Is the Bible
the Word of God?

Does the Bible
CONTRADICT itself?

Does the Bible contradict itself?

Let's now apply the third and last of Sanders's tests for evaluating historical documents, the internal evidence test, to the Bible. Does the Bible have contradictions? Anyone claiming this should be challenged to identify them. They might not be able to name even one, because they know so little about the Bible. They're just assuming what some atheist, agnostic, or liberal told them about it is true, without checking it out for themselves. Below, while some of the more commonly trotted out "contradictions" are dealt with, you may wish still to do more research. Those especially interested in claims of contradictions or historical inaccuracies in the Bible should turn to Gleason Archer's Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, John W. Haley's Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible, which is an older work, or any solid conservative commentary that accepts the Bible as the inspired word of God.

It's simply absurd to read only what various higher critics say against the Bible, thinking that ends the story. Standard replies on claimed contradictions are readily available from the skeptics' opponents. It's hardly a great sign of profundity to ask, "Where did Cain get his wife?," thinking this question is a stumper. The Bible makes clear that Adam and Eve had both sons and daughters (Genesis 5:4). Obviously, Cain would have married one of his sisters. (This was necessary since God chose to start with just two ancestors for the human race, so we could all say we're ultimately all part of one family (cf. Acts 17:26)). So--let's begin!

Does an addition or subtraction of detail create a contradiction?

When charging the Bible contradicts itself, higher critics seem to assume that an addition or omission of detail creates a contradiction. For example, one higher critic said that Luke's account of the resurrection appearances that had them "only" occurring in and near Jerusalem contradicts John's account of them occurring in Galilee as well as Jerusalem. Is this really a rational line of argument? How does Luke contradict John when the former simply omits describing some of Jesus' resurrection appearances? Where does Luke say he made an exhaustive and complete list by language like, "I have recorded every appearance of the resurrected Christ, and they were . . ."? Only then would a contradiction arise if John recorded appearances not found in Luke.

Similarly, it's been said that the Gospel of John mentioned nothing about angels or an earthquake concerning the resurrection, but Matthew's did. Matthew said an earthquake happened earlier during the night, which caused the guards to become like dead men, but John doesn't. How does this additional information found in one Gospel "contradict" the other? Furthermore, John's account actually does refer to the two angels (John 20:12-13):

"She beheld two angels in white sitting, one at the head, and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been lying," one of whom asks, "'Woman, why are you weeping?'"

So when someone claims the Bible has a contradiction, it pays to check out the actual text and its immediate context, to make sure some omission of detail really did happen. Similarly, the Gospel writers mention one or more women were at Christ's tomb early in the morning. Although John initially only mentions Mary Magdalene, while the other gospels say other women visited the tomb, this is not ultimately a discrepancy. It should not be assumed that ANY ONE GOSPEL (or other single) account gives ALL of the details on any one event.

In a modern court of law, a contradiction wouldn't be proven because one witness failed to see, state, or remember all the details of a crime when another witness remembers a somewhat different list of details about that event, so long as the differences concern additions and omissions of detail. A description that a bank robber wore a hat doesn't contradict a report about him wearing an overcoat while saying nothing about a hat. A contradiction would arise only if (in this example) the second witness also explicitly said that the criminal wore no hat. This example shows why one higher critic was wrong to imply Luke and John contradicted each another about the length of Christ's ministry. To draw general conclusions like this, it's necessary to put all the data together first from all four Gospels. This general approach makes it superfluous to analyze every conceivable supposed contradiction in the resurrection accounts, or any other case the Bible has two parallel accounts about some event or person. Armed with this principle, it becomes easy to expose how weak many higher critic arguments are. Furthermore, the seeming discrepancies actually can be seen as proof for Christianity in one regard: They show that the Gospel writers, or the authors of I and 2Kings and I and 2 Chronicles, didn't sit down together and concoct stories about Jesus or some Israelite king. The dissimilarities point to different sources for the account found in Gospels (etc.), proving one person couldn't have written them all, besides what any writing style variations may indicate. (55)

What are some alleged contradictions in the Bible?

For example, was Zechariah the son of Jehoiada, not Berechiah, as Christ said in Matthew 23:35? Here the problem involves identifying correctly the right "Zechariah." Since Zechariah of Jehoiada died 800 B.C. , saying he was the last of the Old Testament's martyrs (as Christ's words imply, since Abel clearly was the first) is unlikely. Since about 30 separate individuals in the Old Testament have this name, that two of them suffered a similar fate shouldn't be surprising. Christ is presumably referring to the minor prophet Zechariah (see Zechariah 1:1), who prophesied from about 520-475 B.C. Living much closer to the time the Old Testament's canon was completed than Zechariah the son of Jehoiada, this man is certainly a better candidate for the last pre-Christian martyr. Since the Old Testament reveals very little about Zechariah the son of Berechiah's life, nothing exists to deny that he died exactly as Christ said here. As Archer remarks:

"If we take Matthew 23:35 just as it stands, it makes perfectly sense in its context; and it offers no contradiction to any known and established facts of history." (56)

Did Christ say Abiathar instead of Ahimelech gave King David the showbread?

