How old were they?

Here’s a super discrepancy found in the Torah, which korede thinks to be the actual unaltered word of God. using koredes criteria we will show how Yahweh being the one author of the Torah was not aware of his own sayings.  Note korede has admitted the Gospels were written by multiple authors. It will be foolish of him saying the same for the Torah as it was dictated to Moses by Yahweh himself, which means there was only one author for the Torah. Lets get straight to the problem:

According to Genesis Abraham was 100 years old when Isaac was born.

 Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him. (Genesis 21:5)

again we read in Genesis Abraham was hundred and seventy five when he past away.

Abraham lived a hundred and seventy-five years. (Genesis 25:7)

here’s where the problem kicks in. According to Genesis Isaac was 40 years old when he got married.

and Isaac was forty years old when he married Rebekah daughter of Bethuel the Aramean from Paddan Aram and sister of Laban the Aramean. (Genesis 25:20)

did you catch the problem? Abraham was 100 years old when he had Isaac (Gen 21:5), Abraham passed away when he was 175 years old (Gen 25:7), which means Isaac should be 75 years old, but when we get to Genesis 25:20 we are told Isaac is 40 years old? How could this be? Note Genesis 25:9 says both his sons Ishmael and Isaac buried him.

His sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah near Mamre, in the field of Ephron son of Zohar the Hittite, (Genesis 25:9)

Can korede help solve this stupendous discrepancy (pun intended). How could the author who is Yahweh make such a mistake, and why didn’t Moses who was writing not correct it or even challenge Yahweh. If Moses can make Yahweh repent why could he not tell him how could Isaac be 40 years old? Please explain how Isaac had 35 years of his life omitted.

This super discrepancy cannot be solved at all. If Abraham was 100 when Isaac was born and when he passed away he was 175, then that should make Isaac 75 years old not 40. Do you really believe this is the actual word of God.

This also shows Abraham did not bless the two sons of Isaac. Esau and Jocob were born when Isaac was 60 years old.

After this, his brother came out, with his hand grasping Esau's heel; so he was named Jacob. Isaac was sixty years old when Rebekah gave birth to them. (Genesis 25:26)

There is no trace of Abraham anywhere during the births of his two sons esau and Jacob. You’ll expect the grandfather to be present there or even come bless them. Even though Abraham according to Genesis 25 would of been alive and seen his grandchildren before he passed away at the age of 175. Not to mention this would give Isaac with an additional 15 years since he was 60 years old. Now korede may say Isaac was married at the age of 40, it was only mentioned after Genesis 25:9. Again using koredes standards this fails. If this really was the case then where was Abraham, and why was there no mention of Esau and Jacob? We read in Genesis 26

For all the wells which his father's servants had digged in the days of Abraham his father, the Philistines had stopped them, and filled them with earth. (Genesis 26:15)

And Isaac digged again the wells of water, which they had digged servants of Abraham his father; for the Philistines had stopped them after the death of Abraham: and he called their names after the names by which his father had called them. (Genesis 26:18)

Notice how Genesis 26:15 and 18 both speak of the past tense for Abraham. Had Abraham been alive then would he had not visited his son and grandsons and bless them? A couple of  chapters later we read Yahweh is blessing them behalf of Abraham.

May he give you and your descendants the blessing given to Abraham, so that you may take possession of the land where you now reside as a foreigner, the land God gave to Abraham." (Genesis 28:4)

There you have it, a major inconsistency in the chronology of the story. Again without repeating myself, I want to summarise this.

Abraham was 100 years old when he had Isaac.

Abraham was 175 years old when he passed away
.

Isaac was married at the age of 40  years old after Abraham passed away.

Isaac was 60 years old and had two sons, Esau and Jacob, again that’s after Abraham passing away.

If Isaac was 60 years old when he had his two sons, then this would of make Abraham 160 years old. But it’s clear from the previous and preceding texts Abraham had already passed away, which means the dates are wrong.

Even if one argues Abraham was alive why then does the Bible never mention of Abraham coming to visit his grandsons to bless them?.

