Bart Ehrman, Interrupted: Exposing a Childish View of Scripture

[Oallos1]

CRoadWarrior,

Your video here was pioneering.

Atlast, the christians have come together with a more formal response to Bart Ehrman via a youtube channel called "EhrmanProject"

and also

EhrmanProject (dot) com

Hope you enjoy the reponses to his claims.

Also, a new DVD entitled "The battle to discredit the bible" responds to Ehrman and other claims and is an excellent resource for all believers. The DVD is broken down into clips which are featured on my bible archaeology playlist - Go see !

[onemarktwoyou]

My faith has been reaffirmed by Mr. Ehrman.I find he actually helped me understand why the gospels were reliable,and in what way they are reliable.I do believe it is necessary for men of faith to learn the historicity of the text,instead of allowing a preacher with only personal financial reasons to teach you.And generally preachers are lacking the knowledge of the text in the first place.It is important to read on the translations of the word to better to understand the intent of the word

[CRoadwarrior]

@onemarktwoyou That is interesting, considering the fact that Bart tries to teach how unreliable and inaccurate the text of the NT is. What Ehrman are you talking about? The one before he lost his mind at Princeton or the one after? lol. You would do better to hear Dr. Gary Habermas, Dr. William Lane Craig, Dr. N.T. Wright, Dr. Norman Geisler or Dr. Craig Blomberg. These are the men who are better suited to learn the Gospels from.

[elguapochango]

Perhaps this has been said in previous comments, I do not wish to read them all. But you make no real argument agaisnt Ehrman. You hold up books that have supposeably proved him wrong but don't mention how, and the quotes you do read give no academic argument that would provide evidence that might persued someone to disagree with Bart Ehrman. The man makes his living researching the bible and the other topics he speaks on. You would do good to study the bible on a more adacemic level.

[CRoadwarrior]

@elguapochango Actually, I do make a real argument against Bart, just not in the way YOU wish . I do study the Bible on a more academic level, on a more excellent level than Bart because he has no Spirit led understanding. He makes wild assumptions and other mistakes which many scholars have pointed out. You would do well to read about them.

[CRoadwarrior]

@elguapochango And in this series, when I have time to do more videos, I will provide more evidence of his flawed interpretations and prove them to be in error in detail. After that, you and others will have no excuse for accepting his false and erroneous claims.

[Downfurlife]

I agree Bart is a worthless slob. He is intellectually dishonest, a fraud and no friend of atheism. This coward, who I have met, despite his education and the fact he has obviously researched & studied global religion and Christianity he still makes room for the ignorance & stupidity of religion. Without fact or evidence he still calls himself an agnostic - in MANY cases a borderline theist. I have no respect for people like this who make room for theism when they ought to be anti-theist. :)

[CRoadwarrior]

@Downfurlife I would agree he is intellectually dishonest AND arrogant and out mostly to make money by creating provocative books. He has an agenda. But arguing he should be an anti-theist is nonsense. He gives false comfort to atheists and muslims, who aren't discerning enough to realize they are being fooled by his facade of scholarship and intelligence.

[LovingScrubbies]

Is he Bart Ehrman or Bart Simpson. Oh! He's Bart ErrorMan.

Sam Harris's debates with Rabbi Wolpe and Dennis Prager were very cool.

[CRoadwarrior]

@LovingScrubbies LOL Bart ErrorMan. Nice. 

[ralani5]

Is your book on sale in book stores or do you have to order online?

[CRoadwarrior]

@ralani5 It is available on a limited basis in stores. You would have to put in a special order, and then the store would have to put in an order. It's easier to use Amazon or get it from me directly.

[ralani5]

@CRoadwarrior Thanks. I'll check that out.

[unclexbob]

this isn't just an argument via authority, this an argument via popularity.

I don't think anyone would argue that Bart's questions have been addressed, much like I wouldn't deny that pascal's arguments havent' been answered. These aren't relevant facts to the questions being asked.

Simply claiming that the questions have been answered, or that the argument has been settled, is childish. If it was settled, we wouldn't be discussing it now, let alone decade and centuries before now.

[CRoadwarrior]

@unclexbob No you are wrong on many counts. The issue isn't that the questions have been answered. They've been answer by scholarship. The problem is, people don't READ the scholarship and just read the Bible and websites with "contradictions" on them made by people who also don't research anything. We discuss things today because of the ignorance people have and the ulterior motives people have.

[unclexbob]

@CRoadwarrior I'm not sure what "ulterior" motives these people have?

I'm guessing it is "that which differs from yours" Not too shocking, nor all that conspiratorial.

[CRoadwarrior]

@unclexbob Come on...people have ulterior motives all the time. For example, ask Bart why he charges so much to attend debates while people like Dr. James White debate for free. Some people aren't really concerned with learning truth but just want to maintain the status quo, thinking that all is well in their "contradiction" claims when nothing could be further from the truth. Ulterior motives...lol.

[unclexbob]

@CRoadwarrior I dont' see the amount he is paid (I have no idea how much he is paid, nor do I really care) somehow changes the facts he states and the lack of answers to his questions. If I find out how much he charges, will is suddenly make his questions less probing or less answered by the opposition....?

[CRoadwarrior]

@unclexbob The point is, Bart is not doing what he does because he's just such a caring and nice guy who wants people to know the "truth." He gets paid outrageous amounts to speak or debate. But the fact remains, as I point out in the vids, that some of the questons he raises have been addresed BEFORE he was even born. So it is intellectually dishonest to pretend as if no one has addressed his false concerns and contradiction claims.

[rrpostalagain]

Holy Cow- finally got through the whole thing. You seem to think that because someone else has "refuted" a criticism about your book means that it makes the criticism completely invalid. Instead of appealing to authority, explain what you think. I am interested. Off topic, but I am also curious about where you stand on creation/ evolution? Finally- a grown man dressed as you are should not start off by calling someone "childish", it somewhat softens the insult.

[CRoadwarrior]

@rrpostalagain My point was, the claims of Bart and others have indeed been answered by scholarship before he was born. It's not an invalid appeal to authority. And I will be explaining things in more detail in the series. I am a creationist, and evolution is mostly science with speculation pretending to be pure science. And I guess you haven't seen wresting, where grown men dress worse. My claim of childishness is about Bart's view of Scripture, not how he dresses.

[rrpostalagain]

@CRoadwarrior I don't think you have a good idea of what science is. At some point the science of evolution has gotten pretty solid by any standards you want to use. I think it's pretty funny that a creationist would accuse evolutionary claims as having too much "speculation". The sum and total of creationism is speculation upon unfounded assertions. Maybe you'll surprise me, but so far you've kinda seemed like a wrestling festooned creationist nonsense peddler. That should at least be funny.

[CRoadwarrior]

@rrpostalagain Actually, as a man who initially wanted to be either a medical doctor or a biologist, and who took steps toward those, I do know what science is. And so do the many scientists who used to teach evolution as fact but now know better. Your claims about creationism are absolutely false, probably based on the fact that you don't read the literature and do not know the scientists involved. But this series is about a specific topic. You need to stick to it.

[fromthescriptorum]

@CRoadwarrior

Well, if you wanted to be a doctor, then you must have a good understanding of science. Because, you know, the desire to do something automatically translates into actual knowledge of that thing. What exactly is your academic training?

[CRoadwarrior]

@fromthescriptorum I sense much sarcasm in you, young skyscriptorum...lol. I do believe I explained that not only did I want to be a doctor or biologist, but I ALSO took steps in that direction, like memorizing medical terms from a medical dictionary, etc. I never claimed desire translates automatically, as if by osmosis, to actual knowledge. Do you know what a straw man is? My academic training now consists of theological training, as I am presently working on a Masters of Divinity.

[fromthescriptorum]

@CRoadwarrior

Will I be on the committee considering your hire at my university, or do you plan to stay away from the Midwest?. Your mention of the straw man intrigues. Explain why you mentioned it, and why you think it pertinent to my comment. Be concise; I smell blood. Also, please reveal what textual scholarship you have done. Have you published? If so, where? Does your textual scholarship include textual criticism? Finally, a book rec in the next reply

[CRoadwarrior]

@fromthescriptorum I doubt you'll be considering me for hire, since my plans are ministry driven. The straw man involves your statement, which is a distortion of the claim I made, i.e., straw. I have done some work in the area of Biblical textual criticism. I've had a few articles published, but not in any "academic" or "scholarly" journals as yet, since my focus has been ministry to the "common man." However, that will change in years to come. I recommend my book shown in the video.

[fromthescriptorum]

@CRoadwarrior I think you have added a little alfalfa to my sarcasm. I didn't provide a straw man argument of any sort. But, silly me, perhaps I am missing something. how does my comment distort your claim (for that matter, what does my comment state in the first place and in what way exactly does that respond to your claim), and what would I have to do to engage in a straw man fallacy? There is one further action i would need to take

[CRoadwarrior]

@fromthescriptorum Your sarcastic initial comment was a distortion of my point, which in logic is indeed a straw man. Now if you want to deny that, that's your business. But a straw man it was. 

[fromthescriptorum]

@fromthescriptorum

The best basic book on the subject. I differ with you on theology, philosophy, scientific thought, and probably much else, but I am glad to see people furthering their educations. job security, if nothing else:

Ancient Greek Scholarship by Eleanor Dickey

[kmcl11]

@rrpostalagain Well said.

[Aslanspal]

You are a joke...just look in the mirror...you insult Jesus

[CRoadwarrior]

@Aslanspal No, the true insult to Jesus is when people forget and do not apply His words. Go read John 7:24 and YOU look in the mirror.

[Aslanspal]

@Aslanspal Have looked...have you because you are a cartoon ...and yes you most definitely Insult Jesus...amen and so be it.

stupid Uncle Tom

[CRoadwarrior]

@Aslanspal If I'm the one who is so stupid, why did YOU reply to yourself on my page? LOL.

[0spiker]

Blah, Blah, Blah. Took you 2 minutes to get to the point oi the video. Of course right away you start backwards. Jesus Interrupted is in a way the sequel to Misquoting Jesus. That is the latter should be read first.

And you go on and on and on without offering any substantial crticism. Give us the refutations then. Not just name calling and other sophmorisms, name dropping etc.

Claiming literature can emphasize 1 or two doesn't mean that's what is being done. That is not a refutation.

[CRoadwarrior]

@0spiker You might want to withhold judgment until the SERIES is finished. Only 2 videos have been done so far and more are on the way. But regardless, my point stands. Bart's arguments have been addressed by scholarship long before he was born.

[0spiker]

@CRoadwarrior

"addressed" doesn't tell me anything ( Dan Brown "addressed" a number of issues in the Davinci code, should modern NT scholarship stop? or even take him seriously) and saying to withhold judgment till the end of the SERIES, is to confirm that you haven't really said anything of substance.

You lecture others about Logic yet about 95 % of your criticism is ad hominem.

[CRoadwarrior]

@0spiker Actually that is nonsense. The reason I say to withhold judgment until the end of the series is because you cannot address all things in one 11 min. video. It does not mean there is no substance in THIS video. So I suggest you learn what logic is before you try to critique someone on logic. And no, what I do is not ad hominem. Look up what that is.

[HonestTechnoAtheist]

When you say plenty of good evidence are you talking about false archaeology or circular vague prophecies.

[CRoadwarrior]

@HonestTechnoAtheist No, I am talking about true archaeology and prophecies so accurate that they must be called "prophesy ex eventu."

[HonestTechnoAtheist]

Plus the fact that you screen your comments and have the ratings locked only confirms that your are to much of a coward to defend your claims.

[CRoadwarrior]

@HonestTechnoAtheist Plus maybe you're making assumptions about a person you don't know, and have not bothered to ask regarding his reasons for screening comments. So once again, stop with the invalid and silly assumptions.

[HonestTechnoAtheist]

@CRoadwarrior So why do you screen comments then?

[CRoadwarrior]

@HonestTechnoAtheist Let's see, for the 1,000th time, there are several reasons. The primary one is that I have a responsibility to the youth that watch my channel. Many people do not know how to be civil and use racial slurs and cussing. These things I screen out for the sake of minors especially. Since I get so many comments, and I'm in graduate school, I don't have time to respond to as I would like, so screening helps me manage the load and keep the filth out. Thanks for asking.

[HonestTechnoAtheist]

First of all take off the football space uniform this isn't halloween time. Second off all unless you know ancient greek latin or hebrew I doubt that you have the knowledge to say that the bible is completely accurate in it's claims. What you do have is your faith and that is it.

[CRoadwarrior]

@HonestTechnoAtheist First of all, learn to spell. Second, I wear what I want for whatever reasons I have. Third, I have taught Koine Greek and I'm in my second semester of Hebrew. Stop with the assumptions and watch the warrior and maybe you'll learn a thing or two.

[HonestTechnoAtheist]

@CRoadwarrior Have long have you been studying those languages and looking at the old bible manuscripts. I will listen to what Ehrman has to say rather than someone who believes simply because of their faith.

[CRoadwarrior]

@HonestTechnoAtheist It is not about the amount of time you have spent studying the languages but the quality of your study. You don't know why I believe, and you don't really know why Bart makes the claims he does despite the fact that his teacher (Metzger) disagrees with him, along with the vast majority of scholarship. So instead of listening to Bart you need to do your own research.

[HonestTechnoAtheist]

@CRoadwarrior I have read Bart's decoversation story. What he has to say makes much more sense than any of his opponents.

[CRoadwarrior]

@HonestTechnoAtheist I've read his alleged "decoversion" story too. And it sounds just like all the rest, especially the "Jesus Seminar" folks, who have a form of outward faith but when the going got tuff, they left the faith for no rational basis. Yet people like myself who've been through much harder times and circumstances, have not left and were not deceived by the sophistry that made Bart leave. Sorry, his "faith" was superficial, and sadly he didn't know it.

[rrpostalagain]

@CRoadwarrior I agree with the idea that it's the quality and accuracy of the research more than the number of years spent doing so. But I equally echo what was said below. There is such a myriad of "interpretations" of the bible leaves it almost completely meaningless. It's a complete and utter cop out to simply claim "you haven't researched" when someone shows you the depravity that is plainly obvious. People are adept at inventing rationalizations for these obvious contradictions.

[CRoadwarrior]

@rrpostalagain The fact that there are a "myriad" of interpretations only points to the fact that too many people don't know what hermeneutics and proper exegesis are. But make no mistake, there is proper interpretation and improper, accurate and inaccurate. And we need people who can tell the difference and know that multitudes of interpretations does not make it "completely" meaningless. The real cop out is to be so lazy that you can't do the research necessary to see the truth.

[auroradamien]

So you Know for a FACT that you are right in your interpretation? Your interpretation can't be wrong? You had to rationalize your way out of the matthew mark situation.

[CRoadwarrior]

@auroradamien My interpretation makes the most sense in context. If I am wrong, then I have no problem being PROVEN wrong. The "Matthew-Mark" situation, as you call it, was never truly a problem.  It was fabricated out of the minds of people who don't think very clearly.

[auroradamien]

@CRoadwarrior Thats the problem, Your interpretation makes sense to You, There are millions of people that interpret it many different ways. The fact that it needs to be interpreted shows me that a god did not write this book. That fact that the book contradicts itself many many times shows me man wrote this book. The sexism, racism, bigotry, murder, rape, and slavery in the book show me it was written by primitive man.

[CRoadwarrior]

@auroradamien And my interpretation makes sense to thousands of others who understand basic hermeneutics as well. Millions of people also interpret in the same ways. That's why John Calvin hundreds of years ago can say Jesus is God based on John 8:58, and I today without reading Calvin can say the exact same thing. Every book needs to be "interpreted," so that's no argument. The book only seems to contradict. People are adept at making up "contradictions."

[CRoadwarrior]

@auroradamien Just because a book contains alleged sexism, racism, bigotry, murder, rape, slavery etc, that does not prove it was "written by primitive man." You clearly have done minimal investigation into the contents of the Bible. You are the victim of distorted misconceptions of the Bible.

[auroradamien]

@CRoadwarrior alleged? God's KILL count alone is in the billions according to the bible. No I am not taking anything out of context.

Billions of people, yourself included, are victims of a distorted misconception of the bible. The misconception is it is divinely inspired.

[CRoadwarrior]

@auroradamien Oh really? Even if your claim was true, a just God must judge SIN. So your claim is a non sequitur fallacy due to your ignorance of Biblical theology and the evidence showing the Bible could not have been merely a human product.

[auroradamien]

@CRoadwarrior You're very very deluded.

[CRoadwarrior]

@auroradamien LOL. Nice unsupported claim. When you can learn not to come up with logically fallacious claims, get back to me.

[CharlesFernando7]

When I looked at you, I remembered this video watch?v=io-aqNIff3k guy! You and Chuck Norris would be a "heav'a" of a team!

[CRoadwarrior]

@CharlesFernando7 LOL...I like this guy. He's got style.

[spammus]

Wow. that was really terrible. blessings on you and your mission, but...wow. I'm not sure if you read Ehrman's book; the (completely subjective) impression I got from it wasn't of someone like Dawkins who thinks believers are fools, but of someone who believed that the Bible was the inerrant Word of God, dictated by the Creator - and in his efforts to understand it more deeply came to the conclusion that there were to many human-like discrepancies in it for that to literally be the case. peace

[CRoadwarrior]

spammus. Terrible? On what basis? Your subjective and ignorant opinion? I don't think so. Ehrman's problem was that he had a false and confused understanding of inerrancy, and probably a false faith to boot.

[Reddyeye]

My favorite example of a bible contradiction is the account of what Judas supposedly did after he betrayed Jesus. Matthew says Judas returned the bribe and hung himself. However Luke in Acts says that Judas used the bribe to purchase a field where he fell headfirst and burst asunder. Even a child can see that the Matthew/Luke accounts are contradictory and cannot be reconciled in an intellectually honest way. Yet fundamentalists twist themselves into knots trying to reconcile the two.

[CRoadwarrior]

Reddyeye. Your so-called favorite example of a contradiction is simply another example of misreading the texts. Matthew clearly says Judas hung himself. Now it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out. If he hung himself, there are only a few ways to come down. You can FALL down due to gravity (as Acts says) or you can be taken down. Even a child can figure that out, but you have "great" theologians and "scholar" out there who must find contradiction where none exists. LOL.

[honthraj]

@CRoadwarrior: Boy this was worthless. I viewed this in hopes that you would address the specific instances of contradictions that Ehrman points out, but all you have done is claim that others have done so - without telling us how they have done so giving the viewer an opportunity to weigh whether their refutations are valid. Your "refutation" amounts to no more than Ehrman has been refuted because these guys have done so already and I agree with them so they must be right. Childish.

[CRoadwarrior]

Not really, honthraj. This was merely a preliminary video to a series. But my points stand regardless of your cavalier dismissal.

[honthraj]

@CRoadwarrior - Then I apologize for a curt assessment if this is the case that you have a series dedicated to this. I would be very interested to hear the specific refutations made. Please let me know when you post them.

[CRoadwarrior]

Not a problem, honthraj. I've done two vids and more are on the way...

[bazzymushpea123]

Just because the arguments are old, it doesn't mean they are stupid, I honestly can't see anyone refuting Bart on the things he says about how scriptures were copied for example, this is a clear problem.

[CRoadwarrior]

bazzymushpea123. It is not just that the arguments are old. It is that they have been thoroughly answered by scholarship. This series is not about how things were copied but Bart's contradiction claims. Even his idea of how manuscripts were copied is off, but that's another series.

[rjohson]

what about the maniscript is faulty, or the author is not acurate? thats what bible critics argue

[JLinnst]

This video is pretty good. You make some excellent points. Your uniform is also way cooler than Little Bartman.

[CRoadwarrior]

Thanks, JLinnst. I'm not done with Bart yet...what a rushhhh, writing from Jerusalem itself!

[alex95187]

p.s. please do not take my comments as an attack, i am only posting observations and giving my opinion.

[CRoadwarrior]

@alex95187 Understood.

[alex95187]

@CRoadwarrior are those the only two comments from me you have received?? because i have sent longer ones that for some reason are not on your comment board

[CRoadwarrior]

alex95187. I can't see any others on this page that are pending. Sometimes things you try to post get "lost" when you click "Post Comment." That is why when I am about to post something long, I make a copy first, and then try to post. If something goes wrong, I can use my copy.

[alex95187]

@CRoadwarrior hmm interesting. that is probably what happened. i have forgot my comment to you lol, when i remember i will tell you. till then happy holidays!

[SupremeChimp]

Thou shalt not bear false witness.

Everyone knows you censor comments.

[CRoadwarrior]

SupremeChimp. Everyone does not know what you claim without any evidence. I do not "censor" comments. I screen them for content because many people who post have the nasty habit of cussing and so forth, which I will not allow on my pages. So, I would suggest you get your facts straight before stepping to the warrior.

[squitmaa]

Reading scripture critics can be useful "in my opinion". It forces us the ask how is this scripture perfect? The overall meaning of scripture can be reconciled, but it is clear that different authors have different understandings. Many of these understandings are contradictory on a material level. That being said should we take the bible as unquestionable historically or scientifically? I would say no. However when it comes to meaning and purpose the bible can be pristine.

[CRoadwarrior]

@squitmaa It's fine to "read" what critics have to say, but it is not fine to blindly accept everythign that is said. There are no true contradictory claims in the material. There are many CLAIMS, but claims are not always what they seem. As for history and science, we must be careful that we are not misreading modern thoughts into ancient literature.

[squitmaa]

I absolutely agree that we should not assume ancient writters had a modern approach or understanding. That being said. This is why the meaning is the importance of biblical text, not the historical accuracy. Example the Gesisis acount of creation is about the importance of God bringing order and charging us to continue in his mission, it is not about how God created firmaments (or tables) to hold water in the sky. Clearly the author did not understand the hydrological cycle.

[CRoadwarrior]

@squitmaa Yes the meaning is important but also the historical accuracy. The Genesis account is about God's view of the world He made. I would not say the author did not understand the hydrological cycle. I would say we need to not think that the author is necessarily talking about the hydrological cycle as we know it. We need to be careful with our assumptions about what the author is saying.

[thespursareadynasty]

this vid is usless. you say all of the points that bart makes have been refuted but you never say how. you taking a page out of Bill O'riely's book: when someone disagrees with you you just scoff at them, act like their idiots and say "no your wrong" but you don't say why. how bout directly responding to an alleged contradiction. here's one why on palm sunday does jesus ride one donkey in mark, luke, john but he rides two in matthew? btw i like the sound effects lol.

[CRoadwarrior]

@thespursareadynasty The vid is not "useless" just because you say so. I provided sources to FIND the answers, and I did that on purpose, because if you can read Bart and his nonsense, you can read the refutations. I am not here to spoonfeed you all the answers. I give resources for people to look and think for themselves. Do Mark, Luke and John say there were NOT two? You ponder that.

[CRoadwarrior]

@thespursareadynasty Also, you might want to stick around for my future vids on Bart, where I get into the specifics of his errors. Let's see what your excuse will be then for trying to support Bart no matter how wrong he is.

[thespursareadynasty]

this vid was useless you say all of the points that bart made were refuted but then you never say how they were refuted. you say bart's questions have been answered but dont give the answer.

[CRoadwarrior]

@thespursareadynasty Actually, I do give the answers, in the form of the places to find them in specific reference sources.

[alex95187]

do you say you are refuting the refuted?

[CRoadwarrior]

alex95187...Huh? I don't get your question.

[alex95187]

@CRoadwarrior my questions seem to not post, but i ask this because refuting the subjects of God and also the counter refutes are things that have been going around pretty much since the beginning of any allegations for both parties thousands of years ago. correct?

[CRoadwarrior]

alex95187. Yes, man of these things have been argued for a long time. But too many people do not do the homework to realize this and to also know that these allegations hold no real weight.

[alex95187]

@CRoadwarrior then, and i am not trying to insult you, so keep that in mind, but you state your self "it is not using intelligence to repeat the same old refuted arguments of the past. That is called insanity." are you not doing the same thing? since you are, like i said, refuting the refuted? since it is logical to think that both subjects have been refuted since it is impossible to prove or disprove god.

[CRoadwarrior]

No, alex, you miss the point here. Bart is merely bringing up old stuff that has been answered. I am pointing out to a generation that does not know this (because Bart doesn't really admit it) that the issues he raises HAVE scholarly and detailed answers. It is not "impossible" to prove God, as He's already done it (Romans 1:20; Psalm 19:1-4). All people need do is open their eyes, or, better yet, do not cut off their heads while God's truth beings healing to blinded eyes, per my book title.

[alex95187]

@CRoadwarrior so basically, the mere fact that we are even here is in itself proof of God? because the bible says so?

[CRoadwarrior]

alex95187. You may want to pay closer attention to what I said. I never made the claim that the mere fact that we are here is proof of God.

[alex95187]

@CRoadwarrior no insults intended, but you also may want to pay closer attention to what i said, i never said you made the claim. it was simply a question on the credibility of the bible that has come to my attention upon reading the fourth sentence of your comment . please feel free to still answer it if you wish.

[CRoadwarrior]

alex. You clearly inferred that I made such a claim. The credibility of the Bible is not in serious question for those who have studied in any depth. The Bible is supported by historical evidence, scientific evidence, and archaeological evidence. A good place to start is the book "Is the Bible True?" by Jeffery L. Sheler.

[CRoadwarrior]

And as for my fourth sentence, the Bible makes specific claims, and my point is that these claims are indeed supported by the evidence. Now like those who dismiss evidence for the Holocaust, people can and usually do dismiss the evidence for God. That doesn't make it magically go away, but they try. The honest folks will have to admit where the evidence leads.

[alex95187]

@CRoadwarrior i see how my sentence could seem inferred, but believe me it was not. if it were, i would have stated it more clearly, as in "so you say" or any others like that. sorry for the miss understanding but hopefully you now understand that i would take a straight forward approach. back on to the subject, i like the "Holocaust" analogy, seeing as it hold proof aswell as evidence, and the nay sayers do over look this, but it is obviously different than .....

[alex95187]

@CRoadwarrior continued.. evidence for God and the bible. especially seeing as not only is Judaism not the oldest religion, but not even the oldest texts of a religion or an assumption of a specific God. it is best to give credibility to the first seeing as the bible claims there God to BE the first. but it is not. untill the day we find the story of genesis etc dated before "the pyramid texts" then the credibility would sky rocket. correct? once again these are just questions not attacks.

[CRoadwarrior]

@alex95187 No, you illogically assume a) that age is equal to more credibility and b) that the God of the Bible does not predate all ancient texts. The credibility of the Bible stands on its own merits. But it appears you don't know what those merits are. So my suggestion is that you learn about this, and start with books by Josh McDowell and Dr. Norman Geisler and Gary Habermas. A specific book would be "Is the Bible True" by Jeferey L. Sheler.

[alex95187]

@CRoadwarrior excuse me i meant *thoughts lol

[auroradamien]

Quoting the bible does NOT prove anything. I can quote the entire south park movie but that doesn't make it reality. What are the scholarly and detailed answers to the questions raised by Ehrman. I have yet to see a christian with a grasp of the meaning of the words Proof or Prove. The bible proves absolutely Nothing.

[CRoadwarrior]

auroradamien. Actually, depending one what you quote, quoting the Bible can prove a great deal. Comparing South Park to the Bible is a logical fallacy known as the faulty comparison. I answered your question in the videos. You can claim the Bible proves nothing, but that mere statement proves your ignorance.

[alex95187]

@CRoadwarrior well?

[Oallos1]

Love it !

[theman77777777232]

What's Happening?!

Long time no speak.

I don't know why, but it struck me the other day that you remind me a lot of this guy...

itsourrealitymagazine . com/picts/ernest2.jpg

(minus the spaces)

I was watching What's Happening the other day and I was like, Roger is definitley related to CRoadwarrior. lol

Is it just me?

What's Happening!

[CRoadwarrior]

LOL. Roger is dark skinned but we are not related.  Sorry.

[ServusAbsurdus]

"9 out of 10 new ideas are old mistakes" - G.K. Chesterton

[MsZathras]

Great vid! Thanks!

Love the Warriors outfit. Modern outfit helps get across the modern 'Put On The Whole Armor of God' verse.

[CRoadwarrior]

Thanks, MsZathras. The outfit can hurt you if you are not careful, but the real armor is the main thing.

[wowamonn]

Well I am sorry you feel that way.

[CRoadwarrior]

No need to feel sorry. The fact remains that you were merely asserting what you believe. But what you believe is not necessarily true.

[ForgedInStone]

You remind me of Three Dog on Galaxy News Radio in the Fallout game series. :P

Keep up the good work. :)

[CRoadwarrior]

And, to finish this point, there is a very valid REASON why I would not take a "similar position" to any other "holy" work. They are not on the same level as the Bible either in historicity or veracity or divine claims verified in history and science. THAT makes sense and dismisses your "point."

[CRoadwarrior]

The Mickey Mouse and Pluto analogy is a faulty one, which has no real resemblance to the Bible and what it reveals. The so-called bronze age mythology is not so obviously mythology. Perhaps to YOU, in your ignorance of the veracity and historicity of the Bible, but not to those who have studied the topic honestly and thoroughly. You obviously spent years going to church but not doing credible research. There's enough evidence out there for any honest person to assess (Rom. 1:20; Ps. 19:1-4).

[CRoadwarrior]

Books are credible sources, case, if you didn't know. Now you can point at books all day, but that doesn't mean the books are of credible and accurate scholarship. The point is, I've done the homework, and it is clear you haven't.

[CRoadwarrior]

No, that is NOT the point. The point is, according to the VIDEO as a whole, is that people like Bart darn not think that it is themselves that is the problem, not the Bible. They can't seem to think that perhaps THEY are misreading. That is the point and the arrogance.

[ravnoss]

Are you serious....you said nothing...saying something is refuted by another authors opinion doesn't mean it isn't true....first off...the fact that they do mental acrobatics to reconcile a discrepency doesn't mean it is proven wrong...that is what refuting means.....even past the ridiculous get up, and silly canned laughter...all I heard come out of your mouth was white noise...no disrespect intended...but you owe me 10 minutes of my life, because this video is a waste of time!

[CRoadwarrior]

First of all, when you sign on and view videos, you know what you're in for. So I don't owe you squat. Second, the fact that you don't get the point of the video does not mean the video is a waste of time. What's really a waste of time, paper and effort is writing books about things that have been addressed and refuted hundreds of years before you were even born. The true "mental acrobatics" are done by the likes of Ehrman, who ignore facts and evidence to make up their nonsense.

[ravnoss]

giving your opinion or silly myth on how you can reconcile these contradictions is not refuting....lets see...how many books has Ehrman sold.....how many classes has he taught? ....and you....how many books or students do you have.?? so if he is wasting his time, why are his pockets getting fatter, his phone ringing off the hooks for requests of interviews and debates???? I bet you sell millions and have people requesting you teach at their university huh? white...noise....

[CRoadwarrior]

ravnoss. The very fact that you can come on here and CLAIM, without any rational argument or evidence, that something is silly or myth proves my point. The things Bart brings up have been refuted. Period. Your ignorance does not prove anything. Truth is not about how many books have been sold. Heresy, lik,e controversy and sex, sells. Wonder of wonders. LOL. Jim Jones, the infamous cult leader, had many church locations and lots of political clout, moreso than Bart...

[ravnoss]

Jim Jones didn't have many churches or political clout! Your arrogance outshines those ridiculous glasses. you couldn't mop the floor with Bart in a debate, you aren't even in the same league.....how many requests do you get to debate again? you aren't even on the radar...one thing is for sure..he isn't online talking to someone about CRoadwarrior that is for sure, you don't even register on the scale.

I just can't figure out if you are serious or if you are just a clown parody of christianity.

[CRoadwarrior]

ravnoss. You might want to brush up on your history about Jim Jones. You obviously are ignorant of the facts. Vids are on YouTube so you have no excuse. You are so busy trying to find fault with me and not paying attention to the facts presented that you are blind to how Bart is deceptive. If I had HarperCollins behind me with the millions and the media machine it has, yeah, I'd be on the "radar" just like him. But then again, truth is on the scaffold some times, and wrong on the throne.

[ravnoss]

I think you should take your own advice. Jones was an untrained preacher who made his Peoples Temple off some Disciples of Christ then he took it to Ca, moved a couple of places there, then to jonestown....all one church different buildings....just because you say it, doesn't make it so....you have no excuse ether...you have said nothing except how great you are and how this professor is less than you.....believe your fairy tale...I don't mind...dress like a freak...more power to you. :) peace!

[CRoadwarrior]

Sorry, ravnoss. I'm in graduate school, I've written an over 400 page book, I've taught N.T. Greek, and the list goes on. I do my homework. At this point I'm shutting down this conversation (on your end) because it is all too apparent that you like to make false claims but can't do the simple homework to find out they are false. Long before you started posting here, I did some extensive research on Jim Jones, and I know that all I've said is true. So, see ya...

[CRoadwarrior]

But, as Dr. King put it, that scaffold sways the future. Bart is another alarmist who will disappear shortly just like Spong before him, and Hugh J. Sconfeld before him.

[wowamonn]

I am sorry who and when was Pro Ehrman arguments refuted? Let me ask you a question since you claim to be a Bible expert Jude 1:14-15 is a quote from another Bibical book this is your task what book was this Scripture quoted from?

[CRoadwarrior]

In the video, wowamonn. Were you not paying attention, or is it tht the economy is so bad that you can't afford to PAY attention? LOL. As for Jude 1:14-15, it appears that this is a quote from the apocryphal book of Enoch 1:9.

[wowamonn]

I watched the video. Since all scripture is inspired of God Tim 3:16 and Jude Quoted from the Book of Enoch why wasnt the Book Chosen by the Catholic Church? Yet the Ethiopian Church has it canonized in their Aramic Translation? Why was the Sherperd of Hermas and the Gospel of Barnabas frist Canonized by the Catholic Church then dropped several hundred years later? How can a verse be inspired but the not the rest of the book? (Book of Enoch)

[CRoadwarrior]

wowamonn. I think the key is what he quoted. Paul even quoted a pagan poet in Acts 17:28. Both Jude and Paul only quote a small part, and it was in line with prior revelation of God. How can a verse be inspired but not the rest of the book? Easy. Make up any fiction you want, and then stick John 3:16 in it. I can then quote your fiction at John 3:16, which is inspired, and yet the rest not be inspired.

[wowamonn]

Nope the bible is NOT inspired by god it is a book by human writers who claimed that it is inspired by god . The god of the jews is a midianite god whom moses adopted (if he existed) thier are no dieties just ancient beliefs and traditions adopted by society because we are all afraid to die.

[CRoadwarrior]

wowamonn. You are merely asserting what you BELIEVE. You are not proving anything against my point.

[CRoadwarrior]

So, ravnos, at the end of the day, you have no valid argument. And if that's all you got, then you might as well just sit back and learn as my series rolls out. I'd wipe the floor up with Bart in debate, but I doubt much will be left after Dr. James White is done with him. The real "white noise" eminates from your own computer. LOL

[amandaclark270]

I hope you realize that you look and sound like a complete idiot. How do you expect people to take you seriously in a getup like that. Seriously!

[CRoadwarrior]

amandaclark270. Unlike you, most get the point that I am putting on an "act." Choosing to ignore the facts I point out is a choice people make at their own peril, since facts STAND regardless of "getup." So, I'd rather know what I'm talking about and look and sound LIKE an idiot, than to look and sound "normal" and truly BE one. Most understand what's better in this case.

[CRoadwarrior]

Case. The issue is not whether or not I "assume" I "must" be misreading. As I said, I am well aware that I could be misreading ANYTHING, whether it's the Bible or some other text. So don't try arguing what I don't argue. People misread all the time, but people like Bart act as if they can't be misreading. You are dodging the point and trying to build a straw man, and I will not fall for it.

[CRoadwarrior]

Define "proof" in this context. What would "prove" to you that the Bible is of God? If "nothing" will, don't waste my time.

[CRoadwarrior]

Actually, I said a great deal. Perhaps your blind bias keeps you from seeing this simple fact. That's the real crock.

[CRoadwarrior]

I not only just "said" things were refuted. I also provided credible and verifiable SOURCES to check. Amazing how that little tid-bit was ignored.

[CRoadwarrior]

No, case, I did not dodge. And you still assume. The point of my quote is that the text of the Bible is of God and must be treated as such. But even with a pagan or muslim writing, I allow that I might be misreading. I've even said so in writing when quoting the Koran in a newsletter article in the past. But people like Bart arrogantly act as if they can't be misreading and their contradiction claims MUST be valid. Not so.

[CRoadwarrior]

KomatiiteBIF. You didn't hear it in the background?

[CRoadwarrior]

And yes, slapdown. I haven't even had to go UP to the level of "smackdown" yet. LOL.

[CRoadwarrior]

case...That is your assumption, which happens not to be true. Assumptions are not wise, so I'd suggest you back up and stop trying to attack me and think. If a "pagan" says something that is true, then it's true. Even Paul the apostle quoted pagan poets in Acts. So, keep your assumptions in check.

[CRoadwarrior]

caseagainstfaith. Get the book if you like, but it's childish stuff that's been refuted before he was born. I didn't need to go into specifics here. Other videos will DETAIL the refutations, but rest assured the things he brings up have been answer long ago. Which makes me wonder...is he that ignorant or that deceptive or both.

[PraiseYeshua]

The real tragedy is how Ehrman is a very educated and intelligent man who uses unintelligent arguments to 'prove' his points. He was privileged enough to have studied under none other than Bruce Metzger. Like those who will openly rebel against Jesus along with Satan at the end of the millenium reign, he knows the truth, has seen the truth and yet does not accept the truth and will burn in an eternal hereafter unless he repents.

[owheydusoapsk]

If in using the intelligence you grant him, he arrives at a different conclusion than beleiving Christians, what would you have him do? Should he just shut-up?

[CRoadwarrior]

owhey....The problem is, it is not using intelligence to repeat the same old refuted arguments of the past. That is called insanity.

[Tonloc1986]

Nice vid Warrior! I'm actually reading a book now by Norman L. Geisler called "Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics." I just started it yesterday, and it's a HUGE book, but a very helpful and informative book. Once I start reading, it's hard for me to put it down. I've done study on the Kalam Cosmological Argument. It's simply incredible how much basic stuff Ehrman misses in his arguments. Frankly, I think he misses on purpose, as if he doesn't want to get the point. ;-)

[PraiseYeshua]

Homer Simpson: "Doh! Another one of that boy's arguments bites the dust." (LOL)

What's really interesting is the parallels Nontrins and Athiests have:

1) Both deny the Trinity

2) Both often use the same old refuted arguments

3) Argue the Trinity was borrowed from the pagans

4) Both take scripture out of context

That's just fascinating to me how Satan has the same old lies in his deceptive belief systems.