Are there contradictions in the Bible?

tonychanyt said:

Numbers 23:


But, Jesus is a human and Jesus is God.

There are apparent contradictions in the Bible:

• Thou shalt not kill or murder?
• Thou shalt not kill or murder? How much did David pay to Araunah?
• Is there a contradiction in Proverbs 26:4–5?
• Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony IS VALID
• Should Christians love the world?
• Does the LORD regret?
• It repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth
• Did Jairus talk to Jesus before or after his daughter died?
• Did the fig tree that Jesus cursed wither immediately or overnight?

Did God promise there would be no contradictions?

No, not on the many copies of manuscripts written by human beings.

Why do I still believe the Bible since there are contradictions? How should I respond when people bring up contradictions in the future?

Human languages are inherently ambiguous, and ambiguity can be the source of contradictions. Perspectives can also cause contradictions. In any case, I believe all Scripture is GOD-BREATHED.

Click to expand...

I maintain "contradictions" exist only in lack of understanding. . .of God's secret will and God's revealed will (Dt 29:29).

Clare73 said:

I maintain "contradictions" exist only in lack of understanding.

And that includes of God's secret will and God's revealed will.

Click to expand...

I have no problems when 'errors' or 'contradictions' are found. The best texts we have now are copies of copies of copies; texts have a history, they underwent editing etc. A whole science (textual criticism) exists with the sole purpose of trying to discern what would be most likely the original text. All kinds of manuscript variants exist.

Does I still see Gods provision and guidance and inspiration in all of that? Yes .. Is it sufficiently reliable to know Gods plan for salvation? Yes ... but does that mean that the best approximate texts we have now are inerrant? No ...

Simple example:

1 Kings 4:26


2 Chronicles 9:25

As you may know, of all the books in the TNK/OT, Chronicles was written last - it's a reflective summary of Israel's past. This obviously is a copying error somewhere down the line. But it definitely is an error in the best text we have now.

My faith does not depend on the current Bible text's inerrancy.

Others are more difficult to explain/reconcile:

Matthew 27:3-5

Acts 1:18
These accounts differ in:
- who bought the field
- what happened to the thirty pieces of silver
- how Judas actually died

I do not know a satisfactory way of reconciling these inconsistencies without substantial creative/forced interpretations of the text.

Reluctant Theologian said:

I have no problems when 'errors' or 'contradictions' are found. The best texts we have now are copies of copies of copies; texts have a history, they underwent editing etc. A whole science (textual criticism) exists with the sole purpose of trying to discern what would be most likely the original text. All kinds of manuscript variants exist.
Does I still see Gods provision and guidance and inspiration in all of that? Yes .. Is it sufficiently reliable to know Gods plan for salvation? Yes ... but does that mean that the best approximate texts we have now are inerrant? No ...
Simple example: 1 Kings 4:26: Solomon also had 40,000 stalls of horses for his chariots, and 12,000 horsemen.

Click to expand...

Some (Greek) Septuagint manuscripts have 4,000, while the Hebrew has 40,000.

Reluctant Theologian said:

2 Chronicles 9:25: Solomon had 4,000 stalls for horses and chariots, and 12,000 horsemen, and he stationed them in the chariot cities and with the king in Jerusalem.

Click to expand...

From the Septuagint, a hasty translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, where translation errors occur.

Reluctant Theologian said:

As you may know, of all the books in the TNK/OT, Chronicles was written last - it's a reflective summary of Israel's past. This obviously is a copying error somewhere down the line. But it definitely is an error in the best text we have now.
My faith does not depend on the current Bible text's inerrancy.
Others are more difficult to explain/reconcile:
Matthew 27:3-5

Then when Judas, his betrayer, saw that Jesus was condemned, he changed his mind and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, saying, 'I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.' They said, 'What is that to us? See to it yourself.' And throwing down the pieces of silver into the temple, he departed, and he went and hanged himself.​

Acts 1:18

Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness, and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out.​

Click to expand...

