Joel McDurmon

Alpha & Omega Ministries

Subscribe

Download

Share

00

Comments are disabled.

00:13

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line

00:19

The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence

00:28

Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church This is a live program and we invite your participation.

00:37

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now at 602 973 460 to or toll -free across the

00:44

United States. It's 1 877 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 And now with today's topic here is

00:51

James white And good morning. Welcome to the dividing line on a Tuesday morning before we get to our topic today.

00:59

I wanted to Give you a good example of why we do what we do

01:06

I Was very encouraged by this and I hope others will be as well. It really gives I think an insight into Why we do the things we do why we focus upon the things we focus upon and why we don't focus upon All the things a lot of people do focus upon to be perfectly honest with you

01:24

This is a letter I received. I'm not going to use any names. I don't want to embarrass anyone but Here's what said

01:31

I wanted to write and thank you for your book the Forgotten Trinity My husband kept wanting me to read it saying it would strengthen my faith.

01:38

I was always thinking. Yeah Yeah, probably too theological for me to understand. Maybe after all the laundry and diapers.

01:44

I'll get around to it one night I picked up the book. Yes, there are still was laundry after the middle of the third chapter.

01:51

I was floored This is the God I serve. I thought he's this big I keep reading and sometimes

01:58

I have to stop because tears keep me from seeing the page I'm ashamed that I've called myself a

02:04

Christian for so long and yet have never understood my Lord in this way until now I have always prayed for God to give me a deeper love for him and desire to proclaim his name

02:13

Through this book God is opening my eyes to see the glorious truths He has manifested of himself his word and his truth are becoming more precious to me as I see them

02:22

So simply and accurately expounded in these pages Also, the infiltration of pure scripture in these pages is so refreshing.

02:29

Thank you for taking the time to write I will always cherish this time my life where God used your book to humble me and yet to strengthen my belief in and love for This truly amazing

02:39

God we serve every day. I stand more in awe of this Our mighty and merciful

02:44

God. Thank you for helping me That's why we do what we do. There are all sorts of topics that we could address that probably would you know expand the bottom line and things like that, but There are important things that change lives there are important things that That we need to focus on so I thank you for that letter and for anyone who ever wonders why we do what we do

03:09

There is a very very very good reason right there 877 -753 -3341 came back last week from the debate and the conference and the cruise and And On I believe

03:26

Friday, maybe it's Thursday Friday. I think it's Friday A an article was posted on the

03:33

American vision website by Joel McDermott and So I have written two responses that that have been published both on my blog and on the

03:43

American vision website And as we have noted we have invited Joel to join us today

03:50

I Just realized I left all of my emails in the other room, and I don't have access to them, but Joel was with American vision.

03:58

He's the author of a number of books including some that I would like to read especially

04:04

Manifested in the flesh how the historical evidence of Jesus refutes modern mystics and skeptics It sounds like Joel, and I would have a lot in common.

04:12

Let's go ahead and bring him on the air Joel Thank you for joining us today Good afternoon, or if I should say good morning on your side.

04:20

Yes indeed that that time divide is there Joel tell us a little more about yourself you are director of research for American vision is that correct

04:28

I came on with American Vision in June of 08 last year I've written for them prior to that Manifested in the flesh was my first book that came out in 07 and then

04:40

I quenched one out real quick on the Sam Harris book That we titled the return of the village atheist right it's kind of a little pocket -sized book that came out following that and then

04:50

Recently Gary kind of twisted my arm to get me to write a book about the zeitgeist movie Which is kind of popular on the internet?

04:58

We crank that out and we're planning on to do some kind of a chat video to go along with that so yeah

05:04

That's how you get to the folks that are watching the zeitgeist movie anyways is is in that kind of media so You've been with them about half a year there, what about before that we're

05:14

Previous four years of that I spent up near Philadelphia I went to a seminary at Reformed Episcopal Seminary Which is in Bluebell a suburb of Philadelphia, so I spent three years up there going to school and a year prior subsequent to that Well kind of working and planning my future, and then they got the job offer from American Vision, so Before that I grew up most of my life in Arkansas I've been reformed for Going on 10 or 12 years now, okay, so there was a period of my life in there

05:45

I was just eating up everything I can get including a lot of your works and I certainly second what the the person who wrote your letter that you just read

05:55

I second that the Trinity book is wonderful No excellent excellent, so you were in came down With the with the whole group from American Vision since they were doing the video recording.

06:06

I'm not sure if you had anything to do with that or is just just came down for the for the conference didn't get a chance to go on the cruise with us and Sit around and hear all of Gary's war stories or anything like that, which

06:17

I'm sure you've probably heard before anyway But I'm sorry a few of them Yeah, especially the sports stories if you want to get going get

06:25

Gary going and start talking about football or something. That's right Well it was actually from what

06:34

I heard Quite a good game, and that's that's what you want a Super Bowl to be I guess but I was certainly rooting for a guy who was old

06:45

Once you get to be old you want old guys to do well and from what I understand you did better than the other guy

06:50

Did as far as great Warner had a wonderful game? He did and you know all the best to him with his story is wonderful Yeah, it is it is it is but I am

06:59

NOT a cards fan I may live here, but I've suffered through 20 years of 4 and 12 and Anyways you didn't get a chance to go on the cruise, but you're at the debate and at the conference and so you posted an article on the

07:15

AV website and Wanted one chat about it. I've responded at least in writing briefly

07:22

Gary gave me the opportunity of doing that, but so we want to have the opportunity I don't know how long this this will take it all depends on how deeply want to go

07:29

I guess but I Guess the the key element of what you said

07:37

Is in your is in your conclusion? Where you wrote in the end despite all the helpful information and engaging points the debate proved little beside the limitations of evidentialist apologetics if Manuscript evidence forms the basis of our trust in the veracity of Scripture Then we cannot conclude veracity

07:53

One way or the other without the prior existence of God and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit revelation any form cannot exist

08:00

Help me to understand What caused you to to write that what what about the the debate?

08:06

Struck you as being an example of evidentialist apologetics Well, I know in your article and in some of the talks we had together

08:15

You you kind of took that that I was pinning you as an evidentialist apologist and that's certainly not what

08:20

I meant I'm well aware and have been for some time that you're presuppositional at least to some degree

08:28

But keep in mind this whole article was not about James White it was not about just you in general

08:34

It was about the topic in general misquoting Debating misquoting Jesus and so in that article like I include a lot of my perspective on things not to do

08:44

We're limitations at and kind of philosophical ideas and that's one of them

08:49

I mean if at my point is simply if we're going to debate evidences It's not going to get us very far. And in fact, you certainly can't establish the veracity of the text from the evidence itself

08:59

That's all I want to say So when you say if manuscript evidence forms the basis of our trust in the veracity of Scripture Then we cannot conclude veracity one way or the other.

09:08

I certainly don't believe that and I wasn't presenting that So the idea was just well

09:16

That's not what the debate was meant to be addressing or what did you what did you feel?

09:23

Like that's what the main point of the debate was about Especially considering your opening statement when you said can we trust that the

09:30

New Testament possesses today? That we possess today accurately reflects what was written 2 ,000 years ago and certainly considering Herman's perspective, which is entirely historical

09:40

That the whole debate Sounded to me as if it were a debate over historical evidences

09:48

Well as you probably may know from what I've written we had

09:56

Originally in the emails that had comprised the agreement with dr. Ehrman to do the debate

10:04

Initially what happened was Michael Fallon contacted dr. Ehrman and Dr.

10:10

Ehrman had objected to the idea of any debate that had anything to do with inspiration in it And so we hadn't actually pursued that we'd ended up doing the debate with Shabir Ali instead then we contacted dr.

10:21

Ehrman a year later and Again raised the issue and this time he had no objections. And so we advertised the debate for almost a full year as Does the presence of textual variation preclude the possibility of inspiration about a month before the debate?

10:37

Someone contacted me and noted that on dr. Ehrman's website It was simply titled something about the veracity of the

10:44

New Testament or the accuracy to test with something along those lines Just a standard his standard talk on that subject

10:49

And so I had contacted him and he wrote back and said well look that's not a debatable subject.

10:54

That is the issue of Inspiration is not a debatable subject and I'm not debating that subject and so we had had a less than cordial phone conversation myself and Michael Fallon And he had just said look that's my theological conclusion, but I'm a historian

11:12

I'm not a theologian and He makes as have you listened to his debates with William Lane Craig or Mike Laicona or anybody anyone like that?

11:21

I have not followed his other debates He's kind of been off my radar except the fact that I have read his book and some of his articles

11:27

The the misquoting Jesus book. Yeah, but not not his earliest of the orthodox corruption of Scripture the scholar.

11:33

No, I haven't. Yeah in those debates he makes a ironclad distinction between history and Anything that history can say about God God can history cannot say anything about God cannot address

11:48

God God can have nothing to do with history In those debates, he was addressing the issue of the resurrection and his entire thesis was history can say nothing about things like resurrection

11:58

It's just a historian cannot comment on such things. It's beyond the purview and so Well, well

12:07

I I'm not sure about that. He's certainly a good He's presuppositionally committed to the idea

12:15

That history is by nature atheistic and that if there is going to be any evidence of God It cannot be something that historian can possibly touch

12:24

Which I find He doesn't even defend that he just simply states it and when you challenge it

12:30

His only way of defending it is to state it more often and louder Which was similar to what happened in the debate when we discussed the issue of inspiration, but be it as it may

12:40

I Almost pulled the plug on the debate during the during the the phone conversation to be perfectly honest with you because For example at one point

12:50

I mentioned well Obviously Christians believe the scripture is the honest us. It's God breathing.

12:55

He started laughing I couldn't even finish the sentence because it said that only appears once in the and that's it's in Paul Matthew's that Mark's on Luke and I was just like, you know, do

13:06

I sit here on the phone and say however It's very consistent with what Matthew Mark and Luke and John and everybody else believe about scripture

13:12

Or do I just try to get this thing worked out the the point being I knew that he was he would never debate

13:19

The existence of God he would never debate any of those things because he considers there to be this huge massive difference

13:25

Between what's scholarship of history and what is theology and theology is just a matter of opinion

13:31

That's that's just that's just his his perspective and I think that right but probably came out in even some of the comments that he made a classical liberal view a very much so and so I Laid out in my response to you what

13:43

I was Desiring to accomplish in in the debate because I want this to be a debate that we can make a high school

13:51

Graduation present to people who are graduating of high school before they go off, especially UNC Chapel Hill Or anyplace else to see that you can believe in the supernatural claims of scripture and stand toe -to -toe with a skeptic on the level of Bart Ehrman and You can look at the same data.

14:14

You can look at the same facts of history But you do not have to embrace his naturalistic materialistic presuppositions you do not have to interpret the world in the grid that he interprets the world in and When you do so you actually see a much more consistent view of things and so I need to point out his

14:33

Inconsistencies and I and I did and it seemed to me that that you felt that pointing out those inconsistencies was actually off the topic

14:41

But since the topic was so broad by his own demand. He said look I'm not going to be limited to that I'm why don't we just title it misquoting

14:51

Jesus? Well, what in the world is that supposed to mean? Says well, we'll just debate what's in the book. Okay, everything that I mentioned is either in the book or directly relevant to what's in the book

15:01

Right, would you okay? That's that sounds great, especially the part where you're talking about the presuppositional nature of materialistic and naturalistic

15:10

Assumptions. I didn't hear that come out clearly in the debate. I know you pressed him on a couple of things

15:17

But I thought he fairly answered what you pressed him on Okay, and I didn't I didn't necessarily hear you drive him to a point of absurdity in his presuppositions, okay

15:27

Well, let me let me let me see how how do you feel he answered? Consistently the fact that he would not he would apply his conclusions to Suetonius Tacitus and Pliny He would not apply it to the

15:41

Quran. Oh He did not say that. What do you mean? He did not say that.

15:46

He would not apply it to the Quran He just refused to answer the question Okay, but I think everyone saw that he would not do that he ran from that like anything

15:56

But he was he ran for that. I think it was for political reasons. I mean, I agree. Okay, I agree

16:01

I don't think he would have any problem in private saying I would apply the same thing to the

16:07

Quran He said it about Suetonius Pliny any any other source you want to bring up including the Gospel of Thomas? Which is kind of near and dear to his heart.

16:13

Yes But it's just so I don't see that as an inconsistency he's willing to say

16:19

Yeah, we apply the same standard to other texts Well, you could say he's in can you could say he's consistent only by saying that what he says in private is not the same thing

16:28

The same thing is the same public, right? Because in public he would not he just said in fact

16:34

He even went to the point of saying you're likening me to a Muslim, which of course I never did. I Right, right.

16:39

I thought he put took out a little out of car. Yeah, that was that was a little bit silly Yeah, that didn't make much sense so Given given the goals that that I had now

16:49

I would love to have a conversation with dr Ehrman about naturalistic materialism everything else but all

16:54

I can do in the context that we have and in the time limitations I have is is is present questions to him in the cross -examination that I think demonstrate the spin that he places upon The the data so for example when

17:11

I asked him about Hebrews 2 9 and he said yes He thinks that chorus they you is the original reading and yet He then says that scholars are moving away from talking about the original

17:23

You didn't see that I was pointing out that there is a fundamental I in fact my quote of Moises Silva is pointing out there's a fundamental contradiction between the entire

17:31

Presentation he made in his main work, which is called the orthodox corruption of scripture came out in 1993 and what he's now saying

17:39

And in fact, there's a major difference to know he's now saying and what Bruce Metzger his teacher taught

17:46

I mean The only question I wish I had asked and I've been kicking myself ever since then is

17:51

Why did you edit a the fourth edition of the work with Metzger when the subtitle is in regards to text

17:58

New Testament? It's transmission corruption and restoration. You don't believe in the restoration part anymore Should we drop that from the title that would have been an excellent question to ask because I think consistently he'd have to say

18:08

Yes, we should yeah, he would say yes. I'm sure he would say yes Yeah Yeah I think that was one of the stronger parts of your cross -examination

18:16

When you were able to take him back to to the big verses he uses in his works Yeah But he really hangs his hat on that this would make a difference and show that the difference really isn't that big after all no

18:27

Really takes a lot of wind out of his case in that part. Okay, so in fact

18:33

Did you understand this? I I'm I've wanted a couple times if I was just being very obtuse and unclear

18:38

But one of his arguments and I don't know if you were at the conference earlier when I went over Hebrews 2 9 and Mark 1 41

18:46

Okay, yeah, I Had invited dr.

18:51

Ehrman to to hear that and of course he didn't attend but he was in the gym at that time.

18:57

But anyway, I Tried to point out to him that his argument is one of his main arguments that without God at Hebrews 2 9 should be the

19:07

Reading is that the theology of Hebrews is consistent with that and I tried to point out to him

19:13

How can you know the theology of Hebrews if you say that how you read this determines the theology of the entire book?

19:20

How can that be a part of your argument for the reading? When it has to exist separately from this to even be defined and he never understood that he he said well

19:28

Yeah But if it says by the grace of God then that changes things and how could that change? The theology of the book of Hebrews that exists separately from Hebrews 2 9 and it just seemed to me that he's never been

19:40

Challenged within the the the Academy to even think about things like that Well, I don't know about that.

19:47

I mean when he answered that question you guys both came to an understanding It sounded like that if you the variant would leave that part out and therefore that would have been the only place in the book

19:56

That said by the grace of God Therefore the idea of grace would be absent based on the variant.

20:02

Well, you see all I was trying to do I wasn't honestly, I certainly was not agreeing with him on that I had already presented my position on that but I did want him to put into the record his assertion that well

20:14

This is consistent with the theology of the book of Hebrews and yet somehow that means we can determine what the theology of the book

20:21

Of Hebrews is which is completely contrary to his saying we don't know what the New Testament said in the first place

20:26

He uses different standards in his scholarship than he does in his conclusions And that's that was what was very important to me to get out

20:35

Is that on page 211 of misquoting Jesus is where he makes this conclusion that most people read to be the conclusion of his

20:43

Scholarship and that is the New Testament Textual tradition cannot allow the New Testament to be if the authoritative

20:50

Word of God Now he got upset that I kept bringing that up, but it's in the opening of his book

20:55

It's in the conclusion of his book. It's in the debate. He did with Dan Wallace last year on this subject He raises it freely of his of his own accord only three weeks earlier in London He had interrupted the host of the program at the end of the program to make sure to get into the record

21:13

His assertion of the exact same thing Yeah, and I agree with you.

21:18

That's a major theme of his work I mean, there's no doubt about that that he's a crusader for the liberal view in the skeptical view

21:24

My problem with this is it I didn't know and keep take this from a perspective of somebody who's going to get this

21:31

DVD I mean nobody here. This is going to go out on a mailing list with tens of thousands of people

21:37

They're going to buy this DVD and many of them are not going to know who James White is They're certainly not going to have read your blog articles on Bart Ehrman For the past year, right?

21:47

and so they're going to hear this in a vacuum just like I did and They're not going to have this background of you saying

21:52

I just want to expose his his skepticism or or these other issues It's radical skepticism, right?

21:59

I'm actually not going to see this in in the context in many cases that that you want them to Well, you know what when when

22:07

I do debates, this is an issue that comes up. Who do you debate for? When when you write against the zeitgeist movie

22:15

You've got to sort of assume that someone who's going to pick up that book has at least some knowledge of what is in the movie

22:22

Yeah, in fact, I ran into a case like that just a couple weeks ago, but anyway, go ahead Yeah, well, I think you're seeing exactly what

22:28

I mean is it when you're responding to a specific position Especially one that is that is quite as complex and quote -unquote scholarly as Bart Ehrman's I I recognize that I'm debating for a pretty particular audience

22:41

I want to be able to provide something that is going to be extremely useful To that young person who's sitting either in Bart Ehrman's class or more likely like my daughter

22:50

Sitting in Lee Carter's class at Glendale Community College who who is?

22:56

You know third fourth generation down the road from Ehrman no longer nearly as nuanced but but making the same claims

23:04

Yeah, I recognize that that when you do very Particular debates you're gonna lose some folks and I debate

23:11

John Dominic Crossan on the historical reliability of the Gospels The issues that he and I were discussing were were probably pretty obtuse to someone who isn't familiar with the work the

23:22

Jesus seminar But you still have to engage them That's why I've done between 75 and 80 of these is to engage that whole that whole range

23:31

And and I do realize that sometimes you have you know, you got to be specific You've got to go for a specific subject and if there are people that sort of get a little lost in the process, you know if it's my fault for lack of clarity, that's one thing but if it's

23:49

Just because they're not familiar with what Bart Ehrman is cranking out and unfortunately just yesterday

23:55

One of the young ladies in our chat channel who is a Christian young lady at a secular

24:00

University Came in said I can't believe this They're telling me that the book

24:05

I have to buy for this class and textbook is by Bart Ehrman you know, they're the ones that I want to provide this information to and once they've heard his presentation then they will have a

24:17

Context in which to understand why it is. I asked the questions that I was that I was asking now aside from all that so Basically, I guess there there's there a couple other questions real quick and anything you want to add

24:31

I wanted to get to I've got to ask And I respond to this so so but I do need to ask a question because everyone's gonna be gonna be wondering about it and that is

24:43

I Evidently you took very wrongly what

24:48

I was saying about liberal debaters And again, hopefully now that I've provided some background you'll you'll know why

24:57

When I debated Barry Lynn and you know who Barry Lynn is right Yeah, who can who can have a television not knowing who

25:04

Barry Lynn is these days? They plaster him all over the place when I debate Barry Lynn He came to a debate on whether homosexuality is consistent with biblical

25:10

Christianity without a Bibble He came without a copy of the scriptures and at one point

25:16

It's it's still somewhat humorous for me to watch the video where I have to hand my little

25:22

Bible across the moderator To mr. Lynn so he can read from Romans chapter 1

25:28

He did no preparation. He had no idea that he's just going with stuff you'd learn back in a very liberal seminary that he went to for the

25:36

United Church of Christ and As a result, it was it was a disaster for him and he admitted that and that's why he tried to sue us to suppress the taping of the

25:45

Event that happens. We got stories like that. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah, and then I Now I I John Dominic Crossan likewise, but I think there was a different reason there

25:56

I don't think it was so much disrespect for conservatives as just a total lack of knowledge that we existed

26:04

And and then John John Shelby Spong Showed up without a Bible didn't read anything.

26:10

I had ever said on the subject homosexuality We would have sent him anything had he requested it But these folks just don't take the time because they don't believe that anybody in the conservative side has anything we all believe the same thing in the first place and it's all one inch thick and We're all we're all morons in essence

26:28

I mean that is the the the feeling that I get from a lot of liberals And so you need to do is start planning ahead on your debates and sending a package to your debater

26:36

Well, you know what? My book I suggest you read it the thought crossed my mind

26:42

But you know, I honestly had had many conversations with people who had said do you think he'll be prepared and I said well

26:49

Dr. Ehrman is a bright guy. He's clearly very intelligent You know John Dominic Crossan has an

26:56

IQ 10 points beyond me on on a bad day on his bad day and These are bright bright bright people

27:03

But I said to be honest with you my gut feeling is no he's not even gonna look at At a book that's used as a textbook in conservative

27:13

Bible colleges and seminaries That I wrote 14 years ago I I don't think he'll have any idea who

27:21

I am and they said you gotta be kidding me I said well, I hope I'm wrong. I really in fact,

27:26

I had hoped that the phone conversation We had a month out would at least be enough to cause him to maybe you know at least fire up Google do something

27:36

But I discovered that that wasn't the case. And in fact I was informed that as they're coming to the hotel he asked now

27:45

Where's James White from so he didn't had not even looked at anything When I mentioned that that was the background the background was.

27:55

Yep. We've continued our 100 % 1 ,000 % batting streak here and that is when we debate folks on the left side of the spectrum

28:04

They don't come in with anything and Everyone has seen over the years the massive advantage there is in knowing your opponents works

28:14

I don't know if you ever saw the debate I did with father Peter Stravinsky's in New York, but Stravinsky's pulled the same stunt and I had everything was a debate on purgatory

28:25

I had everything Peter Stravinsky's had ever published on the subject of purgatory on my

28:31

PDA You should have seen this guy. He was so angry Before long that he was pointing at the

28:38

PDA go watch. He'll look up on your gizmo there I mean he wanted to go anywhere, but where he was during that debate

28:45

It gives an unfair advantage to one side to be perfectly honest with you when I can quote the other person and they can't quote

28:52

Anything back to me. They can't keep me consistent because they don't have a clue where in the world. I'm coming from well

28:57

I mean I would revel in that scenario I would love to point to them how ignorant they are in the midst of the debate well over and over and over again

29:03

Well, I mentioned. I did mention it once because I had to waste so much time

29:09

Re -explaining what I was saying because the guy didn't think that there was anything to do the study up Yeah, I know you said that I Honestly James, and I say this

29:20

In all brotherly love I I found that post offensive in that regard because I think you're absolutely wrong

29:26

I I know the guy knew who you were I Don't think he's read your books

29:32

But I know that he is very well aware With the evangelical position on those things he said so in the debate

29:40

He said he knows what you've written in your writings. He said it in the debate and And you know he dispelled those rumors there what one of them privately for me in an email, so I mean

29:50

I don't want to claim that what did what did he what what had he read he hadn't read any of my books, right? Well, he didn't say by name of course not but he said so in the debate

29:59

Well, not only that but he's read all of the guys That you you called to your aid.

30:04

Oh, he's obviously read Tischendorf, and he's read Wallace Well, he interacts with all those guys in their journal articles

30:12

But he knows the evangelical position and and what you put forward as far as the tenacity of the text

30:18

It's no different than then what those guys argue in the journal. That's not sure that's that that's where you're wrong

30:24

Joel That's not true That's just a book you you read verbatim The Alon book okay, you're telling me.

30:32

He's not familiar with that book I'm telling you that the presentation I made is not identical to identical to Kurt Allen's presentation in any way shape or form

30:40

I pointed part you quoted from him verbatim I pointed to his assertion of the concept of tenacity, which is extremely important but you would find significant differences between myself

30:52

Alon and even between myself and Dan Wallace as To the mechanics of the preservation and the main areas where we wasted time in the cross

31:01

Examination was where he just could not even begin to wrap his mind around the presentation that I had made you will not find 75 and no well part part of that and Part also being the the the two ranges of the spectrum between the

31:17

Byzantine the Alexandrian text types Looking at the at the the printed text there

31:22

He was totally lost as to why I would even be talking about the similarity of the text

31:27

You've not found anybody else talking about the multifocality you haven't had them in fact I don't know if you could see him from where you were sitting

31:34

But the people who reported to me after the debate said he was rolling his eyes whenever I talk about persecution

31:41

And yet that's an important part. I think of understanding the first Oh, I remember he rolled his eyes at persecution when you said

31:47

I resonate with this particular manuscript right right because it has a Scripture I love on it and because the guy was

31:54

Risking his life for having it and I think he was thinking you were making a connection between the guy in persecution and yourself

32:00

It didn't sound like that when you go through it well that certainly was not my intention I don't know how anyone could take it that way, but anyway the point is

32:08

I I do not Michael Fallon has mentioned that he offered to send my works to to dr.

32:15

Ehrman and he declined He never cited me And I don't think that just simply knowing the

32:21

Allens or even being familiar with Dan Wallace is the same as knowing what? Presentation I'm gonna make

32:27

I don't assume that just because someone's a liberal means I can just read general liberal theology, and I'm gonna know what they're saying there are differences between the positions especially since Neither Kurt Alland or Dan Wallace are reformed in in their in their

32:45

Soteriology well Dan stands pretty close actually so I'll take that I'll take part of that back But be that as it may there are there are

32:52

Unique elements to all those things and he never once cited one of my book I mean, that's if that's the case you need to publish that in a journal

32:59

What do you mean if there are unique points in your case for the tenacity of the text that have not been published before you?

33:06

Need to get it's not a matter of they're not being published before it is a matter I have I mean the

33:11

King James only controversy has been out since 1994 actually in 1995 and I have a whole section in that and I I have presented this in numerous context before it

33:21

Isn't that this is information isn't there. It's that He was asked

33:27

Someone asked him the night beforehand. How do you prepare for debate like this? I don't prepare for a debate like this I've been doing this first for 25 30 years.

33:34

I didn't do any preparation for this that was I think he would say he did prepare for it by doing 30 years of text.

33:40

That's the point that that's the point and I I don't take that perspective

33:46

I mean, I've I'm younger than he is, but I certainly took the time to make sure that when

33:53

I'm making my presentation I'm not speaking against Eldon app or I'm not speaking against DC Parker I'm I'm talking about Bart Ehrman now.

34:02

Those guys are close. I suppose that'd be good enough, wouldn't it? I mean they're in the journals all over the place and they're in SPL and everything

34:08

But no, I want to make sure that if the debates gonna take place the debates gonna take place

34:14

Focused upon the actual man who's making the presentation and I'm going to be able to quote him as I did vociferously

34:23

He never once quoted me and I don't have any reason to believe when he says well

34:28

I'm familiar with what James would argue I don't think that means that he's ever looked at anything. I've ever read and it wasn't what

34:35

I'd like to understand is How is that? How is that a an implication on my part that I had steamrolled

34:43

Bart Ehrman? I I've really Again, go back to the vacuum Analogy or it's not a good analogy really to call it a vacuum

34:50

But the someone coming to that blog post who's not familiar with what you've said over a year of this debate and just reads that blog they're not going to know that you specifically mean that you're talking about a

35:03

Tendency among liberals not to prepare for debates that does not come across from that particular blog by itself

35:09

Okay, so if if we if we remove if every blog article has to exist unto itself and and and and I'm not writing

35:18

For people who have been reading me for a long time Then they're saying that's how it could have been read But but you've read a couple of my books and I'm not sure and you said you've heard some of the debates

35:29

You said later that it that I was I was looking for pity or something when I talked about it

35:34

Sounds a bit like an appeal to pity right just to say that the people coming up to you afterwards

35:42

Work, we're wondering We're let me see. What's the exact wording?

35:47

I think those in attendance were a little surprised at dr Ehrman's treatment of me, but I wasn't overly surprised Period actually is comma because that was what came before the preceding in the blog article where I was talking about The fact that as a liberal he didn't study my materials, but in this article

36:04

I'm reading it's a period I've got it printed out in front of me. Okay. Well, I'm just like overly surprised Okay He did not prepare for the debate which

36:11

I don't agree with he had no idea who I am which he's dispelled And did not read anything.

36:17

I've ever written. That's the only purely accurate part. Well, I I don't I don't Again, he was in a tough spot

36:23

Yeah, because I had studied his work so thoroughly right to me That sounds like he didn't have a chance in the debate

36:29

No he was in a tough spot to respond to any of my presentation because he was hearing it for the very first time and I made that I made that very clear in in my review on the dividing line and okay, so Let's let's clarify that a little bit.

36:45

He had for the very first time heard a couple portions of your debate A lot of it that deals with tenacity and stuff is in the scholarly record and he's very well aware of it

36:54

He's well aware of it, but that doesn't again realize something Two years ago.

37:00

There was a meeting in Germany of all active textual scholars

37:05

Bart Ehrman was not invited because it is understood. He's no longer working in this field the he has made it very clear that the idea of the reconstruction of the original text is no longer relevant and He's moved on to other subjects.

37:20

So were there other scholars not invited? I don't know what other scholars were not invited, but he was not now the the point of the matter is that You cannot assume that what is being done at SBL these days in any way gives almost any voice whatsoever to conservative concerns and to conservative

37:44

Bible believing Scholarship you just you just cannot assume that any law

37:49

I would never assume that not with SPL Well, exactly and yet that and that and yet that's the that's the realm in which he lives

37:56

That was what I really appreciated Joel about John Dominic Crossan But I mean, here's a guy who is as as heretical as day is long

38:04

He thinks Jesus died on a cross. He was taken down buried in a shallow grave dug up by dogs and eaten I mean, there's no afterlife.

38:10

There's no judgment as far out as you want to get He's also the nicest heretic you'll ever meet. He honestly is one of the nicest people you will ever sit down and talk to It's just it's just amazing now, here's a guy who?

38:25

Honestly when we met in debate What was that? 2005 2005 when he and I debated in Seattle He looked across that room at me like I had landed from outer space

38:38

He honestly did not have any idea that Someone like me existed the guy had spent that wasn't for some other reason.

38:48

No, no, no Honestly, listen this guy Well, no, I was wearing a normal tie that night.

38:54

Okay. I didn't even have an unusual one He had spent the entire decade of the 60s in a cell as a

39:02

Roman Catholic monk studying the Synoptic Gospels Okay, well raised as an Irish Catholic monk.

39:08

Okay. I mean he's he's not had any contact with someone like me He did not know we existed.

39:15

Yeah, and so what I appreciate about him However, it's twofold. First of all, he was clearly laboring and trying to Listen to me and understand and respond to what

39:29

I was saying not just simply defending his position He was truly intrigued that Someone who believes what

39:37

I believe could actually string more than two or three sentences together without drooling on himself I mean he just did not run into anybody like that before and so he it was a great debate because he tried to respond

39:47

To me from from where I was where I was really coming from and the second thing is I can guarantee you

39:52

That if dr. Cross and I debate again, I think we will I think he'd be willing to do that He would not do what he did last time if I offered to send him anything

40:01

He would he would contact me and want me to send him anything that I've written on that so that he could

40:06

Be fully familiar with it and that's that's a case. That's one case Yeah, probably there a bunch of others, but you got to remember in in Armin's case.

40:14

He was one of us He did his BA at Wheaton and it was out of that that he decided he couldn't believe it anymore now

40:21

I don't agree with him on that, but I'm saying I believe and I think he's demonstrated that he understands the issues

40:27

He just does not agree with them a couple things He may have he went to he graduated from Moody did not take

40:34

Greek there. He learned Greek at Wheaton It was not until Princeton That he began having any issues there at all

40:40

I have I have read misquoting Jesus orthodox corruption of Scripture stays in a text Chris's a new test when

40:45

I have his doctoral dissertation I have all of his textbooks and I do not see evidence

40:52

That in fact if what you're saying is true, then dr. Irwin is dishonest

40:57

Because his representations I have taken the time not only to listen to all of his debates, but he has courses on DVD I've taken them

41:06

I've listened to his full -length New Testament courses and When he represents what quote -unquote event evangelicals believe

41:16

He never has represented what I believe in his discussions of these issues

41:21

Give I'll give you an example when he talks about the synoptic Gospels He says that one of the main reasons even even if he could believe that the

41:30

New Testament has been accurately transmitted he still wouldn't believe it because it's full of contradictions and errors and one of those errors is the synoptic parallels on gyrus's daughter and He goes through them demonstrates how

41:45

Matthew and Mark contradict each other on gyrus's daughter. And then he says, oh by the way

41:51

Conservatives do have response to this and now I remember very clearly going. Oh cool

41:56

All right. I've discussed this with Shabir Ali in front of 2 ,500 people Biola I've been teaching through the synoptic

42:02

Gospels for almost five years now here We finally get to hear Bart Ehrman accurately representing the other side and giving his response

42:09

I really need to tune in here. You know what he presented as the the conservative Answer to gyrus's daughter.

42:15

I do not she died twice She died twice and And Mark is telling one version of she died one time and then

42:26

Matthew's telling another and I was like what? They do tend to do that, especially in classrooms.

42:32

Well, well, and that's my point. I just don't have any reason to believe that Dr.

42:40

Ehrman does spend any time listening to what conservatives are saying about a

42:47

Consistent application of a worldview and all the rest of this stuff to the issue of textual criticism

42:53

I I've not seen any evidence of it And if you can point to someone who's read more of Ehrman's publications

43:00

Or listened to more hours of him speaking than I have I will I will demur to their their authority, but I've bent over backwards

43:10

I don't think anyone can fault me for the amount of preparation. Oh, nobody would do that I don't think so But I guess so what what it what it comes down to is you're charging him with That dishonesty and the fact that he says he knows what you talk you're saying

43:22

In fact at one point in the debate, he said he used to agree with what you pay exactly 100 % exactly

43:28

Joel think about it for a moment. What is this man? Technically as a theologian, what is Bart Ehrman?

43:34

What as a theologian no, no, no you you as a theologian. What is the technical term for Bart Ehrman?

43:42

Based on his book on evil. I would say he is an apostate exactly And that's not an insult you and I both know that is a very technical term that has to use

43:51

It is an insult, but it's also an accurate description. Well, I it's an accurate description

43:57

I Think whether it's an insult depends on whether you intend it to be or not, but be that as it may here's the point

44:03

This man has used that same argument in every debate

44:09

I've heard him do and Joel. I know people who are apostates

44:14

I do you know who Jerry Maddix is absolutely. Okay, Jerry Maddix I've debated him more often than anybody else has 13 times

44:23

I think Jerry and I have gone back and forth and As you know, he's the first PCA minister to become Roman Catholic now

44:28

He's I'm considered to be an Orthodox Roman Catholic for that matter. He's a he's a study vacantus. But anyways

44:34

Here's a guy and in almost every debate, you know what he said? I used to believe exactly what he believes

44:42

Now that's not the case there were differences and When he debated

44:48

William Lane Craig, I used to believe everything William Lane Craig believes Well, wait a minute. You can't believe both those me and William Craig cuz

44:56

I ain't no Moliness. That's for sure And so what he's saying is I used to believe in the conservative biblical perspective

45:04

That doesn't mean that he had he certainly wasn't reformed in any in any way shape or form

45:11

And that doesn't mean that he had any kind of I mean honestly

45:17

How many people who graduate from Wheaton have ever spent much time at all? Seriously contemplating solo scriptura and why it's important.

45:25

I don't know. I don't know any graduates from Wheaton Well, I would say that that's a pretty unusual thing

45:31

Especially given the ecumenical spirit the proof that pervades there So yes He may say that and he may think that and he may think that so seriously that that's why he doesn't bother

45:42

Thinking that there could be anything more. He could learn about that He just doesn't care about that fine. That doesn't change the fact that I don't believe

45:49

That he does know the position If he did know the position, why couldn't he present much more of a direct critique of it?

46:00

He did a very good job responding to it from his viewpoint Well, but where is it specific it was never specific as to anything

46:07

I've ever said or that's specific to my view of the Authority of Scripture or anything along those lines

46:12

It was always just a very general thing because he doesn't believe that we should really focus upon what other people are saying and it was clear to me that from his perspective if you don't go to SPL and And meet in those small little rooms with that small cadre of people that you really don't have much to say to this particular issue

46:32

And that unfortunately if you've if you've looked at some of the reports the last SPL meeting There were a lot of people at SPL that were very offended at Ehrman's presentations there especially one where he just ripped into DC Parker and mocked him in front of everybody that people were just were just Astounded at what had taken place there.

46:51

I didn't bring that up, but that's out there It's part of the public record people people can look at it And so I wasn't bringing this stuff up just out of out of nowhere.

46:59

I understand that if someone Doesn't have any background to the debate that they might misunderstand a lot of the things that I'm saying

47:05

But I think I've tried to provide that at least to the people who follow this program and who had been praying for the debate and and supporting the the debate and I think that when people

47:18

Get the debate if they have any background at all if they've read misquoting Jesus if they if they do some some background stuff

47:25

They'll know why the the questions were there and and and why I was going for the direction I was going was there anything else you wanted to add to that because I didn't want to keep you all day

47:33

I'm fine I'm surprised. That's all you wanted to ask you about That's my position.

47:39

I'm still not persuaded that that he was as Ignorant of the facts as you think he is and his answers within the debate to those questions were fairly straightforward

47:50

He didn't stutter. He didn't say I've never heard that before. He didn't it wasn't at a loss for words at answering it

47:55

I I never suggested that he was I'm not saying you did but I'm saying that his responses to you in the debate

48:02

Disavow what you said in that blog post about him, and I just think that I Mean, come on give the guy some credit for what he what he said

48:10

Well, I again if you can show me if you can give me some give me some information that demonstrates to me

48:17

That he did any kind of preparation to specifically respond to me then and then

48:22

I would gladly retract that now See, that's that's not the point. We didn't come to the debate to hear What Bart Ehrman thinks about everything

48:30

James White has written it was debate over a resolution Does the Bible misquote Jesus the things he had to respond to are the things you bring into evidence and that he brings in evidence?

48:39

Within the debate right? Yes. I understand. There's going to be a lot appended on to that just logically and as antecedents, but But what was said in the debate

48:51

I figure he I think he responded to accurately and I don't I don't think that warrants the kind of Assessment you gave at the end of it.

49:00

Well, what do you think was my assessment? Well, I mean keep in mind again the blog post.

49:05

It's one paragraph It's posted at 1130, which is probably before you went to bed that night. Mm -hmm, and it's one paragraph.

49:12

It's titled a brief report Is that right? Yep a brief report a quick report.

49:18

Okay, just a quick note for everyone. Thanks for the prayers Everything went smoothly as far as the debate went was concerned and then you go into the part about him not preparing

49:27

Okay, that doesn't conjure up anything about what was said before as far as I know That's your report on what was said at the debate that night and to me

49:35

What was said at the debate that night does not comport at all with what you wrote So because I didn't write a full response and Go through everything that that somehow is the basis for saying that that I have misrepresented him

49:51

No, I'm not complaining about what you didn't write. I'm I'm complaining about what you did, right? Okay, which was

49:57

Kind of beside the facts as it demonstrated in the debate and just a little demeaning of him now

50:03

Maybe he demeans other scholars all over the world all the time, but that's not relevant to this debate

50:08

Okay, so here's here's the line that I that I wrote I think those in attendance were a little surprised dr Ehrman's treatment of me, but I wasn't overly surprised

50:14

He did not prepare for the debate had no idea who I am and did not read anything I've ever written hence He was in a tough spot given that I'd say his work so thoroughly as a result

50:22

He made horrific blunders and misrepresenting me in his rebuttal Okay, so I did not see him in a tough spot and I did not hear him make horrific blunders

50:31

Maybe a few things here and there but what were the horrific blunders? Okay, so did did you his entire cross -examination period?

50:38

I had to attempt to explain of the relevance of comparing the

50:43

Byzantine manuscript tradition with the Alexandrian manuscript tradition He did not understand that when

50:49

I talked about 95 percent Agreement, I was talking about total words not variations

50:54

He defaulted back to what's found in his own Doctoral dissertation and in studies and textual criticisms of the

51:00

New Testament where he's talking about that. Let me let me answer that real quick Let me keep in mind

51:06

I'm not defending this guy and his position I have no vested interest in defending him But I'm in this now, so I'm going to try to answer what

51:14

I can't He was he was trying to bring you back in that cross -examination from a talk about established text

51:22

To see how does how is that relevant to what might have happened in 70 AD? Copying manuscripts.

51:28

He wasn't disavowing your point about those things. He was just asking you How is that relevant to the original to the copy?

51:35

I'm sorry Joel, but that's not what I was just talking about When you asked me, where did he blunder in in in?

51:42

misrepresenting what I was saying and I just pointed out that he could not understand the difference between a collation of manuscripts and variant readings and a comparison of printed texts and Saying what he didn't understand because in cross -examination

51:58

He he clarified that with you and then told you the difference between a collation and of course, you probably already knew it

52:05

But he was establishing what the difference was actually We're talking about two different points here.

52:12

He did not understand why I presented what I was presented he did not understand the the number of differences between the

52:20

Byzantine and the Alexandrian text and in found the Westcott Hortex and the majority text He didn't understand why

52:26

I was presenting that his entire question was based upon. Well, wait a minute 70 % variant agreement would put them in the same family.

52:33

So it he did not understand the whole point. I had to explain it to him Okay, well, that's fair enough.

52:38

And of course I asked you the question, so I'll let you finish it. Yeah, so well That so that was that was just one example and that's all

52:46

I was referring to in A quick report is that I said as a result

52:52

He made horrific blunders and misrepresenting me in his rebuttal in any case For example, he said I had said 200 and I had said 120 things like that in any case

53:00

His radical skepticism was clearly documented and those in attendance found very useful Lord willing I'll be able to get some pictures, etc.

53:05

Etc. His radical skepticism was clearly documented. He made it very clear We don't know what anybody back then said we can't we can't know what

53:13

Setonia said We can't know what tacitus said and I think it is right there that you can contrast him with those who have come before him

53:21

That's not what Metzger said. That's not how Metzger came. It came down. It's not what Tischendorf said It's not what any of these folks said

53:27

And it is that I'd be careful in how I presented that because there were a couple times in the debate You said that that means we have to throw out everything we know about history and that's that's a straw man when you're talking about Learning from manuscripts.

53:41

Yes Teutonius comes along much later and he is right to say as an historical scholar that we cannot know what the original

53:49

Manuscript of Teutonius said compared to this one, but that does not mean we throw out all historical knowledge

53:55

We still have the manuscript that we have and the same is true of New Testament manuscripts, although they go back much further

54:02

So I mean it does we don't have to throw out everything we know about history That's the difference between a skeptical position and a radical skeptical position

54:10

And I think you're placing the later appellative on to Erman and I don't necessarily think it applies

54:15

I think that when you say we cannot know what the New Testament originally said we cannot know what

54:22

Suetonius said you can make an argument when you've got a 900 year gap between the original and something else if You can explain the the existence of the manuscript tradition as it comes up if there's a reason to believe it's been changed

54:35

That's one thing but it is radical skepticism to assume Alteration when you have no evidence of alteration

54:42

Yeah, I think that was his biggest mistake in the debate was there were two times When he carried to that conclusion, he didn't use it in his opening statement

54:50

And if he would have stuck with that, he would have been on much more solid ground But when you carry the example from saying we don't have the evidence to saying therefore it doesn't exist

54:59

Is the logical fallacy and that's what I called him out on in the in my article

55:05

But you know But I think you make the same mistake if you say we don't have the evidence and therefore it is trustworthy again given the nature of the

55:16

New Testament manuscript tradition when it appears in history and the fact that it comes in multiple streams the onus is upon the skeptic to provide evidence of corruption of those multiple streams

55:30

So if they produce the same text that has been I have a I have a problem with that The onus is on the person making the original statement

55:39

That nothing happened previously To prove that no well, then we're having the same debate now that we had with with bart ehrman because I say to you if you have a manuscript tradition that appears in history from multiple sources

55:54

In multiple places at multiple times that gives the same text Then to assert that that text actually does not represent the original requires some kind of reasoned

56:05

Argumentation as to how you could possibly imagine to produce such a manuscript tradition when it appears in history

56:12

Well that involves a few assumptions. I mean the first one is that They do come from multiple lines.

56:18

Yes, but those multiple lines go back to what? Ultimately, they join it at an original copy somewhere

56:24

Yeah, that that's where he's decided. We don't need to go there anymore But yes, they they go to original copies before that Before what the original?

56:33

Yeah. Well, no, not necessarily. You can't say that the original Is what you know, it went in two different directions

56:40

It may be a copy somewhere up the line that stemmed off in those two directions You don't know that and so you can't claim it as an historical fact again

56:51

The history hasn't functioned that way Uh when you have multiple copies of one document from all over different geographical areas at different times

57:00

They were written by different authors in different places And the copies when they appear in history are all saying the same thing the onus is upon the person to say yeah

57:09

But we can't know what the original was even though it's somehow in some amazing way

57:14

Produced this amazingly consistent manuscript tradition That's that's the kind of skepticism that I think is a is a post -modernist type of skepticism

57:22

That was not a part of uh, of really academic study these issues for a long time

57:28

Okay, so it's not part of the historical Tradition, which of course grew out of a christian tradition

57:35

But I still it does not give you certainty it gets you a high probability It gives you a higher probability than if you only had a few manuscripts

57:45

But it does not establish historical certainty Okay, and we we believe you you believe

57:51

I believe the chicago statement believes that it's in god's providence That the original inerrant text is still preserved.

57:58

I we believe in tenacity. You cannot prove it from historical evidence Okay. All right.

58:04

Well, we've uh, believe not taken up the entire hour and I appreciate your uh, You're uh being with us.

58:09

Unfortunately, that doesn't sound like the right bumper music there, uh rich but Joel mcdermott, thank you very much folks can get hold of you through uh, american vision is your is your email on the website or Yeah, joel at americanvision .org.

58:21

Okay, folks can hold you there. Thank you very much for being on. Uh, it's been a scintillating conversation. Thanks a lot Thanks, jay.

58:27

All right. God bless. Bye -bye All right. Thank you for listening today. There we go. We skipped the we skipped the break rich.

58:32

That's why Blame the computer why not? All right.

58:38

Well, I would like to uh I've got a bunch of clips from catholic answers live. We need to get to eventually and But I still want to get back and it's really loud.

58:47

I can't even hear myself. I I still want to get back to Talk about the tr issues.

58:54

I've seen a lot of folks commenting on tr issues We'll try to get back to that in the next dividing line We'll see lord willing.

59:00

See you on thursday. God bless The dividing line has been brought to you by alpha and omega ministries

01:00:03

If you'd like to contact us call us at 602 -973 -4602 or write us at p .o

01:00:08

Box 3 7 1 0 6 phoenix, arizona 8 5 0 6 9 You can also find us on the worldwide web at aomin .org.

01:00:15

That's a o m i n dot o r g Or you'll find a complete listing of james white's books tapes debates and tracks