Sheikh Uthman vs Tazaryach: The Bible CAN'T Be The Word of God? | DSH #1848

The biblical scriptures have clear contradictions and I'm going to point them out to you until you can't run anymore. If I say Muhammad should be on the Epstein Island because he was with an underage girl, police be upon him. That's not offensive because he slept with an underage girl. All right guys, Sheikh Uthman back on the show. Captain Tazarik here today. We're going to do a friendly debate. The main topic is going to be, is the Bible the word of God? Why are you looking funny when he said friendly because debates are you know you can keep a respectful debate yes respect or respect can be had you know you don't take personal shots or anything like that but debates are just that we are in contention so i'm not in contention with anybody i'm just here to discuss somebody wants to take a contention that's up to them the debate it you know when you have we have an opposing view that's what i mean a contention is i don't know what your view is i don't know if you oppose or not let's start that on tazari do you want to start off with the prompt, is the Bible the word of God? Yes. My position is that the Bible is the word of God from Genesis to Revelations. If I just use one scripture, when it says prophecies of old did not come from men, but by men moved by the Most High. So that's our position, everything that we read because none of us was there. So I wasn't there with Abraham, Moses, Christ. I wasn't there with none of them. but I believe that what they wrote back then is from the Most High, and it gives us the history of the children of Israel, which is probably the most important problem when you have people that are not Israelites then trying to come and take our records and then tell us what's the word of God and what's not. So a person that's not an Israelite can't tell me that it's not the word of God because it was never given to them to even understand in the first place. Psalms 147, 19 and 20 says he showeth his word to Jacob. He hath not dealt so with any other nation. So a white, an African, an Arab, a Chinese, Japanese can't come to me and say this is not the word of God. I don't expect them to understand it because it wasn't given to them to understand. What's your counter devout? I got a question. So King Saul in the Old Testament, 1 Samuel 31, 4 down, talks about his death, right? You said 1 Samuel 34 down? 1 Samuel chapter 31, verse 4. Then Saul said to his arm bearer, draw your sword and thrust me through with it. Least these uncircumcised men come and thrust me through and abuse me. but his arm bearer would not for he was greatly afraid therefore Saul took the sword and fell on it committed suicide and when his arm bearer saw that Saul was dead he also fell on his sword and died is that correct? that's what it says word of God right? but when I turn the page to 2 Samuel the same king Saul same account it says there was Saul chapter 1 verse 6 around the middle there was Saul leaning on his spear and indeed can you read verse 5 verse 6 I say can you read verse 5 sure so David said to the young man who told him how do you know that Saul and Jonathan his son are dead then the young man told him he said as I happened by chance to be on Mount Gilbo there was Saul leaning on his spear and indeed the chariots and the horsemen followed hard after him now when he looked behind him he saw me and called to me and I answered here I am and he said to me who are you I answered to him I am Amakalite he said to me again please stand over me and kill me for anguish has come upon me but my life still remains in me so I stood over him and killed him wait so the first account he killed himself even his own arm bearer didn't do it the second account and amikolai killed him so which one is it that's a real question well it doesn't seem like a fake question does it no when i mean real question mean like something i got to respond to or was it rhetorical no that's a real question if it was rhetorical then i wouldn't be looking at you expecting a response um this is i'll use the bible words so that he can't say i'm being offensive The Bible says, if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant. And you just proved how ignorant you were, because this ain't when he's telling that story in Second Sam was one when it says it came to pass after the death of Saul and David returned. I'm just going to skip verse two. It came to pass on the third day. Behold, a man came out of the camp from Saul, which clothes was rent and his head because the Amalekite assumed that himself. saying unalive and Saul will get him glory. When you keep reading, this is a second sandwich, one same chapter after they mourned. This is verse 13. And David said unto the young man that told him, whence art vow? And he answered, I am the son of a stranger and Amalekite. And David said unto him, how was thou not afraid to stretch forth thy hand to destroy the Lord's anointing? And David called one of the younger men and said, go near and fall upon him. And he smote him and he die so what we're supposed to know with this story i i can't believe you asked this question is that the amalekite is lying where does it say that it doesn't say you you just made that up you know he's lying i i don't know and can you show me scripture that says he's lying or are you just going to make stuff up so i like that you interrupted me you see how i made sure you was finished i don't mind interruptions i just like to highlight it so when i become rude like you you can't say anything because i didn't interrupt you no no no it's cool no no no i just want to No, because in the scripture does it say that? So in conversations you have. And made a comment that wasn't in the scripture. You're saying, what you're trying to imply is that this is not the word of God. Because 1 Samuel 1 and 31 says Saul unaligned himself and the armor bearer did the same. And in the 2 Samuel, someone else is coming and telling David a different story. Correct? Do you want me to answer that? Yes, I say correct. I'm saying that there are two accounts that do not match in Scripture, clearly from Scripture. No, but you're not answering my question. I did answer your question. Yeah, let him finish. But he didn't answer my question. I did answer your question. I am saying these two accounts clearly contradict, hence this is not the Word of God. And I've got a hundred of them. This is just the beginning, bro. Right? But what I requested of you is from Scripture to tell me which one is the true account. what I would respectfully ask is if we're going to quote scripture we need to quote scripture not give our opinion that this man is lying or this man could be I quoted verse and chapter could you do the same? tell me which account is correct the account that's correct is 1 Samuel 1 and 31 the account that the Amalekite and if you actually know the history of the Amalekites do you know the history of the Amalekites? I do but 1 and 31 You said 1 Samuel 1.31. I'm looking up the verse you quoted. Well, I didn't quote nothing in 1 Samuel 1.31. The count that is correct is 1 Samuel 1.31. That's a chapter. You went to 1 Samuel. Oh, I'm sorry. When I said 1 and 31, okay. I meant to win. You know why? Because I'm looking at it. It's your first fail today. How is that a fail? Because you're quoting a verse that's not the one you were quoting, right? Actually, that's not a fail. When I look at it on my phone, because it says one Samuel 31 on my phone, that's why I said one. But the chapter, what I was saying was I was saying you asked which one is correct. Yes. And I said the one that you read in first Samuel 31, the way Saul was unalive. OK, that's it. What you're reading is second. Samuel is not someone that is an Israelite given an account. It's someone that's an Amalekite giving an account when the Amalekite have always been an enemy to us. So the Amalekite is coming to David and lying about what took place with Samuel, thinking that that's going to get him cool points. That's why David says you don't think it was you thought it was OK to slay the Lord's anointed, because that's how David looked at Saul, even when David had an opportunity to unalive Saul. So this is not something that's against the word of the Lord. This is a story. I'm letting you finish respectfully without interruption. Did you see that? Yeah. This is a story. It's just as simple. This is a story of Samuel, excuse me, of the Amalekite lying to Samuel, excuse me, to David and still being unalive for his lie. Are you done? Yes. I respectfully listened, right? Right. You don't have to keep saying that. You don't want to interrupt it first. I had to bring order, not you. I brought order, you did not. You don't have to keep saying it. What you're saying is not in Scripture. Nowhere in Scripture does it say he lied. You're just making that up to answer a contradiction that clearly, in the Scripture, it does not mention that he's lying. These are both scriptural. And in fact, if you were to go to 2 Samuel 21, there, when we go to 2 Samuel 21, verse 12, you see all the way from 10, then David went, took the bones of Saul and the bones of Jonathan, his son, from the men of Jabesh, Gilad, who had stolen them from the streets of Bethshan, where the Philistines had hung them up after the Philistines had struck down Saul. so who killed soul here it says philistines and this is not an emulate lying i don't really chase trends anymore i just want clothes at work feel good and last i stopped buying a lot of clothes and started buying better ones stuff that fits right holds up and i actually wear that's why i've been going with quints they've got basics i actually use organic cotton sweaters clean polos lightweight jackets stuff that holds up to daily wear and still looks good quality solid and everything's built to last. What makes Quince different is how they do it. They work directly with top factories, cut out the middleman, and you're not paying for brand mark off just quality clothing. And they only partner with factories that meet high standards for craftsmanship and ethical production. Refresh your wardrobe with Quince. Go to quince.com slash dsh for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. That's quince.com slash dsh. Now available in Canada too. free shipping and 365 day returns wins.com slash PSA. And that's where you're at again. Second Samuel 21, 12. So now when it says that read the latter part that you just read, okay, it said the Philistines did what? Where the Philistines had hung up their bones, which is Saul and Jonathan after the Philistines struck down Saul. and the question is about the philistines striking down so in one verse he killed himself in the other verse an amulite killed him and the third verse the philistines killed him so who killed them and so this is supposed to so this is what's laughable about these conversations and this is why when i first opened my mouth i said because these records were not given to anyone but non-israelites when non-israelites um try to teach this they don't know what they're talking about because they're looking for contradictions. Hold on a second. That's an answer when you don't have an answer. No, I'm not finished. And what I mean by that is when it says at the latter part of 2 Samuel 21 and 12, when it says where the Philistines had slain Saul and Gilba, the reason why it's saying the Philistines had slain it because we would agree, just a simple yes or no, the Philistines just who Saul was going to war with at that time, right? Yes. And it says, if I read 1 Samuel 31 and 1, it says, Now the Philistines fought against Israel, and the men of Israel fled from before the Philistines and fell down and slain in Mount Gilba. Right? So the Philistines are slaying the Israelites, right? But not Saul. Saul, according to first, you asked the question right, so I'm answering you that. I asked you about the Israelites for being slain. I didn't even mention Saul. Okay. I said, are the Israelites being slain? Are you asking me a question to respond to? Do you want a yes or no? I'm asking you a question to respond to. But when you mention Saul, when I'm just reading the verse and I'm asking you questions from the verse that I'm reading. Israelites and Philistines are fighting. Yes. And I asked you, I said, the Philistines slew, I'll say that word, past tense, the Israelites, correct? Some of them, yes. Not all of them. So in first, second Samuel is 21 and 12, when it says when the Philistines has slain Saul and Gilba, as with anything, it's a this is a that is a power statement because Saul is the king. If Saul would have won, it would have said Saul slew the Philistines, even though it's not him by himself. So all it's really saying in second Samuel is 21 and 12 is that the Philistines slain Saul because Saul died in that battle. he died why he could have stayed and fought but he knew that what they would do to him so he unalived himself so again this is not a contradiction this is just a way that israelites talk the israelites talk like this you don't know that it's interesting to me when a she is is saying the contradictions in the bible but we use the bible to validate his book i don't use the bible to validate my book who said that are you thinking things up about me no muslims use that you said about