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

Summary

---

Digital Social Hour – Episode #1848

Title: Sheikh Uthman vs Tazaryach: The Bible CAN'T Be The Word of God?
Host: Sean Kelly
Date: March 5, 2026

---

Episode Overview

This episode of Digital Social Hour features an intense and unfiltered debate between Sheikh Uthman (Christian Apologist) and Captain Tazaryach (Muslim Debater), moderated by Sean Kelly. The central theme is: "Is the Bible the Word of God?" The discussion dives deep into claims of biblical contradictions, the validity and interpretation of scriptural genealogies, and controversial topics around religious figures and ages of marriage in historic and religious contexts. The debate is energetic, often heated, with both participants challenging each other's understanding, methodology, and respect for scripture.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Setting the Debate & Ground Rules ([00:19]–[01:00])

• Sean Kelly sets the parameters: a “friendly debate” on whether the Bible is the Word of God.
• Tazaryach (Muslim Debater) establishes his stance: the entire Bible is the Word of God exclusively given for Israelites; others cannot fully understand it.
  • Cites Psalms 147:19-20: “He showeth his word to Jacob… He hath not dealt so with any other nation.”
• Sheikh Uthman (Christian Apologist) affirms he wants a discussion but promises to point out apparent contradictions in the Bible.

---

2. The "Death of Saul" Contradiction ([02:14]–[15:11])

• Sheikh Uthman presents three different biblical accounts of Saul’s death:

  • 1 Samuel 31:4 – Saul commits suicide.
  • 2 Samuel 1:6–10 – An Amalekite claims to have killed Saul.
  • 2 Samuel 21:12 – Philistines are credited with killing Saul.

• Tazaryach argues the Amalekite is lying for favor, and the language about the Philistines is figurative, attributing victory/loss to rulers (as with modern presidents).

  • “The Amalekite assumed that saying he had killed Saul would get him glory… That’s why David says, ‘How were you not afraid to stretch forth thy hand to destroy the Lord’s anointed?’” ([05:33])

• Uthman challenges: no scripture explicitly says the Amalekite lied.

• Quotes:

  • “Nowhere in scripture does it say he lied. You’re just making that up to answer a contradiction that is clearly in the scripture.” – Sheikh Uthman ([09:21])

• Intense exchange on interpretation vs. explicit text:

  • Tazaryach: “You ask for my answer, I give my answer. You can disagree with my answer, but I answered all three of your questions clean on tables.” ([23:00])

---

3. Respect and Tone of the Conversation ([14:20]–[17:20])

• The conversation turns contentious as both challenge each other’s respect for sacred texts, with accusations about calling the Bible “trash” or disrespecting the Quran.
  • Uthman: “To call dirty names like ‘trash’… is just a disrespectful statement, not an academic discussion.” ([16:07])
  • Tazaryach: “If you can tell me the Bible is contradictory, I can say whatever I want about the Quran.” ([17:08])

---

4. Contradictions in Biblical Genealogies ([37:29]–[66:58])

• Uthman introduces numeric contradictions in the Bible’s genealogies:

  • The Age of Ahaziah:

    • 2 Kings 8:26: “Ahaziah was 22 years old when he became king...”
    • 2 Chronicles 22:2: “Ahaziah was 42 years old when he became king...”
    • Uthman: “How can he be 22 and 42? That’s a clear numeric contradiction.” ([40:12])

  • Tazaryach: Defends with cultural context—one figure refers to age, the other to dynastic reign—common literary technique in Hebrew culture.

  • Another challenge involves genealogies of Jesus:

    • Matthew names Joseph’s father as Jacob; Luke names him Heli.
    • Defense by Tazaryach: Levirate marriage tradition, where inheritance can create dual paternal lines. References Julius Africanus, a historical source on this tradition.

  • Genealogy skips: Discrepancies between Old Testament listings and Gospel lineages (e.g., Salathiel and Zerubbabel); Tazaryach claims genealogies “skip” for prominence, a cultural/linguistic custom.

• Quote:

  • “You said Matthew was skipping for prominence but Luke was going by the law, line by line. The problem is, Luke also mentioned the same two.” – Sheikh Uthman ([62:09])

---

5. Marriages & Age Controversy: Prophets, Mary, and Aisha ([71:16]–[106:13])

• Debate over underage marriage accusations directed at Muhammad (in Islamic tradition) and biblical figures.

  • Tazaryach: “Nowhere in the Bible is there a record of underage marriage. The closest is Anna the Prophetess, married seven years from her virginity...”

  • Uthman: Counters by introducing Jewish law through Rashi and suggests by Rashi’s calculation, Rebecca was three years old at marriage to Isaac. Provides other early sources on Mary’s age at marriage (12), Joseph's age (90+), and “presentism” (imposing modern standards retroactively).

  • Quote:

    • “If you're going to criticize the Prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam 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... They married girls that were very young.” – Sheikh Uthman ([105:37])

  • Tazaryach: Dismisses Rashi and Talmudic commentary as “trash,” maintains the Bible only refers to a “woman” in the Rebecca account, rejects Catholic extra-biblical traditions about Mary’s age, and stresses that “virgin” refers to a young marriageable woman, not a prepubescent child.

---

6. Method of Scriptural Authority ([75:02]–[86:55])

• Tazaryach: Only truths found directly in the Bible are accepted; traditions and authorities (e.g., Rashi, Talmud, Catholic dogma) are rejected unless consistent with the Bible.
• Uthman: Has a layered view of authority: Quran is supreme; Hadith are respected but subject to authentication and not on par with revelation.

---

7. Notable Quotes & Memorable Exchanges

On Contradictions:

• Sheikh Uthman:

  • “The biblical scriptures have clear contradictions and I'm going to point them out to you until you can't run anymore.” ([00:00])
  • “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 a nice way to jump out of giving an answer, right?” ([33:05])

• Tazaryach:

  • “You have to be an Israelite to understand the Bible. It was never meant for everybody.” ([34:08])
  • “Common sense is very plain. In 1st 2nd Samuels 1, the Amalekite is lying.” ([34:08])
  • Describes dismissing non-biblical Jewish scholarship: “Rashi is a piece of... Is he dead?... Thank God.” ([103:54])

On the Marriages Debate:

• Sheikh Uthman:
  • “According to Rashi, with your references, and this is Jewish law, by the way, that at 3 years old, you can marry. Intercourse. So what island were we talking about?” ([93:07])
• Tazaryach:
  • “Rashi lying ass over the scriptures. This is why I don't go by no shit.” ([96:10])
  • “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—whether they say she was 6 or 7—they do give an age.” ([108:36])

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• (00:19) – Introduction and debate setup
• (02:14) – Saul’s Death Contradiction
• (10:11) – Further breakdown of Saul’s death accounts
• (14:20) – Language and tone: Disrespect and boundaries
• (37:29) – Age of Ahaziah contradiction
• (49:44) – Genealogy of Jesus: Joseph’s father, Levirate Law
• (71:16) – Age at marriage debate: Muhammad, Bible, Mary
• (93:07) – Rashi and Rebecca’s age
• (106:13) – Closing arguments

---

Closing Remarks & Takeaways

Final Statements:

• Sheikh Uthman reiterates his claim: explicit, numeric, and genealogical contradictions exist in the Bible based on side-by-side textual comparison.
• Tazaryach insists all alleged contradictions have contextual or cultural explanations accessible only to Israelites/cultural insiders; extra-biblical Jewish scholarship is not authoritative.
• Both agree, to some extent, that scriptural traditions are rooted deeply in complex, historically contextual interpretations—and were never meant to be easy for outsiders to interpret without cultural/liturgical understanding.

Host Sean Kelly keeps the debate moving, occasionally clarifying, but mostly allows the two guests to engage directly and candidly.

---

Notable Episode Moments

• Repeated interruptions and “keeping order” became part of the debate’s style, with both guests openly calling each other out for rudeness and debating debate etiquette.
• Rashi and Talmud dismissed by Tazaryach as “trash,” illustrating intra-faith tension regarding sources of authority.
• Genealogy disputes: The episode is a masterclass in how two debaters can look at the same verses and arrive at diametrically opposite conclusions based on their rules of evidence and interpretive traditions.

---

For Listeners: Key Takeaway

This episode is a deep dive into the ongoing debate between scriptural literalism and historical/contextual interpretation—showcasing how foundational religious texts are deployed, interpreted, and defended by those within and outside a religious tradition. The conversation highlights not just theological differences, but the boundaries of respect, the complexities of scripture, and the limits of dialog when foundational assumptions diverge.

---

Episode ends.

Transcript

[Christian Apologist]

The biblical scriptures have clear contradictions and I'm going to point them out to you until you can't run anymore.

[Muslim Debater]

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.

[Moderator Sean]

All right, guys, Sheikh Uthman back on the show.

[Christian Apologist]

I'll be back.

[Moderator Sean]

Captain Tzarek here. Today we're going to do a friendly debate. The main topic is going to be is the Bible, the word of God?

[Muslim Debater]

What is.

[Christian Apologist]

Why you looking funny when he said friendly?

[Muslim Debater]

Because debates are, you know, you can

[Christian Apologist]

keep a respectful debate.

[Muslim Debater]

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.

[Christian Apologist]

So I'm not in contention with anybody. I'm just here to discuss. Somebody wants to take a contentious. That's up to them.

[Muslim Debater]

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.

[Christian Apologist]

So I don't even know if he opposed or not.

[Moderator Sean]

Start there then. T. Do you want to start off with. With the prompt? Is the Bible the word of God?

[Muslim Debater]

Yes.

[Moderator Sean]

Give your stance.

[Muslim Debater]

Yeah. My position is that the Bible is the word of God from Genesis to Revelations. If I just use one Sc Scripture when it says prophecies of old did not come from men, but by men moved by the Most High. So that's our position. Everything that we read, because none of us was there. So I wasn't there with Abraham, Moses, Christ. I wasn't there with none of them. But I believe that what they wrote back then is from the Most High. And it gives us the history of the children of Israel, which is probably the most important problem. When you have people that are not Israelites then trying to come and take our records and then tell us what's the word of God and what's not. So a person that's not an Israelite can't tell me that it's not the word of God because it was never given to them to even understand in the first place. Psalms 142, 7, 19 and 20 says, he showeth his word to Jacob. He have not dealt so with any other nation. So a white, a African, a 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.

[Moderator Sean]

What's your counter devout?

[Christian Apologist]

Oh, I got a Question. So King Saul in The Old Testament, 1st Samuel 31:4 down, talks about his death. Right?

[Muslim Debater]

You said, 1st Samuel 34 down, 1

[Christian Apologist]

Samuel, chapter 31, verse 4. Then Saul said to his arm bearer, draw your sword and thrust me through with it. Least these uncircumcised men come and thrust me through and abuse me. But his arm bearer would not so, for he was greatly afraid. Therefore, Saul took the sword and fell on it, committed suicide. And when his arm bearer saw that Saul was dead, he also fell on his sword and died. Is that correct?

[Muslim Debater]

That's what it says, all right.

[Christian Apologist]

Word of God. Right. But when I turn the page to second Samuel, the same King Saul, same account, I mean, it says, there was Saul, chapter one, verse six, around the middle, there was Saul leaning on his spear. And indeed.

[Muslim Debater]

Can you read verse five, verse six? I said, can you read verse five?

[Christian Apologist]

Sure. So David said to the young man, who told him, how do you know that Saul and Jonathan his son are dead? Then the young man told him. He said, as I happened by chance to be on Mount Gilbo, there was Saul leaning on his spear, and indeed the chariots and the horsemen followed hard after him. Now, when he looked behind him, he saw me and called to me. And I answered, here I am. And he said to me, who are you? I answered to him, I am Amalekalite. 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 in the first account, he killed himself. Even his own arm bearer didn't do it. The second account, and Amalekolaite killed him. So which one is it?

[Muslim Debater]

That's a real question?

[Christian Apologist]

Well, it doesn't seem like a fake question, does it?

[Muslim Debater]

No. When I mean real question, I mean like something I got to respond to. Or was it rhetorical?

[Christian Apologist]

No, no, it's a real question. If it was rhetorical, then I wouldn't be looking at you expecting a response.

[Muslim Debater]

This is. I'll use the Bible words so that he can't say I'm being offensive. The Bible says, if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant. And you just proved how ignorant you were. Because this ain't. When he's telling that story in Second Samuels 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, and which clothes was rent and his Head. Because the Amalekite assumed that him saying unalive and Saul would get him glory. When you keep reading, this is second Samuels one, same chapter after they mourned. This is verse 13. And David said unto the young man that told him, whence art thou? And he answered, I am the son of a stranger, an Amalekite. 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 what we're supposed to know with this story. I can't believe you asked this question. Is that the Amalekite is lying.

[Christian Apologist]

Where does it say that? It doesn't say. You just made that up.

[Muslim Debater]

You know he's lying.

[Christian Apologist]

No, I don't know. And can you show me scripture that says he's lying, or are you just going to make stuff up?

[Muslim Debater]

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. It's cool. No, no, no.

[Christian Apologist]

That's why I know Scripture. Does it say that? So in conversations you have and made a comment that wasn't in the scripture you're.

[Muslim Debater]

You're saying. What you're trying to imply is that this is not the word of God. Because 1st Samuels 1:31 says, Saul unalived himself and armor bearer did the same. And then in Second Samuels, someone else is coming and telling David a different story. Correct.

[Christian Apologist]

Do you want me to answer that?

[Muslim Debater]

Yes.

[Christian Apologist]

Okay.

[Muslim Debater]

I say correct.

[Christian Apologist]

I'm saying that there are two accounts that do not match in Scripture. Clearly from Scripture now.

[Muslim Debater]

No, no. But you ain't answering my question.

[Christian Apologist]

I did answer.

[Moderator Sean]

Let him finish.

[Muslim Debater]

But he didn't answer my question.

[Christian Apologist]

I am saying these two accounts clearly contradict. Hence, this is not the word of God. And I've got a hundred of them. This is just the beginning, bro. Right. But what I requested of you is from Scripture to tell me which one is the true account. What I would respectfully ask is if we're going to quote Scripture, we need to quote Scripture, not give our opinion that this man is lying. Or this man could be right. I quoted verse and chapter. Could you do the same? Tell me which account is correct?

[Muslim Debater]

The account that's correct is First Samuels 1 31. The account that the Amalekite. And if you actually know the history of the Amalekites. Do you know the history of the Amalekites?

[Christian Apologist]

I do, but 1 and 31. I'm going to look up the. You said first Samuel 1:31. I'm looking up the. The verse you quoted.

[Muslim Debater]

Well, I didn't quote nothing in First Samuels 1:31.

[Christian Apologist]

The account that is correct is First Samuel 131.

[Muslim Debater]

That's a. That's a chapter you went to. First Samuels. Oh, I'm sorry. When I said 131. Okay, I mean, I meant. You know why?

[Christian Apologist]

Because I'm your first fill today.

[Muslim Debater]

How's that a fail?

[Christian Apologist]

Because just by saying verse that doesn't. That's not the one you were quoting. Right.

[Muslim Debater]

Actually, that's not a fail when I look at it on my phone, because it says 1 Samuel 31 on my phone. That's why I said 1. But the chapter. What I was saying was. I was saying. You asked which one is correct.

[Christian Apologist]

Yes.

[Muslim Debater]

And I said the one that you read in 1st Samuels 31. The way Saul was unalive. Okay, that's it. What you're reading is Second Samuel is not someone that is an Israelite given an account. It's someone that's an Amalekite given an account when the Amalekite have always been an enemy to us. So the Amalekite is coming to David and lying about what took place with Samuel, thinking that that's going to get him cool points. That's why David says you don't think it was. You thought it was 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 the Lord. This is a story.

[Christian Apologist]

I'm letting you finish respectfully, without interruption. Did you see that?

[Moderator Sean]

Yeah.

[Muslim Debater]

This is a story. It's just as simple. This is a story of Samuel. Excuse me, of the Amalekite lying to Samuel. Excuse me. To David and still being unalive for his lie.

[Christian Apologist]

Are you done? Yes, I respectfully listened. Right. Right.

[Muslim Debater]

You don't have to keep saying that. You're the one that interrupted first. I had to bring order, not you. I brought order. You did not.

[Christian Apologist]

I listened to you.

[Muslim Debater]

You don't have to keep saying it.

[Christian Apologist]

What you're saying is not in Scripture. Nowhere in Scripture does it say he lied. You're just making that up to answer a Contradiction that it clearly in the scripture, it does not mention that he's lying. These are both scriptural and in fact, if you were to go to 2 Samuel 21 there, when we go to 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 Bethshan where the Philistines had hung them up after the Philistines. Philistines had struck down Saul. So who killed Saul? Here it says Philistines. And this is not an Amulite lying.

[Moderator Sean]

I don't really chase trends anymore. I just want clothes that work, feel good. And last, I stopped buying a lot of clothes and started buying better ones. Stuff that fits right, holds up and I actually wear. That's why I've been going with quints. They've got basics. I actually use organic cotton sweaters, cream polos, lightweight jackets. Stuff that holds up to daily wear and still looks good quality, solid and everything's built to last. What makes Quinz different is how they do it. They work directly with top factories. Cut out the middleman. And you're not paying for brand markov, just quality clothing. And they only partner with factories that meet high standards for craftsmanship and ethical production. Refresh your wardrobe with quint. Go to quint.comDSH for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E.comDSH now available in Canada too. Free shipping and 365 day returns with.

[Christian Apologist]

And that's where you're at again, 2nd Samuel 21:12.

[Muslim Debater]

So now when it says that. Read the latter part that you just read. Okay. And it said the Philistines did what?

[Christian Apologist]

Where the Philistines had hung up their bones, which is Saul and Jonathan after the Philistines struck down Saul.

[Muslim Debater]

And the question is about the Philistines striking down Saul?

[Christian Apologist]

Yeah, because 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?

[Muslim Debater]

And so this is supposed to. So this is what's laughable about these conversations. And this is why when I first opened my mouth, I said, because these records were not given to anyone but non Israelites. When non Israelites try to teach this, they don't know what they talking about because they're looking for contradictions. Hold on one second.

[Christian Apologist]

That's an answer. When you don't have an answer.

[Muslim Debater]

No, that's. I'm not finished.

[Christian Apologist]

I'm listening.

[Muslim Debater]

And what, and what I mean by that is when it says at the latter part of 2nd Samuels 21 and 12, when it says where the Philistines had slain Saul and Gilba, the reason why it's saying the Philistines has 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?

[Christian Apologist]

Yes.

[Muslim Debater]

And it says If I read 1st Samuels 31 and 1, it says now the Philistine fought against Israel and the men of Israel fled from before the Philistines and fell down and slain in Mount Gilbar. Right. So the Philistines are slaying the Israelites. Right.

[Christian Apologist]

But not so Saul, according to first, you asked the question, right? So I'm answering you that I asked

[Muslim Debater]

you about the Israelites of being slain. I didn't even mention Saul.

[Christian Apologist]

Okay.

[Muslim Debater]

I said, are the Israelites being slain?

[Christian Apologist]

Are you asking me a question to respond to? Do you want a yes or no?

[Muslim Debater]

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

[Christian Apologist]

reading, Israelites and Philistines are fighting. Yes.

[Muslim Debater]

And I asked you, I said the Philistines sl. Slew. I'll say that word past tense. The Israelites. Correct.

[Christian Apologist]

Some of them, yes. Not all of them.

[Muslim Debater]

So in First Sam, Second Samuels 21 and 12, when it says when the Philistines had slain Saul and Gilba, as with anything, it's a. This is a. That is a power statement because Saul is the king. If Saul would have won, it would have said Saul slew the Philistines even though it's not him by himself. So all it's really saying in 2nd Samuels 21:12 is that the Philistines slain Saul because Saul died in that battle. He died. Why? He could have stayed and fought, but he knew that what they would do to him. So he unalived himself. So again, this is not a contradiction. This is just the way the Israelites talk. The Israelites talk like this. You don't know that. It's interesting to me when a sheik is saying the contradictions in the Bible but will use the Bible to validate his book.

[Christian Apologist]

I don't use the Bible to validate my book. Who said that? Are you making things up about me?

[Muslim Debater]

No, Muslims use that Quran.

[Christian Apologist]

No, no. You said about me when Did I ever use the Bible to validate my belief?

[Muslim Debater]

Without the Bible, that Quran is trash, which is already trash.

[Christian Apologist]

First thing, be respectful. We're not a respectful conversation. We said we're going to use respectful conversation. I didn't call the Bible trash. Do not call the Quran trash.

[Muslim Debater]

Wait one second. Without the Bible, you said no personal attacks. I didn't personally attack him. I said the Quran is trash. If you could say my Bible is contradictory, that is the same disrespect that you're saying about the Quran. So if I'm comfortable with your saying. If you're saying my Bible is contradictory, you're saying my God is contradictory.

[Christian Apologist]

I do not.

[Muslim Debater]

You can't. You can't control.

[Christian Apologist]

And I do not say that. And you're putting words in my b.

[Muslim Debater]

Is contradictions.

[Christian Apologist]

Putting words in my mouth.

[Muslim Debater]

Are you saying the Bible is.

[Christian Apologist]

Did you not speak?

[Moderator Sean]

Yeah, let him finish.

[Christian Apologist]

Thank you.

[Muslim Debater]

Y. A little touchy.

[Christian Apologist]

You're the one trying to push it and then you can't handle it.

[Muslim Debater]

So all I said was the Quran was trashing.

[Christian Apologist]

And I do not respect that to be a responsibility.

[Muslim Debater]

I don't respect nobody saying the Bible is contradictory.

[Christian Apologist]

But you said it today is whether the Bible is the word of God. And I'm showing you clear. Now you're interrupting me, right? I'm showing you clear contradiction. The Bible, I'm not calling it trash. I'm not saying any harsh words about it. The fact that it has contradictions that I'm pointing out to you, that you're making up answers to because you have no scriptural response to doesn't mean that I disrespect the Bible or believe anything wrong with any belief of God. If the Bible is corrupted, doesn't mean God is corrupted. Now, the biblical scriptures have clear contradictions and I'm going to point them out to you until you can't run anymore. But to just call dirty names like trash or that is just a disrespectful statement, not academic discussion. So I would respectfully ask Sean that we don't use such words about any scripture. Just like a personal attack is not acceptable. An attack on a religious figure, whether it's Jesus or Muhammad, peace be upon them, or Moses or anybody else, is not acceptable. Now here, let's let them respond.

[Moderator Sean]

Do you want to respond to that?

[Muslim Debater]

I do.

[Christian Apologist]

Sure, go ahead.

[Muslim Debater]

Because you just said you didn't use the word contradiction and you just used the word contradict. You just said if the Bible has. Bible has clear contradictions, and if the Bible is corrupt. That doesn't mean God is corrupt 100%. So when I said the Quran is trash is 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, 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

[Christian Apologist]

about the Quran that is absolutely wrong first.

[Muslim Debater]

Well, I'm going to do it.

[Christian Apologist]

I'm going to. Can I speak now, Sean?

[Moderator Sean]

Yeah, let him respond.

[Christian Apologist]

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?

[Moderator Sean]

I think you guys have a difference of terminologies.

[Christian Apologist]

Okay, if I, 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?

[Muslim Debater]

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.

[Christian Apologist]

Okay.

[Muslim Debater]

It's the same thing.

[Christian Apologist]

First thing is, do you see that? Because he has no response academically.

[Muslim Debater]

I did respond.

[Christian Apologist]

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.

[Muslim Debater]

Nowhere in the Bible.

[Christian Apologist]

We'll get you. Okay, can you bring me the rashi? Thank you.

[Muslim Debater]

Nowhere.

[Christian Apologist]

I'm going to show it to him. Right? And then he's going to be running from it.

[Muslim Debater]

If it's a book, chapter, verse, I got you. But we do know Muhammad slept with a nine year old girl. Police be upon. It's in hadiths that y' all guys listen to.

[Christian Apologist]

Okay, listen.

[Muslim Debater]

Muhammad was a pedo. He would be on the Epstein Island. That's where he would be.

[Christian Apologist]

First thing is people in earlier times got married at different times, including in the Bible. And I'm going to show it to you. From the Bible, right? Chapter and verse. Show it, and then I'm going to show it about Jesus, because you have

[Muslim Debater]

a Bible right there. I don't know what you're grabbing, but I hope it's a book. Chapter, verse.

[Christian Apologist]

You calm down. Right. The reason he's going to that is because he couldn't answer here.

