A response to @MaghrebGator 's supposed numerical Biblical contradictions. Muzzie arguments destroyed to oblivion!

[st.hamudi but 6‘5]

@st.hamudi but 6‘5 idk why youre laugh reacting boyo. you worship jews too

because jfl if u think im reading these chatgpt novels

 

[the_nextDavidLaid]

muhhh progress. i want this jew loving faggot to kill himself

Do you still hate the Jews?

 

[i_love_roosters]

How can you lie with such a straight face? Is this what christianity has become?

Dude, literally some of the most famous stories of the Bible like the history of the prostitute and the end verse of "Let the one has never sinned throw a stone" are deemed as fabrications by the vast majority of christian scholars, and yet still people have the balls to use them as a justification for the "Abolishment of the law". If you read the modern NIV (Famous New International Version) and ESV versions of the Bible they are put in brackets because they are known to be fabrications.

The oldest manuscripts of John like the oldest one Papyrus 66 (Dating hundreds of years after him by the way) do not contain the story of the prostitute and the stone. Not a single church father mentions it in his works and the first manuscript which mentions it is a greek one from the 7th or 8th century.

There are fourteen words found in that story that are never mentioned once anywhere else in the Gospel of John, making it clear that the author was not John (Whoever that is by the way, because the writers of the Bible is another ridiculous subjects with not even a decent chain of narration).

And this is one story by the way. We could talk about another very famous verse, John 3:16. It's amazing how the most famous Bible verses are fabrications and strenghten the islamic narrative that the Bible has changes, almost as if it is by Divine Decree.

Foolish and lowlife argument as usual. Already addressed in detail and all you have is "Muh why Allah doesn't use the words i want muh". A perfect system and method of inheritance that is used 1400 years laters to the T.

Answer instead of crying. "Enriching the narrative" JFL. Can't fall lower than that.

The authors of the corruption of the Bible seem to be that stupid though...

Yeah right. "I didn't see it so therefore it didn't happen"

Answer one by one instead of crying. Dumbass skips 8 straight contradictions and acts as if nothing happened JFL. If a muslim did that you bastards would chase him until the last second

Yes. Here are more threads of both of us arguing if they need more help.

Sorry to the Indians of the place

Sorry for being kinda racist. I do not really mean it. Islam forbids racism. It was narrated that the Prophet Muhammad said (Interpretation of the meaning): "An Arab has no virtue over a Non Arab, nor does a Non Arab have virtue over an Arab, a white person is not more virtuous than a black...

looksmax.org

Contradicts several verses in the Bible like
Numbers 23:19
"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"

They all possess the same attributes somehow yet one almost disowns the other in Matthew 27: 46
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is to say, “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?”

Lacks the knowledge of God in
Matthew 24: 36
“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

Directly destroys Bible verses like “For I the Lord do not change;"

‘For I am God, and not man’ (Hosea 11:9)

Jesus is called a man many times in the Bible ‘a man who has told you the truth’ (John 8:40) or ‘the man Christ Jesus’ (Tim. 2:5)

They are the same but have 2 different wills
Matthew 26:39
"My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”

John 5:30 "By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me."

There are thousands of videos defending the flat earth. There are thousands of videos defending Israel. There are thousands of videos defending poverty and starvation via usury. There are thousands of videos of Minecraft.

There are thousands of videos of everything.

Everyone knows the story of the adulterous woman was added later. This doesn't change the main message of the Bible. Meanwhile the Quran has suras eaten by goats. I've researched the arguments against the authorship of every book of the Bible. All of them are ridiculous.

The Islamic division of inheritance works because humans had to fix it for Allah.

All those Bible verses have been debunked and I provided links with sources where you can see the Trinity is Biblical and Jesus is God. The difference between Trinity videos and the ones you mentioned is that they make sense. It's impossible for someone with an open heart and a normal IQ to not understand the Trinity. I'll make a thread disproving everything you said because videos and articles don't work for you apparently.

I'll also do a thread on how the Hadiths have no chain of transmission and how late they and Quran were compiled.

I wrote essay-tier responses and all you did was act arrogant and respond with no longer than 2 sentences.

You still haven't responded to the thread I've linked in this one. It's crazy how brainwashed you are. Just like there's no saving crazies like Jehovah's witnesses and Mormons, there's also no saving Muslims have been programed to be unable to process any sort of argument against islam

 

[i_love_roosters]

because jfl if u think im reading these chatgpt novels

Try for yourself to see that there's no way chatgpt can defend religion. There's also software that detects chatgpt, put it there and see it's not ai. Muslims never read the opposing side's arguments and keep claiming how right Islam is

 

[st.hamudi but 6‘5]

Try for yourself to see that there's no way chatgpt can defend religion. There's also software that detects chatgpt, put it there and see it's not ai. Muslims never read the opposing side's arguments and keep claiming how right Islam is

fair, im just not emotionally invested because im confident in my believes

 

[i_love_roosters]

@MaghrebGator you still haven't shown me proof that there were different uncorrupted scriptures in the 7th century. The one Allah is supposedly talking about

 

[i_love_roosters]

fair, im just not emotionally invested because im confident in my believes

You do you, I'm the opposite. At first I was giga sceptical of Christianity and did a ton of research to become a Christian

 

[emeraldglass]

Short and quick answer:

The concept of the Trinity in Christianity teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons within the Godhead, yet they share the same divine essence or nature. According to this belief, each person of the Trinity is fully God and possesses all the attributes of God. However, this does not imply three separate Gods but rather one God in three persons. Jesus, as the Son, is considered fully God and fully dependent on the Father in terms of his earthly ministry, but not in terms of his divine nature.

There's no need for me to defend the Trinity when there are thousands of videos, articles, etc. that have already provided undeniable proof for the Trinity. If you genuinely wanted to hear both sides you'd do some research on this topic outside of .org

So essentially, you're just quoting the Trinity but adding extra words to make it seem like a different approach, bringing us back to square one. We're talking about three different entities that are supposed to be God. How does this make sense, especially considering the history of Christianity and the First Council of Nicaea, where Emperor Constantine I quasi pressured all attendees to accept that Christ is the Son of God and divine?

 

[Egyptianmogger]

Dnrd a single molecule, and they're both bullshit

 

[moggathon]

Do you still hate the Jews?
View attachment 2782940

Yes. None of these are alien Stacie’s

 

[i_love_roosters]

So essentially, you're just quoting the Trinity but adding extra words to make it seem like a different approach, bringing us back to square one. We're talking about three different entities that are supposed to be God. How does this make sense, especially considering the history of Christianity and the First Council of Nicaea, where Emperor Constantine I quasi pressured all attendees to accept that Christ is the Son of God and divine?

The claim that the Trinity was made in the Council of Nicea is a myth. Research early Christian history. If you genuinely want to get more info on this, don't just listen to dawahgandist and listen to the opposing side for once

 

[st.hamudi but 6‘5]

You do you, I'm the opposite. At first I was giga sceptical of Christianity and did a ton of research to become a Christian

christianity just doesn’t make sense, it was changed multiple times, islam on the other hand does absolutely that’s why Im muslim

but being christian is still better than being atheist or hindu so a complete retard

 

[i_love_roosters]

christianity just doesn’t make sense, it was changed multiple times, islam on the other hand does absolutely that’s why Im muslim

but being christian is still better than being atheist or hindu so a complete retard

There's no way to know if it's changed if you never heard the arguments against it. You just avoid them. If you research Islam you'll see how polytheistic it actually is

 

[MaghrebGator]

Everyone knows the story of the adulterous woman was added later. This doesn't change the main message of the Bible. Meanwhile the Quran has suras eaten by goats.

JFL at clinging to the goat narrative that was abandoned by everyone. JFL at believing that a book which was memorized with the same words from Portugal to Somalia to Indonesia was destroyed somehow because a goat ate a piece of paper. Showing lack of knowledge of the science of recopilation and memorization.

I've researched the arguments against the authorship of every book of the Bible. All of them are ridiculous.

You didn't.

The Islamic division of inheritance works because humans had to fix it for Allah.

Fix what? Change a denominator to fit the knowledge of the verse is fixing? If anything the definition of that is adapting to the verse JFL

All those Bible verses have been debunked and I provided links with sources where you can see the Trinity is Biblical and Jesus is God.

No though. Already answered resolutely myself to other users trying to debunk them in links i gave above.

The difference between Trinity videos and the ones you mentioned is that they make sense.

According to who, you? What about the millions of christians that turn to atheism? Everyone can play this game and make claims without any basis. If my claims to Islam were "Watch videos" i wouldn't even dare to speak about religion.

It's impossible for someone with an open heart and a normal IQ to not understand the Trinity. I'll make a thread disproving everything you said because videos and articles don't work for you apparently.

Another copy and paste? Why not here right now? You need time again to gather all the copy and paste? You need a new thread for more rep? JFL at this fool.

I'll also do a thread on how the Hadiths have no chain of transmission and how late they and Quran were compiled.

@Fiqh Teach this kid. Questioning the chains of narrations of hadiths JFL. Go ahead and i'll show you with your same criteria how the Bible does not hold any relevance and how you reject every important account of history like Alexander The Great, The Ancient Egyptians, Mesopotamian history, etc

I just hope you are honest enough to reject christianity after you are exposed though, huh?

I wrote essay-tier responses and all you did was act arrogant and respond with no longer than 2 sentences.

No, i did respond lol. Anyone can see it. And i didn't copy and paste the majority of my comment contrary to your lack of education and knowledge.

You still haven't responded to the thread I've linked in this one. It's crazy how brainwashed you are. Just like there's no saving crazies like Jehovah's witnesses and Mormons, there's also no saving Muslims have been programed to be unable to process any sort of argument against islam

Waste of my time. As Imam as Shafii said i have never won a debate against an ignorant person and i have never lost a debate against a knowledgeable person.

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

Prophet Mohammed is a Dragonball character as he is quoted as slicing the moon in 2 with a sword like some anime character. He was not only a massive badboy warlord he was also the anime protagonist.

I get why fuckers follow him tbh. Still Jesus is the msot influential person in human history we know this and every list says this. This proves his divinity

Everyone knows the story of the adulterous woman was added later. This doesn't change the main message of the Bible. Meanwhile the Quran has suras eaten by goats. I've researched the arguments against the authorship of every book of the Bible. All of them are ridiculous.

The Islamic division of inheritance works because humans had to fix it for Allah.

All those Bible verses have been debunked and I provided links with sources where you can see the Trinity is Biblical and Jesus is God. The difference between Trinity videos and the ones you mentioned is that they make sense. It's impossible for someone with an open heart and a normal IQ to not understand the Trinity. I'll make a thread disproving everything you said because videos and articles don't work for you apparently.

I'll also do a thread on how the Hadiths have no chain of transmission and how late they and Quran were compiled.

I wrote essay-tier responses and all you did was act arrogant and respond with no longer than 2 sentences.

You still haven't responded to the thread I've linked in this one. It's crazy how brainwashed you are. Just like there's no saving crazies like Jehovah's witnesses and Mormons, there's also no saving Muslims have been programed to be unable to process any sort of argument against islam

agonball

 

[emeraldglass]

The claim that the Trinity was made in the Council of Nicea is a myth. Research early Christian history. If you genuinely want to get more info on this, don't just listen to dawahgandist and listen to the opposing side for once

You can't deny that it was officially established there, all historians agree on this. While it wasn't created there, it became the official theory right at that moment. The primary purpose of the entire council was to determine the nature of God and Jesus. That was its initial reason for convening.

 

[i_love_roosters]

JFL at clinging to the goat narrative that was abandoned by everyone. JFL at believing that a book which was memorized with the same words from Portugal to Somalia to Indonesia was destroyed somehow because a goat ate a piece of paper. Showing lack of knowledge of the science of recopilation and memorization.

You didn't.

Fix what? Change a denominator to fit the knowledge of the verse is fixing? If anything the definition of that is adapting to the verse JFL

No though. Already answered resolutely myself to other users trying to debunk them in links i gave above.

According to who, you? What about the millions of christians that turn to atheism? Everyone can play this game and make claims without any basis. If my claims to Islam were "Watch videos" i wouldn't even dare to speak about religion.

Another copy and paste? Why not here right now? You need time again to gather all the copy and paste? You need a new thread for more rep? JFL at this fool.

@Fiqh Teach this kid. Questioning the chains of narrations of hadiths JFL. Go ahead and i'll show you with your same criteria how the Bible does not hold any relevance and how you reject every important account of history like Alexander The Great, The Ancient Egyptians, Mesopotamian history, etc

I just hope you are honest enough to reject christianity after you are exposed though, huh?

No, i did respond lol. Anyone can see it. And i didn't copy and paste the majority of my comment contrary to your lack of education and knowledge.

Waste of my time. As Imam as Shafii said i have never won a debate against an ignorant person and i have never lost a debate against a knowledgeable person.

I'll use this whenever I don't have time to answer you.

As Imam as Shafii said i have never won a debate against an ignorant person and i have never lost a debate against a knowledgeable person.

I've never avoided any of your arguments, yet you quote some desert monkey and avoid mine jfl

What about the millions of muslims turning to atheism. Yeah, no shit, atheism exist

Yes, everyone can see you trying to be funny in the hopes of refuting me. That's why I said let the viewers be the judges. I said what I said, you said what you said. Let them see for themselves which makes more sense

 

[i_love_roosters]

You can't deny that it was officially established there, all historians agree on this. While it wasn't created there, it became the official theory right at that moment. The primary purpose of the entire council was to determine the nature of God and Jesus. That was its initial reason for convening.

Allah says Islam will have many sects but only one is true. Similar thing in Christianity, there were a few other interpretations of Christianity, which were ridiculous, before the Council of Nicea. Just like you said, Trinitarian Christianity existed before the Council and the fact that is was agreed upon as the right one is not an argument against it jfl

 

[Tenshi]

christianity just doesn’t make sense, it was changed multiple times, islam on the other hand does absolutely that’s why Im muslim

but being christian is still better than being atheist or hindu so a complete retard

when islam was created christianism was already a religion for like 5 centuries. And a lot of stuff mohammed just copied from christians and jews and other similar religions around the area at the time.

Dude went to a cave, took some shrooms and got the ''revelation'' that just happened to be reveled by multiple people centuries before him, jfl. Literally copied and pasted everything jews and christians were doing and put his touch of arabic bs.

christianism is a really complex religion, it's not a coincidence there are many segments and centuries of debates over many topics within the doctrice. In fact, one could argue christians were not even a religion until a few centuries after Christs death. In fact, for a while they were just considered jews within the many segments of judaism. You could say it was mostly a continuation of an already existing religion.

 

[i_love_roosters]

when islam was created christianism was already a religion for like 5 centuries. And a lot of stuff mohammed just copied from christians and jews and other similar religions around the area at the time.

Dude went to a cave, took some shrooms and got the ''revelation'' that just happened to be reveled by multiple people centuries before him, jfl. Literally copied and pasted everything jews and christians were doing and put his touch of arabic bs.

christianism is a really complex religion, it's not a coincidence there are many segments and centuries of debates over many topics within the doctrice. In fact, one could argue christians were not even a religion until a few centuries after Christs death. In fact, for a while they were just considered jews within the many segments of judaism. You could say it was mostly a continuation of an already existing religion.

He plagiarized stories from folk tales. It's ridiculous actually. The Quran is a copied and pasted shit post

 

[emeraldglass]

Allah says Islam will have many sects but only one is true. Similar thing in Christianity, there were a few other interpretations of Christianity, which were ridiculous, before the Council of Nicea. Just like you said, Trinitarian Christianity existed before the Council and the fact that is was agreed upon as the right one is not an argument against it jfl

But you still believe in it, and so do almost all Christians. So, you know it's not the truth, yet you still believe in it. It doesn't quite make sense.

 

[i_love_roosters]

But you still believe in it, and so do almost all Christians. So, you know it's not the truth, yet you still believe in it. It doesn't quite make sense.

Idk where I said that, maybe you read it wrong, maybe I didn't write something in a clear way. It's hard for me to figure wym

 

[st.hamudi but 6‘5]

when islam was created christianism was already a religion for like 5 centuries. And a lot of stuff mohammed just copied from christians and jews and other similar religions around the area at the time.

muslims believe that christianity was once the true religion, that was before it was changed and before islam tho

 

[i_love_roosters]

muslims believe that christianity was once the true religion, that was before it was changed and before islam tho

Why did Allah allow this tho, it makes no sense

 

[emeraldglass]

Idk where I said that, maybe you read it wrong, maybe I didn't write something in a clear way. It's hard for me to figure wym

Maybe I misunderstood your post. Do you consider the Trinity to be just or fabricated?

 

[i_love_roosters]

Maybe I misunderstood your post. Do you consider the Trinity to be just or fabricated?

I consider it true and I consider that it has existed since the first day of Christianity

 

[emeraldglass]

I consider it true and I consider that it has existed since the first day of Christianity

Alright, then I misinterpreted your comment.

 

[MaghrebGator]

@MaghrebGator you still haven't shown me proof that there were different uncorrupted scriptures in the 7th century. The one Allah is supposedly talking about

Dude, do you realize that to attack Islam you are attacking the Bible? Is this how low you can go? Like, honestly, how do you want me to believe that you are actually a christian and not someone who is paid to be here? Or is it that your scholars taught you that insulting your religion is valid if you insult another one?

The muslim position is clear
"The people of the Book used to read the Torah in Hebrew and then explain it in Arabic to the Muslims. Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said (to the Muslims). "Do not believe the people of the Book, nor disbelieve them, but say, 'We believe in Allah and whatever is revealed to us, and whatever is revealed to you.'

It is clear by the verse that Islam makes a distinction between "revelation", which comes from God, and the entire book, which might or might not be corrupted.

The hadith of the Prophet supposedly swearing by the Torah is narrated several times and in ONLY 1 of the versions the swearing in the Torah happens, which also is the version that is not considered saheeh (Authentic) and it is regarded at best hasan (Good) by Al Albani and usually as da'if (Weak)

It is this one: "A group of Jews came and invited the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) to Quff. So he visited them in their school.

They said: AbulQasim, one of our men has committed fornication with a woman; so pronounce judgment upon them. They placed a cushion for the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) who sat on it and said: Bring the Torah. It was then brought. He then withdrew the cushion from beneath him and placed the Torah on it saying: I believed in thee and in Him Who revealed thee."

Again the prophet is using the word "revealed" by the way.

The reason for it not being considered authentic is because one of it's narrators who is dubious on his claims.
One of it's chain transmitters is Hisham bin Sa'd al-Madni - he has been weakened by a group of the most renowned scholars including Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Ibn Saad, An Nasa'i, Abu Hatin, Ibn Hibban, etc

Which one should we believe, the authentic ones without a dubious narrator or just the one with the dubious narrator and reject the rest? It's insane that they have to come with these things.

And even if, for the sake of argument, we rejected that clear narrative and accept that the Prophet did so, we believe as stated in the hadith above that a great part of the Old Testament was revealed by God, so we could easily say he was referring to those uncorrupted parts.

You didn't answer me anything properly on the other hand from tens and tens of verses except for less than a handful if not 2 or 3 and yet here we are, with the double standards asking me to answer everything.

 

[Tenshi]

muslims believe that christianity was once the true religion, that was before it was changed and before islam tho

And some random arab dude received all the answers and the instructions to create a new one? At least the messiah is a legit prophecy in the hebrew Torah. The apostles were not trying to create anything new.

The new testment is just the story of Jesus (the gospels), letters between themselves and churches on subjects of debate regarding conduct and doctrines and we have the revelation, which is a more complex book, but again, extremely linked to prophecies in the old testment. Afterall, they were all jews.

One might argue how can these books be considered part of the same, especially by the early christians. And that's why we have concepts like exagesis or hermeneutics. It's not something new, christians been doing this since the beginning to check if certain books can be trusted. Because at the times, there were many other gospels/revelations but many of them were not compatible with the scriptures, so obviously they weren't to be taken seriously (like the scriptures are rigidly against witchcraft but some of these apocryphes would advocate for it, for instance).

And I'm pretty sure some arab dude splitting the moon in half or smth was not very bible-friendly.

 

[st.hamudi but 6‘5]

And some random arab dude received all the answers and the instructions to create a new one? At least the messiah is a legit prophecy in the hebrew Torah. The apostles were not trying to create anything new.

The new testment is just the story of Jesus (the gospels), letters between themselves and churches on subjects of debate regarding conduct and doctrines and we have the revelation, which is a more complex book, but again, extremely linked to prophecies in the old testment. Afterall, they were all jews.

One might argue how can these books be considered part of the same, especially by the early christians. And that's why we have concepts like exagesis or hermeneutics. It's not something new, christians been doing this since the beginning to check if certain books can be trusted. Because at the times, there were many other gospels/revelations but many of them were not compatible with the scriptures, so obviously they weren't to be taken seriously (like the scriptures are rigidly against witchcraft but some of these apocryphes would advocate for it, for instance).

And I'm pretty sure some arab dude splitting the moon in half or smth was not very bible-friendly.

will not read just research the arguments yourself tbh, I’ve heard ts 100 of times by now

 

[i_love_roosters]

Dude, do you realize that to attack Islam you are attacking the Bible? Is this how low you can go? Like, honestly, how do you want me to believe that you are actually a christian and not someone who is paid to be here? Or is it that your scholars taught you that insulting your religion is valid if you insult another one?

The muslim position is clear
"The people of the Book used to read the Torah in Hebrew and then explain it in Arabic to the Muslims. Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said (to the Muslims). "Do not believe the people of the Book, nor disbelieve them, but say, 'We believe in Allah and whatever is revealed to us, and whatever is revealed to you.'

It is clear by the verse that Islam makes a distinction between "revelation", which comes from God, and the entire book, which might or might not be corrupted.

The hadith of the Prophet supposedly swearing by the Torah is narrated several times and in ONLY 1 of the versions the swearing in the Torah happens, which also is the version that is not considered saheeh (Authentic) and it is regarded at best hasan (Good) by Al Albani and usually as da'if (Weak)

It is this one: "A group of Jews came and invited the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) to Quff. So he visited them in their school.

They said: AbulQasim, one of our men has committed fornication with a woman; so pronounce judgment upon them. They placed a cushion for the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) who sat on it and said: Bring the Torah. It was then brought. He then withdrew the cushion from beneath him and placed the Torah on it saying: I believed in thee and in Him Who revealed thee."

Again the prophet is using the word "revealed" by the way.

The reason for it not being considered authentic is because one of it's narrators who is dubious on his claims.
One of it's chain transmitters is Hisham bin Sa'd al-Madni - he has been weakened by a group of the most renowned scholars including Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Ibn Saad, An Nasa'i, Abu Hatin, Ibn Hibban, etc

Which one should we believe, the authentic ones without a dubious narrator or just the one with the dubious narrator and reject the rest? It's insane that they have to come with these things.

And even if, for the sake of argument, we rejected that clear narrative and accept that the Prophet did so, we believe as stated in the hadith above that a great part of the Old Testament was revealed by God, so we could easily say he was referring to those uncorrupted parts.

You didn't answer me anything properly on the other hand from tens and tens of verses except for less than a handful if not 2 or 3 and yet here we are, with the double standards asking me to answer everything.

I'm attacking the Bible when attacking Islam..... Jfl that's it you've gone schizo, you're getting ridiculous at this point. I'm somehow attacking a book older than Islam by criticizing Islam. I'm glad you wrote this so people can see who's right. Now everyone can see how low IQ you are. You pretty much lost all credibility with this statement.

Again the unauthentic Hadith argument jfl. The Hadith was "weakened", you basically said some niggas didn't like it so they talked shit about it cuz it doesn't fit the narrative. This "revelation" you're talking about must've been put in a book. Where is it. Show me Jesus preaching Islam. Show me at least a hint of Jesus not claiming to be the son of God that's hiding under all the corruption. There must be some traces, right?

I'm not asking you to answer everything, you're the one who challenged me to disprove every single one of your copied and pasted arguments one by one. You're the same person who pastes like 50 bible verses as a reply and demands an answer for them jfl. You're the one demanding answers like your life depends on them.

You said in another reply that I'm making threads because I want rep, jfl, I'm actually loosing rep from all this.

 

[i_love_roosters]

Dude, do you realize that to attack Islam you are attacking the Bible? Is this how low you can go? Like, honestly, how do you want me to believe that you are actually a christian and not someone who is paid to be here? Or is it that your scholars taught you that insulting your religion is valid if you insult another one?

The muslim position is clear
"The people of the Book used to read the Torah in Hebrew and then explain it in Arabic to the Muslims. Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said (to the Muslims). "Do not believe the people of the Book, nor disbelieve them, but say, 'We believe in Allah and whatever is revealed to us, and whatever is revealed to you.'

It is clear by the verse that Islam makes a distinction between "revelation", which comes from God, and the entire book, which might or might not be corrupted.

The hadith of the Prophet supposedly swearing by the Torah is narrated several times and in ONLY 1 of the versions the swearing in the Torah happens, which also is the version that is not considered saheeh (Authentic) and it is regarded at best hasan (Good) by Al Albani and usually as da'if (Weak)

It is this one: "A group of Jews came and invited the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) to Quff. So he visited them in their school.

They said: AbulQasim, one of our men has committed fornication with a woman; so pronounce judgment upon them. They placed a cushion for the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) who sat on it and said: Bring the Torah. It was then brought. He then withdrew the cushion from beneath him and placed the Torah on it saying: I believed in thee and in Him Who revealed thee."

Again the prophet is using the word "revealed" by the way.

The reason for it not being considered authentic is because one of it's narrators who is dubious on his claims.
One of it's chain transmitters is Hisham bin Sa'd al-Madni - he has been weakened by a group of the most renowned scholars including Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Ibn Saad, An Nasa'i, Abu Hatin, Ibn Hibban, etc

Which one should we believe, the authentic ones without a dubious narrator or just the one with the dubious narrator and reject the rest? It's insane that they have to come with these things.

And even if, for the sake of argument, we rejected that clear narrative and accept that the Prophet did so, we believe as stated in the hadith above that a great part of the Old Testament was revealed by God, so we could easily say he was referring to those uncorrupted parts.

You didn't answer me anything properly on the other hand from tens and tens of verses except for less than a handful if not 2 or 3 and yet here we are, with the double standards asking me to answer everything.

The Quran according to Allah confirms previous scriptures in Arabic Surah 46:12: "And before this Quran was the book of Moses as a guide and a mercy, and this book the Quran confirms it in the Arabic tongue to admonish the unjust and as glad tidings to those who do right". The Quran confirms previous scriptures in the Arabic language so that Arabs will know that these books are the word of Allah. See how this works? If you were a 7th century Arab and you saw Jews claiming that they had a book from God how would you know whether to believe them? You don't understand Hebrew, how would you know if their book is from God. You would know because Allah gave you a book in your language that confirms the books in other languages. According to the Quran it makes absolutely no sense for Allah to reveal a book to a group of people unless that book is revealed in a language that the people understand. Surah 41:44: "And if We had sent this as a Quran in a foreign language, other than Arabic, they would have said: Why are not its verses explained in detail in our language? What! A book not in Arabic and the messenger an Arab?".

As of the early 7th century Arabs didn't have a revelation in their own language but these Arabs couldn't simply trust what Jews and Christians were saying about the Torah and the Gospel. How would Arabs know if Jews and Christians were telling the truth? So, Arabs needed a revelation in Arabic, that's why Allah sent Muhammad. Now that Arabs have the Quran, they can read the Quran. Other groups have their own books in their own languages. This is why Allah in the Quran orders Jews and Christians to follow their own scriptures, not the Quran. In Surah 5:43 some Jews come to Muhammad to settle a dispute. How does Allah respond?: How come they, unto thee Muhammad, for judgment when they have the Torah wherein Allah hath delivered judgment for them". Notice what Allah says. Muhammad, why are Jews coming to you when they have their own book, they don't need you, you're the messenger to the Arabs not to the Jews. Surah 5:68: "Say oh people of the book, Jews and Christians, ye have no ground to stand upon unless you stand fast by the law, the Gospel and all the revelation that has come to you from your lord". Jews and Christians are supposed to follow the revelations that came to them. They're supposed to believe in Muhammad, they're supposed to believe in all of the messengers, but they're supposed to live by and judge by the revelations brought to them by their messengers. Allah sent a messenger to every nation people and are responsible for obeying the messenger who was sent to them speaking their language. That's the position of the Quran.

 

[Hamdan]

The Quran according to Allah confirms previous scriptures in Arabic Surah 46:12: "And before this Quran was the book of Moses as a guide and a mercy, and this book the Quran confirms it in the Arabic tongue to admonish the unjust and as glad tidings to those who do right". The Quran confirms previous scriptures in the Arabic language so that Arabs will know that these books are the word of Allah. See how this works? If you were a 7th century Arab and you saw Jews claiming that they had a book from God how would you know whether to believe them? You don't understand Hebrew, how would you know if their book is from God. You would know because Allah gave you a book in your language that confirms the books in other languages. According to the Quran it makes absolutely no sense for Allah to reveal a book to a group of people unless that book is revealed in a language that the people understand. Surah 41:44: "And if We had sent this as a Quran in a foreign language, other than Arabic, they would have said: Why are not its verses explained in detail in our language? What! A book not in Arabic and the messenger an Arab?".

As of the early 7th century Arabs didn't have a revelation in their own language but these Arabs couldn't simply trust what Jews and Christians were saying about the Torah and the Gospel. How would Arabs know if Jews and Christians were telling the truth? So, Arabs needed a revelation in Arabic, that's why Allah sent Muhammad. Now that Arabs have the Quran, they can read the Quran. Other groups have their own books in their own languages. This is why Allah in the Quran orders Jews and Christians to follow their own scriptures, not the Quran. In Surah 5:43 some Jews come to Muhammad to settle a dispute. How does Allah respond?: How come they, unto thee Muhammad, for judgment when they have the Torah wherein Allah hath delivered judgment for them". Notice what Allah says. Muhammad, why are Jews coming to you when they have their own book, they don't need you, you're the messenger to the Arabs not to the Jews. Surah 5:68: "Say oh people of the book, Jews and Christians, ye have no ground to stand upon unless you stand fast by the law, the Gospel and all the revelation that has come to you from your lord". Jews and Christians are supposed to follow the revelations that came to them. They're supposed to believe in Muhammad, they're supposed to believe in all of the messengers, but they're supposed to live by and judge by the revelations brought to them by their messengers. Allah sent a messenger to every nation people and are responsible for obeying the messenger who was sent to them speaking their language. That's the position of the Quran.

Ofc you would say that Dumbest christian argument after aisha AS by far.

"But the Qur'an says the words of God can't be corrupted"

read this for a more Detailed explanation:

Corruption of the Bible in the Quran

Before we begin, we need to discuss the importance of peripheral route processing vs. central route processing. Central Route Processing: Focus on a deep processing of the information. Integration...

www.answeringislamicskeptics.com

 

[Fiqh]

nigga referenced david wood


keep writing essays though, your religion is still a sham made by a Jew

 

[Kristin]

I remember when I used to spend time writing words for the subhuman roaches here. Learned the hard way: it's just not worth your time

 

[i_love_roosters]

nigga referenced david wood


keep writing essays though, your religion is still a sham made by a Jew

How can a Muslim say something like that... Do you realize they all the prophet's except Muhammad were Jewish jfl. David Wood never lost a debate he's really credible and high IQ

 

[i_love_roosters]

Ofc you would say that Dumbest christian argument after aisha AS by far.

"But the Qur'an says the words of God can't be corrupted"

read this for a more Detailed explanation:

Corruption of the Bible in the Quran

Before we begin, we need to discuss the importance of peripheral route processing vs. central route processing. Central Route Processing: Focus on a deep processing of the information. Integration...

www.answeringislamicskeptics.com

Nigga it not only says that, it says that the Quran is just for the Arabs. It really can't be more clear than that. Your friend would get mad when I linked an article. Is an article with arguments that have been disproved so many times the best you can do

 

[EuroAscendCoper]

He's an intelligence/law enforcement agent in disguise, just like most "muslims" in the blackpill community. JFL if you think a random Moroccan or Libyan have good grammar.

 

[i_love_roosters]

He's an intelligence/law enforcement agent in disguise, just like most "muslims" in the blackpill community. JFL if you think a random Moroccan or Libyan have good grammar.

Jfl, he was calling me an fbi agent sponsored by Israel

 

[EuroAscendCoper]

Jfl, he was calling me an fbi agent sponsored by Israel

He's the fucking fed, just like the other Taligay fanboy by the name of...

 

[i_love_roosters]

He's the fucking fed.

Makes sense....

 

[The Antichrist]

David Wood never lost a debate he's really credible and high IQ

He's also a psychopath who went to prison for trying to kill his father with a hammer.

 

[i_love_roosters]

2 Corinthians 5:17
"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!"

 

[barettrealrx]

So, where do I even begin. I didn't come to this place to debate religion. To the people who are against this type of threads (@Psychophilly, sorry bestie), I just wanna say that I didn't come for this. I came here to looksmaxx and it's still the reason why I'm here. I'm a real looksmaxxer who actually does things to improve, not just rot and troll. I also post looksmaxxing and blackpill threads from time to time. The reason why I started debating religion is because this low IQ user @MaghrebGator was spamming his (wrong) faith like there is no tomorrow.

This thread is gonna be really long and it's probably gonna be a waste of time to make it because the muzzies aren't gonna read it. I already made a really long thread on one of the many gigantic fallacies of Islam. Link: https://looksmax.org/threads/a-huge...oves-the-whole-religion.964666/#post-14763207. So far nobody tried to disprove it (impossible). It's not just them, pretty much nobody will be interested in all this, but it's my duty as a Christian to defend my faith. As I like to say, Jesus died for my sins and so I can live, the least I could do for him is to live for him and defend him. As @ylrven once commented under on one of my other threads on religion: "rotting for a good cause"

The reason why I'm writing this is because @MaghrebGator thought he did something by copying and pasting some supposed numerical "contradictions" in the bible (this is where he stole it from: https://islamiat101.blogspot.com/2012/11/numerical-contradictions-in-bible.html?m=1 ). He wrote it as a reply to this thread of mine where I talk about how Allah was bad at maths. Link: https://looksmax.org/threads/mathematical-error-in-islam-its-so-over-for-muzzies.974830/ To refute him, it would require a lot of writing and I thought it would be a shame for all this work to be posted as a reply, so I'm making a whole thread about it.

Here's what he commented:

Now answer these Biblical numerical and mathematical errors one by one

1- On how many shekels of gold David brought threshing floor?
600 [1 Chronicles 21:25]
50 [2 Samuel 24:24]

2- How many years of famine?
Seven [2 Samuel 24:13]
Three [1 Chronicles 21:12]

3- The number of fighting men of Israel and Judah were?
Israel was 1,100,000 and Judah numbered 470,000 [1 Chronicles 21:5]
Israel was 800,000 and Judah numbered 500,000 [ 2 Samuel 24:9]

4- In which year did Ahaziah began to reign?
12 [2 Kings 8:25]
11 [2 Kings 9:29]

5- How old was Ahaziah when he began to rule over Jerusalem?
Twenty-two [2 Kings 8:26]
Forty-two [2 Chronicles 22:2]

6- How old was Jehoiachin when he became king of Jerusalem?
Eighteen [2 Kings 24:8]
Eight [2 Chronicles 36:9]

7- How long did he rule over Jerusalem?
Three months [2 Kings 24:8]
Three months and ten days [2 Chronicles 36:9]

8- The chief of the mighty men of David lifted up his spear and killed how many men at one time?
Eight hundred [2 Samuel 23:8]
Three hundred [I Chronicles 11: 11]

9- How many pairs of clean animals did God tell Noah to take into the Ark?
Two [Genesis 6:19, 20]
Seven [Genesis 7:2]. But despite this last instruction only two pairs went into the ark [Genesis 7:8-9]

10- When David defeated the King of Zobah, how many horsemen did he capture?
One thousand and seven hundred [2 Samuel 8:4]
Seven thousand [I Chronicles 18:4]

11- How many stalls for horses did Solomon have?
Forty thousand [I Kings 4:26]
Four thousand [2 chronicles 9:25]

12- In what year of King Asa's reign did Baasha, King of Israel die?
Twenty-sixth year [I Kings 15:33 - 16:8]
Still alive in the thirty-sixth year [2 Chronicles 16:1]

13- How many overseers did Solomon appoint for the work of building the temple?
Three thousand six hundred [2 Chronicles 2:2]
Three thousand three hundred [I Kings 5:16]

14- Solomon built a facility containing how many baths?
Two thousand [1 Kings 7:26]
Over three thousand [2 Chronicles 4:5]

15- Of the Israelites who were freed from the Babylonian captivity, how many were the children of Pahrath-Moab?
Two thousand eight hundred and twelve [Ezra 2:6]
Two thousand eight hundred and eighteen [Nehemiah 7:11]

16- How many were the children of Zattu?
Nine hundred and forty-five [Ezra 2:8]
Eight hundred and forty-five [Nehemiah 7:13]

17- How many were the children of Azgad?
One thousand two hundred and twenty-two [Ezra 2:12]
Two thousand three hundred and twenty-two [Nehemiah 7:17]

18- How many were the children of Adin?
Four hundred and fifty-four [Ezra 2:15]
Six hundred and fifty-five [Nehemiah 7:20]

19- How many were the children of Hashum?
Two hundred and twenty-three [Ezra 2:19]
Three hundred and twenty-eight [Nehemiah 7:22]

20- How many were the children of Bethel and Ai?
Two hundred and twenty-three [Ezra 2:28]
One hundred and twenty-three [Nehemiah 7:32]

21- How many singers accompanied the assembly?
Two hundred [Ezra 2:65]
Two hundred and forty-five [Nehemiah 7:67]

22-When the Israelites dwelt in Shittin they committed adultery with the daughters of Moab. God struck them with a plague. How many people died in that plague?
Twenty-four thousand [Numbers 25:1 and 9]
Twenty-three thousand [I Corinthians 10:8]

23- How many members of the house of Jacob came to Egypt?
Seventy souls [Genesis 4 & 27]
Seventy-five souls [Acts 7:14]

24- On life span?
God decided that the life-span of humans will be limited to 120 years [Genesis 6:3]
Many people born after that lived longer than 120. Arpachshad lived 438 years. His son Shelah lived 433 years. His son Eber lived 464 years, etc [Genesis 11:12-16]

25- Can King multiply his horses?
Solomon had thousands of horses. [1 Kings 4:26]
A King must not multiply horses to himself. [Deuteronomy 17:15-16]

26- Can King multiply his wives?
King Solomon had hundreds of wives. [1 Kings 11:1-3]
A King must not multiply wives to himself. [Deuteronomy 17:17]

27- On sons of Eliphaz
Eliphaz had six sons. [Genesis 36:11-12]
Eliphaz had seven sons. [Genesis 36:15-16]
Eliphaz had seven different sons. [1 Chronicles 1:36]

28- On sons of Dan
Dan had one son. [Genesis 46:23]
Amazingly, this one son produced over 62,000 military-age males by the first census. [Numbers1:38-39]

29- How many beasts died in Plague?
All the beasts died in plague number six. [Exodus 9:6]
All the beasts received boils in plague number seven. [Exodus 9:10]
All the beasts were hit with hail and fire in plague number eight. [Exodus 9:25]
All the beasts lost their firstborn in plague number ten. [Exodus 12:29]

30- On the journey
The number of Israelites, excluding children, was 600,000 [Exodus 12:37]
The number of Israelites, including children, was only 7000. [1 Kings 20:15]

31- How many sons Jesse had?
Jesse had eight sons. [1 Samuel 16:10-11; 1 Samuel 17:12]
Jesse had seven sons. [Chronicles 2:13-15]

32- Did Michal have child or not?
Michal had five children [2 Samuel 21:8]
Michal had no children till her death [2 Samuel 6:23]

33- How many chariots David destroys?
David destroys 700 chariots [2 Samuel 10:18]
David destroys 7000 chariots [1 Chronicles 19:18]

34- How many cubits were temple pillar built?
The Temple pillars were 18 cubits [1 Kings 7:15]
The Temple pillars were 35 cubits [2 Chronicles 3:15]

35- How many men captain took?
The captain takes 5 men of the king's council [2 Kings 25:19]
The captain takes 7 men of the king's council [Jeremiah 52:25]

36- On death of Baasha?
Baasha died in the 26tth year of King Asa's reign. [1 Kings16:6-8]
Baasha built a city in the 36th year of King Asa's reign. [2 Chronicles16:1]

37- How much years Omri reign?
Omri reigned 12 years beginning in the 31st year of Asa's reign. [1 Kings 16:23]O
mri died and his son began his reign in the 38th year of Asa's reign, making Omri's reign only 7-years. [1 Kings16:28-29]
@Fiqh
@Hamdan

Before I begin annihilating every single one of his (stolen) points one by one, I would like to say that he shouldn't be commenting the accuracy of the Bible as a Muslim because Allah and Muhammad, aka Qutham, affirm the preservation, inspiration, and the authority of the Bible. I briefly touch upon this issue of Islam in the first thread that I linked (the long one). This thread is not about that, so I wouldn't be writing a long explanation (already did). Instead, I'll just leave this video here


(Try to disprove it)

One more thing before I get to the meaty part. I wanna shoutout some .org defenders of Christ, our Lord: @Eternal_ @BigBiceps . Y'all are moggers for doing what you're doing. There could be more people doing the same but you're the ones I've seen do it the most. God bless you and your close ones.

Now let's get to the actual reason why I'm making this...

1.

Response: Read it in context, the account found in 2 Samuel 24 records only David’s purchase of the threshing floor and oxen. On the other hand, the account in 1 Chronicles 21 records a higher price for the full purchase, including the surrounding land.

2.

Response: So, according to the text, numbering the people was nearly a year-long process, and there is no clear indication that God had suspended the initial three-year famine prior to the events in chapter 24. Now, if God had combined three additional years of famine (1 Chronicles 21:12) with the three years of initial famine, and a possible intervening year while the census was conducted, the resulting overall famine would have totaled about seven years (2 Samuel 24:13).

I've heard some Christians propose another solution. They claim that these two passages describe the prophet Gad confronting me on two different occasions. According to this view, the “seven year” proposal was initially given four years prior to the “three year” proposal. Thus, the prophet would have confronted me and given me a few years to mull over my decision. During that time, I had repented of my actions, so God reduced the time of punishment—something God definitely has the authority to do. A problem with this view is that if God reduced the seven years to three years because of my repentance, then why didn’t He reduce the length of the other options as well? So, while this solution may seem less likely, it still provides another reasonable explanation.

It's crucial to understand that no matter which solution we opt for, the outcome remains consistent. The allegation of contradiction dissipates, all without asserting any error within the text. To sum up, these Scriptures not only align harmoniously but also complement each other by offering further insights into this specific event.

3.

Response:

(3.1) The solution lies in the translation. The first passage indicates that Joab presented the census to David, listing 800,000 individuals, while the second passage mentions 1,100,000 men who were ready for battle. The key lies in the term "valiant." Among the total 1,100,000 men, only 800,000 were considered valiant warriors. The remaining 300,000 served as reserves. This distinction underscores the difference between simply being a soldier and being a courageous and skilled warrior, akin to the contrast between military ranks such as a sergeant and a general. Both serve in their respective capacities, but their levels of skill and authority differ significantly.

(3.2) It is clear that, with regard to Judah, the figure of 470,000 - quoted in Chronicles - is just those who drew sword, whereas the Samuel number is all of Judah, 500,000.

The census report in 1 Chronicles reports that there were 470,000 soldiers of Judah who drew the sword, yet does not include the standing army of the 30,000 soldiers that are cited in 2 Samuel 6:1. It so happens that these numbers (400,000 + 30,000 = 500,000) add up to the number of soldiers reported in 2 Samuel.

Another historical fact to consider is that Joab was not able to finish counting all the men (1 Chronicles 21:6), which makes the census incomplete (explaining why there is a difference in the report of the numbers).

4.

Response: The initial passage indicates the moment Ahaziah ascended to the throne following his father's death. However, the second passage specifies when Ahaziah commenced his reign. While typically these events coincide, it's not always the case. In this instance, Joram, Ahaziah's father, succumbs to a prolonged illness before his demise. The logical conclusion is that Ahaziah assumed rulership when his father became incapacitated, during the eleventh year of Joram's reign, and formally ascended to the throne upon his father's passing in the twelfth year of Joram's reign. Such instances underscore the complexity of dating ancient events, often challenging assumptions of sequential reigns among kings.

5.

Response: Ahaziah reigned twice. The first time at 22 he reigned over Judah in Jerusalem. The second
time he reigned at 42 was after Israel and Judah were reunited into 1 nation and he was
chosen to reign over Israel. However both times he was removed from king because he was
wicked.

6.

Response: The Hebrew word "בְּמָלְכ֔וֹ" translates "when he became king", not "when he began to reign." In this way, it would support the co-regent argument because "בְּמָלְכ֔וֹ"and "מָלַ֖ךְ" ("he reigned") are not the same word.

If it is not an error, there were two separate crowning events—one at age 8 when his father ceremonially named him co-regent (much like David named Solomon king while he still lived and reigned, 1 Kings 1) and once at age 18 when Jehoiachin officially became king at his father’s death and then reigned for a mere three months.

7.

Response: 2 Kings 24:8 is just rounding to the nearest month, jfl

8.

Response: The discrepancy between the numbers 800 and 300, as recorded in 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles respectively, may initially seem contradictory. However, upon closer examination, it becomes evident that the apparent contradiction arises from mistranslations and actually pertains to two distinct individuals within David's mighty men. In 2 Samuel 23:8, Josheb-basshebeth, also known as Adino the Eznite, is described as having slain 800 enemies in a single encounter, earning him the title of chief among the three great heroes appointed by David. This distinction as one of the "third men" signifies his role as a leader among captains or commanders in David's army.

On the other hand, 1 Chronicles 11:11 recounts the valor of Jashobeam the Hachmonite, who is designated as the chief among David's thirty mighty men. Despite the discrepancy in translation, accurately rendering him as the leader of the thirty heroes, Jashobeam's feat involves the slaying of 300 adversaries in battle. It's important to note that these are two separate individuals with different names, origins, positions, and achievements.

While the mistranslations may lead to confusion, a careful reading of the passages clarifies that there is no contradiction. Rather, they highlight the valor and prowess of two distinct warriors within David's army, each contributing to the military success of the kingdom in their own right.

9.

Response: The narrative of Noah's ark in the Bible appears to present a discrepancy regarding the number of clean animals to be brought onto the ark. Critics point out that while Genesis 6:19 instructs Noah to bring two of every kind of animal, Genesis 7:2-3 adds that he should bring seven of each clean animal and two of each unclean animal. However, this contradiction is resolved when we understand the supplementation of instructions. Initially, Noah was instructed to bring two of every kind of animal, which included both clean and unclean. Later, God further instructed him to bring additional clean animals, not as a contradiction but as a necessary provision for future sacrifices after the Flood.

The analogy of a farmer instructing his son to take animals to the state fair and then providing additional instructions for a barbecue helps illustrate this point. Just as the farmer's additional instructions are not contradictory but supplemental, so too are God's instructions to Noah regarding the animals for the ark.

Additionally, the debate over whether Noah took seven or fourteen of each clean animal arises from translational differences in the Hebrew phrase "shibb’ah shibb’ah." Some translations interpret this phrase to mean seven pairs, while others interpret it as seven individual animals. Despite this uncertainty, the main point remains clear: Noah took different numbers of clean and unclean animals onto the ark, as specified in the biblical text.

Ultimately, while the exact number of clean animals brought onto the ark may remain unclear, there is no inherent contradiction in the biblical account. The narrative maintains its coherence, depicting Noah's faithful obedience to God's instructions amidst the cataclysmic event of the Flood.

10.

Response: The discrepancy between the accounts of David's capture of horsemen in 2 Samuel 8:4 and 1 Chronicles 18:4 is rooted in the understanding that horsemen were not necessarily exclusive from footmen but a subset within footmen. This aligns with historical military practices where soldiers trained as ground infantry could also serve as horsemen. This interpretation is supported by other biblical passages like 2 Samuel 10:18 and 1 Chronicles 19:18, where similar events are described using different terminology, suggesting that horsemen and footmen were essentially the same individuals described differently. In the case of the battle with Hadarezer, when 2 Samuel mentions "seven hundred horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen," it's likely that the 700 horsemen were part of the larger group of footmen. Similarly, when 1 Chronicles lists "seven thousand horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen," these were also likely part of the overall footmen count.

Furthermore, the discrepancy in the number of horsemen captured (700 vs. 7000) can be attributed to the flexible nature of the label "horsemen," which attaches to individuals when they are on horses but can detach when they are not. Therefore, depending on when the headcount was taken, one historian might report a higher number of horsemen if they counted before the battle, while another might report a lower number if they counted after the battle, considering only those still mounted on horses. This discrepancy underscores the different perspectives and methodologies of the historians compiling these accounts.

Additionally, both passages mention 1700 soldiers, which likely includes both horsemen and footmen. These soldiers would be part of the total count but not explicitly delineated as either horsemen or footmen.

Moreover, the existence of multiple historical sources used in compiling the biblical texts supports the idea that these accounts reflect different viewpoints. The superficial differences between 2 Samuel 10:18 and 1 Chronicles 19:18, where one mentions "forty thousand horsemen" and the other "forty thousand footmen" in the same battle, suggest that these are not mere duplicates but rather reflections of varying historical perspectives.

In conclusion, understanding horsemen as a subset of footmen and recognizing the flexible nature of the label "horsemen" helps reconcile the discrepancies between 2 Samuel 8:4 and 1 Chronicles 18:4. These differences highlight the complexities of historical interpretation and the multiplicity of sources underlying biblical narratives, allowing for a richer understanding of the events described in scripture.

11.

Response: One way to explain this is to acknowledge that the difference is due to time; that is, one account is at the beginning of Solomon’s reign (1 Kings 4:26), and the other at the end (2 Chron. 9:25)

Another way to explain this is that the contradiction between 1 Kings 4:26 and 2 Chronicles 9:25 can be reconciled by understanding the different types of stalls mentioned. In 1 Kings 4:26, the stalls were for horses used primarily by chariots and horsemen. On the other hand, 2 Chronicles 9:25 mentions stalls specifically for horses and chariots, which would logically be fewer in number compared
to stalls for horses alone. Considering the known number of chariots (1,400) from 2 Chronicles 1:14, it's reasonable to assume fewer stalls were needed for both horses and chariots.

Furthermore, while 2 Chronicles 9:25 describes the purpose of the stalls, 1 Kings 4:26 details the purpose of the horses, indicating they were for chariots and horsemen. Even with conservative estimates of horse usage, the number of stalls aligns with the needs for housing horses and accommodating chariots. Therefore, there were likely 40,000 stalls for housing horses and 4,000 stalls capable of storing horses and chariots, with each of the latter potentially subdivided to accommodate individual horses.

In conclusion, there were 40,000 stalls that were for housing horses, and 4,000 stalls that were for storing horses and chariots. The two numbers could be harmonized if each of the 4,000 stalls with the space to house a chariot had 10 subdividing stalls for individual horses.

12.

Response: Baasha came to power in the third year of the reign of King Asa and died in the twenty-sixth year of Asa’s reign, just as 1 Kings states. His son, Elah, reigned after him, as verse 6 in 1 Kings 16 states:

1 Kings 16:6 So Baasha slept with his fathers, and was buried in Tirzah: and Elah his son reigned in his stead.

This, as we already know from verse 8, was in the 26th year of Asa.

Yet, obviously, this does not coincide with the thirty-sixth year as stated in 2 Chronicles.

2 Chronicles, however, unlike 1 Kings, is not referring to the literal year of Asa’s reign. The thirty-sixth year is actually the 36th year since the division of the kingdom from the unified Israel into the Northern tribes of the house of Israel and the southern tribes, the house of Judah. While the author of 1 Kings records the year according to the literal reign of Asa, the author of 2 Chronicles records the year according to the division of the kingdom of Israel into two kingdoms.

When we look at the Hebrew in 1 Kings 15:33, there are two important things to note. Firstly, we will see that the word translated as reign is מָלַךְ (Malak), which means to reign as king or to become king (or queen). This is a literal reference as to when Baasha became king. He became the literal king in the third year of Asa. Here is the second point: it states clearly, “the third year of Asa”. This is a reference to the literal third year of Asa’s reign as king.

Now let’s look at 2 Chronicles 16:1. The Hebrew word translated as reign here is מַלְכוּת (malkuth), which means reign or kingdom. This is not referring to the literal reign of Asa as king but the reign of the kingdom of which Asa was a member. The kingdom that had started thirty-six years earlier with his grandfather Rehoboam.

Rehoboam had become King of Israel after the death of his father Solomon.

2 Chronicles 9:31 And Solomon slept with his fathers, and he was buried in the city of David his father: and Rehoboam his son reigned in his stead.

1 Kings 11:43 And Solomon slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David his father: and Rehoboam his son reigned in his stead.

However, Jeroboam and the Northern tribes rebelled against Rehoboam, and this is when the Kingdom was divided.

1 Kings 12:20 And it came to pass, when all Israel heard that Jeroboam was come again, that they sent and called him unto the congregation, and made him king over all Israel: there was none that followed the house of David, but the tribe of Judah only.

We are told in 2 Chronicles that Rehoboam had established a kingdom.

2 Chronicles 12:1 And it came to pass, when Rehoboam had established the kingdom, and had strengthened himself, he forsook the law of the LORD, and all Israel with him.

The Hebrew word translated as kingdom is unsurprisingly מַלְכוּת (mulkuth), the same word translated as reign in 2 Chronicles 16:1.

The author of 2 Chronicles is giving us the year as per the founding of the Kingdom.

Rehoboam reigned for seventeen years.

1 Kings 14:21 And Rehoboam the son of Solomon reigned in Judah. Rehoboam was forty and one years old when he began to reign, and he reigned seventeen years in Jerusalem, the city which the LORD did choose out of all the tribes of Israel, to put his name there. And his mother’s name was Naamah an Ammonitess.

Rehoboam's son Abijam reigned after him.

1 Kings 14:31 And Rehoboam slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David. And his mother’s name was Naamah an Ammonitess. And Abijam his son reigned in his stead.

Abijam reigned for three years.

2 Chronicles 13:2 He reigned three years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name also was Michaiah the daughter of Uriel of Gibeah. And there was war between Abijah and Jeroboam.

After the death of Abijam, Asa reigned in his stead. This was now the 20th year of the kingdom of Judah.

2 Chronicles 14:1 So Abijah slept with his fathers, and they buried him in the city of David: and Asa his son reigned in his stead. In his days the land was quiet ten years.

Reigned in both of these verses is מָלַךְ (Malak), so we are referring to the personal reign of each king.

So we see that there had, in fact, been 20 years since the founding of the 2 Kingdoms when Asa became the literal physical king of the house of Judah.

Baasha became king of the Northern tribes in the 3rd year of Asa, which was the 23rd year of the kingdom of Asa or rather the kingdom of the house of Judah. This means that Baasha's death, which we know occurred in the 26th year of Asa as king, was in the 46th year of the kingdom. 20 years + 26 years = 46 years.

Therefore, Baasha's death actually occurred a full 10 years after he had come against Asa in the 36th year of the kingdom, which was the 16th year of Asa’s own personal reign as king.

When we analyze the texts correctly, there simply is no contradiction between these two numbers.

13.

Response: The contradiction between 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles regarding the number of supervisors can be resolved by considering various factors. One plausible explanation is that the author of 2 Chronicles may have included reserves among the overseers, ready to step in for any supervisors who were unable to fulfill their duties due to illness or death. In their analysis of alleged Bible contradictions, Jay Smith, Alex Chowdhry, and others suggest this interpretation, highlighting the inclusion of reserves as a solution to the perceived inconsistency.

Another perspective offered by esteemed Old Testament commentators, Keil and Delitzsch, suggests that the difference in numbers arises from how the supervisors were categorized. They point out that while 1 Kings mentions a total of 3,850 supervisors, combining figures from different passages, 2 Chronicles also arrives at the same total. Keil and Delitzsch propose that the discrepancy lies not in the actual count but in the classification method used by each author. While one may have categorized supervisors based on nationality, the other may have organized them by authority.

In essence, these explanations demonstrate that what initially appears as a contradiction can be reconciled through careful consideration of context and interpretation. This underscores the importance of understanding nuances within biblical texts and highlights that apparent differences do not necessarily indicate contradictions.

14.

Response: One plausible explanation for the differing numbers in 1 Kings 7:26 and 2 Chronicles 4:5 lies in the method of counting. According to Matthew Henry and Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, 1 Kings 7:26 may denote the practical capacity of the laver, indicating the amount it could comfortably hold for regular use. In contrast, 2 Chronicles 4:5 might refer to the total capacity of the laver if it were filled to the brim.

The "molten sea," a large brass basin designated for priestly ablutions, was positioned at the entrance of the priests' court, akin to a font at a church entrance. While its full capacity was noted as 3000 baths (as in 2 Chronicles 4:5), it typically contained only 2000 baths for regular use, as mentioned in 1 Kings 7:26.

Matthew Henry underscores this interpretation by highlighting the practical aspect, suggesting that the laver ordinarily held 2000 baths, while Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown emphasize the distinction between "receiving" and "holding," implying that the laver could receive up to 3000 baths but typically held less.

In essence, these perspectives suggest that the discrepancy in numbers stems from the different approaches to counting—whether to denote practical usage or total capacity—rather than a contradiction in the texts.

Another plausible explanation is that it's important to understand that "baths" in this context represents a unit of volume, with one bath roughly equivalent to 5.8 gallons. Thus, the discrepancy lies in whether the "Sea" held 11,600 gallons or 17,400 gallons.

One explanation is that 2 Chronicles could be referring to the Sea's total capacity, while 1 Kings could be describing the typical amount of water it held.

There's evidence suggesting that the dry volume bath was smaller than the liquid volume bath used in ancient Israel. The Targum indicates, "It received three thousand baths of dry measure, and held two thousand of liquid measure." Some scholars speculate that during the Babylonian captivity, the smaller volume bath became prevalent, and since 2 Chronicles was likely written towards the end of this period, it could account for the discrepancy, whereas 1 Kings was penned before the captivity.

15 - 23

Response: In the Hebrew Bible, Ezra-Nehemiah forms a cohesive unit, portraying the return of Israelites from Babylon to Jerusalem and Judea following the exile. Two distinct lists, Ezra 2:1-67 and Nehemiah 7:6-68, detail this return. Despite striking similarities in language, style, and the order of paragraphs, differences in spelling variations, the number of registered families, and leadership figures emerge.

Nehemiah's designation of his list as 'the book of the genealogy of those who came up first' suggests it captures the earliest wave of immigrants led by Zerubbabel, likely compiled in Jerusalem where the chronological order of arrivals could be accurately determined. Conversely, Ezra's list, likely compiled in Babylon, registers those who chose to journey with Zerubbabel and were recorded there before departure.

These discrepancies, such as spelling variations and the inclusion of additional families in Nehemiah's list, likely stem from the dynamic nature of the journey. For instance, the early days of travel likely saw the inclusion of more individuals, while certain groups might have lagged behind for various reasons, explaining the discrepancies in numbers and the addition of Nahamani to Nehemiah's list.

Furthermore, the figure of 42,360 recorded in both lists doesn't purport to represent every individual but rather focuses on the foundational families forming the nascent nation in Judea.

Ezra and Nehemiah, writing with prophetic insight, didn't perceive contradictions within these texts, viewing them as complementary perspectives of the same historical event. Thus, we too should view these differences as enriching the narrative rather than detracting from its authenticity.

24.

Response: In this passage, God's statement was not about the average human lifespan, but rather a declaration of judgment against wickedness, indicating when He would cleanse the earth with the Flood.

According to the biblical timeline, the Flood began around 2370 B.C., suggesting that God made this pronouncement around 2490 B.C.E., when Noah was 480 years old.

Approximately 20 years later, around 2470 B.C.E., Noah's sons were born, leaving about a century before the Flood. However, God did not reveal to Noah the specifics of his role or the timing of the event.

During those 120 years, Noah was able to build the ark, raise a family, and warn his contemporaries of the impending catastrophe, demonstrating God's patience and mercy.

Despite the impending judgment, human lifespans remained long, allowing Noah and his sons to live for many years after the Flood.

25-26

Response: Solomon is one of the biggest sinners in The Bible, he disobeyed God multiple times.

27.

I don't see a contradiction anywhere. Elaborate???

28.

Response: The discrepancy you're pointing out arises from differences in how the term "sons of Dan" is used in Genesis and Numbers. In Genesis 46:23, "sons of Dan" refers to Dan's direct descendants, whereas in Numbers 1:38-39, it refers to the entire tribe of Dan, including all its descendants and associated clans. This broader usage accounts for the larger number in the census.

29.

Response: There is a misunderstanding in the interpretation of the plagues in Exodus. While the plagues affected the livestock in various ways, not all the beasts died in each plague. For example:

- In plague number six, only the livestock of the Egyptians died (Exodus 9:6).
- In plague number seven, the livestock of the Egyptians are not specifically mentioned, but it's about boils afflicting people and animals (Exodus 9:10).
- In plague number eight, hail destroyed the Egyptian's livestock that were in the fields (Exodus 9:25).
- In plague number ten, the death of the firstborn affected humans, not livestock (Exodus 12:29).

So, not all the beasts died in every plague; the impact varied from one plague to another.

30.

Response: The discrepancy in the numbers arises from different contexts and methods of counting.

In Exodus 12:37, the figure of 600,000 refers to the number of Israelite men of military age who left Egypt during the Exodus. This count excludes women, children, and elderly individuals.

In 1 Kings 20:15, the figure of 7,000 likely refers to a different context or a specific group of people within Israel, rather than the entire population. Consider the context and the specific group being referenced when comparing numbers from different parts of the Bible.

31:

Response: The discrepancy in the number of Jesse's sons arises from differences in the way the sons are counted or named in different passages of the Bible.

In 1 Samuel 16:10-11 and 1 Samuel 17:12, Jesse's eight sons are mentioned, including David. However, in 1 Chronicles 2:13-15, only seven sons are listed. It's possible that one of Jesse's sons died or was not included in the genealogy mentioned in Chronicles. Alternatively, there could be variations in the naming or counting of the sons between the two passages.

32.

Response: The contradiction regarding Michal's children in the biblical passages of 2 Samuel 6:23 and 21:8 is reconciled through a detailed narrative analysis. Initially, Michal was promised to David, but due to Saul's manipulation, she was given to Adriel instead, with whom she had five sons. However, after Adriel's death, Michal was given to Paltiel. Later, David claimed Michal as his rightful wife, leading to her divorce from Paltiel and reunion with David. Despite having children with Adriel, Michal didn't bear any more children after reuniting with David. This explanation provides a coherent timeline of Michal's marriages and children, removing the contradiction between the two passages. Additionally, it suggests the involvement of Michal's sons in Saul's persecution against the Gibeonites, highlighting the complexities of familial dynamics and political intrigue within biblical narratives.

The contradiction regarding Michal having children can be explained by another way and that's by considering the possibility that the children mentioned in 2 Samuel 21:8 were not biologically hers but were perhaps adopted or raised by her. Meanwhile, 2 Samuel 6:23 may be emphasizing that she remained childless in terms of giving birth during her lifetime.

33.

Response: There's a difference between II Samuel 8:3 and I Chronicles 18:3 concerning David's conflict with Hadadezer, the king of Zobah. Some argue that these verses describe distinct battles. Another perspective, advocated by scholars like Matthew Henry and John Wesley, suggests that the variance lies in the method of enumeration: one verse tallies men while the other counts chariot companies, presuming ten men per unit.

However, a more nuanced explanation, championed by Peter Ruckman, gains traction when examining II Samuel 10:18 and I Chronicles 19:18, which recount a separate engagement between David and Hadadezer's forces. These passages describe how Syrian chariots likely operated with multiple crew members, including a commander, drivers, shieldmen, and bowmen. This setup implies that each chariot could accommodate several combatants, explaining the discrepancy in casualty counts between the two biblical accounts. Consequently, II Samuel 8:4's mention of 1000 chariots but only 700 horsemen could indicate that the 700 horsemen represent chariot units rather than individual riders, with the additional chariots serving as spares for battle damage or replacements.

34.

Response: In comparing the descriptions of the pillars in 1 Kings 7:15 and 2 Chronicles 3:15, we encounter a discrepancy in the measurement terminologies used. In 1 Kings, the height of the first pillar is specified as eighteen cubits, indicating a vertical measurement. Additionally, it mentions that a cord of twelve cubits would encircle the second pillar, implying its circumference. On the other hand, 2 Chronicles describes the pillars as thirty-five cubits high, employing the term "orekh" (אֹרֶךְ) which typically denotes length or extension rather than height. This discrepancy has led to debates over the interpretation of the measurements.

One interpretation suggests that the thirty-five cubits mentioned in 2 Chronicles is a summary measurement, combining the total height (including the capital) and the circumference of the pillar. This is derived from the assumption that the Chronicler used a convention where the total length of a three-dimensional object was represented by the sum of its dimensions. However, this interpretation is speculative and may not accurately reflect the conventions or intentions of the Chronicler.

The key distinction between the two accounts lies in the level of detail provided. While 1 Kings offers specific measurements for the height ("qomath" - קוֹמַת) and circumference of the pillars separately, 2 Chronicles presents a summary measurement that encompasses all dimensions of the pillars. Thus, while 1 Kings provides a more detailed breakdown of the measurements, 2 Chronicles offers a consolidated view of the total length of the pillars.

Ultimately, the differing measurement terminologies and levels of detail between the two accounts highlight the complexities of interpreting ancient texts and the importance of considering historical and cultural contexts when analyzing such passages.

A different point of view is that just as many "non-modern" units of measurement varied between different regions, the cubit also had differing meanings depending on the country. For example, a cubit measured 939 millimeters in Turkey and 457 millimeters in India. Therefore, 18 Turkish cubits would be equivalent to 37 Indian cubits. This illustrates how historical measurements could vary significantly across geographical and cultural boundaries, akin to the differences between the mile, and the nautical mile still observed today.

35.

Response: This number excluded Pashur the son of Melchiah (Jeremiah 21:1), and his apparent son Gedaliah (Jer 38:1), according to an apparent possible lack of genealogical record (Jeremiah 21:1, Ezr 2:59). Or, maybe they were eunuchs

36.

Response: In the books of Kings and Chronicles rulership complications many times give rise to numerical differences in the records between the four books but the differences aren’t mistakes, the different authors are just reckoning the same numerical information differently.

The "26th year of Asa’s reign" spoken of 1 Kings 16:8 only speaks about the amount of time that Asa had reigned alone, and these "26 years" do not include the period he co-reigned with his mother queen Maachah before she made an idol and was dethroned (see 1 Kings 15:10-13) which could have lasted ten years or more. This is very plausible as it wouldn’t be the first time that the author differentiates between a co-reign and an individual reign. This explains the seeming inconsistency with Baasha still being alive in the "36th year of Asa’s reign" in 2 Chronicles 16:1 (the "36 years" of 2 Chronicles 16:1 including both Asa’s co-reign and individual reign).

37.

Response: You're making me repeat myself for the 100th time. The discrepancy you mentioned arises from a difference in how the years of reign are counted. In ancient times, it was common to count the first partial year of a reign as the first year. Therefore, Omri's reign is counted as 12 years because his reign began in the 31st year of Asa's reign, and the year he died in was considered as his 12th year.



Notice how I didn't use the scribal errors argument when I could've used it many times. It was always over for Islam

BibViz Project - Bible Contradictions, Misogyny, Violence, Inaccuracies interactively visualized

A beautiful and interactive resource to explore Bible contradictions, cruelty and other negative aspects of the Bible

philb61.github.io

 

[i_love_roosters]

BibViz Project - Bible Contradictions, Misogyny, Violence, Inaccuracies interactively visualized

A beautiful and interactive resource to explore Bible contradictions, cruelty and other negative aspects of the Bible

philb61.github.io

All of this shit has been debunked

 

[barettrealrx]

All of this shit has been debunked

Write a debunk essay against all of it or ur lyinb

 

[i_love_roosters]

Write a debunk essay against all of it or ur lyinb

Other people have done it... If you're genuinely curious, do your own research instead of asking niggas on an incel forum

 

[barettrealrx]

Other people have done it... If you're genuinely curious, do your own research instead of asking niggas on an incel forum

Link

 

[i_love_roosters]

Link

Start here

 

[barettrealrx]

Start here

Blah blah nigga thinks all 600 contradictions can be disproven jfl at christ cucks illw atch later