The Ehrman vs. White debate now online.

[David Waltz]

Way back on January 30, 2008 I announced in a thread here on MADB [http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=32348] the upcoming debate between Bart Ehrman and James White (it took place January 21, 2009).

Earlier today, I discovered that a pdf version of the entire debate is now available (FREE) online:

http://mp3.aomin.org/805Transcript.pdf

After reading the debate, I typed up a post with some of my reflections, plus some additional relevant material:

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2009/03/...-tradition.html

My abbreviated summation: great debate, with James taking the â??winâ??.

Grace and peace,

David

[Sargon]

Way back on January 30, 2008 I announced in a thread here on MADB [http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=32348] the upcoming debate between Bart Ehrman and James White (it took place January 21, 2009).

Earlier today, I discovered that a pdf version of the entire debate is now available (FREE) online:

http://mp3.aomin.org/805Transcript.pdf

After reading the debate, I typed up a post with some of my reflections, plus some additional relevant material:

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2009/03/...-tradition.html

My abbreviated summation: great debate, with James taking the â??winâ??.

Grace and peace,

David

Thanks! I'll have to find some time to read it. Too bad there is no video .

[Mortal Man]

Thanks for the links.

[Scott26.2]

Great stuff. A little like trying to take a drink from a fire hose for me, but great stuff.

Scott26.2

[JLFuller]

Way back on January 30, 2008 I announced in a thread here on MADB [http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=32348] the upcoming debate between Bart Ehrman and James White (it took place January 21, 2009).

Earlier today, I discovered that a pdf version of the entire debate is now available (FREE) online:

http://mp3.aomin.org/805Transcript.pdf

After reading the debate, I typed up a post with some of my reflections, plus some additional relevant material:

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2009/03/...-tradition.html

My abbreviated summation: great debate, with James taking the ‘win’.

Grace and peace,

David

White lacks the creds of a Bart Ehrman. If you go to White's web site you will see he has an opinion for every high profile issue of the day and then he writes a book about it. Ehrman, on the other hand, is a legitimate researcher who has been properly trained and is not shilling for his religious views as White is. White cannot be honest. It is against his principles. He has the results in mind before he ever does the work. His path is predetermined before he starts. Other wise he wouldn't be a highly paid pastor or whatever he is. No one would buy his books. He is what Christ had in mind when he talked about priestcraft.

[consiglieri]

Thanks a ton for posting that, David.

I just finished printing it off and look forward to perusing it tonight!

I, for one, hope that it is James White who gets "creamed."

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[William the Conqueror]

Way back on January 30, 2008 I announced in a thread here on MADB [http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=32348] the upcoming debate between Bart Ehrman and James White (it took place January 21, 2009).

Earlier today, I discovered that a pdf version of the entire debate is now available (FREE) online:

http://mp3.aomin.org/805Transcript.pdf

After reading the debate, I typed up a post with some of my reflections, plus some additional relevant material:

http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2009/03/...-tradition.html

My abbreviated summation: great debate, with James taking the â??winâ??.

Grace and peace,

David

Well David your quote from Kurt and Barbara Aland casts great doubt on the accuracy and veracity of the Joseph Smith translation. If as the LDS claim, corrupt scribes wrote the present errors into the texts in the first three centuries, it would seem that some of what Joseph Smith translated such as the prolegomena of John, would have survived in early Greek renderings, yet it does not.

In John 1 all the Greek manuscripts are in agreement such as " through him was life, and this life was the light of men..", yet the JST states "...and the gospel was the life, and the life was the light of men...", clearly a different meaning.

To try to equate gospel with the Christ (His life) is absurd. It's the difference between the messenger and the message, and that is a distinct difference.

Again the JST: In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God.

USCCB: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

He was in the beginning with God.

In this passage the JST casts doubt on the eternity (always in time) of the Son.

[cshaw]

I've skimmed over most of it and I'm not convinced that White won the debate. I might have to re-read, but Ehrham seems to be far more knowledgable.

I was saddened when I learned from Dr. Ehrman that one of my favorite scriptural stories wasn't originally found in the NT.

Virtually all scholars agree today that one of the most famous stories of the New Testament wasâ??in factâ??inserted by scribeâ??that it wasnâ??t originally found in the New Testament. Itâ??s the story found in the Gospel of John, chapter 7 and 8, the famous story of the woman taken in adultery. Where the Jewish leaders dragged this woman before Jesus and set a trap for him. They say, â??This womanâ??s been caught in the act of adultery, the law of Moses says weâ??re supposed to stone a person like this. What do you say?â? This is a trap. Because if Jesus says, â??Well, yeah, stone her,â? then heâ??s violating His teachings of love and mercy. But if He says, â??No, forgive her,â? then Heâ??s breaking the law of Moses. So whatâ??s it going to be? Well, Jesus stoops down on the ground andâ??He has a way of getting out of these traps in the New Testamentâ??so He stoops down to the ground, starts writing on the ground, He looks up and says, â??Let the one without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her.â? And that causes everybody to recognize their own guilt, and they leave one by one, until He looks up. Thereâ??s nobody left there, and Jesus says to the woman, â??Is there no one left here to condemn you?â? She says, â??No Lord, no one.â? He says, â??Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more.â?

This is a beautiful story filled with pathos; we know itâ??s one of the best stories in the New Testament because itâ??s in every Jesus movie ever madeâ?¦â?¦â?¦â?¦ Unfortunately it was not originally in the New Testament.

cshaw

[David Waltz]

Hello William,

You wrote:

>>Well David your quote from Kurt and Barbara Aland casts great doubt on the accuracy and veracity of the Joseph Smith translation.>>

Me: As Robert Matthews has written, â??Opinions vary among those who have considered the nature of the New Translationâ?¦Others regard the New Translation primarily as an effort by the Prophet to render the biblical text more acceptable to his particular theologyâ?¦Associated with this view is a tendency to regard the changes more as commentary material than as actual restorations.â? (Joseph Smithâ??s Translation of the Bible, p. 234.)

So, the remarks of the Alands and Comfort are not problematic at allâ?¦

Grace and peace,

David

[e=mc2]

Hello William,

You wrote:

>>Well David your quote from Kurt and Barbara Aland casts great doubt on the accuracy and veracity of the Joseph Smith translation.>>

Me: As Robert Matthews has written, â??Opinions vary among those who have considered the nature of the New Translationâ?¦Others regard the New Translation primarily as an effort by the Prophet to render the biblical text more acceptable to his particular theologyâ?¦Associated with this view is a tendency to regard the changes more as commentary material than as actual restorations.â? (Joseph Smithâ??s Translation of the Bible, p. 234.)

So, the remarks of the Alands and Comfort are not problematic at allâ?¦

Grace and peace,

David

I have found that Kevin Barney's idea of the JST as a midrash on the scripture is quite interesting as well. THANKS for posting the stuff David. As usual, I still even LIKE YA!

[Hoops22]

I still fail to see how Ehrman's views help the lds cause - unless, as I've maintained, they can not regard the Bible with anything more than bemusement.

But, as I've also maintained, for lds to be true, the Bible can not be.

[e=mc2]

I still fail to see how Ehrman's views help the lds cause - unless, as I've maintained, they can not regard the Bible with anything more than bemusement.

But, as I've also maintained, for lds to be true, the Bible can not be.

You lost me. The Bible is true. The truth of the Gospel for we Mormons does not mean the Bible cannot be true.....Am I not following your reasoning correctly here?

[TOmNossor]

White lacks the creds of a Bart Ehrman. If you go to White's web site you will see he has an opinion for every high profile issue of the day and then he writes a book about it. Ehrman, on the other hand, is a legitimate researcher who has been properly trained and is not shilling for his religious views as White is. White cannot be honest. It is against his principles. He has the results in mind before he ever does the work. His path is predetermined before he starts. Other wise he wouldn't be a highly paid pastor or whatever he is. No one would buy his books. He is what Christ had in mind when he talked about priestcraft.

