All About GOD - Growing Relationships with Jesus and Others

Apparent contradictions.

We have all heard people say that they do not believe the bible to be the word of God, but the words of imperfect men, because is full of contradiction. When these same folks are asked to point to one, many have trouble coming up with one. Others point to passages that do indeed appear as genuine contradictions, but are they?

I remember finding many apparent contradictions during my studies, but studying the text and context closer led me to find sound explanations for them.

To start: what is a contradiction? We must first establish what constitutes a contradiction because way too many people call something a contradiction, when there is no contradiction there.

Contradiction (NOUN) 1.something illogical: something that has aspects that are illogical or inconsistent with each other.

From:http://carm.org/dictionary-law-of-non-contradiction

Law of non-contradiction

The Law of non-contradiction is one of the basic laws in classical logic. It states that something cannot be both true and not true at the same time when dealing with the same context. For example, the chair in my living room, right now, cannot be made of wood and not made of wood at the same time. In the law of non-contradiction, where we have a set of statements about a subject, we cannot have any of the statements in that set negate the truth of any other statement in that same set. For example, we have a set of two statements about Judas. 1) Judas hung himself. 2) Judas fell down and his bowels spilled out. Neither statement about Judas contradicts the other. That is, neither statement makes the other impossible because neither excludes the possibility of the other. The statements can be harmonized by stating: Judas hung himself and then his body fell down and his bowels spilled out.

Share an apparent contradiction you have found and are having trouble reconciling or share an apparent contradiction and the reason why the passages do not constitute a legitimate contradiction. A discussion dealing with apparent contradictions can quickly become hard to follow, so let’s do our best to try to keep an order. Let’s try not to move on from an apparent contradiction until we have solved it.

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Rita Cullimore on January 7, 2013 at 2:35am

Jenny,

In my understanding of the Gospels, they are written by 4 different men. Each gives the Good News of Christ from their own particular knowledge and belief. The way I read it is that a number of women went to the tomb. Each write is naming the ones that they themselves knew about and what they knew of the visitation. I don't think there is a contradiction there.....simply 4 different people explaining what they each knew of the occasion. No two people will tell exactly the same thing about any occurrence.

It's like taking a trip with 3 other friends. No two of the 4 will tell identical stories because they each view from a different prospective.

Blessings.....

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Velasquez on January 7, 2013 at 7:17am

haha :)

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Velasquez on January 7, 2013 at 7:18am

Amen Rita.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jenny on January 7, 2013 at 8:43am

thank you for the info David
that makes sense, its the same thing written by four different people's perspective, so they would include what stood out most to them, like the women they happened to know etc.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Colby on January 7, 2013 at 9:55am

Great question, David!

Regarding the four gospels, I would like to add the following. Not only do they capture the story of the life, death and teachings of Jesus Christ from the perspectives of four different writers, they were each addressed to different audiences. This answers the question, why four gospels? Why four different authors?

First, let me emphasize at the outset that while there are differences between the four gospels in terms of details covered, tone and emphasis, they are complementary (not contradictory) when read together. Reading all four gives us a more complete picture of the life and ministry of Jesus. Despite whatever differences exist, these need to be properly understood in this light. All share a common overarching or transcending theme and message, attesting to Jesus Christ as being the Son of God and the Lord and Savior of humanity.

Second, there were many more writings about the life and death of Jesus Christ that were considered by early church fathers for inclusion in the Holy Scriptures, which were not canonized. Canonization being the process undertaken by the early church, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to carefully review and authenticate writings as the Word of God. Through this careful and deliberate process, the writings that comprise the New Testament came to be included in the Bible.

1) Matthew's Gospel -- Written by a Jew for Jews, it emphasizes that Jesus is the promised Messiah; that in him is the fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies. It begins with a presentation of his genealogy to establish his royal lineage--an important matter for the Jews.

2) Mark's Gospel -- Written for a Roman audience, which is why he explains Jewish customs and rituals to readers. According, it omits the genealogy of Jesus found in the Book of Matthew. Doesn't mention Jesus' birth or youth. Focus is on Jesus as humble servant submitting himself to and doing the work that is the will of God the Father.

3) Luke's Gospel -- He wrote from the perspective of a physician and a Gentile.

The first three books are called the synoptic or parallel gospels because of the similarities in how they present the events, teachings and mission of Jesus Christ. The fourth gospel by John reads departs from this script as described below.

4) John's Gospel -- The predominant emphasis of John is on making the case for the deity of Christ, which he puts forth as the stated purpose of his gospel. John's Gospel confirms that Jesus not only took on human form when he walked among us 2,000 centuries ago, but that he was with God (and is God) from the very beginning as the creator of all things.

I could go into greater detail than this, but such a discussion would be better covered in a new discussion regarding the four gospel accounts. The purpose of this discussion is to address and answer supposed contradictions within the biblical text. I would add that numerous articles and books have been written by Bible scholars that address systematically and comprehensively the similarities and differences between each of the Gospel accounts, including apparent contradictions.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Velasquez on January 7, 2013 at 1:55pm

Excellent - Thanks for sharing Colby.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Velasquez on January 7, 2013 at 2:02pm

According to this website : http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradicti... the bible is full of contradictions.

Feel free to take one on and reconcile the apparent contradiction.

Introduction to Contradictions

The Bible is riddled with repetitions and contradictions, things that the Bible bangers would be quick to point out in anything that they want to criticize. For instance, Genesis 1 and 2 disagree about the order in which things are created, and how satisfied God is about the results of his labors. The flood story is really two interwoven stories that contradict each other on how many of each kind of animal are to be brought into the Ark--is it one pair each or seven pairs each of the "clean" ones? The Gospel of John disagrees with the other three Gospels on the activities of Jesus Christ (how long had he stayed in Jerusalem--a couple of days or a whole year?) and all four Gospels contradict each other on the details of Jesus Christ's last moments and resurrection. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke contradict each other on the genealogy of Jesus Christ's father; though both agree that Joseph was not his real father. Repetitions and contradictions are understandable for a hodgepodge collection of documents, but not for some carefully constructed treatise, reflecting a well-thought-out plan.

Of the various methods I've seen to "explain" these:

1. "That is to be taken metaphorically." In other words, what is written is not what is meant. I find this entertaining, especially for those who decide what ISN'T to be taken as other than the absolute WORD OF GOD--which just happens to agree with the particular thing they happen to want...

2. "There was more there than...." This is used when one verse says "there was a" and another says "there was b," so they decide there was "a" AND "b"--which is said nowhere. This makes them happy, since it doesn't say there WASN'T "a+b." But it doesn't say there was "a+b+little green martians." This is often the same crowd that insists theirs is the ONLY possible interpretation (i.e., only "a") and the only way. I find it entertaining they they don't mind adding to verses.

3. "It has to be understood in context." I find this amusing because it comes from the same crowd that likes to push likewise extracted verses that support their particular view. Often it is just one of the verses in the contradictory set which is supposed to be taken as THE TRUTH when, if you add more to it, it suddenly becomes "out of context." How many of you have gotten JUST John 3:16 (taken out of all context) thrown at you?

4. "There was just a copying/writing error." This is sometimes called a "transcription error," as in where one number was meant and an incorrect one was copied down. Or what was "quoted" wasn't really what was said, but just what the author thought was said. And that's right--I'm not disagreeing with events, I'm disagreeing with what is WRITTEN. Which is apparently agreed that it is incorrect. This is an amusing misdirection to the problem that the Bible itself is wrong.

5. "That is a miracle." Naturally. That is why it is stated as fact.

6. "God works in mysterious ways." A useful dodge when the speaker doesn't understand the conflict between what the Bible SAYS and what they WISH it said.

Contradictions

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Velasquez on January 7, 2013 at 3:57pm

Good stuff Char. Thank you for sharing.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Colby on January 7, 2013 at 2:45pm

As shown by the preceding list, which is by no means exhaustive, critics and skeptics allege so many seeming contradictions or discrepancies in the Bible that, if we were to attempt to answer each and every one, we would likely to become lost in the cornfields (speaking figuratively).

Yet, in vying for influence and contending for the faith in the world, Christians can't simply dismiss these arguments out of hand without looking foolish and/or ignorant.

Why? Because, "if biblical events can be proven false, Christianity crumbles," as Rachel Ramer writes in an article for CRI.

Moreover, just as Bible-believing Christians hold up cults to strict accountability for their false doctrines, they shouldn't expect to get off easy in having to answer to their critics (double standard).

With that in mind, I believe a good place to begin is by addressing the issue of biblical contradictions / discrepancies in a broad brush manner from high-level perspective. We can then make better sense of the apparent contradictions by grouping them in general categories or buckets, each of which can be addressed holistically, without getting bogged down in minutiae, stuck playing defense, and hopelessly lost in the cornfields.

Even so, as Christians provide plausible answers to many of these charges, the critics remain unconvinced. Their minds are made up. They see only what they want to see in the Bible.

I am convinced that there's a reasonable explanation for each and every seeming or apparent contradiction or discrepancy in the Bible. I start with the belief that the Holy Bible is the Word of God written by men inspired by the Holy Spirit. That's not to say I have a blind or slavish faith in the Bible such that I'm impervious to answering any of these contradictions/discrepancies. We must also bear in mind that the Bible is a translation of a translation (English isn't its original language) and that it is based on copies faithfully passed on as the original writings are no longer extant. I believe we all need to study the Bible with care and diligence. As we do, I believe we will come to see that it is truly the inspired written Word of God.

And so a logical and related follow-up question for the Christian might be this: How can we know that the Bible is truly the reliable and accurate Word of God?

Here are a few short articles on the subject that I found at equip.org (website of the Christian Research Institute). I'm sharing these for informational purposes and not necessarily as an endorsement of Hank Hanegraaff's ministry).

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Velasquez on January 7, 2013 at 3:57pm

Colby,

Thanks a bunch for the very helpful info. I have been listening to Hank's program "The bible answer man, for as long as I have been in Christ and though I don't agree with him about all theological matters I respect, appreciate and love him as my brother in Christ. Again thanks!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Grazer #E2H on January 9, 2013 at 9:40am

Hello :)

The biggest issue is when I'm told I have to take the bible literally and at face value then in the next breath I'm told there are no contradictions or discrepancies. If we take the 4 gospel accounts of the resurrection;

How many women went to the tomb? Who were they? Was the stone rolled back before they got there? How many angels were there? Did the disciples go to the tomb? Was there an earthquake?

Now with a bit of thinking we could probably give rough answers to those questions but any answer would contradict at least one account in some way as they don't match up exactly. As Dave has shown in his OP these differences can be reconciled but remember our starting premise of taking the bible literally and at face value. Also, just because differences can be reconciled doesn't mean they don't exist. Reconciling them means we are providing an explanation for them, in this case individual accounts from different sources citing different aspects. Things get a little tricky with genesis but that's another conversation.

I don't buy the argument the contradictions are only an illusion because were sinful and therefore can't read right. First off, I know atheists who can reconcile the differences. But also I'm a reborn child of God, his spirit lives in me. To challenge my interpretation (for example) on the basis I'm sinful would mean the argument can be applied to Paul and then were dealing with a whole new ball game and one people get angry about. But Paul in many ways is no different to me but again, another story.

Apologies for the lengthy post but hopefully you can see my logic. I'm not claiming I've got it all figured out as I'm far from having it figured out but this is where a little thought and prayer has taken me.

Peace

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Grazer #E2H on January 9, 2013 at 11:23pm

Hi Char

Thanks for the response. You've summed up my point very well, each of those answers contradict at least one account at face value. I have no issues with the accounts being different, I simply acknowledge that they are :)

Apparent contradictions.

Replies to This Discussion

Contradictions

The Good News

Meet Face-to-Face & Collaborate