No this video is nothing but wishful thinking from a dishonest apologetic who so desperately wants his beliefs to be true so he denies all the obvious contradictions and makes lame excuses to try to cover them up.

Imbeginningtothinktwiceaboutthebible

He got killed

Ever since his debate with Ali Ataie I realized the inconsistency of Christianity. Alhamdullilah for Islam

@@Traplicano Islam is even dumber, just women wearing garbage bags walking around a black rock.

"Is any of these contradictions of any importance ?" This is easy : NO.

@@ThefrenchFranz ANY contradiction is important as the bible is allegedly the inspired word of god and no such work could include contradiction if that was the case. Furthermore, all of the gospel authors were anonymous, were not eye witnesses nor knew any, so why should you or anyone pay any attention to what they wrote? Of course, there are many more issues with the gospels....

@@HughJaxident67 Hopefully, being inspired by God doesn't make a robot out of you! Being a policeman or a judge, officially representing your state doesn't prevent you form making mistakes... so no, minor contradictions certainly don't discredit the message. And as for the writers of the gospel, you must be misinformed: they are very well known, two of them (Matthew and John) being eye-witnesses of the events they record. Unless of course you trust a minority of scholars, against the vast majority; they do exist. I'll be interested to check the "many more issues" if you wish to.

@@ThefrenchFranz *Hopefully, being inspired by God doesn't make a robot out of you!* There's no objective evidence there has ever been any god to inspire anyone or anything pal! *Being a policeman or a judge, officially representing your state doesn't prevent you form making mistakes... so no, minor contradictions certainly don't discredit the message* Neither a policeman or a judge is an all powerful and all knowing god are they! If the theist insists the bible is the inerrant word of such a god, it CANNOT have any mistakes otherwise it directly contradicts the claim. This is basic logic, something that many theists struggle with... *And as for the writers of the gospel, you must be misinformed* Oh the irony, no, I am very much INFORMED unfortunately for you. *two of them (Matthew and John) being eye-witnesses of the events they record* FALSE - Every gospel writer is anonymous, this has been established NT scholarship for a very long time, we do NOT know who wrote any of the gospels - Have you never looked into this at all??!?!? *Unless of course you trust a minority of scholars, against the vast majority; they do exist* Er, the vast majority of scholars have confirmed the gospel writers as anonymous for many decades, again, where the hell are you getting your education in this matter? From your pastor???? *I'll be interested to check the "many more issues" if you wish to* How about you do a little reading first and familiarise yourself with New Testament scholarship on the matter? It may begin to open your eyes a little.

@@ThefrenchFranz I`m not the one clamming that my particular religion has the true answer and every other religion claim is false, if you make the claim you take the burden of proof. The problem is that when you make the claim this is the true religion anyone will ask: “alright you say this is the true religion, please show me the evidence that this is the true religion and every other one is false”, then you suddenly notice that there is no evidence to back your claim as true and there is no good reason why anyone should believe what you are saying is true, my life does not revolve around the claim that I cannot show to be true. Guess what many lives revolve believing this as true to have any purpose in this world. The reason we try to do this kind of apologetics is to try to confirm we are already right. But contrary you truly need an open mind to possibly changing what you already believe, it is very difficult and emotionally stressful to change what you believe as fundamental as your religion, it is highly traumatic, most people who approach this topics are not willing to do it, because they don’t want to be proved wrong, and they aren’t going to believe someone else but they might believe themselves when they find out actually they actually were wrong about their believes. Remember: Go wherever the truth leads you, All true is god`s true and If is true it comes from god, So you shouldn’t` be afraid of It, It may cause emotional trouble but you shouldn’t be afraid of the true, are you willing to change your mind if It doesn’t go that way?3561

Dear@Marcus Freebody, Interesting assertion. I noticed that you gave no objective, evidential, documentary support for your assertion. Is your assertion something in which you have conducted extensive research or is your assertion hearsay you have heard from others ? Without any objective, evidential support. you realize your assertion is just written off as an uninformed, opinion. I would like to examine your evidence for such an assertion. Please post explanations, documentation and examples. My Egyptian Archaeology Professor was an affirmed agnostic, who spent much time in Egypt and the Middle East. He once told me that he was skeptical of the miraculous portions of the Biblical texts, however, from the perspective of history, "the Bible tells us were to dig". He told me that is why he studies the Biblical Texts. It's historicity was of interest to him.. Interesting comment from a scholar who had spent his life studying this issue. Be Well, DZ

Dear@Marcus Freebody , Wow ! That was one of the most convincing intellectual, scholarly arguments anyone has ever made to express and defend their position. I suspect everyone will be impressed by the supreme intellectual ability you exhibit in your intelligent rhetoric, and verbiage as you so eloquently expressed and revealed your abstract reasoning skills. Apparently, it is easy for you to make unsupported assertions, but when it comes to giving an intellectual, scholarly defense of your assertions, you have no arguments. Instead, you resort to fallacious thinking by making mindless, ad hominem attacks. Why the hostility, instead of rationality ?? Do you really think that is a justifiable, respectable response ? (Will he say yes or no ?) For the record, Marcus Freebody appears to be unable to give a rational scholarly defense of his assertions, yet he seems to think those who disagree with his perspective, have no evidence. How ironic !! This is certainly reason to question the intellectual credibility of Marcus Freebody perspective. Be Well and Safe DZ

@Marcus Freebody So you are continuing to evade giving any objective evidential support for your assertions. Instead of giving any reasonable defense for your assertions, you resort to continue the ad hominem remarks and throw out "red herrings"to detract from having to address the issues. I assume you have no objective evidential support for your assertions. I strongly suspect you are just parroting some information you heard somewhere (or made up) and you don't comprehend the ramifications of your assertions. Apparently you never imagined someone would ask you to give any evidence for your assertions, so you are completely unprepared to support your assertions in an intelligent manner. Therefore, you resort to ridicule and ad hominem remarks, thinking that would be an adequate substitute for an intelligent response, completely unaware of how foolish this makes you look. Realistically, Dear Marcus Freebody, aside from the ad hominems and the red herrings, do you have any objective, evidential support for your assertions ?? Be Well and Safe DZ

In addition to this video your logic is also going to help us. We always learn more when we sit together and discuss our Bible and our Lord. Thanks

@@InNazareth I`m not the one clamming that my particular religion has the true answer and every other religion claim is false, if you make the claim you take the burden of proof. The problem is that when you make the claim this is the true religion anyone will ask: “alright you say this is the true religion, please show me the evidence that this is the true religion and every other one is false”, then you suddenly notice that there is no evidence to back your claim as true and there is no good reason why anyone should believe what you are saying is true, my life does not revolve around the claim that I cannot show to be true. Guess what many lives revolve believing this as true to have any purpose in this world. The reason we try to do this kind of apologetics is to try to confirm we are already right. But contrary you truly need an open mind to possibly changing what you already believe, it is very difficult and emotionally stressful to change what you believe as fundamental as your religion, it is highly traumatic, most people who approach this topics are not willing to do it, because they don’t want to be proved wrong, and they aren’t going to believe someone else but they might believe themselves when they find out actually they actually were wrong about their believes. Remember: Go wherever the truth leads you, All true is god`s true and If is true it comes from god, So you shouldn’t` be afraid of It, It may cause emotional trouble but you shouldn’t be afraid of the true, are you willing to change your mind if It doesn’t go that way?35t

You're seeing thing mate.

I`m not the one clamming that my particular religion has the true answer and every other religion claim is false, if you make the claim you take the burden of proof. The problem is that when you make the claim this is the true religion anyone will ask: “alright you say this is the true religion, please show me the evidence that this is the true religion and every other one is false”, then you suddenly notice that there is no evidence to back your claim as true and there is no good reason why anyone should believe what you are saying is true, my life does not revolve around the claim that I cannot show to be true. Guess what many lives revolve believing this as true to have any purpose in this world. The reason we try to do this kind of apologetics is to try to confirm we are already right. But contrary you truly need an open mind to possibly changing what you already believe, it is very difficult and emotionally stressful to change what you believe as fundamental as your religion, it is highly traumatic, most people who approach this topics are not willing to do it, because they don’t want to be proved wrong, and they aren’t going to believe someone else but they might believe themselves when they find out actually they actually were wrong about their believes. Remember: Go wherever the truth leads you, All true is god`s true and If is true it comes from god, So you shouldn’t` be afraid of It, It may cause emotional trouble but you shouldn’t be afraid of the true, are you willing to change your mind if It doesn’t go that way?324

@@a.39886 Are you willing to change your mind, if there is no good evidence for believing in God, that all true is not God's true??

I'm sorry, but Exodus 20:5 and Ezekiel 18:19-20 are clearly contradictions. Does the children get punished for sins of fathers or not?

DEMONSTRATE god

Complete straw man argument, that it isn't what critics of the New Testament argue. The argument is that a) the stories told about Jesus for decades before being written down were changed as they were transmitted from person to person, undoubtedly substantially changed, and b) that the writers of those books made alterations of their own in order to reinforce their own views, the most prominent example being the author of the gospel of John changing the day on which Jesus died in order to reinforce the idea that the crucifixion of Jesus takes away the sins of the world, ie that Jesus himself is the new Passover sacrifice.

