57minutes
Biblical
Contradictions
“There is only one good; knowledge,
and one evil;
ignorance.”
Socrates 470B.C.?-399 B.C.?
This is probably the most
important part of this site. Concepts can be endlessly debated. Scientific facts
that contradict the Bible can be ignored or denied. Inerrantists
can bury their heads in the sand and refuse to acknowledge as legitimate
anything that contradicts the Bible, unless…..it is the Bible itself. There are
several parallel books covering the history of
The most common explanation for errors
like these is to blame any discrepancy on copyist error. The Bible was hand
copied for centuries and it is reasonable to assume that at some point errors
could have been made. How widespread would copyist errors be? Consider this: If
four copies were made from an original manuscript, five copies would exist. If
each of those were copied four times, then twenty five copies would exist. As
this continued, soon there would be many copies in
circulation. If an error was made in one copy there would still be twenty four
other branches of copies that did not contain that error. For an error to exist
in all of the copies, or branches, it must have been made during the
transmission from the original to a single copy from which all other copies
were made. If there are multiple copyist errors, then they should only affect
branches of copies produced after the error was introduced. So, if there are
just five copyist errors in the Bible, they must have all been made in the same
branch of copies, which must be the only surviving branch of copies. If they
existed in five different books, then the men who assembled those books had to
have selected all five books from erroneous branches. Obviously, for several
copyist errors to exist in all of the surviving copies of the Bible, an
incredible amount of coincidence had to have been involved. You would think
that if the Biblical God was involved in the transmission of text and the
assembly of the canon of scripture, that things would work the opposite way;
only copies from an inerrant branch should have been selected.
The bottom line is this; the errors that
are dismissed as copyist errors appear in all of the copies that are known to
exist. If they were truly accumulated errors then some errors should appear in
some copies and other errors should appear in other copies. But the fact that
the same errors exist in all of the copies indicates that they are not errors
that accumulated during transmission, but they are, in fact, errors in the
original.
More important than the errors we see in
the parallel accounts are the errors that we don’t see in the singular accounts
in the Bible. Contradictions obviously exist in the parallel accounts. If
copyist errors are so common in the parallel accounts, it is reasonable to
assume that they are present in the singular accounts as well. We simply
wouldn’t be able to identify them because there are no parallel accounts to
compare them to. What that does is render all accounts without parallels
untrustworthy. After all, there is no evidence that any greater care was taken
with the singular account than was taken with the parallel accounts. To admit
the existence of errors in the parallels is to admit the possibility of errors
existing in the singular accounts. If errors are present and not identifiable,
then all singular account must be viewed as possibly erroneous.
The following is not meant to be an
exhaustive compilation of errors in the Bible. I intend only to show that solid
examples of these types of errors do exist. Remember, it takes only one error to
kill the doctrine of inerrancy.
THE IMPOSSIBLE FAMILY
One of the prophecies in the Old Testament
concerning the Messiah was that he would be a descendant of King David. The
writers of the gospels of Matthew and Luke were aware of this. They knew that
showing a direct lineage from David to Jesus would impress their Jewish
readers. So they both endeavored to trace the family tree from Jesus to David
in Luke chapter 3, and from David to Jesus in Matthew chapter 1.
The problem is simple, they don’t match.
They’re not even close. Matthew’s lineage contains 27 names including David and
Joseph, Jesus’ father. Luke’s lineage contains 42 names including Joseph and
David. David and Joseph aside, only two names match in these lists. Even the
names given for Joseph’s father are different. The difficulties presented with
tracing a direct lineage through different ancestors are obvious. But, refusing
to admit an obvious error, some inerrantists have
proposed that they are both accurate.
The
explanation, they say, is that the term “was the son of,” used in Luke, does
not represent a father-son relationship. Rather, it represents just an
ancestral relationship, maybe grandson or great grandson. Likewise, the term
“begat,” used in Matthew, does not necessarily mean that they directly fathered
the person named. So, they say, these genealogies must be overlapping, that is,
Luke names people not mentioned in Matthew and Matthew names people not
mentioned in Luke. If that were the case, two different genealogies could be
correct.
