as far as I am concerned, this bible is not divine if copy errors can occur
if genesis and exodus is being debunked and the catholic church is accepting evolution, then it shows it is not the word of god and to accept these claims is to say ONE thing was wrong, calling into question everything else. they can't rotoscope evolution into the bible to use it to cover up
I believe he had four wives but only three were listed in Gen 36 because Judith did not bare any children. That scripture is talking about generations so it would only make sense. For the record, Anah is not a female; not a mother, sister, daughter, tranny, etc.
Ok, what's the real question here? Is it the names of the wives or who is Anah? This is so confusing, lol. Anah isn't a daughter or mother of anyone. Anah is a male. Gen 36:2 Is stating that Aholibamah is the daughter of Anah and the granddaughter of Zibeon the Hevite. Gen 36:14 is stating that Esau had a son with the daughter of Anah. (With Anah's daughter)
it was a rebuttal to what you're saying in this video, had to do with the 3 wives bearing alternate names but still being the same 3 people, it was almost like a powerpoint presentation type video
you say yourself that women were property back then how do you know that his original wifes werent sold? or died? your asuming these are the same women. and yes i know my bible has flaws it was written by man an imperfect being who makes mistakes you can tell by a lot of the writings in the bible were authors personal opinion comes in because after all we have free will but the basic idea of the bible that god created everything and jesus died for my sins is the facts that really need.
because the word FIRST only means one thing. There's no such thing as "two firsts"...also, while women were treated as property, selling your wives? Not exactly how that works.
I think that Genesis 36 is one of the more historical parts of Genesis- it contains information so irrelevant and confusing that it seems likely to me that the passage was directly copied from earlier records. I don't mean it makes any sense, I just mean it's trying to protect some old genealogies & king lists so they can be consulted and clarified later. I suspect that they are probably a spot where the (P) source got bored or the redactor added a fifth source (see documentary hypothesis).
The holly Quran kept saying from 1400 years ago that the Gospel given to Jesus,which he preached is corrupted and fallsifyed by later writers who made it to gospels (plural).the fact that no original manuscripts today ,only 24000 translated copies and copies of copies,no two are identical.24000 gospels?
@TheMathLife I'm really quite tired of you trolling me and finding every video I comment on. Tell you what, why don't you just debate me in skype or in a christian/atheist debate chat room?
@TheMathLife I looked to see what comment you replied to, If we debate, I'd rather debate about evolution. My views have changed about that particular topic, for the moment. My realm of research is elsewhere.
@micah1116 Very well then! How about "Cetaceans: Special Creation or Mammalian Generation". We'll debate the specific topic of cetaceans and both creationist and actual scientific theories regarding their atavisms, genetic and morphological similarities to other mammals, and any other pertinent biological evidence that can support either of our sides. I'm a mathematician and physicist by education so I'm going far afield here, so the ball is in your court.
@TheMathLife Sure, tell you what, how about we discuss this tomorrow sometime. You just let me know what time you want to debate. We can debate in pointmans voxli if you want, but may I reccomend shocks room? It's not voxli, it's a chat room siimiliar to it, but it's a good format. One person speaks at a time, and no one can interupt you.
@micah1116 Sorry but ShockofGod isn't someone I will involve myself with in anyway. I've chatted and had friendly discussions with NephilimFree before and I'm willing to have one with you because you guys have redeeming qualities, where as Shock is as vile as they come.
w w w (dot) skeptictank (dot) org / hs / ra (dot) h t m
@TheMathLife half of the time shock isn't there, and he wouldn't be debating evolution anyway, but that's fine. Just let me know when you'd like to talk, and we'll see if we can work something out.
@micah1116 I understand that. If you're worried about interruptions we could make it a text debate on a thread. I would like 3 or 4 weeks to get supporting materials and get arguments sorted out.
@TheMathLife I'd rather just talk, I've done debates in forums before, and don't feel like spending days doing it. Like I said, just let me know when your free to talk.
I know the Bible is true because atheists dont have anything better to do but talk about it, and the bible. They hate Jesus Christ and they hate those who follow him. Jesus is Saviour!
I know that atheism is true because Christians don't have anything better to do but talk about them. They hate rationality and they hate those that use it. Knowledge is our salvation.
Atheists don't have any truth because they have rejected the truth the word of God.
Rationality? I am very rational that is why I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.
A painting had a painter. A building had a builer(NO MATTER IF I SEE THE BUILDER OR NOT-I KNOW HE EXISTS). And creation has a Creator. It is very rational to believe in God. Are you really rational?
Sir, why are you talking about Ray Comfort I was talking to you. I brought up a rational arguement for God yet you brought up Ray Comfort. I said, A building had a builder(EVEN IF YOU NEVER SEE THE BUILDER YOU KNOW HE EXIST), A painting had a painter (EVEN if you never see the painter it is evidence and proof of the painter), and creation is proof of the creator.
Ray Comfort is the one that popularized your "paint needs a painter" idiocy. It's an intellectually bankrupt argument that fails in every way. There is NOTHING rational about it. It ignores obvious problems:
If there is a god, there must be a god designer.
If god designed everything, then he did a REALLY BAD JOB of it.
Buildings and paintings do not have a naturalistic way for which to be produced. Life DOES.
The whole thing is known as "conformation bias". Please, try harder next time.
"If there is a god, there must be a god designer." How can God be designed? That makes no sense if there is a God ,then he can't need a designer if he did he would not be God.Common Sense "...then he did a REALLY BAD JOB of it." Says you. If you are so poorly designed you can not trust your eyes because your brain is just a bunch of random chemical reactions. How can you trust your thoughts and your reasoning process?
My eyes....great example. You may have noticed that I wear glasses. In fact, I've had to strengthen my prescription over time. My eyes are failing. Why? Is it because I've done something to them? No...it's because I USE THEM. The more I use them the more damage I do. What a poor "design" by an omnipotent designer! Wouldn't you say?
And you ignored the actual point. NATURAL PROCESSES exist which negate the need for a god.
I believe the eye is beautifully designed because, we can see colors, and see beautiful things in nature this all designed. As far as your eyes getting worse yes because your getting worse and you get old as I am we will all die because of our bodies we live in.
you are missing the point. Dogs see better than us at night. Birds see better than us all the time. We have a blind spot in our eyes from birth. Some people are blind at birth.
This is confirmation bias! You are only paying attention to the parts you WANT to pay attention to!
Eye is obviously designed that is clear. It does not make a difference whither birds or dogs can see better than us we are still fearfully and wonderfully made.
That is stupid. The god of evolution is time give enough time you can turn anything into anything. Lack of intelligence the human eye had to be designed.
I hate to chim in but.... if we are so wonderfully designed and God made us in his image explain : and this is for ofreshartist or king if you want to back me on this. explain the following: Mass murder infant rape and murder war our innate movement to hate each other by color of our skin greed for cash drive to be better than each other and as you clearly keep doing trying to one up each other images of your God Manson, Hitler, Gandhi, Mother teresa, man in japan walks into E.school killskids
yes, but I was using it to point out that women where not viewed as just property. Neither will i say they had full rights. But even earlier, Isreal has a female judge, (Deborah, Judges 4:4) before they had kings. Once again, just saying that females could be important.
If you look up Ahan in Strongs Concordance, it actually says that Ziberon had both a son and a daughter named Ahan. And there was a son of Seir named Ahan too.
And, as a little side note, not all ancient cultures saw women as only property, including the Jews. Later on, in Mathhew, Ruth is listed as an ancestor of David, and Jesus.
Yea, it says he named them both the same. Kinda dumb, i must admit.
Ruth is mentioned with her husband, Boaz, in Matthew 1:5. There are other women mentioned also. Only 5 total, if I remember, but each did something that was significan enough to merit having their name mentioned in Jesus' geneology.
MAJOR difference here...the genealogies don't contain the women as part of the blood line...rather as FOOTNOTES because of their relevance to a story. Do you see what I mean? It's Boaz OF Ruth...translated..."Boaz, remember Ruth from the OT...her husband"
Similar to me saying, "Bo of the General Lee" in reference to Bo Duke who drove the General Lee in the Dukes of Hazzard.
It's not the same as saying she's "so significant"...just that her husband wasn't.
mate, you are indeed a funny chap. You read the bible and still can't work it out. Guess you prefer to lead your life without any guilt attached when you do things that aren't good. Each to his own I say.
