Biblical Contradictions. . . . Here follows 10 multi-choice questions, take your pick:

Question 1: Jesus is descended from which son of David?

(a) Solomon (Matthew 1:6)

(B) Nathan (Luke 3: 31)


Question 2: The Gospels say that Jesus cursed a fig tree. Did the tree wither at once?

(a) Yes. (Matthew 21:19)

(B) No. (Mark II: 20)


Question 3: When Paul was on the road to Damascus he saw a light and heard a voice. Did those who were with him hear the voice?

(a) Yes (Acts9: 7)

(B) No (Acts22: 9)


Question 4: When Paul saw the light he fell to the ground. Did his traveling companions also fall to the ground?

(a) Yes (Acts 26:14)

(B) No (Acts 9:7)


Question 5: How did Simon Peter find out that Jesus was the Christ?

(a) By a revelation from heaven (Matthew 16:17)

(B) His brother Andrew told him (John 1:41)


Question 6: Was John the Baptist Elijah who was to come?

(a) Yes (Matthew 11:14)

(B) No (John 1:21)


Question 7: Did Jesus die before the curtain of the temple was torn?

(a) Yes (Matthew27: 50)

(B) No. (Luke 23:45)

Question 8: What did Judas do with the blood money he received for betraying Jesus?

(a) He bought a field (Acts 1: 18)

(B) He threw all of it into the temple and went away. (Matthew 27:5)


Question 9: A large stone was placed at the entrance of the tomb. Where was the stone when the women arrived?

(a) The stone had been taken away from the tomb (John 20:1)

(B) The stone was still placed at the entrance. (Matthew 28:2)


Question 10: Who was the father of Joseph, husband of Mary?

(a) Jacob (Matthew 1:16)

(B) Heli (Luke 3:23)

What's your score? You can't get less than 100 percent, because all the answers are 'right' depending on where in the bible you look.

If I could go back and edit I would.

Yes, the genealogies in Matthew and Luke do appear to be contradictory. There are a number of possible explanations for this. For instance, Israelites may have had more than one name by which they were called. Some suggest that the genealogy in Luke is for Mary rather than for Joseph. Hebrew genealogies were not known to be perfectly accurate anyway, in terms of "so-and-so was the biological father of so-and-so." For instance, if Tim had a son Jim who was adopted by Bob, Bob would be, as far as Hebrew genealogy was concerned, Jim's father. If I'm not mistaken, Hebrew genealogies would also sometimes employ such tactics as taking a person's uncle, for instance, to get back to the ancestor they wanted. Both authors trace back Jesus' genealogy to David, because only David's descendants could be kings. However, this does not mean that Jesus was actually a bloodline descendant of David, as we tend to assume--after all, Joseph wasn't even his real father! So I would not be at all surprised if neither of the genealogies are perfectly accurate, myself.

Mark 2:20 But the time will come when the bridegroom will be taken from them, and on that day they will fast.

Eh?

Acts 9:7 The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone.

Acts 22:9 My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me.

They heard the voice but did not understand it. Where's the contradiction?

The gospels were written by different people. John may have been an eyewitness account, the Synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) almost certainly were not. The Synoptic gospels most likely came about like this: someone sees Jesus do something-->tells friend-->that person tells another friend-->that person writes it down-->that writing is copied-->that copy is compiled with other writings about Jesus. It continues on until eventually we get a gospel. To expect the details to line up certainly is absurd. Three eyewitnesses to an event today won't give the same accounts to three different newspapers. Indeed, if they did line up perfectly we'd have good reason to suspect they were all written by the same person. As is, this is clearly not the case. There are other examples of "contradictions" that I could point out between the gospels. Different accounts of the color of Jesus' robe at his crucifixion, for instance.

This is probably the only one that's actually of any interest, because it's in the same book. Most likely Paul didn't remember the events perfectly as he spoke of them--not surprising as the light did blind him, according to Acts 9. Not really a huge deal.

So, in conclusion, what's your point? I don't see anyone here defending Biblical innerrancy.

I love this stupid shit.


1.(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

This is directly linked to 'contradiction' 26. Having shown that Matthew gives Joseph's genealogy and Luke gives that of Mary, it is clear that Joseph was descended from David through Solomon and Mary through Nathan



2. (Category: misunderstood the author's intent)

The differences found between the accounts of Matthew and Mark concerning the fig tree have much to do with the order both Matthew and Mark used in arranging their material. When we study the narrative technique of Matthew in general, we find (as was noted in #45 above) that he sometimes arranges his material in a topical order rather than in the strictly chronological order that is more often characteristic of Mark and Luke.
For instance, if we look at chapters 5-7 of Matthew which deal with the sermon on the Mount, it is quite conceivable that portions of the sermon on the Mount teachings are found some times in other settings, such as in the sermon on the plain in Luke (6:20-49). Matthew's tendency was to group his material in themes according to a logical sequence. We find another example of this exhibited in a series of parables of the kingdom of heaven that make up chapter 13. Once a theme has been broached, Matthew prefers to carry it through to its completion, as a general rule.

When we see it from this perspective it is to Mark that we look to when trying to ascertain the chronology of an event. In Mark's account we find that Jesus went to the temple on both Palm Sunday and the following Monday. But in Mark 11:11-19 it is clearly stated that Jesus did not expel the tradesmen from the temple until Monday, after he had cursed the barren fig tree (verses 12 to 14).

To conclude then, Matthew felt it suited his topical approach more effectively to include the Monday afternoon action with the Sunday afternoon initial observation, whereas Mark preferred to follow a strict chronological sequence. These differences are not contradictory, but show merely a different style in arrangement by each author.



3. (Category: misunderstood the Greek usage or the text is compatible with a little thought)

Although the same Greek word is used in both accounts (akouo), it has two distinct meanings: to perceive sound and to understand. Therefore, the explanation is clear: they heard something but did not understand what it was saying. Paul, on the other hand, heard and understood. There is no contradiction.



4. (Category: misunderstood the Greek usage or the text is compatible with a little thought)

There are two possible explanations of this point. The word rendered 'stood' also means to be fixed, to be rooted to the spot. This is something that can be experienced whether standing up or lying down.

An alternative explanation is this: Acts 26:14 states that the initial falling to the ground occurred when the light
flashed around, before the voice was heard. Acts 9:7 says that the men 'stood speechless' after the voice had spoken. There would be ample time for them to stand up whilst the voice was speaking to Saul, especially as it had no significance or meaning to them. Saul, on the other hand, understood the voice and was no doubt transfixed with fear as he suddenly realized that for so long he had been persecuting and killing those who were following God. He had in effect been working against the God whom he thought he was serving. This terrible realization evidently kept him on the ground longer than his companions.



5. (Category: too literalistic an interpretation)

The emphasis of Matthew 16:17 is that Simon did not just hear it from someone else: God had made it clear to him. That does not preclude him being told by other people. Jesus' point is that he was not simply repeating what someone else had said. He had lived and worked with Jesus and he was now clear in his mind that Jesus was none other than the Christ (Messiah), the Son of the Living God.

Jesus did not ask, "Who have you heard that I am?" but, "Who do you say I am?" There is all the difference in the world between these two questions, and Peter was no longer in any doubt.



6. (Category: misunderstood the historical context)

Matthew records Jesus saying that John the Baptist was the Elijah who was to come, while John seems to record John the Baptist denying it. The reason for this apparent inconsistency is a lack of contextualization by readers.

The priests and Levites came to John the Baptist and asked him if he was Elijah. Quite a funny question to ask someone, unless you know the Jewish Scriptures. For God says through the prophet Malachi that He will send Elijah to the people of Israel before a certain time. Therefore as the Jewish people were expecting Elijah, the question is quite logical.

John was about 30 years when he was asked this question. His parents were already dead; he was the only son of Zechariah from the tribe of Levi. So when asked if he was Elijah who ascended up into heaven about 878 years earlier, the answer was obviously "No, I am not Elijah."

Jesus also testifies, albeit indirectly, to John not being Elijah in Matthew 11:11 where he says that John is greater than all people who have ever been born. Moses was greater than Elijah, but John was greater than them both.
So what did Jesus mean when he says of John "he is the Elijah who was to come"? The angel Gabriel (Jibril in Arabic) speaks to Zechariah of his son, John, who was not yet born, saying "he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous - to make ready a people prepared for the Lord." (Luke 1:17)

The Angel refers to two prophecies, Isaiah 40:3-5 (see Luke 3:4-6 to see this applied again to John the Baptist) and Malachi 4:5-6 mentioned above, which says "See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before the great and dreadful day of the Lord comes. He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers". Gabriel unmistakably says that John is the "Elijah" whom God foretold through Malachi the prophet.

So, was John Elijah? No. But had the priests and Levites asked him, "Are you the one the prophet Malachi speaks of as 'Elijah'?" John would have responded affirmatively.

Jesus in Matthew 17:11-13 says that the prophecy of Malachi is true, but Elijah had already come. He says that this "Elijah" suffered, like he, Jesus will suffer; "the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist". Therefore, once we understand the context it is clear; John was not the literal Elijah, but he was the Elijah that the prophecy spoke of, the one who was to (and did) prepare the way for the Messiah, Jesus, "the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world", John 1:29.



7. (Category: misread the text)

After reading the three passages Matthew 27:50-51, Mark 15:37-38 and Luke 23:45-46, it is not clear where the apparent contradictions are that Shabbir has pointed out. All three passages point to the fact that at the time of Jesus' death the curtain in the temple was torn. It does not stand to reason that because both Matthew and Mark mention the event of Christ's death before mentioning the curtain tearing, while Luke mentions it in reverse order, that they are therefore in contradiction, as Matthew states that the two events happened, 'At that moment', and the other two passages nowhere deny this.

They all agree that these two events happened simultaneously for a very good reason; for the curtain was there as a barrier between God and man. Its destruction coincides with the death of the Messiah, thereby allowing man the opportunity for the first time since Adam's expulsion from God's presence at the garden of Eden, to once again be reunited with Him.



8. (Category: misunderstood the author's intent)

This apparent contradiction asks, 'What did Judas do with the blood money he received for betraying Jesus?' In
Acts 1:18 it is claimed that Judas bought a field. In Matthew 27:5 it was thrown into the Temple from where the priests used it to buy a field. However, upon closer scrutiny it appears one passage is just a summary of the other.

Matthew 27:1-10 describes in detail the events that happened in regard to Judas betrayal of Jesus, and their significance in terms of the fulfillment of the Scriptures. In particular he quotes from the prophet Zechariah 11:12-13 which many think are clarifications of the prophecies found in Jeremiah 19:1-13 and 32:6-9.
In the Acts 1:18-19 passage however, Luke is making a short resume of something that people already knew, as a point of clarification to the speech of Peter, among the believers (the same situation as we found in question number 57 earlier). This is illustrated by the fact that in verse 19 he says, "Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this". Also it is more than probable that the Gospel record was already being circulated amongst the believers at the time of Luke's writing. Luke, therefore, was not required to go into detail about the facts of Judas' death.



9. (Category: misread the text)

Matthew does not say that the women saw the angel roll the stone back. This accusation is indeed trivial. After documenting the women setting off for the tomb, Matthew relates the earthquake, which happened while they were still on their way. Verse 2 begins by saying, 'There was a violent earthquake', the Greek of which carries the sense of, 'now there had been a violent earthquake'. When the women speak to the angel in verse 5, we understand from Mark 16:5 that they had approached the tomb and gone inside, where he was sitting on the ledge where Jesus' body had been. Therefore, the answer to this question is that the stone was rolled away when they arrived: there is no contradiction.



10. (Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)

The answer to this is simple but requires some explanation. Most scholars today agree that Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph and Luke gives that of Mary, making Jacob the father of Joseph and Heli the father of Mary.

This is shown by the two narrations of the virgin birth. Matthew 1:18-25 tells the story only from Joseph's perspective, while Luke 1:26-56 is told wholly from Mary's point of view.

A logical question to ask is why Joseph is mentioned in both genealogies? The answer is again simple. Luke follows strict Hebrew tradition in mentioning only males. Therefore, in this case, Mary is designated by her husband's name.

This reasoning is clearly supported by two lines of evidence. In the first, every name in the Greek text of Luke's genealogy, with the one exception of Joseph, is preceded by the definite article (e.g. 'the' Heli, 'the' Matthat). Although not obvious in English translations, this would strike anyone reading the Greek, who would realize that it was tracing the line of Joseph's wife, even though his name was used.

The second line of evidence is the Jerusalem Talmud, a Jewish source. This recognizes the genealogy to be that of Mary, referring to her as the daughter of Heli (Hagigah 2:4).





Really now. You should look this shit up before posting.

Well Kevin pretty much just made my post useless. I hadn't heard that explanation of the differing accounts of Judas' suicide. Nor did I realize that the Talmud supported the idea of Luke's genealogy being of Mary. Of course, I still would say (and I think Kevin would agree with me on this) that we can't expect all details to line up perfectly between the different accounts of Jesus' life. Whether one calls these discrepancies "contradictions" is really simply a matter of semantics. Do Matthew 16:16, Mark 8:29 and Luke 9:20 contradict each other in regards to Peter's response to Jesus' question? One might say so. But it's certainly not an important one.

Right. There are just some things that get lost in translation. Inerrancy in today's bible is just a ridiculous idea; usually only believed by those KJV only freaks.

I've been studying contradictions in the Bible quite a bit.

One that I'm still trying to resolve is whether Jesus was meant to be worshipped or not.

In John, Jesus is said to have claimed himself as the only way to God.

In Mark, a man asks Jesus how he can get to Heaven, and also compliments Jesus, saying he is "good". Jesus says that he is not good, the only good is God, and that to get to Heaven, he should follow God's commandments.

Contradictory? Yes. In Romans, Jesus is said to also be worshipped.

Somewhere in the Old Testament, God says that he is the only one who should be worshipped.

The Bible was written by man, so I can't expect it to have not been altered by somebody over the years, but I do think God had a hand in the writing of the Bible, so there would at least be some truths in it.

Actually no he doesn’t. He asks why he called him “Good” and said that only God is “Good”. "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.” So depending one who you are and how you choose to look at it, Jesus either was scolding him for comparing him to God, or was pointing out the fact that the man attributive to him a quality of God. From the line in question it cant truthfully be said one way or the other, all that can be said is that Jesus pointed out that the man stated Jesus as having an attribute that only God truly has, and that Jesus asked him why he said that. However if you look at other portions of the bible to understand which it would be, it should become clearer. John 1 for example tells us how Jesus is the word of God made into a man, Gods word is what he uses to act “let there be light” in something like we use our physical bodies. So if your body, and your mind, and your will are all parts of the one person that you are, how much more so and more one God are Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit?

If I'm speaking to you I want to speak to every part of you as one. Worship every part of God as one also.

I have another contradiction. This one isn't from the Bible, per se, but it is a contradiction within the majority of Christian religious belief.

Basically, the belief is that God is above all human emotions except Love, Compassion, Fairness, and all other so-called "good" emotions. Am I right here?

And yet, somewhere in the Bible (I'm not sure where), it says very plainly something similar to, "For the Lord is a jealous God." If he has no "bad" human emotions, how can he be jealous? Is that a "good" emotion? Should we all be jealous whenever possible?

-IMP ;) :)