Does that explanation hold water? No. What
it does is demonstrate the great lengths that otherwise rational people will go
to, to avoid admitting that errors exist in the Bible. David lived in the tenth
century B.C. and Jesus was born around 4 B.C. So being generous, there were
about one thousand years between David and Jesus. Matthew’s list contains 28
names from David to Jesus. Luke’s list contains 42 names for the same period.
Using the 28 names in Matthew’s list you
can divide the number of years between them by the number of ancestors and
arrive at an average elapsed time of 35 years per generation. Using 42
ancestors, the number listed in Luke, the average span of a generation drops to
23 years. When you combine the lists, there are at least 67 people in that lineage, not counting the matching names
twice. The number may actually be higher. If both men only made partial lists,
as this explanation claims, then both writers could have left out other names.
Using the minimum number of 67 ancestors, we arrive at an average time span of
14 years or less per generation. Considering the fact that all 67 of these men
were likely not firstborns, and this time span is an average, some of them
would have had children by the ages of ten or eleven. It should be apparent how
ridiculous this alleged explanation is.
Also Matthew 1:17 says “so all the
generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David
until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the
carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations. “Notice that
the writer says that they are generations. Notice that he says that these are all the generations. There could only
have been 28 generations listed in Luke in order to agree with that. There are
42 names in Luke and if you consolidate the two lists to rectify the
differences, then there are 67. Inerrantists have
said that the generations used in Matthew do not necessarily represent a single
generation as we know them. But we can see that the writer counts Abraham to
Isaac as one generation, and Jacob to
The funny thing is that these lists are
pointless anyway. If Jesus was born of Mary while she was still a virgin, then
there was no blood passed from Joseph to Jesus, therefore no link from David to
Jesus through Joseph. The Bible certainly makes it clear that the Messiah would
have a direct physical link to David. II Samuel
Some have proposed that one lineage traces
the line through Joseph, which is pointless, and the other traces it through
Mary, which would satisfy the Davidic Covenant. But the text says the lineage is
through Joseph. Additionally, women were not considered important enough to
record their lineage; they were always traced through the men. A man who only
had daughters wasn’t even considered to have an heir until he had a son. Then
there is the problem of the two names that do
match. If these are the lineages of two separate people, they can’t converge at
the matching ancestors and separate again as this impossible family tree would
do.
CAN I
In Acts chapter 22, the writer is
recording Paul’s account of his conversion on the road to
In Acts chapter 9, the writer is telling
the same story, but this time he says “And the men which journeyed with him
stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man” (verse 7). This time he
says that the men with Paul did hear the voice. This is a contradiction of the
clearest and simplest kind. Either they heard the voice or they did not. Both
cannot be true.
WHO SAID THAT?
Matthew chapter 27 begins with Judas
returning the money he was paid for betraying Jesus. The chief priests were not
allowed to put the thirty pieces of silver in the treasury, so they bought a
potters field to bury strangers in. Verses 9-10 say “then was fulfilled that
which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces
of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of
Israel did value; And gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord appointed
me.”
The problem is that the scripture Matthew
is talking about did not come from Jeremiah the prophet, it comes from
Zechariah 11:13. This is an example of the Bible being errant on the topic of
the Bible itself.
HOW OLD IS THE KING?
In II Kings 24:8, the Bible says “Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign,
and he reigned in
As for his age, this is commonly
considered to be a copyist error. I had a Bible History professor who pointed
out that God had preserved the truth in his word by recording Jehoiachin’s age twice. He said that obviously he was
eighteen when he took the throne and the age eight is the copyist error. But II
Kings, the book that he said contained the correct age, records Jehoash as being 7 when he took the throne (11:21) and Azariah as 16 (14:21) and Manasseh as 12 (21:1) and Josiah
as 8 (22:1). It seems it is not so obvious which age is correct if either is at
all.
NO
The gospel of John claims in chapter 1,
verse 18, that “No man hath seen God at any time.” But Exodus 24:9-11 says
“Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel: And they saw
the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a
sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness. And upon
the nobles of the children of
In Numbers 14:14, Moses is declaring the
things that the Egyptians would hear of God and says “that thou Lord art among
this people, that thou art seen face to face.” Moses was also recorded as
having seen God’s hindermost parts as he passed the cleft in the rock where
Moses stood. But God said his face “shall not be seen” (Exodus 33:21-23).
These accounts cannot be reconciled with
the statement in John 1:18.
SIMPLE MATHEMATICS
Acts 7:4 says “Then came he out of the
land of the Chaldeans, and dwelt in Charan:
And from thence, when his
father was dead, he removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell.” The “he”
in this verse is identified in verse two as Abraham. “This land wherein ye now
dwell” is referring to
Now we go all the way back to Genesis
11:26. “And Terah lived seventy years and begat
Abram, Nahor, and
The problem is this: we know that Abraham,
according to Acts 7:4, went to
PACKING LIST PROBLEMS
In Matthew 10:9-10, Jesus is preparing the
disciples to go out to the lost sheep of
In Matthew he is recorded as saying
“Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, nor scrip for your
journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workmen is
worthy of his meat.” Clearly in this passage they are not to take these things,
one of which is a stave, or staff.
In Luke 9:3, he says “Take nothing for
your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither
bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece.” Again, this passage
states that these are things that they are not to take and the staff is
included among them.
In Mark 6:8-9, we find the same command
with one very obvious difference; “And commanded them that they should take
nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in
their purse; but to be shod with sandals; and not put on two coats.” It is
clear in this account that the staff is an exception to the list and that they
are commanded to take a staff only.
Two accounts say that they are commanded
not to take staffs and one account says that the opposite is true. Since we
know that two opposite statements cannot both be true, there is an obvious
error here. Charles Ryrie addressed this problem in his book, What You Should Know About Inerrancy.
“If one believes that every word of the text was inspired, then he
would surely notice that in Mark and Luke the verb is the
same and
means that they should take the staffs they already possess.
Matthew
uses a different verb, which means that the disciples were
not to procure
staffs. Putting the accounts together, the Lord permitted
them to take
along the staffs they already owned, but prohibited
procuring new or
additional ones.
Notice that errancy feeds on itself. If all
the words cannot be trusted,
Then one may tend not to do careful exegesis and therefore either
ignore or refuse to accept a perfectly proper grammatical
explanation
like this one.”
WOW! That would be a perfectly proper
grammatical explanation had he done a more careful exegesis himself. Either by design
or an oversight in his careful exegesis,
he cited the wrong book as agreeing
with Luke. His study of the verbs used in these accounts actually confirms the
error rather than dispels it.
In his explanation he says that Mark and
Luke use the same verb and that it means that they should take the staffs they
already possess. He points out that the verb in Matthew is different. He’s
absolutely right in saying that the verbs used in Mark and Luke are the same. But he confused which two accounts agree and
which one disagrees. It is Luke’s and Matthew’s accounts that say that they
were not to take the staffs. Mark is the dissenter.
So with the fact pointed out that the
verbs match, and the fact pointed out that the commands do not, it is easy to see
that this is, in fact, an error. It seems that Mr. Ryrie did not do a careful
enough exegesis and therefore either ignored or refused to accept a perfectly
proper example of an error in the Bible.
GIANT ERRORS
In II Samuel 21:16-22, there is a record
of the giant sons, born of a giant in
II Samuel 21 I Chronicles 20
Abishai, the son of Zeruiah,
killed No
mention of this giant
Ishbibenob
Sibbechai, the Hushathite,
killed Sibbechai, the Hushathite
killed Saph at Gob killed Sippai at
Elhanan, son of Jaareoregim,
slew Elhanin, the son of Jair, slew
Goliath the Gittite
Lahmi, the brother of
Goliath
the Gittite
Jonathan, son of Shimeah, the Jonathan,
son of Shimea, the
brother of David slew the giant brother of
David slew the giant
with six fingers and toes
with six fingers and toes
We see several differences in these
accounts of who killed whom and where. Notice that the father named for Ehanan differs in these two accounts. The name of the giant
slain by Elhanan is different. In the account of II
Samuel
THE DEVIL MADE HIM DO IT
II Samuel 24:1 says “And again the anger
of the Lord was kindled against
In the story that follows there are more
errors. In II Samuel the census total given to David by Joab
was eight hundred thousand in
The third error in these census accounts
occurs with regard to the punishment David could choose. II Samuel 24:13 says
that one of his choices was seven years of famine. But I Chronicles
The fourth error in these accounts occurs
with regard to the price paid for the threshing floor that David bought to
erect an altar to repent. II Samuel 24:24 says the price was fifty shekels of
silver for the threshing floor and some oxen. But I Chronicles
NOT AS
Jesus is recorded in Matthew 12:40 as
saying “For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whales belly; so
shall the son of man be three days and three nights in
the heart of the earth.” The dilemma is his assertion that he would be in the
earth for three days and three nights. This is supposed to be a prophecy about
his death, burial, and resurrection. But, according to the accounts in the
gospels, he was not in the earth for three days and three nights. He was
crucified on Friday, the day before the Sabbath (Mark
Now in Jewish reckoning, a day is an
evening and a morning and any part of a day may be counted as one day. But here
we have a specific statement of three days and
three nights that simply cannot be reconciled with a Friday crucifixion and a
Sunday resurrection. If we count Friday as one day, Saturday as one day, and
Sunday as one day, we can get three days. But we can only count Friday night
and Saturday night in the tomb and he was gone by Sunday morning. There were
simply not three nights involved as Jesus had said.
Christians believe that Jesus was actually
in Hell conquering death during that time. Maybe Hell is in a different time
zone?
CALENDAR CONFUSION
Ask the four gospels whether Jesus was
crucified before or after the Passover and they will all chime in “after”………except John. The chronology for the crucifixion is different
in John and the indications are not subtle. John
What of the other gospels? How clear are
their chronologies? Luke is probably the most obvious. In chapter 22 verse 7 begins the account with “Then came the Day of
Unleavened Bread, when the Passover must be killed.” It goes on to relate the
circumstances in which they found the room (9-12), prepared the Passover (13),
and ate the Passover (14-20).
John says he was dead on the day of
Preparation. Luke says he ate the Passover meal. Could he have eaten the
Passover meal earlier than everyone else in anticipation of his death? No. The
Feast of Unleavened Bread was held at a designated time each year for a reason,
in the first month, from the fourteenth day to the twenty first day as
commanded in Exodus chapter 12. To eat the Passover meal on a day other than
the Passover would have broken God’s commandment given in Exodus and ruined the
whole “lamb without blemish” mystique of the crucifixion.
MORE CHRONOLOGY CONFUSION
Like the preceding error, this one
involves chronology and once again John stands alone among the gospel writers.
John 2:13-16 tells of Jesus finding those who sold animals for sacrifice and
money changers set up doing business in the temple. He became very angry and
overturned their tables and drove them out. John places this event at the
beginning of Jesus’ public ministry. But the other gospel writers all place
this same event at the end of Jesus’ ministry, the week of his crucifixion
(Matthew
EASTER ERROR HUNT
The accounts of the events of the
resurrection morning contradict each other repeatedly. Matthew tells of Mary
Magdalene and the other Mary going to see the sepulchre.
Mark says the group was Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome.
Luke says it was Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Joanna. John
names only Mary Magdalene.
In John’s account, Mary did not see Jesus
until after she went and told Peter and the other disciple. In Matthew and
Mark, she saw Jesus before she told the disciples about the empty sepulchre. In Luke, he did not appear to Mary that morning,
but first appeared to two disciples on the road to Emmaus, who did not
immediately recognize him.
In Matthew, a single angel, the angel of
the Lord, appeared to Mary. Mark says it was simply a young man clothed in a
long white garment. Luke says there were two angels in white, who appeared to
Mary on her second visit to the sepulchre and after
Peter and the other disciples, had left.
Matthew says that Jesus appeared to the
two Marys on their way to tell the disciples and he
says they held him by the feet and worshipped him. Mark mentions an appearance
to Mary with no details. Luke mentions no appearance to Mary that morning. John
says that Jesus appeared to Mary after she had told the disciples and was at
the tomb for the second time. John also says that Jesus forbade Mary to touch
him, in contradiction to Matthew’s account.
Matthew’s account begins in chapter 28,
Marks begins in chapter 16, Luke’s is found in chapter 24 and John’s begins in
chapter 20. Hunt these Easter errors for yourself. Hey, maybe they are all
correct. Maybe he just resurrected four times.
NOAHS NUMBERS
The Pentateuch, the first five books of
the Old Testament, is comprised of several different strands of writing by
different authors. Although they have been mixed and blended, they are still
easily identifiable at times by the distinctive language employed by their
writers. One strand is called the Yawhist, for the
writers’ use of the name “Yahweh,” translated “God.” Another is called the “Elohist” for his use of the name “Elohim,”
translated “the Lord God.” Many of the
conflicts in the Pentateuch are simply factual discrepancies among different
strands.
In Genesis chapter 6, God (notice this is
the Yawhist) commanded Noah to take two of every
living creature into the ark (verses 19-20). But in chapter 7 the Lord (notice
this is the Elohist) says to take seven of every
clean animal and two of every unclean beast, and seven of all fowls of the air
(verse 2). Then, verses 8-9 of chapter 7 (again the Yawhist)
say that “Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and
of everything that creepeth upon the earth, there
went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had
commanded Noah.” Verses 15 and 16 again reinforce the Yawhist’s
claim of only two of all animals;” And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two
and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life. And they went in, male and
female of all flesh, as God had commanded him.”
One version clearly says that two of each
unclean animal, seven of each fowl and seven of each clean animal went into the
ark. The other just as emphatically states that only two of each beast, clean and unclean, went into the ark.
IT DOESN’T ADD UP
Galatians 3:16-17 says “Now to Abraham and
his seed were the promises made. He saith not, and to
seeds, as of many; but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I
say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law,
which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should
make the promise of none effect.”
In short, the writer is saying that the
law did not disannul the covenant that God had made with Abraham 430 years
earlier. The law is a reference to the written law given to Moses after the
exodus from
According to Genesis
12:1-4, Abraham was 75 years old when God made his covenant with him.
Genesis 21:5 tells us he was 100 years old when Isaac was born. Genesis 25:26
says that Isaac was 60 years old when Jacob was born, and Genesis 47:8-9 tells
us that Jacob was 130 years old when they entered
The writer of Galatians says there were
430 years between the two, but the books of Genesis and Exodus make it clear
that there were at least 645 years. It just doesn’t add up.
THE CROWING COCK
Matthew 26:34, 74-75 and Luke 22:34,
60-61, both say that Jesus told Peter that he would deny him 3 times before the
cock crowed. But in Mark 14:30, Jesus told Peter he would deny him 3 times
before the cock crowed twice. In Mark
14:71-72, Peter denied him the third time and it says the cock crowed a second
time.
What is the big deal if it was one crowing
or two? Well, for starters, the accounts don’t match, which is enough to
constitute an error, even if it seems inconsequential. But consider this; if
Matthew’s and Luke’s accounts both say he would deny him 3 times before the cock crowed, then all three
denials had to have come before a single crowing or Jesus’ prediction would
have been wrong. Mark 14:67-68 says he denied him once and the cock crew. Mark’s record that the cock crew after one
denial blows the prediction as it is recorded in Matthew and Luke. Either Jesus
was wrong or these inspired authors had it wrong.
JUDAS BETRAYS INERRANCY
The death of Judas is recorded differently
in Acts and in Matthew. In Acts 1:18, Peter, addressing the disciples,
recounted that Judas purchased a field with the money that he received for
betraying Jesus, and “falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all
his bowels gushed out.” So Peter says in Acts that it was Judas who purchased
the field, that he fell headlong, and that he died from injuries received in
the fall.
Matthew tells a different story in chapter
27, verses 3-5. He says that Judas tried to return the money after repenting of
his deed, and the priests refused to take it. (Any story about a religious
leader refusing money ought to be considered erroneous) He threw all the money
down in the temple (thirty pieces of silver) and “went out and hanged himself.” The priests then took the money, after Judas
hanged himself, and they bought a field to bury strangers in (verses 6-7).
One account says Judas died from a
headlong fall. The other says he hanged himself. Can these varying accounts be
reconciled? You can bet some have tried. It has been proposed that Judas hanged
himself, possibly something broke, and he fell “and burst asunder.” Let’s
consider this theory. Acts says he died in the field he bought. Likely the only
thing to hang from would have been a tree. Perhaps instead of standing on
something to hang himself, he could have climbed a tree, tied the rope to a
branch and to his neck and jumped. If he did, the sudden jolt at the end of the
rope might have been sufficient to break the rope or the branch and send him
falling to the ground. But consider this; if someone is hanging by the neck,
what part of their body will hit the ground first if they fall? Can he fall
headlong? Also, how high would he have had to hang to fall hard enough that he
“burst asunder and his bowels gushed out”?
The funny thing is that even if you buy
the explanation about the combined hanging/falling death, you could never
reconcile the variant stories about how the land was purchased. If Judas
returned all of the money as Matthew says, then he could not have purchased the
field with it as Acts says. Conversely, if he purchased the field with it as Acts
says, he could not have returned it all to the priests as Matthew says.
CREATION ACCOUNTS
There are many errors of various types in
the early chapters of Genesis. In this section we are focusing on the
inter-textual errors, that is, Biblical self-contradiction. Doctrinal errors
and errors in cosmology will be addressed later.
There are two distinct accounts of
creation in the opening chapters of Genesis. The first extends from Genesis 1:1
to chapter 2, verse three. It is written by the Yawhist.
Notice that in this account God is always referred to as Yahweh, translated
“God.” The second account belongs to the Elohist.
Notice the use in every instance of the name Elohim,
translated “the Lord God.”
The order of creation is the first thing
that strikes you when you compare the accounts. In the first account, it is
easy to chart a chronology because the creative acts are divided into days and
the days are labeled as the first, second, third, etc. It’s a no brainer. Because the second account is not divided this
way, many inerrantists will claim that it is not at
odds with the first account. It is simply a review, not necessarily
chronological, of the first account, with added detail. But there are
chronological markers in the text that can be used to establish the order of
the acts of creation in this account.
The order of creation in the first account
is as follows: 1. light 2. firmament 3. dry land, plants and trees 4. sun,
moon and stars 5. aquatic life and fowl 6. land animals 7. man and woman.
Account two begins with “in the day that the Lord God made the earth and
heavens.” Only one day is mentioned. Chapter 2, verse 5 says that seeds were in
the ground, but the plants had not yet grown because there was no rain and no man
to till the ground. That contradicts verse 12 of chapter 1 which says that the
plants were created full grown and the seeds were in them. It’s very similar to
the riddle of the chicken and the egg. Which came first, the plant or the seed?
The Bible gives two different answers. Some have said that the term “plants of the field” refers to only domestic
plants. Please note that the same terminology is used in chapter 2, verse 19 to
describe the animals that Adam named. Does that mean he only named domestic
animals? Verse 19 says he named “all living creatures” and verse twenty names
cattle and beasts of the field separately. Obviously, “of the field” simply
refers to those with a dry land environment.
Secondly, the Lord God forms man. We know
the seeds preceded man because verse 5 said there was no man to till the
ground. So the order so far is seeds, then man (The earth itself seems to be
presupposed). Then the Garden of Eden was created and man was placed there.
Verse 18 says “it is not good for man to be alone.” This is another
chronological marker. If man and woman were created together, as in the first
account, man could not have been alone (As any married man will attest to).
Animals were then created and brought
before Adam to see what he would call them. But there was not found an help meet for him. If the woman had been created at the
point when Adam named the animals, how could it have been said that an
appropriate helper was not found? Verses 21 and 22 go on to describe the
creation of woman. So the order is 1. seeds 2. man 3. the Garden of Eden 4. animals 5. woman.
It is easy to see the differences in the
chronologies, and when you consider the chronological markers in the second
account, it becomes evident that they are irreconcilable.
ZACHARIAS,
In Matthew, chapter 23, Jesus is
condemning the Scribes and Pharisees for their treatment of the prophets and
says in verse 35 “That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the
earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.”
The wording of this statement is important because it establishes the identity
of Zacharias. Abel, as most will recall, was murdered by Cain in Genesis, the
first book of the Bible. So when he says from
the blood of righteous Abel he is saying from the first. The Old Testament also records the murder of a man
named Zechariah. II Chronicles 24:20-22 records how he was killed at the
temple. Guess where II Chronicles falls in the Hebrew canon of scripture? It’s
last. So when the writer says unto the
blood of Zacharias he is saying to
the last. When he says from Abel to Zacharias he is summarizing the
murderous treatment of the righteous throughout biblical history as it existed
in those days. This wording identifies the Zechariah of II Chronicles as the
person mentioned by Jesus in Matthew, plus the fact that, of all of the
Zechariahs mentioned in the Bible, he is the only one who was slain at the
temple. He is further linked to Abel in the text that says that as the voice of
Abel’s blood cried out from the ground, so Zechariah cried out as he died, “the
Lord look upon it, and require it.”
The problem here is that Jesus says in
Matthew that Zacharias was the son of Barachias,
while II Chronicles says Zechariah was the son of Jehoida
the priest. Most commentators agree that they are the same man and that the
reference in Matthew is an error. There is a parallel account in Luke 11:51
which gives the name Zacharias, but makes no mention of Barachias.
There was a record in the writings of Josephus of a man named Zechariah son of
Baruch, who was slain at the temple, but that occurred in 68 A.D., early enough
for Matthew to record, but too late to be accurately credited to Jesus.
While most commentators write it off as a
scribal error or confusion by Matthew with the prophet Zechariah (Zech.1:1),
and some use terms like “marginal gloss” to avoid the word “error,” there are
still those who would rather espouse ridiculous explanations than to concede
error. Some have proposed that Zechariah’s father had two names. Some have said
that there were three men named Zechariah who were all killed at the temple.
Some have said that Jehoida was really Zechariah’s
grandfather, despite the designations father and son used in II Chronicles.
The bottom line is this: when compared to
the rest of the Bible, this passage in Matthew, quoting Jesus, is in error and the
only way to make it go away is to embrace some farfetched postulations for
which there is no Biblical support.
THE WAY?
One of the major themes of the Bible is
salvation by the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ as atonement for sin.
Because Adam sinned, sin was passed to all mankind making death unavoidable for
everyone. Romans
In Genesis chapter 3 God passes judgment
on Adam’s sin which was eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
There was another tree of interest in the garden. Verse 22 says “And the Lord
God said, behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and
now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the Tree of Life, and eat,
and live forever: Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the Garden of
Eden.” The Tree of Life is the point of interest here. It plainly says that
God’s concern was that Adam would eat of this tree and live forever. The fact
that the fruit from this tree could have given eternal life to a sinner makes
its very existence at odds with the major themes of the Bible. If Jesus was the
Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, then why would God have created an
alternate means of eternal life? If the wages of sin is death, how could the
fruit from this tree have given Adam eternal life, even after his sin?
There are those who will concede that
there are scientific and historical errors in the Bible, but deny that any
error extends to the doctrine of salvation. I believe that the mere existence
of the Tree of Life as a means of eternal life undermines the fundamental basis
for the doctrine of salvation. Because of the existence of the Tree of Life,
Jesus could not have always been the only possible way to live forever.
DOUBLE STANDARD
In Matthew 5:22, Jesus is preaching and
says “but whosoever shall say, thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.”
Then while preaching on another occasion recorded in Matthew
Was Jesus not subject to the same standard
he set for other people? Did he place himself in danger of hell fire when he
addressed people as fools? These examples of Jesus violating one of his own
precepts constitute a doctrinal error in the Bible.
TURN MY CHEEK OR CUT HIS CHEEK?
In Matthew 5:38-39, Jesus is preaching and
calling people to a higher standard than the legalism they had been observing.
He reminds them of the Old Testament proverb, an eye for an eye and a tooth for
a tooth. He then says “But I say unto you, that ye resist no evil: but whosoever
shall smite the on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” That is a
pretty simple, yet demanding, principle. When you are physically attacked, do
not resist, but turn the other cheek.
In Matthew chapter 26, Jesus is betrayed
and taken in the
Here is the problem. If Jesus
wanted them to turn the other check, and not use their swords when they were in
danger, why then would he command them to go buy swords?
In Luke 22:36, just before
they go into the
FAITH VS. WORKS
The major theme of the New Testament could
be summed up by the statement -Salvation is a free gift of God to all those who
accept, by faith, the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ as atonement for their
sins. Paul, who wrote most of the New Testament, went to great lengths to
stress the point that salvation was by faith alone. Paul says in Romans 3:27-28
“Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? Nay: but the law of faith. Therefore we conclude
that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.” Paul goes on to
say in chapter 4, verses 3-7 “For what saith the
scriptures? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for
righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward
not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth
the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works.”
It is clear that Paul is driving home the
point that it is faith alone that brings righteousness and that works are not
involved. How else could you interpret phrases like “a man is justified by
faith without the deeds of the law” and “God imputeth
righteousness without works?” Indeed, it would not have been possible for Jesus
to tell the criminal on the cross next to him “Today shalt
thou be with me in paradise” if salvation did not come by faith alone.
But then we have the book of James. James
comes along and asks the question “What doth it profit, my brethren, though a
man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him?”(James 2:14). He
goes on to answer his rhetorical question this way; “Even so faith, if it hath
not works, is dead, being alone” (2:17), and “But wilt thou know, O vain man,
that faith without works is dead” (2:20). He even uses the same example that
Paul would later use to argue the opposite position. “Was not Abraham our
father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works and by works
was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God and it was imputed unto him for
righteousness: and he was called the friend of God. Ye see then how that by
works a man is justified, and not by faith only.”
I don’t see how these two writers could
have made the differences in their doctrines any clearer. Paul says that men
are justified by faith without works,
and James says that faith without works is
dead! This contradiction is one reason there are so many denominations
under the broad umbrella of the term Christianity. Some espouse Paul’s view
that faith alone can save a soul and that those who rely on works as well as
faith cannot be saved because they aren’t trusting solely in God’s grace.
Others believe as James, that a faith without works is no faith at all,
therefore no works – no salvation. What is amazing is that neither side is
willing to acknowledge that this doctrinal contradiction exists between two
books allegedly inspired by the same God.
EACH AFTER HIS OWN
Early in Genesis, before the flood
narrative, there is a curious passage regarding the Sons of God. Genesis 6:4
says “There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when
the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men. And they bare children unto
them; the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.” There are
several clues in this verse as to the identity of these sons of God. They were
not mortal men. If they were, there would have been no need for the
distinction, sons of God / daughters of men. Also, their offspring were not
normal men, but giants, mighty men, men of renown. The term “sons of God” is
used primarily in the Old Testament to mean angels. Job 1:6 says “Now there was
a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and
Satan came also among them.” Obviously men don’t stroll into heaven and present
themselves to God, and Satan was himself a fallen angel.
There are serious problems with the
statement that these sons of God, these angels, conceived children with the
daughters of men. The first is that angels are ill equipped for reproduction.
They were all created, none were born. There is not even a mention in the Bible
of a female angel. Angels do not marry as evidenced by Matthew
CLOTHED
IN INERRANCY I WHAT IS
INERRANCY?
FACING
THE TRUTH I BIBLICAL
CONTRADICTIONS I BIBLE
BASED MORALITY
EXCUSES USED TO EXPLAIN
ERRORS I CAN
GOD EXIST? I ATHEIST
IN A FOXHOLE
ATHEISM I THE
EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES I DOES THEIR BELIEF AFFECT ME?