This is probably one of the major discrepancies found in the so-called God breathed Torah, which korede thinks is untampered.  Just for the record the author of Hebrews seem to suggest that Jacob did see Abraham

By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise (Hebrews 11:9 KJV)

However this is a very bad rendering of the actual translation the NIV reads

By faith he made his home in the promised land like a stranger in a foreign country; he lived in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise. (Hebrews 11:9 NIV)

I believe that the point of the verse is not to point out that Abraham lived together with Isaac and Jacob (but rather to remind the reader that all three generations lived as nomads in the land of promise during the course of their lives.

The word translated here as "tabernacle" is σκηνή - skēnē - which really means a "tent" or "temporary dwelling". It is the word, for example, in the Septuagint version of Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents (Genesis 4:20).

Let’s ask our Christian friends to help solve this problem, after all they brag they get help from the holy ghost to understand the Hebrew Bible.

So, the issue stems from the before time of Isaac's wedding. There is no mention of Abraham after Gen 25:7. Abraham did not bless his son Isaac or Rebecca, nor did he bless his grandsons; Jacob and Esau why? So, for 35 years Abraham disappeared? Follow up the timeline.

 This is known as the Documentary Hypothesis; the four different sources (D,P,E,Y). It's possible the redactor thought Abraham passed away, so he carried on with his version. Joel S. Baden scholar of the OT wrote about these theories.    

Major Contradiction

First and foremost a person should be intellectually honest with themselves when looking at the Torah and the Tanach. I say this for several reasons. 

The first reason is because the Torah, the one we have today, was not written by Moses. This is because the original Paleo-Hebrew Law "of" Moses was lost or destroyed between 586 BCE and 285 BCE. 586 BCE is when the Temple was burned to the ground by the Babylonians and the remaining people of the Kingdom of Judah were hauled off into exile, into Babylon. In 285 BCE a copy of our current Torah was translated into Greek in the Hellenistic town of Alexandria. Thus, somewhere between these two dates the real law was destroyed. What we have today is a patchwork of stories and narratives that were thought to be authentic to world history and to Jewish history. Furthermore, regarding the individual laws and statutes found in the Torah, many of them that are attributed to Moses were in fact, given by other prophets. Some Laws* in the current Torah indicate that certain manners of conduct are sinful, yet, according to the other writings outside of the Torah such things were not considered "sins" at all. This shows there is a confusion with the authors of the Torah regarding what was considered a sin.   

Without touching too much on that, however, the people that lived between this time frame of 586 BCE and 285 BCE are the ones that authored our current Torah. 

When reading the "Torah," it is clear that the "five books of Moses" were written by various authors, because of this, it is understandably discerned "why" there are different traditions and contradictions found in the Torah. Furthermore, while in captivity, the Judeans adopted many myths of the ancient Sumerians, Akkadians, Babylonians and Persians. Those myths were believed upon and then canonized into our current Torah. 

It is my opinion, that because so much time lapsed from the patriarchs to then (the time after 586 BCE), things were simply forgotten or mingled up in the minds of these authors. The authors were merely trying to preserve their culture by putting things down in writings. Yet, the authors did not know, or were unaware that several things that they are writing down were not authentic to Jewish or Israelite history. 

Moreover, if the "Torah" was truly written by a single author (Moses) in a certain time frame (1505 - 1465 BCE), the Torah would not contradict itself in its laws, nor be so vague in its narratives. Furthermore, the Torah would never have phrases like, "The LORD said unto Moses..." It would have phrases like this... "The word of the LORD came unto me in the Wilderness of Sin...." or something like that. Similarly, when reading the Law, it also does not discuss certain laws at all, whereas the other prophets do (e.g. not to conduct business during the New Moons and holy days, blowing the shofar on the New Moon and Full Moon, priests, prophets and lawyers are not allowed to take money, a righteous king can not help a wicked kingdom, and so forth.) Then on top of this, the Law is totally lacking in a lot of areas, such as modest clothing, arson, gutting the Passover so that you don't cook it with its manure in it, New Moon Laws, uncleanness laws are lacking specifics, and other things. 

