This video addresses the arguments usually given by non-believers. It's only about 15 minutes long.
I generally don’t like videos for this kind of thing. They make it very easy to brush over weak arguments and make logical leaps without giving the viewer time to stop and think about them. I gave it a short though;
Around 1:50, he threw out a thinly veiled Pascal’s Wager, though he didn’t go in to it, presumably because he’s smart enough to know it’s fundamentally flawed. A bad start.
Around 2:50, he made some assertions about who wrote the books of the Bible without addressing any of the questions of their authorship. He’s also glossing over how the Bible was compiled and all of the books which weren’t included (though to be fair, that would make a much longer video).
From around 4:30, he applies the assumption that because the books of the NT say they were written by eyewitnesses, that must be true. He goes on to apply the assumption that because they say the NT is inspired by God, that must be true too. This seems to be a core basis to everything else he says but are obviously flawed assumptions.
Beyond that flaw, the Honesty Test is somewhat contradicted if they weren’t writing in their own interests rather than promoting their faith. It doesn’t prove their honesty as much as their desire to promote their faith by definition. If they were really committed, couldn’t they be tempted to embellish the truth for the greater story? It’s also worth noting that they obviously couldn’t
know they would be executed when they were writing.
I’d also expect that if someone was writing about their own errors, they’d at least include some level of explanation or justification for why they acted in the way they did but as far as I’m aware, there is little of that in the Bible. I’m not convinced someone coldly reporting their own mistakes without commentary is any more believable than them not reporting their mistakes at all.
With The Telephone Test, he clearly cherry picks some extreme examples of other historical documents with long gaps, exaggerates how much credence the details in those documents alone are given and glosses over the claims of the NT to just being about the existence of Jesus the man, in contrast to the existence of the likes of (Julius) Cesar and Alexander the Great. He makes a huge thing about the raw number of manuscripts but doesn’t cover how many are duplicates and doesn’t mention how fragmentary many of those early manuscripts actually are. I’d also question the “50 year” gap he quotes for the earliest NT manuscripts which makes me wonder about the other numbers he quotes that I have no idea about (he, of course, givens no references for any of his factual assertions).
The Corroboration Test takes non-Biblical evidence of the existence of Jesus but goes on to claim that those non-Biblical sources include entire story, including all of the miracles and his actual divinity. That is an outright lie. Notice how quickly he rushes on from that point. He knows what he did.
Around 13:00 he repeats a strawman he opened with about all the people who call the Bible “crazy”, as if that is the sole or primary objection to the claims he is actually supporting.
There rest just seems to be empty preaching and a summary.
I also find it interesting that he opens by talking about the OT and the NT yet only delves in the legitimacy of the NT.
And that is why I don’t like videos for this kind of thing.