New Testament Reliability - Can you trust the Bible?

Why the Maccabees Aren't in the Bible

An Analysis of Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus: MP3 by Peter J. Williams - Apologetics 315

Here is a lecture by Dr Peter J. Williams talking about Dr Bart Ehrman's popular book Misquoting Jesus in particular and Ehrman's works and career in genearal. 

An Analysis of Bart Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus: MP3 by Peter J. Williams - Apologetics 315



Bart Ehrman and Peter J. Williams have appeared on the Unbelievable? radio broadcast. It's on YouTube and worth listening to this one too!

Answering Muslims: Robert Spencer on ABN: The Bible and the Qur'an

Answering Muslims: Robert Spencer on ABN: The Bible and the Qur'an

Debate: Daniel Wallace & Bart Ehrman 2012 Audio/Video - Apologetics 315

Brian Auten has posted links to a discussion between Dr Daniel Wallace and Dr Bart Ehrman regarding the Bible and whether or not the original New Testament is lost to us and unavailable. follow the link at the end of the video to get the audio and other links to resources!





Debate: Daniel Wallace & Bart Ehrman 2012 Audio/Video - Apologetics 315

Dr Wallace also wrote a blog post about the debate. You can read that here Ehrman vs Wallace: Round Three

Was the New Testament Forged? Bart Ehrman vs Darrell Bock - YouTube

I've posted a link to the audio of this discussion in the past, but since I just saw that there was a YouTube version, I'd embed it in a post also. I really like to hear Dr Bock speak and it is very useful to hear how he discusses these issues with a scholar like Dr Bart Ehrman.




Was the New Testament Forged? Bart Ehrman vs Darrell Bock - YouTube

Related articles

• Forged: Writing In The Name Of God (kcbrownstone.wordpress.com)
• RPP's further challenge to Darrell Bock (roshpinaproject.com)
• "Does the New Testament present a reliable portrait of the historical Jesus?": Dr. Bart Ehrman and Dr. Craig Evans Debate (compassioninpolitics.wordpress.com)

Is What We Have Now What They Wrote Then? Audio and Video by Daniel B. Wallace - Apologetics 315

Brian Auten has called attention to a lecture by Daniel Wallace at Biola University. In it he discusses why we can be sure that the Bible accurately represents what the Bible's authors originally wrote! You should watch these!






Brian even posted the audio on his blog.

Is What We Have Now What They Wrote Then? Audio and Video by Daniel B. Wallace - Apologetics 315

Fistbump of the Day: Dr Norman Geisler Quotes Mariano In His Rebutal of Dr Bart Ehrman

In the second video of the four-part series of a video lecture of Dr Norman Geisler giving arguments refuting Dr Bart Ehrman, Dr Geisler used an argument Mariano Grinbank used in a blog entry applying Ehrman's own arguments regarding Biblical reliability to the printing and writing of his own book Misquoting Jesus. I think the argument is brilliant and undeniable. Dr Geisler even gave Mariano's blog credit for the argument. I know I already gushed over the blog post when I originally saw it but it bears repeating. You can see Dr. Geisler's whole lecture at the following link.

What had happen' was.....: Bart Ehrman Refuted by Dr Norman Geisler - YouTube

I've got to point out that during the whole Ergun Caner scandal last year, Geisler and others denied that bloggers contributed worthwhile information, but here is Geisler quoting a blog and effectively using Mariano's work. Indeed perfect. You can read Mariano's article that Dr Geisler used right here:

Bart Ehrman’s Millions and Millions of Variants, part 1 of 2

Bart Ehrman’s Millions and Millions of Variants, part 2 of 2

Bart Ehrman Refuted by Dr Norman Geisler - YouTube

Thanks to Mariano Grinbank for pointing out this video where Dr Norman Geisler answers the objections and arguments raised by Dr Bart Ehrman. You can see the for yourself how Dr Geisler would answer him.







Bart Ehrman Refuted by Dr Normon Geisler - YouTube

Manuscript Evidence for the Bible

Ron Rhodes wrote a brilliant article about the manuscript evidence for the Bible. Take a look - it's a great summary.

Manuscript Evidence for the Bible

Related articles

• Bible believing vs. "Scholar" believing (mackquigley.wordpress.com)
• Powell church exhibits historical biblical manuscripts, art (knoxnews.com)
• The Bible: Why does it endure? (dandelionsalad.wordpress.com)
• "Is 'King James' Version the Actual Bible (answeringchristian.wordpress.com)
• Preaching Without Notes (truthwisdomhumor.wordpress.com)

Michael Voris, Diaa Mohamed, and Bart Ehrman on Thursday's DL

Since some readers of this blog seem to be clueless about what scholarly critiques look like, take a lesson from Dr James White and notice how an expert deftly handles not just the Word of God but also a variety of different subjects.




Michael Voris, Diaa Mohamed, and Bart Ehrman on Thursday's DL

SMU Debate: Can We Trust the Text of the New Testament? Daniel B. Wallace & Bart D. Ehrman

I just watched the October 1st debate between Dr Daniel Wallace and Dr Bart Ehrman. If you haven't seen it use the link below to order it on DVD. It's well worth it. Ehrman has changed his tune. He used to say that we know what the autographs say due to the work critical criticism but when Wallace quoted him saying that he said that he no longer believes that (link). I've got to give him more credit than Dan "Don't quote me, Bro!" Barker (look at this link if you didn't get the reference). At least Ehrman says he changed his mind instead of trying to pretend he never said it. Here is a trailer for the October 1st Debate.




SMU Debate: Can We Trust the Text of the New Testament? Daniel B. Wallace & Bart D. Ehrman

Craig A. Evans Resources - Apologetics 315

This week, Brian Auten has posted two awesome resources from Dr. Craig A. Evans.  The first is an interview he conducted of Dr. Evans. Follow the link below to hear it!

Apologist Interview: Craig A. Evans - Apologetics 315

The other resource are a few video interviews Dr Evans has done.Go to this link to get at those.

Video Interviews with Craig A. Evans

Greek Language Knowledge in the Holy Land | Bible.org Blogs

Dr. Darrel Bock has posted a follow up to the discussion he had with Bart Ehrman about the knowledge Jews of the Holy Land had of Greek. Was it enough to write the New Testament? Read his short article at the following link.

Greek Language Knowledge in the Holy Land | Bible.org Blogs

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Not Even Mentioning the best Evidence

Overall at Beggars All, Ken has written a blog post about Dr Darrell Bock's encounter with Dr. Bart Ehrman on the Unbelievable? radio program regarding Ehrman's book Forged. Ken has written a great article discussing some of the things that Bock and Ehrman did not have time to discuss during the program in a little more detail and points to more resources on the subject. Awesome post.

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Not Even Mentioning the best Evidence

Related articles

• How did we get the New Testament? (goodnewsnow.wordpress.com)
• Another Look at Ancient Literacy Rates (coffeehouseapologetics.wordpress.com)
• Criticism of Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus" (compassioninpolitics.wordpress.com)
• ‪Darrell Bock on N.T. Wright's New Perspective & Eschatological Language‬‏ (rodiagnusdei.wordpress.com)
• In Explosive New Book FORGED, Bible Scholar Bart Ehrman Exposes Deceptive and Misleading Forgeries in the New Testament (prweb.com)

On Air Debate with Bart Ehrman about the book Forged (Aug 6 revised) Podcast Now Posted | Bible.org Blogs

Now here is a match up I've been waiting for: Dr Darrell Bock vs Dr. Bart Ehrman! They were on the British Radio/Podcast program Unbelievable? with Justin Brierley. They discussed Dr Ehrman's latest book "Forged". Listen to the exchange and make up your own mind.



On Air Debate with Bart Ehrman about the book Forged (Aug 6 revised) Podcast Now Posted | Bible.org Blogs

Website for the program

Related articles

• Forged: a review (tyragan.wordpress.com)
• In Explosive New Book FORGED, Bible Scholar Bart Ehrman Exposes Deceptive and Misleading Forgeries in the New Testament (prweb.com)
• Criticism of Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus" (compassioninpolitics.wordpress.com)
• In Explosive New Book FORGED, Bible Scholar Bart Erhman Exposes Deceptive and Misleading Forgeries in the New Testament (prweb.com)

Dr Ben Witheringing III on "Who Wrote 2 Peter"

Image via WikipediaYou may or may not be aware of  a comment thread a few weeks ago between myself and Ryan Anderson regarding whether or not 2 Peter was written by the Apostle Peter. Anderson argued that Peter could not have written the epistle and because it says he did, the letter is a lie and unreliable. He quoted Dr. Ben Witherington III as a source and an example of a scholar who is a Christian who does not believe 2 Peter was written by the apostle. He later backed off it a little bit and conceded that Wirtherington actually believes the Peter wrote the first part of the letter. I decided to see if I could get in contact with Dr Witherington himself and see what he thought. I sent him to the following e-mail:

Hello, Dr Witherington.

I am a great fan of your work regarding Jesus and your apologetic material. Thank you!!!

A few weeks ago I responded to a blog post that asserted that Jesus told his disciples that he would return in their lifetimes and because he didn't Jesus is no better than Harold Camping.  You can see my post on that here: http://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2011/05/facepalm-of-day-81-debunking.html

Of course I disagreed and an atheist kept the conversation going in the comments. To make the story shorter, one of the arguments  I gave was that Peter in 2nd Peter explains what Jesus meant by "soon" and that he didn't understand Jesus to be saying what the atheists were saying Jesus said. The atheist argued against me by saying that most Biblical scholars, including you, don't believe that the Apostle Peter wrote most if not all of the epistles attributed to him. He then concluded that who ever wrote the letters lied and both epistles should by tossed because the author was a liar.  Of course I disagree. I was wondering if you could point out any papers/books you have written about 1 & 2 Peter's authorship, reliability, and if you consider these letters scripture every bit as much as the rest the New Testament?

On another blog, there was a good article about why some Biblical scholars think that there is good evidence that Apostle Peter wrote the epistles written for them: http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/06/good-evidence-for-2-peter-as-written-by.html

  I was wondering what your take on that is? Thanks for your time and I thank God for how God has used you. You have been a blessing to me and many, many others!

Marcus McElhaney
Thankfully, Dr Witherington was gracious enough to respond.

Hi Marcus:

Thanks for this.   You can always read my Letters and Homilies for Hellenized Christians Volume 2 on 1-2 Peter for more info.  The short answer is that 2 Peter is a composite book.  It contains a large chunk of Jude in it, it contains Pauline traditions in chapter three, and it contains some authentic Petrine material in Chapter One.  It follows the tradition of attributing a document to its first and most famous source, in this case Peter.  I think the story of the Transfiguration does go back to Peter himself.  I would say this document was assembled at the end of the first century when there was actually a collection of Paul's letters circulating in the church (see 2 Peter 3).    If you want to see my rebuttal to Ehrman's Forged, I posted a whole series of blog posts on this on my blog back in the spring.   A composite document attributed to one of its genuine sources is no forgery.  But the ancient concept of what counted as authorship is different from ours.

Blessings

Ben W.

Dr. Ben Witherington, III
Amos Professor of NT for Doctoral Studies
Asbury Theological Seminary
Wilmore Ky.
Doctoral Faculty St. Mary's College, St. Andrews University, Scotland

I've heard of much the same argument made for authorship of Isaiah and other Old Testament texts. I think that this explanation is viable, buyt I believe I need to do more research into this. Witherington is not by any means saying toss out 2 Peter or calling it worthless as Andrerson seemed like he was trying suggest. If anyone else is interested in Dr Witherington's rebuttal of  Dr. Ehrman's "Forged" use the link below.


http://www.patheos.com/community/bibleandculture?s=forged

Thank you, Dr. Ben Witherington III.

