The Bible was written by God the master mind times a billion our little infant minds try to figure it out and it looks like a book of contradictions and now have so many churches that disagree because they contradict each other's understanding of the Bible but the Bible says not to lean on our understanding we need God to interpret his word.
@@nonprogrediestregredi1711 by your logic you must be a Holocaust denier because you must not be able to confirm anything in history. Why would a man lie about being a tax collector? Not exactly a strong flex.
@@nonprogrediestregredi1711 There is no good reason NOT to believe that Matthew (and Mark and Luke and John) weren’t written by those authors. In fact, have you ever thought about this: If you were to write a fake gospel you want people to believe, would you ascribe authorship to a tax collector (who the Jews hated with a passion and wouldn’t trust at all), a physician who wasn’t even present during any of these events (i.e., Luke), and interpreter who also wasn’t present for any of these events (i.e., Mark)? You might pick John, but no one would falsely claim one of those other authors. They would be FAR more likely to claim one of the people who figure prominently in the stories wrote them. Which, by the way, is exactly what the gnostic authors did when they wrote the clearly fraudulent Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Judas, and other false Gospels.
That being said, I do think Matthew as a Tax Collector and likely fascinated with nice even numbers would have felt free to group things like the genealogies into nice even groupings by skipping some generations just to make an overall pleasing picture. Matthew often took liberties with certain details that are filled in by the other Gospels based on what Matthew was trying to emphasize in his Gospel. To modern readers, we see this as “dishonest” or making a mistake, but this was actually quite common with first century Greco-Roman biographies. They were all about arranging events in the subject of the biography’s life into themes, and were not at all interested in providing a day-by-day accurate sequence of events. This is also why the order of events in the synoptic Gospels differ: Matthew grouped events in to themes and not chronology, while Luke was more interested in presenting “and orderly account.” Neither approach was inaccurate or dishonest. They were merely different commonly understood means for sharing why the central focus of a biography was important.
@@nonprogrediestregredi1711 //So, what common denominator, so to speak, would those three people be more likely to have than approximately 95% of the Roman population in antiquity? If you guessed literacy, you would be correct.// Okay, so I am confused. Are you arguing FOR these Gospels being written by these three authors, because they were literate? I thought you were arguing AGAINST them by saying there is “no good reason” to think these were the authors. You just provided at least one “good reason.” However, I will also point out that while the literacy rate in the Roman Empire may have been low, that was not the case in Judea. All Jewish males (at least) were taught to read and to memorize the Jewish Scriptures, and the ones most adept at this were then selected to be trained further as scribes, Rabbis or Pharisees. The literacy rate in Judea was much, much higher than the rest of the Empire as a result. //And btw, the gospel of “Matthew” was very likely written after the Jewish War…// *Why?* Whenever people make claims like this, they absolutely must provide reasons or evidence backing up those claims. I see absolutely zero *external* evidence that establishes any date after the Jewish war, and the *internal* evidence that Matthew was written before the destruction of the Temple, the martyrdom of Peter, or any of these highly significant events had yet occurred. //…it defies credulity to believe that an eyewitness to many of the events described within is giving his version of the story, yet uses 90% of the gospel of “Mark” to do just that.// This is both factually false, in the sense of Matthew does not align perfectly with Mark and does not incorporate 90% of Mark just as Mark wrote it (which you yourself make clear later), as well as an unsound argument. First of all, Matthew was not an eyewitness to everything that he recounts in his biography of Jesus (a.k.a., his Gospel or “Good News” book about Jesus). And so it in no way defies credibility that he might have incorporated what had already been widely circulated orally by other eyewitnesses to those events he did not witness, such as the details of Jesus’ birth and childhood, or what happened on the Mount of Transfiguration, or other events he did not personally witness. And so we are left with Matthew relating his own version of certain common events differently, and including other people’s recollections of other events, which really doesn’t stretch credulity at all. //The author of “Matthew” repeatedly uses “Mark” verbatim, quoting the predecessor with as many as thirty words verbatim.// Which is it? Did Matthew use 90% of Mark verbatim? Or only up to 30 words in certain common passages verbatim? You are beginning to contradict yourself. //…yet “Matthew” repeatedly keeps the exact same sentence structure verbatim as “Mark,” typically only changing to “correct” him.// Again, which is it? Did Matthew NEVER change Mark’s word order or did he change Mark’s word order when it was grammatically incorrect? And if Matthew only changed Mark’s word order to “correct” him, does that not imply that Matthew had no need to use a different word order because Mark didn’t get it wrong? This whole criticism keeps getting less and less coherent and more and more contradictory. //Scholars have been aware of this for centuries.// I know. I was also well aware of this. You haven’t even mentioned the other theory commonly accepted by Scholars, known as “Q theory,” that presupposes that all three synoptic Gospel writers made use of some even earlier collection of quotations and stories about Jesus that were widely in circulation already, known as “Q.” It is from this proposed Q that scholars even infer the order of which Gospels were written in which order (Mark, then Matthew, then Luke). But this whole argument BACKFIRES against skeptics. Because, we know when Acts ends, and know that Acts was therefore written during Paul’s first imprisonment, and before his second trial and martyrdom, which was before the Jewish Revolt and the destruction of the Temple. And since Luke’s Gospel was written before Acts, that means Luke was written before then. And since Q-theory would have Matthew and Mark written before Luke, that would place both Gospels well before the Jewish Revolt. And since Q was already widely in circulation before then, that would place THAT source even closer to the events in question. You are only tightening the timeline and putting all of these closer to the actual historical events being described by all of these documents. And leaving less time for legendary development to occur. //There is so much more to this. I would recommend that you read some of the serious modern scholarship done on this topic.// Assuming of course I haven’t, when I actually have. But I have also made it a point to read both skeptical and supportive scholarly accounts, and not just stop with one side. Have you bothered to read any of the scholarly articles countering most of these points?
HK would do well to pay heed to one of his heroes: “Essential Christian beliefs are _not_ affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.” Bart Ehrman, _Misquoting Jesus_ (appendix to paperback edition, p.252)
Absolutely. It just becomes a problem when people claim the Bible has *zero* textual errors. Minor contradictions like the exact date of Jesus' death aren't essential to the core beliefs of the Christian faith, but they still show how the Bible can't be 100% without error.
@@gothamwarrior Exactly. These kind of criticisms only expose the kind of brittle fundamentalism Ehrman (and so many others) came out of when they apostatized. They were fed a steady diet of “The Bible is the Word of God and is 100% without error! If there’s even ONE jot or tittle of the Bible that can be proven wrong, _then it’s not the Word of God and Christianity is false!”_ All this from their Sunday School teachers, pastors, Bible college professors, etc. So then they find errors in the Bible in copying, or what look like contradictions, and they throw the Bible out the window and proclaim “It’s not the Word of God and Christianity is false!” And some of them go on to make pretty good money writing books about it, apparently.
@@K-newborn You say it like somebody can't just look up Malachi and read it for themselves... Before you blaspheme the Lord you should take a second to consider your actions.
Given the amount of "unknown" background context, proving or disproving a contradiction is near impossible. If we have good independent evidence that Christianity is true, then I see every reason to be "charitable" to the NT writers and assume that a reasonable harmonization exists even if I cannot see it.
100%. When we can corroborate so much in the Gospels, then harmonization is a reasonable thing to do. There are a few stubborn ones out there, but even if we admitted they were a contradiction they don't amount to much. There's nothing in here that screams that they were making things up or deliberately changing the facts.
So true. One of the hallmarks of reliable eyewitness testimony is that it is going to agree on the basics, and yes, it _will_ disagree on the details, which may need harmonizing. Or maybe not, it depends. If everything exactly matched down to the last detail, we should rightly suspect collusion, or at least only one source, which makes such testimony actually _less_ reliable, not more. Skeptics (like HK) who talk about contradictions seem to be addressing a brittle fundamentalism that seems to say “The Bible is inerrant, infallible, and without contradiction, and if even _one contradiction_ is found, THEN IT’S ALL GARBAGE!!!” The skeptics simply refuse to admit that millions of Bible-believing Christians vary widely when it comes to inerrancy. They just put out videos like this, gleefully claim to have debunked Christianity, and their followers lap it up. Too bad.
@@Mark-cd2wf Well said. Yup these atheists are constantly straw manning. If it doesn’t meet their rigid silly caricature it’s all nonsense and they declare themselves brilliant and brave. If it was all perfectly ‘dictated’ like Muslims erroneously believe about the Quran they’d mock it for being untrustworthy because it’s ‘too perfect’ and reject the veracity because it was a ‘controlled text’.
I’m just a layman, but I remember reading somewhere that when it comes to textual criticism of ancient documents, the #1 rule is this: the benefit of the doubt always goes to the _document,_ not the skeptic.
By the way, the hypocrisy becomes pretty clear in these discussions. I literally had a person on this thread in a SINGLE comment on the one hand pointing out discrepancies between Matthew and Mark while at the same exact time criticizing Matthew for “copying” 80% of Mark. Which is it, folks? If the four Gospel writers wrote completely identical accounts without any discrepancies, you will shout “AHAH! PROOF THEY COLLUDED AND MADE UP THE STORIES!” But when they happen to disagree on some minor points, you will shout “AHAH! PROOF THAT THE WRITERS CONTRADICT EACH OTHER SO THEY MUST HAVE MADE UP THE STORIES!” Do you see how ridiculous this sounds? You are really looking for any excuse to discredit them because you already have decided that you don’t want to believe they were what they claimed to be: A collection of first and second-hand accounts of real, historical events that actually happened over 2,000 years ago. Being what they claim to be actually explains why they agree on all major points, and even share a lot of the same source materials (the 2nd hand content they heard from other first hand eye witnesses), while also not being carbon copies of each other, and even providing accidental clarification when one writer neglects to share some detail that another includes. This is exactly what one would expect to find in four independent 1st century Greco-Roman biographies of the same person: Jesus of Nazareth.
@@billyb7465 Define copying. Most scholars think that there was a collection of sayings of Jesus already in circulation before Matthew, Mark, and Luke wrote their gospels. This unknown source is dubbed “Q.” It is plausible that all three synoptic writers included many of not all of the sayings recorded in Q, both because it was they themselves had already been sharing verbally and because the Churches had already heard those sayings before. But if you are picturing Matthew sitting down with Mark’s gospel and literally copying directly from it, that’s neither likely nor what most scholars believe happened. And it is also interesting (but not conclusive) to note that while Mark is the first of the gospels in Greek we have today, the early Church Fathers recorded that Matthew wrote the first gospel, although in Aramaic. It is possible that Q is that lost Aramaic Gospel of Matthew. So Matthew wouldn’t even be copying from anyone else. Regardless, we know there was at least one earlier Gospel we no longer have copies of, and it is also perfectly plausible that a collection of Jesus’ sayings and teaching was already circulating between the Churches just as the letters of Paul and Peter and John were. What is not plausible is the idea that Matthew literally just copied from Mark without any firsthand knowledge of the events in question. And Luke explicitly says that he interviewed the surviving eye witnesses when collecting his account, so that is not a problem. Again, which is it? If the idea is the gospels are unreliable because some portions match each other that doesn’t lessen credibility. What might would be if they matched exactly across all four gospels in all details. That is more indicative of collusion.
Some sections are word for word the same, showing they were obviously copied from the same source text, indicating the stories that "corroborate each other" are actually from only one source (such as most of the miracles and the sayings of Jesus). Other portions (such as the genealogies of Jesus and the entire resurrection story) are contradictory in key details, making their supposed corroboration unreliable. You're calling PB&J a ham sandwich, and then demanding we make up our minds on whether the sandwich is full of peanut butter or kull of jelly. Part of it is peanut butter. Part of it is jelly. None of it is ham.
@@plantsinrocks (1) Some sections are word for word the same, and (2) there are contradictions. Thank you for making my EXACT POINT FOR ME. You just literally did what I said atheists do, and argued out of both sides of your mouth. Which is it? Did the authors conspire together so that all the details are the same and even were word-for-word copies of some other document? Or did the authors NOT conspire together leading to “contradictions” between the accounts? Which is it? Make up your mind. Because you can’t have it both ways. Also, there is a third option: The authors did NOT conspire to make up ANYTHING, but three of the authors incorporated portions of either an oral tradition or (now lost) earlier collection of sayings that people were already familiar with. Note: That does not make even those sections necessarily from “one” source. The collection of sayings likely were consolidated from accounts of the 500+ eyewitnesses and their personal recollections. Just like the Hadith in Islam is a single “source,” but traced back every saying to a set of known companions of Muhammed. That doesn’t make any quotes from the Hadith backed only by a “single source,” and so the use of “Q” by Mark, Matthew and Luke doesn’t prove they borrowed from a single “source.” And the fourth did not include any direct quotes from Q, but John wrote from personal recollection and stories shared by his adopted mother, Mary, Jesus’ mother, covering Jesus’ early years and life that appears in John and not the others. So, we have four authors all writing a BIOGRAPHY of Jesus (not a personal memoir or a formal history), and did so independently, leveraging some existing material where it existed and filling in the rest from their personal recollection or the recollection of other eyewitnesses (Peter in the case of Mark, and living eyewitnesses interviewed by Luke in his case). The very differences are evidence that they neither collaborated nor borrowed their entire material from some single source. And regarding “contradictions,” there are none. Not in the logical sense of a claim that A and Not A were true at the same time. It is NOT a contradiction form me to say to a family member that “Esther and I were at a party and…” and to another mutual friend “Esther, John, Mary and I were at Luke’s party…” Including some named people and not others doesn’t mean the others weren’t there, just not mentioned. I will even say it is not a contradiction for one writer to remove a middle man in a conversation between the Centurion and Jesus, while another writer includes the servants who were carrying the messages back and forth. Those aren’t contradictions, merely elicitations of details one author felt were unimportant for simplicity. So, if you are going to cite contradictions, you’ll have to be more specific regarding what actual contradictions are there.
@@plantsinrocks Did you read my response above in full? Because I already showed that just because three of the four have some shared sections that may have come from an earlier source does NOT by itself prove they all came from a single source with no independence. First, because the earlier source most likely was itself a collection of remembrances by multiple eyewitnesses that were captured and circulated widely before the first Gospels were finally written. Just like the Hadith is not a single source despite being a single collection of quotes and remembrances by dozens of different witnesses. Second, you focus on the 30% and ignore the 70% of material that is not verbatim across the three synoptics and so is unique material. Third, you are not even bothering to try to answer the question about whether these authors conspired to create a new religion based on a set of carefully crafted lies, or if they were telling the truth as best they could. Honestly, I don’t expect you are open minded at all at this point, but your points are REALLY, REALLY BAD. They are only convincing to people who are looking for reasons to not have to consider the Bible as real history. But to any person trying to approach this question as objectively as possible, the argument you made is not even internally consistent, let alone convincing. Sorry.
There is a difference between contradiction and discrepancy. A contradiction claim both A and not-A. A discrepancy claims A and B (i.e. the two accounts simply differ). Either could be true or both could be true. B does not necessarily imply not-A (and A does not necessarily imply not-B). A little basic logic would solve most of the claimed "Bible contradictions".
The bible is a man-made book with man-made wisdom (Kain and Abel) and man-made errors : + light wasn't there before the sun + the Earth wasn't there before the sun + Adam and Eve didn't exist + insects have six legs not four legs + homosexuality is not a seduction by a satan, but a natural born healthy sexual orientation with an evolutionary meaning + the "firmament" is not a solid "roof" over the world + the sun can’t be stopped for having longer light in a battle, it already stands still + etc etc If the bible would be the word of god or inspired by god it would be without errors, but it isn't.
@@seekerhonest Are you kidding me insects have different number of legs depending on the insects The Bible explains why there Earth came before the Sun simply put read Revelation and the other verses in old testament In revelation it says that there will be no need of moon or Sun because God's light will light up the World meaning God himself can do it without the sun existing These aren't contradictions Homosexuality is not natural animals don't decide to oh I will have sex with my fellow mail lions homosexuality happens because humans create there own instincts because of background male to female is clearly what our bodies were built for homosexuality doesn't provide or do anything to a relationship or the body it produces nothing if we were all homosexuals the we would stop existing God is right as homosexuality to s not a natural concept it's an idea you choose to except depending on influence I don't understand Cain and Abel aren't contradictions The sun being stopped to have longer light could be chopped up to being a metaphor because there is no evidence in the Bible that it did example the flood is referenced so many times in Bible to show God's power if the sun did stop it would be referenced
Bottom line: Different accounts from different people who remember different details is going to result in some differences within the accounts, but that doesn't mean the story overall is inaccurate. Especially when the Gospel writers pretty much agree on everything else.
@@user-gv8xf9ul5j Depends on what one means by “inspired.” There is a wide variety of disagreement among born-again, Bible-believing Christians when it comes to the subject of inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility of the Scriptures.
