Bart Ehrman...on STEROIDS!

[YusufNoor]

:sl:
not, really, but check this out:

http://www.bartdehrman.com/flv_bible...lemisquote.htm

i usually find debates hard to watch because you have to listen to "the other side" for 20 minutes to a half hour at a time. in this debate, the participants agreed to a format of 7 questions with 5 minutes for each question. the results are what seems like dueling lightning rounds with each speaker, Ehrman especially, cranking it out like a pair of rails at a drag race!

it would be interesting to edit it down to just the Ehrman parts, about 38 minutes of Evelyn Woodhead speed reading!

give it a go!

:wa:

[o_ahmad]

In this type of debate, it is always better if your opponent to start 1st so at the end of the debate, you get the last say. Also, Ehrman won the debate, because Craig Evans didn't answer to all the allegations. By the way, does anyone have the debate between Ehrman and James White?

[hamza abdulhaki]

Salaam aleykum we rahmetullah,

As far as I know the only source for the Ehrman vs White debate is Dr. White`s Website aomin.org. I'm thinking of purchasing the debate there but I`m not sure, though. I only have a written Transscript of the debate. If someone is interested in this he/she can send me a notification.

Salaam aleykum we rahmetullah
Hamza Abdulhakim

[YusufNoor]

Salaam aleykum we rahmetullah,

As far as I know the only source for the Ehrman vs White debate is Dr. White`s Website aomin.org. I'm thinking of purchasing the debate there but I`m not sure, though. I only have a written Transscript of the debate. If someone is interested in this he/she can send me a notification.

Salaam aleykum we rahmetullah
Hamza Abdulhakim

:sl:

you can download it and burn it yourself, i did. tho, i'm forgetting which computer and which program i used. i use alot of freeware such as freecorder, but i think it was the desktop i used. if i turn it on today, i'll checkout the program i used. burnt it with Nero Vision.

btw, how did you get transcripts? can you post them?

where can you buy the dvd? i like to make the best copies that i can.

In this type of debate, it is always better if your opponent to start 1st so at the end of the debate, you get the last say. Also, Ehrman won the debate, because Craig Evans didn't answer to all the allegations.

i'm guessing that all of those Christians thought that their preacher won, similar to an old Deedat debate. i thought Ehrman destroyed him, but at the same time he seemed to "loose his cool" a bit. i don't think that he can comprehend how it is that Christians are so oblivious in the face of so much factual opposition to their position. though i DO sympathize with him on that, i think that you just have to learn to present the facts in a better humored way. of course Ehrman IS at a disadvantage, he doesn't know the whole truth. he seems to be trying to "convert" people to agnosticism. all you can really do is demonstrate the truth to the people, you can't control what they do with it.

but you are spot on when you say that Evans ignored most of the points that Ehrman made. he pretty much has to, when you view the NT in the historical manner it proves itself not to be the word of God whether you like it or not.

i'm working on a project that will add a proper religious dimension, In Sha'a Allah. if i get to complete it, we will give a demonstration along with the PROOF that Islam IS in the OT along with a brief intro on Islam, In Sha'a Allah. Daiee Sh Ahmed M Awal is a friend of mine and i give him my research when he is in town and Khalid Yaseen just moved here recently and my friend Sh Abu Bakr works with him and gives lectures for him. if we can take the emotion out of it and just deliver the Truth then at some point, the Christians will have to address these points. what they do now is simply NOT discuss them. WHY? because they already know most of it! they just don't want their "flock" to know! they wouldn't be able to "fleece" them so easily if they did know!

:wa:

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[hamza abdulhaki]

:wa:

you can download it and burn it yourself, i did. tho, i'm forgetting which computer and which program i used. i use alot of freeware such as freecorder, but i think it was the desktop i used. if i turn it on today, i'll checkout the program i used. burnt it with Nero Vision.

I`m not sure if I understand you correctly. Do you mean you have a video/audio copy of this debate?

btw, how did you get transcripts?

From a christian apologetics site. I would rather not mention the exact source.

can you post them?

It is a pdf file. I didn't notice any attachment function in this forum. If you tell me how I can post it I would do so.

where can you buy the dvd? i like to make the best copies that i can.

As I already said you can purchase it from Dr. James White's ministry. I just didn't make up my mind if I should buy it from a organisation whose main goal it is to proclaim "the gospel of christ" and to show "falsehood of islam". If I happen to get a copy of this debate I will give you a notification.

i'm guessing that all of those Christians thought that their preacher won, similar to an old Deedat debate. i thought Ehrman destroyed him, but at the same time he seemed to "loose his cool" a bit. i don't think that he can comprehend how it is that Christians are so oblivious in the face of so much factual opposition to their position. though i DO sympathize with him on that, i think that you just have to learn to present the facts in a better humored way. of course Ehrman IS at a disadvantage, he doesn't know the whole truth. he seems to be trying to "convert" people to agnosticism. all you can really do is demonstrate the truth to the people, you can't control what they do with it.

You must keep in mind that Bart Ehrman is primary a scholar not a debater. For that reason it can sometimes be very frustrating to state your points again and again if you are knowing your opponent is mispresenting the facts. To debate on a non scholarly level you need a lot of patience. As far as the Ehrman vs. Evans debate goes you can see clearly that Dr. Evans very careful chosing words which did acknoledge the facts Dr. Ehrman stated but at the same time giving a false impression to the audience.

In my view Dr. Ehrman is in the same position as many modern muslim apologists. He have the facts on his side but at the same time he have to fight against the misunderstandings of his audience and an opponent whose trying very hard to misrepresent the facts.

I don't think Dr. Ehrman tries "to convert" people to agnosticism. He stated in most of his debates that this not his porpose. A lot of people who he works with will tell you the exact same things about textual criticism as Dr. Ehrman does but there still beliving that the bible is the word of God, Jesus (a.s.) is the 2. part of the trinity and that he resurrected from the dead. As it happens Dr. Ehrman's mentor Dr. Bruce Metzger was a bible beliving christian. The only point Dr. Ehrman is arguing that the fundamentalistic understanding of the bible being the unchanged word of God can't be holded in view of the findings of textual criticism. By the way Dr. Ehrmans apostasy from christianity had nothing to with the being not perfectly preserved.

but you are spot on when you say that Evans ignored most of the points that Ehrman made. he pretty much has to, when you view the NT in the historical manner it proves itself not to be the word of God whether you like it or not.

I may misunderstood you, but are you suggesting that you can prove historically that the bible is not the word of God? If yes, I would be interested in your viewpoint regarding this.

:wa:
Hamza Abdulhakim

[YusufNoor]

:sl:

YOU CAN STREAM THE VIDEO TO YOUR PC WITH THIS:

http://www.sothinkmedia.com/web-vide...oader-firefox/

convert the file with this:

http://download.cnet.com/YouTube-Dow...-10647340.html

and use any dvd making software to burn it. so yes, i have many copies which i distribute to our daiees.

I may misunderstood you, but are you suggesting that you can prove historically that the bible is not the word of God? If yes, I would be interested in your viewpoint regarding this.

i am a student of Bart Ehrman, or rather have been looking into this subject for years and i am currently putting together a 2 part lecture that covers the NT and then Islam in the OT with a brief intro to Islam.

Ehrman also puts out lecture series for the Teaching Company. i have ALL of his titles on mp3 and most of them on dvd as well

seen here:

http://www.teach12.com/storex/professor.aspx?id=150

i also have many other of their courses as well.

i deal with most of these issues in my posts. you can prove the bible [NT] HAS been change simply by going to any used bookstore and getting a Zondervan study bible. by fall, In Sha'a Allah, my presentation will be ready.

for OT changes, Dr Friedman IS the boss. it can be bought here rather cheaply. i have given out many copies of this book. i read it BEFORE i became a Muslim:

http://www.amazon.com/Wrote-Bible-Ri.../dp/0060630353

i also have some rather fine Jewish translations of the Torah and Tanakh which testify that Islam IS prophesied in the OT! from this company:

oops, i forgot, their link doesn't work on Shabbat.

:wa:

[hamza abdulhaki]

:wa:

YOU CAN STREAM THE VIDEO TO YOUR PC WITH THIS:



convert the file with this:



and use any dvd making software to burn it. so yes, i have many copies which i distribute to our daiees.

