I miss the east coast very much!

not sure if I'm missing something in the context as to your correction. But the Jews were the people God chose to work through - hence His "chosen" people - but the Jews didn't do a good job of spreading that word. In a way, Solomon drew people to his wisdom, and I believe that is why Ecclesiastes is written the way it is. Everyone is called and invited, I would agree, but the "elect" seems to be more of a description of those who God is working through in a salvific sense (at least how it's used in the NT).

@@janusproject27 When the NT authors write about The “elect,” they are usually not giving a description of those who God is working through in a salvific sense, they’re giving a description of those who are invited, and the point the authors are making is that the Jews had errantly thought God has only invited some people. He didn’t. He invited all people. He has chosen, elected, and forgiven all people, not some. And those who humble themselves, surrender and repent, to those God gives eternal life. In a few, select places, the NT authors speak off this last group of people as the “elect” but in these cases they mean the ones who perfected their election.

exactly. It's amazing to see how it works.

glad it could be of help!

exactly! It's so important with books like Job and Ecclesiastes to make sure you let them "complete a thought" before building a doctrine, otherwise you'd be completely screwed up really quick. I'm planning to do one on "be not righteous overmuch" out of Ecclesiastes soon because I think that fits exactly into this paradigm - don't just go with the one sentence, look around it to see what the author is building to. Thanks for the feedback!

yes. And I realize by my title and description I wasn't perfectly clear that I strongly disagree with the Methodists on this. The "Presented without Comments" series is just to show how others are thinking.

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/jMmcd9ugzJ-Zc58.html has a good summary of this supposed contradiction. I don't see the need to remake his video.

66 ancient books of: Philosophy Chronicles of history Wisdom Prophecy Theology Fixed that for you.

​@@noahalban6384What about the flood? What about the stopping of the Sun? That's sounds like mythology

@@lau9076 also adam & eve and the talking snake and gIants and unicorns and dragons, ... a bunch of myths

in quran ? yep its full of it

@@gabolifavmcbecause something has contradictions they are myth books ? what kind of reasoning is that

@@gabolifavmc bruh you are beating up your own strawman , bible doesnt say that its a science book, and the noahs flood is a local flood its not a worldwide flood ,even church fathers taught that why cant you guys do some studying before you want to declare victory cause these are some of the silliest arguments ever

Read the bible. Its simple.

@kuyanoy9968 obviously you haven't read it. If you had, you'd know that there are contradictions when it comes to these "facts". Simple

@@kuyanoy9968LOL so which one is it

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/jMmcd9ugzJ-Zc58.html didn't see the need to remake his video, but this has been dealt with in a bit of detail by many others.

You will find none.

Any contradiction in any book can be reconciled with enough mental gymnastics

@@kyle--859 Yeah, I will admit that is very true.

@@RashmaGul Yeah because your book definitely has zero right?

@@yelrahkcorb Please show me in my book...

which doesn't at all affect the fact that the 'contradictions' have been dealt with. the books are there if people want to read them. better still, people can figure out many of the difficulties for themselves.

Judas had a role in purchasing the field because he returned the money to the temple. Easy.

@@saliadee2564 not convincing .. If I gave you your money back and you used it on whatever would I still be part of whatever you used it for?

@@halffull1607 Yes, you'd have a role in whatever I did, but depending on your understanding, you may or may not be morally culpable for your part in enabling my actions. Judas provided the funds, the priests spent the funds on the field. That's the facts of the story. The account in Acts is a perspective on those facts, ie seeing and holding Judas accountable for his role in the purchase of the field. consider that the priests and judas were essentially on the same team, ie they both resented Jesus and consented to his death. and they're ultimately on satan's side, who wished for the same. that judas repented (insincerely, i believe), did not cause him to change sides. these guys were all agents in one endeavour. If there was a lack of understanding/true difference in motive or purpose, ie if the priests somehow tricked Judas into revealing where Jesus was and there was money involved somehow, Judas' role in the following events would remain, but I wouldn't hold him morally accountable. As it is, he knew what he was doing and thus is morally responsible for his part in the series of events. Acts acknowledges this in saying that he bought the field.

Matthew 27:5-7 literally answers your question on how he and the priests both purchased the field. Acts 1:16-18 then credits him as having purchased it bc "his money" (which was not right to put into the treasury) was used to buy the field where he died. Also, depending on where and how he hanged himself, how is it a contradiction to fall headlong - we don't know what the ground was like - any sort of slope or ledge, if he hit any object on the way down; or, if he hanged himself and at some point his body fell after rotting, the same thing would happen. We're just not given enough info - both are possible and no one at that time seemed at all bothered by the two statements. It's clearly not a contradiction.

The alternative, which happens to be true, is that the arguments offered for the invalidity of these contradictions, are actually true. Also, you're employing logic and the rules of non-contradiction. The truity of these laws is assumed in your argument. You presuppose their existence, and then use them to try to disprove arguments against supposed contradictions in a text that is, in reality, the only ground for the existence of these laws in the first place. Jesus Christ is Lord. Repent and believe the gospel.

I find it extremely interesting that you seem to put authority in one person over the authority of many other scholars who disagree with him and show that these contradictions exist. We call this being biased and it clearly shows in your pinned comment.

Well why don't you go to the other people who have doctrines in biblical scholarship who are also Christians themselves and clearly show that the Bible contains contradictions but they just don't allow those contradictions to shake their faith in their theology. That's because you have a bias just like these conservative people, like the doctor you are quoting from, who point the finger at other Christians who clearly see and accept these contradictions actually exist. The majority of this scholarly consensus is that these contradictions do in fact exist and it is only a small majority of people such as the one you're quoting that find these errors to be incomprehensible. You have to realize that when these books were being brought together it didn't really matter to those individuals that these contradictions actually existed because that wasn't really important to them. This whole idea that the Bible is the inerrant word of God is a late development and just wasn't a thing back in the day. We also need to understand that when Jesus was around saying the things he was saying there was no such thing as a Bible.

As with most scriptures, you don't just read this, this is not a novel or story book, it's a book that claims to tell history and give insight, so we don't just read it like that and point stuff out, you need proper exegesis to understand what is and what isn't. First thing you gotta understand is that these gospels are "synoptic" for a reason, there's complex interrelationship between the texts and their shared and unique sources. each writer had a specific audience and theological purpose in mind, which influenced which events and teachings they included and how they presented them. For example, Matthew's Gospel contains many references to Old Testament prophecies to appeal to a Jewish audience, emphasizing Jesus as the fulfillment of those prophecies. Mark, considered to be written for a Roman audience, portrays Jesus as a man of action and suffering servant. Luke, aimed at a Gentile audience, highlights Jesus' inclusivity and compassion towards the marginalized. These different emphases can lead to variations in how events are described or ordered. It doesn't mean they're lying or contradicting each other, they just pick different parts of the fact that fits their audience. I could decide to talk about my educational background in IT when intervewing for a role in tech, and leave out my football career, because it's not for this audience. But when I'm talking to sport enthusiasts, I'll surely bring up my athletic prowess, when these two accounts of me telling about who I am or what I do are presented, would you claim I'm contradicting myself by saying I'm a software eng then later saying I'm a footballer? it's this same synoptic nature allows scholars to compare the Gospels closely to understand discrepancies. Some differences might be due to literary techniques like telescoping where they compress or expand time or thematic arrangement rather than strict chronological order. Others may reflect variations in oral tradition or the author's theological emphasis. scholars examine these Gospels together, then attempt to reconstruct the historical events behind the texts and understand the theological messages the authors intended to convey. You can end here if you've got what you want, which I don't believe is the case, otherwise, come with me, let me try to respond to each contradiction. Judas' death, if you read it harmoniously, it suggests Judas hanged himself, and after hanging, his body eventually fell and burst open on the land bought indirectly with the money he returned, which the priests used to buy the field in his name, as they considered it blood money and unfit to return to the treasury. Jesus' double donkey ride --, I have a lot to say, but here's someone who explained it how I would've and better than, so to save the length of this comment qr.ae/psyzgW The chronology of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection will bring us to interpreting the different Gospel accounts in light of first-century Jewish timekeeping and the festival calendar, I'll remind you again that the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are synoptic, providing similar views with slight variations in detail and timing, while John often provides a theological emphasis that can seem to contrast chronologically. here, the difference reflects his thematic focuses and the audience's needs rather than outright contradictions. For example, the "discrpancy" in timing can be reconciled by understanding the Jewish day beginning at sundown and the use of inclusive reckoning of time. The accounts of who visited the tomb vary but can be seen as complementary rather than contradictory, with each Gospel writer highlighting different aspects of the event to convey theological points to their respective audiences. Similarly, the messages about where to meet Jesus do not reflect contradictory commands but rather different appearances to different groups at different times. BIRTHPLACE vs residence && herod vs quirinus: Luke 2:1-5 mentions a census under quirinius, which some scholars argue could refer to a prior census or administrative action during Herod's reign, we all know the difficulties in precisely aligning ancient historical accounts. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke provide the basis for Jesus being born in Bethlehem, with Luke describing a temporary journey there for the census, while Matthew implies a more permanent residence. Historical records suggest that there might have been multiple censuses or different interpretations of the timeline, allowing for reconciliation

@@maran.ath4 I'm sorry, but your entire introduction is just ridiculous. When different parts of your book directly contradict each other, on specific factual matters, there is no reason to need exegesis. Words have meaning, and when one place says 'black' and another says 'white,' at least one is wrong. Period. As for Judas death, you make up a bizarre, utterly fantastic scenario, without any evidence that any of your claims is true, rather than admit that they are two different stories. Clearly, neither writer meant what you said. I'm not going to waste time watching yet another sad attempt at harmonization. Whoever wrote Matthew had two donkeys because they neither read Hebrew (no one could read it in the Hebrew and think there were 2 animals) and he did not understand that the passage was a very common literary device in biblical Hebrew. You cannot expect any rational person to believe that jesus rode 1 and also rode 2 donkeys, at the same time, at the same place. And that is the plain claim made. Again, your explanation defies th plain facts. One account claims explicitly that jesus was executed on a different day than the other 2 accounts. If the bible is inerrant, then no errors in timekeeping or some other excuse can pass the laugh test. This is an explicit, absolute contradiction. How can specific, diametrically opposed statements - the tomb still sealed, the tomb already open; wait in Jerusalem, hurry to Galilee - possibly be harmonized. If one is true, the other is false. And all of these stories are about the same, single event, not multiple events. Again, you are trying to say that black is white and up is down. It's ridiculous. It is absolutely impossible for a census under Quirinius to be during Herod's reign. We have absolute evidence of both the death date of Herod and the taking up of governorship of Quirinius, and they are 10 years apart. Unless you claim jesus was born twice, ten years apart, this is absolutely contradictory. And either jesus family lived in Bethlehem, or they travelled there - both cannot be true. Again, no amount of wordplay can make these two accounts harmonious. And every historical account of every Roman census ever held is clear - nver was anyone ever required to go anywhere for the census. Every single census saw done by counting people where they were at the date of the census. Never, ever, even once, did a single person have to travel for the census. The entire concept of that happening is imebecilic, ridiculous, and insane. And the census of Quirinius, which we have clear evidence was taken of people where they were on the date, did not even cover the area or Galilee, so jesus family would not have been involved at all. That stor is a bad falsehood, made up by some anonymous author decades after the alleged fact, who had no knowledge of the census methods. You have done nothing here but parrot long-disproven, and desperate attempts to harmonize what are absolute contradictions. Your claims would not convince any rational person, and would convince no person who did not want desperately to believe your false claims. You seem to be serious, and respectful, and you are, of course, welcome to believe anything you want. (That is not permissive; I mean you have the right, as do we all, to believe what you will.) But when you make arguments and claim evidence, you should have good arguments and good evidence, because others will not accept what you have said either. Perhaps you could study some of the responses to these claims you have made; there are many good, more detailed responses than mine. Consider what logical, evidence-based arguments do to your claims.

@@maran.ath4 I don't think the writers of the gospels, or any of the authors, were stupid or, mostly , uneducated. Clearly the gospel authors, though unknown, were sufficiently educated to be fluent in Koine Greek, and to produce well-written accounts. The legitimate letters of Paul are well-reasoned, of course accepting the initial premises. I don't doubt that he was, originally, basically a lawyer; he organizes his writing in a lawyerly way. And the Revelation is a fascinating allegory of the conflict with Rome around the time the temple was destroyed. It is creative, uses very apt metaphors from the time, and is very good historical fiction. From what I know, and I have read a bit of the history of the collection of the new testament, none of the men involved were stupid. It seems that they were mostly concerned with including writings that agreed with their perception and beliefs, and excluding those writings that disagreed with those beliefs, for example, the Gnostic texts. I doubt that there was much line by line consideration for contradictions or errors; it seems that there was a perceived need to unify the text to help unify the various churches. If you have a bit of time, I would recommend reading some of the accounts of this process; it's not really controversial, in the way these contradictions are, but it is fascinating and enlightening. I'm glad you're looking at some of the contrary writings. I have learned more from reading the bible than from reading any atheist or skeptic writings. And of course, feel free to come back anytime. I'm not a believer, and likely unconvinceable, nut I find the subject interesting.

@@petercollins7730 That's your response to being proven wrong? Shows that it's a heart issue, not an evidence issue.

@@silaaron76 Proven wrong? You spewed out a lie, and then you repeated the same inane, bizarre, totally evidence-free bullshit you tried before. I cannot provide a different response to the same old stupid. You make up stories without any basis, desperate to try to make clear contradictions somehow slightly, vaguely, maybe-if-you-squint possible. Then you repeat those over and over. It's simple. Your book says, explicitly, that Judas bought a field. It also says the Pharisees bought the same field. Show evidence that, when the story said "Judas bought a fiel" it meant "the Pharisees bought a field." And, using your standard, you cannot use anything but the words in the bible. I'll wait for you to prove your claim, using only words in the bible. Then we can discuss the contradiction between Judas dying from hanging, and Judas dying from bursting. Again - prove that the bible meant, when it said that Judas bought a field, that in fact the Pharisees bought a field. And us e only the words in the bible. We'll wait.

but we don't dodge them. Entire tomes have been written explaining the history of the various "contradictions," and explaining what they would have meant "in context." Between "Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes" which digs into worldview differences between us and the ancients (thus providing context) and "Those So-Called Errors" which explains how dating was done either biologically (age of the person) or "dynastically" (age of the family line that had been ruling). This leads to apparent contradictions depending on which dating method is being used, etc. See pinned comment as well for more information.

​@@janusproject27Oh yes you all do it. II Samuel 24:9 vs I Chronicles 21:5. One of the most simple an irrefutable contradiction BUT you "know" you can't be wrong and it has to have an justification no matter how absurd it is...at the end of the day the Bible doesn't say what it says...

@@joeventura6287 For them it says what it says when they like what it says, but it means something different from what it says when they DON'T like what it says (god-condoned slavery and god-commanded genocides are good examples of this).

Pointing out that you're interpreting something wrong isn't mental gymnastics, it's just getting the facts straight. There are reasons why people have to misinterpreted the Bible to claim to have a problem with it.

@@silaaron76 im telling you its a personal thing and a matter of belief. at this point i dont really care to study the bible any longer and have little opinion on what is true and correct or not. there were fundamentally things that i believed in that could not coincide with the christian narrative. your perspective is valid and im just sharing mine, i dont think we have much to discuss though. i dont think we'll come to any meaningful agreements in a matter of belief bc its not logical but emotional, deeply personal, and altogether subjective

I agree it's the same Ahaziah. See the pinned comment where I get into that. Also, the next video in the series (and previous ones) will discuss "Those So-Called Errors," which goes through those "contradictions" piece by piece giving multiple explanations without resorting to "scribal errors."

Genesis 1:26 is just one of many.

@@chadscott9157 One of what? Don't tell me you are talking about the we as evidence of his trinitarian nature?

​@@mohammed9w553 I think he is saying this, God is saying "Let us make man in our image." Us is not God referring to angels or any other being, rather himself. Imo God didn't 'hide' the Trinity. We see plenty of times that God sends 'the angel of the lord' to visit people and do things. Well this isn't an angel, it is the lord and we see that in the story of Jacob and Esau. The spirit isn't always seen with the eyes if man, but just like Jesus after resurrection, only those who are righteous or believe in God are allowed to see God. The Father cant be in the presence of unholy things, that is why man cant see him but when they have visions or are taken to Gods throne they mention multiple thrones. People didn't go to Hell before Jesus. They went to a waiting place, which Jesus went to when he was in the grave for 3 days. So humanity waited for God, Jesus, before their final judgement, a place called Abraham's bussom.

