Image

 

101 "Contradictions" In The Bible
by Matthew Elton

Does God incite David to conduct the census of his people (2 Samuel 4:1), or does Satan (1 Chronicles 21:1)?
Easy. Both God and Satan incited David to conduct the census of his people.

2 Samuel 24:9 gives the total population for Israel as 800,000, whereas 1 Chronicles 21:5 says it was 1,100,000.
The report in 2 Samuel 24 uses the Hebrew word is hayil, which means "mighty men," or those ready for battle. 1 Chronicles 21 does not use this word. The total population was 1,100,000 and of these people, 800,000 were ready for battle.

2 Samuel 24:9 gives the round figure Of 500,000 fighting men in Judah, which was 30,000 more than the corresponding item in 1 Chronicles 21:5.
This isn't a contradiction at all, because 1 Chronicles 21:6 clearly states that Joab did not complete the numbering. So the different numbers indicate the exclusion of particular groups in the nation that never got numbered.

2 Samuel 24:13 mentions that there will be seven years of famine whereas 1 Chronicles 21:12 mentions only three.
This is the result of a translation error. While the Septuagint uses the word "seven" in 2 Samuel 24:13, ancient Hebrew manuscripts use the word "three" in both passages. Because the Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew, the Hebrew manuscripts are more accurate. When the Hebrew manuscripts were translated into Greek to make the Septuagint, the translators mistranslated the "three" in 2 Samuel 24:13 as "seven." As a result, the English versions of the Old Testament which were translated from the Septuagint may use the word "seven," but this error has been corrected in most modern English versions.

Was Ahaziah 22 (2 Kings 8:26) or 42 (2 Chronicles 22:2) when he began to rule over Jerusalem?
Again, this is the result of a translation error. While the Septuagint uses the word "fortytwo" in 2 Chronicles 22:2, ancient Hebrew manuscripts use the word "twentytwo" in both passages. Because the Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew, the Hebrew manuscripts are more accurate. When the Hebrew manuscripts were translated into Greek to make the Septuagint, the translators mistranslated the "fortytwo" in Chronicles 22:2 as "twentytwo." As a result, thenglish versions of the Old Testament which were translated from the Septuagint may use the word "twentytwo," but this error has been corrected in mo st modern English versio ns.

Was Jehoiachin 18 years old (2 Kings 24:8) or 8 years old (2 Chronicles 36:9) when he became king of Jerusalem?
This is the result of an error in copying. All ancient manuscripts use "eighteen" in 2 Kings 24:8. However, one Hebrew manuscript and a few Septuagint manuscripts use "eight" in 2 Chronicles 36:9. As a result, theEnglish versions which were translated from those manuscripts may also use "eight." However, it is clear that the manuscripts that use "eighteen" in 2 Chronicles 36:9 are the correct manuscripts, not only because the majority of ancient manuscripts (especially those in Hebrew) use "eighteen," but because all manuscripts confirm that "eighteen" is the correct number in 2 Kings 24:8. This error has been corrected in most modern English versions.

Did king Jehoiachin rule over Jerusalem for three months (2 Kings 24:8), or for three months and ten days (2 Chronicles 36:9)?
Three months and ten days. The writer of 2 Chronic les was precise when recording the length of Jehoiachinís reign. The author of 2 Kings simply rounded off to three months when recording the length of Jeho iachinís reign, because the extra ten days was not significant enough to record. If it was, it would have been recorded in both passages. Rounding is actually quite co mmo n in Old Testament records. When scribes recorded the lengths of the reigns of kings, they would thet imes round it off. For this reason, the lengt hs of reigns of kings recorded in the Old Testament are not meant to be taken literally, but were recorded as basic approximations.

Did the chief of the mighty men of David lift up his spear and killed 800 men (2 Samuel 23:8) or only 300 men (1 Chronicles 11:11)?
Again, this is probably the result of a error in copying. Many Hebrew and Septuagint manuscripts use "eight hundred" in 1 Chron. 11:11. 2 Samuel 23:8 confirms that "eight hundred" is t he correct number. However, keep in mind that the ancient manuscripts that use "three hundred" in 1 Chronicles 11:11 could st ill be correct if theyíre talking about a different battle than the one in which eight hundred men were killed in 2 Samuel23:8. It is always possible that each of these records refers to a different battle, in which the mighty men stuck down three hundred men, and another in which the might men struck down eight hundred men.

Did David bring the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem after defeating the Philistines (2 Samuel 5 and 6), or before (1 Chronicles chapters 13 and 14)?
Simple. The Ark was moved to Jerusalem before the Philistines were defeated. Then it was moved thewhere else. Then it was moved to Jerusalem again after the Philist ines were defeated.

Was Noah supposed to bring 2 pairs of all living creatures (Genesis 6:1920), or was he to bring 7 pairs of 'clean' animals (Genesis 7:2; see also Genesis 7:8,9)?
Both. He was supposed to bring seven pairs of each clean anima l, and two pairs of every animal.

Did David capture 1,700 of King Zobah's horsemen (2 Samuel 8:4), or was it 7,000 (1 Chronicles 18:4)?
This is the result of an error in copying. All ancient manuscripts use "seven thousand" in 2 1 Chronicles 18:4. However, a few Septuagint and Hebrew manuscripts use "seventeen hundred" in 2 Samuel 8:4. As a result, the English versio ns which were translated fro m those manuscripts ma y also use "seventeen hundred" However, it is clear that the manuscripts that use "seven thousand" in 2 Samuel 8:4 are the correct manuscripts, not only because the majorit y of ancient manuscripts use "seven thousand," but also because 1 Chronicles 18:4 confirms that "seven thousand" is the correct number. This error has been corrected in mo st modern English vers io ns.

Did Solomon have 40,000 stalls for his horses (1 Kings 4:26), or 4,000 stalls (2 Chronicles 9:25)?
This is the result of a translat io n error. All Hebrew manuscripts use "four thousand" in 2 Chronic les 9:25. However, a some Septuagint manuscripts use "fort y thousand" in 1 Kings 4:26. As a result, the English versio ns which were translated fro m t he Septuagint may also use "fort y thousand." However, because the B ible was origina lly written in Hebrew, and later translated into Greek to make the Septuagint, the Hebrew manuscripts are more accurate, so "four thousand" is the correct number. The number was mistranslated as "forty thousand" when translated into Greek to make the Septuagint. This error has been corrected in most modern Eng lish versio ns.

According to the author, did Baasha, the king of Israel die in the 26 t h year of king Asa's reign (1 Kings 15:33), or was he still alive in the 36 t h year ( 2 Chronicles 16:1)?
The 36 t h year of Asa should be calculated from the withdrawal of the ten tribes from Judah and Benjamin which divided the country into Judah and Israel. That means that the 36 t h year of division is the same as the16 t h year of Asa, when Baasha was still alive. Ten years after the 16 t h year of Asa, Baasha died.

Did Solomon appoint 3,600 overseers (2 Chronicles 2:2) for the work of building the temple, or was it only 3,300 (1 Kings 5:16)?
Simple. Solomon has appo nted 3,300 as overseers, and an additional 300 to be reserves that would take the place of any of the 3,300 that became sick. The scribe who recorded the number of overseers in 1 Kings 5:16 recorded only the overseers on duty, not the extra 300 in reserve. The scribe who recorded the number of overseers in 2 Chronicles 2:2 recorded all 3,600, including the 300 reserves.

Did Solomon build a facility containing 2,000 baths (1 Kings 7:26), or over 3,000 baths (2 Chronicles 4:5)?
Two thousand baths is equal to about 44 kiloliters. Three thousand is equal to about 66 kiloliters. To understand this "contradiction" we must look at the original Hebrew words translated as "held," in these two verses. 1 Kings 7:26 uses a Hebrew word that indicates that the facility was usually filled wit h 2,000 baths. 2 Chronicles 4:5 uses a Hebrew word that indicates that the facilit would h ld 3,000 baths when completely filled.

-21. These seven questions all deal with the same census, so Iíll combine them into one question and answer: Are the numbers of Israelites freed from Babylonian captivity correct in Nehemiah, or in Ezra?
Both Nehemiah and Ezra contain records of the thirtythree families of Israelites returning from Babylon, list ing the number of members in each family. Of these thirtythree families units listed in Nehemiah and Ezra, nineteen of the families are identical, while the rest have discrepancies. At first glance, it looks like thereís fourteen contradictions right here. But there are really no contradict ions. This is very easy to explain. Ezra 2:12 explains that the list of people in Ezra was recorded while the people were st ill in Babylon. And Nehemiah 7:46 tells us that the list of people in Nehemiah was recorded after the walls of Jerusalem had been rebuilt. The amount of time that elapsed between the recording of the list of families in Ezra and the recording of the list of families in Nehemiah is between five and ten years. During that time, the number of people in fourteen of the families changed, because during those five to ten years, people could have died, or had children.

Both Ezra 2:64 and Nehemiah 7:66 agree that the totals for the whole assembly was 42,360, yet when the totals are added, Ezra lists 29,818 and Nehemiah lists 31,089?
This is the result of an error in copying. The original texts must have had the correct totals, but when copying the manuscipt, a scribe made an error in one of the lists, and changed the total in the other so that they would match. The scribe had forgotten to add up the numbers for the families in each list first. Itís possible that a later on, a scribe that was copying these lists purposely put down the totals for the whole assembly who were in Jerusalem at that time, which was a larger total than the number recorded in the original manuscript.

Did 200 singers (Ezra 2:65) or 245 singers (Nehemiah 7:67) accompany the assembly?
245 singers. The scribe that recorded the number of singers in Ezra rounded the number off to 200. The scribe that recorded the number of singers in Nehemiah recorded the number more precisely. Rounding is actually quite common in Old Testament records. When scribes recorded numbers of people, they would then round it off. For this reason, the lengths of numbers of people recorded in the Old Testament are not meant to be taken literally, but were recorded as basic approximations.

Was King Abijah's mother's name Michaiah, daughter of Uriel of Gibeah (2 Chronicles 13:2) or Maachah, daughter of Absalom (2 Chronicles 11:20 & 2 Samuel 13:27)?
Maachah and Michaiah are the same name , because Maachah in Hebrew is short for Michaiah. Michaiah was the daughter of Uriel and Gibeah and the granddaughter of Absalom. The Hebrew word bat which was translated "daughter" in these verses can mean "daughter" or "granddaughter." Absalom is short for Abishalom.

Joshua and the Israelites did (Joshua 10:23,40) or did not (Joshua 15:63) capture Jerusalem?
They didnít capture Jerusalem in either chapter. Joshua 10:23 simply states that they captured the kings. It never says that they captured Jerusalem. Joshua 10:40 states that Joshua killed all the kings, but it never says that he captured Jerusalem. Joshua 10:20 states that survivors fled to their fortified cities. This means that Joshua had not captured the fortified cities, which would include Jerusalem. Joshua 15:63 then states that Joshua did not capture Jerusalem, which does not contradict but rather confirms chapter ten.

.Was Jacob (Matthew 1:16) or Heli (Luke 3:23) the father of Joseph and husband of Mary?
Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph and Luke gives that of Mary, making Jacob the fat her of Joseph and Heli the father of Mary. In Maryís genealogy, Mary is referred through her husband Joseph, because it was Hebrew tradition to list only males in genealogical records.

Did Jesus descend from Solomon (Matthew 1:6) or from Nathan (Luke 3:31), both of whom are sons of David?
Jesus was a descendant of both Solomon and Nathan, because Joseph descended from David through Solomon, and Mary descended fro m David through Nathan.

Was Jechoniah (Matthew 1:12) or Neri (Luke 3:27) the father of Shealtiel?
Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph and Luke gives that of Mary. In Maryís genealogy, Mary is referred through her husband Joseph, because it was Hebrew tradition to list only males in genealogical records. Both Mary and Joseph had an ancestor named Shealtiel. However, these are two different people named Shealtiel, a common Hebrew name. Because these are two different people, they had different fathers. One had a father named Neri. The other had a father named Jechoniah.

Which son of Zerubbabel was an ancestor of Jesus Christ, Abiud (Matthew 1:13) or Rhesa (Luke 3:27), and what about Zerubbabel in (1 Chronicles 3:19,20)?
Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph and Luke gives that of Mary. In Maryís genealogy, Mary is referred through her husband Joseph, because it was Hebrew tradition to list only males in genealogical records. Both Mary and Joseph had an ancestor named Zerubbabel. These were two different people named Zerubbabel, so they had different sons. The son of Zerubbabel on Maryís side was a direct ancestor of Jesus. The son of Zerubbabel was an ancestor of Jesus through Maryís marriage to Joseph. As for 1 Chronicles 3:19-20, as far as I can tell, the Zerubbabel listed there is just a third Zerubbabel.

Was Joram (Matthew 1:8) or Amaziah (2 Chronicles 26:1) the father of Uzziah?
The Hebrew word ben was translated to "son," but it can be any descendant. Therefore, Amaziah was Uzziahís father, and Joram (short for Jehoram) was a more distant ancestor of Uzziah.

Was Josiah (Matthew 1:11) or Jehoiakim (1 Chronicles 3:16) the father of Jechoniah?
The Hebrew word ben was translated to "son," but it can also mean "grandson," or any descendant. Therefore, Jehoiakim was Jeconiah's father and Josiah his grandfather.

Were there fourteen (Matthew 1:17) or thirteen (Matthew 1:12-16) generations from the Babylonian exile until Christ?
Matthew 1:17 clearly states that there were fourteen generations. The thirteen generat ions in Matthew 1:1216 are simply because in that list the first person in the genealogy was not counted as a generation.

Who was the father of Shelah; Cainan (Luke 3:35-36) or Arphaxad (Genesis 11:12)?
This is the result of a translation error. The ancient Hebrew manuscripts list Arphaxad as the father of Shelah in Genes is 11:12. However, when the Hebrew texts were translated to Greek to make the Septuagint, Arphaxad was mistranslated as Cainan. Luke copied this mistranslation into the genealogy he recorded, since he was writ ing in Greek and therefore would have studied the Septuagint. So Arphaxad was the father of Shelah.

John the Baptist was (Matthew 11:14; 17:10-13) or was not Elijah to come (John 1:19-21)?
In the book of Matthew, Jesus says that John the Baptist was the Elijah to come. In the book of John, John the Baptist, not Jesus, says he was not. John the Bapt ist was the Elijah to come, but he didnít know it at the time.

Jesus would (Luke 1:32) or would not (Matthew 1:11; 1 Chronicles 3:16 & Jeremiah 36:30) inherit David's throne?
Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph and Luke gives that of Mary. In Maryís genealogy, Mary is referred through her husband Joseph, because it was Hebrew tradition to list only males in genealogical records. Jeremiah 36:30 makes it clear that none of Joseph's physical descendants would sit on David's throne, since Joseph was a descendant of Jeco niah. However, Jesus was not a physical descendant of Joseph. Joseph was just Jesusís motherís boyfriend. Joseph was not the father of Jesus. Jesusís real father was God. So Jesus is the heir to Davidís throne.

Jesus rode into Jerusalem on one colt (Mark 11:7; Luke 19:35; John 12:14,15), or a colt and an ass (Matthew 21:7)?
Mark, Luke, and John all agree that Jesus rode on one colt. And it should be obvious that Jesus rode on one colt, since Jesus could not have ridden on two animals at once. However, Matthew 21:7 states that, "The y brought the ass and the colt, placed their cloaks on them, and Jesus sat on them. " There are several possibilities here, all of which can easily disprove this apparent contradiction:
∑Jesus could have ridden the ass part of the time, and the colt the other part of the time.
∑ The "them" in this Matthew 21:7 could be referring to the cloaks, not the ass and the colt. In other words, instead of the verse meaning "They brought the ass and the colt, placed their cloaks on them, and Jesus sat on the ass and the colt," the verse would mean, "They brought the ass and the colt, placed their cloaks on them, and Jesus sat on the cloaks," which would mean that Jesus could have been sitt ing on eit her the ass or the colt, for they had put cloaks on both the ass and the colt. Of course, we know from Mark, Luke, and John, that Jesus was riding on the colt.
∑ If we look at the context of this passage, we see that just a few verses earlier in Matthew 21:5, Matthew quotes Zechariah 9:9, an Old Testament prophecy which states, "See, your king comes to you, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey." Then in Matthew 21:7, Matthew could have written "donkey and the colt," to quote part of the prophecy again, which would emphasize the fulfillment of that prophecy.

Simon Peter finds out that Jesus was the Christ by a revelation from heaven (Matthew 16:17), or by his brother Andrew (John 1:41)?
The revelation was fro m heaven, through his brother Andrew.

Jesus first met Simon Peter and Andrew by the Sea of Galilee (Matthew 4:18-22), or on the banks of the river Jordan (John 1:42,43)?
Both, actually. John 1:42,43 happened first, where Jesus met Peter and Andrew by the Jordan river. Then in John 2:12 it says, "Aft er this he went down to Capernaum wit h his mother and brothers and his disciples. There they stayed for a few days. " So after meeting Jesus at the Jordan River, they went down to Capernaum. At this point in his ministry, Jesus had not yet begun to do a lot of public teaching and healing. Since they were fisherman, Andrew and Peter went fishing, by the Sea of Galilee. Then Matthew picks up the story, explaining how Jesus met up with Peter and Andrew again at the Sea of Galilee, and told them to follow him.

When Jesus met Jairus, his daughter 'had just died' (Matthew 9:18), or was 'at the point of death' (Mark 5:23)?
Thereís no contradiction here because "at the point of death," means the same thing as "had just died." When the one reaches the point of death, they die. So when Jairusís daughter reached the point of death as it says in Mark 5:23, she had died, just as it says in Matthew 9:18.

Jesus allowed (Mark 6:8), or did not allow (Matthew 10:10; Luke 9:3) his disciples to keep a staff on their journey?
Jesus allowed his disciples to take their staffs wit h them, but they were not allowed to buy new staffs on the journey. Mark 6:8 states, "These were his instructions: "Take nothing for the journey except a staff-no bread, no bag, no money in your belt s." The Greek word translated as "take" here literally means "to take." Jesus is telling them that they can take their staffs, but they canít take bread, bags, or money. Matthew 10:10 states, "take no bag for the journey, or extra tunic, or sandals or a staff; for the worker is worth his keep." However, the Greek word translated as "take" here is not the same word translated as "take" in Mark 6:8. Here in Matthew 10:10, and in Luke 9:3, the Greek word translated as "take" is the word which means "to buy or acquire." So what Jesus is telling them in Matthew 10:10 is that they should not buy or acquire any bags, tunics, sandals, money or staffs for the journey, but as Mark 6:8 says, they could still bring the staffs which they had with them. Jesus just didnít want them to go out and get a new staff.

Herod did (Matthew 14:2; Mark 6:16) or did not (Luke 9:9) think that Jesus was John the Baptist?
This is not a contradiction, since Herod never says in Luke 9:9 that he did not think that Jesus was John the Bapt ist. Rather, in Luke 9:9, Herod asks, "I beheaded John. Who, then, is this I hear such things about?" Matthew and Mark recorded the answer, which stated that Herod did think that Jesus was John the Baptist.

John the Baptist did (Matthew 3:1314) or did not (John 1:32,33) recognize Jesus before his baptism?
Thereís no contradiction here either, because in John 1:32,33, it never says that John didnít recognize Jesus. Rather, it says that the Holy Spirit revealed to John that it was Jesus. Therefore, John did recognize Jesus, as is co nfirmed in Matthew 3:1314, because the Holy Spirit had revealed it to him.

John the Baptist did (John 1:3233) or did not (Matthew 11:2) recognize Jesus after his baptism?
John Chapter 1 and Matthew Chapter 3 make it clear that John the Bapt ist did recognize Jesus before, and after the bapt ism. Matthew 11:2 takes place long after the baptism, when John is in prison, and he sends his disciples to ask Jesus, "Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect the someone else?" In Matthew 11:2, John still recognized Jesus, but he was now doubt ing whether or not Jesus was the messiah, or "the one who was to come."

When Jesus bears witness to himself, is his testimony not true (John 5:31) or is his testimony true (John 8:14)?
In John 5:31, Jesus says: "If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid." In John 8:14, Jesus says: "Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid" At first glance, this appears to be a contradiction, but not when the historical context is taken into consideration. In John Chapter 5 Jesus is speaking about how he cannot claim hims elf to be the messiah unless he is fulfilling the Old Testament prophecies. That is, without fulfilling the prophecies spoken in the Old Testament. But as Jesus did fulfill the Old Testament prophecies, and he was called the messiah by John the Baptist. Because he was fulfilling the prophecies, and others besides himself were claming that he was the messiah, then Jesus was indeed the messiah. When talking about the Old Testament, Jesus even said, "These are the Scriptures that testify about me". In John Chapter 8, Jesus cla ms to be the messiah by quoting Old Testament prophecies he had fulfilled. John 8:13 says: "Then the Pharisees challenged him, 'Here you are, appearing as your own witness; your testimony is not valid. í" Jesus had said earlier in John Chapter 5 that if he testified about himself, his test imony wouldnít be valid unless he was fulfilling the prophecies and being proclaimed as the messiah by others. Butt in John 8:13, the Pharisees arenít talking about this. Theyíre actually talking about Deuteronomy 19:15 which says "One witness is not enough to convict a man accused of any crime or offense he may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses. If a malic ious witness takes the stand," However, itís important to remember that Deuteronomy is not talking about people making a claim about themselves, but rather, those accused of a crime. The Pharisees were taking a law that applied only to those accused of a crime, and they were trying to apply that law to the claims Jesus made about himself. So when Jesus sa ys in reply to them "Even if I testify on my own behalf, my test imony is valid" he is correct, because Deuteronomy 19:15 didn't apply to him making claims about himself, it applied to those accused of a crime. Jesus also says that he knew exactly who he was, but they did not. He wasnít lying, because really was the sinless messiah. Jesus goes on to say, "I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father who sent me" which agrees completely with John 5, where Jesus said that testimonies he makes about himself arenít valid unless heís fulfilling the prophecies and has others that are witnesses, test ifying that Jesus is the messiah. When Jesus says in John 5:32 that there is another that testifies in his favor, he is not only talking about John the Baptist, but the Father who sent him. That makes at least two witnesses, which is why Jesus was right to say that his test imony was valid when the Pharisees tried using Deuteronomy 19:15, which states that, "A matter must be established by the test imony of two or three witnesses."

When Jesus entered Jerusalem he cleansed (Matthew 21:12) or did not cleanse (Mark 11:117) the temple that same day, but the next day?
When reading the book of Matthew, itís important to remember that Matthew liked to arrange things in topica l order, rather than Chrono logical order. Matthew related the cleansing of the temple wit h the triumphal entry, even though the cleansing occurred the next day. Keep in mind that verse 12 never actually says that when Jesus entered the temple it was immediately after his entry into Jerusale m. In fact, we know fro m verse 17 that he didnít go to the temple immediately after entering Jerusale m, but he went to Bethany, where he spent the night. This agrees co mpletely wit h the record in Mark 11

Matthew 21:19 says that the tree which Jesus cursed withered at once, whereas Mark 11:20 maintains that it withered overnight.
When reading the book of Matthew, itís important to remember that Matthew liked to arrange things in topical order, rather than Chronological order. So if you want to know what order certain events happened in, read Mark instead of Matthew. Mark Chapter 11 says that Jesus did not cleanse the temple until after he had visited Bethany and cursed the fig tree. Instead of going in chronological order, Matthew used his usual topical approach and included the Monday afternoon action with the Sunday afternoon initial observation. On the other hand, Mark recorded everything in Chronological order. These differences are not contradictory, they just show how Matthew and Mark arranged the records in a different order.

.In Matthew 26:48-50 Judas came up and kissed Jesus, whereas in John 18:3-12 Judas could not get close enough to Jesus to kiss him. This isnít a contradiction, simply because nowhere in John 18:312 does it ever say that Judas could not get close enough to kiss Jesus.

Did Peter deny Christ three times before the cock crowed (John 13:38), or three times before the cock crowed twice (Mark 14:30,72)? This is the result of an error in copying. Some ancient manuscripts sa y that the cock crowed twice. However, the earliest manuscripts do not say this. Therefore, at the point in history "twice" was added in accidentally by a scribe making copies of the manuscripts. So Peter denied Christ three times before the cock crowed once, not twice.

Jesus did (John 19:17) or did not (Matthew 27:31,32) bear his own cross? Both, actually. Jesus began carrying his cross fro m the palace. The destination was Golgotha. Mark 15:21 tells us that the man forced to carry Jesusís cross was "passing by on his way in from the country." In other words, he was outside. So Jesus carried his own cross from the palace unti they met Simon (the guy who carried Jesusís cross) at some point along the journey. Simon then carried Jesus cross for another porti n of the journey to Golgotha.

Did Jesus die before (Matthew 27:50-51; Mark 15:37-38), or after (Luke 23:45-46) the curtain of the temple was torn?
Letís take a look at these verses: "Wit h a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last. The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom." Mark 15:3738 "for the sun stopped shining. And the curtain of the temple was torn in two. Jesus called out with a loud vo ice, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last." Luke 23:45,46 Note that neither Mark nor Luke say when the temple was torn in two. As I stated in numbers 45 and 46, the gospels were not always written in chronological order. We canít just assume that because it says the curtain was torn in two before it says that Jesus died, that it means that Jesus died after the temple curtain was torn in two. Both Mark and Luke are simply saying that the temple curtain was torn in two. Neither Mark nor Luke ever say "After Jesus died the temple curtain was torn in two," or "before Jesus died the temple curtain was torn in two." So from Mark and Luke, we donít know when the temple curtain was torn in two. All we know was that it was torn in two. But Mathew comes to the rescue with the exact time that the temple curtain was torn in two: "And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit. At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split." Matthew 27:50,51 Note how it says "At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two." The temple curtain was torn in twofrom top to bottom at the exact moment that Jesus died.

Did Jesus say everything openly (John 18:20) or did he speak secretly to his disciples (Mark 4:34, Matthew 13:1011)?
It might seem like thereís a contradiction here, because in John 18:20 Jesus says, "I said nothing in secret," while in Mark 4:34 and Matthew 13:1011, Jesus shares the meaning of parables with his disciples in secret. However, when we look at the context of John18:20, we see that there is really no contradiction at all. A verse earlier in John 18:19, the high priest asks Jesus about his teachings. Jesus is right to say, "I said nothing in secret," because he had done his teachings in public, often in temples. The parables Jesus shares with his disciples are not teachings, but rather illustrat ions of teachings.

Was Jesus on the cross (Mark 15:23) or in Pilate's court (John 19:14) at the sixth hour on the day of the crucifixion?
The times seem to contradict each other, but it is simply because Mark used a different time system than John. Mark used traditional Hebrew time, in which the hours began at sunrise and ended at sunset. At the t ime of the year that the crucifixion took place, the sun would have risen around 6:00 AM and set around 9:00 PM, making 6:00 the first hour of the Hebrew time system, and 12:00 noon the sixth hour. But John didnít use the Hebrew time system. Instead, he used Roman time, which is more like our modern time system, in which hours begin and end at midnight. On this system, the sixth hour would be 6:00 AM, the first hour of the Hebrew time system. At 6:00 AM, Jesus was in Pilateís court. He was then beaten cont inually until 12:00 noon, when he was on the cross. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all used the Hebrew time system. So why did John use the Roman time system? Matthew, Mark, and Luke were all written before John, and although Israel was occupied by the Romans at the time, the Hebrew time system was still the standard time system there. But the book of John was written much later, around 90 A.D., and John was living in Ephesus at the time. In 90 A.D., Ephesus was the capital of the Roman province of Asia, where the Roman time system was the standard time system.

The two thieves crucified with Jesus either did (Mark 15:32) or did not (Luke 23:43) mock Jesus?
Mark tells us that both thieves mocked Jesus. Luke tells us that one thief mocked Jesus, and the other defended Jesus. Mark and Luke donít contradict each other, but rather, we can combine these accounts to get a clearer picture of exactly what happened. Thatís the whole reason that we have four gospel records. Both thieves mocked Jesus at first, however, after Jesus said, "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do," one of the thieves had a change of heart and defended Jesus. Mark did not record that one thief defended Jesus, but he never said it didnít happen, and we know from Luke that it did.

Did Jesus ascend to Paradise the same day of the crucifixion (Luke 23:43), or two days later (John 20:17)?
He ascended two days later. Letís take a look at Luke 23:43: Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise." This verse was actually translated incorrectly. Ancient Greek manuscripts have the comma after "today," not after "truth." This changes the meaning of the verse ent irely: Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth today, you will be with me in paradise." Jesus was not saying that he would be in paradise on that day. Rather, Jesus was saying on that day that he would be in paradise at a later date. This agrees completely with John 20:17, where two days later Jesus said he had not yet ascended to the Father.

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 (Acts 9:7), or did they not (Acts 22:9)?
The Greek word akouo is used in both verses. However, akouo can have two meanings. It can mean "to hear," and it can mean, "to understand." Clearly, those with Paul did hear the voice, but they did not understand it.

When Paul saw the light and fell to the ground, did his traveling companions fall (Acts 26:14) or did they not fall (Acts 9:7) to the ground?
The Greek word translated as "stood" in Acts 9:7 can althean "to be still." When Paul saw the light and fell to the ground, his traveling companions fell (Acts 26:14), and remained still (Acts 9:7)

Did the voice tell Paul what he was to do on the spot (Acts 26:1618), or was he commanded to go to Damascus to be told what to do (Acts 9:7; 22:10)?
Acts Chapter 9 and Chapter 22 make it clear that Paul was told what to do in Damascus. However, in Acts Chapter 26 Luke (the author of Acts) doesn't worry about writing in Chronological order, because at this point in the book the reader has already read Acts 9 and Acts 22, so they already know the story and its chronology

Did 24,000 Israelites die in the plague in 'Shittim' (Numbers 25:1, 9), or was it only 23,000 Israelites who died (1 Corinthians 10:8)?
24,000 Israelites died in the plague in Shittim, just as Numbers Chapter 25 says. If we look at the context of 1 Corinthians 10:8, we see that itís not talking about the plague of Shittim, but rather itís talking about Exodus 32:28, where 3,000 men died. But wait a minute. How come 1 Corinthians 10:8 says that 23,000 died, when Exodus 32:28 says that only three thousand died? Here is another apparent contradiction, but just like the last fifty seven of them that I just listed, this one can be explained very easily. Exodus 32:28 tells us that three thousand men were killed in a huge swordfight. But if you keep reading, a few verses later in Exodus 32:35 it says that after the swordfight, more people died of a plague. The exact number of people that died in that plague is not listed in Exodus 32:35, but the writer of 1 Corint hians 10:8 knew from divine revelation that the number was twenty thousand. When you add the three thousand that died in the giant swordfight with the twenty thousand that died of the plague, a total of twenty three thousand died on that day, just as it sa ys in 1 Corint hians 10:8: Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and t wenty thousand.

Did 70 members of the house of Jacob come to Egypt (Genesis 46:27), or was it 75 members (Acts 7:14)? "
This is the result of a translation error. Most ancient manuscripts, both the Hebrew and the Septuagint, use "seventy five" in Genesis 46:27. Because the Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew, these Hebrew manuscripts are more accurate. When the ancient manuscripts were translated into English the "seventy five" was mistranslated as "seventy" in Genesis 46:27.

Did Judas buy a field (Acts 1:18) with his bloodmoney for betraying Jesus, or did he throw it into the temple (Matthew 27:5)?
Both, actually. He threw some of the money into the temple, and used the rest to buy a field.

Did Judas die by hanging himself (Matthew 27:5) or by falling headlong and bursting open with all his bowels gushing out (Acts 1:18)?
Both, actually. Acts 1:19 tells us that the place where Judas died was called, Ake ldama, or the "Field of Blood." According to tradition, this field is located near a cliff by the Valley of Hinnom. Judas hung himself by the cliff. Then the rope snapped and he fell headlong, bursting open with all his bowels gushing out.

Is the field called the 'field of blood' because the priest bought it with blood money (Matthew 27:8), or because of Judas's bloody death (Acts 1:19)?
Thereís no contradiction here, because both passages agree that the field was called the "Field of Blood" because Judas bought it with blood money. Matthew 27:8 clearly states that it is called the "Field of Blood" because it was purchased with blood money. Then Luke affirms this in Acts 1:18,19: With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood. When it says "Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood" it means that everyone in Jerusalem heard about Judas buying the field with the reward he got for his wickedness, just as it says he did in the previous verse, and Matthew 27:8

How can the ransom which Christ gives for all, which is good (Mark 10:45; 1 Timothy 2:56), be the same as the ransom of the wicked (Proverbs 21:18)?
Mark 10:45 and 1 Timothy 2:56 make it clear that Jesus that is a ransom for all. Proverbs 21:18 says, "The wicked become a ransom for the righteous, and the unfaithful for the upright." So was Jesus wicked? Not at all, because Proverbs is talking about a completely different type of ransom. Proverbs 21:18 is talking about the wicked being a ransom for the righteous. Christ, who was righteous, was not this t ype of ransom at all, but rather he was the righteous being a ransom for all, including the wicked. Proverbs 21:18 does not contradict Mark 10:45 or Timothy 2:56 because they are completely different types of ransoms.

Is all scripture profitable (2 Timothy 3:16) or not profitable (Hebrews 7:18)?
2 Timothy tells us that all scripture is profitable. But Hebrews lists a verse from the Old Testament and tells us that it is "weak and useless." This is not a contradiction, but rather it fulfills what God promised to do in the Old Testament prophecies! I could probably write a whole book on this, but Iíll try to keep this answer as concise as possible, although I encourage you to dofurther study for a more indepth look at the two covanents which God established throughout history. Just as it says in 2 Timothy 3:16, scripture is God inspired, and is indeed useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training. That is a very general statement talking about all holy scripture which comes from God. Hebrews Chapter 7 is talking about a specific commandment given to a certain group of people at a specific time. God established in the covenant he made with Moses, a system where the children of Israel would offer animal sacrifices in order for the people to make atonement for their sins. This was the Old Covenant. But that covenant no longer applies. Letís take a look at Jeremiah 31:3033: "The time is coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them," declares the LORD. "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my la w in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. In this O d Testament prophecy, God told the people that a new covenant was coming. Unlike the Old Covenant, where the people had to make routine animal sacrifices to make atonement for their sins, it is prophesied here that the New Covenant will not be like the Old Covenant, but will be a final atonement for all the sins of mankind, once and for all, and God will finally forgive all of mankind, as it says in Jeremiah 31:34. The Old Testament prophecies also talk about a messiah, or savior, who would start the New Covenant, a perfect man fro m the tribe of Judah who would be a priest unto God, and a sacrifice that would pay for all sin. And when this messiah pays the price for all of our sins, God will be satisfied to forgive us of our sins instead of punishing us for our sins. The coming of this messiah is prophesied throughout the Old Testament, especially in Isaiah Chapter 53. Well, guess what? The messiah has already come, and his name is Jesus! And now that he has come, we are no longer to follow the Old Testament laws and animal sacrifices, for Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice, establishing the New Covenant, and setting us free from the laws of the Old Testament. Paul made this clear in the letters he wrote that are included in the New Testament, especially in the beg inning of Romans Chapter 8. No longer do we have to follow the Old Testament laws. But the Old Testament, and all holy scripture, is still profitable. The "former regulation" quoted from the Old Testament in Hebrews 7:17 was rendered useless by Jesus, meaning it no longer applies, for we are no longer under Old Testament law. But by no means does this mean that the Old Testament is not profitable. The Old Testament is the very key to understanding the New Testament. Again, this is a very indepth topic, and what Iíve written here only scratches the surface. There are a variet y of books on how Jesus brought about the New Covenant, and I encourage you to continue your own study in this topic.

Was the exact wording on the cross, as (Matthew 27:37, Mark 15:26, Luke 23:38, and John 19:19) all seem to have different wordings?
John 19:20 says, "Many of the Jews read this sign, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and the sign was written in Aramaic, Latin and Greek." The different wordings are because Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John translated the text from different languages. For instance, Matthew might have translated it from the Aramaic, and John from the Latin, and it could have been worded differently in each language. But wait a minute. Thereís three languages, and four writers. That means two of them must have translated the wording on the cross from the same language, and therefore the wording would be the same in two of these accounts. Well, the wording actually is the same in two of these accounts. Letís take a look at these verses: Above his head they placed the written charge against him: THIS IS JESUS, THE KING OF THE JEWS. Matthew 27:37 The written notice of the charge against him read: THE KING OF THE JEWS. Mark 15:26 There was a written notice above him, which read: THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS. Luke 23:38 Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It read: JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS. John 19:19 Notice how Mark uses the same wording as each of the other three. He just does not include the entire sentence, but only the most important phrase, which is: "THE KING OF THE JEWS."

Did Herod want to kill John the Baptist (Matthew 14:5), or was it his wife Herodias (Mark 6:20)?
Herod wanted to kill John the Baptist. Mark 6:20 never says that Herod did not want to kill John the Baptist, it just says that Herod was afraid of John the Baptist.

Was the tenth disciple of Jesus in the list of twelve Thaddaeus (Matthew 10:14; Mark 3:1319) or Judas, son of James (Luke 6:12-16)?
Both, actually, because Thaddaeus was Judas, son of James.

Was the man Jesus saw sitting at the tax collector's office whom he called to be his disciple named Matthew (Matthew 9:9) or Levi (Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27)?
Both, actually, because Matthew was Levi.

Was Jesus crucified on the daytime after the Passover meal (Mark 14:1217) or the daytime before the Passover meal ( John 13:1, 30, 29; 18:28; 19:14)?
John makes it clear that Jesus was crucified before the Passover meal, and Mark confirms this in Chapter 14, saying that Jesus did not eat the Passover meal with his disciples. So what was Mark talking about in verses 12-17? Mark writes, "when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb". According to Exodus, this is the fourteenth day of the month of Nisan, on the Hebrew calendar. However, it is very likely that many people at that time were using the Roman calendar, since the Romans were occupying Israel. So it may have been customary to sacrifice the lamb on that day, although most recognized the Passover as being the next evening.

Did Jesus both pray (Matthew 26:39; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42) or not pray (John 12:27) to the Father to prevent the crucifixion?
Matthew, Mark, and Luke all agree that Jesus did indeed pray alone to express his fears to the Father in the garden of Gethsemane, shortly before his crucifixion. John 12:27 does not contradict this, because when we look at the context of this verse, we see that Jesus is not praying alone in this verse, but speaking to a group of people. In John 12:27 Jesus explains that, "it was for this very reason I came to this hour." In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, when Jesus is praying alone in the garden of Gethsemane, he expresses his fear, but he does not pray for God to prevent the crucifixion, but rather he prays for Godís will to be done, praying, "Yet not as I will, but as you will."

.Did Jesus move away three times (Matthew 26:3646; Mark 14:3242) or once (Luke 22:3946) from his disciples to pray?
Thereís no contradiction here, because Lukeís record never states that Jesus did not move away t hree t imes. Just because Luke does not say that Jesus moved away three times doesnít mean that Jesus didnít move away three times. We know from Matthew and Mark that Jesus did move awa y three t imes. Mark and Matthew were written first, and Luke was written later. It wouldnít make sense for Luke to regurgitate minor details already recorded in Mark and Matthew.

When Jesus went away to pray, were the words in his two prayers the same (Mark 14:39) or different (Matthew 26:42)?
Who said that Jesus only prayed twice? He prayed two prayers that were the same, and a third that was different. After all, he went away from his disciples to pray in private three times, so it would only make sense that he prayed three times.

.Did the centurion say that Jesus was innocent (Luke 23:47), or that he was the Son of God (Mark 15:39)?
Both. He said, "surely this is a righteous man!," and he said, "surely this man is the Son of God!" This is yet another example in which a "contradiction" between the gospel records is nothing more than one gospel record containing details that another does not. By combing the gospels, we get a clearer picture of exactly what happened. Thatís the whole reason that we have mult iple gospels.

Did Jesus say "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" in Hebrew (Matthew 27:46) or in Aramaic (Mark 15:34)?
Jesus probably spoke it in Hebrew, because if he had spoken in Aramaic the people before him would have misunderstood what he was trying to say. They would have thought that Jesus was calling out to Elijah, because in Aramaic the word for "my God," is the same as the abbreviated form of "Elijah." So why did Mark record it in Aramaic? Probably because he wrote his gospel after the event, and people were probably talking about what Jesus had said in Aramaic. Remember, just because it ís recorded in Aramaic doesnít mean that Jesus spoke in Aramaic. The important thing is that both Matthew (who recorded what Jesus said in Hebrew) and Mark (who recorded what Jesus said in Aramaic) agree on the same wording Jesus used. Even though it was written down in different languages, Jesus said the exact same thing in each gospel.

Were the last words that Jesus spook "Father into thy hands I commit my spirit" (Luke 23:46), or "It is finished" (John 19:30)?
Jesus either said, "Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit. It is finished," or "It is finished. Father, into my hands I commit my spirit." As usual, each gospel writer emphasized important phrases more than others, and left out phrases considered unimportant. But by combining the gospels, we can clearly see that Jesus said both of these things before he died. Thatís the whole reaso n that there are four gospels. We can compare and combine them to get a clearer image of exactly what happened.

Did the Capernaum centurion come personally to ask Jesus to heal his slave (Matthew 8:5), or did he send elders of the Jews and his friends (Luke 7:3,6)?
Both, actually. He first sent elders of the Jews and his friends. Then he came to Jesus himself.

Did Adam die the same day (Genesis 2:17) or did he continue to live to the age of 930 years (Genesis 5:5)?
Adam lived to be 930 years o ld. Genesis 2:17 says that Adam would die if he ate the apple. But it never says when he would die. Indeed, Adam did die after he ate the apple. He died several centuries later, when he was 930 years old.

Did God decide that the lifespan of humans was to be only 120 years (Genesis 6:3), or longer (Genesis 11:1216)?
Genesis 6:3 tells us that the days of man will be a hundred and twent y years. Obviously, this is an average value. If it were not, everyone would die at exactly one hundred and twenty years. Nowadays, most people donít live past one hundred. But back in the book of Genesis, most people lived for several centuries. When you look at all of human history from Genesis until now, the average human lifespan would be around a hundred and twenty years, between our modern lifespan of about eigh y years, and the Genesis lifespans of hundreds of years.

Apart from Jesus there was noone else (John 3:13) or there were others (2 Kings 2:11) who ascended to heaven?
There is no contradiction here when one considers the difference between physical ascension and spiritual ascension. Who kno weth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth do wnward to the earth? Ezekiel 3:21 When one dies, their spirit ascends into heaven, unlike animal spirits, which sink into the ground. Personally, I do not believe in a conscious afterlife in heaven, but rather a future resurrection at the return of the messiah. But thatís another topic which Iíll be happy to explain to you if you email me about it. Because we know that the spirit ascends into heaven, we know that Jesus must have been talking about a physical ascension, not a spiritual ascension, when he said that no man had ever entered heaven except himself. Even Elijahís ascension into heaven was spiritual, not physical. Jesus was the only man who has ever had his physical body ascend into heaven.

Was the high priest Abiathar (Mark 2:26), or Ahimelech (1 Samuel 21:1; 22:20) when David went into the house of God and ate the consecrated bread?
Jesus states that the event happened "in the days of Abiathar the high priest" and yet we know from 1 Samuel that Abiathar was not actually the high priest at that time; it was his father, Ahimelech. So is this a contradiction? Not at all. Would a statement like, "When President Bush was a boyÖ" be incorrect because he wasnít a president when he was a boy? No, because he became the president later in life so we call him "President" even if weíre referring to a time when he was not president. Likewise, "in the days of Abiathar the high priest," does not mean, "in the days that Abiather was the high priest," but rather it means, "in the days the high priest Abiather was alive." If I said, "In the days that President Bush was alive," you would think of his entire life span, not just his term in office. The same applies here.

Was Jesus' body wrapped in spices before burial in accordance with Jewish burial customs (John 19:3940), or did the women come and administer the spices later (Mark 16:1)?
Both, actually. He was wrapped in spices before in accordance with Jewish burial. Then later the women came to administer more spices.

Did the women buy the spices after (Mark 16:1) or before the Sabbath (Luke 23:55 to 24:1)?
There were two groups of women, one led by Mary Magdalene, and another led by Joanna. Mark records that Mary Magdalene and her group of women bought spices after the Sabbath. Luke records that Joanna and her group bought spices before the Sabbath.

.Did the women visit the tomb "toward the dawn" (Matthew 28:1), or "When the sun had risen" (Mark 16:2)?
Both. They began their visit "toward the dawn," when it was still dark out but almost sunrise, and they ended their visit just after the sun had risen. Remember, there were two groups of women, one group led by Mary Magdalene, and another group led by Joanna. The two groups could have visited the tomb at slightly different times. But all four gospel accounts agree completely that all the women visited the tomb early in the morning.

Did the women go to the tomb to anoint Jesus' body with spices (Mark 16:1; Luke 23:5524: 1), or to see the tomb (Matthew 28:1), or for no reason (John 20:1)?
We know from Mark and Luke that they went to the tomb to anoint Jesusí body with spices. The fact that Matthew and John do not list a reason for the women going to the tomb does not mean that there is no reason. Archeological evidence suggests that Markís gospel was written first, then the others. There would be no reason for Matthew and John to regurgitate minor information like the spices, if it was already recorded in the book of Mark.

When the women arrived at the tomb, was the stone "rolled back" (Mark 16:4), "rolled away" (Luke 24:2), "taken away" (John 20:1), or did they see an angel do it (Matthew 28:16)?
Shabir Ally is really clutching at straws here, since "rolled back," "rolled away," and "taken away," all mean the same thing. An angel came and moved the stone so that the tomb entrance could be accessed. Even if Mark, Luke, and John do not mention the angel, that doesnít mean that the angel wasnít there.

In (Matthew 16:2; 28:7; Mark 16:56; Luke 24:45; 23), the women were told what happened to Jesus' body, while in (John 20:2) Mary was not told.
We know from John 20:1 that Mary Magdalene did come to the tomb and we know from the other gospel accounts that Salome and another woman named Mary was with her. As soon as Mary Magda lene saw the stone rolled away, she ran to tell the apostles. The angel then explained to the other women what had happened, but Mary was not there.

.Did Mary Magdalene first meet the resurrected Jesus during her first visit (Matthew 28:9) or on her second visit (John 20:1117)? And how did she react?
As I explained in "contradiction" number eighty six, Mary Magdalene ran back to the apostles as soon as she saw the stone had been rolled away. So when Matthew 28:9 records Jesus meeting them, Mary Magdalene was not there. In fact, Mark 16:9 tells us that Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene, which was after she, Peter and John had returned to the tomb the first time (John 20:118). Peter and John saw the tomb and went home, leaving Mary weeping by the entrance. From here, Mary Magdalene saw the two angels inside the tomb and then met Jesus himself. All of this happened before Jesus appeared to the other women. By comparing and combining the different gospel accounts, we can get a clearer image of exactly what happened. Matthew 28:8 tells us that the women (Including Salome and another woman named Mary who was not Mary Magdalene) ran away "afraid but filled with joy, " to tell the disciples. They were afraid alright, so afraid that they never told the disciples, as it says in Mark 16:8. Then, Jesus suddenly met them in Matthew 28:9,10. He told them not to be afraid. This is just a brief overview of what happened when Jesus was resurrected. For a more indepth study, I recommend that you read 'Easter Enigma' by John Wenham.

Did Jesus instruct his disciples to wait for him in Galilee (Matthew 28:10), or that he was ascending to his Father and God (John 20:17)?
Thereís no contradiction here, because these are two different sets of instructions given at different times.

.Upon Jesus' instructions, did the disciples return to Galilee immediately (Matthew 28:16), or after at least 40 days (Luke 24:33, 49; Acts 1:34)?
Matthew tells us that they went to Galilee, but he never tells us how lo ngthey waited before going or how long it took them to get there. Luke and Acts do tell us: 40 days. The fact that Matthew does not list a specific period of time does not mean that it happened instantaneously.

.Did the Midianites sell Joseph "to the Ishmaelites" (Genesis 37:28), or to Potiphar, an officer of Pharoah (Geneis 37:36)?
Joseph was sold to both the Ishmaelites and Potiphar. The Ishmaelites were traveling merchants that bought Joseph from his brothers. When they reached Egypt, they sold Joseph to Potiphar, an officer of Pharoah.

Did the Ishmaelites bring Joseph to Egypt (Genesis 37:28), or was it the Midianites (Genesis 37:36), or was it Joseph's brothers (Genesis 45:4)?
Genesis 37:28 tells us that the traveling merchants were made up of both Ishmaelites and Midianites. These merchants were the ones that brought Joseph to Egypt. Genesis 45:4 never says that Josephís brothers brought Joseph into Egypt. Rather, it says that they sold him into slavery in Egypt, and they did, by selling him to the merchants which then sold him to Potiphar in Egypt.

Does God change his mind (Genesis 6:7; Exodus 32:14; 1 Samuel 15:1011, 35), or does he not change his mind (1 Samuel 15:29)?
1 Samuel 15:29 tells us that God does not repent. Some older English translation of Genesis 6:7, Exodis 32:14, and 1 Samuel Chapter 15 may say that God "repented." This is due to poor translation. Through examination of the Hebrew, itís clear that a better translation would be that God "was grieved." Fortunately, this is the translation used in most modern English versions.

.How could the Egyptian magicians convert water into blood (Exodus 7:22), if all the available water had been already converted by Moses and Aaron (Exodus 7:2021)?
The Bible clearly tells us that the Nile River was turned to blood, not all the water. In fact, Exodus 7:24 tells us that the Egyptians dug wells to get water, because they could not drink from the Nile. Thatís where they got that water that the magicians converted into blood.

Did David (1 Samuel 17:23, 50) or Elhanan (2 Samuel 21:19) kill Goliath?
This is the result of a translation error. All ancient manuscripts, both the Hebrew and the Septuagint, say "Elhanan son of Jaire killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath" in 2 Samuel 21:19 However, when translated to English, this verse was mistranslated, with "Lahmi the brother of" left out. David killed Goliath. Elhanan killed Goliathís brother.

Did Saul take his own sword and fall upon it (1 Samuel 31:46), or did an Amalekite kill him (2 Samuel 1:116)?
1 Samuel 31:46 clearly tells us that Saul killed himself. 2 Samuel 1:116 does not contradict this because it does not say that Saul did not kill himself. Rather, it says that an Amalekite told David that he had killed Saul. Obviously, this Amalekite was lying, because we know from 1 Samuel 31:46 that Saul killed himself.

Is it that everyone sins (1 Kings 8:46; 2 Chronicles 6:36; Proverbs 20:9; Ecclesiastes 7:20; 1 John 1:810), or do some not sin (1 John 3:1, 89; 4:7; 5:1)?
The Bible makes it clear that every human sins. 1 John Chapter 3 does not contradict this, because it never says that some do not sin. Iím not sure why Shabir Ally sees a contradiction here. I assume he somehow misread the text.

.Are we to bear one another's burdens (Galatians 6:2), or are we to bear only our own burdens (Galatians 6:5)?
Both, actually. Galatians 6:5 tells us to bear our own burdens, but it does not tell us to bear only our own burdens. Galatians 6:2 tells us to bear one anotherís burdens. So we are to bear our own burdens, and one anotherís burdens.

.Did Jesus appear to twelve disciples after his resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:5), or was it to eleven (Matthew 27:35; 28:16; Mark 16:14; Luke 24:9,33; Acts 1:9,26)?
After Judas committed suicide, another disciple named Mathias took Judasís place, but was not counted as the twelfth apostle because he had only take Judasís place very recently, and not everyone considered him to be a true apostle. So Jesus appeared to twelve men, but they are called "The Eleven," because Mathias is not counted. 1 Corinthians was written much later, and by that time, Mathias had been with the other apostles long enough to be considered the twelfth apostle. So when 1 Corinthians was written, the writer included Mathias as part of "The Twelve," instead of excluding him and making it, "The Eleven."

Did Jesus go immediately to the desert after his baptism (Mark 1:1213), or did he first go to Galilee, see disciples, and attend a wedding (John 1:35, 43; 2:111)?
Mark 1:1213 says that Jesus went to the wilderness for forty days after his baptism. But it seems as if John saw Jesus the next day in Bethany, then in Galilee, and then in Cana, unless you go back and read the ent ire record fro m John 1:19. John the Baptist himself gives an exp anation of the baptism of Jesus. It was "John's testimony when the Jews of Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was." He refers to the event of the baptism in the past. Just look at the past tense used by John when he sees Jesus coming towards him in John 1:29,30 and John 1:32. While watching Jesus he relates to those who were listening to the event of the baptism and its significance. There is no reason to believe that the bapt sm was actually taking place at the time John was speak ing. So there is no reason to believe that this passage contradicts that of Mark's Gospel.

Did Joseph flee with the baby Jesus to Egypt (Matthew 2:13-23), or did he calmly present him at the temple in Jerusalem and return to Galilee (Luke 2:21-40)?
Herod ordered all baby boys to be killed. After this, he would think that he had killed the messiah, so there was no threat to his position as king. During this time, Joseph could present Jesus at the temple in Jerusalem without any danger, because Herod was no longer hunt ing the messiah down. But after a short while, Herod realized that the messiah was still alive, and then Joseph fled with Jesus to Egypt.

When Jesus walked on the water, did his disciples worship him (Matthew 14:33), or were they utterly astounded due to their hardened hearts (Mark 6:51,52)?
Both, actually. both Matthew and Mark agree that the disciples were astounded because they thought Jesus was a ghost, (Matthew 14:33, Mark 6:49). Matthew tells us that the disciples worshipped him. But Mark doesnít. However, Mark never says that they didnít worship him, and just because Mark doesnít mention that they worshipped him doesnít mean it didnít happen.

Most (if not all) of these "contradictions" can be explained quite easily. If you think youíve found a contradict ion in the Bible, or if you have any questions about the Bible, please email me at mattelton15@gmail.com


Education Home

Home