Therefore, one must be honest when looking at the Torah and the Tanach for there are many contradictions. This is not necessarily the case with the writings of the prophets, for the prophets like Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Amos and so forth were all inspired. But one can usually find several contradictions in any writing that did not come directly from a prophet because these writings come from an uninspired simple man/historian writing things down. 

Having established that the Torah was obviously not written by Moses, but literally came almost 1000 years after Moses, I am going to share another contradiction that I have found with you.

The contradiction is found between Genesis 21:22-32 and Genesis 26:23-33.

There are several contradictions and problems...

1. Who dug the well?

2. Abimelech and his General Phichol are still alive and together (in both stories), even though it is 40 plus years later. 

3. Why was BeerSheba named Beersheba?

4. Both stories tell of an oath.

Here are the passages...

Genesis 21:22-32

22 And it came to pass at that time, that Abimelech and Phicol the captain of his host spoke unto Abraham, saying: 'God is with thee in all that thou doest. 23 Now therefore swear unto me here by God that thou wilt not deal falsely with me, nor with my son, nor with my son's son; but according to the kindness that I have done unto thee, thou shalt do unto me, and to the land wherein thou hast sojourned.' 24 And Abraham said: 'I will swear.' 25 And Abraham reproved Abimelech because of the well of water, which Abimelech's servants had violently taken away. 26 And Abimelech said: 'I know not who hath done this thing; neither didst thou tell me, neither yet heard I of it, but to-day.' 27 And Abraham took sheep and oxen, and gave them unto Abimelech; and they two made a covenant. 28 And Abraham set seven ewe-lambs of the flock by themselves. 29 And Abimelech said unto Abraham: 'What mean these seven ewe-lambs which thou hast set by themselves?' 30 And he said: 'Verily, these seven ewe-lambs shalt thou take of my hand, that it may be a witness unto me, that I have digged this well.' 31 Wherefore that place was called Beer-sheba (Well of the Oath); because there they swore both of them. 32 So they made a covenant at Beer-sheba; and Abimelech rose up, and Phicol the captain of his host, and they returned into the land of the Philistines. 

Now here is Genesis 26::23-33

23 And he went up from thence to Beer-sheba**. 24 And the LORD appeared unto him the same night, and said: 'I am the God of Abraham thy father. Fear not, for I am with thee, and will bless thee, and multiply thy seed for My servant Abraham's sake.' 25 And he builded an altar there, and called upon the name of the LORD, and pitched his tent there; and there Isaac's servants digged a well. 26 Then Abimelech went to him from Gerar, and Ahuzzath his friend, and Phicol the captain of his host. 27 And Isaac said unto them: 'Wherefore are ye come unto me, seeing ye hate me, and have sent me away from you?' 28 And they said: 'We saw plainly that the LORD was with thee; and we said: Let there now be an oath betwixt us, even betwixt us and thee, and let us make a covenant with thee; 29 that thou wilt do us no hurt, as we have not touched thee, and as we have done unto thee nothing but good, and have sent thee away in peace; thou art now the blessed of the LORD.' 30 And he made them a feast, and they did eat and drink. 31 And they rose up betimes in the morning, and swore one to another; and Isaac sent them away, and they departed from him in peace. 32 And it came to pass the same day, that Isaac's servants came, and told him concerning the well which they had digged, and said unto him: 'We have found water.' 33 And he called it Shaba'. Therefore the name of the city is Beer-sheba (Well of the Oath) unto this day. {S} 

** = This is not meant to mean that it was already named Beer-sheba. Rather, the author of this narrative lived over a thousand years after this event, and is merely pin-pointing the local of "where" this event took place.

So, by this we can see that the these stories or narratives came from different authors and we cannot know for certain "who" dug the well. 

When Abimelech and Phicol came to Abraham, Isaac had just been born, thus, Abraham was 100 years old. 

