials to say these things, or are you just making stuff up
@@danielsnyder2288 Have you considered the New Testament writers themselves were bilingual Hebrews? Bart Ehrman is arguing with the understanding of native speakers of the language. Find a single example where "almah" definitively does not refer to an unmarried virgin in the bible. You can't, I've looked at every example. Bart is even arguing with the translators of the Septuagint, native speakers of both languages. This while Bart himself admits he gets around in Greek and Hebrew with a concordance in one hand, as do most scholars. I appreciate his honesty.
My favourite quote from this is from the introduction: "textual criticism is not the sexiest subject but Bart managed to pull it off!" Too much information my friend.
The Comma Johanneum was inserted in Erasmus' 3rd edition of 1522; which is the edition used by Tyndale.
Luther's translation does not have the Comma Johanneum because he used the 2nd edition of Erasmus of 1519.
The misinformation that this verse is not found in any Greek mss. and was added by late copyist as a gloss, is now a myth with anti-Trinitarian agenda that has been accepted as fact by most people. This verse, often called the Johannine Comma, is found in the following Greek mss.: #61, #88, #629 and Codex Ravianus. Further, it was quoted in 250AD by Cyprian, Spanish Bishop Priscillian before 385 AD, Idacius Clarus and Cassadorious in the fourth and fifth centuries and Facundus in the sixth century.
For your benefit
@@ishiftfocus7295 The Comma did not exist in any extant Greek mss for almost 1400 years.
Erasmus inserted the Comma in his 3rd edition and noted his concerns about the source in his Annotations.
Stephanus noted that the Comma was missing from several of his Greek mss.
Tyndale set 1 John 5:7 in parentheses indicating doubt about the verse.
Coverdale set 1 John 5:7 in parentheses indicating doubt about the verse.
An edition of the Great Bible omitted 1 John 5:7.
Cyprian quotes John 10:30 then wrote a prepositional phrase then quotes a portion of 1 John 5:8
How do you account for the Comma's absence from about 1400 years of Greek mss witnesses?
How do account for the absence of the Comma in the earliest extant mss witnesses of the ancient translations including the Old Latin, Latin Vulgate, Syriac, Coptic, Arabic, and Ethiopic?
You may accept the Comma as Holy Writ as a matter of faith, without objection.
The fact that the KJV translators only used 92% of Tyndale tells me that a)the KJV translators were doing an actual translation and not just copying Tyndale and b) Tyndale must have done a very good translation to only have 8% of it changed.
Alot of the remaining 8 percent was making sure the book endorsed the teaching and sanctions of the church of England also known as as Anglican
Including the sanction of the belief in the divine right or kings or queens
@tannhauser . .I agree. And just because someone knows about the Bible, doesn't mean they know God.
What kind of text is Tarzan and the Jewels of Opar ?
I am glad Ehrman went over exactly the examples and types of later additions to the biblical texts and the way the interpreters' biases affected the word choices.
A very fun lecture!
Suggested rewrite and improvement of his joke: "As it was a revision of the RSV, I recommended to the committee that they call it the RSVP, but they never got back to me."
FOOL AND KNAVE, leave the old reading!
Winner
Bart is such a pleasure to listen to as his presentations are clear and precise - not loaded with jargon. Bart didn’t mention the (yes incomplete but still extremely important) Wycliffite translation (into English), which predates Tyndale by *well* over a century - I know his wife (being a superb medievalist) and colleagues and friends have probably reminded him of the Wyclif Bible etc (it’s a big deal for medievalists!). There are also translations into Anglo-Saxon but hey we medievalists can’t have everything…
He does ...13:25 ...and it is on the slide for several minutes ...
You know what English linguist types call “Anglo-Saxon”? Old English. Sooo…there are partial translations, in English, that predate Wycliff by more than 300 years. They predate the Norman Conquest by around 50 years. But pretty sure he’s referring to “English” as either late Middle English to Early Modern English and readable as such by modern understanding rather than Old English.
Mr. Ehrman, why does it not strike you as presumptuous that modern-day translators should think they have a better sense of the ancient idiom than did the Septuagint's Hebrew translators of the 3rd century B.C. when they translated "almah" (Isaiah 7:14) as "virgin" into the Greek? I mean, be consistent. You did speak on how words change even within the space of a generation. How much more over millenia?
