"God speaks truthfully and the bible is his word." *citation needed

@daithiocinnsealach1982

4 жыл бұрын

It is a self-authenticating inner witness of the Holy Spirit... 🙄

@endofscene

4 жыл бұрын

@@daithiocinnsealach1982 Obviously

Bloody interesting! And educational. I’m loving all of the Lectures and going to start reading Bart’s books starting with the one being discussed 👍🏿😊

@pinball1970

5 жыл бұрын

Liabeachy. I recommend 'The Bible' Bart critiques all of the books in the Bible. Also 'Jesus interrupted'

Dr. Williams stumbled, rambled, and did a nice bit of circumlocution when questioned about the story of the woman accused of adultery.

@dionsanchez3131

8 жыл бұрын

Insignificant issue.

@rbgg2010

5 жыл бұрын

@@dionsanchez3131 "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" is one of the most famous biblical quotes and teaches a very important moral lesson given by the words and actions of Jesus himself...if the story is a fabrication added in later, that's not an insignificant issue.

The problem with William's 'glass half full' philosophy is that he back projects today's view on the sanctity of Holy Scripture on to the earliest Christian authors and copyists. His default position assumes that these early Christians wouldn't change texts or fabricate stories to suit themselves. This is of course, demonstrably false. In the first few centuries AD there were at least 30 gospels and epistles that didn't ultimately make it into the NT ..because the Church thought they were either untrue or uninspired. These were written (or rather fabricated) by early Christians. Making stories about Jesus up and pretending that texts were written by prominent apostles when they weren't, was common practice among early Christians.

45:17 I don't really see why "chance" changes are really any better than "intelligent" changes. They're still changes right? The reasoning behind them is different but whether ill intent change, positive intent change or even unfortunate neutral mistake changes doesn't really negate that in fact that there were changes made. I mean looking towards chance changes as a positive is a weak apology to make for the bible. But at least that's better than ignoring it completely and acting as if they don't exist. But still.

@theyeticlutch3486

5 жыл бұрын

Yep, not sure how you can admit there are mistakes and still think its inspired by the most all powerful and all knowing being

Another lesson well learned TY Bart. I am in year two studying the works of BE. My last teacher fell asleep, RIP DR Spiros. I must say Peter has a very good point about the GK word in Mark 1:41 and Bart does agree, it is a valid point. Peter is a smart scholar, but Bart once again proved his case !!

This issue about anger and compassion is a diversion; it is perfectly feasible to have anger at the way people are rejected; to be angry not at the person (as Ehrman implies) but at the fact he is ill and disfigured in the first place....these are different types of anger

How do you know its an original writing without a primary source ? Answer.. YOU CANT!!!!! You just BELIEVE IT IS! BELIEF =IGNORANCE!

Peter Williams literally gets on a rocket ship and blasts off out of this debate right at the end. “What humans think about what’s in the Bible is not the basis of the view of scripture.” Okay, then why are you researching the Bible, bro? Go back to Church. Your ultimate argument ends up being “the Bible is the Bible.” Embarrassing.

@jamesmcalister1383

4 жыл бұрын

Yours is the typical entitlement that is rampant in this day & age. We were blessed - undeservingly so - to receive even a glimpse into the mind of our Creator. Smh... Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

@dutube99

3 жыл бұрын

@@jamesmcalister1383 What are you talking about? Incog. made a good point, aggressively so, but still good.

1:16:25 wow what a joke. How are you even suppose to have a convetsation with someone who says that

@tiagoscherer1158

4 жыл бұрын

Totally agree. What a perfect idiot ! So the scriptures were created to whom if not for humans to understand ? And how do you know you understand what the gods are supposed to understand ???? hahahaha

Are "Whose Word is it?: The Story Behind Who Changed The New Testament and Why" and "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why" the same book, or do they contain significant textual variants? How can we be certain we are reading the authoritative text in this case?

@Resenbrink

3 жыл бұрын

you could ask the author

Great dialogue!

Is NT inherent. Answer at this age and just 50 years ago is very different. If scholars do not believe that Bible is preserved in the shape that what Jesus said it is there how than common ppl can. Christianity is loosing a ground.

It's nonsensical to make a case by saying "biblical manuscripts are better documented than other ancient texts." Basically ALL ancient texts are atrociously documented. It's hard enough to use ancient sources to build a plausible account of "dry" events like politics and wars... going beyond that and claiming ancient texts give inerrant accounts of miracles is ... bizarre to me.

The Bible contradiction makes it more credible. I am no Scholar having only finished High School. I am a Believer and a big fan of Bart Ehrman!

@RevRMBWest

4 жыл бұрын

The Bible does not have contradictions since truth, and God, cannot gainsay themselves. There are no proven contradictions in the Holy Bible, though there are many difficulties - such as the two accounts of the death of Judas; which the unregenerate use to their own destruction, but which the faithful understand as reconcilable in principle; even though, at times, we may not quite clearly see fully how. We have known about these difficulties for centuries; they are nothing new, and various answers are regularly given which are satisfactory and commendable to faith and reason.

@jonfromtheuk467

4 жыл бұрын

@@RevRMBWest ahh, the famous FAKE reverend arrives to tell us all the discrepancies have all been debunked , yet when I have challenged him on it - he has no answers or they are infantile not backed up by science or history.....are you not embarrassed you still use that moniker , passing yourself off as someone you are not?

I'll summarize my understanding of this lecture: Professor Ehrman is here promoting his book. But his book is threatening to Christians that believe in the inerrancy of scripture. So, here's also a counter-scholar so that the host doesn't feel so intimidated when Prof. Ehrman says things that go against Christian doctrine.

So what is Peter Williams' theory for how "anger" was inserted into Mark 1:41? Did I miss it?

This whole issue really came to the fore in the minds of the English-speaking public in 1881, with the publication of the Revised Version of the English New Testament; which was based on a revised printed Greek New Testament which differed from an edition of the Textus Receptus, from which the King James Authorised Version had been published in 1611. The two editions of the printed Greek New Testament do differ in their readings by about 3%, but that leaves 97% the same. Certainly these differences have overthrown the faith of some, but many of us are aware of the differences; we are also aware of how fairly insignificant they are with regard to the overall message of the New Testament; and though some of us may veer either towards the revised Greek New Testament of 1881 or towards the older Received Text; most of us acknowledge that the core message of the New Testament is unaffected. That is not to say that the issues are not unimportant: it is surely important whether or not, for example, John wrote about the women taken in adultery, or Mark ended his gospel at Mark 16: 20, or not; but even then you can still get the word of salvation resounding loud and clear whether you read the revised Greek New Testament of 1881 (or other editions akin to it) or the Textus Receptus from which the Authorised Version of 1611 was translated. The differences between the two printed Greek New Testaments are grounded on differences in the actual Greek manuscripts and the different evaluations scholars make of their relative worth. A new body of scholarship has taken the view that the Textus Receptus is much more worthy than had hitherto been thought, especially where it is backed-up by the vast majority of extant Greek manuscripts (hand-written copies - as it often is). And so the New King James Version of 1982 has been based upon the Textus Receptus, but it has footnotes which point you to differences that it has either with the Critical Text (close to the revised Greek text of 1881) and the Majority Text (which gives you the close consensus of the majority of extant Greek manuscripts). For those interested the vast majority of extant Greek manuscripts hold both the passages about the women taken in adultery (John 8) and the ending of Mark (Mark 16: 9-20).

@gravitywaves2796

4 жыл бұрын

Of course the vast majority of manuscripts contain those passages. Just as one would expect the vast majority we have were created (copied) far more recently than the very small sample we have from anywhere close when the originals were written. The point is those originals did not contain those changes, they were later additions. A person should also realize how turbulent things were in the earliest days of the religion when most of the doctrine was being debated and settled. Besides copies of copies of letters from Paul, we basically have nothing from this period. We literally have zero texts that are actually original to that time. Who can say what changes were made and what texts were completely destroyed before anything that got saved or passed down to our time. A person would have to believe they were preserved by some miraculous means. That is absolutely fine if you believe that. That however is not how real scholars and historians do things.

