 The issue of contradiction in the Christian scripture is a popular topic among Christian and non-Christian researchers as early as when Christians tried to compile the Bible from its fragmented nature into a single book. There was the problem of inconsistency and varied interpretation. In fact, men like Jerem, a renowned Christian scholar whose significant knowledge of Asian Greece, Syriac and Latin, aimed him the highest honour to be commissioned by the man known as Pope Damasus to translate and refurbish the Latin scriptures of those days was surprised to meet even the greatest of contradictions and obvious errors. Though a Christian cleric, Jerem was torn by the deferent interpretation and shoddled works of Asian translators as a man that had a working proficiency of the Hebrew language, he immediately swung into action. He concluded that the Bible was corrupted. He offered what he thought were accurate rendition of the Gospels through in-depth research into biblical history and philosophy. What he actually met shocked him as well. He found out that the Greek manuscripts on which some Latin translation of that time were based and called authentic, were themselves readied in error. His attempt on translating the Hebrew scriptures into Latin as well has come under fire by modern Bible scholars as you know, fraught with a lot of errors in themselves. Some of the scholars base the assumptions on the alleged lack of Jerem's fluency in the Hebrew language. Whether this is true, we don't know right now, but all this can be fitted or treated as a whole in determining how accurate the Bible is. And as more and more scholars look deeper into the scriptures with the objective to determine accuracy, there are emergent cases of contradictions and outright lies. I compiled over 1,000 contradictions in the Bible myself and I can assure you that there is a problem somewhere. With that in mind, Christians get increasingly belligerent when scholars like Bart Eamon take the pain to let them know that there's something wrong with the entire Bible. I mean, there's something wrong somewhere when the Bible comes to fore that immediately declare him anathema. But what is the truth? How does this affect Christianity and its evangelism as a whole? Question number three, do the Gospels accurately preserve the activities of Jesus Christ? What other lessons Muslims must learn in relation to how we approach the theological inconsistencies in the Bible in dire mode? Before we jump into the mirror today, let's receive a message from our sponsors. This video is proudly sponsored by the like and share button. Please like and share with your family and friends. Assalamu alaikum brothers and sisters, welcome to another episode of the Open Minded Thinker Show. If you are new here, support the channel by subscribing to Help Us Grow. This is very important for us. I want you to pay careful attention to how Craig is phrasing his answers because he's a very smart scholar. He says that the Gospels are in essential agreement with one another and we can pretty well know what Jesus says. He quotes E.P. Sanders about how we know what Jesus said. E.P. Sanders agrees with me that there are discrepancies among the Gospels and there is unreliable information scattered throughout the Gospels. And I want to know if Craig agrees with me, because he says that the Gospel writers adapted the words of Jesus. That means they changed the words of Jesus. If they changed the words of Jesus, then how do we know where they've changed them and where do we know we're actually reading the words of Jesus? The same thing applies to Jesus' deeds. Can we trust what the Gospels say about what Jesus did? If the stories about Jesus were sometimes changed as Christians told and retold the stories as they adapted them, how do we know that they weren't changed a lot before the Gospels were written down? Or are we to think that all four Gospels are 100 percent accurate with respect to Jesus' activities? If they're not 100 percent accurate, how do we know that they're at all accurate? And if we don't know how accurate they are, why should we trust them as historical sources? My own view is that it is absolutely certain that the Gospels did not give an accurate account of the things that Jesus did. For one thing, once again, there are many discrepancies in the accounts. As you can see for yourself, simply by reading them and comparing the Gospel stories for one another. Take any story in any of the Gospels and compare it in detail. Just do it yourself. Compare it in detail with the same story in another Gospel. You will see multiple differences. That's the point, guys. How can Christians defend the obvious discrepancies in biblical stories? How do we even determine that what they are reading are actually the Word of Jesus? The logic is simple. That is, the church wrote an audit to what Christ said. They did a lot of guesswork as to what was on Jesus' mind. Their shabby attempts are the errors we're seeing in the Bible today. And Christians might strangle me with the argument of Jeremiah. He acted under the authority of the church and was influenced somehow. Or tell me why he didn't correct those errors in his translations and commentaries 30 years after his death. One animal into Jerusalem at the triumphal entry as in Mark? Or did he ride two animals as in Matthew? Did Jesus have extensive conversations at his trial with Pilate as in John? Or was he silent except for uttering two words as in Mark? How could it be both? But sometimes the stories are not simply different in minor detail. There are sometimes different in major ways. Let me give you just one example in the couple minutes I have left. Jesus on the way to his death in the Gospel of Mark is completely silent. He carries his cross or Simon and Cyrene carries his cross and Jesus doesn't say a word. They nail him to the cross and he's silent. He's hanging on the cross. Both robbers mock him. The passers by mock him. Everybody mocks him and he doesn't say anything until the very end he cries out Eloi, Eloi, Lama Savahtani, my God, my God, why have you forsaken me? And he dies. That's the end of the story in Mark. That's indeed the end of the story in addition to what Eamon said. How do we reconcile the New Testament Gospel narrative where gaps and difficulties in the resurrection tradition live them exposed to attacks from objectors? Only Matthew's tradition mentions the guard of the tomb and the seal of the barrel stone. Why looking tradition narrates Jesus's appearance to the two disciples on the way to M.O.'s to look chapter 24 verse 13 to 25. The later Jihannian tradition excludes civil admission, their condemances, involvement in the burial of Jesus. Jesus's appearance to Mary Magdalene. That's the book of John chapter 20 verse 1 and verses 11 to 18. Peter and John's run to the empty tomb. John chapter 20 verse 3 to 10. Thomas says, challenge that unless he met the risen Christ, he wouldn't believe John chapter 20 verse 24 to 29 that the disciples go back to the previous vocation as fishermen. John chapter 21 verse 4 to 6 and Peter's restoration over Jesus's breakfast and chapter 21 verse 7 to 19. So for me, the Gospel's portraits of the death of Jesus are absurd and are not based on credible eyewitnesses. Their apparent contradictions and the lack of firsthand report tells the story more clearer. Not quite, because then he gets raised from the dead. But how did he feel at the end? Compare that with the Gospel of Luke. In Luke, Jesus is not silent on the way to be crucified. He's going to be crucified and he sees some women weeping for him by the side of the road and he turns to them and says, daughters of Jerusalem, don't weep for me, weep for yourselves and for your children for the faith that's to befall you. Jesus in Luke's Gospel is more concerned about these women than he is about his own fate. When being nailed to the cross, in Luke's Gospel, he's not silent. He says, Father, forgive them for they don't know what they're doing. In Luke's Gospel, he's hanging on the cross and he has an intelligent conversation with one of the robbers. Only one of the robbers box him in Luke. The other tells the first robber to be quiet because Jesus has done nothing to deserve this. He turns his head to Jesus and says, Lord, remember me when you come into your kingdom and Jesus replies to him, truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise. In Luke's Gospel, Jesus does not feel forsaken the way he does in Mark. In Luke's Gospel, he knows he's on God's side. God is behind the proceeding. He knows what's going to happen to him. He knows why it's going to happen to him. He knows what's going to happen to him after it happens to him. He's going to wake up in paradise and this guy is going to be with him in Luke's Gospel. And at the end, rather than crying out, my God, my God, why have you forsaken me? He doesn't say that in Luke. In Luke's Gospel, he says, Father, into your hands I commend my spirit and he dies. This is a very different portrayal of Jesus going to his death from Mark. What everybody does, of course, is they take Mark's account and they take Luke's account and they smash him together into one big account. So Jesus says everything that he says in Mark, everything he says in Luke, then you throw in what he says in Matthew and what he says in John and you end up with the seven last words of the dying Jesus, which you find in none of the Gospels. You are free to do that, to smash them all together so that Mark's portrayal isn't right. Luke's isn't right. What's right is the one that you've combined, but realize what you've done is you've written your own Gospel rather than trusting any of the Gospels of the New Testament. The problem is the Gospels of the New Testament do not agree either on the sayings of Jesus or on the deeds of Jesus. Perfect. This was one of the reasons why I left Christianity. The more you go even into the history of the Church, the more glaring these discrepancies leave you to confusion. No wonder the early Church was plagued by the problem of various teachings who the Church at that time declared heresies with hot donatism, mountainism, adoptionism, Sebelism, Arianism, Polydianism and Gnosticism. Some of their teachings are embroidered in modern-day Christian denominations everywhere. Let it arrive here. Please like, share and subscribe. Until next time. As-salamu alaykum.