Question 35 – Isn't the Bible full of contradictions?

"As I have dealt with one apparent discrepancy after another and have studied the alleged contradictions between the biblical record and the evidence of linguistics, archaeology, or science, my confidence in the trustworthiness of Scripture has been repeatedly verified and strengthened by the discovery that almost every problem in Scripture that has ever been discovered by man, from ancient times until now, has been dealt with in a completely satisfactory manner by the biblical text itself—or else by objective archaeological information." - Dr. Archer, theologian. [1]

Is not pointing to the contradictions, mistakes, and discrepancies that are supposedly found in the Bible possibly the favourite activity of its critics? As has already been stated, it is unfortunately not peculiar that people doubt the Bible, including some Christians. Many of them say that the Bible is "truthful" but only in the areas of faith. In the areas of science, history, and other disciplines it can be mistaken and that there can be contradictions in it.

I must openly state (and this cannot possibly be a surprise) that I do not agree with this position. I believe that the Bible is God's Word from beginning to end. I believe that it is not only truthful in the issues of faith, but also in questions of history and science. Of course, if we were to be exact, we would have to say that it is absolutely without mistake in the original texts only, and that we do not have those texts today. Nevertheless, in the question of the "copies", we can be sure that through them God has preserved His original message – please refer to the preceding question. For this reason, I believe that no contradictions that would cause uncertainty and doubt exist.

It is true though, that during a cursory reading a person will come across a number of complicated passages that at first glance appear to be contradictory. Nevertheless, if a reader is honest and begins to study these contradictions closely, he/she will find that they are not as substantial as many claim them to be. You can find many lists in which the so-called contradictions are presented and which are supposed to show that the Bible is outdated and inaccurate on the Internet. People use these lists as ammunition to attack Christianity. I consider myself to be more of a lay person without formal theological training, yet in spite of this, when I come across such a list showing many of the so-called "clear proofs" against the Bible, I am able to solve them with my basic knowledge of theology and the Bible. Of course, I do not understand everything. There are things that I simply do not know how to deal with and in these cases I can look for the opinions of those who have dealt with and considered the problem on a technical/expert level before me. Critics, however, do not want to do this. It is often the case that many times they are not interested in the truth but simply want to find fault with the Bible and nitpick.

A partial summation - Yes, mistakes can truly be found in the Bible. For example, Christian scholar Norman L. Geisler who studied contradictions in the Bible for 40 years has "collected" around 800. He himself confirms that all of them are due to ignoring the basic principles of interpretation and no real contradictions exist. If we were to take all of these "contradictions" and measured them on a scale of seriousness, we would find it very difficult to put them under the heading "irresolvable".

Before we take a "quick peek under the lid" of specific Biblical contradictions, allow me to make a few important remarks that are important when studying this topic.

• As soon as we propose that there is only one possibility to solve the problematic place logically, the contradiction is disproved/refuted. Frequently, there exists even more than one resolution of the apparent contradiction. Although we do not know which solution is the correct one, we have shown however, that in reality we are not dealing with a contradiction - we just do not have enough information to decide which solution is the correct one.
• A difference does not mean a contradiction.
• While studying, it is important to read the text within its context! Thanks to not doing this very thing, perhaps the most misunderstandings have arisen.
• If we come across serious problems, it is appropriate to study the historical and cultural background of the text. This study will often help to reveal various specificities that had not been known to us previously.
• In Hebrew, they often conveyed/imparted the result of the action before they started to describe it. They had a different concept of conveying the action which has sometimes caused confusion and apparent contradictions in the timeline of passing on information.

In the following part I will show, through practical examples, what has often caused some of the contradictions and difficulties in places of the Bible.

TAKING THINGS OUT OF CONTEXT

Taking things out of context and a misunderstanding of what the text is saying is an artificial creation of discrepancies and contradictions when in reality there are none. We can include most of the generally used "contradictions" in this category.

1) The example that Jesus supposedly did not consider himself to be God

(at least according to the Synoptic Gospels – Mark 10:17-18).