@@user-gv8xf9ul5j If any sort of contradiction, historical/scientific inaccuracy, or minor discrepancy is a point of contention for belief, your problem isn't God - it's man-made fundamentalistic literalism. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (a very manmade and, to me, a downright silly statement) is perhaps the primary source for this problem for many. In one part, it says that the authority of Scripture is “inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded.” The "this" it's referring to is God's 6-day creation, any recorded biblical events in world history, etc. - the writers of this statement literally set believers up to fall. They backed themselves into a dangerous corner; they stood on a hill and said they will die on it because Scripture _has_ to be the way they want it to be, else it's all for naught. And as soon as any adherents to the Chicago Statement discover _any_ contradiction, inaccuracy, or minor discrepancy pertaining to ANYTHING, their entire faith comes crumbling down. This type of literalism is why Bart Ehrman lost his faith. Rather tragic if you ask me, and all over an approach that is simply unbiblical to begin with. In both John 5:39 and Luke 24, Jesus says that the Scriptures (Moses and the Prophets) are written to bear witness to Himself. The New Testament authors had this understand as well - they reasoned from the Scriptures the things concerning Christ, His life, His death, and His resurrection. And that's what one really needs to read, trust, and understand the Bible's message - that Jesus is the central message of the story. No such words like "inerrant" are used in the New Testament. God-breathed, sure, but why equate God-breathed with "free from error"? God worked with and through fallible humans to communicate a story of redemption for mankind that culminates in Christ. When I encounter errors, I enjoy them because it shows God's invitation for humans to step into and be a part of the story. So that's my concluding question to you - why believe human limitations being included precludes Scripture's divine inspiration?
@@user-gv8xf9ul5j How do you know my definition is correct? Like I said, there’s a great difference of opinion among Bible-believing Christians over terms like inerrancy, inspiration, infallibility, and etc.
@@user-gv8xf9ul5j Yes, the various writers of the Bible books were inspired by God, but they are still human, and humans are inherently imperfect. Does that mean the Bible could have a few good faith mistakes like a wrong number or date? Sure. But that doesn't invalidate the overall message in any way. Just like 2 Timothy 2:21 says: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." The Bible doesn't view itself as the literal, infallible speech of God like the Quran does, but rather, as a manual for instruction that is a useful tool in teaching how to live a good life in obedience to God.
Anybody here keep a journal? A fun exercise is to go look at your old journal writings for key events in your life. Now, take note of many of the "contradictions" you find in your journals. Can you harmonize them? Yes. Because you know the contexts and how you didn't cover every single detail in every single mention of the event. Very few of these contradictions skeptics bring up are hardly worse than some of those I have found in my own journal. I think it is more special pleading to say you can't harmonize than it is to try to harmonize.
exactly you must know the spirit in which it was said It's just like here on youtube I could say something and three people could take it three different ways unless they knew from where I was coming from with my words.
Amen I'll probably make hundreds of minor discrepancies about what I did and saw last week let alone ten years ago and if we're assuming the synoptic Gospels were written ten years after Jesus returned to The right hand of The Father, then its likely the apostles weren't recalling every minor detail each time. All of these "contradictions"dont effect the truth of the bible tbh
I think atheists try to gloss over this very clear and salient point you’re making by saying “Okay sure, makes sense, but this book is supposed to be inspired from a perfect God, and can therefore not contain a single error.” They’re taking this idea and vastly over-stretching it to incorporate an unrealistic standard of perfectly synchronized eyewitness accounts. Ask a detective how confident he or she will be in the exactly duplicated testimony of 3-4 people. They will be suspicious as hell lol
@All About Britain Sure, thanks for asking. I believe he did. I find no reason why the current consensus on the dating of the earth has to contradict the creation account. I believe that either 1) The events of Genesis ch 1 really did occur 6,000 years ago, and God gave the universe/earth inherent age. Everybody ignores the possibility of that last part, somehow limiting an all-powerful God from birthing an already aged creation. Or, 2) The dating methods we use are wrong. The geologic column doesn’t even exist, after all :) And yes to the Adam and Eve point as well. I’m not an expert, and I’m not going to pretend that I’m 100% sure on these points. But for every “you’re a science-denying fundamentalist idiot” I receive, I dole out a “God can create however He wants, including giving something age.” Thanks for asking, would love to hear your takes
@All About Britain hey, fun fact, time distortion is a thing. And time has slowed down as the universe expended. If you do the math of the age accounting time dilation, you get 6000 years!
isn't the message supposed to be forever true and universal? If it doesn't work for a time and a place, is the problem really the place and the time, or the book?
@@natebozeman4510 so I've been told, and then all the atrocities in the Old Testament are then cool, because "context". There's no context that could excuse slavery, ever.
@@bzhyoyo If you conflate the slavery of the Old Testament with chattel slavery taught to us in school (the kind that happened in America), I could see how you would come to that conclusion. The only issue is that the slavery in the OT is NOT chattel slavery, or anything resembling it. Conflating two different ideas into one and saying "Well if THAT'S what Christianity affirms, then I'm out" is weak sauce, man. This is exactly the point of my original comment. We read Scripture with a modern, Western lens, and wonder why anyone could believe those stories. You have to remove yourself from the modern context (which takes a lot of time, effort, and study) in order to read the Bible properly. But this objection your posting has been answered many times.
@@natebozeman4510 As have been this argument that it's different from chattel slavery, I suppose. I've read about the differences (the wikipedia page about "Bible and slavery" is quite complete) and I don't see it as an excuse. Anyway, it all boils down to "cool story, Bro" if you take the unsavory bits away, like so many Christians do.
He doesn’t understand what a contradiction is so he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Two different details from two different sources about the same event isn’t a contradiction. If those two details were opposing like how Jesus died or something then we’d have a problem. But there is nothing like that.
I think the genealogy contradiction is problematic because 1) claiming it’s Joseph’s lineage means that’s NOT Jesus’ lineage so the prophesy is void. If you change it to be Mary’s lineage, it still has an error because the 2 didn’t lines have different fathers. It’s obvious the 2 authors were trying to force the lineage to prove the prophesy, but one didn’t have all the details. And he was a Christian scholar who has more education on theology than you do. He became an atheist after researching & realizing how faulty the core beliefs are with this religion
For anyone who's not read it yet, I recommend J Warner Wallace's Cold Case Christianity. The author's an LAPD cold case homicide detective who specializes in harmonizing witness statements in murder cases, figuring out when apparent discrepancies point to truth and when they are lies. He analyzed the Gospels using this skill set when he was an atheist and came out convinced that the New Testament is reliable and true.
@@StageWatcher Sarcasm, Wallace is not a scholar and his understanding of the ancient near east, biblical texts, etc. is very limited and often wrong. Even Lacona struggled to walk back all the claims Wallace made about NT authorship, dating, etc. Wallace has a single hammer and everything he sees is a nail.
@@StageWatcher Well, if you are truly curious, @Paulogia has a whole series on these issues. Wallace thinks that his detective logic can prove that Mark was written in the 50's, when even virtually all evangelical scholars disagree. Wallace totally misunderstands the probable dating of the creed Paul quotes in 1Cor 15. Wallace fails to comprehend the enormous dependence of Matthew and Luke on Mark's gospel. Yet he goes on and on about how he knows when suspects are colluding.
I wrote a full report on Judas’ death, with scientific, historical, and biblical evidence of how Judas died , how long it took for his body to decompose, as well as how he did it and what historical trees he could of used to hang himself. Most important take away from all of it , read Acts 1:18 word for word and see that he did not buy the field with silver , the Pharisees did , Judas however purchased the field with wages of unrighteousness. Peter was speaking spiritually about his impure blood purchasing the field with the wages of his sin. That’s why it was called the field of blood by everyone in Jerusalem at the time to the point where they wanted nothing to do with the cursed ground even if it was open for sale.
Jimmy Akin in his debate with Bart Ehrman last year said that he thinks Joseph may have had two residences. When I first heard the claim it initially sounded ad-hoc and perhaps even absurd, but when explained in full, rather than a short segment in a cross examination, it actually makes quite a bit of sense. Akin wrote an article on this titled "Where Was Joseph’s Residence?" which is worth checking out.
I really like Jimmy Akin and I do agree that Joseph probably did have two residences. I need to watch that debate, I think I only watched the debrief on it. See the playlist in the description from Lydia McGrew, she has a video on the possibility and why it makes a lot of sense. All of these contradictions could take up an entire video so I was trying to shotgun solutions I found plausible.
@@djpodesta Having two places where he could live where both of them are backwater towns actually seems... Not that big of a claim. "I have two trailers, one in a small town where I work and one in my childhood home of a small Appalachian mountain village" is like... Incredibly achievable. If that's your idea of wealth, you don't need to be a 1%er to be wealthy. I don't think anyone would claim that Joseph had two really nice houses. He can't even stay with family and willingly takes his pregnant wife to a cave to shelter out the night according to Luke. And you're like "how could this cave dwelling man possibly have two caves, ridiculous!"
@@soulcutterx13 I just don't see why its a problem in general. The reason there was "no room" in the inn was clearly some kind of seasonal or event based form of overpopulation... like hotels during the Olympics. Once the surge dips, he could easily have procured a lasting place to stay. They weren't POOR, they were more like what we'd call middle class. And it makes sense that he'd be staying somewhere near Jerusalem (Bethlehem isn't far away, and it's in the ancient claim area of his family, so it's preferable to a random place) because now that they hsve the baby, unnecessary long travel isn't a solid idea if they're just going to come right back and visit the temple. While there maybe Joseph made some good business connections so they stayed longer than anticipated, and only left when soldiers started killing babies, so they fled to Egypt, and then went back to his main residence in Nazereth. I'm not saying that's what happened, but I'm simply saying it's perfectly plausible, which shows the ridiculous version is just ad hoc and lacks imagination. It's a "put on" absurdity.
@@TestifyApologetics ""Where Was Joseph’s Residence?" which is worth checking out." To quote my mother, "What Does That Have To Do With The Price Of Tea In China?"
Wonder what HK is going to say to Jesus on Judgment Day….. Then I [John] turned to see the voice that was speaking with me. And having turned, I saw seven golden lampstands, and among the lampstands was One like the Son of Man, dressed in a long robe, with a golden sash around His chest. The hair of His head was white like wool, as white as snow, and His eyes were like a blazing fire. His feet were like polished bronze refined in a furnace, and His voice was like the roar of many waters. He held in His right hand seven stars, and a sharp double-edged sword came from His mouth. His face was like the sun shining at its brightest. When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. But He placed His right hand on me and said, “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last, the Living One. I was dead, and behold, now I am alive forever and ever! And I hold the keys of Death and of Hades.” (Rev. 1:12-18).
@@Mark-cd2wf Amen. His depiction of Jesus reminded me of how unbelievers accused our Lord and Saviour. “The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.” - Matthew 11:19 KJV.
The bible is a man-made book with man-made wisdom (Kain and Abel) and man-made errors : + light wasn't there before the sun + the Earth wasn't there before the sun + Adam and Eve didn't exist + insects have six legs not four legs + homosexuality is not a seduction by a satan, but a natural born healthy sexual orientation with an evolutionary meaning + the "firmament" is not a solid "roof" over the world + the sun can’t be stopped for having longer light in a battle, it already stands still + etc etc If the bible would be the word of god or inspired by god it would be without errors, but it isn't.
@@Mark-cd2wf I wonder what you will say when you stand in front of Odin instead of Jesus and Odin will think long if he lets you into Walhalla, or send you to Hels realm. Christians were pretty brutal to pagans ;)
@@clayton4349 I wonder what you will say when you stand in front of Odin instead of Jesus and Odin will think long if he lets you into Walhalla, or send you to Hels realm. Christians were pretty brutal to pagans ;)
“Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.” John 17:17 “And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.” 1 Thessalonians 2:13
Apparent discrepancies or minor errors are at least good evidence against deceitful collusion between the authors. Some of these would have been incredibly easy to harmonise artificially.
@@xravenx24fe how does one test such a thing? Were talking about stories that have been copied and re-written many times..... Stories from mostly anonymous authors written decades after the alleged events. What's there to test?
@@Jewonastick😂 how desperate Y this special standard for only the Bible Honestly, look at how some secular historians and internet athiest pundits treat the new testament vs another historical text It's embarrassingly desperate
@@ultracrepiderian Maybe, just maybe it has something to do with sort of claims that no other historical text makes. Is my eternity at stake if I reject the story of Napoleon? Does any non religious historical text mention anything about a talking donkey, ressurecting from the death, walking on water, virgin birth and so on?
Also, many atheists forget that Jewish days were evening then morning, while some instances tell what Roman times would be, and many treat every instance as morning then evening, being half a day off. The breathing on the Disciples was not the general giving if the SPIRIT, but the beginning of the Priesthood of the Apostles. Completely different things and easily understood by Catholics.
O excellent Erik Manning, I hope you never forget the impact you have; by the decrees of our common Lord, you have been an instrument to convert many, and have strengthen the faith of the brethren. You are an example of what we as Christians ought to be. Persevere onward O Erik, and may the God of Heaven bless you forever and evermore. Godspeed to thee.
Misconceptions? People are reading the words of your book and they call out the problems loud and clear, You're the one who involves yourself in mental gymnastics in order to explain a thing, you have no idea about. Let me ask you, how many of the accounts came from the original time of the people they are testifying? Who testified for Moses? Do you have anything remotely close to his time? You're like a pigeon that tries to play chess and says he's won by shitting all over the chess board. He didn't present a refutation, he only presented a perspective, that is not even present in the book he believes in. The genealogy theory, its all theory, that his book do not contain, what now? "demonlishing" according to who? Both Jewish and Muslim and Secular scholars do not accept your excuses, so who's the authority that accepts the explanations? Lmao, that's like commiting a crime and saying that you're not in the wrong, while the majority disagrees with you. Yeah I can see the democracy the Christians once used to hold, their world view of pure bias and prejudice, absolutely disgusting! Why are there fabrications in your book? What about them? 1 John 5:7 king james version compare it to 1 john 5:7 to revised standard version. You see 2 different verses, king james one is a fabrication and a later addition, admitted by your own christian scholars, so why do you still keep it in your books? Why?
@@ramigilneas9274 i understand what you saying it is very to bring up arguments against any texts but what is not easy to do is to actually make facts of those arguments the Bible doesnt have contradictions cause for any contradiction people come up with there is someone who has factually answered it. Cant say the same for many of the other religious texts
@@ramigilneas9274 that is why i stated to prove things with facts is difficult the Quran and the book of Mormon can't conclusively explain some of their texts but when it comes to the Bible then all 'contradicting' texts have been answered by someone. Ps. The Quran and book of Mormon are full of misleading texts and falsified information.
All offenses that aren't calling someone's hardest sauce weak or chidin' them like Neltzen from the Simpsons aside...this skeptic sounds like me when I was an atheist and thought I was dismantling people's responses and experiences with God/Jesus but the only person I was destroying was myself and in a very Nietzschen/Fight Club way.... the same people I picked on and Grinch'd at their faith motivated by their experience and Bible learning with apologetics, logic, and sciences tend to weave together in confidence as the ones I stand behind now
I just started this video, and I'm only on the first supposed contradiction. It's clear that Holy Koolaid has never studied the theological points that Matthew is trying to get across through the way he constructed his genealogy. It's a shame honestly.
25:17 This one is fairly important. Michael Caerularius of Constantinople used John to "prove" Our Lord wasn't using Matsot at the Last Supper. He fails to note that St. John says "it was the day of preparation of the Jews" - and everywhere elsewhere, his narrator voice, but not the direct quotes of Jesus (except before Pilate) uses "Jews" as shorthand for different categories for enemies of Jesus.
It's always hilarious to me when 20 something year olds with no education or background in historical scholarship are try-harding to "debunk" Scripture by applying their XXI century high school novel-reading experience and skills to a two thousand year old documents from a completely different times and culture. And of course, they could not be bothered to do throughout research on the subject and reference all the counter arguments provided by actual historians and scholars over the last two thousand years. Their go to approach is that all billions of Christians who lived before them, including those who had twice their IQ and 10 times their experience on the matter, are just coping idiots who can be leveled in 10 minutes. I mean the ego on that guy. Uffff, talk about cringe.
It's all they have. They are more excuses than anything else. I imagine he rejects God because that would mean there are objective moral standards he has to adhere to. That gets in the way of enjoying sin, so can't have that.
@@capitalm4605 Seriously? You truly think that is what motivates him? Do you know his story? If that is how you love your enemies by judging them in this way, you are deeply in the wrong.
I prefer to read the scholars rather than the research communicators too. But your statement isn't an argument and it doesn't make HK wrong. @Testify is doing yeoman's labor here, and the amount of effort shows. There are a lot of contradictions, but deeply held convictions leads him and all believers to cling to what is possible and not always what is probable.
@@truncated7644 I am familiar with his story and have seen it many times. I can see the idea makes you angry, but sometimes loving your enemies means delivering harsh truths.
@@capitalm4605 Not angry. Why would I be? about what? If you define truth as repeating what you understand the Bible says, go for it. It doesn't make it true. But it does seem to cause you to define other humans as defective (captured by sin, not believing in objective morality) in a way that believers, who you think have found the truth, are not.
To be Frank, nothing makes me cringe more than when someone says they’re consulting the “original Greek” while using a meh online interlinear. If you don’t understand the language, ask an expert… Holy Kool-aid needs to listen more and speak less.
I’m still stuck on the fact he doesn’t know what a scrabble error is, despite the fact he supposedly has 20 years of research under his belt and he’s literally interviewed Bart Ehrman he has no excuse.
To think about "original greek". Jesus was a jew, so he spoke biblical hebraic as tought in the synagogues and the peoples aramaic. Most likely he spoke greek as today people in europe often learn english. It is said that Matthew wrote the first gospel in hebraic for the jews.
On the lineage in Matthew, the term used for Joseph is gabra/gvra. Consider the 2 points a) Yusef (Joseph) is a common name and b) gabra (Hebrew/Aramaic) can be used for her head of household, it is possible that is Mary's lineage through her father Yusef (Joseph). Luke is more specific in that it says the lineage is through supposing Jesus being the son of Joseph and thus that Joseph would definitely be the husband rather than father. Regarding Herod, Quirinius, and the census, Josephus lists a number of events that occurred between Herod's sickness, death, and burial, which would better fit in 1BC, due to the events of the Passover slaughter by his son and there not being enough, or being too much time, for other presumed dates. Quirinius was legate of Syria-Judea for the census taking for Caesar Augustus's tributary census for his silver jubilee, which would occur in 2 BC. Regarding Judas, the gospels mentioned he was a thief who handled the treasury monies for the group. Hmmm, I wonder where he could possibly have gotten a price of iniquity to buy the field. Maybe there's more than one iniquity that he had committed and that he got monetary gain from. Regarding the entries into Jerusalem, there seems to be enough differences that there were two entries, one in triumph and one pronouncing judgement. For the timeline on the trial, torture, and crucifixion, this was Passover time, which is a High Sabbath, and there is the weekly Sabbath. The torture and beatings were across more than one day. Regarding the post resurrection appearances, there's a holiday in Jerusalem called Pentecost, which holy koolaid demonstrates he knew about, so travelling back to Jersualem forty days later would be not only not odd, but normal and appropriate.
I have to say, I don't really understand where these contradictions are supposed to get the skeptic. Even if we grant them all, so what? The stories all remain almost identical and the over all story is the same. You can't get that it is historic fiction from the contradictions and the overall narrative doesn't change. It really does just feel like a meaningless objection.
I agree. And I will go one further. Even if everything in the gospels are true, the evidence for it isn't sufficient for belief. Relying on the testimony of a handful of uneducated, pre-scientific people (or even modern people) simply isn't good evidence. If God wanted everyone to believe, he would have done things in a way that would lead to belief, in the same way we believe in air and gravity. Clearly he didn't want that. Or, it isn't true.
@@truncated7644 so you agree the supposed contradictions don't prove the Bible false and your one step further is to make a different point that renders the court system useless, history of any kind unknowable, and even scientific experiments you didn't do yourself untrustworthy? Not so much a step further as to leap off a cliff.
@@euanthompson To be blunt, eye witness testimony is incredibly unreliable, as human memory has a tendency to fill in the gaps rather than actually remember all the details of what happened, especially during traumatic events, which is what I believe @Trun Cated was trying to say. And while much of history, especially ancient history, can't be known for sure, there are still methods we can use to investigate whether or not certain events in ancient history were true. No such methods exists for many of the claims of the bible, especially for its supernatural claims. In fact, modern scientific methods have actually proven that many of the supernatural claims of the bible (like a world wide flood, for example) are not only highly unlikely, but are basically impossible to have occurred.
@@billyb7465 the court system is heavily reliant on testamony. If we throw out testamony as insufficient the entire system collapses. You also lose most of history since the majority is based on testamony. You also lose science because you are relying on the testamony of those who did the experiments. Throw out testamony and a lot of stuff collapses.
One needs to keep on mind that the Gospels were eyewitnesses. None had the complete picture, but what they proclaimed was true. Eyewitnesses keep us from jumping to premature conclusions, whether it is a murder mystery or any other scenario.
@@filopon7116 Did you misread my comment? Luke is not an eyewitness account. It claims to be *based on* eyewitness accounts. Not once does Luke or any of the Gospel authors themselves claim “I saw this” or anything like it. Being supposedly based on eyewitness accounts is not the same thing as being an eyewitness account. The Gospels were written decades after the fact, and not one of the four authors claims to have personally witnessed any of the events, themselves.
Exactly, if there were no discrepancies between 4 different eye witness accounts, then that would be evidence that the authors conspired to creat a completely consistent narrative and then set it up to look like they had each decided to write their own narrative. Evidence of such a conspiracy would cast doubt on the truth of Christianity.
Thing is, that is our point.... That just proves there is nothing special to the bible when it is just as fallible as us humans and every other historic account of that time. No one is saying the bible is not 100% unreliable. We are saying it is not 100% reliable, because it was written by humans and not God.
I left a long response on both of his videos on contradictions, and I can safely say that your videos are much better than my responses 👏👏👏👏, I originally wasn’t even gonna do it but no one was responding so I feel like I had to.
Appreciate you putting in the effort to tackle all of these. It would be cute if not so pitiful. Modern RUclipsr try-hard atheists: "WeLl AcKsHuAlLy" The Scripture: 🤣 * laughs in literal millennia of established text and historicity
Thanks for the recognition that expectations need to be clarified ( 1:18 ) and the examples of Josephus and early American construction. One factor for calibration to also inject into this calculus: the consequence of deviation. Proper credit for the addition of a feature to a building is good to have, but misattribution doesn’t mean the addition isn’t there - it is, we can see it plainly. Nothing in Josephus need be true for the state of our soul today and in eternity. With the Bible, laser precision is necessary: “not one jot or tittle”, “all Scripture is God-breathed”, etc. The stakes for “getting it wrong” as set by the Bible itself are so incredibly high! As eternity hangs in the balance (according to the proponents of Bible inerrancy), a small deviation misses the mark as much as a large one. I love the Bible and think the Bible and its history are one of the Western world’s greatest and most influential documents. Contradictions and mistakes, late additions, missing books from the cannon, etc., don’t bother me anymore at all. They used to - I spent over 30 years in a fundamentalist off-shoot of the Plymouth Brethren just to cut straight the Word of the Lord - but now I only see the Bible as a work of man with no bearing on eternity. I am freed from having to compromise truth to contort obedience to the idea of Divine Inspiration let alone inerrancy of the Bible, present form or Original Documents.
Great video. In Eusebius church history, there is a piece on the genealogy of Christ, when even early on people saw a discrepancy. This guy Africanus, found out from Jesus human relations, which had been passed down. Both lists are correct, either by nature or by law ie By nature, when there was a genuine offspring to succeed, By law, when another man gathered a child in the name of a brother who died childless. He writes: Matthau, Solomons descendant, begot Jacob. On Matthan’s death Melchi, Nathan’s descendant, begot Heli by the same women. This Heli and Jacob had the same mother. When Heli died childless, Jacob ‘raised up’ offspring to him, begetting Joseph - by nature his own son, by law Heli’s. Thus Joseph was the son of both. “
Africanus was a boss. Also, Augustine proposed that Joseph was adopted, which would make him especially suited to be Jesus' adoptive father. It's quite speculative yet also interesting.
@@TestifyApologetics Given the billions of people born millenniums later, why would these genealogies be so controversial, and therefore ineffective in inspiring belief? Should everyone who reads these need to know esoteric explanations that at most can be considered possible, even when most scholars view them as improbable? Do you have to have faith first before the Bible makes any sense?
I like that a lot of the Dawah and Muslim apologetics teams use these arguments of inaccuracies in the Gospels when coercing young Christians who don't know their faith to Islam ...
Per Wikipedia, for what it's worth: "Many scholars believe that Luke was a physician who lived in the Hellenistic city of Antioch in Ancient Syria, born of a Greek family, although some scholars and theologians think Luke was a Hellenic Jew."
Yeah, crazy how people still believe in those error filled embellished texts. At least it's fun to see someone point out some of the funniest stuff in them.
@@Zanivox72 yeah, that’s all they are. They, and all the commentaries, aren’t the accumulation of thousands of years of wisdom and human experience, they’re just a collection of silly superstitions. On an unrelated note, how great have things been going since we stopped taking those texts seriously? Just dandy.
@@KeanuReevesIsMyJesus no natives were killed in the name of Christ. You can take that elementary level pseudofact and go back to school cause you look like a fool. But I’ll tell you this, none of them are sacrificing babies to their false gods anymore, so I’ll call it win regardless.
What an ignorant reply, you live in the fruits of a Christian world, And what do you mean by taken seriously? Does the New Testament say Slay the native Americans? Human error is human error, don’t blame it on Christian tradition ☠️
@@timom8498 man the only thing that accounts for the receiving of your mercy is to believe. Very clearly to believe. If you can’t even simply do that, why are you complaining and whining “injustice” when you don’t wanna receive the legal mercy you’ve been given? Belief has nothing to do with works. You don’t have to live the typical American evangelical life to be saved or to retain salvation. Salvation is by a one time belief that Jesus is God’s Son, and that he died for all human sin, and rose again on the 3rd day. If you can’t do that, then I hate to break it to you, but that’s on you. No one else but you. That decision came from no ones will except your own Is belief so hard? Is it so hard that it’s mentally easier for children to do? You don’t have to pop a vain to believe lol.
@@TestifyApologetics Disagree. What evidence exists that his mother was a descendant of David? What you offered was very timid. You acknowledge that he wasn't Joseph's son, and your claim that Mary is a descendant doesn't come from anything other than weak inferential evidence. Why should skeptics back off this given how much weight it carries for Christians?
@@truncated7644 we have in the early rabbinic literature denouncements of Jesus as practicing sorcery (a rejection of the claims of his miracles) and leading Israel away from monotheism (a rejection of his claim to divinity), and, possibly, of Mary as being a prostitute (a rejection of the claims regarding his virgin birth). In other words, we would expect his detractors to say things against his claims if they could. Do we have anything that similar that rejects his Davidic descent?
@@Norbingel Well, using your argument, his detractors wouldn't believe in the virgin birth, so then the genealogy of Jacob (or at least one of them, they contradict each other) could apply if he actually was the father. But claims that Mary was a prostitute is not just a claim she wasn't a virgin, but that Joseph wasn't her husband. Your argument that there aren't early critics on this point is basically an argument from silence (ask @Testify what he thinks about them).
Way to miss the point, the point is that according to prophecy Jesus was supposed to be a descendant of David. God promised David that the Messiah would come from his lineage. If Joseph wasn't his actual father, then the prophecy is false and God lied. Pay more attention next time. Btw, according to prophecy, the Messiah wasn't supposed to be the son of God. In fact, nothing about the son of God is in the Old Testament. That is why most Jews rejected Jesus, the messiah wasn't supposed to be divine. It is even called as the "Son of Man", which even jesus himselfs describes himself as that. It is only in the later Gospels were Jesus's divinity becomes explicit.
A few years ago I saw a RUclips video which neatly combines the two accounts of Jesus's birth showing consistency. It is a theory not a claim that it must be right. It requires very close timing. First Joseph was from Bethlehem. He was in Nazareth for work but still considered himself "of Bethlehem ". Abother video says that there was a major building project near Nazareth. When registration for taxes came Joseph and other family members away from home had to go register and there wasn't room for everyone. Jesus was born, some people left again and there was room for Joseph, Mary and Jesus. Jesus was circumcised on the eighth day and almost immediately the Magi arrived. Joseph and the Magi were warned and they went home and Joseph went to Egypt. The border was only a few days away. Herod had one of his characteristic murderous fits of anger then died. Word reached Joseph that Herod was dead and they returned reaching Jerusalem just in time for Jesus's dedication as firstborn in the Temple. It looked like Herod's already violently antisemitic son was in charge in Judea so they went to live near Mary's family in Nazareth instead of his in Bethlehem. It does fit but requires precisión timing, which of course, God does regularly. On dates, there is a known error by the monk who formulated the Gregorian calander. His name is known but I don't remember what was reported. The date was determined from records of the Roman Emperors and it was missed that Octavian and Ceasar Augustus are the same person. Also the year I BC was followed by I AD because there is no zero in Roman numerals.
Oh, somewhere in this favored land The sun is shining bright; The band is playing somewhere, And somewhere hearts are light, And somewhere men are laughing, And somewhere children shout; But there is no joy in Skepticville, Holy Koolaid has struck out. (With apologies to _Casey at the Bat)_
Long time listener, first time caller. Always wonderful. Thank you for what you're doing. I do have one small correction to make. Hopefully, it is understood to be constructive and not a 'knowitall' comment. *pushes glasses back on top of nose* Chet in חגיגה is pronounced like that hard, phlegmy 'k' rather than the 'ch' as in 'chapter' or 'sh' as in 'shy'. That's all! Keep it up!
A group of dudes walking through the desert for months/years on end under constant starvation, exhaustion, and injuries are inevitably going to make mistakes, especially typos; the mental clarity to get everything right given the conditions they were in and there wasn’t an easy way to “factcheck” certain things. The apostles were people, and people are inevitably prone to small errors. To me these discrepancies existing in scripture to this day prove proper biblical preservation as if you were a scribe editing, why wouldn’t you remove these “glaring” errors?
I think the problem with these discrepancies is when certain churches uses them to hurt outsiders or to promote a certain ideology. Some clear examples are The rapture, salvation and the meaning of saints. This doesn’t go far by looking at diferencies between churches. The catholic church has a completely different uses for them; catholics for examples use Matthew 16:27 and revelations 20:12 as pre-basis of their work while those who justify Sola fide tend to emphasize Ephesians 2:8-9. Or other things such as homosexuality, many attest that Sodom and Gomorrah, was about sexual assault, however many claim it was about homosexuality. If we look at Ezekiel 16:49-50 it gives a completely different reason on why sodom was destroyed and it was on the basis of greed. Among other things that churches tend to differ on. So, if a church such as Orthodox, catholics and some protestants argue that salvations is only through their church, then it becomes problematic and all these words have weight in all these issues.
Let's remember luke was not a disciple of Yeshua so his accounts would be a little off especially since he was writing after Yeshua resurrection and going to heaven! Luke was following Paul after his road to Damascus encounter. Matthew was a direct disciple of messiah!
"How can we know the will of God if there's contradictions" funny how none of the 'contradictions' have to do with the will of God. Anyway, I don't know how people have a problem with the whole priests/judas field thing. The verse even specifically states that they called Judas' money blood money. they wouldn't have claimed the field or the money for themselves
Perhaps make a video to clarify your view with some detail/precision: Are there errors or not? Is the bible infallible? What exactly is meant by "God's Word" exactly. If the bible is historically reliable, then to what extent? How do you define "historical reliability" exactly? ... I grew up as a fundamentalist. My church leaders were so vague on their view of the bible. They could bend their ambiguous definitions to defeat any problems in the bible.
see this blog post from my friend Jonathan McLatchie to sum up where I am at in the moment: jonathanmclatchie.com/is-the-bible-without-error-inspiration-inerrancy-and-christian-epistemology/
@@TestifyApologeticsinteresting link. Might I make a comment as a biblical scholar who studied Greek? The Greek text doesn't say that "all scripture is inspired by God" there is no "is" there. It's one possible translation but another might be, "All scripture (that's) inspired by God, etc." and indeed there are some Bible translations which translate it that way. It makes not much of a difference for my personal faith just wanted to mention it.
It is funny to me that skeptics emphasize the authors’ genius or meticulous care in ensuring all these details line up, but then also argue that they were so careless that they missed (what a modern reader might perceive as) obvious contradictions & mistakes in their *own* account. Which is it?
My salvation is not dependent on the words of philo, plato or whoever historians but on the perfect word of god. They can contradict forever not with the petfect word of god.
The word of God is Jesus. "The word became flesh" not paper. I believe the gospels because I believe the first Christians tried to faithfully write down what they have seen end experienced with Jesus. They simply had vastly different concepts of how to write a biography and what it should contain. The most important question that I rarely see anyone ask, be they atheist or Christian, is why did the church choose 4 gospels? Why didn't they eliminate the "contradictions" by using just one as Marcion wanted? There have been doctoral thesis about how the gospels actually follow the form of ancient biographies only that ancient biographies weren't written like biographies today. Which should really be obvious since it's almost 2,000 years ago. Do they contain "the truth"? Yes they do. But Jesus is "the truth" in Christian faith, once again not paper. The gospel writers didn't care about actual contradictions if they managed to shed light on a certain topic from different angles. Like the parable about the "king's meal" where the king lets his servants get people from the street to join him but then throws out one person who wasn't "properly dressed" which in the context seems to make no sense. Fun fact, science once thought the universe was logical until quantum theory came along. Suddenly light was two things at once, a particle and a wave. I don't want to over-interpret that. But I wrote my M. A. thesis paper about the letter to the Romans and the longer I worked on it, the more I thought that one statement about quantum theory is also true about "Romans", "people who think they understand quantum theory, don't understand quantum theory". People who understand Paul don't understand Paul. Almost no scholar has so far been able to really pin down Paul's line of thought in Romans. (with the exception of the German scholar Georg Koepgen) The more I worked on it, the clearer it became how I tried to understand a vastly superior intellect who didn't think like me. It's like trying to understand Hegel. Not many can. I certainly couldn't answer every question when I had to defend my thesis to the profs. It was a very humbling experience. Therefore I have to laugh when I see twenty-something atheist college kids on RUclips "debunking" Christianity 😂.
There’s a difference between trying to figure out how trustworthy a possibly mistaken human writing might be and examining whether a set of writings is the inerrant word of God.
I'd be happy to discuss it with you sometime, but strict inerrancy isn't a requirement to still have a high view of the Bible, or even a strong view of inspiration.
@@TestifyApologetics Yeah, I'm sure that Christians' idea of inerrancy runs all up and down the spectrum. If your view is loose enough that small mistakes/contradictions don't bother you, that's fine. It seems like it could give someone room to grant undue divine authority to parts they want while keeping their idea of divine inspiration unfalsifiable, but that's up to the person to work out. It just seems like Christians often call skeptics silly/inconsistent when pointing out contradictions in the Bible that they wouldn't fuss with in other documents, and that's not the case. They're responding to a view of inerrancy that exists, whether or not it's your view. It seems like a sufficient reaction would be to recognize that these skeptics are making valid points about a Christian claim you don't personally hold, but that's just me.
