Emotional manipulation, they do the exact same thing during their alter calls at church and at key points of sermons. Evangelicals are chief manipulators

@@danielclingen34 They're scoring the soundtrack to the movie.

It’s part of the inoculation ritual. Dr. Bart’s ideas are contagious. Evangelicals that come within 5 miles of him need to be protected during their most vulnerable years (the years between birth and death). Repeated exposure to the Ehrman virus can lead to thinking for yourself and in severe cases, atheism.

What is the truth then?

cue the 'victim' card . .

@@williamtomkiel8215 Evangelicals are too liberal. They hate the King James Bible and stick to their modern perversions.

@@williamtomkiel8215 kzfaq.info/get/bejne/aq9xo9Cir7-ud3k.htmlsi=30CVrEYa4uTzHamz

Lmao

​@Bible-Christianor just dont stone children and women to death in the name of man made gods kthx

Nah, no reason to replace one fiction with another. Although mythologies are interesting in themselves, so long as we understand they aren't real. They can reveal much about the culture that created them. Even abandoned mythologies usually had a reason their culture finally rejects them.

My mother, fire and brimstone preacher lovin' razor strap swingin' maniac, born in the mid 1920's rural deep south and heavily indoctrinated to the Southern Baptist denomination, would have been a much better person had The Book of Revelation been known to be hooey to them folks. I know I would have been oodles and gobs better off.

Imagine being one of Harold Camping's victims and realizing you lost everything because 1600 years ago some guy named Athanasius talked everyone into including Revelation in the Bible at the last second.

Just think of how much less nonsense we’d have to deal with if people weren’t dumb enough to believe any religion.

The violent version of the Palm Pilot. Excuse me, Palm Pilate.

... plane crashes.

I saw that and it made me laugh, too.

Um, no. Peter Ruckman was a kook. He thought the KJV was advanced revelation and even more accurate than any Greek text. That’s just crazy.

​@Bible-ChristianDefine "winning a debate". Is it providing the best evidence and logic, or simply essentially putting on a better show, and being better able to convince an audience not sufficiently acquainted with either the actual evidence, or what makes a valid argument? Or is it being able to present ideas or arguments to an audience who already accepts those ideas and arguments (ie, preaching to the choir)? As one who actually prefers and advocates for data over dogma, I'm pretty sure your concept of "winning a debate" is vastly different than mine. 🤔

​@@Noneya5555 Don't interact with this guy, his whole schtick is making absurd, inflammatory claims and then running.

​@@therealsmalkYou are so right about this poster. They still haven't responded to a very simple and direct question I asked them in a previous video. It's amazing to me how religious apologists waste their time, energy, brain cells and peace of mind following Dan's channels. Their arguments always begin with begging the question/circular logic, and usually end with lobbing ad homineems/insults. BTW, "apologist scholar" is an oxymoron. 😄

​​@@Noneya5555Note that he responded to you by cut-and-pasting from ChatGPT. Even the most execrable apologists wouldn't engage in something this flat-out bizarre. I suspect "Bible-Christian" is a sincere believer (who really hates Islam) but is deliberately trying to provoke the atheists (and genuinely curious theists!) here. He claims not to care about Dr. McLellan and still obsessively stalks his comment sections.

It’s not wrong if it’s lying for God I guess

@@Ejaezy Actually, I was told that directly by more than one preacher, who quoted Paul about doing whatever it takes to get converts.

@@andrewfrennier3494 Nothing surprises me anymore…

@@Ejaezy It IS wrong. I speak out against those modernist evangelicals just as much as do I against Catholicism just as much as I do against progressive "Christianity".

Cliff is very condescending

No kidding! I'm getting ads from the Mormon Church, at the beginning of this very video, with beautiful young ladies telling me I should go to the Mormon Church and convert.

I remember Ehrman giving a simple example in English in the first chapter of _Misquoting Jesus_ about this too.

It's more chaotic than western buddhism's relationship with eastern buddhism - how zen and tibetan buddhism came to Europe and America and was received.

Those hellenised Xtians on top of that rejected Jewish Christianity and vice versa. Today's Christianity is hellenised, not Jewish.

glad to see other people using the wild west analogy. that's been my go to for years, because it really was like that - almost an 'anything goes' basis until one group kinda banded up and inevitably "won". Sadly, some people believe that christians were with Jesus... and/or Jesus was "christian". I think if every church started off with "Jesus, a Jew..." I'd be willing to bet most people wouldn't be attending, unfortunately. For some reason we've come as far as some denominations / congregations antisemitic while worshiping a jewish man. Christianity has so much identity tied and made up into, it's not easy and won't ever be easy for people to accept even just the first few hundred years of the common era.

There wasnt even a single unified church in the first century. Jewish Christians split with Paul and his followers. And after the apostles were not more alive, people started claiming apostolic authority and gospels were written and attributed to them and the theology changed. The religion of Jesus became a religion about Jesus.

@@JopJio exactly. And it’s clear from the writings of the“early church fathers” that the situation was worrisome.

Yeah, it’s pretty convenient.

It became oral tradition after the serpent was cursed, lost his little serpent arms and legs and could not longer take notes.

@@toritori5835 😂

​@@toritori5835😂

Expect that isn't how it actually works at all. When we say we have faith in God we are saying that we believe him, not that we have faith that he is real, we know for a fact he is real. That is the part you are missing. When you stop running from God and actually accept him then he makes it abundantly clear to you that he is real. Then the only question left is whether to trust God or to trust people, whom A LOT of know God is very real and just decided not to like him. The Bible is very clear on all of this actually.

@@willernst2721 You "KNOW" that god is real based on what? Your personal experience? Every fundamentalist in every religion has had exactly as reliable a personal experience. And if you have to have "faith" - "the conviction of things not seen" - then you are describing every cult in history. Sorry, but your entire certainty is based on "cause we feel it." That is not what I, or any rational person, would base their life on.

@@petercollins7730 you base every day of your life on what you see and feel don't you? So by your logic you are not a rational human being. I can tell you of God miraculously saving my life on more then one occasion but would that change your mind? I can tell you how to talk with God, would you try? I can tell you of every good thing God has done for me, would you listen? Out of curiosity, what would it take from God, if he were willing to do anything just so you would know he is real, what would you ask him to do? Just out of curiosity.

​@@willernst2721 I base my life every day on evidence - things that I can see and hear and measure. I determine whether or not these things I see and hear and measure are actually occurring, in part by reference to other people also seeing and hearing and measuring them. I also use these objective facts and events to make accurate, actionable predictions about the future. You claim that god saved your life. How do you know this? Did you see your god come and perform some act that changed a life-threatening situation into a life-saving situation? Is there any actual empirical evidence of this? Are there other people who also saw your god perform this life-saving act? Or are you simply claiming that your faith, or some prayer, saved your life? What evidence do you have that it was your god, and not some other god? I have never heard any christian actually provide empirical evidence that their god did anything. If you have such evidence, please provide it. In general, when a person talks with, and gets answers from, an invisible, non-corporeal thing, it is consider a sign of serious mental illness. Unless you can show empirically that you are actually talking to, and receiving answers from, your god, then I am not interested. I cannot, honestly, tell you what evidence would convince me of your god's existence. But since you claim your god is all knowing and all powerful, then by definition your god knows what evidence would convince me. And since your god is claimed to want a relationship with every person, your god, if it existed, would provide this evidence, that it knows, to me. Your god has never provided any evidence whatsoever to me; therefore, I have no reason to believe in your god.

@@petercollins7730 This is false: "In general, when a person talks with, and gets answers from, an invisible, non-corporeal thing, it is consider a sign of serious mental illness." You are repeating claims about modern psychiatry that are invalid and based on bigotry over truth. Realist, correct thyself and go look up what the DSM-5 has to say about prayer versus delusional behavior.

The Bible is an excellent book for promoting racism

why

@@clearskybluewaters why not

i would too, except that it'll have a significant mortality rate

They're standing in the middle of Mississippi State University (not a Christian school).

