Infidel Guy/Bart Ehrman Program

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

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

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 if you'd like to talk with dr.

White call now at 602 973 460 to or toll -free across the

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

James white And good afternoon t -minus less than two weeks two weeks from today.

We will be pulling out Probably already be at sea. In fact, let's see 601.

Yeah. Well, you should probably be at sea probably about five the day after the debate and And so that means

Wow We are in debate mode, let me tell you that much we are very focused

I I most of what I'm thinking about these days is textual variants and Chorus versus karate at Hebrews 2 9 and all the rest of some fact right after programs over They're gonna have to give me time because I have to realize

I can't do the program in here I'm gonna have to go into the other room to do the program with apologetics calm

Sort of pregame show is how they want it to work for the Bart Ehrman debate. So we're gonna be talking about Bart Ehrman's claims and how we can understand them and respond to them, etc, etc, etc

But I'll be right after the program If those guys are listening then you need to give me a second because I I fired up Skype and then

I realized wait a minute this isn't my Mac, so That ain't gonna do me any good actually, and So I'm gonna go ahead and sign out of that thing

Except me need to make sure I'm potted down here because it this thing makes noises when I when I do that.

So anyway Today on the program. We're gonna continue listening to Bart Ehrman with the infidel guy those of you who are wondering

I Do not have Any responses from Tim Staples, I sent the email in I Don't have his personal email anymore.

I've had a number of different emails, but I'm assuming that since he went to Catholic answers those are defunct we have not corresponded personally in a number of years and so I Didn't get any response.

So who knows? What can I say? I tried but What? Sure, that's fine

Since Since I Let me just secretly here

I haven't a clue This is this is how really super high -level professional

Broadcast people communicate with each other now rush just simply says people's names and talks to them and then goes.

Mm -hmm Mm -hmm But we we're not we don't want to just look like, you know, we're imitating someone like that I'm just trying to decide right right now whether I'm going to jump into the topic for the day

But I'm waiting for someone to finish typing a letter to me. In fact, it looks like it's gonna be a book a very lengthy book

Okay Okay, so anyway, I think we'll go ahead and clear the board first and then get into our topic

Which is not on the same subject, but we'll take a shot at anyways. Let's talk to Joe. Hi, Joe Yes, sir.

Can you hear me? Dr. White? Yes, I can Dr. White number one. I love you.

I am a awesome fan. You're an awesome man I'm a fan of yours and I just wanted to talk to you a few seconds about Calvinism I am going to go

Lord willing on to dr. Michael Brown's show tonight because he's got in the line of fire I'm sure you know, dr.

Michael Brown, correct? Yeah, I moderated the debate between himself and a Jewish rabbi rabbi

Shochet at Arizona State University in 1995 wonderful to further along the debate of Calvinism because I am a student in seminary not a doctor and for some reason

I'm not getting a lot of respect in this genre I'm wondering he hasn't answered me

I'm just going on the show with them like I'm going on with you Kind of putting it out there if I can get him to dialogue with you

About the subject of Calvinism, would you be up for it? Well, yes,

I mean obviously this particular point in time with the debate in two weeks and then solo feed a conference right after that and I'm hoping to have

I had hoped to have announcement even today maybe on the blog tomorrow or at least next week about a major debate in April that will be a first you know,

I You know if it's useful to people great. I mean, there's there's not too many arguments on that particular subject.

We haven't gone over before And I know that Dr. Brown if we're thinking of the same person,

I'm assuming that you're referring to the gentleman who's a former he's a he's a converted

Jew and As an expert in Old Testament material and was involved with the

Brownsville revival a number of years ago. Yes, sir. Okay Yeah, I know that he's would not be considered reformed and so we would have

I think an interesting conversation so sure, but in you know if What in this particular area what has to from my perspective what needs to be there is

That the people of God are going to be edified by it There's going to be something that is meaningful to be, you know to be presented generally when

I try to play like the John 316 stuff There's a reason why I'm doing that. These are these are common

Accusations, these are people are in leadership positions. I Don't know that. Dr. Brown has written in him the subject has he?

Not that I'm aware of either but I've never heard you debate I've listened I think all of your debates with Non -Calvinist,

I've never really seen you encounter someone that is as qualified as Sam I don't think that doc

I mean a David Hunt or the guy from Calvary Chapel or the last guy you did a radio debate with for three days is

Anywhere on your level of learning and understanding or on dr. Brown? So I was wondering have you ever discussed the subject publicly with somebody with the doctorate expert in languages as well

Like yourself like you're Greek. He's Hebrew, you know, have you ever gone to that extent, you know? Well, see the main reason that I would have to say no not really.

I mean, obviously Norman Geisler Would go there, but he doesn't want to most of those who defend that kind of a perspective

Either are not into doing that kind of debate or dialogue They'll say that they won't debate

Christians or things like that. It's what Norman Geisler says Or the majority of those who would literally identify themselves as our minions

They actually recognize what their own theological perspective is and wouldn't try to come up with a name like a moderate

Calvinist or something they Really hold their position for philosophical reasons not for biblical reasons

And so one of the reasons there isn't a whole lot of discussion there is because there's there's not a whole lot of common ground because many of them have very low views of scripture, unfortunately, and so Certainly the debates on open theism and inclusivism with dr.

Sanders He calls himself a an Armenian. So we certainly haven't

Shirked those who have expertise in those areas, but I think people saw at that point That there's just a real fundamental difference in the view of scripture that exists between the two sides at that point

So yeah, if dr. Brown would be be interested in in, you know Especially doing something exegetical, you know, that would that would be fine.

Sure. I Appreciate that because just to further this a few more moments. I know you want to get to Bart Ehrman I can't wait for that debate with you and him

But just just to kind of go on that that's really where I feel it's missing For example, like with your

YouTube account I Responded to you with a couple small videos got maybe a few hundred hits.

I'm going to do a little minor debate So I'm kind of working up the minor leagues maybe up to you one day. Maybe you can let me come on a show

I'm in seminary at AGPS Somebody's got the watch the seminary and what I think's kind of missing is the people that are challenging you are not qualified now

Like you said they probably maybe don't want to the ones that are qualified don't want to and that's kind of frustrating for me

Like a Norman Geisler doesn't but he could and then my professors don't you know, they're not into it

And so I don't think you know, it's giving the right perspective When you're it's not your fault, but we don't think the way these guys think like I'm not

David on I'm not a Calvary Chapel guy. I was listening to your response to William Blaine Craig and him trying to be politically correct with atheists

See, we're not like that when I say we like like an assembly of God spirit -filled Pentecostal believer brother

We are 100 % with the judgment the condemnation of God upon sinners the wrath of God Jonathan Edwards is probably most

Pentecostals heroes, you know, we look up to him John Wesley and Whitfield You know all the way back down to the church fathers, etc

Like Augustine we would all find good in him, but I just don't see you, you know Dialoguing with them and he's an expert also in church history, you know, and I just don't feel anybody bringing these people up I've never heard anybody debates and you can correct me if I'm wrong who has even brought up You know the fathers the patristic fathers

No, no, actually Yeah Steve Gregg is

Big into trying to argue from from church history, which I of course, you know From my perspective.

It's like well that doesn't surprise me at all I mean if Paul had to deal with people who were

Removing the the sovereignty of God's grace and salvation during the apostolic period. I'm hardly hardly shocked whatsoever that People especially would not even have the full canon of the of the

New Testament in the apostolic period or something like that would be far more influenced by Greek philosophy than they are by the

New Testament, but As far as as dealing with the exegetical material dealing with the

New Testament text we We have certainly offered all sorts of people with doctorates the opportunity of engaging the subject you know the canners we know what happened with that and There have been they've they've just all turned those things down Dave Hunt turns those things down so you know if if somebody come up, that'd be fine, but You know, it's

I'm not running around trying to find every non -reform person and force them into a debate So, you know when they write on the subject or they're addressing the subject they have a certain audience.

Okay But if you know, I know that that he obviously has a certain following and that would be useful along those lines

Thank you Quick questions. I'm sorry Justin Martyr Clement of Alexander's you're saying those guys weren't informed

Fathers, they wouldn't be Wow. Well, there's there's two to a very very different Justin Martyr Shows very little knowledge of Paul is far more influenced by Plato than he is by the

New Testament and Clement of Alexandria's So far off on the right hands on the left hand side of things

I mean very same stream as origin in Alexandrian theology, and I would not look to either one of them as overly

Helpful sources, especially in the area of soteriology at all. No, okay And then number two, how come on your

YouTube account? You don't put up comments because I'm getting drilled by Calvinist and I'm sure a lot of non Calvinists would like to comment on your

YouTube pages How come you don't allow us to comment and people to put responding videos on this because I'm not into the construction of internet ignorance aggregators, which is what a comment box is ninety nine point nine eight percent of all comments are idiotic and They are they're they're they they are from people who have absolutely no no earthly idea what in the world they're talking about so Half the time atheists use them to to post profanity and things like that.

There's just no reason to do it So I I make myself available for two hours toll -free and so far

Not a single one of those folks has had the guts to pick up a phone and face me directly So why in the world should

I give them free, you know? They can every one of them can start their own their own account if they want and you know, so anyways, all right

Yes, you're still my brother I would love to you know discuss some of the issues that would separate us, but That's that's not the that's not the point.

So okay. We appreciate you. All right. Thank you. God bless And always worries me and folks that just just real briefly that normally means we're gonna be 15 minutes into the program

But let me get done. That's that's how it works. All right, anyway you know,

I don't I've never seen actually the Video or because I know it was videotaped.

They've even heard the audio of the debate between Michael Brown and Rabbi Shochet. I remember his name was

Shochet. I Moderated that at Arizona State University in 1995 and I've actually mentioned it a few times

Because I I wrote on my notepad as I listened to Shochet speaking the

Pharisees live The Pharisees live that I mean it was like I was listening to the very people quoted in in the gospel accounts 2 ,000 years later.

It was it was fascinating. Anyway, let's press on I began on the last program to play the audio of an encounter between the infidel guy

What's his name Reggie Finley? Is that what it is? Anyway and Bart Ehrman and what we've heard so far is the infidel guy who

Wants to believe whatever Ehrman has to say as long as it's post -christianity We've been hearing oh, oh

The things that Ehrman says, but hopefully we'll get far enough today to find out That all of a sudden they started having disagreements.