Modern translators “should” have a better sense because they SHOULD be aware of all of the differences and changes to language over time. Giving them a better understanding of why something was translated to what it was during a certain period. He’s presuming the modern translator is translating free from theological biases, because that’s how Dr Ehrman approaches his work.
What about Martin Luther Bible, translated in German language. Similar errors or misinterpretations/translation took place???
I need three books:
1) King james - for the literature
2) Some more accurate translation of the Bible
3) Some kind of "Bible Dictionary"
Any recommendations?
Thanks in advance
The first one is wrong . the king james bible is not literature its Psychotic psycho babble.
two i can help you with, Any thesis involving an atheist or anti theist attack on any of the religious text. Rewarding shit from believer is not going to get you to the truth.
MY recommendation is get a copy of the Ot, NT, Koran, Torah and then put them in a pile, pour petrol over them and light them.
@@davesisonn Thanks, Dave. I'll put the NET on my book list. I have "The Illustrated Bible Dictionary," by George W Knight and Rayburn W Ray. It is an incredibly useful reference for me. It says, on the back - in very large letters - "BASIC. CLEAR. UNCOMPLICATED." I suspect I might do better.
As a Hebrew speaker, this is fascinating to watch!
everytime I watch Bart I have to lisen to 15 minutes of the introduction. Please already!
Same.
Um. You can skip. It's a video. Lol
@@jkm6112 do
I listened to the whole intro too, thinking it would just take a moment. I know now to jump to the comments and look for the shortcut that someone inevitably posts.
Wow...he's like the opposite of PZ....When you read him, he sounds so humble, but you listen to him when he speaks, he has an amazing presence...
Who is PZ?
Good to hear the biblical scholar and critic reading the Bible to us
It is still here, where is your video response?
I don't enjoy any Bible more than the KJV. A few others are good, but for readability, KJV is the most enjoyable.
This Guy may be, he is work for Allah.
Apart from the KJV in particular, I found a good discussion of NT textual criticism that mentions Bart Ehrman a few times. It's posted on RUclips May 6, 2020 with the title Avoiding Big Mistakes in Defending the Bible: Interview with Dr. Peter Gurry.
"The inerrant word of Bart" I'm kidding! We love you Bart!
hi i need you to tell me what this vers is really saying genesis 4:14
@@TRtheLoanGuy it means hes playing hide and seek to the followers and if they found out hes a con artist hes dead man!
@LMU Library - Thank you for uploading this!
James snapp ya what does Bart know he has only devoted 30 years of his life to this study and started as a practicing christian and training to be a pastor. Which I dare say is much more cred than you have in your young earth creationist years. But yeah lets disregard what Bart preaches and lets run with your theories which you have tirelessly spent your past 30 years researching ! Cant wait to hear them
Paul Osbourne,
You're assuming quite a bit. When you have evidence to correct any of my critiques, rather than just petty rhetoric, let me know.
James Snapp, do you speak fluent ancient Greek and Hebrew?
@@exillens : Silence
Bart is the man! I love how people question his historical, paleographical and philological authority! It blows my fucking mind! Please, make a god damn video of your own (with pertinent and ACCURATE citations) if you run your mouth and question his years of study. Lets not forget, most of what he is referring to has been well known by historical and biblical scholars. He's finally been open enough to lay it out in terms people can understand. (Sigh...)
4:50 IIRC a targe or target was a small round shield, a buckler, definitely not a javelin I don't think.
Edit, also 'meat' = food in general; 'knit' means joined together. Don't we still speak of waiting for a fractured bone to knit?
Not all the way through yet, but,,, which is the best bible? ( if you can only speak english..)
Mark Borsik : how small do the words have to be via which to explain that 8:11 is not the same as 8:12.
If these translators of the KJV were so well versed in Greek and Hebrew, how did they make so many mistakes in translating. John 1:1 is a very good example of purposely mistranslating something to fulfill a bias. Matthew 24:3 is a deliberate inserting a word that was never used in the text, again to fulfill a bias. It was obvious that these men were not as concerned with producing a faithful word of God as they were in producing something that King James would find useful in controlling people and factions.
