Errors in the Bible? (Frank Turek vs Bart Ehrman)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 мар 2021
- At SMU Dr. Frank Turek was asked, “How do we account for the errors of the scribes in the New Testament since these documents were handed down from one person to the next and what if these errors are not simple and interfere with the teachings of the scriptures?"
In his answer, he misunderstood or misrepresented the work of Dr Bart Ehrman, so I thought it would be best to set the record straight.
#Bible #Errors #FrankTurek
Errors in the Bible?
• Errors in the Bible?
Ehrman vs Wallace - Can We Trust the Text of the NT?
• Ehrman vs Wallace - Ca...
Bart Ehrman Vs Jonathan Sheffield | Have Christian Churches Had the Wrong New Testament?
• Bart Ehrman Vs Jonatha...
Thanks to Lois Edwards and Viced Rhino.
/ @vicedrhino
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @paulogia
Support Paulogia at
/ paulogia
www.paypal.me/paulogia
www.amazon.ca/hz/wishlist/ls/...
teespring.com/stores/paulogia
Paulogia Audio-Only-Version Podcast
paulogia.buzzsprout.com
Follow Paulogia at
/ paulogia0
/ paulogia0
/ discord 
Наука
![Cordae - Saturday Mornings (feat. Lil Wayne) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/z2GYJua09F0/mqdefault.jpg)
So I went to the bank today to cash a 100,000$ cheque from Mr. Frank Turek to me. The clerk immediately said that it wasn't Mr. Turek's signature, and I explained that I copied his signature, which is much better than having the original. For some reason, she wanted to call the police. Guess she doesn't understand logic
Show then Turek's videos extolling the superiority of copies compared to originals as proof of authorization.
@@lnsflare1
Ah, yes. That's exactly why I came back to the bank with 10 different cheques, all showing a different version of Turek's signature. I explained to her that now she can compare them, and that is waaaaay better than one original. She still wanted to call the police.
If only Frank Turek was alive today and answers believers, he could just explain it directly to them. Just like Jesus does.
Good one
@@MK-Ultra0 frank turek knows he full of shit but his reputation and wealth is base on pandering the nonsense that he does.
Alternative title: Misquoting "Misquoting Jesus"
You should see the rebuttal: Misquoting "Misquoting 'Misquoting Jesus'".
@@philb4462
And the counter: Misquoting “Misquoting ‘Misquoting “Misquoting Jesus”’”
@@bhull242 I knew somebody would go there! 😁
"When you say something wrong to a lay person, they don't know any better. You can sell a lot of books..."
The self awareness I swear Turek
He knows perfectly well what he's saying. He gets an adrenalin rush when ever he blatantly pulls one over on his marks. All of the best con men do.
He doesn't even see the irony
In psychology, this is called “projection.” 😜
@@christopherbiomass7155 oh yes! I’ve grown up deep in the IFB since birth & only got to leave it two years ago. But I can tell you right now, pastors, apologists, professors, etc. they all know what they’re doing. 90% of church lay people don’t even know what the policies of their own churches constitution are or if the pastor is still even following them to maintain his position, led alone have an independence enough to look into these things themselves & question what the big men say. So they don’t. It is a 100% necessary step to maintain power & indoctrination in these spaces. As a pastor’s daughter of 23 (& still going) years, trust me, I know, I’ve seen it all.😕
The point still stands
The disconnect between churches saying the Bible is the inerrant word of God and then finding out there are these kinds of mistakes or intentional additions to the texts of the Bible was a huge reason I started down a path of non-belief.
00
Yes, when you discover how often you've been lied to, that's good reason to discard the whole thing unless/until someone actually meets their burden of proof.
Thousands of years and atheists are still found waiting and theists are still found wanting.
It is always interesting to ask Radical Evangelical Christians the following question;
"When you hear testimonies about Christians who, strong in the faith, decided to really examine the Bible and it's history, ended up
losing their faith, does that motivate you to also really examine the Bible or not?"
The answers I have received so far, are quite telling.
@@Steelmage99 What responses do you generally get? I don't recall asking that particular question much if at all.
I expect they give excuses like "They are (must be) lying about their former faith" or "That's fine for them but I know I'm right."
@@archapmangcmg They most often don't respond at all - as in, they ignore the question at all costs.
It usually takes two or three tries to bring them back on topic.
....The answer then usually is, as you say; "They weren't Real Christians™ to begin with" - a classical No True Scotsman.
The most amazing statement in the video came from the mouth of Dr. Bart Ehrman, "Is the New Testament reliable? There's no way to know."
If I have something, something important such as a medication or perhaps a document stating how to protect my soul from eternal torture, and I have no way to know if it is reliable, then I must treat it as though it is unreliable and discard it in favor of something where the reliability and efficacy is known.