[Muslim Debater]

I did answer it.

[Christian Apologist]

He didn't. Now, you didn't accept the answer. But I did answer back to Scripture. Because he wants to run. That's why he wants to end the debate, because he knows he's caught. I'm not gonna let him do that.

[Muslim Debater]

I said if you offended being interrupted

[Christian Apologist]

continuously or not, let's limit the interruptions,

[Moderator Sean]

both of you guys.

[Christian Apologist]

Okay, so does he want to speak first? Because then.

[Moderator Sean]

Do you want to respond to that before he dives?

[Muslim Debater]

No, I don't.

[Moderator Sean]

Underage chapters.

[Muslim Debater]

But I just don't want him to act like he. Don't interrupt. I'm the one had to bring the rules.

[Moderator Sean]

You're interrupting, too.

[Christian Apologist]

I'll almost say that.

[Muslim Debater]

Appreciate it.

[Christian Apologist]

Okay, so we. So we stop.

[Moderator Sean]

You want to go into the chapter about the underage.

[Christian Apologist]

No, I want to finish this first because that's what it's about to run.

[Moderator Sean]

Respond, and then we'll go to the.

[Christian Apologist]

Excellent. So now, Philistines didn't strike down Israel. In the verse, it says struck Saul, right? If, for example, a president, like let's say Donald Trump attacks a country, right? You can say Trump attacked Venezuela, but if Venezuela didn't kill Trump himself, even if they killed Americans, you don't say they struck down Trump. He's an individual, not a nation. Just like that. Here it says the Philistines struck down Saul, not the Israelites. So it's an individual. Now, if he killed himself, then the Philistines didn't strike him down. If an Amulite killed him, then the Philistines didn't strike him down. All three of those accounts are contradictory. And because in Scripture, he cannot respond, it does not mention the Amalek lying in Scripture. He just made that up. It does not mention the Philistines attacking Israel. Instead of Saul, it mentions Saul by name. So in all three accounts, they're different accounts in one. And those that are watching, go home and look up the Scriptures. Read them for yourself. One, he killed him, he unalived himself. In the second, the Amulite killed him. And in the third, the Philistines killed him. And those are clear numeric contradictions. Now, I have many more that I'd like to cover as Scripture. And then after that, I am more than happy to respond to the Age of Aisha Radianha.

[Muslim Debater]

Okay, so what he just said proved the point of how people in power talk. He just said, if Trump goes and attacks Venezuela, Trump gets all the credit for attacking Venezuela. He didn't go to Venezuela, though. If he was to go even further, Osama bin Lad. Excuse me, Barack Obama is credited with unaliving Osama bin Laden, 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, David with his ten thousands, Saul with his thousands, Saul didn't unalive anybody. King David was the one doing the work. So why is Saul getting the credit? Because he's the one in charge. He's the one in power. So when you defeat the king or destroy the king, when it says slaying Saul and Gilbert, it's saying that because he was the one in power. And that's more prominent than just saying, hey, we destroyed Captain such and such. We destroy officer such and such. So it's not a error, it's not a contradiction. It doesn't take away from being the word of God. It's. You just don't understand because it's not for you. So I answered the question I clearly said and set first of all, in 1st Samuels 31, they going right to the next chapter over. It doesn't even go anywhere. It goes right into Second Samuel one. And anybody with a common sense of reading would understand that The Amalekite believes he's going to get kudos if he says amen, I slain Saul for you because everybody knew David and Saul were enemies. Because. Because Saul was trying to un alive him. The Amalekite realized that it backfired. Well, he unal. 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.

[Christian Apologist]

Those are absolutely no answers. And let me explain why. First off, the account of him killing himself or unaliving himself is there very clearly in the next account, the amulite clearly tells David that I am the one that killed him. There is nothing in those verses that the amulite's lying or trying to get kudos. He just made that up. Can you see that? There's no indication in the text that the Amulite'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 amulite was just making this up. That's just you making up an answer. No biblical scholarly work to back that the amulet'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 Saul attacking the Palestines, then we would have a point. But it's not. It's the Philistine striking down an individual named Saul. And if they didn't strike him down, then this is a contradiction. Either he unalived himself, or an amulet unalived him, or the Philistines unalived him. Those three cannot be. These are clear contradictions. And to continue saying the same thing again and again, that if an attack of a nation happened, you can say, this person attacked. It doesn't make sense because you don't have an answer. I've already responded to that. If the leader is said to have attacked a nation, Obama doesn't need to go with a gun himself. But when Osama attacked the U.S. nobody said he killed Obama. He killed Americans, but he didn't kill Obama. So here, when it says struck down Saul, his analogy doesn't work.

[Muslim Debater]

So in second Samuel 1:16, when David says, your testimony testified against you, that's also further proof of that. And again, let's go back.

[Christian Apologist]

What's the chapter and verse?

[Muslim Debater]

It was 2nd Samuel 1:16, it says, and David said unto him, thy blood be upon thy head, for thy mouth have testified against thee, saying, I have slain the Lord's anointed. That's what it says.

[Christian Apologist]

Okay, so he's saying, your testimony.

[Muslim Debater]

I'm saying, I would like to finish talking. I was not talking. Wasn't asking you anything.

[Christian Apologist]

Sorry.

[Muslim Debater]

See, I have to constantly remind you, I thought you. 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 second Samuel 1:16, as I was saying, and David said unto him, thy blood be upon thy head, for thy mouth hath testified against thee, saying, I have slain the Lord, when it's saying, testified against thee, that's him in error. So as I stated, how Saul died is clear in 1st Samuels 31. Even the history of the Amalekites and the Israelites. They have despised us multiple times. So Amalekite coming. David is not believing him from the gate. That's why he said that thy mouth have testified against thee. So again, I'm answering your questions. Even when I gave the example of Saul with his thousands, David with his ten thousands, Saul didn't un. Alive thousands. Why is he getting the credit for it? Because the man in charge gets the credit in the loss and the credit in the win. People do that all the time. If they do something, we slew America. We made America fall down.

[Christian Apologist]

We.

[Muslim Debater]

We took Venezuela. We made Venezuela fall down. It's just how people talk. So when they say that in two Samuels, I think you said 21 and 12, they're putting on Saul because that's a bigger name. They're just saying, captain, such and such, officer, 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. Was saying that he died. They're just taking the credit for it. It's what people do. I'll give a sidebar. When Tahara and in Egyptian history, Tahara and them saved the children of Israel, but in Israelite history, Hezekiah and 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 that simple. So again, I've answered the question.

[Moderator Sean]

Do you want to move on to the next? Do you want to respond?

[Christian Apologist]

I'd like to respond, if you don't mind. No, first thing, it's quite desperate, but let me just respond to it anyway. So David said to him, your blood is on your head. He didn't tell him, you're lying. Your blood is on your head. Why? He said, for your own mouth testifies against you, not that you lied. Your mouth. What is the testimony? I have killed the Lord's anointment. He's saying your mouth is testifying against you that you killed the Lord's anointment. He's not saying you're lying. Can you read this with me? Because I want to make sure that our friends. Which verse jump Am I going to be not noticed. So number 16. So David.

[Moderator Sean]

So David said to him, your blood is on your head. Your own mouth has testified against you.

[Christian Apologist]

Testified against you. Not that you lie. What did he testify saying?

[Moderator Sean]

I have killed the Lord's anointed.

[Christian Apologist]

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 clarified that three times, Sean. Am I being clear? Yep. When Trump attacks a nation, yes, you can say Trump attacked Venezuela even though he wasn't physically there. But if Maduro wasn't captured, we cannot say Trump captured Maduro. If Maduro went to another country. So when it says struck down Saul, then his example doesn't work. Now, I can move on or we can keep going. But you did not answer that at all.

[Muslim Debater]

I answered it cleanly. As I said, you may disagree with the answer, but the fact that it's one chapter to the next chapter, the fact you have the history, as a matter of fact, even when you read the first verse in 2nd Samuel 1 and 1, when it says now, it came to pass after the death of Saul, when David had returned from the slaughter of the Amalekites, that's the relationship at war with the Amalekites. So they're not a nation to be trusted when they speak. They're not a nation that we got along with. There's a na. 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 un. Alive him for taking claim of something that he did not do. So you can look at two Samuels, 1:16, as testified against thee 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 un. 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.

[Christian Apologist]

Your problem there is reality. That's the problem. Because if you read the verse, it says, you can take it any way you like, you can make up any answer you want, but it says, so. David said to him, your blood is on your head for your own mouth. Testified against you, not lied. Testified. Like if you say, hey, I killed somebody, I wouldn't say, oh, that means you're a liar. I would say you've testified against yourself. For what? Saying that I have killed the Lord's anointment, not that you're lying about it. So the verse is there. Anybody watching with any sense can see you're wrong.

[Muslim Debater]

So I'm Gonna you started. So the only way this stops responding is when you stop because you started it. So I would be responding to everything that you say, as I'm responding now to something else that you said. It is logical and it is the truth. And as I always say, and this goes over everybody's head for some reason, the Bible is like the book that everybody thinks they can pick up and understand from an Israelite's position. You can only have understanding if the Most High gives you the understanding. And so if 1st Samuel 31 clearly says that somebody's recording that, that's the crazy part. Somebody's recording how Saul was un. Alive. And then somebody's recording how the Amalekite lied and said that he did it, and then showing how David died for his lie. So if there was if. And this the other crazy part, if there was some type of contradiction, I would imagine it would have been corrected by now. So the reason why it's still in there is because it's not a contradiction. It's just that you don't understand because it wasn't given to you to understand. And it's just that simple. He lied in second Samuel, the first chapter. The way Saul was unalive is in First Samuels, the first chapter. If there's. You can see when people lie, there's a. There's a story. I don't know if you know this or not. There's a story where a prophet is told to take a journey. It's in the Book of Kings, and he's told to go straight to that journey and don't listen to nobody at all. And then as he's on that journey, another prophet comes and says thus, say the Lord said for me to feed you. And instead of that prophet obeying the Most High and going to do, and it says he lied directly. So when it's somebody lying or contradiction or anything like that, we can read it. So if First Samuels one says how King Saul was unalived, and then Second Samuel shows how to Amalekite live is just common sense, which you clearly don't have.

[Christian Apologist]

It's very easy to say you don't know the answer because you're not me and nobody but me can understand it, that's like a very nice way to jump out of giving an answer, right? Only the Israelites understand it. So if you're not from the Israelites, you won't understand the Bible. So whatever I say makes sense. And what even a 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 an Israelite is never going to understand the Bible. Then why are we even reading it? There's no point then. So that's not a response, that's just getting away from response. The story you just said, you said when this person lied, it says he lied in here. It never says he lied. So you don't have any scripture for that. You're making it up. In fact, the verse you quoted the 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.

[Muslim Debater]

Wait, go ahead. Again, I'm going to respond every time you talk because I didn't say, I didn't make this about me. I said you have to be an Israelite to understand the Bible. And then you made the statement to say if you have to be an Israelite, what is the point of reading the Bible? That's probably the smartest thing you said because it was never meant for everybody. It was only meant for the children of Israel. This is our records that everybody seems to grasp. Like I say that Quran relies heavily on the Bible that they say is a contradiction. Heavily. And so with that said, common sense is very plain. In 1st 2nd Samuels 1, the Amalekite is lying. If I know that David knows that, that's why it's in the text and that's why he got unalived. It's just that simple. I can't keep running around and putting you in these circles showing how you don't understand the text because you're trying to make a contradiction when it just ain't a contradiction.

[Christian Apologist]

We've shown you a clear contradiction. And you have given me nothing from text to respond to that except that it's common sense. I understand it. David. I don't even know who David is. But David understands it and Israelites understand it. And nobody else understands it except Israelites, which is you because you claim to be an Israelite. So that's what I said. Only I or my people understand it. Nobody else can understand it. I don't know how that makes any sense. And people of Israel are not just whoever you want to define to be. But let's not even get into that let me get.

[Muslim Debater]

But that's what the Bible says. The Bible says he showeth his word to Jacob. Again, if we talking about the Bible and having understanding in 2026, that doesn't make sense that only the Israelites has have to have the Bible. Why? Because the Bible is the most bought book ever. Anybody can have it. It's easily access, accessible. But if we read Psalms 147, 1920, he showeth his word to Jacob, his statutes and judgments to Israel. He have not dealt so with any other nation. You can't tell me that I'm quoting a direct verse in the Bible that says only Israelites were given the understanding of the Bible. And then you telling me that don't make sense when the Bible says he have not dealt with any other nation. Correct. Is that what the Bible says? Yes.

[Christian Apologist]

Let me answer now. Okay, let me answer.

[Muslim Debater]

If you could just give me a yes or no and then expound, I would say no. If I can just repeat the question, give a yes or no. Does the Bible say in Psalms 17147, 1920, he have not dealt so with any other nation. Yes or no?

[Christian Apologist]

Yes.

[Muslim Debater]

All right, you can exp. No. I said let me do yes or no and you can expound.

[Christian Apologist]

Look, regarding the Bible, yes, it was revealed to certain people at a certain time. Are you from those people? I have no idea. To be honest, I've never seen a DNA test. But the children of Israel are not just whoever you want to define it to be. Again, I'm not here to argue who is and who isn't the children of Israel. I'm sure you've had plenty of those fun discussions. I'm here to talk about the contradiction of the Bible. And if anybody the fair observer looking at text, you have not responded to them. But let me show you an example here. Right. Isaiah. This is in 2 Kings, I.e. 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 Athalia, the granddaughter of Omri. Do you see that?

[Muslim Debater]

I'm sorry, say that again where he Was at?

[Christian Apologist]

Sure. Second Kings 8. 26.

[Muslim Debater]

I'm going in there.

[Christian Apologist]

I appreciate it.

[Muslim Debater]

I'm there.

[Christian Apologist]

Isaiah was 22 years old when he became king, and he reigned.

[Muslim Debater]

26. Yeah.

[Christian Apologist]

22.

[Muslim Debater]

Good.

[Christian Apologist]

22, right.

[Muslim Debater]

22 says. Yeah, Eden revolted. 26 says the two and 20 years, verse 26.

[Christian Apologist]

But he was 22 years old.

[Muslim Debater]

No, no, I was trying to get the verse.

[Christian Apologist]

I got you. It's 26. Yes. Correct. You got it. Okay, so Isaiah was 22 years old when he became king and reigned one year in Jerusalem. Right? Just one year. His mother's name was Athaliah, the granddaughter of Omri. Is that correct?

[Muslim Debater]

Yes.

[Christian Apologist]

Okay, now when we go to 2nd Chronicles 22. 2.

[Muslim Debater]

I'm going to 2nd Chronicles 22 and 2.

[Christian Apologist]

Yes. Isaiah was 42 years old when he became king, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name was Athalia, the granddaughter of Omri. Okay, Sean, do you see a contradiction there?

[Muslim Debater]

Yeah. What's the contradiction?

[Christian Apologist]

You don't see one there?

[Moderator Sean]

Explain it.

[Christian Apologist]

Was he 22 or 42?

[Muslim Debater]

So the contradiction is not the mother, not the grandfather. The contradiction is only the age.

[Christian Apologist]

Yes.

[Muslim Debater]

So when it comes to reading Kings and Chronicles, I'll use a different example. Then I'll come right to it. In First Kings, you'll see Satan. Let me make sure I got it right. Give me one second. In Chronicles, you'll see where Satan numbered the provoked David to number the children of Israel. You're familiar with that, right?

[Christian Apologist]

Yes.

[Muslim Debater]

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 Kings, when it gives the age of Ahab, I'm saying the right name, Ahazer, and it says Ahazer. And then in second chronicles 22, when it's saying 42 years old was the reign. Excuse me. 40 and 2 years old was Ahazer when he began to reign. 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.

[Christian Apologist]

Are you done?

[Muslim Debater]

Yes.

[Christian Apologist]

Sean, come on. It's. I'm gonna have me and you read this together. Okay. Isaiah was 22 years old when he began. When he. When he became king and reigned his reign, he was how old?

[Moderator Sean]

22.

[Christian Apologist]

22. How long did he rule? One year. And the fact that his mother and grandmother. Are you Googling? No, I'm not Googling. The fact that his mother and grandfather are the same actually works against him because he cannot be like. It was a different king. So it clearly says, with the same verbiage, that he was 22 years old and you 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 Athaliah and the same grandfather Umri. How can he be 22 and 42? That's his age at the time that he became king and and reigned. Same words in both chapters. That is a clear numeric contradiction that you have absolutely no answer to, actually.

[Muslim Debater]

So that's why I said so in 42 in second chronicles. 42. That's not talking about his age at all. Only two kings is talking about his age. So the 42 years is just talking about the reign or reign. Excuse me, when I'm starting verse one. And the habitants of Jerusalem made Ahaza his youngest son king in his stead for the band of men that came with the Arabians to the camp has slain all of the elders. So Ahaza, the son of Jeroam, king of Judah, reigned. So as Jerome is ruling, it's still counting all of the rulers starting with Jeroam. If I was to go further, I believe it's either Jehoshaphat. So let's talk about the whole entire rule of that kingship. It's not talking about Ahazer singularly. So for our. So for our understanding, when we read that the 40 and two years, that's what that encompasses, as opposed to second kings eight is giving you his age. That's all. That's why you. That's why I used how Chronicles tells the story of Satan. I'm. Excuse me, of David numbering the people one way and then Kings tell the story of David numbering the people in another way. It's the same story. It's not a contradiction. Otherwise that could be a contradiction. It would. Did Satan do it or did the Most High do it? So now we're find a river that flows through between Kings and Chronicles. Kings give it one way, Chronicles give it another way. The names and people don't change. So if there's a difference in time, we don't look at it as a contradiction. We look at it from the lens of what the writer in Chronicles is talking about and what the writer in Kings is talking about. It's just that simple contradiction would be like if Ahaza had a different mother, 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, the time being different would just be. How do we explain that? And I just explained it.

[Christian Apologist]

Absolute 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?

[Moderator Sean]

That sentence does, yeah.

[Christian Apologist]

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 copyist 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 that.

[Moderator Sean]

Sean, are you saying there's a different measurement unit?

[Muslim Debater]

Basically, yeah. So the age that it's talking about in Second Chronicles is talking about the reign of all the Judah Kings that Ahaza is talking to. Now what I am looking up is showing you the overlapping reigns, because if you know about Jehoshaphat, Jerome and Hazar, they all reigned. So Chronicles is talking about that reigning line. Kings is talking about his age. It's not a contradiction. But because it's the same person, same mother, same king that he's coming from, so it's the same person. So. And because Chronicles and Kings write it in a different way, the only way you would have a contradiction is if there's no reigning of the person. But if the stories are the same, that's no different than in Matthew and Mark. In Matthew and Mark, when Christ heals the woman's daughter, Matthew tells it from that lens. Mark says, for this saying, so Mark's saying, for this saying, your daughter is healed. In Matthew, it says, oh, great is thy faith. Your daughter is healed. It's still the same story. They're just telling it from that position and they have the right to tell it from that position. So if the writer of Chronicles decides to give the reigning of Jehoshaphat, Jeroboam and ahaza and calculate 42 years and chronicles decides to calculate the age, it's not a contradiction. That is simple.

[Christian Apologist]

That is absolutely a contradiction. Because it doesn't say that. It's not giving you. He's just making something up. You can read, Ahaziah was 42 years old when he became king, not when his family started ruling, not adding anybody else. It's the same line in both chapters. In fact, study Bibles, Niv even changed this because they said this is a clear contradiction. Read the verse for me. All right. 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?

[Moderator Sean]

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

[Christian Apologist]

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?

[Moderator Sean]

Yeah, it began 22 years old when he became king.

[Christian Apologist]

When he became king. So that's pretty sad.

[Muslim Debater]

My only question, did Judah have any overlapping reigns?

[Christian Apologist]

You want me to.

[Muslim Debater]

I said, my only question is, did Judah have any overlapping reigns?

[Christian Apologist]

This is the rule of Jerusalem.

[Muslim Debater]

If you could just answer. As I said earlier. Just listen. Just listen to me. As I said before, if you could just answer yes or no, you can expound. That's all I'm asking. If you ask me a yes, I did. I don't think I put yes or no on it. So for that I apologize. I'll rephrase it. But if you ask a yes or no, I'll give you yes or no, and then I'll expound. So yes or no, did Judah have overlapping reigns?

[Christian Apologist]

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 knights. That's ridiculous. Anybody who looks at the verses as Sean did clearly sees a contradiction.

[Muslim Debater]

So if anybody just looks up the overlapping reigns, you'll see that Jehoshaphat ruled. I'm sorry, Jeroboam ruled before Jehoshaphat died. So Jehoshaphat is king and Jeroboam is king at the same time. You can also look up Azariah is ruling. Why Jotham has leprosy. So they have overlapping reigns. So Chronicles is giving the 42 years for the reigns. Kings is given his age. If that don't exist, maybe I might agree with you. But it's just 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. As I said, if they didn't have overlapping reigns, and they're not the only.

[Christian Apologist]

Just.

[Muslim Debater]

And this is just broad, they. They're not the only ones that had overlapping reigns. You would have Upper 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.

[Christian Apologist]

Look, 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?

[Muslim Debater]

Absolutely.

[Christian Apologist]

Okay, so when you look at the genealogy of Jesus, do you believe he goes back to King David?

[Muslim Debater]

Yes.

[Christian Apologist]

So I was looking at this first. Matthew 1:12 begins the end of it. Right.

[Muslim Debater]

All the way from, I think, 1 through 16.

[Christian Apologist]

Yeah. So 12 begins to the end of the going down to 16. Right. That paragraph, when I was looking at that paragraph, I saw verse 16, Matthew 1:16. And Jacob Begot Joseph, the husband of Mary, to whom was born Jesus, who's called Christ. Right. So Jacob was the father of Joseph, who was then married to Mary. Right? That is correct. Right?

[Muslim Debater]

That is absolutely correct.

[Christian Apologist]

Okay. When I look in Luke, I find that genealogy as well.

[Muslim Debater]

Right?

[Christian Apologist]

You do in Luke 23:3.

[Muslim Debater]

No, Luke 3:3.

[Christian Apologist]

23.

[Muslim Debater]

Yeah.

[Christian Apologist]

Verse 23, chapter 3. It says now Jesus began his ministry at about 30 years of age, being as supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Heli. Right. So was Joseph's father Heli or Jacob?

[Muslim Debater]

Yeah, his father was both.

[Christian Apologist]

What?

[Muslim Debater]

His father was both Jacob and Heli.

[Christian Apologist]

Two fathers.

[Muslim Debater]

Yes, because Matthew's one. Jacob is the physical father of Joseph. Heli and Joseph. Excuse me, Heli and Jacob are brothers. So when it says Heli, as was supposed, we have something in the Israelite custom called levered marriage. Levered marriage is like if him and I are brothers and I pass away and I don't have a son, then he would lay with my wife and raise up son for me. That's the law of a brother in our customers. So the reason why it says as was supposed in Luke the third chapter, Heli is his father according to that law, Jacob is his father according to the flesh.

[Christian Apologist]

Okay, so Heli is the stepfather of Joseph.

[Muslim Debater]

No, listening is an art. Helah is the father according to Levitt law. Helah is gone. He's dead, he's not living. Okay, so he. So J. Jacob is the one that laid with his mother, Heli's wife, when he raised up seed for Heli's wife. That seed belongs to Heli. It doesn't belong to J. Jacob. So what Matthew is doing is giving the physical son of. I mean physical father of Jacob. I'm of Joseph. What Luke is doing in Luke, the third chapter is giving the law father of Joseph.

[Christian Apologist]

You said Heli is. This is where the seed came from.

[Muslim Debater]

No, I did not. Listen, I'm going to say it again. Listening. Listening is an art. I said, I said Heli is dead, okay? Heli is not living.

[Christian Apologist]

Okay?

[Muslim Debater]

Jacob is living. And Jacob is keeping the law of a brother by laying with Heli's wife.

[Christian Apologist]

Okay?

[Muslim Debater]

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 marriage is? Do you know law of a brother? What? Can you explain what it is?

[Christian Apologist]

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

[Muslim Debater]

So in this, so in Joseph's scenario, heli died without a son and Jacob kept the law of a brother and slept with Heli's wife and raised up Joseph for Heli. So when Matthew does the lineage, he's correct because he's given a physical son. I mean, excuse me, physical father of Joseph, he lies. Excuse me. Luke is also correct because he's given the law by, excuse me, he's given the son by law. By law. So when he says Heli is the father of Joseph, that's according to lever marriage. When Joseph, when Matthew says Jacob is the father of Joseph, that's according to the flesh. I'll provide one outside source for this. Anybody can look up a church father by the name of Julius Africanus. That's his name. It's Julius Sextus Africanus. That's the whole entire name. And when you go to that church father, which is substantiated by Euus in the ecclesiastical history of the Bible, they'll tell you what I'm telling you was a known custom throughout all of the house of David. Because the Messiah had to come from the house of David. They kept the levered marriage all throughout. And Julius Sextus Africanus actually breaks the whole. 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.

[Christian Apologist]

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 any. First, the fact that it clearly says that Jacob begot Joseph shows that this was the physical father. Correct. And the fact that Heli Joseph is called the son of. Not by law. All the way back to as Adam and Seth and Enosh. Those are not by law, but physical relation. But my question actually wasn't on that. My question is, when we go in Matthew, we see Salathiel as the son of Zorabil. Is that correct?

[Muslim Debater]

I believe that's in there.

[Christian Apologist]

All right. Can you open up 1st Chronicles 3:17.

[Muslim Debater]

He ran from that first one, though.

[Christian Apologist]

I did not. I responded to it.

[Muslim Debater]

No, did I respond to it?

[Moderator Sean]

Which one?

[Christian Apologist]

About the contradiction between the two names.

[Muslim Debater]

First Chronicles and Second Chronicles.

[Christian Apologist]

First Chronicles 3:17.

[Muslim Debater]

Gotcha. And the one in Matthew would. Do you know a verse in Matthew? Because that was Matthew with Salathia. Right?

[Christian Apologist]

Yes, I got you on that too.

[Muslim Debater]

Because my. My app, I could pull three phones to three Bible apps.

[Christian Apologist]

Nice. I like the phone.

[Muslim Debater]

The Z fold.

[Christian Apologist]

You like it?

[Muslim Debater]

I love it. Actually, I use that cuz like I could pull this up like that. Have three Bible apps open at the same time. Yeah. Close it like I start paying you for shouting. Yeah, yeah.

[Christian Apologist]

I don't know why.

[Muslim Debater]

I do it all the time like a dummy.

[Christian Apologist]

So Matthew, it's 1:12.

[Muslim Debater]

Right. And then the Chronicles 1 is what?

[Christian Apologist]

It's 3:17.

[Muslim Debater]

Got you. And 3:17. You want me to read it or. You got it?

[Christian Apologist]

You go ahead.

[Muslim Debater]

1st Chronicles 3:17, it says in the sons of Jeconiah, Asia Salathio, his son. And then Matthews, 1 and 12. And says after they were brought to Babylon, Jeconiah begat Salath and Salathiel begat Zerubbabel.

[Christian Apologist]

So who is the father of Seletiel? Jeconiah. Right?

[Muslim Debater]

Yes.

[Christian Apologist]

And Zerabil is the brother of Salithiel.

[Muslim Debater]

Correct. Where does it say the brother at?

[Christian Apologist]

If you look at the sons of

[Muslim Debater]

Jeconiah, were you still in the same Chronicles one?

[Christian Apologist]

Yes.

[Muslim Debater]

Or I'm just searching something else. Else. So in Chronicles 3 and 17, I read that verse, but it's not in that verse. It's somewhere else.

[Christian Apologist]

No, no, it's. Keep going.

[Muslim Debater]

Oh, that's why I was Asking. So I got to read further down, Right?

[Christian Apologist]

Yeah. So the sons of Jeconiah were Asir, Salathio, his son Malachi, the Daya, Shanezar, Jahakachim, Hoshana, and Nebida.

[Muslim Debater]

Right. But here it jumps in verse 12, and this ain't really. I think we talking together this time. I don't want you to say I'm interrupting you.

[Christian Apologist]

No, let's talk.

[Muslim Debater]

Okay. All right.

[Christian Apologist]

Perfect.

[Muslim Debater]

So in Matthew, it says, Jeconias begat Salathiel, and Salathiel begat Zerubbabel. So I think your question is, and the sons of Jeconiah, Assir, Salathiel, his son Miriam, also Bedia, Shahnazar, and the sons of Padia, Zerubbabel. So why is it skipping those and giving Zerubbabel to Salathiel instead of giving Zerubbabel to Padilla?

[Christian Apologist]

So what I'm saying is here it says Selaphiel begot Zubabel. Right. So Zubabel is the son of. Correct. In Matthew, it says Begot, like you mentioned earlier.

[Muslim Debater]

Yeah. Okay.

[Christian Apologist]

But in First Chronicles from the sons of Shalithio, there is no Zerubbabel.

[Muslim Debater]

Yeah. You see, Zerubbabel doesn't come in until Padilla.

[Christian Apologist]

That's. Yeah. So. So.

[Muslim Debater]

Right.

[Christian Apologist]

Those two don't match.

[Muslim Debater]

So we would agree. Before I fully answer, we would agree. The sons of Jeconiah says Asil and Salathiel his son. Right?

[Christian Apologist]

Yeah.

[Muslim Debater]

And then in 18, Malcolm, also Padilla, Shahnazar, Jekanam. And then in verse 19, it says the sons of Padilla was Zerubbabel and Shamil. So it's like you're skipping.

[Christian Apologist]

Yes.

[Muslim Debater]

Thank you. So the custom in Israel is to skip like that when you talk about generational lineages. So in Matthews 1 and what? 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, salmon begat boaz of Rakab. You'll see a woman mentioned, J begat David the king. So when it's mentioning Jeconias begat Salathio, Salathio begat Zerubabel, Zerubabel 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 1 Kings 19:16, it will say, ju, the son of Nimi, shalt thou anoint thee to be king over Israel.

[Christian Apologist]

Okay?

[Muslim Debater]

And then when you go to second Kings nine and two, it says, and when thou comest hither, look out there. Jehu, the son of Jehoshaphat, the son of Nimshi. So one verse is saying Jehu is the son of Nimshi, to another verse is saying Jehu is the son of Jehoshaphat, the son of Nimshi. Because that's the custom of Israel to just name the prominent people in the lineage. That's why Matthew chose to use Jacob instead of Heli. Because Matthew's whole point was showing the prominent lineage in Christ's line as opposed to the literal lineage that Luke goes that route. So that is the custom of Israel. Even when you say Christ is the son of David.

[Christian Apologist]

Right. I'm listening.

[Muslim Debater]

No, I'm asking you. People say, like you in the Bible, it says Christ is the son. It even says Joseph is the son of David. Right. But that would be. That would be. 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?

[Christian Apologist]

Yes.

[Muslim Debater]

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.

[Christian Apologist]

I agree.

[Muslim Debater]

Right. But it's saying Joseph is the son of David because that's the prominent man in Joseph's line.

[Christian Apologist]

Which is the point, just to understand. Because you're teaching me, right?

[Muslim Debater]

Absolutely.

[Christian Apologist]

Matthew is skipping to show prominence and David is going line by line.

[Muslim Debater]

Luke, Luke, Luke, according to the law. That's why you'll see the paths cross. So you'll see Luke and Matthew have similar names, but Luke goes through Nathan because of the law, whereas Matthew stays through Solomon because of the prominence.

[Christian Apologist]

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.

[Muslim Debater]

I just said they go across.

[Christian Apologist]

I just said, but there's no. If they were skipping, then why is Luke skipping? You said Luke didn't skip. He was going line by line.

[Muslim Debater]

No, no, I'm not saying Luke, I'm not saying Luke is skipping. But what it also shows. And that I'm glad. I'm actually glad you said it. Gives me an opportunity to expound back on Julius Sexus Africanus. When you look up that source, which I can read, the House of David all did intermarrying, so that's why you would see the names cross. It's just that simple. I'm just waiting. I'm just waiting for the.

[Christian Apologist]

Because there's a generation skipped here in Matthew. What he said, and I confirmed with you, is that Matthew was skipping for prominence, but Luke was going line by line. But please don't interrupt. But if you go to Luke now in verse that is 20, sorry, 3, 27 onwards, go ahead.

[Muslim Debater]

No, I'm just getting there with you. No, I'm there, I'm there.

[Christian Apologist]

The son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shelathiel. But Shelathiel wasn't the father of Zerubbabel. And if his first explanation, 3 and 27, you said. Oh yeah, 327. Yes.

[Muslim Debater]

Okay, good.

[Christian Apologist]

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. Your answer doesn't work. There's a clear contradiction.

[Muslim Debater]

So in First Chronicles 3 that you read, Salathia would be the grandfather of Zerubbabel.

[Christian Apologist]

Yes, that is correct.

[Muslim Debater]

Right. So that goes right in line with what I said in 1st Kings 9:9. Because in 1st Kings 19:6 that I just read, it does the same thing with Nipi. It says Ju, the son of Nimi. Then Second Kings 9:2 says ju, the son of Jehoshaphat, the son of Nimi. So it's still not a contradiction. I can't help it if you don't understand the Bible. It's just not a contradiction. I'm showing you a clear another example of a man, generation or name being skipped. So I know you want it to be a contradiction. It just don't exist. The contradiction.

[Christian Apologist]

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, if Luke wasn't, then that is a contradiction with the Old Testament. That shows that Salathiel is not the father of Zerubbiel, 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.

[Muslim Debater]

It does not contradict because he's related to them all. That's his lineage. That's his line. That's where he comes from. You cannot get around that he's in there. I know you thought you had one with the first Jacob and Heli you thought you had one there, then you thought you had one with Cthio and this one. But the law of a brother is just exists. And if you know the if anybody was to do their own research and how the house of David specifically and why it was important for them to keep that line. The importance of that was because they knew the Messiah was coming from the house of David, so they stayed within their house. So Nathan's house, Solomon's house, were the two primaries or sons rather, that would keep that line pure. So Salathia, all of them are related. They all still from the house of David. Contradiction. Got to be something better than this right here.

[Christian Apologist]

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.

[Muslim Debater]

Reverse.

[Christian Apologist]

But I'm sorry, Matthew was only mentioning the prominent people, so he skipped. But Luke was going line by line according to the law. But Luke also confuses a father and a grandfather. So there's a clear contradiction between the genealogy of Jesus as given in the New Testament and given in the Old Testament. And because I've already explained it and I don't feel like going in a loop again and again and again, I would recommend to those that are watching, write out both genealogies side by side. Write them out, write them out and write out what's in the Old Testament. And you can see the clear contradictions all up and down.

[Muslim Debater]

The only thing I make sure you add is 1st kings 19 and 6 and 2nd kings 9 and 2. It has always been the custom of 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 the custom that the nation of Israel had and it's undefeated. So I mean, go look it up. I tell you what I blew his mind with that Julius Africanus source. He did not know. Yes, it did. Yes, it did. He was not ready for me to have a source. And anybody can look that up because I know they're gonna look it up. Have you ever, have you ever heard of that source before?

[Christian Apologist]

Let you finish and then I'll.

[Muslim Debater]

No, this, this is yes or no question.

[Christian Apologist]

I have not.

[Muslim Debater]

You have not.

[Christian Apologist]

Yeah, but it did not blow my mind. So let's be clear, right? Don't over praise yourself.

[Muslim Debater]

I'm not praising myself.

[Christian Apologist]

You are, you are, you are. It's just that I blew his mind when you didn't blow my mind at all.

[Muslim Debater]

I did.

[Christian Apologist]

It was very underperforming.

[Muslim Debater]

You know how I know you, you know how I know I blew your mind on it? Because you, you left your subject.

[Christian Apologist]

Look.

[Muslim Debater]

Because you, you left it and went to cio. That's how I know. I blew.

[Christian Apologist]

I'll tell you how. I'll tell you why. Because I stuck to scripture and everything that I've said, I've given scriptural references to and everything that you ran from, you gave extra non scriptural verses from. I don't want to get into church fathers and their histories because to me, they're not infallible. They're not scripture. They're people. Right. So I gave you actual Scripture line by line. And the fact that he gave an explanation that Matthew was only going by the prominent ones and Luke was going by the law line by line, and I confirmed that with you before responding because I didn't want him to jump from it shows that the fact that Luke did the same jump shows that there's a contradiction between both those genealogies and, and what's in the Old Testament, whether you go by the law one or according to you, the prominent one, there's a clear contradiction. And anybody with eyes and half a brain can see that. But I'm good with that. Do you want me to respond to the pedophile thing?

[Muslim Debater]

Wait, wait. Before you respond to the pedophile, just. Thank you. There is no contradiction. The only way there could be a contradiction is if Luke and Matthew or one or the other did not have those people in their line. Then there's a contradiction because it has to come from the house of David. That's where the Messiah has to come from.

[Moderator Sean]

He brought the Bible back.

[Muslim Debater]

Look at I, I thought.

[Christian Apologist]

Because. Because you're saying that if there are people in one genealogy that are not in the other, then that's not what I.

[Muslim Debater]

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. Salathiel, Zerubbabel are all in the House of David, and that's where the Messiah had to come from. So if there was somebody in there outside of the House of David, then maybe then have something. Now, I do agree with you with the church fathers. I only added that part in this conversation because when I was talking about 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.

[Moderator Sean]

Yeah, I never heard of that.

[Muslim Debater]

So thank you. The as was supposed. That's the custom. But people may not understand that custom because Sextus africanus is so close to that time of, like, right after Christ. And they had the tradition of their story. Is the only reason I normally mentioned. I actually hate the church fathers probably more than you do.

[Christian Apologist]

Cool.

[Muslim Debater]

Because that's where they get to, you

[Moderator Sean]

know, Something you guys agree on.

[Christian Apologist]

I think it's amazing we agree on. I don't know why he's so hostile

[Muslim Debater]

about it, but for me, I should have hated more.

[Moderator Sean]

You did deny the fist bump?

[Muslim Debater]

No, I didn't want to give you the fist bump. No, no, no. I didn't want to give you the fist bump.

[Moderator Sean]

You got to earn his respect first.

[Christian Apologist]

All right. All right.

[Muslim Debater]

So we're going to the.

[Christian Apologist]

So I would like to ask a question of you, yes or no? Right, 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?

[Muslim Debater]

At first I'll say first I'm.

[Christian Apologist]

Remember we said yes or no.

[Muslim Debater]

And then I'm gonna say no. I'm gonna say no, because I haven't read the age. But what I do want to clarify under 18 is not. We wouldn't look at that as PDF. We wouldn't look at 17 as 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 prophetess, she married her husband seven years from her virginity. So let's say if she got her virginity, let's say at 12, seven years from that, she's 19. So that's the closest that I've seen of age in a book, chapter or verse.

[Christian Apologist]

Cool. Okay. So you're saying no?

[Muslim Debater]

Yeah, I said no with my explanation.

[Christian Apologist]

Gotcha.

[Muslim Debater]

Meaning just the one caveat. If whatever you show me is a book, chapter, verse of age, then we. Good. If it's not in the Bible then it's someone's conjecture.

[Christian Apologist]

Okay, so, so that's interesting because then the age of A is not in the Quran and it's not in any hadith of the prophet Ali Sahib to salam.

[Muslim Debater]

Where is the age at?

[Christian Apologist]

It's a statement from her which again we don't take as divine.

[Muslim Debater]

So when you don't follow no hadith, so that's not in no hadith age. I'm asking for clarity because if you take the same position, let me say

[Christian Apologist]

why I'm asking you. Ask the question. I got you. All right.

[Muslim Debater]

Okay, good.

[Christian Apologist]

Let me give you clarity. The Quran is the words of Allah, no doubt. Okay. Then there is the ahadith that are called marfua. You know what marfua is?

[Muslim Debater]

No.

[Christian Apologist]

Well, I'm going to educate you today.

[Muslim Debater]

Yeah, you could definitely go. I hate Islam, so you can.

[Christian Apologist]

You hate Islam? That's sad.

[Muslim Debater]

Oh, I hate it.

[Christian Apologist]

Oh well I don't hate Christianity, so

[Muslim Debater]

I'm not a Christian. I hate Christianity too. I don't hate Judaism and I'm not a Judaism.

[Christian Apologist]

You're not a Jew?

[Muslim Debater]

No, no, I'm a Jew but I don't follow Judaism.

[Christian Apologist]

I don't hate Jews.

[Muslim Debater]

I hate the so called Jew though.

[Christian Apologist]

Really?

[Muslim Debater]

Yeah, he's not my people.

[Christian Apologist]

Who?

[Muslim Debater]

The, the Amalek. That's over there in the land of Israel. They're not the real Jews.

[Christian Apologist]

Nahu.

[Muslim Debater]

No, he's not a real Jew. He's a prophet. They come from Ashkanazi or something like that.

[Christian Apologist]

I'd pound you on that one but anyway, I'll give you one on that one. Okay?

[Muslim Debater]

All right. All right, you get that one on that one. Okay.

[Christian Apologist]

Okay. So those are a bunch of Europeans that went and took over somebody else's land.

[Muslim Debater]

Yes. Yeah. Okay, okay, okay. Impostor.

[Moderator Sean]

Uniting people.

[Christian Apologist]

All right, so let me educate you. Now Marfua is a hadith that the prophet Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wasallam said. Okay? So the Quran is the words of Allah. The marfu hadith are the words, actions or approvals of the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. Okay. Then there is what's called a maquf hadith. Maquf means stopped in Arabic. That means it's not the words of the prophet, peace be upon him. Okay. Then there is muktua hadith that is the statements of the Tabi', aun, the later generation. Okay, There are authentic hadith, there are weak hadith, there are authentic hadith that are not applicable because there is what's called Nasiq and Mansoor.

[Muslim Debater]

So what hadiths would you respect?

[Christian Apologist]

Like again, so I. I respect all authentically established.

[Muslim Debater]

That's what I'm trying to say. So like if I so Sahih Al Bukhari, would he be. Would he be one?

[Christian Apologist]

So Sahel Bukhari is an amazing book of hadith. I love it, I respect it. But what you have to look at is the Rafa. Whose statement is it? Is it the Prophet speaking or is it a companion?

[Muslim Debater]

Right, but I agree with that. But the same way, the same way you was reading the Bible and you was looking at what the Amalekites said and you taking that as its authority. If in Sahih al Baqari it's Aisha speaking.

[Christian Apologist]

Right.

[Muslim Debater]

You don't respect that?

[Christian Apologist]

I do. Let me explain. Okay, so first thing, there's a difference between what's in the Bible and what's in Hadith, right? Because you claimed Bible, the word of God.

[Muslim Debater]

Facts.

[Christian Apologist]

We do not believe Hadith are the words of God.

[Muslim Debater]

Except I agree. That's another thing. We agree. It's definitely not the word of God. Now when I agree with you before, you ain't mine an interruption.

[Christian Apologist]

No, I still appreciate your agreement. But let me just finish when I say too much now because you will not agree when I finish. Right? There are hadith quds and those ahadith are the words of Allah. Right? Because they're hadith quds. That is when a hadith mentioned that Allah said. Then there's hadith Marfua. 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 Radianha, even though she's an amazing narrator, no doubt to her memory, but she's not reporting something that she saw when was she born, is something that she was told by other people. That's why in some ahadith she said seven for engagement and some at six. Both sahih, one a Muslim and one Bukhari. Right? So yeah, go ahead bro. You got a question? I mean, I'm not done.

[Muslim Debater]

You still got a man marrying a woman at seven.

[Christian Apologist]

We don't right, first thing, that is not a marriage because they don't consummate. That is what today we would consider an engagement where you would make a deal, but there would be. 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 marfuh from the Prophet Ali salatu salam that mentioned the age of Aisha. The only thing that's mentioned in those ahadith is the prophet waited until she was physically past puberty, meaning she was physically matured.

[Muslim Debater]

For relation, there must have been nine, right?

[Christian Apologist]

It could be nine, it could be more, it could be less. It could be less.

[Muslim Debater]

What is the consensus?

[Christian Apologist]

Well, there is no consensus. This is something that Muslim scholars have discussed and debated for centuries. Ibn Sa' Ad and others, they've given numbers higher. Right. Now what I'm going to show you now is, is going to be from scripture. And that's why I'm saying if you're going to make that standard has to be this verse, has to call out the age, then you don't have that for Aisha and the Quran.

[Muslim Debater]

You can't say that because I didn't say that you couldn't take that position. Okay, I never said that you could take the position. That's why I asked you, do you respect the hadith? Because in some Muslims that I deal with, they'll say, I don't deal with no hadith. I only deal with the Quran. So once you say you deal with the hadiths and you say you respect sahih al Bakari, if sahih al Baqari then quotes or narrates Aisha and Aisha says she was six years old.

[Christian Apologist]

But what's missing in there? Did the Prophet say so? Okay, I'm asking the question.

[Muslim Debater]

I don't study it like that. I would imagine that it's not the prophet saying that based on how you asked the question.

[Christian Apologist]

I got you.

[Muslim Debater]

But that doesn't mean that Aisha is lying on her age. Absolutely doesn't mean that she wasn't nine when Muhammad had sex with her. He's a freak. Like I told you, he Epstein easy. He'd be on Epstein island right now. Police be upon him. He'd be on Epstein island right now.

[Christian Apologist]

You see the disrespect?

[Muslim Debater]

Oh, I can't say that. Oh my God.

[Christian Apologist]

You don't see that as disrespect to

[Moderator Sean]

say that 9 is pretty young. But clarify.

[Muslim Debater]

Okay, so thank you for saying nine is Pretty young. We got to have some common sense. Oh, you want to show me something?

[Christian Apologist]

Yeah, I got you.

[Muslim Debater]

What is that?

[Christian Apologist]

A few things. This is Rashi. I'm sure you know Rashi well. Right?

[Muslim Debater]

Yeah.

[Christian Apologist]

You know, Rashi look uncomfortable now.

[Muslim Debater]

No, I don't look uncomfortable, but Rashi is not about to be the authority. But go ahead and show me the lies Rashi's about to tell you.

[Christian Apologist]

So Rashi is a liar.

[Muslim Debater]

Yeah, tell me what he about to say.

[Christian Apologist]

You see that? You see?

[Muslim Debater]

No, I would say Rashi is a liar. So let me give you my stance because it look like you're about to read some Talmudic stuff. I don't go by the Talmud. The Talmud, you can play with babies, you know.

[Christian Apologist]

Okay.

[Muslim Debater]

Private parts and stuff like that. Yes. So when they start looking, when they start talking about the ages of Mary, for example, they make Mary young. Even though there's no verse in the Bible that makes Mary that young. They make married.

[Christian Apologist]

When she got married.

[Muslim Debater]

The Bible doesn't say a virgin.

[Christian Apologist]

If you're going to take that, I'm gonna.

[Muslim Debater]

I'm give you.

[Christian Apologist]

Let me just ask so I can understand and I apologize.

[Muslim Debater]

Yeah. We like kind of worked it out where we could interrupt each other. All right. I had to teach you that, too.

[Christian Apologist]

Yeah, I think I had to teach you.

[Muslim Debater]

Slow down. No, you interrupted first. I taught you a little bit. It's all right.

[Christian Apologist]

You slow down. Got caught. Too many contradictions to be able to.

[Muslim Debater]

Crazy. All right, go ahead. Listen,

[Christian Apologist]

if the. If the. The criterion is that it has to be in the Bible. Right. For it to. Because you were quoting church fathers and all that.

[Muslim Debater]

Even one time.

[Christian Apologist]

Even though. Yeah. But you did quote them. Right. Okay. So then I would say, okay, let's use the same criterion that it has to be in the Quran. If you're going to use that. Right.

[Muslim Debater]

You have every right. And I don't. That's why I said. I don't argue that if you took the. If you took the position that you don't respect. And here's where I make the difference. I don't respect nothing Talmudic from any Rashi Hashi, any other cat like that, because they're not spiritual to me, but you do take hadiths. That. That would be the only difference I would say between us. If you said, no, that's why I asked you, do you respect Sahih al Bukhari? Once you say, yeah. Like, if I would have said, yeah, I respect Rashi, then whatever you read out of that, I would have to say you know what I'm saying? So that's the difference between us. So you can't say, I can't ask you nothing outside the Quran because the hadith that I reference is a hadith that you go by as opposed to you asking me about Rashi. I don't go by that.

[Christian Apologist]

I got you. So let me. Let me now clarify, and I appreciate the good conversation. So I believe in the Quran, no doubt. I believe in all of the ahadith that are established from Al Mustafa. Alayhi, saatu wa salaam, 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. I think that was funny.

[Muslim Debater]

Yeah, I thought it was funny. Yeah, because you're like, I ain't saying they lying. They just making a mistake.

[Christian Apologist]

Yeah, that. That's not a joke. I mean, Sean, error happens everywhere, right? Every industry. I mean, for example, if.

[Muslim Debater]

I think she would know. She's a kid, though.

[Christian Apologist]

Look, she never said I'm a kid, nine.

[Muslim Debater]

But her six is a kid.

[Christian Apologist]

Can I. Can I finish?

[Muslim Debater]

Look, I told you, I don't like it all the time. Go ahead, go ahead.

[Christian Apologist]

All right. So for example, if I ask Sean, how old are you right now? Sean was not conscious at the time of his birth. He has to go to his birth certificate, or he has to go to his passport or he has to go to his parents, and that's how he's going to get his age. Now, I know many people from other countries that their birthday is always January 1st. Like, why is their birthday always January 1st? Because when they came to this country, their parents just wrote January 1st, and they made up years. Now, if Sean comes, tells me I'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, Aisha Radianha. And one of the hadith says seven and one says six. So this means she has no surety because she's reporting something that others told her. And if you take that her older sister, Asma bint Abi Bakr. She actually gives out chronologically events that happened because the Arabs. Did you know they had no calendar? Did you know that?

[Moderator Sean]

I did not.

[Christian Apologist]

You did not know that the Islamic calendar and the Hijri calendar started with Umar IBN Khattab. So Arabs had no calendar. They had no way to date years. How would they remember dates? By events 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 Amr, when they started the Hijri calendar. So it's not. There is a big difference between somebody not being sure of their age and somebody lying. Okay, now let me finish.

[Muslim Debater]

So we just went on a whole diatribe. But go ahead.

[Christian Apologist]

I'm trying to explain something, man. Trying to educate you.

[Muslim Debater]

You didn't explain it.

[Christian Apologist]

I did, I did. I just taught you when the Islamic calendar started. Right? You didn't know that before, right?

[Muslim Debater]

You ain't teach me that. She wasn't. You tell her. She either six or seven. Did you know that neither one of them gets him out of the Epstein Island?

[Christian Apologist]

Did you know that?

[Muslim Debater]

I'm sorry, I can't say that more.

[Christian Apologist]

All right. All right. So if we're going to go with the principle that you have set for yourself that it has to be only in the Bible, nothing else is acceptable to you, then I would say I would use the same for the Quran. Not that I don't respect Hadith because I'm sure there are other literature other than the Bible that you respect, some of it that you don't hate everything else. Right.

[Muslim Debater]

My position on anything outside the Bible is that it has to line up with the Bible.

[Christian Apologist]

Excellent.

[Muslim Debater]

If it lines up with the Bible, then I rock with it. If it don't line up with the Bible, I don't 100%.

[Christian Apologist]

I believe that everything outside of the Quran has to line up with the Quran. And I believe all authentically established ahadith line up with the Quran. So I respect Hadith. But Hadith go through a science of being checked. And even if the chain is authentic, the sanad at times the mutun, the text have contradictions. And that's why we have a whole science called.

[Muslim Debater]

You said about the Hadith had the contradictions. Is that what you're saying?

[Christian Apologist]

What I'm saying is in hadith the text the wording of hadith sometimes contradict. And we have a science called so they have contradictions. Oh man. Can I finish bro? Right, we don't have contradictions because there's a science called mukhtala FAL hadith that goes and finds out why was there a word flip? Was there a mistake? And if there is we consider that to be a weak hadith even if originally the chain was strong. It's called shad. What's it called?

[Muslim Debater]

Shahad.

[Christian Apologist]

There you go. You learn something else.

[Muslim Debater]

I'm gonna forget it. Now let me see what I do

[Christian Apologist]

want to point out.

[Muslim Debater]

I do want to point out though that I taught him again to run from them hadiths because he did not want to deal with Muhammad sleeping with a 9 year old.

[Christian Apologist]

I am not running from anything.

[Muslim Debater]

But what I'm saying I can't use it.

[Christian Apologist]

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?

[Muslim Debater]

Fair.

[Christian Apologist]

Thank you. Then I'm going to bring some. Can I.

[Muslim Debater]

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 34:16 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 hadi. We reject anything trying to marry itself to our book.

[Christian Apologist]

But then you quoted a church father trying to explain something from the Bible.

[Muslim Debater]

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 levered marriage. That's what the as was supposed mean.

[Christian Apologist]

Are you saying nothing can marry with it or if it's in line with it then you accept it.

[Muslim Debater]

The church father explaining the historical evidence of Joseph's father is not a book. It's not, it's not a whole. It's not a whole Quran, hadith, whatever that is where they writing everything, where you have to now accept everything that's contained in that. See like that's our position again I

[Christian Apologist]

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.

[Muslim Debater]

Wait, you ain't got to get offended at this one because I wasn't offended at all. But I wasn't speaking on you. I was mainly making a comparison. How. Why we don't line up with those things because of what comes with it. So even if I was a, let's say if I was a follower of the Quran and I took the position of you that if it's not in the Quran, I don't follow it, I wouldn't follow no hadiths. It would just be the.

[Christian Apologist]

I don't. I don't take that view.

[Muslim Debater]

No, I'm not saying you take that.

[Christian Apologist]

No, I thought you said the position of you.

[Muslim Debater]

No, if I took the position of you. Well, in this conversation you're saying I don't.

[Christian Apologist]

I didn't. Say that again, please.

[Muslim Debater]

Okay, then showing. Then let's go into the hadith and show about her sleeping with the nine year old.

[Christian Apologist]

I'm going to explain it again and I'm gonna be very clear.

[Muslim Debater]

But you can read that all day. That ain't gonna bother me.

[Christian Apologist]

We're read it all day.

[Muslim Debater]

Okay, go ahead, read it. We can get right to you reading it.

[Christian Apologist]

Good, good.

[Muslim Debater]

But I want to, since we going to go into the hadith with the

[Christian Apologist]

nine year old, my stance on the Quran.

[Muslim Debater]

We know your stance.

[Christian Apologist]

Well, I don't think you did because

[Muslim Debater]

you wrong the Quran. Your stance is you go by the Quran, you respect the hadiths, right? They are strong hadiths. They are weak hadiths. So some of them you don't give the same prominence to than the others. So I understand your position.

[Christian Apologist]

You want to pound on that one.

[Muslim Debater]

No, we're not pounding on that one.

[Christian Apologist]

I'm just saying if you want it.

[Muslim Debater]

No, we. Let's pound after. When we get through Muhammad pounding out Aisha at nine years old, we could pound that.

[Christian Apologist]

Right. And none of that in the Quran or in hadith mentioned have sex, you

[Muslim Debater]

got to pound out. Yeah, he pounded out a nine year old.

[Christian Apologist]

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

[Muslim Debater]

No, I know who Rashi is.

[Christian Apologist]

Nothing for you. Oh, you already said, you know you hate him, right?

[Muslim Debater]

No, but you looked at me like as if I didn't. That's why I was making sure. No, you stopped right here first and then you went over to Sean.

[Christian Apologist]

All right, Sean, do you know who Rashi is?

[Muslim Debater]

I don't.

[Christian Apologist]

Okay, for those that are watching, you can also google who Rashi is.

[Muslim Debater]

Sidebar Why y' all start with this Evian, and then you got these two purified waters right here. That's diabolical.

[Moderator Sean]

I didn't bring those.

[Muslim Debater]

Oh, okay.

[Moderator Sean]

I only drink out of glass.

[Muslim Debater]

Right. They, I heard, I heard, I heard.

[Christian Apologist]

I, I, I think glasses, plastics are bad for you. I'm with you on that one.

[Muslim Debater]

All right, so my oils are in glass, not plastic.

[Moderator Sean]

Yeah, so.

[Christian Apologist]

So anybody that wants to. You can Google who Rashi is as well, looking at the camera, not you. Rashi is one of the most authoritative and well known commentators of the Bible. Christian and Jewish scholars, you can see quoted from him. And just like the church fathers didn't speak to anybody. Their works were documented in later books, and that's how you get to them. A lot of the biblical history and tradition is documented through rashi. He was 12th century. Again, from the people who commentated on the Old Testament, I think he's the most widely accepted and respected scholar. Rashi. You can look him up. Jewish scholar of the Old Testament. So he says here in his commentary for when Abraham came back from Mount Moriah after the binding of Isaac. And for each one, he gives the verses. So I'll give you a scan of this. You can go home and you can mark.

[Muslim Debater]

You talk about Isaac now.

[Christian Apologist]

Abraham here.

[Muslim Debater]

Okay.

[Christian Apologist]

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.

[Muslim Debater]

Just give me the. No, I don't. You ain't got to give me the book. Okay, but you can give the verses. Yeah, no, you can give me the verses.

[Christian Apologist]

All right, go ahead. So let's go through it.

[Moderator Sean]

By the way, 10 minutes left. I know you got to go on

[Christian Apologist]

Jake shield show, so I'm gonna take a picture.

[Muslim Debater]

Oh, is Jake here?

[Moderator Sean]

Yeah, Jake's filming next door.

[Christian Apologist]

Okay, so I'm gonna take a picture of this and send it to you. You. So he says here, Rashi, for when Abraham came from Mount Mora after the binding of Isaac, and he gives the verse here. He was informed.

[Muslim Debater]

Can you say the verse? No, no, you ain't got to look at it. Don't say it there.

[Christian Apologist]

He just, he just, he just mentions the Hebrew verse. He doesn't.

[Muslim Debater]

Oh, it puts it in Hebrew.

[Christian Apologist]

Hebrew.

[Muslim Debater]

Oh, oh, okay, okay, okay. I'll get.

[Christian Apologist]

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?

[Muslim Debater]

I'm not an expert at it, though.

[Christian Apologist]

You don't speak Hebrew?

[Muslim Debater]

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 sound. So like, we would say Shema, Yasha, Allah, Yahawah, Allah, Yahweh, or Israel. The Lord our God is one. But that's an ancient Hebrew, not mine.

[Christian Apologist]

All right, cool. Okay, so I'm just going to read Rashid here, and then, like I said, I'll give this to you. You can look up the Hebrew, you can look up the verses. No problem. Okay. And for Abraham came back from Mount Moriah after the binding of Isaac, and he was informed that Rebekah was born. And he gives a verse as well. And Isaac was 37 years old at the time. He gives the verses here in Hebrew, for it was at that juncture that Sarah died. And then he gives the verse. And from that time Isaac was born until the binding. And when Sarah died. And then he gives the verses here, there were 37 years. Again, Hebrew here. For she was 99 years old when Isaac was born. How old was she?

[Moderator Sean]

99.

[Christian Apologist]

99. And 137. When she died, how old was she?

[Moderator Sean]

137.

[Christian Apologist]

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?

[Moderator Sean]

37.

[Christian Apologist]

Okay. And he gives a verse at the juncture Rebecca was born. When Rebecca was born, how old was Isaac? 37. 37. And he waited for her until she would be. Can you help me pronounce that? Oh, okay. That's a Jewish term for fit for relations. And then he says, until she was halakhalaki, or fit for relations. 3 years old, and he married her.

[Moderator Sean]

3.

[Christian Apologist]

I'd like you to read it for yourself.

[Muslim Debater]

All right.

[Christian Apologist]

This is in Rashi with biblical references. So according to Rashi, with your references, and this is Jewish law, by the way, that at 3 years old, you can marry. Intercourse. So what island were we talking about?

[Muslim Debater]

We definitely not talking about island.

[Christian Apologist]

But before you like to give a couple more references, if you don't mind, before we get.

[Muslim Debater]

No, because then you say you got like. Yeah, thank you. So I appreciate it. So the verses that he relies on and I actually chat. GPT. This. I paid for this one. It's Genesis 22, 20, and 23. When it says after the binding of Isaac, like, he just mentioned Genesis 23 and 1. Sarah lived 127 years old. So Rasha Rashi connects this to Isaac's binding. Sarah was 90 when Isaac was born. Isaac is 37 at Adeka. Sarah died immediately after Adeka. So Isaac is 37 when Sarah dies. Genesis 24:1. Abraham is old and advanced in his age. Addition 2 traduces 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 Adeka, the time of Isaac, Adeda, the time that Isaac married for him to come to conclusion of how old Rebecca is. Yes, here's the, here's the problem. Here's the problem with that. This is Genesis 24 and 16. It says. This is Genesis 24, 16, 15. I'm going to start at. It says. And it came to pass before he had done speaking, that behold, Rebecca came out, who was born of Bethel, son of Milad, the wife of Nahor, Abraham's brother, with her picture upon her shoulder. So now we are to believe that a three year old is carrying a picture on her shoulder and the damsel was very fair to look upon. A virgin. Neither had any man known her. If you know our culture, a virgin is a young woman of marriageable age. That's why when you go back and play this tape, you're gonna hear me say Luke 2 and 36. Anna the Prophetess married her husband seven years from her virginity. So now we got. If we go by Rashi. This is why I don't mess with Rashi.

[Christian Apologist]

I got you.

[Muslim Debater]

Rashi has a three year old carrying a bucket to go pitch a tent. She's a virgin. Neither had any man known her. I ain't even know they 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 and met her and said, let me, I pray thee, drink a little water of thy pitcher. Now the three year old having a conversation with a grown man. This is diabolical. And she said, drink my Lord. Now she knows how to say my Lord and everything. Drink, my Lord. And she hasted and let down a pitcher upon her hand and gave him drink. And when she had done giving him a drink, she said, I will draw water for thy camels also. So the three year old now drawing water for the camels also. So you want me to believe Rashi lying ass over the scriptures? This is why I don't go by no shit.

[Christian Apologist]

Does it mention her age there?

[Muslim Debater]

There's no mention of her age. Okay, so the only. Wait, let me finish. The only mention is virgin Gotcha. And what's important then? What's important? When you have to understand Hebraic 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 an old woman. That's why Laban gave her to Jacob first. Whereas Rachel, or would it 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.

[Christian Apologist]

Done.

[Muslim Debater]

As I said. Okay, Rashi lying like a mug, man.

[Christian Apologist]

I'll let you throw Rashi under the bus later. But the first thing is Rashi clearly says the age that is fit for relation according to Jewish law. And this is 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.

[Muslim Debater]

That's not in the Bible.

[Christian Apologist]

Again, Jewish law.

[Muslim Debater]

That's not law.

[Christian Apologist]

That's what he said.

[Muslim Debater]

The Talmud is not Jewish law. The law, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus is Jewish law.

[Christian Apologist]

You're saying the Bible says that?

[Muslim Debater]

I'm sorry. Now you ain't had no issue earlier. Now don't get touchy again.

[Christian Apologist]

Don't get touchy. I'm letting you speak.

[Muslim Debater]

Okay. No, go ahead.

[Christian Apologist]

I'm letting you cut me off.

[Muslim Debater]

Nope.

[Christian Apologist]

See how nice I am?

[Muslim Debater]

I wasn't sure, but go ahead.

[Christian Apologist]

I'm letting you cut me off.

[Muslim Debater]

Go ahead.

[Christian Apologist]

Go ahead.

[Muslim Debater]

No, no, no, no. That's all I wanted to say.

[Christian Apologist]

Cool. So what I'm saying is what you're talking about how our law is and how our people view things, again, based on scripture. I'm not saying you're making it up, right? But that's how you view the law. Jewish law from the greatest Jewish scholars. And again, I want you to look up who Rashi is before we continue. Come on, man, don't interrupt. Right, says that he waited until she was physically fit for a relations. Sexual relations. And then he clarifies that according to Jewish law, it was three years of age. Okay. Now you can look this up in other Jewish writings as well. I'm going to make a longer video on this where I'm going to scan all the books, including this, and give those. Now, because we have a lack of time, I do want to mention one more thing, which is the age of Mary. And once again, as we have agreed the age of Aisha is not in the Quran, and the age of Mary is not in the Bible. But the earliest documented biography of Joseph that I had it ordered. And I'll get you pictures of this just for your own benefit so I can educate you.

[Muslim Debater]

I don't need it.

[Christian Apologist]

Right. It mentions that she entered the care of the monastery at tisa, which is nine years of age. She was married at 12 years of age. How old was she? How old was she?

[Muslim Debater]

12.

[Christian Apologist]

12. Yeah. Go ahead.

[Muslim Debater]

What's the monastery?

[Christian Apologist]

This is where she was kept being protected to pray.

[Muslim Debater]

He talking about Mary?

[Christian Apologist]

Yes.

[Muslim Debater]

You know why that's. Wait, I'm sorry. Let me let you finish. Go ahead.

[Christian Apologist]

Let me let you finish. Thank you.

[Muslim Debater]

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

[Christian Apologist]

I'm glad you thought it was funny. All right, so here in the privilege of James, I'm giving actual references from books, not just acting like I'm laughing. It says the priests that were in charge of her, whether they were rabbis or priests. This is the English translation. When she was 12, they had her married. How old was she?

[Moderator Sean]

12.

[Christian Apologist]

Okay, so she was 12. Now, regarding the earliest documented.

[Muslim Debater]

And this is all about Mary, right?

[Christian Apologist]

Yes, so far. 12. The earliest documented biography of Joseph, which is, you know, it's in Latin. I can give you a copy as well, of pictures, not the book. It mentions that Joseph was 40 when he was first married. Then he waited 49 years. So that is how long?

[Muslim Debater]

Nine years.

[Christian Apologist]

89 years. All right, 89 years. Then a year after his first wife had already died, and now a year after that, he married Mary when he was 90. Okay, so 89 years, a year after that. How old was he?

[Muslim Debater]

90.

[Christian Apologist]

90. And how old was she? 12. So if you're gonna talk about people going to islands then. And I'll give you all the references, so I don't educate you.

[Muslim Debater]

That is Roman Catholic dogma. You know why when you read those, they got Mary and monastery was the word you use, right? Because they teach perpetual virginity and immaculate conception. That is Roman Catholic dogma. Immaculate conception. I used to think Immaculate Conception was Mary just getting pregnant by God. But immaculate conception is when they teach the sinlessness of Mary and perpetual virginity of Mary. They teach that Mary was a virgin, meaning no sex, no touching outside of the ever. Even after she had Christ.

[Christian Apologist]

Didn't she have other kids?

[Muslim Debater]

See, that's what the Bible says.

[Christian Apologist]

Serious question.

[Muslim Debater]

No, no, I'm answering you. That's what the Bible says, that her and Joseph had other kids. But the perpetual virginity, the Roman Catholic dogma teach that she did not. So the monastery that she was in, that's not biblical. When you read the Bible, you see she traveling, moving around like she want to. Went and visited her cousin Elizabeth and they do not give her age nowhere in the Bible. Then they got Joseph at 90 years old. That diabolical. I ain't never heard of that anywhere. And this is, this is why we don't go outside of the Bible unless it lines up with the text. Because she was never in no monastery before or after. If anything, if you want to know her nature, the first miracle that she performed, she was at a wedding. She was at a wedding that wine not she performed, Christ performed. I heard myself. I don't want that on the sound bite.

[Christian Apologist]

Different out here.

[Muslim Debater]

So the first, I'm not a Christian, the first thing she said was she went right to Christ and said, we done ran out of wine and told him to make wine. So she wasn't in the monastery. Even when they said, your mother is without, what did Christ say? Who is my mother? Them that do the will of my father, the same of my mother and sister. So this whole monastery and nun type nonsense doesn't line up with the Bible, which is what that garbage is. And you're not garbage this time. But that book, them two books is garbage. And 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 24:4, and I know you got a roll, it says, but thou shalt go into my country, into my kindred, and take a wife unto my son Isaac. And his servant said unto him, per adventure, the woman will not be willing to follow me. You see, it says the woman, it doesn't say the child, it says, the woman would not be willing to follow me unto this land. Must I needs bring thy son again unto the land. When thou and Abraham said unto him, unto him, beware that thou bring not my son thither again. The most High from heaven, which took me from my father's house and from my kindred and land, spake unto me. And swear unto me, saying, unto thy seed will I give this land, and send an angel before me. And if the woman would not be willing to follow thee, then thou shalt be clear from this my oath only bring not my son thither again. So clearly they wasn't sending to get a three year old kid, they were sending to get A woman that could actually get married. So Rashi is a piece of. Is he dead?

[Christian Apologist]

Yeah, it's 12th century, so it's been dead for a long time.

[Muslim Debater]

Thank God.

[Christian Apologist]

Yes, thank you. Well, first thing, I appreciate your time and I appreciate you hosting us once again. Regarding the contradictions, we've already beaten that to 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 Aisha in 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 when 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, it's not my business. That's their writings, right? And yeah, I mean, you know, my three year old used to build stuff. So my son Yusuf at 3 was, you know, doing all kinds of amazing things, you know, so that's not really the point. The point is scripturally, according to the greatest of the commentators of the Bible, she was three. And this is not just one scholar, many scholars showing scripture and tradition, not just that. If you look at the age of Mary across the board, she's 2012. Joseph, whether he was 90 or 40, either which way he would have to fall in the same category that you're putting. Just because you want to throw anything under the bus that doesn't fit your narrative doesn't mean that it works. So you got to be fair. If you're going to criticize the prophet sallallahu alaihi wasallam 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 is 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.

[Moderator Sean]

You want to close off?

[Muslim Debater]

Yeah, thank you. I appreciate it, man. It definitely was a good.

[Christian Apologist]

He got the last contradiction because he brought him up.

[Muslim Debater]

No, man, you started for.

[Christian Apologist]

I didn't let him close, to be honest. Yeah, I didn't get contradictions.

[Muslim Debater]

Look, he mad about.

[Christian Apologist]

All right, go ahead.

[Muslim Debater]

About the clothes.

[Christian Apologist]

I just want to be fair, that's all it.

[Muslim Debater]

It is fair. You started them. I'm just going up anyway. That lets you know who is hurt in this conversation because I can't even.

[Christian Apologist]

I think the video interrupted while I'm

[Muslim Debater]

doing my clothes out. I don't know, you know. So again, it was definitely a good conversation. Sean and I have been trying to link up for a while. I'm actually glad we had this conversation. As you can see, there is no contradiction in the Bible. It's just easily explained. You have to actually be of the culture to understand it. On the subject of the women, there is no age for women in the Bible. And as you can read, when it came to Isaac, Abraham sent to get a woman. It didn't even say a young girl. I could see, like if it said go get this young girl, go get a virgin, then I could see maybe you trying to hypothesize it. But Abraham sent his servant to go get and fetch Rebecca and was looking for a woman. That woman knew how to speak, she knew how to fetch water for the camels. She doing all this. So of course she's not a young woman at all. When it comes to Muhammad. He's correct about the age of Aisha is not in the Quran. But the hadiths that they do hold to whatever value that they have mo a multitude of them, whether they say she was 6 or 7, they do give an age. Whether they say he slept with her at nine, they do give an age. There's nowhere in our text that it gives the age of a young woman. Scribble of any woman in the Bible. The closest is Luke 2 and 36 when it talks about Anna seven years from her virginity, which lets you know virginity is something that a woman becomes. So a three year old wouldn't even be a virgin. You have to actually get your flower or your cycle and then that's when you become a virgin. Because now that's just an age. Because the older you get, you might not be a virgin. A 40 year old woman that's never had sex, you're not going to call her a virgin. She's an old woman at that point. So this was very, very easily explained with the Church Father. I only use that example for the people's sake, so they can understand. I normally would not use the Church Father. So I do agree with him with that point. As far as those books, those are extremely Roman Catholic, dogmatic. I would question the validity of them because they said Mary was in a modest. Not. Not that one. The. Those two books. No, Rashi's trash. Right. So also, when you go to Rashi, when you go to the Talmud and you go. Those books. I was saying was dogmatic. Those. The Talmud and the Rashis, you know, they play with. They have something called a moyo, where they believe circumcision is also done with a man putting his mouth on a young boy's. Yeah, they. Yeah, when they circumcised them Jewish boys, that's why they look so effeminate, because they had their penis played with when they was eight days old. So that's the people that we think. And Revelations 2 and 9 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 a back and forth with you, man. Anytime y' all want to do it again, you let me know.

[Moderator Sean]

Oh, yeah.

[Muslim Debater]

All right.

[Moderator Sean]

Look, that comment below. What you liked, what you disliked, who you agreed with. Guys, I'll see you guys next time. Peace. Thanks for watching to the end, guys. Please comment below your thoughts on the episode if you agree. If you disagree, I'd love to hear it. I read every single comment. Means a lot to me. Thank you so much.