| "....the Word of God came, and Scripture cannot be broken." -John 10:35 "And we have the prophetic word made more sure, which you do well to heed, as a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture comes about from one's own interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke, being brought along by the Holy Spirit." -2 Peter 1:19-21 EMTV Are There Contradictions in the Bible? Throughout the ages, Orthodox Christians have claimed that the Bible is without error in the original text. Augustine wisely stated, "If we are perplexed by any apparent contradiction in Scripture, it is not allowable to say, ‘The author of this book is mistaken’; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood" (Augustine, 11.5). Not even one error has ever been demonstrated from the original text of the Bible. Many people only have a superficial idea of what constitutes a genuine contradiction. A contradiction and a mere difference are not the same. Before establishing that something is a contradiction, all possible explanations must be exhausted. In logic, the Law of Contradiction is stated succinctly: “Nothing can both be and not be” (Jevons, 1928, p. 117). That is a very abbreviated form of the rule. Aristotle expressed it in a more amplified way: “That the same thing should at the same time both be and not be for the same person and in the same respect is impossible.” When we encounter an apparent contradiction, we need to consider the following questions: Is the same person or thing being considered? Is it in regard to the same time frame? Is the context the same? Since the Bible has more people trying to discredit it than any other book on earth, it is often treated with contempt, not with the same fairness as other writings. The principle of “innocent until proven guilty” should be applied to the Bible as much as to any other book. Just as with people, the Bible should be considered truthful and consistent unless it can be demonstrated that it is not. For example, let's consider two statements that appear to be conflicting: Dave is a rich man; Dave is a poor man. Is it the same Dave? Was Dave once wealthy and lost it all? Or was he poor and became wealthy later in life? Was he spiritually or mentally rich or poor, or was it referring to his economic status? Since the Bible contains both literal and spiritual things as much or more than any other book, it is sometimes difficult to determine what sense a particular passage is referring to. Additionally, much of the Bible is allegory or symbolic. Jesus employed parables in His teachings most of the time. Since the Bible is the deepest and most complex book ever written, containing the wisdom of God, and no other book can make such a claim, and since it has been tampered with, apparent conflicting statements need to be analyzed to the deepest extent before we can dispense anything contained therein as erroneous in its original form. Expanding on the information brought out in the essay "Which Bible?", if we want to know what is truly the inspired word of God, and we are seeking absolute inerrancy, choosing translations that are derived from the Textus Recepticus still leaves much to be desired. Any text not in its original language is far from perfect, and cannot convey the original intended thought. If two statements directly contradict each other, at least one is a lie, or one or both statements are not being examined in their proper context. One thing is certain: God cannot lie, and neither can his Son Yeshua, He being the exact image of His Father. The first objection I usually hear from Christians is this: "You cannot pick and choose what is or is not inspired by God based on what fits into your own beliefs." The premise of that statement is that the Bible has been preserved in its 100 percent accurate original form to the present day. That is an unreasonable assumption. We've heard the phrase "something was lost in the translation". The Hebrew Scriptures were originally written in just that-- Paleo-Hebrew. During their captivity in Babylon, the Israelites adopted Babylonian-Aramaic as their official language, and the young elites of the Jews were trained in the mystery religion of Babylon. It was during this time that the oral traditions of the Pharisees became intertwined with the truth given to Moses directly from God. The oral tradition, originally called "Mishna", eventually became Kabbalah. Since there were no printing presses, the Masorete Scribes were entrusted with making copies of the original, inspired holy writings. For instance, concerning the Divine Name of God, we know that eie (HYH) was disguised as euei (YHWH) before the vowel points for "Adonai"(Lord) were inserted into the tetragrammaton YHWH, to remind the reader not to pronounce the name, because of superstition over the commandment not to use the name of God in vain. Are we beginning to see the potential inroads for corruption? Add to that the thousands of years that have passed, the thousands of translations into other languages, imperfect man's tendency towards embellishment, or to translate according to what makes sense to him, or what would fit into his own theology. Is it reasonable to conclude that it was Ehyeh's intent to preserve His Word perfectly and that He failed? No, in fact He did not fail, because we have access to Jewish translations that are far more reliable and accurate, not to mention the modern tools available to us that allow us to learn the meaning of the ancient words for ourselves. A young child can observe the wonders of creation, and conclude that the overriding theme of all that was made on this earth is LOVE. The fact that God is LOVE is evident everywhere. That same child can also grasp the idea that at some point, something went terribly awry. I know this because it was my own experience. Surely whoever created this beautiful earth is not happy about how it is being polluted and slowly destroyed. Millions of species of marine and animal life disappear from the earth annually. But we always end up having to answer the question about why our Creator has seemingly disappeared while doing nothing to halt its demise. Our Creator Ehyeh has given us a perfectly reasonable explanation for all these questions in His written Word, if people would only care to read it. In spite of all of this evidence, try asking on an Internet forum such as Myspace for proof that God exists, and outside of the physical creation that we observe and people's own personal experiences of God interacting in their lives, no one can provide any, and atheists will come out of the woodwork to mock the question. Without the Bible, we have absolutely no communication from the Creator of the Universe, and no idea how the world got this way, or where it's going, unless we want to believe what men tell us. After close scrutiny, it is indisputable that we have a Bible that, despite it's corruptions, is a complex literary work that is way beyond the capacity of mortal man to produce. All by itself, the Book of Job is regarded by many scholars to be one of the greatest literary works of all time, and contains wisdom that still hasn't been fully understood down to this day. The biggest problem is that men ultimately decided the canon, and many church leaders and scholars were not in agreement on it. This was quoted in the essay "When the Wall Falls", but it's worth repeating. Under "Biblical Canon", Wikipedia says: "These lists, or canons, have been developed through debate and agreement by the religious authorities of those faiths. Believers consider these canonical books to be inspired by God or to express the authoritative history of the relationship between God and his people. Books excluded from a particular canon are considered non- canonical — however, many disputed books considered non-canonical or even apocryphal by some are considered Biblical apocrypha or Deuterocanonical or fully canonical, by others. There are differences between the Jewish and Christian canons, and between the canons of different Christian denominations. The differing criteria and processes of canonization dictate what the communities regard as the inspired books." Some of the non-canonical writings contain information that sheds great light on the meaning of canonical texts, but it was imperfect, misled, and sometimes unscrupulous men that fought to keep them out of the Bible, and they won. As a result, the written scriptures we have today leave much to be desired. Many things have been subtracted from them, and added to them, for political reasons. Additionally, many things have been lost to honest mistakes in translations and transcriptions. Some say that the Illuminati wrote the Bible. Some even say that Moses and others Bible writers were in on the conspiracy, with Moses being trained in the Egyptian secret arts and all. First of all, the Illuminati are too haughty and proud to write a book where their failures (and antics) are candidly stated, and where they lose in the end. On top of that, you would think that if they had written the Bible, they would have done a little bit of a better job, where they wouldn't have had to work so feverishly for the last 3,500 years to change, corrupt, interpolate, twist, hide, outlaw, discredit, and otherwise pollute it. The result is there are thousands of Bible versions to go along with the 40,000+ Christian denominations that each have their own interpretation of it. These sects isolate portions of the Bible, build their theology upon those portions, and ignore or discard the rest. This is confusion, the exact meaning of the word "Babel". And who is the author of confusion? Satan! Besides, the Illuminati have their own holy book, and it's called the Babylonian Talmud. Not surprisingly, it is the antithesis of God's Inspired Word. Probably the biggest reason why Christians believe that the Bible is the pure, unadulterated Word of God is because of Saul's claim that "all scripture is inspired of God and beneficial...." (2 Timothy 3:16). All what scripture? What about the scriptures that didn't make the final cut? Did Saul say this to legitimize his own epistles? It is interesting that this was later changed by the revisionists to read "every scripture that is inspired of God...." Now that's more like it! The likely reason for this change was the debating that ensued involving Marcion and others over the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, something that would stand in the way of power-grabbing by the churches. So, who is it that makes the determination of what is or is not inspired by God? It is you, by your God-given powers of discernment and reason, and by applying Berean principles, testing everything to see if they are indeed so, making sure of all things and holding fast to what is fine. Well, it is difficult to make sure of something in the Bible if you have the preconceived notion that God Himself decided the canon. It should also be noted that most of the scriptures never claimed, nor were intended to be, a word-for-word dictation from God's mouth. They were simply historical records telling the story of a certain group of people, in an attempt to preserve those records for posterity. As for the New Testament, the scriptures themselves say that if all Yeshua did and said had been written down, the world itself could not contain the books that would be required. Is that not a clear indication that even the original scriptures did not contain the fullness of Yeshua's message? One final important thing to consider is this: The differences in various Bible accounts of the same events actually demonstrate the independence of the writers, while proving that they were not in collusion! Conflicting Accounts? Let's take a look at a few of the allegations of contradictions in the Bible, beginning with an article by Willie Martin found at sullivan-county.com entitled "Conflicting Accounts": 1) According to Mark, chapter 8, verse 12, Jesus says: "In truth, no sign shall be given (by me) to this generation (which refers to the generation of Jews who rejected his claims)." John chapter 12 verse 37 (cf. Acts chapter 2 verse 22) says, in evident contradiction, that Jesus gave "many signs" to this same disbelieving generation of Jews. Answer: Yeshua had been performing miracles, including healing the sick, on the Sabbath. The Pharisees had seen these miracles, and were well aware of Yeshua's ability to do so. They asked, "Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath?" Their concern was not for the crippled man, but in finding fault with Yeshua. After explaining why it was lawful to do good on the sabbath, Yeshua simply told the man, "'Stretch out your hand.' And the man stretched it out, and it was restored, whole like the other" (Matthew 12:9-13; cf. Mark 3:1-5; Luke 6:6-10). So the real answer to this lies in the context of Yeshua's rebuttal to the Pharisees, wherein he profoundly predicts that He would be murdered by this "evil and wicked generation", and would lie dead in the tomb for three days, only to be resurrected! Matthew 12:39-42 says: "But He answered and said to them, "An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh shall stand up in the judgment with this generation and shall condemn it, because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, a greater than Jonah is here. The queen of the South shall rise up in the judgment with this generation and she shall condemn it, because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and behold, a greater than Solomon is here." The Pharisees had seen all the signs they needed to see, but they still plotted against Yeshua and would not believe. That's why Yeshua said that no sign would be given them, because they had already seen enough signs. (2) Mark, chapter 6, verse 5 says that Jesus "could do no miracle" on at least one occasion. The word is could (not would) which means it was not possible for Jesus to perform a miracle at that time. But Mark, chapter 10, verse 27 says just the opposite, that "with God all things are possible." Hence, Jesus is eliminated as a god. Answer: How absurd! First of all, let's read the entire verse: "And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them." So, Yeshua was performing miracles, healing the sick. Perhaps there was no need or purpose in performing a greater miracle at that particular place or time. Second of all, these writings are based on the memory of the men who were witnesses of Yeshua in the flesh, and were finally recorded many years after the fact! Does one word written by Mark negate all of Jesus' powers? (3) In John, chapter 5, verse 31, Jesus supposedly says: "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true." But a little later he reportedly exclaims: "Even if I bear witness of myself, yet my witness is true (John 8:14)." Furthermore, to make matters even more confused and conflicted, this passage was added to the Christian Bible in the sixth century. It is first found in a paper called "Liber Appologeticus" in the fourth century. It is noted that the words are sixth century additions to the original text. The footnote in the Jerusalem Bible, a Catholic translation, says these words are "not in any of the early Greek manuscripts or in the earliest manuscripts of the Vulgate itself." It is interesting that the Catholic church, who originally added this verse would admit now that it a spurious addition to the Greek Testament! Answer: I have to question why this is listed as a contradiction of scripture when the writer of this article debunked his own alleged contradiction! If anything, it proves that interpolations took place in order to corrupt the inspired Word! (4) It is supposedly the Last Supper. John, chapter 13, verse 36 has Peter ask Jesus: "Where are you going?" Then John, chapter 14, verse 5 has Thomas say to him: "We know not where you are going." But John, chapter 16, verse 5, has Jesus reply: "None of you are asking me where I'm going!" Because Peter asked Jesus where he was going, it is very clear that Jesus has deliberately lied. Answer: Oh really? John was writing from memory, and he was never known for paying close attention to putting things in chronological order, as Luke was. Yeshua may have made His statement before Peter asked the question. Or, it may simply be an interpolation or an error in translation. In any case, why would Yeshua lie about such a trivial thing? What would it prove? (5) In John, chapter 7, verse 38, Jesus reportedly says: "Scripture said: 'From his innermost being shall flow rivers of living water'." There is no such passage in the Hebrew Tanach or anything resembling it. Answer: The first thing I notice is that no one in the crowd questioned where this saying came from. Verse 40 says: "Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet." This verse has been the subject of considerable debate among scholars. Yeshua takes the literal water used in the ceremony and applies it in a figurative sense, referring to the Holy Spirit that would come to dwell in the believer. There is some difficulty locating a text in the Old Testament that speaks of rivers of water flowing from within a person, but Isaiah 58:11 says: “And the LORD will continually guide you, and satisfy your desire in scorched places, and give strength to your bones; and you will be like a watered garden, and like a spring of water whose waters do not fail”(NASB). Other passages which have been suggested are Prov 4:23; 5:15; 18:4; Isaiah 44:3 and 55:1; Ezekiel 47:1; Joel 3:18; and Zechariah 13:1 and 14:8. The meaning in this case is that when any man comes to believe in Yeshua, the Scriptures referring to the activity of the Holy Spirit in a person’s life are fulfilled. “When the believer comes to Christ and drinks he not only slakes his thirst but receives such an abundant supply that veritable rivers flow from him.” (Morris, The Gospel According to John, 424-25.) In other words, with this view, the believer himself becomes the source of the living water. (6) Matthew 2:23 says that: "He came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, he shall be called a Nazarene." There is no mention of this in the Ketuvim (the prophets). This narrated prophecy does not even exist! In the Old Testament (King James Version), the words "Nazareth" and "Nazarene" do not ever appear! Answer: Because the Old Testament was written in Hebrew/Aramaic, that's why! In Hebrew, Na·tse´reth means "Sprout-Town". That means that the statement could read, "he shall be called someone from Sprout-Town". Try doing a search for "sprout" or as the KJV says, "branch" and see how many references there are to Yeshua being the "Sprout of Jesse" or the "Branch of David"! (7) John 17:12 mentions a "son of perdition" and says the "scriptures are being fulfilled." There is no reference, however, to a "son of perdition" in the Tanach. Answer: Yeshua was referring to Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him. "Also the man at peace with me, in whom I trusted, Who was eating my bread, has magnified [his] heel against me." (Psalms 41:9) "Let his days prove to be few; His office of oversight let someone else take.' (Psalms 109:8) "For it is written in the book of Psalms, ‘Let his lodging place become desolate, and let there be no dweller in it,’ and, ‘His office of oversight let someone else take.’" -Acts 1:20. (8) Jesus says that it was Zechariah, son of Berechiah, who was killed in the Temple courtyard (Matthew 23:35). Apparently Jesus didn't read the Bible very closely or he would have known it was another Zechariah, whose father was Jehoiada, who was killed there (II Chronicles 24:2-22). Answer: From an article entitled "Here a Zach, Where a Zach: Was Jesus in Error About Zachariah?" by James Patrick Holding: "....Actually there are no less than six possible solutions to this problem...
A question arises, of course, as to why we should accept any of these suppositions as solutions. The answer is that it is always best to give an ancient writer the benefit of the doubt, because we are so limited in what we do know about ancient history - moreover, it avoids the presupposition that the writer was stupid. Really, if the writer of Matthew did make an error of the type suggested, how hard would it have been for pious Jews to discredit him? That there is no evidence that they did is testimony to the veracity of Matthew's account, whichever one of these solutions applies. (9) Regarding Jesus' stepfather, was he Joseph son of Jacob son of Mattan son of Eliezer (Matthew 1:15-16) or Joseph son of Eli son of Mattat son of Levi (Luke 3:23-24)? And how can both sets of genealogical tables validly include Shealtiel and Zerubabbel (Matthew 1:12; Luke 3:27), given that both of these men are descendants of Jeconiah (1 Chronicles 3:16-19), of whom G-d has said: "No man of his seed shall prosper, sitting on the throne of David or ruling any more in Judah" (Jeremiah 22-30)? Answer: Well well, this is quite the can of worms, isn't it? What little I know about this subject tells me that there are numerous plausible explanations for these anomalies that require deep research. The chances are that a) The pronouncement against Jeconiah was temporary b) They are not the same Shialtiel and Zerubbabel c) The pronouncement against Jeconiah was lifted at Haggai 2:20-24. The details of all the possible ways to solve this apparent dilemma are rounded up very nicely in an article by Glenn Miller entitled: "Part IV: Problems in the Genealogies of Jesus" (10) Was John the Baptist Elijah, as Jesus claimed (Matthew 11:14)? If so, why did John himself deny it (John 1: 21)? Would "Elijah" have been so unsure of Jesus' messianic identity (Luke 7:19-20)? And where in our Scriptures is it written that Elijah would be mistreated, as Jesus claimed (Mark 9:13)? Don't our Scriptures indicate, to the contrary, that Elijah will be successful in his mission of restoring harmony among the people (Malachai 4:5-6)? Moreover, Mark 9:11-13 and Mark 6:16 declares that: "Elijah has come" and "It is John who I beheaded." There is no indication from the Tanach that Elijah would be beheaded. I refer you, once again, to Malachi 4:5-6. Answer: At Matthew 11:14, Yeshua does not say "He is" but "If you are willing to receive it, he is." This prophecy has two fulfillments. The first is before Yeshua arrived in the flesh, when John the Baptist came in the spirit and power of Elijah to prepare the way of Yeshua and make His paths straight. Luke 1:17 says: "And it is he who will go before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the prudence of the righteous, to prepare for the Lord a people made ready." The second fulfillment is before the second coming, which hasn't happened yet. "Elijah" is one of the Two Witnesses in Revelation 11:3,4, representing the prophets. The other is "Moses", who will be representing the Torah. Will it be Moses and Elijah in the flesh, or are the Two Witnesses representative of a group? Some believe that it will be the former, based on the fact that the Two Witnesses will have the power to cause droughts as Elijah did, and also based on these words of Jesus: "And the disciples asked Him, saying, Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first? And He answered and said, Elijah indeed is coming and will restore all things; but I say to you that Elijah has already come; and they did not recognize him, but did with him the things they wished. So also the Son of Man is about to suffer by them. Then the disciples understood that He spoke to them concerning John the Baptist." -Matthew 17:10-13. Yeshua is careful to point out that Elijah has yet to come, but then says "but I say to you." This indicates that although Elijah is coming, it can also be said that he has already come, in the symbolic form of John the Baptist. Since the Two Witnesses will accomplish a worldwide preaching work, it seems likely that the Two Witnesses are representative of a vastly larger group. (11) Who's to judge the sinner? According to Jesus in John, chapter 5, verse 22: "For the Father judges no man but has committed all judgment to the Son" (meaning Jesus himself). But, then Jesus contradicts himself; "I judge no man" (John 8:15) and "I did not come to judge the world (John 12:47)." So who did? Listen to Jesus this time: "You (disciples) shall judge the twelve tribes of Israel" (Matthew 19:28). Unfortunately, this contradicts Jesus' original warning to them: "Not to judge, lest you be judged (Matthew 7:1)." Answer: All isolated and out of context! Let's start with Matthew 7:1-6, where Yeshua says: "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." Yeshua is teaching that it is hypocritical to judge others unless we have gotten ourselves right before God, otherwise how would we ever be able to determine who are the dogs and the swine? Obviously, He did not mean that we should never make any kind of judgement at all, otherwise we would not be able to fulfill the exhortations of God's Word in numerous places, such as never letting anyone deceive us (Matthew 24:4; Luke 21:8). If only God can judge, then how can we heed John's command: "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world" (1 John 4:1)? Yeshua did not come to judge the world when He came in the flesh, He came to save it (Luke 9:56; John 12:47). He earned the right to judge mankind when He was impaled on the torture stake and resurrected three days later. He also bestowed upon His chosen disciples the authority to be judges in His Kingdom (Revelation 5:10), and to "judge the twelve tribes of Israel" (Luke 22:30). (12) Paul says. "It is shameful for a man to wear his hair long" (I Corinthians 11:14). Glaringly, this is the only way Jesus is ever pictured." Answer: Paul was a false apostle and a Pharisee steeped in Mithraism, and he had a problem with women. Evidently a man growing his hair long was repulsive to him, but Ehyeh has clearly stated that there is nothing dishonorable about long hair on a man, at Numbers 6:5, Judges 13:5 and 1 Samuel 1:11. (13) "Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called sons of God" (Matthew 5:8). Yet, Jesus asserted the contrary; that he "did not come to bring peace on earth, but a sword" in Matthew, chapter 10, verse 34. Answer: Yeshua is using the sword in a symbolic sense, as He goes on to say in verses 35-39: "For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it." The Bible often refers to the Word of God as a sword, who will rule the nations with an iron rod, and in Revelation 1:16; 2:12, 16, Yeshua is depicted with a long sword protruding out of his mouth. He will need to wage warfare against His enemies in order to reclaim what is rightfully His. (14) John, chapter 14, verse 9 says: "he who has seen me (in reference to Jesus) has seen the Father." This would include his mother, disciples, and others. However, the Torah teacher that "He who has seen the face of G- d shall die (Exodus 33:20)." This Torah verse amounts to eternal damnation in fundamentalist Christian theology. (Note: Even in our times, thousands of Christians claim to have seen Jesus.) Answer: Yeshua is the exact image of His Father in Heaven, and has been acting as Mediator between God the Father and mankind right from the beginning. No human has ever seen the Father Ehyeh or even spoken to Him directly. For overwhelming Biblical evidence of this, and a fine explanation of the "plural God Elohim", read this article entitled "Christ in the Old Testament". (15) According to Acts 7:53 and Galations 3:19, the Holy Torah was given to the Jewish people by "angels." But, according to Exodus 20:1, it was given to Moses by G-d: "And G-d spoke all these words." Answer: As a Mithraic priest, Saul had a fixation with angels, a basic teaching of Jewish Mysticism. (16) Acts 7:14 says that 75 souls went down to Egypt. Yet, Genesis 46:27 it says "threescore and ten" (70) went down to Egypt. Answer: This is human error somewhere in translation. At Genesis 46:27 the LXX says "seventy-five". (17) Jesus tells Peter to buy a sword (Luke 22:36). Peter reportedly uses his sword to cut off the ear of a Temple guard (John 18:10; Matthew 26:52-53). But Jesus, even though he urged Peter to buy a sword, criticizes Peter: "All those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword (Matthew 26:52)." Answer: Just as there is nothing wrong with a Christian today owning a gun for protection of himself or his family, there was nothing wrong with Yeshua telling Peter to buy a sword. It is the unwarranted, offensive use of weapons that Yeshua condemned. Under the Torah, if a thief was caught in the act of breaking in and was subsequently killed by the resident of the property, there was to be no bloodguilt on the part of the resident. -Exodus 22:2. (18) Continuing with Matthew 26, we find in verses 17 through 20 that the Last Supper was a Passover Seder. On the contrary, we find in John 19:14 that it was the preparation day for the Passover. Answer: *Sigh* Matthew 26:17 reads: "Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread...." The word for "first" in Greek is G4413 πρῶτος prōtos pro'-tos Contracted superlative of G4253; foremost (in time, place, order or importance): - before, beginning, best, chief (-est), first (of all), former. So protos can mean either first or before, as in the day before.... And, before the next alleged contradiction as to the hour Yeshua was killed comes along, let's head it off at the pass. From Tektonics Apologetics Ministries we read: Contradiction is sometimes alleged in that Mark reports the crucifixion at the third hour (Mark 15:25) while John says the sixth. The basic reply is that Mark and the other synoptics are using Jewish time (sunset to sunset; third hour = 9 AM); John is using Roman time, which is like ours (sixth hour = 6 AM - note that John says about the sixth hour; he's estimating). (The former method is still used in the Middle East, and we and other Western nations use the latter.) We know from the Synoptics that the crucifixion took over 6 hours. If John's sixth hour is really the Jewish sixth hour - noon, as unfortunately, even the Living Bible says - then the crucifixion lasted past the time when the Sabbath started. John 19:31 says that the Jews didn't want the bodies left up over the Sabbath, which obviously means that the Sabbath hadn't started yet. So either John is giving us an extraordinarily short crucifixion, or he is giving us the time in Roman. Since crucifixions were usually extended affairs, the latter assumption is more valid. (19) Hebrews, chapter 9, verse 22 says: "Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin." But, the Bible, in Isaiah, chapter 43, verses 23 through 25 teaches just the opposite; "You (Israelites) have not honored me (G-d) with your (blood) sacrifices. (Nevertheless) I will forgive your sins." And Hosea, chapter 14, verse 2 says G-d accepts "words" of thanks (prayer in place of sacrifices). Answer: Yeshua's ultimate sacrifice fulfilled the Torah requirements for the burnt offering of animals. His confirmation of the Covenant made it possible for human sacrifice of "praise of the lips" to take the place of such animal sacrifices, as per Hosea 14:2. (20) Romans, chapter 10, verse 13: "For whoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." But Matthew, chapter 7, verse 21 says "Not everybody who says to me (Jesus), Lord, Lord, shall enter the Kingdom." Thus, we learn that Jesus is not G-d or an emissary of G-d. Answer: First of all, no one gets saved by Saul/Paul's cheap grace doctrine. Secondly, Matthew 7:21 is being isolated without considering the context. Let's read the rest of it, in verses 21-23: "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? And in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Yeshua is saying that many will profess to do things in His name, but are phonies, like the Pharisees. He also clearly says that doing the will of His Father in Heaven is what is important. The Vatican casts out demons in the name of Jesus, but are they not workers of iniquity, or lawlessness? How absurd to try to correlate simply calling on Jesus' name to being saved. It won't save Satan if he decides to try that one when his time is up. (21) It is claimed in Ecclesians 1:4 that the earth does abideth forever. In II Peter 3:10, the opposite is stated. Answer: First of all, it's "Ecclesiastes", not "Ecclesians", and the earth will indeed abide forever, and scholars have shown that the epistles of 1 and 2 Peter are either total forgeries or partially interpolated. If 2 Peter 3:10 is indeed authentic, the earth "melting" and being "dissolved" is symbolic of the system under the rule of Satan. And if the earth is literally dissolved, then according to the Bible, the heavens will be "rolled up like a scroll" also. Is that realistic? No, it contradicts scripture, because after the flood Ehyeh declared that He would never again wipe every living thing off the surface of the ground. (Genesis 8:21) That's why God says He will make the Heavens and the Earth new again, it is a symbolism for a completely new righteous order of things where the Heavens and Earth are in unity as it was intended from the beginning. (22) Further, why does John 8:14 say that: "If Jesus bears witness of himself his witness is true if John 5:31 says "If Jesus bears witness of himself his witness is not true?" Answer: This one was already covered in Alleged Contradiction #3. Yes I know, overzealousness can sometimes cause these things to happen. (23) According to Matthew 17:11 and Mark 9:2, Jesus led Peter, James, and John up a high mountain after six days. Or was it eight days in accordance to Luke 9:28? Luke says "about eight days". Perhaps it felt like eight instead of six because of Paul's endless droning, Luke being his personal traveling secretary and all.... (24) The claim is made that Jesus "justified" the sinner (Romans 4:5; Romans 15:9). But, the Bible in Proverbs 17, verse 15 teaches that "He who justifies the sinner is an abomination to G-d." Once again, we can pile up mountains of evidence showing Saul/Paul to be a false apostle and a false prophet. Conclusion: If there is any area in which the Christian Bible's imperfections and errancy is most apparent, it is that of inconsistencies and contradictions. The book is a veritable miasma of contradictory assertions and obvious disagreements, which is to be expected in any writing formulated over approximately 1,500 years by 40 or 50 different writers, few of whom seemed to be precisely concerned with what the others had penned...In fact the writers were just never there. Answer to conclusion: Yes, it should be expected that 40 or 50 different writers over 1,500 years would never be able to compile a single work that had no contradictions, but the truth is that after removing the epistles of False Paul from the Bible (a canon ultimately decided by the Catholic Church), the alleged contradictions do not stand up to the Contradiction Test, proving that God's Divine Word went forth to these gentlemen. The Bible was and still is the Word of God, and one day soon we just may come across original copies of the Tanakh, possibly in the Tomb of David. If not, God has promised to make the truth known by the power of His Holy Spirit, and since God cannot lie, that is as good as done. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Bible Contradictions- Are They Real? Does the Bible Contain Contradictions? Objections Answered Alleged Bible Contradictions Bible Contradictions Answered Back to top Home |