Even Bible critic Bart Ehrman doesn’t agree with himself
One of the most frequently heard objections to Christianity is the claim that the Bible is full of errors and contradictions because it was copied and re-copied countless times, making it inevitable that variations in text and meaning would creep into it.
The critics are both right and, profoundly more importantly, wrong, as Dr. Frank Turek — co-author with Dr. Norman Geisler of “I Don’t Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist” — explains in his answers to questions put to him by a student during a 2016 presentation at Southern Methodist University (SMU).
This video is especially important because Turek also provides “the rest of the story” about famous biblical critic Bart Ehrman, author of the best-seller, “Misquoting Jesus.” Turns out that Ehrman, brilliant though he is, doesn’t agree with himself!
Critics typically dismiss the Bible as a credible source of history, but the more one knows about textual analysis, philology and archeology, the more the accuracy of Scripture is demonstrated and reinforced.
Dr. Sean McDowell of Summit Ministries and Biola University professor of apologetics looks at four major modern archeological discoveries that confirm key illustrations of the credibility and accuracy.
Why is McDowell’s presentation worth a few minutes of your time? Because, if the New Testament is an accurate account, then all of us should consider closely the claims of Jesus Christ to be the Son of God, the “Way and the Truth and the Light,” and thus the only way to Heaven:
It is a commonplace belief among prominent contemporary atheist thinkers that the universe is strictly materialist, with nothing remotely non-material, or “spiritual,” as has been commonly understood for thousands of years.
But John Lennox, the British mathematician, philosopher of science, and Oxford professor emeritus, detects some interesting trends among the atheists he often debates in public forums.
“I think we’re getting to the state now where serious atheist thinkers are beginning to re-examine the kind of naturalism that reduces everything to physics and chemistry,” Lennox said during a recent discussion with Talk Radio’s Dave Rubin on The Big Conversation.
Check out this excerpt in which Lennox explains and includes examples:
“There seems to be no way to match up sets of logically interrelated mental states with sets of merely causally interrelated brain states, and thus no way to reduce the mental to the physical.” — Philosopher Edward Feser.
Take a moment and ask yourself this simple question: What if there really is no God, does it really make any difference in how you live your daily life or what you think or do in any given situation?
That may strike you as one of those irrelevant questions asked by philosophers and mad men, but what if it’s not? What if, rather than being the most meaningless question, the answer determines if you and the life you are living right now makes a difference or is merely absurd?
Here’s a challenge: Give yourself five minutes to watch and think about this video in which Philosophy Professor William Lane Craig of reasonablefaith.org considers the absurdity of life without God:
It may seem like a question with no relevance in the real world, but the issue of the source and nature of concepts and principles like justice influences pretty much all aspects of everybody’s daily lives.
It’s not often that Plato’s forms are discussed in campus discussion forums these days, but then Dr. Frank Turek of cross-examined.org has a way of inspiring spirited conversations on topics of eternal significance.
In the following video, Turek is asked by a student who appears to be deeply interested in philosophy about Plato’s forms and whether they explain the existence of moral laws apart from the existence of God.
It is not uncommon to hear the claim that human thoughts and choices are actually nothing more than the product of material processes of neurons acting and reacting within our physical brains.
Put another way, our minds are illusions. We only think we think of our own free will. As Stephen Hawking, the famous physicist and atheist advocate, put it in a 2011 interview with Britain’s The Guardian: