Part 9 - Craig Evans vs. Bart Ehrman Debate: Does the New Testament Misquote Jesus?

[perichoresis7]

Has anyone, in the history of all literary works (including today's literature), ever created a substantial work that was not edited, omitted from, added to, altered, and in any other way changed? Absolutely not. And we, a literary society, expect writers in an oral society (first century) to write these events down perfectly the first time they write something? Ludicrous. Even with computers and thousands of references at our disposal, present day authors edit their writings. Read a book.

[bentopapa007]

1 and 2 Peter were supposed to have been written by an uneducated, illiterate, fisherman who had no training in writing Greek.  Ask your pastor this Sunday who wrote 1 and 2 Peter, and see what he tells you.

[bentopapa007]

Why do pastors lie to their congregations? They sit there and claim that "so and so" wrote this book and "so and so" wrote that book, when all the while they know that no one knows who wrote any, but a very few books.

[MrGoodNKinky]

If Christian's are going to claim that the beliefs (THOUGHTS) a person has about this Jesus and God will determine if they are TORTURED FOREVER then we MUST have 100% Accuracy in all things!

Otherwise Christian's are trying to use Threats made up by MAN to Manipulation, Intimidate & Blackmail humanity! To behave in this manner to Sinister to say the Least!

[OttomanEMPIREOppress]

Why the omniscient God didn't give people the latest technology We have now Like Internet,Printingpress etc.. During year B.C. So that we have a reliable bible without errors n contradictions??? And it will lead to One Faith or Religion..... Obviously technology just evolve or still evolving and long time ago people doesn't have tech. That we have NOW...

[Garabaldi323]

This debate was a pure slaughter... It was embarrassing to watch Evans out matched, out classed and out witted by Ehrman.

[Cathmoytura]

This series takes me back to talks with an evangelical. She noted textural variations in the Tao Te Ching, and held they demonstrated the book’s unreliability for determining what Lao Tzu taught. When I noted the Christian Scripture’s textural variations, she argued that all were insignificant BECAUSE the Bible is reliable. Her duplicitous arguments intrigued me--the Tao Te Ching has variants and is therefore unreliable, but the Bible is reliable therefore has no real textural variations.

[moranplano]

The Great Truths of GOD are never for the masses. It's silly to think that Masters struggled greatly to find ENLIGHTENMENT, but all we have to do, is to be born into the right dogma and repeat it back to the priest, preacher or guru. It should be obvious that the real High Truths of GOD would only be given to those who showed the courage to break away from the doctrines they were born into and seek something much Higher and Broader. The Masses will only get silly mythology as Ehrman shows..

[Requiemxtoxinnocence]

You don't need religion to think there might be a god, but even then I would hope people would be skeptical on all of their beliefs. If you want to find the truth you have to continue to search and question.

[Roaddogg666]

Ehrman is great!! His writings are fantastic and I always like watching him give lectures and participate in debates. My only issue is that he seems to yell into the mic. Yes, he's passionate about the topic, but I think it takes away, somewhat, from what he's trying to get across.

[mrpayne123]

Ehrman uses logic to come to his conclusions, Fundamentalists start with a conclusion based on a strong, yet completely subjective faith. With faith as their premise they will do somersaults around facts and morals.

You can show them that God arranged the rape of innocent women and killed an innocent child to punish King David's sins (2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB). They will call that moral and say it doesn't contradict where god says he won't punish a child for the father's sins (deut 24:16 etc.)

[MrJohndl]

The Bible ceased being a reliable document the moment the first dinosaur fossil was discovered. 6000 years of creation or billions of years. Science wins. We don't even need 'textual analysis' or historical scholarship (although these are interesting). We just need science and science proves that religion is man made.

[AR333]

@MrJohndl As an atheist and someone who is aspiring to become a new testament scholar I disagree with you. First off you need textual analysis to know what the bible says, you can't just say "science wins" without knowing what it is winning against. Second, there are masses of people that remain religious while accepting all that modern science has to say. I think an OT scholar who explains the polytheistic roots of Judaism has a much greater chance at making a believer question their faith.

[MrJohndl]

@AR333

Interesting comments - sorry I don't agree though. All religions are man-made explanations for the universe. This has been proven beyond reasonable doubt time and time again. Science is reliable and evidence based. 'Holy' books contradict science, so therefore they are wrong. It really is just that simple. Just because people accept science and religion at the same time doesn't mean they are right. Dawkins would say they are delusional.

[AR333]

@MrJohndl I'm happy you disagree, but sad that you didn't address what was said.

"'Holy' books contradict science"

My first point: you need people to first off tell you what these texts say. You didn't address that at all.

My second point was about convincing people, which you brought up but missed the point. It's not about if they are wrong or right to accept relg. and sci, it's about the fact that a textual scholar is arguably more effective at disillusioning people of their dogmas.

[MrJohndl]

@AR333

Fair comments. I would like to think that textual scholars can convince people that their dogmas are incorrect, but I'm not so sure that they can. Most religious people are indoctrinated early in life and are unable to 'let go' of their cherished beliefs. Anyway, good luck with your studies. Cheers.

[AR333]

@MrJohndl Fair enough, but then by that logic, nor can any scientist make a believer lose faith, which would go against what you set at the beginning:

"We just need science and science proves that religion is man made."

Part of the inquiry that leads to the realization that it is man made IS the history of the belief and the origins of the text. It's not a scientist that can tell you which bits of the bible are forgeries and where the additions were made, which group changed which part, etc.

[MrJohndl]

@AR333

I would like to see a more proactive approach - actually teaching children that science explains the world, not religion. I would also like to see comparative religion taught earlier than high school (which is something that Dawkins also advocates). Stopping the brainwashing early is the remedy.

[AR333]

@MrJohndl I don't what Dawkins has to do with this video. Nor do I see the link with what we were talking about. Dawkins isn't the end-all of the discussion concerning religion. Maybe you should take Hitchens' advice and think for yourself. I actually agree with a lot Dawkins says but the way you reference him is somewhat creepy: you say here's a good idea, teach comparative religion at an early age (which I agree with) but then you awkwardly add that that is also something Dawkins advocates..?

[MrJohndl]

@AR333

I was just making a point that childhood indoctrination is the problem :)

[MrJohndl]

Ehrman uses logic, rational thought and excellent scholarship - things that don't sit well with any religion. Religions are based on faith, not evidence.

[fnipster]

Dr. Errorman - May God's grace be sufficient for you to find your way back to the message of the bible. I will put my faith in the Holy Spirit who insures the truth will withstand even the pressures exerted by the spirit who dwells within the gates of hell. You are ensnared within a paradigm of your own construction supported by those who undermine the gospels. May you live long enough to see the error of you position and thus save your very soul offered so freely to the prince of this world.

[aika092]

I liked Ehrman's talks most of the way through this but was a little disappointed with his final speech. It seemed he was backing off a bit, willing to settle for "well everyone admits there are errors". The debate was really about whether these errors really matter which I felt he didn't hammer home hard enough in his closing remarks.

[neodoofus]

Dueling lectures. Informative but not really a debate.

Ehrman sounds like a preacher.

[lightuponlight1]

How did your 'god' achieve anything when he had to die?

[liduq]

From de vid number 1 to the 9th Erhman becames less and less reliable. Honestly? Man you meslead people with your lies. By chance now we know who you are.

Ehrman's career is at stake

Jesus is Lord, The only Way, The only Truth and The Life! The Light of the Word

ALLELUIAH!!!

[ClumsyRoot]

@liduq

LOL! 

[liduq]

Shuch a liar! I never heard a Christian AFFERM there is no errors in the Bible. And what different things he is talking about?

Sorry to blow up the balloon of certain person, BUT, Bart D. Ehrman was discredited long ago ...

He just continue to write his insane lies. Bad quotations, gross inventions, unverifiable research etc...

The least we can say of him, is that he is quite arrogant to continue to write his lies even after being debunked! Ehrman's career is equally at stake

Sorry

[ClumsyRoot]

@liduq

Did you just cut-and-paste this after every video???

[Tridhos]

@mattetho No you don't think Craig waffles which is hardly a surprise as you obviously think that when he talks about physics he knows what he is talking about. Also his ludicrous contention that god who used to be just up a mountain or within reach of some tall tower has now been banished to the furthest reaches of the cosmos, god himself only knows where Craig got the evidence for that. Then there was his assertion that slavery was a gross distortion what a joke.

[Tridhos]

@mattetho Yeah we always get that from Craig groupies. Watch it and watch Craig waffling away and making those most incredible claims. Just like he destroyed Harris, holding up a book and saying the answer in in this book end of argument, the most devious response I have ever seen in a debate.

[andrewlgm]

After watching this whole debate I can't believe this still happens. Evans consistently accepts the historical evidence that the bible has been modified, but still defends its authoritative and perfect claim. Intellectual dishonesty at its best. A dr. in stupidity.

[danmeast]

Mostly what I saw here is that both sides pretty much agree on the facts, but the conclusions differ. I feel Evans was largely rational about his views, he didn't really address the trinity issue which is fine because that is a whole different topic that would take time. The bible isn't perfect, however, I think it clearly teaches the truth of God, as well as the idea that we should know Him, serve Him, help our brethren and be righteous, those are the things we really need, not the trinity.

[PhoenixLament87]

What is remarkable to me is that Ehrman's formal education should lead him to become Agnostic rather than Catholic, or at least Orthodox. Whence this "Fundamentalist or nothing" choice? It seems to me that while Ehrman has ceased to be Christian, he has not ceased to be Fundamentalist.

[melegritof]

Very astute observation. I actually think Ehrman's honest and scholarly work helps to debunk the man made tradition that says the bible stands alone as the sole rule of faith for Christians. Why there are so many different non Catholic Christian denominations today? I stand by the Catholic Church's teaching that the faith has been transmitted down through the centuries via the written word, oral tradition and an authoritative teaching office which is the magisterium all working in harmony.

[drewskione]

@melegritof cool beans. 

[apologeticacattolica]

Ehrman should debate more. He's a force to be reckoned with. I'm currently reading his new book "Forged" and am impressed with his ability to take the finds of scholars and relate them in a story-like manner. He's bringing top-notch scholarship to the general public. Kudos to him!

[Agorist08]

I watched the Ehrman/Evans and Ehrman/Craig debates and never once saw either of them answer the inerrancy question. Are the gospels accurate and, if so, how do you account for the discrepancies? Or, put differently, when you acknowledge the discrepancies how can you say they are accurate?

I admire the faith of Evans and Craig - but it's just that - faith. History and logic are on Ehrman's side - not on those who claim Biblical inerrancy.

[mrplainclothesman]

For the New Testament, we have 5700 copies, with a time gap of 200 years. 5700 copies. Caesar is reliably taught in school and college with 10 copies. Plato is reliably taught in school and college with 7 copies. Yet we have 5700 copies of the New Testament, and Bart Ehrman wants to question the historical reliability of the New Testament. Interesting.

[Agorist08]

@mrplainclothesman

If you have 5700 copies of the same document do you have 5700 separate accounts or one account restated 5700 times?

You may have 10 copies of concerning Caesar but they are by 10 different authors. With regard to the Bible go back and look at the Q source, Markan priority and related arguments. You will see that the "different" accounts are brought about by changes in the original source - which was based on oral tradition - wholly unreliable as historical fact.

[richwfd2002]

@mrplainclothesman Actually, we have way more than 5700 copies of the NT in the world. That fact doesn't bolster the veracity of its claims. What you said makes NO sense. AND we have contemporary historical accounts for Plato and Caesar and none for Jesus.

[AR333]

Funny how videos such as these aren't flooded by the comments of evangelicals. Probably because they don't even bother listening to videos that object to their views.

[mrplainclothesman]

@AR333 cant speak for all of 'em but it's probably bc our faith doesn't rest on the harmony of the bible. revelation comes through the Spirit of God, not by a book.

[AR333]

@mrplainclothesman Sounds like a dodge more than anything, and a pretty a-historical one at that.

[AR333]

@mrplainclothesman

"revelation comes through the Spirit of God"

don't know if you've considered this before you wrote those words, but when you try to make your position seem any more tenable and invoke the word "revelation", you're doing it wrong. As I said in the earlier comment but thought I should elaborate, this is not only irrational but also a very a-historical attempt at an escape.

[j400wel]

read the bible as dr bart has,diff versions side by side same event told by same author and see the diff.

then read the Quran for to see what it says about that event.

biblos bashers never answer anything.

[grassburner]

I bet thats the last debate Evans has with Ehrman. Craig as might as well been reading a Dr. Suess book every time he spoke. It would have been just as convincing, and a lot more entertaining! I want to see a debate between Ehrman and that christian "used car" salesman Lee Strobel!

[RealName007]

There is only one way Islam! People read the Quran and you will see the truth!

I bear witness that there is no deity (none truely to be worshipped) but, Allah, and I bear witness that Mohammad is the messenger of Allah",

[dhaddox]

@RealName007 I bear witness that there is no deity (including Allah) and Mohammad was an illiterate unclefucker.

[bernlin2000]

@RealName007 I bear witness that there is no deity (none truly to be worshiped) but the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and I bear witness that only the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the messenger of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

[nephyrias]

I think its interesting to note that in his opening statements Dr. Evans applauds the simplicity of the New Testament message, and in his closing remarks he denigrates the simplicity of Christianity. I guess he forgot about the mustard seed. Either way I don't think there's anyway around the fact that he was at contextual odds in this regard and no one even noticed. Simplicity is what makes Christianity great. Simple Christianity is wrong. In a crowd like this, what difference could it make?

[mrplainclothesman]

oh bart, such as angry man. if only believer's of the bible were more obsessed over the bible as much as Bart or his youtube viewers/commentators are, things might be different for Christianity. yet despite Bart having "won" this debate, it will not & cannot ever stop Christians from following Jesus. Because He's alive. "Heaven & earth will pass away, but My word will ever pass away." thumbs down this post all you want. it changes nothing about the fact that you are still in need of a Savior.

[Cootabux]

mrplainclothesman

Of course! It will never stop nor affect Christians & Christianity bcuz they will ignore or deny the obvious points that Bart made all thru the debate. And btw, Evans never addressed any of them directly.

I recently did some research and found the Ugaritic Texts. After considerable study, I'm convinced that the U.Texts blows the Judeo-Christian religion completely out of the water! But it won't make any difference bcuz believers will ignore it! It's a matter of denial.

[PerilocutionAZ09]

That was the strangest "debate" I've ever watched. For like 80% of it, Craig was practically soliloquizing. They might as well have been in separate rooms without any means of communication with each other. -__-

[acearms]

Ehrman uses facts while Evans cites the works of ohers. Ehrmand without a question.

[Lightmane321]

To show that I'm NOT biased, let me state that I was very impressed with Evans closing remarks. While Ehrman clearly won in every point, Evans made some truly profound comments in the end, and I must also state that the audience showed great respect & grace to Ehrman. Even the man holding up the cd encouraged everyone to listen to this debate again, carefully. That's a pretty bold thing for a minister to say, in light of what was actually said.

[meangreen4321]

@Lightmane321

I agree they showed great respect, and I was surprised at the 2 guys on the stage, never raising an eyebrow at Ehrman's antics! That must have taken some serious restraint to watch him tear apart their beloved gospel to shreds.

[bonnie43uk]

Everytime i watch Ehrman, he just reinforces what i think about the New Testament, .. it's full of errors. As he says, if we dont believe him, read it for ourselves. The inconsistancies are all there. I have no problem if people gain comfort from it, .. i agree with the basic message of love and forgiveness, on that basis alone, it has a lot of merit.

[salibaba8]

@bonnie43uk you should look into ISLAM...

[meangreen4321]

@salibaba8

And how is that an improvement?

[Entropy56]

In the end, they both agreed that the Bible contains:

Ambiguity

Contradiction

Hyperbole

[bobbeaverson]

This was a fabulous debate! Ehrman's book on textual criticism is good, too.

[k0smon]

@bobbeaverson "Jesus Interrupted" is even better, and easier to read.

[bobbeaverson]

@k0smon Thanks. I'll check that out.

[sugarcaneintherain]

hmmm... no wonder Brother Ahmad Deedat can easily debated with Christian scholar, based on corruption in Bible itself...copy n paste this to see the video.

Bible God's Word? - Deedat vs Swaggart 1 of 23

[99minerkc]

@sugarcaneintherain Yeah and Dr. Ehrman has studied the Quran and found many errors, corruptions, alterations in it too! The conclusion that needs to be made is for people to WAKE UP, GROW UP, research for themselves and realize that ALL organized religion is MAN MADE!!

[mfentruck]

HOLY SHIT, Bart Ehrman kicks so much ass! That closing statement would fall under the category of "epic".

By the way, did Mr. Evans ever answer the question about the gospel of John and the view that Jesus was divine? Ehrman had asked how Jesus was able to escape a blasphemy conviction while walking around saying that he was = to god.

[japmerry]

Evans response on the Trinity question was very interesting. If the early Christians did not learn about the trinity from Jesus, than where did they? You would think that if Jesus had gone around saying that the singular God the Jews had believed in for thousands of years was suddenly three Gods the authors of the Gospels would have thought to mention it. How is it possible that Paul, with all his thought provoking theology, doesn't take the time address the one God who is three Gods? Puzzling.

[japmerry]

I wonder if this church realized that Evans was not going to take the time to address any of the points raised by Ehrman. I think that if I was the pastor I would want to know what the hell just happened. Evans is not even an inerrantist it seems. What he basically said, over and over again, is that it doesn't matter how many mistakes there are in the bible, I like it.

Not exactly a convincing argument.

[thegreensword]

This WAS NOT a debate, plain and simple. It was 2 presentations done side by side. When Dr. Ehrman posed questions they were not answered or for the most part addressed, maybe i'm old fashioned but in my view there should be some debating in order to call it a debate. and why did Evans get the final say EVERY time?

[jacksawild]

New page of the NT from Nag hammadi scrolls: "The characters portrayed are fictional. Any similarities to persons living or dead is purely coincidental. Many animals and humans were harmed in the making of this religion"

[Canbuhay]

Erhman's conclusion implies that since only Evangelicals trust the Bible, it clearly is their religious blindness that makes them believe the scripture as true not fact. But here's an alternative - perhaps those that study scripture and conclude that the Bible's historicity is true have to become Christians. The naturalistic biases of institutions such as Princeton Seminary have just as many presuppositions as fundamentalist seminaries - and so are just as biased.

[jacksawild]

@Canbuhay Ridiculous. He studied under a Christian at Princeton theo. He was a Christian when he started, his education cured him of his early brainwashing.

[Canbuhay]

"We shouldn't be dogmatic about what the Bible teaches" - isn't that his dogma?

[MATZAMAN76]

@Canbuhay

To err on the side of caution, is NOT dogma. That statement is about as dogmatic as "We shouldn't be dogmatic about the existence of an alien race". It is not "dogma" to choose the side of uncertainty in the face of poor evidence. No matter what the topic is. Religion is no exception. The default position of "non-belief" is infinitely more wise and humble than the alternative of dogmatically subscribing to some belief system supported with no substantial evidence.

[mfentruck]

@Canbuhay

No absolutely not. You are basically saying that you have to be dogmatic no matter what which is bullshit. You are saying that you must be dogmatic about the bible or dogmatic about something else. That doesn't make sense.

[ahmdeid]

The structure of the debate gives Evans advantage over Ehrman. However, Dr. Ehrman uses mostly the logic appeal rather than emotional appeal that Evans did.

[TogetherForPeace]

This was a great discussion illustrating the various ways in which both of them use language to express their beliefs and concerns. Comments that either one of them 'won' are really pointless. Both had great things to say and well worth hearing. The format of the debate was not one that I particularly care for but debate frequently becomes more about rhetoric and audience than about substance so I completely understand.

[elindred]

an interesting watch/read, but not much of a debate, since never do they actually engage each other back and forth.

[motionphoto]

@elindred agreed, this debate sucks without rebuttal and follow-up questions...

[quantumleap8824]

The doubt is not on the christian faith, it is on how the christian faith came about. Evans says at the end, how so many still believed, regardless. I guess he has never heard of Mass Consciousness.....Hitler also convinced many, but was it the truth?

[mikeyman211]

@quantumleap8824 Except Ehrman's saying the consensus between evangelicals is that the bible is perfect and the consensus between the intellectuals and scholars is that the bible isn't.

[quantumleap8824]

By far Bart D. Ehrman is the man!!!!!!!!!!!! The one that got creamed was Evans. rofl

[MATZAMAN76]

Evans is a gentleman in defeat, no doubt. It is difficult to argue from ignorance(faith) and present it as a matter of fact. I couldn't do it anymore. I respect that Evans closed with stating his trust for Jesus. Quite frankly, that is all that remains.

[Canbuhay]

I figured you had some religious background. The question is, did you reject what you thought was Christianity or what actually was Christianity? If you believed that Christianity is blind faith, then that wasn't Christianity.

[MATZAMAN76]

@Canbuhay My deconversion was a long process culminating in the realization that "man" was behind all of the varying degrees of doctrine. The bible is a collection of different interpretations of the concept of "god" spanning over thousands of years. Originating long before the book of "genesis". I never believed Christianity should be "blind faith". It took me a while to realize that I was the one filling in the "gaps" to keep my faith going. Truth shouldn't need help, if it is indeed truth.

