Can you believe in the infallabilty of the bible?

[Shermana]

Only if Christ is presumed to be something other than what he claims to be. This may be irresolvable between us.

You mean something other than what he claims to be according to your own interpretation of course. My interpretation involves incorporating the entirety of what Jesus says, as well as the Epistles, and even to a degree what Paul says. Yours involves cherry picking and ignoring most all of what Jesus says. As well as what Paul says. It's hard to talk about infallibility of the Bible when most Christians don't even go by what it says.

It certainly didn't stop me from being born again and haveing a relationship with the Divine. Any other concerns I can live with.

And what exactly do you think it means to be "Born again"? Do you think any Christian of any sect is "Born again" regardless of how they interpret it? What gives you confirmation that you are "born again" and have a "relationship with the Divine"? Because the text says so or from direct physical experience?

And on the subject of Biblical infallibility, the actual text reads "Born from above". This "Born again" concept is completely wrong, yet is the mainstream interpretation. It's "born from above". Even if it did say "Born again" (of which it doesn't), the only concept his audience would be familiar with would be reincarnation in this view.

The claim that it is core doctrine is subjective. I find it not even worth the effort of debate. I was saved without it.

How do you know you are saved? Paul says you must continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling. For most of Christian history, it was blasphemous to say that you were definitely saved (of which I agree). It's quite a recent concept (and a presumptious concept) to assume you are saved. What gives you this confirmation exactly? Is it your interpretation of the text? How can Christians defend the concept of Biblical infallibility when they don't even incorporate what it actually says about Salvation and go by manmade doctrines that avoids most of it?

 

[Reverend Richard]

I am not sure we are talking about the same thing. I was discussing textual accuracy alone, not whether the text is historically accurate, that is a different subject. .

What? Textual accuracy? Does that mean the writer used good grammar and proper syntax in Greek?

In the age of computers it is a very simple thing to compare modern bibles with the oldest extant texts. They even sell software that allows you to do it. Since any textual tradition that has prolific and early manuscript reproduction even without the original copies, allows for those originals to be reliably known, then the error percentage of the bible can be accurately known, but never perfectly known..

What are you comparing using software? Are we again talking about textual accuracy, and not historical accuracy?

When compared to every other ancient text the bible is so overwhelmingly more reliable (sometimes with a thousand times greater attestation) that failure to see providence in it strains credulity..

The Bible is overwhelming reliable? How so. You make a number of blanket statements regarding accuracy but you say we are talking about textual accuracy, not historical accuracy. So far you have provided no evidence of either.

There is some truth in the claim we can not be 100% sure who the authors of a few books were however this gets blown way out of purportion. Haveing a name for the author does not make something any more reliable. Experts have said the Gospels were no doubt written by eye witnesses and contain no embelishment or signs of myth..

Your right, having a name for the author does not make it more reliable. However, if we have no idea who wrote a Gospel, and if the author is claiming that he is someone that he is not, then I must assume the source itself is suspect. How would experts know the person is an eyewitness if they have no idea who the person was in the first place?

The bible also said the holy spirit was sent to remind them of the things they had witnessed so when they were written is not really a problem either. .

So here is where the circular arguments typically begin. The Bible itself claims that it will ensure its own inerrancy, so it's "not really a problem either". Well, no.

I personally believe we have the correct authors for all but maybe one NT book but even if we didn't the information is no less reliable. Simon Greenleaf the greatest expert in evidence presentation in human history said that the testimony contained in the bible meets every requirement of modern law..

Well, Mr. Greenleaf would say that wouldn't he, since he started the Trinity School of Law, and also is a prolific writer on Christian apologetics. That's sounds a lot like the fox guarding the hen house.

...... Even Ehrman admitted that not a single error exists withing core doctrine. Since they are or virtually are all known then there isn't really an issue at all...

Oh! Did you hear that!?!?! I believe I just heard Ehrman faint and hit the floor. Please provide a reference for Ehrman's admission that there are no errors in core Christian doctrine and I will totally yield on this point. If he does believe that, why is he, a former born-again Christian, and a former Baptist minister, now an agnostic and not still a Christian. Ehrman has made a career and name for himself by pointing out the errors in core doctrine simply by showing how unreliable the New Testament Gospels are!

...... Philosophy states that if two claims to absolute truth are contradictary then it is impossible both are true.

It is also possible that neither of them is totally true. Hence there may be some truth in some scripture, but none of them contains anything resembling absolute truth.

...... Any God that would hide bits of truth in mountains of contradictions and false religous rhetoric is schizophrenic and I do not want to associate with him.......