Great video as always. Idk why, but the way he animates it to make all the biblical characters look like absolute idiots bumbling around to try and make the point thats exactly what they were makes me so mad for no reason.
@Boris Cuduco you know in order to be a christian you have to know the fundamental truth that Jesus is alive and well. Do you now claim that he is dead? Because no matter where you go, if you leave Christianity, whether you become Buddhist, Muslim, Atheist or Agnostic, you can't shake the fundamental truth that Jesus is alive. So, you are an atheist that knows Jesus is alive and well but you don't want to follow Him anymore. You can't be a Christian without knowing He exists first. You never found out that Jesus is resurrected, you never actually knew that for a fact. You were never christian, you had knowledge but you never even came close to the basics.
the thing that bothers me about the animations is that it’s clearly part of some stock animation program, because the art style is exactly the same as what’s in some of the awful training videos my job puts out. 😅 I would recognize those uncomfortable cartoon people anywhere, and it’s actually making it hard for me to follow along with KoolAid’s segments of this video lol
All the names listed in genealogies are sons of Jacob, whose name got changed to Israel. The thing that most people miss is Boaz and Ruth which is a Jew Gentile marriage. The genealogies aren't wrong. Just like the word of God says, names can and will be blotted out. So then being blotted out, means they don't count. Half truths are contradictions.
Fact is, no 4 witnesses can describe d scene identically, our biggest critique, d absuls, should look at their own book supposedly written by 1 man, moped, and see how many contradictions there are to d same stories
4:02 Here is a Catholic view, from Haydock comment on Luke 3: _"To make some attempt at an elucidation of the present very difficult subject of inquiry, we must carry in our minds, 1. That in the Scripture language the word begat, applies to the remote, as well as the immediate, descendant of the ancestor; so that if Marcus were the son, Titus the grandson, and Caius the great-grandson of Sempronius, it might, in the language of Scripture, be said, that Sempronius begat Caius. This accounts for the omission of several descents in S. Matthew. 2. The word begat, applies not only to the natural offspring, but to the offspring assigned to the ancestor by law. 3. If a man married the daughter and only child of another, he became in the view of the Hebrew law the son of that person, and thus was a son assigned to him by law. The two last positions shew in what sense Zorobabel was the son both of Neri and Salathiel, and Joseph the son both of Jacob and of Heli, or Joachim. - "S. Matthew, in descending from Abraham to Joseph, the spouse of the blessed Virgin, speaks of a son properly so called, and by way of generation, Abraham begot Isaac, &c. But S. Luke in ascending from Jesus to God himself, speaks of a son properly or improperly so called. On this account he make use of an indeterminate expression, in saying, the son of Joseph, who was of Heli. That S. Luke does not always speak of a son properly called, and by way of generation, appears from the first and last he names; for Jesus was only the putative son of Joseph, because Joseph was the spouse of Mary, the mother of Christ; and Adam was only the son of God by creation. This being observed, we must acknowledge in the genealogy in S. Luke, two sons improperly so called, that is, two sons-in-law, instead of sons. As among the Hebrews, the women entered not into the genealogy, when a house finished by a daughter, instead of naming the daughter in the genealogy, they named the son-in-law, who had for father-in-law the father of his wife. The two sons-in-law mentioned in S. Luke are Joseph, the son-in-law of Heli, and Salathiel, the son-in-law of Neri. This remarks clears up the difficulty. Joseph, the son of Jacob, in S. Mat. was the son-in-law of Heli, in S. Luke; and Salathiel, the son of Jechonias, in S. Mat. was the son-in-law of Neri, in S. Luke. Mary was the daughter of Heli, Eliacim, or Joacim, or Joachim. Joseph, the son of Jacob, and Mary, the daughter of Heli, had a common origin; both descending from Zorobabel, Joseph by Abiud the eldest, and Mary by Resa, the younger brother. Joseph descended from the royal branch of David, of which Solomon was the chief; and Mary from the other branch, of which Nathan was the chief. By Salathiel, the father of Zorobabel, and son of Jechonias, Joseph and Mary descended from Solomon, the son and heir of David. And by the wife of Salathiel, the mother of Zorobabel, and daughter of Neri, of which Neri Salathiel was the son-in-law, Joseph and Mary descended from Nathan, the other son of David, so that Joseph and Mary re-united in themselves all the blood of David. S. Mat. carries up the genealogy of Jesus to Abraham; this was the promise of the Messias, made to the Jews; S. Luke carries it up to Adam, the promise of the Messias, made to all men." "_
Unfortunately, Luke and Matthew are indeed irreconcilable on Jesus' birth. The timing does not line up. Luke omitting a slaughter of children and flight to Egypt is implausible. The idea that Luke spoke to Mary and she left it out both involves assumptions with no support. I think it is far more likely that Luke originally started with Luke 3, which we believe was the start of Marcion's version of Luke and which is structured like the beginning of a text of the time. (Compare "In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea...." to how Thucydides begins recounting the start of the Peloponnesian War, "In the fifteenth, in the forty-eighth year of the priestess-ship of Chrysis at Argos, in the ephorate of Aenesias at Sparta, in the last month but two of the archonship of Pythodorus at Athens...") Luke 2 seems to be a later addition. (That said, Luke 2 may have been an addition by the original author, particularly if it is true that Marcion relied on the first edition and did not redact his text himself.) Luke 1:5ff appears an even later addition written in a style completely unlike Luke's. Matthew, conversely, will regularly deduce facts based on his interpretation of Old Testament prophecy. So it is completely plausible that he deduced the story of Jesus' birch because he believed that the prophecies must have been fulfilled, and thus these things must have happened.
@@idkbro-n5c Pretty major thing not to document, particularly with the parallels with Moses and how important it would be that Herod tried to kill him.
God is smart and able enough to have included King David directly into the genetic make up of Jesus, whether Mary had a bloodline to David or not. Skipping names in the genealogy is not that impressive especially if some, i.e. David to Zerub, is available in the OT anyway. Right - In the days before passports, mass surveillance, and cell phone tracking how would a king or anyone take notice of an average looking Jewish couple and their baby entering the temple for a ritual, and having a happy conversation with another elderly couple.
@@mauselioe6838 the bible doesnt claim its “perfectly preserved” and “everything in it is directly told to be written down by an angel” like the Quran. so no, we dont look at them the same
@@TestifyApologetics Did you really ask why? If you would like to get a point across to an entire world and you had the ability to spread this message whichever way you felt like, and wanted to make sure everyone understood the message so that there wouldn’t be any doubt about what you said, why would you allow discrepancies and messages that can lead to the reader misinterpreting them as contradictions? Why would you set the reader for failure? Could it be that the writers of the Bible were not inspired by an almighty being after all? Why couldn’t this mighty god just present himself to the masses and speak for himself? In my opinion, it makes absolutely no sense for a powerful deity to chose such method to spread his word. It is almost as if he doesn’t have any power at all. Then again, this God couldn’t fend off iron chariots… I can only imagine how weak he might be against a modern tank. But seriously, ask yourself how you would make sure nobody misunderstood what you said. If you had the power to create a universe in 6 days, why chose to spread your word in such way.
I have a question, I just read Numbers 36:1-12, at the end it says: “For Mahlah, Tirzah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Noah, the daughters of Zelophehad, were married to sons of their father’s brothers.” Numbers 36:11 And in Lev. 18 God prohibited incestuous behavior, could you please explain it, I’m just confused, my intent is not to attack nor trick you, I just haven’t read much of the OT.
re Jesus' geneology . Matt. is through David's son Solomon to Joseph, but that ended at Jeconiah due to sin. Luke goes through David;s son Nathan to Joseph (via Mary). Torah gives inheritance to women without a husband, so Mary's line falls to Joseph. Num 27:1-11, Josh 17:3-6 (daughters of Zelophehad). Lk 3:23 ..."{Jesus) being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli," NKJV. Refer - husband adopted by bride's father - Num 32:41, 36:2, Ezra 2:61, Neh 7:63, 1 Cr 2:21-35
If I say that Pufferpeeps can't jump up on the couch due to being disabled at birth but the day before I said that Pufferpeeps jumped up on the couch, did I contradict? No. She can't jump up on the top but can jump up on the side with 4 paws
Am I glad my understanding of Christ has gone beyond the philosophical level. They can bring all the 'contradictions' they want, it won't faze me. I've seen and experienced things I can't ignore or deny At least these contradictions make sense. Some I've heard are just plain stupid, and it's clear that the person is just DESPERATE to throw anything they can at the bible, only to get called out for cherrypicking and OBVIOUSLY trying to find a contradictions. Like, one example that was so bad that the literal reason the guy thought there was contradiction is cuz he didn't read the next sentence. Not even the next verse, the next SENTENCE. It was about whether Jesus drank wine before he was crucified or after, and apparently, in Matthew He refused the wine, but in Luke and John He drank it. We'll, literally after it says in Matthew that He refused the wine, it says 'then they crucified Him' Talk about the stupidest 'contradiction' I've ever heard.
The supposed contradictions are in fact evidence for divine inspiration, as each supposed difference actually fits perfectly with the narrative, but it takes a bit of work to sort the narrative out. This means skeptics and unbelievers stumble and fall over the rock, rather than drink from it.
Nonsense. You sound EXACTLY like the Muslim who said that the Koran is proven as the true words of God because the Koran sometimes aligns with science. But when the Koran does NOT align with science, it is a miracle, and miracles prove the Koran is the true words of God. No matter what the Koran is the true words of the true God. Flip a coin. Heads I win. Tails you lose. Dont do it to yourself. Are you gearing up to suggest that the contradictions in the Bible prove the Bible? Am I totally off base?
There is a grey because the bible as a whole is not the Word of God as this idea sets one up for Faliure. It's more of a written history of mankind and God[YHWH]'s relationship as a whole. Some don't involve God much some God plays a major roll, and it is all put into action by single man or woman.
@@FOHguy Have you seen what the idea of a book being the literal word of God has done to a country? Like the middle east in general. Whereas understanding it being the recorded relationship of God and the Israelites for half the time atleast coincides with the driving factor of free will by which is one of the gift that God gave us as mentioned.
@calonarang7378 And as you chose to pass by. Getting to pick your verses is an interesting theory. So, which of the 10 commandments do you follow, and which do you not?
I love talking with someone who will lose it if I mention the Bible. That can't be trusted, they say. Yet they'll happily discuss any other history you like as if it's factual😂 I'm like, c'mon man. Most historical events and figures? We're lucky to get within multiple hundreds or even thousands of yrs of the original sources. If we can't discuss the Bible then we can't discuss much of history, period.
The Herod one isn’t all that hard. Read Matthew 2: -Jesus is born -Presentation at the temple (check the line in Luke 2:22 on purification, it’s not like Luke 2:22’s purification time is years long) -Herod hears from the Magi (or those who’ve heard them) about this whole “King of the Jews” thing -The Magi visit -They don’t return -Herod slaughters the innocents while the Holy Family flees to Egypt “Irreconcilably different” my behind
What's wrong with people today? There were 40 writers of the Bible, each offering their own records. Each of them, will share the stories truthfully .If you think they contradict ,then they are telling as it was according to them, and that is Marvelous. Since you Contradicted them ,then you cannot be trusted and what you say Must be Discredited ,right? What I see, they were clear witnesses, to what they saw and what they wrote.
Even if some parts of the bible were written by eyewitnesses, many of them, even the most important books of the bible, were not. Take the gospels, for example. Even biblical scholars who are Christians don't think the gospels were written by eyewitnesses. They certainly believe them to be true, but they most definitely don't think they were written by eye witnesses.
I'm shocked at how stupid holy Kool-Aid arguments were. With that many subscribers I expected more and he actually just reaffirmed the Bible for me even more because if you have to grasp that straws like he did then you know it's true
For apparent contradictions, there can always be an unseen explanation that we have not thought of, so unless the contradiction necessarily logically proves that one must be false, we could never conclude we know for sure there cannot be a solution. This is why the better methodology is to establish whether the source is inerrant or not *before* reading, rather than question it retrospectively. The best quote on this matter comes in my opinion from St. Augustine, who wrote in Contra Faustum: "If we are perplexed by an apparent contradiction in Scripture, it is not allowable to say, The author of this book is mistaken; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood."
No matter how much we disagree, Holy Kool-Aid gets props for his Princess Bride reference. 👏
@@jacobolson8537there are some in the description
What’s your opinion on Gabe the street preacher ministry? Does he speak truth?
@@goosewagon280never heard of him
The Bible was written by God the master mind times a billion our little infant minds try to figure it out and it looks like a book of contradictions and now have so many churches that disagree because they contradict each other's understanding of the Bible but the Bible says not to lean on our understanding we need God to interpret his word.
I like how you low key roast this guy. Never assume good faith on someone like Holy Kool Aid.
As a tax collector I don't think Mathew made a calculation mistake in the Gospel
@@nonprogrediestregredi1711 by your logic you must be a Holocaust denier because you must not be able to confirm anything in history. Why would a man lie about being a tax collector? Not exactly a strong flex.
@@nonprogrediestregredi1711 Since there's no other attestations, yes there is
@@nonprogrediestregredi1711 There is no good reason NOT to believe that Matthew (and Mark and Luke and John) weren’t written by those authors. In fact, have you ever thought about this: If you were to write a fake gospel you want people to believe, would you ascribe authorship to a tax collector (who the Jews hated with a passion and wouldn’t trust at all), a physician who wasn’t even present during any of these events (i.e., Luke), and interpreter who also wasn’t present for any of these events (i.e., Mark)? You might pick John, but no one would falsely claim one of those other authors. They would be FAR more likely to claim one of the people who figure prominently in the stories wrote them. Which, by the way, is exactly what the gnostic authors did when they wrote the clearly fraudulent Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Judas, and other false Gospels.
That being said, I do think Matthew as a Tax Collector and likely fascinated with nice even numbers would have felt free to group things like the genealogies into nice even groupings by skipping some generations just to make an overall pleasing picture. Matthew often took liberties with certain details that are filled in by the other Gospels based on what Matthew was trying to emphasize in his Gospel. To modern readers, we see this as “dishonest” or making a mistake, but this was actually quite common with first century Greco-Roman biographies. They were all about arranging events in the subject of the biography’s life into themes, and were not at all interested in providing a day-by-day accurate sequence of events. This is also why the order of events in the synoptic Gospels differ: Matthew grouped events in to themes and not chronology, while Luke was more interested in presenting “and orderly account.” Neither approach was inaccurate or dishonest. They were merely different commonly understood means for sharing why the central focus of a biography was important.
@@nonprogrediestregredi1711 //So, what common denominator, so to speak, would those three people be more likely to have than approximately 95% of the Roman population in antiquity? If you guessed literacy, you would be correct.//
Okay, so I am confused. Are you arguing FOR these Gospels being written by these three authors, because they were literate? I thought you were arguing AGAINST them by saying there is “no good reason” to think these were the authors. You just provided at least one “good reason.”
However, I will also point out that while the literacy rate in the Roman Empire may have been low, that was not the case in Judea. All Jewish males (at least) were taught to read and to memorize the Jewish Scriptures, and the ones most adept at this were then selected to be trained further as scribes, Rabbis or Pharisees. The literacy rate in Judea was much, much higher than the rest of the Empire as a result.
//And btw, the gospel of “Matthew” was very likely written after the Jewish War…//
*Why?* Whenever people make claims like this, they absolutely must provide reasons or evidence backing up those claims. I see absolutely zero *external* evidence that establishes any date after the Jewish war, and the *internal* evidence that Matthew was written before the destruction of the Temple, the martyrdom of Peter, or any of these highly significant events had yet occurred.
//…it defies credulity to believe that an eyewitness to many of the events described within is giving his version of the story, yet uses 90% of the gospel of “Mark” to do just that.// This is both factually false, in the sense of Matthew does not align perfectly with Mark and does not incorporate 90% of Mark just as Mark wrote it (which you yourself make clear later), as well as an unsound argument. First of all, Matthew was not an eyewitness to everything that he recounts in his biography of Jesus (a.k.a., his Gospel or “Good News” book about Jesus). And so it in no way defies credibility that he might have incorporated what had already been widely circulated orally by other eyewitnesses to those events he did not witness, such as the details of Jesus’ birth and childhood, or what happened on the Mount of Transfiguration, or other events he did not personally witness. And so we are left with Matthew relating his own version of certain common events differently, and including other people’s recollections of other events, which really doesn’t stretch credulity at all.
//The author of “Matthew” repeatedly uses “Mark” verbatim, quoting the predecessor with as many as thirty words verbatim.// Which is it? Did Matthew use 90% of Mark verbatim? Or only up to 30 words in certain common passages verbatim? You are beginning to contradict yourself.
//…yet “Matthew” repeatedly keeps the exact same sentence structure verbatim as “Mark,” typically only changing to “correct” him.// Again, which is it? Did Matthew NEVER change Mark’s word order or did he change Mark’s word order when it was grammatically incorrect? And if Matthew only changed Mark’s word order to “correct” him, does that not imply that Matthew had no need to use a different word order because Mark didn’t get it wrong? This whole criticism keeps getting less and less coherent and more and more contradictory.
//Scholars have been aware of this for centuries.// I know. I was also well aware of this. You haven’t even mentioned the other theory commonly accepted by Scholars, known as “Q theory,” that presupposes that all three synoptic Gospel writers made use of some even earlier collection of quotations and stories about Jesus that were widely in circulation already, known as “Q.” It is from this proposed Q that scholars even infer the order of which Gospels were written in which order (Mark, then Matthew, then Luke).
But this whole argument BACKFIRES against skeptics. Because, we know when Acts ends, and know that Acts was therefore written during Paul’s first imprisonment, and before his second trial and martyrdom, which was before the Jewish Revolt and the destruction of the Temple. And since Luke’s Gospel was written before Acts, that means Luke was written before then. And since Q-theory would have Matthew and Mark written before Luke, that would place both Gospels well before the Jewish Revolt. And since Q was already widely in circulation before then, that would place THAT source even closer to the events in question. You are only tightening the timeline and putting all of these closer to the actual historical events being described by all of these documents. And leaving less time for legendary development to occur.
//There is so much more to this. I would recommend that you read some of the serious modern scholarship done on this topic.// Assuming of course I haven’t, when I actually have. But I have also made it a point to read both skeptical and supportive scholarly accounts, and not just stop with one side. Have you bothered to read any of the scholarly articles countering most of these points?
My thing is, if they wanted to make it all up, their stories would be identical. The fact there are differences, shows it is from their point of view
HK would do well to pay heed to one of his heroes:
“Essential Christian beliefs are _not_ affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.”
Bart Ehrman, _Misquoting Jesus_
(appendix to paperback edition, p.252)
If only Ehrman would be this honest in his RUclips debates 😂.
Absolutely. It just becomes a problem when people claim the Bible has *zero* textual errors. Minor contradictions like the exact date of Jesus' death aren't essential to the core beliefs of the Christian faith, but they still show how the Bible can't be 100% without error.
@@gothamwarrior Exactly. These kind of criticisms only expose the kind of brittle fundamentalism Ehrman (and so many others) came out of when they apostatized.
They were fed a steady diet of “The Bible is the Word of God and is 100% without error! If there’s even ONE jot or tittle of the Bible that can be proven wrong, _then it’s not the Word of God and Christianity is false!”_
All this from their Sunday School teachers, pastors, Bible college professors, etc.
So then they find errors in the Bible in copying, or what look like contradictions, and they throw the Bible out the window and proclaim “It’s not the Word of God and Christianity is false!”
And some of them go on to make pretty good money writing books about it, apparently.
@@gothamwarrior well, it wasn't really contradicting itself by when he died. It is about how they used to describe time
Joseph adopted Jesus
Saul adopted David
It’s almost like the Bible is full of symmetry and foreshadowing and symbols
not at all, jesus lied about malachai 4 5
@@K-newborn blasphemous, Jesus has never lied.
@@K-newborn You say it like somebody can't just look up Malachi and read it for themselves... Before you blaspheme the Lord you should take a second to consider your actions.
@@rodney8075 so jesus did malachai 4 5?
@@albanianvalor yeah he does, are did he lie when he asked why he was forsaken by god on the cross?
Given the amount of "unknown" background context, proving or disproving a contradiction is near impossible. If we have good independent evidence that Christianity is true, then I see every reason to be "charitable" to the NT writers and assume that a reasonable harmonization exists even if I cannot see it.
100%. When we can corroborate so much in the Gospels, then harmonization is a reasonable thing to do. There are a few stubborn ones out there, but even if we admitted they were a contradiction they don't amount to much. There's nothing in here that screams that they were making things up or deliberately changing the facts.
So true. One of the hallmarks of reliable eyewitness testimony is that it is going to agree on the basics, and yes, it _will_ disagree on the details, which may need harmonizing. Or maybe not, it depends.
If everything exactly matched down to the last detail, we should rightly suspect collusion, or at least only one source, which makes such testimony actually _less_ reliable, not more.
Skeptics (like HK) who talk about contradictions seem to be addressing a brittle fundamentalism that seems to say “The Bible is inerrant, infallible, and without contradiction, and if even _one contradiction_ is found, THEN IT’S ALL GARBAGE!!!”
The skeptics simply refuse to admit that millions of Bible-believing Christians vary widely when it comes to inerrancy.
They just put out videos like this, gleefully claim to have debunked Christianity, and their followers lap it up.
Too bad.
@@Mark-cd2wf Well said. Yup these atheists are constantly straw manning. If it doesn’t meet their rigid silly caricature it’s all nonsense and they declare themselves brilliant and brave. If it was all perfectly ‘dictated’ like Muslims erroneously believe about the Quran they’d mock it for being untrustworthy because it’s ‘too perfect’ and reject the veracity because it was a ‘controlled text’.
@@nonprogrediestregredi1711 No, it is not.
I’m just a layman, but I remember reading somewhere that when it comes to textual criticism of ancient documents, the #1 rule is this: the benefit of the doubt always goes to the _document,_ not the skeptic.
By the way, the hypocrisy becomes pretty clear in these discussions. I literally had a person on this thread in a SINGLE comment on the one hand pointing out discrepancies between Matthew and Mark while at the same exact time criticizing Matthew for “copying” 80% of Mark.
Which is it, folks? If the four Gospel writers wrote completely identical accounts without any discrepancies, you will shout “AHAH! PROOF THEY COLLUDED AND MADE UP THE STORIES!”
But when they happen to disagree on some minor points, you will shout “AHAH! PROOF THAT THE WRITERS CONTRADICT EACH OTHER SO THEY MUST HAVE MADE UP THE STORIES!”
Do you see how ridiculous this sounds? You are really looking for any excuse to discredit them because you already have decided that you don’t want to believe they were what they claimed to be: A collection of first and second-hand accounts of real, historical events that actually happened over 2,000 years ago.
Being what they claim to be actually explains why they agree on all major points, and even share a lot of the same source materials (the 2nd hand content they heard from other first hand eye witnesses), while also not being carbon copies of each other, and even providing accidental clarification when one writer neglects to share some detail that another includes. This is exactly what one would expect to find in four independent 1st century Greco-Roman biographies of the same person: Jesus of Nazareth.
So are you saying there wasn’t any copying?
@@billyb7465 Define copying. Most scholars think that there was a collection of sayings of Jesus already in circulation before Matthew, Mark, and Luke wrote their gospels. This unknown source is dubbed “Q.” It is plausible that all three synoptic writers included many of not all of the sayings recorded in Q, both because it was they themselves had already been sharing verbally and because the Churches had already heard those sayings before. But if you are picturing Matthew sitting down with Mark’s gospel and literally copying directly from it, that’s neither likely nor what most scholars believe happened. And it is also interesting (but not conclusive) to note that while Mark is the first of the gospels in Greek we have today, the early Church Fathers recorded that Matthew wrote the first gospel, although in Aramaic. It is possible that Q is that lost Aramaic Gospel of Matthew. So Matthew wouldn’t even be copying from anyone else.
Regardless, we know there was at least one earlier Gospel we no longer have copies of, and it is also perfectly plausible that a collection of Jesus’ sayings and teaching was already circulating between the Churches just as the letters of Paul and Peter and John were.
What is not plausible is the idea that Matthew literally just copied from Mark without any firsthand knowledge of the events in question. And Luke explicitly says that he interviewed the surviving eye witnesses when collecting his account, so that is not a problem.
Again, which is it? If the idea is the gospels are unreliable because some portions match each other that doesn’t lessen credibility. What might would be if they matched exactly across all four gospels in all details. That is more indicative of collusion.
Some sections are word for word the same, showing they were obviously copied from the same source text, indicating the stories that "corroborate each other" are actually from only one source (such as most of the miracles and the sayings of Jesus). Other portions (such as the genealogies of Jesus and the entire resurrection story) are contradictory in key details, making their supposed corroboration unreliable.
You're calling PB&J a ham sandwich, and then demanding we make up our minds on whether the sandwich is full of peanut butter or kull of jelly. Part of it is peanut butter. Part of it is jelly. None of it is ham.
@@plantsinrocks (1) Some sections are word for word the same, and (2) there are contradictions. Thank you for making my EXACT POINT FOR ME. You just literally did what I said atheists do, and argued out of both sides of your mouth. Which is it? Did the authors conspire together so that all the details are the same and even were word-for-word copies of some other document? Or did the authors NOT conspire together leading to “contradictions” between the accounts? Which is it? Make up your mind. Because you can’t have it both ways. Also, there is a third option: The authors did NOT conspire to make up ANYTHING, but three of the authors incorporated portions of either an oral tradition or (now lost) earlier collection of sayings that people were already familiar with. Note: That does not make even those sections necessarily from “one” source. The collection of sayings likely were consolidated from accounts of the 500+ eyewitnesses and their personal recollections. Just like the Hadith in Islam is a single “source,” but traced back every saying to a set of known companions of Muhammed. That doesn’t make any quotes from the Hadith backed only by a “single source,” and so the use of “Q” by Mark, Matthew and Luke doesn’t prove they borrowed from a single “source.” And the fourth did not include any direct quotes from Q, but John wrote from personal recollection and stories shared by his adopted mother, Mary, Jesus’ mother, covering Jesus’ early years and life that appears in John and not the others. So, we have four authors all writing a BIOGRAPHY of Jesus (not a personal memoir or a formal history), and did so independently, leveraging some existing material where it existed and filling in the rest from their personal recollection or the recollection of other eyewitnesses (Peter in the case of Mark, and living eyewitnesses interviewed by Luke in his case). The very differences are evidence that they neither collaborated nor borrowed their entire material from some single source.
And regarding “contradictions,” there are none. Not in the logical sense of a claim that A and Not A were true at the same time. It is NOT a contradiction form me to say to a family member that “Esther and I were at a party and…” and to another mutual friend “Esther, John, Mary and I were at Luke’s party…” Including some named people and not others doesn’t mean the others weren’t there, just not mentioned. I will even say it is not a contradiction for one writer to remove a middle man in a conversation between the Centurion and Jesus, while another writer includes the servants who were carrying the messages back and forth. Those aren’t contradictions, merely elicitations of details one author felt were unimportant for simplicity. So, if you are going to cite contradictions, you’ll have to be more specific regarding what actual contradictions are there.
@@plantsinrocks Did you read my response above in full? Because I already showed that just because three of the four have some shared sections that may have come from an earlier source does NOT by itself prove they all came from a single source with no independence. First, because the earlier source most likely was itself a collection of remembrances by multiple eyewitnesses that were captured and circulated widely before the first Gospels were finally written. Just like the Hadith is not a single source despite being a single collection of quotes and remembrances by dozens of different witnesses. Second, you focus on the 30% and ignore the 70% of material that is not verbatim across the three synoptics and so is unique material. Third, you are not even bothering to try to answer the question about whether these authors conspired to create a new religion based on a set of carefully crafted lies, or if they were telling the truth as best they could. Honestly, I don’t expect you are open minded at all at this point, but your points are REALLY, REALLY BAD. They are only convincing to people who are looking for reasons to not have to consider the Bible as real history. But to any person trying to approach this question as objectively as possible, the argument you made is not even internally consistent, let alone convincing. Sorry.
There is a difference between contradiction and discrepancy. A contradiction claim both A and not-A. A discrepancy claims A and B (i.e. the two accounts simply differ). Either could be true or both could be true. B does not necessarily imply not-A (and A does not necessarily imply not-B). A little basic logic would solve most of the claimed "Bible contradictions".
Many of the skeptics arguments even boild down to "If A then B, B, therefore A" which is a basic logical fallacy.
The bible is a man-made book with man-made wisdom (Kain and Abel) and man-made errors :
+ light wasn't there before the sun
+ the Earth wasn't there before the sun
+ Adam and Eve didn't exist
+ insects have six legs not four legs
+ homosexuality is not a seduction by a satan, but a natural born healthy sexual orientation with an evolutionary meaning
+ the "firmament" is not a solid "roof" over the world
+ the sun can’t be stopped for having longer light in a battle, it already stands still
+ etc etc
If the bible would be the word of god or inspired by god it would be without errors, but it isn't.
@@seekerhonest Hi u/aalewis. Nice try but next time try quality over quantity.
@@seekerhonest What a bunch of absolutely nothing you typed out here
@@seekerhonest Are you kidding me insects have different number of legs depending on the insects
The Bible explains why there Earth came before the Sun simply put read Revelation and the other verses in old testament
In revelation it says that there will be no need of moon or Sun because God's light will light up the World meaning God himself can do it without the sun existing
These aren't contradictions
Homosexuality is not natural animals don't decide to oh I will have sex with my fellow mail lions homosexuality happens because humans create there own instincts because of background male to female is clearly what our bodies were built for homosexuality doesn't provide or do anything to a relationship or the body it produces nothing if we were all homosexuals the we would stop existing God is right as homosexuality to s not a natural concept it's an idea you choose to except depending on influence
I don't understand Cain and Abel aren't contradictions
The sun being stopped to have longer light could be chopped up to being a metaphor because there is no evidence in the Bible that it did example the flood is referenced so many times in Bible to show God's power if the sun did stop it would be referenced
Bottom line: Different accounts from different people who remember different details is going to result in some differences within the accounts, but that doesn't mean the story overall is inaccurate. Especially when the Gospel writers pretty much agree on everything else.
@@user-gv8xf9ul5j Depends on what one means by “inspired.”
There is a wide variety of disagreement among born-again, Bible-believing Christians when it comes to the subject of inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility of the Scriptures.
@@user-gv8xf9ul5j If any sort of contradiction, historical/scientific inaccuracy, or minor discrepancy is a point of contention for belief, your problem isn't God - it's man-made fundamentalistic literalism. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (a very manmade and, to me, a downright silly statement) is perhaps the primary source for this problem for many.
In one part, it says that the authority of Scripture is “inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded.” The "this" it's referring to is God's 6-day creation, any recorded biblical events in world history, etc. - the writers of this statement literally set believers up to fall. They backed themselves into a dangerous corner; they stood on a hill and said they will die on it because Scripture _has_ to be the way they want it to be, else it's all for naught. And as soon as any adherents to the Chicago Statement discover _any_ contradiction, inaccuracy, or minor discrepancy pertaining to ANYTHING, their entire faith comes crumbling down. This type of literalism is why Bart Ehrman lost his faith. Rather tragic if you ask me, and all over an approach that is simply unbiblical to begin with.
In both John 5:39 and Luke 24, Jesus says that the Scriptures (Moses and the Prophets) are written to bear witness to Himself. The New Testament authors had this understand as well - they reasoned from the Scriptures the things concerning Christ, His life, His death, and His resurrection. And that's what one really needs to read, trust, and understand the Bible's message - that Jesus is the central message of the story. No such words like "inerrant" are used in the New Testament. God-breathed, sure, but why equate God-breathed with "free from error"? God worked with and through fallible humans to communicate a story of redemption for mankind that culminates in Christ. When I encounter errors, I enjoy them because it shows God's invitation for humans to step into and be a part of the story.
So that's my concluding question to you - why believe human limitations being included precludes Scripture's divine inspiration?
@@user-gv8xf9ul5j Depends on what one means by “inspired.”
@@user-gv8xf9ul5j How do you know my definition is correct? Like I said, there’s a great difference of opinion among Bible-believing Christians over terms like inerrancy, inspiration, infallibility, and etc.
@@user-gv8xf9ul5j Yes, the various writers of the Bible books were inspired by God, but they are still human, and humans are inherently imperfect. Does that mean the Bible could have a few good faith mistakes like a wrong number or date? Sure. But that doesn't invalidate the overall message in any way.
Just like 2 Timothy 2:21 says:
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness."
The Bible doesn't view itself as the literal, infallible speech of God like the Quran does, but rather, as a manual for instruction that is a useful tool in teaching how to live a good life in obedience to God.
Anybody here keep a journal? A fun exercise is to go look at your old journal writings for key events in your life. Now, take note of many of the "contradictions" you find in your journals. Can you harmonize them? Yes. Because you know the contexts and how you didn't cover every single detail in every single mention of the event. Very few of these contradictions skeptics bring up are hardly worse than some of those I have found in my own journal. I think it is more special pleading to say you can't harmonize than it is to try to harmonize.
exactly you must know the spirit in which it was said It's just like here on youtube I could say something and three people could take it three different ways unless they knew from where I was coming from with my words.
Amen I'll probably make hundreds of minor discrepancies about what I did and saw last week let alone ten years ago and if we're assuming the synoptic Gospels were written ten years after Jesus returned to The right hand of The Father, then its likely the apostles weren't recalling every minor detail each time.
All of these "contradictions"dont effect the truth of the bible tbh
I think atheists try to gloss over this very clear and salient point you’re making by saying “Okay sure, makes sense, but this book is supposed to be inspired from a perfect God, and can therefore not contain a single error.” They’re taking this idea and vastly over-stretching it to incorporate an unrealistic standard of perfectly synchronized eyewitness accounts. Ask a detective how confident he or she will be in the exactly duplicated testimony of 3-4 people. They will be suspicious as hell lol
@All About Britain Sure, thanks for asking. I believe he did.
I find no reason why the current consensus on the dating of the earth has to contradict the creation account. I believe that either 1) The events of Genesis ch 1 really did occur 6,000 years ago, and God gave the universe/earth inherent age. Everybody ignores the possibility of that last part, somehow limiting an all-powerful God from birthing an already aged creation. Or, 2) The dating methods we use are wrong. The geologic column doesn’t even exist, after all :)
And yes to the Adam and Eve point as well.
