Exposed: The Textual Criticism of Bart Erhman, James White & Daniel Wallace
- Thread starter calvinsx76
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
All I can see is your desperation to have your 5 mins in the limelight.. James White is an international Scholar and Apologist your a dishonest video maker..BTW I am just agreeing with White about your dishonesty.
Mind you it would be good to hear you in a debate with White... I do think it would very embarrassing for you though.. when hubris is hurt it can be a devastating thing.
Perhaps send a letter or email through his ministry page... Alpha and Omega Ministries, Alpha and Omega Ministries - Toward a Defense of the Faith. There are links for social media as well.
James White dealt with the first two videos in your series last November, here is the link; watch from the 52:00 minute mark to the end of the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3a6Dc0uCiI
It's hilarious that you are trying to lump Bart Ehrman, James White and Daniel Wallace into the same group.
Bart Ehrman is an apostate Christian that denies the inspiration of Scripture. James White and Daniel Wallace are orthodox Christian scholars with doctorates.
By the way, what are your credentials? I find it hilarious as well that people with zero credentials make assertions of this magnitude. It reminds me of the pridefulness of the cult leader I followed when I was 22-32 years old, Herbert Armstrong. He, armed with his Strong's concordance, criticized a long history of scholars who had doctorates in the original languages and were in virtual consensus on some of the issues Armstrong criticized.
This is the YouTube world though
If the core question is one of credentials, then we are all wasting our time. You might simply acknowledge that credentials exist for a good reason: to demonstrate that a person has, in fact, done some serious homework on a subject. However, the absence of credentials does not indicate the absence of study; that would be a logical fallacy. So, for the purpose of getting back to the real issue (textual criticism vs. ecclesiastical text sources), let's set aside the issue of credentials between contributors to this thread. Just recognize that you, without relevant credentials, are taking up issue with three people who have excellent relevant credentials, and therefore your conclusions will be met with more skepticism. Bluntly, suck it up.
Since you label the textual criticism of these three men as invalid, it is on you to prove your assertion. That is to say, you must demonstrate conclusively that the examination and comparison of texts done by today's scholars is fundamentally different in motivation, character and practice from the examination and comparison of texts done by Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, the translators of the KJV, and other scholars of that era.
Simply stating that they "do not use church texts as their source" is nowhere near adequate. Also, I challenge you to show your source(s) for where any of these men "reject the historical greek (sic) church texts as corrupt". Again, showing differences between manuscripts doesn't demonstrate corruption, but error; they are not the same thing.
Again I encourage you to take up your debate directly with each of the three scholars you have identified, and don't bother asking for my credentials; you wouldn't consider them relevant anyway.
Since you label the textual criticism of these three men as invalid, it is on you to prove your assertion. That is to say, you must demonstrate conclusively that the examination and comparison of texts done by today's scholars is fundamentally different in motivation, character and practice from the examination and comparison of texts done by Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, the translators of the KJV, and other scholars of that era.
Simply stating that they "do not use church texts as their source" is nowhere near adequate. Also, I challenge you to show your source(s) for where any of these men "reject the historical greek (sic) church texts as corrupt". Again, showing differences between manuscripts doesn't demonstrate corruption, but error; they are not the same thing.
Again I encourage you to take up your debate directly with each of the three scholars you have identified, and don't bother asking for my credentials; you wouldn't consider them relevant anyway.
The argument of lacking of Patristic writings or the early Church Fathers to the Syrian Text is espoused in the Westcott-Hort Theory. This lack of witnesses was mainly refuted by Dean John Burgon who relied heavily upon the writings of the Church Fathers, personally collated more than 80,000 + citations of the scriptures. Bruce Metzger has its base on Westcott and Hort which is universally accepted today.
S
There's probably a very valid reason why he doesn't allow people to post on his Facebook because he would get tons of kooks like you doing so. I gave him the link to this forum and if he decides not to engage you then that's his choice, but we don't need his input to know that what you're selling is not worth buying.