You just hit the nail on the head. God never hid anything in contradictions and false religious rhetoric. Man did. God has never written a single word of scripture. If God did write something, in his own hand, where is it?

Jesus never wrote a single word of scripture. Man did. And even the scripture that man wrote was written many years, in some cases even decades after Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection, and the authors who wrote much of that scripture were forgers hoping to gain credibility by claiming to be someone that they were not.

To summarize (and I think to reflect Ehrman's approach), anyone who wants to make a theological argument that the Bible is true and that Jesus is who the Gospel authors claim that he was is well within bounds to make such claims.
However, from a historical perspective where the burden of proof is much greater and where there can be no dependence on miracles and "supernatural" claims, the Bible is on very shakey ground.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The textual accuracy of the Wizard of Oz is remarkable.

 

[fantome profane]

The textual accuracy of the Wizard of Oz is remarkable.

And the fact that you just remarked on it is proof of that.

 

[Reverend Richard]

And the fact that you just remarked on it is proof of that.

Yes, but can I be sure that you are who you say you are?!?! I'll bet you're just writing under an assumed name!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Sir Doom I also agree to what you say. But at the same time. This perception is personal based. But what everyone or overall world thinks is a big question.

 

[1robin]

You mean something other than what he claims to be according to your own interpretation of course. My interpretation involves incorporating the entirety of what Jesus says, as well as the Epistles, and even to a degree what Paul says. Yours involves cherry picking and ignoring most all of what Jesus says. As well as what Paul says. It's hard to talk about infallibility of the Bible when most Christians don't even go by what it says.

Since we haven't discussed any meaningful amount of scripture then your claim about cherry picking is based on nothing. There are far more people including most scholars that arrive at the conclusion that Christ is the messiah than do not. I believe we are both far too commited to what we believe as to Christ's identity to resolve this issue and so to avoid any frustrated coments I suggest we drom it.

And what exactly do you think it means to be "Born again"? Do you think any Christian of any sect is "Born again" regardless of how they interpret it? What gives you confirmation that you are "born again" and have a "relationship with the Divine"? Because the text says so or from direct physical experience?

Direct physical experience. It was an experience arrived at exactly as the bible suggested. The nature of it was identicle to what the bible (I later learned) describes it to be. I described it to myself as being new born before I even knew that born again was a term associated with the expeience. In all honesty there is no other explenation, so I hope you do not resort to the tactics of the desparate critics and insinuate some silly epilepsy or addiction meta psychology counter claim.

And on the subject of Biblical infallibility, the actual text reads "Born from above". This "Born again" concept is completely wrong, yet is the mainstream interpretation. It's "born from above". Even if it did say "Born again" (of which it doesn't), the only concept his audience would be familiar with would be reincarnation in this view.

This is false. Jesus even gave a semi-description of what this new birth is.
Jhn 3:5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
John 3 (Blue Letter Bible: KJV - King James Version)
The word used that is translated again is: anōthen
1) from above, from a higher place
a) of things which come from heaven or God
2) from the first, from the beginning, from the very first
3) anew, over again
There is nothing in any of those descriptions that contradicts with what billions of Christians have claimed to experience and have called the born again experince. I have never even heard a critic or any other person even attempt to say this meant reincarnation. That is not a biblical concept and could never be what those verses mean. You may deny that these verses are true but what they mean is so apparent that I would not bother if I was someone challenging the bible. The same theme can be found throughout the NT.

How do you know you are saved? Paul says you must continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling.

Who is cheery picking again? Since usually Paul is accosted by the works crowd because he destorys that argument I doubt your understanding of this verse is correct. He was an expert in Jewish law and said more on grace than anyone. How exactly would you do that? What level of performance is enough? If I sin once am I screwed? What about twice or 527 times? At any given time could I have enough confidence in my salvation to face matryrdom? Did Christ die for only some of my sins? When I was born again every sin I had commited and every one I would commit was known by God and he applied the blood to the whole. He would have also known if he was saving me in vain if he knew that I would not make it in the end. Any works based system honsestly evaluated is impossible. Christ said he would not leave nor forsake us. He also said he would not loose one of whom the father had given him, and about a hundred othervery simple and precise statements indicate that our eternal destination is secure when saved.

For most of Christian history, it was blasphemous to say that you were definitely saved (of which I agree).

I have never read nor even heard of this.

It's quite a recent concept (and a presumptious concept) to assume you are saved.

It only seems that way to people who are not. My confidence comes from Christ. If he needs my help that deminishes what he did and makes the bible contradictory and inconsistent.

