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 an Epstein island because he was with an underage girl,

police should be upon him. That's not offensive because he slept with an underage girl.

All right guys, shake Uthman back on the show. I'm back. Captain Tazarah 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 on funny when he said friendly because debates are, you know,

now you can keep a respectful debate. Yes, respect, 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, you know, when you have,

when you have an opposing view, that's what I mean, a contention is. I don't know what your view

is. I don't even know if you oppose or not. Let's start that on Tazarah. If you want to start

off with the prompt is the Bible, the word of God, yes, your stance. Yeah, 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

Israelites 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 showed up his word to Jacob. He

have 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 to that? I got a question. So King Saul

and the Old Testament, first Samuel 31, 4 down talks about his death, right?

You say first Samuel 34 now. Samuel chapter 31 verse 4.

Then Saul said to his on bearer, draw your sword and thrust me through with it.

Least these uncircumcised men come and thrust me through and abuse me.

But his on bearer would not so for he was greatly afraid. Therefore Saul took the sword and fell on

it, committed suicide. And when his on 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 turned the page to

2 Samuel, the same King Saul, same account. I mean, it says there was Saul chapter 1 verse 6

around the middle. There was Saul leaning on his spear. And indeed, can we verse 5 verse 6?

I say can you reverse 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 harder, hard after him. Now when he looked behind

him, he saw me and called to me and I so I answered, here I am. And he said to me, who are you? I

answered to him, I am, I'm a I'm a light. 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 as one arm bearer didn't do it. The second

account and I'm a I'm a light killed him. So which one is it? That's a real question. Why does

it seem like a fake question, doesn't it? No, when I mean real question, I mean like something I

got a response to or was it rhetorical? No, no, it's a real question. It was rhetorical, then I

wouldn't be looking at you expecting a response. 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 selling that story and 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 amulacate assumed that him saying,

unalive and Saul would get him glory when you keep reading. This is a second Sam was one same

chapter after they mourn. This is verse 13. And David said unto the young man, they told him,

when's art bounty answered, I am the son of a stranger and amulacate. And David said unto him,

how was thou not afraid to stretch forth thy hand to destroy the Lord's anointed? And David called

one of the younger men and said go near and fall upon him and he smote him and he died. So we're

supposed to know with this story. I can't believe you asked this question is that the amulacate is

lying. Where did I say that? It doesn't say you just made that up. You know he's lying. I don't know

and can you show me scripture that says he's lying or are you just gonna 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, no, no, no, no. I don't know where in the scripture

does it say that, and meet a comment that wasn't in this. You're saying what you're trying to

imply is that this is not the word of God because first Samuel's one in

thirty one says Saul unallived himself in an armor bearer did the same and in

the second Samuel's 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. Now, no

but you can answer my question. I did answer my 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 a

few 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 would be, right? I

quoted verse in chapter. Could you do the same? Yeah, which account is correct? The

account that's correct is first Samuel's one in thirty one. The account that

the amulacite and if you actually know the history of the amulacites, do you

know the history of the amulacites? I do, but one in thirty one. I'm going to look

up the you said first Samuel the one thirty one. I'm looking up the verse you

quoted. Well, I didn't quote nothing in first Samus one in thirty one. That

account that is correct is first Samuel one thirty one. That's the that's a

chapter. You went the first Samus. Oh, I'm sorry. When I say one in thirty one.

Okay, I mean, I mean, you know why because I'm working that your first fail

today. How's that a fail? Just by saying a verse that doesn't that's not the

one you were quoting, right? Actually, that's not a fail. When I look at it in

my phone, because it says one, Samuel, thirty one of my phone. That's why I say

one, but the chapter what I was saying was I was saying the you asked which one

is correct? Yes. And I said the one that you read in first Samus thirty one, the

way Saul was unalive. Okay, that's it. What you're reading in second

Samuel is not someone that is an Israelite given an account. It's someone

that's an amulacite given an account when the amulacite have always been an

enemy to us. So the amulacite 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 okay 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 Lord. This is a story. I'm letting you finish respectfully without

interruption. Did you see that? Yeah. This is a story is just as simple. This is a

story of Samuel, excuse me of the amulacite lying to Samuel, excuse me to

David and still being unalive for his lie. Are you done? Yes. I respectfully

listen, right? Right? You don't have to keep saying that you just want to

interrupt the first I had to bring order. Not you. I brought order. You did

not. I listen to you don't have to keep saying that. What you're saying is not

in scripture. No, we're in scripture. Does it say he lied? You're just making

that up to answer a contradiction that is clearly in the scripture. It does

not mention that he's lying. These are both scripture. And in fact, if you were

to go to 2nd Samuel, 21, it there when we go to 2nd Samuel, chapter 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 Betshan, where the Philistines had hung them up after

the Philistines had struck down Saul. So who kills Saul? Here it says Philistines

and this is not an amulacite lying. I don't really trace trends anymore. I just

want to close out work, feel good and last. I stopped buying a lot of clothes. I

started buying better ones. Stuff that fits right holds up and I actually wear.

That's why I've been going with a win. They've got basics I actually use

organic con sweaters, clean polos, lightweight jackets, stuff that holds up to daily wear,

and still looks good. Quality solid and everything's built for last. What makes

Quinn's different is how they do it. They work directly with top factories,

adult and middlemen, 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 Quinn's, go to Quinn's.com slash DSA for free shipping

on your order and 365 day returns. That's q-u-i-n-c-e.com slash PSH.

Now available in Canada to free shipping and 365 day returns.

And that's where you're at again? Second Samuel, 2112.

So now when it says the redelata part that you just read, okay you said the Philistines

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 Saul, right?

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 him? And 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 try to teach this, they don't know what they

talking about because they're looking for contradictions for one second.

That's an answer when you don't have an answer. No, I'm not finished.

I'm listening. And what I mean by that is when it says at the latter part of second Samuel's

21 and 12, when it says where the Philistines had slain Saul and Gilba, the reason why I say

that Philistines had slain it because we would agree, just a simple yes or no, the Philistines

is who Saul was going to war with at that time, right? Yes. And it says, if I read 1 Samuel's 31

and 1, it says not a Philistine 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,

but not Saul. Saul, according to the first, you asked the question right, so I'm answering you.

I asked you about the Israelites of 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 to yes or no? I'm asking you a question to respond to, but when you mentioned 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 we're past tense to Israelites, correct? Some of them, yes, not all of them. So in 1 Samuel's

21 and 12, when it says when the Philistines has slaying Saul and Gilba, as with anything,

it's if 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 2 Samuel's 21 and 12 is that the Philistines slew Saul because Saul died in that

battle. He died. Why? He could have stayed in thought, 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 to Israelites talk like this. You don't know that. It's interesting to me when a sheep 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 banking things up about me? No Muslims use

that Quran. You said about me. When did I ever use the Bible to validate my book? Without the

Bible that Quran is trash, which is already trash. First thing, be respectful. We're going to

have a respectful conversation. We said we're not respectful conversation. I didn't call the

Bible. I didn't call the Bible trash. I'm not called the Quran trash 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 just saying, if you're saying my Bible is contradictory, you're

saying my God is contradictory. You can't control. And I do not say that. And you're putting

words in my mouth. I'm putting words in my mouth. Are you saying the Bible is,

did you manage to work? Can I speak? Yeah, let them finish. Thank you. Yeah, a little touchy.

You're the one trying to push it. And then you can't handle it. All I say is that you're

always trash. And that's touching. And I do not respect that to be a respectful conversation.

I don't respect nobody's saying the Bible is contradictory. But then you said it. I'm not

afraid. It's 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 contradiction 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 a 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 kind of Bible has clear contradictions.

And if the Bible is corrupt, that doesn't mean God is corrupt. So when I said the Quran 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 Quran. I didn't

interrupt. That's two interruptions. The Quran 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. I'm going to. Can I speak now, Sean?

Yeah, let me start. Okay. First thing is pointing out contradiction and religious script and

calling something trash are not the same thing. I think Sean, that would be 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? If I, 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.

So the first 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. I will get you. Okay. Can you bring me the Rashi? Thank you. No way. I'm going to show it to him,

right? And then he's going to be chink, chink running from it. If it's a book chapter, I got you,

you know, we're in the Bible. I got you. But we do know Muhammad slept with a nine year old girl.

Police be upon him. It's in high deep. That's all guys listen to. Okay. Listen.

Muhammad was a pito. He would be on the Epstein island. 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? Chopra and verse show it. And then I'm going to show it

about Jesus. Because you have a Bible right here. I don't know what you're grabbing, but I hope

it's a good chapter. You calm down, right? But you know, the reason he's going to that is because

he couldn't answer here. I did answer it. He didn't. No, 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 don't know that I'm doing that. I said, if you offend it, I'm not being interrupted

and can use exclusively on us. 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. On your

age chapters, but I just don't want him to act like he don't interrupt. I'm the one who had to

bring the rules. You're interrupting to almost say that. Thank you. Appreciate it. Okay. 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 write and respond and then we'll go to that. Excellent. So now, Philistines didn't strike down

Israel in the verse. It's a struck soul, right? If, for example, a president, like let's

sit on our 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 this struck down Trump.

He's an individual, not a nation. Just like that, here it says the Philistines struck down

soul, 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 soul. It mentioned soul 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 respond it after as scripture. And then after that,

I am more than happy to respond to the age of Ayesha Raviyana. Okay. So,

where he just said, prove 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 Lachkemi, Barack Obama's credit

with unaliving Osama bin Lachkemi, even though Obama didn't have a gun, didn't have a weapon,

didn't have nothing. When you go into the Bible, King Saul's jealousy of David was when they

said, Saul, David with his 10,000s, Saul with his 1000s. Saul didn't unalive anybody. King David

was the one doing the work. So why have 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 slain,

Saul and Gilbert, it's saying that because he was the one in power. And that's more prominent than

just saying, Hey, we destroyed captains such and such. We destroyed offices such and such. So it's

not a error. It's not a contradiction. It doesn't take your way from being a word of God. You just

don't understand because it's not for you. So I've answered the question. I clearly said,

and set, first of all, in 1st January 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 amulacite believes he's going to get kudos. If he says,

Amen, I slain Saul for you because everybody knew David and Saul were enemies because Saul was

trying to unalive him. The amulacite realized that it backfired. Well, on a lot, 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 amulacite clearly tells David that I am the one

that killed him. There is nothing in those verses that the amulacite's like or trying to get kudos.

He just made that up. Can you see that there's no indication in the text that the amulacite's 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 amulacite was just making this up. That's just you making up an answer,

no biblical scholarly work to back the amulacite's 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 so 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

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's his truck down Saul, his analogy doesn't work.

So in 2 Samuel 1 and 16, when Davis says your testimony testified against you,

that's also a further proof of that. And again, what's the chapter in verse?

It was 2 Samuel 1 and 16. It says, and Davis 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 talk. I would not talk. I wasn't asking you anything. Sorry.

So you're out there constantly reminding you, but when I return, 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 Davis said unto

him, thy blood be upon thy head, for thy mouth have 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 Amulacites and the Israelites, they have despised

multiple times. So Amulacite coming, David is not believing them 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 10,000s, Saul didn't unalive thousands.

Why is he getting the credit for it? Because the man in charge gets the credit and 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 2 Samuel's, I think you said 21 and 12, they're putting on Saul

because that's a bigger name than just saying captain, such and such. Offers and such and such.

Saul is the name and he did die there. He died there in the, in the, the Gilbert plain. 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 Taharca and Egyptian history,

Taharca and them saved the children of Israel. But in Israel, like history, has a chai

of them saved the children of Israel. You got two nations giving two different accounts

of the same story because they see it from two different lenses. It's just as simple. So again,

I've answered the question. Do you want to move on to the net? Do you want us to respond?

