Hello everybody, it's ministertol23 back in the video.
I want to do a quick sound check first to make sure that the sound is working.
Should be.
Alright.
Okay, so the sound is working.
So I'm going to continue the video which I started yesterday, refuting the supposed Bible
contradictions that skeptics of the Bible will bring up.
If you haven't watched the first part of the video, I recommend going and watching that
first before watching this part.
This is part two.
So if you don't remember or if you're just going to watch this video without watching
the first part, I'm addressing a video which is very popular on YouTube.
It has about three million views.
I just looked it up.
It's called Bible Quiz Show Contradictions or something like that.
It's made by some atheist guy who makes anti-Christian cartoons.
The channel name is Non-Stamp Collector and the video is very popular.
If you read the comments, it's all a bunch of unbelievers who are like, oh, the Bible's
so dumb or whatever.
But when you actually look at the contradictions which it brings up, they're not contradictions
if you actually study the Bible and I explained that at the beginning of my video yesterday
about how to rightly divide the word of truth.
And if you watched the video from yesterday, you'll know that every single one of them
which he brought up so far is not a contradiction if you actually study it.
So this next section of his video are numeric contradictions.
So in parallel passages such as Samuel and Kings with Chronicles because they tell the
same story or the four gospels, he says that there's numbers given in different accounts
which differ from each other and that's a contradiction.
So you'll see what I mean as I go through these examples but as before, every single
one of these can be answered and refuted that they're not contradictions.
So the first one is the supposed contradiction that one verse says 800,000, another verse
says 1.1 million.
So in 2 Samuel 24, 9, it says Joab gave up the sum of the number of the people unto the
king and there were in Israel 800,000 valiant men that drew the sword and the men of Judah
were 500,000 men.
First Chronicles 21 verse 5 says and Joab gave the sum of the number of the people unto
David and all they of Israel were a thousand thousand and a hundred thousand men that drew
sword and Judah was four hundred three score and ten thousand men that drew sword.
Well the answer to this supposed contradiction lies in a careful look at the words in these
verses and a comparison to other scriptures.
You'll obviously notice that in 2 Samuel it's written that there are in Israel 800,000 valiant
men.
On 1 Chronicles it says all they of Israel were a thousand thousand and a hundred thousand
men which is 1.1 million or 1,100,000.
Now consider the following verse, 1 Chronicles 27 verse 1 says now the children of Israel
after their number to wit, the chief fathers and captains of thousands and hundreds and
their officers that serve the king in any matter of the courses which came in and went
out month by month throughout all the months of the year of every course were 20 and 4,000.
So there were different courses of officers who came in and went out month by month throughout
all months of the year according to this verse.
So there's 12 months in a year and according to this verse there's 24,000 in each course.
So if you multiply 12 by 24,000 you get 288,000 of these additional soldiers which are not
part of a standing year-round army.
On 2 Samuel the number of 800,000 is referring to the standing army within Israel while in
1 Chronicles the number is given of all they in Israel which drew the sword.
So if you add 288,000 to the 800,000 number you get 1,088,000 or 1.088,000 which can be
rounded up to 1.1 million in 2 Chronicles 21.5.
Now the same thing occurs with the number of Judites.
In 1 Chronicles it says that there's 470,000 and it's just rounded up to 500,000 in 2 Samuel.
So they're rounding, not exact numbers.
I don't know where people get this idea that the Bible doesn't round numbers at all.
I mean a lot of these contradictions have to do with and other contradictions I've heard
which are not addressed in this video I've heard are based on the assumption that for
some reason the Bible never rounds numbers up or down which is just stupid.
People round numbers all the time.
So that's exactly what's going on here.
It's the 800,000 standing army plus the 288,000 who go in every month, 24,000 of each month
which is then rounded up to 1.1 million.
So again it's not a contradiction if you're actually willing to do the biblical research.
The next supposed contradiction are the numbers 700 or 7,000.
In 2 Samuel 8.4 it says, And David took from him a thousand chariots and seven hundred
horsemen and twenty thousand footmen, and David hoft all the chariot horses, but reserved
of them for a hundred chariots.
First Chronicles 18.4 says, And David took from him a thousand chariots and seven thousand
horsemen and twenty thousand footmen.
David also hoft all the chariot horses, but reserved of them a hundred chariots.
Oh, in this context David is going to battle against hot at reserve.
One of the accounts says that David had 700 horsemen while the other says that he has
7,000 horsemen.
Now the answer to this is that horsemen does not necessarily denote a single role.
No horseman is simply trained as a horseman only.
They fight on foot as well.
I don't know if people understand this that people can get off horses.
I don't think these skeptics are that dumb that they can't figure out that people which
are on horses can get off the horses that Calvary doesn't necessarily have to always
be mounted on a horse, but anyway a horseman can also be a footman.
In 1 Chronicles 19.18 it says 40,000 footmen for example, but in 2 Samuel 10.18 it says
40,000 horsemen.
The words are used interchangeably because horsemen are also footmen.
It's not a contradiction in these two verses in 2 Samuel 10.18 and 1 Chronicles 19.18 either
because of the fact that they're the same thing in the sense that every horseman is
also a footman.
So it's absurd to say that somebody who is trained to ride a horse can never get off
their horse and fight on foot.
How they fight, how the battle ends up depends on the geography of the battle and other conditions.
If you look at 2 Samuel 8.4 and 1 Chronicles 18.4 the total number of footmen given is
20,000 in both passages.
The 700 and 7,000 number are both included in that 20,000 because every horseman is also
a footman.
It's just told from two different perspectives.
It's entirely possible that 7,000 were deployed on horseback, but later in the battle only
700 actually fought on horseback because of the location of the battle and because David
decided that 6,300 of them would have been better fighting on foot.
So it's not a contradiction when you consider that simple fact.
The next supposed contradiction is also numerical.
It's the number 600 or the number 50.
In 1 Chronicles 21.25 it says, so David gave to Ornan for the place 600 shekels of gold
by weight.
In 2 Samuel 24 verse 24 it says, and the king said to Arunah, nay, but I will surely buy
it of thee at a price, neither will I offer burnt offerings unto the Lord my God of that
which doth cost me nothing.
So David bought the threshing floor and the oxen for 50 shekels of silver.
The question is did David pay 600 shekels of gold or 50 shekels of silver for the threshing
floor?
The answer is 50 shekels of silver as recorded in 2 Samuel 24.1, not 24.1, 24.24.
1 Chronicles 21 verse 25 does not even concern the price of the threshing floor specifically,
but the whole place as it's written.
David bought the property, the whole area where the threshing floor was, the land upon
which it was for 600 shekels, while the threshing floor itself with the oxen was 50 shekels.
So it's not a contradiction either.
The number 800 or 300, now this one is kind of silly.
How many were slain by the mighty men of David according to the Bible?
In 2 Samuel 23.8 it says, these be the names of the mighty men whom David had, the tachmanite
that sat in the seat, chief among the captains, the same was Adino the Esnite, he left up
his spear against 800 whom he slew at one time.
You got that?
It says in 1 Chronicles 11.11, and this is the number of the mighty men whom David had,
Jashobim and Hakmonite, the chief of the captains, he lifted up his spear against 300 slain by
him at one time.
These verses are talking about two entirely different people.
One is talking about Adino the Esnite who slew 800 and the other is Jashobim the Hakmonite
who slew 300.
The Bible records that there were 30 chiefs and three of them were considered the three
mighties.
In 2 Samuel 23 it names the three mighties as Adino the Esnite, Dodo the Ahoite, and
Shammah the son of Agi the Charorite.
These are the three who went down with David to the cave of Adullam according to 2 Samuel
23.13 and 1 Chronicles 11.15.
But 1 Chronicles does not name the three men but only names Dodo the Ahoite.
Now Jashobim was one of the 30 chiefs but he was not the same person, he was not of
the three mighties, he was not the same person as Adino the Esnite.
These aren't contradictions because if you actually just read the verse and see that
they're not talking about the same people, you know that there's two different people
who slew a different number of people.
So it's not a contradiction again.
Now this one, the next few actually concern the gospels, so were past Chronicles and Kings
and all that.
This question is did both thieves revile Jesus?
Now this one is kind of silly as well.
In Luke 23 verse 39 to 42 it says, And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed
on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.
But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost thou not fear God, seeing thou art in
the same condemnation?
And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward for our deeds.
But this man hath done nothing amiss.
And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
In Mark 15 32 it says, Let Christ, the king of Israel, descend now from the cross, that
we may soon believe.
And they that were crucified with him reviled him.
Matthew 27 verse 44 says, The thieves also which were crucified with him cast the same
in his teeth.
Now the answer is yes, both thieves reviled Jesus.
Apparently skeptics don't know what time is.
The crucifixion of Jesus Christ took place over several hours.
In both Matthew 27 and Mark 15, the reviling of Jesus took place near the beginning of
his crucifixion, which is at the third hour according to Mark 15 25.
However, according to Luke 24 or 23 verse 44, right after Jesus speaks to this man,
it says it was about the sixth hour.
So yes, both thieves did revile him at first, but one of them repented and believed on Christ.
The answer to the question is yes, just one of them believed on him later, a few hours
later into the crucifixion.
The next question is how many blind people did Jesus heal near Jericho?
In Mark 10 46 it says, And they came to Jericho, and as he went out of Jericho with his disciples
and a great number of people, the lion Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus, sat by the high wayside
begging.
Matthew 20 verse 30, And behold, two blind men sitting by the wayside, when they heard
that Jesus passed by, cried out, saying, Have mercy on us, O Lord, thou son of David.
And Luke 18 35 says, And it came to pass that as he was come nigh unto Jericho, a certain
blind man sat by the wayside begging.
First of all, it should be noted that Mark and Matthew are telling an entirely different
story than that which is recorded in the book of Luke.
Notice that in Mark it says as he went out of Jericho, and in Matthew 20 verse 29, it
says they departed Jericho, and then the verse we read is right after that.
So this is when they leave Jericho, not when they're coming to it.
But the book of Luke says that he was come nigh to Jericho.
So this certain blind man mentioned in the book of Luke, when it says certain blind man,
that means exclusively one person.
He was healed when Jesus first entered into Jericho, not as he was departing.
This is an entirely different story.
So Matthew 20 and Mark chapter 10 are telling the same story.
But Mark puts emphasis on one person, which is Bartimaeus.
Now just because it only mentions one person does not mean it is saying that there was
only one person there.
It's just putting emphasis on Bartimaeus because he was the one who specifically called out
the words, Thou son of David, have mercy on me.
But it never says that there was not a second person who Jesus healed.
The statement, Blind Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus, sat by the highway side begging is
still true when compared with Matthew 20, 30.
Yes, he was there.
Just because it doesn't mention the other one doesn't mean that the story is false.
So the answer to the question, how many people did Jesus heal near Jericho of blindness is
three.
He healed one as he was going in and two as he was going out.
And the next question is how many angels were at the tomb?
The atheists believe that this is a contradiction as well.
Matthew 28, verse two, it says, and behold, there was a great earthquake for the angel
of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone from the door and
sat upon it.
And then Mark chapter 16, verse five says, and entering into the sepulcher, they saw
a young man sitting on the right side clothed in a long white garment and they were affrighted.
And then Luke 24, verse four says, and it came to pass as they were much perplexed thereabout,
behold, two men stood by them in shining garments.
In John 20, verse 12, it says, and see if two angels in white sitting, the one at the
head and the other at the feet where the body of Jesus had laid.
Now the simple answer to the question is that there are two, but we need to pay attention
to the details of the whole text.
First I want to point out that the source of this supposed contradiction, the quiz show
video made by non-stamp collector, seems to be confused by the fact that in John 20, it
says two angels while in Luke 24, it says two men and Mark 16, it says a young man.
So the other question with this is, were they angels or were they men?
The answer is they were angels.
Anybody who's read the Bible knows that angels are often referred to as men because they
appear as men.
For example, in Genesis 18 and 19, it says that three men appeared to Abraham.
One of them was the Lord as the son of God and two were the angels that went down to
Sodom to rescue Lot.
Throughout both chapters, they're called both men and angels because angels appear as men.
It's very simple.
Now the question becomes, was there one angel or two angels?
Well, firstly, the verse given in Matthew 28 2 has nothing to do with how many angels
were in the tomb.
This is a different event before the tomb was opened.
The angel of the Lord came back and opened the stone before the women ever came to the
tomb and then he sat upon it.
Then as the Marys went into the tomb, the angel went inside of the tomb of Christ with
one already being inside.
I'll record in Luke 24 verse 4 that there were two men who stood by them in shining
garments.
Well, I don't know if atheists realize this because this is another thing that he brings
up as a supposed contradiction, but there's something called standing up.
If I'm sitting, which I am right now, I can do this.
I can stand up, right?
It's very easy to do that.
But even then, if you compare this with the book of John where it says that there were
two sitting inside the tomb, that's also talking about an entirely different event.
If you read the whole passage of John, you'll see that in the beginning of the chapter,
Mary Magdalene departs and goes to Peter and John to tell them that the body of Christ
is missing from the tomb.
And then they go back to the tomb and Mary independently sees the angel sitting.
This is not when the other women came to the tomb and saw only one inside and then the
one who was sitting on top of the stone came down.
So when the other women come, they first see one man sitting as recorded in the book of
Mark.
The other angel comes off the stone and the one sitting stands up so that there are now
two standing by the women as it records in the book of Luke.
The fact that it says that they stood is not a contradiction and that's just stupid to
say so.
In Mark, it only mentions a young man.
Well, as pointed out before with the story of Jericho and the blind man near Jericho,
only mentioning one does not exclude the possibility of there being another.
When they first entered the tomb, there was only one sitting there and then the angel
who was atop the stone came down.
That's putting emphasis on this first angel, on the single angel because he's the one who
spake with the women, told them what happened according to Mark 16 verse 6.
So if we're going to construct the chronology of these angels, first an angel rolls away
the stone before the women even come to the tomb and then he sits upon it.
Then the Marys come to the tomb and inside they see one angel sitting in the sepulcher.
He stands up and the angel atop the stone comes down and speak to the Marys.
Then later after they had left and told Peter and John about what the angels had said, they
with Mary Magdalene came to the tomb, Mary Magdalene independently saw the two angels
sitting inside.
So there's no contradiction if you just understand that there is a passage of time going on here.
Next question is how many women went to the empty tomb?
It's this other supposed numerical contradiction concerning the accounts of Jesus's resurrection.
The skeptics will say that each account says that there are different women.
In John 20 verse 1 it says the first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early when it
was yet dark unto the sepulcher and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulcher.
Matthew 28 one says in the end of the Sabbath as it began to dawn toward the first day of
the week came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulcher.
Mark 16 verse 1 and when the Sabbath was past Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James
and Salome had bought sweet spices that they might come and anoint him.
Luke 24 verse 10 it was Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of James and other
women that were with them which told these things unto the apostles.
Now the claim is that John says that there is only one person, Matthew says that there
is two, Mark says there are three and Luke says that there are five or more.
First of all in the book of John the verse next to the verse in verse 1 so verse 2 indicates
that John was simply focusing on Mary Magdalene but not saying that there is only one of the
two.
Pay attention to what John 20 verse 2 says.
She runneth and cometh to Simon Peter and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved and
saith unto them they have taken away the Lord out of the sepulcher and we know not where
they have laid him.
She says we know not where they have laid him which indicates that she and John knew
full well that there was more than one person at the tomb.
It's putting emphasis on Mary Magdalene because she left the tomb immediately to return back
to Peter and John.
It's telling a separate story instead of focusing on the women who remained at the tomb and
spake to the angels.
So John is not telling us that Mary Magdalene is the only woman at the tomb.
If you compare verse 1 with the first verse of Matthew and Mark you'll notice they mention
entirely different times as well.
We shouldn't think of the event of the women coming to the tomb as something that just
happened in a period of five minutes.
The Bible teaches us that before the women actually entered the tomb some time had already
passed.
Look at verse 1 of the book of John.
It says that Mary Magdalene came to the tomb when it was yet dark.
In Matthew 28 verse 1 it says that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came as it began to dawn
toward the first day of the week.
In Mark if you read verse 2 it says they came unto the sepulcher at the rising of the sun.
In case you don't know what that means, Mary Magdalene was the first to get up and head
towards the tomb.
She did so when it was still dark outside, probably like 4 a.m. or sometime around then.
So then when it begins to dawn, meaning that the first light starts to appear, so it's
not dark anymore, there's now light in the sky, it's gray outside, probably about 4.35
in the morning, the other Mary was with her and they were soon joined by Salome who went
with them to buy spices and then finally arrived at the tomb at the rising of the sun according
to the bookmark.
So this took place over the period of probably an hour or more.
They had to get up, they had to gather together, buy spices and then make the journey to the
tomb.
I believe that there were three women who came to the tomb and that none of the gospel
accounts contradict Mark's record of there being Mary, Mary Magdalene and Salome.
But what about Luke 24 verse 10?
The assumption by the Bible critics is that the phrase other women that were with them
is referring to those with these women at the tomb, but that's simply wrong.
Verse 10 is a record of the women coming to the apostles and telling them what the angels
said.
Again, it's like the Bible critics don't understand that there's such thing as a passage of time.
The other women were with the Marys when they came unto the apostles, meaning they had joined
the women after leaving the tomb because they had probably informed these women first on
the way to meet with the disciples.
So the reason why Luke mentions five or more people is because the three who were at the
tomb left and as they were going, other women joined them when they went to the house of
the disciples.
So it's five women who told the apostles about what the angels said, it's not five women
who were at the tomb, it doesn't say that.
So there's no contradiction here either.
There were three women and no passage excludes that possibility.
Next contradiction is not really a numerical contradiction, it kind of deviates, I think
this is the end of the numerical thing, but it's kind of about God's attitude towards
riches and what our attitude should be towards wealth and riches.
Now there's quite a few verses which this guy brings up about this matter, so let's
read them.
It says in Luke 6 24, but woe unto you that are rich, for you've received your consolation.
Psalm 112 verse one to three says, praise you the Lord, blessed is a man that feareth
the Lord, that delighteth greatly in his commandments.
His seat shall be mighty upon earth, the generation of the upright shall be blessed.
Wealth and riches shall be in his house and his righteousness endureth forever.
Luke 12 verse 33, sell that ye have and give alms, provide yourselves bags which wax not
old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not, where no thief approacheth, neither moth
corrupteth.
Luke 14 verse 33 says, so likewise whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he
have, he cannot be my disciple.
Luke 18 verse 22 says, now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, yet lackest
thou one thing, sell all that thou hast and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have
treasure in heaven, and come follow me.
Acts two verse 44 to 45, and all that believe were together, and had all things common,
and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all man, as every man had need.
Acts chapter four verse 34 to 37, neither was there any among them that lacked for as
many as were possessors of land or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things
that were sold, and lay them down at the apostles feet, and distribution was made unto every
man according as he had need.
And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, which is being interpreted the son
of consolation, a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus, having land, sold it, and brought
the money, and laid it at the apostles feet.
So the argument goes that Luke 6 24 is against riches, and so are the rest of these passages,
with the exception of Psalm 112, which says that for those who fear the Lord, wealth and
riches shall be in his house.
Now stop and think about what these verses are talking about, firstly the obvious issue
is the difference between the source of the riches and the status of the person we're
talking about.
What do I mean by that?
Well in Luke chapter 6, the message which Jesus is preaching is known as the Sermon
on the Plain, which basically holds the same teachings as the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew
5 6 and 7.
So he contrasts those which are his disciples with the people that are caught up in the
things of the world.
He says a few verses earlier, blessed be ye poor, for yours is the kingdom of heaven,
and then he says, woe unto you that are rich, for you have received your consolation.
Jesus said also in Matthew 19 verse 23 to 24, verily I say unto you that a rich man
shall heartily enter into the kingdom of heaven, and again I say unto you it is easier for
a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom
of God.
This is after the rich man comes to him, asking what good thing he must do to have everlasting
life.
A parallel passage in Luke is given as one of these contradictory verses where Jesus
says to the man to sell all that he hath if he will be perfect.
Jesus is speaking here to an unsaved man who is trying to justify himself, somebody who
is trusting in his own works and his own self to be justified.
Now he leaves sorrowful because he had many riches according to Luke 18 23 and Matthew
19 22.
Jesus told him to do this to make the point that a man cannot get himself to heaven through
his own works or even by his riches.
Thus as in Luke 6 24, woe unto them that have riches for which means because they have received
their consolation.
Now what does the word consolation mean?
It means comfort.
The reason why he says woe unto them is because rich people as a result of the abundance of
possessions which they have in their personal pride, they already have comfort.
They don't even think about eternity.
Anybody who goes out soul winning knows that it's a lot harder to get a rich person saved
than it is to get a poor person saved because they think that they're already set for life.
They don't even care about religion or the Bible or anything like that.
Their focus is upon the earth and this earthly life and not where they'll spend eternity.
Jesus is speaking to the unsaved.
He's telling them that their riches are worthless in comparison to eternity, that no matter
how many things that they build up on this earth, if their soul goes to hell, it will
all be in vain.
As the Bible says in Matthew 16, 26, for what is a man profited if he shall gain the whole
world and lose his own soul?
Psalm 112 is concerning not those who just have riches in general, but it says that God
will bless the man that feareth the Lord with riches, that a saved person who walks the
commandments of God.
And there's multiple ways you can interpret that also because it just says riches shall
be in his house.
Now the word house is used sometimes in the Bible to not just refer to a physical dwelling
place on earth, but as we read in I think 2 Corinthians 5, that our home is in heaven.
Wealth and riches in our house doesn't necessarily mean that we're going to have wealth and riches
upon this earth, but it could also mean building up treasure in heaven as Jesus said that we
should do.
Now Jesus said in the New Testament also that somebody who is his disciple should forsake
all that he has in order to follow after him.
Now that doesn't mean that all disciples of Jesus are going to own absolutely nothing,
that they're just walking around naked every day.
The issue is forsaking all that they have for Jesus' sake, to be his disciple.
For example in Matthew 10 he says he that loveth father and mother more than me is not
worthy of me.
He said he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.
Now it's obviously not saying that we should just immediately die or kill ourselves, but
we should be willing to lay down our lives for Christ's sake.
We should be willing to give up anything that would get in the way of serving Christ
and being his disciple, that's what he's saying.
That doesn't mean that God will never bless a disciple of Jesus Christ, nor does it mean
that God will not bless an ordinary Christian.
Not every Christian is a disciple of Jesus.
Discipleship means following and learning from him on a daily basis.
Somebody can be an obedient Christian without being a disciple and they can be blessed with
wealth and riches.
Now concerning the last two passages which this guy gives, I don't even understand how
they're claimed to be contradictory because it's not a statement or command of something
that we should do, it's just a story of what the apostles did.
They gave offerings to the church so that the church would be provided for.
I mean I don't know what that has to do with riches or anything like that, but it's not
a command or a statement at all, it's just a story about what happened.
It's not a contradiction at all.
So moving on, the next question is, did the temple curtain rip before or after Jesus died?
Matthew 27 verse 50 to 51 it says, Jesus when he had cried again with a loud voice yielded
up the ghost and behold the veil of the temple was rent and twain from the top to the bottom
and the earth did quake and the rocks rent.
Mark 15 verse 37 to 38 says, and Jesus cried with a loud voice and gave up the ghost and
the veil of the temple was rent and twain from the top to the bottom.
Luke 23 verse 45 to 46 says, and the sun was darkened and the veil of the temple was rent
in the midst and when Jesus had cried with a loud voice he said, father into thy hands
I commend my spirit and having said thus he gave up the ghost.
The answer to this question is neither.
The curtain ripped at the moment that Jesus died and when somebody writes about an event
and two things take place simultaneously, you're going to have to place the description
of the event in a certain order, but that does not necessarily mean that they took place
in that order.
Now let me give an example of what I mean.
So I'll do something.
I'll pick up this water bottle and I'll slap myself.
I did them at the exact same time, right?
And describing what I just did, I picked up a water bottle and I slapped myself.
Saying that does not mean that I did that in that order.
I didn't pick up the water bottle and then slap myself.
I did both at the same time.
I could have said I slapped myself and I picked up a water bottle and it could have the same
meaning.
The point I'm trying to make is that just because Matthew and Mark write about the veil
being torn after recording his final breath and Luke records it before does not mean that
they're saying it happened in a different order.
When Jesus took his final breath and cried out, that is when the veil of the temple is
torn and that fits with all three of the passages.
Now the next supposed contradiction is the question, did Herod or Pilate put the robe
on Jesus?
Matthew 27 verse 27 to 28 says, then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the common
hall and gathered unto him the whole band of soldiers and they stripped him and put
on him a scarlet robe.
Luke 23 verse 11, and Herod with his men of war set him at naught and mocked him and arrayed
him in a gorgeous robe and sent him again to Pilate.
John 19 verse 1 to 2 says, then Pilate therefore took Jesus and scorched him and the soldiers
plotted a crown of thorns and put it on his head and they put on him a purple robe.
Now the answer is both, both Herod and Pilate put the robe on Jesus because they record
two entirely separate events.
In the book of Luke, it's written that Pilate sent Jesus to Herod soon after meeting with
him at the first.
It's recorded in Luke 23 verse 7.
This was before Pilate had inquired the Jews about whether or not Barabbas or Jesus should
be released, which is recorded in Luke 23 verse 18 to verse 21.
The other passages are after the questioning of Barabbas.
In John, it records that the people said, not this man, but Barabbas at the end of chapter
18.
Now we're in chapter 19 and it begins by saying that Pilate scorched Jesus, meaning he whipped
him.
Now just think about this for a second.
If they whipped Jesus, they would have to take the robe off first.
Matthew 27 is the same.
It's after the people chose Barabbas that Pilate's soldiers put the robe on Jesus.
So what happened here is that the soldiers of Herod mocked Jesus at the first with only
the robe and without taking the robe off, they sent him to Pilate.
Pilate then takes the robe off after Barabbas is called out by the Jews to be the one who's
going to be released.
He takes the robe off when he is scorched and his soldiers put it back on him, this
time also plodding a crown of thorns and putting a reed in his hand.
It records two different events.
Now the next supposed contradiction is concerning the question, did Jesus curse the fig tree
before or after driving the money changers out?
In Matthew 21 verse 12 it says, and Jesus went into the temple of God and cast out all
them that sold and bought in the temple and overthrew the tables of the money changers
and the seeds of them that sold doves.
Matthew 21 verse 17 to 19 says, and he left them and went out of the city into Bethany
and he lodged there.
Now in the morning as he returned to the city he hungered and when he saw a fig tree in
the way he came to it and found nothing thereon but leaves only and said unto it, let no fruit
grow on thee henceforward forever and presently the fig tree withered away.
Mark chapter 11 verse 12 to 17, and on the morrow when they were come from Bethany he
was hungry and seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves he came if haply he might find
anything thereon and when he came to it he found nothing but leaves for the time of figs
was not yet.
And Jesus answered and said unto it, no man eat fruit of thee hereafter forever and his
disciples heard it.
