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. It's 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. Hey, 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 they 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 Phone lines are open 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 a number of times.

Yeah, 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 who it 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 couple days because I'll go finally got 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 Razor's Kiss as I recall Razor's 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 writing 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'd 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 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. Yeah, you 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, 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's Erman 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 of 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 Spong did not find it to be A sign of respect that I quoted him to him. But 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 repeating I quoted him I quoted him I'm sorry if I do that it 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 misrepresent 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.

Bart Ehrman on Biblical Contradictions and the Historicity of the Gospels

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

Thanks for having me. Who. 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. Because the only way they've heard of it. 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 gonna 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 fundamentalist 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 many decades now have been saying about the New Testament from a historical perspective.

Jesus 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 this.

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 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. All right. Wow, okay.

Again one of the reasons I play some of 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 I thought 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 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. For other reasons decided that I couldn't believe anymore and became an agnostic.

That was about 10 or 12 years ago. What are those other reasons? There are the reasons I deal with in my book. God's problem the problem of suffering. For four 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 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 it 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.

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.

877 -753 -3341 we'll drive back. Bible works 8 is here full of innovative and essential tools. Users will have a hundred and ninety plus Bible translations 35 original language text and morphology databases 29 lexical grammatical references and an abundance of additional resources.

Pastors you will 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-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 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.

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 die 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.

He's the unblemished and he's unspotted with sin.

So he's that perfect Passover 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 about it's 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.

That's 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 I wonder if 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 so 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 And I played his presentation where he went through the 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 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.