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 your lying. Your blood is on your head. Why? He

said, for your own mouth testifies against you. Not that you lied. Your mouth, what, what is the

testimony? I have killed the Lord's anointment. He's saying your mouth is testifying against you

that you kill the Lord's anointment. He's not saying your lying. Can you, can you read this with me?

Because I want to, I want to make sure that our friends, which first jump is not going to be

not noticed. So number 60. So David. So David said to him, your blood is on your head,

your own mouth has testified against you. Not that you lied. 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. All right. Thirdly, he keeps repeating

the same thing when a nation is attacked. I've, I've clarified that three times, Sean, am I being

clear? Yep. When, 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's his struck down soul, 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 is one chapter to the

next chapter, the fact you have the history as a benefit, even when you read the first verse in

2 Samuel 1 and 1 when it says, now came to pass after the death of Saul when David had returned from

the slaughter of the Amulakites. That's the relationship at war with the Amulakites. 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 to 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 it. 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's reality.

That's the problem because if you read the verse, it says you can take it anywhere you lie. 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 lie testified. Like if you say, hey, I killed

somebody. I wouldn't say, oh, that means you're a lie. 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.

So I'm going to let you allow you started. So the only way this stops responding is when you

stopped 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 Israelites position, you can only have understanding

if the most I give you the understanding. And so if first sandwich 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 amulacate 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. And second, Samuel's the first

chapter. The way Saul was unalive is in first, Samuel's the first chapter. If there's,

you can see when people lie, there's a story. I don't know if you noticed 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 he goes 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, let's say the Lord said for me to feed you. And instead of that prophet obeying

the most high and going to do it. And it says he lied directly. So when it's somebody lying or

a contradiction or anything like that, we can read it. So if first Samuel's one says how King

Saul was unalive. And then second, Samuel shows how to amulacate life is 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 there's a light to understand it. So if you're not from there's a light, you won't

understand the Bible. So whatever I say makes sense and what even clear text you show, you don't

understand. Like that's just 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 a 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. 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 that say, if you have to be Israelite, what is the point of reading the

Bible? But that's probably the smallest 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.

Heavenly. And so with that said, common sense is very plain. In 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 1st,

the amulacite 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 in 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. Let me. But that's what the Bible says. The Bible says he

show it his word to Jacob. Again, if we talking about the Bible, I 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 book ever. Anybody can have it. It's easily accessible. But if we read Psalms 147,

19 and 20, he showed this word to Jacob, his statues 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 giving 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. That's why the Bible says

yes. Let me answer now. Okay. Let me ask 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 177, 147, 19 and 20, he have not dealt so with any other nation. Yes or no? Yes.

All right. You can not say yes or no and you can expound. Look, regarding the Bible,

yes, it was revealed to a 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, 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. I'm sure you've had plenty of those fun discussions. I'm here to talk about the

contradictions 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 second 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 Atelier, the granddaughter of Umri. Do you see that?

I'm sorry. I said I didn't know where he was at. Sure. Second kings, eight, twenty six.

I'm going in now. I appreciate it.

Mm-hmm. I'm there. Isaiah was 22 years old when he became king and he reigned.

Yeah, twenty six. Yeah, that's right. Twenty-two.

Very good. Twenty-two, right? Twenty-two says, yeah, eat and revolt.

Twenty-six says the two and twenty years. Verse 26, but he was 22 years old. No,

I was trying to get the verse. I got you. It's 26. Yes, correct. You got it? Mm-hmm.

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 Atelier, the granddaughter of Umri. Is that correct?

Yes. Okay. Now when we go to second chronicles, 22.

You're going to second chronicles, 22 and two. Yes.

Isaiah was 42 years old when he became king and he reigned one year in Jerusalem.

His mother's name was Atelier, 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, not the

grand father. The contradiction is only the age. Yes. So when it comes to reading kings and chronicles,

I'll use a different example than I'll come right to it. And first kings, you'll see

date Satan. Let me make sure I graduate in one second.

And chronicles, you'll see where Satan numbered the provoked 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 he gives the age of,

eight had, I'm not saying the right name.

And you're not hazer. And it says a hazer. And then his second chronicles,

22, when it's saying 42 years old, was the rain, a high, a skimming 40 and two years old was a

hazer when he began the rain. Chronicles is talking about 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 going to 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 actually Googling. The fact that his mother and grandfather are the same

actually works against him because he cannot be like 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 city 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, Ethalia 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 and second chronicles 42,

that's not talking about his age at all. Only second kings is talking about his age. So the 40

in two years is just talking about the reign or reign, excuse me, when I'm sort of just one,

and the habitants of Jerusalem made a hazer, his youngest son king and his stard for the band of

men, they came with the arrangements to the camp has slain all of the elders. So a hazer

the son of Jerome king of Judah reign. So as Jerome is ruling, it's still counting all of the

rulers starting with Jerome. Um, if I was to go further, I believe it's either Jehosa fat. So

let's talk 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 in 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 number and the

people one way and then kings tell the story of David number and the people in another way.

It's the same story. It's not a country otherwise. That could be a contradiction. It would

say this Satan do it or did the most tired do it. So now we're finding the 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 and chronicles is talking about and what the writer and

kings is talking about. It's just that simple. 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 it? And I just explained it. Absolutely nonsense. But let me just make that clear.

Yeah, I got you. He's saying in second 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 MacArthur study Bible,

it says this is a clear copious error in the Bible. 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, like, I mean, that

Sean, are you saying there's a different measurement unit? Yeah. So the age that is talking about

in second chronicles is talking about the reign of all the Judah kings that a hazer is talking to.

Now, what I am looking up is showing you the overlap and reigns because if you know about your

host of fat jurorium and hazer, they are 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. 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. And 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. And Matthew

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 the host of fat jurorium and a hazer and calculate 42

years and chronicles decides to calculate the age, it's not a contradiction. That's simple.

Absolutely a contradiction because it doesn't say that. It's not giving you. He's just making

something up. You can read a hazer was 42 years old when he became king. Not when his family started

ruling, not adding anybody else is 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 from

just read the verse and tell me does it say that's how old when 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

rained 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 here in 22 years old when he became king. When he became king.

