S
StanJ
Guest
I also gave James White the link to this forum in case he wants to get involved here and make this guy look like the fool he is.
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.
I also gave James White the link to this forum in case he wants to get involved here and make this guy look like the fool he is.
S
StanJ
Guest
For anyone interested, who is not sure between the "traditional, ecclesiastical text" and the "modern, critical text", I recommend the Greek New Testament - byzantine textform, compiled by Pierpont & Robinson.
The main text is the byzantine text and you have the variations of the critical one in the notes. So both texts made simple in one print.
Good for a common, daily reading.
Then I would recommend to have a print of Nestle Aland critical edition, when you will want to dig deeper about some specific verse. You will have almost all variations with sources listed there.
The main text is the byzantine text and you have the variations of the critical one in the notes. So both texts made simple in one print.
Good for a common, daily reading.
Then I would recommend to have a print of Nestle Aland critical edition, when you will want to dig deeper about some specific verse. You will have almost all variations with sources listed there.
Last edited:
I do appreciate your comments. My intention is to educate and offer up the testimony of those witnesses who are in a very good position to speak on behalf of the historical churches they represent.
We are in a Christian community debate forum and if we are going to enter into a discusiong we should keep in mind we that we should be empirical in our analysis.
Stan couldn't go into a court of law and argue a case in that fashion. He wouldn't even get passed pre-trial motion.
First, if you have a master's degree, I'll eat my hat! Unless you never had to write a single word.
Let's look at your editing of this post.
"so there we so church of Antioch," What does this even mean? I know sometimes posting from a phone or other device is frustrating, but you certainly didn't re-read this! Good writing, is essential at a Master's level.
"there were no greek churches" Capitalize the word Greek? Is that not a thing you learn in grade 6 or so? Also the name "paul" is not capitalized in sentence 5. Paul, for future reference!
"Why do we have churches if no one founded them." A question without a question mark? Really??
And I am just picking on this post, because in a few short lines, there are so many errors. All of your posts have terrible spelling, punctuation and grammar. I doubt someone would make it through an undergrad degree with this kind of writing skill.
So why does this matter? Because it shows appalling ignorance. A more educated person, would not make the errors you have made in your OP and subsequent posts. And by errors, I am speaking of the topic, not just the writing skills. The whole topic is cult based. Is this CoC or some other kind of Campbellite cult you are in? I know they are big on "apostolic" authority, as somehow passed down to Campbell directly from the apostles!
Sorry to be a grammar Nazi! It does come with a good understanding of English though! OK, I was a teacher, but I also went to school in British type schools, where spelling and grammar count!
Further, I doubt you have had any exposure to Greek at all!
James White is critical of the KJV. Would that be part of your problem? He wrote a quite accessible book on this topic. It is not "high" scholarship, but he has many good points.
As for Daniel Wallace, this is just a joke! I am reading his 2nd year grammar right now, as background for Intermediate Greek. 90 pages on just the word "the" or, the article. Completely based on Scripture and scholarship!
I have read numerous articles he has written. He usually looks at all sides of a discussion, and presents his conclusions. I have even seen him admit it is his opinion, and may not be correct. That is what a scholar does.
Wallace is the top Greek grammarian in the world. He is respected by ALL Greek scholars. As for Erhman, I know very little about him, except that he is liberal in his theology? Or not?
When you come in here with a half baked opinion, criticizing people who have spent their LIFE studying Greek and writing about it, when you can barely write in English, it is time for me to take a stand.
Quite simply you are totally and completely wrong. There is not one word that you have posted that has a shred of veracity to it.
My suggestion is you spend the next 5 or 10 years studying Greek with the help of reputable teachers. Then come back, and we can discuss it.
PS. You might learn to write better in English, too, as I have noted above!
James White is critical of the KJV. Would that be part of your problem? He wrote a quite accessible book on this topic. It is not "high" scholarship, but he has many good points.
As for Daniel Wallace, this is just a joke! I am reading his 2nd year grammar right now, as background for Intermediate Greek. 90 pages on just the word "the" or, the article. Completely based on Scripture and scholarship!
I have read numerous articles he has written. He usually looks at all sides of a discussion, and presents his conclusions. I have even seen him admit it is his opinion, and may not be correct. That is what a scholar does.
Wallace is the top Greek grammarian in the world. He is respected by ALL Greek scholars. As for Erhman, I know very little about him, except that he is liberal in his theology? Or not?
When you come in here with a half baked opinion, criticizing people who have spent their LIFE studying Greek and writing about it, when you can barely write in English, it is time for me to take a stand.
Quite simply you are totally and completely wrong. There is not one word that you have posted that has a shred of veracity to it.
My suggestion is you spend the next 5 or 10 years studying Greek with the help of reputable teachers. Then come back, and we can discuss it.
PS. You might learn to write better in English, too, as I have noted above!
If you have the patience calvinsx76 this video may help you understand the position you say you are against. For anyone else this video will go some way to help you understand the debate of manuscripts. (its a talk show format..but still very good).
[video=youtube;izLoGyJM_hQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izLoGyJM_hQ[/video]
[video=youtube;izLoGyJM_hQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izLoGyJM_hQ[/video]
I apologize if my grammar is not up to standard. Most of these posts have been answered from my mobile device.
I actually do hold an undergraduate in Accounting with a Masters in Statistics. So eat up. lol
I see you employ an adhominem argument, attack my grammar thus my hypothesis must be incorrect. I guessed you bypassed philosophy in your studies. Yet you fail to see the fallacy in your argument.
Nevertheless, your disdain for empirical evidence is worse than my grammar. Throughout my video I support my statements with documents from the historical church, councils, cannons and demonstrate my positions. Yet you ramble on, and assert what must first be proven. What student would ever submit a paper to his instructor and not provide supporting quotes from historical documents. As a teacher you would never accept research assignment without supporting credible citations.
Show me the documents from the second century that refute the positions of Ireaneus and Tertullian, not to mention the churches of North Africa.
So your really a teacher, that doesn't even adhere to basic principles of documenting your assertions. I'll take my bad grammar instead. Lol
Most here in this thread fail to even understand my basic argument.
I actually do hold an undergraduate in Accounting with a Masters in Statistics. So eat up. lol
I see you employ an adhominem argument, attack my grammar thus my hypothesis must be incorrect. I guessed you bypassed philosophy in your studies. Yet you fail to see the fallacy in your argument.
Nevertheless, your disdain for empirical evidence is worse than my grammar. Throughout my video I support my statements with documents from the historical church, councils, cannons and demonstrate my positions. Yet you ramble on, and assert what must first be proven. What student would ever submit a paper to his instructor and not provide supporting quotes from historical documents. As a teacher you would never accept research assignment without supporting credible citations.
Show me the documents from the second century that refute the positions of Ireaneus and Tertullian, not to mention the churches of North Africa.
So your really a teacher, that doesn't even adhere to basic principles of documenting your assertions. I'll take my bad grammar instead. Lol
Most here in this thread fail to even understand my basic argument.
Thank you for your response.
I don't have anything personal against James White, I support the view of the Magisterial Reformation, and a strong Calvinist theologically. Yet, Ireneaus & Tertullian, Fathers speaking against the Gnostics in the second century on the text that has been received through the apostolic churches by the apostles.
Ireneus & Tertuallian are in a must better position to speak on behalf the New Testament Text than James White is. We have the historical testimony from these witnesses, yet you introduce a source that is over 2000 after the event.
Irenaeus was not only appointed to the episcopate of the apostolic churches of Lyons, but also an eye witness to the apostolic churches of Asia Minor where he learned at the feet of Polycarp, bishop of the Apostolic church of Smyrna, who was appointed by the apostle John. This statement is corroborated by Tertullian and Eusebius.
Ireneaus also confirms this:
“Polycarp, who not only was taught by apostles and associated with many who had seen Christ, but was installed by apostles for Asia, as bishop in the church in Smyrna. I saw him myself in my early youth…He always taught what he learned from the apostles, which the Church continues to hand on which is the only truths. The churches in Asia all bear witness to this, as do those who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time. He is certainly a much more trustworthy and dependable witness than Valentinus and Marcion and the other false thinkers”
So let me get this straight, you are offering into evidence, a witness 2000 years after the event, not associated with any of the historical apostolic churches, either Greek, Latin, Aramaic, Ethiopian, Egyptian over eyewitnesses and members of these historical churches who had the backing of the North African and Churches of Asia Minor.
