Posted on 08/17/2005 11:56:02 AM PDT by TheTruthess
Does the Bible Contradict Itself?
by Wayne Jackson
Infidels frequently claim: "The Bible is filled with mistakes and contradictions!" Yet when they are challenged to cite such contradictions, critics will usually generalize by suggesting, "Oh, there are many of them." Or else they will introduce a difference between passages, which will not, in fact, constitute a contradiction at all.
It ought to be initially observed that the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" surely must be applied to the Bible. As we normally assume a person to be truthful until it is demonstrated otherwise, so also, a book - including the Bible - should be assumed to be internally consistent until it conclusively shows itself to be self-contradictory.
The Nature of a Contradiction
Many people do not have an accurate view of what constitutes a genuine contradiction. This truth must be constantly emphasized: a mere difference does not a contradiction make! Well, exactly what is a contradiction? The law of contradiction is essentially this: "That the same thing should at the same time both be and not be for the same person and in the same respect is impossible." Careful consideration of this rule will reveal it is composed of several elements. When one is confronted with an alleged contradiction, for example, he must be absolutely certain that: (a) the same person or thing is under consideration; (b) the same time period is in view; and, (c) the seemingly conflicting language is employed in the same sense.
Let us apply these principles to the two following statements to illustrate our point: John is rich. John is poor. Do these statements contradict? Not necessarily. First, two different people named John may be under consideration. Second, two different time frames may be in view; John may have been rich, but became poor. Third, the words "rich" and "poor" might have been used in different senses; John could be financially poor, but spiritually rich! The point is this: it is never legitimate to assume a contradiction until every possible means of harmonization has been fully exhausted. Now, let this principle be applied to the Bible.
Same Person or Thing
An infidel once gleefully announced that he had discovered a discrepancy in Scripture. When challenged to produce it, he suggested that whereas Noah's ark with all of its inmates must have weighed several tons (Gen. 6), the priests were said to have carried the ark across the Jordan River (Josh. 3). The poor fellow did not even know the difference between Noah's Ark and the Ark of the Covenant! Two different arks! The Bible asserts that the sinner is saved by works; then again, that the sinner is not saved by works. Is this a contradiction? No, for the Bible speaks of different kinds of works. Salvation does involve works of obedience of Christ's commands (Phil. 2:12, Jas. 2:14f), but it cannot be obtained by works of the Mosaic law (Rom. 3:28; 4:2f), or by human works (Eph. 2:9).
Same Time Reference
The Bible records: "God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good" (Gen 1:31), and then: "And it repented Jehovah that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart" (Gen. 6:6). The unbeliever cites both verses and suggests that the Lord was simultaneously satisfied and dissatisfied with his creation. But the fall of man, and several hundred years of human history separate the two statements! Man was viewed in two entirely different time frames. Some have charged the Bible with a mistake in connection with the time of Jesus' trial and death. Mark writes that Jesus was crucified at the third hour (Mk. 15:25), while John's account has the Lord being tried at the sixth hour (Jn. 19:14). John's record, however, was based upon Roman civil days, while Mark computed according to Jewish time. Thus, different time references involved. There is no contradiction!
Same Sense
If the Bible is to be understood, it is imperative that recognition be given to the different senses in which words may be employed. Normally terms are used literally, but then they can be employed figuratively as well. For instance, in Matthew 11:14, John the Baptist is identified as "Elijah," yet, the forerunner of Christ plainly denied that he was Elijah (Jn. 1:21). These verses are easily harmonized. Though John was not literally Elijah, physically reincarnated, nevertheless he was the spiritual antitype of that great prophet; he prepared the way for Christ "in the spirit and power of Elijah" (Lk. 1:17).
Contradictory Qualities
Another implication of the law of contradiction is the concept that "nothing can have at the same time and at the same place contradictory and inconsistent qualities." A door may be open; a door may be shut. But the same door cannot be open and shut at the same time. Here is the principle: opposites are not necessarily contradictory. Let this truth be applied to certain Biblical matters. Does the Bible contradict itself, as is sometime claimed, when it represents God as both loving and hating? No, for these words are used with reference to different objects. God loves the world (Jn. 3:16), but he hates every false way (Psa. 119:104). He loves righteousness, but hates iniquity (Psa. 45:7), He thus responds toward such with either goodness or severity (Rom. 11:22). But there is no contradiction.
Supplementation Not Contradiction
A proposition cannot be both true and false at the same time. If one declares: "I have a son," and then states, "I do not have a son," he has contradicted himself. If, however, he says: "I have a son," and then he announces, "I have a daughter," he does not contradict himself, for he may have both a son and a daughter. This is an example of supplementation, and this is not contradiction. Many so-called Bible discrepancies can be explained in this fashion.
The case of the healing of the blind men of Jericho, often cited as a Bible contradiction, represents an interesting case in supplementation (Mt. 20:29f; Mk. 10:46; Lk. 18:35f). Two problems have been set forth. First, while Mark and Luke mention the healing of only one blind man, Matthew records the healing of two. Secondly, Matthew and Mark indicate that blind men were healed as Christ was leaving Jericho, whereas Luke appears to suggest that a blind man was healed as the Lord drew nigh to the city. As these points are considered, remember this - if there is any reasonable way of harmonizing these accounts, no legitimate contradiction can be charged!
In the first place, the fact that two of the gospel accounts mention only one blind man, while the other mentions two, need not concern us. Had Mark and Luke stated that Christ healed only one man, with Matthew affirming that more than one were healed, an error would surely be apparent. But such was not the case. Obviously Mark and Luke mentioned only the more prominent of the two blind men.
Secondly, there are several possibilities for harmonizing the accounts regarding where the miracles occurred. A popular view among reputable Bible scholars is the fact that at the time of Christ there were actually two towns called Jericho. First, there was the Jericho of Old Testament fame (Josh. 6:1f), which, in the first century, lay largely in ruins. About two miles south of that site was Jericho, built by Herod the Great. The Lord, therefore, traveling toward Jerusalem, would first pass through OT Jericho, and then, some two miles to the south-west, go through Herodian Jericho. The miracles, therefore, may have been performed between the two towns. Accordingly, the references of Matthew and Mark to leaving Jericho would allude to old Jericho, whereas Luke's observations to drawing near to Jericho would refer to the new city.
Conclusion
In dealing with so-called contradictions in the Bible, therefore, let these principles be carefully remembered:
(1) No contradiction exists between verses that refer to different persons or things.
(2) No contradiction exists between passages that involve different time elements.
(3) No contradiction exists between verses that employ phraseology in different senses.
(4) Opposites are not necessarily contradictions.
(5) Supplementation is not contradiction.
(6) One need only show the possibility of a harmonization between passages that appear to be in conflict in order to negate the force on an alleged Bible discrepancy.
(7) Finally, the differences in various scriptural accounts of the same events actually demonstrate the independence of the divine writers. They were not in collusion!
God, though using human writers in the composition of the Bible, is nevertheless its ultimate Author. And since the perfect God cannot be the source of confusion (1Cor. 14:33) or contradiction (Heb. 6:18), it must be acknowledged that the Bible is perfectly harmonious.
If seeming discrepancies are discovered, let us apply ourselves to diligent study to resolve them. But let us never foolishly charge God Almighty with allowing errors to be incorporated into his sacred Book!
BTTT
NO
My reply was that the Gospels were mostly eye-witness accounts and the worst witnesses are eye-witnesses. Furthermore, if the Gospels did agree word-for-word with each other, he would probably call it collusion.
And you and I will understand that answer soon. (Soon, relative to God's time line)
5.56mm
You are right: The differences are strong evidence against collusion. I would add several other points:
(1) In some cases, the authors were probably not eye-witnesses. (Were Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John present at the birth of Jesus or the Transfiguration?) In such instances, they had to rely on the reports of those who were present.
(2) Even eye-witnesses will remember and describe the same events differently.
(3) The Gospels were written down decades after the events they report. People's memories fade, and their interpretation of events change.
(4) The Gospels appear to have been written to different readerships. Therefore, the authors might have chosen to emphasize different aspects of Jesus' life.
Matthew 1:2-16 The legal inheritance of the Hebrews always passed through the men, that's why this genealogy is reckoned through Joseph who was not the father of Christ, but legally was able to pass the Scepter Promise on....Genesis 49:10
The genealogy in Luke 3:23 is through Mary. The Hebrews always did both because they were always sure who the mother was.
There is a book written by a Greek professor called, "The life of Christ in Stereo". It puts the four gospels together to read as one book; including all portions from each gospel, omitting none. Great book.
?..................Does the Koran Contradict Itself?
Abraham's ONLY 'son'.......Isaac or Ishmael?
?....a public school education?
Another good book is 'The Four-Fold Gospel'. It even puts the events in chronilogical order.
Mark 9:2 And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them.
You are, of course, correct. Nevertheless, my original point still stands. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all wrote about the Transfiguration, yet none of them were said to be present when it happened. They must have relied on the word of those who were there. (Strangely, John was present at the Transfiguration, but his Gospel does not mention the event.)
Just as Matthew is the only gospel that mentions that Matthew was previously a tax collector. I find these incidences also to be a testament to the truthfullness of the accounts. These authors were inspired by the HS to tell the gospel accounts but the individual humanity is still seen.
Or they wrote what the Holy Spirit told them to write.
Depends on your interpretaion I guess.
I believe the Bible cover to cover...and even the dust on the cover.
Well, the Holy Spirit was undoubtedly present at the Transfiguration!
Of course, that is not exactly what I had in mind when I said the Gospel writers relied on the word of those who were present. Whenever possible, the authors reported what they themselves saw and heard. However, when writing about events that they had not witnessed, they spoke to others who had been present.
Although I believe that the writers of the Gospels were inspired, that does not mean that they merely wrote what the Holy Spirit dictated to them. I agree with what asformeandformyhouse said (Post 16): "These authors were inspired by the HS to tell the gospel accounts but the individual humanity is still seen."
Most of the differences in the Gospel accounts are minor, but there are differences. Consider again, for example, the Transfiguration. This occurred after Jesus spoke about the requirements of discipleship. ("If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.") Matthew and Mark say that it was "after six days" that Jesus took Peter, James, and John up to the mountain; Luke says "about an eight days after these sayings."
Now, did the Holy Spirit tell Matthew and Mark to write six days and Luke to write (about) eight days? Or were they relying on someone's recollection of the events, perhaps told many years after the events? The latter explanation seems more reasonable to me.
Either way, the Gospel writers agree on the main point, which is that Jesus took Peter, James, and John up to a mountain, where they saw Moses and Elias and heard the voice of the Father.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.