Was Christ wrong to say in Mark 2:25-26 "in the time of Abiathar the high priest" David and his companions were given the showbread to eat? 1Samuel 21:1-6 says Ahimelech gave David the consecrated bread. To solve this discrepancy, it's necessary to note very carefully the literal wording "in the time of Abiathar the high priest," for Christ didn't say "Abiathar gave David the showbread." After Saul commanded Doeg the Edomite to kill all the priests at Nob except Abiathar (1Samuel 22:9, 16-22), the latter was made high priest by King David. The Greek reads "Epi Abiathar archiereos." "Epi" combined with the genitive means "in the time of." (See Acts 11:28; Hebrews 1:2 for similar constructions). As Archer explains:

"Under these circumstances it was perfectly proper to refer to Abiathar as the high priest--even though his appointment as such came somewhat later, after the incident at Nob--just as it would be proper to introduce an anecdote by saying, "Now when King David was a shepherd boy," even though David was not actually a king at the time he was a shepherd boy. . . . The episode did happen "in the time of" Abiathar; he was not only alive but actually present when the event took place, and he very shortly afterward became high priest as a result of Saul's murdering his father, Ahimelech." (57)

Was Stephen WRONG about Old Testament events?

Stephen's speech summarized a good amount of the Old Testament's history before the Jews he infuriated martyred him. Stephen said that Abraham left Haran after his father died (Acts 7:4), implying this death immediately preceded his departure. Abraham was 75 when he left Haran (Genesis 12:4), and his father Terah was 70 when Abraham was born (Genesis 11:26). If Terah was 205 years old before he died (Genesis 11:32), this means he lived 60 years after Abraham left Haran. As good as this argument looks, it assumes something problematic. On genealogical lists, is the first name listed always the first one born? Note carefully Genesis 11:26: "And Terah lived seventy years, and became the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran." Terah's sons surely were not triplets all born on the same day in the same year, but gaps occurred between them. Since Abram, later Abraham, was by far the most prominent in biblical history, it makes sense his name would be listed first, before that of one or two older brothers. Similarly, when Adam had Seth, he was not his oldest son. Cain and Abel were older, yet in Genesis 5:3-4 they were lumped together as part of his "other sons and daughters." Hence, Terah may have been 130 when he had Abraham, dying when Abraham was 75 and he was 205. (People lived longer at that time, soon after the flood, so these ages shouldn't be dismissed as mistaken).

Later Stephen states 75 entered Egypt under Jacob, but the Old Testament in the Hebrew text says 70 (see Acts 7:14; Genesis 46:27; Exodus 1:5; Deuteronomy 10:22). Was Stephen wrong? Archer notes that Stephen follows the enumeration found in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, which reads 75 in Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5. One of the Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts (4AExod-a, in Hebrew) also reads 75. Two approaches exist for solving this discrepancy. One maintains both totals are right--by adding the sons of Manasseh and Ephraim born to them in Egypt before Jacob died, the 75 figure is easily reached (note 1Chronicles 7:14-15, 20-23). After all, since Joseph and his two sons already lived in Egypt, they had no need to migrate there. The other solution builds upon the somewhat differing wording found in Acts 7:14 compared to Genesis 46:26. The latter text excludes the wives of Jacob's children, but not the former. It also implicitly excludes those not having to migrate to be in Egypt (i.e., Joseph and his sons). Read Acts 7:14 carefully: "And Joseph sent word and invited Jacob his father and his relatives to come to him, seventy-five persons in all." (Since "in all" is in italics in the NASB, it wasn't in the original text). "Relatives" can include wives here, who were specifically excluded in the Genesis 46:26 count. Haley explains his reasoning thus:

"If to the sixty-six we add the nine wives of Jacob's sons (Judah's and Simeon's wives were dead; Joseph could not be said to call himself, his own wife, or his two sons into Egypt; and Jacob is specified separately by Stephen), we have seventy-five persons, as in Acts." (58)

Hence, since these two numbers could have been reached by different means, the Septuagint shouldn't be automatically ruled wrong textually. (The Hebrew Masoretic text should be preferred as better than the Septuagint's, but not always).

How many died in the plague God sent against Israel?

Does 1Corinthians 10:8 contradict Numbers 25:9? Numbers says 24,000 Israelites died in a plague, while in 1 Corinthians Paul says 23,000 died after acting immorally. A key issue here is whether 1Corinthians 10:8 refers to when Israel played the harlot with the daughters of Moab, instead of when Israel worshipped the golden calf at the foot of Mount Sinai. Since the preceding verse, 1Corinthians 10:7, cites Exodus 32:6, Paul may have meant a different incident than the one Numbers 25:9 describes. True, the golden calf incident mentions specifically only 3,000 as being slain by the Levites (Exodus 32:28). But God also sent a plague to punish Israel that day for its sins (v. 35): "Then the Lord smote ['plagued' -- NKJV] the people, because of what they did with the calf which Aaron had made." Although Exodus records no specific figure on how many this plague killed, Paul may have gotten the 23,000 figure by direct revelation from God centuries after the golden calf incident. Another possibility remains--transmissional error. About 18 or 20 times the numbers I and 2 Chronicles contain fail to line up with parallel figures in I and 2Kings and/or I and 2 Samuel.

For example, 2 Chronicles 9:25 says Solomon built 4,000 stalls for horses and chariots, while 1Kings 4:26 lists 40,000. Since the number of horsemen is the same in both verses (12,000), this must be a scribal error. Now, do such discrepancies prove faith in the Old Testament is foolish? Of course not. Before the Jewish scribes called the Soperim had the numbers copied in words instead of numerals, a scribe easily could have mistaken the number of dots standing for thousands over the letters that stood for each number in an ageing, increasingly brittle manuscript. After considering the hundreds of cases the numbers do line up between the Old Testament's parallel sources, the few cases they don't hardly justify doubt. (59) The difference between Paul's 23,000 figure and Numbers 25's 24,000 figure may lie in some scribal error committed centuries before Paul's birth--assuming that Paul was referring to the incident in Numbers 25, which remains unproven.

Where or how did Jacob worship?

Are Genesis 47:31 and Hebrews 11:21 contradictory? The former text says Jacob worshiped at the head of his bed, while the latter stated he worshiped while leaning on a staff. This discrepancy can be easily reconciled: The Hebrew word for "bed" and "staff" have the same consonants, but different vowel points--"mittah" versus "mattah." When the vowel points were added to the Hebrew text in the ninth century A.D. or earlier, the Jewish scribes of that time then had to determine what word "MTTH" stood for in Genesis 47:31. They opted for "bed." But the Greek Septuagint, which was translated at least a century before the New Testament existed, reads "staff," as well as the Syriac Peshitta (Aramaic translation). Furthermore, since Joseph placed his hand under Jacob's (Israel's) thigh in Genesis 47:29, it's more sensible to see Jacob as sitting on the side of his bed, not on or at its head, maybe while leaning on a staff, before his condition evidently worsened in the next chapter. Opting for the New Testament/Septuagint reading ("staff") is reasonable, since the Hebrew vowel points apparently are wrong here. (60)

Are the genealogies of Christ in Luke and Matthew contradictory?

Are the family trees of Christ listed in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 contradictory? The basic solution maintains Matthew traces Jesus' family tree through Joseph, Jesus' adoptive father, while Luke apparently describes Mary's ancestral line. Since Luke 3:23 says Jesus was "supposedly the son of Joseph" (i.e., not his real father), it points to the mother. Eli (or Heli) is actually then Joseph's father-in-law. But befitting a Gospel intended for evangelizing the Jews in particular, Matthew recorded Jesus' line back to King David. By contrast, Luke, being a gentile, wrote a "universal history" about Jesus' acts, sayings, and life. He traced Jesus' line back to Adam, the first man, the progenitor of all men and women, whether Jew or gentile. The wording of Matthew 1:16 obliquely points to the virgin conception and birth, since its wording differs from the rest of the chapter's "begats": "and to Jacob was born Joseph, the husband of Mary, by whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." It inserts Mary in between the mentions of Joseph and Jesus, calling Joseph her husband, but not saying he begat Jesus. It has been claimed that the Jews, being such a patriarchal people, would trace only the father's line and not the mother's in genealogies.

First, this analysis ignores the virgin birth's unique circumstances. By necessity, as no human father was actually involved, a family tree had to be put together differently. Second, in the cases of Ruth, Sarah, and Jacob's wives, the Old Testament did pay attention to the woman's role in a general genealogical context (see Ruth 4:13-22; Genesis 11:28-31; 35:22-26). When Zelophehad had no sons, but only daughters, all their names were recorded as well so they could still gain inheritances from him (Numbers 26:33; 27:1-9). Correspondingly, Wheeler has an interesting speculation about how the royal line could be traced through a woman:

"Apparently Mary was the only child of her father, and thus his rights of inheritance passed on to her--provided she married within her tribe (Numbers 36:1-9). Through Mary, that inheritance passed to Jesus." (61)

The genealogy listed in 1Chronicles 2:16 says the mother of Joab (King David's top general) is Zeruiah, who was the sister of David. Joab's father is simply omitted. Women are mentioned in genealogical lists elsewhere (see 1Chronicles 2:35, 48; 3:1-3). John 6:42 and John 1:45 don't prove Joseph was Jesus' physical father because both times (especially the first) the New Testament merely reported the erroneous suppositions of the speakers. Similarly, it reports the Pharisees' accusation that Jesus cast out demons by the power of Satan in Matthew 9:34: "But the Pharisees were saying, 'He casts out the demons by the ruler of demons.'" When the New Testament correctly reports a falsehood Jesus' enemies spoke, no one should accepted it as actually being true!

Do discrepancies PROVE the Bible?

Above, some of the Bible's alleged "contradictions" have been dealt with. In this connection, consider that the Bible was written over a period of at least 1,500 years by about 40 different authors, most of whom never met each other. The sensible question then becomes, "Why aren't there more internal problems in the Bible?" Furthermore, the differences between the parallel accounts help show the Bible had independent witnesses for the same events. These differences show no one person sat down to concoct them. Future archeological or historical evidence may help others to be resolved.

For example, Jesus was said to be going out of Jericho by Matthew and Mark when he met a blind beggar He healed, while Luke said He was coming near it. (See Matthew 20:29-34; Mark 10:46-52; Luke 18:35-43) Who is right? True, it's possible to use Archer's solution that an unnoted break occurs in Luke 18:35-43: The beggar asked for Jesus' attention both before and after going into Jericho, but only got His attention when He was leaving. But archeological evidence presents us with another possible solution. An expedition led by Ernest Sellin of the German Oriental Society discovered in 1907-1909 that Jericho was a double city. The new Roman one was built about a mile from the older Jewish one. Hence, possibly while Jesus was leaving one of these twin cities and was approaching the other, He healed the blind beggar's eyes. At first glance, the higher critics' claim that the Bible contradictorily describes this incident might look strong. But as archeology reveals essential background knowledge had been known to the authors of the accounts, but not to us today, the higher critics' case starts to fall apart.

Can knowing the original language resolve apparent contradictions?

Sometimes knowing subtleties of the original language can resolve apparent contradictions or other problems. For example, Paul said, when describing his conversion experience to a crowd of Jews:

"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" (Acts 22:9, KJV).

But when God struck down Paul on the road to Damascus, the experience was described thus:

"And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man" (Acts 9:7, KJV).

So then--did the men accompanying Paul actually hear a voice or not? In fact, the King James Version's translation of Acts 22:9 is defective, since in this grammatical construction the Greek word translated "heard" really means, "hear with understanding." The New American Standard Bible (NASB) brings this out clearly:

"And those who were with me beheld the light, to be sure, but did not understand the voice of the One who was speaking to me."

Other alleged discrepancies may involve conventions or idioms of the language which even today English uses. For example, the Old Testament mentions that Solomon built the Temple of Jehovah in 1Kings 6:2: "As for the house which King Solomon built for the Lord . . ." Yet 1Kings 5:15-16 states that over 150,000 men worked at building the Temple. Is this a contradiction? No, because 1Kings 6:2 expresses the old convention that what a ruler or leader does through others is considered as if he did it himself. Suppose someone said, "Theodore Roosevelt built the Panama Canal." This statement wouldn't draw hardly even a quizzical glance, even though he did little or none of the physical labor in digging the dirt and building the locks in Panama. This explains how Jesus was able to baptize more disciples than John the Baptist despite He didn't physically dunk the people into the water Himself: He had the disciples do it for Him (see John 3:22; 4:1-2). (62)

Further problems might be equally quickly solved, if additional facts were known today that the writers of the Bible knew but we don't. Indeed, some problems may never have a convincing solution this side of Christ's Second Coming. Placing such problems on the shelf of faith, to be taken down and resolved later, is then a sensible approach. Many of the alleged problems can be very decisively cleared up, while others are more difficult to resolve. Of course, the evident discrepancies, or others that could be noted, described above can easily become a stumbling block for people's faith. But when measured against the strong evidence for the historical accuracy of the Bible and its fulfilled prophecies, they become the mere excuses and cavils of critics looking for some reason not to believe. They ultimately aren't serious obstacles to belief, except for those not desiring to believe to begin with.

(56) Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, pp. 337-38; Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary, pp. 1117-19.

(57) Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, p. 362.

(58) John W. Haley, Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible (Springdale, PA: Whitaker House, n.d.), p. 389; Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, pp. 378-79; Kevin D. Miller, "The War of the Scrolls," Christianity Today (Oct. 6, 1997), p. 43.

(59) Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, pp. 221-22, 401.

(60) Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, p. 421; Haley, Alleged Discrepancies, pp. 345-46.

(61) Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, p. 316; Haley, Alleged Discrepancies, pp. 325-26; John H. Wheeler, "Letter to Eric V. Snow," July 19, 199[7], p. 6.