An Atheist Discusses Biblical Inerrancy 2

[R4wrC4ndyC0rnR4wr1]

I Believe In God And Nothing Will Change My Mind, You Believe In No God Thats What You Believe And No One Will Change Your Mind, Now Why Do We Have To Fight? None Of Us Are Going To Change Our Minds.

[nhbiker1961]

@R4wrC4ndyC0rnR4wr1 I did, I am a former Christian

[biblemanzach]

Easy answer to this. Matthew contains the geneology of Jesus through Joseph(on paper) and Luke contains the geneology of Jesus through Mary. No wonder they don't match up. Luke also traces it all the way back to Adam the son of God. Jeseph's line in Matthew were all firstborn sons of there fathers there fore there wouldn't be as many generations. In Luke, Mary's bloodline, there were not all firstborn's therefore there is room for more people. Everyone can trace there bloodling back to Noah.

[tastybrain]

Favorite quote from the video: "Even folks in Kentucky understand family trees can't be this messed up."

[HebaruSan]

OMG while watching this I said "not entirely unreasonable" right before you did!! (And I also giggled at "bowels.")

Good vid. I don't think "error" is quite the right word, though. "Error" implies they knew the right answer and wrote it down wrong; more likely they were both making it up from scratch or oral legends, and they made it up differently.

[SummerSunshine1988]

God doese exist.

[stalkersas]

@SummerSunshine1988 Prove it !

[TheRev1979]

try Quran...

[HAITIAN909]

wow ok let me get them....1. do you hear yourself? 2. Are you serious? 3. It was the pagans who thought the sun revolved around the earth not God's people. I can't believe you guys are so smart that you're stupid. Please reread the bible and compare and contrast again. Please read the Old Testament too. And please learn the Hebrew language. I hope you know the consequences you recieve when you go against God. I will pray for all of you lost sheep. Satan is always working...REPENT MY BROTHERS!!!

[tillnow67]

@HAITIAN909 There are no consequences for going against a fictitious character. You go ahead and pray for me and I will think for you.

[TheRev1979]

@tillnow67 try Quran...

[RPGcollector1980]

I love it when biblicly illiterarte people try to explain the Word. Funny stuff. This guy is literally tripping on his words the whole time.

[trotsky88]

RPG, so we comon folk cannot simply read the Bible and ubserstand it? We need people, like you, who understand the mysteries to explain it to us.? Why can't we simply read the geneogies, see that they are contradictory, and say so? Do we really need you to say, "no it is a mystery and cannot be interpreted by someone who is Biblically illiterate

[ikvsabre]

@RPGcollector1980

He isn't tripping over his words... it's called a "pregnant pause". It's deliberate.  It's meant to illustrate the incostancy in the bible.

[Edinaldo08]

Numbers in the Bible are usally simbolic Specially when the attention of the reader is called to the number like Matthew do. Do you really think that God is interested in genealogy?

There is a mistery in those genalogies. It's a religious book, not a book of boring facts like who is the grand grand grand father of who. Try to decode the mistery.

[Edinaldo08]

Chances are that everybody in that region at that time was a decendant of David. Have you ever thought about that?

The number of our ancestors can be up to 2^n, where n is the the number of generations.

2^1 = 2 : your father and mother

2^2 = 4 your grandfathers

2^3 = 8 your grand grand fathers, and so on.

2^27 = 134.217.728

2^42 = 4.398.046.511.104,

[Edinaldo08]

Search on YouTube: "2016 and the Bible"

It is an idea about tue possible meaning of the the genealogy of Matthew.

[tillnow67]

The point is that the Bible is not literally true. It is the opinions and fables of bronze age middle eastern goat herders.

[Edinaldo08]

Oh , you are doing a mistake in understimating the ancient peoples. They knew more about many things than most of us in this generation.

Some "contradictions" maybe a way to encode some mistery.

Some may even be mistakes of the writer. I know that many wouldn't agree with me on that one but we need to understand that the writers of the Bible where not in some kind of hypnotic trance when they wrote. They thought they were writing a letter to a friend, a church or a history of their nation.

