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)
No. There is nothing in the verses of Matthew, Mark, or Luke which says Jesus did not see Annas first, nor do they say he went to Caiaphas first. They simply state that Jesus was led to the high priest, yet they do not deny any meeting of Annas first along the way.
There are also those who believe there were two high priests at the same time, one being Caiaphas and the other Annas. But whether that is true or not Annas, being the father in law of Caiaphas would no doubt be someone that would meet Jesus first before He finished His journey to Caiaphas.
No. When taken into correct context with the rest of the Bible we can understand that when Joel, Acts, and Romans says they shall be saved it is speaking of those who “with a full heart” call upon the name of the Lord.
Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:
As an example I may tell you that anyone who calls on me for help will find me come running to them. But that is not to say that I will honor a DISHONEST call for help. Just as I’m sure you would not honor the request of someone who is doing so in mockery.
So this is not a contradiction. The two who call upon God are different types of calls. One is a true call, while the other is not.
Can God do anything? Genesis 18:14, Job 42:1-2, Jeremiah 32:17, 32:27, Matthew 19:26, Mark 10:27, Luke 1:37, 18:27, Revelation 19:6 says yes, but Judges 1:19, Mark 6:5, and Hebrews 6:18 says no. Is this a contradiction in the Bible?
No. Let’s take a look at each one of these scriptures that supposedly show God is incapable of some things. First we look at Judges 1:19.
19 And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.
On the surface it may seem like this shows God was not able to defeat the enemy because they had iron chariots. But if you look closer at the wording you see that the subject of this verse is actually Judah. It says JUDAH could not drive them out.
So the real question is why would God not help Judah to drive them out? In fact, as you read the rest of this chapter you will see others that were not driven out by Israel. The answer to this is found in the very next chapter:
2 And ye shall make no league with the inhabitants of this land; ye shall throw down their altars: but ye have not obeyed my voice: why have ye done this? 3 Wherefore I also said, I will not drive them out from before you; but they shall be as thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare unto you.
In fulfillment of the promise made to them in the book of Joshua concerning this very thing we see God uphold His word. He did not drive them out, not because of iron chariots, but because of the unfaithfulness of Israel. So this is no contradiction and does not say God is unable to defeat iron chariots.
Jesus Unable To Perform Miracles
5 And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them.
Let’s get the full picture here:
4 But Jesus, said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house. 5 And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them. 6 And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages, teaching.
The real question is what prevented Jesus from doing these things? Was it really that it was not possible for Him, or was it that He was not willing to do these things for some reason? According to verses 4 and 6 we can see that it was not because it was impossible, but it was because He chose not to work where so few had faith in Him.
In virtually every event of healing and miracles that Jesus had done in the Bible we find that He says it was because of their faith. Their faith was in Him. Therefore He was willing to do these things. But here we find that they did not have faith in Him, except for a few sick people. Thus He was not willing to honor the faithlessness of them.
God Can Not Lie
2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
18 That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:
Again, we have a situation where we must ask the question “why?”
Why can God not lie? Is it because of a lack of power to do so, or is it because doing so is not something He would ever choose to do?
Let’s look at that verse in Hebrews again. Why would it be impossible for God to lie? Well, take a look at the rest of the Bible where it says God will not lie, God hates lies, and God considers lies a sin. Now, what if God DID lie? That would mean He was no longer the God of the Bible!
Since He said He will not lie it means if He goes against His own word then He is not God. It isn’t that it is not possible for Him to do so, it’s just that it isn’t possible for Him to do so and still be God. Since He has chosen to stand by His words He has limited HIMSELF (only by His own will) to stand by them.
Consider this, what if I had drilled a round hole into a board and someone asked me to put a square peg into it? Since I chose to make the hole round this would not be possible based on MY CHOICE. If I refused to change that choice then it would be impossible to do it. But that doesn’t mean I do not have the ability to make the hole bigger if I chose. It just means under the current condition that I CHOSE TO SET IN PLACE it can not happen.
So it’s not a contradiction. It’s a statement of fact under the current will of God.
No. Let’s put this in proper context.
13 And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;
So the seed of Abraham will be a stranger in the land that is not theirs and they will be slaves and be afflicted for 400 years. Now, remember this…who is it that this will happen to? The seed of Abram. Who is his seed? Isaac comes before Jacob (who was renamed Israel) and Ishmael comes before Isaac.
So the time when this would begin is when the seed of Abram, would be persecuted by Egyptians. Ishmael was indeed the son of Abram, but he was an Egyptian. Isaac was born directly through Abraham and Sarah, which is the seed God spoke of.
40 Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.
Knowing that Jacob was renamed Israel it would seem logical to conclude this passage is speaking of only those born after Jacob. However, this is not the case. When you think of the term “children of Israel” there are three things to consider.
1. The name Israel can mean the man Jacob, or
2. The name Israel can mean the nation of Israel,
3. The name Israel can mean “the children of promise.”
6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel: 7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. 9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son. 10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
Paul explains exactly what this means. The answer is that the term “children of Israel” here does not mean the physical biological children of the man Jacob. It actually means the “children of the promise”. And, it can also mean the NATION of Israel.
So since the promise was first given to Abraham the NATION of Israel began through him when he had his son Isaac. The nation was NAMED Israel after Jacob though. So you have a situation where the nation is formed and then a name is needed for it. Much like the birth of a child whom you must then give a legal name to.
In total we are told that the nation (beginning with Abraham and Isaac) spent 430 years in Egypt. This does not however mean that they spent 430 years in slavery though. The passage speaking of that never says when that will begin WHILE they are in Egypt.
The passage in Galatians actually speaks of the period of time between the time the promise began to the time the law was given. So doing the math by the ages found through the Bible we come to 215 years from the time of the promise to the time they left Canaan and “entered” Egypt.
Canaan, by the way, was not their land and they were strangers in it. So the time spent there counts as part of this equation. Not to mention that Canaan at the time was actually under the control of Egypt in an indirect way (like a country having territories which are technically part of that country, yet they still hold their own identity and government).
You can do the math after that to find that 215 years later the law was given and they were out of Egypt. This gives us a total of 430 years of being strangers in a land not theirs between the promise and the law.
Now that we know where the total of 430 years comes from we can look at the total of 400. The passage says they would be AFFLICTED 400 years. So 400 years out of the 430 they would be afflicted by Egyptians. Meaning only 30 years would pass before that began.
So, what the Bible says happened was Abraham took Hagar (Sarah’s maid) and had a son. Hagar was Egyptian and therefore her son was as well. This took place ten years after the promise. Abraham was 86. So begin counting.
When Abraham was 100 when Isaac was born. So take 86 from 100 and you get 14. Now add the 10 years before that and you get 24. So we now have 24 years gone by without Egyptian persecution.
8 And the child grew, and was weaned: and Abraham made a great feast the same day that Isaac was weaned. 9 And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, which she had born unto Abraham, mocking.
Isaac most likely was weaned around age 4. It is even more likely that he was 4 years old BECAUSE ONLY 4 YEARS WAS LEFT FROM OUR LAST CALCULATION! Suddenly after 30 years an Egyptian is persecuting the child of the promise! Add the number to the 400 years of persecution and you get 430 years again.
The Egyptian captivity was 215 years, the total time of being persecuted was 400 years, and the total time of being strangers in a land not theirs was 430 years. This all fits perfectly with the scriptures.
No. First, Mark 16:17 speaks of those who believe as a whole. It does not necessarily mean each individual. Nevertheless, it is ONE of the signs that would be seen.
In Mark 9:38 and Luke 9:49 we see people who are casting demons out IN THE NAME OF JESUS. So when the disciples said that these people did not follow THEM they spoke of being a part of the road trip so to speak. Note also the response Jesus gives just after these verses where He says “He who is not against us is FOR us”. So these WERE believers.
BONUS: Some also point out that some people are in hell whom cast devils out according to Matthew 7:22-23. This does not however mean that these people were not at one point Christians since one can lose salvation and if you understand the difference between the born again and flesh then you will also understand why He says I NEVER knew you.
No. First, the question should actually be speaking of the 5th plague. God said that He would kill those “which is in the field” in Exodus 9:3. Therefore any cattle NOT in the field (those in the barns, pins, and stables) would be left alive.
Exodus 9:19 is followed by verse 20 where it says that some of the Egyptians brought their cattle out of the field and so those were also spared. Exodus 12:9 shows that only the firstborn were killed.
Also consider that if the Egyptians noticed (which they did) the slaves still had cattle, don’t you think they would take them for their own? Either way this is no contradiction since the answer is no on all accounts.
No. In order to understand this we need to look into the REASON it was a sin for David and not Solomon.
11 And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 12 When thou takest the sum of the children of Israel after their number, then shall they give every man a ransom for his soul unto the Lord, when thou numberest them; that there be no plague among them, when thou numberest them. 13 This they shall give, every one that passeth among them that are numbered, half a shekel after the shekel of the sanctuary: (a shekel is twenty gerahs:) an half shekel shall be the offering of the Lord. 14 Every one that passeth among them that are numbered, from twenty years old and above, shall give an offering unto the Lord. 15 The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less than half a shekel, when they give an offering unto the Lord, to make an atonement for your souls. 16 And thou shalt take the atonement money of the children of Israel, and shalt appoint it for the service of the tabernacle of the congregation; that it may be a memorial unto the children of Israel before the Lord, to make an atonement for your souls.
Here we see God give a command that if Israel were to be numbered then all of the people were to give an offering when they were numbered and that the offering was to be used for the service of the tabernacle.
This means David broke the command since the tabernacle was not in existence at the time (David had intended to build a tabernacle to place the ark in but was told not to) we are also not told that David took an offering. Since there was no tabernacle (none according to the whole design given Moses at the very least) the census could not be taken according to the command of God.
Also, it is important to note that one of the options God gave David for punishment was a plague on Israel. This is in accordance with the warning in Exodus 30:12.
In contrast, the census taken by Solomon met each of these requirements in Exodus and was therefore not a sin.
No. On the surface this may seem to be a logical contradiction, however we need to dig a little deeper to understand the events. The first thing we must understand is that the representative of a person is given the same authority to act as the one who sent them in their place.
There are many other places in the Bible that it speaks of a person as though they were actually there even though they were not. For example, in John 19:1 we read “Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged him.” which doesn’t mean Pilot himself did this, but that Pilot had his representatives (the soldiers) do it.
Even in the book of Luke we find the words “Jesus marveled at him” as though the centurion was physically there. So even Luke recognizes this as being the same as if the centurion really had been there physically.
When it says in Matthew that he “came to Jesus” we must ask the question of how he came. There is more than one way you can go somewhere. Today we have webcams and Smartphone’s that allow us to be in two places at once so to speak. You can be in China speaking to friends in the United States, and thus you were there with them as well.
This question is answered by Luke who says that the Centurion sent representatives who spoke for him as though they were he himself. So no, the Centurion was not physically there, but he was there in the form of his representatives.
What did the Centurion call Jesus when He died? Mark 15:39 and Matthew 27:54 says he called Him the Son of God, but Luke 23:47 says he called Him a righteous man. Is this a contradiction in the Bible?
No. One of the wonderful things about having the four Gospels is that each one gives a certain viewpoint and each one adds to the complete picture. In this case we find Mark and Matthew record that the Centurion called Jesus the Son of God. We find Luke record another part of what was said by the Centurion, “Surely this was a righteous man.”
Note that Luke doesn’t state that this was all he said, nor do Matthew and Mark. So to get the complete picture you need to add these together. What the Centurion said IN ENTIRETY was “Surely this was the Son of God,” followed by saying “at the very least certainly this was a righteous man.”
No. Note that Jeremiah INCLUDES “with network and pomegranates upon the chapiters round about” while 2 Kings does not. Therefore the height without the chapiters included in the measurements would have been 3 cubits with a total height of 5 cubits IF you include the network and pomegranates.
No. 2 Samuel 10:18 says David slew the MEN of 700 chariots. We need to ask ourselves if this means the one man in each of the 700 chariots, or the MEN in each of the 700 chariots. We often think of what we see in the movies with one man per chariot, but this is not accurate outside of Hollywood. Each chariot would actually hold multiple men in reality.
So with 10 men per chariot (forget the way the chariot looks in the movies) the total amount of men would be 7,000. The wording also shows this to be true since 2 Samuel actually says “The men OF 700 chariots,” while 1 Chronicles says “7,000 men IN chariots.
Also, note that one scripture lists the number of HORSEMEN while the other lists the number of FOOTMEN. So the total number of people with those in chariots, on horses, and on feet would have been 87,000.
No. First of all, Leviticus says she needed to bring a sin offering, not that having the child was a sin. In the Old Testament a sin offering was made often for ANY and ALL sins. Each human on earth has committed sins. Therefore each human would need a sin offering with or without childbirth.
When the Bible says the woman would be “unclean” it doesn’t mean she was unclean due to sin. It meant she had been through a traumatic and messy ordeal with blood and all kinds of bacteria and so on being involved. If you touch a rotten fruit then your hand is now unclean, but it doesn’t mean you sinned in touching that fruit.
So why did God say she needed to bring the sin offering if it wasn’t for childbirth? Well, consider that it was very possible she could have missed the time of offering due to labor. Also, on top of that there is the symbolic meaning to it. Since God said they would be saved in childbirth then having a sin offering after childbirth symbolically shows this as well.
No. The stupidity of this question is mind-boggling considering it answers itself in one of the very verses it quotes.
1 Corinthians 14:20
20 Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.
So…is it a good thing to be childish? Well, do you mean childish as in understanding, or in malice? When Jesus spoke of becoming like a child He was speaking of their faith and love, so in this way it is good. But if you are speaking of acting like a child throwing a temper tantrum then no it isn’t good.
How did Jesus respond when questioned by the high priest? Matthew 26:63-64 and Luke 22:70 says He did not answer directly, but Mark 14:62 says He did by saying “I am”. Is this a contradiction in the Bible?
No. Much like other areas where one of the Gospels gives a little bit of information while the other ones may give more the same is true here. Mark just records that Jesus said “I am” but Matthew and Luke record that Jesus told them that THEY said He was.
So the conversation went like this: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God. To which Jesus replied YOU YOURSELVES have already said that I am!
It’s like me saying that you already know the answer to that question, and the answer you know is correct. It’s a bit of a sarcastic way of saying “why ask me something that you already know the answer to?!”
No. Genesis and Leviticus are speaking of circumcision as being required to enter into a covenant with God. This is known as the Old Covenant. In the old covenant a person could enter into an agreement with God that if they followed His commands then He would bless and be with them. The way to enter into this agreement was to be circumcised.
This covenant however was unable to save people since they always broke the laws of God. Therefore God made a NEW covenant (thus we have the Old and New Testaments). In THIS NEW covenant one enters into a relationship with God based on their faith and love towards Him and His mercy and grace towards them. No physical circumcision is required.
The reason Paul circumcised Timothy “because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.”
In other words, if Timothy was to be allowed entrance and audience in the synagogue then he would need to prove he was a Jew. Otherwise the Jews would be outraged that Paul brought a gentile in with him. In fact, in another place this is exactly what they accused Paul of.
Galatians does not say that someone who is circumcised is fallen from grace. It says “whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.” In other words Paul is saying that if you think you can enter into the OLD covenant through being circumcised and be saved under the OLD covenant then you will not be saved. This is because no one was good enough under the Old Covenant. That‘s why God made the New.