I would recommend looking at the prophecies of the Messiah. All of the Old Testament and God's time during was spent cultivating a group of people who would prepare the world for his coming (Aka Messiah). That's just the fact of the Abrahamic Faith. Read Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22:16. Both OT several hundred years before Jesus. God's mission was to present the law (which we cannot keep) and to fufill the law (which his son did), so that our Judgment would be placed onto him and we could be welcomed in his presence.

​@@cameronpetersen-yx6vf I'm talking about the old testament and the israelites , were they aware of a trinitarian nature of God or did the old testament talk about such thing ?

Life is not about oneself. That's not possible. Unless you want a life with no free choice, like a robot...

@@chadscott9157 you don't have free choice because you are forced to choose the types of things that your type of genetics and your types of life experiences force you to choose throughout your life. But if you would have been born and raised somewhere else on the planet then you would have had other types of life experiences and those experiences would have forced you to make other types of choices.

​@@AnonymousWon-uu5ynIt's a choice. Depending on your religion (although you'd see most creation stories are consistent with a creator god wanting us to ascend to him) this isn't even living. This is more of a dreamlike scenario where God can examine our desires and expose our inequities. It's up to us to choose life or death. A life that lives forever without inequities. Or a death where we are consumed by our desires leaving nothing but the emptiness it leaves. (Imo. I don't have scripture rn to back this up this is just my thoughts.)

@@AnonymousWon-uu5yn Yeah that doesn't sound good to me. Life is great without all the evil humans are capable of.

@@cameronpetersen-yx6vf if all life forms didn't exist then that would be just fine because they wouldn't know or care that they didn't exist. And I'm unfortunately still alive because I'm too scared to off myself. But hopefully I can eventually work up the courage to go ahead and do it.

Not really, chronicles is talking about the arrest and kings talks about the eventual death. Two different writers in different times.

m.kzfaq.info/get/bejne/sKl5mpCTprWsdaM.html&pp=ygUgMmtpbmdzIDk6MjcgdnMgMSBjaHJvbmljbGVzIDIyOjk%3D

@@janusproject27 No, what you've actually done is you found apologists who have jinned up explanations in order to try to harmonize these contradictions. That's because these apologists already start with the idea that the bible is true and then look for evidence to support it instead of looking at the evidence and letting it take them to the conclusion. That's what apologists do... every time. Thanks for the response.

We start with peoving what we can (Gary Habermas, for instance, has spent 50 years studying the resurrection and surrounding narratives and has boiled all the narratives down to a few "irrefutable facts," [i think five, but I can't remember].) When we confirm that the Bible is true on those issues - remember, many people came to trust in the Bible after disbelieving - Lee Strobel for instance, in addition to others. Some came with the express purpose of disproving it and were convinced after looking at evidence. When we examine what we can prove and are shown that the Bible is trustworthy, we can then give it the "benefit of the doubt" with things we don't understand. So yes, children tend to be "blind trusters," but adults who convert, etc tend to have to actually examine the truth statements. I'm not convinced of the Book of Mormon or the Qur'an because as I look at the claims, they don't match with reality on the things I can check, so I'm not going to believe it for the things I can't check. As Jesus says "if you don't trust me on earthly things, you're not going to trust me on heavenly." It's truly a side-note, but I haven't known many people who are "deconverted" because of strictly facts. I don't know of anyone who lost their faith looking at Kings and Chronicles. I generally see people who don't agree with the moral statements or can't rectify how a "loving God" could allow certain things to happen, and so fell away. So while I make the intellectual arguments to defend certain aspects of the Biblical narrative, I understand that's not really where the "fight" is for most people.@@mustachemac5229

@@janusproject27 I find it interesting that every single person you are quoting authority to is an apologist. This just proves my fact that this is what apologists do.... Every time. They gin up explanations because instead of following the evidence where it takes them, they start with the proposition that the Bible is always true and then look for evidence to support it.

@janusproject27 why the fuck are you sharing stuff like this. It only makes the views on the original post increase, causing them to make more of this shit, and plus NOT👏ALL👏PEOPLE👏LET👏POLITICS👏CONTROL👏THEIR 👏LIVES. In short, stfu

words are fun... lol!

you gotta laugh so you don't start to cry.