So let's let's continue listening. Okay? I'm trying to think of argument around that because I'm trying to think well they could say well

Yeah, but we still have the word today So obviously the word was preserved in some way, but I guess that fails because we still have these multitudinous copies

Well, the problem is some of it, you know Will probably go into more depth in a little bit

There are there are thousands and thousands of differences in these Manuscripts and some some most of these differences don't matter for anything

I mean, they're absolutely unimportant, but there are some changes some differences that really do matter

They affect how you interpret it an entire passage of the Bible now I've won the questions that may come up in our encounter in two weeks

Would be dr Why do you always emphasize how many textual variants there are when you then follow up that?

Well, of course vast majority of them don't mean anything but you never really give the proportions you never really tell people what we're talking about here and When you actually go through this and I'm going to have to present the most

Packed 30 -minute opening statement ever known to man to get to all of this But when you actually go through the kinds of variants in the

New Testament movable news and spelling variations and word order variations and you divide them out into the nonsense irrelevant type the meaningful type that Impact the meaning and then divide the meaningful type into those that are viable that is there's sufficient manuscript evidence to substantiate them that they have some chance of being original and Those that are non -viable there isn't enough

When you actually break it down that way we're talking about less than 1 % of the

New Testament text and When you he just loves just to say well, there's four hundred thousand variants

That's that's almost three variants per word in the New Testament That gives to the students the impression that there's three different ways of reading every single word in New Testament, and that's not true

I'll be putting up some graphics of entire texts in the New Testament where there simply isn't any meaningful variation in the manuscripts

But that's not what people would hear when they listen to Bart Ehrman Now he remains technically correct, but it's the it's the context in which you put technically correct statements.

Don't haven't we all learned enough From listening to politicians today to know that you can you know say factual things

But it's the context you place them in that makes all the difference. That's one of the biggest problems. I have and Clearly the infidel guy has no clue

About the subject of the background of the text New Testament He has no idea what the manuscripts actually read the nature of variation

He wants to believe the worst possible case scenario And as long as what

Ehrman says is good enough for that then he'll or even an entire book of the Bible Depending on what which word you think were the original words

This is one of Bart's big things is look there are places where the entire meaning of a book of the

Bible Depends on which manuscripts are read. I'm gonna be asking give me an example And if he goes to Hebrews 2

I'm gonna be ready if he goes to Mark 1 I'm gonna be ready. I know Every example he's used in his writings.

I've read all of it now. I've got all this stuff I've got sitting here right next to me all you need to have is misquoting

Jesus the orthodox corruption of Scripture and His Brill a compilation of scholarly articles. They all repeat the same stuff sometimes word for word over and over and over and over and over again

It's the same stuff. It's not a wide. It's not a wide ranging amount of material And I can't think of a single place

Where the theology of an entire book of Scripture is is dependent upon one of the textual variants that he cites

I can't And I know a couple that he's suggested and I find the argument to be just extremely

Contradictory and we'll be getting into that in the debate and that depends on which manuscripts you want to trust

So it actually matters a lot What what the differences in these manuscripts are so it's not it's not really right to say that we have

You know that we basically have the word well Yeah, we do have the word, but it would depend which manuscripts you read which we have that doesn't make a point

I remember when I first stumbled upon I mean for most scholars This is a moot issue here, but I remember when

I first stumbled upon Unicorns being mentioned in the Bible and of course people know Scholars can't come up in this say things like oh well

You know this they're still trying to debate what animal that really might be it might be a wild oxen or a rhinoceros It's just ream is okay

But why the unicorn then in the 1611 King James Version of the Bible that immediately now at this point airmen would have to Try to explain to this gentleman

What in the world is going on here the difference between manuscripts and Translations and and and try to help this very ignorant man out

But is he going to do that? Let's let you think should raise some eyebrows and people should look want to look deeper and say well

Wait a minute. What does this word really mean and does this change the whole meaning of? of some of these things and that's what

I kept finding out that the more I dug and the more the more I began to realize that people were changing things somebody was and The topic of the showing who is doing this stuff who?

Who was trying to hide the contradictions? Who was trying to make it make more sense and more relevant to our modern society obviously

I think in doing this Bart I think they're kind of conceding that maybe the Bible as it was isn't relevant to today

That's why they have to change it so much What Did any of that make any sense whatsoever?

I cannot I cannot discern The slightest bit of logical argumentation with what was just said and I don't think airmen can either

So what you do in a situation like that is you sort of try to find something that was said and run with it in Essence changing the the words they copied

Most of the changes actually were just made by accident. I mean they they were because the nose he's not addressing what the guy just said he's just moved back to what he was he's there to talk about and Whether this the infidel guy has any clue as to where he's gone

Why he's gone there or what he's saying doesn't really popping something and they'd be sleepy or they wouldn't be paying attention

And they'd you know they'd leave out a word or they would misspell a word or they you know They would do something just an accident, but there were places where scribes copying the text

I mean it looks like they intentionally changed what they were what they were writing Inspired by God of course though to change

People have argued of course is the King James Version itself is the inspired version But that means that most people throughout history haven't had the inspired version

Well that may be true, but that's not what he was just talking about. I mean talk about perpetuating category errors

How many people are totally confused about the difference between? Translations and the transmission of the text of the

Bible the vast majority of people are Unless you listen this program once while we talk about things like that but for a lot of folks are gonna be going oh, so like the

King James is a manuscript and and how you translate the King James has something to do with scribes and scribes changing things and and You know you have it with the

King James, but what about everybody else But I think most people can see

I mean most intelligent evangelical Christians Don't think you know that one particular version is the inspired version they they think that the the

Inspired version was the original version And that's the reason for trying to figure out what the original was so you can see what the original words were

Right and of course we have no such thing so So so just as you for me.