That wasn't my question. My question is do you have a video or audio copy of the debate between Dr. Ehrman and Dr. White?

i deal with most of these issues in my posts. you can prove the bible [NT] HAS been change simply by going to any used bookstore and getting a Zondervan study bible. by fall, In Sha'a Allah, my presentation will be ready.

There is no dispute among new testament historians whether the bible has been changed or not. It's not a matter of opinion but of fact. Even Dr. Evans and Dr. White admit this. I can hardly imagine you find any new testament historian who think otherwise.

You indicated in your last post you can prove historically that the bible is not the word of God. I'm interested in how would you prove that. Quite frankly I don't think you can prove with the historical method whether any book if from God or not, but I looking forward to your response.

:sl:
Hamza Abdulhakim

[YusufNoor]

:wa:



That wasn't my question. My question is do you have a video or audio copy of the debate between Dr. Ehrman and Dr. White?

if i had it, it would be on the other pc. i'll look at what i have there tomorrow, In Sha'a Allah.

There is no dispute among new testament historians whether the bible has been changed or not. It's not a matter of opinion but of fact. Even Dr. Evans and Dr. White admit this. I can hardly imagine you find any new testament historian who think otherwise.

it's the lay people that don't know

You indicated in your last post you can prove historically that the bible is not the word of God. I'm interested in how would you prove that. Quite frankly I don't think you can prove with the historical method whether any book if from God or not, but I looking forward to your response.

:sl:
Hamza Abdulhakim

:sl:

if it were from God, it would be one religion, which it is clearly not. it is not even monotheistic by the time you get to John. Paul himself admits that he is not preaching the Gospel preached by Jesus or any of his disciples. and by the time of the Pastoral letters, it isn't even Paul's teaching anymore. but i'm writing a whole presentation, In Sha'a Allah, and not just snippets here

:wa:

[hamza abdulhaki]

:sl:

This again was not my question. There are obviously some misunderstanding on your part. I wasn't asking for any theological or logical arguments there, I believe are plenty of arguments regarding the bible being the word of God. You indicated in your statements that you you can prove this historically and the argument you gave are not historical, but theological. I hope made myself this time. As you mentioned Bart Ehrman in a lot of his TTC courses he speaks about the differences between a historical approach and a theological approach. He also speaks about this in lesser details in his debates regarding historical proves for the resurrection of christ (a.s). If there are still some misunderstanding you should relisten these.

As far as your arguments are concerned they are debateable to say at least. Are you aware of the differenciation between monotheist unitarians and monotheist trinitarians. Furthermore are you familiar with the common biblical exegesis regarding the passage about Paul's preaching of "his gospel"? And at last why do you think the pastoral letter's are not pauline in nature?

:sl:
Hamza Abdulhakim

[YusufNoor]

:sl:

This again was not my question. There are obviously some misunderstanding on your part. I wasn't asking for any theological or logical arguments there, I believe are plenty of arguments regarding the bible being the word of God. You indicated in your statements that you you can prove this historically and the argument you gave are not historical, but theological. I hope made myself this time. As you mentioned Bart Ehrman in a lot of his TTC courses he speaks about the differences between a historical approach and a theological approach. He also speaks about this in lesser details in his debates regarding historical proves for the resurrection of christ (a.s). If there are still some misunderstanding you should relisten these.

it would be my opinion that using the "historical" approach doesn't omit using changes in "apparent" theology as "evidence" of a historical difference. Paul's letters would be an example of this, the earlier letters hold 1 theology, while the latter appear to change or contradict the theology of the the 1st. historically, it shows a change in doctrine[theology].

As far as your arguments are concerned they are debateable to say at least. Are you aware of the differenciation between monotheist unitarians and monotheist trinitarians.

;D

Furthermore are you familiar with the common biblical exegesis regarding the passage about Paul's preaching of "his gospel"?

there's "Biblical" exegesis(theological) and there is what Paul actually says(historical)


And at last why do you think the pastoral letter's are not pauline in nature?

funny words you choose, eh? whether it's "Pauline in nature" would be the theological approach [though not exclusive of historical], or whether it's actually written by Paul or not would be a historical question [though not devoid of theological questions]

:sl:
Hamza Abdulhakim

:sl:


i checked my other hard drive[s] and i don't have the White debate.