So that's a only question. That's pretty sad. My only question, did you to have any overlapping

reigns? I said my only question is, did you to have any overlapping reigns? 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 and no, you can expound. That's all I'm asking. If you ask me, yes,

I don't think I'll put yes and no on it. So for that, I apologize. I'll rephrase it. But if you

ask me, yes and no, I'll give you yes and no and then I'll expound. So yes and no, did you

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,

so that's ridiculous. Anybody looks at the verses as Sean did, clearly sees a contradiction.

So if anybody just looks up to overlapping reigns, you'll see that Jehosephat ruled, I'm sorry,

Jerobin ruled before Jehosephat died. So Jehosephat is king and Jerobin is king at the same time.

You can also look up as a riot is ruling while Joseph has leprosy. So they have overlapping

reigns, so Chronicles is giving the 42 years for the reigns, King's is giving his age.

If that don't exist, maybe I might agree with you, but it's just the 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, and this is just broad, they're not the

only ones that had overlapping reigns, you would have upward and lower Egypt where they would also

have overlapping reigns 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. 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? All the way from

I think 1 to 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 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, now Luke 3 and 3, 23, yeah. Verse 23, chapter 3, it is now Jesus began his ministry at about 30

years of age, being as opposed to the son of Joseph, the son of Hila, right? So was Joseph's father

Hila or Jacob? Yeah, his father was both. What? His father was both Jacob and he was two fathers.

Yes, because Matthew's one Jacob is the physical father of Joseph.

Hila and Joseph, excuse me, Hila and Jacob are brothers. So when it says Hila as was supposed,

we have something in the Israelite custom called leverid marriage. Leverid marriage is like if

him and I are brothers and I pass away and I don't have a son, then he will 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 3, chapter, Hila is his father according to that law. Jacob is his father

according to the flesh. Okay, so Hila is the stepfather of Joseph. No, listening is an art.

Hila is the father according to leverid law. Hila is gone. He's dead. He's not living.

So Jacob is the one that lay with his mother, Hila is wife. When he raised up seed for Hila's wife,

that seed belongs to Hila. He doesn't belong to Jacob. So what Matthew is doing is given the physical

son of, I'm in physical father of Jacob. I'm of Joseph. What Luke is doing and Luke the third

chapter is given the law father of Joseph. You said Hila is where the seed came from.

No, I did not listen. I'm going to say it again. Listening, listening is an art. I say,

I said, Hila is dead. Okay. Hila is not living. Okay. Jacob is living and Jacob is keeping the law

of a brother by laying with Hila'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 leverage is? Do you know what brother? What can you explain?

Yes. So for example, if a brother had a wife and he died, his brother would marry that woman.

Right. Yes. So in this, so in Joseph scenario, Hila died without a son. And Jacob kept the law

of a brother and slept with Hila's wife and raised up Joseph for Hila. So when Matthew does the

lineage, he's correct because he's given the physical son. I'm just going to be physical

father of Joseph. Hila is, 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 Hila is the father of Joseph, that's according to

leverage. When Joseph, when Matthew says Jacob is the father of Joseph, that's according to the

flesh. I'll provide one ounce outside source for this. Anybody can look up a church father by the

name of Julius Afrikanis. That's his name. It's Julius sex this Afrikanis. That's the whole

entire name. And when you go to that church father, which is substantiated by your subius

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 leverage all throughout. And Julius sex this Afrikanis actually breaks the whole

down, 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 all you like. It's all right. It's not going to help your case, anything.

First, the fact that it clearly says that Jacob begot Joseph shows that this was the physical

father, correct? And the fact that he lie is called the son of, not by law, all the way back to

as Adam and Seth and Inosh, 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 this in there. All right. Can you open up first Chronicles 317?

He ran from that first one. I did not. I responded to it. No. Did I respond to it?

About the contradiction between the two names. You first chronicles are sacred chronicles.

First Chronicles 317. Gotcha. And then one in Matthew, would you know a verse in Matthew?

Because that was Matthew would Salatheel, right? Yes. I got you on that too.

Because my app, I could pull three phones to three bibles. Nice. I like the phone.

There's Z Fold. You like it? I love it. Actually, I use that because like I could pull this up like

that have three bibles. I've opened at the same time. Yeah, it closes like that. I don't know why I do

it all the time like a dummy. So Matthew, it's 112. Right. And then no Chronicles 1 is what?

It's 317. Gotcha. And 317. You want me to read it? You got it.

Oh, you got it. First Chronicles 317 and says in the sons of Jack and I,

I see a Salatheel, his son, and their Matthews 1 in 12 and says after they were brought to

Babylon, check the Niles. Be gas, Salatheel, Salatheel, be gas, Zeruba Bell.

So who is the father of Salatheel?

Jack and I are right? Yes. And Zerabel is the brother of Salatheel. Right?

Where does it say to brother? If you look at the sons of Jack and I are

You're still in the same Chronicles 1? Yes. Oh, I'm just searching something else.

So if Chronicles 317, I read that verse, but it's not a never says somewhere else.

No, no, it's keep going. Oh, that's why I was asking. So I got to refer the down, right?

Yeah. So the sons of John, John, uh, Jekunaya were a seer, Salatheel, his son,

Walachi, Padaya, Chenezar, Jahaqachim, Hoshana, and Nebida, right?

But here it jumps. It's in the first 12. And this ain't really, I think we talking together

this time. I want you to say I'm interrupting you. No, let's talk. Okay. I perfect. So

Matthew, it says Jekunaya's be got Salatheel and Salatheel be got it's a Rubabel.

So I think your question is, and the sons of Jekunaya, a seer, Salatheel, his son,

Miram, also Padia, Chenezar, and the sons of Padia's Rubabel. So a lot, is it skipping those

and giving it to Rubabel to Salatheel instead of giving it to Rubabel to Padia?

Yeah. So what I'm saying is here it says Salatheel be got Rubabel, right? So

Rubabel is the son of Salatheel, correct? In Matthew. It says be got like you mentioned earlier.