I am no fan of James White, but your post gives me a desire to come to his aid. This desire is especially present when White is arguing that we can reverence the Bible against an agnostic who suggests that the Bible is not reliable enough be a ground for faith in Christ.

Whiteâ??s major flaws IMO are not that he is not intelligent, are not that he is not a very good debater, are not that he has many different avenues of Christian defense, and are not that he is paid to write books, participate in and sell debates, or whatever IMO. To be honest, I have long felt that one of Whiteâ??s major flaws is the lack of charity he affords the positions of those with whom he disagrees (potentially the person too, but more importantly the positions). White will quote Joseph Smith, Bart Ehrman, Francis Beckwith, or â?¦ and declare that their words clearly mean XYZ much to the protests of Beckwith (who I have seen protest), the Joseph Smith follower (who I have been and protested) or â?¦. In my experience, White adopts a view of his theological opponents that makes his job as attacker/debater easiest. This view is often a non-charitable read of their words, often protested by his opponent, and occasional completely of base.

The LDS who wanted to adopt James Whiteâ??s strategy with respect to the inerrancy of the Bible would be less obnoxious that the average White position if they were to insist that Biblical inerrancy means that the Bible in 2009 is precisely the Bible from the autographs. This insistence would be supported from statements by various folks from either the past or the unsophisticated present that adopt or seem to adopt this version of Biblical inerrancy. Then Ehrmanâ??s facts would be mustered to show that a photocopy of the autographs does not exist so Biblical inerrancy is false. Victory!

As a LDS, I seldom feel the need to go down this path. Instead, I would suggest that there is enough in the textual tradition (not to mention the interpretive tradition which is even more fruitful and probably more important) to support statements with LDS scriptures about the corruption of the Bible. As LDS we place much importance on the Bible as we have it today. As such â??corruption of the Bibleâ? should not be viewed as necessitating a worthless Bible hopelessly changed. And qualifiers such as â??so far as it is translated correctlyâ? also do not require this. In fact Ehrmanâ??s view IMO is not something a LDS can embrace (which does not mean that the LDS cannot use the FACTS Ehrman popularized to defend our positive but not inerrant view of the Bible).

I've skimmed over most of it and I'm not convinced that White won the debate. I might have to re-read, but Ehrham seems to be far more knowledgable.

I was saddened when I learned from Dr. Ehrman that one of my favorite scriptural stories wasn't originally found in the NT.

I have read both opening statements and it seems to me that Whiteâ??s view of the Bible as a reliable witness to the 1st century understandings of its authors is quite well defended. The authors of the Bible presented a number of ideas about Jesus Christ. I think textual scholarship has well established the ideas about Jesus Christ as present within the autographs.

1. Could He get angry? Yes. Did he get angry at the leaper? Perhaps not.

2. Did He dodge traps from non-followers? Yes. Was one of those traps associated with a woman caught in adultery? Not likely (at least according the autographs).

â?¦

To be honest, I rather like the idea that the â??explosionâ? of manuscripts is a 1st â?? 20th century way of doing the job of a photocopy machine SUFFICIENTLY well.

Simple inerrancy is not a dogma to which I subscribe. I think Erhman popularized good reasons to not embrace simple inerrancy. But I will follow White in the view that the Bible is a reliable witness of Christ.

I still fail to see how Ehrman's views help the lds cause - unless, as I've maintained, they can not regard the Bible with anything more than bemusement.

But, as I've also maintained, for lds to be true, the Bible can not be.

Let me add to Kerryâ??s words by saying, â??the Bible is a LDS book.â? The way the CoJCoLDS uses the Bible demands that it is of great value towards knowing Jesus Christ. This does not mean that we can or should embrace simple inerrancy. But I do not believe that White defended what I call â??simple inerrancyâ? as such, I can confidently side with White.

I also suggest that William the Conquerorâ??s view of the JST does not allow LDS to define what the JST is. If I were to define inerrancy for him and dismiss his faith as implausible, he would understand what I feel he has done with the JST. I am not sure if it is your intention to imprint upon me views of the Bible that I do not hold because you claim to be a LDS (who excepts the BOM or who holds theological view XYZ or ???) I simply must view the Bible as you say I should. However, I think I would be disinclined to adopt a view of the Bible that would align with the view â??for LDS to be true, the Bible can not be.â?

Charity, TOm

[consiglieri]

Having now finished reading the 48-page transcript of the debate, I have to agree that James White edged out Ehrman on form and style.

I do think that Bart Ehrman was positioned to administer a coup-de-gras, but failed to do so.

Here is what I mean:

One of White's main points was his argument that the scribes never left anything out of the manuscripts when copying; that they may have added some things inadvertently, but that nothing was lost; that of the 100% of the original New Testament manuscripts, we now have 110%; everything was retained . . . plus some more; and that the job is now to figure out what was added and to redact it; but that everything is there as it is.

This seems to have fallen in line with Ehrman's major examples of additions to the text, such as the story of the woman taken in adultery, the last ten verses of Mark, and the Johanine Comma; all of which are additions.

The changes in the text argued for by Ehrman, such as Jesus being angry at the leper in Mark, or Jesus dying "apart from God" instead of "by the grace of God" in Hebrews, were defused by White as saying they didn't change the message of the "entire book."

White kept going to changing the "entire book," and Ehrman might have held his feet to the fire a bit more on that issue; making White focus on whether it changed the meaning of the verse itself.

But I think the place where Ehrman missed his opportunity is by first identifying White's argument that we have 110% of the New Testament as not based on the manuscripts themselves, but is itself a faith-based position. There is simply no way of ascertaining that this is the case.

Then Ehrman might have said that we have proof that not everything was retained in the manuscripts. He had already made the off-hand aside that Matthew quotes a verse from Isaiah that is not there in its present form.

I think he could have followed up on this, because it is critical to rebutting White's position. The New Testament itself proves that at least one part is missing from Isaiah; and yet White's arguments regarding the transmission of the New Testament would seem equally applicable to the Old Testament manuscripts.

Since Ehrman can prove one such instance of missing material from Isaiah (and that from the New Testament, no less!), I would think it an effective club to beat White with; for where one such instance of missing material can be demonstrated, not only is White's major argument demonlished, but how many others might there be?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[David Waltz]

Hi Consiglieri,

You wrote:

>>But I think the place where Ehrman missed his opportunity is by first identifying White's argument that we have 110% of the New Testament as not based on the manuscripts themselves, but is itself a faith-based position. There is simply no way of ascertaining that this is the case.

Then Ehrman might have said that we have proof that not everything was retained in the manuscripts. He had already made the off-hand aside that Matthew quotes a verse from Isaiah that is not there in its present form.

I think he could have followed up on this, because it is critical to rebutting White's position. The New Testament itself proves that at least one part is missing from Isaiah; and yet White's arguments regarding the transmission of the New Testament would seem equally applicable to the Old Testament manuscripts.

Since Ehrman can prove one such instance of missing material from Isaiah (and that from the New Testament, no less!), I would think it an effective club to beat White with; for where one such instance of missing material can be demonstrated, not only is White's major argument demonlished, but how many others might there be?>>

I believe you are referencing the following part of the debate:

Dr. White And so, this kind of perspectiveâ??I want to make sure weâ??re all understanding

exactly what youâ??re sayingâ??this is why you would say that if anything was ever inspired, in essence weâ??d have to have the original for it to be inspired?

Dr. Ehrman No, I told you long ago that this was not going to be a debate about my doctrine of inspiration. Iâ??m not saying anything has to be one way or the other. God could have inspired the originals and then decided to let scribes change the originals. God could have inspired all of the textual variants. If youâ??re saying itâ??s impossible thenâ??when youâ??re talking about God, nothing is impossible. The church father Origen maintained that all of the textual variants were inspired by Godâ??that He inspired the scribes. So,well, thatâ??s perfectly fine, if thatâ??s what you want to think. I simply donâ??t think so. My

view is that if God wanted us to have His words, He wouldnâ??t have allowed His words to

be changed so that we donâ??t know what the words were.

Dr. White So, the standard, then, that would have to exist for you to have maintained the

position that you held, would have been either the originals or some perfect copy thereof?

Dr. Ehrman Why would God not allow the originals to be preserved? I used to ask myself that question. I mean, if He inspired Mark to write down this book, why wouldnâ??t He let itâ??I mean it wouldnâ??t be impossible for it to be preserved, there are other books that are preserved that longâ??why wouldnâ??t He tell Christians, you know, keep that book so that you have something to judge the copies by. But He didnâ??t do that. We donâ??t have the original. So it made me suspect that maybe God wasnâ??t that interested in giving us His words. If He was, why didnâ??t He give them to us? That was my question.

Dr. White So, clearly thatâ??s not the perspective of the apostles themselves, who themselves did not have access to any originals of the Old Testament, and yet they quoted freely from the Old Testament based upon even translations of the Old

Testamentâ??

Dr. Ehrman Thatâ??s notâ??it was not their view.

Dr. White Iâ??m sorry? â??That is not their view?â?

Dr. Ehrman Thatâ??s right, it was not their view, no.

Dr. White Right, so as you are thinking about this, thenâ??

Dr. Ehrman I should say, though, when they quote the Old Testament it is a very interesting thing, because they quote it in different forms. And in the form they quote it often is not the form that we have it. Matthew, for example, quotes the Old Testament sometimes, he would give a quotation of Scripture that you canâ??t find in the Bible [laughs]. Why is that? Because he had a different form than we have.

Dr. White So, to apply your standard, then, how could there have been any revelation given without the ability for perfect copying down through the ages?

Dr. Ehrman They didnâ??t have to be perfectly copied. God could have just preserved the originals. (Pages 41, 42 of transcript.)

I think James touches on this issue a bit earlier in the debate:

And so, do the original readings continue to exist to this day, thatâ??s the first question. And is the standard that is being presented this evening, reasonable? I submit to you that if your standard is that God is supposed to somehow strike scribes dead before they make a mistake, or somehow work some sort of miracle where they want to write one word, because they donâ??t really know how to spell the word, and all of a sudden their hand is taken over and theyâ??re writing something else. I suggest to you that is unreasonable, it is not scholarly, there is no grounds for it, and I wasnâ??t trying to lull you into not thinking by presenting to you a very different way of understanding how the New Testament has been preserved over time.

That will be the issue this evening. That is what we must look at. Where do these variants actually change the meaning of an entire book, do we believe in the tenacity of the original text, is it still there, and can we make it a reasonable thing to say, that if the New Testament was inspired, that somehow God must work a second kind of miracle where every scribeâ??even if heâ??s huddled in fear of the Romans in the first few centuries, copying by candlelight on a scrap of papyrusâ??that somehow he must be transformed into a perfect dictation machine. I submit to you that was not the standard that even Jesus and the apostles used. Jesus and the apostlesâ??look at the Gospels, what do they quote from? The vast majority of the time they quote from the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, not the Hebrew Old Testament and there are times when the New Testament writers actually quote textual variants between the Septuagint and the Hebrew. They didnâ??t follow Dr. Ehrmanâ??s standard in regards to these things. The question this evening is: Why should we? (Page 24 of transcript.)

I think we need to keep in mind that we are talking about the â??tenacityâ? of the New Testament texts, not the those of the Old Testament.

Grace and peace,

David

[JLFuller]

Having now finished reading the 48-page transcript of the debate, I have to agree that James White edged out Ehrman on form and style.

I do think that Bart Ehrman was positioned to administer a coup-de-gras, but failed to do so.

Here is what I mean:

One of White's main points was his argument that the scribes never left anything out of the manuscripts when copying; that they may have added some things inadvertently, but that nothing was lost; that of the 100% of the original New Testament manuscripts, we now have 110%; everything was retained . . . plus some more; and that the job is now to figure out what was added and to redact it; but that everything is there as it is.

This seems to have fallen in line with Ehrman's major examples of additions to the text, such as the story of the woman taken in adultery, the last ten verses of Mark, and the Johanine Comma; all of which are additions.

The changes in the text argued for by Ehrman, such as Jesus being angry at the leper in Mark, or Jesus dying "apart from God" instead of "by the grace of God" in Hebrews, were defused by White as saying they didn't change the message of the "entire book."

White kept going to changing the "entire book," and Ehrman might have held his feet to the fire a bit more on that issue; making White focus on whether it changed the meaning of the verse itself.

But I think the place where Ehrman missed his opportunity is by first identifying White's argument that we have 110% of the New Testament as not based on the manuscripts themselves, but is itself a faith-based position. There is simply no way of ascertaining that this is the case.

Then Ehrman might have said that we have proof that not everything was retained in the manuscripts. He had already made the off-hand aside that Matthew quotes a verse from Isaiah that is not there in its present form.

I think he could have followed up on this, because it is critical to rebutting White's position. The New Testament itself proves that at least one part is missing from Isaiah; and yet White's arguments regarding the transmission of the New Testament would seem equally applicable to the Old Testament manuscripts.

Since Ehrman can prove one such instance of missing material from Isaiah (and that from the New Testament, no less!), I would think it an effective club to beat White with; for where one such instance of missing material can be demonstrated, not only is White's major argument demonlished, but how many others might there be?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

OK OK. We are much different in our approach to this stuff. I am a snob. You are not. You did due diligence (because you are a lawyer and it is your thing) and I wouldn't read White under any circumstances. You want to know what White said and I think he isn't worth wasting time on because of his history. Maybe it is just our professional preparation. I had almost no time for distractions and you get paid to look into things. They interest you. You get paid by the hour. I got paid by the month and had minimum production standards to meet. I had to wade through the manure looking for the pony so I got pretty good at deciding if there was a pony in there before i started digging. In this case, you didn't care whether there was a pony. It all paid the same.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Well David your quote from Kurt and Barbara Aland casts great doubt on the accuracy and veracity of the Joseph Smith translation. If as the LDS claim, corrupt scribes wrote the present errors into the texts in the first three centuries, it would seem that some of what Joseph Smith translated such as the prolegomena of John, would have survived in early Greek renderings, yet it does not.

In John 1 all the Greek manuscripts are in agreement such as " through him was life, and this life was the light of men..", yet the JST states "...and the gospel was the life, and the life was the light of men...", clearly a different meaning.

To try to equate gospel with the Christ (His life) is absurd. It's the difference between the messenger and the message, and that is a distinct difference.

Again the JST: In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God.

USCCB: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

He was in the beginning with God.

In this passage the JST casts doubt on the eternity (always in time) of the Son.

This is great, you actually think that JS was trying to translate the bible to what was originally penned by the prohpets. THe LDS don't hold this view. Your wasteing time here.

[TOmNossor]

Hi Consiglieri,

You wrote:

>>But I think the place where Ehrman missed his opportunity is by first identifying White's argument that we have 110% of the New Testament as not based on the manuscripts themselves, but is itself a faith-based position. There is simply no way of ascertaining that this is the case.

Then Ehrman might have said that we have proof that not everything was retained in the manuscripts. He had already made the off-hand aside that Matthew quotes a verse from Isaiah that is not there in its present form.

I think he could have followed up on this, because it is critical to rebutting White's position. The New Testament itself proves that at least one part is missing from Isaiah; and yet White's arguments regarding the transmission of the New Testament would seem equally applicable to the Old Testament manuscripts.

Since Ehrman can prove one such instance of missing material from Isaiah (and that from the New Testament, no less!), I would think it an effective club to beat White with; for where one such instance of missing material can be demonstrated, not only is White's major argument demonlished, but how many others might there be?>>

I believe you are referencing the following part of the debate:

I think James touches on this issue a bit earlier in the debate:

I think we need to keep in mind that we are talking about the â??tenacityâ? of the New Testament texts, not the those of the Old Testament.

Grace and peace,

David

I almost put these numbers into my first post on this thread. My feel for what the evidence indicates is that it is likely that 99%+ of the autographs are contained within the various readings that scholars would say MAY be the original. That 3-5% additional text exists that scholars would say MAY be the original, but is in fact not the original.

The most simple read of Whiteâ??s argument is that 100% of the autographs are contained within the various readings that scholars would say MAY be the original, but my feel for the copies of copies of â?¦ argument and the ability (and frequency) to introduce variant readings leads me to believe that 100% is less likely than something close to 100%. The presence of non-preserved Old Testament texts that seem more likely to be present in autographs than the text that exists today suggests two things. Godâ??s method of preservation did not miraculously preserve 100% of the autographical material for the OT (so why for the NT). And, we do not have a 100% preserved Bible anyway since it is likely there are some OT autographical material missing.

Now, White may be saying, â??the tenacity of the original textâ? consists of the near 100% preservation, the lack of problems for the overall meaning that exist because of the extra 3-5%, and the lack of problems for the overall meaning that exist because most likely we are near 100% of the autograph material and not 100% of the autograph material.

If to win, Ehrman must prove that the witness of Christ from the Bible is unreliable due to textual transmission error, I think he lost by a lot. If to win White must prove that it is unlikely that any autographical material is unavailable to the modern scholar, then I think he lost, but not by too much. However, if the evidence presented in the debate is going to be used to support a â??functional inerrancyâ? (a term that I have long thought LDS should embrace) and refute a â??simple inerrancyâ? I think the whole conversation strongly favors this. I think White shows that there is little reason to loose faith in Christ because textual variants exist. I think Ehrman showed that there is little reason to demand that the Bible is a book that could not exist today as we have it were it not miraculously preserved by God.

I guess I would say agnostics should view the debate as establishing that the authors of the Bible believed the things about Christ that the modern text of the Bible suggests they believed.

Christians should be happy that the witness of Christ present in the autographs is present in the modern Bible.

Bibliolaters should be somewhat discouraged in that the direct divination of the Bible was not supported by the debate, but there is still room for a faith based Bibliolatry.

Of course, I guess aside from my enjoyment of the â??explosion of the textsâ? as Godâ??s way of preserving the Bible, I have changed little as a result of the debate. This could surely mean that I have only judged the debate with preconceived notions I took into the question before the debate.

Charity, TOm

P.S. If anyone is interested, I can probably find the essay were William Lane Craig compares his faith journey in light of higher criticism and Bart Ehrmanâ??s faith journey. From that it seems to me that Ehrmanâ??s faith was intertwined with a fundamentalist view of the Bible that could be criticized as Bibliolatry. When this was shaken, his black vs. white thinking resulted in a loss of faith. Craig was more ready to celebrate new facts and modify his understanding rather than abandon all faith.

[Chris Smith]

I was saddened when I learned from Dr. Ehrman that one of my favorite scriptural stories wasn't originally found in the NT.

That is one of my favorites, as well. Inspired fiction, anyone?

[consiglieri]

The presence of non-preserved Old Testament texts that seem more likely to be present in autographs than the text that exists today suggests two things. Godâ??s method of preservation did not miraculously preserve 100% of the autographical material for the OT (so why for the NT). And, we do not have a 100% preserved Bible anyway since it is likely there are some OT autographical material missing.

Thanks, Tom, for putting it better than I did. This is the argument I was trying to suggest might have been effective for Ehrman in the debate.

I think it is likely more difficult to prove that things have been taken out of a text than that things have been added to a text.

Having Matthew attribute to Isaiah a quote that is not found in any extant Isaiah manuscripts is a happy coincidence.

I think we have something similar in Acts, where Paul quotes a saying of Jesus that is found nowhere else, being the famous logion, "It is better to give than to receive."

The fact it is in Acts means it made it into the New Testament.

The fact it is nowhere else attested is suggestive of other logia that were not so fortunate.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri