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)
16. Is it wrong to commit adultery? Exodus 20:14, Deuteronomy 5:18, and Hebrews 13:4 says a person should not commit adultery but in Numbers 31:18, Hosea 1:2, and 3:1 God ordered them to commit adultery.
18. Was Ahaz Buried with his fathers? 2 Kings 16:20 says he slept with his fathers and was buried with them but 2 Chronicles 28:27 says he was not buried with them. (You may note I put the right verse instead of 2 Chronicles 16:20…because 16:20 doesn’t exist!)
23. Does God want some people to go to hell? 1 Timothy 2:3-4, 2 Peter 3:9 says God doesn’t want anyone to perish but proverbs 16:4, John 12:40, Romans 9:18, and 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 say God Himself has caused some people to do so.
28. Who was Anah? Genesis 36:2, 14 says Anah was the daughter of Zibeon, while Genesis 36:20, 1 Chronicles 1:38 says Anah was the son of Seir and the brother of Zibeon, but Genesis 36:24, 1 Chronicles 1:40 says Anah was also the son of Zibeon. So the Bible says Anah is a daughter, a son, and a brother to her father.
Is it wrong to commit adultery? Exodus 20:14, Deuteronomy 5:18, and Hebrews 13:4 says a person should not commit adultery but in Numbers 31:18, Hosea 1:2, and 3:1 God ordered them to commit adultery. Is this a contradiction in the Bible?
No. In fact this is a laughable thought. There is NOTHING in Numbers 31:18, Hosea 1:2, and 3:1 that says God ordered them to commit adultery! In Numbers 31:18 they are ordered to keep ONLY the young women alive who had not been married to anyone. So there is no possible way this could be called adultery.
In the case of Hosea God tells His prophet to MARRY a woman that is a woman of “whoredoms.” This doesn‘t mean she is currently married. It means she is a prostitute, or at the very least a woman of fornication.
Despite some common beliefs, marriage is not simply something entered into simply through intercourse. Marriage is actually a covenant of care, protection, and so on. A person may fornicate (have unlawful sexual relations) but that doesn’t mean they have a covenant with each other.
The consummation of the marriage (intercourse) is a way of confirming that covenant with each other in that two become one. Please note also that a covenant doesn’t always require a witness or document. This is another reason, intercourse was a method of confirmation that a woman was married.
So when God told Hosea to marry a woman of whoredoms He was not saying that Hosea should marry the wife of another man. This is further illustrated in Hosea 2:2-7 where God speaks figuratively saying that she broke the covenant with Him through committing adultery in verse 2 and then saying that He was her FIRST husband in verse 7.
Let me also explain how she could RETURN to her FIRST husband. When she broke the covenant through adultery she removed herself from being his wife (this is why Jesus says divorce is acceptable in the case of adultery). At that time a choice can be made by the spouse. Either he can give her a divorce and release any claim to her as a wife, or he can refuse to do so and she can be restored to him.
In this case we see God saying that she has removed herself as a wife but He will restore her once she is done playing the harlot. No covenant of marriage can be entered into with another during that time though because there has not been an annulment of the covenant. The woman has just broken it and is acting outside of it, thus not being a wife while still being bound to the fact that she should be.
When Saul went out to destroy the Amalekites in 1 Samuel (of whom Agag ruled over) he destroyed only certain cities of the Amalekites and of those not everything was actually destroyed. This is seen in that the Bible says he came to “a city of Amalek” in 1 Samuel 15:5.
The Bible goes on to record that Saul also destroyed them from “Havilah until thou comest to Shur.” This may very well have left OTHER Amalekites still alive in OTHER places. Thus the descendants of Agag most likely were not in those cities that Saul invaded and Haman was a descendant from one of them.
On top of that it is also questionable if Saul actually killed ALL of the people. 1 Samuel 15:9 shows that he was disobedient to God and kept the animals and Agag alive. There is a section in the verse which says he kept alive and undestroyed “all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them.” As women were often seen as spoils of war this could indicate that he left some of them alive as well.
No. 2 Kings 16:20 actually says Ahaz slept with his fathers and he was buried in the CITY of David (which is Jerusalem).
Chronicles 28:27 says the same thing, except it gives more information by telling us that he slept with his fathers and he was buried in the city of Jerusalem, BUT not in the same grave.
The reason this is wrongly considered to be a contradiction is because the term “slept with his fathers” is assumed to mean he was placed in the same grave as his fathers. That is not what this phrase means though.
The term “slept with his fathers” simply means he joined his fathers in death. This term is often used to indicate that a person died. In fact, it has historically been used that way whenever someone died even if they were not buried with the bodies of their family. It is not always (and rarely if it is) a statement that the body of the dead is placed in a family plot.
No. The problem in understanding this is that when we think of someone beginning to reign we tend to think they are the only ones doing so. There is a term called coregency (or co-principality) which is a term used when more than one ruler is in charge.
So what we have happening here is a situation where Joram and Ahaziah formed such a close union that Ahaziah became a coregent with Joram over both the nations of Israel and Juda. So in the 11th year of Joram Ahaziah began to reign over Juda and one year later he began to reign as a coregent with Joram over both Juda and Israel.
No. Like question number 19 there is an issue with him being a coregent. What happened here is that at the age of 22 Ahazizh began to reign as coregent with his father and then when his father passed away he began to reign as the only king at the age of 42.
No. If you actually read the entire chapter of Nehemiah you will find out that this is a record of genealogy. That means these people were descendants of those from the city of Ai. It does not mean that the city itself existed as it had before.
When a city is destroyed it means the infrastructure of it’s government, it’s market places, it’s public areas, and all things related to the actual organization of the city have been removed. So even if the same area of land were to be rebuilt upon it would be different than it was before, even if named after the original city.
Now, people in the Bible did often rebuild cities in different locations and name them after their original city as well. This is no doubt the case here as well. The geographical description of the two cities called Ai are different and signify a change of location and a naming after the old city.
No. This is actually an example of not reading the whole text. In fact, the question itself seems to imply that Aijalon was a person and not a city. If you look at the whole chapter of Joshua 21 you will find that the text is speaking of the Levites. What is happening is that the different tribes are giving parts of their land to the tribe of Levi.
So Aijalon is a city given to the Levites from the lands of the tribe of Dan. Later, the tribe of Dan abandoned their land in the Aijalon area and moved to the northern part of Israel. So in later years (the time recorded in 1 Chronicles) the city was now actually inhabited by the tribe of Ephraim. So Aijalon was again given to the Levites from that tribe during that time.
Does God want some people to go to hell? 1 Timothy 2:3-4, 2 Peter 3:9 says God doesn’t want anyone to perish but Proverbs 16:4, John 12:40, Romans 9:18, and 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 say God Himself has caused some people to do so. Is this a contradiction in the Bible?
No. First, let’s get these verses in the proper context. 1 Timothy 2:3-4 and 2 Peter 3:9 are very clear that God doesn’t WANT anyone to perish. This does not mean He will not allow them to.
Proverbs 16:4 says that even the wicked belong to God and that they are for “the day of evil.“ It does not say He WANTS them to perish though. Also, we should remember that God will allow the wicked to commit evil and He will turn it into the good of those who love Him. So even though He doesn’t WANT them to be wicked He will use their wickedness for good.
John 12:40 says that He has hardened their hearts. This is not a question. The question is HOW & WHY? In John 12:40 it tells us that this was a fulfillment of what God said in Isaiah 6:10. If you go to Isaiah 6:10 you will find the answer to the question “how.”
We read that God sent Isaiah to speak His words to the people so much that they don’t want to hear it anymore. So God shut the eyes, ears, and hearts of the people by actually SHOWING AND TELLING them what He wanted them to see and hear.
You may ask, how can showing and telling someone something cause them to be blind and deaf? It is because THEY shut their eyes and ears. So God has given them His word and repeated it so many times that it has caused people to ignore it. So it isn’t because GOD wanted them to be blind. It is because THEY wanted to be blind.
If you are able to see what I am talking about then you will know that this isn’t actually God purposefully making people not believe. It is actually God trying so hard to convince them that they begin ignoring Him! So even in this God shows how much He wants to save them!
Romans 9:18 speaks of Pharaoh as an example. If you look at what happened with Pharaoh you will see that Pharaoh was given chance after chance to obey God. Each time he refused to do so he hardened his heart more and more. Ten times God showed mercy and patients with Pharaoh. But in each choice God gave him it was his choice to become hard against God or obey.
So let’s ask the question, who will God have mercy on and who will He harden? Furthermore, how will He harden them? He has mercy on those who obey and those He will not have mercy on are the ones who have disobeyed over and over. He hardens them by giving them more chances to obey, but in turn this is a double edge sword because it gives them more chances to harden their hearts as well. So again, God does not WANT them to perish.
2 Thessalonians 2:11-12 is similar. Since the people themselves choose unrighteousness over truth they choose to rebel. Thus they harden their hearts and become delusional because they reject God with each opportunity to repent. God just gives the option of being hardened and delusional or being obedient. It’s the people who choose which one.
Did Jesus tell his disciples everything? John 15:15 says Jesus said that He had told them everything but John 16:12 says Jesus had many things He still had not said. Is this a contradiction in the Bible??
No. John 15:15 actually says Jesus made known to them everything that He had heard from His Father. In other words whatever God the Father told Jesus to say to them Jesus said those things. This does not mean He told them EVERYTHING THERE IS TO KNOW. It only means He told them everything He was supposed to tell them at this time. And in John 16 He tells them there is more that He will tell them when they are ready.
No. There are actually 4 different possible ways that this event took place. The first is that even though it is not recorded that David had someone with him when he fled it is also true that it is not recorded that he did not. When David answered the priest saying he had placed his servants here and there he may actually have been telling the truth. David may have had servants hidden.
Another possibility is that David was alone when he himself received the bread but rationed the bread as he traveled. Thus when David was hid in the cave in chapter 22, and the people who were distressed, in debt, and discontent came to him he may have shared this bread.
One other possibility is that even though David MAY have been alone at that time he was still in the city of Nod where others were. It is very possible that he shared the bread with others in that city as well.
Finally, another possible explanation is that since Jesus was trying to make a point to the Pharisees (and not so concerned with giving details) He was simply telling that that from the point of view of the priest whom David met there may as well have been others. So speaking from that point of view Jesus could have emphasized that not only did David eat it, but if there were others with him then they would have too!
This would not mean Jesus lied since He never directly said that others were with him. He only referenced that David had said there were others. But even if this fourth possibility is wrong it would still leave the other three possibilities being confirmed by Jesus who (as God) was there when it happened!
With these 4 possible explanations we have a choice to make. Either we can reject each one and claim this is still a contradiction, or we can accept that there is no reason to object any one of these except for the purpose of not being willing to accept it simply to continue believing there is no way this isn‘t a contradiction.
When faced with an event in history that doesn’t fully record every detail we can not afford to make assumptions that the pieces of the puzzle do not fit together simply because we are missing the pieces that would connect them. So instead of crying out that this is a contradiction it would be much better for us to consider the 4 other possible pieces to the puzzle that we simply may not have found yet.
No. Much like the Bible uses different terms for Isaiah (also calling him Esaias) this is the same case. Ithra is another way of saying Jether. The difference is like that of the common day name of Joseph. A person going by that name may also be called Joe or Joey. Both names represent the same person.
Also, in the matter of Ithra being called an Israelite while he is called an Ishmeelite in the other passage we should understand that a person can be both if they have an Israelite and an Ishmeelite in their ancestry. They can also be from one group and then join another. In fact, the term “African-American” is a combination of African descent with American citizenship.
Consider also that there are times people will use one name when referring to their citizenship from one nation and a different name in another nation. So there is no reason to believe these two names are different people, especially since both names are said to be the father of Amasa and the husband of Abigail.
How should the Ammonites be treated? Deuteronomy 2:19, 2:37 say they should not be meddled with or distressed but Judges 11:32 and Jeremiah 49:2 say they should be killed and their land taken. Is this a contradiction in the Bible?
No. Sometimes I honestly just have a hard time understanding why these things could even be considered a contradiction. If you actually READ Deuteronomy 2 it says that God told the Israelites not to meddle with the Ammonites. As you finish the chapter it says that they honored this and did not engage them in combat.
Then in Judges, if you READ the whole chapter, you will notice that it wasn’t the Israelites that engaged the Ammonites. It was the Ammonites that came against THEM. Thus Israel never meddled with them. The Ammonites brought the fight to Israel and Israel simply finished it and thus took the lands of their invaders.
After these things we see in Jeremiah among other prophets that God Himself is going to cause them to be destroyed by another nation. Ezekiel 25:2-7 tells us that God will “deliver them to the men of the east” but it does not say that it will be Israel who starts meddling with them.
So no, there is no way that this should even be considered a possible contradiction unless you never even read more than those single verses and even then you would have to place meaning in them that isn’t there!
Who was Anah? Genesis 36:2, 14 says Anah was the daughter of Zibeon, while Genesis 36:20, 1 Chronicles 1:38 says Anah was the son of Seir and the brother of Zibeon, but Genesis 36:24, 1 Chronicles 1:40 says Anah was also the son of Zibeon. So the Bible says Anah is a daughter, a son, and a brother to her father. Is this a contradiction in the Bible?
No. This is simply a lack of understanding family lines. First we have Zibeon (a male) who has a son named Anah (a male) and then Anah has a daughter named Aholibamah.
The misunderstanding comes from believing that Genesis 36:2 says Anah was a daughter. But what it is actually saying is that Aholibamah was the daughter of Anah and the granddaughter of Zibeon. When it says “Aholibamah the daughter of Anah the daughter of Zibeon the Hivite” it is telling you who Zibeon is in relation to Aholibamah.
In other words, it isn’t saying Anah is the daughter of Zibeon. It is saying Aholibamah is the daughter of Anah and also a daughter of Zibeon as he is her grandfather. Anah is simply mentioned since he was her direct father and so to trace her back to Zibeon he had to be included.
Like many other passages that speak of someone being a son (or daughter in this case) of someone else it doesn’t necessarily mean they are were consummated by them. It simply means they are the son (or daughter) of their father who was the son of his father and so on. Thus at any point in the line you could say they were a son (or daughter) of someone who may have been their grandfather. This is even seen in that we are called sons of Adam as well.
So that clears up who Anah is as far as being male or female and also tells us Zibeon was the father of Anah and Anah was the father of Aholibamah. But what about the claim that 1 Chronicles 1:38 says Anah was not a SON of Zibeon but rather his brother?
The answer to this is also quite simple and similar to the other issue. Seir the Horite is called the father of Anah even without being the one who consummated him. Again, this is because Seir had Zibeon and Zibeon had Anah. Thus Anah was not a brother to Zibeon.
So let’s sum this up in a nice little family line (since I know that may have been a little confusing): Seir > Zibeon > Anah > Aholibamah. So that makes Aholibamah the daughter of Anah, Zibeon, and Seir as that is her family line.
How long does God’s anger last? Psalms 30:5, Jeremiah 3:12, Micah 7:18 says it doesn’t last forever but Numbers 32:13, Jeremiah 17:4, Malachi 1:4, Matthew 25:41, and 25:46 says it lasts forever. Is this a contradiction in the Bible?
No. The real question that should be asked here is not how long His anger will last. The question that should be asked is who does God get angry at and why? You have two different groups of people here that the Bible is speaking about. One group will find mercy from God and He will not be angry with them forever but the other group will not find mercy and He WILL be angry with them forever.
So this is a problem of not understanding the context in which these things were said. Both are true and can exist at the same time since they are directed at different groups. Thus there is no contradiction.
No. Genesis 1:20-22 actually says God created the creatures that LIVE in the water and the fowl that fly in the air. It does not speak of land animals. Those come in verse 24 and they come from the ground.
Going on to chapter 2:19 God has already created everything and has now moved man into the garden. The account given here of the creation of the fowl and land animals here are a second event. So God brings them up from the ground here, but it does not mention the creatures in the sea.
With these being two different events there is no contradiction.