One of the basic tenets of Christian faith is that the Bible is without error. To state that correctly, it is without error in its original form. There are a few basic problems with that. To start with, none of us are reading the Bible in its original language, let alone its original form. Then there’s the problem of finding a full Bible in its original form, especially the New Testament.
The Old Testament was copied by the scribes, a group of human copying machines. They worked to ensure that every copy of the Tanakh (the Jewish Bible; our Old Testament) was identical; to the point that the letters appeared in the same position on the page as every other copy. One error was enough to destroy a page and start over.
But there were no scribes to make copies of the New Testament. Those copies were made by whoever could. That often meant mistakes in copying, as well as partial copies of books. People used what they had, which could lead to damaged copies of the books. Today, what we have left to us is mostly fragments, which scholars have tried to piece together, in an effort to understand just what the original text had included in it.
One of these earlier scholars was Erasmus, who wrote what is known as the “Textus Receptus” (the received text). This Latin version of the New Testament was the first attempt at collating all possible existing copies of the New Testament, in an effort to create the most complete New Testament text possible. The King James Version of the Bible, as well as the German Luther Bible, Tyndale’s English translation of the Bible, the Spanish Reina-Valera and the Czech Bible were all translated from the Textus Receptus. More recent translations came from other bodies of ancient manuscripts, specifically the “Majority Text.”
This is why we find notes attached to certain passages in some of the more modern translations, especially the New International Version, stating that certain verses are not included in all manuscripts. The question remains – which manuscripts are we to believe, when they are not all the same. The answer is that we must trust in the Holy Spirit to maintain the accuracy of Scripture.
Some atheists like to throw the “problem” of contradictions in the Bible at believers, especially those who don’t know the Bible well enough to answer them. The fallback position for most believers is to say that the Bible doesn’t contradict itself; but they are wrong in saying that. The Bible does, in fact, contradict itself in some places; but those contradictions are not exactly common.
One thing we must do, when talking about this subject, is avoid allowing people to dump all the “contradictions” in one pile and use them as proof that the Bible is false. There are logical reasons why many of those contradictions exist; reasons which don’t affect the accuracy of scripture. Most of them are actually quite small and insignificant when it comes to either the overall message of the Bible or the message presented in the passages that contradict each other. We can trust that what we have is what we need and that it is as correct as the translators could provide it to us.
So, why do these contradictions exist?
First, we have to realize that the Bible, as we have it, was written by over 40 authors, over a period of over 1,500 years, in two or three languages (depending on who you believe). While those people were all inspired by the Holy Spirit, the key word is “inspired.” They were not robots or recording devices; they were fallible men, doing the best they could to properly write down what they felt the Holy Spirit saying to them. The 66 books that make up our Bible have been translated into 724 languages, while the New Testament has been translated into another 1,617 more. Those translators also did the best they could, inspired by the Holy Spirit; but they too, were fallible.
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. – 2 Timothy 3:16
This is why we have to believe that God has maintained control over His Holy Word, maintaining the accuracy of the scriptures that we have. This does not eliminate any contradictions that might be found in the pages of scripture, it merely means that we must maintain our faith in God, through them and seek to understand why those contradictions exist.
Historic Contradictions
The other thing that needs to be taken into consideration is that the list of supposed contradictions is shrinking. Many things which were considered contradictions before, seemed to contradict what was known of world history. But as time has gone on, further research has revealed that those weren’t contradictions at all; our knowledge of ancient history had been wrong. Let me provide a couple of examples.
- Daniel 5:1 shows Belshazzar being named king of Babylon. That seems fine, until compared with ancient history, which put Nabonidus as king of Babylon in that time. It wasn’t until an inscription was discovered, which stated that Nabonidus left on a long journey, during which time he named his son Belshazzar king.
- Acts 13:7 mentions Sergius Paulus as proconsul of Cyprus. Many historians disagreed, saying that the proper title would have been proprietor. The controversy was eliminated when coins were discovered on Cyprus, bearing the inscription “Paulus the Proconsul.”
There are many more such historic discoveries, which prove the Bible to be true. But those aren’t the only category of contradictions that people have pointed out in the Bible.
Contradictions Caused by Multiple Witnesses
There are a number of cases of supposed contradictions in the four Gospel accounts. The events, as depicted in one Gospel, may not match up exactly with how they are depicted in another Gospel. Parables told by Jesus may be recorded differently by the different authors of the Gospels.
People have pointed to the difference in the Parable of the Talents (or Minas) as written in Matthew 25:14-30 and Luke 19:12-27 as being contradictory to each other. The number of servants mentioned in the two places is different, the amount of money entrusted to each of them is different and even the master of those servants is different. Yet the resulting lesson taught by the parables is the same. So, do those differences really matter?
When we look at a harmony of the Gospels, we find that the account in Luke happened before Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem, while the one in Matthew happened just days before His crucifixion. While the two were probably within a week of each other, they were spoken at different times, to different people. Could it be possible that Jesus, like any other preacher, used the same parable more than once, changing it slightly as He recounted it to another group.
This type of difference can also show up in Jesus’ actions. One such example is when Jesus cursed the fig tree. We find this event depicted in both Matthew’s and Mark’s Gospels. It is unlikely that they were writing about two separate events, as both are associated in their respective Gospels with Jesus cleansing the Temple. Yet in Matthew’s account, it says “Immediately the fig tree withered away” (Matthew 21:19) and in Mark’s telling of the story, the disciples didn’t notice that the tree was withered until the next day.
Our misunderstanding in this case could be nothing more than a difference in how these two apostles wrote about the event. Matthew noticed that it started withering right away and wrote about it from that point of view. Mark, on the other hand, concentrates on the next day, when it is clear that the tree had totally withered. That doesn’t mean that he didn’t see it start to wither, just that his focus was on when he was sure that it had fully withered.
Speaking of two different viewpoints on the same event, the cleansing of the Temple is depicted twice, occurring at two different times. The first of these is in the second chapter of John’s Gospel, which appears to be very early on in the ministry of Jesus (John 2:13-16). The second occurrence is depicted in all three of the other Gospels (Matthew 21:12-13; Mark 11:15-17; and Luke 19:45-46). Interestingly enough, although they seem to take place at different times in Jesus’ ministry, they all take place during the Passover week.
This leaves us with the question of whether they depict the same event on the same Passover. It is possible that Jesus entered the Temple, knocking over the tables of the moneychangers and setting free the animals being sold for sacrifices more than once. If so, they obviously didn’t learn eth lesson the first time, which really isn’t surprising. But there’s another option to consider. That is, the Gospels are not necessarily written in chronological order. While one could argue whether John or the other authors is more correct chronologically, they were all working from memory, many years after the events; which could have resulted in events being recorded out of order.
Theological Differences of Opinion
It is easy to find what appears to be contradictions when comparing the Old and New Testaments. The focus of these two parts of the Bible is different, causing the authors to bring out different points form the same incident. This is similar to two different witnesses talking about the event, with the exception that the author in the New Testament didn’t see it. They are forming their opinion, based upon what it says in the Old Testament, through the light of the ministry of Jesus Christ.
We can see this in Abraham’s offering of his son, Isaac on the altar in Genesis, chapter 22. Nowhere in the story do we see anything mentioned about what Abraham was thinking, only what he said and what he did. Yet in the book of Hebrews, the author of that New Testament book ventures out on what looks like a bit of a limb, telling us what Abraham was thinking.
By faith Abrahem, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, 18 of whom it was said, “In Isaac your seed shall be called,” 19 concluding that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead, from which he also received him in a figurative sense. – Hebrews 11:17-19
There is nothing there, in either the Old or New Testaments, to show us where the author of Hebrews got the understanding that Abraham had made that conclusion; yet there it is. One possibility is that they had information available to them, which we do not have today. Not all the ancient texts which are referenced in the Bible have survived; some are lost forever. Yet the authors of the New Testament may have had access to them.
The Ravages of Time
Time has been hard on the Bible, not in the sense that people have changed its message; but that the oldest physical copies of the Bible are seriously damaged by the ravages of time. The Dead Sea Scrolls, which were found between 1947 and 1956, are a perfect example of this. While some of the scrolls are in excellent shape; others have been severely damaged by water and insects, leaving us with mere fragments of the originals. Fortunately, those fragments match up with other existing copies of scripture, authenticating their accuracy.
There are no known original copies of any part of the Bible. What we have, rather, is copies of copies of copies. This is more of a problem for the New Testament, than it is for the Old Testament, even though those books were written long after the books of the Old Testament were. The discipline of the scribes in copying the scrolls of the Old Testament has done much to help ensure the accuracy of our modern translations of those books. Unfortunately, we don’t have the same for the books of the New Testament.
Difficulties in Translating
Translating from one language to another is always challenging. That’s especially true when the translation is bridging a gap of centuries. Not only do languages change over time; but culture does as well. What meant one thing 1,000 years ago, can mean something else entirely today.
We can give all of the translators of the Bible the benefit of the doubt that they did the best job they could. Even so, what they are giving us is their understanding of what the original text said. That can be different than the understanding of someone who lived back when it was written, regardless of how carefully the translator is working to make their work as accurate as possible.
There are always some concepts that don’t translate perfectly from one language to another. In English, for example, we have one word for “you.” Spanish has four words, differentiating between formal and casual, as well as a singular versus plural you. This can affect how some passages are translated in the two languages. This causes what should be a simple teaching from Jesus to come out differently in English and Spanish.
Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he will not hear, take with you one or two more, that ‘by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.’ 17 And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector. – Matthew 18:15-17
The difference between translations in these two languages comes to light in the very last phrase, in verse 17. The word “you” there is translated in the only way possible in English. This has led many people to take that verse as meaning that the church should collectively treat that person like a heathen and tax collector. But if we read that in a Spanish Bible, we find the word for “you” is the singular form of “you” and not the plural. In other words, that you, as an individual, should treat them that way. The rest of the church is under no obligation to do so with you.
By the way, if you think about how we are to treat heathens and tax collectors, we are to love them and win them to Christ, not to treat them poorly for what they have done to us.
There Can be Lying Witnesses
While the Bible is true in its entirety, not everything that everyone said in the Bible is true. There are many ungodly people depicted in the pages of the Bible, especially in the historic books of the Old Testament. The statements of these people might be true, in the Biblical sense, because they are recorded accurately. But at the same time, what the person said may be untrue. That would make it contradict what someone else said at another place in the scriptures.
The death of King Saul shows us such a contradiction. In 1 Samuel 31:4 (the last book in First Samuel), we find that Saul is mortally wounded and told his armor bearer to kill him, so that he will not be captured. Fearful, the armor bearer refuses, so Saul falls on his own sword, ending his life. Yet in the first chapter of Second Samuel, literally the next chapter in the story, a messenger (possibly the same armor bearer) tells David that Saul is dead and that he had killed Saul as a mercy killing.
Which account is true? Could it be that the writer of Samuel forgot what he wrote in chapter 31, contradicting it in the next chapter (the two books are one, in the original)? Or, could it be that the writer of Samuel wrote what they knew accurately, which included the lie told by the messenger?
The truth is complex, in any context. When we are trying to write about it, our inability to express ourselves accurately can be a problem. Some things can get confused, not by intentional lying, but rather by the manner in which they are written down.
Throughout the books of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles, we see countless wars between Israel and their enemies, many of which God had commanded them to totally destroy. Various battles are described, where Israel followed God’s orders and killed everyone… or at least that’s how it sounds. Yet we see that those groups were not totally killed, because they come back to cause Israel again and again throughout history. That is continuing today, as the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip are most likely descendants of the Philistines.
Both of these can be true at the same time. Israel could have destroyed all of their enemy in a particular battle. But that doesn’t mean that nobody survived. There were likely some who weren’t in the battle, as women, children, the elderly and the infirmed were usually left behind. There could have also been some of the enemy who turned tail and ran, when it was clear that their side was going to lose.
In modern warfare, we refer to a unit that has lost 10% of their combat power as being “decimated.” That term inspires mental images of everyone dead; while less than one out of ten actually died. The language used to describe these battles can be inaccurate, when we are trying to do a body count.
God’s Perspective is Different
For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts. – Isaiah 55:9
We must start any study of the Bible with the understanding that as fallible human beings, we are incapable of thinking like God does. The writers and translators of the Bible were tasked with the impossible; the job of translating God’s thoughts into something that we could understand. They have done an admirable job; but there are still ideas we have trouble grasping.
God is known as both a God of love and a God of justice. From our point of view, the two are contradictory; but to God, they are not. He can love us, while demanding justice and righteousness from us. That’s largely because His understanding of love and ours is quite different. We tend to take the word love and insist that if someone loves us, they’ll let us do whatever we want, without judging us for doing wrong. If I need to say it, that’s not God’s idea of love. He explains His in 1 Corinthians, chapter 13.
Some people take their ideas about love and justice to the point that they say that the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament are different. But they’re the same God. It’s just that the two parts of the Bible focus on different parts of His character. We see love expressed through the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, while we see justice expressed through the Old Testament Law. But if it were not for the Law, there would have been no need for the loving act of the cross. One cannot exist without the other.
The truth is so complex, that we can’t grasp all of it. Each of us grasps our own little piece, often thinking we’ve got it all. But like the blind men investigating an elephant, all we’re seeing is the little piece in front of us. God sees it all and He fits it all together. We can take confidence in that.
What Should We Say?
There will always be those who will come to us with their “contradictions,” thinking they’ve got us in a “gotcha moment.” But it can only be a gotcha moment if you accept it as that and go along with their petty game. The truth is, those contradictions do exist. But the answer to that is “So what?”
There isn’t a single contradiction in the Bible that harms the basic message God has given us through His Word. The message remains clear, as well as a large number of smaller messages and principles that God has sent to us, through the books of our Bible. At best, those contradictions make us dig a little deeper in trying to understand the Bible and at worst they cause a bit of confusion.
None of those contradictions can prove the Bible itself to be untrue, as those who bring them forth hope. Being minor points, almost all of them can be easily explained away, without having to do any major mental gymnastics, by applying one of the lines of reasoning mentioned above. All we have to do is show them how weak their argument actually is, then we can drop the boom, saying that their attempt to prove the Bible untrue is overwhelmed by the evidence showing it to be true.
In this regard, knowing some of that evidence, especially archeological evidence that supports various things mentioned in the Bible can be useful. However, there are actually much more important things to study in the Bible, rather than spending our time on that. Just try and hang onto them, as ammo in reserve, should you run across one or two in your studies.