Hey guys!
Now, this is the sixth video of our series called,
"Can we really trust the Bible??
Now
We've already talked about fulfilled prophecies,
The manuscripts,
archaeological proof,
non biblical writers,
and scientifically correctness.
And in this video,
we're gonna look at the supposed contradictions.
Found in the Bible.
You know
There's a lot of critics out there,
and they say we can't really trust the Bible,
because it's full of contradictions.
Is the Bible full of contradictions?
Well, definitely not.
Let's take a closer look.
All right now I just have to say right from the beginning.
When we look at the Bible
It is a huge book.
Over 66 different books written by around 40 people,
and over a period of around
1,600 years
Now, you need to know that these writers,
they had different styles of writing.
Writing with different perceptions for a different audience,
and
For different reasons.
So if you just take a few verses out of context.
then it might look like a contradiction,
and that's why there's a lot of people out there writing about the supposed
contradictions of the Bible.
But let me tell you,
there are also a lot of websites and a lot of books out there that
right about these supposed contradictions
And then they explain it.
They make it clear that it's there are not really any
contradictions found in the Bible.
Now most people who believe that the Bible is full of contradictions,
they only read blogs about it,
or they hear something about it here and there,
or read a book and then they just believe it.
They don't really study it themselves.
And of course some just used this as an argument point,
as ammunition
to fight
Against Christians who believe that the Bible is God's Word,
and that it is
Perfect without contradictions.
And then you see that they use it in this kind of ammunition way
because if you answer them
They're not really interested in your answers.
They've already convinced themselves.
They believe, what they want to believe.
But if you are open minded,
and if you if you really want to know the truth.
Then these answers is gonna be very interesting to you.
Because it's gonna show you that the Bible does not have any contradictions.
and that you can trust.
All right.
So let's start with the first supposed
contradiction.
Some people say that there's a contradiction
about the famine when you read the books of 1 chronicles,
and 2 Samuel.
Let me explain this.
In 1 chronicles 21:12 as punishment for numbering the people
David was offered among other choices 3 years of famine.
But then when you go to 2 Samuel 24:13,
it refers to seven years.
So people say, you see it's a contradiction.
The one says three years, and the other one says seven years.
It doesn't really add up.
well
You just have to go and read 2 Samuel 21:1, and you'll see that David had already
suffered three years of crop failure.
The results continued into the fourth year.
So then of course
If you add three years of famine to the four years,
it gives you a total of seven.
The Book of Chronicles, just didn't mention the years of famine that they already experienced.
And then another supposed contradiction is about Judas
Iscariot.
Specifically his property and his death.
Matthew 27:5 says,
Throwing down the pieces of silver into the temple he departed,
and he went and hanged himself.
But then if you read acts,
it tells you a little bit more about the story
It adds to it.
In Acts 1:18-19,
It says, "Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness and fooling a headlong,
he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out
So is this a contradiction?
That he throw his money into the temple,
or did he buy a field with it?
Did he hang himself,
or that he fall down and burst open?
So you see some people say that the Bible is not giving us
The real story here,
because these are two stories of the same thing,
But they are different.
It doesn't line up.
Or does it?
Well, let's look at what Matthew 27 says,
27:3 "Then when Judas, His betrayer
saw that Jesus was condemned,
he changed his mind and brought back the thirty pieces of silver
To the chief priests and the elders,
saying, "I have sinned by betraying innocent blood."
They said, 'What is that to us?
See to it yourself!'
And throwing down the pieces of silver into the temple
He departed;
and he went and hanged himself.
Now,
Listen to verse 6 carefully,
"But the chief priests
taking the pieces of silver said,
'it is not lawful to put them into the treasury,
since it is blood money.'
so they took counsel and bought with them the Potter's field as a burial place for
strangers.
So Judas caused the field to be bought with his blood money,
but it was not his intention
The priests made the purchase for him.
Now, what about the other contradiction?
Did he just fall down burst open or did he hang himself?
Well,
Both.
When you bring the two together
It kind of makes sense.
He hanged himself,
and then he fell down after a while and he burst open.
Is that simple?
Another supposed contradiction is where Mary stood at the crucifixion.
Mark 15:40 says,
"There were also women looking on from a distance,
among whom were Mary Magdalene,
and Mary the
mother of James the younger and of Josas and
Salome.
But then when we look at John 19:25
it says,
"By standing by the cross of Jesus where his mother and his mother's sister,
Mary the wife of Clopas,
and Mary Magdalene,
So the one says that Mary was standing by the cross and the other says from a distance.
So
Which one is it?
You see people say there's a contradiction here
Well, there's no contradiction.
Because it is both.
You got to remember the crucifixion was going on for three hours.
If you were in Mary's position,
would you stand still for three hours while your son is slowly dying in pain?
Definitely not.