Like all true believers say:
It's all based on faith,
cause the real evidence ain't there.
No, no, no. I'll tell you the truth about the magic sky pixie(s) and you give me money for doing so. If you don't believe my lies then that is absolute proof that you're a bad person. As a bad person, you will go to some place bloody 'orrible for the rest of eternity. It's all so simple, pay up or be tortured. What you want doesn't matter. See? :)
Apologists are so intellectually dishonest. I see them as like lawyers. Lawyers are not defenders of truth, they are defenders of their client’s interests. Same with apologists, except swap in “faith” for “client.”
Calling out their dishonesty, steel-manning it, and then capturing it for all to see. Great work!
That's an excellent analogy. Their job is to make strong arguments. Or perhaps convincing arguments would be more accurate.
And the audience they (apologists) speak to is sometimes very easy to convince.
It's easy to make misleading statements and call them facts. It's much harder to defend against the lies because the defender has to actually show facts. And facts are so boring.
That's actually a pretty good analogy also. I usually went by the "used car salesman" analogy.
The difference is that lawyers get in severe legal problems if they get caught actually lying to defend their client's interests. Apologists never do.
Lawyers are required to use the facts.
Apologists aren't.
Conclusion: Lawyers are better than apologists.
By not listening to Turek, you can actually listen to Turek better.
By not watching this Paulogia vid I more thoroughly watched it, thereby influencing the engagement algorithm 100 fold.
I love these “synthetic” debates. I can only imagine the amount of work they take, even if superficially it may not seem so given that’s mostly other people talking and not Paul. Thanks!
I agree. Paulogia's videos like these are exceptionally more effective than actual debates that are frequently replete with gish gallops, non answers, and forced tangents.
"The mistakes in the Bible won't affect Christian Doctrine" isn't an endorsement of the Bible, Frank. It's an indictment on Christians.
It's like saying "Pointing out factual errors won't affect Q-Anon Doctrine"
Honestly? I think it's an endorsement of Christians. It means that, to some extent, they choose to think for themselves, instead of fully relying on a book. It is the main reason that Christianity has managed to reform (more for good than ill, in my opinion).
@@MaartenKok I definitely see and agree with your main point. The problem, however, is that we're continuously seeing more Christians, especially evangelicals, that are willing to ignore what the Bible and their doctrine says to defend their own actions that go against said doctrine. When those actions also undermine good civil discourse and our constitutional rights and freedoms, it becomes an even bigger problem.
Either way, I think you're going to have decent Christians that are so because they obey what they read in the Bible and some because they purposefully don't obey everything in the Bible while you're also going to have horrible Christians for both of those same reasons.
@@MaartenKok It's an endorsement if they are open about how they interpret the Bible. It's an indictment if they simultaneously cling to a doctrine of inerrancy or divine inspiration, while ignoring textual problems.
and like the morrons q-anon's are, they don't care for all the stuff they are rong aboud
@@MaartenKok
Well yeah, I rely on the scriptures that I can apply in my life, and leave alone those that don't. Not to mention the way several verses are written left me with the impression that the Bible isn't just a book of morals.
I am getting spoiled today. First a Viced Rhino video and now a Paulogia video. Nice.
Thanks for the heads up on viced rhino!
Right??? Lol... The spoiled lil B***** we are... Lmao
Viced Rhino too? But which shall I watch first?
@Elija Paige don't you start!! 🤣🤣
@Elija Paige lol oh I didn't know that! I've been out of the loop!
Every day that passes, I become more convinced that most apologists are often intentionally dishonest, rather than simply mistaken. And Paul, you can take some of the credit for that.
The idea of a male parent satisfies a need.
The absence of evidence makes no difference.
Apologists make a living from lying to doubting Christians. They ensure them that ananas farms in Antarctica will pay off after their death.
What is dishonest about saying that GOD loves you, and sent JESUS to pay for your sin? [sin keeps you from a relationship with the living GOD, and you got that infection from Adam in the Garden, because the seed for your DNA was in Adam`s loins [ GOD made all people from one blood ]
@@johndoney2665 No one said or even implied that it is dishonest to say "God loves you …", so you're rebutting an argument that no one has made, which reflects either very poor English literacy or (more probably in my opinion) dishonesty. So you do have something in common with Frank Turek. Well done sir.
The issue of dishonesty by apologists is that they far too often misrepresent objective facts and misrepresent the positions of their opponents. Many of them KNOW they are doing this but choose to continue to do it anyway.
@@1970Phoenix You all are arguing about things that don`t matter, because the only thing that does matter is the fact that JESUS came to die on that cross on that specific day to be our Passover lamb, to make a way so that the wrath of GOD would pass us by.