​@@KurtVogel88 Did you read what you wrote before submitting it? How is it a straw man argument. So your claim is a) the stories told about Jesus for decades before being written down were changed as they were transmitted from person to person, undoubtedly substantially changed, and b) that the writers of those books made alterations of their own in order to reinforce their own views So, in your mind, the stories told were changed for decades before being written down, substantially changed, and alterations were made to reinforce their own views, but all the events still happened? The argument certainly was not a Straw Man argument. And then you follow it up with an absurd assertion that the author of John (John), "changed" the day Jesus died in order to reinforce an idea, and you have no evidence for this, except for pure speculation. Just as the people who claim that the gospels were "changed" over the decades. This is pure speculation and conjecture, and wishful thinking, with no evidence whatsoever. You do understand, that at the time of Erasmus, the EARLIEST NT manuscript was after 1,000 AD, and skeptics used the same argument. They argued that if we ever found a gospel from hundreds of years earlier, we wouldn't even recognize "The Gospel". The earliest manuscript is now 900 years prior to that. The 3 codexes, are 650 years prior to that, and NOTHING about the gospel has changed. The most "differences" that they have been able to squeeze out are those seen between the Majority and Critical texts (as represented between the differences seen between the NIV and NKJ). The entire Gospel account entact and they were all wrong. The only differences between those hundreds of years of translation, recopying etc is the debate if the very end of Mark belongs, and if the story of the adulteress was ommitted from earlier texts because they felt it wasn't a good message pertaining to adultery. They are 99.9% the same. Decades, in respect to biographies, is nothing, especially when the entire gospel is accounted for in Epistles that PREDATE Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The earliest epistles, that contain every major belief of Christianity, dates back to 5 years after the death of Christ, not "decades". So, we can literally trace the wide-spread, universal belief among Christians within 5 years of the crucifixion 1) that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures -"According to the scriptures" means things relating to the OT, because there were no other "scriptures" at this point. And this pertains such things as a Passover atonement etc 2) That he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures 3) He appeared to Cephas,[b] and then to the Twelve. 4) After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living. This of course is taken from the 1 Corinthians 15 creed, which is dated to be a creed recited by all believers everywhere, by ALL scholars on the matter, to within about 5 years after Christ. So, they believed all of the things above, within 5 years of Christ's death, but you think they then went on to "make up" more fantastical and wild things in the decades to come, like the day He rose from the dead, and that sort of thing These kind of arguments are terrible.

@@truebeliever6440 If you aren't aware that Matthew Mark and Luke wrote that Jesus was crucified after Passover and John wrote that he was crucified before Passover, there is no point continuing. Was Jesus crucified twice? One or all of those four books is incorrect about the day on which Jesus died.

@@KurtVogel88 Right, and you don't think that the Christian Biblical scholars were aware of this for the past 2,000 years? Then you visit some anti-Christian websites and they suddenly show you some "contradiction"? First, you're absolutely wrong, it does not say that he was crucified before "Passover". It says The Passover and then the Passover "meal". Then, you'd need to determine is it referring to the "Passover Proper" (the 14th day of the month of Nisan), or the "Passover Feast", which is 7 days of sacrifice and Passover feast, following the 14th day of Nisan, and occurred every single day of those 7 days. And determining on which actual year Jesus was actually crucified (which we do not know), would determine when the start and end date of all of these were, and we have no idea. You can't tell me what any of them are referring to, because we have no idea. The idea that atheists and skeptics refer to ancient dates and ceremonies which we simply do not know, and barely understand, and refer to them as "contradictions" or being "incorrect" is idiocy, and shows a very limited understanding. If the Gospels were a bunch of made up collusions, and Mark preceded the Gospel of John by DECADES, and was widely spread before John was ever written, don't you think he'd get his lies straight? If you understand what logical "contradictions" are, and being "wrong", then you'd recognize that these objections are beyond silly. I have a wife, she has 3 families (bc of divorce etc), I have 1 family. On Thanksgiving for example, we may eat at 3 different places. If someone refers to an event "before Thanksgiving Meal", and I refer to it after, and there are several meals involved, it's a moot point. This happens ALL THE TIME in historical texts. Many people have this notion that they are static, and have no context, and writing it should follow like some sort of math textbook. There are VARIOUS religious celebrations, which have multiple meals, ceremonies and events. Depending on what sect you belong to, what your family celebrates the most, and every other manner of circumstance, would determine the context of any narrative. In my family, our biggest Christmas celebration was on Christmas Eve, in my wife's it's on Christmas Day. This does nothing to show "contradictions" when various people record a narrative. The fact that ALL of the major "wild" claims of Christ and the Christian Religion (Christ's authority, death, and resurrection) are attested to within the first 5 years after the crucifixion, demonstrate that your initial claim that they "changed the story" and made things up in the decades that follows is false. If the IMMEDIATE story is that he rose from the dead, and the whole church in Jerusalem believed this within 5 years (and since we started this discussion, I read from an atheist scholar that this creed was recited by Christians almost certainly within 3 years of the crucifixion), then your argument is factually false. The biggest "aggrandizement" claim, that of a resurrection of a man, were widely believed immediately. Various details about what meal preceded it, and when the Passover occurred that year, and which meal of the Passover is recorded in which Gospel are petty and immaterial points. So, no, Jesus was not crucified twice, but yes, there are changes in the dates of the Passover every year, and there are multiple meals involved, and this has even changed from time and place, and historians do not fully know all the questions we have.

