New Bible studies and devotionals sent to your email. The first one includes a free gift!
See 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)
92. Did the cock crow before or after Peter’s denial? Matthew 26:70, 72, 74, Luke 22:57-60, John 18:17, and 25-27 says the cock crowed after his 3 denials, but Mark 14:67-74 says the cock crowed after the first denial.
No. Joshua 15:21 says that the uttermost cities of Judah included Eshtaol, and Zoreah. Meaning these were the cities that belonged to Judah. However, this would soon change. In the following chapters we read that there were other tribes which had not yet been given land.
One of these tribes was Simeon. After the first division of land Judah had all of the land to the south. But when the other 7 tribes were given land, Simeon took part of the land of Judah. In fact, it took the very center of the land!
So we see that the borders in chapter 15 were not completely settled until all of Israel was divided into their land. This means when Dan was given land in chapter 19 it included these two cities which belonged to Judah at first. This is simply a matter of reassignment and is not a contradiction.
Did the cock crow before or after Peter’s denial? Matthew 26:70, 72, 74, Luke 22:57-60, John 18:17, and 25-27 says the cock crowed after his 3 denials, but Mark 14:67-74 says the cock crowed after the first denial. Is this a contradiction in the Bible?
No. There were 2 times that the rooster crowed. Looking at the big picture we see that these accounts fit perfectly. Matthew, Luke and John record the LAST crow of the rooster, while Mark records BOTH of the 2 crows. So in the big picture we see that after the first denial the cock crowed once, but it wasn’t until the 3rd denial that he crowed the second time.
No. Color is an interesting thing. The color you see is a reflection of the type of light bouncing off of it. So a red apple can appear purple in the right lighting. So, is it a red or a purple apple? If you say it is still red then you are doing so only because you know that in normal white light it is that color. But, it is not because the actual color itself is red since color is relative to the light.
Now, a robe is going to be made of many threads. Each thread will have a similar color, but not necessarily the same exact color. For example, some of the thread may be more saturated than others and thus produce a deeper shade.
If the majority of threads in this robe were the color red then the robe could be called red. Purple is a mix of blue and red. By the way, there is no color wavelength for purple, only violet. So, if the robe had any blue threads then it could be called purple, while still being seen as scarlet by the naked eye.
In the end, there are multiple ways that this can be explained. The robe could have been one color inside and one color outside. The robe could have had stripes. The light could have hit it in a way to darken or lighten the different threads. Two robes could have been used.
Or, as I said, the overall color can be scarlet as one writer records and yet technically be purple as the others record. So it is correct by either account. It was scarlet to the eye, but purple in it‘s mix of thread.
Sure, there are a lot of “could have’s” in those statements. But, a contradiction is something that has no possible way of both statements being true. Since there ARE “could have’s” then this is not a contradiction.
Did Jesus forewarn the apostles of His death and resurrection? Matthew 20:18-19, 26:31-32, Mark 8:31, 10:33-34, 14:28, and Luke 18:31-33 says yes but John 20:9 says no. Is this a contradiction in the Bible?
No. Jesus told them what was to come. In John it says they still didn’t know the scripture. This is no contradiction, as any school teacher could tell you. Sometimes you can tell someone something over and over, yet never get them to learn. So even though Jesus told them about this they still didn’t get it.
No. There is a difference between being the author of confusion and taking advantage of confusion. Creating different languages does not mean you have created confusion. Are you confused by that?
If you are confused by that it is because YOU do not understand what I said, not because I said it.
OK, that’s enough fun for now. The very concept of confusion is not something God authored. He set all things in order. But, since man is now a fallen creation that means man himself is responsible for his own confusion. Through free will man chose to sin and therefore he became victim to the ability to be confused. Therefore God did not AUTHOR the concept itself. God simply uses it to His advantage.
For example, if I send you a wooden horse with soldiers in it then you have 2 choices. You can open the gate and let the “gift” in or not. The choice is yours and therefore so is the outcome.
No. The word covet is defined as: yearn to possess or have (something). This in itself is not forbidden. What is forbidden however is to covet what does not, can not, and should not belong to you.
In other words, the law says that you shall not yearn to possess what belongs rightfully to another. This is why you almost always see the law give reference to things such as “your neighbors wife,” among other things. Colossians 3:5 explains this very well when it says that the covetousness it speaks of as being forbidden is idolatry.
So no, coveting (wanting to have something) is not wrong, but coveting things God would not want you to desire (thus placing your love for it above God) is idolatry and it forbidden.
No. This question is much like question number 92. In fact, it is still basically the same question. So, I will give the same answer: Looking at the big picture we see that these accounts fit perfectly. Matthew, Luke and John record the LAST crow of the rooster, while Mark records BOTH of the 2 crows. So in the big picture we see that after the first denial the cock crowed once, but it wasn’t until the 3rd denial that he crowed the second time.
Jesus never said the rooster would only crow once, nor did he say it would only crow after all three denials. Jesus said Peter would deny him 3 times before it crows, but that doesn’t have to mean by the FIRST crow. As Mark points out (and completes the picture) Jesus was saying it would not crow TWICE before Peter denied Him 3 times.
No. Read John 12:27 again:
27 Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour.
Jesus says “What shall I say?” Then He answers His question by saying that He will say, “Father, save me from this hour.” Then He says that He will ALSO say, “But for this cause came I unto this hour.”
Now read the other passages and notice the prayer He prays. He asks the Father to remove this cup (the crucifixion) from Him BUT nevertheless let God’s will be done. In essence Jesus was saying “Father please save me from this crucifixion, but I know that I came for that purpose and so if it is still your will then so be it.”
If anything, these verses strengthen each other rather than contradict.
No. This is an example of “proof texting.” Romans 12:14 does say tell us to bless people and not curse, however, this must not be taken out of the context of the rest of the Bible. Romans does NOT say that there is NEVER a time when someone should be cursed.
The meaning in Romans is that our desire should be for the good of a person. If our desire is for the harm of a person for the sake of anger, or vengeance then it is better to bless than to curse. But if the desire for someone to be cursed is out of love in hopes that it will change them then it is acceptable.
For more information on that please see: What Is A Curse.
No. Read Genesis 8:21 again. The exact words God used were: “I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake; for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.”
How did God do it at that time? God FLOODED the earth. How does the Bible say He will do it the next time? Fire, not water.
No. Let’s read Galatians 3:10:
10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
So, Galatians is not telling us that those who follow the law are cursed. It is telling us that there are none who DO follow the law.
22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
In the same chapter we read that ALL have sinned. Therefore NONE follow the law. Therefore NONE are justified by the law. Therefore those who attempt to be righteous BY THE LAW are under a curse since they are NOT RIGHTEOUS UNDER THE LAW.
No. If you read these verses you will actually be able to see that the word “and” is used a lot. That doesn’t have to mean “and then.” It can also, and does in this case, mean “and at the same time.”
The misunderstanding here is in making the assumption that these events are listed chronologically as different events rather than as a whole event.
No. Jesus carried His cross, fell under the weight, and Simon was used to carry it until Jesus was able to physically take it again. So BOTH carried it and that means this is NOT a contradiction since NONE of these accounts say Jesus carried it by Himself the entire way.
No. In chapter 3 of the book of Luke you will note that Luke traces the genealogy of Jesus through David’s son Nathan and not Solomon. Yet in Matthew the genealogy is traced through David’s son Solomon.
By tracing it this way you show those who believed Joseph to be the genealogical father of Jesus that it is accurate, but for those who did not count Jesus as the legitimate son of Joseph this line can also show again that Jesus is from the line of David through Mary as well.
This is why Matthew chose the names he did while skipping some since they were not relevant to the purpose.
Now, let’s answer the question of how many generations there was between David and Babylon. The last year of one King of Israel is often counted as the first of the next king. So Matthew uses this type of math to make his count. That means Abraham is counted once in as the beginning of the first set, then David is counted as the last person of the first 14 generations and then counted again as the first person of the next 14 generations.
Jechoniah is not counted twice (once at the end of the generations from David to Jechoniah and then again at the first generation). The reason he is not counted twice is because it was during this time that they went to Babylon. So you are no longer counting the genealogy of kings, but rather the time of captivity.
So this leaves us with 14 generations between Abraham and David, 14 generations between David and the captivity, 14 generations from the captivity to Jesus. Which matches exactly what Matthew said. Now, Matthew did not say there were only 14 people through this time. He said he LISTED 14 people. We do not need to read more or less into his statement.
So let’s add it all up. Beginning with Abraham:
Then we begin the next set of numbers with David since he is a part of both the first and second sets.
Then we count the generation in captivity which begins with Jechonias, instead of Josias, since he was born in the captivity.
There you have it. Three sets of 14 generations mentioned in Matthew which doesn’t have to include each individual step along the way to get the point across. So there was no reason for Matthew to include each of the people listed in 1 Chronicles 3:10-16. He never said these were the ONLY people. He just said these were the people HE COUNTED for the purpose of showing the lineage.
So the answer to this question is that there were 18 people that 1 Chronicles 3:10-16 lists, but since they were not needed for Matthew to prove his point the only listed 14 of them. And, just to get the point across I would like to paraphrase what I believe Matthew is saying:
“From David to the captivity there were 18 generations, but I am only going to list 14 of those generations since that is all I need to prove my point. That doesn’t mean I deny the other 4. It just means I don’t feel the need to list them in MY count.”
No. When the word “slew” is used it is not always intended to say that the person immediately died. It can also be used to say that the person received a death blow and death was certain. Thus David delivered a death blow making it certain that Goliath would not recover and then hastened the death of Goliath through decapitation.
So David actually made double sure that Goliath was defeated. That is why we see the word “slew” used twice. Once to signify the first unrecoverable blow and the second time to signify the second which only hastened the death that was already in action.
By the way, the sword David used to decapitate Goliath was the sword of Goliath. So there is also no contradiction in that David had no sword of his own.