me when did i ever use the bible to validate my belief without without the bible that quran is trash which is already first thing be respectful we're gonna have a respectful conversation we said respectful conversation i didn't call the bible i'm not called the quran trash wait wait one second without the bible you said no personal attacks i didn't personally attack him i said the quran is trash if you could say my bible is contradictory that is the same disrespect that you're saying about the Quran. So if I'm comfortable with what you're saying, if you're saying my Bible is contradictory, you're saying my God is contradictory. I do not believe that. You can't control. And I do not say that. And you're putting words in my mouth. You're saying the Bible is contradictions. You're putting words in my mouth. Are you saying the Bible is contradictions? Can I speak? Yeah, let him finish. Thank you. Y'all are a little touchy. You're the one trying to push it, and then you can't handle it. All I said was the Quran was trash. And I do not respect that to be a respectful conversation. I don't respect nobody saying the Bible is contradictory, but you said it, and I'm not a fan. today is whether the Bible is the Word of God. And I'm showing you clear, now you're interrupting me, right? I'm showing you clear contradiction in the Bible. I'm not calling it trash. I'm not saying any harsh words about it. The fact that it has contradictions that I'm pointing out to you, that you're making up answers to because you have no scriptural response to, doesn't mean that I disrespect the Bible or believe anything wrong with any belief of God. If the Bible is corrupted, doesn't mean God is corrupted. Now, the biblical scriptures have clear contradictions, and I'm going to point them out to you until you can't run anymore. But to just call dirty names like trash or that is just a disrespectful statement, not academic discussion. So I would respectfully ask Sean that we don't use such words about any scripture, just like a personal attack is not acceptable. An attack on a religious figure, whether it's jesus or muhammad peace be upon them or moses or anybody else is not acceptable now here let's let them respond do you want to respond i do sure because you just said you didn't use the word contradiction and you just use the word contradict you just said if the bible has bible has clear contradictions if and if the bible is corrupt that doesn't mean god is corrupt So when I said the Koran is trash, it's no different than you saying the Bible is corrupt to me. But the difference is I can handle you lying and saying the Bible is corrupt. You can't handle me saying the Koran. I didn't interrupt. That's two interruptions. The Koran is absolute trash and has to stand with the Bible. And I'm going to say that probably a couple of times. So if it's too uncomfortable for you, we can stop. But if you can tell me the Bible is contradictory. If you can tell me the Bible is not the word of God, or just because it has errors or whatever, it doesn't have to be the word of God, and I can sit here and have the conversation, then I can say whatever I want about the Quran. That is absolutely wrong. Well, I'm going to do it. Can I speak now, Sean? Yeah, let me respond. First thing is, pointing out contradiction in a religious script and calling something trash are not the same thing. I think, Sean, you could agree to that, right? I think you guys have a difference of terminologies. Okay. If I was to point out a contradiction in a religious text or call a religious text trash, is there a difference between those two? Yeah. Thank you. Now, can I continue? I got just one quick response. If I say like, if I say Muhammad should be on the Epstein Island because he was with an underage girl, police be upon him. That's not offensive because he slept with an underage girl. Okay. It's the same thing. First thing is, do you see that? because he has no response academically. I did respond. And he wants to run now. That's why he wants to cut the debate. He's just coming to taking dirty, filthy shots, which I can show him people marrying underage girls all over the Bible. Nowhere in the Bible. Oh, we'll get you. Okay. Can you bring me the Rashi? Thank you. I'm going to show it to him, right? Nowhere in the Bible. And then he's going to be running from it. If it's a book, chapter, verse, it's nowhere in the Bible. I got you. But we do know Muhammad slept with a nine-year-old girl. Police be upon me. It's in Hadith's that y'all guys listen to. Okay, listen. Muhammad was a pedo. He would be on the Epstein Islands. That's where he would be. First thing is, people in earlier times got married at different times, including in the Bible. And I'm going to show it to you from the Bible, right? Chapter and verse. Show it. And then I'm going to show it about Jesus. Because you have a Bible right there. I don't know what you're grabbing, but I hope it's a book, chapter, verse. You, calm down. right the reason he's going to that is because he couldn't answer here i did answer it he didn't now you didn't accept the answer but i did it back to scripture because he wants to run that's why he wants to end the debate because he knows he's caught i'm not gonna let him do that i said if you offended being interrupted infinitely continuously or not let's limit the interruptions both of you guys okay so does he want to speak first because then do you want to respond to that before he died no i don't underage chapters but i just don't want him to act like he don't interrupt up i'm the one had to bring the rules you're interrupting too i almost said i'm listening appreciate it okay so we so we start going to go into the chapter about the underage no i want to finish this first because that's what i have to respond and then we'll go to the excellent so now philistines didn't strike down israel in the verse it says struck soul right if for example a president like let's say tonto trump attacks a country right you can say trump attacked venezuela but if Venezuela didn't kill Trump himself even if they killed Americans you don't say they struck down Trump he's an individual not a nation just like that here it says the Philistines struck down Saul not the Israelites so it's an individual now if he killed himself then the Philistines didn't strike him down if an Amulite killed him then the Philistines didn't strike him down all three of those accounts are contradictory and because in scripture he cannot respond it does not mention the Amulite lying in scripture he just made that up it does not mention the Philistines attacking Israel instead of Saul it mentions Saul by name so in all three accounts they're different accounts in one and those that are watching go home and look up the scriptures read them for yourself one he killed him he unalived himself in the second the Amulite killed him And in the third, the Philistines killed him. And those are clear numeric contradictions. Now, I have many more that I'd like to cover as scripture. And then after that, I am more than happy to respond to the age of Aisha Rabianha. So what he just said proved the point of how people in power talk. he just said if trump goes and attacks venezuela trump gets all the credit for attacking venezuela he didn't go to venezuela though if he was to go even further osama bin lax can be barack obama is credited with unaliving osama bin lax even though obama didn't have a gun didn't have a weapon didn't have nothing when you go into the bible king saw's jealousy of david was when they said saw David with his ten thousands saw with his thousands saw didn't unalive anybody King David was the one doing the work so why is Saul getting the credit because he's the one in charge he's the one in power so when you defeat the king or destroy the king when it says slaying Saul and Gilba it's saying that because he was the one in power and that's more prominent than just saying hey, we destroy captives such and such. We destroy officers such and such. So it's not a error. It's not a contradiction. It doesn't take away from being the word of God. You just don't understand. We talk a lot on this show about taking risks and trying to get ahead. Let's be real. The world feels shaky right now. AI is changing jobs. Markets are all over the place. Nothing feels guaranteed. And at some point you realize no one's coming to save you. You've got to protect yourself. And one thing people forget about is life insurance. If you're new to it, you're not alone. That's why I checked out SelectQuote. They've been around for over 40 years and helped more than 2 million Americans find coverage that actually fits their life and budget. They compare policies from top rated insurance companies and do the work for you for free. You can even get same day coverage up to $2 million with no medical exam. Life insurance is never cheaper than it is today. Get the right life insurance for you for less and save more than 50% at SelectQuote.com slash DSH. Save more than 50 on term life insurance at selectquote.com slash dsh today to get started at selectquote.com slash dsh and because it's not for you so i've answered the question i clearly said and said first of all in first samuel 31 they're going right to the next chapter over it doesn't even go anywhere it goes right in the second samuel one and anybody with a common sense of reading would understand that the Amalekite believes he's going to get kudos if he says, hey, man, I slain Saul for you because everybody knew David and Saul were enemies because Saul was trying to unalive him. The Amalekite realized that it backfired. Well, he died because it backfired on him. So, again, I've answered your question. You could disagree with my answer, but I answered all three of your questions clean on tables. Those are absolutely no answers, and let me explain why. First off, the account of him killing himself or unaliving himself is there very clearly. In the next account, the Amulite clearly tells David that I am the one that killed him. There is nothing in those verses that the Amulite is lying or trying to get kudos. He just made that up. Can you see that there is no indication in the text that the Amulite is lying? You can't just make up stuff because you can't answer a contradiction. You can't just be like, no, in reality, the Amulite was just making this up. That's just you making up an answer. No biblical scholarly work to back that the Amulite is lying. So that's not a response. The next thing, he's just repeating the same thing again because I've already answered it. If Trump attacks Venezuela, this is what I said, that is true, we can say that as the leader. But if Venezuela defeats the US but doesn't kill Trump, we cannot say they killed Trump. because Trump's an individual. Here, if it was Saul attacking the Palestinians, then we would have a point. But it's not. It's the Philistine striking down an individual named Saul. And if they didn't strike him down, then this is a contradiction. Either he unalived himself, or an amulet unalived him, or the Philistines unalived him. Those three cannot be. These are clear contradictions. and to continue saying the same thing again and again that if an attack of a nation happened, you can say this person attacked, it doesn't make sense because you don't have an answer. I've already responded to that. If the leader is said to have attacked a nation, Obama doesn't need to go with a gun himself. But when Osama attacked the US, nobody said he killed Obama. He killed Americans, but he didn't kill Obama. So here when it says struck down Saul, his analogy doesn't work. so in second samuel 1 and 16 when david says your testimony testified against you um that's also uh further proof of that and again go back what's the chapter and verse it was second samuel 1 and 16 it says and david said unto him thy blood be upon thy head for thy mouth have testified against thee saying i have slain the lord's anointed that's what it says okay So he's saying your testimony. I'm saying I would like to finish talking. Yeah, let him start. I was not talking. I wasn't asking you anything. Sorry. So you're right. I constantly remind you. I thought you were asking me. I don't need you to keep talking now as I recap why you should be quiet. So that whole time you just spilled your whole conversation, I didn't say nothing. So in 2 Samuel 1 and 16, as I was saying, And David said unto him, thy blood be upon thy head, for thy mouth hath testified against thee, saying, I have slain the Lord. When it's saying testified against thee, that's him in error. So as I stated, how Saul died is clear in 1 Samuel 31. Even the history of the Amalekites and the Israelites, they have despised us multiple times. So Amalekite coming, David is not believing him from the gate. That's why he said thy mouth have testified against thee. So, again, I'm answering your questions. Even when I gave the example of Saul with his thousands, David with his ten thousands, solved in unalive thousands. Why is he getting the credit for it? Because the man in charge gets the credit in the loss and the credit in the win. People do that all the time. If they do something, we slew America. We made America fall down. We took Venezuela. We made Venezuela fall down. It's just how people talk. So when they say that in Second Samuels, I think you said 21 and 12, they're putting on Saul because that's a bigger name. They're just saying Captain such and such officers, such and such. Saul is the name. And he did die there. He died there in the in the Gilbar plane. So he did die there. So they're not incorrect with saying that he died. They're just taking the credit for it. It's what people do. I'll give a sidebar when to Harker and Egyptian history to Harker and them say the children of Israel. But in Israel, like history, has a kind of saved the children of Israel. You got two nations given two different accounts of the same story because they see it from two different lenses It just that simple So again I answered the question Do you want to move on to the next Do you want to respond to that I'd like to respond to that if you don't mind. Now, first thing, it's quite desperate, but let me just respond to it anyway. So David said to him, your blood is on your head. He didn't tell him you're lying. Your blood is on your head. Why? he said for your own mouth testifies against you not that you lied your mouth what is the testimony I have killed the Lord's anointment he's saying your mouth is testifying against you that you killed the Lord's anointment he's not saying you're lying can you read this with me I want to make sure that our friends which verse jump they're not going to be not noticed each one so number 16. So David said to him, your blood is on your head, your own mouth has testified against you. Not that you lie. What did he testify? Saying, I have killed the Lord's anointed. So David is saying that now because you have killed the Lord's anointed, you're testifying against your own self. Your blood's on you. Not that you're lying. Sad, sad attempt. But you can't get away with it. Thirdly, he keeps repeating the same thing when a nation is attacked. I've clarified that three times, Sean. Am I being clear? When Trump attacks a nation, yes, you can say Trump attacked Venezuela, even though he wasn't physically there. But if Maduro wasn't captured, we cannot say Trump captured Maduro if Maduro went to another country. So when it says struck down Saul, then his example doesn't work. Now, I can move on or we can keep going, but you did not answer that at all. I answered it cleanly. As I said, you may disagree with the answer, but the fact that it's one chapter to the next chapter, the fact you have the history, as a matter of fact, even when you read the first verse in 2 Samuel 1 and 1, when it says, And I came to pass after the death of Saul, when David had returned from the slaughter of the Amalekites. That's the relationship. At war with the Amalekites. So they're not a nation to be trusted when they speak. They're not a nation that we got along with. There's a nation. They're a nation that we went to war with. So David did not take him at his word when he spoke, but he did unalive him for taking claim of something that he did not do. So you can look at 2 Samuel 1 and 16 as testified against the as him lying on the king. I look at I take it as they knew and he slayed him for even trying to take credit for what Saul was on. Excuse me, what Saul did when he did not die that way. So, again, I've answered your question each time. You can disagree with the answer, but I've answered it. Your problem there is reality. That's the problem, because if you read the verse, it says you can take any way you like. You can make up any answer you want. But it says, so David said to him, your blood is on your head for your own mouth testified against you. Not lied, testified. Like if you say, hey, I killed somebody, I wouldn't say, oh, that means you're a liar. I would say you've testified against yourself. For what? Saying that I have killed the Lord's anointment, not that you're lying about it. So the verse is there. Anybody watching with any sense can see you're wrong. you started so the only way this stops responding is when you stop because you started it so i would be responding to everything that you say as i'm responding now to something else that you said it is logical and it is the truth and as i always say and this goes over everybody's head for some reason the bible is like the book that everybody thinks they can pick up and understand from an israelite's position you can only have understanding if the mosai gives you the understanding And so if 1 Samuel 31 clearly says that, somebody's recording that. That's the crazy part. Somebody's recording how Saul was unalive, and then somebody's recording how the Amalekite lied and said that he did it, and then showing how David died for his lie. So if there was, and this is the other crazy part, if there was some type of contradiction, I would imagine it would have been corrected by now. The reason why it's still in there is because it's not a contradiction. It's just that you don't understand because it wasn't given to you to understand. And it's just that simple. He lied in 2 Samuel, the first chapter. The way Saul was unalive is in 1 Samuel, the first chapter. If there's you can see when people lie, there's a story. I don't know if you know this or not. There's a story where a prophet is told to take a journey. It's in the book of Kings, and he's told to go straight to that journey and don't listen to nobody at all. And then as he's on that journey, another prophet comes and says, thus said, the Lord said for me to feed you. And instead of that prophet obeying the most high and going to do and it says he lied directly. So when it's somebody lying or contradiction or anything like that, we can read it. So if 1 Samuel 1 says how King Saul was unalived, and then 2 Samuel shows how the Amalekite lied, it's just common sense, which you clearly don't have. It's very easy to say you don't know the answer because you're not me, and nobody but me can understand it. That's like a very nice way to jump out of giving an answer, right? Only the Israelites understand it. So if you're not from the Israelites, you won't understand the Bible. So whatever I say makes sense, and even a clear text you show, you don't understand. That's not an answer. That's just jumping. That's like saying anybody who you claim is not an Israelite, and whoever you define as an Israelite, is never going to understand the Bible. Then why are we even reading it? There's no point then. So that's not a response. That's just getting away from response. The story you just said, you said, when this person lied, it says he lied. In here, it never says he lied. So you don't have any scripture for that. You're making it up. In fact, the verse you quoted, in trying to make it seem like it was a lie, proves that it was his testimony that David took to be true. He said, you have testified against yourself that you killed the anointed one. So I don't know if that makes any sense. But I'll give you a clear understanding of what a contradiction is. Wait, go ahead. Again, I'm going to respond every time you talk. Because I didn't say, I didn't make this about me. I said you have to be an Israelite to understand the Bible. And then you made the statement to say, if you have to be an Israelite, what is the point of reading the Bible? but that's probably the smartest thing you said because it was never meant for everybody. It was only meant for the children of Israel. This is our records that everybody seems to grasp. Like I say, that Quran relies heavily on the Bible that they say is a contradiction heavily. And so with that said, common sense is very plain. In 2 Samuel 1, the Amalekite is lying. If I know that, David knows that. That's why it's in the text, and that's why he got unalived. It's just that simple. I can't keep running around and putting you in these circles showing how you don't understand the text because you're trying to make a contradiction when it just ain't a contradiction. We've shown you a clear contradiction and you have given me nothing from text to respond to that except that it's common sense. I understand it. David, I don't even know who David is, but David understands it and Israelites understand it and nobody else understands it except Israelites, which is you because you claim to be an Israelite. So that's what I said. Only I or my people understand it. Nobody else can understand it. I don't know how that makes any sense. And people of Israel are not just whoever you want to define to be. But let's not even get into that. But that's what the Bible says. The Bible says he showed his word to Jacob. Again, if we're talking about the Bible and have an understanding, in 2026, that doesn't make sense that only the Israelites have to have the Bible. Why? because the Bible is the most bought book ever. Anybody can have it. It's easily accessible. But if we read Psalms 147, 19 and 20, he showed his word to Jacob, his statutes and judgments to Israel. He have not dealt so with any other nation. You can't tell me that I'm quoting a direct verse in the Bible that says only Israelites were given the understanding of the Bible. And then you tell me that don't make sense when the Bible says he have not dealt with any other nation. Correct? Is that what the Bible says? Yes. Let me answer now. Okay? Let me answer. If you could, just give me a yes or no and then expound. I would say no. If I can just repeat the question, you give a yes or no. Does the Bible say in Psalms 147, 19 to 20, he had not dealt so with any of a nation? Yes or no? Yes. All right. You can expound. No, I said let me do yes or no and you can expound. look regarding the bible yes it was revealed to certain people at a certain time are you from those people i have no idea to be honest i've never seen a dna test but the children of israel are not just whoever you want to define it to be again i'm not here to argue who is and who isn't the children of israel you i'm sure you've had plenty of those fun discussions i'm here to talk about the contradiction of the bible and if anybody the fair observer looking at text you have not responded to him. But let me show you an example here, right? Isaiah, this is in 2 Kings, that is chapter 8, verse 26. Isaiah was 22 years old when he became king, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name was Athaliah, the granddaughter of Umri. Do you see that? I'm sorry, so do you know where he was at? Sure. 2 Kings 8, 26. I'm going in now. I appreciate it. I'm there. Isaiah was 22 years old when he became king. You said 26? Yeah, that's right. 22. Good. 22, right? 22 says, yeah, Eden revolted. 26 says the two in 20 years. Verse 26, but he was 22 years old. No, no, I was trying to get the verse. Oh, I got you. It's 26. That's correct. You got it? Okay. So Isaiah was 22 years old when he became king and reigned one year in Jerusalem. Right? just one year his mother's name was Atalia the granddaughter of Umri is that correct? yes okay now when we go to 2nd Chronicles 22-2 you're going to 2nd Chronicles 22-2 yes Isaiah was 42 years old when he became king and he reigned one year in Jerusalem his mother's name was Atalia the granddaughter of Umri okay sean do you see a contradiction there yeah what's the contradiction you don't see one there explain it was he 22 or 42 so the contradiction is not the mother's not the um grandfather the contradiction is only the age yes so when it comes to reading kings and chronicles um i'll use a different example then i'll come right to it and first kings you'll see date uh satan let me make sure i got it right give me one second in uh chronicles you'll see where satan number to provoke david to number the children of israel you're familiar with that right yes and then in kings you'll see it's the most high god so but it's not a contradiction it's just one is giving you the agency of how things took place so in second chronicles second kings when it gives the age of uh ahab i'm not saying the right name you're not hazer and it says a hazer and then second chronicles 22 when it's saying 42 i don't really chase trends anymore i just want clothes that work feel good and last i've stopped buying a lot of clothes and started buying better ones stuff that fits right holds up and i actually wear that's why i've been going with quints They've got basics I actually use, organic cotton sweaters, clean polos, lightweight jackets, stuff that holds up to daily wear and still looks good. The quality's solid and everything's built to last. What makes Quince different is how they do it. They work directly with top factories, cut out the middleman, and you're not paying for brand markup, just quality clothing. And they only partner with factories that meet high standards for craftsmanship and ethical production. Refresh your wardrobe with Quince. Go to quince.com slash dsh for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. That's q-u-i-n-c-e dot com slash dsh. Now available in Canada too. Free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com slash dsh. years old was the rain the highest excuse me 40 and 2 years old was a hazer when he began to reign chronicles is talking about um the king the rulership as opposed to the actual age that's the only difference between the two that they have what is not a contradiction is the same mother same king same person so that's not a contradiction are you done yes sean come on it's i'm gonna have me and you read this together okay isaiah was 22 years old when he began when he when he became king and reigned his reign he was how old 22 22 how long did he rule one year and the fact that his mother and grandmother are you googling no i'm not googling the fact that his mother and grandfather are the same actually works against him because he cannot be like it was a different king so it clearly says with the same verbiage that he was 22 years old and he only ruled one year okay in the Silly of Jerusalem. In the next verse, it clearly says he was 42 years old when he became king. And he reigned one year in Jerusalem. Again, only one year. Same one year. And the same mother, Athaliya. And the same grandfather, Umri. How can he be 22 and 42? That's his age at the time that he became king and reigned. Same words in both chapters. that is a clear numeric contradiction that you have absolutely no answer to actually so that's why i said so in 42 in second chronicles 42 that's not talking about his age at all only second kings is talking about his age so the 42 years is just talking about the rain or drain excuse me when i'm sorry verse one and the habitants of jerusalem made a haze his youngest son king in his stead. For the band of men that came with the Arabians to the camp has slain all of the elders. So Ahazah, the son of Jeroam, king of Judah, reigned. So as Jeroam is ruling, it's still counting all of the rulers starting with Jeroam. If I was to go further, I believe it's either Jehoshaphat. So it's talking about the whole entire rule of that kingship. It's not talking about a hazer singularly so for our so for our understanding when we read that the 40 and two years that's what that encompasses as opposed to second kings eight is giving you his age that's all that's why you that's why i used how chronicles tells the story of satan i'm assuming of david numbering the people one way and then kings tell the story of david numbering the people in another way it's the same story it's not a country otherwise that could be a contradiction it would Did Satan do it or did the Most High do it? So now we find a river that flows through between Kings and Chronicles. Kings give it one way. Chronicles give it another way. The names and people don't change. So if there's a difference in time, we don't look at it as a contradiction. We look at it from the lens of what the writer in Chronicles is talking about and what the writer in Kings is talking about. It's just that simple. Well, contradiction would be like if a hazer had a different mother, a different king, or didn't rule at all. Now it's like, okay, we got somebody not being a king here, somebody not being something there. But the time being different would just be how do we explain that? And I just explained it. Absolute nonsense. But let me just make that clear. Yeah, I got you. He's saying in 2 Chronicles, not about his age, right? now I'm just going to read the verse and you just tell me is this about his age or not Isaiah was 42 years old when he became king does that sound like that's about his age that sentence does yeah okay now let's read the earlier one because he's saying that one is about his age okay so Isaiah was 22 years old when he became king those sentences are identical one says he was 22 years old when he became king one says he was 42 years old when he became king in fact in the macarcer study bible it says this is a clear copyist error in the bible now now when it says he was 42 years old when he became king he's like that's not about his age come on bro look i mean look like i mean that sean are you saying there's a different measurement uh unit basically yeah so the age that is talking about in second chronicles is talk about the reign of all the Judah kings that Ahazer is talking to. Now, what I am looking up is showing you the overlapping range, because if you know about Jehoshaphat, Jeroboam, Ahazer, they all reigned. So Chronicles is talking about that reigning line. Kings is talking about his age. It's not a contradiction, but because it's the same person, same mother, same king that he's coming from. So it's the same person. And so and because Chronicles and Kings write it in a different way, the only way you would have a contradiction is if there's no reigning of the person. But if the stories are the same, that's no different than in Matthew and Mark. In Matthew and Mark, when Christ heals the woman's daughter, Matthew tells it from that lens. Mark says for this saying. So Mark saying for this saying, your daughter is healed. In Matthew, it says, oh, great is that faith. Your daughter is healed. It's still the same story. They're just telling it from that position. And they have the right to tell it from that position. So if the writer of Chronicles decides to give the reigning of Jehoshaphat, Jeroboam, and Ahaziah and calculate 42 years, and Chronicles decides to calculate the age, it's not a contradiction. That is absolutely a contradiction because it doesn't say that. It's not giving you. He's just making something up. You can read Ahaziah was 42 years old when he became king. Not when his family started ruling, not adding anybody else. It's the same line in both chapters. In fact, study Bibles, NIV even changed this because they said this is a clear contradiction. Read the verse for me. Just read the verse and tell me, does it say that's how old he was when he became king? Or does it say something about his family's rule? 42 years old when he became king and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. his mother's name was when he became king or his family started ruling when he became king now when you go to the other verse is it the exact same intro except with a contradictory age yeah it began 22 years old when he became king when he became king so that's my only question my only question did judah have any overlapping reigns I said my only question is did Judah have any overlapping rings this is the rule of Jerusalem if you could just answer as I said earlier just listen to me as I said before if you could just answer yes or no you can expound that's all I'm asking if you ask me a yes I don't think I put yes or no on it so for that I apologize I'll rephrase it but if you ask a yes or no I'll give you yes or no and then I'll expound so yes or no did Judah have overlapping reigns. Yes. But this is the rule of Jerusalem and Judah's capital was not Jerusalem. And this doesn't talk about overlapping reign because only one year. If he ruled one year, he could not be 42 and 22 at the same time ruling the same city. It is very clear that there is a clear numeric contradiction and you can find you can try to make an explanation for anything. You can say It's not night out, it's day, and it's not day and it's night because night somewhere. That's ridiculous. Anybody looks at the verses, as Sean did, clearly sees a contradiction. So if anybody just looks up the overlapping rings, you'll see that Jehoshaphat ruled, I'm sorry, Jeroboam ruled before Jehoshaphat died. So Jehoshaphat is king and Jeroboam is king at the same time. You can also look up Azariah is ruling why Jotham has leprosy. So they have overlapping reigns. So Chronicles is giving the 42 years for the reigns. Kings is given his age. If that don't exist, maybe I might agree with you. But it's just a custom of the way that we wrote. It's the custom of the way that we have it. So now if they did, again, as I said, if they didn't have overlapping reigns, And they're not the only just and this is just broad. They're not the only ones that have overlapping range. You would have upper and lower Egypt where they would also have overlapping range where you would have Pharaoh's ruling at the same time. So in Second Chronicles, that's why it has that time, because it's talking about that. But once again, all of that is not scripture about that particular king. The fact that kings would overlap reigns in different kingdoms has nothing to do with when Isaiah ruled for one year in the city of Jerusalem. Was he 22 or 42? You're jumping around explanations when the verse is very clear. And somebody who's not biased and not just trying to win an argument can read the verses themselves and see the truth for themselves. Now, when you talk about the New Testament, do you believe in the New Testament? Absolutely. Okay. So when you look at the genealogy of Jesus, do you believe he goes back to King David? Yes. So I was looking at this. First, Matthew 1, 12 begins the end of it, right? I think 1 through 16. Yeah, so 12 begins to the end of the going down to 16, right? That paragraph. When I was looking at that paragraph, I saw verse 16, Matthew 1, 16, and Jacob begot Joseph, the husband of Mary, to whom was born Jesus, who was called Christ. Right? So Jacob was the father of Joseph, who was then married to Mary. Right? That is correct, right? That is absolutely correct. When I look in Luke, I find that genealogy as well. Right. You do. In Luke 23. 3. No, Luke 3. 3. 23. Yep. Verse 23, chapter 3. It says, Now Jesus began his ministry at about 30 years of age, being as supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Heli. Right? So was Joseph's father Heli or Jacob? His father was both. What? His father was both Jacob and Heli. Two fathers? Yes. Because Matthew's one, Jacob is the physical father of Joseph. he lied and joseph excuse me he lied and jacob are brothers so when it says he lied as was supposed we have something in the israelite custom called leveret marriage leveret marriage is like if him and i are brothers and i pass away and i don't have a son then he would lay with my wife and raise up son for me that's the law of a brother in our custom so the reason why it says as was Supposed in Luke, the third chapter, Eli is his father. According to that law, Jacob is his father. According to the flesh. OK, so Eli is the stepfather of Joseph. No, listening is an art. Eli is the father. According to Leveret law, Eli is gone. He's dead. He's not living. So Jacob is the one that laid with his mother, Heli's wife. When he raised up seed for Heli's wife, that seed belongs to Heli. It doesn't belong to Jacob. So what Matthew is doing is giving the physical son of, I'm sorry, physical father of Jacob, of Joseph. What Luke is doing in Luke, the third chapter, is giving the law father of Joseph. You said Heli is where the seed came from. No, I did not. I'm going to say it again. Listening is an art. I said Heli is dead. Heli is not living. Jacob is living. And Jacob is keeping the law of a brother by laying with Heli's wife. okay and so when luke gives that lineage he's given the lineage by law when matthew gives the lineage he's given the literal physical lineage do you know what leveret marriage is do you know law of a brother what can you explain what yeah so for example if a brother had a wife and he died his brother would marry that woman right yeah so in this so in joseph's scenario heli died without a son and Jacob kept the law of a brother and slept with Eli's wife and raised up Joseph for Eli. So when Matthew does the lineage, he's correct because he's given a physical son. I mean, it's going to be physical father of Joseph. He lies. Excuse me. Luke is also correct because he's given the law by excuse me. He's given the son by law. So when he says Eli is the father of Joseph, that's according to Leveret marriage. When Matthew says Jacob is the father of Joseph, that's according to the flesh. I'll provide one outside source for this. Anybody can look up a church father by the name of Julius Africanus. That's his name. It's Julius Sextus Africanus. That's the whole entire name. And when you go to that church father, which is substantiated by Yesubius in the ecclesiastical history of the Bible, they'll tell you what I'm telling you was a known custom throughout all of the house of David because the Messiah had to come from the house of David. They kept the levered marriage all throughout. And Julius Sextus Africanus actually breaks the whole thing down. If you want, I can pull it. I have it on my phone. They have the name of the woman and everything. So that's not a contradiction. it is a contradiction and let me explain why I believe it's a contradiction but I have some questions on here anyway so first thing you can laugh while you lie it's not going to help your case first the fact that it clearly says that Jacob begot Joseph shows that this was the physical father correct and the fact that Heli is called Joseph is called the son of not by law all the way back to as Adam and Seth and Enosh, those are not by law but physical relation. But my question actually wasn't on that. My question is, when we go in Matthew, we see Salatheel as the son of Zorabil is that correct? I believe that's in there can you open up 1st Chronicles 3.17 you ran from that first one I did not, I responded to it did I respond to it? about the contradiction between the two names 1 Chronicles or 2 Chronicles? 1 Chronicles 3.17 gotcha and the one in Matthew do you know a verse in Matthew? because that was Matthew with Salatheel right? yes I got you on that too because my app I could pull three phones three bible apps nice I like the phone Z Fold you like it? I love it actually I use that because I could pull this up like that and have three bible apps open at the same time close it like that I'm going to stop paying you for shouting them. Yeah, I don't know why I do it all the time like a dummy. So Matthew, it's 1.12. Right, and then the Chronicles 1 is what? It's 3.17. Gotcha. And 3.17, you want me to read it or you got it? You go ahead. 