However, you are the typical person Jesus spoke about in Matthew 13 v13-17. I just love atheist. They don't accept God but will accept other forms of teaching without proof which is also another form of blind faith.
I rather lead my life now as if there is a GOD rather than not.God bless.
Guilt is a social construct. And if you read the bible or even watch a religious movie or a good comedian then you will know the comandments you should hold no other god before me. So thank you for bringing another contradiction from the bible
Also, at 3:30, you said "Certainly he [Esau] wouldn't take two sisters as wives, that would be kinda gross, right?"
KingHeathen. Esau's father (Jacob) married Rachel and Leah, the daughters of Laban. This is actually a pretty well-known fact to Bible readers. It seems clear that you don't invest enough of your time researching the Bible if you miss something right under your nose.
I should correct myself about Jacob, as he was Esau's brother, not father. But yes, I am suggesting this possibility, as Jacob was married to two sisters. The point, my friend, is that this was not an uncommon practice and you're comparing our culture to ancient Israel's to strengthen your argument. You're comparing apples to oranges.
watch the video again and tell me if you can find why the idea of them being sisters causes a knew problem elsewhere.
For every solution you attempt, you create a new contradiction...until you say that there are two stories and they are both versions of the same story but the details were messed up during the time that they were not written down.
To me, it seems simple. It was a scribal error involving Bashemath. But how does a scribal error on man's part equate to the original's inerrancy? How do scribal errors prove the Bible is false? This is a trivial error that has no conceptual contradiction. It would be like rejecting a math book's concepts because of silly copyist errors.
..i couldnt help but notice u were playing that little game of 'theres a mistake but im not going to tell you what it is'..which almost sounds like a little kid saying to a big kid 'i would hit u but im so strong id make u cry' im curious what was the error in my video already?
apart from dome simple display inconsistencies or such...
well one reason was i didnt want anything in the video to be wrong at all..and concerning the Horites (especially) i was not entirely sure the info i had given was correct as i realised that more information is found that challenges or put into question them as 'cave-dwellers' its a question of accuracy..changing a vid is better than leaving ones in error up (ay kh).
But the less certain info is in descrip box.. still havent sed y wrong
Actually, this is no contradiction but a misunderstanding. Esau had 5 wives, 2 of which had the same name. There were 2 Basemaths (one from Elon, another from Ishmael), a Judith, an Aholibamah and an Adah. No contradiction. As much as I hate to disagree with the great Dr. Norman Geisler, who said there were 4, after looking again I find that there were 5.
Looking unto Jesus might have been "owned," but in claiming that there is a contradiction here when there isn't mean KH just got "owned." The man simply went crazy trying to compete with his brother gaining wives.
REALLY! Because all the rest of your fellow apologists keep telling me that it's just a duplicate name thing...like Saul was Paul and Abram was Abraham...
As far as I can see, he had 5 wives. There are assumptions involved in some views. One is that just because Adah is of Elon and one Basemath was of Elon, that his must mean these are one person with different names. That does not follow. One man can have 2 daughters married to the same man. I see no Biblical basis for the argument that Adah and Basemath were the same person. They don't all fail miserably, but I don't find the 4 wives thing completely accurate. I say 5 until proven wrong.
KH, well I try to honestly view the text to see what it says without assumptions There is precedent in Scripture for "multiple names," but I don't feel we should blindly accept theories without basis. That's why I rejected the 4 from Dr. Norm Geisler.
LOL...that's ok. You are making the contradiction claim, so it is not on me to "keep looking" for what you believe is a contradiction. I have graduate studies to do.
if you "give up" that's fine...I certainly understand being busy...but something tells me that if I give you the answer, you will keep responding...so I don't think your excuse is legit! I don't need you to look anything up. Just think in your spare time and see if you can figure out where the flaw is. If you don't want to...that's fine to.
I've already told you I see no flaw. The man had 5 wives. There is no contradiction I can see at this point. I am willing to accept a "contradiction" if it is truly one, but most I have seen are misunderstandings of the readers or ignorance of the readers, not a true contradiction. So my claims stands until proven otherwise.
Perhaps because most apologists don't think for themselves and blindly follow each other. I did the same initially by following Dr. Geisler. But looking again shows that it was probably 5, as Esau in context clearly was competing with Jacob and his 4 wives. It makes sense to me that he would try to do "better" than his brother by having one more than Jacob.
Ah yes...I see...they are all wrong and you are the only one that is right. And I'm supposed to believe YOUR opinion over theirs, why? I'm supposed to believe ANY of your opinions over my own, why?
The end result is that you found something they overlooked and it made you change the explanation...but in doing so, you overlooked something that makes yours wrong. But, we'll leave it at that. How about you send your "correction to Geisler and see what he thinks?
Well, you have yet to prove your so-called contradiction. At least I am willing to accept that I MIGHT be wrong. It seems you feel you have an "airtight" contradiction. You see, if proven wrong I can admit it. It seems you are too arrogant in your atheism to do so. As with most atheists I've studied over the years, you know "it all," and haven't studied much as you should. Esau had 5 wives. There is no contradiction. His brother had 4. It's that simple.
I find that hard to believe given our more recent exchange that you haven't admitted you were wrong about.
Again, send your "5 wives" conclusion to Geisler...and see what comes back. Don't you think he'd want to know if he made a mistake that a guy in shoulder pads could figure out?
KH, you can find it hard to believe all you want. I haven't admitted to being wrong to you on this "exchange" because you have not PROVED me wrong on anything. You simply CLAIMED I was wrong. There is a difference.
Until someone proves my 5 wife theory wrong, I will stand by it. I'm sure Geisler is busy with his seminary and doesn't have time for something like this. Anyway, I guess you want to keep your "contradiction" a secret. I don't see YOU being willing to be proved wrong.
In fact, I've already shown you on this very page that I am willing to change my mind. First, I went with Geisler's view, then I rejected it based on my own study. It would have been easy for me to stick with Geisler, since I have great respect for his scholarship and learning, but the most learned CAN make simple mistakes. And I learned years ago to do my own research and not to blindly follow any human. So, I've shown my desire for truth. You? Remains to be seen.
I have thought about it. And you didn't become an atheist because of a desire for truth. I say you were an atheist in Christian clothing and it manifested later.
LOL...You are good at calling people names. But the fact of the matter is, he's running a seminary, and I'm attending one, getting my third degree. You have not presented an "air tight" contradiction here. All you have is what you THINK is one. Scholarship doesn't find a contradiction here.
And by the way, KH, you seem to be the one afraid to present the full details of his alleged "airtight" contradiction, perhaps out of fear that it will be exposed for the fraudulent claim that it is.
Oh.. and just in case you did not glean from my two previous comments, Anah in Genesis 36:20 is not the same Anah in Genesis 36:14 or verse 24. The Anah of verse 20 is of the Horites a tribe of the Nephilim branch of neanderthal-like men that mixed with Adam's seed before. Here they are again. Verse 24 goes to other pains to distinguish this Anah from verse 20, but your video shows just how Heathen you are. You DO NOT UNDERSTAND AT ALL! Goodluck. You are not worthy to be called a heathen. HAHA!
right right...this person isn't the same person that the person with the same name and a different father and the father isn't the mother that also has the same name and is their own daughter who is their own grandfather....
Machalath is Basmath. See Antiquities of the Jews Book 1 Chapter 18:8 (Josephus).
"...Esau having married already BASHEMATH, the daughter of Ismael, without his father's consent; for Isaac did not like the Canaanites, so that he disapproved of Esau's former marriages, which made him take BASHEMATH to wife, in order to please him; and indeed he had a great affection for her."
Two women with the same name, but havd 2nd names associated with them. In 36:2 Bashemath is dropped to avoid confusion.
So, there you go: Chapter 26 of Genesis is GENERAL HISTORY (Hittite was a general name), but in Chapter 36 of Genesis it is a more precise genealogical ancestry! One is general and the other precise. It is very simple! Only heathens don't understand! So, just stay stupid with your FAUX "air tight contradictions. BWaaHawhawhaw HAW HAWHAHAHA!!!! What a complete idiot! Polygamy is great and good. It is a sanctioned ordinance you American hypocrite; you are so much better with your high mind.
