Biblical Contradictions

troodon · Oct 12, 2004

Here are what I feel to be the most striking contradictions within the Bible. They domonstrate clearly that the Bible is not inerrant, and that human error has, at least in some way, to some degree, entered into the writing of the text.

Firstly, the angels present at the empty tomb:

Matthew and Mark:

Matthew 28:2-5 "There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men. The angel said to the women....."

Mark 16:5 "As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed."

Now for Luke and John:

Luke 24:4-5 "While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them. In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, 'Why do you....' "

John 20:10-15 "Then the disciples went back to their homes, but Mary stood outside the tomb crying. As she wept, she best over to look into the tomb and saw two angels in white, seated where Jesus' body had been, one at the head and the other at the foot. They asked her, 'Woman, why are you crying?' "

Ok, so let's get this straight. In Mark, Matthew, and Luke the angel(s) appear when Mary and her comrades first get to the tomb. In John they appear to Mary alone after she has gone to the apostles. Also, John says that Mary sees the angels and the risen Christ at the same time and then "Mary Magdalene went to the desciples with the news", but Mark says after seeing the angels "They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid", but later on Mary by herself sees Jesus risen and then goes to tell the disciples.

I asked my roomate to read the passages we are concerned with here. He said that Matthew and Mark each had 2 angels, Luke had 1, and John had 0. I asked him if there was any way someone could 'read in' 1 angel into Mark and Matthew, 2 into Luke, or any into John; he said no.

Secondly the staff:

Matthew 10:9 "Do not take along any gold or silver or copper in your belts; take no bag for the journey, or extra tunic, or sandles or a staff; for a worker is worth his keep."

Luke 9:3 "He told them: 'Take nothing for the journey -- no staff, no bag, no bread, no money, no extra tunic.' "

Mark 6:8 "These were his instructions: "Take nothing for the journey except a staff -- no bread, no bag, no money in your belts".

So, did Jesus tell his disciples to bring a staff or not? My roomate, who being a non-Christian (and one who seems to be very apathetic to religion, not really caring) has, IMO, no prejudice in his reading, answered this question "No, no, yes".

Lastly, the question of whether or not people die after God has created the new earth.

In Isaiah 65:20 it reads "Never again will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not live out his years; he who dies at a hundred will be thought a mere youth; he who fails to reach a hundred will be considered accursed." So, obviously, death will exist in the new world God creates. One should also wonder what infants are doing in the new earth when Jesus said, "At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven." Do the angels in heaven often make infants?

**note** before you say that the passage does not necessarily mean that infants are being made, notice that people cannot die at the age of 100 unless they had previously been the age of 0.

In Revelation Jesus destroys death (Rev. 20:14 "Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire.") before the founding of the new Jerusalem. People cannot die when there is no death.

NamesAreHardToPick · Oct 12, 2004

No the Bible does not have contradictions in it.

You might want to get books I suggest:

Errors in the King James Bible By Dr. Peter Ruckman
The Skeptic's Annotated Bible Explained and Corrected by Dr. Jason Gastrich
The Defender's Bible by Dr. Henry Morris

Vance · Oct 12, 2004

Here is a post I made a while back on the same point. I will say right up front that this is not an attack on the Bible, which I hold to be the Holy, inerrant Word of God, but an attempt to point out the dangers of insisting on a literal, factually inerrant Scripture:

I see that there has been some discussion recently about the issues of Biblical contradictions and literalism. I agree with those who say that a slavish adherence to literalism can often lead to a destruction of Faith. When you believe that a contradiction in the Bible means that nothing in the Bible can be taken seriously, or even as Truth, then you are setting yourself up for a crisis of Faith.

Below is a list of seeming contradictions in the Bible. Yes, there are "work-arounds" for many of them, if not most of them (so there is no need to walk through and explain each of them, this is not a challenge to the Bible). The point is that on their surface, *without* exegesis and interpretation, they ALL are contradictory. And yet everything in the Bible is still Truth. Thus, the Truth is not always the "obvious", plain reading.

Here it goes . . .
MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

AND

LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

AND

GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

[man first v. animals first]

GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

AND

GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.

