Biblical Contradiction

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 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll -free across the

United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five three three Three four one and now with today's topic.

Here is James white And good morning, welcome to the dividing line or whatever time of the day it is wherever you are as you are listening

I know that we have many who listen on the podcast far more than listen live

Unfortunately, but that's the way it works and so to especially if you are trudging through the sands of Iraq or Afghanistan Listening on an iPod as there have been those who have done.

So always encouraging to hear from you Thank you for listening in and I hope that we provide you some connection back to reality

It's a little bit of a different world here Before we get started today. I noticed that once again the

Miss pre -gene Prejean, however, they're pronouncing miss

California's name stuff remains in the news and It does seem a shame to me that that is this is taking place in the context which is taking place that is the less than biblically relevant arena of beauty pageants

Which obviously have are problematic in their less than modest dress and so on and so forth and So it's a shame and but there is no question that there is in this just as there was with Sarah Palin and other people who would dare to speak in the public venue there there is a a

Rapidly growing hatred That can be expressed and the media will you know?

They've sort of enforced a couple times to go ahead admit, you know People on the on the radical left are just hateful, you know, they they just You know, they know what what's going on, but they are so beholden to the radical left that they just refuse to to point out the obvious and That is that if you are a homosexual in the

United States you can say anything you can say anything about anyone and Because you are who you are.

You've been granted super rights above anybody else and Since you are a victim class, then you can not not be victimizing anyone else

That's where we are today. And and it's so obvious. It's so plain It's beyond all contradiction

But it's also beyond our society's willingness to allow for the obvious truth any longer and it is

Truly amazing. So it's a shame that this discussion is somewhat shall we say hampered by the context in which is taking place?

but it is just another example of the growing hatred of Our culture for anything that is

Christian in any way shape or form. I was Our phone lines are open at eight seven seven seven five three three three four one.

I got a I got an email from somebody and They quoted me to me and it was

I don't know if it was in an email or in a comment that I left On a blog someplace, but sometimes people will will send send me links

To where someone has just ravaged me and then they've misrepresented me and they're burning straw men right and left and blah blah blah and So I'll say hey, you know, it's real easy to sit behind a keyboard and to take potshots of people but why don't you

Why don't you call in and why don't you? You know try to make these arguments where there's there would be somebody else that could respond specifically me rather than just venting your spleen you know on the internet and So someone sent me an email and again,

I don't know whether I had posted that in a comment section I don't know if I sent that somebody an email I remember was but he said he'd be calling and I have no idea what the context was

I would hope that he would be able to provide it, but who knows maybe we'll get to an interesting phone call from that perspective and Over the past couple weeks rich has been hanging up regularly on a rather irascible

Muslim who has called number of times and it seemed like a couple of weeks, but it's actually been a couple of days

Okay, so we've gotten some some phone calls Someone who's not doesn't play well with others and it reminds me of who is that one this dude that was doing the same thing remember that I don't remember what was but there was some one this dude

We had him on the on the air for as long as we could but then there's just certain people who cannot control themselves

They just they just have to you know, go nuts. So who knows maybe Mickey's not the only one that's melted down Oh, yes.

I remember the Mickey meltdown too. Yes, that's one of the main reasons We have a camera sitting right over there is in case there is ever a

Mickey meltdown speaking of Mickey meltdowns There was a meltdown on the

On the envoy web boards Recently good old algo algo my chief

Non -violent scary stalker though. He's still scary Algo has as I don't know.

How long has algo? been Trying to to speak the truth on The envoy web forums.

It seems like it's been at least six months. Maybe a year. I don't know how long it's been but It seems to me to be particularly difficult to attempt to reason on the envoy forums because of the presence of Dr.

Art Sippo bomb Who is without a doubt the most bombastic

Hot -headed of flame -throwing Catholic apologists out there and I have often commented on the fact that Patrick Madrid and his right hand

I've identified her as Patty scissorhands Because this this woman named

Patty who has to follow art around and clean up the messes I mean, that's what that's what she has to do

She must have that thing set on instant as soon as someone posts something send it to me

So that I can instantly jump in and delete it edit it modify it do something To try to control things on the envoy forums another good reason not to even have such things.

But anyway Evidently finally Some folks had and I've quoted from those forums.

I mean if you can get on it publicly on the internet Then it's fair game. All right.

I mean if I post something on my blog then people You know, they're gonna they're gonna post it elsewhere

That's how it works. If you make it to where only certain people can see the posts.

Okay? that's one thing if you have to you know that that's different, but if it is publicly accessible and this is publicly accessible now to Participate then you have to sign up and register stuff, but it's publicly accessible and I've quoted stuff from here many times because as has

James Swan and others for the simple reason that It's just really enlightening

To to Note the things that are that people will put up with on those forums as long as you're a

Roman Catholic I mean who's is a Jerry Jett. Is that the other guy? It's been a while.

It's been a while I was looking at some stuff just past a couple days because I'll go find the guy himself booted off He finally got bounced off, but he got bounced off because he had posted something

I guess on James Swan's blog And they all do you can't do that you can't participate in these and post these this stuff anyplace else and evidently

James Swan posted some stuff and so did I think Razors kiss as I recall Razors kiss the

Reformed Baptist Anglican and so He got he finally got bounced and I Just was was amazed at the mindset that these people have

Not only the way they can twist and twist anything that is presented to them, but just this whole mindset of that web board

Where you know, you can sit there and when you're at Cipo and just use flamethrowers, but the other side

You know has to it has to be That's the same web board by the way Where if you type in a omen org their software automatically takes out the ailment park puts a zero

So that people can't go and see what somebody else is saying That's that's fascinating, you know, hey, you know people well you don't allow comments

Yeah, I don't there is if you want to comment you can start your own blog

I mean there are so many internet ignorance aggregators out there It's not even funny, and I don't have time to be playing

Schoolyard cop on the foolishness that would flood in I mean just look when I did have

Comments on my youtube videos. I Mean the the people with the

IQ of what shoelace will will will flood into any Subject they don't they don't care what the topic of the of the video was they'll start spewing

You know atheists will go into Mormon videos and whatever. It's just it's a mess If you want to have civil conversation or do anything in that way, you just you know, you just can't get in that stuff so anyway

It's just it's just amazing to watch people going well art can say whatever art wants to say But then they're always having to walk behind him and pick up his messes and edit his stuff out because he's constantly flaming folks

You know, I mean It's it's it's amazing it's it is indeed something amazing to watch but And and yet they are just very confident that they have successfully defended the claims of Rome It's great stuff.

Anyway, I was riding this morning And somebody had written in shortly after the

Barker debate and had informed me that Dan Barker And Dan has a program on pull out your hair

America And I had never heard it here and now I can't because there is no more pull out your hair

America in the Phoenix area Fifth largest city in the United States and they couldn't even keep a broke a station on here

I Gotta admit I was one of their faithful listeners. I mean, it's it was just sort of it's it's very similar

I think to wanting to you know to see a car accident, you know the gawking what happened?

Oh, you know and that's that's what it's like when you and you experience the same temptation, you know You turn it on just to see what kind of insanity is gonna be

Anytime I want to see how high my blood pressure can go I turn that on and and and then the hair all over the floor of the car, you know

I don't have to worry about that. But I just pull it out of the beard, you know, it's just that's all I can do I I think

I actually had heard at one time on a Saturday I had popped over there, but I didn't and you caught the damn bike

I didn't put two and two together that it was Dan Barker I it was an atheist show and I thought wow.

Yeah, well that that fits. Yeah, you know birds of a feather, you know oh, yeah, you bet that does fit and So anyway, someone wrote in and Informed me that I think it was

April 25th. So I was within a week of The debate with Dan Barker and now I know where Dan got his oh, yeah

Erasmus and stuff. He just took that straight off of what? What Herman said on this program?

I'm sorry, but evidently I've been informed by a third party that that Dan feels that I attacked him in our in our debate and In other words

I pointed out that Dan likes to make claims about his level of knowledge of the

Bible that don't stack up with reality and I demonstrated that and I would demonstrate it more and I'm very confident in that because of the two of us

I did my homework and he didn't and If he'd like to try to demonstrate that I'm the one who is not accurately handling the issues

Then I've published plenty of stuff that he could take a look at but I'm sorry the fact the matter is

Dan Barker is is not a Bible scholar in any way shape or form and he himself.

I just quoted him to himself It's amazing how many liberals get so angry when you quote them to them

When you quote them to them I mean The only person who didn't get angry about that of all the liberals

I've debated was John Dominic Cross And he took it as a compliment. He actually saw Wow Someone took the time to read my autobiography

That that that's amazing and he saw that I was attempting to understand where he was coming from. He was the only one

I don't think that Barry Lynn appreciates that Tell you that Josh Shelby spunk

Not find it to be a sign of respect that I quoted him to him

But I evidently Dan Barker didn't appreciate when I quoted his own words That he had spoken within the past five months that described his own education as glorified

Sunday school Plug this into context here as to where he is

Where he took offense is this when he got up and responded claiming he was set up. I Don't remember that.

What do you mean? but he got up in one of the rebuttals said he was he he's been set up and it was a straw man argument and The whole no, well,

I think that was that was where he he again demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the difference between textual transmission and the truthfulness of the originals and and again,

I'm sorry, but if he doesn't if he only discovered the Kami Ohanian in the past ten years and That means he never knew about it.

Even when he was a quote -unquote believer What can

I say My book has been out longer than that dealing with the

Kami Ohanian and textual critical issues That that's that's basic foundational stuff is this perhaps stemming from the claim of his claim about His education it is as a

Pacific being nothing more than glorified Sunday school and you pointing that out repeat I quoted him. I quoted him.

I'm sorry If I do that now if he wants to make the argument that was out of context then make the argument

That's out of context, but it wasn't He was specifically making that argument in the context of he had talked about he had learned a little bit of Greek He he had never been exposed to non -christian ways of thinking.

This is when he developed his voracious Desire to read so on so forth. Hey, you know what if Dan would like to make it the argument that I somehow

Misrepresented him to make the argument. I would be happy to be corrected But the I think the real offense here is that I didn't misrepresent at all.

I'm the one who who studied him He did not study me So that does put you in a tough spot anyway

Someone wrote in and informed me that there had been an interview on this free thought radio program on pull out your hair

America That I thought well, this must be this is gonna be interesting and I kept forgetting to throw it on my shuffle

I finally got it on my shuffle and Listened to it today While I was writing and it was interesting.

I listened to a lengthy da Carson Lecture on the use the Old Testament Hebrews, which is fascinating And then

I listened to this and man, there's a huge difference Yes, there is just a huge depth difference,

I'm sorry, but but again ermine's arguments are Very surface level they really are his arguments when he's when he leaves

Textual the textual critical realm and he starts getting in talking about the New Testament. His arguments are extremely shallow and so Here's this was

Less than three weeks ago now April 25th We're gonna listen to what he has to say and respond to what he has to say and take your phone calls as well at 877 7 5 3 3 3 4 1 after a rather glowing introduction of all of dr

Ehrman's great academic credentials. He taught Rutgers. He teaches at UNC etc, etc

Finally, they got to the discussion, North Carolina. Welcome to free thought radio Bart Ehrman Thanks for having me.

We saw you on the Colbert show last week. That was fun. It was a trip Was a trip wasn't it we posted that in the blog and Unlike the first time he was on Colbert really went after him this time and hey

You know what? He handled it fine in the sense that he didn't get mean or nasty He hardly got over in edgewise and he just realized the only reason

I'm on here is to promote my book That's you know, as long as people get to hear about the book.

I'm gonna sell copies and so who cares if Colbert Ravages me in the process.

I'm only here for one. How do we explain this amazing thing? Biblical textual criticism has been kind of an arcane topic

How does it get on Comedy Central all of a sudden your books are your books are making a difference? Well, you know

I think there are a lot of people out there who are interested in knowing about the Bible from a historical point of view

Because the only way they've heard of it before is from a church setting or a Sunday school setting Now notice again as we've pointed out so many times there is this black and white world in in Bart Ehrman's world

And that is he's the historian He made that very clear in a phone conversation with me before our debate that that he's a historian and I have no right to Even address the area.

I think I've taught more church history and he has but that doesn't matter because I'm a believing Christian and You're not a critical scholar if you're still in the believing

Christian realm Or if you don't, you know buy into certain presuppositions, but notice the black and white world

You're not going to hear anything historical about the Bible in church or in Sunday school I would just invite anyone to listen to the past a number of years of The Sunday school that I teach

PR BC and you'll discover that they get exposed to a lot of history But anyway, that's just another thing and they're interested in knowing what scholars have actually been saying about the

Bible and so And again, just as with Shabir Ali from Bart Ehrman's perspective you agree with him

You're a scholar if you don't agree with him. Well, then you're not a scholar. That is the very definition of scholarship Little hint here whenever you hear anyone use the term scholars scholarship without providing any further description

Unless they provide that description in the context. You're not listening to someone who's honestly dealing with the information

You're listening to someone who has who has a really a fundamentalistic view Because isn't that what what is bad about the people we call fundamentalists today now?

I know I know there's a historical meaning the term fundamentalist and in many ways I would be a fundamentalist in that historical sense of the term, but let's face it today a

Fundamentalist is a person who holds to their view without even knowledge of Interaction with appreciation for or response to other viewpoints.

That's what fundamentalism has come to me I wish that's not what it has come to mean, but that's how it's used today

And so if you could use the term, you know You unless you're willing to completely redefine it and spend 15 minutes every single time placing in its historical use.

Okay, great But is that not what we identify is the very bad attitude of fundamentalism is an absolute

Certainty of one position that completely ignores the the existence of another position and yet that's what we have in Bart Ehrman That's what we have and Dan Barker is atheistic and agnostic fundamentalism

Which will just simply say well scholars say as if this is somehow New when he himself admits none of this is new but just simply says this doesn't get out into the churches

Well, you know what in some churches it doesn't but I can very rightly say My church isn't one of the most recent book of mine is is saying what scholars for?

Many decades now have been saying about the New Testament from a historical perspective. She's from a historical perspective

Functionally for Ehrman it's the historical perspective But as people are starting to point out and I'm not the only one clanging this

Bell But as as people are starting to point out in essence dr.

Ehrman Doesn't seem overly familiar with or gives no

Attention to a tremendous amount of scholarship Especially in these historical issues.

I've pointed out some of the reviews of his book that have made that case Interrupted is the title

Jesus interrupted revealing the hidden contradictions in the Bible and why we don't know about them published by Harper one

Now you used to be a true believer, didn't you? I was a very hardcore believer

I was a very conservative Evangelical Christian for many years before I went to Wheaton College, which itself is very evangelical

I actually went to Moody Bible Institute, which is a bastion of fundamentalism and Graduated from there before going to Wheaton But then

I went to Princeton Seminary and pursued my studies and the more I studied the more I realized that the

Bible Has problems with it, but it probably is not the inerrant revelation that I once thought it was you saw the light

Yeah, well some people said that I went from being born again to being dead again Well, some of us were born right the first time.

That's what we say Wow Okay Again one of the reasons

I place on this stuff is is because there seems to be still this this rather naive element amongst quote -unquote evangelical scholars

Especially in the textual critical realm that just simply will not wrap their minds around the fact that Bart Ehrman is an enemy of Christianity he he is not an unbiased scholar

Who's just you know evaluating things the man is an apostate and as an apostate?

He's not an inactive apostate He in fact is an apostate who is making a large portion of his living upon attacking the

Christian faith Now that's not that that's just isn't that obvious. I mean

It shocks me when people how you can't say. Oh, you're just being hard -nosed there now.

Will you do it? What Happened to recognizing the obvious what happened to to recognizing?

What is plainly sitting right in front of your face? I I just I don't understand that part, but Anyway listen to this this kind of discussion this kind of statement and You're talking here about apostasy you're talking here about The very things that are the substance of Such texts as Galatians and first John and things like that, and it's ho ho ho and ha ha ha

Isn't it fun? We're all freethinkers and agnostics and atheists and la la la la and One of the reasons

I play these things is to provide further evidence of the fact that we're not talking here about some unbiased discussion of the

Bible Bart Ehrman is not a friend to Historical Christianity in any way shape or form how long did this take?

Well, it took a number of years for me to realize that I could no longer hold to the infallibility of the

Bible But I started finding Contradictions and discrepancies and I started seeing the different authors at different points of view

So finally, I had to give up the idea that the Bible was infallible, but I remained a

Christian for a long number of years Before I finally for other reasons

Decided that I couldn't believe anymore and became an agnostic. That was about 10 or 12 years ago

Well, what are those other reasons the other reasons I deal with in my book God's problem the problem of suffering

For you for years, of course I knew what people said about why they're suffering in the world

But I got to a point where I could no longer believe that there was a good and powerful God in control of this world

Given all the suffering and misery and pain in it now before these now, of course

We really haven't spent a lot of time when when God's problem came out. I commented on it did a little blogging on it, but These three most popular books again,

I don't want this to sound unnecessarily harsh but especially

The the two on the New Testament Bart Ehrman himself says there's nothing new here

And there isn't there's nothing new here, I mean other than a Consistent Willingness to embrace the most destructive conclusions when there isn't any reason to do that.

Well outside of your own personal history God's problem was not a meaningful addition to The literature on theodicy it really wasn't

I'm not the only one who said that again but since I I Guess the reason I get in trouble so much is that I do a program like this and as long as you say it in a scholarly

Journal article that only a certain number of people are gonna read then you're okay But see

I say it to lay people and you're not supposed to say things to lay people for some reason I guess that's where it all comes from But but the reality is it was not a meaningful contribution to the the current discussion of the existence the problem of evil

In fact many people faulted it for being exceptionally simplistic and it was along those lines and So, you know,

I I hear things like this and immediately thoughts are coming in your mind How do you define evil? And you go back and you consider having

I read his book the day it came out I mean the day it arrived in my office. I had pre -ordered it So it you know pretty much the day it received public release and I was just like wow

There's just there's just no nothing here But he keeps going back to that and we do need to understand from his perspective

The reason he left Christian faith was that subject not the textual critical subject He he claims even after he lost belief in the

Bible to have remained a Christian Well that of course then leads us to what kind of Christianity are we talking about in the first place at that point?

So We'll continue with with Bart Ehrman's interview with With Dan Barker on freethought radio, which took place prior to the debate that I have with Dan Barker and Your phone calls got two lines are taken right now and we'll be taking your phone calls as well

Eight seven seven seven five three three three four one. We'll be right back Bible works 8 is here full of innovative and essential tools users will have a hundred and ninety plus Bible translations

Thirty -five original language text and morphology databases twenty -nine lexical grammatical references and an abundance of additional resources

Pastors you'll appreciate the phrase matching tool Which will allow you to find all of the verses containing phrases similar to your search verse giving you greater depth and keener insight during sermon preparation

Seminary professors and students will be enriched by the way Bible works 8 shows the most common words in the pericope book or chapter

Plus provides a wider range of formatting options and faster access to copying preferences scholars

Your research just got easier with the army external resources manager a handy tool to collect organize and display resource files

From your computer as well as the internet. Dr. James White says Bible works is the best Bible software available

I have used Bible works software for years and each new release has brought many new and useful tools to the program

This is the program that runs 24 -7 on my office computer and it is the one that's running on my laptop when

I engage in Debates it is simply the number one research tool for anyone doing serious exegesis of the text for over 15 years

Bible works has assisted all users in their study of the original languages and that enables you to Do one thing focus on the text and that translates to focusing on the truth

Order your copy of Bible works at a omen org and for a limited time You'll receive free shipping and a free mp3 download of the white airmen debate

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. J. 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 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 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

Let's continue on here before we get to our phone calls because that's going to take us I think looking at the topics far away from where we are right now.

So let's try to hold some Consistency here. I'll try to be quick so we can get to our callers these three most recent

I guess best -selling books which are really a phenomenon I had known about you already be as an author of textbooks of of the

Bible books that are being used in campuses all over the country explaining the principles of textual criticism and understanding

So you are the real thing you believed it and you really do know what you're talking about. Tell us about Jesus interrupted

What are some of these? Hidden contradictions in the Bible and why don't we know about them? Well, well some of the contradictions are just minor little details that can't be reconciled with one another

But but when you actually look at them closely you realize they're actually pretty important Just as one example

Our earliest gospel is the gospel of Mark and it tells us Explicitly which day

Jesus died on Jesus has a Passover meal with his disciples the Jewish Passover He's afterwards arrested spent the night in jail and the next morning at 9 o 'clock in the morning

He's crucified. So he's crucified the day after the Passover meal was eaten

Our last gospel is the gospel of John written maybe 30 years after Mark and it also explicitly tells us when

Jesus dies But in John's gospel, we're told that Jesus died On the in the afternoon afternoon on the day of preparation for the

Passover the day before The day before the Passover meal was eaten. So both of those things can't be true

I mean died either one day or the other or neither, but they can't both be true. It took 24 hours to die

There you go. Well, the problem is he goes to the cross at 9 in the morning on in Mark but he goes to the cross afternoon in John and so You know, he was killed one day or the other

Now, why did I never preach a sermon about that contradiction? Well, I'm not sure but it actually is an important contradiction because the gospel of John which has

Jesus died on the day of preparation Is trying to say something which is that for John John is the only gospel that says that Jesus is the

Lamb of God Who takes away the sins of the world? Well the day of preparation Afternoon is when they killed the

Passover lambs in preparation for the meal that evening and so John has Jesus died precisely on the day and at the hour that the lambs were being killed because for John Jesus is

The Lamb of God and he's the unblemished and he's unspotted with sin. So he's that perfect Passover It's a perfect sacrifice and so he dies exactly at that time so John John has changed a historical datum in order to make a theological point and What I argue in my book is this sort of thing happens all over the place in the

New Testament And so if we do try to reconcile or harmonize them We are doing damage to the intention of those particular authors

Yeah, that's one of my leading theses in the book is that if you try and combine the two somehow

What you do is you take away the distinctive emphasis of each one so that now you you've in fact in effect written your own

Gospel, which isn't isn't like anything in the New Testament now there you have why

Most Christians upon hearing something like that leaving Dan Barker's comments out to be honest with you

Dan Barker's comments didn't add to but took away from what Irma was saying And you know for free thought radio,

I guess free thought means as long as it's anti -christian We'll think it but where's the critical thought?