What gives you this confirmation exactly? Is it your interpretation of the text? How can Christians defend the concept of Biblical infallibility when they don't even incorporate what it actually says about Salvation and go by manmade doctrines that avoids most of it?

I reject your conclusions. I actually had a very grave problem for the early years of being a Christian. No matter how clearly it was explained or how many verses made it clear I just could not get over the very few verses that a on a surface reading seemed to suggest the opposite. I used to pray for hours for an answer and on three different occasions was given a very seemingly miraculous and competent answer that I consider an answered prayer. If you read Luther he was in his early years the most obedient follower of the law I know of, he was also in his own words completely miserable and doubted God's love. After years of effort that sometimes almost killed him he was told by his rector the simple message of grace. In his words he said it was as if he walked through the doors into paradise and he became a very influential and content Christian soldier who defended the doctrine of grace at the risk of his life.

 

[1robin]

What? Textual accuracy? Does that mean the writer used good grammar and proper syntax in Greek?

No, it means the modern texts accuratly reflect the oldest texts in existance from which the original can be pretty reliably derived.

What are you comparing using software? Are we again talking about textual accuracy, and not historical accuracy?

Yes textual accuracy. That needs to be established before historical accuracy can be verified.

The Bible is overwhelming reliable? How so. So far you have provided no evidence of either.

To start with the only comparable texts are: The data table does not copy correctly the data indicate Writer, year original written, date of oldest copy, date between original and oldest extant, number of copies, accuracy usually approximate.
Lucretius died 55 or 53 B.C. 1100 yrs 2 ---- Pliny 61-113 A.D. 850 A.D. 750 yrs 7 ---- Plato 427-347 B.C. 900 A.D. 1200 yrs 7 ---- Demosthenes 4th Cent. B.C. 1100 A.D. 800 yrs 8 ---- Herodotus 480-425 B.C. 900 A.D. 1300 yrs 8 ---- Suetonius 75-160 A.D. 950 A.D. 800 yrs 8 ---- Thucydides 460-400 B.C. 900 A.D. 1300 yrs 8 ---- Euripides 480-406 B.C. 1100 A.D. 1300 yrs 9 ---- Aristophanes 450-385 B.C. 900 A.D. 1200 10 ---- Caesar 100-44 B.C. 900 A.D. 1000 10 ---- Livy 59 BC-AD 17 ---- ??? 20 ---- Tacitus circa 100 A.D. 1100 A.D. 1000 yrs 20 ---- Aristotle 384-322 B.C. 1100 A.D. 1400 49 ---- Sophocles 496-406 B.C. 1000 A.D. 1400 yrs 193 ---- Homer (Iliad) 900 B.C. 400 B.C. 500 yrs 643 95% New Testament 1st Cent. A.D. (50-100 A.D. 2nd Cent. A.D. (c. 130 A.D. f.) less than 100 years 5600 99.5%

Nothing is even close. I have read several of these and they are truly inaccurate except for Thucydides but there are only 8 copies of it. This is the only standard by which a comparison is meaningfull.

Your right, having a name for the author does not make it more reliable. However, if we have no idea who wrote a Gospel, and if the author is claiming that he is someone that he is not, then I must assume the source itself is suspect. How would experts know the person is an eyewitness if they have no idea who the person was in the first place?

What is known and virtually conceded even by many critics and the rest is that they are reliable eye witnesses to the life of Christ. Luke has been called a perfect historical account as given by the Holy Spirit. Most of the authors that the books are attributed to are fairly solid and are no reason for concern. In the Gospels it says specifically that the spirit was sent to remind the writers of the events and so either the bible is a complete lie or there is no reason to insist years or authors are an issue.

So here is where the circular arguments typically begin. The Bible itself claims that it will ensure its own inerrancy, so it's "not really a problem either". Well, no.

I think you have switched to historical accuracy. Textuall accuracy can't benefit from circular logic. They are two seperate subjects. If you wish to discuss historical issues then I must choose different methods.

Well, Mr. Greenleaf would say that wouldn't he, since he started the Trinity School of Law, and also is a prolific writer on Christian apologetics. That's sounds a lot like the fox guarding the hen house.

I have never understood this claim. If someone comes to understand the bible to be true, they most likely will become a Christian and by your logic would have to be dismissed from a discussion. Whatever bias you assert reagarding Christians is just as true of critics. However it is quite a stretch to insinuate the greatest expert on secular evidence and testimony is going to suspend his judgement and risk his reputation by defending the undefendable. There are many non believers who attest to Christ as well but the inference that Chrians can't be used to defend Christianity is obsurd.

"The character of Jesus has not only been the highest pattern of virtue, but the strongest incentive to its practice, and has exerted so deep an influence, that it may be truly said, that the simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and to soften mankind, than all the disquisitions of philosophers and than all the exhortations of moralists."
William Lecky One of Britain’s greatest secular historians.

Oh! Did you hear that!?!?! I believe I just heard Ehrman faint and hit the floor. Please provide a reference for Ehrman's admission that there are no errors in core Christian doctrine and I will totally yield on this point. If he does believe that, why is he, a former born-again Christian, and a former Baptist minister, now an agnostic and not still a Christian. Ehrman has made a career and name for himself by pointing out the errors in core doctrine simply by showing how unreliable the New Testament Gospels are!

The transcript of the debate between Dr James White and Dr Ehrman contains these issues. It is at home but you can find it if you wish. I am 100% sure he admitted that over 90% of the errors that do exist has no meaningful effect on doctrine, and I am about 90% sure that he sgreed with White that no errors are in core doctrine.

It is also possible that neither of them is totally true. Hence there may be some truth in some scripture, but none of them contains anything resembling absolute truth.

Any God worth the name would not hide bits of truth in mountains of garbage.

You just hit the nail on the head. God never hid anything in contradictions and false religious rhetoric. Man did. God has never written a single word of scripture. If God did write something, in his own hand, where is it?

The apostles claim God inspired them to write the Gospels. That is why it is reffered to as theopneustos meaning God breathed. It also says that is a function of the Holy Spirit. So Ehrman who I do not think was ever born again (my opinion) would have to deny the enabler of his premise. Intellectual schizophrenia. Claiming to be a former born again non-Christian is just about the most illogical and contradictory claim I have ever heard. The Apostles credability exceeds any put forth here and I will go with them.

Jesus never wrote a single word of scripture. Man did. And even the scripture that man wrote was written many years, in some cases even decades after Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection, and the authors who wrote much of that scripture were forgers hoping to gain credibility by claiming to be someone that they were not.

Talk about making general claims without evidence. I am the only one so far to giva any evidence at all.

To summarize (and I think to reflect Ehrman's approach), anyone who wants to make a theological argument that the Bible is true and that Jesus is who the Gospel authors claim that he was is well within bounds to make such claims.
However, from a historical perspective where the burden of proof is much greater and where there can be no dependence on miracles and "supernatural" claims, the Bible is on very shakey ground.

This is a subjective judgement. I have never found a claim outside of a few scribal errors concerning numbers that could be verified that was not consistent with historical data. I have had people try countless times to show a prophecy false, or show the Gospels contradictory, or even a historical claim to be inacurate. I can honestly say that not a single one of those after investigatiion lacked a simple and suffecient explenation that removed any doubts as to their accuracy. This type of technique is used everyday in every courtroom and is reliaed on to decide life and death issues. There is no justification for dismissing it in the bible's case. Of course there are no direct proofs (but many very reliable effects) of supernatural events that is why it is by faith not by exact knowledge that God is believed in. In my opinion it is intentional. You never answered my question as to whether you were born again? Of course you do not have to.

 

[Reverend Richard]

......................

The transcript of the debate between Dr James White and Dr Ehrman contains these issues. It is at home but you can find it if you wish. I am 100% sure he admitted that over 90% of the errors that do exist has no meaningful effect on doctrine, and I am about 90% sure that he sgreed with White that no errors are in core doctrine..

I will try later to address many of your other points, but to address this one, I will simply use Bart Ehrman's own words,

“Doctrines such as the divinity of Jesus and heaven and hell are not based on anything Jesus or his earlier followers said. And at least 19 of the 27 books in the New Testament are forgeries.” - Bart Ehrman, from his book, "Jesus, Interrupted"
​

I'm not sure how much more clear Mr. Ehrman could be regarding the core Christian doctrines of Jesus' divinity, heaven or hell.

..You never answered my question as to whether you were born again? Of course you do not have to.

Yes, I was born again and baptised when I was 12 years old. In my early 20s I taught Bible study classes at my church, and sang in the choir.

 

[1robin]

I will try later to address many of your other points, but to address this one, I will simply use Bart Ehrman's own words,

“Doctrines such as the divinity of Jesus and heaven and hell are not based on anything Jesus or his earlier followers said. And at least 19 of the 27 books in the New Testament are forgeries.” - Bart Ehrman, from his book, "Jesus, Interrupted"

​

Ehrman is a competent scholar but should only be relyed on for facts not for conclusions. He usually makes a statement to sell books that has some basis in fact but is distorted. He usually only really admits the more relevant truth when cross examined. That is why I only watch and read debates primarily. People have a bias on both sides. Apparently the issue has become what Ehrman thinks even though I do not know why. You did not comment on the comparison between all other similar texts, is this issue now sidelined. I will I guess have to dig up the transcript and quote the things he said when in the room with someone who would not let an innacurate hyperbolic commment go unchallenged. I will do so and post my reply. Here is the link to the transcript if you are interested. http://mp3.aomin.org/805Transcript.pdf
​

I'm not sure how much more clear Mr. Ehrman could be regarding the core Christian doctrines of Jesus' divinity, heaven or hell.

I do not know every statement Ehrman ever made. I find him competent for facts and numbers to a certain extent. He contradicts himself in many conclusions. I however will supply the things I claimed he either said or implied but it wil take a bit.

Yes, I was born again and baptised when I was 12 years old. In my early 20s I taught Bible study classes at my church, and sang in the choir.

Well I am glad. I still don't fully understand your position what parts or percentage of the bible do you claim to be unreliable. How did you get saved if what is in the bible was wrong and did not steer you there? I am trying to nail down your position and history so I can taylor my responses. Claiming you are a Christian (I have no reson to doubt that) is somewhat inconsistent with a claim that the bible is unreliable though not impossible. I need to understand the degree you claim or the extent.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... the modern texts accuratly reflect the oldest texts in existance from which the original can be pretty reliably derived.

This is little more than selection bias run amok.

On what grounds can one claim that a small scattering of circa 200 bce manuscripts reliably reflects material many centuries older?

 

[1robin]

I will try later to address many of your other points, but to address this one, I will simply use Bart Ehrman's own words,

"Doctrines such as the divinity of Jesus and heaven and hell are not based on anything Jesus or his earlier followers said. And at least 19 of the 27 books in the New Testament are forgeries." - Bart Ehrman, from his book, "Jesus, Interrupted" .

I will present what Dr White the textual scholar I trust the most as well as what Dr Ehrman said in the debate.

There are about 1,500 to 2,000 viable, meaningful textual variants that must be examined carefully, comprising maybe—at most—1% of the entire text of the New Testament. Of these, historically, scholars have believed the vast majority are scribal errors of sight or hearing. Let me quote one scholar on this: Most of these differences are completely immaterial and insignificant; in fact most of the changes found in our early Christian manuscripts have nothing to do with theology or ideology. Far and away the most changes are the result of mistakes, pure and simple— slips of the pen, accidental omissions, inadvertent additions, misspelled words, blunders of one sort or another when scribes made intentional changes, sometimes their motives were as pure as the driven snow. And so we must rest content knowing that getting back to the earliest attainable version is the best we can do, whether or not we have reached back to the "original" text. This oldest form of the text is no doubt closely (very closely) related to what the author originally wrote, and so it is the basis for our interpretation of his teaching. The gentleman that I’m quoting is Bart Ehrman in Misquoting Jesus. [Audience laughter]
http://mp3.aomin.org/805Transcript.pdf
It seems Ehrman's conclusions are whatever they need to be at the time. He has made some completely inconsistent statements on both extremes and it seems to be whether there is any one that can point out his mistakes that causes him to reign in his rhetoric and be more scholarly. I will admit he does not say that no single word in theological doctrine is affected but he does suggest it is very minimal. From a critic as biased in his conclusions this is very amazing. I imagine his definition of Doctrine is also effected by his bias.
All assertions regarding adding doctrines, changing theology, removing teachings, etc., are without merit. The Christian church was a persecuted minority without power to enforce a uniform textual transmission as in Islam.
Dr James White
http://mp3.aomin.org/805Transcript.pdf
I do not know your credentials but Mr White's are very impressive.
And that He has preserved it through the entire manuscript tradition so that there is never a controlling authority that can change or edit the text, put in doctrines, take out doctrines, etc., etc. The result of that is we have to look at textual variants, but the fact is, that is the best way to preserve the text, especially given the evangelical mandate of the
early church.
Dr James White
http://mp3.aomin.org/805Transcript.pdf
It is vital to understand a basic truth about the manuscript tradition of the New Testament, to quote Kurt and Barbara Aland, "The transmission of the New Testament textual tradition is characterized by an extremely impressive degree of tenacity. Once a reading occurs it will persist with obstinacy. It is
precisely the overwhelming mass of the New Testament textual tradition…which provides an assurance of certainty in establishing the original text." Basically what this means is that once a reading appears in the manuscripts, it stays there. That includes scribal errors and even nonsense errors. Why would this be a good thing? Because of what it means on the other side:
The original readings are still in the manuscript tradition. This is key! When we have a variant with three possibilities, A, B, and C, we do not have to worry about D, "None of the above!" There is every reason to believe that our problem is not having 95% of what was originally written, but instead of having 101%. As Rob Bowman has put it, it is like having a 1,000 piece jigsaw puzzle, but you have 1,010 pieces in the box. The task is weeding out the extra; the originals are there. This is important to emphasize in light of Dr. Ehrman’s repeated assertion that we "don’t know" what the original New
Testament said. I would like Dr. Ehrman to explain this assertion: is he saying that he is willing to demonstrate that there are variants in the New Testament where none of the extant readings could possibly be original, or is he applying the impossible standard of absolute certainty on every single
variant, which would require absolute perfection of copying? Which would mean, of course, that Scripture could not even have been revealed until at least the printing press, or more likely the photocopier.
Dr James White
http://mp3.aomin.org/805Transcript.pdf
This site and the transcript are very much worth reading. Dr White is as good as they get. I believe he has personally read more codecices than any one. I know that is his goal. I have learned more from his debates with critics about textual criticism that I would have ever thought. I highly recommend a reading of that debate. His pedagree and accomplishments are too many to post but if you are interested they can be found here: http://vintage.aomin.org/James.html

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I do not know your credentials but Mr White's are very impressive.

Yep ...

He received a B.A. from Grand Canyon College, an M.A. from Fuller Theological Seminary, and a Th.M., a Th.D. and a D.Min. from Columbia Evangelical Seminary (formerly Faraston Seminary), an unaccredited Distance Learning school. He has served as a professor of Greek, Hebrew, systematic theology, and various apologetics topics at Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary's extension campus in Arizona and the unaccredited Columbia Evangelical Seminary [wiki]

Truly stunning!

 

[Scoop Of Faith]

I can see The Bible being infallible. The problem is not the bible it is the humans interpreting it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I can see The Bible being infallible. The problem is not the bible it is the humans interpreting it.

Our rich history of magnificent myth and stupid superstition amply demonstrates our ability to believe any number of things.

 

[1robin]

Publications.
Is Your Modern Translation Corrupt? Answering the Allegations of KJV Only Advocates (1996 Winter)
Of Cities and Swords: The Impossible Task of Mormon Apologetics (1996 Summer)
What Really Happened at Nicea? (1997 July-August)
Summary Critique: How Wide the Divide? A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation (1997)
Effectively Sharing the Deity of Christ with Jehovah’s Witnesses (1997)
The Jesus Seminar and the Gospel of Thomas: Courting the Media at the Cost of Truth (20,3)
Summary Critique: Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended (21,2)
Target, Bible: A Flood of Books Attack the Sufficiency of Scripture (21,3)
Anonymous Strawmen (21,4)
Loving the Trinity (21,4)
Beyond the Veil of Eternity: The Importance of Philippians 2:5-11 in Theology and Apologetics (22,3)
Pro and Con: Two Journal Contributors Respond to the Joint Declaration of Justification by Ralph E.
Mackenzie and James R. White (22,4)
The Divine Sovereignty-Human Responsibility Debate (Part One) (with George Bryson) The Divine Sovereignty-Human Responsibility Debate (Part Two) (24,1)
Dangerous Airwaves: Harold Camping’s Call to Flee the Church (25,1)
Examining Muslim Apologetics (Part One): The Bible Versus the Qur’an (25,3)
Examining Muslim Apologetics (Part Two): Unusual Attacks on the Trinity (25,4)
PDAs and Apologetics (26,3)
Exodus and Abortion (27,1)
Bible Versions: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (Parts 1 and 2) (28,3,4)
Getting Over the Hurdles of the New World Translation (29,3)
Created in the Image of Rome (March, 2002)
The Lord is One (May, 2003)
The Fool's Folly Uncovered (May, 2006)
Whom Does God Forgive? (March/April, 2004)
The Newness of the New Covenant (Part I) (I:2, July, 2004)
The Newness of the New Covenant (Part II) (2:1, January, 2005)
Textual Criticism and the Ministry of Preaching (2:2, July, 2005)
Myth, Allegory, and Parable: the Presuppositions of John Dominic Crossan and the Jesus Seminar and
Their Importance to Reformed Baptist Theology and Apologetics (3:1, January, 2006)