1 Chronicles 3 and 17, it says, And the sons of Jeconiah, Asseos, Oletheel, his son. And then Matthew 1 and 12, it says, after they were brought to Babylon, Jeconiah begat Salatheel, and Salatheel begat Zerubbabel. So, who is the father of Salatheel? Jeconiah, right? Yes. And Zerubbabel is the brother of Salatheel, correct? Where does it say the brother at? If you look at the sons of Jeconiah were. You still in the same chronicles one? Yes. Or I'm just searching something else. So in Chronicles 3 and 17, I read that verse, but it's not in that verse. It's somewhere else? No, no. Let's keep going. Oh, that's what I was asking. So I got to read further down, right? Yeah. So the sons of Jeconiah were Asir, Salatio, his son, Malachi, Padaiah, Shenzar, Jehachachim, Hoshana and Nabida right but here it jumps in verse 12 I think we're talking together this time I don't want you to say I'm interrupting you so in Matthew it says Jeconiah begat Selathio and Selathio begat Zerubbabel so I think your question is in the sons of Jeconiah Assyria, Selathio, his son Merrim also of Padilla, Shennazar, and the sons of Padilla is Zerubbabel. So why is it skipping those and giving Zerubbabel to Selathiel instead of giving Zerubbabel to Padilla? So what I'm saying is, here it says Selathiel begot Zerubbabel, right? So Zerubbabel is the son of Selathiel, correct? In Matthew. It says begot, like you mentioned earlier. Yeah. But in 1 Chronicles, from the sons of Shalithio, there is no Zerubbabel. Yeah, you see Zerubbabel doesn't come in until Padilla. Yeah, so those two don't match. So we would agree, before I fully answer, we would agree the sons of Jeconiah, says Asiel and Shalithio, his son, right? Yeah. And then in 18, Malcolm also, Padilla, Shannazar, Jeconim. And then in verse 19, it says the sons of Padilla was Zerubbabel and Shemel. So it's like it's skipping. Yes. Thank you. So the custom in Israel is to skip like that when you talk about generational lineages. So in Matthews 1, and one of the differences between Matthews 1 and Luke, the third chapter, is in Luke, the third chapter, it's all males. In Matthews, the first chapter is men and women because it's about being the prominent line. It's about coming and being connected. So when it skips, it's skipping because it's about the prominence. So you'll see men and women mentioned. You'll see in verse Matthew 1 and 5, Solomon begat Boaz of Reqab. You'll see a woman mentioned. Jesse begat David the king. So when it's mentioned in Jeconias begat Salatheo, Salatheo begat Zerubbabel. Zerubbabel is a prominent one in that line, and that's why it's mentioned. So I'll give an example in the Old Testament. If you go to 1 Kings 19 and 16, it would say, Jehu, the son of Nimshi, shalt thou anoint thee to be king over Israel. And then when you go to 2 Kings 9 and 2, it says, And when thou comest either, look out there, Jehu, the son of Jehoshaphat, the son of Nimshi. So in one verse is saying Jehu is the son of Nimshi. To another verse is saying Jehu is the son of Jehoshaphat, the son of Nimshi. Because that's the custom of Israel to just name the prominent people in the lineage. That's why Matthew chose to use Jacob instead of Heli, because Matthew's whole point was showing the prominent lineage in Christ's line, as opposed to the literal lineage that Luke goes that route. So that is the custom of Israel. Even when you say Christ is the son of David, right? I'm listening. No, I'm asking you. People say in the Bible it says Christ is the son. It even says Joseph is the son of David, right? But that would be, that would be, you see how you say you get that? You get that because this ain't a gotcha moment. I'm just teaching you. I've been doing all day. So and when it talks about Joseph being a son of David, Joseph is not the son of David. Right. Yes. No, no. In a literal sense. What I mean. No, no. What I mean by that in the literal sense, Joseph is not the son of David. He didn't come from David's sperm. I agree. Right. But it's saying Joseph is the son of David because that's the prominent man in Joseph's line. So just to understand, because you're teaching me, right? Absolutely. Matthew is skipping to show prominence, and David is going line by line. Luke. Luke. Luke, according to the law. That's why you'll see the paths crossed. So you'll see Luke and Matthew have similar names, but Luke goes through Nathan because of the law, whereas Matthew stays through Solomon because of the prominence. So, Sean, did you understand that point? that Matthew is skipping to show prominence, but Luke is going by the law line by line. The problem is Luke also mentioned the same two. I just said they go across. But if there was skipping, then why is Luke skipping? You said Luke didn't skip. He was going line by line. No, no. I'm not saying Luke is skipping. But what it also shows, and I'm actually glad you said it gives me an opportunity to expound back on Julius Sextus Africanus. When you look up that source, which I can read, the house of David all did intermarrying. So that's why you would see the names cross. It's just that simple. I'm just waiting for the contradiction. Because there's a generation skipped here in Matthew, what he said, and I confirmed with you, is that Matthew was skipping for prominence, but Luke was going line by line. but please don't interrupt but if you go to Luke now in verse that is 20 uh sorry 3 27 onwards go ahead no I'm just getting there with you no I'm there I'm there the son of Zerubel the son of Shelathiel but Shelathiel wasn't the father of Zerubel and if his first explanation 3 and 27 you said? Oh yeah, 327. Yes. Okay, good. So, if there was skipping in Matthew, and Luke was by the law as he said, but the same skip happens here, so your answer doesn't work. There's a clear contradiction. So, in 1 Chronicles 3 that you read, Salathia would be the grandfather of Zerubbabel. Yes, that is correct. Right. So that goes right in line with what I said in 1 Kings 9, because in 1 Kings 19 and 6 that I just read, it does the same thing with Nipshi. It says Jehu, the son of Nipshi. Then 2 Kings 9 and 2 says Jehu, the son of Jehoshaphat, the son of Nipshi. So it's still not a contradiction. I can't help it if you don't understand the Bible. It's just not a contradiction. I'm showing you a clear another example of a man generation or name being skipped so i know you want it to be a contradiction it just don't exist the contradiction that you are twisting it just by you saying it doesn't exist doesn't mean it doesn't exist sean i clarified with you what he was saying was that matthew was skipping for prominence but luke wasn't he was going by the law so that means if there's a skip and he's going by the law, which he said Luke wasn't, then that is a contradiction with the Old Testament that shows that Salatio is not the father of Zerubbabel, but rather the grandfather. Those genealogies don't match. And his earlier, I don't really chase trends anymore. I just want clothes that work, feel good and last. I've stopped buying a lot of clothes and started buying better ones. Stuff that fits right, holds up and I actually wear. That's why I've been going with Quince. They've got basics I actually use, organic cotton sweaters, clean polos, lightweight jackets, stuff that holds up to daily wear and still looks good. The quality's solid and everything's built to last. What makes Quince different is how they do it. They work directly with top factories, cut out the middleman, and you're not paying for brand markup, just quality clothing. And they only partner with factories that meet high standards for craftsmanship and ethical production. Refresh your wardrobe with quince go to quince.com slash dsh for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns that's q u i n c e.com slash dsh now available in canada too free shipping and 365 day returns quince.com slash dsh explanation that mass he was going by those that are prominent and luke was going by each one by the law then contradicts the fact that luke does the exact same thing it does not contradict because he's related to them all that's his lineage that's his line that's where he comes from you cannot get around that he's in there i know you thought you had one with the first jacob and heli you thought you had one there then you thought you had one with selathia and this one but the law of a brother is just exists and if you know the cut if anybody was to do their own research and how the house of david specifically and why it was important for them to keep that line the importance of that was because they knew the messiah was coming from the house of david So they stayed within their house. So Nathan's house, Solomon's house were the two primaries of sons, rather, that would keep that line pure. So Salathio, all of them are related. They're all still from the house of David. Contradiction got to be something better than this right here so far. No, I've given you clear contradictions. And every time all you do is jump here. the whole point was those genealogies contradict the Old Testament, and he tried to come with an explanation. When it didn't work, now he's jumping from it. His explanation, which I confirmed with you, Sean, before I responded, was that Luke was only mentioning the prominent ones, so he skipped a father. Reverse. But, I'm sorry, Matthew was only mentioning the prominent people, so he skipped, but Luke was going line by line according to the law. But Luke also confuses a father and a grandfather. So there's a clear contradiction between the genealogy of Jesus as given in the New Testament and given in the Old Testament. And because I've already explained it and I don't feel like going in a loop again and again and again, I would recommend to those that are watching, write out both genealogies side by side. Write them out. Write them out and write out what's in the Old Testament. And you can see the clear contradictions all up and down. The only thing I make sure you add is 1 Kings 19 and 6 and 2 Kings 9 and 2. It has always been the custom of Israel to jump lineage. Even if I say I'm an Israelite or I'm son of Jacob, I'm not a son of Jacob in a literal sense. But that's the prominent person in my line. And that's just a custom that the nation of Israel had. And it's undefeated. So, I mean, go look it up. I tell you what, I blew his mind with that Julius Africana source. He did not know. Yes, it did. Yes, it did. He was not ready for me to have a source. And anybody can look that up because I know they're going to look it up. Have you ever heard of that source before? Let you finish and then I'll see. No, this is yes or no question. I have not. You have not. But it did not blow my mind. So let's be clear, right? Don't overpraise yourself. I'm not crazy myself. You are. You are. He just said I blew his mind when you didn't blow my mind at all. I did. It was very underperforming. You know how I know I blew your mind on it? Because you left your subject. Look, because you left it and went to Salatheu. That's how I know I blew your mind. I'll tell you how. I'll tell you why. Because I stuck to scripture. And everything that I've said, I've given scriptural references to. And everything that you ran from, you gave extra non-scriptural verses from. I don't want to get into church fathers and their histories, because to me, they're not infallible, they're not scripture, they're people, right? So I gave you actual scripture, line by line. And the fact that he gave an explanation, that Matthew was only going by the prominent ones, and Luke was going by the law, line by line, and I confirmed that with you, before responding, because I didn't want him to jump from it, shows that the fact that Luke did the same jump, shows that there's a contradiction between both those genealogies, and what's in the Old Testament, whether you go by the law one, or according to you, the prominent one, there's a clear contradiction, and anybody with eyes and half a brain can see that, but I'm good with that. Do you want me to respond to the pedophile thing, though? Wait, before you respond to the pedophile, just thank you. There is no contradiction. The only way there could be a contradiction is if Luke and Matthew, or one or the other, did not have those people in their line. then there's a contradiction because it has to come from the house of David. That's where the Messiah has to come from. He brought the Bible back. Look at it. I thought it was good. I thought it was good. Because you're saying that if there are people in one genealogy that are not in the other, then it's a contradiction. That's not what I said. That's not what I said. Clarify. No, I said they have to be from the house of David is what I said. I didn't say people being in there and people not being in there. I said if it would be a contradiction if they were not in the house of David, Salathio, Zerubbabel are all in the house of David. And that's where the Messiah had to come from. So if there was somebody in there outside of the house of David, then maybe you might have something. Now, I do agree with you with the church fathers. I only added that part in this conversation because when I was talking about levered marriage, I was really not doing it for you. I was mainly doing it for Sean's audience so they can look it up because Leveret Marriage is enough for me. Yeah, I never heard of that. So thank you for your agreement. But as was supposed, that's the custom. But people may not understand that custom because Sextus Africanus is so close to that time of like right after Christ. And they had the tradition of that story is the only reason I normally mention it. I actually hate the church fathers probably more than you do. Cool. Because that's what they get to, you know. Something you guys agree on. I think it's amazing to be a green one. I don't know why he's so hostile about it. I'm not hostile. I should have hit the mortar earlier. He did deny the fist bump. No, I didn't want to give you the fist bump. No, no, no. I didn't want to give you the fist bump. You got to earn his respect first. So we're going to the pedo. So I would like to ask a question of you, yes or no. Right. Were there people from the kings of Israelites and other holy figures that you respect that married women that were under 18 in the past yes or no um what at first i'll say first i'm remember we said yes or no and then i'm gonna say no i'm gonna say no because i haven't read the age but what i do want to clarify under 18 is not uh we wouldn't look at that as a pdf we wouldn't look at 17 as pdf 18 as pdf okay but the closest example that i've seen of age in the bible is Luke 2 and 36 when it says Anna the prophetess she married her husband seven years from her virginity so let's say if she got her virginity at let's say at 12 seven years from that she's 19 so that's the closest that I've seen of age in a book chapter or verse cool okay so you're saying no yeah I said no with my explanation gotcha meaning that just the one caveat if whatever you show me is a book chapter verse of age then we good if it's not in the bible then it's uh someone's conjecture okay so so that's interesting because then the age of aisha is not in the quran and it's not in any hadith of the prophet alayhi sallallahu alayhi wa sallam where's the age at it's a statement from her which again we don't take as divine so when you don't follow no hadith So that's not in no hadiths or age I'm asking for clarity Because if you take the same position Let me say why I'm asking You ask the question, I got you Let me give you clarity The Quran is the words of Allah, no doubt Then there is the hadith That are called marfou You know what marfou is? No Well I'm going to educate you today I hate Islam You hate Islam? That's sad I don't hate Christianity I'm not a Christian, I hate Christianity too I don't hate Judaism. I'm not a Judaism. You're not a Jew? No. No, I'm a Jew, but I don't follow Judaism. Oh, well. I don't hate Jews. I hate the so-called Jew, though. Really? Yeah, he's not my people. Who? The Amalek that's over there in the land of Israel, they're not the real Jews. They're not who? No, he's not a real Jew. He's a Protestant. They come from Ashkenazi or something like that. I'd pound you on that one, but anyway. I'll give you one on that one. Okay. All right. You'll get that one on that one. Okay. Okay. Those are a bunch of Europeans That went and took over somebody Yes Okay okay okay Impostors do it Uniting people So let me educate you now Marfoo'ah is a hadith That the Prophet Muhammad Sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said So the Quran Is the words of Allah The Marfoo'ah hadith are the words Actions or approvals of the Prophet Muhammad Peace be upon him Then there is what's called a موقوف حديث موقوف means stopped in Arabic That means it's not the words of the Prophet Peace be upon him Then there is مقتو حديث That is the statements of the tabi'un The later generation There are authentic حديث, there are weak حديث There are authentic حديث that are not Applicable because there is what's called ناسخ and منسو So what حديث would you respect? Again, so I Respect all authentically established. That's what I'm trying to say. So, Sahih al-Bukhari, would he be one? So, Sahih al-Bukhari is an amazing book of hadith. I love it. I respect it. But what you have to look at is the rafa. Whose statement is it? Is it the prophet speaking? Or is it a companion? But I agree with that. But the same way you was reading the Bible and you was looking at what the Amalekites said and you taking that as its authority. if in Sahih al-Bakari is Aisha speaking you don't respect that? I do, let me explain so first thing, there's a difference between what's in the Bible and what's in hadith because you claimed the Bible was the word of God we do not believe hadith are the words of God I agree, that's another thing we agree it's definitely not the word of God now when I agree with you before you remind an interruption I still appreciate your agreement but let me just finish what I'm saying because you will not agree when I finish there are hadith Qudsi and those hadith are the words of Allah because there are hadith Qudsi that is when a hadith mentions that Allah said then there is hadith Marfu' that is the hadith where the prophet said something peace be upon him those are wahi, those are revelation we love and respect those but when a companion makes a statement that is not a part of revelation That is a person's opinion Even if the chain is correct They can be mistaken In fact Aisha Even though she's an amazing narrator No doubt to her memory But she's not reporting something that she saw When was she born Is something that she was told by other people That's why in some hadith she said Seven for engagement And some at six Both sahih, one Muslim and one Bukhari So Go ahead bro You got a question? I mean, I'm not done. But you still got a man marrying a woman at seven. We don't, right? First thing, that is not a marriage because they don't consummate. That is what today we would consider an engagement where you would make a deal, but a woman would still live at home. They would not be with the husband, right? Now, going further, there is nothing in the Quran or any hadith that is marfou from the Prophet, that mentions the age of Aisha. The only thing that's mentioned in those ahadith is the Prophet waited until she was physically past puberty. Meaning she was physically matured or relation. It could be nine, it could be more. It could be less. What is the consensus? There is no consensus. This is something that Muslim scholars have discussed and debated for centuries. Ibn Sa'ad and others have given numbers higher. right now what i'm going to show you now is going to be from scripture and that's why i'm saying if you're going to make that standard has to be this verse has to call out the age then you don't have that for aisha and the quran you can't say that because i didn't say that you couldn't take that position okay i never said that you could take the position that that's why i actually do you respect the hadith because in some muslims that i deal with they'll say i don't deal with no hadith I only deal with the Quran. So once you say you deal with the Hadiths and you say you respect Sahih al-Bakari, if Sahih al-Bakari then quotes or narrates Aisha and Aisha says she was six years old. But what's missing in there? Did the prophet say so? Okay. I'm asking the question. I don't study it like that. I would imagine that it's not the prophet saying that based on how you ask the question. But that doesn't mean that Aisha is lying on her age. Absolutely. It doesn't mean that she wasn't nine when Muhammad had sex with her. He's a freak. I told you, he'd be on Epstein Island right now. Police be upon him. He'd be on Epstein Island right now. You see the disrespect? Oh, I can't say that? You don't see that as disrespect? Nine is pretty young, but clarify. Okay. Thank you for saying nine is pretty young. We've got to have some common sense. Well, you want to show me something? Yeah, I got you. What is that? I'll show you a few things. This is Rashi. I'm sure you know Rashi well, right? Yeah. You know Rashi? Oh, you look uncomfortable now. No, I don't look uncomfortable. But Rashi is not about to be the authority. But go ahead and show me the lies Rashi is about to tell you. So Rashi is a liar? Yeah. Tell me what he's about to say. You see that? No, I would say Rashi is a liar. So let me give you my stance because it looks like you're about to read some Talmudic stuff. I don't go by the Talmud. The Talmud, you can play with babies, you know, private parts. and stuff like that. Yes. So when they start looking, when they start talking about the ages of Mary, for example, they make Mary young, even though there's no verse in the Bible that makes Mary that young. They make Mary when she got married. The Bible doesn't say a virgin. If you're going to take that, I'm going to give you. Let me just ask you one thing just so I can understand. See how we like kind of worked it out where we can interrupt each other. I had to teach you that too. I think I had to teach you that. Slow down. You interrupted first. I taught you a little bit. It's all right. You slow down, man. You've got too many contradictions to be able to answer. That's crazy. All right. Go ahead. If the criterion is that it has to be in the Bible, right? Because you were quoting church fathers and all that. One time. Even though you did quote them, right? Okay. So then I would say, okay, let's use the same criterion that it has to be in the Quran. if you're going to use that right you have every right and i don't that's why i said i don't argue that if you took the if you took the position that you don't respect and here's where i'll make the difference i don't respect nothing talmudic from any rashi hashi any other cat like that because they're not spiritual to me but you do take hadiths that would that would be the only difference i would say between us if you said nah that's why i asked you do you respect sahih al-bukhari right Once you say yeah, like if I would have said, yeah, I respect Rashi, then whatever you read out of that, I would have to say I'm Rashi. You know what I'm saying? So that's the difference between us. So you can't say I can't ask you nothing outside the Quran because the hadith that I reference is a hadith that you go by as opposed to you asking me about Rashi. I don't go by that. I got you. So let me let me now clarify. And I appreciate the good conversation. So I believe in the Quran. No doubt. I believe in all of the hadith that are established from al-Mustafa alayhi salatu al-salam, no doubt I believe in that but hadith are not like the Quran in hadith, especially when they're not the hadith of the prophet when companions are mentioning something, they can make mistakes they're human beings, I'm not saying they're lying, but they can make mistakes and this is something that's well established in the hadith sciences you think that was funny? yeah Yeah, I thought it was funny. Yeah. Because you're like, I ain't saying they lying. They just making a mistake. That's not a joke. I mean, Sean. Human error happens everywhere. Right? Every industry. I mean, for example, if Sean. I think she would know she's a kid, though. Look, she never said I'm a kid. Nah, she's a kid. But her age. Steaks is a kid. Can I finish? I'm sorry. Look at Toadie. You don't like it all the time. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. All right. Go ahead. So, for example, if I ask Sean, how old are you? Right? now Sean was not conscious at the time of his birth he has to go to his birth certificate or he has to go to his passport or he has to go to his parents and that's how he's going to get his age now I know many people from other countries that their birthday is always January 1st and like why is their birthday always January 1st because when they came to this country their parents just wrote January 1st and they made up years now if Sean comes tells me I I just going to make an age right I 27 for example Because that what his birth certificate said right Later on, his parents tell him, you know what? When you were young, we were traveling. We made a mistake. I'm sorry. You're actually 30, for example, right? It's not that Sean's lying, but he made a mistake based on what others told him. Now, on that, Aisha, in one of the hadiths, says seven, and one says six. So this means she has no surety because she's reporting something that others told her. And if you take that, her older sister, Asma bint Abi Bakar, she actually gives out chronologically events that happened because the Arabs, did you know they had no calendar? Did you know that? You did not know that. The Islamic calendar, the Hijri calendar started with Umar ibn Khattab. So Arabs had no calendar. They had no way to date years. How would they remember dates? By events. Oh, the year when the elephants attacked, the year when it rained a lot. So those dates, many times, if you go to anybody's age in Islamic documentation, you will find different numbers. Even Islamic scholars later on, we find difference in their ages. Why? Not because somebody's lying, because they didn't have that type of documentation until the time of Amr when they started the Hijri calendar. So it's not, there is a big difference between somebody not being sure of their age and somebody lying. Okay? Now, let me finish. We just went on a whole diatribe. I'm trying to explain something. I'm trying to educate you. You didn't explain it. I did. I did. I just taught you when the Islamic calendar started, right? You didn't know that before, right? You didn't teach me that she wasn't. You tell her you're either six or seven. Did you know that? Neither one of them gets him out of the Epstein Island. Did you know that? I'm sorry. I can't say that no more. All right. All right. So, if we're going to go with the principle that you have set for yourself, that it has to be only in the Bible, nothing else is acceptable to you, then I would say I would use the same for the Quran. Not that I don't respect Hadith, because I'm sure there are other literature other than the Bible that you respect some of it, but you don't hate everything else, right? My position on anything outside the Bible is that it has to line up with the Bible. Excellent. If it lines up with the Bible, then I rock with it. If it don't line up with the Bible, I don't. 100%. I believe that everything outside of the Quran has to line up with the Quran. And I believe all authentically established hadith line up with the Quran. So I respect hadith, but hadith go through a science of being checked. And even if the chain is authentic, the sanad, at times the mutun, the text, have contradictions. And that's why we have a whole science called mutun. You said the hadith had the contradictions? Is that what you're saying? What I'm saying is, in hadith, the texts, the wording of hadith, sometimes contradict. And we have a science... So you have contradictions. Oh man, can I finish, bro? Right? We don't have contradictions, because there's a science called mukhtalaf al-hadith, that goes and finds out why. Was there a word flip? Was there a mistake? And if there is, we consider that to be a weak hadith. Even if, originally the chain was strong. It's called shahad. What's it called? Shahad. There you go, you learned something else. I'm going to forget it. No, let me see. I don't know. Forget it. What I do want to point out, I do want to point out that I taught him again to run from them hadiths because he did not want to deal with Muhammad sleeping with a nine-year-old. I am not running from anything. But what I'm saying is. You said I can't use it. What I'm saying is, if we are going to use extra scriptural evidences, then I'm going to bring some as well. Sean, is that fair? Fair. Thank you. Then I'm going to bring some. No, I don't mind. No, no, no. I don't mind you reading it. I just want for the record, the Bible has never said that that goes with it. And actually, in Isaiah 34 and 16, it says, read from the book of the prophets, none shall want her mate. So many people have tried to mate books like that to the Bible. And our Bible says not. That's why we reject that. That's why we reject the Koran. That's why we reject Hadith. We reject anything trying to marry itself to our book. But then you quoted a church father trying to explain something from the Bible. But as I stated earlier, the only thing that I would ever use is if it lines up with the Bible. So the as was supposed is in the Bible explaining leverage marriage. That's what the as was supposed means. Are you saying nothing can marry with it? Or if it's in line with it, then you accept it? The church father explaining the historical evidence of Joseph's father is not a book. It's not. Well, it's not a whole in a book. It's not a whole Koran, Hadith, whatever that is, where they write and everything where you have to now accept everything that's contained in that. So like that's our position again. I made it clear and I'm going to make it clear again. We I don't really chase trends anymore. I just want clothes that work, feel good and last. I've stopped buying a lot of clothes and started buying better ones. Stuff that fits right, holds up, and I actually wear. That's why I've been going with Quince. They've got basics I actually use, organic cotton sweaters, clean polos, lightweight jackets, stuff that holds up to daily wear and still looks good. The quality's solid and everything's built to last. What makes Quince different is how they do it. They work directly with top factories, cut out the middleman, and you're not paying for brand markup, just quality clothing. And they only partner with factories that meet high standards for craftsmanship and ethical production. Refresh your wardrobe with Quince. Go to quince.com slash dsh for free shipping on your order and 365-day returns. That's quince.com slash dsh. Now available in Canada too. Free shipping and 365-day returns. Quince.com slash dsh. Do not accept every hadith. No, no. Hadith? I'm not speaking of... Are weak at times? I wasn't answering... Wait, you ain't got to get offended at this one. You ain't got offended at all. But I wasn't speaking on you. I was mainly making a comparison how, why we don't line up with those things because of what comes with it. So even if I was a... Let's say if I was a follower of the Quran and I took the position of you that if it's not in the Quran, I don't follow it. I wouldn't follow no Hadiths. It would just be the... I don't take that view. No, I'm not saying you take that view. I thought you said the position of you. No, if I took the position of you, well, in this conversation, you're saying. I didn't say that. Again, please. Okay, then let's go into the hadith and show about her sleeping with the nine-year-old. I'm going to explain it again. I'm going to be very clear. But you can read that all day. That ain't going to bother me. I got you. We're going to read it all day. Okay, go ahead, read it. We can get right to you reading it. Good, good. Since we're going to go into the hadith with the nine-year-old, go ahead, do your thing. I want to clarify my stance on the Quran. We know your stance. Well, I don't think you did because you did that wrong. Your stance is you go by the Quran, you respect the Hadiths. You go by the Hadiths. Right. They are strong Hadiths. They are weak Hadiths. So some of them you don't give the same prominence to than the others. So I understand your position. You want to pound on that one? No, we're not pounding on that one. I'm just saying if you want it. No, let's pound after when we get to Muhammad pounding out Aisha at nine years old. We can pound that. Right. And none of that in the Quran or in Hadith mentions pounding. That's actually got to pound out. Yeah, he pounded out a nine-year-old. All right. So this is from Rashi. And if you don't know who Rashi is, then anybody... No, I know who Rashi is. I'm asking for you. Oh, okay. You already said you know. You hate him, right? No, but you looked at me like as if I didn't. That's why I was making sure. You're looking here and then there. No, you stopped right here first. And then you went over to Sean. All right, Sean, do you know who Rashi is? Explain Rashi, I don't. Okay. For those that are watching, you can also Google who Rashi is. Sidebar, why do I start with this Evian and then you got these two purified waters right here? That's Diabolical. I didn't bring those. Oh, okay. I only took out a glass. I heard, I heard, I heard. I think glasses, plastics are bad for you. I'm with you on that one. All right. My oils are in glass, not plastic. Yeah, so anybody that wants to, you can Google who Rashi is as well. Looking at the camera, not you. Rashi is one of the most authoritative and well-known commentators of the Bible. Christian and Jewish scholars, you can see quoted from him. And just like the church fathers didn't speak to anybody, their works were documented in later books, and that's how you get to them. A lot of the biblical history and tradition is documented through Rashi. He was 12th century, again, from the people who commentated on the Old Testament, I think he's the most widely accepted and respected scholar, Rashi. You can look him up. Jewish scholar of the Old Testament. So he says here in his commentary, for when Abraham came back from Mount Moriah after the binding of Isaac. And for each one, he gives the verses. So I'll give you a scan of this. You can go home and you can march. You're talking about Isaac now? Abraham here. Okay. From the binding of Isaac, yeah. So I'll give this to you. I mean, he gives the actual Hebrew verses for every single point here. Just give me the... No, you ain't got to give me the book. Okay. But you can give the verses. I'll give you a scan of the book, yeah. Yeah, no, you can give me the verses. All right, go ahead. so let's go through it by the way 10 minutes left I know you got to go on Jake's Shield show so I'm going to take a picture yeah Jake's filming next door so I'm going to take a picture of this and send it to you so he says here Rashi for when Abraham came from Mount Moriah after the binding of Isaac and he gives the verse here he was informed what verse can you say the verse he just mentions the Hebrew verse oh it puts it in Hebrew Hebrew. Oh, okay, okay, okay. So that's why I said I'll give this to you. I'm sure you can look these up in Hebrew. You speak Hebrew, right? I'm not an expert at it. You don't speak Hebrew? I speak it, but I'm not an expert. And we don't speak modern Hebrew. The Hebrew we speak is more ancient Hebrew, no vowels. So like we would say Shema, Yasha, Allah, Yahweh, Allah, Yahweh, Yahweh, Allah, Qad, Heel, Israel, the Lord our God is one. But that's an ancient Hebrew, not modern Hebrew. No vowels. Right, cool. okay so I'm just going to read Rashid here and then like I said I'll give this to you you can look up the Hebrew you can look up the verses no problem okay and for Abraham came back from Mount Moriah after the binding of Isaac and he was informed that Rebecca was born and he gives the verse as well and Isaac was 37 year old at the time he gives the verses here in Hebrew for it was at that juncture that Sarah died and then he gives the verse and from that time Isaac was born until the binding and when Sarah died and then he gives the verses here there were 37 years again Hebrew here for she was 99 years old when Isaac was born. How old was she? 99 99. And 137 when she died. How old was she? 137. Good job. As it says and he gives the verses Sarah's lifetime was and he gives it so now Isaac was 37 years old when Sarah died. How old was he? 37. Okay. and he gives a verse at the juncture Rebecca was born when Rebecca was born how old was Isaac? 37 37 and he waited for her until she would be Halakhi can you help me pronounce that? oh okay that's a Jewish term for fit for relations and then he says until she was Halakhi or fit for relations three years old and he married her three? I'd like you to read it for yourself fuck this is in Rashi with biblical references so according to Rashi with your references and this is Jewish law by the way that at 3 years old you can marry intercourse so what island were we talking about? we definitely not talking about my island I would like to give a couple more references if you don't mind thank you Sean appreciate it so the verses that he relies on and I actually chat GPT'd this. I paid for this one. It's Genesis 22, 20, and 23, when it says after the binding of Isaac, like he just mentioned, Genesis 23 and 1, Sarah lived 127 years old. So Rashi connects this to Isaac's binding. Sarah was 90 when Isaac was born. Isaac is 37 at Edeka. Sarah died immediately after Edeka, so Isaac is 37 when Sarah dies. Genesis 24 and 1, Abraham is old and advanced in his age. This introduces Isaac's marriage narrative. Genesis 25 and 20, Isaac is 40 years old when he married Rebecca. This gives Isaac's age at marriage. So Rashi calculates the time from Adekah, the time of Isaac at Adekah, the time that Isaac married for him to come to the conclusion of how old Rebecca is. Yes. Here's the problem. Here's the problem with that. This is Genesis 24 and 16. it says this is genesis 24 and 16 15 i'm gonna start at it says and it came to pass before he had done speaking that behold rebecca came out who was born of bethel son of milcar the wife of abraham's brother with a pitcher upon her shoulder so now we ought to believe that a three-year-old is carrying a pitcher on her shoulder and the damsel was very fair to look upon a virgin neither had any man known her if you know our culture a virgin is a young woman of marriageable age that's why when you go back and play this tape you're going to hear me say luke 2 and 36 and the prophetess married her husband seven years from her virginity so now we got if we go by rashi this why i don't mess with rashi i got you rashi has a three-year-old carrying a bucket to go pitch a tent yes he's a virgin neither had any man known i didn't even know they're looking at the three-year-olds like that and then it says she went down to the well and filled her pitcher and came up and the servant ran and meet her and said let me i pray thee drink a little water of thy pitcher now the three-year-old having a conversation with a grown man this is diabolical and she said drink my lord now she knows how to say my lord and everything drink my lord and she hasted and let down a pitcher upon her hand and gave him drink and when she had done giving him a drink she said i would draw water for like cameras also so the three-year-old now drawing water for the cameras also so you want me to believe rashi line ass over the scriptures this is why i don't go by i got you no sweat does it mention her age there there's no mention of her age okay so the only let me finish the only mention is virgin gotcha and what's important then what's important when you have to understand he bred custom virgin is about age not sex meaning when you become a young woman or when you get your flower that's when your virginity starts so leah for example was a woman that was old so she wouldn't be looked at as a virgin she's just an old woman that's why laban gave her to jacob first whereas rachel or would be younger she would be looked at that way so virginity has to do with age so she was just a young lady that could carry a pitch feed them but it doesn't give her age done as i said okay rashi lying like a mug man i'll let you i'll let you throw rashi under the bus later but the first thing is rashi clearly says the age that is fit for relation according to jewish law and there's not just rashi you can go on any of the jewish writings in the early times they clarified it was three years of age. Right? It's right here. That's not in the Bible. Again, Jewish law. That's not law. That's what he said. The Talmud is not Jewish law. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus is Jewish law. You're saying... The Bible says that. I'm sorry. Now, you ain't had no issue earlier now. Don't get touchy again. I'm not touchy. I'm letting you speak. I'm letting you cut me off. See how nice I am? I wasn't sure. But go ahead. I'm letting you cut me off. Go ahead. No, no, no, no. That's all I wanted to say. All right, cool. So what I'm saying is, what you're talking about, how our law is and how our people view things, again, based on scripture, I'm not saying you're making it up, right? But that's how you view the law. Jewish law, from the greatest Jewish scholars, and again, I want you to look up who Rashi is before we continue. Come on, man. Don't interrupt. Right? Says that he waited until she was physically fit for relations, sexual relations. And then he clarifies that according to Jewish law, it was three years of age. Okay? Now, you can look this up in other Jewish writings as well. I'm going to make a longer video on this where I'm going to scan all the books, including this, and give those. Now, because we have a lack of time, I do want to mention one more thing, which is the age of Mary. And once again, as we have agreed, the age of Aisha is not in the Quran and the age of Mary is not in the Bible but the earliest documented biography of Joseph that I had it ordered and I'll get you pictures of this just for your own benefit so I can educate you it mentions that she entered the care of the monastery at Tisa'ah which is 9 years of age she was married at 12 years of age how old was she? 12 12 that yeah go ahead what what's the monastery this is where she was kept with being protected to pray you talking about mary yes you know what i'm sorry let me let you finish go ahead let me let you finish thank you that's the funniest thing i've ever heard in my life i'm glad you thought it's funny all right um so here in the privilege of james i'm giving actual references from books not just acting like I'm laughing. It says the priests that were in charge of her, whether they were rabbis or priests, this is the English translation, when she was 12, they had her Mary. How old was she? 12. Okay. So she was 12. Now regarding the earliest documented... And this is all about Mary, right? Yes. So far, 12. The earliest documented biography of Joseph, which is, you know, it's in Latin. I can give you a copy as well of pictures, not the book. it mentions that Joseph was 40 when he was first married. Then he waited 49 years. So that is how long? Nine years. 89 years. All right. 89 years. Then a year after his first wife already died, and now a year after that, he married Mary when he was 90. Okay. So 89 years, a year after that. How old was he? 90. 90. And how old was she? 12. So if you're going to talk about people going to islands, then and I'll give you all the references. So I can educate you. That is Roman Catholic dogma. You know why when you read those, they got Mary and monastery was the word you used, right? Because they teach perpetual virginity and immaculate conception. That is Roman Catholic dogma. Immaculate conception. I used to think immaculate conception was Mary just getting pregnant by God. But Immaculate Conception is when they teach the sinlessness of Mary and perpetual virginity of Mary. They teach that Mary was a virgin, meaning no sex, no touching outside of the ever, even after she had Christ. Didn't she have other kids? See, that's what the Bible says. No, no, I'm answering you. That's what the Bible says, that her and Joseph had other kids. But the perpetual virginity, the Roman Catholic dogma, teach that she did not. so the monastery that she was in that's not biblical when you read the bible you see she traveling moving around like she want to went and visited her cousin elizabeth and they do not give her age nowhere in the bible then they got joseph at 90 years old that diabolical i ain't never heard of that anywhere and this is this is why we don't go outside of the bible unless it lines up with the text because she was never in no monastery before or after if anything if you want to know her nature the first miracle that she performed she was at a wedding she was at a wedding that why not she performed christ performed she did i heard myself i don't want that on the sound so the first i'm not a christian the first thing she said was she went right to christ and said we done ran out of wine and told him to make wine so she wasn't in the monastery even when they said your mother is without what did christ say who is my mother them that do the will of my father the same of my mother and sister so this whole monastery and none type of nonsense doesn't line up with uh the bible which is what that garbage is you're not garbage this time but that book them two books is garbage as so is rashi because in the story of rashi isaac wasn't the one that went and got rebecca abraham sent a servant when you read the beginning of genesis 24 it says uh this genesis 24 and 4 and i know you got a row it says um but thou shalt go into my country and to my kindred and take a wife unto my son isaac and the servant said unto him per adventure the woman will not be willing to follow me you see it says the woman it doesn't say the child it says the woman would not be willing to follow me unto this land must i need bring thy son again unto the land once thou and abraham said unto him beware that thou bring not my son dither again the most high from heaven which took me from my father's house and from my kindred and lamb spake unto me and sware unto me saying unto thy seed will i give this lamb and send an angel before me and if the woman would not be willing to follow thee then thou shalt be clear from this my oath only bring not my son dither again so clearly they wasn't sending to get a three-year-old kid they were sending to get a woman that could actually get married so rashi is a piece of shit is he dead yeah it's 12th century so it's been dead for a long time thank god yes thank you well first thing i appreciate your time and i appreciate you hosting us um once again uh regarding contradictions we've already beaten that to the death and i think people are clear if they watch the video themselves regarding this issue since you brought it up i'll close it up if you're going to go with scripture divine only then the age of Aisha so your comments would be invalid if you're going to take secondary information especially those that I do not consider to be part of wahi meaning it's not the prophet speaking peace be upon him or Allah then no doubt we'd have to also use the same for other scripture and as you quoted church fathers when it suited you I think it's only befitting that we look at the earliest documented commentary and biographies since you don't have any other ones that give different ages regarding her being three and carrying water rabbis have written entire books explaining her life and in it they say that children at that age would do that whether that's right or not it's not my business that's their writings right and well yeah i mean you know my three-year-old used to build stuff so my son yusuf at three was you know doing all kinds of amazing things you know so that's not really the point the point is scripturally according to the greatest of the commentators of the bible she was three and this is not just one scholar many scholars showing scripture and tradition not just that if you look at the age of mary across the board she's 12 joseph whether he was 90 or 40 either which way he would have to fall in the same category that you're putting just because you want to throw anything under the bus that doesn't fit your narrative doesn't mean that it works. So you got to be fair. If you're going to criticize the Prophet for something, then you have to be fair across the board. And many of your kings from Israel, from the kingdom of Israel and Judah, if you look up their history, I'll send you books. They married girls that were very young. So again, as long as she was past puberty and it was according to the customs of that time, as the authentic hadith mentions, the Prophet waited until she had physically hit puberty. So to criticize that, it's pretty childish and it's called presentism, meaning you're looking at today's standards and trying to judge an earlier time. Again, thank you for your time. You want to close off? Thank you. I appreciate it, man. It definitely was a good... He got the last one of the contradictions because he brought them up. No, man. You started first. I didn't let him close, to be fair. Yeah, I didn't get you close out. No, no. The contradictions when he... Look, he mad about the closing. I just want to be fair. That's all right. It is fair. You started. I'm just going up. Anyway, that lets you know who was hurt in this conversation because I can't even close out. I think the video... Interrupted while I'm doing my closeout. Interrupted while I'm doing my closeout. I don't know. So, again, it was definitely a good conversation. Sean and I have been trying to link up for a while. I'm actually glad we had this conversation. As you can see, there is no contradiction in the Bible. It's just easily explained. You have to actually be of the culture to understand it. On the subject of the women, there is no age for women in the Bible. And as you can read, when it came to Isaac, Abraham sent to get a woman. It didn't even say a young girl. I could see like if it said, go get this young girl, go get a virgin. Then I could see maybe you trying to hypothesize it. But Abraham sent his servant to go get and fetch Rebecca and was looking for a woman. That woman knew how to speak. She knew how to fetch water for the camels. She doing all this. So, of course, she's not a young woman at all. When it comes to Muhammad, he's correct about the age of Aisha is not in the Koran, but the hadiths that they do hold to whatever value that they have. A multitude of them, whether they say she was six or seven, they do give an age. Whether they say he slept with her at nine, they do give an age. There's nowhere in our text that it gives the age of a young woman, of any woman in the Bible. The closest is Luke 2 and 36 when it talks about Anna, seven years from her virginity, which lets you know virginity is something that a woman becomes. So a three-year-old wouldn't even be a virgin. You have to actually get your flower or your cycle, and then that's when you become a virgin because now that's just an age. Because the older you get, you might not be a virgin. A 40-year-old woman has never had sex. You're not going to call her a virgin. She's an old woman at that point. So this was very, very easily explained. So with the church father, I only use that example for the people's sake so they can understand. I normally would not use the church father. So I do agree with him with that point. As far as those books, those extremely Roman Catholic dogmatic. I would question the validity of them because they said Mary was in a modest. Not not that one. Those two books. No. Rashi's trash. Right. So also when you go to Rashi, when you go to the Talmud and you go those books, I was saying was dogmatic. those the talmud and the rashis you know they play with they have something called a moyo where they believe circumcision is also done with a man putting his mouth on a young boys uh yeah they yeah when they circumcised them jewish boys that's why they look so effeminate because they had their penis played with when they was eight days old so that's the people that we think and revelation is two and nine calls them the synagogue of satan so the synagogue of satan could never be the authority on the age of anybody in the bible nor teach what they should be able to do so i do dismiss those records but it was a pleasure uh having a back and forth with you man anytime y'all want to do it again you let me know oh yeah all right look that comment below what you liked what you disliked who you agreed with guys i'll see you guys next time peace thanks for watching to the end guys please comment below your thoughts on the episode if you agree if you disagree i'd love to hear it i read every single comment it means a lot to me thank you so much