We also often hear that hear the term the Bible. How do you view that? That's not entirely correct is it it's not just one book

In fact when you were earlier describing your understanding of what the message was

I I Don't think that there's one message in the Bible Okay I think there are lots of different authors who have lots of different points of view and It's important to let each author

Say what he wants to say rather than assume that that for example the gospel of Mark has the same point of view as the gospel

Of John well those were written by two different people who didn't know each other and if you read each one carefully in fact

It looks like they have a very different perspective And so I think it's very important to know what each different author had to say

And in fact I think I believe you brought that up in your presentation that it's pretty obvious to people who've studied the writing styles that in reading some of the scriptures you can tell when an another author has added something because the writing style completely changes and Sometimes the writer's thoughts is just or the the the direction of the book is going like for instance for position all of a sudden

You'll see this addition and all of a sudden the author's like against it or something is you can tell someone is

That no wait a minute that just wait one minute Is this is this gentleman actually suggesting that he has the capacity to?

Engage the text on the level of being able to detect Stylistic difference I know there are people who make these arguments say and these arguments are are very very often

Extremely unreliable, let's put it that way just this last Sunday at the church I was going over the authorship of the pastoral epistles defending

Pauline authorship and and pointed out the type of Arguments are used even airmen uses against the pastoral and how you can take those arguments and turn them upside down argue against Romans being

Pauline Anybody who basically is termed as things on the basis of statistics and Well you know look at these word groupings here that type of stuff is just not overly reliable It may have some interest may have some validity here there everywhere

But it is generally an unreliable But that normally requires you to actually be reading it in the original language

And I don't get the feeling that the infidel guy reads Greek So so for him you know

I was just reading along You know just my unbiased morally neutral self, and I detected a change in authorship here

Come on. It's really hard to show that with people who are just reading it in the English Yeah, you read the text in the original

Greek or in the for the Hebrew Bible for in the original Hebrew There are within a single book.

There'll be different writing styles I mean it's kind of like if somebody took a book by Mark Twain and inserted a

Couple pages that TS Eliot had written right you know be pretty obvious And you get that kind of thing where it looks like pretty clearly that that there are different authors for For some of these passages in the

Bible hmm But again of course the those apologists for simply say that well

Yeah, well God inspired that person to put that in there, and they just yeah. Yeah, it just goes oil Yeah, that's that's what apologists say right when you when you hear folks

Presenting what apologists say, and I don't know if a single apologist in the world has said that and reflects just a little bit on Where that person's going on and on and on Now one of your critics

Lee Strobel, and I've written this down here excuse me He said this basically misquoting misquoting

Jesus is overblown one -sided and terribly misleading He said that none of you.

I would I would agree with that and I think if you will listen to the warden of the

Tyndale house at Cambridge on Justin Briarley's unbelievable radio program with Bart Ehrman From January 3rd, which is available at premier radio dot org dot

UK I think I'm doing this totally off top my head But just just google Justin Briarley and the unbelievable radio program and you can get it there

He basically said the same thing It is it is very rare that Dr.

Ehrman is wrong with his facts It is what he does with him. It is the rhetoric. It is the spin.

It is the context it is the length to which he goes and the imbalance of the treatment of the facts and If you want someone

Who's quite scholarly to say that then you can listen to that debate and you'll you'll hear exactly that textual problems

Affect the major any major doctrines of Christianity at all. What do you think? Really sure what he's objecting to Okay, that's catch that.

He didn't he wasn't expecting that Because Ehrman plays this game worries where he'll on the one side in the debate in London the radio debate in London last week

He'll say well Yeah, no, I don't really think that any major Christian doctrine is is determined by a particular text of variant

But there are textual variants that are relevant to major Christian doctrines. Well, that's true There's no question about that,

I mean if there's a textual variant That that that impacts whether in Acts 2028 whether God or Lord is used in Acts 2028

Yeah, that that's relevant as to whether it will be relevant to that particular doctor No, no kidding

But what if you just listen to his presentations where he doesn't have anyone, you know there to hold him in check

Where he's not talking to other biblical scholars that part doesn't come through and It's amazing to me.

All you got to do. It's it's found in all of his books every single one of his books articles He's gonna do it here One of his favorite things to say well

There are they are relevant doctrines because the only explicit statement concerning the Trinity in the Bible is first John 5 7 and the first time

I heard him mentioned the comma Johannium as If this was somehow relevant

This is somehow a revelation To people that the the comma Johannium first John 5 7 is not a part of the

Greek manuscript tradition Shocking really is that is that so amazing?