Yeah. Okay. But in first chronicles, from the sons of Salitheel, there is no Rubabel.

Yeah. You see, the Rubabel doesn't come in until Padia. That's yeah. So those two don't match.

So we would agree with far fully answered. We would agree the sons of Jekunaya

says a seer and Salatheel his son, right? Yeah. And then in 18, Malcolm also, Padia, Chenezar,

Jekuname, and then in verse 19, it says the sons of Padia was the Rubabel and Shemel. So it's

like you're 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, sound and be got Boaz of

a Cobb, you'll see a woman mentioned, Jesse be got David the King. So when it's mentioned in

Jekunaya, Salatheel, Salatheel, be got the Rubabel. The Rubabel is the 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

the first Kings 19 and 16, it will say, Jahu, the son of Nimshi, shalt thou anoint thee to be

King over Israel. And then when you go to second Kings, not into it, says, and when thou come as

either, look out there. Jahu, the son of Jehosephat, the son of Nimshi. So in one verse is saying Jahu

is the son of Nimshi to another verse is saying Jahu is the son of Jehosephat, 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.

I'm asking you. People say, well, you're in the Bible, it says Christ is the son of,

if it even says Joseph is the son of David, right? But that would be, that would be a, 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 the son of David, Joseph is not

the son of David, right? Yes. No, no, in the 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 the son Joseph is the son of David because that's the prominent man in Joseph's line

with the point 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 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 where Matthew stays through Solomon because of the prominence.

So Sean, did you understand that point? Yeah. 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 too.

I just said they go across. I just said, but if they were 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. I'm not saying

Luke is skipping, but what it also shows, and I'm glad I'm actually glad you said it gives me

an opportunity to spawn back on Julius Texas, Africanas. When you look up that source, which I can

read, the house of David, all did into Marion. So that's why you would see the names cross.

That's just that simple. I'm just waiting again. I'm just waiting for the

cause 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 drop.

But if you go to Luke, now in verse that is three, 27 onwards. Go ahead. No, I'm just getting

there, which is the sun of Zerabel, the sun of Shalathil, but Shalathil wasn't the father of Zerabel.

And if it's first explanation, three in 27, you said, three 27. Yes. Okay. Yeah. So if there was

skipping in Matthew, and Luke was by the law, as he said, but the same skip happens here.

So that your answer doesn't work. There's a clear contradiction. So in first chronicles three

that you read, Salathil would be the grandfather of Zerabel. That is correct. Right. So that goes

right in line with what I said in first Kings nine, nine, because in first Kings 19 and six that

I've just read, it does the same thing with Nimshi. It says J. Who the son of Nimshi, then second

Kings nine and two says J. Who the son of Jehosa, fat, the son of Nimshi. 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

wanted to be a contradiction. It just don't exist. The contradiction that you are twisted.

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 Salatheel is not the father

of Zerabel, but rather the grandfather. Those genealogies don't match. And his earlier explanation

that Matthew 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 he lie. You

thought you had one there. Then you thought you had one with Salatheel in 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, with the two primaries

of sons rather, that would keep that line pure. So Salatheel, all of them are related. They 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 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 confused 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 right 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 first kings

19 and six and second kings nine and two. 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 to 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 the 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 could look that out because I know they're going to look it up. Have you ever

ever heard of that source before? Let you finish and then I'll say no, this is. Yes, no question. I

have not. You have not. Yeah, but it did not blow my mind. So let's be clear, right? You don't

over praise yourself. I'm not grazing myself. You are. You are. You just said I blew his mind

when you didn't blow my mind. Oh, I did. It was very hard. You know how I know you know how I

know I blew your mind on it because you left your subject. Look, because you left it and went

to salute you. That's how I know I blew it. 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-scriptuals 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

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 as a pedophile, just thank you. There is no contradiction. The only

way they 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 what a Messiah has to come from. He brought the Bible back. Look, look at it. I thought

I don't think because because you're saying that if there are people in one genealogy that are not

in the other than us, 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,

Salatheal to Rubibow 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 then I have something.

Now I do agree with you with the church fathers. I only added their part in this conversation

because when I was talking about leverage 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 leverage marriage is enough for me.

Yeah, I never heard of that. So thank you. The as was supposed, that's the custom, but people

didn't mean to understand that custom because sex, this Africanness 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

mentioned. I actually hate the church fathers probably more than you do because that's what they get

to, you know, something you guys agree on. I think it's amazing. I don't know why he's so that's

the hostile about it for me. I said, I hate them more than you. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

He didn't have a fist bump. No, I didn't want to get a fist bump. No, no, no, no, you got to earn his

respect first. I should be going to the. 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, well, at first, I'll say first, I'm a bird. We said, yes or no, and they need to say no,

I'm going to say no because I haven't read the age, but what I do want to clarify under 18 is not

we wouldn't look at that as a PDF. We wouldn't look at 17 is PDF, 18 is 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 prophet, she married her husband seven years from her virginity. So let's say if she

got her virginity, let's say a 12, seven years from now, 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,

when I explain it. Got you. Meaning it just to 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 someone's conjecture.

Okay. So, so that's interesting because then the age of Ayy Sharab Yihanna is not in the Quran

and it's not in any Hadith of the prophet, Ali Sahib to Salam. 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 Noah, so that's not in Noah,

I'm asking for clarity because if you take the same position, let me say why I'm asking you ask

a question. I got you. All right. Okay. Let me give you clarity. The Quran is the words of Allah,

no doubt. Okay. Then there is the Ahadith that are called Marfoah. You know, when Marfoah is?

No. Well, I'm going to educate you today. Yeah. You're definitely got. I hate Islam. You can

you hate Islam. That's sad. I hate it. I don't hate Christianity. So I'm not a Christian. I hate

Christianity too. I don't hate Judaism and I'm not a Judaism. You're not a Jew? No. No, I'm a Jew,

but I don't follow Judaism. Oh, well, Judaism. I don't hate Jews. I hate the so-called Judo.