There's also a passage in the KJ version that glosses over slavery
Because translating from one language to another during the same time period isn’t a direct 1:1 translation. A word in one language could be multiple in another. Take the modern English word “left”. You’d need to know the context of its use to know if its a direction or past tense of leave. If you’re translating a text that’s centuries old to a foreign language, a lot is lost in translation.
This is just speculation, but it occurs,
He mentioned Shakespeare being the origin of so much; yet no mention of the facts that he was well involved with King James, "The King`s Men" being the name of Will`s troupe.
The 1st KJV was published in 1611, revised soon after, all well before Shakespeare died in 1616. ( it turns out he was a Catholic )
Also the plague years disrupted the theatrical business. Giving plenty of time and opportunity in isolation, to take a hand, at least, in this Ultimate Word-smithing job.
I can find Nothing to support this, but neither to disprove it.
"The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak". sounds like Wm S` doesn`t it?
also translated into another language (I forget which one, let`s say Russian!) and back again, it came back as "The whisky is good, but the meat is off" just saying....
I assume you mean Greek, that's the language orthodox Christians use (a fair)
Francis Bacon wrote both the
Shakespearean plays and the KJV
See the book THE SHAKESPEARE CODE
True. I used to go to bible studies. My search led me to the Quran and today I found God. There is no God but Allah, Jesus was his messenger and Muhammad is his final messenger
Wiggled out of the frying pan, just to fall into the fire smh.
You were right but you need to remove one more god. Just sayin'. Take the leap to reality, you can do it.
There are other ways of understanding existence. They are deeply moving; their virtue is that they don't engage with power systems, expecring inevitable conflict. Mostly with practice, there are ways of coping with this life,and our deaths. But denying these realities only brings more suffering.
remove one more god, then you need to take full responsibility for your choices. It sucks to become an adult human. but be kind, be mindful, be willing to be foolish.
Third time I've tried to reply to your post. I know you have a good heart, perhaps you seek certainty. You are on the right path, but short one god. Once you know this, that the universe was not "made" for you, you are nevertheless a wonderful thing! You have free will: Do no harm, be kind, Help others. Or not.
Regarding Daniel 3:25, even Theodotion's text renders it υιω θεου. The Septuagint renders it differently, as αγγελου θεου. Nonetheless, if I'm not mistaken, both these ancient Greek translations renders "God" in the singular, correct?
With the King James Version the same problems occur compared to the use of the Dutch "Statenvertaling". Of course we can laugh about all these "old" words but the good thing is that these old words point out precisely to the Hebrew or Greek text and are, in that sense, reliable. When we study Hebrew or Greek Bible texts seriously we must always go back to the original text to find out the meaning of the word, both literally and in its context. Sometimes one Hebrew word can have two meanings, e.g. "admiration" and "astonishment" and in Hebrew it is even possible that one piece of text can be translated in two really different ways.
I enjoyed this. I’m a Christian. I enjoy facts. The text information shared is well known in most any Bible outside of the KJV in the margin and foot notes. We do not need or desire to hide and variances in the text.
Παρθένος in Greek means virgin, but it is also used to mean a young woman whose hymen anatomy is not necessarily known
Eventually, Bart Ehrman.
Goa?
A smaller state in India. A ship's radio officer from there told me he sees many from his home state in the same occupation (neither of us could figure why.)
As a matter of fact, there are no extant manuscripts that render mark 14:62 as "you say that I am". I just checked the NET translation, which mentions all the alternate greek renderings. The ESV footnotes don't have this either. You may be confusing this with another verse.
In my experience there's no such thing as luck.
he knows more then you thats his job to no more then you and clearly he does
You keep making blatant assertions. I've given you the evidence, and you haven't dealt with it. I've given you the evidence of the empty tomb, the genuine belief of the disciples in the resurrection, the genuine belief of Paul, the genuine belief of James. We've been over all of this. We've been over why simply lying about it wouldn't work-we're dealing with this in a Jewish context. Meaning it's foolish to think these people would lie and get brutally persecuted for something they knew
Prove that they were executed for their beliefs, and maybe you'll have something other than soppy whining.