I had no idea. No, this is such basic stuff And it amazes me that he would actually make the argument that That there is, you know some type of of you know in importance to the comma

Johannium as if Christians have always depend upon the comma Johannium to defend the doctrine of Trinity. No, we haven't

I Wrote an entire book on the doctrine of the Trinity and I never had to defend the doctrine the basis of the comma

Johannium It just it's it's very frustrating on on that level to listen this kind of stuff

There are some passages that are pretty important I mean the only there's only one passage in the entire

Bible that explicitly teaches the doctrine of the Trinity Okay, in other words that there are that God is made up of three persons and those three are one

That that verse is found in the King James Bible in first John chapter 5 verses 7 and 8

But as scholars have known for centuries That verse actually wasn't in the original text of the

New Testament It was added much much later centuries later by people who believed in the

Trinity Denied the Trinity I'm not saying that I'm just saying what

I am saying is that the only verse that explicitly affirms it Wasn't originally there now again

How does how does Bart Ehrman know who? Quote unquote added it

How does he know where it came from? the vast majority of scholars I know think that it was a gloss an interpretation of Of the text in first John that was written in the the column of a manuscript

So when he says it was added in there here is perpetuating this idea that there's you know

These people who can control the text the Bible. No, it's found in Latin manuscripts and Eventually, it comes into the late late late

Greek manuscript tradition probably after the time of Erasmus After the time of the invention of printing through the

Latin But what does it mean to say it was added and then and then to hear the interview?

Oh I'm sorry, but but I mean, this is this is Bible 101

This is as basic as it gets as far as talking about textual critical issues Just amazing.

That's that's important. That seems important. I mean, yeah, I'm not sure what he means. I mean So, yeah, that seems important to me,

I don't know Wow But let's talk more about these older manuscripts because I found that something very very engaging when

I listen to want to watch the video because you kept talking about these comparisons that a lot of people don't know but We actually do have

Access to some of the older versions of what we read today and that they are way different in many cases some very very close

But many are way different. Yeah. Well, that's that's right. I mean, that's the kind of information

I point out in my book I'm misquoting Jesus and now way different what?

Is dr. Ehrman not able to detect where this guy is coming from and what he would think way different means

What what is way different me? that does way different mean the difference between the

Right hand side of the of the manuscript spectrum the most Byzantine the Byzantine manuscripts and say the left -hand side

I'm not sure exactly how to find that because I would actually see Alexandria more in the middle and Western, you know, there's there's a mixture of things here

But let's let's go ahead and pick on the Alexandrians just for the day the most left -hand side the you know, p60 p75 or Vatican or something like that is

What is the infidel guy think he thinks then the in the Alexandria manuscripts you have one

Jesus and One gospel and one teaching is a little bit like a King James guy King James only guy at that point

And then the Byzantine manuscript you have a completely different Jesus completely different stories Complete difference between the two and that's not what airmen saying in any way shape or form read his book and If you know the field

Well enough then you will be able to see What airmen is saying but the point is?

most people don't know it well enough and so they misinterpret what he's saying and Blow it way out of proportion and he just doesn't try hard enough to keep that from happening

It's what makes me kind of wonder when someone like least herbal objects I mean, I haven't heard anybody object to any of the facts that I point out in the book

Right, which strikes me as a rather odd way to to attack a book And why is that because I've said over and over again, dr.

Ehrman tries to be very careful about what the facts are but if there if if I say to you as As he says over and over again

There are 400 ,000 variants in the New Testament more variants in our words in the New Testament and I go on from there and I don't say however 99 % of them are irrelevant and we need to differentiate between variants that are meaningful and viable and that are meaningful but not viable and and so on's are just all the variants are not viable and when you talk about movable news and how the majority of the differences are movable news, which is the difference between a and an in English and We need to talk about the fact we're talking about 5 ,700 manuscripts 1 .2

million pages of text and so this number of meaningful variants over 1 .2

million pages of text is very very small and Then you need to explain that now, you know, we're talking about 400 ,000 variants that there are 5 ,700 manuscripts

But since his own methodology pretty much dismisses Almost all the minuscules as being overly relevant.

He really doesn't have much to say about any manuscript past 10th century That cuts down the number of manuscripts massively and it would cut the variance down to maybe 50 ,000 instead of 400 ,000, but it doesn't say any of that.

He knows it and If I've got enough time and the Lord works a miracle to where the cross -examination period just goes very very slowly

I can ask these things and get that brought out, but it's not the book I doubt that it gets gets said in the class

And that's why I really really hope that you're praying about the debate coming up that We'll be able to get those questions answered and answered clearly

We have old manuscripts now that weren't available for example to the King James Bible translators

We have manuscripts that are centuries older than what they had These manuscripts are quite different in some ways from the man who's not available to them

But was quite different in what ways dr. Herman in what ways? well

They're different in the sense that The Byzantine manuscript tradition tends to have more conflations expansions of terms of piety

But they're actually teaching the same thing in fact dr. Herman if I took the most Byzantine manuscript most

Alexandrian manuscript if I take if I take the same Manuscript that Erasmus depended on for the creation of the

Texas Receptus of the half the half dozen that he had which was from around the 12th century if I take that manuscript and I take

Codex Vaticanus and I apply the exact same standards of Exegesis and hermeneutics to the two am

I going to come up with a different God and a different Christian message? And there's only one answer that that question no

No But that wouldn't go over well with the infidel guy as we're gonna So mind me of let's talk about the book of Mark for instance

This is considered one of the oldest books in the synoptic Gospels correct. Yeah, and I know you mentioned a little bit about this in your video, or just as your presentation

But I'm thinking right away that if if this miscopying is occurring over and over again then

Mark and Luke are probably a product and some in some instances some of John's who are just more miscopying and some embellishment probably by some of these scribes what and It must be what airmen singing what

I? Mean I can't even begin to make sense of this he doesn't understand the difference between the the autograph and scribal copying over time and what's happening in the writing of Matthew or He's just throwing stuff out here.

Just because well He's the infidel guy because those books come later. It kind of makes sense it follows that that's probably what's happening there as well

What do you think I mean I? Mean you know one of the one of the interesting bits of studying the the

New Testament is trying to understand the relationship of Matthew Mark and Luke this is the three Gospels are called the synoptic

Gospels and in some ways Luke is a copyist of Mark because Luke was writing later

And he apparently had Mark as one of his sources available to him right and there are places where he changes what

Mark has to say right and Sometimes those changes are quite significant

And the one way that people study the the Gospels Luke is by seeing how he's changed mark because if you see how he's

Changed what Mark had to say then you get an idea of what what Luke was trying to emphasize Scribes are doing something kind of similar.

They also were copying the text and and Changing it in places, so there's a massive difference between scribal activity and theories about literary dependence between the synoptic

Gospels now I Every time I hear Ahriman just simply you know just throw out the well

You know Matthew Mark is sitting there, and Matthew and Luke are sitting there They've got mark and and Matthew goes at it's not like the way mark said this

I'm gonna change it Wait a minute in in all of Ahriman's presentations.

He never takes into consideration He always has the writers as individuals.

They're never in a community Never in a community there are never any eyewitnesses. There's nobody ever moves around.

It's just one person his ideas That's his phone game thing. You know where well one person tells another person about Jesus that person diverts

They go someplace else tell somebody about Jesus, and it's just this one line of transmission Oral stories getting changed over time idea.

There's never any idea that these people ever got together Even though the most primitive documents show the

Christian community as the ones possessing these

Teachings as the eyewitnesses in the Christian community So so if Luke does have mark and Luke does say he's using other sources.

He's he's Dug into these sayings and he's he's studied these sayings and other people have written up a compilation so on so forth

But if Luke is just sitting there with mark doesn't Luke know that Mark's work is already a part of the community and that people know what it says and so if Luke is changing things in Mark Doesn't Luke know that other people are gonna see that too.

There's there's this really deep modern Arrogance in a lot of modern scholarship

To where you just think that people who live back, then we're just really dumb They they just could not think like we can think we because we've got computers and gadgets and stuff like that we're just so much brighter than a him ever could be and so Luke Luke doesn't isn't smart enough to figure out that you know, if I completely contradict mark someone might recognize that and so maybe that should enter into our thinking somewhere along the lines, but Certainly not entering the thinking of the infidel guy here because that's not what he's even looking for He's just looking for anything you can use as ammunition

Hmm, so it is intriguing that so you basically you end up I guess never to go back to the early formation of these books

Um for what I've been told and correct me if I'm wrong here But many of the New Testament book these synoptic gospels came from various cities.

They came from different places and then they just were later put together later and And the titles of the gospel according to yada yada yada were ever added that's right

I mean whoever wrote the gospel according to mark didn't call it the gospel according to mark Whoever called it the gospel according to mark is telling you who in his opinion wrote the gospel

By the way, while that is repeated over and over again There is something we might want to point out. We've never found a manuscript of these books.

It doesn't have that that description And so it's a theory that says well before any of the manuscripts we had they didn't have these but we've never found any physical

Evidence of that. I think that probably needs to be kept in mind But you know, I mean, you know when

I wrote misquoting Jesus, I didn't say misquoting Jesus according to Bart Ehrman I mean that wasn't the title, right?

Someone else might tell you that this is a book by Bart Ehrman But it's not what I would put in the title and that's the same with the gospel.

These are these are added later and You know, we don't know actually who wrote these books.

They probably were written in different cities they probably were not written by follow by the

Any of the twelve disciples of Jesus because the twelve disciples all spoke Aramaic and were uneducated peasants from Galilee Yeah, there we go with the

I Mean if you if you're a peasant from Galilee, you were just dumber than a rock

You you wouldn't know anything about Greek You couldn't possibly even use a scribe or an amanuensis to write anything and so all you knew is

Aramaic So when that Roman soldier started yelling at you in Greek, you didn't know what to do So he just rang you through and so none of them ever lived.

Oh, never mind that It's just thrown out there just so simplistically so often

I'm sorry folks but I've been listening to stuff for months now and After a while you just start going. Oh Man enough already.

Let's get to this debate my goodness Christians who are highly educated

Critics are going to say how do you know that are uneducated? Well, because the New Testament says so I mean listen

Acts chapter 4 verse 12 For example says that that Peter and John the two two of the closest disciples were illiterate is

Literally what the Greek says they were unlearned and since they're standing before the the

The Sanhedrin, it's far more likely that what is being referred to there is that they had not received rabbinic training

So, how could these men who had no rabbinic training do this type of thing? Again you just can't allow for any other way then

Then then the airmen way of understanding the aggravator. They didn't know letters. So The New Testament itself says that the chief

Apostle Peter was illiterate and that John was and The others probably were too that the there have been studies.

I'm sure Matthew was yeah, those tax collectors They didn't they didn't ever have to write a lot of literacy in the ancient world.

The most Important one was by a guy named William Harris who teached at Columbia University Who who showed that in fact the vast majority of people in antiquity couldn't read or write?

The only people who could read or write were the upper -class elite who had a lot of money and time to Get an education and that certainly was not the fishermen of Galilee notice nothing there about Jewish people and Synagogues and and especially monotheists who are a part of a religion where the foundation of that religion is what?

Oh the Torah. Oh, yes the thing that you're supposed to read in the synagogue So this is intriguing so when the

New Testament was put together when these books were gathered I guess you just had just different groups of Christians Believing and practicing in certain, you know, believing certain portions of their in their particular book

So I guess when he put it all together something a little more political in anything Well, but we don't want to you know piss off the South Side so we'll include their books who or something because this is very strange that they

They keep all those books because mark It's not that exciting Yeah, I you know,

I think what happened is originally these different Gospels are written in different communities But they get copied and they get spread around and different communities start

Liking to use more than what one gospel and it came a point where they you know

The church leaders had to decide which ones are we're going to consider authoritative because there were other

Gospels written, too I mean gospel allegedly by Peter and one by Thomas and one by now

Judas Iscariot And yes, you know Mary Magdalene and now is he going to mention that these are all second century and beyond is

He going to point out that none of these come from a first century Jewish context like Matthew Mark and Luke do

And the fact there are none others like Matthew Mark and Luke in any of these or is just gonna throw it out there and Let the infidel guy run with it as far as the infidel guy obviously wants to run with it

Well, which ones are going to be our scriptures and so they had to make decisions It's being in which

I remember in presentation So I asked you about the 12 years of Jesus missing life and I came over the context but I thought that actually there is a non canonical gospel that covers that isn't the

Infancy gospel of Thomas or something like that. Yeah. Well, the infancy gospel Thomas doesn't cover

What what it covers is the years between Jesus being five years old and 12 years old.

It's a fantastic gospel I mean, it's it's really terrific, but it's about Jesus I mean the thing that's the question that's driving it is is if Jesus was a miracle working son of God as an adult

What would you like as a kid? All these terrific stories about Jesus and part of the interest of the account is that Jesus turns out to be a bit

Mischievous and which is an understatement, by the way. Yeah. Well, you know, what is it when his playmates get on his nerves?

He zaps them and So and when his teachers bother him, you know, he just he he killed them

He can't curse on them, oh my gosh, yeah, I think I guess we can figure why that one didn't make it to the

But wow, but but if the over but but if but if the communities accepted that well the community

Yeah, I mean it would have been fun scripture for some communities. Absolutely amazing

If you have any questions, feel free to type those questions in red in the stick cam video room as well as the

IRC room I'm switching back and forth between windows if I miss it, please just go ahead and try to type again

Again, the 800 line is not working because unfortunately, there's no line I'm moving to another room and I couldn't drag the line all the way across.

I'm waiting for someone to install it So that is why if you're wondering All right. So what are some of the

I'll let to give you an opportunity To maybe respond to some of the major criticisms that maybe you're getting about your work if you don't mind

Already you said though. They're not really challenging the content. They're actually agreeing with you Well, yeah, it's in there, but they just kind of say it's irrelevant.

So Yeah, well, you know, I actually haven't read too many criticisms Nobody's that actually criticized me to the to my face or written me an email pointing out that I've made any mistakes

The book is filled with factual information that scholars know The one objection I've seen is that people think that that some people might be misled okay, but what by what

I say and and You know if they're misled it's because they're not reading me very carefully and so I should

I should Reiterate what I said before that Most of these hundreds of thousands of differences in our manuscripts don't matter

Okay, I mean most of them just show that scribes in the ancient world camps couldn't spell any better than my students can today

I mean, they just you know, they misspell a lot of words and those are those are changes So, you know, those are that's a majority of the hundreds of thousands of differences in the manuscripts

But there are other differences that really make a big difference I mean, you know that does the

Gospel of Luke teach that Jesus death brings about an atonement for sin

Okay, depends which manuscripts you read in probably in the original text of Luke Oh, I mean, there are some manuscripts that have an atoning

Doctrine of the atonement and some that don't have the doctrine of atonement that seems to be important to me now let me just explain really quickly and We'll take time to deal with it another time, but he's talking about a single variant in the

Lord's Supper account Where either it says this is my body broken for you or whether it doesn't say for you that's the entire variant and So from Airman's perspective, this is one of my criticisms if you want some more criticisms

Airman's reading of Scripture is really bad It amazes me sometimes how he reads particular texts

If he wants a factual error, here's a factual error in His 1993 work the

Orthodox corruption of Scripture He attempts to argue that Luke is very inconsistent with himself in description of When and how

Jesus is declared to be Lord and Christ He tries to create this idea

That Luke presents all sorts of differences the way he reads the text in the process is the process is amazing to me

Truly is it just I sit there and go how did you get that out of that text? But one of the places he twice in one paragraph refers to Acts 238 as a place where Luke said that both in regards to being

Lord and Christ that it was at the crucifixion that Jesus is made

Lord. It's at the crucifixion of Jesus made Christ and he cites Acts 238 Look up Acts 238 has nothing to do with it.

It's Acts 236 and even Acts 236 doesn't have anything to do with it But he's referring to Acts 236, but twice he says

Acts 238 and this is in his scholarly work 12 years later he publishes Misquoting Jesus And guess what happens he brings those two errors over word -for -word directly into misquoting

Jesus So they are repeated in that text Evidently in 12 years hasn't revisited whether that actually is what's going on there or not

And so when we go to this text in Luke, there's all sorts of things in Luke remember

Luke is writing in a Community we know what the community believed

Luke is traveling with Paul This idea that we can take

Luke and separate him out and go well if you don't have him specifically Stating a doctrine of atonement like everybody else everybody else has to keep repeating the same basic things over and over again

Or it's not there that completely ignores the fact that he's writing to a community He's writing to Theophilus who already knows these things and so to say that that one variant of the word you

Determines whether there is or is not a doctrine atonement Luke is simply absurd but he gets away with it all the time gets away with it all the time and Yes, it's very frustrating for me to listen to his

New Testament introduction class and to know there are people listening to this and this is all they are ever going to hear and They will never give a second thought to the gospel as a result

Yeah, that's frustrating to listen to But it's even more frustrating to recognize the vast majority of believing

Christians don't have a clue how to respond to the man and as he himself keeps saying

There's nothing new in my book and on a lot of grounds. That's true. I Mean it is it is absolutely shocking to me

That so many people so many Christians know so little about the background of their

Bible and I am one person I think who can with some level of Integrity say

I've been trying to tell you so I mean I take a lot of heat for emphasizing so often the textual issues regarding the

New Testament and Not just from the James Foley folks I mean, that's just our leave that to the side.

I have often said to Christians for a long time now We need to know where the Bible came from.

You can't ignore those little notes down at the bottom of the page and I've written books on the subject and we've well, how long ago was it that I that I had?

Brother Kirshner on and we spent an entire hour on one textual variant one textual variant and A lot of people would say man.

That is not exciting Webcasting you you want to make your ministry big you can't do that kind of thing

Well, there's a reason why we do this kind of thing and now you're seeing it It amazes me.

There's so many people going why John? 753 through 811 the story of the woman caught in adultery isn't in the original in the earliest manuscripts.

Wow Wow, I didn't know mark 1690. Oh, I didn't know that I mean, these are basic things.

This is this is textual criticism 101. This is part of of introductory stuff

But in the vast majority of evangelical churches, it's not even a part of that We don't want to talk about we just want to keep people feeling good and warm and and entertain them real good

Send them out totally unarmed Into a world filled with people have been listening to Bart Ehrman Yeah, that's showing a whole lot of pastoral care for their souls, huh?

We live in an Anti -christian society if you haven't figured that out yet, and you just don't get out much

So we have got to be prepared to give an answer for these things It's just necessary.

It's got to be done and The stuff he's pointing out there's answers Now I'm not saying every person has to do what

I did. I posted a blog article yesterday digging into Ehrman's Assertion that the majority of manuscripts known to origin had chorus rather than Karate at Hebrews 2 9

I dug into it and discovered that the the Greek underlying the English translation of origins commentary and John does not

Lead us to believe that he was saying a majority of anything Okay, I'm I recognize that I do have resources a lot of people don't have at that point

But to at least understand the background of the Bible to at least understand

Where the manuscripts are coming from and have some basic knowledge of the major variants I mean the two largest variants

John 7 53 3 8 11 Mark 16 9 to 20. We just got to know those are there and Be able to give an answer for people who throw that out as if wow, this is you know,

I Really makes me wonder it shouldn't The only reason this kind of argumentation is effective is if we in the context of faith in the church have not built the proper foundations for our people and The churches that don't do that are going to be the churches that have to continue to minimize minimize minimize minimize minimize

What it is That they are saying and teaching and proclaiming is true

So if you want to continue to preach the whole counsel of God, well, there's some work we need to be doing Well, I didn't get into where The infidel guy and airmen start arguing, but we've got next week yet and then you go silence

We'll try to do some blogging or some lobbies of blogging but also some dividing lines over Skype while I'm gone

I tried I'll try to give a report if I possibly can in fact Michael Fallon said they did a

Skype broadcast from the sea and it sounded great. So we'll see if we can work out To fill you in but keep praying about the debate coming up.

See you next week on the dividing line. God bless The dividing line has been brought to you by Alpha and Omega ministries

If you'd like to contact us call us at 602 973 4602 or write us at PO box 37106

Phoenix, Arizona 85069 you can also find us on the world wide web at a omen org

That's a o m i n dot o RG where you'll find a complete listing of James White's books tapes debates and tracks