Are you a skeptic who needs to be shown the facts? Are you a person who’d honestly like to believe the Bible but you’re having some problems with it? If you don’t want to believe the Bible, ask yourself why. But if you’d sincerely like to believe, it may be easier than you think. This chapter will show you how to solve the most commonly-mentioned Bible “contradictions” and provide you with methods and resources for solving any others you may encounter.
You may find difficult passages in the Bible or see places where it seems to conflict. You will find that in a true examination, what may appear to be an error isn’t an error in the Scriptures but an error in understanding. With point-by-point clear explanations, you will be able to see the truth and consistency of the Bible—new insight that breaks doubt and builds faith and knowledge. The following questions are a sample. Go to campusreset.org for answers to others you may have.
Most-Mentioned Discrepancies
Question: What are we to make of the two different accounts of the creation of man in Genesis 1 and 2?
Answer: We need to make sense of them! Let’s take a minute to expound, rather than confound them. The first account tells how the universe was formed and filled (Genesis 1:1-2:4). The second account zooms in on how the Garden of Eden was formed and filled (Genesis 2:5-25). Chronologically, the second account overlaps the end of the first account and gives important details about man’s origin and status.
The first account ends in Genesis 2:4, which says, “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created….” That verse is a colophon (or concluding summary) of what had gone before. Further, Genesis 2:5 opens with the word Vuh. When a major section of Genesis begins, this word is normally used. Vuh can mean “and,” but when there is any break in the storyline or a contrast appears, it takes on the sense of “but” or “now.” The New American Standard Bible correctly translated this first word of 5:1 as “Now.” This contrast is between God’s country, which is wild, and man’s country— the walled garden, which God lovingly planted, leaving only a little unfinished to give man something to do.
In this account, it is important to note that “earth” means soil rather than planet. The word eretz is most often used for limited land areas. By establishing the local, limited scope of this account, we can clear the usual objections to it. The place where things were just starting to grow at this point was the Garden of Eden, not the globe! It’s only in the Garden of Eden that snakes didn’t crawl, thorns and thistles didn’t grow, and plants were watered with mist and rivers instead of rain. This unique place is not to be confused with the rest of the planet. It was the garden of God (Ezekiel 28:13), where He manifested His presence and supernatural influence (Genesis 4:16).
There’s one more thing that needs to be clarified. Genesis 2:19 says that God formed the animals and brought them to man so he could name them. But note that it does not say that God formed them at that moment! He selected some of the animals He had formed earlier and brought them to Adam. It’s only by assuming that God formed His first animals (and trees) at the same time that we could make this local creation account contradict the universal.
When we observe the scope of the passage and pay attention to what’s said—and what’s not said—we find it harmonizes well with the earlier creation account. It rounds out its details very nicely. And why wouldn’t it? Moses was not so stupid as to contradict himself on the next page!
Question: Where did Cain get his wife? Other than Cain’s mother, Eve, no women are named in the story of the first human family. We read only of Adam, Eve, Cain, and his dead brother, Abel.
Answer: This was explained most eloquently by R.A. Torrey, a noted biblical historian:
“Where did Cain get his wife? This seems to be a favorite question with skeptics. I have also met young Christians who have been greatly puzzled and perplexed over this question. But if one studies the Bible carefully and notes exactly what it says, there is really no great difficulty in the question. Unbelievers assert that the Bible says that ‘Cain went into the land of Nod and took to himself a wife.’ In fact, it says nothing of the kind.
What the Bible does say is that ‘Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden. And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bore Enoch’ (Genesis 4:16-17). What the Bible means by “knew” in this connotation does not mean to get acquainted with but is connected with the procreation of species (see Genesis 4:1, Judges 11:39, 1 Samuel 1:19 and Matthew 1:25). Cain had his wife before going to the land of Nod (and certainly before murdering Abel) and took her there with him.
But who was she, and where did he get her? In Genesis 5:3-4 we learn that Adam, in his long life of 930 years, had many sons and daughters. There’s little doubt that Cain married one of those numerous daughters. But someone could say, “In that case, Cain married his own sister!” Yes, that was a necessity. If the whole Adamic race was to descend from a single pair, the sons and daughters must intermarry. But as the race increased, it was no longer necessary for men to marry their sisters, and the practice, if continued, would result in great mischief to the race. Indeed, even the intermarriage of cousins in the present day can bring frightful consequences. But in the dawn of human history, such intermarriage was not surrounded by these dangers. God had created Adam genetically perfect (Genesis 1:27).
As late as the time of Abraham, that patriarch married his half-sister (Genesis 20:12). But as the race multiplied and such intermarriages became unnecessary—as they were accompanied by great dangers—God forbade the marriage of brother and sister (Leviticus 18:6), and such marriage would now be a sin because of the commandment of God. It was not sin in the dawn of the race when the only male and female inhabitants of the earth were brothers and sisters. Such marriage today is a crime, the crime of incest, and we cannot carry back the conditions of today into the time of the dawn of human history and judge those actions performed.”
–R.A. Torrey, “Difficulties and Alleged Errors and Contradictions in the Bible”
To sum it up, Cain married one of the many daughters of Adam and Eve.The original gene pool was perfect; therefore, imperfect births due to intermarriage did not occur.
Question: How many pairs of each animal did Noah take into the ark? Was it one pair (Genesis 6:19), or seven pairs (Genesis 7:2)?
Answer: Noah brought in exactly what God commanded—one pair of each ordinary animal—and then six more pairs of any animals that were suitable for a blood sacrifice (Genesis 7:2). He was told the reason for bringing in the male and female pairs was to prevent their extinction (Genesis 6:19b). The additional pairs of “clean” animals were for Noah to offer as sacrifices to God (Genesis 8:20). It’s easy to see that if Noah had sacrificed his only male or female of a species, he would have caused their extinction.
One skeptic argued that after God had commanded Noah to load seven pairs of the clean animals, Noah disobeyed, and brought in only two of every kind (Genesis 7:9). But this critic is mistaken. Genesis 7:9 does not say Noah brought in two of each animal. It says he brought in the animals “by twos” (plural). He brought in one pair of each unclean animal and seven pairs of each clean animal. But all of them were paired, weren’t they? (After all, taking along an equal number of males and females should have made their mating somewhat easier!) That Noah brought in the species by pairs is evident, not only in the original Hebrew but also in every English translation.
Question: How can it be fair for God to forgive some people for their major sins (David, Paul), while killing others for their tiny mistakes (Lot’s wife, Uzza, Ananias and Sapphira)?
Answer: The problem is strictly one of perspective. Neither one of these actions is a stretch for God. These actions only appear extreme to us, because unlike God, we are finite, imperfect beings. As such, we may find it nearly impossible to identify with the actions of an infinite and perfect being. We might attempt to re-create Him in our imperfect image, or try to measure his infinite justice with our own yardstick. But it doesn’t work. What we may feel is impossible (forgiving a murderer, perhaps) is quite easy for God, who is love personified. What we may feel is easy (say, letting an obstinate liar reside in heaven) is fully impossible for God, who is so utterly holy that He cannot approve the least wrongdoing.
To be specific, God’s misunderstood “extreme” behavior is fair because God is both infinitely merciful and infinitely holy. Because God’s mercy is infinite, He has promised to always forgive anyone who sincerely repents, no matter how terrible their sin. That’s just what we expect from an infinitely merciful being, isn’t it?
He has promised He will never forgive those who refuse to repent, no matter how small their sin seems. And that’s consistent with what we would expect of an infinitely holy being. This extreme, hyper-dimensional, infinite holiness of God may pose a serious threat to you and me. And His mercy may seem a little much at times. But then, reality does not always conform to the way we wish it to be, does it? Neither will our Maker.
Anyone who takes a science class quickly finds that nature is under no obligation to limit herself to what we’re presently able to comprehend. The universe itself does not bother to operate on our current intellectual level, so why should its Maker? If a perfect being chose to become less than perfect, that would be extremely foolish. And a being that foolish would never have been perfect in the first place. That scenario would result in a contradiction. A Supreme Being can only will what is wise. To will foolishness would be a sign of weakness, not a display of omnipotence.
God is a wise, perfect Being. So, what isn’t fair, then, is that you blame Him for being who He is! What’s He really supposed to do, anyway—become imperfect for our convenience? When He came to this earth in the person of His Son, and died a criminal’s death on our behalf, that was just as low as He could reach toward us without ceasing to be God. He’s not now going to condemn the repentant or forgive the unrepentant, just to meet your minute expectations or merit your approval!
In short, God is infinitely merciful and infinitely holy, and there’s nothing anyone can do to change this—not even God.
Question: How did Judas die? Was it by hanging himself (Matthew 27:5) or by falling on rocks and bursting open (Acts 1:18)?
Answer: Both are fully true.
As Geisler and Howe (biblical scholars) state, “These accounts are not contradictory but mutually complementary. Judas hung himself exactly as Matthew affirms that he did. The account in Acts simply adds that Judas fell, and his body opened up in the middle and his intestines gushed out. This is the very thing one would expect of someone who hanged himself from a tree over a cliff and fell on sharp rocks below.”
Biblical scholar Gleason Archer adds more,“Acts 1:18 goes on to state: ‘And he, falling headlong, burst asunder, and all of his inwards gushed out.’ This indicates that the tree from which Judas suspended himself overhung a precipice. If the branch from which he had hung himself was dead and dry—and many trees match this description even to this day on the brink of the canyon that tradition identifies as the place where Judas died—it would take only one strong gust of wind to yank the heavy corpse and split the branch to which it was attached, plunging both with great force into the bottom of the chasm below.
There is indication that a strong wind arose at the hour Christ died, tearing the great curtain inside the temple from top to bottom (Matthew 27:51). This was accompanied by a rock-splitting earthquake and undoubtedly also by a thunderstorm, which normally follows a prolonged period of cloud gathering and darkness (Matthew 27:45). Conditions were right for what had started as a mere suicide by hanging to turn into a grisly mutilation of the corpse as the branch gave way to the force of the wind and was hurtled down to the bottom.”
–Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties
And, biblical scholar John Haley reconciles the passages as follows: “Neither of these statements excludes the other. Matthew does not deny that Judas, after hanging himself, fell and burst asunder; Peter does not assert that Judas did not hang himself previous to his fall. Probably the circum-stances were much as follows: Judas suspended himself from a tree on the brink of the precipice overhanging the valley of Hinnom, and the limb or the rope giving way, he fell, and was mangled as described in Acts.
Professor of Biblical Literature Horatio Hackett, who recently visited the supposed scene of this tragic event, deems the above explanation “entirely natural.” As he stood in the valley and looked up to the rocky terraces that hung over it, which he found by measurement to vary from 25 to 40 feet and almost perpendicular in height, he felt “more than ever satisfied” with the solution just given. He speaks of trees still growing upon the margin of these precipices, and of a rocky pavement at the bottom of the ledges, upon which the traitor would be crushed and mangled, as well as killed, in his fall. The professor suggests that Judas may have struck upon some pointed rock, which entered his body and caused his bowels to gush out.
We do not know how long Judas remained suspended, nor how far decomposition was advanced when he fell. So, in this case, Matthew gives one aspect of the affair, and Peter another, yet there is no contradiction between them.”
–John W. Haley, “An Examination of the Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible”
Go to campusreset.org for answers to other supposed discrepancies.
How to Handle any Bible Difficulty
Whenever you encounter another so-called “mistake” or “contradiction” in the Bible, face it squarely and sincerely. R.A. Torrey, who was himself a skeptic for many years, suggests we should deal with the difficulties of the Bible honestly, humbly, determinedly, fearlessly, patiently, scripturally, and prayerfully.
Another approach is hermeneutics. Herman who? That’s the science of interpreting literature. It helps you find out what a writer meant, instead of reading your own ideas into a work. It’s essential to know something about biblical hermeneutics if you’re dealing with the difficult passages of the Bible.
Below are 10 sound rules for interpreting the Bible. When a critic finds a “contradiction” in the Bible, you can be sure that one of these rules is violated:
1. Do not assume that what is not explained cannot be explained. It’s likely
that someone before you has already solved your difficulty.
2. Consider the Bible innocent until proven guilty. We don’t generally
assume the newspaper is lying until we can evaluate each statement.
The Bible is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
3. Do not confuse your interpretation of the Bible with the Bible itself.
4. Pay close attention to the context. What is being said? To whom? Under
what circumstances, and for what reason?
5. Interpret difficult passages in the light of clear ones.
6. Remember that the Bible was written in human language and often
expresses human perspectives, thought patterns, emotions, and
interests.
7. Do not assume that a partial report is a false report.
8. Do not demand word-for-word quotations of the Old Testament by New
Testament writers. People in ancient times did not quote as we do today.
9. Do not assume that varying accounts are false ones. If you examine
them, you will find that they are complementary rather than contradictory.
10. Remember that there are minor variations in our handwritten copies. It is
the original scrolls that are without error, not the copies.
Experienced critics recognize there are standards of literary criticism we must follow to avoid reading our own filters into other people’s documents. This applies to all literature, from personal letters to Shakespearean sonnets.
We did not make up the interpretive rules but discovered them, just as we discovered the rules of logic upon which they are based. If you ever find yourself on trial, you’d better hope your judge interprets laws according to the strict literary conventions above.
As you follow these rules, you will find that any biblical discrepancy is no discrepancy at all.