<body>

<p>This page uses frames, but your browser doesn't support them.</p>

A Ready Defense
Index

WHAT ABOUT

ALL THOSE

CONTRADICTIONS?
Chapter
11

Back to previous
page

How can you believe a Bible that is full of
contradictions?

P

eople ask this question so
often it amazes me. The question assumes that the Bible is filled with so many
obvious discrepancies it would be impossible to believe it has a divine origin.
It is a popular idea to maintain that the Bible disagrees with itself, and so,
unfortunately, casts considerable doubt on its own trustworthiness.

If, indeed, the Bible does
contain demonstrable errors, it would show that at least those parts could not
have come from a perfect, all-knowing God. We do not argue with this conclusion,
but we do disagree with the initial premise that the Scriptures are full of
mistakes. It is easy to accuse the Bible of inaccuracies, but it is quite
another matter to prove it.

Certain passages at first
glance can appear to be contradictory, but further investigation will show this
is not the case.

One of the things for which
we appeal with regard to possible contradictions is fairness. We should not
minimize or exaggerate the problem, and we must always begin by giving the
author the benefit of the doubt. This is the rule in other literature, and we
ask that it also be the rule here. So often people want to employ a different
set of rules in examining the Bible, and to this we immediately
object.

What constitutes a
contradiction? The law of non-contradiction, which is the basis of all logical
thinking, states that a thing cannot be both a and non-a at the same time, in the same
place, and in the same manner. It cannot be both raining and not raining at the
same time in the same location.

If one can demonstrate a
violation of this principle from Scripture, then and only then can he prove a
contradiction. For example, if the Bible said - which it does not - that Jesus
died by crucifixion both at Jerusalem and at Nazareth at the same time, this
would be a provable error.

When facing possible
contradictions, it is important to remember that two statements can differ from
each other without being contradictory. Some people fail to make a distinction
between contradiction and difference.

Take, for example, the case
of the blind men at Jericho. Matthew relates how two blind men met Jesus, while
both Mark and Luke mention only one. However, neither of these statements denies
the other. Rather they are complementary.

Suppose you talk to the
mayor of your city and the chief of police at city hall. Later, you see your
friend, Jim, and tell him you talked to the mayor today. An hour after that, you
see another friend, John, and tell him you talked to both the mayor and the
chief of police.

Your friends compare notes,
and there seems to be a contradiction but there is not. Since you had not told
Jim you talked only to the mayor, you
did not contradict what you told John.

The statements you made to
Jim and John were different, not contradictory. Many biblical statements fall
into this category, and people sometimes think they find errors in passages when
actually they simply do not read the passages correctly.

In the Book of Judges we
have the account of the death of Sisera. Judges 5:25-27 is supposed to represent
Jael as having slain him with her hammer and tent peg while he was drinking
milk. Judges 4:21 says she did it while he was asleep. However, a closer reading
of the Judges 5 passage reveals that it does not state he was drinking milk at
the moment of impact -and the discrepancy disappears.

Sometimes two passages
appear contradictory because the translation is not as accurate as it could be.
A knowledge of the original languages of the Bible can immediately solve these
difficulties, for both Greek and Hebrew - as all languages - have peculiarities
that are difficult to render into English or any other language.

A
classic example concerns the accounts of Paul's conversion recorded in the Book
of Acts. Acts 9:7 (KJV) states: "The men which journeyed with him stood
speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man." Acts 22:9 (KJV) reads: "And
they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not
the voice of Him that spake to
me."

These
statements seem contradictory, with one saying Paul's companions heard a voice
and the other saying no voice was heard. However, a knowledge of Greek solves
this difficulty. As the Greek scholar, W. F. Arndt, explains:

The construction
of the verb "to hear" (akouo) is not
the same in both accounts. In Acts 9:7 it is used with the genitive, in Acts
22:9 with the accusative. The construction with the genitive simply expresses
that something is being heard or that certain sounds reach the ear; nothing is
indicated as to whether a person understands what he hears or not.

The construction
with the accusative, however, describes a hearing which includes mental
apprehension of the message spoken. From this it becomes evident that the two
passages are not contradictory.

Acts 22:9 does not
deny that the associates of Paul heard certain sounds; it simply declares that
they did not hear in such a way as to understand what was being said. Our
English idiom in this case simply is not so expressive as the Greek. 15/13-14

It
also must be stressed that when a possible explanation is given to a Bible
difficulty, it is unreasonable to state that the passage contains a demonstrable
error. Some difficulties in Scripture result from our inadequate knowledge about
the circumstances, and only prove that we are ignorant of the background. As
historical and archaeological studies proceed, new light is being shed on
difficult portions of Scripture and many 66 errors" have
disappeared with the new understanding. We need a wait and-see attitude on the
problems.

ADDITIONAL REFERENCE SOURCES
ON THIS SUBJECT

Gleason L. Archer,
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982).

W. F. Arndt, Bible Difficulties (St. Louis: Concordia
Press, 1971).

W. F. Arndt, Does the Bible Contradict Itself? 5th
ed. revised (St. Louis: Concordia Press, 1955).

John J. Davis, Biblical Numerology (Grand Rapids: Baker
Book House, 1968).

John W. Haley, Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible
(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977 reprint).

Robert
L. Thomas and Stanley N. Gundry, A
Harmony of the Gospels (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978). See pages
313-19 for four different explanations of the alleged contradiction between the
genealogies of Jesus given by Matthew and Luke.

Doesn't Matthew make a mistake by
attributing a prophecy to Jeremiah when it actually was given by
Zechariah?

In the Gospel according to
Matthew, Judas Iscariot, after betraying Jesus, feels remorse because of his
evil deeds, throws the betrayal money into the sanctuary, and commits suicide.
Matthew goes on to relate how this money was taken by the priests and used to
buy a potter's field.

Matthew
concludes:

Then
was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah, the prophet, saying, And they
took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued...and gave
them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me (27:9,10, KJV).

The problem is that verse 9
attributes the prophecy to Jeremiah, when it appears that it was Zechariah who
gave this prediction. When Matthew 27:9 is examined closely in light of
Zechariah 11:12,13, it is clear that this prophecy is the one fulfilled. Why
then does Matthew assign it to Jeremiah?

A possible solution is
Jeremiah's priority in the Talmud. 43/362 Jeremiah was placed first in the
ancient rabbinic order of the prophetic books. Matthew was then quoting from the
collection of the books of the prophets, and cited Jeremiah since it was the
first and therefore the identifier. The same thing is done in Luke 24:44, where
Psalms is used when the entire third division of the Hebrew canon is in
mind.

Perhaps the best solution
would be to understand that Matthew is combining two prophecies, one from
Jeremiah and one from Zechariah, with a mention of only one author in the
composite reference, namely Jeremiah, the major prophet.

Zechariah says nothing
concerning the buying of a field, but Jeremiah states that the Lord appointed
him to buy a field (Jeremiah 32:6-8) as a solemn guarantee by the Lord Himself
that fields and vineyards would be bought and sold in the land in a future day
(Jeremiah 32:15,43ff).

One of the fields which God
had in mind was the potter's field. Zechariah adds the details of the thirty
pieces of silver and the money thrown down on the floor of the Temple. So we see
that Matthew takes the details of both prophets, but stresses Jeremiah as the
one who foretold these events.

Dr. J. E. Rosscup of Talbot
Seminary adheres to a view consistent with the above. In classroom lectures he
pointed out:

Matthew felt that two
passages were fulfilled, one typical (Jeremiah 19:1-13) and one explicit
(Zechariah 11:13), and mentions only one author in the composite reference, a
practice that sometimes occurred, according to Robert Gundry.
32/124-25

John N. Cool also concludes
that Matthew used Zechariah chiefly, but had Jeremiah 19 prominently in mind as
well, especially due to its theme of judgment on Israel.

Cool says,

Both (valley, Jeremiah 19; field, Matthew 27) become
burial grounds and both their names are changed to remind the people of God's
judgment. [This is] confirmed by the traditional location of the potter's field
... within the valley of Hinnom where Jeremiah pronounced his judgment by
changing its name to 'valley of slaughter.'

Second, Matthew's consistent
use of Isaiah and Jeremiah in his formula quotations reminds his readers of
God's salvation and judgment for His people. Isaiah was associated with
salvation, Jeremiah ... with judgment.

The use of tote in Matthew 2:17 and 27:9 instead of
the purposeful Hina or Houtos found
in other formula introductions also underscores the judgment motif by referring
to Christ's enemies as fulfilling prophecy.

Gundry says that Matthew's
reference to Jeremiah in the introduction formula makes certain that readers
will take note of the connection with Jeremiah 19, which might be overlooked.

How would you explain the inaccuracy
between Judas "went away and hanged himself' in Matthew 27:5 and "falling
headlong, he burst open" in Acts 1:18?

This question of the manner
in which Judas died is one with which we are constantly confronted in our
travels. Many people point to the apparent discrepancy in the two accounts as an
obvious, irreconcilable error.

Some have gone so far as to
say that the idea of an inerrant Bible is destroyed by these contradictory
accounts. However, this is not the case at all.

Matthew relates that Judas
hanged himself, while Peter tells us he fell and was crushed by the impact. The
two statements are indeed different, but do they necessarily contradict each
other?

Matthew does not say that
Judas did not fall; neither does Peter say that Judas did not hang himself. This
is not a matter of one person calling something black and the other person
calling it white. Both accounts can be true and supplementary.

A possible reconstruction
would be this: Judas hanged himself on a tree on the edge of a precipice that
overlooked the valley of Hinnom. After he hung there for a time, the limb of the
tree snapped or the rope gave way and Judas fell down the ledge, mangling his
body in the process.

The fall could have been
before or after death as either would
fit this explanation. This possibility is entirely natural when the terrain of
the valley of Hinnom is examined. From the bottom of the valley, you can see
rocky terraces 25 to 40 feet in height and almost perpendicular.

There are still trees that
grow around the ledges and a rocky pavement at the bottom. Therefore, it is easy
to conclude that Judas struck one of the jagged rocks on his way down, tearing
his body open.

Three days and three nights in the tomb?

Many people have questioned
the accuracy of Jesus' statement that "just as Jonah was three days and three
nights in the belly of the sea monster, so shall the Son of Man be three days
and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Matthew 12:40).

They ask, "How could Jesus
have remained in the tomb three days and three nights if He was crucified on
Friday and rose on Sunday?"

The accounts of His death
and resurrection as given in the Gospels of

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John
indicate that Jesus was crucified and buried on Friday, before sundown, which is
the beginning of the next day for the Jews, and resurrected on the first day of
the week, which is our Sunday, before sunrise.

This puts Jesus in the grave
for part of Friday, the entire Sabbath, and part of Sunday. In other words, He
was in the tomb two full nights, one full day and part of two days. Since this
is clearly not three full, 24-hour days, do we have a problem of conflict with
the prophecy of Jesus in Matthew 12:40?

Jesus is recorded as saying,
"The Son of man will rise again after three days" (Mark 8:31); and, "He will be
raised again on the third day" (Matthew 16:21) -expressions that are used
interchangeably. Also, Jesus spoke of His resurrection in John 2:19-22, stating
that He would be raised up in three
days (not the fourth day).

Matthew 27:63 gives weight
to this idiomatic usage. After the Pharisees tell Pilate of the prediction of
Jesus ("After three days I will rise again"), they ask for a guard to secure the
tomb until the third day.

If the phrase, "after three
days," had not been interchangeable with the "third day," the Pharisees
certainly would have asked for a guard for the fourth day.

That the expression "one day
and one night" was an idiom employed by the Jews for indicating a day, even when
only a part of a day was indicated, can be seen also in the Old
Testament.

For example, 1 Samuel says, "For he had not eaten bread or
drunk water for three days and three nights," and in the next verse, "My master
left me behind ... three days ago" (1 Samuel 30:12,13).

Just as clearly, Genesis
42:17 shows this idiomatic usage. Joseph imprisoned his brothers for three days;
in verse 18, he speaks to them and releases them, all on the third
day.

The phrases, "after three
days" and "on the third day," are not contradictory, either to each other or to
Matthew 12:40, but simply idiomatic, interchangeable terms, a common mode of
Jewish expression.

Another way to look at
"three days and three nights" is to take into consideration the Jewish method of
reckoning time. The Jewish writers have recorded in the commentaries on the
Scriptures the principle governing the reckoning of time. Any part of a period
was considered a full period. Any part of a day was reckoned as a complete day.
The Babylonian Talmud (Jewish
commentaries) relates that, "The portion of a day is as the whole of it."
54

The Jerusalem Talmud (so designated because
it was written in Jerusalem) says, "We have a teaching, 'A day and a night are
an Onah and the portion of an Onah is as the whole of it.'" 53 An Onah simply means, "a period of
time."

Even today we often use the
same principle in reference to time. For example: Many couples hope their child
will be born before midnight December 31. If born at 11:59 P.M., the child will be treated by
the IRS as being born 365 days and 365 nights of that year. This is true even if
99.9 percent of the year has elapsed.

Don't the resurrection
accounts repeatedly contradict themselves?

Although Pinchas Lapide
argues for the actual bodily resurrection of Jesus, he nevertheless follows the
lead of other critical scholars when he says of the resurrection in the
Gospels:

In no other area of the New
Testament narrative are the contradictions so glaring. Nowhere else are the
opposites so obvious and the contrasting descriptions so questionable as in the
realm of the resurrection of Jesus. 41/34-35

Ian Wilson accuses, "The
various accounts of the scene at the empty tomb on the first Easter morning are
so full of inconsistencies that it is easy to deride them."

In actuality, those who see
contradictions in the resurrection accounts often betray the fact that they have
studied the accounts only superficially. Wilson, for example, charges, "The
writer of the John gospel describes Mary Magdalene arriving at the tomb
alone.... The Matthew author relates that Mary Magdalene was accompanied by
'Mary the mother of James and Joseph.' "

There is in fact no
contradiction here. One could resolve the problem just by saying that John
focused on Mary Magdalene alone, while Matthew focused on the group. In
actuality, the apparent contradiction is one of a series of clues which help
answer such questions as where the different women stayed on the Sabbath and
what routes they took to the tomb on Sunday morning.

The whole scenario is
impressively revealed by the outstanding British New Testament scholar, John
Wenham, in his book, Baster Enigma.
77 In it he pieces together the available evidence to demonstrate that the
crucifixion and resurrection reports contain, not contradictions, but clues to
the many individual and group activities of the key witnesses to those
events.

Any attorney who has faced
the task of piecing together apparently conflicting courtroom testimony can
understand how difficult it is to reconcile an apparent contradiction between
two witnesses. For many years, until his retirement, Sir Norman Anderson was the
Director of the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies at the University of London.
As one thoroughly acquainted with apparent conflicts in the testimony of
different witnesses, he states:

I
must confess that I am appalled by the way in which some people biblical
scholars among them -are prepared to make the most categorical statements that
this story cannot possibly be reconciled with that, or that such and such
statements are wholly irreconcilable, when a little gentle questioning of the
witnesses, were this possible, might well have cleared up the whole problem.
Sometimes, indeed, a tentative solution may not be very far to seek even without
such questioning, although the suggested reconciliation cannot, of course, be
proved; and in others there may well be a perfectly satisfactory solution, which
evades us.

Solutions
to apparent Bible contradictions provide confidence that other alleged conflicts
also have solutions. Often the solutions reveal just how precisely God has
communicated to us in the Bible. Apparent contradictions become assuring
confirmations of the Bible's minute accuracy and trustworthiness.

Top of page
Print this

A Ready Defense Index

Note: This text material represents only a limited
portion of the book pertaining to this issue
and it is Copyright ©
1972 by Josh McDowell. All Rights Reserved.
Modifications can not be
made to this material without the express written permission of the rights
holder.
To obtain the complete work, along with other pertinent
resources, you may order
A
Ready Defense
from Amazon.com

ARD-1.1-ENG-0009 - 30-May-2002