[Edinaldo08]

But all of them where men and women very close to God and when they write somethnig they teach us a lot.

"The Bible is not the word of God, it contains the word of God."

[eulercircles]

@Edinaldo08 And what, pray tell, do you use to unerringly guide you to which bits in the Bible are the word of God and which are not? Do you have a magical decoder ring? The urim and thummim? A crystal ball? Your cat snookums?

And on what basis do you stake the claim that the men who wrote the Bible (yes they were as far as we can tell all men) were very close to God? The Bible itself? Ah, but was this bit passed through your decoder ring first?

All they teach us is how ignorant they were.

[ikvsabre]

@Edinaldo08

"Oh , you are doing a mistake in understimating the ancient peoples. They knew more about many things than most of us in this generation."

They didnt' even know that the earth goes around the sun, or what caused disease, or rainbows, etc.

"Some may even be mistakes of the writer.

Ah, but that's the point. If there are ANY errors, than the Bible is not "inerrant" by definition

[RPGcollector1980]

really???

[zo10]

tillnow67

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!!!

You got it right on point!! I don't consider myself an atheist but I do question that bible! When I question the so called christians on the many contradictions they ignore me or fabricate answers that they can not prove!!

Very good job on your series man!1

[numberonesurvivor75]

Your misinterpreting the genealogies.

[tillnow67]

please elaborate

[numberonesurvivor75]

Well, there are a number of possibilities. God, being the creator of logic, could have multiple genealogies.

What Luke means by saying Jesus is descended from David through Nathan could be the exact same thing as what Mathew means by saying Jesus is descended from David through Solomon. The same event can be described differently by different people.

[tillnow67]

It can be "described" differently, but if the facts are contradictory then both can't be TRUE. A lineage is a list of facts and these facts contradict each other. They can't both be true.

[numberonesurvivor75]

If the facts can be described differently, then the Gospel's are logically consistent.

[tillnow67]

Your dad is either your biological father or he is not. If one person says your dad is your biological father and another says your uncle is, explain how they can both be correct. A lineage is not an eyewitness account which can be viewed from different vantage points or perspectives. It is a list of facts and these lists were purported to be inspired by the same god.

[numberonesurvivor75]

Yes, same God different words. That's why Mathew and Luke wrote separate Gospels.

[tillnow67]

We're talking about genealogies here. Are you suggesting they used different names for the same men?

[numberonesurvivor75]

Yes.

[tillnow67]

Then I guess using your loose rules of interpretation the Koran and the Bible are completely consistent with each other. They just describe God/Allah differently and use different names and facts to tell the same story. What a convenient tool for someone who wants to maintain an unreasonable belief in contradictory, yet equally authoritative texts!

[numberonesurvivor75]

No, just because it can, doesn't mean it does.

It's true that they COULD be using "different names and facts to tell the same story", but I don't believe they are.

[tillnow67]

And that's my point - you are willing to apply this ridiculous notion that different names and facts can tell the same story, but only when it supports what you already believe is true. You are delusional.

[numberonesurvivor75]

Of course. There's no delusion about it because all truth is propositional, as Gordon H. Clark pointed out. All truth comes from a belief in a set of postulates or axioms. In my case, those axioms come from the Bible.

[tillnow67]

Truth does not come from belief. A thing is true or false regardless of your belief in it. You are delusional because you accept both accounts as true even when they clearly contradict one another. Only a delusional person can do that.

[numberonesurvivor75]

Correct, I wrote my idea incorrectly. While "a thing is true or false regardless of your belief", one epistemological understanding of truth comes from propositions and postulates. They do not contradict.

[silverfox2358]

But this also denies the virgin birth =0

and suggests jesus is a bastard :)

[jazzyhap]

υἱός

uihos

hwee-os'

Apparently a primary word; a son (sometimes of animals), used very widely of immediate, *remote or figurative kinship*: - child, foal, son.

And the Heli line is being a son in law.

[tillnow67]

The fact that the word son has multiple meanings lends NO credence to the idea that this geneology is Marys. That same word is used repeatedly in the same geneology to connote a father/ son relationship. It also leads to the problem of how these geneologies converge and seperate and why there is such a disparity in the number of generations in each lineage.

[jazzyhap]

Mat 1:1 The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham.

Ancient and modern thought and customs are different. To say it can not be Mary's genealogy is to totally ignore what I wrote "remote or figurative kinship".

[gagnashdiak]

Your mistake is, that if it WOULD be Mary's, it had to say it in this form:

"and X's son was Mary, the daughter of X, husband of Joseph".

The Bible is very clear on this topic always.

[jazzyhap]

And give the other examples which makes you believe this is the way it would be delivered. Where do you find "clarity" for this statement you made?

[gagnashdiak]

Just start to read the genealogies. Here is an example:

Gen. chapter 36.22, 25.

Yes, I'm aware that the KJV translated the word there as "child", but that is a mistranslation.

In any case if you check genealogies you'll see erven in the KJV that if a genealogy of someone is given, it always tells that person's name not someone else, even if it is a woman.

Also I saw no genealogy-jump if it is a genealogy and not just an expression to identify the person.

[jazzyhap]

Ahhh

But you said it was "clear".

Now it is a mistranslation.

Fine, if we are going to play that game, lets just say that everywhere it says Lord, God or Jesus, it is mistranslated and really means Rudolph the red nosed reindeer, and that makes the bible false, now we can all go home happy.

[gagnashdiak]

see, just change the „son I used to the actual „child  the phrases from remained the same. Thats what should stand there if the listwould be the genealogy of Mary for the KJV translation.

[jazzyhap]

If it only says son or child of, does that mean they do not have a mother? Obviously not.

Jesus would be an adopted son of Joseph, so Joseph would be his legal father. Marys father would be Joseph's father in law.

Now show clarity on your hypothesis.

[gagnashdiak]

Geez. My point was, that IF any of the genealogies would be MARY'S, THEN what expression they'd use.

Joseph could be anything he want, still doesn't matter. And your claims are not supported by scripture.

You try to make these fit, but both gs are to Jospeh, so they are contradiction and either case totally irrelevant.

Anyway, where it even says some ointes one has to be David's descendant? Until Jeremiah 30. the scripture mentions no future messiah :(

[jazzyhap]

For one genealogy to belong to Mary, and one to belong to Joseph, then the first, and most important, "expression" would be, 2 different genealogies.

And until Jeremiah 30? Well no where in the bible does it say the word bible? Therefore, the bible doesn't exist, and we can go home happy. If you are going to build a fallacy, do it right.

[errefd]

Let me explain this to you Pal. God wrote the bible and you are going to HELL!!!.......I'm just fuckin with you Tillnow67. Great video. You don't even have to take it this far. The idea that God would spend a few thousand years having humans clumsily write and combine all this shit. Then, SLOWLY and inefficiently distribute it around the world, instead of just engraving his word and steel tablets & making it appear all around the world in an instant is a silly premise to me. But again, good vid!

[marcluc1988]

Fantastic video! I had a few points ready to 'post' during this video but you covered them all plus more. 10/10!

You obviously know your stuff!

I'm very impressed.

[Heisboywonder]

Yes.. cousins.. still practices today in those countries. Abraham and Sarah for example were half-brother and half-sister. As a matter of fact, Adam and Eve's children "knew" each other (Cain knew his wife and bare a child).. Yep.. we are all related to one another cuz descendants of the Adam and Eve.. Adam had the whole human race in his "loins".

[Heisboywonder]

Mary and Joseph were distant cousins both within the tribe of Judah... Matthew was Joseph's lineage and Luke was Mary's lineage.. don't forget that females lineage for the most part weren't recorded unless extraordinary circumstance (Rahab, esther)

[ptica11]

jc lineage is irrelevant as jc is his own father and son as he is trinity.

[highwind8124]

You say that tracing the lineage through Joseph is pointless, but it isn't at all.

The curse of Jehoiakim by "God" says that none of his descendants would sit on the throne. The function of Joseph, who is descended from this cursed king, is to pass on the legal title of the throne to Jesus, the adopted son, but not his blood.

This gives Jesus legitimacy to the throne while maintaining the curse. This is why the two genealogies HAVE TO be different.

(I'm an apostate.)

[stpuglo]

I like the video, but easy on the Kentucky slams!

We already have southern inferiority complexes!

[Antisyncretism]

!11111111 U miss some of THE MOST BASIC THINGS TO KNOW WHEN LOOKING AT THIS.

If you try to examine the purposes behind the genealogies youll better understand the difference in the number of generations given.

But the thing that got the message to me that u didnt know what u were talking abouat was ur first proposal of contra when u said David had a son named Solomon and Nathan..its true look at other relevant genealogies Solomon and Nathan are BROTHERS

[ggcage]

The "contradiction" is over who is Joseph's father.

Jacob was Joseph's father by blood. Heli was also his father, because Heli had nothing but daughters, and by Jewish law Joseph would become his adopted son when he married Mary, Heli's daughter.

When Joseph married Heli he became his adopted son therefore was adopted into that lineage.

Besides if the Bible really was made up, the people who made it would have probably made 2 identical lineages.

[tillnow67]

"Besides if the Bible really was made up, the people who made it would have probably made 2 identical lineages."

Wow! In the same post you deny that this is an error AND claim that even if it is, it only lends credibility to the Bible. It's a win-win for the sheeple of blind, "damn the evidence" faith.

[ptica11]

where the hell did he come up with the adopted son theory?

[AZUSAPatriot]

Wow. You are so bent against Christianity that you're going to take your whole family down. i feel sorry for your children.

[tillnow67]

You don't feel sorry for my children at all. If you did you would take the time to find some answers, some argument that might change my mind. But you don't know of any answer to the issues raised here. So you make a pathetic attempt to appeal to the emotions of a father. You really feel sorry for my kids? Prove me wrong. Put up or shut up.

[visionvictory]

Part 5

Through his foster father Joseph, He inherited by law the royal line, while through his mother he was a flesh and blood descendant of King David.

[tillnow67]

In each case the author says the lineage is through Joseph. Neither includes Mary. So you are in the camp that says the Bible doesn't mean what it says or say what it means. How convenient when there are contradictions to explain away.

[visionvictory]

The two lists of Matthew and Luke give two different names to the father of Joseph:

- Jacob the father of Joseph (Mat.1:16).

- Joseph, the son of Heli (Lk.1:23).

The name of the father of Joseph was Jacob. Heli is his father-in-law.The list of Luke are the ancestors of Mary, not of Joseph.

Very simple, no conspiracy.

[tillnow67]

You are basing that on hopes and wishes, not the text. Never does the text say one of these lineages is Mary's. They both do say that each lineage is Joseph's. All your hand waving and misdirection has done nothing to remove the blatant contradiction.

[visionvictory]

Please re-read part 4 of my response. I hope this helps clarify your issue with the accounts of Mathew and Luke. God Bless

[makeavelyck]

If i may ask, from where do you know that Heli was Mary's father?

[visionvictory]

Part 4

The word son has this wider meaning. Thus Luke is tracing the roots of Jesus through His mother, Mary, who was a descendant of Heli., etc. Joseph's name is mentioned, according to the common practice, but he is clearly portrayed as the supposed father of Jesus, and God as the actual father. The purpose of the two genealogies is to demonstrate that Jesus was in the complete sense a descendant of David.

[visionvictory]

Part 3

Luke follows this pattern and does not mention the name of Mary, but the name of the legal father. However, Luke is quick to add that Joseph is not , in reality, the father of Jesus, since Jesus had been virgin born. A literal translation of Luke 3:23 would be, "Jesus, when he began, was about thirty years old, being the son of Joseph, as it was thought of Heli..." This does not at all mean that Jesus was the son of Heli, but that Jesus was a descendant, on his mother's side, of Heli.

[visionvictory]

Part 2

A Plausible solution to this difficulty is to understand that Mathew is indeed giving us Joseph''s family line, but Luke is tracing the genealogy of Mary. The reason that mary is not mentioned in Luke 3 is because she has already been designated the mother of Jesus in several instances. The usual practice of a Jewish genealogy is to give the name of the father, grandfather, etc., of the person in view.

[visionvictory]

Since it only allow 500 characters my response will be the a few comment boxes.

Part 1

At first glance, the impression is created that both accounts are tracing the family line of Jesus through his earthly father Joseph, in which case we would be faced with a seeming contradiction, because Mathew 1:16 indicates Jacob is Joseph's father, while Luke 3:23 tells us that Heli is the father of Joseph.

[psandbergnz]

You say that the two generations "converge in the middle", which indicates that they cannot be separate lineages. But just because the lineages share the same names at some point, that does not prove that the same individuals are being referred to there. I mean, different people can have the same names, can't they???I agree that the lineages seem to be sloppily recorded.

[brianbozarth]

For those who think this person is right, take a couple seconds to study it for yourself. The bible claims that Jesus is born of a virgin, not of Joseph. His earthly heritage is through Joseph, however his spiritual lineage is through Mary... hence, two lineages. There is much more to how he could not be through Joseph as shown by Old Testament bible prophecy. Just read the bible people, it's all in there!

[tillnow67]

Matthew and Mark ARE part of the Bible! They both trace Jesus lineage through Joseph. As for it all being "in there", where does it say that either lineage is Mary's? That's not "in there". And if they are lineages of two different people, how can they converge and seperate again in the middle. YOU need to take more than a "couple of seconds" to study it.

[brianbozarth]

The term "son of" can mean either "son of" or "son-in-law"... both are right. Therefore, due to the absolute accuracy Jews place on lineage, it makes common sense to choose "son-in-law" rather than "son of" thus making Luke's account a lineage of Mary. Because Jesus was of virgin birth, Joseph was technically not his father, and thus a human lineage through Mary was given. Again, a brief study in Greek will help clear the air a little.

[tillnow67]

You failed to show where, in the Greek or in the translation, it says that one lineage is Mary's. Also, the text says son of, not son-in-law of. The Greeks certainly had words for son-in-law, but they are not used here. Your assertion is a baseless smoke and mirror tactic. "Poof, there is no contradiction!"

[brianbozarth]

Luke 3:23 - "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph"...

1. Greek for "as was supposed" - 'nomizō' - "to regard as"

2. Greek for "son of" - 'uihos' - "used very widely of immediate, remote or figurative kinship."

The vague contradictions are very simple to anyone who knows how to use a Strongs concordance.

Why don't you try something difficult like: Why is Jesus' tomb empty?

[tillnow67]

My Strongs sure as hell doesn't say that Joseph is Greek for Mary. WHERE does it say that the lineage is Mary's? IT DOESN'T. You'd like it to. But it doesn't. It says it is Joseph's. As for why is Jesus' tomb empty, you are assuming it is based on a book full of contradictions you can't explain away.

[brianbozarth]

The Greek does not say it is Joseph's either. It refers to anyone who is related to Joseph. Be careful assuming anything without proper evidence. For all are right according to the Greek: "son of" and "son-in-law" and "any relative." So, research some more.

Spend a second and fact find. Jews were masters at keeping lineage. If that is the case, they would not make such a simple mistake as you claim. This is not a debate about bible error, but Jewish record keeping.

[tillnow67]

Assuming without proper evidence? That is downright laughable! It says "Joseph" was the son of Heli! Look at the other names in that lineage and find one pair that weren't father/son. The only one assuming here is you and your assumptions are ENTIRELY baseless drivel.

[brianbozarth]

This supposed contradiction could and is easily disproved by any Secular/Athiest Greek Language Professor. But for those who do not wish to study Greek for themselves, let us break apart the Greek again:

Luke 3:23 - "And Jesus himself started in precedence at age three decades being (or regarded as by custom or manner) an immediate, remote or figurative kin of Joseph"...