[seven or two?]

Matt.5:1,2: "And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying...."

AND
Luke6:17,20: "And he came down with them, and stood in the plain, and the company of his disciples, and a great multitude of people...came to hear him.. And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples and said..."

Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

AND

John19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

II SAMUEL 24:13: So God came to David, and told him, and said unto him, shall SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE come unto thee in thy land? or will thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue thee?

AND

I CHRONICLES 21:11: SO God came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee. Either THREE YEARS OF FAMINE or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee;

God CAN be seen:

Exod. 24:9,10; Amos 9:1; Gen. 26:2; and John 14:9
"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." (Ex. 33:23)
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." (Ex. 33:11)
"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (Gen. 32:30)

God CANNOT be seen:
"No man hath seen God at any time." (John 1:18)
"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live." (Ex. 33:20)
"Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1 Tim. 6:16)

"And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and hanged himself." (Matt. 27:5)

AND

"And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed out." (Acts 1:18)

[Judas death]

"And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." (2 Kings 2:11)

AND

"No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, ... the Son of Man." (John 3:13)

ACT 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
ACT 1:19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

AND

MAT 27:6 And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.
MAT 27:7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.
MAT 27:8 Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.

[the reason for the name "field of blood"]

PRO 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

AND

PRO 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

SA2 6:23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.

AND

SA2 21:8 But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite:

KI2 24:8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.

AND

CH2 36:9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.

ACT 9:7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

AND

ACT 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

MAT 28:2 And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
MAT 28:3 His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
MAT 28:4 And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.
MAT 28:5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.

MAR 16:5 And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.

AND

LUK 24:4 And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:

JOH 20:12 And seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at the head, and the other at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.

[was there one angel or two?]

When did Baasha die?

26th year of the reign of Asa I Kings 16:6-8

OR

36th year of the reign of Asa I 2 Chron 16:1

color of the robe put on Jesus during His trial:

scarlet - Matthew 27:28

purple - John 19:2

troodon · Oct 12, 2004

NamesAreHardToPick said:
No the Bible does not have contradictions in it.

I did not see any of my examples there... the reason I picked these specific ones is because I had not before seen explanations for them.

You might want to get books I suggest:

Errors in the King James Bible By Dr. Peter Ruckman

This is NIV

The Skeptic's Annotated Bible Explained and Corrected

Click to expand...

by Dr. Jason Gastrich

I've never even seen this Bible; why would I want it explained and corrected for me?

The Defender's Bible

Click to expand...

by Dr. Henry Morris

Does this have the answers?

NamesAreHardToPick · Oct 12, 2004

troodon said:
I did not see any of my examples there... the reason I picked these specific ones is because I had not before seen explanations for them.

I've seen the one on the robes at least. It's a long list.

This is NIV

Problem 1 - I do not use NIV, only KJV. Which is why I use it. The English language did well and Dr. Ruckman refutes the idea that the King James has contradictions. So if the NIV has contradictions, so? I don't use it, nor would claim it is inherent anyway.

I've never even seen this Bible; why would I want it explained and corrected for me?

The Skeptic's Bible points out the same contradictions you listed. Gastrich explains everything.

Does this have the answers?

Again, it is KJV only. That's the Bible I use; and yes the other "versions" have contradictions because they aren't written well. The KJV is infallible, not the other ones.

Again, all the sources are for KJV only. If someone wants to use the NIV, fine, but there are errors and I wouldn't deny that.

Vance · Oct 12, 2004

There are two important points to raise. The first is that there is an issue even if you can find "work arounds" or find interpretations which reconcile these differences. The point is that the "plain, literal, straightforward" reading of Scripture will not be sufficient. You MUST use exegesis and interpretive tools to understand the Scripture. These seeming contradictions exist in the literal text. The minute you go begin explaining away the contradictions, you are no longer reading the "plain, literal" text. Therefore . . .

Second, many of the workarounds for these contradictions are so convoluted that they create more doubt than the contradictions themselves.

Then we must consider how the text was put together in the first place. The text we have today (even with the KJV) varies from the earlier texts from Greek and Hebrew because they were found to have translation errors which had to be corrected. The problem is that those "flawed" texts were used AS Scripture by the Church for hudreds of years! If God were to allow this to happen for hundreds of years, that tells me He is not too concerned about every little factual detail, but in the presentation of the overall truths.

The only argument I have heard in favor of requiring a factually inerrant Scripture is the slippery slope argument. This says that if we ever concede that there are factual or textual errors of ANY kind in Scripture, then none of it is trustworthy! Where would it stop! This is a VERY dangerous position because once you commit to factual inerrency or untrustworthiness as your two options . . . well, anyone can see the danger in this.

As for the slippery slope, here is my approach. If you are at the top of the slope and you realize that the truth is most likely NOT at the top, but somewhere along the slope, but the bottom you KNOW to be an even greater error, what do you do? Do you stay at the top, in order to avoid slipping down to the greater error, but knowing that you are not completely in "truth" either? NO! I say you head down the slope in search of the truth, just make sure you have shoes with good traction!!!

troodon · Oct 13, 2004

NamesAreHardToPick said:
I've seen the one on the robes at least. It's a long list.

I checked all the things on the list; my examples aren't on it. The robes wasn't even my example....

Problem 1 - I do not use NIV, only KJV. Which is why I use it. The English language did well and Dr. Ruckman refutes the idea that the King James has contradictions. So if the NIV has contradictions, so? I don't use it, nor would claim it is inherent anyway.

That's the most rediculous position I've ever heard. I'm reading my KJV and the contradictions are still there... but fine, tomorrow after I get some sleep (full-time student, part time job ain't easy!) I'll submit the exact same post using the KJV verses to you so you can come to your senses.

The Skeptic's Bible points out the same contradictions you listed. Gastrich explains everything.

Then why don't you quote him and answer the contradictions.......? Saying "You're wrong, go buy this book to see why" does not help further the discussion.

Again, all the sources are for KJV only. If someone wants to use the NIV, fine, but there are errors and I wouldn't deny that.

I don't deny that the NIV probably has some translating errors, but to think that the KJV is for some unfathomable reason the perfect translation is silly.

NamesAreHardToPick · Oct 13, 2004

troodon said:
I checked all the things on the list; my examples aren't on it. The robes wasn't even my example....

The red and purple one? I thought I saw that.

That's the most rediculous position I've ever heard. I'm reading my KJV and the contradictions are still there... but fine, tomorrow after I get some sleep (full-time student, part time job ain't easy!) I'll submit the exact same post using the KJV verses to you so you can come to your senses.

Which is exactly why I listed some sources for you to read.

Then why don't you quote him and answer the contradictions.......? Saying "You're wrong, go buy this book to see why" does not help further the discussion.

Two reasons:
1. I am not an apologetics expert, this is one of those questions.
2. It doesn't bother me when people point it out. Even skeptics admit they've been answered, so if someone claims he hasn't gotten an answer - he's probably not reading too hard in it.

I don't deny that the NIV probably has some translating errors, but to think that the KJV is for some unfathomable reason the perfect translation is silly.

To think that a Perfect God can't preserve His Word, to me is sillier, but ...

Karl - Liberal Backslider · Oct 13, 2004

What if the Bible isn't "His Word", and/or despite being able to, God decided not to?

What if He had other priorities?

Why does it always come down to God's omnipotence? Why is it that if we say God didn't create the world in six days, the YECs always think we're saying He couldn't do that? Why if we state we don't think the Bible is inerrant, the YECs always think we're saying God isn't capable of an inerrant Bible? Is our real position too difficult to answer, so a strawman is preferred?

TwinCrier · Oct 13, 2004

All those contradictions in the op can't be proven because you can't garantee that the events spoken of happened at the same moment. Just bcaue I said it was cold this morning and later, I may say it's warm, isn't a contradiction but a change. Just because there are two angels when one person gets to the tomb and none when another gets there isn't a contradiction unless you can prove that both people were standing at the same place at the same exact time.

troodon · Oct 13, 2004

NamesAreHardToPick said:
The red and purple one? I thought I saw that.

No that was in Vance's post

Which is exactly why I listed some sources for you to read.

Wow.

Two reasons:
1. I am not an apologetics expert, this is one of those questions.

If the book explains it then you don't have to be an expert, now do you?

Before I go get these books how about you at least look in them to see if they answer these contradictions, give me page numbers perhaps.

2. It doesn't bother me when people point it out. Even skeptics admit they've been answered, so if someone claims he hasn't gotten an answer - he's probably not reading too hard in it.

I read through your website. I've actually seen several websites regarding this topic; these are the 3 contradictions I haven't seen answered.

To think that a Perfect God can't preserve His Word, to me is sillier, but ...

"Word", capitalized, is only used a few times in the Bible. Guess what it's refering to (**hint**, it's not the Bible).

Regardless, you're saying that God 'gave up' protecting the sanctity of "His Word" after the KJV came out...

TwinCrier said:
All those contradictions in the op can't be proven because you can't garantee that the events spoken of happened at the same moment

Fine. Did Mary go to the empty tomb for the first time 3 times, each when a different number of angels were present?

Did Jesus send out his twelve disciples to preach, heal, and drive out evil spirits twice; once telling them not to bring a staff and once telling them that they could?

Is God going to destroy heaven and earth, create a new Jerusalem in which people can die, then destroy that and create a brand new one again in which people can't?

Just bcaue I said it was cold this morning and later, I may say it's warm, isn't a contradiction but a change.

This is not at all a legitimate comparison.

Just because there are two angels when one person gets to the tomb and none when another gets there isn't a contradiction unless you can prove that both people were standing at the same place at the same exact time

Ok, I'm going to pull a YEC maneuver and ask you if you've ever read the Bible. We are talking about Mary Magdalene (unless you want to claim that there was more than one of them!) and how many angels SHE saw, I made that clear in my post and, since very few other people go to see the empty tomb, you should have known this anyways.

Vance · Oct 13, 2004

TwinCrier:

But one of the points I raise above is that there is an issue even if you can find a "work-around" to the seeming contradiction, as the one you suggest. The problem is still that there is, indeed, a discrepancy in the plain reading which you have to make some effort to explain away. Biblical literalists have the mantra that we should just use the "plain reading" which is right there for all to see, with no need for analysis or interpretion to understand. God says He created in six days, period, we should not look any further, just take it at it's simplest and plainest statement. But when it says that Michal had no sons then it says that she had five sons, we should NOT just take this as read, and accept that there was a minor error by the writer, but we should do some analysis and research and, in the end, interpret it OTHER than the plain meaning so that it fits our doctrine of factual inerrancy.

In fact, we need not even get all the way to the history books. This type of double-standard happens almost immediately in Genesis, with the YEC's methods of reconciling the two creation stories. While it is painfully clear that a "plain and simple" reading of the two stories are contradictory on their surface, and interpretive efforts are needed to provide a (rather convoluted) reconciliation, the YEC's still insist that they are just taking the "plain and clear" text. They are obviously not. They have a doctrinal belief and are using interpretive methods to make the texts fit their doctrinal belief, exactly what they accuse non-literalists of doing.

CPman2004 · Oct 13, 2004

Have you thought about how the four Gospels are each different eyewitness accounts? Like most eyewitness accounts there are little minute deatials that might changes, but the basic stroy line stays the same. So for just little, really insignificant, details tha differ would thoughout the entire Bible? Nope.

troodon · Oct 13, 2004

CPman2004 said:
Have you thought about how the four Gospels are each different eyewitness accounts? Like most eyewitness accounts there are little minute deatials that might changes, but the basic stroy line stays the same.

That's exactly how I see it. But to admit this is to admit that the Bible has error in it; that God didn't proofread every little bit of it.

So for just little, really insignificant, details tha differ would thoughout the entire Bible? Nope.

Not sure what you're saying here.

Vance · Oct 13, 2004

CPman2004 said:
Have you thought about how the four Gospels are each different eyewitness accounts? Like most eyewitness accounts there are little minute deatials that might changes, but the basic stroy line stays the same. So for just little, really insignificant, details tha differ would thoughout the entire Bible? Nope.

Exactly, the inerrancy is in the message, not every factual detail. When Jesus gave a sermon and two different eye witnesses report it slightly differently (didn't have tape recorders at the time), should we assume that each was completely factually inerrant and that Jesus said it twice, each time slightly different? (I have actually heard this argument before!). Or should we assume that God let these slightly varying accounts pass through to the text to let us know that it is the MESSAGE that is important, not the exact accuracy of the words themselves.

And, before anyone gives me a "slippery slope" argument, please see my approach to the slippery slope earlier in this thread.

Bushido216 · Oct 13, 2004

NamesAreHardToPick said:
Again, it is KJV only. That's the Bible I use; and yes the other "versions" have contradictions because they aren't written well. The KJV is infallible, not the other ones.

Logical Contradiction #7681.39

The KJV was not given to Moses on top of a mountain by God. It is a compilation of works, some dating back thousands of years before the first version. In order for it to be "infallible", the creator / editors would also have to be infallible, a clear violation of Christian doctrine.

Erego, it is not infallible.

CPman2004 · Oct 13, 2004

Also. If all four gospels were exactly alike that would be cause to think that the writers were not very honest.

In a court room the jury is hearing four eyewitnesses tell what they saw at a murder. They all report the same exact thing, down to the smallest detail. What would the jury think? I am pretty sure they'll think the witnesses were "coatched" or trained or colaborated their stories. However, lets say each one tells the same story but the small details were different. For example that it was cloudy or the streetlight was green. The jury wouldn't throw the testimony totally out because they disagreed what color the light was or what the weather was like at that moment. The witnesses still told the main aspect of the case, they saw the defendent kill another man. Just like in the gospels. They may differ on small details but the overall story is the same. Jesus lived, died, and resurected. If you throw out that part of the testimony just because they differed on a small detail you throw out christianity.

In Christ Forever · Oct 13, 2004

If one reads the bible to really gain knowledge of Christ and God, one does not ponder on contradictions, but rather on Truth, and that Truth and Glory is Christ In Us. If you have to question the Words of God, then Christ is not in You.

Read the bible as Christ in You. God bless.

http://hellbusters.8m.com/AntichristInMan.html

"He is not a Christian indeed that does by the power of nature, believe what is naturally and historically reported of Christ in the scripture but be that by the power of the Spirit, believes all this History to be verified in him in the Mystery, For there is a History, and a Mystery of Christ. The History is, Christ for us, the Mystery is, Christ in us. Col. 1:27. Now that power of nature which is implanted in man, is sufficient for giving credit to whatsoever Christ is, or has been for us, but not for what Christ is in us, This must be a power equal with that which raised up Jesus from the dead, Eph. 1:20."

1 corin 2:13 These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know [them,] because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is [rightly] judged by no one. 16 For "who has known the mind of the LORD that he may instruct Him?" But we have the mind of Christ.
Christ In Us

Vance · Oct 13, 2004

In Christ Forever said:
If one reads the bible to really gain knowledge of Christ and God, one does not ponder on contradictions, but rather on Truth, and that Truth and Glory is Christ In Us. If you have to question the Words of God, then Christ is not in You.

Read the bible as Christ in You. God bless.

Exactly. The Truth is there despite any contradictions, so there is no need to assert any doctrine of factual inerrancy.

troodon · Oct 13, 2004

Vance said:
Exactly. The Truth is there despite any contradictions, so there is no need to assert any doctrine of factual inerrancy.

Bingo!

Biblical Contradictions

Be wise and be smart

All That You Can Leave Behind

Contributor

Be wise and be smart

All That You Can Leave Behind

Contributor

Be wise and be smart

All That You Can Leave Behind

Senior Veteran

Double Blessed and spreading the gospel

Be wise and be smart

Contributor

The Carnivorous Plant Evangelist

Be wise and be smart

Contributor

Well-Known Member

The Carnivorous Plant Evangelist

In Christ Forever

Guest

Contributor

Be wise and be smart

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency