New Bible studies and devotionals sent to your email. The first one includes a free gift!
Contradictions 1 – 15 | Contradictions 16 – 30 | Contradictions 31 – 45 | Contradictions 46 – 60 | Contradictions 61 – 75 | Contradictions 76 – 90 | Contradictions 91 – 105 | Contradictions 106 – 120 | Contradictions 121 – 135 | Contradictions 136 – 150 | Contradictions 151 – 165 | (MORE SOON TO COME…this is a slow work in progress)
140. How should we treat our enemies? Exodus 23:4, Proverbs 25:21, Matthew 5:44, and Luke 6:35 says love them, be kind to them, and treat them well, but Psalms 35:6, 8, 55:15, 58:6-7, 69:22-28, 83:9-10, 83:15-17, 109:6-14, Lamentations 1:21-22, 3:64-66, and 1 Corinthians 16:22 says hate them and wish them evil.
No, obviously the author of this question hasn’t read the actual passages enough to know that the answer is given one verse after Mark 16:13. In Mark 16:14 it says they didn’t believe it. And, Luke 24:33-34 never says they did either. It just says they were TOLD about it.
In fact, the next verses here in Luke 24 ALSO show us that even when Jesus showed up right in front of them they STILL didn’t believe it until He ate. So the supposed contradiction not only doesn’t exist, but could only be claimed for the sole purpose of deceit since it is an outright lie.
No. Many have attempted to explain this as a copyist error. BUT, you will not find me taking this “easy road out.” They believe this because the Masoretic Text used to translate the KJV “doesn’t have the words “the brother of” Goliath. So they believe since the KJV wrote this in italics it is because the translators felt they had to do so to remove a contradiction.
THIS IS NOT TRUE! The fact is the Masotetic Text DOES have the words there! Words are simply a way to communicate something. If I say the word “rose” you will picture a flower, but as Juliet said, “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.”
So, does the Masoretic Text use the word “rose” or does it use another name with the same meaning? Yes, it does. The word that you WILL find in 1 Chronicles is אחי. Which is Hebrew for “the brother of.” Then you find something VERY similar in 2 Samuel, את.
The word in 2 Samuel also means “the brother of” but it includes an extra mark which means, for the lack of a better word in English, “the.” So it says, “the brother of THE Goliath.”
The real issue here is that in order to understand why the KJV translated it this way you would need to know how to read the original. So the assumption that “the brother of” doesn’t exist is incorrect. Also, it is often said that the KJV used italics when they added to the scriptures. This is not entirely true. They actually used italics when the concept of the word needed to be translated since there was no direct English equivalent.
For example, if I say “Sobremesa” (a Spanish word) I could not translate it into English without turning it into a sentence to explain the thought behind it. So if I said, “The Sobremesa was fun.” it would be translated as “The moment after eating a meal when the food is gone but the conversation is still flowing at the table was fun.”
So the KJV is basically translating it as saying, “The brother of the one and only Goliath that David killed.” No contradiction here.
No. Matthew 11:15 says, “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” So it is not surprising that this is not understood by the skeptic. When the Bible says John the Baptist was Elijah who was to come it is speaking of Malachi 4. This is further supported in Luke 1 where the angel says that he would go “in the spirit and power of Elias.”
So when Jesus said this was Elijah He was speaking spiritually, not carnally. John the Baptist had the same spirit that Elijah had, though he was not in fact Elijah himself. Jesus said in Matthew 17 that Elijah WILL come and WILL restore all things. So a future literal fulfillment is still to come. But a spiritual fulfillment had already come through John.
Again, this is not something that many people will be able to grasp since it is spiritually discerned. He that has ears to hear is a way of saying “he that can understand spiritual things will understand this.” But the point is that it is not a contradiction due to the nature of the statements. One statement speaks of a spiritual (or metaphorical) coming of Elijah, which was John. The other speaks of a literal coming of THE actual Elijah which has yet to come.
When will the end of the world come? Matthew 10:23 says before the gospel is preached to all the cities of Israel, but Matthew 24:14 says after the gospel is preached to the whole world. Is this a contradiction in the Bible?
No. Let’s put Matthew in context.
But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.
In it’s proper context we see that Jesus is telling them that they will not have been run out of every town in Israel for the sake of the gospel before Jesus comes. It does not say that the gospel would not be preached in every city though.
So, they would not run out of cities to flee to, and the gospel will have been preached in every nation.
How should we treat our enemies? Exodus 23:4, Proverbs 25:21, Matthew 5:44, and Luke 6:35 says love them, be kind to them, and treat them well, but Psalms 35:6, 8, 55:15, 58:6-7, 69:22-28, 83:9-10, 83:15-17, 109:6-14, Lamentations 1:21-22, 3:64-66, and 1 Corinthians 16:22 says hate them and wish them evil. Is this a contradiction in the Bible?
No. Psalm 35, Psalm 55, Psalm 58, Psalm 68, Psalm 69, Psalm 83, Psalm 109, Lamentations 3, and Luke 19 all speak of a time of judgment. This time is reserved for GOD to take vengeance. It is not for MEN to take vengeance.
Psalm 139 and 1 Corinthians 16 speak of a hatred for the wicked. Love and hate are not opposites. I will explain that in a moment.
Now, Exodus 23, Proverbs 25, Romans 12, Matthew 5, and Luke 6 do tell us to love, be kind, and treat our enemies well.
So the real question is how can you love someone while also hating them? The word hate itself means “intense or passionate dislike.” the word love means (among other things) “an intense feeling of deep affection.”
Have you ever heard someone say, “I love you, but I really don’t like you right now?” Psychology Today even explains that the two are not opposites.
So when the Bible shows us that the wicked are to be both loved and hated at the same time it is not asking for something impossible.
Now, as far as the judgments listed in these verses it would be a good idea to take note that it is GOD doing the punishing and not men. So again, until the time of judgment we are to have this “love hate relationship.”
But, there is a time for peace, and a time for war. The Bible has said that God has been full of mercy in giving time for people to repent, but there is a set day when time will run out and they will be judged. Though God loves everyone He also hates the wicked and will bring His vengeance on them at the appointed time.
No. When Jesus says that no one has gone up to heaven except for the one who came down from heaven He does so in the middle of a conversation where He is talking about being a witness. So Jesus is telling us that no one who has gone to heaven has come down from heaven to give us an eye witness account, except for Him.
So in the proper context we see that Jesus is not saying no one has ever gone to heaven. He is saying no one has gone to heaven, witnessed it, then returned to tell us about it. There is no contradiction here. Because, when Jesus said no one has gone to heaven He also narrowed down who the “no one” was. It was no one who went up and then came down to testify of it. Therefore the statement does not apply to those who have gone there but have not returned.
No. The Bible removes Enoch from the list of “all” when it tells us that Enoch did not die. Therefore, when it says they “all” died it does not include the exception since it has already been addressed. This is a common rule in language.
You may understand through an example. Take this story as an example:
I went with my class to the zoo. Everyone (except for Enoch, because he stayed home that day) got to see the monkeys. Then the whole class went out for ice cream before going back to the school.
Enoch was already dealt with and therefore he is not included when I say the whole class went for ice cream.
No. Jude says Enoch is the 7th FROM Adam. There are two ways to look at that. It can mean Enoch is the 7th man if you count FROM the beginning of man, which includes Adam. It could also mean that Enoch is the 7th man NOT INCLUDING Adam. Which would indeed cause a contradiction. But, since the Bible counts Adam in every case through the other passages (as he is mentioned first in every list) it stands to reason that Adam is included in the count.
The reason it is assumed that the other passages show he is the 6th is because the one making the assumption has forgotten to count Adam. The Bible never says Enoch is 6th. It is only by incorrect counting of the names by leaving off Adam that the skeptic comes to that number.
No. While this may be a little bit confusing it is not a contradiction. The reason it is not a contradiction is because Hosea 11 speaks of Ephraim as a whole. But, the other places speak of Ephraim as being scattered among the nations as said in Hosea 9:17.
So what this tells us is that the nation itself will not return as a whole to Egypt, but some of the people who wander among the nations will return to Egypt. So Ephraim will neither return to Egypt, nor will he be free of Egypt altogether.
The key in understanding this is in 2 Kings. Babylon had taken over parts of Egypt. But Egypt itself was left in a state of shambles. Therefore, Babylon (Assyrian) ruled over all of the people. Some of the remnant of Judah fled to Egypt to escape the king of Babylon. So again, they were in Egypt, but under the power of Babylon.
No. Chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis is often seen by the skeptic as being contradictory. But it has been shown time and again that this is untrue. Yet for some reason it still seems to be a common objection to the Bible. This, in my opinion, is proof that the atheist often refuses to accept truth when it is right in front of them. It’s like they have their head in the sand trying to make believe they haven’t heard the truth.
So, once again, let me explain why chapters 1 and to do not contradict each other. Chapter 1 is an overview of the events of creation. Chapter 2 goes into greater detail and includes the creation of the garden on the 6th day. It also tells us that Eve was created on that same day, after Adam was created.
Chapter 1 just tells us the overview of the entire day 6. Chapter 2 tells us the details of the order of events which took place on day 6. So Chapter 1 says God made man and woman on day 6, but chapter 2 tells us exactly WHEN God made man and woman ON day 6.
No. First we will speak about Melchisedec. He was a priest with no record of beginning or end. This does not mean he had none. It simply means we do not know of the time or manner of his death, nor do we know who his parents were. This man is traditionally seen by Jews as having no mother and father due to a lack of information. Therefore, when the book of Hebrews mentions this it is doing so as a metaphor. This is further seen in that it uses this man as a comparison (again, making it metaphorical) to Jesus.
The next issue is in regard to what are normally called the Nephilim. There is some debate as to if these were actually son’s of angels born from women, or if they are simply men from the line of Seth. But either way you look at it they are still descendants of Adam and Eve since these women would have been BOTH of their descendants.
So there is no contradiction. All humans are descended from these two. It doesn’t matter if they have a recorded genealogy or if they were angelic mixed in with humanity. They are still their descendants.
No. First, let’s define evil. The word evil means, “adversity, affliction, bad, calamity, displeasure, distress” and so on. Now, Isaiah 45:7 is fairly blunt about the answer to this question. God DOES create evil. But the real question here is WHY?
1 John 4:8 says that God is love. So I ask you this: Will love cause adversity, affliction, bad, calamity, and so on? Your first thought may be that love will not. But, let me ask you if you were ever disciplined (not abused) as a child? If so, your parents punished you in order to teach you. They taught you because they love you. So love WILL cause affliction and pain if needed.
This is why God will also cause evil. It is not for the sake of evil itself. It is to guide His children into paths of righteousness.
Now, does this make God Himself evil? Again, the answer is no. While God will use evil for the purpose of bringing good He is not in Himself evil. Just as your parents are not evil for punishing you.
Therefore, the reason this “contradiction” is assumed is because of a lack of understanding what evil and what love is. When you have the right view of these words then the “contradiction” fades away.
No. This is actually very easy to answer. In fact, I will let the Bible itself give the answer a few verses down in Psalm 73.
17 Until I went into the sanctuary of God; then understood I their end. 18 Surely thou didst set them in slippery places: thou castedst them down into destruction. 19 How are they brought into desolation, as in a moment! they are utterly consumed with terrors.
Yes, even after saying that the wicked prosper the Bible brings us back to reality. The prosperity of the wicked is only for a moment. And, as the Bible says, what profit is it if you gain the whole world and lose your soul? So while they may “prosper” now, they have already lost the most important thing.
No. Face to face doesn’t always mean what this question implies. You do not have to look at each other’s face to actually meet face to face. The meaning of the term is “within each other’s sight or presence” according to Webster. It is NOT “looking at each other’s face.”
So if I were to request a face to face meeting with you it would simply mean I want to be in the same room with you to talk. You could actually have your back turned to me the whole time, but since we were both there it would be considered a face to face meeting.
Moses met face to face with God in this way. He didn’t see the actual physical face, but was there, in person, with God. God had not sent a messenger. God came to Moses personally. Therefore it was a face to face meeting, even though God may have had His back turned to Moses.
Is Salvation by faith alone? Mark 16:16, John 3:18, 36, Acts 16:30-31, Romans 1:16-17, 3:20, 3:28, and so on say yes, but Psalm 62:12, Romans 2:6, 2 Corinthians 5:10 and so on says no. Is this a contradiction in the Bible?
No. Sadly there are so many Christians who do not even know the reality of this one. It is such a basic fundamental doctrine in the Bible though! The answer is that faith is not just a belief. Faith is a belief that produces works. You can have works without belief (which is what the Pharisees had) but you can not have belief without works.
This is seen in James where he says that faith is made perfect by works. BUT, do not put the cart before the horse! Works are the RESULT of faith. Therefore faith alone is how we gain salvation. It isn’t because of our works, but our works are because of our faith. You can’t have one without the other.