[ravenmn]

The final conclusion of each - Bart delivers a historical perspective and Craig delivers a theological one. Pure and simple. Being an evangelist Craig cannot get away from making generalisations even though he is a respected scholar - I myself have read many of his exegetical works.

[ravenmn]

However from a historical perspective he fails to answer the historical questions posed by Bart. Strictly historically speaking the bible does have errors and contradictions. It is difficult historically to assess exactly the details that follow Jesus of Nazareth's life and ministry. General statements can be made but accurate detailed ones - no. How was chooses to pursue this theologically is up to the individual.

[hchsbp1]

Did anyone else notice how Dr. Ehrman conclude this debate by wrapping up his stance with facts, while Dr. Evans concluded his with yet another mini-sermon?

[wowamonn]

Dr Ehraman Creamed that guy! way to go Bart!!!!

[Vulphie]

I also agree that Dr. Ehrman won this debate. I can't understand how Dr. Evans can agree with Dr. Ehrman on the presence of many discrepancies in the Bible but go on to say that the Bible is reliable. How can it be reliable if the story is different depending on which text you read? I enjoy when Dr. Ehrman points out how certain teachings are found only in a variant, rather than the majority of texts. Dr. Ehrman's specific examples and logical conclusions really support his position.

[ogilby5]

Black and white is only found in the Quran

[rocha333]

Bart only speaks strongly as if he is right. Only the weak would fall for what he says. The truth is that the most serious mistakes in the Nt texts smear no christian faith. I want Bart to show me where any mistake affect christian theology. :)

[theninjacowboy]

@rocha333 I would say that it's the vast accumulation of mistakes that went unprevented by a supposed all-powerful god which should affect one's religious belief. Why would a perfect deity go about spreading his message in such an imperfect manner?

[avenger19992003]

bildaloco, you posted exactly what I would have, 100% agreed.

[bildaloco]

Dr. Ehrman completely won this debate, hands down. Craig Evans came off sounding like a preacher, relying on nothing more than faith to defend his positions and he NEVER answered ANY of Dr. Ehrman's questions. That should tell you the man couldn't honestly counter anything Dr. Ehrman presented.

[MATZAMAN76]

@bildaloco

Great post,..my thoughts exactly. Truth is more important than our baseless religious assumptions...The bible is without a doubt "man-inspired", not supernatural.....Peace...

[Canbuhay]

What were the questions that Ehrman asked that Evans didn't respond to?

[rfora540]

So many are missing the point. The point is [if you really listen] they are not disagreeing over the facts. Craig doesn't say it just like Ehrman but they BOTH agree that the Gospels are not reliable in the way that modern contemporary history is reliable. The disagreement is over the DEGREE of "reliability." Craig didn't NEED to counter anything except Bart's conclusion that the evidence suggests that the BASIC notions about Jesus are TOTALLY[operative word here!] unreliable. Bart failed.

[bernlin2000]

@rfora540 But Ehrman cites many occasions where there ARE some basic notions about Jesus that can not be reliably shown to have been in the original texts: such as Jesus' atonement for the world's sins. If that isn't a basic notion in the Christian faith, I don't know what is. A lot of these things sprang up later in the Christian Church (the Trinity doctrine being another), but are not part of the originally written Gospels. Ehrman was very clear about this, and did not fail whatsoever.

[Jugglable]

@bernlin2000 Jesus' atonement for the world's sins is in the epistles. You also said it's not in the gospels, but for example it's pretty clear in the gospel of John: "Behold the lamb of God." All the symbology in that text emphasizes Jesus as the new Passover lamb, meaning he atones for the sins of the world.

[bernlin2000]

@bildaloco I loved Ehrman's conclusion: he doesn't even say that "based on this lack of evidence, Christianity is an untenable faith" but rather asks Christians not to be dogmatic, and fundamentalist in their approach to others that have other interpretations on the text. I think matters like abortion, homosexuality, and war are great examples of where the Bible can NOT be a reliable source for moral truths: we must seek those out ourselves.

[pretoshohmoofc]

Great closing speech by Craig Evans!!

[venya4life]

@pretoshohmoofc ....not one time did he admit the fact that the bible is riddled with error. What a hypocrite.

[pretoshohmoofc]

@venya4life He didn't admit it, because its not! I already commented on most of this video.

[Cejoguard]

great closing speech by Bart Ehrman!!