@@truebeliever6440 Your wife was divorced, and you married her? In my view that would be adultery based on Matthew 19:9.

He definitely not honest if he was honest he wouldn’t have denied the fact the Bible is full of contradictions he also is dishonest of the fact Christianity is a ripped off of other religions.

@@user-xs2qq7kv9w "dishonest of the fact Christianity was ripped off of other religions."???

@@canadiankewldude yes it’s a fact that Christianity is a ripoff of other religions, but of course that’s not something your leader ever will admit because they so desperately need it to be the one and only.epic of Gilgamesh is one of many proofs of it be a ripoff

@@user-xs2qq7kv9w The Bible has zero literal dependence from the epic of Gilgamesh according to actively employed professors. The majority of them are atheist by the way. So how are they related, other than describing similar historical events.

@@canadiankewldude that just the lies your Christian cult tells you sorry the story of Noah ark is a ripoff of the epic of Gilgamesh, you just can’t accept it is because you’re a Christian and you so desperately need it to be true. There never was a global flood that just a story made up and copied by other religions, of course it isn’t gonna be 100% identical they’re gonna change a few things to try to make it their own, so sorry no matter how much you don’t want to accept it, you’re cult was created by men who ripped off other religions, Christmas , Easter, the fish symbol, the cross, several of the Ten Commandments are a ripoff of the Egyptian book of the dead.

Their not explanation there nothing but lies ,

We don't have that information , these are so good questions

I`m not the one clamming that my particular religion has the true answer and every other religion claim is false, if you make the claim you take the burden of proof. The problem is that when you make the claim this is the true religion anyone will ask: “alright you say this is the true religion, please show me the evidence that this is the true religion and every other one is false”, then you suddenly notice that there is no evidence to back your claim as true and there is no good reason why anyone should believe what you are saying is true, my life does not revolve around the claim that I cannot show to be true. Guess what many lives revolve believing this as true to have any purpose in this world. The reason we try to do this kind of apologetics is to try to confirm we are already right. But contrary you truly need an open mind to possibly changing what you already believe, it is very difficult and emotionally stressful to change what you believe as fundamental as your religion, it is highly traumatic, most people who approach this topics are not willing to do it, because they don’t want to be proved wrong, and they aren’t going to believe someone else but they might believe themselves when they find out actually they actually were wrong about their believes. Remember: Go wherever the truth leads you, All true is god`s true and If is true it comes from god, So you shouldn’t` be afraid of It, It may cause emotional trouble but you shouldn’t be afraid of the true, are you willing to change your mind if It doesn’t go that way?345

No because there are so many accounts. If there was 1 then sure.

@@jj691 Are you implying that if multiple people say something that makes it true?

@@apolloaiello8025 It makes it more accurate. If you have any doubt in the gospels I would suggest you listen to J Warner Wallace who is a crime scene detective/Christian. His work is outstanding and he treats the gospel accounts like a detective.

@@jj691 Thank you for the suggestion I will indeed go and watch his video. My question now is that if multiple people say something should I take them at their word?

@@apolloaiello8025 Not necessarily, the reason we trust the gospels is not just all of the eye witness accounts. I think in John there are 86 specific eye witness accounts, but also Acts has I believe 70. Not only the testimonies and eye witness accounts we can verify historic evidence from the time period of the gospels. Do you know secular archeologist that dig in the east look to the bible as there first source where to establish historic sites from. We have found overwhelming archeological evidence in the last 50 years for the historical accuracy of the bible. Still we have only uncovered about %15 of biblical areas, imagine what we find in another 50 years. Just a question are you a believer?

"factually inaccurate" and "human authors used stylistic license" are the reasons why muslim rejected it.

What are the best examples of contradictory information?

@@satuteknologi1961 No. Muslims reject the Gospels because the message given by the Qur'an is so much different, although it pretends to complete the Bible. As these two books can't be both true, and the Qur'an being by definition perfect and unquestionable, every single argument that could help believe the gospels should be rejected is a treasure. Therefore every inaccuracy or stylistic licence that can be found in them is claimed to be a proof that they're not to be believed and that the whole world should be reciting the Qur'an. Alas, the Qur'an itself tells that the AT was given by Allah to the Jews and that they should stick to it, as well as the NT to the Christians... Cf. Surat 5, v. 43 to 47.

@@zeraphking1407 Take the Commandment: “Thou shalt not kill.” Four words. How can that be misunderstood? But then the Bible contradicts itself: God ordered Moses to kill every Midianite woman who was no longer a virgin. ( Some of these women were likely pregnant ).

@@patbrumph6769 That's not what it says. It's thou shall not murder.

So for example when Matthew copies mark verbatim, does that mean they are probably lying? When you say several, what is the amount of statements verbatim means they are usually lying? If 3 people had verbatim statements do you say they are lying? Since we find verbatim statements from the gospels are those lying? If not then your argument doesn't make much sense.

@@atheistskeptic8748 no book matches verbatim, very similar but not verbatim as a whole, which shows validity of statements

@@countdowntomidnight692 oh ok so your saying despite parts matching verbatim since the entire book isn't verbatim it makes the story believable?

@@atheistskeptic8748 That's exactly right, just as you take an entire witness statement as a whole in any other event, you take the entire books of the gospel as a whole.

@@countdowntomidnight692 well having worked in law enforcement for 10 years before leaving, I under witness statements and found it suspicious if 2 people were writing their own account of an event and found that some things are verbatim like we find in the gospel. If you are an eyewitness why not just tell your account why did you need someone else as a reference or copy off them in any way, wouldn't one just write their account? If I have 2 eyewitnesses and one says well can I look and see what the other person wrote before I write my account, I would find that suspicious. I guess we look at things differently.

He does not speak that differently

therefore quran talks about the corruption in the previous books

@@animated6875 I heard that Greek Gospel didn't exist in the time of 6th Century arabian Prophet let alone Arabic Bible

@@andanandan6061 r you greek?

Because John,the man is different

And maybe if God just created a star constellation in the sky that spelled out "I am the God of the universe, and Jesus Christ is my son", there would even be less confusion. The objections from those on your side are just laughable. Video cameras? You ignore the whole concept of "free will", and humility, and faith. Those people who think they are the "the smartest scientist on earth" or think "human knowledge" is the ultimate good, then you simply are not capable of understanding the Christian message. This is why Christ occurred in the midst of the Roman Empire, where it would spread around the world by faithful witnesses. There were no cameras. No scientific evidence. Only few of the "smartest" or most "powerful" people on earth could ever understand.

@@truebeliever6440 -No, it just happens an all knowing God apparently chose a path where condemns millions of people to an aternity of suffering. Logic doesn't really work on your benefit here.

@@scissorman44 You do not understand the issue at all, certainly not what "logic" means. "Logic" means that an argument is made that follows the Logical Rules of Inference. It has nothing whatsoever with your false assertion that God chose a path that condemns millions of people, and you don't like this. "Logic", and you not understanding Free Will defenses (which in fact are logically formulated arguments), have nothing to do with each other. It is perfectly rational that if God is perfectly just and perfectly loving and people have free will, that they will suffer for choosing evil and prosper for choosing good. Notice, I did not say "doing evil" or "doing good", which would be antithetical to a Christian theology, but they choose evil and choose good. If God is perfectly just, then those who choose evil will pay the just price, otherwise, God is not perfectly just.

@@truebeliever6440 Considering evil exists because of God himself, it's hard to say he's "perfectly just". God made the rules, he made the norms of the universe and created the situations on which people would err. To say he's just by punishing people based on all which he set up and knew would happen doesn't really sound "just", certainly not perfectly. And let's forget loving, because at that point he's being outright cruel(no definition of love I found fits the idea of someone setting up people for failure and them punishing them for it).