And they come to Jerusalem and Jesus went into the temple and began to cast out them
that sold and bought in the temple and overthrew the tables of the money changers and the seeds
of them that sold doves and would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through
the temple.
And he taught saying unto them, is it not written, my house shall be called of all nations
the house of prayer but ye have made it a den of thieves.
Now the answer to the question is simply that he did so before driving the money changers
out of the temple as recorded in the book of Mark.
If you look at Mark's account it gives the exact chronology of what takes place.
It says on the morrow when they were come from Bethany.
So as Jesus was coming from Bethany unto Jerusalem he cursed the fig tree.
Then on that same day when he was come to Jerusalem he drove out the money changers
and the merchants.
In Matthew's account it's not presenting a chronology but hearkening back to the previous
morning when he cursed the fig tree.
As we see immediately afterwards in Mark after he drove the money changers out they went
out of the city again and as written in verse 20 to verse 21 and in the morning as they
passed by they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots and Peter calling to remembrance
saith unto him master behold the fig tree which thou cursed is withered away.
Notice how it says that Peter called it to remembrance so they passed by the fig tree
again after the cleansing of the temple they saw the fig tree they beheld that it was withered
away.
Matthew mentions the entirety of the fig tree story at once instead of separating the different
events of that story it explains the story of the fig tree as separate to the story of
the cleansing of the temple all at once.
So in Matthew 21 verse 20 to 22 it records the same story as in Mark 11 20 that the disciples
saw the fig tree and noticed that it had already been withered away which is followed immediately
by Jesus' explanation of what they can do with faith in God.
So again it's not a contradiction the book of Matthew simply refers back to the fig tree
story as a separate story instead of listing every event in chronological order as in the
book of Mark.
The next supposed contradiction is an answer to the question could homosexuals be killed
or exiled?
In Leviticus chapter 20 verse 13 it says if a man also lie with mankind as he lies with
a woman both of them have committed an abomination they shall surely be put to death their blood
shall be upon them.
First Kings 15 verse 11 to 12 says and Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the
Lord as did David his father and he took away the sodomites out of the land and removed
all the idols that his fathers had made.
The answer is they should be put to death.
First Kings chapter 15 does not contradict Leviticus 20 verse 13 firstly because it's
not a commandment it's a story.
There have been several examples already in this video and in the previous video of skeptics
failing to understand that just because the Bible records somebody as doing or saying
something that doesn't mean it's commanded or done by God.
Secondly removing the sodomites out of the land does not necessarily mean exile.
If he killed them it would still be removing them out of the land.
The Bible uses euphemisms like that to refer to putting one to death.
Another one commonly used in the scriptures is cut off from the congregation as we see
multiple times in the first five books of Moses.
And in many cases it refers to being killed so that they're no longer a part of the congregation
of Israel.
It doesn't mean kicking them out it means killing them so that they're no longer part
of the congregation.
So the verse where it says that Asa took them out of the land that's itself you can
interpret that in multiple ways but even then it's just a story.
It doesn't say that that's a command of God or that's what a government should do.
The next question is when was Jesus born?
Now this one is based on a supposed historical argument.
In Matthew chapter 2 verse 1 it says now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the
days of Herod the king behold there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem.
And Luke chapter 2 verse 1 to 2 says and it came to pass in those days that there went
out of decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed and this taxing
was first made when Carinius was governor of Syria.
So the claim is that these two verses contradict because Matthew says that Jesus was born in
the days of Herod the king while Luke records that he was born when Carinius was the governor
of Syria and that a census or taxing took place at this time.
Now the only outside source for the dating of the census of Carinius is in 6 A.D. and
of course the Bible denier does this thing where they assume that all the ancient sources
except the Bible are right and that's pretty common when it comes to interpreting the Bible
and biblical history.
So if there's two sources one is the Bible and another is something that's outside of
the Bible if two of them contradict for some reason and I know exactly what the reason
is every time without fail the Skeptar goes with the source that isn't the Bible because
they just immediately assume that the Bible is the one that must be wrong while the other
one is absolutely correct.
There's no reason to do so.
The only source for dating the census of Carinius in 6 A.D. is Josephus in the antiquities
of the Jews.
Now there's a possibility that Josephus was entirely wrong first of all but even saying
that he was accurate with his dates it doesn't rule out the possibility of another census
because if you look closely at Luke chapter 2 verse 2 it says and this taxing was first
made when Carinius was governor of Syria which implies that there was more than one taxing
that there could have been a second one at a later time when Carinius was governor.
And it turns out actually that Carinius was a governor of Syria through different times.
The word governor in the Bible simply means leader it does not necessarily refer to a
specific position for example Pontius Pilate is also called a governor in the Bible but
he was a provincial governor over Judea he had the title of prefect.
Carinius who was also appointed governor of Syria according to the Bible he was the
legate there are different positions in the Roman Empire but from the perspective of God
and the perspective of the Bible they were both governors because that word simply just
means leader.
So before being appointed as the legate of Syria in 6 A.D. Carinius had previously been
a general from 12 B.C. to 1 A.D. against a tribe in eastern Anatolia and this may have
been a time when he was first the governor of Syria and he took the position again a
few years later so either way whether he ruled twice or whether Josephus was simply wrong
there's not enough adequate outside historical data to prove that Carinius ruled exclusively
from 6 A.D. onwards so I believe that he was the governor around the time of Herod and
that Luke's account is not contradictory to Matthew's.
The next question this is the second to last actually is was the tomb opened or closed
when the women came to the tomb?
In Matthew 28 verse 2 it says and behold there is a great earthquake for the angel of the
Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone from the door and sat upon
it.
Luke 24 verse 2 says and they found the stone rolled away from the sepulcher.
Now I don't know why they say that this is a contradiction because it never says in Matthew
28 verse 2 that this event took place when the women arrived at the tomb.
Verse 1 never says that the women had yet arrived at the tomb in fact it's written as
it began to dawn toward the first day of the week came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary
to see the sepulcher.
Now it has the detail as it began to dawn that is just as the light began to shine in
the sky but as recorded in the book of Mark chapter 16 verse 2 they did not actually arrive
at the tomb until the rising of the sun.
The angel rolled back the stone during the early parts of the morning before the women
had arrived and when they did arrive they found the stone rolled away.
So again it's not a contradiction.
And the last and final one is also kind of silly as well just like all of them.
Matthew 27 verse 5 and he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed and went
and hanged himself Acts chapter 1 verse 18 now this man purchased a field with the reward
of iniquity and falling headlong he burst asunder in the midst and all his bowels gushed
out.
So the question how did Judas die?
Well he died by hanging himself that's what Matthew 27 verse 5 says Acts 1 18 never claims
to be the record of his death but simply what happened to his body.
If he fell headlong that means he was hanging from a tree.
The rope broke and he fell into the field and burst asunder in the midst.
That only happened because he was already dead.
If you fall you're not going to just explode open if you're alive.
When it says that he fell it means that after a period of time of hanging on the tree the
rope broke for whatever reason maybe the branch fell off or whatever and he fell into that
field and his torso split open and his bowels gushed out.
The reason for that is because his body had begun to decay because he was already dead
so the bacteria within him had already broken down the tissue on his torso so that when
he eventually fell the impact caused his torso to split open because the skin was weaker.
It's not recording his death in Acts 1 it doesn't say anything about his death it just
simply says what eventually happened to his body.
So that's the last contradiction given in that video by Non Stamp Collector and honestly
if somebody was an unbeliever these would probably be the best supposed contradictions
one could come up with.
I've heard a lot of supposed contradictions some of them aren't even close to contradictions
some of them are based on which Bible translation you use sometimes they purposely use some
obscure like paraphrase instead of the King James Bible and they say the Bible contradicts
itself well no those are just false Bible versions the King James Bible doesn't contradict
itself and all the contradictions which are given by skeptics are all silly.
The Bible does not have contradictions and I stand by that claim I will continue to stand
by that claim because every time somebody brings one up if you actually study the verse
study the context and compare spiritual with spiritual it's easy to understand what it's
saying so it's pointed out at the beginning of the video if you take easy biblical principles
to study it helps you understand what it's actually saying you compare scripture with
scripture you look at the context consider the actual meaning of the words and it's not
difficult for the believer to understand but of course the Skeptards will always bring
out junk like this because the natural man received with not the things of the Spirit
of God they do not have the Spirit of God within them they cannot understand the Bible
most of these were not even difficult at all to answer it didn't require much study at
all just a simple look at the verses and like huh how are these contradictory but yet you
see on the comments and on the like dislike ratio on that video by non stamp collector
and there's a lot of people who are goable enough to believe what this guy says a lot
a large number of these aren't even apparent contradictions it's just the unbeliever spiritually
blind they cannot understand the simple truth of God's Word so they start grasping at straws
in a vain attempt to disprove the Bible because they don't want to admit that there is a God
and that they are accountable unto him every time they bring up a supposed contradiction
none of them actually are the Bible is an errant and the Bible is perfect so that's
it for this video this old helmet hello which God are you talking about today I'm talking
about the Lord Jehovah Jesus Christ the Father the Son the Holy Ghost I don't know if you're
a subscriber but the same God which I talk about in every video thank you everybody for
watching and goodbye God bless you