The quote I open up with in my third video from Ireaneus third book hits on this very point
Since there are so many clear testimonies, we should not seek from others for the truth which can easily be received from the Church. There the apostles, like a rich man making a deposit, fully bestowed upon her all that belongs to the truth, so that whoever wishes may receive from her the water of life. She is the entrance to life; all the others are thieves and robbers…
What if there should be a dispute about some matter of moderate importance? Should we not turn to the oldest churches, where the apostles themselves were known, and find out from them the clear and certain answer to the problem now being raised? Even if the apostles had not left their Writings to us, ought we not to follow the rule of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they committed the churches?”
Who are the more credible witnesses
I listened to your video and I have to say it is severely lacking in evidence.
The assumption you make is that we are too far removed from the earliest sources that we cannot know, we need to use a form of ecclesiastical authority and of course that would be your view! where you err is that we have more writings at hand now than those of the early church - that is compiled and documented. With the advent of the internet anyone can read these sources for themselves even scanned photo's of the earliest manuscripts.
Now the biggest error you make is that Ireneaus & Tertullian are basically the authority by which we should live or their teachings on scripture. I would not disagree that they have great merit in the tradition of God's great men and women who have defended the Faith, Ireneasus' 'Against Heresies' etc. However they did not leave teachings on everything so even at this juncture your argument falls.
There have been many great teachers through the ages who have left great writings regarding the faith, and not just those writing against heresies.
So I am afraid you fail to prove your argument (and yes I do know ireneasus' use of point back towards polycarp, John etc), of how we can't know more now or atleast the same giving the vast amount of actual information we have now and the bible teaching of faithful men down through the ages.
watch the video posted above.
The assumption you make is that we are too far removed from the earliest sources that we cannot know, we need to use a form of ecclesiastical authority and of course that would be your view! where you err is that we have more writings at hand now than those of the early church - that is compiled and documented. With the advent of the internet anyone can read these sources for themselves even scanned photo's of the earliest manuscripts.
Now the biggest error you make is that Ireneaus & Tertullian are basically the authority by which we should live or their teachings on scripture. I would not disagree that they have great merit in the tradition of God's great men and women who have defended the Faith, Ireneasus' 'Against Heresies' etc. However they did not leave teachings on everything so even at this juncture your argument falls.
There have been many great teachers through the ages who have left great writings regarding the faith, and not just those writing against heresies.
So I am afraid you fail to prove your argument (and yes I do know ireneasus' use of point back towards polycarp, John etc), of how we can't know more now or atleast the same giving the vast amount of actual information we have now and the bible teaching of faithful men down through the ages.
watch the video posted above.
Last edited:
You fail to grasp irenaeus and Tertullian central argument against the gnostics. Iranians in book three of his heresies opens up with the writings that the apostles published for the churches. He then goes on to show that the gnostics reject these writings and introduce spurious and apocrophyl documents that they claim to have also been from the apostles. Iranians then shows that all the historical churches found by the apostles can trace all the way back through the succession of the Bishops to those self-same apostles, establishing a legal chain of custody to the writings of the Apostles. He then challenges the gnostics to show the same line of succession for their documents. He shows that these gospel documents are received through all the apostolic churches yet the gnostics texts have not been received any of the Apostolic churches that the apostles founded therefore showing they have no claim for these documents.
Tertullian in his prescription against the heresies shows the same criteria used by Irenaeus in his writings against the gnostics as well. This is how the the apostolic churches ruled out the text of the gnostics.
The central argument in my videos is that our textual criticism should be based on the text that have come through the self-same churches and not on documents that have no legal chain-of-custody to these churches.
We only use money issued by Banks, in the same way we only establish our textural criticism on text used by the official churches, not random text that can't show any evidence that it was used by these official churches.
The interesting part is you say I provide no evidence but historical quotations from second-century fathers are legal documents that would be accepted in any court of law.
So tell me this, how do you rule out text such as the Gospel of Thomas The Apocalypse of Peter and all these spurious writings that was found at nag hammandi in 1945 which further proves what Irenaeus says about the gnostics.
How does James White rule out these texts from his textual criticism these texts are even earlier than his and the gnostics all claim they were from the apostles as well so how do you rule them out.
Why do you only accept four gospels when it was hundreds published.
What is your Criterion for ruling out these documents and only accepting the 27
Tertullian in his prescription against the heresies shows the same criteria used by Irenaeus in his writings against the gnostics as well. This is how the the apostolic churches ruled out the text of the gnostics.
The central argument in my videos is that our textual criticism should be based on the text that have come through the self-same churches and not on documents that have no legal chain-of-custody to these churches.
We only use money issued by Banks, in the same way we only establish our textural criticism on text used by the official churches, not random text that can't show any evidence that it was used by these official churches.
The interesting part is you say I provide no evidence but historical quotations from second-century fathers are legal documents that would be accepted in any court of law.
So tell me this, how do you rule out text such as the Gospel of Thomas The Apocalypse of Peter and all these spurious writings that was found at nag hammandi in 1945 which further proves what Irenaeus says about the gnostics.
How does James White rule out these texts from his textual criticism these texts are even earlier than his and the gnostics all claim they were from the apostles as well so how do you rule them out.
Why do you only accept four gospels when it was hundreds published.
What is your Criterion for ruling out these documents and only accepting the 27
I haven't had a chance to watch any of the videos on here yet so can anyone give me a synopsis of what this thread is really about? Is it saying that the KJV is the only bible because of certain manuscripts?
What's the bottom line here? Thanks.
What's the bottom line here? Thanks.
S
StanJ
Guest
S
StanJ
Guest
Were you the defended being accused of some heinous crime. lol That was too easy.
I'm glad you bring this up Stan, because when you are called up to give your testimony; let's say presenting your alibi on your whereabouts on the night of a crime. If you said you were at a bar during the hours in which the crime was committed, and investigators went and interviewed the bar tender and other independent witnesses who said you were there, then you would have established your alibi, and the jury would most likely acquit you of any wrong doing.
Now let's take the texts that James White, Daniel Wallace and Bart Erhman use as the basis of their textual criticisim. For instance we call to the stand Sinaticus and Vaticanus. Since these are Greek Texts, they have to establish that they were used by the Greek Churches such as Antioch, Alexandria (Greek Church of Alexandria), Contantinople, Corinth, Smyrna, etc...
Now if these texts can't establish that they were ever used in those churches, then we can't rely on them as being faithful representations of the text of the Greek Churches.
Ireneus and Tertullian testify to a number of counterfeit texts that were out there.
The same way a prosecutor cannot enter evidence that cannot be shown to have been used at the scene of the crime or connected to the perpetrator, the same way we cannot use unknown texts in our examination.
Doesn't this make sense?
I'm glad you bring this up Stan, because when you are called up to give your testimony; let's say presenting your alibi on your whereabouts on the night of a crime. If you said you were at a bar during the hours in which the crime was committed, and investigators went and interviewed the bar tender and other independent witnesses who said you were there, then you would have established your alibi, and the jury would most likely acquit you of any wrong doing.
Now let's take the texts that James White, Daniel Wallace and Bart Erhman use as the basis of their textual criticisim. For instance we call to the stand Sinaticus and Vaticanus. Since these are Greek Texts, they have to establish that they were used by the Greek Churches such as Antioch, Alexandria (Greek Church of Alexandria), Contantinople, Corinth, Smyrna, etc...
Now if these texts can't establish that they were ever used in those churches, then we can't rely on them as being faithful representations of the text of the Greek Churches.
Ireneus and Tertullian testify to a number of counterfeit texts that were out there.
The same way a prosecutor cannot enter evidence that cannot be shown to have been used at the scene of the crime or connected to the perpetrator, the same way we cannot use unknown texts in our examination.
Doesn't this make sense?
S
StanJ
Guest
As I have said (and others) you are only making assumptions and quite faulty ones aswell! The Christian church has the legal chain of custody[your terminology] (Not a very good one for the history of the transmission of scripture).
again I think even James White's elementary explanation in the video I posted halts your thesis in its tracks. Maybe your TC needs reviewing?
Last edited: