# White vs. Ehrman last night



## sotzo (Jan 23, 2009)

Anyone attend? How did it go?


----------



## tellville (Jan 23, 2009)

sotzo said:


> Anyone attend? How did it go?



I also eagerly await to find out how it went!


----------



## CubsIn07 (Jan 23, 2009)

Initial report

Alpha and Omega Ministries, The Christian Apologetics Ministry of James R. White


----------



## BuddyOfDavidClarkson (Jan 23, 2009)

I attended. You can find my thoughts here:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f24/brief-update-james-white-bart-erhman-debate-42947/#post534274



sotzo said:


> Anyone attend? How did it go?


----------



## CubsIn07 (Feb 14, 2009)

I listened to the debate. James White made a couple of nice points, but overall, even though it saddens me, I thought Ehrman won. I didn't agree with Ehrman when he said that some variants significantly alter the theology of a book of the Bible. I don't find that to be a problem at all. What James didn't sufficiently deal with is the fact that compared to later manuscripts, the earliest ones have the most variants. There are explanations of this, but the point still stands. White brought out the fact that Ehrman thinks he knows what the real text of the New Testament is when you factor in his opinions. White also thinks that the real text of the New Testament is somewhere found in all the variants. Ehrman thinks that he can figure out how errors creeped in between B-C so as to discover what B really is. But since we don't have A, all we are really doing is trying to figure out what the real B is. And what is B is not a good description of the original. White responded by saying that the Bible is the best attested book in the ancient world. If we take Tacitus's works as being reflective of the original, we should do the same for the better attested Bible. Ehrman said that it is foolish to think that people in the field of textual criticms think we have the originals of Tacitus. There is intense scholarly debate for ancient books too, they just aren't as widely published. They didn't even talk about source or redaction criticism factoring in. Ehrman has said in other places that the second or third generation of Christians could have actively changed the Bible to fit their own theology, but this was not mentioned in the debate. Ehrman didn't want to really bring this up because he did not want this debate to be about inspiration (but I think James rightly had to), but if God inspired the originals, why did he not inspire the copyists to be free from error? It is great if the Bible is inspired, but how can God expect us to know him if we can't trust the copies to be reflective of the originals.


----------



## Croghanite (Feb 14, 2009)

Is there a recording of the debate?


----------



## tellville (Feb 14, 2009)

LAYMAN JOE said:


> Is there a recording of the debate?



Just go to aomin.org and you can purchase the debate audio for less than an extra value meal at McDonald's.


----------



## Hippo (Feb 15, 2009)

CubsIn07 said:


> It is great if the Bible is inspired, but how can God expect us to know him if we can't trust the copies to be reflective of the originals.



The various manuscript traditions have remarkably little divergance and in the same way as the open self authenticating manuscript tradition was utilised to refute the Gnostics we should not be embarrased by the sperate lines of transmission that all support the Apostolic Gospel.

The last thing that this board needs is another thread on the TR but it is a very dangerous line of reasoning to adopt a belief on the basis that it would be "expected" (i.e. to have a perfect manuscript tradition).

We are faced with many different manuscripts as a matter of historic fact, the question that we all face is how do we address this issue and some self imposed restraint in divisive discussions on this subject would appear to be wise. 

I am also fully aware of the irony involved in making this point after making comments that some could interpret as divisive, but I really hope that they are not.


----------



## Zenas (Mar 3, 2009)

As I've heard parts of Ehrman's presentations (I haven't heard him against White), how has he not be accused of the logical fallacy of appeal to probability. 

His argument seems to go that,

It's possible someone edited the text.
Therefore, someone edited the text.

He convolutes it by speaking at length, but that's basically it as I understand it.


----------



## MW (Mar 3, 2009)

Zenas said:


> His argument seems to go that,
> 
> It's possible someone edited the text.
> Therefore, someone edited the text.



It is based more on probability, which is all the inductive approach appeals to. He merely reflects the present state of modern text critical studies, which lays no claim to being able to recover the exact words of the apostles.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 3, 2009)

Wow! I don't think I've ever seen you up so late Matthew. I hope everything is OK.


----------



## CubsIn07 (Mar 3, 2009)

Zenas said:


> As I've heard parts of Ehrman's presentations (I haven't heard him against White), how has he not be accused of the logical fallacy of appeal to probability.
> 
> His argument seems to go that,
> 
> ...



That's not exactly his argument. One aspect of his argument is that because the earliest copies of the NT have the most variance between them and we don't have any of the autographs, there is cause for thinking that there was editing going on. But his main point is that since we don't have the originals, we do not know if someone edited the text. Ehrman is agnostic on that matter.


----------



## MW (Mar 3, 2009)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Wow! I don't think I've ever seen you up so late Matthew. I hope everything is OK.



Rich, I was just finishing up for the night after having one of those "writing flows" for a piece I'm working on. Thankyou for asking. Blessings!


----------



## Prufrock (Mar 3, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > Wow! I don't think I've ever seen you up so late Matthew. I hope everything is OK.
> ...



What time is it in where you are in Australia right now?


----------



## MW (Mar 3, 2009)

Prufrock said:


> What time is it in where you are in Australia right now?



When you submitted your post it was 11.24 a.m.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 3, 2009)

Matthew's post last night was at 12:58 am. I will forever know what time it is in Rockhampton because it was 1 hour ahead of me when I lived in Okinawa.


----------

