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 9 7 3 4 6 0 2 or toll-free across the United States. It's 1 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 and now with today's topic. Here is James white.

Preparing for the Bart Ehrman Debate

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 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 just realized 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 debates.

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 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.

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.

Calvinism, Arminianism, and the Authority of Scripture

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 it. 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. Calvinism. Oh Lord willing on to go tonight because he's got in the line of fire. Yeah.

I moderated the debate between himself and a Jewish rabbi rabbi Shochet at Arizona State University in.

1995 on the debate of Calvinism. Because I am a student in seminary not a doctor in this genre I'm wondering he hasn't answered me. I'm just going on the show with them like I'm going down with you. If I can get him to dial the subject of Calvinism, would you be up for it?

Well, yes, I mean.

Obviously at 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 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 anything on the subject has he?

Not that I'm aware of either, but I've drawn your level of. Have you ever discussed? 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 Arminians 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 Arminian so we certainly haven't Shirked those who have expertise in those areas, but I think people saw at that point 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.

Further this a few more moments. I know you want to get to Bart Ehrman. I can't wait for that. That's really where I feel. 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 AG 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. It's giving the right perspective. It's not your fault, but we don't think the way these guys think like I'm not David Hunt. I'm not a Calvary Chapel guy.

I was listening to your response to William Blaine Craig and him trying to be see. We're not like that when I say we like like an assembly of God Spirit-filled Pentecostal believer brother. We are 100

Edwards is probably most Pentecostals heroes. You know, we look up him John Wesley and Whitfield down to the church fathers, etc. Like Augustine we would all find good in him, but I just don't see you, you know, but also in church history.

You know, and I just don't feel anybody bringing these people up. I've never heard anybody debate you and you can correct me if I'm wrong. Who has even brought up. You know the fathers the patristic fathers.

No, there's the quote. Yeah, and I actually.

You know 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 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 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 been they've just all turned those things down.

Dave Hunt turns those things down. So, you know if it's not going to 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 Martyr. They wouldn't be. Well you would. Well there's there's two two are 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 is 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. I'm sure a lot of non-Calvinists would like to comment on your 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 99 .98 of all comments are idiotic and They are there 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?

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 we appreciate you. All right. Thank you. God bless. That always worries me and folks 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 something argument around that.

You know 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 you know.

As.

Manuscripts and some some most of these differences don't matter for anything. I mean, they're absolutely changes. Some differences that really do matter they affect now.

Textual Variants and the Reliability of the New Testament

I'm one of 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 is 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 text in the New Testament.

Well, 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 know it or even an entire book.

Or do 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 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. All right, and so it actually matters a lot than these manuscripts are. So it's not it's not really right to say that we have.

Which manuscripts you read?

That's a very good 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 and then 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 rhinoceros. It's just ream. 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 show and who is doing this stuff? 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 Most of the changes that 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 infant guy has any clue as to where he's gone.

Why he's gone there or what he's saying doesn't really hopping 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 know they would do something just an accident.

But there were places where scribe inspired by God, of course, though to change. 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, they're gonna be going so like the King James is a manuscript and and how you translate the King James has some do as 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 could see. I mean most intelligent evangelical Christians don't think you know. That 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 to hear the term the Bible. How do you view that? That's not entirely correct. Is it. It's not just one book. We're talking about 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 point of view is 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. 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 thoughts is just or the the the direction of the book is going like for instance for a position all of a Sudden you'll see this addition and all of a sudden the author is 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 that 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.

Self-written, you know. I was just reading along. You know just my unbiased morally neutral self, and I. Detected a change in authorship. Here is how come on.

Yeah, you read the text in the original Greek or in the for the Hebrew Bible for in the original Hebrew. Somebody took a right it'd be pretty obvious. It was a different author and you get that kind.

Um 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. Reflects just a little a bit on.

Where that person's going on and on and on?

Church History, Canon, and Non-Canonical Gospels

Now one of your critics Lee Strobel, and I've written this down here.

Do they.

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 the textual problems.

Affect the major any major doctrines of Christianity at all. What do you think?

Okay now to 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 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 is a textual variant. That that that impacts whether in acts 2028 whether God or Lord is using x 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 to 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 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 and.

There are some passages that are pretty important. I mean right 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 three are one.

That's seven and eight and for centuries. Wasn't in the original text of the New Testament entries later by people who believed in the Trinity.

Now.

Again, how does how does Bart Ehrman know who quote-unquote added it? How does he know where it came from? 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 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. 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 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 Alexandrian 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 Lee Strobel 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 by agreeing with all the facts.

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 four hundred thousand variants of New Testament more variants in our words in 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.

They're not viable and we need to 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 four thousand very that's over 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 he doesn't say any of that. He knows it and If I've got enough time and 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 from the man is not available to them, but was quite different.

In what ways dr.

Ehrman in what ways? Well they're. 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. Ehrman 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 to 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, but because those books come later.

It kind of makes sense. It follows that that's probably what's happening there as well.