Blog

by Charlie Wolcott

A favorite argument from Bible skeptics is to cite the thousands of contradictions in the Bible. Someone even went as far to create a graph showing each and every contradiction in the Bible. Hmmm. Are they on to something? This book has had enemies for at least 2000 years, seeking to destroy it and discredit it, and now in the 20th/ 21st century, we just discovered these thousands of contradictions? Did anyone else in the past 2000 years cite them, or is it just the “new critics” of “higher education” today?

My first reaction to this argument is, “Give me an example.” Most skeptics will not be able to give one on the spot. They have to Google it. Like with the Telephone Game and Overzealous Monk arguments, this one too is passed around without actual study on the topic. However, there are two sides to the claims. First, the one making the claim that there are contradictions in the Bible must demonstrate that such a statement actually is a contradiction. Second, Christians claim the Bible is without contradictions so they need to be ready to back up said claim. All it takes is one counter-example and the secularists claim thousands.

To deal with this claim or many like it, NEVER let things remain in muddy waters. If they want to claim contradictions, make them get specific and make them prove it is a contradiction. For example, how could God tell Moses that no man can see the face of God and live while Jacob wrestled with him and lived? Or how come Matthew records one angel at the tomb and Luke records two angels? There are ways to resolve these. Josh McDowell gives this valuable advice.

"In evaluating any ancient manuscript, objective scholars apply a principle that any alleged contradictions in the work must be demonstrated to be impossible to reconcile, not merely difficult to reconcile… [Robert M. Horn] concludes: 'Difficulties do not constitute objections. Unsolved problems are not of necessity errors. This is not to minimize the area of difficulty; it is to see it in perspective. Difficulties are to be grappled with and problems are to drive us to seek clearer light; but until such a time as we have total and final light on any issue, we are in no position to affirm, "Here is a proven error or an unquestionable objection.”’”
~Josh McDowell, God-Breathed, pages 148-149

What the skeptics call “contradictions” are not actually contradictions but rather difficulties. Difficulties are when passages may seem to conflict and require a little more than a mere straight-forward reading of the text alone. Bobby Maddox is a good friend of mine and is a business lawyer by trade. He has spoken several times at conferences about how he analyzes documents for his career, and the same principles should be applied to the Bible as they would to any text. These are guidelines which most people employ just in general reading skills naturally. He has compiled them from a variety of sources, namely The Rehnquist Court’s Canons of Statutory Construction for definitions. This is his outline.

1. Plain Meaning - Follow the plain meaning of the text except when the text suggests an absurd result or a scrivener’s error.
2. Ordinary Usage - Follow ordinary usage or normal dictionary definitions of terms unless provided a specific definition in the text.
3. Original Meaning - The text should be interpreted as meaning what it meant at the time it was written.
4. Context - Examine genre, grammar and syntax, surrounding sentences and paragraphs to derive meaning (whether literal or figurative) of a word, phrase or sentence.
5. Four Corners - Absent ambiguity, the meaning of the text must be discerned from the four corners of the document, without relying upon other resources or witnesses.
6. Internal Consistency and Harmony - Avoid interpreting a provision in a way that creates an inconsistency or conflict with another provision.
7. Rule Against Surplusage - Give effect, if possible, to every clause and word of a document, and avoid an interpretation that would render other provisions superfluous or unnecessary.
8. Specific Modifies General - Interpret a general term in light of the more specific terms.
9. Parol Evidence - When a text is truly ambiguous, parol or other extrinsic evidence can be used only to clarify, not to vary or contradict, the meaning of the text as written.
10. Occam’s Razor - Among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest unverifiable assumptions should be selected.

A difficulty must be analyzed through something like these guidelines and still not reconciled before it can be claimed to be a contradiction. Using Rule #4 alone refutes the vast majority of the supposed contradictions in the Bible. It will take you a short time to find out that the skeptic has not actually read the Bible nor studied it, but are simply quoting the individual passages that appear to be contradictory. That being said, when we analyze books like the Koran or the Book of Mormon, we must be studied and use the same standard we use to justify the Bible. These other “holy” books will not pass the SAME standard.

So what about these two examples I mentioned earlier? In looking at God telling Moses no man may see the face of God and live and Jacob wrestling with God and living to tell the tale, two things must be considered. Rule #8 is a clue that specific events, like Jacob’s wrestling with God, can supersede or overrule a general statement. But also, it was the Father speaking to Moses. When Jacob wrestled with God, the man is believed by many to be Jesus Christ before his Virgin Birth. So, these are two different persons of the Trinity. It seems like a contradiction at first glance, but it actually is not.

The other one is a rather funny one because a detail missing is geography. The one angel in Matthew is at the entrance sitting on the stone door of the tomb. Luke’s angels are in the tomb at the head and foot rest. Answer: there were three angels total. Just because they do not give a complete record of the event, that does not mean the records are contradictory. Rule #4 refuted that claim.

Another interesting detail about the nature of the contradictions is that the bulk of them are completely irrelevant to the account or the message. So one angel or two at the grave site? Does it matter? How does that refute the Resurrection claim? It doesn’t. That being said, don’t dismiss the claims with a hand wave, but I mention this to show how desperate the Bible’s enemies are in trying to find ANYTHING to argue against it. If irrelevant details are the best they can come up with, it shows they really have nothing to stand on anyway. Once you refute a few of the contradiction claims, the skeptic is likely to run and hide or dismiss you as trying to save face despite the “evidence.” They claim a mountain of evidence against the Bible and that mountain is at best the size of a dirt clod and crushed just as easily.

If you want more help in dealing with Bible contradictions, Josh and Sean McDowell wrote a book The Bible Handbook of Difficult Verses and they deal with MANY of the supposed conflicting passages of Scripture. I do not entirely agree with each of their assessments, but they are good overall. Charlie Campbell is a not as well-known of an apologist but his website “Always Be Ready” also has a section on how to deal with Bible contradictions.

The Bible has no true contradictions. As I mentioned in the beginning, the Bible has had enemies its entire time of existence. If there were such contradictions as they claim, the skeptics from 2000 years ago would have been quick to point them out. They didn’t and they had access to the texts. The website I linked at the get go is a joke to any quality Biblical scholarship, yet the scoffers will take anything to try to hold on to their false teachings. This is another claim that bites the dust. It is a claim of smoke and mirrors and it takes little effort to show the “Emperor still has no clothes.” Next week, I’ll address the different versions and translations and which one to use.

This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration.  All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved.  Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.