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Good Evidence for Historical Reliability for 2 Peter as written by Peter Himself

Over at Beggars All blog, Ken has posted a very interesting article that will be very helpful to me and a lot of people. You may know that I've had sharp disagreement with Ryan Anderson regarding whether or not 2 Peter was really written by the Apostle Peter. Anderson uses the idea that because a consensus of scholars don't believe that Peter wrote 2 Peter, Peter did not write it. He accepts their arguments and therefore it's proof to him that the Bible is not inspired and not true. He went as far as calling 1st and 2nd Peter lies because the letters say they were written by Peter but he didn't write them. Of course I disagree. Ken has summarized a lot of good evidence and comments from scholars, like Dan Wallace and James White, who disagree with the "consensus" and affirm that these letter were written by the Apostle himself.

Dr. James White has a little article with an excellent graphic of an ancient manuscript of P-72
which has both I and 2 Peter (and Jude) in it. One of the pages of this manuscript shows the end of 1 Peter and the beginning of 2nd Peter and this manuscript called P-72 is dated at around 200 AD. That is very good early dating for a copy of one of the most attacked books of the NT by skeptics, atheists, and Muslims and others, sometimes by good scholars. (the Muslims like to use Bruce Metzger as authoritative evidence that 2 Peter was not written by the apostle Peter. But many other conservative scholars and all Christians who believe in inerrancy believe that 2 Peter is "God-breathed" and was written by Peter. ( 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21)

So what about scholars like Bruce Metzger and Ben Witherington III? Are they wrong to conclude that Peter did not write 2 Peter? I'm not sure. Does that mean that they are going to hell ("went" in Metzger's case given that he died) because they did not think that Peter wrote all of  2 Peter? Nope. What one believes about authorship is not a litmus test for orthodoxy. What is important is what you believe about Jesus - is He Lord of your life or not? Do you accepts his propitiatory sacrifice on your behalf and live submitted to Him? That is how you know you are born-again.

I highly recommend this article and hope that anyone who has doubts that Peter wrote 2 Peter or that the Bible is in anyway reliable will read this article along with their own research for the truth.

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Good Evidence for Historical Reliability for 2 Peter as written by Peter Himself

Lecture on the Reliability of the New Testament

Image via WikipediaJames White has a great lecture on the reliability of the New Testament




Lecture on the Reliability of the New Testament

Related articles

• Evidence of the New Testament's Historical Accuracy (seanwhitenack.wordpress.com)
• New Evidence That the Gospels Were Based on Eyewitness Testimony (liveeternally.wordpress.com)
• Jesus, Paul, and the Gospels (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)
• Old Testament and New Testament Stories and Coloring Sheets on Children's Chapel.org (joanschildrensliturgy.wordpress.com)
• Beale on 'The Old Testament in the New' (zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com)

Bart Ehrman’s New Testament Forgery Theory - Apologetics 315

Todd Wilken has had two very interesting programs on his podcast. In one episode he had Dr Bart Ehrman explain his theory that most of the Books of the New Testament are forgeries in that they were not written by whom the authors claimed to be. Most of the discussion centered around the 6 contested books that have been attributed to Apostle Paul.  Ehrman thinks only 7 letters were really written by him. Ehrman also discussed his contention that Apostle Peter did not write 2 Peter. Wilken also had a followup  program with Dr. John Warwick Montgomeryin which Montgomery interacted with Ehrman's statements and conclusions and explained why and where he disagrees. I'd really like to see these guys in a debate. I really appreciate Brian Auten calling attention to these and providing a link to an audio with the commercials edited out and both interviews back-to-back.

Bart Ehrman’s New Testament Forgery Theory - Apologetics 315

Related articles

• New Testament full of "forgeries"? Some things are so silly you need a PhD to believe them (ericsammons.com)
• Ehrman's "Forged" (str.typepad.com)
• The funny thing about Bart Ehrman (liturgical.wordpress.com)
• Who Wrote The Bible and Why It Matters - Bart D. Ehrman - Huffington Post (richarddawkins.net)
• Bart D Ehrman: Parts of Bible's New Testament written by 'pretend apostles' (dailymail.co.uk)
• Scholar: ½ of New Testament is forged (religion.blogs.cnn.com)