Exposed: The Textual Criticism of Bart Erhman, James White & Daniel Wallace

  • 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.
phil36 said:
Hi Calvinsx76.

No harm, but I think you are suffering from a bit of hubris..... Your theories are nonsense.
Click to expand...

We are defending the scriptures that have come down from the historical churches. I don't have a big ego, he is well aware of my site, he is able to reach out to me.
 
calvinsx76 said:
We are defending the scriptures that have come down from the historical churches. I don't have a big ego, he is well aware of my site, he is able to reach out to me.
Click to expand...


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.
 
calvinsx76 said:
Well I tried to respond to the comment on James White Facebook. Obviously he doesn't allow comments on his Facebook page, and I doubt he would accept my friend request.

Someone who has access, ask if he would accept my friend request so I can officially respond to him.
Click to expand...

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.
 
So, did we come to find out what the bottom line is? What are we really trying to say? There is only one bible translation and it's the KJV or the Vulgate or some other mystery one that no one knows about yet?
 
calvinsx76 said:
I have recently taken up to expose the underlying theories behind the Textual Criticism of Bart Erhman, James White & Daniel Wallace.


In my recent video production, I bring to light, what Bart Erhman, James White and Daniel Wallace does not want us know. Though outwardly it may appear that they are embarking on a similar path to that of the Renaissance scholars, yet they take us off the beaten path, and introduce a method that seems to be clairvoyant in nature. I have produced a very engaging after effects template that documents the historical position of this field of investigation, and then show these scholars true hand. this is all wrapped up in under 12 minutes....


Sit back and enjoy and please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks.

Link to Video Argument: https://youtu.be/4jm7L-_SqUY

Channel Page for all arguments: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqjsB-lvDBWXDB-DYVLt-Zg
Click to expand...


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 :)
 
calvinsx76 said:
Well I tried to respond to the comment on James White Facebook. Obviously he doesn't allow comments on his Facebook page, and I doubt he would accept my friend request.

Someone who has access, ask if he would accept my friend request so I can officially respond to him.
Click to expand...

At this point,I would not pursue the friend request thingy,lol.
 
sparkman said:
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

Is this the type of scholarship you bring forward? Lol. instead of dealing with the empirical data presented in our treatise, you require credentials. Lol. Are you saying we must all present doctorates of divinity to engage in this debate?

For though Bart is an unbeliever, he received his phd under Bruce Metzger, in the same field of of study as james and daniel. While bart, james and Daniel all reach different conclusions, they all use the same method of Textual Criticism as published in Bruce Metzger works.

So these three scholars all subscribe to the same method of Textual criticism of bruce metzger, yet their findings are different...and it is in this that that they are categorized together, for our central argument is against this very method of Textual examination that they upload as the standard, which departs from the historical method used by the renessiance scholars and the apostolic churches.

For irenaeus was no novice in the field of Textual examination as is well documented in his examination in his discussion of the variant reading 616 found in several copies of johns apocalypse. For his primary method in establishing 666 as the authentic reading is stating, "as this being the case 666 as having been found in the most approved and ancient texts of the apocalypse, and those men who saw john face to face bearing witness to it.

This a far cry from the textual examination of these three scholars, for they reject the historical greek church texts as corrupt.

And do not use church texts as their source.

So I would presume bart real degrees trumps that of your own credentials, so based on your criteria you should be silent as well.
Click to expand...
 
I think a more important discussion that would reveal Christ to us would be "Just how many male angels can dance on the head of a pin?" ( remember - male angels are bigger than the female ones. )
 
calvinsx76 said:
Is this the type of scholarship you bring forward? Lol. instead of dealing with the empirical data presented in our treatise, you require credentials. Lol. Are you saying we must all present doctorates of divinity to engage in this debate?

For though Bart is an unbeliever, he received his phd under Bruce Metzger, in the same field of of study as james and daniel. While bart, james and Daniel all reach different conclusions, they all use the same method of Textual Criticism as published in Bruce Metzger works.

So these three scholars all subscribe to the same method of Textual criticism of bruce metzger, yet their findings are different...and it is in this that that they are categorized together, for our central argument is against this very method of Textual examination that they upload as the standard, which departs from the historical method used by the renessiance scholars and the apostolic churches.

... This a far cry from the textual examination of these three scholars, for they reject the historical greek church texts as corrupt. And do not use church texts as their source.

So I would presume bart real degrees trumps that of your own credentials, so based on your criteria you should be silent as well.
Click to expand...

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.
 
calvinsx76 said:
I have recently taken up to expose the underlying theories behind the Textual Criticism of Bart Erhman, James White & Daniel Wallace.


In my recent video production, I bring to light, what Bart Erhman, James White and Daniel Wallace does not want us know. Though outwardly it may appear that they are embarking on a similar path to that of the Renaissance scholars, yet they take us off the beaten path, and introduce a method that seems to be clairvoyant in nature. I have produced a very engaging after effects template that documents the historical position of this field of investigation, and then show these scholars true hand. this is all wrapped up in under 12 minutes....


Sit back and enjoy and please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks.

Link to Video Argument: https://youtu.be/4jm7L-_SqUY

Channel Page for all arguments: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqjsB-lvDBWXDB-DYVLt-Zg
Click to expand...

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.
 
calvinsx76 said:
Well I tried to respond to the comment on James White Facebook. Obviously he doesn't allow comments on his Facebook page, and I doubt he would accept my friend request.
Someone who has access, ask if he would accept my friend request so I can officially respond to him.
Click to expand...
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.
 
fredoheaven said:
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.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say even close to universally, I would say that that Nestle Aland is much more widely accepted. I myself have some serious reservations about W & H.
 
StanJ said:
I wouldn't say even close to universally, I would say that that Nestle Aland is much more widely accepted. I myself have some serious reservations about W & H.
Click to expand...

Basically, they are just the same criteria.

God bless
 
calvinsx76 said:
I do appreciate your passion, but I think you may missing the point of the argument.

These videos are actually defending the scriptures that have come down from the apostolic churches.

You are aware that many of the apostolic Greek churches founded by Paul still exist today, the church of Alexandria that was established by St Mark, the Church of Smyrna which St John writes about in Revelation are all still around. The Greek church of Antioch is still around

So please ask your precious Daniel Wallace why he reject the texts that have come down from these apostolic churches. Why does he reject Paul as the author of Hebrews. Are you saying the churches accepted anonymous texts? The renaissance scholars rejected these apocryphal texts which Daniel Wallace Claim as the best and earliest.

The purpose of these videos is to educate and document the historical position of the apostolic churches.

though I understand your passion, you haven't provided any empirical data to counter my arguments, and it seems your aren't familiar with Daniel Wallace views on the texts that have come through the apostolic churches, because he views them as all corrupt, which is why he goes to apocryphal texts as a basis for not using the Historical Texts of the Apostolic Greek, Aramaic, Latin, Ethiopian.

God did preserve the scriptures, and they have been preserved through these churches that have come down to us today.
Click to expand...
I hate to burst your bubble but the Alexandrian church isn't the one Mark started. They were completely destroyed in the Great Tribulation of the first century. They did what Roman wanted to do. Kill every single believer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back