Reason &
Revelation, April 2003, 23[4]:25-31

Copyright © 2003 Apologetics Press, Inc., All
Rights Reserved

THE MYTH OF “FACTUAL” BIBLE CONTRADICTIONS

Eric Lyons, M.Min.

His preacher described the young man as a “solid
Christian.” He was a devout follower of Christ who was
enthusiastic about living for Jesus. From the time he was a
young boy, his grandmother had taken him to worship God on the
first day of every week. After becoming a Christian, he had,
according to his preacher, “attended every service of the
church.” He grew in the faith, and began taking part in
leading the congregation in prayer. Later, he personally
taught the congregation by occasionally standing before the
church and reading the Bible to them aloud, at times even
delivering short talks. Before departing for the university
(about an hour away from his hometown), the young 18-year-old
from West Virginia was considered by those who knew him best
as a dedicated Christian with impressive potential—one whose
shield of faith would stand strong when worldliness attacked,
and whose foundation would remain firm when shaken by the
devil’s doctrines.

Sadly, only a short time passed before this young man lost
his faith. He went to college as a believer in the God of the
Bible, and came home an “enlightened” skeptic. One of the
first classes he took at the university was an elective course
on world religions. Initially, he thought he could handle
whatever questions came his way about Christianity. He had
memorized numerous verses in the Bible. He knew all about the
uniqueness of the church. He even could tell people what to do
in order to have their sins forgiven. It took, however, little
time for one teacher in one class in one
university to turn this “solid Christian” into an unbeliever.

What led to the demise of this young man’s belief in God,
and the Bible as His Word? Why did this young Christian’s
faith crumble so easily? It all began with his inability to
handle the “factual discrepancies” that his newly found
friends had convinced him were in the Bible. When asked to
explain to his teacher and fellow classmates how hundreds of
“Bible contradictions” are not contradictions at all, but
simply misunderstandings on man’s part, he would
not...because he could not. After being bombarded with
hundreds of questions that he was incapable of answering,
eventually he began denying the truths he once believed. Not
long after this young man’s “transformation,” he gave one of
his childhood mentors (the preacher of the church where he was
reared) a document titled “Factual Discrepancies.” That
document (of which I have a copy) contains nearly seventy
alleged “factual” contradictions that supposedly are found
within the Bible. Because this frustrated young man from West
Virginia (who had been taught the Bible his whole life) was
unable to answer these allegations, he gave up on the God of
the Bible. His faith in the inerrant, inspired Word of God was
replaced with the vacuousness of a skeptic’s uncertainty—all
because he was unable to defend the Truth against the vicious,
frequent attacks leveled against it by infidelity.

I wonder how many times this true story could be rehearsed
by mothers and fathers all over the world? How many
grandmothers (like the one mentioned above) have seen their
“work” (cf. 1 Corinthians 3:12-15) destroyed at the hands of
infidels? How many young college students leave home as
“solid” Christians, and return four years later as
“enlightened” skeptics?

This issue of Reason & Revelation is dedicated
to answering six of the list of seventy alleged “factual”
Bible contradictions the young West Virginian was presented at
the university. It is my hope that you will see how easily
these allegations can be answered—logically and truthfully.
[The numbers of each “contradiction” match those on the list
given to the young man. Our responses to most of the others
can be found on the “Alleged
Discrepancies” section of the Apologetics Press Web site.]

“FACTUAL” CONTRADICTION #2

Animals or Man Created First?

After reading the first two chapters of the Bible, some
skeptics, in an attempt to disprove the Bible’s inerrancy,
have accused the writer of Genesis of erring in regard to the
record of events occurring on day six of creation. While
Genesis 1:24-27 plainly indicates that man was created
after the animals, critics claim that Genesis 2:18-19
teaches that man was created before animals. Skeptics
assert that such language by the author of Genesis proves that
the Bible is not divinely inspired.

Some Bible students resolve this alleged contradiction by
explaining that the Hebrew verb translated “formed” could have
been translated “had formed.” In his Exposition of
Genesis, H.C. Leupold wrote:

Without any emphasis on the sequence of acts,
the account here records the making of the various creatures
and the bringing of them to man. That in reality they had
been made prior to the creation of man is so entirely
apparent from chapter one as not to require explanation. But
the reminder that God had “molded” them makes obvious His
power to bring them to man and so is quite appropriately
mentioned here. It would not, in our estimation, be wrong
to translate yatsar as a pluperfect in this instance:
“He had molded.” The insistence of the critics upon a
plain past is partly the result of the attempt to make
chapters one and two clash at as many points as possible
(1942, p. 130, emp. added).

Hebrew scholar Victor Hamilton agreed with Leupold’s
assessment of Genesis 2:19, as he also recognized that “it is
possible to translate formed as ‘had formed’ ” (1990, p.
176). Keil and Delitzsch stated in the first volume of their
Old Testament commentary that “our modern style for expressing
the same thought [which the Holy Spirit via Moses intended to
communicate—EL] would be simply this:
‘God brought to Adam the beasts which He had
formed’ ” (1996, emp. added). Adding even more credence
to this interpretation is the fact that the New International
Version renders the verb in verse 19, not as simple past
tense, but rather as a pluperfect: “Now the Lord God had
formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and
all the birds of the air” (emp. added). Although Genesis
chapters 1 and 2 agree even when yatsar is translated
simply “formed,” it is important to note that the four Hebrew
scholars mentioned above, and the translators of the NIV, all believe that it could (or
should) be rendered “had formed.” And, as Leupold
acknowledged, those who deny this possibility do so (at least
partly) because of their insistence on making the two chapters
disagree.

The main reason that skeptics do not see harmony in the
events recorded in the first two chapters of the Bible
(especially regarding the order of God’s creation—whether
vegetation, birds, land animals, man, etc.) is because they
fail to realize the fact that Genesis 1 and 2 serve
different purposes. Chapter one (including 2:1-4) focuses
on the order of the creation events; chapter two
(actually 2:5-25) simply provides more detailed information
about some of the events mentioned in chapter one. Chapter two
never was meant to be a regurgitation of chapter one, but
instead serves its own unique purpose—to develop in detail the
more important features of the creation account, especially
the creation of man and his surroundings. As Kenneth Kitchen
noted in his book, Ancient Orient and Old Testament:

Genesis 1 mentions the creation of man as the
last of a series, and without any details, whereas in
Genesis 2 man is the center of interest and more specific
details are given about him and his setting. Failure to
recognize the complementary nature of the
subject-distinction between a skeleton outline of all
creation on the one hand, and the concentration in detail on
man and his immediate environment on the other, borders on
obscurantism (1966, p. 117).

Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe summarized some of the
differences in Genesis 1-2 in the following chart (1992, p.
35).

Genesis
1

Genesis
2

Chronological order

Topical order

Outline

Details

Creating animals

Naming
animals

The fact is,

Genesis 2 does not present a creation account at
all but presupposes the completion of God’s work of creation
as set forth in chapter 1.... Chapter 2 is built on the
foundation of chapter 1 and represents no different
tradition than the first chapter or discrepant account of
the order of creation (Archer, 1982, pp. 68-69).

In short, Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are harmonious in every
way. What may seem as a contradiction at first glance is
essentially a more detailed account. The text of Genesis 2:19
says nothing about the relative origins of man and beast in
terms of chronology, but merely suggests that the animals were
formed before being brought to man in order to be named.

If one still rejects both the possibility
of yatsar being translated “had formed,” and the
explanation of the two chapters being worded differently
because of the purposes they serve, a final response to the
skeptic’s allegations is that the text never says that there
were no animals created on the sixth day of creation
after Adam. Although in my judgment it is very
unlikely that God created a special group of animals to be
named by Adam (after creating all others before the creation
of man—Genesis 1:20-27), some commentators do hold this view.
After his comments concerning the translation of
yatsar, Victor Hamilton indicated that the creatures
mentioned in 2:19 refer “to the creation of a special
group of animals brought before Adam for naming” (1990, p.
176, emp. added). Hamilton believes that most all the animals
on the Earth were created before Adam; however, those
mentioned in 2:19 were created on day six after Adam, for the
purpose of being named. In U. Cassuto’s comments on Genesis 2
regarding the time Adam named the animals, he stated: “Of all
the species of beasts and flying creatures that had been
created and had spread over the face of the earth and the
firmament of the heavens, the Lord God now formed
particular specimens for the purpose of presenting them all
before man in the midst of the Garden” (1961, p. 129, emp.
added). Both of these long-time Bible students recognize that
the text never says there were no animals created after Adam,
but that all animals were created either on day five or day
six (before and possibly even after Adam’s creation). However
unorthodox (or unlikely) this particular position might be, it
does serve as another reason why skeptics have no foundation
upon which to stand when they assert that a contradiction
exists between Genesis 1:24-27 and 2:19.

“FACTUAL” CONTRADICTION #7

A Slip of the Mind?

In 1 Corinthians 10:7-10, the apostle Paul gave four
“examples” of how God’s chosen people in the Old Testament had
sinned by lusting “after evil things.” At one time or another,
the Israelites had been guilty of worshipping false gods (v.
7), committing sexual immorality (v. 8), as well as tempting
God and complaining against the Almighty (vss. 9-10). It is
the second example Paul gives in this list (involving the
Israelites’ sexual immorality) that has been the brunt of much
criticism. Allegedly, this verse is in direct opposition with
what Moses recorded in the Pentateuch. Whereas Paul stated,
“[I]n one day twenty-three thousand [Israelites—EL] fell” as a result of their sexual
immorality (1 Corinthians 10:8), Moses recorded that “those
who died in the plague were twenty-four thousand” (Numbers
25:9).

Some apologists (Archer, 1982, p. 401; Geisler and Howe,
1992, pp. 458-459) have attempted to resolve this infamous
case of “the missing thousand” by claiming that the Old
Testament event to which Paul alluded was the plague Jehovah
sent upon the people after they made a golden calf (Exodus
32:35), and not the plague recorded in Numbers 25:9. The
problem with this explanation is that Exodus 32 focuses on
idolatry, not sexual immorality. Although idolatry sometimes
included sexual immorality, most likely Paul was not referring
to the events that took place after Moses’ descent from Mount
Sinai (Exodus 32).

So how can we explain Paul’s statement in light of the
information given in Numbers 25:9 (the probable “sister”
passage to 1 Corinthians 10:8)? The answer lies in the fact
that Paul stated that 23,000 fell “in one day,” while
in Numbers 25 Moses wrote that the total number of
those who died in the plague was 24,000. Moses never indicated
how long it took for the 24,000 to die, but only stated that
this was the number “who died in the plague.” Thus, the record
in 1 Corinthians simply supplies us with more knowledge about
what occurred in Numbers 25—23,000 of the 24,000 who died in
the plague died “in one day.”

It is troubling to see how certain other apologists attempt
to explain this alleged contradiction. In their popular book,
Hard Sayings of the Bible, Walter Kaiser, Peter Davids,
Manfred Brauch, and F.F. Bruce made the following comments
regarding “the missing thousand” in 1 Corinthians 10:8:

It is possible that Paul, citing the Old
Testament from memory as he wrote to the Corinthians,
referred to the incident in Numbers 25:9, but his mind
slipped a chapter later in picking up the number.... We
cannot rule out the possibility that there was some
reference to 23 or 23,000 in his local environment as he was
writing and that caused a slip in his mind.

Paul was not attempting to instruct people on
Old Testament history and certainly not on the details of
Old Testament history.

Thus here we have a case in which Paul
apparently makes a slip of the mind for some reason
(unless he has special revelation he does not inform us
about), but the mental error does not affect the teaching.
How often have we heard preachers with written Bibles before
them make similar errors of details that in no way affected
their message? If we notice it (and few usually do), we
(hopefully) simply smile and focus on the real point being
made. As noted above, Paul probably did not have a written
Bible to check (although at times he apparently had access
to scrolls of the Old Testament), but in the full swing of
dictation he cited an example from memory and got a
detail wrong (pp. 598-599, parenthetical comments in
orig., emp. added).

Supposedly, Paul just made a mistake. He messed up, just
like when a preacher today mistakenly misquotes a passage of
Scripture. According to the repetitious testimony of these
men, Paul merely had “a slip of the mind” (thereby
experiencing what some today might call a “senior moment”),
and our reaction (as well as the skeptics’) should be to
“simply smile and focus on the real point being made.”

Unbelievable! These men pen an 800-page book in an attempt
to answer numerous alleged Bible contradictions and to defend
the integrity of the Bible, and they have the audacity to say
that the apostle Paul “cited an example from memory and got a
detail wrong.” Why in the world did they spend so much time
(and space) answering various questions that skeptics
frequently raise, and then conclude that the man who penned
almost half of the New Testament books made mistakes in his
writings?! They have concluded exactly what the infidels
teach—Bible writers made mistakes. Furthermore, if Paul made
one mistake in his writings, he easily could have blundered
elsewhere. And if Paul made mistakes in other writings, how
can we say that Peter, John, Isaiah, and others did not “slip
up” occasionally? The fact is, if Paul, or any of these men,
made mistakes in their writings, then they were not inspired
by God (cf. 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21), because God
does not make mistakes (cf. Titus 1:2; Psalm 139:1-6). And if
the Scriptures were not “given by inspiration of God,” then
the Bible is not from God. And if the Bible is not from God,
then the skeptic is right. But as we noted above, the skeptic
is not right! First Corinthians 10:8 can be explained
logically without assuming Paul’s writings are inaccurate.

Sadly, Kaiser, et al., totally dismiss the numerous places
where Paul claims his writings are from God. When Paul wrote
to the churches of Galatia, he told them that his teachings
came to him “through revelation of Jesus Christ” (1:12). In
his first letter to the Thessalonian Christians, he claimed
the words he wrote were “by the word of the Lord” (4:15). To
the church at Ephesus, Paul wrote that God’s message was
“revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostles and prophets”
(3:5). In 2 Peter 3:16, Peter put Paul’s letters on a par with
the Old Testament Scriptures when he compared them to “the
rest of the Scriptures.” And in the same epistle where Kaiser,
et al., claim that Paul “made a slip of the mind,” Paul said,
“the things which I write to you are the commandments of the
Lord” (1 Corinthians 14:37).

Paul did not “invent” facts about Old Testament stories.
Neither did he have to rely on his own cognizance to remember
particular numbers or names. The Holy Spirit revealed the
Truth to him—all of it (cf. John 14:26; John 16:13).
Just like the writers of the Old Testament, Paul was fully
inspired by the Holy Spirit (cf. 2 Samuel 23:2; Acts 1:16; 2
Peter 1:20-21; 3:15-16; 2 Timothy 3:16-17).

“FACTUAL” CONTRADICTION #14

A Coin Called “Daric”

Before Solomon began building the “holy house” of God, his
father David challenged the Israelites to consecrate
themselves by bringing an offering to the Lord that would be
used in the Temple’s construction (1 Chronicles 29:3-5). The
text indicates that “the leaders of the fathers’ houses,
leaders of the tribes of Israel, the captains of thousands and
of hundreds, with the officers over the king’s work, offered
willingly” (29:6). They gave 5,000 talents of gold, 10,000
talents of silver, 18,000 talents of bronze, and 100,000
talents of iron. First Chronicles 29:7 also indicates that
these Israelites gave 10,000 darics of gold.

The use of currency known as darics in a narrative that
predated the invention of the currency by 500 years has led
some to believe the author of Chronicles lacked divine
guidance. These critics correctly assert that the daric was a
coin of the Persian Empire (probably derived from Darius the
Mede). Furthermore, it is true that even though the
chronicler used the daric to evaluate a Temple offering that
took place around 970 B.C., this coinage was unknown to David
(Wycliffe, 1962). It was not minted before 515 B.C. (Dillard and Longman, 1994, p. 171), and
probably was not known in Palestine until the fifth century
B.C. (when the book of Chronicles likely
was written). So why does this not invalidate the
inerrancy of the Scriptures? After all, a narrative that has
things (like money) in it that obviously did not exist when
the narrative took place is nothing but a fairy tale, right?

Actually, the use of the term “daric” by the writer of
Chronicles in the fifth century B.C. does
not mean that he believed (or wanted his readers to believe)
that the Israelites in David’s time possessed darics. The
chronicler merely expressed—in language that would be
intelligible to his readers—the sum of the gold donated by the
Israelites, without intending to assume that there were darics
in use in the time of David (Keil and Delitzsch, 1996). He
simply used a term that was popular in his own day to help his
readers better understand the sacrifice of those who gave the
gold (cf. Ezra 2:69; 8:27; Nehemiah 7:70-72).

Darics
courtesy of
ancient-coin-forum.com

The chronicler used a figure of speech known as “prolepsis”
(the assignment of something, such as an event or name, to a
time that precedes it). People often use prolepsis for the
sake of convenience, or so that the reader or audience can
better understand what is being communicated. For example, I
might say, “My wife and I dated two years before we got
married,” when actually she was not my wife when we were
dating, but a very dear friend. We may see a special on
television about when President Ronald Reagan was a boy, but
the fact is, Ronald Reagan was not president of the United
States when he was a boy. From time to time, even the Bible
uses this kind of accommodative language. In John 11, the
Bible speaks of a woman named Mary who “anointed the Lord with
ointment” (11:1-2), yet this anointing actually did not occur
for about three months. John merely spoke about it as having
already happened because when he wrote his gospel account,
this event generally was known. Another example of prolepsis
is found in Genesis 13:3 where we read that Abraham “went on
his journey from the South as far as Bethel.” This area
actually did not wear the name Bethel until years later when
Jacob gave it that name (Genesis 28:19). However, when Moses
wrote of this name hundreds of years later, he was free to use
it even when writing about a time before the name actually was
given. Likewise, the chronicler used accommodative language
when explaining the free-will offerings given to help in
constructing the Temple of God.

Admittedly, the writer of Chronicles used measures of his
period familiar to modern readers even when writing about
events that took place 500 years beforehand. However,
converting measures does not destroy the inerrancy of
Scripture!

“FACTUAL” CONTRADICTION #21

Motives Matter

In roughly 841 B.C., the commander of
Israel’s army, Jehu the son of Jehoshaphat, was anointed king
over the northern kingdom and was commanded by the Lord to
“strike down the house of Ahab” and “cut off from Ahab all the
males in Israel, both bond and free” (2 Kings 9:6-10). After
receiving this command from the Lord via one of “the sons of
the prophets,” Jehu began his assassination of Ahab’s family.
He started by slaying Ahab’s son, Joram (also known as
Jehoram), who was ruling Israel at the time Jehu was anointed
king. He then proceeded to kill Ahaziah (the king of Judah and
grandson of Jezebel—9:27-29) and forty-two of Ahaziah’s
brothers (10:12-14). Later, he slew (or had others slay)
Jezebel (the mother of Joram and former wife of the deceased
Ahab—9:30-37), all seventy sons of Ahab who were living in
Samaria and “all who remained to Ahab in Samaria”
(10:1-10,17), and “all who remained of the house of Ahab in
Jezreel,” including “all his great men and his close
acquaintances, and his priests” (10:11). Jehu’s final stop was
at the temple of Baal where, upon gathering all the
Baal-worshipping leaders of Israel into the temple, he locked
them up and had them massacred (10:18-27).

After Jehu had carried out his orders to obliterate all
males from the house of Ahab, the Lord said to him:

Because you have done well in doing what is
right in My sight, and have done to the house of Ahab all
that was in My heart, your sons shall sit on the throne of
Israel to the fourth generation (10:30).

Jehu had taken the most thorough means of suppressing the
idolatry in Israel, and thus was granted protection on his
throne, along with his sons after him, unto “the fourth
generation.” The following chapters of 2 Kings indicate that
the Lord was true to His word (as always; cf. Titus 1:2).
Although the reigns of Jehu’s sons were described as kings who
“did evil in the sight of Yahweh,” the Lord allowed them to
reign to the fourth generation in order to fulfill His promise
to Jehu.

Several years after the above events took place, the
prophet Hosea expressed words that many skeptics have claimed
are in opposition to what is stated in 2 Kings 9-10. When
Gomer, Hosea’s wife, bore a son, Hosea declared that the Lord
said, “Call his name Jezreel, for in a little while I will
avenge the bloodshed of Jezreel on the house of Jehu, and
bring an end to the kingdom of the house of Israel” (1:4).
Those trying to discredit the Bible’s integrity argue that
Hosea put himself into obvious disagreement with the
inspired writer of 2 Kings, who thought that Jehu had done
“all” that was in God’s heart. Skeptics claim that the author
of 2 Kings heaped praise on Jehu for the Jezreel massacre, but
Hosea contradicted him when he said that the Lord would avenge
the blood of Jezreel, and bring to an end the reign of the
house of Jehu in Israel. What can be said about this “obvious
disagreement”? Are these two passages harmonious, or is this a
legitimate contradiction that should cause Bible believers
like the young man from West Virginia to reject the book that
has been tried and tested for hundreds of years?

First, we cannot be 100% certain that Hosea 1:4 is
referring to the events recorded in 2 Kings 9-10. Although
nearly all skeptics (and Bible commentators) link the two
passages together, it must be understood that just because 2
Kings 9-10 is the only place in the Old Testament that
describes suitable events located at Jezreel, it does not mean
that Hosea must have been referring to those events. The
honest student of God’s Word has to admit that Hosea could
have been referring to Jehu’s sons who reigned after him.
Perhaps his sons performed serious atrocities in Jezreel that
are not recorded in 2 Kings. One cannot be certain that Hosea
was indeed referring to the events recorded in 2 Kings 10.
Having made such a disclaimer, it is my position that these
two passages should be linked, and thus the alleged
contradiction raised by skeptics deserves an adequate
explanation: How could God tell Jehu to destroy the house of
Ahab, and then later condemn him (his house) via the words of
Hosea for having done so?

The answer really is quite simple. As Norman Geisler and
Thomas Howe observed: “God praised Jehu for obeying Him in
destroying the house of Ahab, but condemned Jehu for his
sinful motive in shedding their blood” (1992, p. 194).
Skeptics are fond of citing 2 Kings 10:30 to support their
position, but they often conveniently overlook verses 29 and
31, which state:

Jehu did not turn away from the sins of
Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, who had made Israel sin, that
is, from the golden calves that were at Bethel and Dan....
Jehu took no heed to walk in the law of the Lord God of
Israel with all his heart; for he did not depart from the
sins of Jeroboam, who had made Israel sin.

Jehu obeyed God’s command to “strike down the house of
Ahab” and utterly exterminate his descendants (2 Kings 9:7-8;
10:30), but he did not obey God in all that he did (cf.
Genesis 6:22). The passage in 2 Kings 10:29-31 indicates that
even though Jehu had done what God commanded, “he did so out
of a carnal zeal that was tainted with protective
self-interest” (Archer, 1982, p. 208). It seems obvious that
since Jehu followed in the footsteps of Israel’s first wicked
king by worshipping false gods and not walking according to
God’s law, he did not destroy Ahab’s descendants out of any
devotion to the Lord. Furthermore, in commenting on Jehu’s
actions, biblical scholar Gleason Archer noted:

The important principle set forth in Hosea 1:4
was that when blood is shed, even in the service of God and
in obedience to His command, blood-guiltiness attaches to
God’s agent himself if his motive was tainted with carnal
self-interest rather than by a sincere concern for the
purity of the faith and the preservation of God’s truth
(such as, for example, animated Elijah when he had the 450
prophets of Baal put to death after the contest with them on
Mount Carmel) [1982, p. 209, parenthetical item in orig.].

Considering Jehu’s actions by examining the motives behind
those actions solves the alleged contradiction. Jehu’s failure
to obey God’s commands and depart from the sins of Jeroboam
revealed that he would have equally disobeyed the other
commands as well, had it been contrary to his own desires. The
story of Jehu’s conquest teaches a great lesson, which Albert
Barnes acknowledged in his commentary on Hosea: “[I]f we do
what is the will of God for any end of our own, for anything
except God, we do, in fact, our own will, not God’s” (1997).
Indeed, just as the apostle Paul taught in his discourse on
love—motives matter (1 Corinthians 13:1-3)!

“FACTUAL” CONTRADICTION #48

In What Order Did Satan Tempt Jesus?

If you have ever compared Matthew’s account of Satan
tempting Jesus in the wilderness with Luke’s account, you
likely noticed that there was a difference in the sequence of
the recorded events (Matthew 4:1-11; Luke 4:1-13). Both
Matthew and Luke agree that Satan first tested Jesus by
challenging Him to turn stones to bread. However, while the
two disciples of Jesus agree on the content of the next two
tests, the second and third temptations recorded by Matthew
are “flip-flopped” in Luke’s account. Matthew recorded that
Satan’s second temptation involved him trying to persuade
Jesus to throw Himself down from the pinnacle of the Temple.
The third temptation listed by Matthew was Satan’s attempt to
get Jesus to worship him. Even though Luke wrote about the
same two events, he listed them in reverse order—Satan first
desired adoration from Jesus, and then challenged Him to throw
Himself down off the pinnacle of the Temple. Based upon this
difference, skeptics claim we have a clear-cut “factual
discrepancy.”

The problem with this allegation is that it is based upon
an assumption. Those who claim that the “disorder” of
temptations is a contradiction, presuppose that history always
is written (or spoken) chronologically. However, common sense
tells us otherwise. Open almost any world history textbook,
and you will notice that even though most events are recorded
chronologically, some are arranged topically. For example, in
one chapter you may read about the European civilization in
the late Middle Ages (A.D. 1000-1300).
Yet, in the very next chapter you might learn about Medieval
India (150 B.C.-A.D.
1400). Authors arrange textbooks thematically in order to
reduce the confusion that would arise if every major event in
those textbooks were arranged chronologically. Even when we
rehearse life experiences to friends and family, oftentimes we
speak climactically rather than chronologically. A teenager
may return home from an amusement park, and tell his father
about all of the roller coasters he road at Six Flags. Likely,
rather than mentioning all of them in the order he road them,
he will start with the most exciting ones, and end with the
boring ones (if there is indeed such a thing as a “boring”
roller coaster).

Had Matthew and Luke claimed to arrange the temptations of
Jesus chronologically, then the skeptics would have a
legitimate case. But, the fact of the matter is, neither
Matthew nor Luke ever made any such claim. Either one of the
two gospel writers recorded these events in the exact order in
which they occurred, or both of them wrote topically. Most
biblical scholars believe that it is very likely that Matthew
was concerned more with the order of events in this story
because of his use of words like “then” (4:5, Greek
tote) and “again” (4:8, Greek palin). These two
specific adverbs seem to indicate a more sequential
order of the temptations. Luke simply links the events by
using the Greek words kai and de (4:2,5-6,
translated “and”). [The NKJV’s
translation of kai as “then” in Luke 4:5 is incorrect.
It should be translated simply “and” (cf. ASV, KJV, NASV, and RSV).] Similar
to the English word “and” not having specific chronological
implications, neither do the Greek words kai and
de (Richards, 1993, p. 230). In short, Luke’s account
of the temptations of Jesus is arranged topically (or possibly
climactically), whereas Matthew’s account seems to be arranged
chronologically.

“FACTUAL” CONTRADICTION #56

Cock-a-doodle-do...Twice?

Perhaps the most famous alleged Bible contradiction centers
on Peter’s triple denial of Jesus and the crowing of a
rooster. For years, skeptics have charged that Mark’s account
of this event blatantly contradicts the other gospel accounts,
thus supposedly “proving” the imperfection of the Scriptures.
Even Bible believers have questioned the differences
surrounding this event, yet relatively few have taken the time
to understand them. Whenever people ask us about Peter’s
denials and the differences within the gospel accounts, we
often fail to give an adequate answer to their questions (see
1 Peter 3:15). This lack of understanding, and poor defense of
God’s Word, has led skeptics to become more confident in their
position (i.e., that the Bible is not God’s Word), and has
caused some Bible believers (like the young West Virginia man
I mentioned earlier) to abandon their position on the
infallibility of the Scriptures.

The passages in question are found in Matthew 26, Mark 14,
Luke 22, and John 13. Matthew, Luke, and John all quoted Jesus
as saying that Peter would deny Him three times before the
rooster crowed.

Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you that
this night, before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three
times” (Matthew 26:34).

Then He said, “I tell you, Peter, the rooster
shall not crow this day before you will deny three times
that you know Me” (Luke 22:34).

Jesus answered him...“Most assuredly, I say to
you, the rooster shall not crow till you have denied Me
three times” (John 13:38).

After the third denial actually took place, these three
writers recorded that Jesus’ prophecy was fulfilled exactly
the way He said it would be.

And immediately a rooster crowed. And Peter
remembered the word of Jesus who had said to him, “Before
the rooster crows, you will deny Me three times” (Matthew
26:74b-75).

Immediately, while he was still speaking, the
rooster crowed. And the Lord turned and looked at Peter. And
Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how He had said to
him, “Before the rooster crows, you will deny Me three
times” (Luke 22:60-61).

Peter then denied again [for the third
time—EL]; and immediately a rooster
crowed (John 18:27).

Matthew, Luke, and John all indicated that Peter denied
Jesus three times before the rooster crowed. Mark’s account,
however, says otherwise. He recorded Jesus’ prophecy as
follows: “Assuredly, I say to you that today, even this night,
before the rooster crows twice, you will deny Me three
times” (Mark 14:30, emp. added). Following Peter’s first
denial of Jesus, we learn that he “went out on the porch, and
a rooster crowed” (Mark 14:68). After Peter’s third denial of
Jesus, the rooster crowed “a second time.... Then Peter called
to mind the word that Jesus had said to him, ‘Before the
rooster crows twice, you will deny Me three times’ ”
(Mark 14:72).

Mark differs from the other writers, in that he specified
the rooster crowed once after Peter’s first denial, and again
after his third denial. But, do these differences represent a
legitimate contradiction? Absolutely not!

Consider the following illustration. A family of three went
to a high school football game together for the first time.
The father and son had been to several games prior to this
one, but the mother never had been fortunate enough to attend
a high school game until now. After entering the stadium,
Ricky tells his 16-year-old son, Cary, that they will meet him
right outside Gate 12 after the buzzer sounds. Having
filed away the instructions, Cary races to the stands to
ensure that he sees the opening kickoff. Ricky’s wife, Vickie,
who did not hear the instructions he gave Cary, then asks him
when they were going to see Cary again. He responds, “We are
going to meet him right outside the gate we just entered after
the fourth buzzer.” After the fourth buzzer? But he
told Cary after the buzzer sounded they would meet him.
Did Ricky contradict himself? No. At this particular stadium,
the time keepers normally sound a buzzer after each quarter.
But, when we say “at the buzzer,” or when we speak of “a
buzzer beater” (such as in basketball), usually we are
referring to the final buzzer. Cary was familiar with
sports lingo, and thus Ricky told him they would see him
“after the buzzer sounds.” Vickie, on the other hand, having
never attended a football game in her life, was given
different instructions. In a more precise way, Ricky
instructed her that Cary would meet them, not after the first,
second, or third buzzer, but after the fourth and final buzzer
that marks the end of regulation play. Ricky knew that if he
told Vickie, “Cary will meet us after the buzzer sounds,” she
would have expected to meet him after the first buzzer
sounded. Thus, Ricky simply informed Vickie in a more detailed
manner. Surely, no one would claim that Ricky had contradicted
himself.

In a similar way, no one should assume that because three
of the gospel writers mentioned one crowing, while Mark
mentioned two crowings, that a contradiction exists.
Realistically, there were two “rooster crowings.” However, it
was the second one (the only one Matthew, Luke, and John
mentioned) that was the “main” crowing (like the fourth buzzer
was the “main” buzzer at the football game). In the first
century, roosters were accustomed to crowing at least
twice during the night. The first crowing (which only Mark
mentioned—14:68) usually occurred between twelve and one
o’clock. Relatively few individuals ever heard or acknowledged
this crowing (see “cock,” Fausset’s Bible Dictionary,
1998). It is likely that Peter never heard it; else surely his
slumbering conscience would have awakened.

The second crowing took place not long before daybreak. It
was this latter crowing that commonly was called “the
cockcrowing.” Why? Because it was at this time of night (just
before daybreak) that roosters crowed the loudest, and their
“shrill clarion” was useful in summoning laborers to work (see
“cock-crowing,” McClintock and Strong, 1968, 2:398). This
crowing of the roosters served as an alarm clock to those in
the ancient world. Mark recorded earlier in his gospel
account that Jesus spoke of this “main” crowing when He said:
“Watch therefore, for you do not know when the master of the
house is coming—in the evening, at midnight, at the crowing
of the rooster, or in the morning” (Mark 13:35, emp.
added). Interestingly, even when workers were called to their
labors via artificial devices (e.g., bugles), this time of the
night still was designated by the proverbial phrase, “the
cockcrowing” (see “cock-crowing” in McClintock and Strong,
2:398). If you lived in the first century, and your boss said
to be ready to work when “the rooster crows,” you would know
he meant that work begins just before daybreak. If he said
that work begins at the second crowing of the rooster,
likewise, you would know he meant the same thing—work begins
just before daylight. These are not contradictory statements,
but rather two ways of saying the same thing.

When Jesus said, “Before the rooster crows, you will deny
Me three times” (Matthew 26:34), it is obvious that He was
using the phrase “the rooster crows” in the more conventional
way. Mark, on the other hand, specified that there were two
crowings. In the same way that the husband gives his wife more
detailed instructions concerning a football game, Mark used
greater precision in recording this event. It may be that Mark
quoted the exact words of Jesus, while the other writers
(under the guidance of the Holy Spirit) saw fit to employ the
less definite style to indicate the same time of night
(McGarvey, 1875, p. 355). Or, perhaps Jesus made both
statements. After Peter declared that he never would deny the
Lord, Jesus could have repeated His first comment and added
another detail, saying: “[E]ven this night, before the rooster
crows twice, you will deny Me three times” (Mark 14:30,
emp. added). We cannot be certain why Mark’s account is worded
differently than the other writers, but by understanding that
“the rooster crowing” commonly was used to indicate a time
just before daybreak, we can be assured that absolutely no
contradiction exists among the gospel writers.

CONCLUSION

In just over six thousand words, six of the seventy
“factual” Bible contradictions given to the young West
Virginian who abandoned his faith in the inspired, inerrant
Word of God have been radically downgraded from “factual” to
“fictitious.” If space permitted, each one of the “factual”
contradictions could be refuted rather easily with the proper
use of both “reason” and “revelation.”

What would have happened if the young man from West
Virginia had taken the time to investigate these matters?
Where would he be today, had someone been able to show him how
all these “factual” Bible contradictions are anything but
factual? Surely, by now you realize that the blows of the
critic’s axe need not shake the Christian’s faith. Indeed,
after almost 2,000 years of “skeptics’ blows,” God’s forest of
inspiration still stands unmarred.

REFERENCES

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

Barnes, Albert (1997), Barnes’ Notes (Electronic
Database: Biblesoft).

Cassuto, U. (1961), A Commentary on the Book of
Genesis (Jerusalem: Magnes).

“Cock” (1998), Fausset’s Bible Dictionary
(Electronic Database: Biblesoft).

“Cock-crowing,” McClintock, John and James Strong (1968
reprint), Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and
Ecclesiastical Literature (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

Dillard, Raymond B. and Tremper Longman III (1994), An
Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan).

Geisler, Norman L. and Thomas A. Howe (1992), When
Critics Ask (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books).

Hamilton, Victor P. (1990), The Book of Genesis
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Kaiser, Walter C. Jr., Peter H. Davids, F.F. Bruce, and
Manfred T. Brauch (1996), Hard Sayings of the Bible
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press).

Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch (1996), Keil and Delitzsch
Commentary on the Old Testament (Electronic Database:
Biblesoft), new updated edition.

Kitchen, Kenneth (1966), Ancient Orient and Old
Testament (Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press).

Leupold, Herbert C. (1942), Exposition of Genesis
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).

McGarvey, J.W. (1875), Commentary on Matthew and
Mark (Delight AR: Gospel Light).

Richards, Larry (1993), 735 Baffling Bible Questions
Answered (Grand Rapids, MI: Revell).

The Wycliffe Bible Commentary (1962), (Electronic
Database: Biblesoft).

This document may be copied, on the condition
that it will not be republished in print, on line (including
reposting on other Web sites), or on computer media, and will
not be used for any commercial purpose. Further, it may not be
copied without source statements (title, author, journal
title), this paragraph granting limited rights for copying,
and the address of the publisher and owner of rights, as
listed below.

For catalog, samples, or further information, contact:

Apologetics Press
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery,
Alabama 36117
U.S.A.
Phone (334)
272-8558
http://www.apologeticspress.org