Really? Yeah, he's not my people. Who? The amolectus over there in the land of Israel. They're

not the real Jews. Then now who? No, he's not a real Jew. He's in the Cross. They come from

Ashkenazi, a synonym. I'd pound you on that one. Anyway, I'll give you one on that one. I'll say,

Hi, are you getting that one on that one? Okay, okay. Those are a bunch of Europeans that went and

took over somebody else. Yes. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Okay. Impost is good. He's notting people. All right.

So let me educate you now. Marfoah is a Hadith that the Prophet Muhammad,

sallallahu alayhi wa sallam said. Okay. So the Quran is the words of Allah. The Marfoah

Hadith are the words, actions or approvals of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. Okay.

Then there is what's called a Mokuf Hadith. Mokuf means stopped in Arabic. That means it's not

the words of the Prophet, peace be upon him. Okay. Then there is Moktuah Hadith. That is the

statements of the Tabi'ah on the later generation. Okay. There are authentic Hadith. There are weak

Hadith. There are authentic Hadith. There are not applicable because there is what's called nasikh

and monsu. So what are these with you respect? Again. So I respect all authentically established.

That's what I'm trying to say. So like, 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.

Who statement is it? Is it the Prophet speaking or is it a companion? Right. But I agree with that.

But the same way you was reading the Bible and you was looking at what the Amalakai said and you

taken that as a authority. If in Sahih al-Bukhari is Aisha speaking, you don't respect that. I do.

Let me explain. Okay. So first thing, there's a difference between what's in the Bible and what's

in Hadith. Because you claimed Bible 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.

Can I agree with you before you remind it? I still appreciate your agreement. But let me just

finish when I'm saying too much because you will not agree when I finish. There are Hadith

kutsi and those Hadith are the words of Allah because there are Hadith kutsi. That is when

and Hadith mentions that Allah said. Then there is Hadith morfua. 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.

Right. That is a person's opinion. Even if the chain is correct, they can be mistaken.

In fact, Aisha Radhyana, 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? If something that she was told

by other people, that's why in some Hadith, she said seven for engagement and some at six.

Go ahead, bro. It's not a question. But you still got a man marrying a woman at seven.

We don't. 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 you would, 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 morfua from the Prophet Ali S. that mentioned the age of Aisha. The only

thing that's mentioned in those Hadith is the Prophet waited until she was physically past puberty,

meaning she was physically matured or relational. It could be nine. It could be more.

It could be less. What is the consensus? Well, there is no consensus. This is something that Muslims

scholars have discussed and debated for centuries. They say, ah, then others, they're given numbers

higher. Now, what I'm going to show you now is going to be from scripture. That's why I'm saying,

if you're going to make that standard, 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 can take the position that that's why I actually do you

respect the Hadith because in some of the Muslims that I deal with, they'll say, I don't deal with

no Hadiths. I only deal with the Quran. So once you say you deal with the Hadiths and you say you

respect, ah, 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, I would imagine that it's not the prophet

saying that based on how you asked the question. But that doesn't mean that Aisha is lying on her age.

Absolutely. Doesn't mean that she wasn't lying. Absolutely. When Muhammad had sex with her, he's a

freak. Right. I told you, he'd be after him. Easy. He'd be an Epstein Island right now. Police

should be upon him. He'd be an Epstein Island right now. You see the disrespect,

right? Oh, I can't say that. Oh, you don't see that as disrespect. I just say that. Nine is pretty

on that. Clarify. Okay. So 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? This is Rashi.

I'm sure you know Rashi well, right? Yeah. You know Rashi, you know, look uncomfortable now.

Not only uncomfortable, but Rashi is not about to be the authority. But go ahead and show me the

lives. Rashi, I'll tell you. So Rashi is a liar? Yeah. Tell me what he'd about to say.

You know, I would say Rashi is alive. So let me give you my stance because it looked like you

about to read some Talmudic stuff. Yeah. I don't go by the Talmud. The Talmud, you can play with

babies, you know, private parts and stuff like that. Yeah, help. 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 Mary. 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. So I can understand and I apologize. Yeah, we like kind of worked it out where we can

interrupt each other. I like it. I had to teach you that. I think I had to teach you. No, slow down.

You interrupt first. I taught you a little bit. You slow down. You got caught too many

contradictions. If the criterion is that it has to be in the Bible, right? Because you were

quoting church fathers and all that, even though you didn't quote them. 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. That's why I said, I don't argue that. If you take 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

high deeds. That would be the only difference I would say between us. If you said, now, that's

why I asked you, do you respect Sahih al-Bakari? Once you say, yeah, like if I were to say, yeah,

I respect Rashi. Then whatever you read out of that, I would have to say, 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 high deed that I referenced is a high deed 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 not clarify. And I appreciate the

good conversation. So I believe in the Quran, no doubt. I believe in all of the Ahadith that are

established from Al-Mustafa Ali, Sallam, 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.

Do you think that was funny? Yeah, I thought it was funny. Yeah. Because you're like, I ain't saying

any lie and they just make it a mistake. God. Yeah, that's not a joke. I mean, Sean,

can't put air happens everywhere, right? I mean, for example, I think she would know she's a kid,

though. Look, she never said I'm a kid, but her face is a kid. Can I, can I finish? We've got

toady. I don't like it all that's so good. All right. So for example, if I ask Sean, how old you?

Right? No, 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 there a birthday? I was 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'm,

I'm just going to make an age, right? I'm 27, for example, because that's 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, I shared out the unhine,

one of the hadiths is seven and one is 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 bent

Abib 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 Hizvi

calendar started with Amar Abna Khattab. So Arabs had no calendar. They had no way to date years.

How would they remember dates by events or 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 Amar when they started the Hizvi calendar. So it's not, there's a big difference

between somebody not being sure of their age and somebody lying. Okay? No, let me finish.

So I'm just wondering 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'm, I just taught you in the Islamic calendar started,

right? You didn't know that before, right? You didn't teach me that she wasn't, you tell

of you should you do 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'm the cancer 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 Hadid, 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 roughly 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

a Hadid line up with the Quran. So I respect Hadid, but Hadid go through a science of being checked.

And even if the chain is authentic, the synod, at times the Motoon, the text, have contradictions.

And that's why we have a whole science called use about the Hadid. We have the contradictions

that I would just say what I'm saying is in Hadid, the texts, the wording of Hadid, sometimes

contradict, and we have a science. We have contradictions. Oh man. Can I finish, bro? All right. We don't

have contradictions because there's a science called Muhtelaf al-Hadi 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 Hadid.

Even if originally the chain was strong, this is called Shah. What's it called? Shah.

Are you going to learn something else? I'm going to forget it. No, let me. I don't

forget what I do want to point out. I want to point out that I taught him again to run from them

her deeds because he did not want to deal with Muhammad sleeper with a nine year. I am not

running from anything, but what I'm saying is, 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? Thank you.

Then I'm going to bring some. Can I? 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 Quran. That's why we reject

Hadid. 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, 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 leveraged 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 a book. It's not a whole Quran, Hadith, whatever that is,

where they're writing everything where you have to now accept everything that's contained in

that. See, like that's opposition. Again, I made it clear. And I'm going to make it clear again.

We do not accept every Hadith. No, no, I'm not speaking at times. I wasn't answering. Wait,

we ain't got to get offended. This one was out. 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 Hadith. It would just be the

I don't I don't take that view. No, I'm not saying you take that. No, I'm I tell you

you said the position of use. No, if I took the position of you, well, in this conversation,

you're saying I don't I didn't take that again. Please. Okay, then show it. 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 didn't go. We're going to read it all

day. Okay, great. We can get right to you reading it. But since we're going to go into the Hadith

with the nine year old, I don't want to clear your thing. My stance on the Quran. We know your stance.

Well, I don't think you did because no, your stance is you go by the Quran. You respect the

Hadith. They're strong. Right. They're strong hadiths. They're weak hadiths. So some of them,

you don't give the same prominence to then the other. So I understand your position.

When I'm pounding on that one. No, we're not pounding on that one. This thing if you want it.

Now, let's pound after when we get through Muhammad pounding out Ayesha at nine years old,

we can pound that. Right. And none of that in the Quran or in Hadith mentioned.

Have such a guy to pound out. Yeah, he pounded out at nine year old.

All right. So this is from Rashi. And if you don't know who Rashi is, then

anybody I know who Rashi is. Nothing for you. You already said, you know, you hate him, right?

No, but you looked at me like as if I didn't as far as I was making sure.

Then there's no, you stopped right here first. And then you went over to Sean.

All right, Sean. Do you know who Rashi is? I don't. Okay. For those that are watching,

you can also Google who Rashi is. Why I start with this every on and then you got these two

purified waters right here. That's the Bible. I didn't bring those. Oh, okay.

I like you got a glass. Yeah. Right. I heard. I heard. I heard.

I think glasses, plastics are bad for you. I'm with you in that one. All right.

So all you are in glass, not playing. 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 to Rashi. He was 12th century.

Again, from the people who commented 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 Moria 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 when you can march. It's 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, I don't, you ain't got to give me the book, but you can give the

verses. 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. Okay. So I'm going to take

a picture. Oh, is Jake? Yeah. Jake's filming next door. Okay. 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 Moria after

the binding of Isaac and he gives the verse here, he was in for verse. Can you say the verse?

No, no, you ain't got to look at it. Don't say it there. He just, he just, he just mentions the

Hebrew verse. He doesn't like it. Oh, it puts it in Hebrew. Oh, okay. Okay. Okay. Okay.

So that's why I said I'll give this to you. And I'm sure you can look these up in Hebrew. You speak

Hebrew, right? I'm not an expert at it. I don't think Hebrew. I speak it, but I'm not an expert.

And I don't, we don't speak modern Hebrew. The Hebrew we speak is more ancient Hebrew, no vowel

so like we would say so yeah, I'll know how you know, you know,

he'll meet with the love I got is one. But that's an ancient Hebrew not my. Alright. Cool.

Okay. So I'm just going to read Rashi's 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 Moria after the binding of Isaac and he was informed that Rebeca was born and he

he gave the verse as well.

And Isaac was 37 years old at the time.

He gave the verses here in Hebrew.

For it was at that juncture that Sarah died

and then he gave the verse.

And from that time Isaac was born until the binding.

And when Sarah died and then he gave the verses here,

there were 37 years, again Hebrew here.

And 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 the 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 Hala-Halaki.

Can you help me pronounce that?

Okay, that's a Jewish term for fit for relations.

And then he says until she was Hala-Halaki

or fit for relations, three years old

and he married her.

Three.

I'd like you to read it for yourself.

Oh, fuck.

All right.

This is in Rashi with biblical references.

So according to Rashi with your references

and this is Jewish law, by the way,

that at three years old you can marry in recourse.

So what island were we talking about?

No, we definitely not talking about that.

But before you'd like to give a couple more references,

if you don't mind, before we get there.

You know, because then you say you got like,

yeah, thank you, Sean, appreciate it.

So the verses that he relies on

and I actually chat GPT, I pay for this one.

It's a 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 a Decker.

Sarah died immediately after the Decker.

So Isaac is 37 with Sarah dies.

Genesis 24, 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 a Decker,

the time of Isaac at a Decker,

the time of 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 going to start out.

It says, and it came to pass before he had done speaking

that behold, Rebecca came out

who was born of Bethel, son of Milka,

the wife of Neha, Abraham's brother,

with her picture upon her shoulders.

And now we ought to believe

that a three-year-old is carrying a picture on her shoulder.

And the dams that 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 at a prophetess married a husband seven years

from her virginity.

So now we've got, if we go by Rashi,

this is why I'm messing Rashi.

I got you.

She has a three-year-old carrying a bucket

to go picture 10.

She's a virgin, neither had any man known her.

I ain't even know that you're looking

at the three-year-olds like that.

And then it says, she went down to the well

and filled her picture and came up

and the servant ran in the meter and said,

let me pray thee drink a little water of thy picture.

Now the three-year-old having a conversation

with a grown man is diabolical.

And she said, drink my Lord.

Now she knows how to save my Lord and everything.

Drink my Lord and she hasted and let down

a picture upon her hand and gave him drink.

And when she had done giving him a drink,

she said, I would draw water for thy camels also.

So the three-year-old now drawn water for the camels also.

So you want me to believe Rashi lying as over the scripture.

This is why I don't go by.

I got you.

Does it mention her age there?

There's no mention of her age.

The only, let me finish.

The only mention is virgin and what's important,

then what's important when you have to understand

he break 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 just a old woman.

That's why LeBon gave her the Jacob first,

whereas Rachel 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, as I said.

Okay, Rashi lying like a mug, man.

I let you throw Rashi into the bus later.

But the first thing is Rashi clearly says

the age that is fit for a 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.

The law, Genesis, Exodus, the Viticus is Jewish law.

You're saying the Bible says that.

I'm sorry.

Now you had no issue earlier now.

Don't get touchy again.

I'm not touchy.

I'm letting you speak.

No, go ahead.

I'm letting you come me off.

See how nice I am?

I wasn't sure.

But go ahead.

I'm letting you come me on.

Go ahead.

No, no, no.

That's all I wanted to say.

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 what Rashi is

before we continue.

Come on, man.

Don't, don't drop, 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, OK?

Now you can look this up in other Jewish writing 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 Ayah Sharad Yana 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, right?

It mentions that she entered the care of the monastery

at Tissah, which is nine years of age.

She was married at 12 years of age.

How old was she?

How old was she?

12.

That, yeah, go ahead.

What's the monastery?

This is where she was kept being protected to pray.

You talk about Mary?

Yes.

You know what?

Wait, I'm sorry.

I look at your videos.

OK, look at your videos.

Thank you.

That's the funniest thing I've ever heard of my life.

I'm glad you thought it was funny.

All right.

So here in the Provinism 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 was the English translation.

When she was 12, they had her Mary.

How old was she?

12.

OK.

So she was 12.

Now regarding the earliest documented biography.

And this is all about Mary, right?

Yes.

That's 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 she was 90.

OK.

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.

No, I'll give you an education.

That is Roman Catholic dogma.

You know why?

When you read those, they got Mary and monastery

was the words 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,

outsider, wherever, even after she had Christ.

Did she have other kids?

See, that's what the Bible says.

That's just a question.

No, no, I'm answering you.

That's what the Bible says that her and Joseph had other kids.

But the perpetual virginity in 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,

winning, visiting her cousin Elizabeth,

and they do not give her age,

no way in the Bible.

Then they got Joseph at 90 years old, that diabolical.

I ain't never heard of that anywhere.

And 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 wine,

not she performed, Christ performed.

That was good.

That's right.

That's what I was like,

I heard my sound.

I don't want that on the sound,

but I'm different now.

So I'm not here.

So the first, I'm not a Christian.

The first thing she said was,

she went right to Christ and said,

we don't 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 they Christ say,

who is my mother?

Them that due to will of my father

the same as my mother and sister.

So this whole monastery and none type nonsense

doesn't line up with 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, this Genesis 24 and I know you got a role.

It says, but thou shalt go into my country

and to my kindred and take a wife

until my son Isaac.

And the servant said into him,

per venture, 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 will not be willing to follow me

onto this land.

Must I need bring thy son again

onto the land one style?

Abraham said unto him,

beware that thou bring not my son,

the most high from heaven,

which took me from my father's house

or from my kindred and land,

spaken to me and swayed to me,

saying unto thy seed,

will I give this land

and send the angel before me.

And if the woman would not be willing to follow me,

then thou shalt be clear from this my oath,

only bring not my son,

did it again.

So clearly, there 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 just 12 centuries old.

It's been dead for a long time.

Thank you, Ash.

It was awesome.

Yes, thank you.

First thing, I appreciate your time

and I appreciate you hosting us.

Once again, 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 gonna go with scripture, divine, only,

then the age of Ayesha Radyanana,

the Quran, so your comments would be invalid.

If you're gonna 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 what it suited you,

I think it's only befitting that we look

at the earliest documented commentaries 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, not my business,

that's their writings, right?

And whether, yeah, I mean, you know,

my three-year-old used to build stuff,

or my son use of a three was, you know,

doing all kind of amazing thing, 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

on 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,

salallahu alayhi salam 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?

Yeah, thank you.

I appreciate it, man.

It was a good introduction, because he brought them up.

No, man.

You started feeling close to me.

Yeah, I didn't get to do so.

No, that's the contradictions when he called me.

Look, he mad about the clothes.

I just want to be fair, I thought it.

It is fair.

You started them.

I'm just going up.

Anyway, that let you know who was hurt in this conversation,

because I can't even close out.

I think the video is interrupted.

You're not doing my clothes out.

Are you going to record what you said?

I don't know.

Yeah, you know.

So again, there's 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,

which is 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 I said, go get this young girl.

Then I could see, maybe you're 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 Quran, 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

or nine, they do give an age.

There's nowhere in our text that it gives the age

of a young woman, it's going to be 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.

The 40-year-old woman has never had sex.

She's not going to call her a virgin.

She's an old woman at that point.

So this was very, very easily explained.

With the church file, I only use that example

for the people's sake so they can understand.

I normally would not use the church file,

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 the monastery,

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 those books

I was saying was dogmatic,

those the Talmud and the Rashi's,

you know, they play with,

they have something called a moio

where they believe circumcision is also done

with a man putting his mouth on a young boy's face.

Yeah, when they circumcised them Jewish boys,

that's why they look so effeminate

because they don't have their penis played

when they was eight days old.

So that's the people that we think

and revelations 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 having them back and forth with you, man.

Anytime you want to do it again, you let me know.

All right, I'm going on that look there.

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,

I read every single comment, means a lot to me.

Thank you so much.