Ehrman Debate

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 4602 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 morning, whatever it is, wherever you are welcome to the dividing line

I am I've moved my my MacBook Pro over to the the window of my cabin

If I had a balcony I'd be out on the balcony, but I've only got a window cabin this time and so to try to get the best

Internet connection speed through my little wireless modem I have it propped up on the back of Philip Comfort's New Testament text and translation commentary and Aimed out the window at the various people water skiing past me here on this celebrity century

We are currently anchored in Key West, which is why we're still able to do this And we will be pulling it out right as the dividing line

Ending. I hope they don't start moving early or the modem will fall over. But anyway that's what we're doing and I've managed to get four bars out of five.

So I hope that'll be Good enough to play the clips and to understand any callers a call at eight seven seven seven five three

Three three four one. I have eight clips set up to play today and Obviously the sound quality isn't exactly what

I'd like it to be because this was taken through the air That is I just pulled the audio from my little video camera my little

Casio digital camera. That's I take everywhere and But it seems to be clear enough.

I think it'll certainly be clear enough for our purposes to be able to follow the discussion obviously,

I promised to provide An update on the subject of the debate a lot of people in our chat channel already know all about it because I managed to fire up Skype and a number of people listened live off of my off of my

Mac that was sitting there and then recording started circulating pretty quickly from that and other means somehow and Anyway, so a number of people have heard it we

Lord willing we'll have the mp3 is up either today or tomorrow for purchase what we're going to try to do is

I have created a small quick time movie of the presentation that I made so that you can stop and start that little movie and see

What it is that I was displaying because a couple times I'll say now here you see manuscript p75 or here you see

Vaticanus or whatever and if you don't have the presentation It would be a little bit

Difficult to to follow that along So that'll be a separate download.

It's about 3 .3 meg file We'll figure out a way to make both of those available so you can follow along as as you listen

I Personally I'm not sure how the debate it could have been much better Obviously on on one level it would be nice for the debate to have been somewhat like the debates that I've had with with people like Mitch Pacwa and other people where there was none of the

Grandstanding and things like that, but that wasn't to be the case dr. Ehrman Believes his own press he

He really does believe himself to be the the top dog out there and therefore

Finds that simply insolence on the part of a conservative evangelical to dare to question what he has to say

It was very interesting along those lines to See the form of argumentation.

He used it was pretty much the same as But less but a little bit more nuanced is what you got with the infidel guy

In other words, it was basically I'm Bart Ehrman. Believe me.

How dare you? Question me. I held p52 in my hands.

I Rubbed shoulders at SBL with the top British Textual critics and the top

German textual critics and the top French textual critics and you don't even know who they are

I'm Bart Ehrman. So is the argument from authority along those lines? You would think that if you're the top dog and you have the the facts on your side that your argument would be well that's impossible because of this fact and this fact and this and this and this not just a bunch of Well, I'm just far better known than you are or so on and so forth

But that is pretty much how liberalism views Conservatism while conservative seminaries you study what liberals believe and why they believe it

That's not the case and liberal seminaries. You don't spend time invest time to worry about these things and those of you who followed

The debates I've done in the past You know, that's exactly how Peter Stravinsky treated me.

That's how Barry Lynn treated me That's how John Shelby Spong treated me. It was painfully obvious that dr

Ehrman had done no particular preparation for this debate. He did not know who I was He had not even so much.

I think has googled my name. He didn't know where I lived He hadn't read any of my materials hadn't listened to any of my debates didn't know what my positions would be at all

And in fact David Wheaton asked him the night before what do you what do you do to prepare for a debate like this?

And he said well, I'll do anything. This is this is this is why I feel this is what I've done for 25 30 years I don't need to do any preparation.

And so so he didn't and so as a result, he blundered a number of times Because he simply either didn't listen carefully enough to what

I was saying or more to the point assumed things that were completely wrong about what

I was saying a Number of times while the leading textual critical scholars in the United States could not even follow a basic argument that I was making

Because he didn't take the time to find out who I am what I believe where I'm coming from Just you know, that's that's just how the left is.

That's just the direction that they go. So that's just one of these things we have to deal with when we are debating folks who come from this perspective and I think that When people take the time to listen carefully to what

I said If for example someone transcribes this debate and then puts side -by -side what

I said With what he said in response, they'll be a little bit amazed at the lack of carefulness

That dr. Ehrman exercised in responding to me Let me give you an example of that.

I'm gonna skip past a couple. I've got here. I'll try to get back to them let me

Give a In my hope this is from my opening presentation just a little under two minutes from my opening presentation

I am discussing the issue of primitive the allegation of primitive corruption of the

New Testament and my my primary argument against this is That when the

New Testament comes out into history when we begin to to receive evidence of it in the form of manuscripts as Ehrman would admit of all ancient documents.

It has the earliest and widest attestation of anything We're gonna hear him say that exactly. I think I might have a shirt made

With this exact quote that I'll be able to play for you a little bit later That's one thing that this debates could be very valuable for us providing some great quotes

But my argument has been that when the New Testament begins to be seen in history because it is found in multiple

Lines, it's not it's not under control of any one group. It's not just one line very frequently people hear.

Dr Ehrman speaking and they think that there's just one line of manuscripts, you know You've got this copy and then it's copied and then the copies made of that the copies made of that and that's just one line

That goes on down through history and all the errors keep piling up and no one ever looks back at any earlier ones

And there's no branches and no no other lines coming from another place and intersecting. No, it's it's it's a nice clean line

But it's very corrupted. That's how people understand what dr. Ehrman is saying That is not the case and so my argument has been that given that you have all these different lines coming into history and They themselves demonstrate that there's one

New Testament text There's not one New Testament says one thing and then another New Testament over here

It says something else and the New Testament over here that presents up a guy named Billy Bob is the Messiah or something like that No, there's only one

New Testament Then the onus the weight is upon the skeptic To explain how the

New Testament could come into expression in this fashion If there was in fact primitive corruption that would have resulted in all these different corrupted lines coming forward and I used an example graphically with p75 and batacan to illustrate a suitable lines and Yet how early they are going back to the very end of the first century for some reason dr

Ehrman just didn't get it. And what I don't understand is that Dan Wallace used the same example

I don't think he had the graphic that I Gave and he didn't put it in the context of the of all the multiple lines and stuff

We put in a little bit different context But it's pretty much the same the same argument and Ehrman had never said a word about it to to Dan Wallace But he does here so let's hear what

I said first listen carefully as I honestly think that there were lots of people in the audience who are not at all

Textually critically aware who could understand what I was saying and then could see how badly dr.

Ehrman Misunderstood what I was saying. So here's here's my statement first just a little bit under two minutes in length

The earliest manuscripts in our possession demonstrate the existence not of a single line of corrupt transmission

But multiple lines of transmission of varying accuracy Many of these lines intersect and cross defying easy identification

But the important thing to remember is that multiple lines are a good thing They ensure a healthy manuscript tradition that is not under the control of any central editing process

One example is often noted relate the early transmission of the text is relationship between this manuscript

P75 from around AD 175 and this manuscript of Vaticanus from AD 325

These two manuscripts are clearly very closely related in their text

Indeed, they may be more alike than any other two ancient manuscripts in the portions where Vaticanus contains the same section of scripture as P75 But remember 150 years separates the copy of these two manuscripts

And yet we know that Vaticanus is not a copy of P75 For it actually contains readings that are earlier than some in P75 This means we have a very clean very accurate line of transmission

Illustrated by these two texts that goes back to the very earliest part of the 2nd century itself

What this illustrates needs to be kept in mind The burden of proof lies upon the skeptic who asserts corruption the primitive

New Testament text Since the exit manuscripts demonstrate multiple lines of independent transmission

The skeptic must explain how the New Testament text can appear in history by multiple lines of transmission

And yet each line presents the same text yet without any controlling authority

So there is the presentation that I made and I graphically had P75 up and I had

Vaticanus up and then I showed two Separate lines going to each one

But they joining at the end of the first century showing they were coming from the same stream of transmission

But that P75 was not a copy of the Vaticanus not a copy of P75 well

Here's just one place where where dr. Ehrman just did not understand what I was saying It came up during cross -examination.

He again. I had to keep correcting him and saying sir I I did not say if you had looked at the graphic I did not say that P75 is the lineal

Ancestor of Codex Vaticanus. Here's my argument again. He still couldn't get it. So here's here's his response

So A Completely bogus argument and of course a completely bogus argument that I never made

I never said anything about how These since these are accurate.

That means there was no primitive corruption at all. I I Don't know what else to say other than I honestly expected him to be able to follow arguments a little bit more clearly

Then then he did but what what can I say? That wasn't my argument.

And so it wasn't a bogus argument, but dr Ehrman's understanding of it was was bogus.

I guess would be the term that he would like to that he would like to use now I'm just gonna go sort of go in the order of these as they appear on my screen here

Just make it a little bit easier for me and if you've got questions and comments eight seven seven seven five three three three four one and Rich back there in Phoenix will let me know that you're on the line and we'll try to get you in during the program today

Hopefully that will all work out for us One of the questions that I want to to get answered

Was dr. Ehrman when he discusses the New Testament always puts the worst possible spin on things so he was he was on the unbelievable radio program a few weeks ago in London and He was talking about the time frame between the writing of Galatians and our first manuscript evidence of it is 150 years

I would say it's less than that, but let's go with 150 for now What he said was that is an enormous period of time an enormous period of time now if you heard a scholar talking about this and He said there's just this enormous period of time between the original and the first example

We have would that not communicate to you that? There's something unusually long

About the time period between the first writing and our examples of it our first papyrus examples of it

Wouldn't that communicate to you that other ancient writings have a much shorter period of time

I Think that's what it communicates to most folks So let's take a listen to this audience this or this cross -examination question

Where I asked dr. Ehrman this very question and listen to his response on the unbelievable radio program in London you discussed the length of time that exists between the writing of Paul's letter to the

Galatians and The first extant copy that being 150 years You describe this time period as enormous

That's a quote Could you tell us what term you would use to describe the time period between say the original writings of Suetonius or Tacitus or Pliny?

And their first extant manuscript copies very enormous, so ginormous would be a good one

Okay Giant Enormous doesn't cover it the

New Testament. We have much earlier attestation than for any other book from antiquity what you can't do is

Okay, yes, right That's right. So that's right. So it would be correct to write a book called misquoting

Suetonius Absolutely scholars do this and scholars write books all the time about how you don't know the work

About what Plato actually wrote or what Homer wrote or Suetonius or Tacitus or Pliny This is just what scholars do of course, of course there are scans of books on just these topics and so when you you cite them in your works you will you will say according to the best sources and Will will question the reliability of Suetonius or There's no there's no scholar who's an expert in Suetonius or Cicero or the gospel of Thomas who would tell you that we absolutely know these texts originally said

So when they when you say know what these texts originally said But they will believe that we have a sufficiently clear knowledge to quote

Suetonius you quote Suetonius don't you? Yes, of course. I quote the manuscript tradition of Suetonius I mean, it's just understood among scholars what you're quoting and so you say in your books.

I'm not really quoting Suetonius I'm just that this is really what you said I'm saying that we don't have the original text for any writing from the ancient world

The New Testament is no different Just as you can't establish the original text of the

New Testament because you don't have sufficient evidence You can't establish the original text of Suetonius because you don't have original see for dr.

Ehrman sufficient evidence equals a Photocopy of the original or the original self if you have if you don't have that then you don't know this kind of radical skepticism is

Something he repeated this over and over and over again now as it has been pointed out

I even went online today and looked at one of the electronic versions of his books that I have at amazon .com

and I looked up his references to Tacitus and never does

Anywhere in that in that book does he say now, you know, we really don't have any idea what

Tacitus originally said No, he will simply quote Tacitus he'll quote

Suetonius and He will do so without really in any way indicating

That you know, okay, so Tony has said this but you know, we just don't know what he originally says We don't really know if there's any real velvet historical, you know material here

No, he will just simply quote them the way historians quote them. And so I found a a bit of an inconsistency at that point on Dr.

Ehrman's point a position that he will utilize these things, but He just simply doesn't treat them in the same way that he treats the

New Testament now then there was another instance where in The closing of my opening statement

I some of you saw the graphic that I posted a couple weeks ago

Around manuscript p52. I actually expanded it a great deal added a lot to it and things like that but but I when

I was first putting it up there, I put that out there and so He makes mention of manuscript p52 in his rebuttal and I never expected that I must admit

I expected a little higher level than this Where he doesn't mention he doesn't tell you this.

He doesn't mention this and it's funny I was just looking at one of dr Ehrman's books where he mentioned p52 and I gave far more information

And he did and he didn't mention the very thing that he hear me here accuses me of sort of leaving out

In my description of p52. So let's let's take a listen to what he had to say He put a

Manuscript on the screen that was the oldest manuscript that he says that he had studied I actually looked this management held it in my hand for two hours one afternoon two summers ago p52

And he pointed out that this is very similar to the wording by the trial of John before piloting up John's gospel

There's a project for pilot John's gospel in later manuscripts He doesn't point out that there's a significant textual variant even in this credit card size

Of a manuscript a significant textual variant involving the addition subtract of certain words

Now basically, I guess that was his way of trying to say. Oh see there's he's he's trying to deceive you

By the way, I didn't say it's very similar to it is Luke 1831 to 33 and Luke 1837 to 38.

There's no question about that. It's not this is similar to and when he said that I wondered what he was talking about and so I looked at my

Nessie Allen text and there is only one citation of p52 anywhere in the

Nessie Allen text and it is a citation of a word order variant where p52 lines up with the other

Alexandrian manuscripts and having one particular word order and Then some other manuscripts have a different word order

It doesn't it's a difference between saying he again entered into and saying he entered into again

Which again makes no difference. And so I knew of that Variation word order variation, but dr.

Herman himself says that there's no relevance to this and so he said well

It's indicated by Metzger. So of course I have Metzger's work on New Testament manuscripts and so we we looked it up and from what you just listened to it would sound like This was some major variant and it totally overthrows

Everything that I was just saying about this one message going all the way through Etc, etc, etc.

Let me read you. Dr. Metzger's own words from The very book that dr.

Herman had on his desk The evening of the debate quote the only textual variation of significance is the probable omission of the second instance of ice to ta in verse 37

If the full text of that verse is supplied line 3 verso has 38 letters rather than the average of 29 to 30

Consequently, it is fairly certain that p52 represents a shorter version Perhaps the result of the scribes having accidentally omitted the second instance of the phrase

Then he says about the other variant that is known in that context in reading pollen before ice top

Praetorian verse 33 p52 agrees with p66 BCD and others

The reverse order is read by Sinaiticus Alexandrinus the Byzantine text and the Texas Receptus so there's the discussion and so what you have then is the

Possibility it's in the text that is not in the manuscript you have to lay the text out next to the manuscript count the number of letters and see how many letters would have been in line and if You do that.

The average number of letters in the line is 29 to 30 but if you have Ice to tie would be 38 letters.

And so the possibility exists that ice to tie wasn't there Well, what would that mean?

Because again the idea is that it's it seems from dr. Herman's perspective

This is a major variant. It's a big thing But the reality is when you actually look at that when you look at the reading if you look at verse 37, it says for unto this

I was born and unto this I came into the world and So ice to tie is repeated twice so the difference would be tweaked would be between friend to this

I was born and unto this I came into the world for this reason

Reason for ice to talk for this reason I was born for this difference between the two and somehow this is a different message or we don't know what was originally meant or Because you don't repeat ice to talk

That's that's that was worth adding this into a rebuttal period To to say that I somehow had had misled everybody and and I didn't tell you everything you needed to know

I mean not that you couldn't have, you know, looked all these things up to yourself but Yeah, that's that's that's what we've got there.

I I was Okay, there you go So I I hear that the broadcast is starting to Break up just a little bit.

I'm sorry about that There's absolutely positively nothing that I can do about that on this end and there's really nothing that can be done on the other end either

I don't know if it's me breaking up or it's the fact that we have a record number of people Listening to the program today.

There is a record number of people listening live And according to the office,

I'm still fine. It's the fact there's so many of you who are listening In fact, we're

Wow, that's that's a number I haven't seen of people listening live. That's that's pretty pretty amazing indeed

Let's play another one here and again invite your phone calls at eight seven seven seven five three, three, three, four one eight seven seven seven five three three three four one and And this was from the opening and This is

Bart Ehrman what he did was He started preaching a little bit in his

In his rebuttal the first about four minutes was was an agnostic

Lecturing Christians about how we should be open -minded That we should listen to other views and that we we shouldn't let people like James lull us

Into thinking there aren't serious issues here as if as if to hold my position

Means I don't believe textual critical issues are serious as if I've spent all this time Studying these things and that means

I don't think this is important stuff. I Could not even begin to understand the mindset, but let me just play this quickly.

Then we'll take our break Here's here's what Bart Ehrman had to say Notice notice the misrepresentation the straw man that I had ever said these don't matter

See because in his language these matter means the Bible can't be the

Word of God We can't know what it originally said Since these matter that means they are unresolvable.

We can't know what the original was There's a tremendous amount of equivocation

And as far as I'm concerned, I don't think there's anything wrong with the word of God I can tell from this the only basis Ehrman has for making these statements is his own authority

These matter we can't know that's all there is to it. And when you say when you mean we Know we can know that we can't you know, it's one of these two readings

And in fact, you keep claiming you know what the original was and I think one of the most valuable things

I don't think I can play it for you because I I think that was right when my Cameras battery died and before the next battery got put in it was the rest of my my cross -examination

So I don't have that yet. That will of course be in the mp3s that are available Or will be available today or tomorrow

But I think one of the most valuable Instances is right toward the end of my cross -examination where dr.

Ehrman basically admitted that he has moved away from believing that there is any type of original that we can we can look at and therefore his entire book the orthodox corruption of scripture in essence, he repudiated that because there's no way for that book to even be understood unless you

You talk about the original reading of the text And so that that's an amazing thing

So let's go ahead and take our break and then we'll be right back with one phone call and your phone calls at eight seven seven seven five three three three four one

Such a rare Today So many stars

True Answering those who claim that only the

King James Version is the Word of God James White in his book the King James only controversy examines allegations that modern translators conspired to corrupt scripture and lead believers away from true

Christian faith in a readable and responsible style author James White traces the development of Bible translations old and new and investigates the differences between new versions and the authorized version of 1611

You can order your copy of James White's book the King James only controversy by going to our website at www .a

.o .min .org The history of the Christian Church pivots on the doctrine of justification by faith

Once the core of the Reformation the church today often ignores or misunderstands this foundational doctrine in his book the

God who justifies theologian James White calls believers to a fresh appreciation of Understanding of and dedication to the great doctrine of justification and then provides an exegesis of the key scripture texts on this theme

Justification is the heart of the gospel in today's culture where tolerance is the new absolute

James White proclaims with passion the truth and centrality of the doctrine of justification by faith

Dr. Jay Adams says I lost sleep over this book. I simply couldn't put it down James White writes the way an exegetically and theologically oriented pastor appreciates

This is no book for casual reading. There is solid meat throughout an outstanding contribution in every sense of the words

The God who justifies by dr. James White get your copy today at a omen org

Hello, everyone. This is Rich Pierce In a day and age where the gospel is being twisted into a man -centered self -help program

The need for a no -nonsense presentation of the gospel has never been greater I am convinced that a great many go to church every

Sunday yet. They have never been confronted with their sin Alpha and Omega ministries is dedicated to presenting the gospel in a clear and concise manner making no excuses

Man is sinful and God is holy That sinful man is in need of a perfect Savior and Jesus Christ is that perfect Savior?

We are to come before the Holy God with an empty hand of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ Alpha and Omega takes that message to every group that we deal with while equipping the body of Christ as well

Support Alpha and Omega ministries and help us to reach even more with the pure message of God's glorious grace.

Thank you And welcome back to the dividing line.

My name is James White and we have Alan on the line which is really really silly because Alan's on the same cruise ship.

I'm on and he just could have come to my cabin and Stood here and we could have done this a lot differently, but you know,

Alan's out So we'll go ahead and talk to Alan anyways because it is odd that I'm gonna be talking to Alan via my

MacBook Pro, which is wirelessly connected the internet going to the Phoenix and Then Alan's calling

Phoenix and then we're getting connected and it's boy. It's a really weird world. We live in. So anyways, yes

Alan Yeah, I didn't even I didn't even know you were gonna have a dividing line today

That's because you don't hang around me dude No that I saw you having lunch and then

I noticed you left early and then I just thought that was weird and then I left and wanted to see if I could get a wireless connection and I could and I went in the channel and Everybody knows the everybody had

DL after their neck and I'm like, okay He must be doing a DL from his room and then

I was like, it's gonna be kind of cool if I call in kind of weird But not cool according to you

I actually I Wanted to say it did appear that airmen was

Urban or whatever we call him. He was considerably flustered After the opening statement in his in his rebuttal

And was I thought he was mad because it seemed like he ran into Some issues that you know, he might he probably ran in the same thing with Dan Wallace I don't know, but he seemed really upset or really flustered or you know, he wasn't very happy He was pleading pleading with the audience to have an open mind and things like that and I thought that was interesting but the question that I I wanted to ask you about is the

The manuscript tradition that you guys were talking about It sounds like what you're saying in when it comes to the

Preservation of the Word of God in the manuscript tradition, which I agree with I just want to make sure

I'm clear on that is that you're saying that if there would have been a wholesale change or massive corruption

It would have been in one of the streams or lines of the manuscript tradition either the

Eastern Western Byzantines Whatever you want to call it. Is that what you're saying? Well, are you referring to what

I was talking about? primitive corruptions or Or what?

Are you just talking about the general? Unity of the entire manuscript tradition really the general unity of the entire manuscript tradition.

Yeah, I presented that In essence, I and again he got lost on this too.

And we ended up wasting a whole lot of time on this I presented those graphics where I had

Bible works mark the differences between originally I used the

Westcott and Hort text as representative the Alexandrian side and The Byzantine text platform as the representative of the

Byzantine side and as you saw in most of the graphics There was almost nothing mark.

There was one where there was there wasn't anything marked in Hebrews And in most places there was just this massive amount of agreement and see he doesn't want to talk about agreement he wants to talk about disagreement and I mentioned that there were a lot less than 6 ,600 differences between The majority text and the modern critical text that makes for a 95 % plus Agreement on every other word in New Testament Well, he just totally freaked out on that because he

I don't know if he's ever thought about it never looked at it He thought I was talking about a 95 % agreement in textual variants, which

I specifically said I wasn't even talking about manuscripts I was talking about printed text. And so he got totally lost on that.

But yeah, I was was attempting to say was that if there was

In the period before the New Testament manuscripts begin to be seen in history if there was something different in those first few decades

That there would be evidence of that that as the New Testament begins to appear in history and manuscripts that we would have multiple lines of Very different things.

In fact, your question reminds me of something that I wish I had asked him Always after a debate you go.

Oh, I wish I had thought to ask that or oh, I wish I thought that that you never really had time to do it, but I Had asked him during the cross -examination would not

If you edited a Greek New Testament and you put all your choices in how different would that be?

From the modern critical text and he admitted it would be less different than my critical text than the new than the

TRS in the modern Critical text so it would not be very different at all. And so what

I should have asked him if you took the two diverse early manuscripts say the first 300 years if you took the two that are the least alike and You applied the same standards of exegesis and hermeneutics to both

Would you come up with a different religion because he's admitted in print that the textual variants do not chain off the doctrines of the

Christian faith and If he was consistent, he'd have to say no Well that would undercut his entire position and that's the point is that even if even if you take the most

Divergent manuscripts that have the most textual variants one another and interpret them in the exact same way using the exact same

Rules of exegesis and hermeneutics you would not come up with some different religion. You're not going to come up with a different Messiah You're not going to come up with with with anything because I would imagine the two most

Divergent manuscripts that we can find would still have I would estimate a minimum of 92 % of exact same words in the exact same place and the other differences would be the

Byzantine manuscripts would have Expansions they'd have conflations Well, they've taken an Alexandrian reading in a

Western reading and put them together as something along those lines They'd have longer names for deity or certain things like that But you would not have some different message in any way shape or form

Was sort of desperate to avoid talking about that because once people get a hold of that that they're going wait a minute if you're saying

We don't know you're giving us a really radical conclusion that just doesn't fall from the facts

And so I would assume that that was probably what was behind some of that. Well, yeah, there's a whole not knowing thing

You know as you said Difficult to make this day because then you can't know about any type of history at all in any ancient documents that we don't have the originals of or that came out before 1949 but another thing

I thought was was weird was that he it sounded like the beginning of his cross -examination of his questioning you

When he brought up the 12 manuscripts, I think that you said were within a century of the originals right, yeah, and What she said was news to him which was interesting since it was brought up to him before but That totally left me flustered because he never challenged

Dan Wallace on that at all. I Would yeah. Well, I would like to If you could blog about what they what they are or if you could do

Alan I did yesterday Well, I'm out of the loop

Let me let me fill people in I did that yesterday and someone in Kansas City Sent the list to Irvin and Irvin's responses

Well, some of those in the third century and I mentioned in that what I'm gonna do is I'm gonna I'm gonna list them and I'm gonna list all the papyrologists and Paleographers Who placed them in the second century and so you can just see for yourself.

I didn't make the list up I mentioned on the blog yesterday that I've been kicking myself it would have taken me less than 20 seconds to pull it up if I Remembered exactly where it was in my library library because I had it running and it took me less than 20 seconds to pull it up the next morning, so That was

I think I might have those tattooed across my forehead just so that I never ever forget them and sort of in penance for for having done that but It's seven seven seven four three three three four five or one

I can't know from that PDS have another caller online or Was that just saying someone was okay someone

I had a had a guy call from Thailand He wanted to be on record as the furthest away first away listening.

Is that what that's about or first way calling? Yeah He wanted to be on record at the time where we set a record of listeners that he wanted to be on record that he was

The one that was furthest away at that time So and he said it's one o 'clock in the morning there and he's listening to the live show and really appreciates it

Well, I very much appreciate our many listeners in Thailand all two of them

It is amazing how the whole world can communicate right now to think where everybody is right now I'm sitting here

Cross -legged on my bed leaning over my my MacBook Pro with my modem stuck it stuck up against the window so we can do this

It is amazing That God has given us this technology its ability to do this when

Alpha Omega started we couldn't do anything like this whenever dream We'd be able to do the things we've done. God has definitely been good.

Let's let's listen to this next one I found this one extremely ironic those who can listen to the dividing line Regularly, you're gonna chuckle at this one.

So check check this out Now did you catch that that was there he was saying did

Jesus pray for those who were killing him it's a big difference Didn't we?

Do an entire dividing line an entire hour on Luke 23 34 back in September or so Didn't Alan Kirshner joined me and higher program to an in -depth analysis

Including a discussion of Bart Ehrman's own interpretation of the textual readings

Yeah, and someone just mentioned Katie just mentioned the channel Bart sounds very worked up there

He got very worked up and Alan was right. He was quite angry he was angry because I dared to challenge him and He didn't like that and people who who live in academia and everybody bows and scrapes before them

That's what they expect. They just expect you to take their word. That's it. They've earned their their big name and you can just you know like it or lump it and but anyway

Yeah, he did sound upset there and obviously has no idea I mean if I was debating somebody

I would have gone to their website I would have looked for textual critical issues. I would have found out on the blog I would have listened to the program, but that's because we have a different view of truth

Unfortunately than folks on the left do and so I found it funny that he would bring up Luke 23 34 when not only do

We know about the variant, but we have taken the time To present a very full discussion of the variant right here on this particular program

Over and over again. Dr. Ehrman made statements about how textual variants matter and anybody who has

Had my books and listen to my debates and listen to the voting line knows that that isn't even a disputable matter

Of course, they matter. We know that they matter. That's why Look at look at the books that we've been making available the the the comfort text and translation commentary again

If I if I've said it before I'll say it again I can say it with with much more fervor now.

You've got to have that book if you find this stuff interesting I I found that book to be absolutely

So useful in It's just something I I do like to sit down and just read it because it just contains that kind of information and if you like that then the

Lengthy textual notes that Dan Wallace has provided in the back of the NET any 27 diaglot will be extremely

Well, they it's very much and so having those resources we make these kind of resources available

Well, they're not the big sellers. I mean if we're out trying to get a bunch of money This isn't the kind of book we'd be making available

You know, we'd be trying to write to the next You know purpose -driven life or the next prayer of Jabez remember that one

Something like that here we are making textual critical stuff available. Of course, we know this stuff matters a lot

Of course, we know it's important. Yeah, we make an airman's book available But We try to provide stuff that's going to be important to people.

So listen listen to what he said Actually can matter a lot he points out most of that differences don't matter much of everything anything and My point here now,

I'll tell you my report Okay, I have nine pieces of this book and increase of eight and a half of them

So so let's deal with the half that he disagrees with that these differences actually can matter or a lot now

You're strong man, I don't know how anybody listened to have to say and Seriously again, you can tell that he's he's quite

Angry at this point in time I was never telling people that's

To me Anything instead any variance don't distinction between textual variants that are not meaningful that is they don't impact the translation of the text and those that are meaningful and Then I said there are textual variants that are viable and non viable and there are textual variants that are both viable and meaningful

These are standard categories of discussion, but he won't evidently he he determines

What vocabulary is going to be used and and I don't get to define my own language and my own?

presentation and so on and so forth, so There you saw twice in the very same presentation

Within let's say that's a 25 seconds twice trying to tell people

That I don't believe the textual variants are meaningful. And of course, that's again a result of a not listening well to what

I was saying and be Absolutely, no one has to know the position of the person that you're debating that again, it's just it's just how liberals work and We deal with it.

It means they don't win very many debates, but we still deal with it Anyways, okay one last clip to play and if there's any phone callers, we're running out of time here 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1

Here's the last clip that I pulled out. This is where he was getting quite animated and Sort of being a little bit of a preacher here

So There you get a little bit more of the

Argument from authority I'm the expert in the field and all other experts will disagree as well

But again, it's all equivocation Because what he's saying is well there are textual variants and Scholars might take two different views on a textual variant.

Well, no one's ever said otherwise That's a given that's been known since the days of origin for crying out loud

Here's a man who's made a fortune on resurrecting not only the Gnostics But something that's been a given and known amongst

Christians from the beginning the point is Even if there's disagreement even if there's disagreement on something like a mark 141 or a

John 118 you inform the people you explain the text and Unlike dr.

Ehrman the rest of us who do not import an automatic Hypostasism can recognize that we can look at the rest of the

New Testament to very frequently Discover what it is how we need to read that text

His whole idea is well as long as there are two scholars who can disagree it must not be the

Word of God and It is that standard that ultra skepticism that leads him to say we don't know it's a ton.

You said we don't know it Asked us up and all he means that is we don't know Via the kind of certainty that could only exist if we were there when it was written or we had a photocopy of the original

And as I have pointed out over and over again that kind of standard Would not be meaningful in the history of the early church the early church

Was a persecuted minority and I guess according to what folks said I'm not sure if this is actually going to show up in the videotape or not

But according to the guys that were sitting in the front row and they were watching. Dr. Herman very carefully

Every time I said something about persecution Every time I said something about a scribe

Possibly risking his life like the the scribe of p72 to even copy

That portion of Scripture and to possess it. He rolled his eyes He he he was mocking of this

And it didn't come up in the debate, but I I wanted to point out that's

Just the day was it it's actually that morning now. I think about it. I had purchased a journal online

From Johns Hopkins University that had been mentioned on the evangelical textual criticism blog

Because there was an article in it about how early Christians dealt with persecution and it was going through to papyri

That have recently been translated that dealt with Romans dealing with Christians and the dissolution of churches and the distribution of the property of the churches and it mentioned

Dealing with the reader of the church and they're confiscating certain Codices, I think it was

I'd have to bring it up right now But I think it was 37 codices taken from one place and you know, what was done to these codices.

They were destroyed So It's not a question that this stuff actually took place.

I don't know why dr Ehrman would would behave in that way or react in that way be and in fact just to discover that someone of such high learning by his own profession

Would would behave in such a manner Does remind me that I've read a number of things online about his recent behavior at SBL back in November That a number of people were just embarrassed at how he at how he

Treated dr. Parker and How he can be very mocking as he was in our debate as well and and I think he's he's

Damaging himself along those lines certainly isn't damaging any the rest of us because the more and more of this that can be documented then the more

Askance people are going to be looking at things. He has to say but be that as it may It is obvious painfully obvious That I do believe these readings are important that I think

Christians should be educated about them I can't tell you how many times people have written to me and accused me of hyper scholasticism and and Corrupting the

Word of God and all the rest of stuff because I try to tell people we need to know about this

We need to have basic knowledge of these things so that we are taking from our opponents the the weapons that they are utilizing

Oh, yeah, I was just like reading something in channel there are all They would have been very easy for me

To utilize a lot of the bad forms of argumentation He used if I just wanted to go toe -to -toe level now that wasn't my purpose in fact

I think it's a good study to compare and contrast the questions that I asked of Bart Ehrman and the questions he asked of me and the the way in which

We did those things as well. I think there's a fundamental difference in why we do debates

I wanted him to make statements to to put his position out there in such a way that for years to come

We will be able to quote those things will be able to interact with those things will be able to document

Where he's coming from and I think one of the most important things will be able to document that he is part of a movement

Away from having any concern about the original text in the New Testament. He no longer believes.

It's a relevant thing we can't get back to it, let's stop talking about it and unfortunately the funds for Schools that were once intended to promote the study of the

New Testament are now being used by men like this to exegetes the variants to see what that tells us about What Christians believed at this point in history and so on and so forth but not to get back

The original text of the New Testament that is a tragedy and I think Christian believers need to realize

That just because someone's called the New Testament scholar Doesn't mean that they have any type of a worldview that is even slightly relevant to what we would find to be important and and Helpful.

So there's a quick review of the debate I believe hopefully tomorrow today or tomorrow.

We'll have the mp3s those up Someone will have to once they go up. We'll have to blog it it won't be able to be me because I'm probably gonna be a little bit out of pocket for a little while because we're gonna be out in the

Gulf of Mexico someplace, so Someone else will have to blog it But I hope you will download that take a listen to it

And of course when the DVDs are made available American visions doing we will let you know as well

Thanks for all the prayers and the support Working on some some more debates this year even right now send off a very important email this morning.

Keep praying for these things We love having these opportunities and as long as we have important to keep taking it

So it looks like it will be up in about an hour. So keep an eye open for that. Thanks for listening Here on the dividing line and 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 9 7 3 4 6 0 2 or write us at PO box 3 7 1 0 6

Phoenix, Arizona 8 5 0 6 9 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