This is an extremely helpful discussion. I began by listening because I am a former student of Josh Mcdowell, about 1973, and wanted to listen to his son. i am sure Josh is proud of him.
As a person who is not "religious" per se I am a student of history and theology. I am so impressed with this particular video for being candid and honest. There is a practical way to defend your religion. If you allow skepticism to deter you from having a belief in something then you haven't studied your beliefs from an objective view and you are holding onto a hope that others have done the work for you.
Amen, as a former agnostic who became a Christian by trying to prove the Bible wrong; I never expected 100% absolute certainty. If I were to apply ABSOLUTE certainty, then by the incompleteness theorems I wouldn't be able to know how much us 1+1 (also continuum hypothesis and much else). I was shocked to find the Bible to be closer to certainty than anything else I have ever read; including math books. Example, the imaginary number, i, is NOT the square root of negative one no matter how many math books get THAT wrong. I have read Koran, some upanishads, veda, all Ramayana, some tripitaka, pseudopigraphy, and much else both ancient and modern. Nothing, NOTHING, I have ever found has come as close to 100% as the Bible
Great, well informed, clearly presented with a visible portion of Christian humility. Good level of scholarship and yet, presented in a simple understandable way. Thank you!
Thank you very much brother Sean and Peter for this insightful episode. It's such a blessing to see honesty and transparency. Skeptics will be helped a lot to acknowledge intellectual honesty in the Christian community.
I have to stop binge watching these author interviews. I just found your UA-cam channel yesterday. I have already bought every book of the 3 interviews I've watched. 🤣
I watch a LOT of youtube video's, rarely do I NOT find myself alt-tabbing around to other open windows on my computer. This video had my full attention! Loved it, thanks!!
Very informative! I listen to Chuck Missler often and feel like I have learned much from his teachings! I realize I should also look to see how our resources are founded. It is good to know people who love our Savior try to be sure God’s word is correctly told to His world!
@@1969cmp I too love to listen to Amir Tsarfati. I recently started following him on the Telegram app (where he went when he left Twitter) as he posts news from Israel multiple times a day. As a former major in Israel’s defense or intel force, he has so much insight into the significance into what’s going on. I don’t agree with his Scriptural interpretation of the timing of the Rapture of the Church (though I’d love to believe it will happen sooner rather than later!) but I love his teaching in so many ways. And I have come to love him dearly as a brother in Christ. I also love his humor and his desire to encourage the body of Christ. He always says he’s not a prophet but from a non-profit organization. Haha. I appreciate his emphasis on staying strong, expecting persecution in this world, and keeping on mission by sharing the gospel. I got to meet him in Minneapolis a couple years ago at a prophecy conference.
you need gods word strengthened? i never needed my atheism strengthened. what is it about religion that needs some guy to coach you that it's still true? i never needed an apologist to reassure me my son is real. you need someone to keep saying "god is real, just keep the faith"? odd.
I love Dr. Gurry's statement at 19:00 about looking at the long term when we make claims. We can't possibly know when someone is going to be remembering what we said in the future. Really the issue is: We are trying to convince them of the truth--how can we think it's a good idea to exaggerate or embellish the truth?
Humility is on display and is the key to our walk with God. Thank you so much for this honest look at this issue and the truth of the gospels. God bless you both!
Thanks so much. "Faithful are the wounds of a friend". Thanks. So useful and gracious. Yes 👍👍👍 Keep going. Don't ever stop. God bless you in the Name above all names.
@@SeanMcDowell has it dawned on you that your entire religion is based on one man having a hallucination? paul didn't even claim to see jesus, just an apparition, and that;s it - christianity is based on one bloke story telling.
Why some have problems with Reasoned eclecticism. I John 5:7 is found in a majority of the Latin, but not the Greek so out it goes. Good will towards men Doxology in Matthew Without cause God manifest in the flesh Are a majority in the Greek but not in the Latin, so out they go The PA and Mark 16:9-20 are a majority in both the Greek and Latin so out they go. Even the “not yet” found in the two of the earliest(P66.P75) in John 7:8 some throw out. If as an orthodox Christian you don't see a problem, what would you see as a problem?
This is a great discussion and brings out important points. I think many people do not understand the nature of language, the nature of documents, and the nature of translation. Having grown up in a family where my dad was a Bible scholar who taught Old Testament Hebrew and New Testament Greek...and developed methods for teaching Koine Greek as part of his PhD, and add to this that I worked with QS9000 document controls, and I have been a professional translator English to Spanish... I do believe we need grasp the nature, dynamics and issues which surface in language. Starting with the fact that language becomes less complex over time. Look at English, Spanish and Koine Greek vs. Modern Greek. This is crucial to understand. Second, language is dynamic not static. I have grown up around language and the Bible all my life. For starters, language itself is a tool which we use to take thoughts and communicate those thoughts via words or written symbols designed to transfer those thoughts to others in a way that is understandable (keeping in mind: if they are true, then they correspond to reality; and then when we take each individual thought which passes the test for truth and we add other thoughts which are true then we should provide or receive a coherent and truthful message which can be tested and shown to reasonably correspond to reality). This is a deep and vast subject but one that must be taken into account when you look at differences in translation. Third, and by no means the last point, is that every translation looses to lessor or greater degrees in the translation process. There are words and phrases which cannot be translated directly or even completely from one language to another. This opens up the need for the scribe and/or translator, when operating with integrity, to find the best way and most complete way to communicate the idea from one author within one language to another author in another language, to use care in how they work to reproduce the end product. This dynamic is present even in the copies of Scripture as the authors were Hebrews thinking in Hebrew and in the applicable cases communicating to a broader audience via Koine Greek which was the language of commerce at the time and was a medium which allowed a broad audience to understand the gospel. Evidence shows, as is mentioned in this discussion, that scribes at times made attempts to bring clarity to the text and this creates a difference. Is it material? each case has to be analyzed on its own. The accuracy of Scripture and its message is unparalleled even with the variances. Then there are grammar dynamics: there are numerous cases where the authors broke the rules of Koine Greek grammar yet the grammar would have been perfect in Hebrew. There are times Jesus broke the rules of grammar, for instance when he refers to the coming of the Holy Spirit, which has a neuter gender (which would have required the pronoun "it" yet Jesus clearly referred to the Holy Spirit with the masculine personal pronoun "He", dispelling any doubt as to His personhood. Then there are the words in Hebrew and Greek which have multiple yet related meanings which pose challenges to translation because the translator has to pick one word but in reality a word can be translated with two or even three words, example: In the Lord's prayer Jesus includes the phrase "lead us not into temptation..." that word temptation in Koine Greek can be translated trials, temptation, and/or tribulation. Therefore depending on the Bible you are reading you could see the word trials, the word temptation, or the word tribulation. All three are valid and all three are understood in Koine Greek. Or take the word Shem in Hebrew which is translated Name. It carries the additional context of Authority and Character. So when Jesus says to ask and pray in His name...he is saying we are to use His name but more so... cause you can't just throw around His name and get what you want... He is stating that you are to pray and ask in His name, within His authority and according to His character. So these are few dynamics which come into play in the text, the translations and the understanding. all of which must be taken into account. Food for thought which I hope helps bring clarity and understanding.
@@MichaelBrown-ds5ll I'm glad you wrote this because most people will have a simplistic view of the bible, and when someone attacks the bible, they easily give up their faith or never believe at all. they don't understand that the bible can be defended, but not with just a simple answer. the fact that people don't want to read a bunch of texts just proves how lazy they are.
You're wrong about Jesus applying masculine pronouns to the Holy Spirit. Nowhere in Scripture does either the Hebrew text or the Greek text apply a masculine or feminine pronoun to the Holy Spirit. Only neuter pronouns are ever used. Spirit in both languages is neuter and the biblical writers always followed standard grammatical rules when referring to spirit. In the NT, the only time the Greek text uses a masculine pronoun in connection with the Spirit is when referring to the paraclete - but only because paraclete is itself a grammatically masculine noun. For a detailed discussion, see _Greek Grammar and the Personality of the Holy Spirit,_ by Greek scholar Daniel Wallace. It's available online in PDF format at no charge
Thank you for the contributions you have both made in verifying the historical accuracy of the Holy Scriptures. I am an amateur linguist, and definitely not well educated. However the things that I have learned concerning translation and philosophy are concerning to me. As an American English speaker by culture I began to witness vast differences in language between various geological regions in my own native language. As a farm boy my own dialect often completely differed tremendously from that of the streets of San Francisco or Los Angeles. After learning my second language the variances began to appear to be more the norm than a mere incidental occurrence. And a third language verified that hunch. In checking the various manuscripts your guest commented that the writings of the Church Father's were often used to verify the veracity of some text which seemed somewhat vague. This is good, and completely appropriate. I once believed that Luther was a pretty superstitious old Monk because of his insistence that the Holy Eucharist was indeed the very Blood and Body of Christ. Then the Baptist church to which I belonged asked me to leave due to my objections to the direction that that congregation chose to follow. I live in Mormon country and the only available option to me was the conservative Lutherans or ultra liberal "Evangelical" sects. I studied the subject over carefully. I read the words of St Ignatius, and several others. My question is this. Why in the world are you guys still protestant. I have no idea how anyone can be so well educated and remain protestant. I converted IMMEDIATELY to Eastern Orthodoxy. And I've seen several people go over to Roman Catholicism. For good reason. But remaining protestant seems beyond understanding.
...I know a couple of ministries who are strong on this. And are very cautious about any 'new' discoveries that are favourable but will test and wait to make sure that they are solid.
thank goodness someone can make up a meaning for those really obscure ramblings that no one in their right mind can interpret, what would christians do without someone claiming to be an expert telling them what passages mean.
@@HarryNicNicholas well I guess the entire discipline of Literature is out of the window then. Textual Criticism is a tool used in classics, medieval literature, history and archaeology. What it doesn't do is explain meaning, that's where philosophy and its big brother Theology are for. Even then it's for highlighting the deeper meanings and patterns within the text, a five year old can draw the basic meaning in most cases. If you have a child, perhaps you could get them to take you through it?
There's great hope for a "skeptic who loves Bible history." Do you have Diarmaid McCulloch's books. I recommend him, especially "the Reformation." it's not really "Bible" history, but it's the ugly history of the people who today are defending the Bible.
@@carlosreira413 I could have just as easily said "I love historical fiction" but I was trying to be polite. Lol. I think we could use a little more kindness and humility in this debate. Seeing as how, it's likely to never end. Not in my lifetime anyway. We can however,, with a bit of effort, be civil toward one another.
@@ddavidjeremy Thank you for that sentiment, David. I couldn't agree more, though I don't always live up to it myself. It's so easy to get overly emotional. For something to be true, it has to stand up to scrutiny, so I welcome that for myself and for my beliefs. I would put forth this thesis--that the Christian faith is based on factual history or it is nothing. No better than Islam, certainly. It may be better as a work of art as a whole, but that's a matter of opinion, and I like to say "you can't judge Islam by the Alhambra."
Really interesting stuff guys. I’ve been asking questions about the reliability of the Bible for years and as you may expect, it’s hard to tell when I’m getting good answers. This was really helpful, thanks!
When I was at the Dead Sea scrolls museum I was staring at a copy of Isaiah that dates back to about 120 B.C which is nearly 100% complete. Our guide said to me 'I can read that and I can read your English Bible. Trust it. Your English Bible say what mine says' The importance of a copy of Isaiah dating well before Jesus cannot be underestimated as Isaiah is rich on Messianic prophecy and that He would suffer in His first advent. Cheers and blessings, ex-atheist. 1993.
@@1969cmp The Qumran copy of Isaiah is indeed very important, for exactly the reason you say. Also, note that Jesus endorsed the Bible as it existed in His day. So that adds to the authority of the Qumran Isaiah.
I was one of those who made the mistake of repeating that the highpriest wore a rope to enter the Holie of Holies with no credible evidence. Great video! 👍
I think the question of manuscript numbers is really a question of how classical historians treat their sources as compared to NT critics. We have plethora of material available for NT reconstruction that most classical scholars could only dream of and yet it is still not enough for the likes of Bart Ehrman and company.
Actually, you're about how classical historians treat their sources as compared to NT critics. The amount of copies of manuscripts have no bearing on whether or not it's true. Historians don't rely on the numbers of copies. If there were a billion copies each of the canonical gospels but the originals were all works of fiction, then all four billion copies are all nothing but works of fiction. You misunderstood what the important part is when it comes to how historians treat the amount of sources that exist, which is, the amount of independent sources that we have. For example, the Gospel of Mark is only one source when it comes to the truth regarding the existence, life and death of Jesus. The amount of copies of that gospel only comes into play when it's being determined whether or not it's actually a reliable source ie, it's accuracy, consistency etc. Both of those are one of, if not the biggest issue, in regards to the Gospel of Mark. The later versions of Mark is not consistent with the older version. Although there's less copies of it, the earliest manuscript that we have of Mark does not contain the ending that is found in the later versions.
I want to say that as a fan of the great Dan Wallace I was thrilled to learn of Dr. Gurry and his work. When he said that Dr. Wallace was his mentor I have gone back and watched this a second time and man I just love it. I will be following Dr. Gurry til I die now. Thank you Sean!
They criticize Bart Ehrman for discussing the vast number of variants in NT texts, but first, they agree with Ehrman's assertion, and second, I've heard Ehrman say over and over that 99% of those variants make no difference whatsoever to core Christian doctrines. So what's their beef?
It is so easy to overstate the case for the reliability of the NT. In my opinion textual criticism doesn't help that much when considering whether the stories e.g. in the gospels are true. As was mentioned in the end of this interview, textual criticism can only help us to establish that we can be quite confident that we know what the original authors wrote. We could even argue for the general reliability of the Gospels on some internal/external criteria but that doesn't necessarily mean that particulars in the gospels are correct. It goes the other way around as well: a document that is known to be generally untrustworthy might still contain true statements. Therefore, I think that the so called "criteria of authenticity" might be helpful when investigating particular claims in the gospels. Of course there is a lot of debate about the criteria and how to apply them properly. So there are a lot of things to consider while defending the reliability of the Gospels/NT. On a popular level it might be necessary and helpful to address the questions of textual criticism but in academia I think that would be kinda unnecessary.
I am so jealous of this young man and astounded at his ability to absorb Koine Greek at all, let alone at such a young age!! I have attempted Greek twice now and had to drop it because of outside issues and the anxiety causing health problems. I am now attempting to find an online accredited program to see if a different type of study would work better. I just can't absorb all the details of Greek.
You CAN. But you have to SIMPLIFY. DIVIDE GREEK INTO 2 WORLDS:1) WORLD OF THE NOUN AND 2) WORLD OF THE VERB. THE WORLD OF THE NOUN INCLUDES ALL THAT IS NOUN LIKE. THE WORLD OF THE VERB INCLUDES VERBALS, WORDS LIKE VERBS. NOUN LIKE WORDS ALL HAVE CASES. VERBS HAVE TENSES. GRK VERBS ARE DIVIDED INTO FUTURE, PRESENT AND PAST TENSES. PRETERITE TENSES ARE AORIST, IMPERFECT AND PERFECT. THE SUBSTANTIVE NOUN CASES ARE NGDA AND V: NOMINATIVE,GENITIVE,DATIVE, ACCUSATIVE AND VOCATIVE. THIS IS AN OVERSIMPLIFICATION BUT GIVES YOU THE BIRDS EYE VIEW OF THE SYSTEM
James M. Hamilton did his dissertation on this variant back in 2003, at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. In short, the immediate context -- and the whole chapter -- points forward to the future. The theology of the advent of the Holy Spirit is a decidedly future event. This, the future tense is most like authentic. Moreover, if the present tense estin ("he is") were the original, then you'd expect to find manuscripts which are corrected to read in the present tense, when they originally were in the future tense ... but those don't exist. The reason for the discrepancy is that there are a few early & significant manuscripts (p66 B D W 1) which have estin ("he is") instead of estai ("he will be"). Bottom line: probably a copyist error.
I have faith in God, God's word is precious to me what do you think God is making more precious than me. God always looks after his word super naturally
I wish someone would correct the mistranslation of "man" to "man of the house", or "father" in Mary's genealogy in Mathew. Mary descended from David through Solomon, while Joseph descended from David through Nathan. The geneologies are different, but Mary's father was names Joachim, which was translated Joseph. I don't understand how the different lineages have escaped scholars for so long. In King James English, "husband " didn't only mean spouse. It meant "male caregiver with responsibility for the woman". The skeptics take up this chant as if it was a mistake in the genealogy, but it's a result of the change in language and the meaning of words. To put the verse in proper context for understanding, the author included the number of generations to Mary, being 14. It's 14 if "man" is interested as "father" instead of 13 if "man" is interpreted to mean husband. The modern problem and loss of knowledge over time is why the authors were so careful to include the number of generations.
It's February 2023 as I write this. I always wonder what was going on in Sean's life about 2 years ago. He looks concerned, worried and a bit stressed in those videos. I am glad to see he looks better now!
Thanks for the wonderful discussion! This information is so important to help correct our thinking about the reliability of scripture. Unfortunately, those who work to discredit the New Testament have preferential treatment in the modern world. I did refer to the blog referenced at the end and was disappointed that Dr. Gurry and his book were not given more visibility.
Brilliant points made about scribes correcting prior errors as well as making new ones like the enzymes that look for copying errors on DNA or how the Romans built straight roads by lining up staffs looking back and ahead
@@dwainmcbain5263 Your first comment implies that textual criticism is not necessary because you can trust God's promises. If I'm mistaken let me know.
@@dwainmcbain5263 So I was correct, you don't believe that's worth any time or efforts, then I ask again: How do you know God promises what you think he did, "It's in His word" how do you know that's His word? Answer? *Textual criticism*
The word “son of God”, in v.1 or everywhere in Mark, has no bearing on discussing “the risk” for whether to trust the NT or not. The question for “risk”, rather is wether “son” means “divine” or not.
regarding the "myth" of patristic citations reconstructing the whole NT... originally it must have been meant like this: the church fathers' citations are *covering* (almost) the whole NT ? ... but the job of reconstructing, placing the pieces at the right places in the NT, is another question and would be a difficult task... but the question is still: are the fathers' quotations *covering* the (almost) complete text of the NT ?? their citations are varied, the same passage cited in different ways, etc... so one has to decide which wordings are the genuine NT text... an impossible task obviously... :)
hi. can anyone point me in the direction to get further information on what Dr. Gurry stated at the end of this podcast regarding the High Priest not being tied with a rope as he entered the Holy of Holies? I believe him but i just would like to know where to verify that apparent misconception I've been told for many years..
Nice discussion. The only problem was that a I was listening, the whole time I’m thinking “Well this would all apply just the same to a work of historical fiction.” Then at the end everybody agrees that none of this shows that the documents are true, only that the documents are close to what the original authors wrote. But isn’t the most important part of Christianity, whether the stories reflect events that actually happened? Personally when discussing issues with Christians, rather than discussing the evolution of the Jesus character from Mark through John and the various discrepancies, I simply grant that we have a single manuscript reliably dated to the year 33CE written in first person signed “Jesus Hallowed Christ” and they are free to assemble a single Gospel without contradiction from the four Gospels and we can work from that. Now show me that document reflects events that really happened and is not a work of historical fiction built from milking “prophecies” and events from the Old Testament stories.
51:00 ff. While the claim of "all but eleven verses" may not be accurate, it is possible to piece together large portions of the NT from Origen and others. In one experiment, I was able to find whole chapters of John cited in bits and pieces by Origen in just one of his works. At one point or another he says virtually every word of John chapter 1 and most of John chapter 2; he discusses Nicodemus going to meet with Jesus (John 3) and quotes some of what Jesus said to Nicodemus; he mentions the incident of the woman at the well, (John 4), while not actually quoting the passage _per se_ ... So it is not wrong to say that early Christian writers, disciples of the disciples of the disciples, such as Papias, Polycarp, Iraeneus, Origen, Clement of Rome, and others, support the received tradition and textual accuracy of the New Testament. We do need to be careful not to overstate the case, but these early writers DO support the NT in part.
In the Roman Empire there was tons of Latin translations of the Bible. At that time obviously the ppl knew ancient greek much better thus knew better the meaning of the words, the cognitive load and contextual details as they lived in that world, in that context. So scaffolding the Ancient Greek version with the Latin versions sounds great to me. Meaning that if someone has decent greek, latin knowledge, that might be a fantastic combination to read and understand the New Testament (not that we cannot understand it clearly from translations, but I mean refined understanding for answering questions in a better way).
Why was it determined that the Mark fragment was NOT 1st century? Was it all paleography? And does anyone use radio carbon dating like Muslims have done to determine the dating of their earliest copies of the Quran? What are the strengths and weaknesses of radio carbon dating? Thanks…
Genuine question is if God meant for people to have His Word then why is this so complicated? Why would Hid Word be varied and His Creation not have His Original Word in the correct context? There can’t be any mistakes in the Bible. Many skeptics feel this is all the evidence one needs to interpret the entire Bible as patriarchal and written from and by men in some capacity. What is your suggestion to help with this skeptical view?
@@paulbeahm3891 Then don't judge the man by one statement, taken out of context. That's akin to taking one Bible verse out of context. That's what atheists do.
@@JeanmarieRodI'm not judging anybody. I'm discerning with the Holy Spirit and the word of God. When a pastor says that He doesnt defend the word of God that's going directly against scripture. "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a DEFENSE to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you..." That's pretty direct.
@@paulbeahm3891 "judging by that one statement, he is not a good pastor", followed by ""I am not judging anybody"... I can only go by the comments you leave. I have no way of knowing what underlying meaning you may have meant in this forum.
Well, for the NT, you'd do really well reading the Septaugint, which (according to Josephus) was translated from Hebrew to Greek by 72 Rabbis, all appointed by the Sanhedrin. Jesus endorsed the scriptures that were existing in His day (the OT/"Tanakh," which would include the Septaugint translation).
The Septuagint (LXX) is a Greek translation of the _OT,_ not the NT. The Masoretic text (MT) of the OT is generally regarded as more reliable than the LXX. For one thing, it is a closer match with the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) than the LXX. That said, there are errors in the MT that the LXX and DSS together sometimes clarify. If the OP wants a reliable Hebrew/Aramaic text of the OT, I'd suggest the _Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia._ If the OP wants a reliable Greek text of the NT, I'd suggest the UBS _Greek New Testament._ For an English translation, I'd suggest the NASB.
Perhaps it's the difference between "a son of God," and "the son of God." Jesus was brought to trial on the charge of blasphemy for claiming to be the son of God, so clearly his accusers didn't think he was just using a phrase from the old Jewish scriptures or something.
That's true that the reliability of the Scriptures does not rely on unreliability of classical writings, just like GOD's DEITY doesn't depend on us being imperfect.
It makes perfect sense, that a 1st century copy would be unlikely ; especially silly when the Crucifixion was a third of the way through the 1st century, being in 30-33- AD Gary HABERMAS, and other propose that the CREEDAL, Chtistological STATEMENTS, and singing HYMNS (sp?), within TWO years of JESUS Death & Resurrection! Maybe even within MONTHS after! I know for myself, I’ve spent years in research of history, archaeology, biblical prophesy, and I’m 1,000% CERTAIN JESUS IS LORD, Creator & Savior!!! 🌌🍃🕊️ And added to that is I FEEL The Holy Spirit within my Heart & Spirit, and the STRENGTH GOD has given me, and so much more = He THERE for us, if we WANT that kind of Rationship with Him…. HE gives whatever we ask (strength, wisdom, peace, hope, vision, purpose, challenges, and CONTINUOUS GROWING! 🙏
@@SeanMcDowell no worries - the information is so exciting and consuming! Thank you so much for what you do! I just started reading “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” 👍👍
What Peter Gurry was referring to is the earliest fragment of a manuscript of Mark's Gospel. He was not saying the Gospel was written in the 2nd or 3rd century.
@@NomenNescio99 lol have you actually examined those “30+ versions” you’re referring to? I would guess not. What makes the difference are minor variations. For example, if I was English I would write colour and you as an American would write color does that change the meaning of the word in any possible way? I think we’ll both agree that it don’t right? If you are genuine and want to understand more about those variations, I would encourage you to watch this video it’s very informative. ua-cam.com/video/8hj7u0F3yEg/v-deo.html
This is an extremely helpful discussion. I began by listening because I am a former student of Josh Mcdowell, about 1973, and wanted to listen to his son. i am sure Josh is proud of him.
That's amazing. How delightful that must be! Jesus is proud of Dr. Sean, so I know his earthly father is proud.
It's a fathers love. Josh is an entertainer from what I see here.
@@tralfazruk1..Are you a friend of Christ?
Also, Sean has a doctorate. What academic accolades do you pocess?
@@terryhuffaker3615 What leads you to pursue that line of Questioning.
As a person who is not "religious" per se I am a student of history and theology. I am so impressed with this particular video for being candid and honest. There is a practical way to defend your religion. If you allow skepticism to deter you from having a belief in something then you haven't studied your beliefs from an objective view and you are holding onto a hope that others have done the work for you.
Great comment, I have started my journey
Amen, as a former agnostic who became a Christian by trying to prove the Bible wrong; I never expected 100% absolute certainty. If I were to apply ABSOLUTE certainty, then by the incompleteness theorems I wouldn't be able to know how much us 1+1 (also continuum hypothesis and much else).
I was shocked to find the Bible to be closer to certainty than anything else I have ever read; including math books. Example, the imaginary number, i, is NOT the square root of negative one no matter how many math books get THAT wrong.
I have read Koran, some upanishads, veda, all Ramayana, some tripitaka, pseudopigraphy, and much else both ancient and modern. Nothing, NOTHING, I have ever found has come as close to 100% as the Bible
I agree. I am a former atheist who does a lot of apologetics and I get so frustrated when Christians overstate the case
Great, well informed, clearly presented with a visible portion of Christian humility. Good level of scholarship and yet, presented in a simple understandable way. Thank you!
Thank you very much brother Sean and Peter for this insightful episode. It's such a blessing to see honesty and transparency. Skeptics will be helped a lot to acknowledge intellectual honesty in the Christian community.
I have to stop binge watching these author interviews. I just found your UA-cam channel yesterday. I have already bought every book of the 3 interviews I've watched. 🤣
This is an awesome resource.
Me as well. But can't go wrong building a library
🤣
🤣🤣🤣👏👍🙏❤❤ The Body of Christ should prepare to give answers. So , well done!
I am a year late watching this… but I am LOVING IT! And I am loving Peter Gurry! Buying his book today!
yep, buy the book, most important part.
Thanks guys. Very Intelligent and yet practical. You are tops at communicating.
I watch a LOT of youtube video's, rarely do I NOT find myself alt-tabbing around to other open windows on my computer. This video had my full attention! Loved it, thanks!!
May the good LORD bless you and keep you strong
Very informative! I listen to Chuck Missler often and feel like I have learned much from his teachings! I realize I should also look to see how our resources are founded. It is good to know people who love our Savior try to be sure God’s word is correctly told to His world!
....it's why I like to listen to Amir Tsafarti and the Behold Israel channel.
@@1969cmp I too love to listen to Amir Tsarfati. I recently started following him on the Telegram app (where he went when he left Twitter) as he posts news from Israel multiple times a day. As a former major in Israel’s defense or intel force, he has so much insight into the significance into what’s going on. I don’t agree with his Scriptural interpretation of the timing of the Rapture of the Church (though I’d love to believe it will happen sooner rather than later!) but I love his teaching in so many ways. And I have come to love him dearly as a brother in Christ. I also love his humor and his desire to encourage the body of Christ. He always says he’s not a prophet but from a non-profit organization. Haha. I appreciate his emphasis on staying strong, expecting persecution in this world, and keeping on mission by sharing the gospel. I got to meet him in Minneapolis a couple years ago at a prophecy conference.
Thanks to both of you. Good info and this has strengthened my confidence in God's word.
you need gods word strengthened? i never needed my atheism strengthened. what is it about religion that needs some guy to coach you that it's still true? i never needed an apologist to reassure me my son is real. you need someone to keep saying "god is real, just keep the faith"? odd.
I love Dr. Gurry's statement at 19:00 about looking at the long term when we make claims. We can't possibly know when someone is going to be remembering what we said in the future. Really the issue is: We are trying to convince them of the truth--how can we think it's a good idea to exaggerate or embellish the truth?
Humility is on display and is the key to our walk with God. Thank you so much for this honest look at this issue and the truth of the gospels. God bless you both!
New Generation Dr Peter Gentry - so inspiring!
Hallelujah! Thank you God and bless these Guys and their family and bless them in Jesus name Amen!
The Spirit is supportive of the Truth always. Data + the Spirit is what we need. The better we get at the Truth the more the Spirit reveals.
Thanks so much. "Faithful are the wounds of a friend". Thanks. So useful and gracious. Yes 👍👍👍 Keep going. Don't ever stop. God bless you in the Name above all names.
Amazingly important, dear brothers/Drs. Thank you.
Thank you, Peter Gurry for your HONESTY and putting TRUTH above dogma. Great conversation, I ordered the book.
This guy is the sheldon cooper of new testament textual criticism.
Great stuff and I will be ordering that book. Thanks!
I love this. Please bring him back and more like him. TY.
His colleague is coming on Monday to discuss the Dead Sea scrolls. Don’t miss it!
@@SeanMcDowell has it dawned on you that your entire religion is based on one man having a hallucination? paul didn't even claim to see jesus, just an apparition, and that;s it - christianity is based on one bloke story telling.
Thank you, boys. Very interesting.
Why some have problems with Reasoned eclecticism.
I John 5:7 is found in a majority of the Latin,
but not the Greek so out it goes.
Good will towards men
Doxology in Matthew
Without cause
God manifest in the flesh
Are a majority in the Greek but not in the Latin,
so out they go
The PA and Mark 16:9-20 are a majority in both the Greek
and Latin so out they go.
Even the “not yet” found in the two of the earliest(P66.P75) in John 7:8
some throw out.
If as an orthodox Christian you don't see a problem,
what would you see as a problem?
This was helpful to me. Thank you for taking the time to clear up some things. I do still have some questions, but many of my questions were answered.
Wonderful! The book may help...
@@SeanMcDowell I have bought the Kindle edition and am going through it.
@@provocationofgrace yes, you must buy the book, it will really please god. we don't want sean going hungry like cameron bertuzzi.
@@HarryNicNicholas , oh Cameron, that one had to hurt...
I thought I was just gonna listen for a few minutes. I absolutely love this. Thank you so much for posting it
This is a great discussion and brings out important points. I think many people do not understand the nature of language, the nature of documents, and the nature of translation. Having grown up in a family where my dad was a Bible scholar who taught Old Testament Hebrew and New Testament Greek...and developed methods for teaching Koine Greek as part of his PhD, and add to this that I worked with QS9000 document controls, and I have been a professional translator English to Spanish... I do believe we need grasp the nature, dynamics and issues which surface in language. Starting with the fact that language becomes less complex over time. Look at English, Spanish and Koine Greek vs. Modern Greek. This is crucial to understand. Second, language is dynamic not static. I have grown up around language and the Bible all my life. For starters, language itself is a tool which we use to take thoughts and communicate those thoughts via words or written symbols designed to transfer those thoughts to others in a way that is understandable (keeping in mind: if they are true, then they correspond to reality; and then when we take each individual thought which passes the test for truth and we add other thoughts which are true then we should provide or receive a coherent and truthful message which can be tested and shown to reasonably correspond to reality). This is a deep and vast subject but one that must be taken into account when you look at differences in translation. Third, and by no means the last point, is that every translation looses to lessor or greater degrees in the translation process. There are words and phrases which cannot be translated directly or even completely from one language to another. This opens up the need for the scribe and/or translator, when operating with integrity, to find the best way and most complete way to communicate the idea from one author within one language to another author in another language, to use care in how they work to reproduce the end product. This dynamic is present even in the copies of Scripture as the authors were Hebrews thinking in Hebrew and in the applicable cases communicating to a broader audience via Koine Greek which was the language of commerce at the time and was a medium which allowed a broad audience to understand the gospel. Evidence shows, as is mentioned in this discussion, that scribes at times made attempts to bring clarity to the text and this creates a difference. Is it material? each case has to be analyzed on its own. The accuracy of Scripture and its message is unparalleled even with the variances. Then there are grammar dynamics: there are numerous cases where the authors broke the rules of Koine Greek grammar yet the grammar would have been perfect in Hebrew. There are times Jesus broke the rules of grammar, for instance when he refers to the coming of the Holy Spirit, which has a neuter gender (which would have required the pronoun "it" yet Jesus clearly referred to the Holy Spirit with the masculine personal pronoun "He", dispelling any doubt as to His personhood. Then there are the words in Hebrew and Greek which have multiple yet related meanings which pose challenges to translation because the translator has to pick one word but in reality a word can be translated with two or even three words, example: In the Lord's prayer Jesus includes the phrase "lead us not into temptation..." that word temptation in Koine Greek can be translated trials, temptation, and/or tribulation. Therefore depending on the Bible you are reading you could see the word trials, the word temptation, or the word tribulation. All three are valid and all three are understood in Koine Greek. Or take the word Shem in Hebrew which is translated Name. It carries the additional context of Authority and Character. So when Jesus says to ask and pray in His name...he is saying we are to use His name but more so... cause you can't just throw around His name and get what you want... He is stating that you are to pray and ask in His name, within His authority and according to His character. So these are few dynamics which come into play in the text, the translations and the understanding. all of which must be taken into account. Food for thought which I hope helps bring clarity and understanding.
tl;dr might want to learn that the internet doesn't like whole friggin bookloads of text.
@@HarryNicNicholas yes. the use of adjectives, like reading, is optional.
@@MichaelBrown-ds5ll I'm glad you wrote this because most people will have a simplistic view of the bible, and when someone attacks the bible, they easily give up their faith or never believe at all. they don't understand that the bible can be defended, but not with just a simple answer. the fact that people don't want to read a bunch of texts just proves how lazy they are.
You're wrong about Jesus applying masculine pronouns to the Holy Spirit.
Nowhere in Scripture does either the Hebrew text or the Greek text apply a masculine or feminine pronoun to the Holy Spirit. Only neuter pronouns are ever used. Spirit in both languages is neuter and the biblical writers always followed standard grammatical rules when referring to spirit.
In the NT, the only time the Greek text uses a masculine pronoun in connection with the Spirit is when referring to the paraclete - but only because paraclete is itself a grammatically masculine noun.
For a detailed discussion, see _Greek Grammar and the Personality of the Holy Spirit,_ by Greek scholar Daniel Wallace. It's available online in PDF format at no charge
Thank you for the contributions you have both made in verifying the historical accuracy of the Holy Scriptures.
I am an amateur linguist, and definitely not well educated. However the things that I have learned concerning translation and philosophy are concerning to me.
As an American English speaker by culture I began to witness vast differences in language between various geological regions in my own native language. As a farm boy my own dialect often completely differed tremendously from that of the streets of San Francisco or Los Angeles.
After learning my second language the variances began to appear to be more the norm than a mere incidental occurrence.
And a third language verified that hunch.
In checking the various manuscripts your guest commented that the writings of the Church Father's were often used to verify the veracity of some text which seemed somewhat vague. This is good, and completely appropriate.
I once believed that Luther was a pretty superstitious old Monk because of his insistence that the Holy Eucharist was indeed the very Blood and Body of Christ. Then the Baptist church to which I belonged asked me to leave due to my objections to the direction that that congregation chose to follow. I live in Mormon country and the only available option to me was the conservative Lutherans or ultra liberal "Evangelical" sects.
I studied the subject over carefully. I read the words of St Ignatius, and several others.
My question is this.
Why in the world are you guys still protestant.
I have no idea how anyone can be so well educated and remain protestant. I converted IMMEDIATELY to Eastern Orthodoxy. And I've seen several people go over to Roman Catholicism. For good reason.
But remaining protestant seems beyond understanding.
Very good that we update data, as credibility will suffer if the things we claim do no stand against scientific review.
...I know a couple of ministries who are strong on this. And are very cautious about any 'new' discoveries that are favourable but will test and wait to make sure that they are solid.
A fantastic, solid input. Really grateful. Thank you.
This is what real Bible studying is about 🤓 Textual criticism at it's best for the nerdiest of the nerds 😊 Kudos to you both!!!
thank goodness someone can make up a meaning for those really obscure ramblings that no one in their right mind can interpret, what would christians do without someone claiming to be an expert telling them what passages mean.
@@HarryNicNicholas well I guess the entire discipline of Literature is out of the window then.
Textual Criticism is a tool used in classics, medieval literature, history and archaeology.
What it doesn't do is explain meaning, that's where philosophy and its big brother Theology are for.
Even then it's for highlighting the deeper meanings and patterns within the text, a five year old can draw the basic meaning in most cases.
If you have a child, perhaps you could get them to take you through it?
Fascinating. I am a skeptic but I do love Bible history.
There's great hope for a "skeptic who loves Bible history." Do you have Diarmaid McCulloch's books. I recommend him, especially "the Reformation." it's not really "Bible" history, but it's the ugly history of the people who today are defending the Bible.
@@carlosreira413 I appreciate the suggestion. It's a fascinating topic for sure. Thank you😁
@@carlosreira413 I could have just as easily said "I love historical fiction" but I was trying to be polite. Lol. I think we could use a little more kindness and humility in this debate. Seeing as how, it's likely to never end. Not in my lifetime anyway. We can however,, with a bit of effort, be civil toward one another.
@@ddavidjeremy Thank you for that sentiment, David. I couldn't agree more, though I don't always live up to it myself. It's so easy to get overly emotional. For something to be true, it has to stand up to scrutiny, so I welcome that for myself and for my beliefs. I would put forth this thesis--that the Christian faith is based on factual history or it is nothing. No better than Islam, certainly. It may be better as a work of art as a whole, but that's a matter of opinion, and I like to say "you can't judge Islam by the Alhambra."
Really interesting stuff guys. I’ve been asking questions about the reliability of the Bible for years and as you may expect, it’s hard to tell when I’m getting good answers. This was really helpful, thanks!
So glad to hear!
When I was at the Dead Sea scrolls museum I was staring at a copy of Isaiah that dates back to about 120 B.C which is nearly 100% complete.
Our guide said to me 'I can read that and I can read your English Bible. Trust it. Your English Bible say what mine says'
The importance of a copy of Isaiah dating well before Jesus cannot be underestimated as Isaiah is rich on Messianic prophecy and that He would suffer in His first advent.
Cheers and blessings, ex-atheist. 1993.
What did Luther use?
@@1969cmp The Qumran copy of Isaiah is indeed very important, for exactly the reason you say. Also, note that Jesus endorsed the Bible as it existed in His day. So that adds to the authority of the Qumran Isaiah.
Great stuff. Have been in ministry for 30 years. Very helpful. I have been inaccurate in some quotes. Love having this info. Thanks
Glad to hear!
I was one of those who made the mistake of repeating that the highpriest wore a rope to enter the Holie of Holies with no credible evidence. Great video! 👍
If it makes you feel any better, me too!
Thank you so much for this discussion. Gb
Great conversation. Loved it..
I think the question of manuscript numbers is really a question of how classical historians treat their sources as compared to NT critics. We have plethora of material available for NT reconstruction that most classical scholars could only dream of and yet it is still not enough for the likes of Bart Ehrman and company.
Actually, you're about how classical historians treat their sources as compared to NT critics. The amount of copies of manuscripts have no bearing on whether or not it's true. Historians don't rely on the numbers of copies. If there were a billion copies each of the canonical gospels but the originals were all works of fiction, then all four billion copies are all nothing but works of fiction.
You misunderstood what the important part is when it comes to how historians treat the amount of sources that exist, which is, the amount of independent sources that we have. For example, the Gospel of Mark is only one source when it comes to the truth regarding the existence, life and death of Jesus. The amount of copies of that gospel only comes into play when it's being determined whether or not it's actually a reliable source ie, it's accuracy, consistency etc. Both of those are one of, if not the biggest issue, in regards to the Gospel of Mark. The later versions of Mark is not consistent with the older version. Although there's less copies of it, the earliest manuscript that we have of Mark does not contain the ending that is found in the later versions.
I want to say that as a fan of the great Dan Wallace I was thrilled to learn of Dr. Gurry and his work. When he said that Dr. Wallace was his mentor I have gone back and watched this a second time and man I just love it. I will be following Dr. Gurry til I die now. Thank you Sean!
And afterwards hopefully.
I love Dan wallace. I'm looking forward to hear more from Professor gurry
This is brilliant,it really is great stuff.
They criticize Bart Ehrman for discussing the vast number of variants in NT texts, but first, they agree with Ehrman's assertion, and second, I've heard Ehrman say over and over that 99% of those variants make no difference whatsoever to core Christian doctrines. So what's their beef?
if you read his books he is obviously hostile to the gospels. he does have an agenda. read " misquoting truth" by timothy paul jones.
Thank you for introducing us to this outstanding scholar!! I loved the interview and will be following his work!
Thnks Dr. Sean and Dr. Gurry
This is so awesome 🙏 so encouraging and insightful 🤗
Amazing talk! Dr Gurry could keep my atention as few guests could
I am learning so much
This is great! I learned so much and would love to see a follow-up 👍
Another excellent scholar is Ken Johnson. He digs deep into the early Church fathers from the second century and what they believe and were taught.
It is so easy to overstate the case for the reliability of the NT. In my opinion textual criticism doesn't help that much when considering whether the stories e.g. in the gospels are true. As was mentioned in the end of this interview, textual criticism can only help us to establish that we can be quite confident that we know what the original authors wrote.