An AIR TIGHT contradiction? What an idiot! Judith's ancestor, Beeri the Hittite was named Berri from a place called Beer, a well. Berri is a nickname (lit. The Spring-Man) because he "discovered the hot springs (hayyemim)" as in 36:24. The LXX and Vulg. clarifies this. Berri, The Spring-Man is really Anah to be distinguished from the Anah of 36:20.
-Judith's 2nd name is Aholibamah
-Bashemath's 2nd name is Adah in 36:2 (dropped to avoid confusion with Bashemath)
Hey KingHeathen, I just ran across your videos. I will look up those verses soon. But, quickly, about names - People didn't change names because they sounded similar. They changed names because of their meaning. Also, many women took differnt names after marriage. Some names off the top of my head:
Simon = Cephas = Peter
Jacob = Israel
Tabitha = Dorcas
Also, marrying sisters was not unheard of. Jacob married sisters (Rachel & Leah). I'll get back to you re: Esau's wives.
just curious see if theres obvious misunderstandings in the points ud make it wuld be easier to reply using text not video. However whether u make tough or weak points i would have to reply with a vid either way because it seems to me that whoever has the last word appers right so i would prefer that u gave me ur points so that if they were weak i could quickly refute them and not make a vid this is assuming of course that they are weak i dont know maybe they strong but IF weak it would easier
dont put words in my mouth i said APPEARS in other words i would have prefered u to give me ur points first instead because it obligates me to make another vid in reply to counter which is more difficult than messaging. And i certainly dont think my points are weak not at all i said appears remember that word
Ok, then, I guess that you are afraid that your points would APPEAR really weak unless you go last. I don't see where that's any better. You are obligated to nothing...the video will spend a couple of minutes on you and the rest on a separate matter altogether which ties into the issue here. It WON'T be directly addressed to you. And to be honest, I don't see where there will be anything more for you to add either.
I will watch it as soon as I get a chance. thanks for sending it as a video response...that will help remind me. (I'll approve it right after I watch it)
Oh, a further point. Genesis was often just a rewrite of Akkadian myths, themselves often stolen and changed from Sumerian tales which may well have been taken from any they traded with, invaded or were invaded by. If the origins and intent are unknown, then the meaning is unknowable.
Language was largely phonetic back then, further complicated by the fact that different civilizations used (and use) different phonemes, making corruption inevitable. Were the people real? And in what sense? As individuals, tribes, societies, ideas?
LOL...this is no contradiction. It's been answered by scholarship before "King Heathen" was born, and even after that. Too bad people are so anxious to find "contradictions" that they fail to research a matter thoroughly.
it's so great that you would come here and make such a bold ASSERTION...could you please expound on this and tell us how you justify this "contradiction"?
Oh, and if you go back and read the comments from when this came out, the apologist site that I used has since CHANGED THEIR STORY...just like all apologists do once they are debunked.
LOL...debunked. Now that's special. I'm sure the apologist "site" was not done by Dr. Norman Geisler. LOL. You have no scholarship in Biblical studies. You have claims that you think hold up based on your ignorance, like most atheists I've encountered.
Ahhh, if you think you have found a contradiction over Esau's wives, I don't NEED to know who you are or what your background is. That claim alone says volumes about your "background" and who you are. So spare me the drama.
And, I might add, I am quite certain that you have no scholarship in Biblical studies anywhere near Dr. Geisler, and you probably don't have half what I have. And the fact that you don't have the Spirit show you lack the main "ingredient" to properly interpret Scripture.
LOL..."bogyman ghost"? NOT. Ignorance is not bliss. Enlighten you? Why don't you simply READ? Go all the way back to a book written before we both were born - "Alleged Discrepencies of the Bible" by John Haley...LOL. This alleged contradiction nonsense grows old, and it's ridiculous you guys seem never to learn from prior scholarship.
Read? I've read apologetics until I was blue in the face...none of them were satisfactory. They TRY to justify these things, but they don't pan out. And you STILL haven't given me ONE THING to justify THIS one. PLEASE give me the explanation as to how this contradiction is justified. Video response preferred, or a PM if you need to.
the beauty of biblical contradictions is that even when christians manage to dance around them by asserting something that is not within the text, there are still hundreds of others. so CRoadwarrior, you can have this one... fuck it we'll let you have em all. but then how do you explain the biblical plagiarism of prior religions and the references to books that were supposedly not good enough for your bible
Hey although I am a christian i will admit to not undersatnding evertyhing in the bible. I simply choose to believe in something more. I am not here to fight about anything. However I would like you to watch any video made by the black hebrew isrealites. I would love to see you put those guys to shame. I personally can not stand them.
You are reading into my comment. My comment was meant to remind him that he didn't know anything about me, yet he was claiming to have insight on my scholarship level. How can anyone make such a claim if they don't "know who I am?" Now who's arrogant?
mate u got it all wrong so so wrong...but this "contra" intrigued me so much like a big time real puzzle...so in a way you inspired me to make a vid u can check it out...one of ur first mistakes was that u didnt contradict the Bible u contradicted an incorrect apologetic interpretation have a look "air tight" is Esaus wives you tell me after youve seen it if theres still a contra
Esau married women from different lands. different people were created on different days of creation. Jacob brought about the geneology of christ. Esau was pure aswell, but he then created children with Caanites, destroying the chance that christ could come through him, an impure-lineage.
in Gen. 26:34 is the same as the Adah, daughter of Elon, in Gen. 36:2, while the Bashemath, daughter of Ishmael, in Gen. 36:3 is the same as Mahalath, daughter of Ishmael, in Gen. 28:9.
The name Bashemath (correctly Basemath) probably comes from the Semitic word-stem b-s-m, meaning "fragrant" (for example, besem means "balsam" in Hebrew). When you add the Hebrew feminine ending --ath, you get Basemath, "fragrant woman." The possibility exists that Mahalath (daughter of Ishmael and sister of Nebajoth) and Adah (daughter of Elon the Hittite) were both given the nickname "fragrant" (Douglas 1982: 124). In other words, the Bashemath, daughter of Elon,
twist it...turn it...bend those facts as far as you can. I addressed your explanation already. It's not logical. It's not just the names of the women...the fathers also don't line up. Rewatch the video.
that goes right back at you and since you have no facts, I don't see where it matters. The FACTS are that you can't make it fit and I showed that in the video.
Much later, the wife of Assyrian king Sennacherib (705--681 BC) bore an Aramaic name, Naqia, and an Assyrian name, Zakutu (Boardman 1991: 138; Kuhrt 1995: 527).Two of Esau's wives were known by two different names: their names given to them at birth, Adah and Mahalath, and their identical nicknames, "Fragrant."
Archaeology. This is the study of the material remains of past people's lives and activities. Many biblical sites have been found, and the amount of evidence confirming the biblical record is enormous. No archaeological discovery to date contradicts the Bible (though some mistakenly interpret some findings as doing so).
so, considering the contradictions you claim make up a small percentenge of the Bible (.5%?), tell me what that matters? Lets say the "errors" were authentic human errors. Is there any value to proving that? I mean, do you want the Bible not to be seen as "inspired"? Do you simply want people not to say it's perfect? Can it still be "inspired" and "holy" and have a few contradictions, or not?
I never said that the contradictions make up a small percentage. In fact, I'd say there are more contradictions than verified historical content. But to answer your question: Step one is to admit that it's not an inerrant work. Once you admit that there ARE errors, then how many errors are there? Go to my "Where do you rate on the Fundamentalist scale" video and see each of the steps you take from there.
Heliocent.? (please explain). Flat earth? Job 26:10; Isa 40:22. I read the literal translation for "horizon" is "circle." Let me know what verses you're thinking of. Quirinius: archae'gist Jerry Vardaman found a coin indicating there was a Quirinius who was proconsul of Syria & Cilicia from 11 B.C. till after Herod. So, there's possibly 2 Q's (Luke means latter). Considering how meticulous and educated Luke's writing was (as well as his otherwise untainted historical accuracy), I stand by Luke.
heliocentricism-theory that the sun is the center of our solar system and that the Earth revolves around it...vs geocentricism which states the Earth is the center of the universe (and in the Bible's case...the sun is IN the atmosphere of the Earth as part of a dome canopy with the moon which is supposed to be its own light source and the stars which can "fall to the Earth" out of the sky.
you then use 2 verses to suggest the Earth is a CIRCLE (note, so is a FLAT COIN) while in my "Flat Earth according to the Bible series, I use 46 verses that contridict the spherical Earth claim...those two are included. Take Isaiah...keep reading that verse, notice the part about the sky as a "tent"...doesn't say "bubble" does it? And your "2nd Quirinius" theory is a bit of a stretch and I've seen no serious scholar that agrees with that.
The Bible is 99.5% accurate. Most of the remaining errors are grammatical problems or things we can't understand without a thorough education in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. Of those, none of them change the message.
The Bible can still be inspired by God without being literally perfect. After all, there's yet to be found a part of the Bible that contradicts historical findings.
uhhh...yes there is. How about that it contradicts the scientifically proven fact of heliocentricism? Then there's the "flat Earth" claims...not to mention the historical contradiction of Herod and Quirinius time frame issue...Herod DIED 10 years before Quirinius was Governor yet the Bible claims other wise. And that's just what I can fit into one text box.
Christians certainly SHOULD do this, but no, most don't. As to the number of beers...depends on the video. I usually sit down with the first beer and get things in order. By time to record, I may be on my second. Then depending on how many videos I do that night or how many retakes I have to do...who knows.
I think they also had multilpe wives because women often died in child labour. Even today in poor nations women die if they have a breach baby. Things changed in the New Testament. Look up how a man is to treat his wife and how the wife is to treat her husband.
watch my "FEMALE CHRISTIANS! Mandatory viewing here!" and let's see just how the NT thinks women should be treated...and look up the history on it...it was because women were property...your opinion doesn't matter in historical contexts.
1) Love your wife as Christ loved the church. Give yourself up for your wife. [Ephesians 5:25]
2) Love your wife in the same way you love your body and yourself. [Ephesians 5:28-33]
3) Be considerate as you live with your wife. [I Peter 3:7]4) Do not be harsh with your wife. [Colossians 3:19]5) Your body belongs to your wife. [I Corinthians 7:3-5]8) Do not be captivated by other women [Proverbs 5:20]9) Praise your wife. [Proverbs 31:28-29]
I bet that many women only wish that their husband would treat them as good as what the bible verses say that I posted. Lots of women are Christian and do not have a problem with the bible. History is history. What did Jesus say? What Christian women look at is what Jesus said.
I notice you left out all the verses about being your husbands property, and remaining silent and submissive...I take it you didn't go watch the video.
To me it seems that if a man acts like his wife is his property he is NOT following the bible. The two belong to each other. I have no right to fool around and my wife has no right to fool around because we belong to each other. If a man treats his wife like she is his property then he is very insecure and does not trust his wife.
as far as I am concerned, this bible is not divine if copy errors can occur
if genesis and exodus is being debunked and the catholic church is accepting evolution, then it shows it is not the word of god and to accept these claims is to say ONE thing was wrong, calling into question everything else. they can't rotoscope evolution into the bible to use it to cover up
infernalone666 2 months ago in playlist Debunking and Refuting the Bible
I believe he had four wives but only three were listed in Gen 36 because Judith did not bare any children. That scripture is talking about generations so it would only make sense. For the record, Anah is not a female; not a mother, sister, daughter, tranny, etc.
HouriBee 9 months ago
Mahalath, daughter of Ishmael, sister of Nebajoth (Gen. 28:9)
Bashemath, daughter of Ishmael, sister of Nebajoth (Gen 36:3)
Same people different names
Bashemath, daughter of Elon the Hittite (Gen 26:34)
Adah, daughter of Elon the Hittite (Gen 36:2)
Same people different names
Judith, daughter of Beeri(mother) the Hittite(Gen 26:34)
Did not bare children
Aholibamah, granddaughter of Zibeon the Hivite (Gen 36:2)
Perhaps 4th wife (Gen 36, Now these are the generations of Esau)
HouriBee 9 months ago
Ok, what's the real question here? Is it the names of the wives or who is Anah? This is so confusing, lol. Anah isn't a daughter or mother of anyone. Anah is a male. Gen 36:2 Is stating that Aholibamah is the daughter of Anah and the granddaughter of Zibeon the Hevite. Gen 36:14 is stating that Esau had a son with the daughter of Anah. (With Anah's daughter)
HouriBee 9 months ago
what happened to this video response on this video that was posted a couple years ago?
TheLatterRain 1 year ago
@TheLatterRain I'm not sure what you are talking about, but I'd guess that the other person removed it.
KingHeathen 1 year ago
it was a rebuttal to what you're saying in this video, had to do with the 3 wives bearing alternate names but still being the same 3 people, it was almost like a powerpoint presentation type video
TheLatterRain 1 year ago
@TheLatterRain I think I remember the one you are talking about, but I can't tell you who it was or what happened to them.
KingHeathen 1 year ago
You are reading from the Ozark Bible
Kenzofeis 1 year ago
you say yourself that women were property back then how do you know that his original wifes werent sold? or died? your asuming these are the same women. and yes i know my bible has flaws it was written by man an imperfect being who makes mistakes you can tell by a lot of the writings in the bible were authors personal opinion comes in because after all we have free will but the basic idea of the bible that god created everything and jesus died for my sins is the facts that really need.
sonofawhoremonkey 2 years ago
because the word FIRST only means one thing. There's no such thing as "two firsts"...also, while women were treated as property, selling your wives? Not exactly how that works.
KingHeathen 2 years ago
I think that Genesis 36 is one of the more historical parts of Genesis- it contains information so irrelevant and confusing that it seems likely to me that the passage was directly copied from earlier records. I don't mean it makes any sense, I just mean it's trying to protect some old genealogies & king lists so they can be consulted and clarified later. I suspect that they are probably a spot where the (P) source got bored or the redactor added a fifth source (see documentary hypothesis).
HistoricalReality 2 years ago
The holly Quran kept saying from 1400 years ago that the Gospel given to Jesus,which he preached is corrupted and fallsifyed by later writers who made it to gospels (plural).the fact that no original manuscripts today ,only 24000 translated copies and copies of copies,no two are identical.24000 gospels?
kamalabbas123 2 years ago
The quaran distorts everything in the bible. Islam was started by catholics. Muhammed was a pedophile and had 22 wives.
micah1116 2 years ago
@micah1116 Islam started by... Catholics!?! You are quite a stupid young man.
TheMathLife 9 months ago
@TheMathLife I'm really quite tired of you trolling me and finding every video I comment on. Tell you what, why don't you just debate me in skype or in a christian/atheist debate chat room?
micah1116 9 months ago
@micah1116 Sure, how about a room in Pointmanzero's voxli? The debate will be, "Islam: A catholic conspiracy?"
TheMathLife 9 months ago
@TheMathLife I looked to see what comment you replied to, If we debate, I'd rather debate about evolution. My views have changed about that particular topic, for the moment. My realm of research is elsewhere.
micah1116 9 months ago
@micah1116 Very well then! How about "Cetaceans: Special Creation or Mammalian Generation". We'll debate the specific topic of cetaceans and both creationist and actual scientific theories regarding their atavisms, genetic and morphological similarities to other mammals, and any other pertinent biological evidence that can support either of our sides. I'm a mathematician and physicist by education so I'm going far afield here, so the ball is in your court.
TheMathLife 9 months ago
@TheMathLife Sure, tell you what, how about we discuss this tomorrow sometime. You just let me know what time you want to debate. We can debate in pointmans voxli if you want, but may I reccomend shocks room? It's not voxli, it's a chat room siimiliar to it, but it's a good format. One person speaks at a time, and no one can interupt you.
micah1116 9 months ago
@micah1116 Sorry but ShockofGod isn't someone I will involve myself with in anyway. I've chatted and had friendly discussions with NephilimFree before and I'm willing to have one with you because you guys have redeeming qualities, where as Shock is as vile as they come.
w w w (dot) skeptictank (dot) org / hs / ra (dot) h t m
TheMathLife 9 months ago
@TheMathLife half of the time shock isn't there, and he wouldn't be debating evolution anyway, but that's fine. Just let me know when you'd like to talk, and we'll see if we can work something out.
micah1116 9 months ago
@micah1116 I understand that. If you're worried about interruptions we could make it a text debate on a thread. I would like 3 or 4 weeks to get supporting materials and get arguments sorted out.
TheMathLife 9 months ago
@TheMathLife I'd rather just talk, I've done debates in forums before, and don't feel like spending days doing it. Like I said, just let me know when your free to talk.
micah1116 9 months ago
@micah1116 Will do.
TheMathLife 9 months ago
I know the Bible is true because atheists dont have anything better to do but talk about it, and the bible. They hate Jesus Christ and they hate those who follow him. Jesus is Saviour!
ofreshartist 2 years ago
I know that atheism is true because Christians don't have anything better to do but talk about them. They hate rationality and they hate those that use it. Knowledge is our salvation.
KingHeathen 2 years ago
Atheists don't have any truth because they have rejected the truth the word of God.
Rationality? I am very rational that is why I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.
A painting had a painter. A building had a builer(NO MATTER IF I SEE THE BUILDER OR NOT-I KNOW HE EXISTS). And creation has a Creator. It is very rational to believe in God. Are you really rational?
ofreshartist 2 years ago
Christians don't have any truth because they have rejected the truth of science and rationalism.
*I won't bother to repeat myself on your bullshit Ray Comfort crap...instead I'll just refer you to my video "Meet Ray Discomfort"
KingHeathen 2 years ago
Sir, why are you talking about Ray Comfort I was talking to you. I brought up a rational arguement for God yet you brought up Ray Comfort. I said, A building had a builder(EVEN IF YOU NEVER SEE THE BUILDER YOU KNOW HE EXIST), A painting had a painter (EVEN if you never see the painter it is evidence and proof of the painter), and creation is proof of the creator.
ofreshartist 2 years ago
Ray Comfort is the one that popularized your "paint needs a painter" idiocy. It's an intellectually bankrupt argument that fails in every way. There is NOTHING rational about it. It ignores obvious problems:
If there is a god, there must be a god designer.
If god designed everything, then he did a REALLY BAD JOB of it.
Buildings and paintings do not have a naturalistic way for which to be produced. Life DOES.
The whole thing is known as "conformation bias". Please, try harder next time.
KingHeathen 2 years ago
"If there is a god, there must be a god designer." How can God be designed? That makes no sense if there is a God ,then he can't need a designer if he did he would not be God.Common Sense "...then he did a REALLY BAD JOB of it." Says you. If you are so poorly designed you can not trust your eyes because your brain is just a bunch of random chemical reactions. How can you trust your thoughts and your reasoning process?
ofreshartist 2 years ago
the concept of "god" makes no sense on it's own.
My eyes....great example. You may have noticed that I wear glasses. In fact, I've had to strengthen my prescription over time. My eyes are failing. Why? Is it because I've done something to them? No...it's because I USE THEM. The more I use them the more damage I do. What a poor "design" by an omnipotent designer! Wouldn't you say?
And you ignored the actual point. NATURAL PROCESSES exist which negate the need for a god.
KingHeathen 2 years ago
I believe the eye is beautifully designed because, we can see colors, and see beautiful things in nature this all designed. As far as your eyes getting worse yes because your getting worse and you get old as I am we will all die because of our bodies we live in.
ofreshartist 2 years ago
you are missing the point. Dogs see better than us at night. Birds see better than us all the time. We have a blind spot in our eyes from birth. Some people are blind at birth.
This is confirmation bias! You are only paying attention to the parts you WANT to pay attention to!
KingHeathen 2 years ago
Eye is obviously designed that is clear. It does not make a difference whither birds or dogs can see better than us we are still fearfully and wonderfully made.
ofreshartist 2 years ago
see what I mean? Confirmation bias.
The evolution of the eye is very well understood. Look it up.
KingHeathen 2 years ago
That is stupid. The god of evolution is time give enough time you can turn anything into anything. Lack of intelligence the human eye had to be designed.
ofreshartist 2 years ago
Just a recommendation.....don't suggest a "lack of intelligence" and then display such poor grammar.
KingHeathen 2 years ago
oblufire 2 years ago
Sin.
RodneyVoelker 2 years ago
That is a nice answer. But define sin.
oblufire 2 years ago
You, sir... are one of the most amazingly entertaining people I have ever watched. Thank you.HAHA.
jasonsbitch73 2 years ago
In my book "Defense Against The Dark Arts "Bible Contradictions By Wizard Copyright © 2005" I used the KJV of the Bible, there are 205 Bible Contradictions. If you would like to make a Video about Bible Contradictions. send me a e-mail and I will send you the 205 Bible Contradictions. Wizard is my pseudonym or, pen name
WizardofTacoma 3 years ago
yes, but I was using it to point out that women where not viewed as just property. Neither will i say they had full rights. But even earlier, Isreal has a female judge, (Deborah, Judges 4:4) before they had kings. Once again, just saying that females could be important.
footballspiel 3 years ago
you did NOT show that they weren't viewed as property...The General Lee was just as much of a character in the Dukes of Hazzard as any of the actors!
KingHeathen 3 years ago
If you look up Ahan in Strongs Concordance, it actually says that Ziberon had both a son and a daughter named Ahan. And there was a son of Seir named Ahan too.
And, as a little side note, not all ancient cultures saw women as only property, including the Jews. Later on, in Mathhew, Ruth is listed as an ancestor of David, and Jesus.
footballspiel 3 years ago
He named his son and daughter THE SAME THING? Ok...
What verse do you find Ruth listed in the genealogies of Matthew? I don't see her as I read through it.
KingHeathen 3 years ago
Yea, it says he named them both the same. Kinda dumb, i must admit.
Ruth is mentioned with her husband, Boaz, in Matthew 1:5. There are other women mentioned also. Only 5 total, if I remember, but each did something that was significan enough to merit having their name mentioned in Jesus' geneology.
footballspiel 3 years ago
MAJOR difference here...the genealogies don't contain the women as part of the blood line...rather as FOOTNOTES because of their relevance to a story. Do you see what I mean? It's Boaz OF Ruth...translated..."Boaz, remember Ruth from the OT...her husband"
Similar to me saying, "Bo of the General Lee" in reference to Bo Duke who drove the General Lee in the Dukes of Hazzard.
It's not the same as saying she's "so significant"...just that her husband wasn't.
KingHeathen 3 years ago
mate, you are indeed a funny chap. You read the bible and still can't work it out. Guess you prefer to lead your life without any guilt attached when you do things that aren't good. Each to his own I say.
However, you are the typical person Jesus spoke about in Matthew 13 v13-17. I just love atheist. They don't accept God but will accept other forms of teaching without proof which is also another form of blind faith.
I rather lead my life now as if there is a GOD rather than not.God bless.
pigapumbu 3 years ago
what things do I do that aren't good, psychic piggy?
KingHeathen 3 years ago
Guilt is a social construct. And if you read the bible or even watch a religious movie or a good comedian then you will know the comandments you should hold no other god before me. So thank you for bringing another contradiction from the bible
oblufire 2 years ago
KingHeathen, to address your comment at 3:00, characters in the Bible sometimes had different names that were nothing alike.
Jacob (Israel)
Peter (Simon, Cephas)
Bartholomew (Nathanael)
Mathew (Levi)
Thaddaeus (Judas)
ChristCommandsIt 3 years ago
Also, at 3:30, you said "Certainly he [Esau] wouldn't take two sisters as wives, that would be kinda gross, right?"
KingHeathen. Esau's father (Jacob) married Rachel and Leah, the daughters of Laban. This is actually a pretty well-known fact to Bible readers. It seems clear that you don't invest enough of your time researching the Bible if you miss something right under your nose.
ChristCommandsIt 3 years ago
I covered these counters already...
are you taking the position that they WERE sisters? If so you have a new problem.
KingHeathen 3 years ago
I should correct myself about Jacob, as he was Esau's brother, not father. But yes, I am suggesting this possibility, as Jacob was married to two sisters. The point, my friend, is that this was not an uncommon practice and you're comparing our culture to ancient Israel's to strengthen your argument. You're comparing apples to oranges.
ChristCommandsIt 3 years ago
watch the video again and tell me if you can find why the idea of them being sisters causes a knew problem elsewhere.
For every solution you attempt, you create a new contradiction...until you say that there are two stories and they are both versions of the same story but the details were messed up during the time that they were not written down.
Then it all makes sense.
KingHeathen 3 years ago
To me, it seems simple. It was a scribal error involving Bashemath. But how does a scribal error on man's part equate to the original's inerrancy? How do scribal errors prove the Bible is false? This is a trivial error that has no conceptual contradiction. It would be like rejecting a math book's concepts because of silly copyist errors.
ChristCommandsIt 3 years ago
So your uncle's name was King? haha
TomConger 3 years ago
..i couldnt help but notice u were playing that little game of 'theres a mistake but im not going to tell you what it is'..which almost sounds like a little kid saying to a big kid 'i would hit u but im so strong id make u cry' im curious what was the error in my video already?
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
How about I ask you instead...
Why did you have to keep REDOING your response video?
KingHeathen 3 years ago
apart from dome simple display inconsistencies or such...
well one reason was i didnt want anything in the video to be wrong at all..and concerning the Horites (especially) i was not entirely sure the info i had given was correct as i realised that more information is found that challenges or put into question them as 'cave-dwellers' its a question of accuracy..changing a vid is better than leaving ones in error up (ay kh).
But the less certain info is in descrip box.. still havent sed y wrong
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
Actually, this is no contradiction but a misunderstanding. Esau had 5 wives, 2 of which had the same name. There were 2 Basemaths (one from Elon, another from Ishmael), a Judith, an Aholibamah and an Adah. No contradiction. As much as I hate to disagree with the great Dr. Norman Geisler, who said there were 4, after looking again I find that there were 5.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
Looking unto Jesus might have been "owned," but in claiming that there is a contradiction here when there isn't mean KH just got "owned." The man simply went crazy trying to compete with his brother gaining wives.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
"Esau had 5 wives,"
REALLY! Because all the rest of your fellow apologists keep telling me that it's just a duplicate name thing...like Saul was Paul and Abram was Abraham...
as you know, those ideas all fail miserably...
yet here you are saying there are 5 wives....
and you miss that THAT idea fails miserably.
Reread your Bible...see if you can find out why.
KingHeathen 3 years ago
As far as I can see, he had 5 wives. There are assumptions involved in some views. One is that just because Adah is of Elon and one Basemath was of Elon, that his must mean these are one person with different names. That does not follow. One man can have 2 daughters married to the same man. I see no Biblical basis for the argument that Adah and Basemath were the same person. They don't all fail miserably, but I don't find the 4 wives thing completely accurate. I say 5 until proven wrong.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
"There are assumptions involved in some views."
NO KIDDING! You aren't immune from those "assumptions."
But I'm glad that you and I agree that the "multiple names" argument isn't supported by anything.
KingHeathen 3 years ago
KH, well I try to honestly view the text to see what it says without assumptions There is precedent in Scripture for "multiple names," but I don't feel we should blindly accept theories without basis. That's why I rejected the 4 from Dr. Norm Geisler.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
I can appreciate that you disagree with Geisler as well as the others that disagree with both of you...
it doesn't change anything though.
I did what you are doing...keep going...keep thinking about it. Can you find the flaw?
KingHeathen 3 years ago
KH...I see what some MIGHT think is a flaw, but I don't think people are this silly. So, at this point I see no flaw.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
And what do you think that flaw is?
KingHeathen 3 years ago
Probably something to do with a name confusion (Mahalath or Aholibamah).
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
no...keep looking.
KingHeathen 3 years ago
LOL...that's ok. You are making the contradiction claim, so it is not on me to "keep looking" for what you believe is a contradiction. I have graduate studies to do.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
if you "give up" that's fine...I certainly understand being busy...but something tells me that if I give you the answer, you will keep responding...so I don't think your excuse is legit! I don't need you to look anything up. Just think in your spare time and see if you can figure out where the flaw is. If you don't want to...that's fine to.
KingHeathen 3 years ago
I've already told you I see no flaw. The man had 5 wives. There is no contradiction I can see at this point. I am willing to accept a "contradiction" if it is truly one, but most I have seen are misunderstandings of the readers or ignorance of the readers, not a true contradiction. So my claims stands until proven otherwise.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
So why is it that most apologists disagree with you then?
KingHeathen 3 years ago
Perhaps because most apologists don't think for themselves and blindly follow each other. I did the same initially by following Dr. Geisler. But looking again shows that it was probably 5, as Esau in context clearly was competing with Jacob and his 4 wives. It makes sense to me that he would try to do "better" than his brother by having one more than Jacob.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
Ah yes...I see...they are all wrong and you are the only one that is right. And I'm supposed to believe YOUR opinion over theirs, why? I'm supposed to believe ANY of your opinions over my own, why?
The end result is that you found something they overlooked and it made you change the explanation...but in doing so, you overlooked something that makes yours wrong. But, we'll leave it at that. How about you send your "correction to Geisler and see what he thinks?
KingHeathen 3 years ago
Well, you have yet to prove your so-called contradiction. At least I am willing to accept that I MIGHT be wrong. It seems you feel you have an "airtight" contradiction. You see, if proven wrong I can admit it. It seems you are too arrogant in your atheism to do so. As with most atheists I've studied over the years, you know "it all," and haven't studied much as you should. Esau had 5 wives. There is no contradiction. His brother had 4. It's that simple.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
"You see, if proven wrong I can admit it."
I find that hard to believe given our more recent exchange that you haven't admitted you were wrong about.
Again, send your "5 wives" conclusion to Geisler...and see what comes back. Don't you think he'd want to know if he made a mistake that a guy in shoulder pads could figure out?
KingHeathen 3 years ago
KH, you can find it hard to believe all you want. I haven't admitted to being wrong to you on this "exchange" because you have not PROVED me wrong on anything. You simply CLAIMED I was wrong. There is a difference.
Until someone proves my 5 wife theory wrong, I will stand by it. I'm sure Geisler is busy with his seminary and doesn't have time for something like this. Anyway, I guess you want to keep your "contradiction" a secret. I don't see YOU being willing to be proved wrong.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
In fact, I've already shown you on this very page that I am willing to change my mind. First, I went with Geisler's view, then I rejected it based on my own study. It would have been easy for me to stick with Geisler, since I have great respect for his scholarship and learning, but the most learned CAN make simple mistakes. And I learned years ago to do my own research and not to blindly follow any human. So, I've shown my desire for truth. You? Remains to be seen.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
"And I learned years ago to do my own research and not to blindly follow any human. So, I've shown my desire for truth. You? Remains to be seen."
That's what made me an atheist. Think about it.
KingHeathen 3 years ago
I have thought about it. And you didn't become an atheist because of a desire for truth. I say you were an atheist in Christian clothing and it manifested later.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
COWARD...I'm sure he's busy too...but SURELY he'd want to know if he was saying something wrong that others would listen to and be wrong about also.
KingHeathen 3 years ago
LOL...You are good at calling people names. But the fact of the matter is, he's running a seminary, and I'm attending one, getting my third degree. You have not presented an "air tight" contradiction here. All you have is what you THINK is one. Scholarship doesn't find a contradiction here.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
"Scholarship doesn't find a contradiction here."
There is a contradiction between YOUR "scholarship" and HIS "scholarship"...give me a break.
I gave up on you long ago CRW. No more responses from me for you. Shew, go away.
KingHeathen 3 years ago
And by the way, KH, you seem to be the one afraid to present the full details of his alleged "airtight" contradiction, perhaps out of fear that it will be exposed for the fraudulent claim that it is.
CRoadwarrior 3 years ago
He wouldn't have posted it if he didn't believe it you ass.
thien0995 3 years ago
Oh.. and just in case you did not glean from my two previous comments, Anah in Genesis 36:20 is not the same Anah in Genesis 36:14 or verse 24. The Anah of verse 20 is of the Horites a tribe of the Nephilim branch of neanderthal-like men that mixed with Adam's seed before. Here they are again. Verse 24 goes to other pains to distinguish this Anah from verse 20, but your video shows just how Heathen you are. You DO NOT UNDERSTAND AT ALL! Goodluck. You are not worthy to be called a heathen. HAHA!
Bogusgal 3 years ago
right right...this person isn't the same person that the person with the same name and a different father and the father isn't the mother that also has the same name and is their own daughter who is their own grandfather....
yeah, sounds like more bullshit to me.
KingHeathen 3 years ago
Machalath is Basmath. See Antiquities of the Jews Book 1 Chapter 18:8 (Josephus).
"...Esau having married already BASHEMATH, the daughter of Ismael, without his father's consent; for Isaac did not like the Canaanites, so that he disapproved of Esau's former marriages, which made him take BASHEMATH to wife, in order to please him; and indeed he had a great affection for her."
Two women with the same name, but havd 2nd names associated with them. In 36:2 Bashemath is dropped to avoid confusion.
Bogusgal 3 years ago
Oholibamah is daughter of Anah who is Beeri who is the the daughter Zibeon.
The Anah mentioned in verse 20 is the Anah of verse 25. He has the same name as his Anah nephew (named Beeri) who had Oholibamah.
So why does 25 Anah have a daughter also called Oholibamah like the 24 Anah.
Well first i note an unusual occurance in v41 and that is that Oholibamah daughter of Anah son of Seir (not Zibeon) is a chief.
It seems that 24 Anah named after his uncle named his daughter after her aunt
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
"Oholibamah is daughter of Anah who is Beeri who is the the daughter Zibeon." oops so much daughter sons and father i meant
"Oholibamah is daughter of Anah who is Beeri who is the son of Zibeon."
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
So, there you go: Chapter 26 of Genesis is GENERAL HISTORY (Hittite was a general name), but in Chapter 36 of Genesis it is a more precise genealogical ancestry! One is general and the other precise. It is very simple! Only heathens don't understand! So, just stay stupid with your FAUX "air tight contradictions. BWaaHawhawhaw HAW HAWHAHAHA!!!! What a complete idiot! Polygamy is great and good. It is a sanctioned ordinance you American hypocrite; you are so much better with your high mind.
Bogusgal 3 years ago
An AIR TIGHT contradiction? What an idiot! Judith's ancestor, Beeri the Hittite was named Berri from a place called Beer, a well. Berri is a nickname (lit. The Spring-Man) because he "discovered the hot springs (hayyemim)" as in 36:24. The LXX and Vulg. clarifies this. Berri, The Spring-Man is really Anah to be distinguished from the Anah of 36:20.
-Judith's 2nd name is Aholibamah
-Bashemath's 2nd name is Adah in 36:2 (dropped to avoid confusion with Bashemath)
-Mahalath 2nd name is Bashemath
Bogusgal 3 years ago
this video doesn't even deserve a response refuting it it's so stupid
pdiddles03 3 years ago
Hey KingHeathen, I just ran across your videos. I will look up those verses soon. But, quickly, about names - People didn't change names because they sounded similar. They changed names because of their meaning. Also, many women took differnt names after marriage. Some names off the top of my head:
Simon = Cephas = Peter
Jacob = Israel
Tabitha = Dorcas
Also, marrying sisters was not unheard of. Jacob married sisters (Rachel & Leah). I'll get back to you re: Esau's wives.
peace
erich168 3 years ago
u might want to save ur self some trouble im posting a response im very sure is good enough
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
hey id like an answer on why u still think its still a contradiction.
If u cant i think u shuld take this vid down purely for inaccuracys
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
I should be able to get that response video up shortly for you. I'm aiming for the end of the week if all goes on schedule.
KingHeathen 3 years ago
u mind tellin me ur points now
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
what would then be the purpose of the video?
KingHeathen 3 years ago
just curious see if theres obvious misunderstandings in the points ud make it wuld be easier to reply using text not video. However whether u make tough or weak points i would have to reply with a vid either way because it seems to me that whoever has the last word appers right so i would prefer that u gave me ur points so that if they were weak i could quickly refute them and not make a vid this is assuming of course that they are weak i dont know maybe they strong but IF weak it would easier
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
"it seems to me that whoever has the last word appers right" - you must think your points are too weak without being the last made then.
And to be honest, I don't care what your "preference" is.
KingHeathen 3 years ago
dont put words in my mouth i said APPEARS in other words i would have prefered u to give me ur points first instead because it obligates me to make another vid in reply to counter which is more difficult than messaging. And i certainly dont think my points are weak not at all i said appears remember that word
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
Ok, then, I guess that you are afraid that your points would APPEAR really weak unless you go last. I don't see where that's any better. You are obligated to nothing...the video will spend a couple of minutes on you and the rest on a separate matter altogether which ties into the issue here. It WON'T be directly addressed to you. And to be honest, I don't see where there will be anything more for you to add either.
KingHeathen 3 years ago
hi hi i remember u said u were gonna disprove it after you saw it are u working on a video and if not...wheres the error...
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
ay cmon youre reaction was supposed to be the cherry on top of me making this video, i wanna know if you still retain a contradiction or not
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
I don't know what video you are even talking about.
KingHeathen 3 years ago
o heh...oops...agen sorry...ges i wasnt clear a vid i made just look at my profile (of course) to watch it or just type "esaus wives"
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
I will watch it as soon as I get a chance. thanks for sending it as a video response...that will help remind me. (I'll approve it right after I watch it)
KingHeathen 3 years ago
oops uh o there they are heh
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
Oh, a further point. Genesis was often just a rewrite of Akkadian myths, themselves often stolen and changed from Sumerian tales which may well have been taken from any they traded with, invaded or were invaded by. If the origins and intent are unknown, then the meaning is unknowable.
2206411411 4 years ago
Language was largely phonetic back then, further complicated by the fact that different civilizations used (and use) different phonemes, making corruption inevitable. Were the people real? And in what sense? As individuals, tribes, societies, ideas?
2206411411 4 years ago
Does God tempt people?
James 1:13 "Let no man say . . . I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man."
vs.
Genesis 22:1 "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham."
ttatiova 4 years ago
tempted, and tempted with evil are very different.
dupperskeez 4 years ago
How old was Ahaziah?
II Kings 8:26 "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign."
vs.
II Chronicles 22:2 "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign."
ttatiova 4 years ago
DID YOU KNOW?
The famous verse relating the Trinity [1 John 5:7] has been thrown out of the Bible (RSV) as a fabrication!!
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." [1 John 5:7]
ttatiova 4 years ago
LOL...this is no contradiction. It's been answered by scholarship before "King Heathen" was born, and even after that. Too bad people are so anxious to find "contradictions" that they fail to research a matter thoroughly.
CRoadwarrior 4 years ago
it's so great that you would come here and make such a bold ASSERTION...could you please expound on this and tell us how you justify this "contradiction"?
Oh, and if you go back and read the comments from when this came out, the apologist site that I used has since CHANGED THEIR STORY...just like all apologists do once they are debunked.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
LOL...debunked. Now that's special. I'm sure the apologist "site" was not done by Dr. Norman Geisler. LOL. You have no scholarship in Biblical studies. You have claims that you think hold up based on your ignorance, like most atheists I've encountered.
CRoadwarrior 4 years ago
"You have no scholarship in Biblical studies."
Do you know who I am? Do you have the slightest CLUE about my background...please take a moment to consider your ignorance before you say something.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
Ahhh, if you think you have found a contradiction over Esau's wives, I don't NEED to know who you are or what your background is. That claim alone says volumes about your "background" and who you are. So spare me the drama.
CRoadwarrior 4 years ago
And, I might add, I am quite certain that you have no scholarship in Biblical studies anywhere near Dr. Geisler, and you probably don't have half what I have. And the fact that you don't have the Spirit show you lack the main "ingredient" to properly interpret Scripture.
CRoadwarrior 4 years ago
right...because without the bogeyman ghost, you can't read...sure. I'm still waiting for you to "enlighten us".
KingHeathen 4 years ago
LOL..."bogyman ghost"? NOT. Ignorance is not bliss. Enlighten you? Why don't you simply READ? Go all the way back to a book written before we both were born - "Alleged Discrepencies of the Bible" by John Haley...LOL. This alleged contradiction nonsense grows old, and it's ridiculous you guys seem never to learn from prior scholarship.
CRoadwarrior 4 years ago
Read? I've read apologetics until I was blue in the face...none of them were satisfactory. They TRY to justify these things, but they don't pan out. And you STILL haven't given me ONE THING to justify THIS one. PLEASE give me the explanation as to how this contradiction is justified. Video response preferred, or a PM if you need to.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
the beauty of biblical contradictions is that even when christians manage to dance around them by asserting something that is not within the text, there are still hundreds of others. so CRoadwarrior, you can have this one... fuck it we'll let you have em all. but then how do you explain the biblical plagiarism of prior religions and the references to books that were supposedly not good enough for your bible
SprolesIsGod43 3 years ago
Hey although I am a christian i will admit to not undersatnding evertyhing in the bible. I simply choose to believe in something more. I am not here to fight about anything. However I would like you to watch any video made by the black hebrew isrealites. I would love to see you put those guys to shame. I personally can not stand them.
safenders 4 years ago
Are you talking about the Lemba in southern Africa?