​@@scissorman44 Once again, you're not understanding the subject. I'm not saying this to be mean, but if you're to say "God is not perfectly just" or "God is not perfectly Loving", then you got to understand the subject. This is debated in centuries of theology, and most comments I hear from atheists seems to indicate that a vast majority of them understand none of it. Of course He created "situations on which people would err". This is obvious, and we see it every day. It is our everyday reality. You think nobody thought of this before? This is where you're confused. When you say "evil exists because of God himself" is completely false in the direct sense. God is the cause of all matter, space, time, living creatures, sentient creatures, and those of us with Free Will. The fact that those creatures with Free Will chose to disobey Him and choose evil, does not mean that "evil exists because of God". People have capacities to create in a limited sense, because God created us with that capacity. We can create things that have never existed before like paintings, machines, acts of kindness to a person who had never experienced it etc. You would not claim that "God created the automobile" just because He is the creator of Henry Ford. Henry Ford had free will, he had capacity to create and the ability to perform actions. In the same way, God is not the creator of evil. He created agents with their own mind and free will who could choose to do things that are good or evil (evil being opposed to those things like love, justice etc which are attributes of God). Your argument would be like claiming that Hitler's mother is responsible for the evil Hitler did, because she bore him (it could be she's partially responsible because she was abusive or something, i just don't know, however, merely having bore him does not make her the 'cause' of his evil). God could have created "love slaves", who were sort of like robots, could not even possibly do evil, and only did what is right all the time. He could have literally forced a universe, where all beings were forced to do good all the time. Absolutely forcing people to do what you want, with no choice has a name, it's called slavery. God literally has the capacity to force us to do everything He wants. If you think that He should do so, then you endorse absolute slavery (not the servitude for money and trades etc talked about in the bible), but absolute control over mind and action. A perfectly loving God would not support absolute slavery, and a perfectly just God will make all things just, and all prices will be paid for evil.

Christ didn't abolish the law, He fulfilled the law. The law was a prophecy about Himself. He is our Sabbath rest. You can not save yourself through the law. It is a gift of God purchased with His own blood. You are preaching a false gospel l, trying to put saved Christians back under the yoke of slavery. Paul spent his entire ministry warning of Judaisers like you.

@@maxINaus while it is true that we are not saved by works, but faith without works is dead. So ten commandments are still binding, and that uncludes the sabbath (saturday) rest. God bless you.

@@maxINaus but paul was a orthodox jew ..why wud he support christianity?

Your bible whatever version you use is so full of contradictions that it can't be the word of a god. If ur god had a message for the world it went about relaying that message in a lousy way......

the resurrection was accurate. You have documentations from a few different people so how do you expect it to be exactly the same. If ten people saw a car crash, you would get the 10 people describing it in different ways with the core of the story being the same. thats what happened with the resurrection.

@@kays1599 ya all the power inspired really proves doesn't it

Exodus 20:5 and Ezekiel 18:19-20 are clearly contradictions. Does the children get punished for sins of fathers or not?

@@goranmilic442 Are you Jewish? Do you think rabbis and first temple jews whose literal jobs was to read the Torah day and night, didn’t see these verses? You think they just said “ oh well here’s a contradiction” ?

@@jj691 Why are you avoiding my question? Does the children get punished for something their fathers did or not?

@@goranmilic442 Does the children? You mean “do” the children. No it’s quite clear in the NT and OT. Do you know the mosaic law? Do you know about first temple judiasm and the belief of generational sins? Probably not. Where did you study the bible? What college or university?

@@jj691 Cool. So if children don't get punished for something their fathers did, why does Exodus 20:5 say "punishing the children for the sin of the parents"?

What do you mean ? The method of recording history was like that , the four books demonstrate that the events were historically true. If you read them you'll find they complement each other with different details. Anyway understanding the Bible doesn't mean you will have an experience with God but as far as we know God might choose to reveal himself in one way or another to you but there's no guarantee .

We can pray for you that our Lord may give you peace so you get time to meditate on it to embrace the Truth.

@@InNazareth none is so blind as he that refuses to see. You use evidence in all your life to make decisions. But when it comes to the most interesting of questions (is there a god) u throw the requirements for it being real; tangible, verifiable evidence, out the window. I challenge you to take an honest inquiring look at whatever religious book u think u know. I'm guessing u've never read it from beginning to end.

@@john-nx4xn You believe it or not I have read 'BIBLE' several times and it is my most favorite book and none have come across so far.

@@InNazareth I've read a fair amount of the bible. But honestly I stopped when I realized that it's just many books written by different people from different time periods. It has been translated and edited many times as well. This is why there are so many contradictions in it. You can start in genesis to find contradictions. It is also a book that condones slavery and misogyny.... I do like that u ask questions. I wish you well in your pursuit of finding out about this amazing universe we live in my friend.

@@john-nx4xn I love The Bible and the face written over such a long period of time and by many individuals still they shared the same message. I appreciate beautiful universe and all the achievements a man has done.

But Earth MOVES from its orbit! Moreover it can't be precisely predicted that's why every year Astronomy almanac is released with precise precession of Earth's orbit.

before it was flat or round . 6000 years also . yup from god

@@zu3bikil The bible specifically sais the earth has a spherical form roundness Plus its never sais the human are 6000years thats something the Catholic even debated Lmao ecen the Pope knows that 👌 ouff

@@TheBibleCode none the less its still a belief . Earth has four corners, and floats on water (Isa 11:12, Ps 24:2, 136:6, Rev 7:1).Snakes eat dust (Gen 3:14, Isa 65:25).GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created. GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created. GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created. GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created. GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created. GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time. GE 2:7, 21-22 Man was created first, woman sometime later. GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.