We could even argue for the general reliability of the Gospels on some internal/external criteria but that doesn't necessarily mean that particulars in the gospels are correct. It goes the other way around as well: a document that is known to be generally untrustworthy might still contain true statements. Therefore, I think that the so called "criteria of authenticity" might be helpful when investigating particular claims in the gospels. Of course there is a lot of debate about the criteria and how to apply them properly.
So there are a lot of things to consider while defending the reliability of the Gospels/NT. On a popular level it might be necessary and helpful to address the questions of textual criticism but in academia I think that would be kinda unnecessary.
What R U really saying?
This is very informative and encouraging. Thank you
Great interview and information. God bless
So glad it was helpful!
I am so jealous of this young man and astounded at his ability to absorb Koine Greek at all, let alone at such a young age!! I have attempted Greek twice now and had to drop it because of outside issues and the anxiety causing health problems. I am now attempting to find an online accredited program to see if a different type of study would work better. I just can't absorb all the details of Greek.
You CAN. But you have to SIMPLIFY. DIVIDE GREEK INTO 2 WORLDS:1) WORLD OF THE NOUN AND 2) WORLD OF THE VERB. THE WORLD OF THE NOUN INCLUDES ALL THAT IS NOUN LIKE. THE WORLD OF THE VERB INCLUDES VERBALS, WORDS LIKE VERBS. NOUN LIKE WORDS ALL HAVE CASES. VERBS HAVE TENSES. GRK VERBS ARE DIVIDED INTO FUTURE, PRESENT AND PAST TENSES. PRETERITE TENSES ARE AORIST, IMPERFECT AND PERFECT. THE SUBSTANTIVE NOUN CASES ARE NGDA AND V: NOMINATIVE,GENITIVE,DATIVE, ACCUSATIVE AND VOCATIVE. THIS IS AN OVERSIMPLIFICATION BUT GIVES YOU THE BIRDS EYE VIEW OF THE SYSTEM
How much do I appreciate your work !
Absolutely fascinating, so enjoying this!
Any thoughts on the variant in John 14:17c "He lives with you and will be in you" or can you unpack the value of variants?
James M. Hamilton did his dissertation on this variant back in 2003, at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
In short, the immediate context -- and the whole chapter -- points forward to the future. The theology of the advent of the Holy Spirit is a decidedly future event. This, the future tense is most like authentic.
Moreover, if the present tense estin ("he is") were the original, then you'd expect to find manuscripts which are corrected to read in the present tense, when they originally were in the future tense ... but those don't exist.
The reason for the discrepancy is that there are a few early & significant manuscripts (p66 B D W 1) which have estin ("he is") instead of estai ("he will be").
Bottom line: probably a copyist error.
@@IndianaJoe0321 Thanks.
36:11 love this
Man , this was brilliant, I learned soo much I went backwards, the more you know the less you know.
Amazing thank you, God bless you 1000 likes
excellent and enjoyable talk!
1:01:00 The "message of the New Testament" isn't equivalent to "the words of Jesus".
Especially since Jesus didn't write a single word of it. It's not even clear that Jesus could write.
I have faith in God, God's word is precious to me what do you think God is making more precious than me. God always looks after his word super naturally
I wish someone would correct the mistranslation of "man" to "man of the house", or "father" in Mary's genealogy in Mathew. Mary descended from David through Solomon, while Joseph descended from David through Nathan. The geneologies are different, but Mary's father was names Joachim, which was translated Joseph. I don't understand how the different lineages have escaped scholars for so long. In King James English, "husband " didn't only mean spouse. It meant "male caregiver with responsibility for the woman". The skeptics take up this chant as if it was a mistake in the genealogy, but it's a result of the change in language and the meaning of words. To put the verse in proper context for understanding, the author included the number of generations to Mary, being 14. It's 14 if "man" is interested as "father" instead of 13 if "man" is interpreted to mean husband. The modern problem and loss of knowledge over time is why the authors were so careful to include the number of generations.
Dr Gurry, an intellectual and fun Christian.
It's February 2023 as I write this. I always wonder what was going on in Sean's life about 2 years ago. He looks concerned, worried and a bit stressed in those videos. I am glad to see he looks better now!
Thanks for the wonderful discussion! This information is so important to help correct our thinking about the reliability of scripture. Unfortunately, those who work to discredit the New Testament have preferential treatment in the modern world. I did refer to the blog referenced at the end and was disappointed that Dr. Gurry and his book were not given more visibility.
Peter should do a debate with Bart for sure
Brilliant points made about scribes correcting prior errors as well as making new ones like the enzymes that look for copying errors on DNA or how the Romans built straight roads by lining up staffs looking back and ahead
This was an excellent discussion.
God promised his word will be protected... I have faith in Gods promises.
How do you know God said that?
@@ElficGuy Because it’s in his Word. Please feel free to fact check, I recommend it!
@@dwainmcbain5263 Your first comment implies that textual criticism is not necessary because you can trust God's promises. If I'm mistaken let me know.
@@ElficGuy textual criticism? what are you trying to accomplish here? Seriously!
@@dwainmcbain5263 So I was correct, you don't believe that's worth any time or efforts, then I ask again: How do you know God promises what you think he did, "It's in His word" how do you know that's His word?
Answer? *Textual criticism*
Very cool discussion
The word “son of God”, in v.1 or everywhere in Mark, has no bearing on discussing “the risk” for whether to trust the NT or not. The question for “risk”, rather is wether “son” means “divine” or not.
The best bible teacher out there is Mike Desario teaching on U - Tube
regarding the "myth" of patristic citations reconstructing the whole NT... originally it must have been meant like this: the church fathers' citations are *covering* (almost) the whole NT ? ... but the job of reconstructing, placing the pieces at the right places in the NT, is another question and would be a difficult task... but the question is still: are the fathers' quotations *covering* the (almost) complete text of the NT ?? their citations are varied, the same passage cited in different ways, etc... so one has to decide which wordings are the genuine NT text... an impossible task obviously... :)
Ken Johnson has great work on writing's and early church fathers.
....yeah, Ken is really good.
hi. can anyone point me in the direction to get further information on what Dr. Gurry stated at the end of this podcast regarding the High Priest not being tied with a rope as he entered the Holy of Holies? I believe him but i just would like to know where to verify that apparent misconception I've been told for many years..
Nice discussion. The only problem was that a I was listening, the whole time I’m thinking “Well this would all apply just the same to a work of historical fiction.” Then at the end everybody agrees that none of this shows that the documents are true, only that the documents are close to what the original authors wrote.
But isn’t the most important part of Christianity, whether the stories reflect events that actually happened? Personally when discussing issues with Christians, rather than discussing the evolution of the Jesus character from Mark through John and the various discrepancies, I simply grant that we have a single manuscript reliably dated to the year 33CE written in first person signed “Jesus Hallowed Christ” and they are free to assemble a single Gospel without contradiction from the four Gospels and we can work from that.
Now show me that document reflects events that really happened and is not a work of historical fiction built from milking “prophecies” and events from the Old Testament stories.
What Bible do you most respect?
51:00 ff. While the claim of "all but eleven verses" may not be accurate, it is possible to piece together large portions of the NT from Origen and others. In one experiment, I was able to find whole chapters of John cited in bits and pieces by Origen in just one of his works. At one point or another he says virtually every word of John chapter 1 and most of John chapter 2; he discusses Nicodemus going to meet with Jesus (John 3) and quotes some of what Jesus said to Nicodemus; he mentions the incident of the woman at the well, (John 4), while not actually quoting the passage _per se_ ...
So it is not wrong to say that early Christian writers, disciples of the disciples of the disciples, such as Papias, Polycarp, Iraeneus, Origen, Clement of Rome, and others, support the received tradition and textual accuracy of the New Testament. We do need to be careful not to overstate the case, but these early writers DO support the NT in part.
In the Roman Empire there was tons of Latin translations of the Bible. At that time obviously the ppl knew ancient greek much better thus knew better the meaning of the words, the cognitive load and contextual details as they lived in that world, in that context. So scaffolding the Ancient Greek version with the Latin versions sounds great to me. Meaning that if someone has decent greek, latin knowledge, that might be a fantastic combination to read and understand the New Testament (not that we cannot understand it clearly from translations, but I mean refined understanding for answering questions in a better way).
Why was it determined that the Mark fragment was NOT 1st century? Was it all paleography? And does anyone use radio carbon dating like Muslims have done to determine the dating of their earliest copies of the Quran?
What are the strengths and weaknesses of radio carbon dating?
Thanks…
logic and aproach in 52:00 and 56:00 contradicts each other.
I dont see it. Can you please offer an explanation.
Genuine question is if God meant for people to have His Word then why is this so complicated? Why would Hid Word be varied and His Creation not have His Original Word in the correct context? There can’t be any mistakes in the Bible. Many skeptics feel this is all the evidence one needs to interpret the entire Bible as patriarchal and written from and by men in some capacity. What is your suggestion to help with this skeptical view?
"I never defended the bible. I just preach it." - John McArthur
Wow did he really say that? I was told he was a good pastor but judging by that one statement I'd disagree with that.
@@paulbeahm3891 Then don't judge the man by one statement, taken out of context. That's akin to taking one Bible verse out of context. That's what atheists do.
@@JeanmarieRodI'm not judging anybody. I'm discerning with the Holy Spirit and the word of God. When a pastor says that He doesnt defend the word of God that's going directly against scripture.
"But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a DEFENSE to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you..."
That's pretty direct.
like I said, it was taken out of context... No nationally known pastor has stood up for truth during Covid-19 like Macarthur has.
@@paulbeahm3891 "judging by that one statement, he is not a good pastor", followed by ""I am not judging anybody"... I can only go by the comments you leave. I have no way of knowing what underlying meaning you may have meant in this forum.
Just looked at Peter Gurry's academic background, he's a bona-fide textual critic. 👌
Exactly!
@Dr. Sean McDowell does Biola offer any degrees in textual criticism?
No specific degrees, but our apologetics degree offers classes in it.
Well you can take classes from William Lane Craig.
What about Polycarp?
Matthew 15:14
Great to learn.
What Bible is most accurate?
Well, for the NT, you'd do really well reading the Septaugint, which (according to Josephus) was translated from Hebrew to Greek by 72 Rabbis, all appointed by the Sanhedrin. Jesus endorsed the scriptures that were existing in His day (the OT/"Tanakh," which would include the Septaugint translation).
The Septuagint (LXX) is a Greek translation of the _OT,_ not the NT. The Masoretic text (MT) of the OT is generally regarded as more reliable than the LXX. For one thing, it is a closer match with the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) than the LXX. That said, there are errors in the MT that the LXX and DSS together sometimes clarify.
If the OP wants a reliable Hebrew/Aramaic text of the OT, I'd suggest the _Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia._
If the OP wants a reliable Greek text of the NT, I'd suggest the UBS _Greek New Testament._
For an English translation, I'd suggest the NASB.
The title son of God is mentioned many times in the old testament, why is Jesus title any special or different?
Perhaps it's the difference between "a son of God," and "the son of God." Jesus was brought to trial on the charge of blasphemy for claiming to be the son of God, so clearly his accusers didn't think he was just using a phrase from the old Jewish scriptures or something.
If you knew Greek you would know why UR question is incoherent!
@@davidjanbaz7728 why did Jesus speak Greek? Or the apostles?
Bravo!
If you have to ask yourself if the New Testament is reliable then what does that tell you?
It tells me that I want to be intellectually honest and be able to defend my trust in the text.
Love Sean McDowell U-tube.
Just a heads up, your link in the description to Talbots, under Study With Me, isn’t valid. You just get a 404 File Not found error.
Is there a book u can advise to understand scriptural text,like names ,just the basics basicly
You can use a concordance such as Strong’s
That's true that the reliability of the Scriptures does not rely on unreliability of classical writings, just like GOD's DEITY doesn't depend on us being imperfect.
If there is any mistakes identity them then.
It makes perfect sense, that a 1st century copy would be unlikely ; especially silly when the Crucifixion was a third of the way through the 1st century, being in 30-33- AD
Gary HABERMAS, and other propose that the CREEDAL, Chtistological STATEMENTS, and singing HYMNS (sp?), within TWO years of JESUS Death & Resurrection!
Maybe even within MONTHS after!
I know for myself, I’ve spent years in research of history, archaeology, biblical prophesy, and I’m 1,000% CERTAIN JESUS IS LORD, Creator & Savior!!! 🌌🍃🕊️
And added to that is I FEEL The Holy Spirit within my Heart & Spirit, and the STRENGTH GOD has given me, and so much more = He THERE for us, if we WANT that kind of Rationship with Him…. HE gives whatever we ask (strength, wisdom, peace, hope, vision, purpose, challenges, and CONTINUOUS GROWING! 🙏
Nice info, but commercials every 3 mins gets frustrating.
So sorry. I didn't realize it was doing that. Changed it!
@@SeanMcDowell no worries - the information is so exciting and consuming! Thank you so much for what you do! I just started reading “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” 👍👍
Please explain "first century Mark is not first century."
What Peter Gurry was referring to is the earliest fragment of a manuscript of Mark's Gospel. He was not saying the Gospel was written in the 2nd or 3rd century.
What is the best English Bible translation today?
precisely my question.
Now it's time to do the same textual criticism we've done with the Bible for the Quran.
Lol check out the Birmingham Quran manuscript that was carbon dated to around the time the prophet Muhammad pbuh was still alive.
@@memyselfandi2498 And which of the 30+ versions of the Quran in use today does the Birmingham manuscript match up with?
@@NomenNescio99 lol have you actually examined those “30+ versions” you’re referring to? I would guess not. What makes the difference are minor variations. For example, if I was English I would write colour and you as an American would write color does that change the meaning of the word in any possible way? I think we’ll both agree that it don’t right? If you are genuine and want to understand more about those variations, I would encourage you to watch this video it’s very informative.
ua-cam.com/video/8hj7u0F3yEg/v-deo.html
@@memyselfandi2498 To quote sheikh Yassir Qadhi "There are holes in the narrative".
@@memyselfandi2498 carbon dating is a fraud, junk science. the koran was not compiled till long after mohammed died.