Where's providing even a a modicum of response? Because there are responses don't people stop and think wow

I wonder in what Christian scholars have said about this down to the their responses are not even given a place

It's just simply well, you know, we know this is why John was doing this and we can we know what John's purposes were, right?

How does Bart Ehrman know that I? Mean it's presented as if well,

I am Bart Ehrman. So I know these things. I know what John's thoughts were

Well, how does he know that that's what I want to know now in listening that About a month prior to the debate

I gave a presentation at Covenant Grace Church in st. Charles Responding to Bart Ehrman's best arguments and I played his presentation where he went through though his standard series and this was one of them

He he says that these are not historically reliable accounts. The authors are not eyewitnesses many stories were invented many stories were changed

They're not contemporary. They're not disinterested. They're not consistent with one another and that's why we can't Accept these things and here's one of his examples and that is

Mark and John Explicitly without question. They cannot be harmonized

In fact to even try to harmonize them is to destroy their their distinction their distinctiveness and their uniqueness now

I'm sorry, but I find it just a little bit disingenuous for you to go on the air as Bart Ehrman does over and over and over again said

I am respecting John and Mark by Respecting the fact that they contradict each other.

I'm sorry, but I don't find that to be an honest approach

Well, I we just need to let John be John and Mark be Mark and both of them be false That's what's being said.

That sounds real good And it that's meant to appeal to the post modernist who isn't really thinking about what you're saying.

Anyways There is no question that we need to allow Mark to be Mark and John to be

John But that doesn't mean that the result of that means that they can't be the Word of God because that's what Ehrman is saying

We need to respect them, but we need to say they're not the Word of God The two are the two are going hand in hand.

We need to understand. This is what they're saying But how do you respond to the statement? I'm gonna try to go this to go through this as quickly as I can

I do want to get to our callers I don't want you dropping off but but I do want to respond to this and demonstrate that it is

Bart Ehrman and Dan Barker just sort of following along going. Oh, well, you know, whatever

Ehrman says, you know, he knows his stuff So whatever he says must be true Let's consider the reality

Now I'm not the first one to have pointed these things out. You can go back a long ways. I Specifically remember as a freshman in college

Reading a T Robertson's harmony of the Gospels that had an appendix in the back that deals with many of these very issues so I was

I was rather young and Reading this stuff going.

Oh, that's that's fascinating. It's and it's not like this was hidden from me That's why I'm not overly happy with the the title of Ehrman's book.

He basically claims he had no control over that I don't buy that either. I've written just made books as he has and and No publisher has ever forced me to use a title that I felt was deceptive or untrue or anything else but he basically says well all that stuff is you know, he palms all that off on on the on the publisher and but the hidden Contradictions the

Bible and why we don't know about them. What do you mean? Why we don't know about them You know, what where is that coming from?

Oh, do you just all just try to cover this stuff up baloney? Untrue false easily documented to be false.

All right, let's look at The the issue here and then we'll get to our calls The Passover lamb was slain in the afternoon of Nisan 14

The Passover feast the unleavened bread began that day with the Passover meal that evening the beginning of Nisan 15

Remember the Jewish day began at sunset not at sunrise. You need to keep those types of issues before you

When Considering these things the synoptics all agree that on the first day of unleavened bread

Jesus sent Peter and John from Bethany to make a preparation to make preparation for the eating the Passover meal

You can find this in Matthew 26 17 mark 14 12 and in Luke 22 7 Clearly in the synoptics

Jesus ate the normal Passover meal and hence was crucified on Nisan 15 the day after that Many scholars including modern and mainly conservative scholars have concluded that John has

Jesus eat the Passover on Nisan 13 So that he is crucified at the same time as the

Passover lamb on Nisan 14, which is what Ehrman was talking about that point However, there are five relevant passages in the

Gospel of John that we need to look at Ehrman says that clearly John contradicts the synoptics, but is that so in John chapter 13 verses 1 through 3

We read now before the feast the Passover when Jesus knew that his hour had come to depart out of this world of the father Having loved his own who were in the world

He loved them to the end during supper when the devil had already put into the heart of Judas Iscariot Simon's son to betray him

Jesus knowing the father had given all things in his hands and that he had come from God and was going back to God And I stopped it there because notice the beginning of John 13 1 before the feast of the

Passover It is assumed on the basis of this being before the feast the

Passover that this means it was 24 hours before that is 13 Nisan But this requires us to read feast the

Passover as referring only To the initial meal not to the entire celebration which lasted an entire week

Instead the text speaks of Jesus doing things during the supper, which is clearly the normal Passover meal in John 13 27 we read then after he had taken the morsel

Satan entered into him Jesus said to him what you are going to do do quickly now No one at the table knew why he said this to him some thought that because Jews had the money bag

Jesus was telling him by what we need for the feast or that he should give something to the poor Now in regards this text and by the way, if we need to go a few minutes over We're gonna get the callers in so y 'all hang on we'll get to you

It is assumed that the disciples would not have thought Judas was going to make preparations for the feast if the

Passover meal Itself was already over hence. This must be 13 Nisan not 14

But there is no reason to limit the meaning of the feast to the Passover meal only but to the entire feast of unleavened bread which makes the statement consistent with the synoptics as long as you do not make the

The assumption that the feast is just the initial meal it wasn't just the initial meal

John 18 28 then they led Jesus from the house of Caiaphas to the governor's headquarters. It was early morning

They themselves did not enter the governor's headquarters So that they would not be defiled but could eat the

Passover Does eat the Passover mean simply the Paschal Supper now see again people say oh you're you're trying to twist things here

No ask honest questions does eat the Passover means simply the Paschal Supper No The term

Passover is used eight times in John besides this instance and each refers to the

Passover festival Not simply to the supper you can see this for example in 2nd

Chronicles 30 verse 22 So they ate the food of the festival for seven days That wouldn't fit this idea of well the

Passover is just the one meal They ate the food of the festival for seven days since this comment is made early in the morning think about this

This must mean the festival why think about think about your your Jewish history for a moment

It must mean the festival not the supper alone. Why? Because any impurities would pass away at sundown

Just this morning. I was listening to Deuteronomy while I was writing and one of the things that lays out is that Impurities and at sundown because that's the next day since it says this was in the morning

They didn't want to go in so they could eat the Passover They could eat the Passover, but their impurities would be gone by the time the

Paschal meal was served anyways So it wouldn't make any sense for John to say what he said

Unless we understand that he's talking about the entire Passover festival not merely the meal itself

Now why doesn't ermine? Address things like that wasn't even acknowledged that these issues are there because he's not dealing on us with the text.

That's why He's promoting a position not actually dealing with the text the next section

John John 1914 now It was the day of preparation of the Passover. It was about the sixth hour. He said the

Jews behold your King So here's the here's the real strong one. Here's the one that even Barker sort of chimed in on now it was the day of preparation of the

Passover So the assumption that is made is Well, that means it's the day where you prepare for the

Passover. So this has to be This has to be in direct contradiction because this is where you'd be preparing for the

Passover feast here's the problem with that and Here's where here's where ermine has absolutely no excuses because he has to know the language well enough to know this

What is the day for Friday? What is the word for Friday in the Greek language?

Most people don't know this most people don't know this at all Most I would say most

Christian scholars aren't even aware of this the day for preparation the day for Friday the word is preparation

It's literally the word preparation. It's not Friday. It's preparation day So when it says now it was the day of preparation of the

Passover The day of preparation simply means Friday. So it's saying it was Friday of the

Passover What Passover all through John the Passover is a week -long festival. All it's saying is this was

Friday of Passover week That's all it's saying. That's the direct rendering of the text.

It's Friday of Passover week and When did the synoptic say this was? Friday of Passover week

John is saying exactly what the synoptic said as long as you don't make the gratuitous gratuitous assumption that Preparation of the

Passover means the day before the festival started Which again ermine has no excuse there?

whatsoever John 1931 since it was a day of preparation So the bodies would not remain on the cross on the

Sabbath that Sabbath was a high day The Jews asked pilot that their legs might be broken and that they might be taken away every day

We need to keep in mind every day of the festival was a high day Including the Sabbath of the festival week

This does not mean the first day of the festival coincide with the Sabbath altering the timeline So we see in each one of these texts that John is in harmony with the synoptics on this matter now

I went to it very quickly, and I'm sorry if you didn't get all of it, but the point is this you can allow

John to be John and Still see the harmony that exists between John and the synoptic

Gospels But these folks never even take the time to listen

They never even allow these views to the table because their conclusions have already been drawn

That's what you're dealing with in situations like that and so since we have so many calls.

I'll go to the calls now But we'll pick up right at that point next time with the interview between Bart Ehrman and Dan Barker on freethought radio, so let's get to our callers here, and let's talk with Derek in Florida.

Hi Derek Hi I Originally didn't expect to be live on the radio speaking with you

I called to thank you for your ministry because I came across your material online especially your apologetics on Roman Catholicism I'm a

Protestant but I've the last couple years have been able to listen to stuff like Catholic answers on the radio and have

Experted me on the greater study, and I came across your stuff And I really wanted to thank you for your work over the past couple of decades.

Thank you Especially since I know a lot of I've heard a lot of the people that you have debated with From the radio and But I I was going to ask you about Well I was

I'll change my Well what I'll do is I'll mention also that the time the Roman time that they used also in John is different than the the time of the crucifixion and After they scourged

Jesus and Pilate said behold your King. I think he said was the sixth hour that's using Roman time right while while The synoptics

Use Jewish time the Middle East the Middle Eastern right? Oh, yeah, I didn't get to that, but but you're exactly right since he didn't mention it there to just simply point

Make the assertion that there is no means of Without doing damage to either the synoptics or John Recognizing that John is using

Roman time over against the synoptics That that has been around for a long long time it does not even begin to strain credulity to recognize that there is a way of telling time that starts with sunrise and is a way of telling time that uses more of the

Type of time scheme that we use today and that if you just recognize that there's perfect harmony once again between John And the synoptic

Gospels there is no reason whatsoever to adopt the contradiction

Evidently Ehrman's perspective is guilty until proven innocent and certainly that's Dan Barker's view of the

Bible and Here we have Bart Ehrman doing the same thing, but actually you had called on the second Corinthians chapter 5

So we've got two other callers. Let's try to get to that Yes Misinterpreted by Roman Catholic apologists the

Ministry of Reconciliation Verses 18 through 20 In Paul writing about Us being reconciled

God has reconciled the world Through Christ. I'm just paraphrasing. I'm outside.

That's good They they basically use the word It's something close to Presbytory or the ministry where it makes it seem like Paul is hearing confessions

During his Actually, it's it's diakonos. Yeah diakoni on Tase catalogue ace is the

Ministry of Reconciliation Which would be sort of hard if they want to try to turn this into a sacramental reference to priestly absolution and things like that I know that they do so but again, it is one of those situations where you have

The Roman Catholic Magisterium providing a context outside of that of the New Testament Do you have my book the

God who justifies? No, but I heard it. I I don't get a chance to hear this program, but But I will

I will look into it There's a whole section I included a whole section because this is relevant to the doctrine of justification of exegesis of 2nd

Corinthians chapter 5 Verses 17 through through the following and I would just you know,

I I do this all the time. I invite people To if they're looking at what

Roman Catholic apologists are saying to compare the exegesis that I offer of the relevant text that one

Romans Galatians James 2 With what is provided by Catholic answers what is provided by the priests that they put on the air

Which was which was provided by Robert's and Janice if they even will acknowledge his existence any longer, etc, etc

And just compare the two see which one is is consistent all the way across whether you're dealing with Romans or Galatians or James see who is consistent and see who is actually depending upon external sources as Their foundation for their exegesis and I think you'll discover

That what is being said in 2nd Corinthians chapter 5 is this Ministry of Reconciliation is involved in the proclamation of the gospel and That this proclamation of the gospel is a proclamation of the content of what

God has done in Jesus Christ Specifically through that great exchange that takes place

He made him who knew no sin to be sin in our behalf that we might be made the righteousness of God in him

That is the foundation of reconciliation And the Apostles are the ones to whom that is initially being made reference to that as he's

Given to us the Ministry of Reconciliation is first and foremost to the Apostles And that this this word of reconciliation is for both

Christians and non -christians. That is this is a universal word It is it is something for the unbeliever.

He needs to experience that initial reconciliation But for the Christian that Christian needs to experience that reconciliation on a regular basis we don't tell people to love

God once There it's to be a regular thing. We don't tell people to believe once it's to be a regular thing and The fact that the

Son is continually in the presence of the Father as our intermediary not as a as a unfinished work

Presenting the finished work of Calvary is the foundation of our recognition of the fact that we that we are being

Reconciled it is a continuation of that finished work of Christ. So to the amazing thing is to me is that they will make reference to things like that and Then they will connect it to stuff that has no foundation in the

New Testament whatsoever What is the primary mechanism by which the sacramental authority is expressed in Roman Catholicism?

We were talking about in the last dividing line the sacramental priesthood. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Oh, yeah

Yeah, the priesthood and yet where this would be the perfect place, you know

I realize this is not the best kind of argumentation, but given that you were talking about people who are Inserting a concept in the

New Testament that's never found anywhere. I think it is a valid argument Why don't we find right here?

The the sacramental priesthood Because I mean, I mean the

Roman Catholic cannot even talk about these things without immediately associating with the sacramental priesthood But Paul nowhere does this

You know if it was just that well, he mentions it over there. He mentions it over there He mentions it other places.

Okay, this wouldn't be really valid argument, but he never Mentions this sacramental priesthood anywhere

And this would be exactly where you would expect this type of thing to be found, but it's it's simply not there and so Yeah, I know that they do utilize it in that way, but it doesn't seem to have a solid foundation

But if he wasn't called to baptize but to preach the gospel of the cross of Christ, he's certainly not going to be hearing confession

Third but I want it again. Thank you for your ministry, and I'm going to look into getting that book the

God of justification Yeah Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you for calling.

God bless. Bye. Bye. Bye. All right, let's go to right here in The great state of Arizona and talk with David in Tucson.

Hi David We'll go as long as it takes to answer the the your call and George and in Virginia then we'll wrap up Talking about Bart Ehrman.

I actually had a textual criticism question in fact that I you can just give me some scholarship sources on this and my question was whether or not

John 753 through 811 should be classified as scripture in light of three facts and I'll admit that these facts might be colored based on my own particular understanding and That is such as early manuscripts like p39 and p66

Does not contain the story and this would have been about of course during the time of the early canonization of the church universal second being the fact it's inconsistency in its location in scriptures such as in Luke alone is like John and third the emergence of the story in scripture, which in my opinion seems to occur about the same time as Various Gnostic accepted influences such as the

Marian documents and of course since our authority is scripture alone this does have somewhat of a big deal in regards to the purity of scripture itself a number of things

I Can't remember where it was I don't think

I might have been in in the conference we did but I don't think it was I I have addressed The pericope adultery a number of times

There may be something in my youtube videos where I go over it. I I'd have to I'd have to look at that But I certainly do address it rather fully in the

King James only controversy a couple things I would agree with the first two points

The the fact that the earliest manuscript that we have that contains The pericope adultery

John 7 to 3 3 to 11 is codex Beza cantabrigiensis is a major mark against the text from my perspective given that Beza is

An extremely unusual manuscript and described was sort of an early

Kenneth Taylor If that means anything to you Kenneth Taylor the originator of the Living Bible that is he was willing to paraphrase

Make additions very freely to the text And so that particular actually

Beza is a copy of that original not original But the the work that that scribe written initially created so that's that's the first problem secondly the second argument is from my from my perspective the most important and That is when you have a story such as John 7 53 8 11

Which appears at different places in different manuscripts and in fact in different books?

in different manuscripts that to me is a clear indication of a Dominical story that has been transmitted orally and is trying to find a place to live in essence and Eventually landed due to Beza's influence in in the

Gospel of John even though as you noted it is found in different Places in the Gospel of Luke in the various manuscripts such as family 1 and family 13

The last one I don't know that I would I would argue that that direction I don't know that that that kind of argument holds a whole lot of water yeah, there are all sorts of odd things taking place in the third and fourth centuries, but You have to be able to trace a meaningful connection between those those movements and the text

And I don't see anything in John 7 53 to 8 11. That's necessarily tinged with Gnosticism or something along those lines

Like the Gospel of Hebrews, which is a Gnostic test. Okay, and do you find a direct connection there?