Deetinator 3 years ago
lol "Do you know who I am?"
soooooo arrogant
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
You are reading into my comment. My comment was meant to remind him that he didn't know anything about me, yet he was claiming to have insight on my scholarship level. How can anyone make such a claim if they don't "know who I am?" Now who's arrogant?
KingHeathen 3 years ago
well i wouldnt say i was...but im sorry anyway...
Couldnt watch youre vid bit hard to picture all this intertwining information by speech could u tell me the verses...
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
mate u got it all wrong so so wrong...but this "contra" intrigued me so much like a big time real puzzle...so in a way you inspired me to make a vid u can check it out...one of ur first mistakes was that u didnt contradict the Bible u contradicted an incorrect apologetic interpretation have a look "air tight" is Esaus wives you tell me after youve seen it if theres still a contra
Antisyncretism 3 years ago
Esau married women from different lands. different people were created on different days of creation. Jacob brought about the geneology of christ. Esau was pure aswell, but he then created children with Caanites, destroying the chance that christ could come through him, an impure-lineage.
shep222777 4 years ago
in Gen. 26:34 is the same as the Adah, daughter of Elon, in Gen. 36:2, while the Bashemath, daughter of Ishmael, in Gen. 36:3 is the same as Mahalath, daughter of Ishmael, in Gen. 28:9.
pianomaker04 4 years ago
The name Bashemath (correctly Basemath) probably comes from the Semitic word-stem b-s-m, meaning "fragrant" (for example, besem means "balsam" in Hebrew). When you add the Hebrew feminine ending --ath, you get Basemath, "fragrant woman." The possibility exists that Mahalath (daughter of Ishmael and sister of Nebajoth) and Adah (daughter of Elon the Hittite) were both given the nickname "fragrant" (Douglas 1982: 124). In other words, the Bashemath, daughter of Elon,
pianomaker04 4 years ago
twist it...turn it...bend those facts as far as you can. I addressed your explanation already. It's not logical. It's not just the names of the women...the fathers also don't line up. Rewatch the video.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
it doesnt mean that its wrong.
pianomaker04 4 years ago
actually it does...rewatch the video.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
facts are facts no matter how many times u say its false..
pianomaker04 4 years ago
that goes right back at you and since you have no facts, I don't see where it matters. The FACTS are that you can't make it fit and I showed that in the video.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
Much later, the wife of Assyrian king Sennacherib (705--681 BC) bore an Aramaic name, Naqia, and an Assyrian name, Zakutu (Boardman 1991: 138; Kuhrt 1995: 527).Two of Esau's wives were known by two different names: their names given to them at birth, Adah and Mahalath, and their identical nicknames, "Fragrant."
pianomaker04 4 years ago
Archaeology. This is the study of the material remains of past people's lives and activities. Many biblical sites have been found, and the amount of evidence confirming the biblical record is enormous. No archaeological discovery to date contradicts the Bible (though some mistakenly interpret some findings as doing so).
pianomaker04 4 years ago
so, considering the contradictions you claim make up a small percentenge of the Bible (.5%?), tell me what that matters? Lets say the "errors" were authentic human errors. Is there any value to proving that? I mean, do you want the Bible not to be seen as "inspired"? Do you simply want people not to say it's perfect? Can it still be "inspired" and "holy" and have a few contradictions, or not?
sanchine03 4 years ago
I never said that the contradictions make up a small percentage. In fact, I'd say there are more contradictions than verified historical content. But to answer your question: Step one is to admit that it's not an inerrant work. Once you admit that there ARE errors, then how many errors are there? Go to my "Where do you rate on the Fundamentalist scale" video and see each of the steps you take from there.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
Heliocent.? (please explain). Flat earth? Job 26:10; Isa 40:22. I read the literal translation for "horizon" is "circle." Let me know what verses you're thinking of. Quirinius: archae'gist Jerry Vardaman found a coin indicating there was a Quirinius who was proconsul of Syria & Cilicia from 11 B.C. till after Herod. So, there's possibly 2 Q's (Luke means latter). Considering how meticulous and educated Luke's writing was (as well as his otherwise untainted historical accuracy), I stand by Luke.
sanchine03 4 years ago
heliocentricism-theory that the sun is the center of our solar system and that the Earth revolves around it...vs geocentricism which states the Earth is the center of the universe (and in the Bible's case...the sun is IN the atmosphere of the Earth as part of a dome canopy with the moon which is supposed to be its own light source and the stars which can "fall to the Earth" out of the sky.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
you then use 2 verses to suggest the Earth is a CIRCLE (note, so is a FLAT COIN) while in my "Flat Earth according to the Bible series, I use 46 verses that contridict the spherical Earth claim...those two are included. Take Isaiah...keep reading that verse, notice the part about the sky as a "tent"...doesn't say "bubble" does it? And your "2nd Quirinius" theory is a bit of a stretch and I've seen no serious scholar that agrees with that.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
The Bible is 99.5% accurate. Most of the remaining errors are grammatical problems or things we can't understand without a thorough education in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. Of those, none of them change the message.
The Bible can still be inspired by God without being literally perfect. After all, there's yet to be found a part of the Bible that contradicts historical findings.
sanchine03 4 years ago
uhhh...yes there is. How about that it contradicts the scientifically proven fact of heliocentricism? Then there's the "flat Earth" claims...not to mention the historical contradiction of Herod and Quirinius time frame issue...Herod DIED 10 years before Quirinius was Governor yet the Bible claims other wise. And that's just what I can fit into one text box.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
you see how you are really analyzing the bible... Do you think christians do this?
Maybe they do but they are not comprehending it. thats for damn sure.
how many beers do you drink before yu make these vids?! just kiddin
Joppazilla 4 years ago
Christians certainly SHOULD do this, but no, most don't. As to the number of beers...depends on the video. I usually sit down with the first beer and get things in order. By time to record, I may be on my second. Then depending on how many videos I do that night or how many retakes I have to do...who knows.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
Also we went from the Old Testament to the New Testament. There were reasons for getting a New Testament. You might want to look that up.
linuxman55 4 years ago
I wonder what the Jewish records say? The Jewish people are far better at Genealogy.
Also some people say that somethings got lost in translation. To understand the bible properly
you would have to understand Hebrew and Greek and the times. Back in those times and not so long ago
women died in child labour. Maybe that is why men had more then one wife.
linuxman55 4 years ago
men had multiple wives because they were looked at as property...and most Jews will admit that the book has issues.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
I think they also had multilpe wives because women often died in child labour. Even today in poor nations women die if they have a breach baby. Things changed in the New Testament. Look up how a man is to treat his wife and how the wife is to treat her husband.
linuxman55 4 years ago
watch my "FEMALE CHRISTIANS! Mandatory viewing here!" and let's see just how the NT thinks women should be treated...and look up the history on it...it was because women were property...your opinion doesn't matter in historical contexts.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
1) Love your wife as Christ loved the church. Give yourself up for your wife. [Ephesians 5:25]
2) Love your wife in the same way you love your body and yourself. [Ephesians 5:28-33]
3) Be considerate as you live with your wife. [I Peter 3:7]4) Do not be harsh with your wife. [Colossians 3:19]5) Your body belongs to your wife. [I Corinthians 7:3-5]8) Do not be captivated by other women [Proverbs 5:20]9) Praise your wife. [Proverbs 31:28-29]
linuxman55 4 years ago
I bet that many women only wish that their husband would treat them as good as what the bible verses say that I posted. Lots of women are Christian and do not have a problem with the bible. History is history. What did Jesus say? What Christian women look at is what Jesus said.
linuxman55 4 years ago
I notice you left out all the verses about being your husbands property, and remaining silent and submissive...I take it you didn't go watch the video.
KingHeathen 4 years ago
To me it seems that if a man acts like his wife is his property he is NOT following the bible. The two belong to each other. I have no right to fool around and my wife has no right to fool around because we belong to each other. If a man treats his wife like she is his property then he is very insecure and does not trust his wife.
linuxman55 4 years ago
Go watch the video I suggested, I site specific verses.
KingHeathen 4 years ago