47 highly skilled in Hebrew yet they translate re'em as unicorn. facepalm. Odd, because the aurochs or wild ox was still extant, I believe and the misleading part I think was the fact that one verse used "horn" in the singular but that doesn't necessitate the animal having only one horn. And there are verses that use horns instead of horn. I wouldn't call that highly skilled in Hebrew or reasoning. KJV has many errors.
curious---what alleged "errors" are there?
That this worst of all VERSIONS of the bible still exists and is venerated by funny-mentalists makes me believe that President Lincoln's statement that you can fool some of the people all the time, all of the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Some people have been convinced that the KJV is THE ONLY TRUE BIBLE to the exclusion of all others. That mindset eliminates the Hebrew Tenach, and all other versions of the bible in any other languages.
I once heard a man say that the KJV was the bible that Jesus and the apostles read and if it was good enough for Jesus and the apostles, it was good enough for him. I thought that was the single most idiotic statement I'd ever heard and began laughing so hard that I simply could not stop.
Having read the scriptures in the original languages, I know that any similarity that the KJV and the scriptures in the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek is only conisidential.
I pity the people who venerate the KJV; they are mislead into believing myths.
It's sad that people still believe that
Beverly Margolis .
Is there a more reliable English translated Bible that you know of miss?
The 1611 Authorized Version Holy Bible is the most amazing thing I ever experienced , it's the living words of God , he changed my life and delivered me from a very wretched state of being . I thank the Lord Jesus Christ for his Holy Spirit bearing witness on my soul and impacting me at a very dark hour with four words " The Bible is True " about 9 years ago at 46 years of age. Amen
But king james removed books that were in the catholic and ethipopian orthodox bible .8 books in catholic and 22 in ethiopian. Martin luther had the 8 books removed from.catholic bible that became the king james
@@florrie8767 Hi . the apocrypha is in the 1611 King James Bible if thats what you are referring to but more importantly i learned God promises to preserve his word and God says He exalts his word above all his name ....God made English , ....there's two lines of Bibles , the pure seed of the woman and the perverted seed of the serpent
@@kenciolek843 Your comment is nonsense and incoherent.
Keep the Faith Ken and keep the King James Version . Yes , you are right .... There is something special about the King James Bible . I wonder how many people at this lecture believed that Jesus Christ rose from the dead .
@@Don-dz5wr Here's two simple multiple choice questions for people that say Jesus certainly existed have trouble answering that logically follows in context of what Paul the Apostle wrote.
1) Who would most likely kill Jesus just for looking like, and believed to be just a human as related in the Kenosis Hymnal in Philippians? Note: Jesus empties his powers by taking on flesh being a slave to the elemental spirits (Gal. 4:8-9).
Philippians 2:7-8
NRSV
"but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death - even death on a cross."
YLT
"but did empty himself, the form of a servant having taken, in the likeness of men having been made, and in fashion having been found as a man, he humbled himself, having become obedient unto death -- death even of a cross,"
A) Romans B) Jews C) Satan
2) Who would most likely not kill Jesus if they were made known that killing him would fulfill God's preordained secret plan for mankinds salvation as per God's will? Note: Rulers of this Age (Principalities); Rulers of the Earth realm is interchangeable with rulers of the spiritual realm to the ancient reader.
1 Corinthians 2:6-8
NRSV
"Yet among the mature we do speak wisdom, though it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to perish. But we speak God's wisdom, secret and hidden, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."
YLT
"And wisdom we speak among the perfect, and wisdom not of this age, nor of the rulers of this age -- of those becoming useless, but we speak the hidden wisdom of God in a secret, that God foreordained before the ages to our glory, which no one of the rulers of this age did know, for if they had known, the Lord of the glory they would not have crucified;"
A) Romans B) Jews C) Satan
Taking these verses all together; We have Jesus not taking equality with the Father, but lowered himsellf taking on a flesh disguise, and ventured where it is a crime punishable by death for being a human. In this same place of being found in human form whoever it is would not kill Jesus if it was made known to them. Whoever it is does not want the gift of immortality for mankind from the Creator. Who best describes killing humans on site, and not wanting eternal life for them?
Jews/Romans: Did they go around enforcing death sentences for the crime of looking like a flesh & blood human? If they were made known with no doubt, and whatever misconceptions they had were corrected of the plan of the Highest God? Would they be for their own destruction, or for their own immortality (a gift from an all loving God)?
Satan: Would Satan attack flesh? Would Satan be against humans gaining a chance at immortality?
Paul (earliest extant Xtian writings) is adamant that his Gospel is not from humans, but from scripture, and visions/dreams (Gal. 1:11-12, Rom. 15:4, 1 Cor. 15:3-8). A secret hidden through the ages now revealed (Rom. 16:25-26, 1 Cor. 2:7, :13). Also Paul says his apostleship is by the same means as the founding Pillars (Gal. 2:6-9). Paul's preexisting being was killed for looking like a human (Phili. 2:7), and his killers would not have killed him if they knew it was God's secret plan (1 Cor. 2:6-8). This makes more sense when looking at the Joshua/Jesus in the OT who tricks Satan and is exalted by God. Note that these verses have what can be perceived as symbolisms for flesh (dirty clothes= sinful flesh & Five Kings= Five Senses that enslaves one to sin & rules over you). So Zech. 3:1-9, 6:11-13, & Jos. 10:22-27 all together symbolically has a Jesus in a flesh disguise getting hung in a tree, shoved into a tomb, and exalted by God to remove guilt of the land.
Remember that a physical flesh ressurection is not Pauline; 1 Cor. 15:50bc "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable."
Zechariah 3:1-9
"1 Then he showed me the high priest Joshua (Savior) standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan (Adversary) standing at his right hand to accuse him. 2 And the LORD said to Satan, "The LORD rebuke you, O Satan! The LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is not this man a brand plucked from the fire?" 3 Now Joshua was dressed with filthy clothes as he stood before the angel. 4 The angel said to those who were standing before him, "Take off his filthy clothes." And to him he said, "See, I have taken your guilt away from you, and I will clothe you with festal apparel." 5 And I said, "Let them put a clean turban on his head." So they put a clean turban on his head and clothed him with the apparel; and the angel of the LORD was standing by.
6 Then the angel of the LORD assured Joshua, saying 7 "Thus says the LORD of hosts: If you will walk in my ways and keep my requirements, then you shall rule my house and have charge of my courts, and I will give you the right of access among those who are standing here. 8 Now listen, Joshua, high priest, you and your colleagues who sit before you! For they are an omen of things to come: I am going to bring my servant the Branch. 9 For on the stone that I have set before Joshua, on a single stone with seven facets, I will engrave its inscription, says the LORD of hosts, and I will remove the guilt of this land in a single day."
Zechariah 6:11-13
11 Take the silver and gold and make a crown, and set it on the head of the high priest Joshua son of Jehozadak (Savior Son of the Righteous God); 12 say to him: Thus says the LORD of hosts: Here is a man whose name is Branch: for he shall branch out in his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD. 13 It is he that shall build the temple of the LORD; he shall bear royal honor, and shall sit upon his throne and rule. There shall be a priest by his throne, with peaceful understanding between the two of them."
Joshua 10:22-27
"22 Then Joshua (Savior) said, "Open the mouth of the cave, and bring those five kings out to me from the cave." 23 They did so, and brought the five kings out to him from the cave, the king of Jerusalem, the king of Hebron, the king of Jarmuth, the king of Lachish, and the king of Eglon. 24 When they brought the kings out to Joshua, Joshua summoned all the Israelites, and said to the chiefs of the warriors who had gone with him, "Come near, put your feet on the necks of these kings." Then they came near and put their feet on their necks. (see Psa. 110:1/Heb. 10:13) 25 And Joshua said to them, "Do not be afraid or dismayed; be strong and courageous; for thus the LORD will do to all the enemies against whom you fight." 26 Afterward Joshua struck them down and put them to death, and he hung them on five trees. And they hung on the trees until evening. 27 At sunset Joshua commanded, and they took them down from the trees and threw them into the cave where they had hidden themselves; they set large stones against the mouth of the cave, which remain to this very day. (see also Deut. 21:22-23/Gal. 3:13)"
Image of God (2 Cor. 4:4, Phili. 2:6), Agent of creation (Rom. 11:36, 1 Cor. 8:6)
Philo: THE SPECIAL LAWS, I
"XVI ...Now the image of God is the Word, by which all the world was made..."
Celestial high priest (Heb. 2:17, 4:14), God's Word (Heb. 1:3, 11:3), Firstborn son (Rom. 8:29)
Philo: ON DREAMS, THAT THEY ARE GOD-SENT
"XXXVII ...the high priest is the Divine Word, his own firstborn son."
Philo: ON ABRAHAM
"XLI These things, then, are what are contained in the plain words of the scriptures. But as many as are able to contemplate the facts related in them in their incorporeal and naked state, living rather in the soul than in the body, will say that of the nine kings (Gen.14:1-2) the four are the powers of the four passions which exist within us, the passion of pleasure, of desire, of fear, and of grief; and that the other five kings are the outward senses, being equal in number, the sense of sight, of hearing, of smell, of taste, and of touch. For these in some degree are sovereigns and rulers, having acquired a certain power over us, but not all to an equal extent; for the five are subordinate to the four, and are compelled to pay them taxes and tribute, such as are appointed by nature. For it is from the things which we see, or hear, or smell, or taste, or touch, that pleasures, and pains, and fears, and desires arise; as there is no one of the passions which has any power to exist of itself, if it were not supplied by the materials furnished by the outward senses."
Philo: WHO IS THE HEIR OF DIVINE THINGS
"XXXVIII ...Now, the craters of the sense of seeing are the eyes, those of hearing are the ears, those of smelling are the nostrils, and so on with the appropriate receptacles for each of the senses. On these craters the sacred word pours a portion of blood, thinking it right that the irrational part of us should become endowed with soul and vitality, ...purifying itself from the deceitful alluring powers of the objects of the outward sense which aim to overcome it."
Philo: QUESTIONS & ANSWERS ON GENESIS, III
"(51) What is the meaning of, “And it shall be my covenant (or agreement) in your flesh?” (Gen. 17:13). God is willing to do good, not only to the man who is endued with virtue, but he wishes that the Divine Word should regulate not only his soul but his body also, as if it had become its physician. And it must be its care to prune away all excesses of seeing, and hearing, and taste, and smell, and touch, and also those of the instrument of voice and articulation, and also all the redundant and pernicious impulses of the genitals, (morning cross? Rom. 7:23) as also of the whole body, the effect of which is, that at times we are delighted by our passions and at times pained by them."
Bart Erhman should have legend status! The man is brilliant!!
actually he has his own 'cognitive bias'
@@termikesmike So does everyone else.
@@kiabvaj5656 wrote " So does everyone else."
Let's not forget - when it comes to 'interpretations' ...
The Bible says if the blind lead the blind they will both fall in the ditch ,look for God,yourself ,and you will find the truth !
His claim around the 22 minute mark that the translators could speak Greek fluently, and read Hebrew texts like the newspaper, was surprising. I have no grounds on which to dispute the claim, but I must confess that I do wonder if the translators' reliance on earlier translations was rooted in them being unsure how to render certain texts.
The kjv translators could have asked jews to help, but instead, do to antisemitism, chose to mistranslate some passages. I doubt they were that fluent. Maybe they could speak it, but how well is debatable.
They relied even on English translations. So the claim God hovered over them to make a perfect translation seems ridiculous.
Thanks so much. Serious subject discussed in an easy manner. Well done.
"Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?" And he said, "Who are You, Lord?" And He said, "I am Jesus whom you are persecuting
This is a great lecture. The comic relief is actually funny 😁
Freeman Presson There is nothing funny about all the errors he makes.
Blaster Master What Old Testament scriptures did Christianity corrupt?
Blaster Master There are two important passages in the Word of God concerning the origin and fall of Satan. The first passage relating to Satan’s fall is found in Ezekiel 28:12-19 where Ezekiel describes the creation and judgment of a vile and vicious non-human creature whose name we find out later to be Lucifer. The second passage relating to Satan’s fall is found in Isaiah 14:12-14 where the prophet Isaiah presents the origin and fall of Satan. From what theological college did you graduate from? I will not waste my time educating and uneducated atheist. Please go an educate yourself, then come back and we can have an intelligent conversation; until then piss off.
