Contradictions in the Bible

[Sufjon]

Dear friends:

I was recently on another post about authorship of the Bible. I had a question about some of the contradictions in the Bible and someone mentioned that perhaps I should start a thread on it. Another poster mentioned that the contradictions were easily explained, and I thought that would make for some good discussion. I am only interested in getting at the truth one way of the other, and I would like to hear any thoughts anyone might have about contradictions in the Bible.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[JeanMichel]

Dear friends:

I was recently on another post about authorship of the Bible. I had a question about some of the contradictions in the Bible and someone mentioned that perhaps I should start a thread on it. Another poster mentioned that the contradictions were easily explained, and I thought that would make for some good discussion. I am only interested in getting at the truth one way of the other, and I would like to hear any thoughts anyone might have about contradictions in the Bible.

Your friend
Sufjon

Which contradictions are of concern to you?

 

[SSTeacher]

Dear friends:

I was recently on another post about authorship of the Bible. I had a question about some of the contradictions in the Bible and someone mentioned that perhaps I should start a thread on it. Another poster mentioned that the contradictions were easily explained, and I thought that would make for some good discussion. I am only interested in getting at the truth one way of the other, and I would like to hear any thoughts anyone might have about contradictions in the Bible.

Your friend
Sufjon

There are certainly contradictions in the Bible and I suppose their relevance to individual Christians would depend upon each Christian’s belief about Scripture. As an Orthodox Christian, I now see the contradictions that use to worry and concern me when I was a SOLO Scriptura Evangelical as relatively unimportant.

Cordially,
Mick

 

[Sufjon]

Which contradictions are of concern to you?

Hi JeanMichel: I am puzzled by a number of them. One would be the varying accounts of the death of Judas. One source has him throwing the 30 pieces of silver back in the Temple and then hanging himself. Another says that he kept the 30 pieces of silver and fell headlong onto rocks and split open at the middle. Still another says that he was trampled by horses. I have heard explanations like he hanged himself and then fell headlong onto rocks and then split open at the middle and then was trampled by horses. However, each account only gives one mode of death for Judas. None say that he hanged himself and then fell headlong onto rocks and then split open at the middle and then was trampled by horses. They say either one or the other or the other. Besides, the explanation of tying all three events together is a rather tortured explanation, and sounds a bit like something out of the life of Wiley Coyote. Is there some other explanation?

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Sufjon]

There are certainly contradictions in the Bible and I suppose their relevance to individual Christians would depend upon each Christian’s belief about Scripture. As an Orthodox Christian, I now see the contradictions that use to worry and concern me when I was a SOLO Scriptura Evangelical as relatively unimportant.

Cordially,
Mick

Hi Friend SSTeacher: Thanks for the reply. I suppose it wouldn’t matter, but I am confused about it because I have often heard the claim here on CAF that the New Testament was actually written by eye witnesses - Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. I have heard many Bible scholars say that they in fact were not written by Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. I have further been advised by posters on CAF that it was written under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and inspired directly by God. That makes the contradictions important in my mind. To me it seems that the authors were unaware of what the other authors were writing. I am only looking for answers.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[ZDHayden]

Hi JeanMichel: I am puzzled by a number of them. One would be the varying accounts of the death of Judas. One source has him throwing the 30 pieces of silver back in the Temple and then hanging himself. Another says that he kept the 30 pieces of silver and fell headlong onto rocks and split open at the middle. Still another says that he was trampled by horses. I have heard explanations like he hanged himself and then fell headlong onto rocks and then split open at the middle and then was trampled by horses. However, each account only gives one mode of death for Judas. None say that he hanged himself and then fell headlong onto rocks and then split open at the middle and then was trampled by horses. They say either one or the other or the other. Besides, the explanation of tying all three events together is a rather tortured explanation, and sounds a bit like something out of the life of Wiley Coyote. Is there some other explanation?

Your friend
Sufjon

Hmmm. . . . remember that the Gospels were written by either eyewitnesses (Matthew, John), disciples of eyewitnesses (Mark), or contemporary historians (Luke). None of them would have been present at the death of Judas. The point was that Judas died and it was largely his fault. The actual mode would have been different depending upon the informant to the writer of the Gospel. Hope this helped.

 

[Zenas]

Here are a couple of contradictory verses I have always found interesting and a little troubling:

Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Matthew 7:21.

If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. Romans 10:9

 

[flyonthewall]

Here are a couple of contradictory verses I have always found interesting and a little troubling:

For what it’s worth, I see these verses as outlining the difference between belief only (no works) and belief that spurs one into action. One is lip service onlly, the other is actively following the Savior thru obedience.

 

[ZDHayden]

Here are a couple of contradictory verses I have always found interesting and a little troubling:

You have to define saved. Does saved mean that you are getting to heaven? If so, where is such stated in Scripture? I’m not saying it isn’t, I just haven’t found it (I used to be Southern Baptist, so I figure my S. Baptist brethren would have latched on to that verse ). Christ is speaking specifically about entrance to heaven – that we MUST do God’s will in order to enter heaven, not just to say we believe. Paul is saying that belief is NECESSARY for entrance into heaven. He does not say that belief is exclusively the source of our heavenly place.

Remember also the ramifications of doing what Paul stated doing during his time: to confess in the truth of Christ during Paul’s time was to invite Martyrdom. Just saying “lord, lord” – even the Pharisees did that.

 

[Zenas]

Flyonthewall and zdhayden have both raised some good points. Now I would like to expand my contradictions to include a third verse:

Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Matthew 7:21.

If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. Romans 10:9

And it shall be that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. Acts 2:21.

Acts 2:21 is a one step process and Romans 10:9 is a two step process. How so?

 

[Totterman]

Jesus,our Lords peace be whit You.
All Gospels are written in a bit different way,but all says the same. And what moore do we need to know. How Judas died is realy not importen,and because there are many moore scrolls and scriptures that never wos placed in The Bible I guess that there is a few moore ways explaining how he died. But that is not importen. All tells he died,and that is the message. Do we need to know moore? No.

 

[ZDHayden]

Flyonthewall and zdhayden have both raised some good points. Now I would like to expand my contradictions to include a third verse: Acts 2:21 is a one step process and Romans 10:9 is a two step process. How so?

Notice the verb in Acts: “calls”. This means you are not saying the name of the Lord. The verse in Acts states that the Lord will provide if you call on Him. It is stating the power of prayer.Hope this helped.

 

[Publisher]

In my youth I required a “plenary inspired” bible…that even the words themselves were inspired…not just the concept…I no longer believe in “plenary inspiration”…“infallible” or otherwise.

The scriptures are a collection of books, written by different authors giving details or experiences they encountered with God. Not all parts of the Bible are “equally inspired”…and not all parts of the Bible give an accurate view of God.

Many of the stories of God’s command of genocide make the characature that some Christians make of “pro-choice” advocates seem tame in comparison. “Kill every man, woman and child in the city…” does not reveal the God of Jesus of Nazareth…but the bigotry and hate displayed by primitive cultures toward “outsiders”…it contradicts the view of a loving, merciful Father as revealed in Jesus of Nazareth. Those passages in scripture do tell us something about God…they tell us how the Israelites viewed God and how then…like now…God is used as a justification of our own hate and violence by invoking…“God told me thus…”

The story that “Matthew” and “Luke” weave of the nativity is totally different and contradictory of one another.

“Matthew” has Mary and Joseph living in Bethlehem…not Nazareth. “Luke” has contrives his story with Mary and Joseph living in Nazareth…but somehow has to get them to Bethlehem…so uses a story of a census…there was a census…but not when “Luke” indicates.

“Luke” have Joseph and Mary hanging around Bethlehem so they can present Jesus in the Temple…“Matthew” have them fleeing to Egypt in the dead of night while “Matthew” have Joseph and Mary going to Nazareth.

Both can’t be true…which one is fact? If we blend them together we have a third version…a version that neither of the other two version support.

Who came to Jesus and asked to sit at his side in the Kingdom? John and James mother…or John and James?

As Friend Sufjon relates…did Judas hang himself…or did he fall and burst open on rocks?

Paul in his letters gives different details concerning his conversion and trip to Jeruslaem than Acts…did Barnabas take Paul to Jerusalem to introduce him to the other apostles as in Acts…or did Paul wait three years then go and only see James and Peter?

Acts give two different accounts of his conversion.

There are more…and all our “blending” of the stories gives a different version still…which one is correct…Paul…Acts…or “our” third version which is not supported in either text independently?

“Mark” tells us that the disciples are to “go into Gallilee and there they will see him”…

Yet in “Matthew”, “Luke” and “John” Jesus appears to the disciples in Jerusalem first…not Gallilee.

If we have to have a perfect inspired without contradiction Bible…we’re out of luck…we have a very human book giving various and often contradictory experiences with God.

I have no issue with the contradictions…they indicate to me how wonderfully human scripture is.

 

[SnakeMauler]

Here are a couple of contradictory verses I have always found interesting and a little troubling:

No one ever said “being saved” and “the kingdom of heaven” was the same thing.

 

[Publisher]

No one ever said “being saved” and “the kingdom of heaven” was the same thing.

But in a sense they are…the synoptics gospels use the phrase “Kingdom of God” or “Kingdom of Heaven”…“John” uses the phrase “Eternal Life”, “Everlasting Life”…“John’s” understanding of the Kingdom of God was this New Life, “Eternal Life” found in his experience with God in Christ.

“Paul” states in Colossians…"
“Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:”

If we have “salvation”…we are living within the “Kingdom of God”…“God’s Rule”…we are to live by the precepts of that Kingdom IN THIS WORLD…

 

[simspt]

In my youth I required a “plenary inspired” bible…that even the words themselves were inspired…not just the concept…I no longer believe in “plenary inspiration”…“infallible” or otherwise.

The scriptures are a collection of books, written by different authors giving details or experiences they encountered with God. Not all parts of the Bible are “equally inspired”…and not all parts of the Bible give an accurate view of God.

Many of the stories of God’s command of genocide make the characature that some Christians make of “pro-choice” advocates seem tame in comparison. “Kill every man, woman and child in the city…” does not reveal the God of Jesus of Nazareth…but the bigotry and hate displayed by primitive cultures toward “outsiders”…it contradicts the view of a loving, merciful Father as revealed in Jesus of Nazareth. Those passages in scripture do tell us something about God…they tell us how the Israelites viewed God and how then…like now…God is used as a justification of our own hate and violence by invoking…“God told me thus…”

The story that “Matthew” and “Luke” weave of the nativity is totally different and contradictory of one another.

“Matthew” has Mary and Joseph living in Bethlehem…not Nazareth. “Luke” has contrives his story with Mary and Joseph living in Nazareth…but somehow has to get them to Bethlehem…so uses a story of a census…there was a census…but not when “Luke” indicates.

“Luke” have Joseph and Mary hanging around Bethlehem so they can present Jesus in the Temple…“Matthew” have them fleeing to Egypt in the dead of night while “Matthew” have Joseph and Mary going to Nazareth.

Both can’t be true…which one is fact? If we blend them together we have a third version…a version that neither of the other two version support.

Who came to Jesus and asked to sit at his side in the Kingdom? John and James mother…or John and James?

As Friend Sufjon relates…did Judas hang himself…or did he fall and burst open on rocks?

Paul in his letters gives different details concerning his conversion and trip to Jeruslaem than Acts…did Barnabas take Paul to Jerusalem to introduce him to the other apostles as in Acts…or did Paul wait three years then go and only see James and Peter?

Acts give two different accounts of his conversion.

There are more…and all our “blending” of the stories gives a different version still…which one is correct…Paul…Acts…or “our” third version which is not supported in either text independently?

“Mark” tells us that the disciples are to “go into Gallilee and there they will see him”…

Yet in “Matthew”, “Luke” and “John” Jesus appears to the disciples in Jerusalem first…not Gallilee.

If we have to have a perfect inspired without contradiction Bible…we’re out of luck…we have a very human book giving various and often contradictory experiences with God.

I have no issue with the contradictions…they indicate to me how wonderfully human scripture is.

One wonders if over harmonization actually results in distortion of God’s Word.

 

[joplee]

Why do people like to take one or two verses out of the Bible and compare them against another? To take things out of context is illogical. The Bible is the Word of God. God is not contradictory. Did Paul’s written word stop after Romans 10:9? Is that all he said? Of course not!

By the way, Peter is quoting Joel from the Old Testament in his speech. Why is Peter doing that? Who is Peter talking to?

Since God created us, he knows us so much better than we can know ourselves. To leave the written word of God open to individual interpretation would be tantamount to anarchy. That is why Christ gave the teaching authority to His Bride, The Church.

I would like to add a point regarding Luke and Matthew’s account of the birth of Jesus. It was stated that they both can’t be true. It was stated they are contradictory accounts surrounding the birth of our Lord. I disagree. To contradict means: Deny the truth of (a statement), esp. by asserting the opposite. Neither account denies the other. There are different details in the two accounts, but they do not cause the other account to be false.

Here is a possible timeline of the two accounts. Matthew and Luke both have Jesus born in Bethlehem. Luke has shepherds visiting the baby Jesus because the angel of the Lord told the shepherds to go to the city of David where a savior has been born. Luke then tells of Jesus circumcision (eight days after his birth.) We have the Presentation of our Lord in the temple (40 days after his birth Lev. 12:2-8 ) At the time of Jesus birth, there was some celestial sign that caused the magi to travel from the east to visit Herod and then to travel to Bethlehem. This trip would have taken the very least several months and most likely longer as Herod had infants 2 years and younger killed in accordance with the time of the sign ascertained from the magi. So sometime after the presentation in the temple, the magi visited the Holy Family (Matthew’s account.) Afterwards, the Holy Family traveled to Egypt. (Matthew’s account) After Herod died, the Holy Family returned to Israel and came to Nazareth. (Matthew and Luke) Luke leaves out the detail of the magi and trip to Egypt.

The very fact that the 4 Gospels do not give the exact details corroborates that the writers were not in cahoots (collusion or collaboration to nefarious ends) with each other. Example: when police interview witnesses to a crime, if all the witnesses give the same exact story, all the details are the same, they become very suspicious that they have gone over their story together.

 

[Publisher]

Of course they were not in “cahoots”…they had no knowledge of the others writings…the writings were circulated independantly of one another by various Christian communites until gathered together into “one volume”…the Bible didn’t exist in a single volume for quite some time…they were a “collection of books” by different authors…telling different “faith stories” that at times were mutually exclusive of one another.

I guess I do “understand” why we must weave a “third story” not supported by the individual texts to come up with “our own” version of what was related…but the texts themselves do not support the “third version” we so desparately seek to “marry” together.

 

[Sufjon]

Jesus,our Lords peace be whit You.
All Gospels are written in a bit different way,but all says the same. And what moore do we need to know. How Judas died is realy not importen,and because there are many moore scrolls and scriptures that never wos placed in The Bible I guess that there is a few moore ways explaining how he died. But that is not importen. All tells he died,and that is the message. Do we need to know moore? No.

Dear Totterman: Thank you so much for the reply. Here is some background on my concern. I am agnostic when it comes to Christianity. I am trying very hard to incorporate it into my belief system, but that’s a long story. The reason I am concerned is that I am running into significant variations in beliefs among Christians. These variations have much to do with how scriptures are read. A slight change on words here and there can end up as a huge difference in doctrine, dogma and overall belief down the road. Kind of how a mariner can make a tiny miscalculation at the outset of a journey that ends up taking him a thousand miles off course in the long term. This is what I am seeing in Christianity. Particularly on this web site, there seems to be a lot of concern about differences in doctrine and belief, and most of these are based on scripture. To that end, scripture seems largely to be the source.

I would have to agree with you that the general idea is good enough. That is good enough for me. The problem is that there is too much “play in the steering” being caused by this. Many on this website have made claims that they have the one and only way to God as opposed to everyone else’s way. As part of their reasoning, many of these people have put forth one or more of the following assertions:

-The Bible was written by God.

   -The writing of the New Testament was guided by the Holy Spirit. 

-The writing of the New Testament was inspired directly by God.

Now my dilemma should start to come into focus. If any or all of the three assertions above are correct, the discrepancies are most problematic, and it strikes at the core of any assumption that one way of worship has the upper hand on another way of worship, because beyond some very basic tenets, we really don’t know what we’re dealing with. Not to be disrespectful, but it also implies (in my thinking) that if God had a hand in writing it, His Hand was a little shaky. Another possibility is that God thought that some obfuscation would make the already arduous path to God more interesting. A third possibility is that God had no hand in writing it in the first place. Why? This is my dilemma.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Nine_Two]

Hi Friend SSTeacher: Thanks for the reply. I suppose it wouldn’t matter, but I am confused about it because I have often heard the claim here on CAF that the New Testament was actually written by eye witnesses - Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. I have heard many Bible scholars say that they in fact were not written by Mathew, Mark, Luke and John. I have further been advised by posters on CAF that it was written under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and inspired directly by God. That makes the contradictions important in my mind. To me it seems that the authors were unaware of what the other authors were writing. I am only looking for answers.

Your friend
Sufjon

The fact that there is some contradiction between the accounts contributes to the idea that they were eyewitness accounts.

Eyewitness accounts are never the same, they’ll agree on the major details, but differ on minor things. The death of Judas is both minor, and likely not something they actually witnessed, but they’re just passing along what they’ve held.

If anything it shows the idea of the synoptics being built from each other to bewrong, since they would have been sure to keep the same account, but as you admit, the synoptics include two different accounts.