@@zu3bikil Thats a resume on how it was made If you read the hole Genesis you'll understand the order LOL

Don't worry about it boy!

@@El_Bruno7510 Excuse me, I identify as a tree, you will now call me Twiggy Azalea.

@@michaelenglish839 I thought the T in LGBTQIA2+ stood for Trans. Didn't know it was Tree!

@@El_Bruno7510 Tomorrow it will all change again.

Could be how people interpret the Bible rather than what the Bible is. You might want to read a Book called "how not to read the Bible", I believe by Campbell . You may find some answers there

Is it possible to trat everything in one video

Sorry the Bible definitely isn’t gods word, wives be submissive to your husbands is definitely the word of sexist men.

@@user-xs2qq7kv9w you should read the rest of that scripture as right after it says for husbands to love their wife as christ loved the church giving up his body for her. The bible even tells husbands to live with your wives in an understanding way and to honor her. Not really sexist when reading a the context instead of cherry picking

@@maow9240 no it doesn’t that just the lie you been told to believe just like the lie about slavery, it constantly states women are nothing but property.

@@maow9240 oh I understand context well like. god sacrifice him to himself to appease himself for a rule he made himself. that’s the clear and obvious context of John 3:16. unless of course Jesus is in no way whatsoever god. and praying to Jesus is a sin. As you’re not to pray to anyone but god.

Yeah the bible condones chattel slavery. the nonsense they try to claim only applied to Israelites slaves. Indentured / voluntary servitude only applied to the Israelites, the non Israelites for other nations were permanent slaves they were considered property and could be pass down as inheritance,

Matthew tells the way of death, acts tell his final state of being

They do.

@@goranmilic442 So they believe Genghis Khan was real?

@@zeraphking1407 Yes, they do.

@@goranmilic442 Why?

@@zeraphking1407 Good enough evidence he was real.

Daniel Mione does any gospel say that the earthquake didn’t happen

God inspired sure. But not necessarily written directly by him. That’s a wild fundamentalist view that just doesn’t deserve any historical credence. What God allowed in terms of the Gospels was for each author, as Licona makes clear, to use his own unique techniques. Which obviously leads to differences. But these differences I believe aren’t even a big deal. The burden is on you to show why, even when the Gospels are held to an extraordinary standard, that the differences are harmful or demonstrate that the Gospels can’t be trusted.

@@parktol02 The burden is always on the one making the claim

Jack Johnson Oh please. You’re making the claim that the Gospels’ having differences has made them unreliable or something. Given that that is a positive claim, at least give a shred of evidence to back up your position. But I have no desire to argue about the burden of proof with you. Arguing with an atheist on that nowadays is getting on to a hemispheric carousel.

@@parktol02What did the lions and other carnivores eat when they exited the ark? Wouldn’t the gazelle, deer, etc. be wiped out very quickly with there only being two each of these kinds of animals? And then the meat eaters would quickly die out with nothing to eat. And how did indigenous animals get to their respective environments after the flood, without leaving any fossil evidence along the way? For example, kangaroos are found in Australia and only in Australia. Why is that and how did they get there after the flood? Seems like if they hopped there from Turkey, which would have taken a very long time, not to mention crossing an ocean, that there would be evidence of kangaroos having lived in the countries along the route, for example fossils. Has any archaeological evidence ever been found related to the Israelites living in the desert for forty years? This was a very large group of people, possibly two million, which would have left millions of pounds of waste product such as bones from quail, human waste trenches, charcoal from millions and millions of fires over a forty year period as well as the bones of all those who we are told died along the way. I have been unable to find anything written about discoveries like this to date. Seems like it wouldn’t be difficult to locate evidence like this considering what has been discovered from the ancient past. Is there any historical documentation of graves being opened and dead people walking around Jerusalem in the first century as is recorded in Matthew 27: 52-53? I think it’s reasonable to ask why wouldn’t such an astonishing event that hadn’t happened before or since, be mentioned at all by anyone contemporary to this shocking phenomenon, or by anyone later that had heard about it from a trusted source. Writing about this same time frame Matthew and Mark say the veil of the Temple was torn right after Jesus’s death (Matt. 27:50-51, Mark 15:37-38) and Luke writes that it was torn just before (Luke 23:45-46). How can both statements be true, was there more than one veil? Did Jesus, Mary, and Joseph flee to Egypt to avoid being killed by Herod as in Matthew chapter 2, or did they go to Jerusalem to offer sacrifices when Mary’s purification was completed, present Jesus to the Lord in the temple, and then return to their own city of Nazareth once “they had performed all things according to the law of the lord”, as in Luke 2:21-39? And when coming up from Egypt, it appears they had no intention of going to Nazareth in Galilee, but instead were going to Judea until they found out that Archelaus was in charge there and they then “turned aside” into the region of Galilee out of fear as the writer states, “so that what was spoken by the prophets might be fulfilled, that he would be called a Nazarene.” V. 23