:wa:

[Hugo]

This again was not my question. There are obviously some misunderstanding on your part. I wasn't asking for any theological or logical arguments there, I believe are plenty of arguments regarding the bible being the word of God. You indicated in your statements that you you can prove this historically and the argument you gave are not historical, but theological. I hope made myself this time. As you mentioned Bart Ehrman in a lot of his TTC courses he speaks about the differences between a historical approach and a theological approach. He also speaks about this in lesser details in his debates regarding historical proves for the resurrection of christ (a.s). If there are still some misunderstanding you should relisten these.

As far as your arguments are concerned they are debateable to say at least. Are you aware of the differenciation between monotheist unitarians and monotheist trinitarians. Furthermore are you familiar with the common biblical exegesis regarding the passage about Paul's preaching of "his gospel"? And at last why do you think the pastoral letter's are not pauline in nature?

Interesting point and it afflicts all religions, including Islam when we mix what might be regarded as the supernatural or theological with the historical. That is we can (in principle) corroborate historical events because others might have witnessed it but as soon as we move into revelation/mystical we are from a historical point of view in trouble because revelations are invariably personal and not open to corroboration and of course there are what we might call scientific difficulties since no material evidence is possible. Thus if anyone says God spoke to them we cannot deny it but there is also no pressure on us to believe it either and that is where I suppose faith takes over.

[tango92]

^muslims regard the Quran as the ultimate evidence of the prophethood Of muhammad pbuh, if you were sincere in understading its miracle you would have no choice but to accept it and whatever God sends along with it.

[Hugo]

^muslims regard the Quran as the ultimate evidence of the prophethood Of muhammad pbuh, if you were sincere in understading its miracle you would have no choice but to accept it and whatever God sends along with it.

Do you think insincerity is the only reason people reject the Qu'ran; have you never imagined that it might be for other reasons: they think it implausible, they reject its teachings, they cannot rationally accept that God if he exists would work is such a very odd manner and so on. If you simply accuse non-believers of insincerity then they may well feel you are just blind and want to deny them the right to choose.

I have some measure of agreement that the message in some way is proof but at the same time it is circular, a chicken and eggs situation. However, if your logic is right it cannot just apply to the Qu'ran so I can regard Shakespeare's plays as a miracle, and they are, but it does not follow at all that I regard them it as from God.

[جوري]

unbelievers are insincere indeed and you especially so, with regard to your other tedious post about witnesses to the bible.. if such were the case
1- why is there no concordance
2- why the hell would you take the word of saul to be worth much if 'witness' is all you need-- since he is the only witness to his own conversion.
3- why bother with a religion or a book that is both logically and historically inaccurate and as per consensus isn't the 'living word of God' rather a Hodge bodge of nonsense compiled by ineffectual men who couldn't keep it together while Jesus (p) was in their midst and has no particular guidance toward a righteous way of life..

if you stepped away from yourself and your beliefs for a while you'd be surprised at how you come across to other people.. but that is indeed a testament to your own bias, given the complete lack of scrutiny and selective ignorance with which you pursue your beliefs and adamant at best to either bury your head in the sand or drown others in nonsensical loggorrhea of unrelated texts or derailments of topics in a desire that others will see you as some sort of intellectual .. All you in fact do is cement your bias, your ignorance and your desire to remain in the dark ages of Christianity at any cost..


good luck with all of that!

[tango92]

Do you think insincerity is the only reason people reject the Qu'ran; have you never imagined that it might be for other reasons: they think it implausible, they reject its teachings, they cannot rationally accept that God if he exists would work is such a very odd manner and so on. If you simply accuse non-believers of insincerity then they may well feel you are just blind and want to deny them the right to choose.

I have some measure of agreement that the message in some way is proof but at the same time it is circular, a chicken and eggs situation. However, if your logic is right it cannot just apply to the Qu'ran so I can regard Shakespeare's plays as a miracle, and they are, but it does not follow at all that I regard them it as from God.

this phenomenon is mentioned in the quran and it took me a while to understand it. ill be starting a thread to discuss this sometime soon.