'And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, "Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone…"

In other places, however, the Bible speaks about the fact that Jesus is God and acted as God. How then shall we treat this contradiction? One of the principles of Biblical interpretation is this, that less understandable parts and passages are interpreted by parts that are clearer. So then, it is possible to interpret this "contradiction" simply as follows, Jesus said to him (follow the context – these people did not consider Jesus to be God and they did not know he was God, therefore Jesus' reaction is valid):

"Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone…" (Why do you call me good when you do not consider me to be God?)

2) The contradiction in the story of King Zedekiah

The story about the capture of King Zedekiah of Judah is a great example of the necessity of observing the whole context of the story. The prophet Jeremiah announced to King Zedekiah that God would judge him. He told him, "...but shall surely be given into the hand of the king of Babylon…" (Jeremiah 32:4). This is confirmed in Jeremiah 39:5-7 where we find out that he was captured and brought before King Nebuchadnezzar. He put him in chains and then he was carried off to Babylon. However, in Ezekiel 12:13 God himself gave this warning, "And I will bring him to Babylon, the land of the Chaldeans, yet he shall not see it, and he shall die there." Be careful – a contradiction! Three Bible verses say that the king will go to Babylon, nevertheless, in another place it says that he would never see Babylon. How can someone be taken somewhere and at the same time not see it? It does not make any sense – that is if King Zedekiah's sight was not taken from him. That is exactly what happened. King Zedekiah saw Nebuchadnezzar face to face and with his own eyes he saw his sons' executions. Then, "He put out the eyes of Zedekiah and bound him in chains to take him to Babylon." (Jeremiah 39:6-7).

3) Who prompted David to take a census of Israel?

According to 2 Samuel 24:1, God prompted David to take a census of Israel, but in 1 Chronicles 21:1 something else is claimed – David was prompted by Satan to take this step.

This is answered quite simply. The truth is that both verses are correct. Although it was Satan who brought the direct suggestion/ "invitation" to David to count the men, in the end it was God who allowed Satan to provoke David to implement the plan and by it to deliver His people a lesson. We can understand this principle better in the story of Job. Both Satan and God were involved in Job's suffering – Satan asked to be allowed to act in Job's life and test his faith. God allowed Satan, for a specific time and to a certain degree, to do this. We could also go to the heart of Christianity as such – to the crucifixion of Jesus. It was Satan's will to destroy and kill Jesus, but it was also the will of God, in order to redeem mankind. In this case there are verses which confirm God had Jesus killed (Isaiah 53:4), Satan had Jesus killed (Luke 22:3; John 13:27), and the Jews had Jesus killed (Matthew 27:15-23; Acts 2:36). All of these answers are correct and only seem to be contradictory.

4) How many men of Israel were counted?

Another often named contradiction are various numerical and time differences. 2 Samuel 24:9 for example records that during one census there were 800,000 Israeli men whereas in 1Chronicles 21:5 the record states that all of the Israeli men numbered 1,100,000. This problem was caused by the fact that each record included a different number of fighting men. In 2 Samuel the number was 800,000, nevertheless this number did not include the back up army of 288,000 fighting men which is found in 1 Chronicles 27:1-15 or the special unit of 12,000 in Jerusalem (2 Chronicles 1:14). If we combine these numbers, we get 1,100,000 men. The result? No contradictions…

5) How did King Saul die?

In 1 Samuel 31:4 (a) it says he committed suicide. In 2 Samuel 1:10 (b) it says an Amalekite killed him. If that were not complicated enough, 2 Samuel 21:12 (c) mentions that the Philistines were the originators of Saul's downfall. 1 Chronicles 10:14 (d) adds even more confusion because it states that God himself killed Saul.

Solution

A – This version is correct, along with C and D. Saul committed suicide because he had been defeated and did not see a way out of his situation.

B – from the context, the man who told the news of Saul's death wanted to please David and gain his favour. Therefore, he made up the story, which did not work out for him in the end because he was put to death.

C – Here we are dealing with a general statement in the same way we can say that President Bush attacked Iraq or that Hitler killed tens of millions of people. Of course, Bush himself did not run to the frontline with a submachine gun and attack. The statement indicates a general summation of a specific event – that is that the USA – at its head the president – attacked Iraq. In the same way, Hitler himself did not personally kill millions of people. Similarly, the Philistines defeated Saul and his army.

D – The solution to this one is also simple. The same explanation of the "contradiction" concerning the census of Israel in 3 above can be used in a similar way here – God was also personally involved in Saul's death. From other texts it is clearly seen that Saul betrayed God and caused much evil. Therefore God punished him with death. He guides the circumstances in such a way that Saul was wounded and died. In the end therefore, all of the statements are equally valid in the following order: God killed Saul, the Philistines defeated Saul, and Saul committed suicide. If God had not allowed it, the Philistines would not have defeated Saul and Saul, of his own free will, would not have taken his own life.

These are some of the many examples of contextual contradictions. If we do not keep to the context, we would be forced to the paradox that the Bible itself teaches that God does not exist. In the Bible, it is written that, "There is no God". Only, just before it is the phrase, "The fool says in his heart,"(Psalm 53:1). Therefore, we must not come to premature conclusions no matter how strange or unclear it may seem to be at first glance.

AN UNFAMILIARITY OF LOCAL CONDITIONS, BACKGROUND OF THE PERIOD AND SO ON

1) Who healed the centurion's servant?

We read about a centurion who comes to Jesus and asks him to heal his servant in Matthew 8:5. However, in Luke's gospel (7:3-6) it says that the centurion did not come in person but sent a representative from the Jewish elders. The whole contradiction disappears the moment we realise the way the delegation of authority worked in past times (but also ours). Let us see how it works in a practical example. It is not uncommon to hear statements of the type, "the President has announced.." in the media. Only the President is no where to be seen when that specific announcement was made. The statement could have been written by a secretary and read by a spokesperson. Despite this fact, no one is looking for a contradiction in this situation. In other words, negotiations in the name of someone else are considered to be the negotiation of the person represented. There is no contradiction in this Bible story either. Both gospel writers are correct. Each one, however, is describing the event from a different point of view. Luke was just more precise.

2) The genealogy of Jesus

If you are ever interested in contradictions in the Bible, you will not escape the often mentioned contradiction in the names of Jesus' genealogy as given in Matthew and Luke. In this case, there are more possible explanations. One of which is that the gospel writers were following different genealogical lines. Matthew followed the line of Joseph and Luke followed the line of Mary. Whether or not this is the correct explanation, a bulletproof argument against the Bible is not being dealt with here.

3) When did Jesus celebrate the last supper?

The "contradiction" in the description of the last supper is another typical example of an unfamiliarity of important background information. In this case we can see that God created this contradiction intentionally. Jesus was not a victim of outside forces and the Jews. Everything had been planned long before. According to the synoptic gospels, the disciples ate the last supper with Jesus (in connection to the Passover) at a different time than the information the apostle John gave in his gospel. The explanation is simple. The Jews from the northern part of the country counted days from sunrise to sunset, but the Jews in other parts of the country counted days differently (from sunset to sunset). Therefore Jesus could have celebrated his last Passover supper according to the Law and have still been sacrificed the day of Passover as the Passover "lamb".

PARTIAL INFORMATION

Above all, this type of contradiction is most often found in the New Testament and particularly in the gospels. It deals with written accounts of the testimonies of eye witnesses. Not long ago my friends commented on an actual incident/event when a plane was shot down. One said, "The aviator crashed…", but the second friend corrected him and said, "No, they shot him down." Which of them was correct? When he was shot, what did the aviator do? Well, he crashed. Each of them had given news from his point of view and each emphasized a different aspect of the whole incident. Both of them, however, were correct.

In the same way, similar records were written by those who witnessed what Jesus Christ did and recorded his life in the gospels. Because of this method and the various viewpoints, many events/claims (at first glance) seem to be contradictory. However, they are nothing other than descriptions of the same events but from different points of view. It may help you to consider classic cinema photography. Films are not generally shot from one viewpoint and one camera. Sometimes the camera is very close and at other times it is further away. Sometimes it is filmed from high above and at other times the camera focuses on detailed shots. The author of one internet article caught it very nicely:

We can see some of these "contradictions" as God's way of allowing the Bible to be victorious in almost all impossible situations. For example, if the gospels were exactly all the same, the same critics would shout, "Conspiracy!" or "It's a secret pact/agreement!" If the gospels really contradicted each other, the critics would shout even louder, "Fraud!" How could the true God lie? God chose the perfect path between the two positions. He led the minds and hearts of the writers of the Bible so that they wrote exactly what He wanted but in their own style. This allowed room for differences but without contradictions. [18]

1) The four evangelists wrote various things about the sign that was nailed to the cross

In Matthew it is written: "This is Jesus, the King of the Jews" (27:37). However, Mark denies this with his version: "The King of the Jews" (15:26). Luke says something different as well: "This is the King of the Jews" (23:38). John contends that the sign said, "Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews" (19:19). This is a typical example of the mistakes some may say that are contained in the gospels. Of course, for those who believe God, there is no problem to bring the gospels into harmony. No contradictions exist if the sign simply stated:

"This is Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews."

The only thing the authors did was not to use the full statement but only part of it. It is possible that the fact that some of the authors were addressing their gospel to a specific group of people (eg. Jews or non-Jews) and this played a role in what they wrote, and on what basis they modified/ adapted the message.

2) How many women were at Jesus' empty tomb?

Another sample of an example is the difference in the statements concerning the number of women at Jesus' empty tomb. In essence each gospel writer records a different number of women at the tomb. One writer did not deal with this fact at all and mentioned only one of them. Others wrote information about two and another commented on this reality with the word women to which other women joined. It is similar to the question someone asks about who was with you on an outing. You could name everyone, you could emphasize only those the questioner knows, or you could mention only one, maybe the most important person.

In other words, when we describe an event or experience, no one slavishly mentions every detail, every person and so on. It goes to the extent that if we were going to tell that specific story more times, the details of each version could be different from one another. It would not be because the different versions were not true but because we are emphasizing different details or we are looking at it from a different perspective.

I would like to close this section with the words from the book The Case for Christ, by Lee Srobel

"My mind flashed to the words of Simon Greenleaf of Harvard Law School, one of history's most important legal figures and the author of an influential treatise on evidence. After studying the consistency among the four gospel writers, he offered this evaluation: "There is enough of a discrepancy to show that there could have been no previous concert among them; and at the same time such substantial agreement as to show that they all were independent narrators of the same great transaction ." [2]

It is necessary to be aware of the fact that historians (including lawyers), while examining witnesses, analyse their testimonies describing the same event to see if they are the same. Maybe this seems strange to you, but if the descriptions are very similar, it does not mean that they are true. On the contrary, it may point to the fact that the testimonies were fabricated and the witnesses colluded/ conspired together in giving their testimonies.

DARK PLACES MADE LIGHTER

At this point, I would like to illustrate an example showing the importance of interpreting difficult passages by using passages that are more straightforward. That is to say that if passage A and passage B say something that is difficult to reconcile, it does not give us the right to condemn both statements. We can make a good case with the Old Testament prophecy about the coming of Jesus Christ to Earth. One speaks of Him coming on a donkey. The other speaks about Him coming down from heaven. If we look at these words through the eyes of a person from that time, we could come to an absurd conclusion – the Messiah on a flying donkey. This is nonsense of course. God simply did not reveal His purposes fully during the time of the Old Testament, but from New Testament times, we have had a fuller revelation. Towards the end of his earthly ministry, Jesus came into Jerusalem riding on a donkey. This prophecy was connected to his first coming only, whereas the prophecy of his coming from heaven is speaking of his second coming. People from Old Testament times did not know about Jesus coming twice (once to die, the second to finish history). If we then take the whole context of the Bible with the straightforward passages into consideration, the problem resolves itself.

Another concrete example is the apparent contradiction between the teachings of the Apostle Paul and James concerning the doctrine of salvation. The Apostle Paul emphasises that salvation is by grace alone and it is impossible to earn or deserve it. No actions/ behaviour, no human works can help attain it. However, James emphasises that "faith without works is dead" in his letter and places the emphasis on the fact that believers must act in specific ways. There are roughly three possibilities to resolve the problem. Either neither of them is correct, one of them is correct, or in the end both are correct. The first two possibilities would, however, mean that there is a clear contradiction in the Biblical text. The third possibility is in fact the correct one – both are correct.

Paul is the only one of them that teaches about salvation directly, whereas James focuses on the life of the person who is already saved. In other words, a person is saved by God's grace alone without that person deserving it. However, if a person is saved, he/she becomes a "new creation", God's Spirit begins to dwell in him/her and his/her life begins to change radically. This change in and of itself necessarily brings the reality that the believer naturally does works that are pleasing to God. Here we see the opposite motivation – I do not do works in order to be saved, but I do them because I am saved. James's words then, are a warning for/to all who claim to be Christians. In the case that they truly are believers their lives must show the fruit of God's having changed them. If we do not see any fruit, it is probably because their faith is dead, they are not true Christians.

TRAFFIC LIGHTS

The final principle that I would like to mention within the framework of this question is the analogy of God's commands as traffic lights. The Bible contains many commands, prohibitions and principles that may seem to contradict each other. More precisely, I must decide which one to fulfil. Jesus himself can be an example. He "broke" the Sabbath, which for Jesus was a holy day. Another example is King David who, in an emergency, ate food that was for the priests alone. Both examples are considered to be positive.

If we were to slavishly cling to fulfilling each command, we would never get anywhere in certain cases or would miss the goal. I am in no way lowering the importance of God's commands here and I definitely do not want to make the truth relative! In the context of contradictory problems/matters however, I want to show that there are cases that exist which in fulfilling them can truly seem like a contradiction (something that some critics never forget to point out about the Bible).

All drivers know this very well. When we come to an unsigned crossing, we go by the rule of the "right hand" (the driver on the right has the right-of-way). This rule may be different for those in Britain and other countries driving on the opposite side! If the crossing is signed, we drive according to the sign and the rule of the "right hand" no longer applies. If however, there was a traffic light at that same crossing, we are required to drive according to it and not according to any signage. The whole situation could become more complicated if we added a police officer directing traffic. This person cancels out all of the above mentioned rules. The principle here is clear. Rules have various levels of importance according to the context. There are no contradictions or mistakes here. The highest priority in the Bible is love.

Note: This principle is not a manual for twisting God's laws. It is not possible to use the claim of love so that I can live with someone in a non-married state or in a homosexual relationship simply because we "love" one another and the greatest measure in the Bible is love. This principle is to point to the fact that finding seemingly specific contradictions in God's commands does not immediately mean a clear mistake or contradiction.

THE UNCLEAR IS NOT INEXPLICABLE

We have already mentioned that we do not have answers for all the questions we have in connection to the Bible. Nevertheless, it is necessary to be aware of the fact that if we are wrestling with an unexplained problem, it does not automatically mean that this specific problem is inexplicable and that there is no logical explanation.

Well-known Bible scholar Norman L. Geisler, who relishes gathering apparent contradictions in the Bible, said the following in relation to this rule:

"I've made a hobby of collecting alleged discrepancies, inaccuracies, and conflicting statements in the Bible. I have a list of about eight hundred of them. I'm sure some sharp critic could say to me, 'What about this issue?' and even though I've done a forty-year study of these things, I wouldn't be able to answer him. What does that prove — that the Bible has an error or Geisler is ignorant? I'd give the benefit of the doubt to the Bible, because of the eight hundred allegations I've studied, I haven't found one single error in the Bible, but I've found a lot of errors by the critics." [12]

What can be said in conclusion? The Bible is such a complex and intricate book that anyone who wants to raise criticism against it can do so at any time. He/She has many opportunities to do so, God Himself has allowed it. However, he/she who is looking for the truth will find it. He/She must just try a little harder.

Summation

The Bible really does contain difficult passages that without closer study and interest are not easily understood. It also contains series of descriptions that seem to contradict each other. However if the reader approaches these difficulties without prejudice and studies them more closely, he/she will not find foolproof arguments against the Bible. Why did God leave His Word so vulnerable to attack? You can try to answer that question yourselves...