Blaster Master Whatever, now piss off and self quarantine.
Stasis Field Yeah, atheist too, blah blah....who said I was a Christian? Now piss off and find another man to stalk.
Atheist- some below- please refrain from making opinion comments. .. historically across the field both atheists a fundamentalist scholars of the bible agree that Jesus existed. Research scholars views. That said- they have opinions of agreement as to the claims that cannot be historical ally proven. Hold a good standard in your arguments.
mPky1 well said. Keep arguments factual and not fairy tale or totally inaccurate. Kindness- a higher standard- is key. I don't want to take away someone's faith- I would rather lead them to their own discovery. It's hard to swallow- we are on our own to discovery of our spirit or lack of - that sends some into panic!
".... scholars of the bible agree that Jesus existed"
It would be more accurate to say that scholars either believe that Jesus existed or accept that he existed in the absence of any strong evidence to the contrary.
"Hold a good standard in your arguments"
Do you consider an argument from authority to be a "good standard"?
mPky1
But that's exactly my point. When NT scholars and historians claim that it's almost certain that there was a historical Jesus they are putting forward personal belief as though it were a scholarly conclusion based on knowledge and evidence.
Shieena Living Waters
_"Keep arguments factual and not fairy tale or totally inaccurate. Kindness- a higher standard- is key."_
The idea that those two goals come in conflict just seems bizarre to me. The fact of the matter is that this agreement of existence you are appealing to is methodologically worthless because such agreements all presuppose that history can be extracted from stories about magic and have essentially no grounding in archaeology. There simply is no archaeological evidence of a historical Jesus - all there is is the claims of Christian cultists and people who almost certainly got their information from those Christians.
_"I don't want to take away someone's faith- I would rather lead them to their own discovery."_
That's fine, but personally I care about people and the consequences of holding false beliefs - so I believe that it's an immoral disregard for other people to not inform them about false beliefs they hold when said beliefs cause significant harm, which they certainly do in the case of Christianity. The vast amount of resources wasted on the con games of Churches worldwide are staggering.
_" It's hard to swallow- we are on our own to discovery of our spirit or lack of - that sends some into panic!"_
And that statement just seems bizarre to me. You live in a world where all kinds of religious leaders spend all their waking hours pushing indoctrination onto believers. If that is not opposed visibly in the public space, then their indoctrination will win out. It's as simple as that. The idea that this is some kind of personal journey is just laughably naive.
I didn't realize we were discussing religious leaders. I was sticking to the available scholar papers, Greek literature. And yes, they all agree someone named Jesus existed - someone who caused a great uproar. He may have just been a political activist or a spiritual teacher- so much so he threatened the system. Enough that the gnostics had to flee, the mystery schools were burned. It's on record that Jesus- was used to create a religious faction called the Catholic church in order to grab up his followers.
and the Catholic Church invented his veneration as a diety- the hook.
Far As My opinions- I am not concerned if you find them bizarre.
And If you are on a mission to challenge what you perceive as someone's false believe you are no different than the religious who think your belief is false. As far as the harm being caused by many institutions- we can handle that one person at a time if they are open. Else the world ends up sparring as to who holds the standard of what is right and wrong. Good luck with achieving anything besides argument- as you do seem good at picking one.
15:45 But from where did he translate? have ALL manuscripts survived? 16:09 How did he have manuscripts with him in jail? he was put in jail because of manuscript translation and they allowed the manuscripts with him? it doesn't make sense.
Go look up a biography of Tyndale then. Bart's touching on the origins of the KJV.
00:18:26
But everyone know that a camel and a three-legged donkey are a thoroughbred race horse designed by committee.
So what does that say about these Bible translations?
[:-:-:]
EARTHQUAKE!!!!!!!!!!!! ITS THE SECOND COMING!!!!!!!!!!!! OH WAIT. Its just the camera man/woman.
I was a victim of this religion for 40 years. I am sorry to everyone I proclaimed it to and argued on its behalf with. I truly apologize.
But you can be proud that you changed your mind after 40 years. Changing your world-view after 40 years is a heroic feat not many can accomplish, whether it's related to religion or not. These days you usually see the same stubbornness in politics.
You might be a victim of man's stupidity, but I don't see how forgiveness and other teachings of Christ made you a victim. So exactly what made you a victim. America is based on Judeo- Christian values. Of course the biggest problem just like anything written people interpret and twist meaning whether on purpose or accidentally.
Love it!
35:24 almug is a type of wood, trow is to believe, wimple is a folded head wear, habergeon is a shorten chain mail, chode presently has much different contexts verse a conjugation of chide as gat is a conjugation of get.
It says a lot that the Catholics didn't want people to be able to read the Bible for themselves.
Making fun of the word of God and adding to the Bible is heretical and scripture says let him that does these things be accursed. So I need to point out that this needs to be repented of to get into right doctrine.
Yeah but as the bible is man written
@@scoops2382 2. Peter 1:20-21 KJB 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
@@vaksehund2 yeah but the bible is man written
They’re not making fun or mocking “the word of god”. They’re having a laugh at the English language during the time period a group of scholars plagiarized the another scholar’s work that used words and sentence structures of his time when translating from manuscripts using words and sentence structure of their time when copying manuscripts from a time when that language was much different. If it’s the word of god, why is it so difficult to know the exact translation from ancient Hebrew and Ancient Greek? An infallible god shouldn’t be writing in a way that’s left up to translation, interpretation, and interpolation of the person reading it in that moment.
The Gospel of Jesus was the true book of history.
Jesus never taughts the Gospels according to Mark, Mathew, Luke, or John, etc.
Believe Ehrman or not- the Bibles we are carrying today are the wrong books of history.
It's called the Injil. When Jesus return to Earth in his 2nd coming, he will expose all those who misinterpreted, deviated, interpolated the supposed words of Jesus, peace be upon him.
All that textual criticism and he still threw the towel in. Just goes to show, it's the heart that must change not the head.
47:50
What he is not telling you is that the hebrew bible we have today is the hebrew Masoretic, which was compiled over 600-1000 years after Jesus in Babylon , the Septuagint is an older source , not that it is necessarily better,
The Septuagint (or LXX) is a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures, done by a group of Jewish scholars. It was in circulation in Israel in the first century AD, along with the original languages.
Where can I find textual critics like Ehrman but for the Quran? Would love to learn more. Or are those guys still being burned at the stake these days?
James Snapp, your credentials and scientific evidence is where? Oh right, they are non-existent.
rst789, I'm sorry; I thought I was addressing people who believe that the veracity of one's statements should be measured by how well they correspond to reality, not by how many degrees one has beside one's name. As for scientific evidence, I presented it plainly in my critique. Where are your corrections of anything I said? Oh right -- they're non-existent.
Good for Bart. He found a way to cash in.
{ Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands and then say, “ This is from Allah ( God ), “ to purchase with it a little price, Woe to them for what their hands have written and Woe to them for that they earn thereby. } The Qur’an [ 2:79 ].
wonder land Islam is not a joke rather it is a religion of total Submission and Surrender to God's will in Obedience to Him with sincerity in order to have peace in this life and the next life.
{ They say, "Be Jews or Christians [so] you will be guided." Say, "Rather, [we follow] the religion of Abraham, inclining toward truth, and he was not of the polytheists."
Say, [O believers], "We have believed in Allah and what has been revealed to us and what has been revealed to Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac and Jacob and the Descendants and what was given to Moses and Jesus and what was given to the prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and we are Muslims [in submission] to Him."
So if they believe in the same as you believe in, then they have been [rightly] guided; but if they turn away, they are only in dissension, and Allah will be sufficient for you against them. And He is the Hearing, the Knowing.}
Enkidu Five Why do you think that Yahweh would be dumb?
What's your proof, especially about cleromancy, I would like to verify that.
Thanks, you definitely have given me something to study. Do you believe that God exists?
No, I mean do you believe that God exists just as a God without any religious implication.
When or where it said beware of getting tricked or deceived has sure come to be!
Bart: "so this was not in the original new testament".
audience: *sighs