I’m not an expert, and I’m not going to pretend that I’m 100% sure on these points. But for every “you’re a science-denying fundamentalist idiot” I receive, I dole out a “God can create however He wants, including giving something age.” Thanks for asking, would love to hear your takes
@All About Britain hey, fun fact, time distortion is a thing. And time has slowed down as the universe expended. If you do the math of the age accounting time dilation, you get 6000 years!
The seemingly ever-present problem of reading Scripture through a modern, Western lens.
isn't the message supposed to be forever true and universal? If it doesn't work for a time and a place, is the problem really the place and the time, or the book?
@@bzhyoyo it is still true and universal, if read in context.
@@natebozeman4510 so I've been told, and then all the atrocities in the Old Testament are then cool, because "context". There's no context that could excuse slavery, ever.
@@bzhyoyo If you conflate the slavery of the Old Testament with chattel slavery taught to us in school (the kind that happened in America), I could see how you would come to that conclusion.
The only issue is that the slavery in the OT is NOT chattel slavery, or anything resembling it.
Conflating two different ideas into one and saying "Well if THAT'S what Christianity affirms, then I'm out" is weak sauce, man.
This is exactly the point of my original comment. We read Scripture with a modern, Western lens, and wonder why anyone could believe those stories.
You have to remove yourself from the modern context (which takes a lot of time, effort, and study) in order to read the Bible properly.
But this objection your posting has been answered many times.
@@natebozeman4510 As have been this argument that it's different from chattel slavery, I suppose. I've read about the differences (the wikipedia page about "Bible and slavery" is quite complete) and I don't see it as an excuse. Anyway, it all boils down to "cool story, Bro" if you take the unsavory bits away, like so many Christians do.
He doesn’t understand what a contradiction is so he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Two different details from two different sources about the same event isn’t a contradiction. If those two details were opposing like how Jesus died or something then we’d have a problem. But there is nothing like that.
An atheist RUclipsr alleging contradictions in the Bible, who knows the definition of contradiction, would itself be a contradiction.
I think the genealogy contradiction is problematic because 1) claiming it’s Joseph’s lineage means that’s NOT Jesus’ lineage so the prophesy is void. If you change it to be Mary’s lineage, it still has an error because the 2 didn’t lines have different fathers. It’s obvious the 2 authors were trying to force the lineage to prove the prophesy, but one didn’t have all the details. And he was a Christian scholar who has more education on theology than you do. He became an atheist after researching & realizing how faulty the core beliefs are with this religion
@@RobbieBishopthese guys are great at gymnastics
@@RobbieBishop Ugh no go be dumb elsewhere
For anyone who's not read it yet, I recommend J Warner Wallace's Cold Case Christianity. The author's an LAPD cold case homicide detective who specializes in harmonizing witness statements in murder cases, figuring out when apparent discrepancies point to truth and when they are lies. He analyzed the Gospels using this skill set when he was an atheist and came out convinced that the New Testament is reliable and true.
I'm sure that Jesus was hoping someone like him would finally do that and set the record straight for the rest of us.
@@truncated7644 Is that sarcasm or a genuine statement?
@@StageWatcher Sarcasm, Wallace is not a scholar and his understanding of the ancient near east, biblical texts, etc. is very limited and often wrong. Even Lacona struggled to walk back all the claims Wallace made about NT authorship, dating, etc. Wallace has a single hammer and everything he sees is a nail.
@@truncated7644 Examples please?
@@StageWatcher Well, if you are truly curious, @Paulogia has a whole series on these issues. Wallace thinks that his detective logic can prove that Mark was written in the 50's, when even virtually all evangelical scholars disagree. Wallace totally misunderstands the probable dating of the creed Paul quotes in 1Cor 15. Wallace fails to comprehend the enormous dependence of Matthew and Luke on Mark's gospel. Yet he goes on and on about how he knows when suspects are colluding.
I wrote a full report on Judas’ death, with scientific, historical, and biblical evidence of how Judas died , how long it took for his body to decompose, as well as how he did it and what historical trees he could of used to hang himself. Most important take away from all of it , read Acts 1:18 word for word and see that he did not buy the field with silver , the Pharisees did , Judas however purchased the field with wages of unrighteousness. Peter was speaking spiritually about his impure blood purchasing the field with the wages of his sin. That’s why it was called the field of blood by everyone in Jerusalem at the time to the point where they wanted nothing to do with the cursed ground even if it was open for sale.
Cursed?
I wonder…
What’s on the ground presently?
Jimmy Akin in his debate with Bart Ehrman last year said that he thinks Joseph may have had two residences. When I first heard the claim it initially sounded ad-hoc and perhaps even absurd, but when explained in full, rather than a short segment in a cross examination, it actually makes quite a bit of sense. Akin wrote an article on this titled "Where Was Joseph’s Residence?" which is worth checking out.
I really like Jimmy Akin and I do agree that Joseph probably did have two residences. I need to watch that debate, I think I only watched the debrief on it. See the playlist in the description from Lydia McGrew, she has a video on the possibility and why it makes a lot of sense. All of these contradictions could take up an entire video so I was trying to shotgun solutions I found plausible.
@@TestifyApologetics it was a really good debate you should definitely watch it jimmy was very well prepared
@@djpodesta Having two places where he could live where both of them are backwater towns actually seems... Not that big of a claim. "I have two trailers, one in a small town where I work and one in my childhood home of a small Appalachian mountain village" is like... Incredibly achievable. If that's your idea of wealth, you don't need to be a 1%er to be wealthy.
I don't think anyone would claim that Joseph had two really nice houses. He can't even stay with family and willingly takes his pregnant wife to a cave to shelter out the night according to Luke. And you're like "how could this cave dwelling man possibly have two caves, ridiculous!"
@@soulcutterx13 I just don't see why its a problem in general. The reason there was "no room" in the inn was clearly some kind of seasonal or event based form of overpopulation... like hotels during the Olympics. Once the surge dips, he could easily have procured a lasting place to stay.
They weren't POOR, they were more like what we'd call middle class.
And it makes sense that he'd be staying somewhere near Jerusalem (Bethlehem isn't far away, and it's in the ancient claim area of his family, so it's preferable to a random place) because now that they hsve the baby, unnecessary long travel isn't a solid idea if they're just going to come right back and visit the temple.
While there maybe Joseph made some good business connections so they stayed longer than anticipated, and only left when soldiers started killing babies, so they fled to Egypt, and then went back to his main residence in Nazereth.
I'm not saying that's what happened, but I'm simply saying it's perfectly plausible, which shows the ridiculous version is just ad hoc and lacks imagination. It's a "put on" absurdity.
@@TestifyApologetics
""Where Was Joseph’s Residence?" which is worth checking out."
To quote my mother, "What Does That Have To Do With The Price Of Tea In China?"
Have anyone noticed that Holy Koolaid’s depiction of Jesus is rather…unsavory?
Wonder what HK is going to say to Jesus on Judgment Day…..
Then I [John] turned to see the voice that was speaking with me. And having turned, I saw seven golden lampstands, and among the lampstands was One like the Son of Man, dressed in a long robe, with a golden sash around His chest. The hair of His head was white like wool, as white as snow, and His eyes were like a blazing fire. His feet were like polished bronze refined in a furnace, and His voice was like the roar of many waters. He held in His right hand seven stars, and a sharp double-edged sword came from His mouth. His face was like the sun shining at its brightest.
When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. But He placed His right hand on me and said, “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last, the Living One. I was dead, and behold, now I am alive forever and ever! And I hold the keys of Death and of Hades.” (Rev. 1:12-18).
@@Mark-cd2wf Amen. His depiction of Jesus reminded me of how unbelievers accused our Lord and Saviour.
“The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.” - Matthew 11:19 KJV.
The bible is a man-made book with man-made wisdom (Kain and Abel) and man-made errors :
+ light wasn't there before the sun
+ the Earth wasn't there before the sun
+ Adam and Eve didn't exist
+ insects have six legs not four legs
+ homosexuality is not a seduction by a satan, but a natural born healthy sexual orientation with an evolutionary meaning
+ the "firmament" is not a solid "roof" over the world
+ the sun can’t be stopped for having longer light in a battle, it already stands still
+ etc etc
If the bible would be the word of god or inspired by god it would be without errors, but it isn't.
@@Mark-cd2wf I wonder what you will say when you stand in front of Odin instead of Jesus and Odin will think long if he lets you into Walhalla, or send you to Hels realm.
Christians were pretty brutal to pagans ;)
@@clayton4349 I wonder what you will say when you stand in front of Odin instead of Jesus and Odin will think long if he lets you into Walhalla, or send you to Hels realm.
Christians were pretty brutal to pagans ;)
“Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.”
John 17:17
“And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.”
1 Thessalonians 2:13
Apparent discrepancies or minor errors are at least good evidence against deceitful collusion between the authors.
Some of these would have been incredibly easy to harmonise artificially.
Can you prove that those minor errors weren't slipped in intentionally to make it look realistic?
@@Jewonastick I imagine that testing this hypothesis would introduce just as many issues than it would solve.
@@xravenx24fe how does one test such a thing? Were talking about stories that have been copied and re-written many times..... Stories from mostly anonymous authors written decades after the alleged events. What's there to test?
@@Jewonastick😂 how desperate
Y this special standard for only the Bible
Honestly, look at how some secular historians and internet athiest pundits treat the new testament vs another historical text
It's embarrassingly desperate
@@ultracrepiderian Maybe, just maybe it has something to do with sort of claims that no other historical text makes.
Is my eternity at stake if I reject the story of Napoleon?
Does any non religious historical text mention anything about a talking donkey, ressurecting from the death, walking on water, virgin birth and so on?
A new video from one of my favorite people! Whoo, let's go! 💖
Also, many atheists forget that Jewish days were evening then morning, while some instances tell what Roman times would be, and many treat every instance as morning then evening, being half a day off.
The breathing on the Disciples was not the general giving if the SPIRIT, but the beginning of the Priesthood of the Apostles. Completely different things and easily understood by Catholics.
@@Frst2nxt 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
O excellent Erik Manning, I hope you never forget the impact you have; by the decrees of our common Lord, you have been an instrument to convert many, and have strengthen the faith of the brethren. You are an example of what we as Christians ought to be. Persevere onward O Erik, and may the God of Heaven bless you forever and evermore. Godspeed to thee.
Your comment is a powerful argument for the reincorporation of the vocative case into English.
Testify is demolishing misconceptions and false facts at this point and I'm all for it.
Misconceptions?
People are reading the words of your book and they call out the problems loud and clear,
You're the one who involves yourself in mental gymnastics in order to explain a thing, you have no idea about.
Let me ask you, how many of the accounts came from the original time of the people they are testifying? Who testified for Moses? Do you have anything remotely close to his time?
You're like a pigeon that tries to play chess and says he's won by shitting all over the chess board. He didn't present a refutation, he only presented a perspective, that is not even present in the book he believes in.
The genealogy theory, its all theory, that his book do not contain, what now?
"demonlishing" according to who? Both Jewish and Muslim and Secular scholars do not accept your excuses, so who's the authority that accepts the explanations? Lmao, that's like commiting a crime and saying that you're not in the wrong, while the majority disagrees with you.
Yeah I can see the democracy the Christians once used to hold, their world view of pure bias and prejudice, absolutely disgusting!
Why are there fabrications in your book? What about them? 1 John 5:7 king james version compare it to 1 john 5:7 to revised standard version. You see 2 different verses, king james one is a fabrication and a later addition, admitted by your own christian scholars, so why do you still keep it in your books?
Why?
Good
Love your pfp
@@ramigilneas9274 i understand what you saying it is very to bring up arguments against any texts but what is not easy to do is to actually make facts of those arguments the Bible doesnt have contradictions cause for any contradiction people come up with there is someone who has factually answered it. Cant say the same for many of the other religious texts
@@ramigilneas9274 that is why i stated to prove things with facts is difficult the Quran and the book of Mormon can't conclusively explain some of their texts but when it comes to the Bible then all 'contradicting' texts have been answered by someone. Ps. The Quran and book of Mormon are full of misleading texts and falsified information.
That guy is an insult for the good old Kool-aid drink
Thanks alot for making videos like this!!! I honestly would love to see a long indepth video disproving "contradictions"!!
I will go in depth on more specific ones here and there
I would also recommend looking at InspiringPhilosophy's Bible Contradictions series. He answers _tons_ of weak arguments with finesse.
All offenses that aren't calling someone's hardest sauce weak or chidin' them like Neltzen from the Simpsons aside...this skeptic sounds like me when I was an atheist and thought I was dismantling people's responses and experiences with God/Jesus
but the only person I was destroying was myself and in a very Nietzschen/Fight Club way....
the same people I picked on and Grinch'd at their faith motivated by their experience and Bible learning with apologetics, logic, and sciences tend to weave together in confidence as the ones I stand behind now
I like how you rebuked every one of his claims with a straight face ! So badass !
I didn't choose the thug life, it chose me.
@@TestifyApologetics 😎
@@TestifyApologetics This is objectively the best thing I've read all day
I’ll call this the emotionless fallacy.
Rebuked with "could be", "it's possible", "maybe", "perhaps". Sounds about right for the "possible", could be", perhaps", "maybe" word of god.
I just started this video, and I'm only on the first supposed contradiction. It's clear that Holy Koolaid has never studied the theological points that Matthew is trying to get across through the way he constructed his genealogy. It's a shame honestly.
@@allaboutbritain3367why die for something that you know other ppl invented?💀
@@allaboutbritain3367 why did the apostles die for something they invented?
@@Kingrich_777 who says they did?
@@truncated7644 literally James from the account of non Christian historians
@@jonathandelarosa8333 its like they avoid the truth
25:17 This one is fairly important.
Michael Caerularius of Constantinople used John to "prove" Our Lord wasn't using Matsot at the Last Supper.
He fails to note that St. John says "it was the day of preparation of the Jews" - and everywhere elsewhere, his narrator voice, but not the direct quotes of Jesus (except before Pilate) uses "Jews" as shorthand for different categories for enemies of Jesus.
Personally I don't care if people think I'm stupid for being born again.
Your stupid for believing a lie.
That view would be consistent with most Christians faith. You should care. But as the saying goes you can’t fix stupid.
@@wo26ws
Spot On
@@wo26wswe still don’t
It's always hilarious to me when 20 something year olds with no education or background in historical scholarship are try-harding to "debunk" Scripture by applying their XXI century high school novel-reading experience and skills to a two thousand year old documents from a completely different times and culture. And of course, they could not be bothered to do throughout research on the subject and reference all the counter arguments provided by actual historians and scholars over the last two thousand years. Their go to approach is that all billions of Christians who lived before them, including those who had twice their IQ and 10 times their experience on the matter, are just coping idiots who can be leveled in 10 minutes. I mean the ego on that guy. Uffff, talk about cringe.
It's all they have. They are more excuses than anything else. I imagine he rejects God because that would mean there are objective moral standards he has to adhere to. That gets in the way of enjoying sin, so can't have that.
@@capitalm4605 Seriously? You truly think that is what motivates him? Do you know his story? If that is how you love your enemies by judging them in this way, you are deeply in the wrong.
I prefer to read the scholars rather than the research communicators too. But your statement isn't an argument and it doesn't make HK wrong. @Testify is doing yeoman's labor here, and the amount of effort shows. There are a lot of contradictions, but deeply held convictions leads him and all believers to cling to what is possible and not always what is probable.
@@truncated7644 I am familiar with his story and have seen it many times. I can see the idea makes you angry, but sometimes loving your enemies means delivering harsh truths.
@@capitalm4605 Not angry. Why would I be? about what? If you define truth as repeating what you understand the Bible says, go for it. It doesn't make it true. But it does seem to cause you to define other humans as defective (captured by sin, not believing in objective morality) in a way that believers, who you think have found the truth, are not.
To be Frank, nothing makes me cringe more than when someone says they’re consulting the “original Greek” while using a meh online interlinear.
If you don’t understand the language, ask an expert… Holy Kool-aid needs to listen more and speak less.
I’m still stuck on the fact he doesn’t know what a scrabble error is, despite the fact he supposedly has 20 years of research under his belt and he’s literally interviewed Bart Ehrman he has no excuse.
To think about "original greek". Jesus was a jew, so he spoke biblical hebraic as tought in the synagogues and the peoples aramaic. Most likely he spoke greek as today people in europe often learn english. It is said that Matthew wrote the first gospel in hebraic for the jews.
The more Atheist videos I watch, the more I wonder if they only go by gut instinct, or if they do any research at all, ever.
Some do. Most dont.
I always say Atheists know exactly enough about the Bible/Jesus to be completely wrong about it in every way.
@motionpotionsauce man, it's a shame I can't favourite on other people's channels.
@motionpotionsauce I have a few videos on Atheists if you're interested, and a few more upcoming next year, probably in February or March.
On the lineage in Matthew, the term used for Joseph is gabra/gvra. Consider the 2 points a) Yusef (Joseph) is a common name and b) gabra (Hebrew/Aramaic) can be used for her head of household, it is possible that is Mary's lineage through her father Yusef (Joseph). Luke is more specific in that it says the lineage is through supposing Jesus being the son of Joseph and thus that Joseph would definitely be the husband rather than father.
Regarding Herod, Quirinius, and the census, Josephus lists a number of events that occurred between Herod's sickness, death, and burial, which would better fit in 1BC, due to the events of the Passover slaughter by his son and there not being enough, or being too much time, for other presumed dates. Quirinius was legate of Syria-Judea for the census taking for Caesar Augustus's tributary census for his silver jubilee, which would occur in 2 BC.
Regarding Judas, the gospels mentioned he was a thief who handled the treasury monies for the group. Hmmm, I wonder where he could possibly have gotten a price of iniquity to buy the field. Maybe there's more than one iniquity that he had committed and that he got monetary gain from.
Regarding the entries into Jerusalem, there seems to be enough differences that there were two entries, one in triumph and one pronouncing judgement.
For the timeline on the trial, torture, and crucifixion, this was Passover time, which is a High Sabbath, and there is the weekly Sabbath. The torture and beatings were across more than one day.
Regarding the post resurrection appearances, there's a holiday in Jerusalem called Pentecost, which holy koolaid demonstrates he knew about, so travelling back to Jersualem forty days later would be not only not odd, but normal and appropriate.
Great video! A lot of useful explanations given!
I have to say, I don't really understand where these contradictions are supposed to get the skeptic. Even if we grant them all, so what? The stories all remain almost identical and the over all story is the same. You can't get that it is historic fiction from the contradictions and the overall narrative doesn't change.
It really does just feel like a meaningless objection.
I agree. And I will go one further. Even if everything in the gospels are true, the evidence for it isn't sufficient for belief. Relying on the testimony of a handful of uneducated, pre-scientific people (or even modern people) simply isn't good evidence. If God wanted everyone to believe, he would have done things in a way that would lead to belief, in the same way we believe in air and gravity. Clearly he didn't want that. Or, it isn't true.
@@truncated7644 so you agree the supposed contradictions don't prove the Bible false and your one step further is to make a different point that renders the court system useless, history of any kind unknowable, and even scientific experiments you didn't do yourself untrustworthy?
Not so much a step further as to leap off a cliff.
@@euanthompson To be blunt, eye witness testimony is incredibly unreliable, as human memory has a tendency to fill in the gaps rather than actually remember all the details of what happened, especially during traumatic events, which is what I believe @Trun Cated was trying to say. And while much of history, especially ancient history, can't be known for sure, there are still methods we can use to investigate whether or not certain events in ancient history were true. No such methods exists for many of the claims of the bible, especially for its supernatural claims. In fact, modern scientific methods have actually proven that many of the supernatural claims of the bible (like a world wide flood, for example) are not only highly unlikely, but are basically impossible to have occurred.
@@euanthompson Can you please explain your comment? Why would the court system be useless?
@@billyb7465 the court system is heavily reliant on testamony. If we throw out testamony as insufficient the entire system collapses. You also lose most of history since the majority is based on testamony. You also lose science because you are relying on the testamony of those who did the experiments.
Throw out testamony and a lot of stuff collapses.
great video, thanks for your job.
Grace be with you.
One needs to keep on mind that the Gospels were eyewitnesses. None had the complete picture, but what they proclaimed was true. Eyewitnesses keep us from jumping to premature conclusions, whether it is a murder mystery or any other scenario.
The Gospels don’t even claim to be eyewitnesses, though...
@@billyb7465 What does an eyewitness do?
@@billyb7465 what you're talking about? Have you read Luke? Clearly he says that his accounts are based in the testimony of eyewitnesses
@@filopon7116 Did you misread my comment? Luke is not an eyewitness account. It claims to be *based on* eyewitness accounts. Not once does Luke or any of the Gospel authors themselves claim “I saw this” or anything like it. Being supposedly based on eyewitness accounts is not the same thing as being an eyewitness account. The Gospels were written decades after the fact, and not one of the four authors claims to have personally witnessed any of the events, themselves.
@@billyb7465 John does in the end of his gospel
Thank you for these videos, Keep up the good work 👍
To me these discrepancies are the evidence that these were real eye witness accounts from what they saw and remembered.
Any competent Bible scholar will tell you Mattew and Mark had Luke on the table when they wrote their gospels.
@@kevinkelly2162 so your point is they wanted to fabricate a story but were bad at copying
Exactly, if there were no discrepancies between 4 different eye witness accounts, then that would be evidence that the authors conspired to creat a completely consistent narrative and then set it up to look like they had each decided to write their own narrative.
Evidence of such a conspiracy would cast doubt on the truth of Christianity.
Thing is, that is our point.... That just proves there is nothing special to the bible when it is just as fallible as us humans and every other historic account of that time.
No one is saying the bible is not 100% unreliable. We are saying it is not 100% reliable, because it was written by humans and not God.
@@nonprogrediestregredi1711 Bart Erman.
Great response again, Testify. Take them out!
I left a long response on both of his videos on contradictions, and I can safely say that your videos are much better than my responses 👏👏👏👏, I originally wasn’t even gonna do it but no one was responding so I feel like I had to.
RUclips needs more people like you.
@@chubbyclub2502 Thanks but I don’t really think my stuff is that remarkable, I would make videos but my editing skills are not the best.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 Well whether you make a video or not it is still good to correct false information.
Appreciate you putting in the effort to tackle all of these.
It would be cute if not so pitiful.
Modern RUclipsr try-hard atheists:
"WeLl AcKsHuAlLy"
The Scripture: 🤣
* laughs in literal millennia of established text and historicity
What’s clear is God demands justice and we are terribly sinful. We need Jesus, and without Him we will perish. That’s no koolaid.
@@CWRobinsonMusic Amen.
I am not sinful, i just live my life. No problem that your god demands justice from those who believe in his magic.
@@ElJulius67No magic, miracle.
@@carinaslima same thing
@@ElJulius67 Magic is false. Miracle is true.
Thanks for the recognition that expectations need to be clarified ( 1:18 ) and the examples of Josephus and early American construction. One factor for calibration to also inject into this calculus: the consequence of deviation. Proper credit for the addition of a feature to a building is good to have, but misattribution doesn’t mean the addition isn’t there - it is, we can see it plainly. Nothing in Josephus need be true for the state of our soul today and in eternity. With the Bible, laser precision is necessary: “not one jot or tittle”, “all Scripture is God-breathed”, etc. The stakes for “getting it wrong” as set by the Bible itself are so incredibly high! As eternity hangs in the balance (according to the proponents of Bible inerrancy), a small deviation misses the mark as much as a large one.
I love the Bible and think the Bible and its history are one of the Western world’s greatest and most influential documents. Contradictions and mistakes, late additions, missing books from the cannon, etc., don’t bother me anymore at all. They used to - I spent over 30 years in a fundamentalist off-shoot of the Plymouth Brethren just to cut straight the Word of the Lord - but now I only see the Bible as a work of man with no bearing on eternity. I am freed from having to compromise truth to contort obedience to the idea of Divine Inspiration let alone inerrancy of the Bible, present form or Original Documents.
Great video. In Eusebius church history, there is a piece on the genealogy of Christ, when even early on people saw a discrepancy.
This guy Africanus, found out from Jesus human relations, which had been passed down.
Both lists are correct, either by nature or by law ie By nature, when there was a genuine offspring to succeed, By law, when another man gathered a child in the name of a brother who died childless.
He writes: Matthau, Solomons descendant, begot Jacob. On Matthan’s death Melchi, Nathan’s descendant, begot Heli by the same women. This Heli and Jacob had the same mother. When Heli died childless, Jacob ‘raised up’ offspring to him, begetting Joseph - by nature his own son, by law Heli’s. Thus Joseph was the son of both. “
Africanus was a boss. Also, Augustine proposed that Joseph was adopted, which would make him especially suited to be Jesus' adoptive father. It's quite speculative yet also interesting.
@@TestifyApologetics Thanks I’ll check that out.
Yes he sounds a impressive figure Africanus, it’s a pity his work of history was lost.
@@TestifyApologetics Given the billions of people born millenniums later, why would these genealogies be so controversial, and therefore ineffective in inspiring belief? Should everyone who reads these need to know esoteric explanations that at most can be considered possible, even when most scholars view them as improbable? Do you have to have faith first before the Bible makes any sense?
I like that a lot of the Dawah and Muslim apologetics teams use these arguments of inaccuracies in the Gospels when coercing young Christians who don't know their faith to Islam ...
Luke was also not Jewish. I think he was Greek.
Per Wikipedia, for what it's worth: "Many scholars believe that Luke was a physician who lived in the Hellenistic city of Antioch in Ancient Syria, born of a Greek family, although some scholars and theologians think Luke was a Hellenic Jew."
I love how these skeptics are so elementary. As though he’s the first person to add and discover an arithmetic error in a two thousand year old text.
Yeah, crazy how people still believe in those error filled embellished texts. At least it's fun to see someone point out some of the funniest stuff in them.
@@Zanivox72 yeah, that’s all they are. They, and all the commentaries, aren’t the accumulation of thousands of years of wisdom and human experience, they’re just a collection of silly superstitions. On an unrelated note, how great have things been going since we stopped taking those texts seriously? Just dandy.
@@Evongelo how great were things when it was taken seriously? Should we ask the Native Americans? I think there’s still a few of them left.
@@KeanuReevesIsMyJesus no natives were killed in the name of Christ. You can take that elementary level pseudofact and go back to school cause you look like a fool. But I’ll tell you this, none of them are sacrificing babies to their false gods anymore, so I’ll call it win regardless.
What an ignorant reply, you live in the fruits of a Christian world, And what do you mean by taken seriously? Does the New Testament say Slay the native Americans? Human error is human error, don’t blame it on Christian tradition ☠️
The moment their skepticism goes away, is the moment it’s gonna be too late. I feel bad for them
What a horrible God to allow that
@@timom8498 can’t be a horrible God when he gives you chance after chance. A cruel horrible god would Destroy you on the spot without warning.
@@timom8498 man the only thing that accounts for the receiving of your mercy is to believe. Very clearly to believe. If you can’t even simply do that, why are you complaining and whining “injustice” when you don’t wanna receive the legal mercy you’ve been given?
Belief has nothing to do with works. You don’t have to live the typical American evangelical life to be saved or to retain salvation. Salvation is by a one time belief that Jesus is God’s Son, and that he died for all human sin, and rose again on the 3rd day.
If you can’t do that, then I hate to break it to you, but that’s on you. No one else but you. That decision came from no ones will except your own
Is belief so hard? Is it so hard that it’s mentally easier for children to do? You don’t have to pop a vain to believe lol.
@@timom8498 turn to Christ.
@@phineas8532 How does a person go about choosing to believe? Could you choose to believe you haven't watched this video?
Ayooooooo the plot twist at the end absolutely got me XD I did an actual double take lmfaooooo The build-up was so smooth I never saw it coming 🫢
"Is he really saying that Jesus is disqualified from being the Messiah because God is His Father?" Hahahaha 😀
If I were an atheist, I would say less about that objection. I've seen it a lot and it needs a proper burial.
@@TestifyApologetics Disagree. What evidence exists that his mother was a descendant of David? What you offered was very timid. You acknowledge that he wasn't Joseph's son, and your claim that Mary is a descendant doesn't come from anything other than weak inferential evidence. Why should skeptics back off this given how much weight it carries for Christians?
@@truncated7644 we have in the early rabbinic literature denouncements of Jesus as practicing sorcery (a rejection of the claims of his miracles) and leading Israel away from monotheism (a rejection of his claim to divinity), and, possibly, of Mary as being a prostitute (a rejection of the claims regarding his virgin birth).
In other words, we would expect his detractors to say things against his claims if they could. Do we have anything that similar that rejects his Davidic descent?
@@Norbingel Well, using your argument, his detractors wouldn't believe in the virgin birth, so then the genealogy of Jacob (or at least one of them, they contradict each other) could apply if he actually was the father. But claims that Mary was a prostitute is not just a claim she wasn't a virgin, but that Joseph wasn't her husband.
Your argument that there aren't early critics on this point is basically an argument from silence (ask @Testify what he thinks about them).
Way to miss the point, the point is that according to prophecy Jesus was supposed to be a descendant of David. God promised David that the Messiah would come from his lineage. If Joseph wasn't his actual father, then the prophecy is false and God lied. Pay more attention next time.
Btw, according to prophecy, the Messiah wasn't supposed to be the son of God. In fact, nothing about the son of God is in the Old Testament. That is why most Jews rejected Jesus, the messiah wasn't supposed to be divine. It is even called as the "Son of Man", which even jesus himselfs describes himself as that. It is only in the later Gospels were Jesus's divinity becomes explicit.
Thank you, brother
Kind regards Kim
A few years ago I saw a RUclips video which neatly combines the two accounts of Jesus's birth showing consistency. It is a theory not a claim that it must be right. It requires very close timing.
First Joseph was from Bethlehem. He was in Nazareth for work but still considered himself "of Bethlehem ". Abother video says that there was a major building project near Nazareth. When registration for taxes came Joseph and other family members away from home had to go register and there wasn't room for everyone. Jesus was born, some people left again and there was room for Joseph, Mary and Jesus. Jesus was circumcised on the eighth day and almost immediately the Magi arrived. Joseph and the Magi were warned and they went home and Joseph went to Egypt. The border was only a few days away. Herod had one of his characteristic murderous fits of anger then died. Word reached Joseph that Herod was dead and they returned reaching Jerusalem just in time for Jesus's dedication as firstborn in the Temple. It looked like Herod's already violently antisemitic son was in charge in Judea so they went to live near Mary's family in Nazareth instead of his in Bethlehem. It does fit but requires precisión timing, which of course, God does regularly.
On dates, there is a known error by the monk who formulated the Gregorian calander. His name is known but I don't remember what was reported. The date was determined from records of the Roman Emperors and it was missed that Octavian and Ceasar Augustus are the same person. Also the year I BC was followed by I AD because there is no zero in Roman numerals.
Oh, somewhere in this favored land
The sun is shining bright;
The band is playing somewhere,
And somewhere hearts are light,
And somewhere men are laughing,
And somewhere children shout;
But there is no joy in Skepticville,
Holy Koolaid has struck out.
(With apologies to _Casey at the Bat)_
Thanks, brother. That was both careful and insightful.
Fundamentalism is blessed
Anyone with a thumbnail like his will not be taken seriously by me
God Bless fellow brother in Christ. These videos are beautifully made and explained. Keep up the work
Long time listener, first time caller.
Always wonderful. Thank you for what you're doing.
I do have one small correction to make. Hopefully, it is understood to be constructive and not a 'knowitall' comment.
*pushes glasses back on top of nose*
Chet in חגיגה is pronounced like that hard, phlegmy 'k' rather than the 'ch' as in 'chapter' or 'sh' as in 'shy'.
That's all! Keep it up!
I should probably consult my Greek friend Than (Athanasius) to help me with pronunciation. No worries, sir. I appreciate it.
A group of dudes walking through the desert for months/years on end under constant starvation, exhaustion, and injuries are inevitably going to make mistakes, especially typos; the mental clarity to get everything right given the conditions they were in and there wasn’t an easy way to “factcheck” certain things. The apostles were people, and people are inevitably prone to small errors. To me these discrepancies existing in scripture to this day prove proper biblical preservation as if you were a scribe editing, why wouldn’t you remove these “glaring” errors?
I think the problem with these discrepancies is when certain churches uses them to hurt outsiders or to promote a certain ideology. Some clear examples are The rapture, salvation and the meaning of saints. This doesn’t go far by looking at diferencies between churches. The catholic church has a completely different uses for them; catholics for examples use Matthew 16:27 and revelations 20:12 as pre-basis of their work while those who justify Sola fide tend to emphasize Ephesians 2:8-9. Or other things such as homosexuality, many attest that Sodom and Gomorrah, was about sexual assault, however many claim it was about homosexuality. If we look at Ezekiel 16:49-50 it gives a completely different reason on why sodom was destroyed and it was on the basis of greed. Among other things that churches tend to differ on. So, if a church such as Orthodox, catholics and some protestants argue that salvations is only through their church, then it becomes problematic and all these words have weight in all these issues.
His "Kool-Aid" his terrible.
Thank you for your ministry 🙏💝🙏💝🙏💝🙏
Let's remember luke was not a disciple of Yeshua so his accounts would be a little off especially since he was writing after Yeshua resurrection and going to heaven! Luke was following Paul after his road to Damascus encounter. Matthew was a direct disciple of messiah!
"How can we know the will of God if there's contradictions" funny how none of the 'contradictions' have to do with the will of God.
Anyway, I don't know how people have a problem with the whole priests/judas field thing. The verse even specifically states that they called Judas' money blood money. they wouldn't have claimed the field or the money for themselves
This channel is underrated.
Amen
Perhaps make a video to clarify your view with some detail/precision: Are there errors or not? Is the bible infallible? What exactly is meant by "God's Word" exactly. If the bible is historically reliable, then to what extent? How do you define "historical reliability" exactly? ... I grew up as a fundamentalist. My church leaders were so vague on their view of the bible. They could bend their ambiguous definitions to defeat any problems in the bible.
see this blog post from my friend Jonathan McLatchie to sum up where I am at in the moment: jonathanmclatchie.com/is-the-bible-without-error-inspiration-inerrancy-and-christian-epistemology/
@@TestifyApologetics Thanks for the link.
@@TestifyApologeticsinteresting link. Might I make a comment as a biblical scholar who studied Greek? The Greek text doesn't say that "all scripture is inspired by God" there is no "is" there. It's one possible translation but another might be, "All scripture (that's) inspired by God, etc." and indeed there are some Bible translations which translate it that way. It makes not much of a difference for my personal faith just wanted to mention it.
It is funny to me that skeptics emphasize the authors’ genius or meticulous care in ensuring all these details line up, but then also argue that they were so careless that they missed (what a modern reader might perceive as) obvious contradictions & mistakes in their *own* account. Which is it?
My salvation is not dependent on the words of philo, plato or whoever historians but on the perfect word of god. They can contradict forever not with the petfect word of god.
The word of God is Jesus. "The word became flesh" not paper. I believe the gospels because I believe the first Christians tried to faithfully write down what they have seen end experienced with Jesus. They simply had vastly different concepts of how to write a biography and what it should contain.
The most important question that I rarely see anyone ask, be they atheist or Christian, is why did the church choose 4 gospels? Why didn't they eliminate the "contradictions" by using just one as Marcion wanted?
There have been doctoral thesis about how the gospels actually follow the form of ancient biographies only that ancient biographies weren't written like biographies today. Which should really be obvious since it's almost 2,000 years ago.
Do they contain "the truth"? Yes they do. But Jesus is "the truth" in Christian faith, once again not paper.
The gospel writers didn't care about actual contradictions if they managed to shed light on a certain topic from different angles. Like the parable about the "king's meal" where the king lets his servants get people from the street to join him but then throws out one person who wasn't "properly dressed" which in the context seems to make no sense.
Fun fact, science once thought the universe was logical until quantum theory came along. Suddenly light was two things at once, a particle and a wave.
I don't want to over-interpret that. But I wrote my M. A. thesis paper about the letter to the Romans and the longer I worked on it, the more I thought that one statement about quantum theory is also true about "Romans", "people who think they understand quantum theory, don't understand quantum theory".
People who understand Paul don't understand Paul.
Almost no scholar has so far been able to really pin down Paul's line of thought in Romans. (with the exception of the German scholar Georg Koepgen) The more I worked on it, the clearer it became how I tried to understand a vastly superior intellect who didn't think like me. It's like trying to understand Hegel. Not many can. I certainly couldn't answer every question when I had to defend my thesis to the profs. It was a very humbling experience.
Therefore I have to laugh when I see twenty-something atheist college kids on RUclips "debunking" Christianity 😂.
There’s a difference between trying to figure out how trustworthy a possibly mistaken human writing might be and examining whether a set of writings is the inerrant word of God.
I'd be happy to discuss it with you sometime, but strict inerrancy isn't a requirement to still have a high view of the Bible, or even a strong view of inspiration.
@@TestifyApologetics Yeah, I'm sure that Christians' idea of inerrancy runs all up and down the spectrum. If your view is loose enough that small mistakes/contradictions don't bother you, that's fine. It seems like it could give someone room to grant undue divine authority to parts they want while keeping their idea of divine inspiration unfalsifiable, but that's up to the person to work out. It just seems like Christians often call skeptics silly/inconsistent when pointing out contradictions in the Bible that they wouldn't fuss with in other documents, and that's not the case. They're responding to a view of inerrancy that exists, whether or not it's your view. It seems like a sufficient reaction would be to recognize that these skeptics are making valid points about a Christian claim you don't personally hold, but that's just me.
Great video as always. Idk why, but the way he animates it to make all the biblical characters look like absolute idiots bumbling around to try and make the point thats exactly what they were makes me so mad for no reason.
Maybe he’s projecting…🤔
@Boris Cuduco you know in order to be a christian you have to know the fundamental truth that Jesus is alive and well. Do you now claim that he is dead? Because no matter where you go, if you leave Christianity, whether you become Buddhist, Muslim, Atheist or Agnostic, you can't shake the fundamental truth that Jesus is alive. So, you are an atheist that knows Jesus is alive and well but you don't want to follow Him anymore. You can't be a Christian without knowing He exists first. You never found out that Jesus is resurrected, you never actually knew that for a fact. You were never christian, you had knowledge but you never even came close to the basics.
the thing that bothers me about the animations is that it’s clearly part of some stock animation program, because the art style is exactly the same as what’s in some of the awful training videos my job puts out. 😅 I would recognize those uncomfortable cartoon people anywhere, and it’s actually making it hard for me to follow along with KoolAid’s segments of this video lol
@Boris Cuduco thought so
Perhaps he is aiming his videos at little kids or is intending to use ridicule to substitute for good arguments. It's pretty disgusting either way.
Its honestly depressing that most of the viewers and commenters from that original video will never see this video...
No. We have plenty in here. And they're just going "nuh uh" to the genealogy
To God be the glory.
All the names listed in genealogies are sons of Jacob, whose name got changed to Israel. The thing that most people miss is Boaz and Ruth which is a Jew Gentile marriage. The genealogies aren't wrong. Just like the word of God says, names can and will be blotted out. So then being blotted out, means they don't count. Half truths are contradictions.
Fact is, no 4 witnesses can describe d scene identically, our biggest critique, d absuls, should look at their own book supposedly written by 1 man, moped, and see how many contradictions there are to d same stories
Well done, Testify!
4:02 Here is a Catholic view, from Haydock comment on Luke 3:
_"To make some attempt at an elucidation of the present very difficult subject of inquiry, we must carry in our minds, 1. That in the Scripture language the word begat, applies to the remote, as well as the immediate, descendant of the ancestor; so that if Marcus were the son, Titus the grandson, and Caius the great-grandson of Sempronius, it might, in the language of Scripture, be said, that Sempronius begat Caius. This accounts for the omission of several descents in S. Matthew. 2. The word begat, applies not only to the natural offspring, but to the offspring assigned to the ancestor by law. 3. If a man married the daughter and only child of another, he became in the view of the Hebrew law the son of that person, and thus was a son assigned to him by law. The two last positions shew in what sense Zorobabel was the son both of Neri and Salathiel, and Joseph the son both of Jacob and of Heli, or Joachim. - "S. Matthew, in descending from Abraham to Joseph, the spouse of the blessed Virgin, speaks of a son properly so called, and by way of generation, Abraham begot Isaac, &c. But S. Luke in ascending from Jesus to God himself, speaks of a son properly or improperly so called. On this account he make use of an indeterminate expression, in saying, the son of Joseph, who was of Heli. That S. Luke does not always speak of a son properly called, and by way of generation, appears from the first and last he names; for Jesus was only the putative son of Joseph, because Joseph was the spouse of Mary, the mother of Christ; and Adam was only the son of God by creation. This being observed, we must acknowledge in the genealogy in S. Luke, two sons improperly so called, that is, two sons-in-law, instead of sons. As among the Hebrews, the women entered not into the genealogy, when a house finished by a daughter, instead of naming the daughter in the genealogy, they named the son-in-law, who had for father-in-law the father of his wife. The two sons-in-law mentioned in S. Luke are Joseph, the son-in-law of Heli, and Salathiel, the son-in-law of Neri. This remarks clears up the difficulty. Joseph, the son of Jacob, in S. Mat. was the son-in-law of Heli, in S. Luke; and Salathiel, the son of Jechonias, in S. Mat. was the son-in-law of Neri, in S. Luke. Mary was the daughter of Heli, Eliacim, or Joacim, or Joachim. Joseph, the son of Jacob, and Mary, the daughter of Heli, had a common origin; both descending from Zorobabel, Joseph by Abiud the eldest, and Mary by Resa, the younger brother. Joseph descended from the royal branch of David, of which Solomon was the chief; and Mary from the other branch, of which Nathan was the chief. By Salathiel, the father of Zorobabel, and son of Jechonias, Joseph and Mary descended from Solomon, the son and heir of David. And by the wife of Salathiel, the mother of Zorobabel, and daughter of Neri, of which Neri Salathiel was the son-in-law, Joseph and Mary descended from Nathan, the other son of David, so that Joseph and Mary re-united in themselves all the blood of David. S. Mat. carries up the genealogy of Jesus to Abraham; this was the promise of the Messias, made to the Jews; S. Luke carries it up to Adam, the promise of the Messias, made to all men." "_
Unfortunately, Luke and Matthew are indeed irreconcilable on Jesus' birth. The timing does not line up. Luke omitting a slaughter of children and flight to Egypt is implausible. The idea that Luke spoke to Mary and she left it out both involves assumptions with no support. I think it is far more likely that Luke originally started with Luke 3, which we believe was the start of Marcion's version of Luke and which is structured like the beginning of a text of the time. (Compare "In the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea...." to how Thucydides begins recounting the start of the Peloponnesian War, "In the fifteenth, in the forty-eighth year of the priestess-ship of Chrysis at Argos, in the ephorate of Aenesias at Sparta, in the last month but two of the archonship of Pythodorus at Athens...") Luke 2 seems to be a later addition. (That said, Luke 2 may have been an addition by the original author, particularly if it is true that Marcion relied on the first edition and did not redact his text himself.) Luke 1:5ff appears an even later addition written in a style completely unlike Luke's. Matthew, conversely, will regularly deduce facts based on his interpretation of Old Testament prophecy. So it is completely plausible that he deduced the story of Jesus' birch because he believed that the prophecies must have been fulfilled, and thus these things must have happened.
Could say that but I find it more likely the flee happened after Jesus appeared in the temple. And Luke just didn't document it.
@@idkbro-n5c Pretty major thing not to document, particularly with the parallels with Moses and how important it would be that Herod tried to kill him.
@@andrelegeant88 I know it would be but again consider it probably was later than most think
While he spoke with Jesus he thought she was alive. A person catching up then said she was already dead. Both true what was said
God is smart and able enough to have included King David directly into the genetic make up of Jesus, whether Mary had a bloodline to David or not. Skipping names in the genealogy is not that impressive especially if some, i.e. David to Zerub, is available in the OT anyway.
Right - In the days before passports, mass surveillance, and cell phone tracking how would a king or anyone take notice of an average looking Jewish couple and their baby entering the temple for a ritual, and having a happy conversation with another elderly couple.
Do you apply the same level of defense to any other sacred texts like the Koran? And if not why not?
@@mauselioe6838 the bible doesnt claim its “perfectly preserved” and “everything in it is directly told to be written down by an angel” like the Quran. so no, we dont look at them the same
We can. I still see problems looking there.
Idk why but when I turn the audio off it looks like the two guys are arguing for the others point lol
A book that is supposedly inspired by the almighty creator of this world should not have any contradictions or discrepancies.
why? should he possess the writers? how does that work?
@@TestifyApologetics Did you really ask why? If you would like to get a point across to an entire world and you had the ability to spread this message whichever way you felt like, and wanted to make sure everyone understood the message so that there wouldn’t be any doubt about what you said, why would you allow discrepancies and messages that can lead to the reader misinterpreting them as contradictions? Why would you set the reader for failure? Could it be that the writers of the Bible were not inspired by an almighty being after all? Why couldn’t this mighty god just present himself to the masses and speak for himself? In my opinion, it makes absolutely no sense for a powerful deity to chose such method to spread his word. It is almost as if he doesn’t have any power at all. Then again, this God couldn’t fend off iron chariots… I can only imagine how weak he might be against a modern tank. But seriously, ask yourself how you would make sure nobody misunderstood what you said. If you had the power to create a universe in 6 days, why chose to spread your word in such way.
Okay it doesn’t, the supposed contradictions can and have been disproven
@@thatguy2521 Except they haven’t been disproven, hence why we’re still having this conversation.
@@jio-lito they have been disproven many times by many people, we are having this conversation because skeptics are dishonest and deny when it happens
I have a question, I just read Numbers 36:1-12, at the end it says: “For Mahlah, Tirzah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Noah, the daughters of Zelophehad, were married to sons of their father’s brothers.”
Numbers 36:11
And in Lev. 18 God prohibited incestuous behavior, could you please explain it, I’m just confused, my intent is not to attack nor trick you, I just haven’t read much of the OT.
that was prelaw, but jesus came back and made incest ok
Marrying cousins was never prohibited. And it isn't even today in most countries.
This was nothing more than what we EXPECT in these, "LAST DAY,"
SCOFFERS-----Just like the SCRIPTURES PREDICTED!
AMEN!
re Jesus' geneology . Matt. is through David's son Solomon to Joseph, but that ended at Jeconiah due to sin. Luke goes through David;s son Nathan to Joseph (via Mary). Torah gives inheritance to women without a husband, so Mary's line falls to Joseph. Num 27:1-11, Josh 17:3-6 (daughters of Zelophehad). Lk 3:23 ..."{Jesus) being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli," NKJV.
Refer - husband adopted by bride's father - Num 32:41, 36:2, Ezra 2:61, Neh 7:63, 1 Cr 2:21-35
If I say that Pufferpeeps can't jump up on the couch due to being disabled at birth but the day before I said that Pufferpeeps jumped up on the couch, did I contradict? No. She can't jump up on the top but can jump up on the side with 4 paws
Or by disabled you could mean mentally.
@@grubblewubbles could
Am I glad my understanding of Christ has gone beyond the philosophical level.
They can bring all the 'contradictions' they want, it won't faze me. I've seen and experienced things I can't ignore or deny
At least these contradictions make sense. Some I've heard are just plain stupid, and it's clear that the person is just DESPERATE to throw anything they can at the bible, only to get called out for cherrypicking and OBVIOUSLY trying to find a contradictions.
Like, one example that was so bad that the literal reason the guy thought there was contradiction is cuz he didn't read the next sentence. Not even the next verse, the next SENTENCE. It was about whether Jesus drank wine before he was crucified or after, and apparently, in Matthew He refused the wine, but in Luke and John He drank it. We'll, literally after it says in Matthew that He refused the wine, it says 'then they crucified Him'
Talk about the stupidest 'contradiction' I've ever heard.
The supposed contradictions are in fact evidence for divine inspiration, as each supposed difference actually fits perfectly with the narrative, but it takes a bit of work to sort the narrative out. This means skeptics and unbelievers stumble and fall over the rock, rather than drink from it.
You are admitting there is contradictions what a ron
Nonsense. You sound EXACTLY like the Muslim who said that the Koran is proven as the true words of God because the Koran sometimes aligns with science. But when the Koran does NOT align with science, it is a miracle, and miracles prove the Koran is the true words of God. No matter what the Koran is the true words of the true God.
Flip a coin.
Heads I win. Tails you lose.
Dont do it to yourself. Are you gearing up to suggest that the contradictions in the Bible prove the Bible? Am I totally off base?
God bless
Good stuff and work
Either the Bible is all true, or it's all false.
There is no gray area where you get to pick and choose your verses.
It’s all true
There is a grey because the bible as a whole is not the Word of God as this idea sets one up for Faliure.
It's more of a written history of mankind and God[YHWH]'s relationship as a whole. Some don't involve God much some God plays a major roll, and it is all put into action by single man or woman.
@calonarang7378 So. You get to pick and choose which verses you follow. Interesting theory.
@@FOHguy
Have you seen what the idea of a book being the literal word of God has done to a country? Like the middle east in general.
Whereas understanding it being the recorded relationship of God and the Israelites for half the time atleast coincides with the driving factor of free will by which is one of the gift that God gave us as mentioned.
@calonarang7378 And as you chose to pass by. Getting to pick your verses is an interesting theory. So, which of the 10 commandments do you follow, and which do you not?
Do they realize that. Genealogies are about the important guys. Matthew simply thought they weren't important enough
Well, he shouldn't have claimed that there were sets of 14 generations
I love talking with someone who will lose it if I mention the Bible. That can't be trusted, they say. Yet they'll happily discuss any other history you like as if it's factual😂 I'm like, c'mon man. Most historical events and figures? We're lucky to get within multiple hundreds or even thousands of yrs of the original sources. If we can't discuss the Bible then we can't discuss much of history, period.
The Herod one isn’t all that hard. Read Matthew 2:
-Jesus is born
-Presentation at the temple (check the line in Luke 2:22 on purification, it’s not like Luke 2:22’s purification time is years long)
-Herod hears from the Magi (or those who’ve heard them) about this whole “King of the Jews” thing
-The Magi visit
-They don’t return
-Herod slaughters the innocents while the Holy Family flees to Egypt
“Irreconcilably different” my behind
What's wrong with people today? There were 40 writers of the Bible, each offering their own records. Each of them, will share the stories truthfully .If you think they contradict ,then they are telling as it was according to them, and that is Marvelous. Since you Contradicted them ,then you cannot be trusted and what you say Must be Discredited ,right? What I see, they were clear witnesses, to what they saw and what they wrote.
Even if some parts of the bible were written by eyewitnesses, many of them, even the most important books of the bible, were not. Take the gospels, for example. Even biblical scholars who are Christians don't think the gospels were written by eyewitnesses. They certainly believe them to be true, but they most definitely don't think they were written by eye witnesses.
The rebuttal is dogmatic.
the reply is enigmatic
I'm shocked at how stupid holy Kool-Aid arguments were. With that many subscribers I expected more and he actually just reaffirmed the Bible for me even more because if you have to grasp that straws like he did then you know it's true
The flesh lusts against the Spirit.
People in the flesh trying to understand the spiritual.
hes not wrong malachai 4 5 contradicts matthew 11 14
For apparent contradictions, there can always be an unseen explanation that we have not thought of, so unless the contradiction necessarily logically proves that one must be false, we could never conclude we know for sure there cannot be a solution. This is why the better methodology is to establish whether the source is inerrant or not *before* reading, rather than question it retrospectively. The best quote on this matter comes in my opinion from St. Augustine, who wrote in Contra Faustum: "If we are perplexed by an apparent contradiction in Scripture, it is not allowable to say, The author of this book is mistaken; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood."
"It is a better methodology to establish whether the source is inerrant or not before reading it."
Surely this must be a typo.
Ok so basically “don’t take everything literally”
ok so basically you're not paying attention at all