(This page is about internal consistency and contradictions. For information on consistency with archaeology and textual variants, please see this page.)

Respond to the statement: “The Bible is full of contradictions.” (NCFCA)

Explain the meaning and significance of inerrancy. (STOA)

Analyze and respond to the statement, "We can't believe in a Bible that is full of contradictions." — Anonymous (STOA)

Why is this topic challenging?

The materials in this section are presented as context for the resources below and may not reflect orthodox viewpoints.

Defining the Topic

Inerrancy and infalibility

Dr. D.A. Carson (PhD in New Testament studies from University of Cambridge) defines inerrancy as a doctrine holding that "the Bible speaks the truth on whatever it says, in every domain, reliably." He defines it in opposition to infalibility, which he argues has come to mean "biblical faithfulness in matters of faith only . . . not in matters of history, or other factual content."

What are some possible perspectives?

Voddie Bachaum

M.Div., D.Min. from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, pastor at Grace Community Church in Texas

The Bible's consistency and textual veracity is sufficient, standing alone.

Peter Enns

M.Div. from Westminster Theological Seminary, Ph.D. from Harvard University in Eastern Languages and Civilizations

The Bible finds strength in the diversity of its perspectives, not weakness.

Possible Arguments

A primer on how to resolve contradictions

Joseph Okello (M.Div., M.A. from Asbury Theological Seminary), "Diffusing Apparent Biblical Contradictions: A Logical Demonstration," https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ajet/23-1_047.pdf

Joseph Okello reasons out an apparent inconsistency between the sixth commandment “you shall not kill” (Exodus 20:13, Deuteronomy 5:17) and “there is a time to die” (Ecclesiastes 3:2) through a philosophical approach.

First, he argues, the tension can be neutralized by considering the different situations in which ‘kill’ is different from ‘murder’, thus proving that x is different than y. He turns to the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon (BDB) to more thoroughly define the terms. Here he proves there is some overlap in the definition, so Okello infers that (1) some acts of killing are acts of murder but (2) some acts of killing are not acts of murder.

To this reasoning he offers two forms of objections. First, the soft objection follows that “in considerations of Biblical words and phrases one should pay undivided attention to the geographical, cultural, historical and linguistic contexts of the words or phrases in question, but it is almost impossible to be true to the grammatical-historical method of Biblical interpretation if one does not take issues of context seriously.”

Secondly, a hard objection may state that this treatment of the contradiction “does not absolve the Bible from other contradictions.” To this objection he appeals to Aristotle’s’ principle of non-contradiction: "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." Thus he concludes that what appears to be a contradiction, might not be a contradiction at all and logic is a valuable tool to help clarify the issues involved by “formulating proper frameworks for diffusing the tensions in question.”

The Bible may be internally consistent unless a contradiction is conclusive

Eric Lyons (M.Min. from Freed-Hardeman University), "Dealing Fairly with Alleged Bible Contradictions," Apologetics Press, 2013, http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1135

Lyons lists several principles for dealing with possible contradictions, which include:

“A book is to be presumed internally consistent until it can be shown conclusively that it is contradictory.”
Possibilities will suffice. He offers this example: Matthew and Mark wrote that “the robbers” (plural) reviled Jesus on the cross (Matthew 27:44; Mark 15:32). Luke, on the other hand, mentioned that “one of the criminals” blasphemed Jesus (Luke 23:39, emp. added). First, it is quite possible that, initially, both thieves reviled Christ, but then one of them repented. A second possible explanation for the differences involves the understanding of a figure of speech known as "synecdoche" – “a figure of speech by which a part is put for the whole (as fifty sail for fifty ships). Both Genesis 8:4 and 21:7 are examples of synecdoche.
Lyons emphasizes the importance of context. For example, he cites Matthew 24:34 which where Jesus tells his listeners that the judgement day will come before the generation he’s speaking to passes away. Many critics site this as a blatant falsehood, however, from the context of the chapter, Jesus was prophesying about the coming destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E.
Additional material is not necessarily contradictory, for example, Matthew, Luke, and Mark all wrote about how a man named Joseph took the body of Jesus, wrapped it and laid it in the tomb. However, John’s account states that Joseph didn’t bury Jesus (John 19:38-40). Lyons argues that John simply supplemented the others’ accounts by adding additional facts. In conclusion, “different but truthful wordings in Scripture are exactly what a person should expect to find in a book composed of 66 smaller books written by approximately 40 different writers, who wrote to different people, at different times, and in different places with different purposes.”

Alleged contradictions generally not required by the text

Paul Taylor (M.Ed. from Nottingham University), "Isn’t the Bible Full of Contradictions?," Published by Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/contradictions-in-the-bible/isnt-the-bible-full-of-contradictions/#

Paul Taylor defends against the assumption that the Bible is full of contradictions by using the law of noncontradiction, defined by James Montgomery Boice: “If the Bible is truly from God, and if God is a God of truth (as He is), then . . . if two parts seem to be in opposition or in contradiction to each other, our interpretation of one or both of these parts must be in error.”

First, he claims that recent discoveries of biblical texts show that the Bible is substantially the same as when it was written. Second, most discrepancies are only discrepancies because of the presuppositions of the one making the allegations. Third, most supposed errors are caused by taking verses out of context. Fourth, errors caused by mistranslations have been documented and are unintentional. Fifth, problems that are caused from the fluidity of language are not actually problems. Lastly, any copyist errors should not undermine the belief of inerrancy in scripture.

Bible must be "innocent until proven guilty"

Charles Aebi (MA in Bible from Abilene Christian University), "Alleged Contradictions," https://wvsop.com/wp-content/uploads/WVSOP/Lectureship/Books/2005ChrisitianEvidences.pdf#page=210

Charles J. Aebi builds his argument on the foundation that the Bible is the inspired, authoritative Word of God. God does not make errors, so the Bible is inerrant, meaning there were no contradictions in the original manuscripts (according to 2 Tim. 3:16-17, 1 Pet. 1:23, 2 Pet. 1:20-1, John 10:35b, John 17:17, Heb. 6:18, etc.). Since the Bible claims to be inerrant (it cannot contradict itself in its original writings or manuscripts, called autographs), then the Bible must be approached with an “innocent until proven guilty” mentality.

Aebi reveals that “contradictions” can come from one of several sources:

Failing to define contradiction, which he defines as an inconsistency when “referring to the same person place or thing in the same sense and at the same time.” This, is often misunderstood as confusion, for example: “Such a thing happens when a critic thinks the feeding of the 5,000 and the feeding of the 4,000 are the same event but that the author got mixed up when writing about them.”
Failing to understand the context can lead to misunderstandings; it is important to remember to whom it was said, why it was said, and under what circumstances. For example: “Peter was told to put away his sword (Matt. 26:52); the Ephesians were told to take up the sword of the Spirit (Eph. 6:17). Obviously, they were two different kinds of swords used for two very different purposes.”
The failure of copyists and translators to accurately convey the original writings which were caused by nonprofessional copyists.
Translating the Scripture into English can also lead to unintentional misunderstandings.
The failure to be objective and thorough in considering scriptures: “For example, the three groups of 14 generations in the genealogy of Christ given by Matthew add up to only 41, but three times 14 is 42. It is easy to see that the groups overlap. This evidently was done by Matthew to use a memory device, listing David’s name twice to end one division of 14 and begin another division of 14. And The sum of the numerical value of the Hebrew letters in the name of David is fourteen, so it made an easy memory device for the ancient Semitic mind.”

Inerrancy does not require precision: example, genealogies of Matthew and Luke

Robert Plummer (Ph.D., professor of the New Testament at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary), "Do Inconsistencies in the Gospels Undermine Scripture’s Inerrancy?," Published by the Gospel Coalition, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/tgc-asks-inconsistencies-gospels-undermine-scriptures-authority/

Robert Plummer’s main argument is that inconsistencies do not undermine the inerrancy of the gospels because incongruities are expected from any historical retelling of events by different witnesses. To support this idea Plummer shows that some perceived mistakes come from modern readers expecting the gospels to be written chronologically. However, each gospel and each author includes or discludes different details to emphasize different aspects. He concludes by advising young scholars not to be afraid in asking honest questions of the text and to study it carefully in order to glean the truth.

C.S. Lewis on historicity

C.S. Lewis, "C. S. Lewis on Inerrancy, Inspiration, and Historicity of Scripture," Published by the Christian Resource Institute, http://www.crivoice.org/lewisbib.html

C.S. Lewis' letters reveal that, despite his trust in the inspiration of Scripture, he harbored doubts about the "historicity" of portions of the Old Testament such as Job or Jonah. To him, the moral value of the stories stand independent of whether there was a person named Jonah swallowed by a fish. He points to Old Testament writing as a kind of literature in the same way that Jesus' parables were never meant to be taken as literal historical fact. He notes that any view on the subject must account for certain inconsistencies, such as the genealogies between Matthew and Luke, and the death of Judas in Matt. 27:5 and Acts 1:18-19.

He closes by reaffirming his belief in the Resurrection while noting that he need not trust the exact size of the Old Testament armies, for example. This is because "kind of truth we are often demanding was, in my opinion, not even envisaged by the ancients."

Contradictions are grounds for rejection of the Bible's authority

Joseph Sommer (J.D. from the University of Toledo), "Some Reasons Why Humanists Reject The Bible," Published by the American Humanist Association, https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism/reasons-humanists-reject-bible/

Joseph Sommer argues the Humanists reject the authority of the Bible as God’s Word for four main reasons: (1) there are contradictions; (2) it contains and promotes cruelty; (3) it extols supernatural events which go against the laws of nature; and (4) it contains false prophecies.

First, Sommer lists many Old and New Testament contradictions. for example there are three different accounts between the four Gospels which means the Bible cannot be infallible.

Second, Sommer gives examples concerning the cruelty of God: “He damned the whole human race and cursed the entire creation because of the acts of two people (Genesis 3:16-23; Romans 5:18); he drowned pregnant women and innocent children and animals at the time of the Flood (Genesis 7:20-23); he tormented the Egyptians and their animals with hail and disease because pharaoh refused to let the Israelites leave Egypt (Exodus 9:8-11,25); etc.”

Third, Sommer argues that people have misdirected to solve problems. Rather than performing religious activities to placate benevolent deities or thwart malicious ones, they should study science.

Lastly, Sommer lists false prophecies from the Old and New Testament which undermine its reliability like the millions of people who have not received things though they asked in Jesus’ name. In conclusion, if the Humanist view of the Bible is correct, “millions of Bible-believers and churchgoers are wasting much time, money, and energy. Humanity’s condition could be greatly improved if those resources were used for solving the world’s problems instead of worshiping a nonexistent God.”

Applications

Genesis ch. 1, 2 contradict, but that's okay

Pete Enns (PhD from Harvard University), "Let's Talk About Genesis," Published on Youtube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8D73x83dFY

Professor Enns points out that there are clear differences between the two accounts which can't be easily resolved. For example, chapter 1 begins with an excess of water from which God raises the land. Chapter 2 begins with the opposite: dry land. Rather than quibbling, over the details, Enns suggests that the two accounts are intentionally written as metaphors to describe different aspects of God, rather than literal accounts meant to be taken as historical fact.

Genesis ch. 1, 2 are not contradictory

Jiří Moskala (professor of Old Testament exegesis at Andrews University), "A Fresh Look at Two Genesis Creation Accounts: Contradictions?," Published by Andrews University Seminary Studies, https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3127&context=auss

Professor Moskala takes a scholarly approach to resolving twelve differences between the creation accounts in the first two chapters of Genesis. He agrees that the two accounts paint different pictures of God (Genesis 1 being universal, and Genesis 2 being personal), but suggests that they were written purposely together and are complementary.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse