@funalingis "show me a miracle and that will be proof"
Reminds me of something the people who crucified Jesus said:
"Let this Christ, this King of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe." Those crucified with him also heaped insults on him.
@funalingis "THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE ASSERTER."
Hm... Aren't you asserting that the burdon of proof is on the asserter? If you were as smart as you thought you were you would simply suggest, or vaguely imply, that the burdon of proof is on the asserter and thus avoid going to all the trouble of having to prove it.
After watching this I watched videos of Bart Ehrman. I am definitely no biblical scholar, but at least I am honest. I checked out some of his quotes, because I have had my doubts about the bible, but at least I try to be honest in my criticism. Bart Ehrman is a downright misleading liar. He doesn't do the field of textual criticism any honour when he opens his mouth. I would debate him, if I could stay awake long enough before he actually gets to an example after 15 minutes of rhetoric.
Bart Ehrman a New Testament Scholar? I doubt it, he is not even honest. He says there is a manuscript of Mark's Gospel, that states a quote is from Isaiah. Then goes onto say the quote is actually from Exodus, when in fact Mark 1:3, is virtually a verbatim quote from Isaiah 40:3. Look in Exodus! It simply is not there. Ehrman needs to make his path straight, or at the very least make his criticism honest...
it's very simple xians, show me a miracle and that will be proof, so far for the past 20 years all's i've heard is talk and empty promises. EVEN ALL THE YAK ive heard from xians is contradtictory. THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE ASSERTER.
@funalingis it's very simple atheist, since you believe the universe popped into existence out of nothing doesn't count as a miracle to you, then what does?
@rfvidz Most atheists are humble enough to admit they don't know the origins of the universe. It would be arrogant to postulate on a subject that very few people are qualified to discuss on an intellectual level. Personally, I avoid making unprovable claims about things that happened long before I got here.
Why does he call it "presupposition" despite the fact that Ehrman clearly came to his understanding through reason and study after previously believing otherwise? I would suggest that blind faith and ignoring any historical and objective study from hundreds of scholars and historians because it doesn't jive with your doctrine, theology and ideology is the real offender by way of "presupposition"
Why won't Geisler debate Erhman face-to-face? Simple answer. Geisler is a proof-texting fundygelical theologian, and Erhman is a "biblical scholar/historian." Geisler continually quotes from the biblical text that itself is in question regarding it's reliabilty. Erman would blow him out of the water without breaking a sweat. Geisler, like many other theologians, have it stuck in their thick heads that biblical scholars should be subject to the metaphysical "Assumptions" of theology. Moron!
@sickofyou60 -- if you listen to Erhman closely you will find that he makes his comments and insights sound like facts when in reality they are just speculations.
Pastors will continue to defend there alfabetical undestanding the Bible (they called it faith) of the NT, because they are fearing a shaking background of the power given to them to manipulate the people.There WAS NO EVEN SINGAL proove of Norman Geisler that pusuate me that Bart have errors. Bart is the actual hero here, because someone shuld say it: NT and Bible IS NOT HISTORICAL DOCUMENT. Just read Bart and if you are not zombie you will see that Bart Ehrman is after all correct.
This is excellent teaching. Thanks so much for uploading this. Shame more seem to be watching Ehrman than listening to Geisler though. As the scripture states: 'They shall gather around themselves a great number of teachers who will say what their itching ears want them to say."
the more mistakes the better? Serious scholar this guy? the just smashed numbers at your face, never articulated arguments, rambled about how PERFECT the bible is. Inerrancy, a lame concept. Why does a god need his writer to have witnesses? why didnt he just dictate everyword, no witness needed? He doesnt adress Ehrman's points: what's jesus' genealogy, what day did he die, how many men where at the tomb, what did the disciples do after the empty tomb. Just keep repeating it's perfect.
copied with 99.9% accuracy? 100% truth from the original? Pathetic. He's just a desperate biblical fundamentalist. What eye witnesses? the bible has passages nobody could have ever witness: the angel visited mary and told her X, jesus said Y while alone, etc. 25000 copies, so what, does it mean they're accurate representations of originals because they're many?
@JesusOrMuhammad ---- I agree, Erhman could further learn what it means to be uninformed by listening to Geisler. I've heard Norm blather since I was a kid, and he still uses the same one liners he used 40 years ago. Norm would be stomped into a puddle would he debate Erhman.
in the bible is controversy criticism. Bart Ehrman is wrightly and honest man
mgodfathersa 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@funalingis "show me a miracle and that will be proof"
Reminds me of something the people who crucified Jesus said:
"Let this Christ, this King of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe." Those crucified with him also heaped insults on him.
updr12 2 weeks ago
@funalingis "THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE ASSERTER."
Hm... Aren't you asserting that the burdon of proof is on the asserter? If you were as smart as you thought you were you would simply suggest, or vaguely imply, that the burdon of proof is on the asserter and thus avoid going to all the trouble of having to prove it.
updr12 2 weeks ago
Princeton is liberal.
zealot1711 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
How is sickofyou60's comment at the top when it has not one like?
rwleif 3 months ago
After watching this I watched videos of Bart Ehrman. I am definitely no biblical scholar, but at least I am honest. I checked out some of his quotes, because I have had my doubts about the bible, but at least I try to be honest in my criticism. Bart Ehrman is a downright misleading liar. He doesn't do the field of textual criticism any honour when he opens his mouth. I would debate him, if I could stay awake long enough before he actually gets to an example after 15 minutes of rhetoric.
Complaintdesk 4 months ago
Bart Ehrman a New Testament Scholar? I doubt it, he is not even honest. He says there is a manuscript of Mark's Gospel, that states a quote is from Isaiah. Then goes onto say the quote is actually from Exodus, when in fact Mark 1:3, is virtually a verbatim quote from Isaiah 40:3. Look in Exodus! It simply is not there. Ehrman needs to make his path straight, or at the very least make his criticism honest...
Complaintdesk 4 months ago
it's very simple xians, show me a miracle and that will be proof, so far for the past 20 years all's i've heard is talk and empty promises. EVEN ALL THE YAK ive heard from xians is contradtictory. THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE ASSERTER.
funalingis 4 months ago
@funalingis it's very simple atheist, since you believe the universe popped into existence out of nothing doesn't count as a miracle to you, then what does?
rfvidz 4 months ago 5
@rfvidz Most atheists are humble enough to admit they don't know the origins of the universe. It would be arrogant to postulate on a subject that very few people are qualified to discuss on an intellectual level. Personally, I avoid making unprovable claims about things that happened long before I got here.
TylerOmega 3 months ago
This guy is presupposing that the Bible is completely reliable
arjonny232 4 months ago
Comment removed
arjonny232 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Why does he call it "presupposition" despite the fact that Ehrman clearly came to his understanding through reason and study after previously believing otherwise? I would suggest that blind faith and ignoring any historical and objective study from hundreds of scholars and historians because it doesn't jive with your doctrine, theology and ideology is the real offender by way of "presupposition"
arjonny232 4 months ago
Comment removed
arjonny232 4 months ago
Comment removed
arjonny232 4 months ago
Why won't Geisler debate Erhman face-to-face? Simple answer. Geisler is a proof-texting fundygelical theologian, and Erhman is a "biblical scholar/historian." Geisler continually quotes from the biblical text that itself is in question regarding it's reliabilty. Erman would blow him out of the water without breaking a sweat. Geisler, like many other theologians, have it stuck in their thick heads that biblical scholars should be subject to the metaphysical "Assumptions" of theology. Moron!
sickofyou60 5 months ago
@sickofyou60 -- if you listen to Erhman closely you will find that he makes his comments and insights sound like facts when in reality they are just speculations.
Justas399 4 months ago
@sickofyou60 amen
ZEEECHET 3 months ago
Pastors will continue to defend there alfabetical undestanding the Bible (they called it faith) of the NT, because they are fearing a shaking background of the power given to them to manipulate the people.There WAS NO EVEN SINGAL proove of Norman Geisler that pusuate me that Bart have errors. Bart is the actual hero here, because someone shuld say it: NT and Bible IS NOT HISTORICAL DOCUMENT. Just read Bart and if you are not zombie you will see that Bart Ehrman is after all correct.
Vogda 5 months ago
This is excellent teaching. Thanks so much for uploading this. Shame more seem to be watching Ehrman than listening to Geisler though. As the scripture states: 'They shall gather around themselves a great number of teachers who will say what their itching ears want them to say."
Shazoolo 6 months ago
@Shazoolo , and Geisler is doing the itching
sickofyou60 5 months ago
Top lecture
Zwemer100 6 months ago
thanks bart is shit
matrixlone 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Bible is true because the Bible says so. Duuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhh
ndjarnag 7 months ago
I love everytime he grabs the book.
sirdelrio 8 months ago
They're heresies because they contradict the bible. Can it get any more circular? Serious scholar this guy? are you kidding me?
sirdelrio 8 months ago
the more mistakes the better? Serious scholar this guy? the just smashed numbers at your face, never articulated arguments, rambled about how PERFECT the bible is. Inerrancy, a lame concept. Why does a god need his writer to have witnesses? why didnt he just dictate everyword, no witness needed? He doesnt adress Ehrman's points: what's jesus' genealogy, what day did he die, how many men where at the tomb, what did the disciples do after the empty tomb. Just keep repeating it's perfect.
sirdelrio 8 months ago
copied with 99.9% accuracy? 100% truth from the original? Pathetic. He's just a desperate biblical fundamentalist. What eye witnesses? the bible has passages nobody could have ever witness: the angel visited mary and told her X, jesus said Y while alone, etc. 25000 copies, so what, does it mean they're accurate representations of originals because they're many?
sirdelrio 8 months ago
What a great critique of Bart Errorman! Simply fantastic!
Norm Geisler is a true scholar.
egwpisteuw 8 months ago
this video is awesome! :D
vivaramones1 8 months ago
Ehrman can learn a thing or two from this man
JesusOrMuhammad 8 months ago 7
@JesusOrMuhammad ---- I agree, Erhman could further learn what it means to be uninformed by listening to Geisler. I've heard Norm blather since I was a kid, and he still uses the same one liners he used 40 years ago. Norm would be stomped into a puddle would he debate Erhman.
sickofyou60 5 months ago