In fact, it's been a while since I've read it so I would need to double -check on that Yeah, well similar to a story might be interesting.

Actually, I think maybe a better third point is that syntactically speaking? The Percocet adultery is more

Luke and than it is your honey It fits more with Luke than it does with John that that might be actually

I think and is more commonly one of the things that is brought up in a discussion of John 7 53 to 11, but There is a full discussion of that in in the

King James only controversy and I just want to mention to folks that I think it is important that we know about this because again people like Bart Ehrman is popularizing a

Discussion of this particular text and if we are not aware of just the basic things

This is one of the two largest textual variants in a New Testament that and the longer ending of Mark are similar in size

Both encompassing 12 verses and so we need to be aware of this and it's very frustrating to me

To see how many Christians not just Christians, but even ministers who have never bothered to look at that small print on the bottom of the page and are therefore not aware of This the historical facts in regards to this story.

I think that Dan Wallace has described the Percocet adultery as his favorite story.

That's not in the Bible But we need to be aware of what the historical facts of these these issues are and so that they will not be

Unwanted weapons Used to to attack our faith. So hopefully that's useful to you David Yeah, if you know of anything like any of the

Bible editors have written a sort of comment for Dan Wallace has written about it

In fact, he has said that he had pushed the NET to actually remove it from the text to put it only in a footnote they may be doing that in the next edition of the

NET and if you've not seen the NET NA 27 diaglot that we have through the ministry

I think you would find it to be extremely useful because there is an extension extended discussion

Not only that text but many other texts found in that diaglot, which you can find at a omin org

Thank you very much. God bless. Okay. All right real quickly. Let's talk to George see George.

We even stayed late just for you Thank you. Thanks a lot. I just want to say really quick. I really appreciate your ministry

I think it's one of the best out there. I have a ministry of my own called the Protestant Knights We actually have a link on our site to yours

But my question was um, what you at the issues you were talking about like alleged contradictions in the

Bible I was wondering if you could give me some book suggestions like the best books like books that you use probably

Yeah, or something like that. Okay, the first three books that I would go to On a on a question like that.

There would be three of them one I just mentioned is the NET any 27 diaglot the reason being that many of these alleged contradictions

The yeah, it's it's on it's a at a omin org you'll find the dot just search for diaglot and it's the

New English translation the na27 on Facing pages and the reason it's so useful is you not only have the na27 but right across the page

In fact, I'm looking at the page on John 8 right now You still there?

Yeah. Okay good. It just sounded like a hang -up sound there But um, you will find I don't know how many at least half of the page on the

English side are Greek and textual translation footnotes.

Yeah, there's over 30 ,000 or something like that And then there's an experiment like um contradicts. Yes I am

I am I am actually addressing that because so often the alleged Contradiction has a textual critical basis in it

You need to first check and make sure that whatever translations being used is actually rendering the text correctly

And so that's the first place I go is I want to make sure of what the text is Yeah, the net na27 diaglot

Together with that. The other thing that we make available. That is extremely useful again along that same lines is the

New Testament text and translation commentary by Philip Comfort the the

New Testament text and translation commentary Once you go to those two you can have a pretty good idea that you've established the text you're dealing with at least in the

New Testament and then obviously the most useful book that I have found over the years

In dealing with these things and in giving me a start in studying alleged contradictions

Is going to be Gleason Archer's encyclopedia of Bible difficulties It isn't it isn't no, it's not.

In fact, I have purchased copies for my kids I'd say it's around 19 something like that.

We really should carry it We really really should have it and maybe rich can get on that Gleason Archer's encyclopedia of Bible difficulties.

It's a single volume and Because it's single volume then it doesn't go into super super depth on everything, but I have found it to be extremely useful

In getting me started in looking at some of the more common and some of the less common

Issues that you're gonna come up with when it comes up to alleged contradiction and beyond that There is one book that is somewhat expensive that I'll throw in here because you're asking for them one from my perspective the toughest biblical issues to deal with are

The use of the Old Testament by the New That's the smart atheists are using that information and when you find folks that are using other stuff

They're they're really not doing their study. So the the brand -new Carson Beal edited work

The commentary on the Old Testament's use of the new I don't have it in my studio right now So I can't give you the exact name, but just look up Carson and Beal be a le.

Those are the editors Yeah, be a le and and da Carson They edited this massive and it is a big book and I'd say it's probably in the 40s or 50s

But it is the the largest work that is that has been compiled that I know of on that particular subject

So it's it's the next step to go to Yeah, any t -slash na 27 dieglot

Dieglot DIG LLT dieglot. Okay, just search on dieglot. It'll come up. Yeah.

Yeah, I really appreciate it I just want to say thank you. Okay. Thank you very much George. Thanks for calling. Have a good one All right.

God bless. Well, we got to everybody and hopefully some very practical Things there toward the end as well and ended up going six and a half minutes long.

Well, that's okay We appreciate your listening the program today. Hopefully you have found something that has helped you in your service to Christ We will continue with our examination of the interview between with Dan Barker and Bart Ehrman when we come back on Thursday Lord willing.

We'll see you then. God bless We need

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