Abandon Christianity? Reason 19: The Bible is Full of Contradictions

(Warning: REALLY long post)

Part I

            Number 19 on freethoughpedia.com’s list? The Bible, Christianity’s basic text, is riddled with contradictions.
            I will freely admit that there are numerous instances where, on the surface, critics have a plausible case. These situations can make readers do a double-take. As usual, however, there are explanations. When it comes to doctrine, factors such as context, subject, and audience are key. When it comes to numbers (such as in the books of Samuel and Kings), the answer often lies in chronology (hypothetical example: one number was recorded early in a king’s reign, and the contradictory number was recorded later in the same king’s reign. The simple answer to the “contradiction” is that the number, whatever it represents, changed as the years went by).
            This issue is different than other “problems” with Christianity in that Christians have to explain every little potential contradiction instead of having a blanket answer for an issue. This can get tedious, for there are few jack-of-all-situations answers that you can apply across the board. Christians have to cover each contradiction individually and conclude, “See, no contradictions after all.” This can be a pain, but 1 Peter 3:15 states:
            “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear” (NKJV).
            I’ll quickly go through the words I italicized. Always means that Christians have to defend the Bible no matter the time or how unattractive the subject is. Defense doesn’t mean “plug your ears and tell the person to shut up”, but to logically give an answer to arguments (to the best of your ability). Everyone includes smart-alecks who really don’t care for an answer. Reason means arguments, and the more well-thought out the better. Meekness and fear excludes Bible-bashing, an unfortunate but favorite tactic used by prideful Christians (which means me sometimes).
            Now let’s get to the specific contradictions given in the article.

Part II: Contradiction I

            James 1:13 states, “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man” (KJV).
            Okay, so what do we know? Based on context (surrounding verses), James is talking about trials and tribulations. When someone is enduring trials and is tempted to sin, she shouldn’t blame God for being enticed to sin in her situation. God isn’t dangling sin in front of her and saying, “Give in.” No, that’s the flesh (our nature that desires to sin). Don’t blame God for the flesh working inside of you. Now for the alleged contradiction:
            Genesis 22:1 states: “And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him…” (KJV). The story goes on to tell of how God asks Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, Abraham goes to obey God, and God makes it all work out in the end by saving Isaac and providing Abraham a ram to sacrifice instead.
            How can the contradiction be explained? One way is to simply point out that the word “tempt” means two different meanings here. When I tempt someone (James 1:13), I want them to fail. But tempt can also mean “test” (Genesis 22:1). God was tempting/testing Abraham’s obedience, not enticing him to sin.
            Put simply, God cannot tempt you to sin. He will never hold sin in front of your face, daring you to mess up. However, that doesn’t mean He won’t tempt your faith and obedience. The only way to see if something is real is to put it through tests. This can also be called “tempting”, but sin/failure is not the goal, but growth. God can tempt, but only the flesh tempts you to sin. God encourages obedience.
            Put even more simply, there is sinful tempting (where the goal is to get the victim to sin), and non-sinful tempting (where the goal is to get the “victim” to grow).

Contradiction II

            Jeremiah 3:12 states: “…for I am merciful, saith the LORD, and I will not keep anger for ever.”
            For the sake of understanding the contradiction forthcoming, I will include verse 13: “Only acknowledge thine iniquity (sin), that thou hast transgressed (disobeyed) against the LORD thy God…” (KJV).
            The context is God talking to Israel (earlier in verse 12). By this time Israel and Judah were two separate nations, and they both rebelled against God. God, being merciful and just, was angry with Israel, but told them His anger would subside if they acknowledged their sin. Remember two things: 1) God is talking to Israel. 2) There was a condition that Israel had to meet before His anger would subside. Now for the contradiction.
            Jeremiah 17:4 states: “…for ye have kindled a fire in my anger, which shall burn forever.”
            The context is God talking to Judah (17:1). Also, if you read the context, there is a finality to His words. There is no condition of forgiveness in this section of scripture. Judah is cooked; God’s punishment will stand forever. Judah is at the point of no return, at least at the moment Jeremiah is speaking.
            The two examples, on the surface, are contradictions. But they aren’t because of two reasons: 1) the audience changes from Israel to Judah, 2) in one instance, there is hope for Israel if they repent. In the other, there is no hope for Judah, and God lets that be known.
            Before I move on to the next “contradiction”, let me say something on God’s judgement. Jeremiah 17:4 is completely accurate for those who don’t repent. God’s anger will burn forever, and there is an eternal punishment. But if we repent as God asks in Jeremiah 3:13, His anger won’t burn forever. There will be mercy.

Contradiction III

            (I like this one in a twisted sort of way. Very clever) In John 5:31, Jesus says, “If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.”
            In context, Jesus was talking about obeying the Father and not Himself (5:30). Also, He is basically saying that it isn’t His job to say, “Look everyone, I am here!” That was the job of John the Baptist and Jesus’ disciples (5:33). Basically, Jesus wasn’t here to toot His own horn, but to obey His Father. Now for the contradiction.
            In John 8:18, Jesus says, “I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.”
            In context, Jesus wasn’t talking about obedience (obeying the Father), nor fame, but truth. In every respectable culture, when someone makes a claim, there has to be witnesses. Jesus witnesses Himself, but that isn’t enough. He is saying that the Father also is bearing witness to His life and ministry.
            The difference is that Jesus is talking about importance and fame in John 5:31. He is of secondary importance to the Father. Also, His disciples, not Himself, are spreading His name. John 8:18 is talking about truth, and how God the Father is witnessing everything that Jesus is doing on earth.
            In John 5:31, “bearing witness” is talking about importance. 1) The Father, 2) the Son. Jesus was letting everyone else know that. In John 8:18, “bearing witness” is purely legal. Jesus isn’t closing Himself in and seen by no one. His Father is with Him every step of the way.

Contradiction IV

            I won’t bother with the verses in this one. Some say that God has never been seen. Others say God has been seen (as in Jesus and instances in Old Testament). This is a contradiction, right? Right?
            There are varying opinions on this matter. I hold that the Father has never been seen by His creation directly and in full glory. We wouldn’t be able to take it. However, the Son has been seen (Jesus, duh).
            I believe that the Father, if He has been seen, has held back His full form. He’s never been seen as He is. However, the Son can and has been seen.
            Some say that the Father has never been seen. Every time God has been seen, it’s been Jesus, not the Father. The Father, if He chooses to, speaks thru things. Such as burning bushes and angels and whatnot. But in His actual form, He’s never been seen.
            God’s been seen, but at the same time He (the Father) hasn’t been. Pretty nifty and completely true. The glory of the Father would kill us, which is why He doesn’t show us all of it.

Part III

            (Summary) The Bible has a lot to it, and some of its teachings seem to contradict each other. However, it is usually superficial due to word choice. As we’ve showed, “bearing witness” can mean several things, and so can “tempt”. The audience and context can determine these things and must be taken into account. Whenever a “contradiction” comes up, take a little time to study it. Problems will fall away.

The One and Only Isaac

            Here’s a fourth swing many critics try to make at the Bible. One verse states that Abraham only 

had one son (Genesis 22:2). But if you read Genesis, you’ll know that he had a child by Hagar 

(Ishmael, Genesis 16:15), a child by Sarah (Isaac, Genesis 21:3), and six children by Keturah (Genesis 

25:1-2). Let’s examine this:

            Genesis 22:2 states that God told Abraham, “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you 

love, and go…” So Abraham only has one son, right? Right?

            What about the other verses? What about Ishmael, (the rest are Keturah’s children) Zimran, 

Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishback, and Shuah? There are many, many explanations, and I will go 

through some of them:

            1) God puts a qualifier on “your only son” by saying “whom you love.” This deals with the 

contradiction because God was saying Isaac was the only son that Abraham loved. This does 

away with the problem, but it seems a little too pat (like the third answer in my last post), so I will give 

a couple more explanations.

            2) One explanation I will mention is given by Answers in Genesis here. The Hebrew word for 

“only” is yachiyd, which can mean “special” and “unique.” If understand the article correctly, when 

God said Isaac was Abraham’s “only son”, he was saying Isaac was Abraham’s “special, unique son.” 

Through Isaac came Israel and the world’s savior, Jesus. Isaac, indeed, was unique.

            3) When God said, “your only son,” He was referring to the fulfillment of an earlier promise to 

Abraham in Genesis 15:4, “This man (talking about someone else) shall not be your heir; your very 

own son shall be heir.” Ishmael was also Abraham’s son, yes, but he was not meant to fulfill this 

promise. Isaac was.

            How does this deal with the contradiction? Well, that means that, when God said “your only 

son,” He meant “the only son that fulfilled my promise to you,” not “the only son that you have ever 

had.” Hopefully this makes sense.

            4) The next answer deals with context. Isaac was special (duh). He, like Moses and David, 

were prototypes for the life of Christ. In this episode, Isaac represented Christ’s death on the cross. 

Genesis 22:1-19 was about the story of Isaac's (almost) sacrifice. Abraham was to sacrifice Isaac 

to show his faithfulness to the Lord. He went to do it, but the Lord stopped him. He had demonstrated 

his faithfulness, and that was enough.

            What does this have to do with the contradiction? If this option is correct, it means God wasn’t 

talking about Isaac when He said, “your only son”. He was alluding to Jesus, God’s only son. Jesus 

was going to be sacrificed; Isaac was going to be sacrificed. Isaac was a type of Christ, and Christ was 

God’s “only Son.” This was probably an imperfect explanation, so here is a source that explains it 

much better.

            Number one will do in a conversation. It is basically a quick deflection, a quick answer. If it is 

not satisfactory, number two is best. Three and four are… okay, but unless you can communicate them 

succinctly, the first two are best. Also, Creation Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM) is another 

great place for (duh) apologetics and sources.

Genesis 1 vs. 2

            One of the most cited "contradictions" in the Bible is the supposed difference between Genesis 

chapter one and Genesis chapter two. This is repeated by theistic evolutionists (and Old Earth 

Creationists) as evidence against a literal Genesis and non-Christians as evidence against Christianity. 

But enough of that. In this particular post, I will go over one of the few specific "contradictions" in 

Genesis one and two. What is this contradiction?

            Genesis 1:25 states, "And God made the beast of the earth… and cattle… and every thing (else, 

basically, that dwells on dry land)…". Then, later in 1:27, Moses writes, "So God created man in his 

own image." Because Genesis is literal history, how are we to read this? Well, that means land animals 

came before man. Okay, no big deal.

            In Genesis 2:19, Moses writes, "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…". Moses makes it seem like Adam 

had already been created before the land animals.

            This is an alleged contradiction because the two chapters seem like they are giving two different 

accounts. Did animals come before humans, or after?  Non-Christians like it because they can say, 

"See? We can't trust the Bible." Theistic evolutions (and OECs) are fine with it because they can say to 

their Creationist brothers and sisters, "See? There is absolutely no problem if you take the beginning of 

Genesis symbolically. You can just say that Moses wasn't being chronologically literal. He was just 

weaving a beautiful story (and on and on)."

            For this example, you can take two routes:

1) Explain how certain translations nail it by using a certain word.

2) Explain what the verse doesn't say.

            1) Certain translations do away with any and all potential problems by the way they interpret the 

word "formed" (in Genesis 2:19). The Hebrew word for "formed" is yatsar. And, as with any 

language, there are different forms. Some translations use the "perfect" form, and they get "formed." 

These translations translate it using the "pluperfect" form, and they get "had formed." Why does this 

matter? Well, if God "had (already) formed" the animals, than it is perfectly acceptable for Adam to be 

created and mentioned in the verse, too. Because by verse 19 both had been created. Do I know 

Hebrew? No, I got this answer from here. Good ole' Answers in Genesis.

            2) Verse 2:19 never says God "immediately brought them unto Adam" to be named. It just says 

that He brought them to Adam. How does this explain the contradiction? Well, the verse says God 

created the animals (which He did), but time could've elapsed before He brought them to Adam, which 

allows Adam to be created. It is basically a clever way out, though it is true. Just say, "Yes, God did 

create the land animals, but He waited until Adam was created before naming them."

            I think it is pretty obvious that #1 is the most solid explanation to this supposed contradiction, 

but I know that it can be hard to remember foreign words (and strange forms), especially when you 

don't know the language (who can remember yatsar and "pluperfect" form?). #3 will do in a 

pinch, though it isn't as satisfactory.

Judas Meets His End

            How did Judas die? If you look up his guilt-induced suicide (imagine standing before God on 

the judgement throne and saying, “Sorry ‘bout that.” Ouch), you’ll get two supposedly different 

answers.

            Matthew 27:5 writes, “And throwing down the pieces of silver into the temple, he (Judas) 

departed, and he went and hanged himself.” That’s one account.

            After Jesus arose and inspired His disciples to spread the Gospel unto all the nations, Peter 

stands before the early (extremely early) church and recounts to them the story of Judas. In Acts 1:18, 

Peter says of Judas, “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.” In this account, Judas falls to his 

death.

            Okay, close the book. Go home. Can’t trust the Bible. That’s a contradiction if there ever was 

one…
            

            Haha, psyche.

            What happened was very simple. Judas hung himself, and after awhile the rope (or something 

else ;) snapped, and his body fell and burst open. Both are correct if the chronology is established. 

These two accounts give different details. One was the during (being hung), the other was the after 

(falling and bursting open). Did Judas die while being hung, or did he die after falling? We do not 

know, but I can assure you that he died.

            But what we do know is that Matthew and Peter (in Acts) do not contradict each other.

My First Victim (a Softball)

  (I dedicate this post to two youngsters named Joshua and Joey. This blog was made possible 

through their financial gifts. I thank you two for your never-ending humor and energy. Keep up the 

good work.)

  Now, when going through the lists of “contradictions”, I had a tough time choosing. It needed 

to  be big. Controversial. Raging. Potentially embarrassing. In the words of those annoying pigeons in 

the sappy animated movie Bolt, “It (needs) to be huge, man, huge.”

  So, naturally, I went with a contradiction that had none of those qualities. Let’s travel to the 

Gospels for a softball, shall we? When Jesus was hung on a cross, they put a sign over Him that 

detailed His (blasphemous) claim. Let’s examine it.

  Matthew stated that the sign they put over Jesus proclaimed “THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF 

THE JEWS” (Matthew 27:37).

  But wait, Mark writes “THE KING OF THE JEWS” (Mark 15:26).

Even worse, Luke writes that the sign said “THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS” (Luke 23:38).

  Naturally, John just has to make it worse by saying “JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF

THE JEWS” (John 19:19).

  Why do they contradict each other? Well, the short answer is: they don’t. A contradiction is 

when one person says X and another person says Y (for you math people, in this instance X ≠ Y). Or 

later one person says X and someone else gives a different definition for X. The Gospel writers do 

neither of those things.

  For example, on the Huffington Post website, if you scroll down, there is an article by Belle 

Beth Cooper titled “10 Simple Things You Can Do Today That Will Make You Happier, Backed By 

Science”. Let’s say that you read it. Later, you ask four people (who have also read the article), “What 

was its title?”

  One person says, “Simple Things You Can Do Today That Will Make You Happier”.

  Another person says, “10 Simple Things You Can Do That Will Make You Happier, Backed 

By Scientists”.

  The third person says, “10 Things You Can Do Today That Will Make You Happier, Backed 

By Science.”

  Finally, the fourth says, “Things You Can Do That Will Make You Happier”.

  Did they contradict each other? No, not at all. They just gave either the bare minimum and/or 

selective details to go along with it. But in the end, the message comes across (stated by the fourth 

person).

  The same logic applies to the sign in the Gospels. Mark supplies the bare minimum (THE 

KING OF THE JEWS) in his description, and the other three add to that. But the message doesn’t 

change. No one states “THE PRINCE OF THE JEWS”, or anything like that. If that was the case, that 

would be a true contradiction. A prince and a king are very different. But as it is, we are left with the 

truth:

Jesus (from Nazareth) is the King of the Jews

P.S. The blog was free ;)

Don't You Love Contradictions?

(I’m writing this as I listen to “In the Light” by DC Talk. Though I am a little young, I miss 

them.  I’m glad Kevin Max is with Audio Adrenaline and Michael Tait is with the Newsboys. 

TobyMac has been successful by himself for a while, now.)

  Imagine this scenario in court: the defendant is masterfully evading every jab and thrust from the 

prosecution. Eloquent and convincing, he has everyone in the courtroom on his side. But, alas, the final

 question of the cross-examination is his undoing. The jury rules that yes, it was the butler, in the 

ballroom, with a stick of butter. But… how? The defendant contradicted himself. He could not have 

possibly been in the kitchen and in the bathroom at the same time. The rooms are on opposite 

ends of the mansion; he couldn’t have moved that fast. The butler is guilty.

            I am not an expert in legal lingo (or court proceedings), so please forgive me if I made any 

mistakes. But anyway, the point of the example was to show how contradictions really mess up the 

point someone is trying to make. So when someone tells Christians that the Bible is full of 

contradictions, this accusation cannot be taken lightly. By saying that the Bible contradicts itself, the 

person is implying that we can’t trust it. And if we can’t trust it, (fill in the blank with what you think 

that means for Christianity).

My next couple of posts will deal with supposed Bible contradictions, and how the discrepancy 

disappears when closely examined. But first, whenever someone says that the Bible is full of 

contradictions, you should ask, “Such as?” The majority of people have heard the whole “the Bible is 

full of contradictions” from someone else, the internet, or “experts”. They haven’t really investigated 

the issue or studied any examples. They’ll either tell you they heard that from someone else (which 

makes your job easy; you don’t have to defend any specific accusations) or will make a couple of 

feeble attempts at creating one (which is also easy. Just try the body-language tactic I use on my 

siblings. Whenever they are doing a bad job of implicating me in any family crime, I 

cock my head to the side and raise an eyebrow. It works every time. They say, “Okay, 

okay! So you didn’t steal those cookies.”)

  But occasionally you’ll run across someone who has an iron-clad example where it does appear  

that there is a contradiction. I’ll be dealing with a couple of those.

P.S. There are some great books that deal with some of the most popular contradictions. Here is the 

link: http://www.answersingenesis.org/store/product/demolishing-supposed-bible-contradictions-set/