The old testament says that a person can not die for another persons sins and that everyone is responsible for their own sins and that all you have to do to be forgiven of your sins is to ask god to forgive of your sins and you will be forgiven. The new testament says that someone has to die for your sins for you to be forgiven. The new testament contradicts the old testament.
Genesis 5, 28-31: "28 When Lamech had lived 182 years, he had a son. 29 He named him Noah[c] and said, “He will comfort us in the labor and painful toil of our hands caused by the ground the Lord has cursed.” 30 After Noah was born, Lamech lived 595 years and had other sons and daughters. 31 Altogether, Lamech lived a total of 777 years, and then he died." "28And Lamech lived an hundred and eighty and eight years, and begot a son. 29And he called his name Noe, saying, This one will cause us to cease from our works, and from the toils of our hands, and from the earth, which the Lord God has cursed. 30And Lamech lived after his begetting Noe, five hundred and sixty and five years, and begot sons and daughters. 31And all the days of Lamech were seven hundred and fifty-three years, and he died." "28And Lamech lived fifty and three years, and begat a son: 29And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD hath cursed. 30And Lamech lived after he begat Noah six hundred years, and begat sons and daughters: 31And all the days of Lamech were six hundred fifty and three years: and he died." Which version is the correct one? Maybe Lamech was revived twice and died three times?? And he begot two Noahs as well... It seems there are numerous contradiction in the Bible. The different versions can't be all true, but they can be all false. That means that some Bible contain errors. Which one? Maybe yours...
I only recognize the King James Bible as authoritative. All modern versions are based on corrupt manuscripts and are copyrighted under the derivative copyright law that requires "significant differences" from the original or any other copyrighted version. They can and do contain error. Comparing versions is no evidence of error in the Bible.
@@BrotherBill So, you are sticking to a faulty version of the bible based on partially faulty manuscripts which contradict older manuscripts like manuscripts from Qumran.
The manuscripts from Qumran (a.k.a. Dead Sea Scrolls) actually support the King James rendering in most cases (one of the reasons the scrolls are not often cited by proponents of the newer versions). The book of Isaiah for instance is almost word for word the same when correctly translated. As for the Qumran texts being older, you are comparing apples to oranges. The Majority Text upon which the New Testament is based is not as old, but the Qumran manuscripts are strictly Old Testament and are far older than what was found in Qumran. Having said that, the Qumran manuscripts are generally older than the Ben Cha'im Masoretic text of the Old Testament (the basis for the KJV) though dates for individual fragments range from 8th century BC to 11th century AD. Now assuming the antiquity of the manuscripts, most of which are mere fragments, how does age guarantee accuracy? The concept of the older manuscripts being more reliable was put forth by two late 19th century scholars, Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892), who both hated the King James Bible and wanted to replace it. Their theory is faulty, however, because it ignores the fact that there are two primary families of manuscripts both in the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament. In both cases, the origins of one family of manuscripts were demonstrably corrupt. The older manuscripts, due to lack of use and therefore longer preservation, belong to the corrupt families. Age does not attest to accuracy. Additionally, the Qumran manuscripts include much more than the biblical books. Only 40% of the manuscripts come from books of the Bible. The remaining 60% are from apocryphal books, like the book of Enoch and the book of Jubilees, and others sectarian writings such as the Community Rule and the War Scroll. These scribes who copied out these manuscripts were copying many different documents. Though they have historical value, they were not strictly preserving the Word of God, so treating that as their purpose is not conclusive.
@@morlewen7218 Would you like to put up ONE English Bible you believe is infallible (no error) against the King James Bible? It has to be a clear error or contradiction. If you don't believe any Bible is the infallible Word of God, don't bother.
@@martinlohne5128 Unfortunately, there is no inerrenat Bible if you include all kind of errors. My advice woul dbe to use a Bible that inculdes footnotes. This makes it easier to raise your awarness of disputed passages..In some cases the Masoreic Text shows significant changes compared with older text sources. Another advice: Martin G Abegg, Peter Flint, Eugene Ulrich The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First Time Into English Intersting to read. It is available online.
*contradiction #1* It quite clearly say that they're killing the children for the sin of their fathers. It is done with the intent to prevent his lineage to continue. It's not an accidental result. It's not obscure at all, the words are right there. It has nothing to do with splitting family apart. If we are to make a proper analogy, going with your drunk driver, the children are not in the car with him. They are later asked to pay the repairs for what was destroyed in the crash. *contradiction #5* There's 2 parts to address here. First, you say that it's not possible that he's saying he's not good because in other place it say he is. Well, big whoop Sherlock! That's exactly the issue here. You're talking about contradictions. Your explanation is that it's not a contradiction because if it was then it would be a contradiction. Second, he's definitely saying he's not good. That's the whole point of the verse. If it wasn't the case then why contrast in with another one where it say he is without sin. If I said "why do you call me stupid? Only americans are stupid." it doesn't mean I'm a stupid american. No, it state that you're attributing me something from a group I do not belong. The verse is exactly the same. The questioning part is the same as saying "don't call me that". *contradiction #7* So again, you dismiss the contradiction because if it was a contradiction then it would be a contradiction. You're not answering the contradictions, you're confirming them. *contradiction #8* It's interesting that you chose that one as "tough" to explain. If anything it feel one of the easiest one to. Not that I agree that it's a good explanation, but at least it require much less mental gymnastic. Actually there are much better contradictions from the same place that one came from. What did Judas do with the money, who bought the field of blood and how did it get its name? *when it come to science the bible has been found 100% accurate* except it hasn't. Quite the opposite in fact. About everything that is said in the old testament is wrong. Adam and Eve is wrong, the flood is wrong, the age of the earth/universe is wrong, sun created after the plants is wrong, the size of the stars is wrong. *those who don't want to believe will find a way to justify their doubt* Those who want to believe will find a way to justify their delusions. You poisoned the well a few times. This is just one of them just to point out that you did. *extra round: contradiction #11* In genesis 1, the order of creation goes like this: plants, animals then humans(male and female) In genesis 2, the order goes like this: human male, plants, animals and finally human female.
Small problem. If the Bible says God is family, God is family. Ephesians 3:15. Mention of the holy spirit, doth not a trinity make. Mention of the holy spirit, doth not a trinity teach. If it took an immortal holy spirit, to tell Mary she would be visited by the holy spirit, that makes a quad, or family of God. If we are to become joint heirs, brethren with the 3rd leg of a trinity,that's still family. I reject the claim that I don't believe in God, or the Bible, if I don't buy the trinity doctrine. A deliberate mystery, from a church, NOT THE BIBLE, bless your mortal heart. Muslims are CORRECT about the trinity being bogus, as it completely destroys the first command.
That verse is not referring to God, the Godhead is only 3 persons that are one, “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” - 1 John 5:7 (KJV) Yes we enter the family of God but in no way become part of the Godhead, the Bible, not the church is where the doctrine of Trinity comes from
@aarongreenier8794 Small problem. Please Google 1John 5:7, to discover it is a corrupted passage! Whole sections are bracketed out! Obviously, a trinitarian scribe, trying to legitimize the trinity. YOU CANNOT ERASE, Ephesians 3:15. SHOW US a clear, unambiguous passage, that GOD IS A TRINITY, please, or please stop trying to get the innocent to break the first command. The godhead, SHOW us the holy spirit mentioned in the godhead. YOU CAN'T. SHOW US BY SCRIPTURE, (not corrupted) GOD IS A TRINITY . BY IT, the heavenly host does not exist. SHOW US. You have a Bible?
@aarongreenier8794 Small problem. Google 1John 5:7, to discover it is CORRUPTED! Whole sections bracketed out. The RSV, AND NIV, render it correctly. You say the Bible teaches trinity? SHOW US, (other than corrupted passages), clear unambiguous statements that God is a trinity. SHOW US Ephesians 3:15, is a lie. Show us, the holy spirit is eternal, when scripture says created. SHOW US the holy spirit mentioned in ANY passage of the godhead. You made a big mistake mentioning 1JOHN 5:7. Google it.
@aarongreenier8794 GOOGLE 1John 5:7. IT is a CORRUPTED passage. The RSV, AND NIV, render it correctly. No mention of the holy spirit in any godhead passages either. God is family not trinity, or the heavenly host doesn't exist.
The RSV niv and the like are from corrupted Alexandrian manuscripts and are perversions of the word of God, majority of manuscripts support that verse as legitimate anyone who says the Holy Spirit is not God is blaspheming God, Matthew 12:32 ""Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him" for your sake I would chose your words carefully.
If i could give you a million like I would Brother Bill. Keep up the great work.
An absolute masterclass, Praise God for you Bill 🙌🏼✝️
Wow this couldn’t have came on a better time !! Amen hallelujah!
Thank you Brother Bill! Your knowledge of the Bible is wonderful. I wish we could meet every day.
If not here on earth 🌏 in the Rapture and Eternity! It’s a encouragement for you/us!
Thank you Brother Bill, that was very good!! Praise the Lord!!
Amen brother
Thank you!
Well done, Brother Bill!
Amen Brother Bill very good 👍
Great stuff bro, thanks for sharing!!!
The old testament says that a person can not die for another persons sins and that everyone is responsible for their own sins and that all you have to do to be forgiven of your sins is to ask god to forgive of your sins and you will be forgiven. The new testament says that someone has to die for your sins for you to be forgiven. The new testament contradicts the old testament.
Genesis 5, 28-31:
"28 When Lamech had lived 182 years, he had a son. 29 He named him Noah[c] and said, “He will comfort us in the labor and painful toil of our hands caused by the ground the Lord has cursed.” 30 After Noah was born, Lamech lived 595 years and had other sons and daughters. 31 Altogether, Lamech lived a total of 777 years, and then he died."
"28And Lamech lived an hundred and eighty and eight years, and begot a son. 29And he called his name Noe, saying, This one will cause us to cease from our works, and from the toils of our hands, and from the earth, which the Lord God has cursed. 30And Lamech lived after his begetting Noe, five hundred and sixty and five years, and begot sons and daughters. 31And all the days of Lamech were seven hundred and fifty-three years, and he died."
"28And Lamech lived fifty and three years, and begat a son: 29And he called his name Noah, saying, This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground which the LORD hath cursed. 30And Lamech lived after he begat Noah six hundred years, and begat sons and daughters: 31And all the days of Lamech were six hundred fifty and three years: and he died."
Which version is the correct one? Maybe Lamech was revived twice and died three times?? And he begot two Noahs as well... It seems there are numerous contradiction in the Bible. The different versions can't be all true, but they can be all false. That means that some Bible contain errors. Which one? Maybe yours...
I only recognize the King James Bible as authoritative. All modern versions are based on corrupt manuscripts and are copyrighted under the derivative copyright law that requires "significant differences" from the original or any other copyrighted version. They can and do contain error. Comparing versions is no evidence of error in the Bible.
@@BrotherBill So, you are sticking to a faulty version of the bible based on partially faulty manuscripts which contradict older manuscripts like manuscripts from Qumran.
The manuscripts from Qumran (a.k.a. Dead Sea Scrolls) actually support the King James rendering in most cases (one of the reasons the scrolls are not often cited by proponents of the newer versions). The book of Isaiah for instance is almost word for word the same when correctly translated. As for the Qumran texts being older, you are comparing apples to oranges. The Majority Text upon which the New Testament is based is not as old, but the Qumran manuscripts are strictly Old Testament and are far older than what was found in Qumran. Having said that, the Qumran manuscripts are generally older than the Ben Cha'im Masoretic text of the Old Testament (the basis for the KJV) though dates for individual fragments range from 8th century BC to 11th century AD. Now assuming the antiquity of the manuscripts, most of which are mere fragments, how does age guarantee accuracy? The concept of the older manuscripts being more reliable was put forth by two late 19th century scholars, Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892), who both hated the King James Bible and wanted to replace it. Their theory is faulty, however, because it ignores the fact that there are two primary families of manuscripts both in the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament. In both cases, the origins of one family of manuscripts were demonstrably corrupt. The older manuscripts, due to lack of use and therefore longer preservation, belong to the corrupt families. Age does not attest to accuracy.
Additionally, the Qumran manuscripts include much more than the biblical books. Only 40% of the manuscripts come from books of the Bible. The remaining 60% are from apocryphal books, like the book of Enoch and the book of Jubilees, and others sectarian writings such as the Community Rule and the War Scroll. These scribes who copied out these manuscripts were copying many different documents. Though they have historical value, they were not strictly preserving the Word of God, so treating that as their purpose is not conclusive.
@@morlewen7218 Would you like to put up ONE English Bible you believe is infallible (no error) against the King James Bible? It has to be a clear error or contradiction.
If you don't believe any Bible is the infallible Word of God, don't bother.
@@martinlohne5128 Unfortunately, there is no inerrenat Bible if you include all kind of errors. My advice woul dbe to use a Bible that inculdes footnotes. This makes it easier to raise your awarness of disputed passages..In some cases the Masoreic Text shows significant changes compared with older text sources.
Another advice:
Martin G Abegg, Peter Flint, Eugene Ulrich
The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible
The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First Time Into English
Intersting to read. It is available online.
The holy spirit is creatrd, NOT ETERNAL.
Col. 1:16.
*contradiction #1*
It quite clearly say that they're killing the children for the sin of their fathers. It is done with the intent to prevent his lineage to continue. It's not an accidental result. It's not obscure at all, the words are right there. It has nothing to do with splitting family apart. If we are to make a proper analogy, going with your drunk driver, the children are not in the car with him. They are later asked to pay the repairs for what was destroyed in the crash.
*contradiction #5*
There's 2 parts to address here.
First, you say that it's not possible that he's saying he's not good because in other place it say he is. Well, big whoop Sherlock! That's exactly the issue here. You're talking about contradictions. Your explanation is that it's not a contradiction because if it was then it would be a contradiction.
Second, he's definitely saying he's not good. That's the whole point of the verse. If it wasn't the case then why contrast in with another one where it say he is without sin.
If I said "why do you call me stupid? Only americans are stupid." it doesn't mean I'm a stupid american. No, it state that you're attributing me something from a group I do not belong. The verse is exactly the same. The questioning part is the same as saying "don't call me that".
*contradiction #7*
So again, you dismiss the contradiction because if it was a contradiction then it would be a contradiction. You're not answering the contradictions, you're confirming them.
*contradiction #8*
It's interesting that you chose that one as "tough" to explain. If anything it feel one of the easiest one to. Not that I agree that it's a good explanation, but at least it require much less mental gymnastic. Actually there are much better contradictions from the same place that one came from. What did Judas do with the money, who bought the field of blood and how did it get its name?
*when it come to science the bible has been found 100% accurate*
except it hasn't. Quite the opposite in fact. About everything that is said in the old testament is wrong. Adam and Eve is wrong, the flood is wrong, the age of the earth/universe is wrong, sun created after the plants is wrong, the size of the stars is wrong.
*those who don't want to believe will find a way to justify their doubt*
Those who want to believe will find a way to justify their delusions.
You poisoned the well a few times. This is just one of them just to point out that you did.
*extra round: contradiction #11*
In genesis 1, the order of creation goes like this:
plants, animals then humans(male and female)
In genesis 2, the order goes like this:
human male, plants, animals and finally human female.
Small problem. If the Bible says God is family, God is family. Ephesians 3:15.
Mention of the holy spirit, doth not a trinity make.
Mention of the holy spirit, doth not a trinity teach.
If it took an immortal holy spirit, to tell Mary she would be visited by the holy spirit, that makes a quad, or family of God.
If we are to become joint heirs, brethren with the 3rd leg of a trinity,that's still family. I reject the claim that I don't believe in God, or the Bible, if I don't buy the trinity doctrine. A deliberate mystery, from a church, NOT THE BIBLE, bless your mortal heart.
Muslims are CORRECT about the trinity being bogus, as it completely destroys the first command.
That verse is not referring to God, the Godhead is only 3 persons that are one, “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”
- 1 John 5:7 (KJV)
Yes we enter the family of God but in no way become part of the Godhead, the Bible, not the church is where the doctrine of Trinity comes from
@aarongreenier8794 Small problem. Please Google
1John 5:7, to discover it is a corrupted passage! Whole sections are bracketed out!
Obviously, a trinitarian scribe, trying to legitimize the trinity.
YOU CANNOT ERASE, Ephesians 3:15.
SHOW US a clear, unambiguous passage, that GOD IS A TRINITY, please, or please stop trying to get the innocent to break the first command.
The godhead, SHOW us the holy spirit mentioned in the godhead. YOU CAN'T.
SHOW US
BY SCRIPTURE, (not corrupted)
GOD IS A TRINITY .
BY IT, the heavenly host does not exist. SHOW US.
You have a Bible?
@aarongreenier8794 Small problem. Google 1John 5:7, to discover it is CORRUPTED!
Whole sections bracketed out.
The RSV, AND NIV, render it correctly.
You say the Bible teaches trinity?
SHOW US, (other than corrupted passages), clear unambiguous statements that God is a trinity.
SHOW US Ephesians 3:15, is a lie.
Show us, the holy spirit is eternal, when scripture says created.
SHOW US the holy spirit mentioned in ANY passage of the godhead.
You made a big mistake mentioning 1JOHN 5:7.
Google it.
@aarongreenier8794 GOOGLE 1John 5:7.
IT is a CORRUPTED passage.
The RSV, AND NIV, render it correctly.
No mention of the holy spirit in any godhead passages either.
God is family not trinity, or the heavenly host doesn't exist.
The RSV niv and the like are from corrupted Alexandrian manuscripts and are perversions of the word of God, majority of manuscripts support that verse as legitimate anyone who says the Holy Spirit is not God is blaspheming God, Matthew 12:32
""Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him" for your sake I would chose your words carefully.