As well as :
Elder, Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church (www.prbc.org)
Critical Consultant, New American Standard Bible Update (1995)
James White is the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, a Christian apologetics organization based in Phoenix, Arizona. He is the author of more than twenty books, a professor, an accomplished debater, and an elder of the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church
</title> <style> </style> </head> <body link="#003399"> <html> <head> <meta name="description" content="Christian Apologetics, Theology, Information on Mormonism, Roman Catholicism, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. A reformed ministry dedicated to sharing t


Yes pretty impressive. He also speaks Hebrew and koine Greek and can and has read most of the oldest manuscripts available. How many publications and professional debates do you have? How many bibles have you been a consultant on? Continued below:

 

[1robin]

Formal Debates (see bookstore for audio and video recordings)
Sola Scriptura, August, 1990 vs. Gerry Matatics, Long Beach, CA
Perseverance of the Saints, December, 1990 vs. Gerry Matatics, Phoenix, AZ
The Papacy, December, 1990 vs. Gerry Matatics, Tempe, AZ
Justification by Faith, January, 1991 vs. Fr. Mitch Pacwa, El Cajon, CA
The Mass, January, 1991 vs. Fr. Mitch Pacwa, El Cajon, CA
Justification by Faith, May, 1991 vs. Art Sippo, Toledo, OH
Sola Scripture, November, 1992 vs. Gerry Matatics, Omaha, NB
The Mass, November, 1992 vs. Gerry Matatics, Omaha, NB
Justification by Faith, April, 1993, vs. Gerry Matatics, Boston College
The Apocrypha, April, 1993, vs. Gerry Matatics, Boston College
The Papacy: NT Evidence, July, 1993 vs. Gerry Matatics, Denver, CO
The Papacy: Early Church Evidence vs. Gerry Matatics, July, 1993, Denver, CO
Sola Scriptura, September, 1993 vs. Patrick Madrid, San Diego, CA
Is the KJV the Best Translation, vs. D.A. Waite, 1994
Justification, July, 1994, vs. Dr. Fastiggi, Austin, TX
Indulgences, July, 1994, vs. Dr. Fastiggi, Austin, TX
Mary, July, 1994, vs. Dr. Fastiggi, Austin, TX
Papal Infallibility, July, 1994, vs. Dr. Fastiggi, Austin, TX
Paedobaptism, June, 1995 with Geoff Volker against Robert Strimple and Gary Johnson, Tempe, AZ
Paedobaptism, October, 1995 with Geoff Volker, University of New Mexico
The Marian Dogmas, May, 1996 vs. Gerry Matatics, Long Island, NY
Man's Will, Christ's Atonement, May, 1997 vs. Jim Barker, Queens, NY
Sola Scriptura, May, 1997 vs. Gerry Matatics, Long Island, NY
Election and Predestination, May 1998, vs. Paul Barber, Queens, NY
The Papacy, May, 1998 vs. Fr. Mitch Pacwa, Long Island, NY
Sola Scriptura, July, 1998 vs. Tim Staples, Fullerton, CA
Does the NT Teach the Deity of Christ, May, 1999 vs. Hamza Abdul Malik, Syosset, NY
Is the Trinity Biblical?, May, 1999 vs. Robert Sabin, Patchoque, NY
The Mass, May, 1999 vs. Robert Sungenis, Long Island, NY
Is the KJV the Best, July, 1999 vs. Thomas Holland, Indianapolis, IN
Sola Scripture, December 1999 vs. Mitch Pacwa, El Cajon, CA
Justification by Faith, April, 2000 vs. RCIA Instructor, Sale Lake City, UT
Justification, May, 2000 vs. Robert Sungenis, Long Island, NY
Papal Infallibility, July, 2000, vs. Tim Staples, Fullerton, CA
Papal Infallibility, November, 2000, vs. Robert Sungenis, Clearwater, FL
The Will of Man, March, 2001, vs. Richard Hopkins, Salt Lake City, UT
Is Homosexuality Consistent with Biblical Christianity, May, 2001, vs. Barry Lynn, Long Island, NY
Purgatory?, May, 2001, vs. Fr. Peter Stravinskas, Long Island, NY
Grace and Works, October, 2001 vs. Roger Keller, Salt Lake City, UT
Who Controls Salvation?, April, 2002 vs. George Bryson, Anaheim, CA
The Fall of Adam, April, 2002, vs. Gilbert Scharffs, Salt Lake City, UT
Veneration of Saints and Images, July, 2002, vs. Patrick Madrid, Long Island, NY
Can Men Become Gods?, October, 2002, vs. Martin Tanner, Salt Lake City, UT
Inclusivism, November, 2002, vs. John Sanders, Tampa, FL
Open Theism, November, 2002, vs. John Sanders, Orlando, FL
The Atonement of Christ, April, 2003, vs. Dennis Potter, Salt Lake City, UT
The Mass, April, 2003, vs. Robert Sungenis, Salt Lake City, UT
Is the Roman Catholic Priesthood Biblical?, May, 2003, vs. Fr. Mitch Pacwa, Long Island, NY
The Perpetual Virginity of Mary, October, 2003, vs. Gerry Matatics, Salt Lake City, UT
Jesus: God or a god?, December, 2003, vs. Gregory Stafford, Tampa, FL
Are Temples Consistent with NT Christianity? April, 2004, vs. Richard Hopkins, Salt Lake City, UT
Is Gay Marriage Consistent with NT Christianity? April, 2004 vs. Dee Bradshaw, Salt Lake City, UT
Is the Apocrypha Canonical?, May, 2004, vs. Gary Michuta, Long Island, NY
Are Roman Catholics Our Brothers and Sisters in Christ?, November, 2004, vs. Douglas Wilson, Los
Angeles, CA
Regeneration and Faith, April, 2005, vs. Robert Wilkin, Oklahoma City, OK
Can Non-Christians Enter Heaven? June, 2005, vs. William Rutland, Long Island, NY
Is the Bible True? August, 2005, vs. John Dominic Crossan, Seattle, WA
The Resurrection of Jesus Christ vs. Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan (with James Renihan),
August, 2005, Sun Princess (at sea)
Calvinism vs. Arminianism, April, 2006, vs. Dr. Jonathan Wright, Sedalia, MO
Is the New Testament We Possess Today Inspired? May, 2006, vs. Shabir Ally, Biola University
Baptism for Believers Only? October, 2006 vs. Pastor William Shishko, Long Island, NY
Is Homosexuality Consistent with Biblical Christianity? November, 2006, vs. Bishop John Shelby Spong,
Orlando, FL
Did Jesus Offer Himself on the Cross as a Willing Sacrifice for the Sins of God's People? October, 2007,
vs. Shabir Ally, Seattle, WA
&#12288;
&#12288;
&#12288;
Teaching
Church History, Grand Canyon University, 1991-92, 95
Scholar in Residence, Grand Canyon University, 1995-1996
Apologetics, Grand Canyon University, 1996
Beginning Greek, Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001
Greek Exegesis of Ephesians, Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, 2001
Beginning Hebrew, Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, 1996, 1998, 2000
Hebrew Exegesis, Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, 1997, 1999
Christian Philosophy of Religion, Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, 1998-2003
Christology, Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, 1997
Systematic Theology, Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, 1996, 1998, 2004
Apologetics, Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, 2003-2004
Development of Patristic Theology, Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, 2004
Current Issues in Apologetics, Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, 2005, 2007
Islam, Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary, 2008
</title> <style> </style> </head> <body link="#003399"> <html> <head> <meta name="description" content="Christian Apologetics, Theology, Information on Mormonism, Roman Catholicism, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. A reformed ministry dedicated to sharing t

Yeah this guy doesn't know what he is talking about. Not. He is very respected in the field and has taken on all the major debaters from the opposing side and usually destroyed them in every debate I have seen. If you have greater credentials then post them. The attempt to dismiss what you find inconvenient when the effort is so obviously futile is the sign of an emotional percomittment to a weak position. If he can't be countered he must be smeared. It might work in politics but the NT demostrates it doesn't in theology.

 

[otokage007]

Not only I would not trust it, I wouldn't even take it seriously. And btw, I don't.

 

[gseeker]

Having a degree in Christian theology is the same as having a degree in mythology. You might as well have a B.S. degree and by that I don't mean a bachelors of science. I also was a "born again" Christian and had the same life changing experience. The problem with such an experience is that it is simply a form of religious ecstasy that is generated in the brain through the release of brain chemicals and has nothing to do with spirit or soul. Because you place such spiritual importance on this purely physical reaction your life changes. It essentially an advanced form of the placebo effect.

Again despite if it is historical errors, textural errors, or questionable sources of information, it makes the Scripture itself highly questionable. When you do not know the author who wrote something then that authors authority to write what is supposed to be fact is at that point is very meaningful.

 

[Reverend Richard]

I can see The Bible being infallible. The problem is not the bible it is the humans interpreting it.

And the other problem is the humans who wrote it. We simply have little idea as to who they were for about 65% of the books.