These accounts differ in:
- who bought the field
- what happened to the thirty pieces of silver
- how Judas actually died

I do not know a satisfactory way of reconciling these inconsistencies without substantial creative/forced interpretations of the text.

Click to expand...

The priests bought the field (Mt 27:7)
with the thirty pieces of silver Judas returned to them (Mt 27:3--Judas bought the field indirectly)
where Judas hanged himself, and when the body finally fell (either naturally or by intervention) it broke open in the middle because of its decomposed condition.

Many of the alleged "errancies" are not such, including the visitation of the wise men with their gifts, at Jesus' first coming.

Clare73 said:

Some (Greek) Septuagint manuscripts have 4,000, while the Hebrew has 40,000.

From the Septuagint, a hasty translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, where translation errors occur.


The priests bought the field (Mt 27:7)
with the thirty pieces of silver Judas returned to them (Mt 27:3--Judas bought the field indirectly)
where Judas hanged himself, and when the body finally fell (either naturally or by intervention) it broke open in the middle because of its decomposed condition.

Many of the alleged "errancies" are not such, including the visitation of the wise men with their gifts, at Jesus' first coming.

Click to expand...

So you agree that for the best Hebrew text available (Masoretic text) 1 Kings 4:26 and 2 Chronicles 9:25 do have conflicting numbers? AFAIK the Septuagint also has 40000 for 1 Kings 4:26; could you point out to me which Greek texts have 4000 for 1 Kings 4:26? But even if Greek texts with 4000 for 1 Kings 4:26 do exist, it would not solve the problem as it would point to an effort to harmonise the inconsistency by the Greek translator, unless your argument is that the Greek translation is more reliable that our current best Hebrew text?

The proposed solution for Matthew 27:3-8 and Acts 1:18 to me is not satisfactory - Matthew 27:7 mentions in detail the chief priests had to take counsel together to figure out what to do the silver pieces; and the outcome of that was to buy a field for the burial of strangers (= a public infrastructure for aliens) - it would require very forced reading that their actual intention was the buy the field on behalf/in the name of Judas ! To assume that makes no sense; why would the chief priests do that for a dead person (Judas was already dead when they took counsel)? The only requirement for the chief priests was that the silver pieces could not go into the Temple coffers. The natural reading of Acts 1:18 makes it clear that Judas actively by himself while alive obtained the field before dying.

'Solutions' like this in the context of Apologetics or Mission (especially among Muslims) do more harm than good as it promotes disingenuous reading of the text - harming the credibility of Christianity in general. If we're allowed to 'read' texts like this, one can get away with nearly anything.

Therefore I prefer to leave the inconsistency for what it is - something I don't have a satisfactory explanation for (yet).

Reluctant Theologian said:

The proposed solution for Matthew 27:3-8 and Acts 1:18 to me is not satisfactory - Matthew 27:7 mentions in detail the chief priests had to take counsel together to figure out what to do the silver pieces; and the outcome of that was to buy a field for the burial of strangers (= a public infrastructure for aliens) - it would require very forced reading that their actual intention was the buy the field on behalf/in the name of Judas !

Click to expand...

Examination of related texts demonstrates that it was not bought on behalf of Judas, it was bought by the priests with Judas' money.
I have no problem with the purchase of the field being linked by the writers to both Judas and the priests when all were so closely linked with it.

Modern literality in reporting of events differs somewhat from ancient reporting, and cannot always be used as a measure for ancient reporting of events. The texts are reconcilable, and that is sufficient.

I take objection to using modern secular methods of textual criticism on ancient religious texts.

tonychanyt said:

Numbers 23:


But, Jesus is a human and Jesus is God.

There are apparent contradictions in the Bible:

• Thou shalt not kill or murder?
• Thou shalt not kill or murder? How much did David pay to Araunah?
• Is there a contradiction in Proverbs 26:4–5?
• Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony IS VALID
• Should Christians love the world?
• Does the LORD regret?
• It repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth
• Did Jairus talk to Jesus before or after his daughter died?
• Did the fig tree that Jesus cursed wither immediately or overnight?

Did God promise there would be no contradictions?

No, not on the many copies of manuscripts written by human beings.

Why do I still believe the Bible since there are contradictions? How should I respond when people bring up contradictions in the future?

Human languages are inherently ambiguous, and ambiguity can be the source of contradictions. Perspectives can also cause contradictions. In any case, I believe all Scripture is GOD-BREATHED.

Click to expand...

There are lots of instances of the Bible contradicting itself. Like whether the centurion who wanted Jesus to heal his servant approached Jesus in person (Matthew 8:5-13) or sent an intermediary (Luke 7:2-10). Like whether there were two demoniacs whose demons were sent into a herd of swine (Matt 8:28) or only one (Mark 5:2, Luke 8:27) Like whether the transfiguration was six days after the promise of Jesus that “some standing here will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power” (Mark 9:1-2), or eight days later (Luke 9:28). Like whether “Saul took his own sword and fell upon it” (1 Samuel 31:4) or whether “the Philistines killed Saul on Gilboa” (2 Samuel 21:12). Like whether Jesse had seven sons (1 Chronicles 2:13-15) or eight (1 Samuel 16:10-11). Like whether Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he began to reign (2 Kings 8:26) or forty-two (2 Chronicles 22:2). Like whether Solomon had 4,000 horse stalls (2 Chronicles 9:25) or 40,000 (1 Kings 4:26). Like whether Moses’ sending spies into Canaan was suggested by God (Numbers 13:1-2,) or by the people (Deuteronomy 1:22). Like whether Joseph’s lineage is traced from David through Solomon (Matt. 1:6) or through Nathan (Luke 3:31). Like whether Jesus allowed Mary Magdalene to touch him after his resurrection (Matt. 28:9), or told her not to (John 20:17).

How do you handle disagreement on whether the Last Supper was a Passover meal as the Synoptics say (Mark 14:12, Mark 14:16-17, Matthew 26:17, Matthew 26:19-20, Luke 22:7–9, Luke 22:13-14), or was eaten the day before Passover as John says (John 13:1, John 18:28, John 19:14)?

How do you handle Matt. 23:35 confusing two Zechariahs, the prophet Zechariah who was the son of Berechiah (Zech. 1:1) and another who was the son of Jehoiada (2 Chron. 24:20-22)?

How do you handle Matt. 27:9, which mistakenly attributes the story of the purchase of the potters’ field to Jeremiah rather than Zechariah?

How do you handle Mark 2:26, which quotes Jesus as saying that David entered the house of God and ate the altar bread “when Abiathar was high priest,” even though 1 Samuel 21:1-6 is explicit that Ahime
lech, not his son Abiathar, was high priest at the time?

BPPLEE said:

There are lots of instances of the Bible contradicting itself. Like whether the centurion who wanted Jesus to heal his servant approached Jesus in person (Matthew 8:5-13) or sent an intermediary (Luke 7:2-10). Like whether there were two demoniacs whose demons were sent into a herd of swine (Matt 8:28) or only one (Mark 5:2, Luke 8:27) Like whether the transfiguration was six days after the promise of Jesus that “some standing here will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power” (Mark 9:1-2), or eight days later (Luke 9:28). Like whether “Saul took his own sword and fell upon it” (1 Samuel 31:4) or whether “the Philistines killed Saul on Gilboa” (2 Samuel 21:12). Like whether Jesse had seven sons (1 Chronicles 2:13-15) or eight (1 Samuel 16:10-11). Like whether Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he began to reign (2 Kings 8:26) or forty-two (2 Chronicles 22:2). Like whether Solomon had 4,000 horse stalls (2 Chronicles 9:25) or 40,000 (1 Kings 4:26). Like whether Moses’ sending spies into Canaan was suggested by God (Numbers 13:1-2,) or by the people (Deuteronomy 1:22). Like whether Joseph’s lineage is traced from David through Solomon (Matt. 1:6) or through Nathan (Luke 3:31). Like whether Jesus allowed Mary Magdalene to touch him after his resurrection (Matt. 28:9), or told her not to (John 20:17).

How do you handle disagreement on whether the Last Supper was a Passover meal as the Synoptics say (Mark 14:12, Mark 14:16-17, Matthew 26:17, Matthew 26:19-20, Luke 22:7–9, Luke 22:13-14), or was eaten the day before Passover as John says (John 13:1, John 18:28, John 19:14)?

How do you handle Matt. 23:35 confusing two Zechariahs, the prophet Zechariah who was the son of Berechiah (Zech. 1:1) and another who was the son of Jehoiada (2 Chron. 24:20-22)?

Click to expand...

How do you handle Matt. 27:9, which mistakenly attributes the story of the purchase of the potters’ field to Jeremiah rather than Zechariah?

Click to expand...

I would say the quotation seems to be a combining of Zec 11:12-13 and Jer 19:1-13 (or Jer 18:2-12 or 32:6-9), which Mt 27:9 attributes to the major prophet there, Jeremiah, as Mk 1:2-3 quotes Mal 3:1 and Isa 40:3, but attributes them to the major prophet there, Isaiah.

I have little patience with, rather than trying to understand their manner, criticizing ancient sacred writings from God in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures based on modern-day secular practices.

BPPLEE said:

How do you handle Mark 2:26, which quotes Jesus as saying that David entered the house of God and ate the altar bread “when Abiathar was high priest,” even though 1 Samuel 21:1-6 is explicit that Ahimelech, not his son Abiathar, was high priest at the time?

Click to expand...

The same way you handle the genealogies.

Clare73 said:

I would say the quotation seems to be a combining of Zec 11:12-13 and Jer 19:1-13 (or Jer 18:2-12 or 32:6-9), which Mt 27:9 attributes to the major prophet there, Jeremiah, as Mk 1:2-3 quotes Mal 3:1 and Isa 40:3, but attributes them to the major prophet there, Isaiah.

I have little patience with, rather than trying to understand their manner, criticizing ancient sacred writings from God in the Judeo-Christian Scriptures based on modern-day secular practices.

The same way you handle the genealogies.

Click to expand...

I would say that God can reveal his truth despite men getting some of the details wrong.

BPPLEE said:

I would say that God can reveal his truth despite men getting some of the details wrong.

Click to expand...

I don't think they are wrong.

Reluctant Theologian said:

A whole science (textual criticism) exists with the sole purpose of trying to discern what would be most likely the original text. All kinds of manuscript variants exist.

Click to expand...

The most significant points to note are that 1 John 5:7 was not part of the original text, and that Matthew 28:19 was quoted over 20 times by Eusebius before 325 A.D. without the triadic formula. Suddenly, during the council, Eusebius conformed to their view and changed his quotations to include the formula.

tonychanyt said:

There are apparent contradictions in the Bible:

• Thou shalt not kill or murder?
• Thou shalt not kill or murder? How much did David pay to Araunah?
• Is there a contradiction in Proverbs 26:4–5?
• Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony IS VALID
• Should Christians love the world?
• Does the LORD regret?
• It repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth
• Did Jairus talk to Jesus before or after his daughter died?
• Did the fig tree that Jesus cursed wither immediately or overnight?

Click to expand...

There's far more contradictions in your list.

Why do I still believe the Bible since there are contradictions? How should I respond when people bring up contradictions in the future?

Click to expand...

That's why you need discernment in all things.

Not everything you read in books, see in the internet will be good for you that's why we all need discernment.

All sources of info requires discernment. The Bible is just one of them.

Paradise Haven said:

The most significant points to note are that 1 John 5:7 was not part of the original text, and that Matthew 28:19 was quoted over 20 times by Eusebius before 325 A.D. without the triadic formula. Suddenly, during the council, Eusebius conformed to their view and changed his quotations to include the formula.

Click to expand...

Do you have references or supporting evidence for the hypothesis that Eusebius modified his own quotations of Matthew 28:19 in response to the outcome of the Council of Nicea in 325 CE? I'm not aware of that myself, but would love to gather more info if possible.

Here are a few I will look for more tomorrow.

“Surely none save our only Savior has done this, when, after His victory over death, he spoke the word to His followers, and fulfilled it by the event, saying to them, “Go ye and make disciples of all nations in My name.” {Eusebius: Oration in Praise of Emperor Constantine, Chapter 16, Section 8}

“But while the disciples of Jesus were most likely either saying thus, or thinking thus, the Master solved their difficulties, by the addition of one phrase, saying they should triumph “In MY NAME.” And the power of His name being so great, that the apostle says: “God has given Him a name which is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth,” He shewed the virtue of the power in His Name concealed from the crowd when He said to His disciples: “Go, and make disciples of all the nations in My Name.” He also most accurately forecasts the future when He says: “for this gospel must first be preached to all the world, for a witness to all nations.” {Eusebius: Proof of the Gospel, Book III, ch. 7, 136 (a-d), p. 157}.

“Who said to them: ́Make disciples of all the nations in My Name. ́” {Eusebius: Proof of the Gospel, Book III, Chapter 7, 138 (c), p. 159}

“Relying upon the power of Christ, who had said to them, “Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in My name.” {Eusebius: Book III of his History, Chapter 5, Section 2, (about the Jewish persecution of early Christians)}

“With one word and voice, He said to His disciples: “Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whats over I have commanded you” {Eusebius: Proof of the Gospel, Book III, ch 6, 132 (a), p. 152}

Paradise Haven said:

Here are a few I will look for more tomorrow.

“Surely none save our only Savior has done this, when, after His victory over death, he spoke the word to His followers, and fulfilled it by the event, saying to them, “Go ye and make disciples of all nations in My name.” {Eusebius: Oration in Praise of Emperor Constantine, Chapter 16, Section 8}

“But while the disciples of Jesus were most likely either saying thus, or thinking thus, the Master solved their difficulties, by the addition of one phrase, saying they should triumph “In MY NAME.” And the power of His name being so great, that the apostle says: “God has given Him a name which is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth,” He shewed the virtue of the power in His Name concealed from the crowd when He said to His disciples: “Go, and make disciples of all the nations in My Name.” He also most accurately forecasts the future when He says: “for this gospel must first be preached to all the world, for a witness to all nations.” {Eusebius: Proof of the Gospel, Book III, ch. 7, 136 (a-d), p. 157}.

“Who said to them: ́Make disciples of all the nations in My Name. ́” {Eusebius: Proof of the Gospel, Book III, Chapter 7, 138 (c), p. 159}

“Relying upon the power of Christ, who had said to them, “Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in My name.” {Eusebius: Book III of his History, Chapter 5, Section 2, (about the Jewish persecution of early Christians)}

“With one word and voice, He said to His disciples: “Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whats over I have commanded you” {Eusebius: Proof of the Gospel, Book III, ch 6, 132 (a), p. 152}

Click to expand...

I'm aware of Eusebius' quotations of Matthew 28:19 without the triadic formula - as well as of the ones from Eusebius with the formula; I'm just wondering about hints/evidence that Eusebius intentionally modified some in response to the Nicean Council, as opposed to him just using quotations from the textually varying versions of the Greek or Hebrew manuscripts he had at hand.

The mere observation of Eusebius' varying quotations is not yet proof he or others modified some of his works - there could be other explanations for that.

Maybe this thread is a good place to ask a question about Jehu's bloody coup. After all of the bloodshed at the hands of Jehu and his people - including that at Jezreel - in 2 Kings 10:30 we read (NRSV)

30 The Lord said to Jehu, “Because you have done well in carrying out what I consider right and in accordance with all that was in my heart have dealt with the house of Ahab, your sons of the fourth generation shall sit on the throne of Israel.”

But Hosea seems to have a different take (Hosea 1:4, NRSV)

4 And the Lord said to him, “Name him Jezreel, for in a little while I will punish the house of Jehu for the blood of Jezreel, and I will put an end to the kingdom of the house of Israel.

I haven't yet seen a suitable way to 'reconcile' these two views on Jehu's actions. Do any of you have one?

My current guess is that Jehu and the writers of Kings may have thought that the violence was justified, but ultimately it wasn't. Hosea was fulfilling his role as a prophet by holding the powerful accountable for their actions. There have certainly been times in my own life when I was doing what I thought was the right thing, only to realize later that I had been wrong.

okay said:

Maybe this thread is a good place to ask a question about Jehu's bloody coup. After all of the bloodshed at the hands of Jehu and his people - including that at Jezreel - in 2 Kings 10:30 we read (NRSV)

30 The Lord said to Jehu, “Because you have done well in carrying out what I consider right and in accordance with all that was in my heart have dealt with the house of Ahab, your sons of the fourth generation shall sit on the throne of Israel.”

But Hosea seems to have a different take (Hosea 1:4, NRSV)

4 And the Lord said to him, “Name him Jezreel, for in a little while I will punish the house of Jehu for the blood of Jezreel, and I will put an end to the kingdom of the house of Israel.

I haven't yet seen a suitable way to 'reconcile' these two views on Jehu's actions. Do any of you have one?

My current guess is that Jehu and the writers of Kings may have thought that the violence was justified, but ultimately it wasn't. Hosea was fulfilling his role as a prophet by holding the powerful accountable for their actions. There have certainly been times in my own life when I was doing what I thought was the right thing, only to realize later that I had been wrong.

Click to expand...

2 Kings 10:30 (KJV) states, "And the Lord said unto Jehu, Because thou hast done well in executing that which is right in mine eyes, and hast done unto the house of Ahab according to all that was in mine heart, thy children of the fourth generation shall sit on the throne of Israel."

Hosea 1:4 says, "And the Lord said unto him, Call his name Jezreel; for yet a little while, and I will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu, and will cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel."

These passages can be reconciled by understanding the different contexts and purposes each serves in the narrative. In 2 Kings 10:30, Jehu is commended by God for his obedience in destroying the house of Ahab, which was seen as an act of righteous judgment against the idolatry and wickedness that Ahab and Jezebel had propagated in Israel. This act was in line with God's immediate plan to purge the nation of its corrupt leadership and thus, Jehu was promised a dynasty lasting four generations.

However, Hosea 1:4 reflects a later perspective where the actions of Jehu, although initially commanded by God, are viewed in light of the broader narrative of Israel’s continued disobedience and violence. The name "Jezreel" symbolizes God’s impending judgment on the house of Jehu for the bloodshed at Jezreel, indicating that while Jehu's initial actions were divinely sanctioned, the subsequent generations failed to maintain covenant faithfulness, leading to divine retribution.

This reconciliation teaches that obedience to God’s commands can lead to temporary blessings and approval, but the continuity of God’s favor depends on ongoing faithfulness and righteousness. The judgment pronounced in Hosea serves as a reminder that God's justice is comprehensive, addressing not only immediate obedience but also the long-term spiritual health and morality of His people. Thus, the two passages together illustrate the complexity of divine justice, where immediate acts of obedience are acknowledged, but the ultimate assessment of a dynasty or nation depends on sustained covenant fidelity of that Nation.

tonychanyt said:

Right. Can you supply one more?

Click to expand...

Others already gave multiple additional examples and you saw it. I told you there's a lot more but you're only asking for one.

I'm not sure if you're serious or just trolling your own thread.