Jack Johnson Alright buddy. I see where you’re coming from. Now before I engage these questions, let me ask you one: if I addressed each of these points adequately, would you at least be *a bit* more inclined to accept the reliability of the Gospels? If you do not, then I have no point in addressing you. Also, your first two examples are from the OT, which I guess is fine, but I must wonder how this pertains to Gospel reliability. Even if the flood or the Exodus accounts were false, this does not mean we could cast the faults of those texts onto the gospels.

John

Shouldn't you get some sleep?

Right on almost all points. The book was most definitely inspired by God but it is hardly infallible as many who revere the text would like you to believe. Fortunately, the very same God who inspired the text and the fallible human beings who wrote it also gave us all the keys within the very fallible text how to evaluate itself, that is that it must be verified by "two or three witnesses", also the text eludes to trusting the living God, also called Jesus Christ, rather than the letter in which it is written. To summarize, what you say is correct, we must learn and earnestly seek Him who made everything and is in full control. A final note, in that very text, 3 times, it was written that man and the devil can indeed corrupt the text through various means which was clearly done. This can be disheartening to the millions who put their faith in only the text, such as what I was, however, this could be one of the greatest revelations of all, that is to not lean on one's own understanding but rather in all our ways and searching, seek the One who is our Redeemer and so if truth will set you free, you will be free indeed.

I'm sorry, but Exodus 20:5 and Ezekiel 18:19-20 are clearly contradictions. Does the children get punished for sins of fathers or not?

Just mixing politics and emotions there . Saying that John, Matthew, Mark and Luke are no historical real people , you would have to produce evidence for that . As far as we know the evidence points to real people by these names

@@olivieryeung398 I never said they weren't historical people. I said it's historical fact the they didn't write the gospels.

@@olivieryeung398 Study history. Christianity was declared the official state religion of Rome to reunite the Empire because it was broken during the Roman Civil Wars. Constantine made this decree. Christianity was literally made a state religion by a pagan emperor who would later murder his nephew, wife and son. This is all factual history. Christianity would not exist had it not been for Constantine. The movement Jesus'followers began was known as The Way, not Christianity.

@@olivieryeung398 King James was also a known homosexual. The very Bible Christians use to condemn homosexuals was authorized by a homosexual.

Off-topic nonsense.

Makes no sense , God didn't commit any evil , what are you talking about ?

@@olivieryeung398 It's written in the bible mate!

What do you mean by evil done by gGod He has and onle He has the right to destroy life.

@@ptk8451 What right? It has the power to, but why would a loving God want to do that?

The Bible is full of contradictions licona is a professional liar as any apologetic all he does is lie because that’s the only way to defend the fictional nonsense in the Bible.

@@user-xs2qq7kv9w What lies?

The Egyptians keep good records. There's nothing written about a moses let alone a parting of some sea

@@Sapientiaa the first lie is found in Genesis 1 - god created the earth in 6 days.

@@georgeworley6927 How would we know if any of that is true, or false. If there was a god than surely they could do it in 6 days or less.

The contradiction he tried to reconcile between Jesus willingly submitting to the cross as opposed to the synoptics it was later he understood that's it's God's will is still not plausible because later on the cross still jesus didn't submit but rather crying out, Eli Eli lama sabachtani "meaning My God my God why has thou forsaken" why is he crying after all he understood and submitted to God's will. Secondly, Christian claimed jesus mission on earth was to die on the cross for our sins , then jesus should've known his mission earlier not to even start seeking for God's rescue or crying for help or saying God forsake him because that's his mission all along, and jesus being part of the trinity should atleast know his mission on Earth. Still not cleared and moreover there are many more numerical contradiction

the Koran sucks even more. It has no scientific knowledge in it apart from the ludicrous proposition that it mentions the big bang (it doesn't) or embryology (which it gets wrong since it clearly borrows from Aristotle).

these Gi ess cookie

Yes, we do. We even have it on tape. Look at the eye witnesses. There are discrepancies, such as what angle he was shot from, how many gunmen, which way the body fell over etc. We all agree, however, Kennedy was shot in the head.

mmark292 tbib There were discrepancies in the eyewitness accounts... But even if there wasn’t, you’re using viewing 20th Century biographical practices in the same light with those done in the 1st century, which as explained in the video, is wrong