I hope we are all clear. This has been fun, but is becoming futile. Good bye.

[tillnow67]

Yep, claiming that Joseph means Mary in the Greek IS futile. And you never even got started on how the lineages of two different people (if one were Mary's)could converge and seperate again. Family trees in Kentucky don't even do that!

[feedbackdude]

I'd been wondering about the lineages for a while. It's good to see some people care enough about the truth to do research on this.

[ofpfury]

Excellent arguments very well presented tillnow. You do us all a great service in helping to rid mankind of this self-inflicted plague we call religion.

[TheKingofTaco]

Hello tillnow, you definately don't need to respond, but MadScience, a user here has talked about the M-L Geneologies, and I'm not sure I totally understand it. It SEEMED to be a similar argument to the overlapping geneologies, but like I said, he seemed to jump around, so I'm not positive I understand what he's saying. If you have time, it would be nice if you could look at it, but like I said, it's certainly not nessesary. I think it's in the Related area of your video.

[crimsonanger]

Have your website bookmarked. Great vids.

[tjohooorider]

Well, if you show this video in bible class, I'm OK with equal time for evolution and genesis in science. I mean teaching of genesis, not evolution rebuttal, but all the bible you want. Then the kids can pick their favourite.

[Faustuss1]

The problem with that is...

Evolution has a lot of evidence to support it (Through fossils, genetics, etc..) and is falsifiable.

Genesis is NOT science. It is unfalsifiable, and it there is no evidence to support it. Plus if you try to teach it in the united states, it violates the separation of church and state.

[truthamerica911]

As a Christian, I think church people construe a very bizzare view of the Bible as having magical language. They set the standards so ridiculously high that no reasonable person could accept it. However, the problem for the non-believer is that the evidence does indeed show that the best explanation to what happened to Jesus' body is that he rose from the dead. See Habermas vs. Flew debate.

[truthamerica911]

The Bible is made up of different genre. The gospel genre is historic in nature. So I think it is bizzare to try to treat Scripture as the King James only people do. My claim is that if you see what the gospel authors intended to compose it was not a magic book, but a book which is authoritative because of its propositional content.

[truthamerica911]

As a Christian, I think church people construe a very bizzare view of the Bible as having magical language. They set the standards so ridiculously high that no reasonable person could accept it. However, the problem for the non-believer is that the evidence does indeed show that the best explanation to what happened to Jesus' body is that he rose from the dead. See Habermas vs. Flew debate.

[tillnow67]

So the bible having magical language seems a bizarre view to you, but a magical explanation like rising from the dead seems like the "best explanation" to you?

[JCReborn89]

I think these videos of yours are awesome, but could you help me understand how you derived the average generation lengths? Like did you use some kind of legitimate math formula or did you pull it out of nowhere? I'm an athiest myself for the record, but you know how we're supposed to roll, gotta always question what we're told and such =)

Thanks

[tillnow67]

David lived in the tenth century BC. Jesus was born around 4 BC. So there were about 1000 years between them. (actually a little less, I was being generous) Just divide the number of years between them by the number of people in each lineage to get the average time span between generations.

[JCReborn89]

How could Jesus be born 4 years BC (Before Chirst) o_o?

But yeah thanks alot, for helping me understand.

I hope to see an Athiest Discusses Biblical Inerrancy 5 =D

[ozatheist]

Jesus was meant to be born somewhere around that period.

Luke puts it in the year 6CE (Roman cencus, that was the year Ceaser took control of Judea)

Matthew puts it in the year 4BC or earlier because of Harod's slaughter of the innocents (Herod died in 4BC).

Mind you the Gospel of Peter says it was Herod that crufified Jesus as an adult which would put time of death at 4BC or earlier which would make birth 30BC or earlier.

[pacislander4life]

Read pages 161-179 of the book, The Catholic Apolgoetics Study Bible: The Gospel of St. Matthew by Dr. Robert Sungenis... That answers the alleged discrepancy...

God Bless,

Laurence

[tillnow67]

Laurence, I don't have that one in my library here at home. Can you summarize those 18 pages for everyone's benefit? I'm eager to hear how Dr. Sungenis clears it all up.

[bootstaple]

I really don't think that you can argue with what you are saying in this video but then again, you do have truth on your side. How unfair is that? Simple mistakes, pointed out, so as there can be no confusion that somebody's confusing something in that damn book. Peace man, I'm subscribing.

[adaminc]

begat only has 2 meanings, "to procreate or generate offspring", or "to cause to exist"

[Newton1692]

This is a famous contradiction (perhaps the most famous). It's use by Strauss in the 19 century, Cohen and Nagel in the 20th. It's also commented on by St. Augustine as one the greatest pitfalls for non-believers (which I am ). Great Job as usual.

[schrodcat]

No video responses on these ones. I'm going to watch the 3rd one in the series. You're underrated.

[KingHeathen]

no doubt! I think it's simply the lack of recent videos that isn't getting him the exposure he deserves. Wayne does a spectacular job with these. I patiently wait for the next one.

[Gearson141]

Kaboom. Head shot!

VERY nice job Wayne. You've shown basically 2 contradictions in 1 video, all around 2 geneologies. You also shreaded the arguments to resolve the contradiction. Why is it so hard for people to just admit that the Bible is a book written by men?

[lonniejc]

I agree

[nnocturne]

Beautifully put. Keep up the good work!

[KingHeathen]

another great job! Umm, while I'm here, peacechikuk...could you tell me how long a day is for Allah? Is is 1000 years? (22:47, 32:5) Or 50000 years? (70:4) Oh, and which came first? Heaven? (79:27-30) Or Earth? (2:29, 41:9-12) Thanks for playing. NEXT!

[peacechikuk]

im not a scholar in islam , but everything is mentioned in quran -- doesnt take a genius 2 realize the obvious! "Do not the unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were fused together, then we separated them . . ." (Qur'an 21:30).

[KingHeathen]

Well, by that logic, I don't understand why you don't see the truth behind the Matrix...after all, "There is no spoon."

And don't dodge the question. The Quran has just as many contradictions as the NT. You both use the same OT, so the same contradictions there...sorry, you lose.

[peacechikuk]

thats just ignorance,,, u cant even name 1,, so theres no point lying about it

[KingHeathen]

I already named 2...go back and look again.

[peacechikuk]

so what is your point,, theres no contradiction there, you just dont have the knowledge and understanding of what you;re trying to pick on yourself,,, find out the truth,, b4 judging

[KingHeathen]

nice rebuttal...I understand it clearly now. (note: sarcasm)

[JFZcafe]

Nice video and good job. Oh yeah Mr. Peace, I love the Quran too; especially the part about killin all the infidels; that's good stuff.

[peacechikuk]

ur right about the bible having contradictions, thats because the original gospel has been corrupted. God never Guaranteed that the gospel would be preserved, but He Guaranteed that the Quran will be preserved , this is stated in the Quran itself:

just read it, & you can judge for yourself, i can guarantee you will not find a single contradiction in it.. 'We* (Allah) have, without doubt, send down the Message; and We will assuredly Guard it (from corruption)' (Quran - Chapter 15, Verse 9).

[ferrell]

Why be so proud about the 'preserved' nature of the Quran, when the Quran we have TODAY is so completely riddled with contradictions and nonsensical BS? (just like the bible)

[peacechikuk]

thats because it is preserved, but unfortunately some people find it hard to open their eyes, & accept the truth,why dont u actually read it urself,ul c its flawless,,

[KingHeathen]

Flawless you say...I refer you back to my original response to you and JUST TWO of the "flaws" in the book.

[peacechikuk]

that misconception is nuthin new,, u dont judge a religion by some people, but u look at the teachings, in Quran it says: 'whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind'(5:32)

[live4hereinnow]

for other than manslaughter or curruption? ...do these acts justify killing?

[Katalyzt]

While reading the Bible, that very contradiction was one of many that started/nudged me towards Atheism.

Katalyzt