And also remember.
John and the woman could have stood further away while the Romans were performing the crucifixion,
and then once they were done,
they would probably go closer to be with Jesus.
Yoh, what a thing to have.
witnessed.
Another contradiction is the age of Isaiah.
2 Kings 8:26 in the King James Version says,
"Two and twenty years old was Isaiah when he began to reign".
And then on the other hand.
2 chronicles
22 :2 says, "Forty and two years old was Isaiah when he began to reign."
So the one says he was 22 and the other says 42.
So how is that possible?
That's weird.
Is it a contradiction?
Well, his father was only 40 years old when he died
So it's kind of impossible for him to be older than his father.
So why does 2 chronicles 22 :2 says that he is
42 years old?
Well, there are a lot of people that gave possible explanations to this,
and I agree
More with
Dr Floyd Jones who studied this in depth.
Now, 2 Chronicles 22:2 is probably talking about his kingly
Reign of his family line.
Starting with Omri,
then his son Ahab,
then a Ahab's daughter, Athaliah.
Who was Ahaziah's wife.
You can see the phrase in brackets
[House of Ahab]
in verse 3:1-3
it says and the
inhabitants of Jerusalem made Isaiah his youngest son King in his stead:
for the band of men that came with
Arabians to the camp had slain all the eldest.
So Ahaziah the son of
Jehoram King of Judah reigned.
Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign,
and he reigned
For one year in Jerusalem.
His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.
He also walked in the ways of the house of Ahab:
for his mother
Was his counselor to do wickedly.
Now you need to know that when we go,
and look at the Hebrew text the numerical numbers.
42 and 22 are not numerical numbers.
But are written out as two and forty,
and two and twenty
and also the words
was
and
Old
are not in the original Hebrew.
But they were added in the English translation to make it smoother.
But then of course without them,
it reads, "A Son of
42 years.
So meaning he's a son after 42 years.
Showing to the reign.
Now that being said,
I can also be wrong and other people can be right.
Other people who try to explain this, say that it is a copyist mistake.
Because several ancient texts have only 22,
instead of 42 as listed in the Masoretic text.
The Syriac version, an arabic version says,
22,
and the Septugint says 20,
probably meaning he was in his 20's.
And That's probably also why some English translations does not say 42,
but it says 22 like the NASB,
NIV, ESV, and even the Amplified Bible.
Now you can of course go and do some research on this in your own free time,
But it is clear that the age of the Ahaziah is not a contradiction.
Because we know from Scripture
that he was not 42 years old.
And remember a true contradiction exists only when there is no possibility to
reconcile two statements.
Another contradiction is Paul himself.
Some people say is a contradiction.
I don't really see it at all as a contradiction,
but they say that the letters of Paul should not be regarded as
Part of the Bible,
because he was not part after 12 disciples that Jesus called.
He didn't walk with them.
And afterwards when Jesus went to heaven
When they became apostle's, Paul wasn't part of the group.
They say that Paul lied about meeting Jesus on the road to Damascus,
and
that the Apostles themselves did not accept Paul as one of them.
Well, this is just a clear lie,
because that's not what scripture says.
It only says the following in Acts 9:26,
"And when he came to Jerusalem
He attempted to join the disciples.
And they were all afraid of him,
But I did not believe that he was a disciple."
Now, you gotta remember this was back when Paul, was Saul.
That was his name.
And disciples all that they remember about Saul, was that he wanted to persecute them and kill them.
So, of course they were a little bit hesitant at this time.
But then as we read the Bible on
then we see that they accepted him.
Peter himself said in 2 Peter 3:15 -16,
"And count the patience of our Lord as
Salvation,
just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given to him,
As he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters.
There are some things in them that are hard to understand,
which the ignorant and unstable
twist to their own destruction as they do the other Scriptures."
so it's very clear here that Peter puts Paul's letters at the same level as
Scripture here and he calls him our
beloved brother
So, case closed.
We can clearly see that Paul was regarded as one of the Apostles
Now there's a lot more contradictions that you can go into but I think it's enough for now.
You can ask me more questions
in the comment sections below and maybe I'll do a second video of this.
But I just want to say one more thing.
If you're one of those people who have an axe to grind with God ,and
His work, and against Christians.
if you already made up your mind that you don't want to believe God's work
Then facts will not help.
This video will not help at all,
because you've already convinced yourself what you want to believe.
And I want to tell you something in the love.
Ask you something.
Do you even know why you feel this way?
Think about this for a while.
Do you really want to know the truth of God?
Or is your heart so hard that no evidence
will convince you.
If you were to humble yourself and soft in your heart,
and really seek God with your whole heart,
your mind, your whole soul,
then he will reveal himself to you.
And remember God loves you,
and I love you, too
Bye!
[Music starts playing]
[Music ends]