When we get to Genesis 26 Isaac is beyond forty years old. Furthermore, the way the narrative reads, it would "appear" that Abraham was dead already, because in Genesis 25:9 Ishmael and Isaac bury their father. To go along with this, Genesis 25:26 tells us that Isaac's wife Rebekah gives birth to Esau and Jacob, yet, Isaac is only 60 years old at the time. 

In addition, there is another contradiction... 

According to one passage Abraham was 100 years old when Sarah has Isaac, then in another passage it says Abraham lived to 175 years old. Yet, according to Genesis 25, Abraham was dead before Esau and Jacob were born, when Isaac was only 60 years old. 

Because of this age and death discrepancy, this explains why Abraham doesn't bless Isaac, nor Jacob and Esau.

In conclusion, it is clear that there were many authors of our current "Torah" and that the historical stories were so scrambled up, to say the least, thus giving us many contradictions in the Biblical text. 

DRINKING POISON?

Mark gives no accounts of anyone seeing Jesus as Matthew, Luke, and John later report. In fact, according to Mark, any future epiphanies or “sightings” of Jesus will be in the north, in Galilee, not in Jerusalem.

his original ending of Mark was viewed by later Christians as so deficient that not only was Mark placed second in order in the New Testament, but various endings were added by editors and copyists in some manuscripts to try to remedy things. The longest concocted ending, which became Mark 16:9-19, became so treasured that it was included in the King James Version of the Bible, favored for the past 500 years by Protestants, as well as translations of the Latin Vulgate, used by Catholics. This meant that for countless millions of Christians it became sacred scripture–but it is patently bogus. You might check whatever Bible you use and see if the following verses are included–the chances are good they they will be, since the Church, by and large, found Mark’s original ending so lacking. Here is that forged ending of Mark:

Now when he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. She went and told those who had been with him, as they mourned and wept. But when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they would not believe it. After these things he appeared in another form to two of them, as they were walking into the country. And they went back and told the rest, but they did not believe them. Afterward he appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at table, and he rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen. And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover. So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by accompanying signs.

Even though this ending is patently false, people loved it, and to this day conservative Christians regularly denounce “liberal” scholars who point out this forgery, claiming that they are trying to destroy “God’s word.”

The evidence is clear. This ending is not found in our earliest and most reliable Greek copies of Mark. In A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Bruce Metzger writes: “Clement of Alexandria and Origen [early third century] show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them.” The language and style of the Greek is clearly not Markan, and it is pretty evident that what the forger did was take sections of the endings of Matthew, Luke and John (marked respectively in red, blue, and purple above) and simply create a “proper” ending.

Note

Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd edition, (Hendrickson Publishers, 2005), 123. Metzger also states: “The last twelve verses of the commonly received text of Mark are absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts (? and B), 20 from the Old Latin codex Bobiensis, the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about one hundred Armenian manuscripts, 21 and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts (written a.d. 897 and a.d. 913).”

Christians often claim that drinking poison and its effects will not harm this is a sign of true faith. They say Prophet Muhammed Pbuh was poisoned and its effect was harmful towards him. As you can see Christians making such a claim towards Prophet Muhammed Pbuh, only puts them in a bigger problem. It is a well-known fact, that the ending of Mark is concocted say’s a lot about the authenticity and preservation of the Gospels. Let’s dwell a bit deeper in this subject of poison, since Christians love bringing it up a lot.

Now we’ve established that Mark’s ending starting from verse 9 – 20 was later added. Let’s see if their false claim lives up to its words. Lets pretend for arguments sake Mark 16:18 was not a later concocted addition and it really was written by Mark. What does the text say? It say’s a true believer will DRINK POISON, NOT EAT RATHER DRINK. Note eating is different to drinking, the verse is specific on what method of test is to be used. There are other verses found in the Bible which specifically says poisonous food (Psalm 69:21, Deuteronomy 29:18, Hosea 10:4 the distinction is made.

Now interestingly the same cannot be applied to Prophet Muhammed Pbuh, as his food was poisoned not drink. Note Mark explicitly says Drink poison not eat. What’s more interesting about this poison found in Mark is, the Greek word used for poison is πίωσιν (piōsin) which means drink.  θανάσιμόν (thanasimon) means deadly, so the actual text rendered in english would say “and if deadly θανάσιμόν (thanasimon) anything they drink πίωσιν (piōsin)”.The word poison is not found only deadly and drink, of course the translators would say poison as that’s the only substance that can kill a person, but if we are to be specific then poison is not used, then why use it? In modern Greek δηλητήριο dilitírio means poison. The bible also uses the word poison such as snakes venom ἰὸς (ios) Roman 3:13, James 3:8. We can see from the Greek texts Mark does not use the same word as Paul does

We can be clear that Marks poison was not intended to mean actual drinking poison, rather drinking anything deadly this could even be excess of salt mixed in water or mixer of alcohol  or even sewage water not necessarily poison we can think of many types of poison, which doesn’t have to be actual poison in a bottle which can be purchased from many illegal drug stores. 

Another claim busted!

The famous incident from the life of Khalid ibn Waleed is an extraordinary feat in Tawakkul:

Khalid ibn Walid (RA) once besieged an enemy fort in Syria. When the total blockade had taken its toll upon the people inside they sent their chief to Khalid ibn Walid (RA) to negotiate for peace. When this man came into the presence of Khalid ibn Walid (RA) it was noticed that he was carrying a small bottle. Khalid ibn Walid (RA) enquired from the emissary what it contained. He replied that it was concentrated poison and that if the negotiations failed he would drink it and die rather than return to his people with news of failure. Uppermost in the minds of the companions was the objective to preach Islam, so Khalid ibn Walid (RA) found an ideal opportunity to further this aim.

He asked the emissary: “ are you sure that you will die instantly by swallowing the poison?” The emissary said: “ I have no doubt what so ever. This poison is so strong that no one has so far been able to describe its taste for the moment anyone sips it he dies. He does not live long enough to even describe how it tastes. There is no question I will die instantly once it enters my mouth.”

Khalid ibn Walid (RA) asked for the bottle and taking it in his hands said: “Nothing in this world can hold any effect unless Allah gives it efficacy.” He took the name of Allah and made this supplication: “In the name of Allah and with the mention of which there is not a think in the heaven or on earth that can do harm. And he is the All-Hearing and All-Knowing.”

Saying this he turned to the emissary and said: “I shall swallow this poison and you see if I die or not.” The emissary, astonished, exclaimed: “You are torturing yourself. The poison is so strong and swift even if a small amount manages to enter the mouth you will perish. And here you are threatening to swallow all of it.” Khalid ibn Walid (RA) said: Inshallah, nothing will happen to me.” And with that he swallowed the whole bottle down and Allah did indeed take away the poison’s effect. The emissary seeing the truth of Allah’s power submitted himself to Allah and embraced Islam.”

Mufti Taqi Uthmani Discourses on the Islamic Way of Life. P.34. (THE FIQH OF DA’WAH A Commentary on 40 Hadiths Page 96-97)

Notice from the above narration, how Khalid ibn Walid (RA) swallowed a whole bottle of poison and nothing happened to him by the permission of Allah, Allah Swt saved him. The above narration is solid proof that Muslims have passed the test of faith. Now going back to Mark’s verse on taking deadly drink and surviving, there is no mentioned on whether if one was poisoned without him knowing? It says if deadly anything they drink which tells us that the believer should take the deadly drink willingly to prove he is a true believer. Which unfortunately none of the disciples attempted to do, not even Paul himself.  

We read from the above narration how Khalid ibn Walid (RA) willingly swallowed the poison to show that Allah Swt would save him, and how he has 100% faith in Allah Swt. Why do we not find such test of faiths by any of the disciples, or everyday Christians What are they afraid of? Truly we have no come across a single Christian who has willingly drank poison live in public how come.