Paid extras. Jk😅

Trust me in the US those evangelists sound totally nuts talking about demonic attack, ghosts, angels like it's normal!!!

There are over 500 to 600 thousand changes. Even if lets say 90% are "small" changes, we have 50 to 60.000 big changes. And a small change, can mean Jesus is God or not in a verse. E.g. In John 1 18 it says "the only begotten god vs only begotten son". This is by your defitnion a small change, because only one letter is different. But it has a big impact. Ehrman also says that we have no/ only a few early manuscripts and that most books were not written by the disciples or eyewitnesses. And for the Ot its maybe even more worse.

Misquoting Ehrman

@@JopJio don’t put definitions in my mouth. “Small” in this context is something inconsequential like a spelling error or word transposition that doesn’t affect meaning. I said in my comment (if you even read the whole thing) that there are some major changes. The Textus Receptus shows there are some huge additions, including a blatant reference to the Trinity, that are not in the critical text. I commented because evangelicals try to make it seem like Ehrman is dishonestly representing changes to the manuscript. They never include the part where he himself says most are inconsequential, they make that claim themselves, thereby downplaying the significance of the big ones.

​@@Rhewin sorry, i thought you was one of those evangelicals. My bad👍

@@JopJiohmmm

... So maybe he should be getting paid?

@@azurejester1520I approve this message

@@azurejester1520he probably is

He said he isn't. So I really don't believe he is getting paid. This isn't just blind faith in his honesty. If he accepts payment after saying he doesn't he would be in violation of advertising laws. That isn't worth it. Either for the money, or the loss of credibility.

More books is better books.

Kinda shows that the Orthodox will believe ANYTHING.

they're wearing camo to hide from the guy, but it doesn't work because he has predator heat vision

he literally provided the sources. evangelicaltextualcriticism or something. google something like "early manuscripts evangelical textual criticism blog"

not trying to argue with Dan, but i did feel the more congregational picture he presents could have a bit of extra colour to it. Im sorry if i came across as rude at all.

I don't know the motivation, but the order in the Jewish ordering is, roughly, the Torah, the prophets, and the writings and the books ordered within the class they belong to. The Christians seem to be more interested in making it a more historical document and so reorder in what is meant to be the correct historical order and the books appear without regard to the three part distinction above.

kzfaq.infoG_NzbDEZyf4?si=GWC8Tz4vFUdZJyTE

Thanks Hank.

First, what you call the NT didn't exist until the Bible was canonized. What existed in 100 CE are various writings that ended up in the NT. Second, no one doubts that writings existed. Dan is making the point that we don't have any examples from that era, and thus no direct evidence of what those writings contained.

@@avishevin3353judging by all the variants we have to Deal with in the earliest Copy’s of the NT writings cause none of them match. Plus like he said the gap between the writing and composition makes it very impossible to say that what we have now is what the original said.

​@avishevin3353 When I say NT I am referring more specifically to the basic story of Jesus, his alleged life, death and resurrection. What is taught in evangelical seminaries is that the early patristic preaching, which is starting to appear as early as 96, has the same basic information as the gospels do. So the apologetic is that the information went from the apostles to the church fathers and this was before any canonization. So Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 (again this is taught in evangelical seminaries worldwide) is writing pre-gospels about information that was passed down to him within less than two decades of the alleged resurrection of Jesus. And so, the idea is that this information was being circulated, preached, transcribed within the lifetime of the contemporaries of the events themselves. This is what is taught, I am therefore curious to hear a rebuttal

@@josephfriedland4192 As I understand it, that's not the real issue. The issue is the too polite word "redaction". In other words, there is widespread agreement (except by the most fundamentalist crowd and even many of them) that the NT was _edited_. So, the issue becomes "how do we know what was added, subtracted, or altered?" even granting that there was (for instance) some original epistle by Paul. (Of course, scholars do not grant that _every_ epistle bearing his name came from Paul, but there is a subset that is widely agreed to even by "liberals" as coming from Paul).

And every single one of those phrases or ideas can be found often in multiple places in the bible. Aka nothingburger

@@OrdoMallius no where in Hebrew scripture sources does God say he would send a man God idol trinity born of a virgin and become a human sacrifice calvary to die for world sins .. No where else in earli st original koine Greek New testament is Trinity found.. These are all later insertions. Amazingburger 🍔

@@MitzvosGolem1but yet the Jewish nation and its people were obliterated and judged after than “man idol” said they would be. In the same generation actually. Explain that

@@TLW412 Actually not..We are still here if you did not notice And Israel 🇮🇱 . We are a nation of people even without land. Fact: There is no mention of Jesus or miracles apostles etc found anywhere in any historical record from any historian from that era. Everything written in your new testament came long after Temple was destroyed and Jesus supposably died being second third hand accounts. Also ,we do not believe HaShem G-d made a mistake and changed mind about eternal covenant made and promises to preserve Jews and instead sends a man God idol trinity human sacrifice calvary to die for world sins and replace Torah laws and Jews with a Greek new testament which curses Torah laws and Jews. Ps: Christianity was our longest persecutor in history in Europe and Russia and tried to exterminate us for centuries and failed . So G-d kept his promise obviously.

Which also makes all these scholarships moot. Nice we have no way of knowing them it doesn’t matter

If only it had led to a nicer religion.

Your comment is nicer than most. Lol

Cliffe’s statement. The Council of Nicaea (or Nicer, if you will) did not put the NT together as many will claim.

He isn't a Quranic scholar. Please go ask someone who is.

@@lysanamcmillan7972 It's always nice to see how the Western Scholarship approaches it.

His videos are in hdr which is a brighter more colorful format put your phone in power saving mode to turn it off

​@@Andre.W96 Thanks heaps. I have been turning brightness to the minimum to save my eyes, though the video still looks overexposed. Was hoping there'd be a way to disable the auto brightening (on KZfaq) but it seems there isn't.

To what? Presumably you're being facetious. But I would be inclined to pose that question to anyone seriously making the claim.

@@ratamacue0320 He was an eyewitness to his own career and thus to both the early spread of the church and to the earliest debates within it. But I think the preacher actually said he knew eyewitnesses, not that he was one.

@@jeffmacdonald9863 IMO the relevant event is witnessing a supposedly corporeal resurrected Jesus - not any of the things you mentioned.

I'm not sure anyone quite does it like Dan for the Bible, but UsefulCharts has some interesting breakdowns of other religious texts (and their histories in general). www.youtube.com/@UsefulCharts

@@reaurt Thank you!

Yeah, with the OT it's hard to even define what the "original version" would be. We know that most of those texts have layers of composition and editing.

It's actually an accepted historical standard. There is an understanding they are less good, but still better than those farther removed. So, it's "eyewitness" as the best standard then "someone who directly talked to an eyewitness and reported what they were told" and below that, "anything else, start to worry it is rumor or legend." A lot of our history is, in fact, people who reported on an eyewitness. So are today's newspaper accounts which are treated as "the first draft of history". Obviously, the original speaker is better, but we don't always have one. And, we don't have modern ideas on reporting for many centuries after any ancient documents so "knew an eyewitness" is no different that "reported by an eyewitness" as far as veracity goes. Jesus himself, rather famously, wrote nothing, for instance. So, even here, "eyewitness" can be one step removed, at least when it comes to what Jesus said.

Thank you for that viewpoint.

What is the big difference if you don't happen to mind sharing?

Toastmasters graduate.

Sounds like a comment regarding the creator's appearance. 😒

@@ratamacue0320 perhaps a comment about his constant movement/presentation strategy rather than his appearance?

@@ratamacue0320 No, I was commenting on how much he moves. I move just as much. Doesn't have anything to do with his arguments or disregarding them, I just thought it was funny.

No part of the Christian Bible was written in Latin.

Latin is not a Biblical language. Its oldest manuscripts were written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and koine Greek.