The interview could have been really good, but the interviewer wouldn't shut up so Prof. Bart could talk.

The originsl text is an insight into the original narcissist who wrote it

@jamesmcalister1383

4 жыл бұрын

Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding.

Peter J Williams is a "glass half full" kind of person in regards to the Bible and New testament ! hahahaha This is such a joke, 21st century and fairy tales are still around. Go humans !

So humans are a strange divinely created laptop, and God is sitting in a cosmic Starbucks, drinking coffee and writing his newest "screenlplay". Christians just believe they got the best version...I mean, what else are they really claiming about God.

37 - 38 minute mark discussion of use of the word pity vs anger in Mark 1: 41. Webster's New World Dictionary of The American Language - College Edition: ANGER - distress, sorrow Latin angustus, narrow, tight, angustia, tightness, distress; cf. ANGUISH 1, a feeling that may result from injury, mistreatment, opposition, etc.: it usually shows itself in a desire to hit out at something or someone else; wrath; indignation; 2. [Obs.], pain or trouble. SYN. - anger, the broadest term in this comparison, implies emotional agitation of no specified intensity aroused by great displeasure; indignation implies righteous anger aroused by what is considered unjust, mean, or shameful. PITY - Latin pietas, piety

Too bad Bart wasn't raised Catholic, then he would not have to worry about anything that scripture says or doesn't say :). When you have an infallible Church and magisterium to rely upon, problem solved! In all seriousness though, why does oral tradition never get raised in any of these discussions? By this I mean if there is a dispute as to what a passage might say sometimes you can look to something other then manuscripts to settle the issues, ie; Liturgy or tradition. This is a legitimate historical approach. We would do much the same say if we were examining the works of Cicero or Memnon and found some abnormality they did not fit with the period or common tradition. Also, when discussing the addition of the story of the woman taken adultery, again to confirm its legitimacy, I would like to have known what other sources have to say about it, ie; Gnostic texts or some of the early church father's writing. I have never been one to be fixated on the closed canon of scripture. To me, no such thing exists. Ie; I have yet to see a convincing reason why the First Epistle of Clement never made the grade. I found the quality of writing at least in Latin and English to have been superior to many of Paul's letters or those that have been purported to be written by Paul.

Strange god that created universe but was either illiterate or could not write a mere book??? Only in scammers design he can be that much impotent!

@jamesmcalister1383

4 жыл бұрын

Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding.

Gosh! First Ehrman and his black-and-white logic, and then worse Williams's pompous theatrical "I believe in 'true and inerrant' although it isn't meant to signify true and inerrant, truly". For self declarations like this I use to walk away from the party, and I'm going to do it this time again! I'm going to find better persons debating to better persons about a better topic than this swampy thing.

Interesting discussion. I keep thinking to myself, surely if the Bible *was* the inspired word of God, God himself would have ensured that it was written down exactly as God would have wanted it, ..without error and without any ambiguous meanings. It seems clear to me it has all the hallmarks of being written by fallible human beings with *no* inspiration from God himself.

@bwoutchannel6356

9 жыл бұрын

It comes to a simple mind that food should be put directly into a persons mouth for it to taste best. Yet oxygen is the life sustaining element from which to progress to greater things. Take away freewill and you only have a simple mind.

@bonnie43uk

9 жыл бұрын

Vincent Licitra Hi Vincent, yes oxygen has been around for billions of years, it sustained the dinosaurs for several hundred millions years. Mankind has been here for a fraction of that time, we could all be wiped out by some virus (ebola perhaps), life will go on in some form for billions of years after mankind has left it's mark. Humanity is a tiny pinprick in the life of this planet.

@bwoutchannel6356

9 жыл бұрын

bonnie43uk And so to give ultimate weight to a need for absolute certainty about all things no matter how apparent they may be is to live life like a dinosaur who fills its belly day or night and then disappears. Yet we believe they were here on earth and we even see creatures similar to some of those from long ago in some small measure. Why then do we not take the same bones of our Christian faith and put on the skin of Christ? Is it to hard? You bet. Sainthood is not something you go to the avenue store and buy as simply as a father buys a pop-sickle for his child.

@bonnie43uk

9 жыл бұрын

Vincent Licitra Hi Vincent, hope you had a good Christmas my friend. Yes, you could argue that we have more evidence for the Dinosaurs in terms of fossils, than we do for the whole Christian story which seems to be based on here'say and rumor.

@bwoutchannel6356

9 жыл бұрын

bonnie43uk A very Merry Christmas season to you. Let's not forget the Holy Innocents. Someone recently pointed out an article you should likely find interesting. Filled with oxygen and food for thought. www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568. I do not need to rely on these sorts of mathematical musings but some people look to this in awe. God love you.

Apostle Paul said "we know in part" (1 Cor 13:9), even though his writings were regarded as 'Scripture' (2 Pet 3:14-15), illustrating that God may have intended the so-called "mistakes" as part of inspiration, so that through imperfect means He might communicate affirmation of our humanity, encourage humility and thus making love (1 Cor 8:1) more important than doctrinal perfection or exactitude.

This is not a scholarly debate - you simply can't have such a debate with someone who clings to bible inerrancy or literalism. Here you have a scholar that was so committed and open-minded that his learning cost him his faith - trying to argue with a pseudo-scholar that simply wants to shoe-horn all data into a flimsily preconceived notion that presupposes the supernatural against all other evidence. Not only that, the pseudo-scholar accuses the scholar of being disingenuous in his claims - and not providing rigorous scholarship. At one point he says that Ehrman doesn't confront accidental changes? Has he even read the book? Then he dismisses ALL (every single bit of!) the evidence that the New Testament went through an oral tradition, a major translation, a series of endless transliterations, and finally an empirical corporatising of the entire corpus to the point that it little resembles the original. The final insult is the two Christians dogged repetition that the changes are largely insignificant. Utter tosh!!!! The changes gave us the virgin birth, the deification of the prophet, the trinity and the anti-semitism that completely engulfs the later gospels.

@kencowen2038

7 жыл бұрын

I don't in principal like to engage with people who write anonymously, but really..... Not scholarly? Pete Williams a Pseudo-scholar? What is your definition of a scholar then 'Kop Prophet'?

@hjc1402

6 жыл бұрын

Kop Prophet do you realize that modern translations come straight from the original manuscripts? Going on about the endless transliteration and so we can’t trust it shows how little you know. Where is your evidence that the virgin birth, etc. we’re changes in the Bible? Where are the original manuscripts that DONT include those? All of this is just pure conjecture. There’s no way to hold up that theory. And that’s all it is, a theory. There’s no evidence for that at all.

@GaudioWind

6 жыл бұрын

Jane C That is something that amazes me. Why would people think that God had reasonable motives to make a virgin give birth to Jesus? To me it clearly looks like a pagan tale made up by ancient man who would think that God would certainly want a virgin to have sex with and conceive His son.

@liabeachy

5 жыл бұрын

BART is not a minister he’s an educator! He made it very clear of his stand as a historian not a preacher or trying to turn people away from their faith . It’s up to the individual to search for the answers they seek .

@RevRMBWest

4 жыл бұрын

Some of Bart Ehrman's arguments are painful to the scholarly ear, let alone the Christian ear. His suggestion that the Trinity is based on 1John 5: 7 is quite a case in point, especially when he admits that 1 John 5: 7 was not in the Greek text: it was fundamentally the Greek Church that formulated the Creed of Nicea-Chalcedon which sets forth the doctrine of the Trinity, and they did that without any reference to 1 John 5: 7; which of course they did not have, which Ehrman admits. 1 John 5: 7 arose in the Latin West much later and is, we think, grounded on the doctrine of the Trinity, rather than the other way. If Ehrman can get that wrong, then what else has he got wrong.

Perfect [all loving, alknowing, and wanting to be loved by all] god would have also written his book in all languages and god's word would have been perfectly understood by all readers. But god decided not to write his book. Instead he dictated his holy word in only one language and used members of only one ethnicity to write it for him. And the book gets lost. God does not even notice that his word is gone forever. For if had noticed that the book was gone, he still could have written a new one and in all languages. Thus, no translations, interpretation, paraphrasing, or teaching his word would be necessary. In addition to this, god could have written his book for all ethnicities even 4.6 k BC--if world began at that time and if 200k years ago, he could have written at that time and taught all his people to read or just forgot all that nonsense and simply embed his will for us and our duties for him into our hearts. So, bible being merely a convenient truth for only hebrew priests? You bet! But they messed that book so bad, that it fooled only total fools!

@dionsanchez3131

8 жыл бұрын

Not lost. We have 25,000 manuscripts. This is why Bart's profession as a textual critic is so valued. We have the NT. It some places there are different readings that lead to various meanings. However, not one issue touches the major doctrines of the faith. Wallace points out that this has been the position of scholars since 1778!

@purami14

6 жыл бұрын

Very well put. An all knowing god, who has this of upmost importance message for the world, who is perfect, would not allow 100.s of contradictions, and later additions, such as the story of the woman caught in adultery, We wouldn't even be discussing this subject. It would be clear to all There would be no discrepancies and mistranslated words such as Alma being virgin. This nail in the coffin of bible inerrancy is the additions to the end of Mark 16:8 which were, added later, which questions all the post crucifixion appearances.

@theyeticlutch3486

5 жыл бұрын

@@dionsanchez3131 delusion shrouded in logic

@jamesmcalister1383

4 жыл бұрын

All of the arrogance, entitlement & whining on this video makes me very sad. Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

Seems like Peter is given quite a bit of talking time. Hmmm smh

Did Bart hear the original words directly from Jesus?

@jonfromtheuk467

4 жыл бұрын

what a stupid question. Care to make a serious point?

Justin talks too much.

Why does Ehrman assume the man is the target of Jesus' anger in his reading of Mark 1:41? What's most remarkable to me is Ehrman's success at marketing facts that have been well known in scholarly circles for 100-150 years as something shocking and new. Bruce Metger had exactly the same facts at his disposal, and yet slept like a baby.

@bowrudder899

9 жыл бұрын

***** The same as in every other field. It's published, but it's scholarship. Not exactly of interest to the rank and file. The same as any other field. But it has ramifications when an Ehrman comes along and wants to make hay. We just have to roll up our sleeves and delve into the details and Ehrman's unstated presuppositions.

@bowrudder899

9 жыл бұрын

I don't know what to say, *****. I'm a layman -- nobody in particular -- and it somehow found its way to me.

@Phobos_Anomaly

8 жыл бұрын

I think he's presents it this way because it's almost completely unknown to average evangelical Christians. He's not trying to present these things as if they are new to the scholars, but more like "Hey! Look! Scholars have known about this stuff for along time! Why don't you guys?" When I was an evangelical, and a fairly avid one with a deep interest in apologetics, I still knew virtually nothing about the nature of the early NT manuscripts. All the apologists I read gave me the impression that all the manuscripts agree with one another entirely. This is an issue because this conception is one held by many Americans, which is the primary audience I think he is targeting.

@rbgg2010

5 жыл бұрын

@@Phobos_Anomaly Exactly! When I was studying apologetics they only gave the bare bones, oversimplified explanations about these things. Their jobs were to make believers feel comfortable in their faith, not give a scholarly, objective, and critical understanding of the topics.