"How many stories were added before the earliest manuscripts?" All of them.
As Ehrman can explain to you, probably not the death or the part of Mark wherein Jesus's family rejects him.
@@terryfuldsgaming7995 You'll have to take it up with biblical historians
@@kendrajade6688 there's no point. Most biblical historians are heavily bias, and invested in their faith to the point of deception
@@poozer1986 You could back that up, but I guess making sure that you sound like a creationist talking about biologists was more important.
Ehrman's not a Christian, and biblical scholarship around the historical Jesus uses the fact that the bible is LYING in places to back them up. Take a look.
oyc.yale.edu/religious-studies/rlst-152/lecture-13
@@kendrajade6688 I think you're confused. I'm an anti-theist. I may be wrong about this guy, but I was just stating, most biblical scholars, are heavily indoctrinated before they study. It's a fold, full of theists, with maybe the occasional atheist.
“By not preserving the original, you are actually able to preserve the original better.” 🤷🤷🤷🤷
Has any apologist at this level ever owned a pair of pants that weren’t on fire?
It’s insane how slimy all these big apologists are. The fraudulence begins very early starting with their names…”doctor” so and so. 🤮
How Turek says half the shit he does with a straight face is beyond me.
Frank uses words from an ancient collection of Hebrew mythology
to reinforce his separation from the real world that surrounds him.
He needs to feed his kids and take his wife on holiday.
Nice work Paul ! Funny how Turek accuses Ehrman of wanting to make money from books, whilst Frank himself is a professional Christian ! Ehrman was a Christian for years before his studies led him away from actually believing the stuff !
Dr.Ehrman could have made a killing as an apologist if he wished!
I'm a professional anti-theist.
I've been looking for evidence of an invisible man hiding in the clouds.
Haven't found any after 50 years of searching.
I have read several of Bart Ehrman's books, and listened/watched many of his lectures, and one thing that is clear to me is that he is intellectually honest to a fault. TI can not say the same thing about Frank Turek or William Lane Craig. The hallmark of Christian apologetics is bending or ignoring reality to make the words of the bible seem true.
I can not remember it clearly, but I think I read or saw an interview with Bart Ehrman where he explains the personal conflicts he has because of the choices he made from learning more about the scriptures. It was my though then, that reading about his life journey will be fascinating. a Biographer will probably write about his 'honest to a fault' endeavors. Was he to write it himself, an autobiography might bring something new to light.
That's down to a difference in goals. Ehrman's goal is to search for accurate information or get as close as possible to the truth, while an apologist's only goal is to bolster the faith. Since at least the days of Eusebius the idea of lying to either bring people to Jesus or keep them there has been explicit policy.
@@DouwedeJong
It is always interesting to ask Radical Evangelical Christians the following question;
"When you hear testimonies about Christians who, strong in the faith, decided to really examine the Bible and it's history, ended up
losing their faith, does that motivate you to also really examine the Bible or not?"
The answers I have received so far, are quite telling.
Sam, are you a student of Epicurus?
I believe Bart is searching for truth while Frank and Bill are feeding their own self importance.
I’m still waiting for a debate between Ehrman and Turek.
I fancy a good cathartic bloodbath sometimes:)
Honestly, Frank Turek wouldn't be able to hold his own and he knows it. His comment about lay people not knowing any better made me think wow... If that's not the pot calling the kettle black, I dunno what is.
Now that's a deep clean alright, and all that porous thinking makes a great luffa.
Turek would never agree to that. He knows how badly it would look for him.
But, I was always taught that the Bible is perfect and without error. I was told that God would not allow man to make mistakes in writing, translating, copying, etc...the Bible
The Bible self corrects in order to say whatever the preacher wants it to say.
If anyone tries to say there are no mistranslations, give them this:
Leviticus 18:22 in English says "man shall not lie with man, for it is an abomination" and in German says "man shall not lie with boy as he does with a woman, for it is an abomination" and in 1 corinthians, arsenojoitai, the original Greek word, is translated to "Boy molesters" in the German version instead of the "homosexuals" in the English version. Similarly, the Swedish and Norwegian versions also say boy abusers or molesters instead of homosexuals.
So either there are mistranslations in the bible or the Christian God purposefully made the translations differently (or allowed them to be different), possibly in order to spread hate.
The text and the Bible are two different things. The Bible was put together by a committee a thousand years after Jesus died. There are various texts and not all of them ended up in the Bible.
I find the most interesting is the story of Job. The various original text changed with the happy ending added later changing the meaning of the story. It went from God's indifference to humans to God's love of humans. The text with the happy ending ended up in the Bible even though there are two different meanings depending on which text was considered the "word of God."
@@orlock20 there are no "original texts" of anything in the Bible. But, older, yes.
God could correct his own book using his infinite power to control time and alter events.
"When you say to the academic community something that is wrong, they'll correct you on it. But when you say something wrong to the lay community, they don't know any better".
Sounds like the business model for apologists.
Religious practice and scammers in a nutshell.
And he said it with a straight face!
So let me get this right: Frank is deceiving his audience in exactly the same manner as what he is accusing Bart of doing.
Excessive projection is a good clue you're listening to an apologist.
♪Every♫Accusation♪From♪A♫Cultist♫Is♫A♪Confession♪
That’s all Frank does it amazing how anyone can be that dishonest but he get rich off of that nonsense.
@@EdwardHowton Love this !!
How republican of him.
When I was a christian, I was constanantly told that god guided the scribes and the process to ensure that the bible is the perfect, unerrant word of god. In my view, even the slightest misspelling is evidence against god, christianity, and the bible. You can't say, "well maybe the scribe was tired or it was a Monday", etc. It wouldn't matter the state of mind or body of the scribe because an all-powerful god was supposed to be orchestrating the process.
If you really think about it, why would an all powerful god need scribes in the first place? Couldn’t he just rain down copies of his book already translated into every language of earth?
What? Created the world and can’t print a few books? Point is, we are so used to the religion that permeates our culture that we have become numb to its absurdities.
Funny that Yeshua bin Yousif never wrote anything down. Not even a receipt from his carpenter days or a chair saying "Made by the Son of Man" on the underside I'm waiting for some enterprising group to find an outhouse by a temple and sell holy souvenirs of things passed on by jebus in the form of jewelry or something. It would just show how faith can move mountains of merch.
Not only that, but it is likely those 12 followers were likely illiterate so that even they couldn't write anything, except for Peter who may have had some acolyte do the parchment thing for him. All this is as sketchy as all these professional apologists are.
@@onedaya_martian1238 I also like to use his name in that format, but preceded by "Rabbi". Of course no-one has a clue who I'm talking about...
@@mikeharrison1868 Yep, modern day "christians" can't even get the name right...mixing an anglicized name with a Greek one that appears to represent a surname. Ha ha ha
@@mikeharrison1868 the yeshua bit might give it away though. Possibly)
Contrary to what Turek said, Metzger was at Princeton Theological Seminary, not Princeton University. Those are entirely separate institutions. Metzger also was not a co-author of Ehrman's textbook. They did, however, collaborate on _The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration._
Of course he lying his ass off as usual Princeton University is more impressive than Princeton theological seminary. So he claims it was at Princeton University.
Yes, an important distinction... Apologists tend to be deceptive about things like this...
In the case of Princeton Seminary they are liars,
who are intentionally misrepresenting,,,
knowing full well that most people immediately think Princeton University.
I think the confusion is more likely to be a simple mistake, rather than an intentional lie. The university and the seminary are right next door to each other, and they both have 'Princeton' in the name; it's a natural mistake to make.
@@michaelsommers2356 Turek still misstated while talking about misquoting. LOL
@@michaelsommers2356 it’s definitely an intentional lie because all Frank does is lie.
I am so sick of hearing the "you think everything came from nothing" statement". I just have a notepad with the counter to that I have had to say it so often.
@J. Lo I know as with many things, its backwards.
God came from nothing.
I believe it.
That settles it.
I love these side by side videos! They’re enlightening and hilarious and cringy all at once! Haha
Turek: the differences are insignificant
Also Turek: sometimes scribes leave out a full page.
If my college paper left out a full page, I would get a big fat F. But scribes do it and it's divinely inspired and inerrant.
What a Monday! Viced Rhino straight into Paulogia!! Looks like a good one too!
praise be the flying spaghetti monster!
R'amen
0:06 OK, now that opening was a WTF moment. Not preserving the original allows you to preserve the original better? I have to hear this.
Exactly a person has be uneducated as hell to take anything turek says seriously.
Frank Turek made a LOT of bullshit claims in that speech. That was just the most obvious of them.
And yet, his audience didn't care about logic or truth enough to call him out.
@@archapmangcmg that because his audience are like minded and he just pandering to them
@@user-xs2qq7kv9w Yep, preaching to the faithful.
People who'd stand up for Turek and claim he was right and that we didn't understand what Turek was saying, just as they did for Trump.
It's nonsensical reasoning back from Turek's conclusion that the Bible is true and reliable. Therefore, if the Bible has no original documents, that means that lacking an original actually makes it more reliable
But you can bet your ass that if archaeologists found the original manuscripts for the four gospels, he'd shamelessly do a 180 and praise Jesus for providing such reliable primary sources and this proves the Bible-attacking skeptics wrong.
It was learning about textual variants and known forgeries at Bible college that shook the foundation of my faith in Christianity more than any other. I headed off on an attempt to "reconstruct" the "original text" of the New Testament. The more I learned, the less I trusted the Bible. I also started questioning the interpretations of the texts that I'd been taught my entire life. And then I ran into a bit of a moral awakening during an Easter sermon that led to me feeling compelled to completely reject Christianity entirely on moral grounds. I still held on for a bit longer, but I think that was the final blow to my faith in Jesus and Christianity.
I think I was always bound to end up rejecting the fundamentalist version of Christianity I grew up with, but I'm absolutely certain that I still would have remained a Christian if I hadn't gone to Bible college. Funny how that works, huh?
Tensai55 Have you read Bart Ehrman's life story? He also makes the point that bible college graduates, for fear of disturbing their flock, often fail to pass on the knowledge they have learnt re: textual problems.
@@alanthompson8515 That doesn't surprise me. Even in the Doctrine class where it was mentioned at Bible College, it was a throw away line in the pre-printed notes (we had to buy our notes and fill in the blanks for Doctrine classes - it's the only place where I've ever seen that be a practice). The teacher didn't even say that part out loud in class and it wasn't on his slides.
My guess is it was in the notes so that he could claim it was covered without him actually calling attention to it. Oh and it wasn't just that teacher that had that practice with the fill in the blank notes students had to buy either. Several other teachers did it too. At least the notes weren't all that expensive to buy compared to a lot of other stuff. Usually somewhere between $10-25. Still pure grift considering how little it cost them to print them off.
@@SadisticSenpai61 Wow! That's a new one for me. Your mention of printed off notes reminds me another Wow! moment from my student days in the mid-1960s.
We had been tasked with reading the chapter in Arthur Holmes' "Principles of Physical Geology", (3rd Edn) on Orogeny (aka Mountain Building) and all of us had struggled. Rick, a blunt Yorkshireman, summed it up: "Couldn't make 'ead nor tail of it, sir!" We all nodded.
Sir grinned evilly, "Well, Holmes is a year or two out of date, but you needed to know the old stuff to see the value of the new". He then handed out some lovingly handwritten Xeroxed screeds and we became the first cohort to hear about what is now in all the textbooks as Plate Tectonics. The sheer elegance and breadth of the Theory (as it can now be called) silenced us in amazement. Wow! indeed.
Now that was about the opposite of your experience, and it was supplied free of charge, but of course it was science not theology. Sorry if I sound smug.
Christianity:
Born in sin
Commanded to be good
Salvation through a human sacrifice.
Excuse me,
what is this?
@@JamesRichardWiley That Easter sermon was the first time I really went through the crucifixion scene in detail and actually visualized what happened as an adult. And then the pastor went through the usual "judge takes the punishment after declaring you guilty" example.
As an adult, it was just so obviously unjust and _wrong_ that I couldn't handle it. It also struck me that I couldn't claim to truly love Jesus and let him sacrifice himself for me. I wouldn't let my mother, father, or brother do it, why would I let Jesus? Even if they had already taken the "punishment" for me, I still wouldn't accept it - because I love them. I would insist that they be publicly exonerated and compensated for wrongful imprisonment (easier to deal with that scenario than the death penalty in this example) and that I face my rightful sentence.
And if they had been executed wrongfully in my place, no matter how willingly, I would be absolutely furious and simply accepting that and going about my life would be the most selfish and least loving thing I could do. I would fight for justice for them in every way I could - because I love them. I don't know how ppl could possibly live with themselves if they took that "deal" - the only way it makes any sense to me is if they didn't really love that person as much as they claim they did.
Christianity strikes me as a very selfish and self-centered religion in retrospect. It's all about how to absolve yourself of your wrong-doing without having to actually make amends to those you've wronged. At least the faith+works groups actually require a degree of good deeds and avoidance of harming others, but it's usually so loosely defined as to what counts as "good deeds" that it still remains pretty self-centered - especially as the only person you need to seek forgiveness from is God, not the person who was harmed (at least as far as doctrine is concerned).
I don't know how often this happens, but I was studying to become a theologian ... and Turek's lectures were staple for me. But Bart's books planted a seed of "wtf" in me. Gladly, here I am, fully atheist and happy af :)
How about becoming an atheist theologian. More the better.
Then you never believed to begin with. Nor are you aware of how much of a hypocrite Ehrman is. Because He writes a book called misquoting Jesus, but his hero is a fully devout Christian and Ehrman agrees with him on biblical scripture. So if you're fully happy congrats, but don't ever lie and say you were a believer or a Christian.
@@BrotherMaverick 'never believe to begin' with is an obvious cult motivated lie.
More likely they were honest with themselves and had the courage to question their indoctrination, unlike you.
Extremely well done. Thank you.
(My BA is in Religion, emphasis in historical Jesus studies which is a drop in the bucket of study but still, just wanted to say I thought you did Ehrman justice).
The Jesus story is extremely well written fiction based on a wandering Jewish preacher named Yeshua
and his failed attempt to reform his fellow humans.
What really drove me away was the _moral errors_ in the bible. Once I came to terms with the fact that Yahweh was cool with slavery, I realized it would take an extremely irresponsible god to let such an error make it into the final draft, and with that kind of reliability, I don't think Yahweh is a good candidate for ushering me into the afterlife. He probably has no time management skills and is chronically late to everything.
The best part is: if in some dystopian future where only Turek's lies about Ehrman's positions survive (and not Ehrman's writings themselves), future generations might come to believe that he's really as stupid and evil as Turek wants his audience to think he is...rather than the truth about the man. And comparing various examples of Turek's lies for consistency among them wouldn't get a future scholar any closer to what Ehrman's actual position was.
Frank is at the bottom
Bart is in the middle
and Paul is at the top
of the logic graph.
It's funny that this could easily explain why Jesus' myth is so popular.
Haven't any of them ever studied Watchtower books to learn how 2000 years of Christian thought based on the New Testament was entirely wrong, and that the 'essential' doctrines of Trinity, hellfire, immortal soul, and resurrection are completely wrong because they were reading the wrong translation of the Bible? Come on man.
I keep a copy of The Watchtower in plain sight to remind me how barbaric were the articles I read inside the magazine.
8:17 or maybe... turek's lecture should be called 'misquoting ehrman'
Like the monk who goes back to the original document: Noooo! It says celeBRATE!
The voice actor reading from his book (13:40) is the same voice actor from a fantasy book I'm in the middle of and that just tripped me out.
How does paulogia not have a million subs???
Truth is not popular.
@@avi8r66 I'm proud to be in that minority.
"My family was seventh day hopists. Every Sunday we hopped all day long, eating was difficult. It was based on a spelling error in their copy of the bible. Faith, hop and charity. The greatest of these is hop!" Arnold J. Rimmer B.S.C / S.S.C (bronze swimming certificate/silver swimming certificate)
"The only way to
to handle errrors is
is not to detect them."😈
If you read that out loud, how many errors are in that sentence. Many people don't notice them.😈
People who stutter might accidentally reveal them...ha ha.
I was raised a Catholic and learned to repeat Catholic dogma for twenty years.
I love the leap from copied correctly to true.
Just wait until they find out about copy and paste…!
Start with the simple one, thou shalt not kill then count how many die in the bible
Yahweh: My Great Big Plan (tm) is to communicate my all-important message to humanity by whispering it to human scribes and telling them to spread it around.
Also Yahweh: But first, I'm going to fuck up their language into a shit-ton of different languages and dialects so they can't talk to each other!
Also, his plan to spread the word about the birth of the savior was to tell two shepherds on a hill outside of town ... and nobody else. Because everyone always gets all their news from shepherds.
Great video, Paul! We really appreciate all you do!
"Beware the man of one book."
I'm continually amazed and saddened by the number of people who have been hypnotized by a book. Without their books they have nothing.
Interesting that he had slides for a "spontaneous" question.
"No significant doctrine" was changed. The version I learned from said "thou shalt not murder" other variants say "thou shalt not kill". VERY significant difference. Granted this is from the old testament, but the principal applies.
If you google “lying for Jesus” there really needs to pop up a picture of Frank.
There is a reason the First Commandment is the First Commandment. Putting word's in God's mouth is both dangerous and misleading yet many people have done it from starting wars to praying to God to win a game.
Frank is very loud and aggressive in his faith based claims.
I prefer Bart's soft approach
based on critical thinking.
I always forget to thumbs up these videos... Thanks for all you Do Paulogia.
You Landed this one on the Button; Way to Go "Logia"!!!
Down Goes Turek, Down Goes Turek!!!
Can Turek actually sink lower than the "meat robots can't be rational" stance that he falls back to?
Frank will always keep on talking no matter times he gets proven wrong.
He isn't listening to the counter arguments.
Neither is Ray Comfort or Eric Hovind.
I would appreciate it if Paulogia made an episode about how Ken Ham is always asking for money, money and money.
He has to recover the costs of his ark encounter suffering heavy flood damage somehow lol
True; Ken Ham is rather ham-handed in his solicitations :)
Are you unfamiliar with Ham and Aig news?
@@jarrod752 Is there and H&A news episode about money?
A humble donation of ninety nine dollars instead of one hundred and fourty nine?
I just love how Frank Turek dishonestly tries to swat down the legitimate criticism by doing the pastor thing and "quoting chapter and verse" to her in order to speak down to her and have it known that the idea is so belittled that he knows exactly where it is in the rival's book. No, Frank, the scribes messed up in large ways and small ways and intentional and unintentional ways that has fractured Christianity for thousands of years. Demonstrable proof of that: YOUR JOB EXPLAINING IT.
How nice that Frank conveniently has a slide prepared just for Grace’s question? Might she be a plant?
Never, he wouldn't lie, would he? ;)
@Alex McAuliff There's gullible and then there is stupid.
If only there was a deity that was wise enough and powerful enough to correct some of these errors.
Yahweh drowned nearly every living thing after he created all of it.
Apparently he doesn't value anything he creates.
He also didn't know that Animals couldn't help Adam in the garden
I havnt tuned in in a while... I forgot how much I loved this channel.
Welcome back!
@@Paulogia yeah I love you break things down and make it amore palatable for people like myself who are not necessarily scholars lol... The last episode I watched was when someone tried to say you purposefully misrepresented someone else... And you were furious to say the least lol. Great show.
I love this proxy debate format. I can't say I've seen it anywhere else and it produces some of the best content I've seen on these subjects.
I have one question for the Christians:
In Matthew 26, Jesus and the disciples have the Passover dinner. AFTERWARDS, during the night, Jesus is captured, and the next day is killed. In John 19, it specifically states that Jesus is killed on The Day of Preparation which is the morning BEFORE the Passover dinner. How can we have any confidence in the bible being "god's words" to us (as I was repeatedly taught when young), and therefore the "foundation of knowledge", when the bible cannot even get straight what day "god" in the form of "his son" is killed, for what is arguably the most important event in the whole bible for Christianity?
This reminded me of NonStampCollector's famous "Quiz Show (Bible Contradictions)" video. Well worth a watch if you haven't already.
Turek could call his presentation “Misquoting Ehrman”
Your opening clip is my favourite Frank Turek clip.
No one should have a favourite Frank Turek clip. 😆
I love your videos! Thank you for all the work you do and all the research you put in to debunk misinformation!
I think your point about answering questions in a non academic way for a lay audience that will not do more learning on their own is very well demonstrated in the comments section of Turek's original video.
I myself recognize I rely on Paulogia's videos (and other) and do not read these books or do further study myself. I at least recognize that. I do however appreciate the detail people like Paul go into and actually citing sources when doing so for those interested.
And on a side not I always am bothered now easily Christians like to go slander someone instead of dealing with sincere points and criticisms when they are claiming that is their goal. :(
Dr. Ehrman is brilliant and has a ton of education and research to back up his statements.
I love Bart. Too bad he hasn't found his way out of religion completely.
Good ol’ Frank “Half-Truth” Turek.
You are giving him way too much credit...
Appreciate your work so much ❤️
Dang ancient scroll auto-correct!!!
I think ancient auto-correct worked by having a senior scribe stand over the shoulder of a junior scribe, and hit him whenever he made a mistake.
That one dislike is from Frank
Now I know that some non-believers say that the idea of talking snakes and talking asses can't be true, but the pulpits are full of them.
🥁 😂👌🏼
...and (as pointed out brifley) the kind of errors that are textual variants, is not the same kind of error as if the texts actually describe what happened correctly - or not.
What a fucking excellent video. Thank you. I just love the fact that you pay such close attention to details and little things like the meaning of words. I need to send you some money.
Thanks for the kind words.
Even when it's wrong, it's right... I don't expect more from people that believe fiction is nonfiction.
Videos like this remind me why i prefer video response type formats. Instead of going off on a bunch point about something you opponent might not even believe (such as turik is doing) and instead let the person speak for themselves and address what is actually said
The example of the four copies that show one letter missing from each word was just like an example that Tim Mackee of the bible project used to show how a person who knows nothing about textual criticism thinks it works.
More like the unmarried monk, brought in by the head scribe because of his spelling mistake - "Friar Bob, the word was 'celebrate' not 'celibate' "
Paulogia, I'd like to interview you for my channel. Are you willing to do that?
I Just read Barts “Misquoting Jesus” and “Apocalyptic Prophet from the new millennium” interesting books from a historical perspective. And I’ve just begun on my third “Heaven and Hell” which I would recommend as well
Yeah!!!
Been waiting for new video from this channel....
You need more subscribers man!nice job
Prof. Bart Ehrman once said if god wanted to give us revelations, he should have preserved the originals.
7 Seconds in:
Christian apologist: "By *not* preserving the original, you actually are able to preserve the original better"
This isn't going to end well, folks.
smaakjeks K So true. I hurt myself laughing.
you should do one on Cliffe from "give me an answer" he is a real tool lol, love your videos.
Could the errors be attributed to those "Magically Animated Mud Gollums" that Aron Ra described. Thanks, Aron (?spelling? Aron sorry if I got incorrect)
Apologists and creationists lying? You don't say! ;)
Why hadn't the allmighty creator of the universe invented printing technology before sending hus kid down here? Ot television? The interrnet: even better!
But no, manuscripts written in an ancient long forgotten language.
Once I came to the knowledge that the gospels weren't eyewitness accounts, and that the early Church inserted Christian doctrines into the texts, and that many of the gospel stories were demonstrably untrue (like the whole story of Barabbas being set free), it undermined my faith in the teachings of Jesus and miraculous claims. "If this part is false, then how can I trust these other parts?" I reasoned. The foundation of credibility had cracked and the rest of the house started falling in on itself.
Dr. Ehrman is quite animated when he gives lectures. I wish I could attend some. Listening to him is an enjoyable learning experience.
Absurdigetics: making incorrect statements “as fact” to convince a lay audience of some claim that has no actual evidence.
Good comparison. While I don’t come to the same overall consideration as Bart, I think some things Jesus said are probably attestable, it does appear with more recent authors that some writers, by modern standards plagiarized non-Jewish stories, and interpolated Jesus into those stories. In some cases like John this happened so many times that the book of John now is basically a fairy tale.
I never could like Frank Turek. He seems so intent on developing “gotchas” that he ends up misunderstanding or misrepresenting people
did Dr. Andrew Loke answer in any way to you video?
thanks for another posting, Paul :).....Bart Ehrman rocks; I've watched a ton of his lectures and I now worship him as a superior being! 😏
Bart still has a way to go with the absurd god belief.
@@JamesRichardWiley oh?...I thought he was a confirmed atheist?
Or maybe
And this may blow your mind
Maybe....
Don't base your whole life around a book recorded by some medieval scribe a couple millenia ago whose proficiency varies with how sleepy they were or what they'd eaten for breakfast 3 days prior
Thanks for your channel
I hope/wish someday Frank Turek and Bart Ehrman will debate each other on the topic of the historical reliability of the gospels. I doubt that Turek would say some of the things he’s said about Ehrman in the past to an audience in a debate with Ehrman. Gary Habermas vs Bart Ehrman would be nice to see as well.
I truly think that Frank's middle name is Disingenuous!
Why does Frank always sound so defensive?
Probably because he knows he's lying.
“Well THAT doesn’t seem right.”
Almost peed myself. Love ya, Paul!
Was that Kate Reading reading the yellow quote? I think it was. Now I'm all thrown off, I need to rewatch to catch the point. I'm a bit star struck.
Luke deliberately alters the venue of the resurrection appearances by replacing Galilee with Jerusalem.
Here's what the angel says at the tomb in Mark and Matthew:
Mark 16:7
_But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.”_
Matthew 28:7
_Then go quickly and tell his disciples: ‘He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.’ Now I have told you.”_
Now watch how Luke deliberately alters the prediction. At the exact same point in the story Luke has the angels say this:
Luke 24:6
_He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee:_
Luke changes the prediction of an appearance in Galilee to a remembrance of Jesus' past teaching in Galilee.
Luke leaves no room for any appearances in Galilee because he has the disciples "stay in the city" (Jerusalem) until Pentecost - Lk. 24:49, "do not leave Jerusalem" - Acts 1:4.
It seems Luke was determined to exclude any resurrection appearances in Galilee.
Further supporting this hypothesis is that Luke also removes the reference to a future appearance in Galilee from the prediction of Peter's denial - Mk. 14:28 cf. Mt. 26:32. The phrase _"But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee.”_ has been omitted from Luke 22:54-62.
New Testament scholars acknowledge that the gospels are religious texts with an agenda. They are not historical records written by historians who aim at giving a faithful account of real events. Each gospel writer imbues the narrative with his particular vision of the new faith.
Luke probably wanted to emphasize the centrality of Jerusalem. Jerusalem was the center of Judaism, the temple was there, all Hebrew history was focused there. It didn’t make much narrative sense for Jesus to reappear in the countryside away from the center of action.
Basically it’s the same thing screenwriters do when they adapt somebody’s life for a film. They condense, embellish, move things around to make the story more appealing to the audience and/or convey a message.
How did Frank decide that he speaks for the Creator of the Cosmos?
Seems a bit arrogant to me.
Thanks for this video. Frank Turek seems to be a great speaker but also a great twister... Thanks for comparing what he said to what's really said.
i love bart ehrman was introduced to his work at a pcusa when i became skeptical but not to the degree i am now still not an atheist but not a believer i watch all your videos but that caught my eye can't wait to watch
thanks, pup. welcome!
@@Paulogia it was a great video you and shannon q and jimmy snow are my 3 favorite youtubers