Jump to content

Internal consistency of the Bible: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
←Replaced page with '{{Refimprove|date=December 2007}} ==IN MARK 4:20, JESUS CLAIMS TO LIKE MTV WHEN IT SUCKS =='
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Refimprove|date=December 2007}}
{{Refimprove|date=December 2007}}
There has long been interest in the subject of '''the internal consistency of the [[Bible]]'''. [[Christianity]] and [[Judaism]] respectively present the [[Bible]] and [[Tanakh]] as [[Biblical inspiration|divinely inspired]]. Some denominations believe in [[biblical inerrancy]], while others hold that inspiration does not preclude human error. Because of these divergent views, apparent internal inconsistencies are important to [[ecumenism|ecumenical]] and [[apologetics|apologetic]] discussions, with those believing the text to be essentially true and accurate referring to these issues as ''difficulties''.


==IN MARK 4:20, JESUS CLAIMS TO LIKE MTV WHEN IT SUCKS ==
Various explanations are provided for the differences. The [[Roman Catholic]] Christian view (especially since the [[Second Vatican Council]]) holds that the Bible is inerrant only in the things that [[God]] ''intended'' to reveal, the inconsistencies being deemed not to belong to these, or being deemed to be figurative and/or allegory. The Jewish view is that such issues may be reconciled by reference to other biblical verses or oral teachings. [[Muslims]] believe the Torah and Gospels ([[Tawrat]] and [[Injil]]) were genuine divine revelations taken from the same Guarded Tablets as the [[Qur'an]] itself, but were later altered by human intervention ([[Tahrif]]). Scholars of [[higher criticism]] believe that the books of the Bible were accretions written over a long period of time and edited together several times over. And many people see these inconsistencies as evidence that the Bible is a human-written book of no special [[divinity|divine]] origin.

The concern with apparent biblical inconsistencies has a long history. Already in the second century, a pagan critic, [[Celsus]], complained that Christians manipulated their sacred texts at will.<ref>[[Contra Celsus]], [http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/origen162.html BOOK II], CHAP. XXVII</ref> The [[church father]] [[Origen]] spoke of the "great" number of differences among Gospel manuscripts. The critiques of the early Jewish scholar [[Hiwi al-Balkhi]] had already raised concern amongst rabbis of the [[geonic]] period. The text, ''A Critical History of the Text of the New Testament'', written by [[Richard Simon]], a French priest, appeared in 1689. This was followed in 1707 by the ground breaking edition of the Greek New Testament by theologian [[John Mill]] in which he identifies some 30,000 places of variation (mainly spelling differences) from the oldest available texts. Another classic text which discusses some internal contradictions is ''The Age of Reason'' by [[Thomas Paine]], published in 1794.

==Old Testament==
===Torah===
{{Unreferencedsection|date=December 2007}}
{{Main|Documentary hypothesis}}

At various points in the [[Torah]] there appear to be duplicate or even triplicate accounts of events: Abraham passes his wife off as his sister ({{bibleverse||Genesis|12:10-20}}): so does Isaac ({{bibleverse||Genesis|26:6-11}}); there are two accounts of the gifts of manna and quail ({{bibleverse||Exodus|16}}), and two references to the naming of Bethel ({{bibleverse||Genesis|28:19}}, {{bibleverse||Genesis|35:15}}).<ref>Joseph Jensen, ''God's Word to Israel'', Liturgical Press (1990), page 30. ISBN 0814652891</ref> During the narrative of [[the exodus]] of the [[Israelites]], water is produced from a rock on two occasions,({{bibleverse||Exodus|17:2-7}}, {{bibleverse||Numbers|20:2-13}}) the ten commandments are given twice, there are two references to a census ({{bibleverse|2|Samuel|24|131}}, {{bibleverse|1|Chronicles|21|131}}), and an extensive law-code is given twice, involving two similar lists of forbidden sexual relations, or three times if the [[Covenant Code]] is counted.

One of the best known examples is the two accounts of the creation of man and woman in the Book of Genesis. In Genesis 1:1 to 2:4, men and women are created at the same time and after the animals; in Genesis 2:4-25 man is made first, and woman is created from the man's rib. Most biblical scholars see these as two separately written accounts, the first from around the sixth century BC, and the second based on more primitive traditions dating to around the tenth century BC.<ref>Ronald D. Witherup, ''Biblical Fundamentalism: What Every Catholic Should Know'', Liturgical Press (2001), page 26.</ref>

Further problems are sometimes cited in regard to the creation account because the text only indicates the existence of [[Adam and Eve]], [[Cain]], and [[Seth]] after the third chapter. Nonetheless, both Seth and Cain have children, even though Cain has been banished from the rest of the persons listed. Most theorists surmise that Eve's daughters simply were not mentioned by the author until Genesis 5:4. Others sometimes consider Lilith a solution.

Modern scholarship attempts to resolve these issues by the [[documentary hypothesis]], arguing that these repetitions and contradictions are the result of texts that have been woven together from diverse sources written by different authors at different times. Although this has been criticised in some quarters, according to Joseph Jensen, "no better explanation has as yet been found of the complexities of composition of the Pentateuch, and it continues to command a good consensus among scholars".<ref>Joseph Jensen, ''God's Word to Israel'', Liturgical Press (1990), page 36. ISBN 0814652891</ref>

===Deuteronomic history===
{{Unreferencedsection|date=December 2007}}
Within the [[Deuteronomic history]], the [[Book of Joshua]] purports to present a campaign resulting in the complete conquest of Canaan. [[Judges]] is presented as the immediately following history of the area. However, in Judges it appears that the Canaanites were not vanquished as they were in Joshua, but continued to exist, being more gradually suppressed, and in some cases, notably [[Shechem]], their land being purchased rather than conquered.

The Book of Judges also presents several ''peculiarities'' concerning the Israelite state, noticeably the Song of [[Deborah]], widely held by [[textual criticism]] to be one of if not ''the'' oldest part of the entire bible. In this, some of the [[Tribes of Israel]] are called upon, but the tribes given do not include all of those given elsewhere in the Torah. In addition, [[Gilead]] and [[Machir]] are given equal status to the other tribes, but [[Manasseh]] is not listed at all, leading several scholars to posit that Machir and Gilead were originally tribes in their own right that were later swallowed up to become the ''half-tribe of Manasseh''.

What is now the First [[Books of Samuel|book of Samuel]], in the main, presents a positive account of King David, but the Second mostly presents a negative view. This abrupt change in attitude is merely glossed over in the text rather than being explained. The Book of Kings, which follows it, is regarded as more consistent, though the breaks between Kings are somewhat abrupt interruptions to the narrative.

In critical scholarship these features are viewed as the result of the [[Deuteronomist]] collecting together several different accounts of the same events, and joining them together with brief passages, and framing. The [[Book of Chronicles]] covers the same period in time but also lists some of its sources, and it is these sources which are often considered to have been those which were, more directly, copied into the Deuteronomic history. In particular, the peculiar features of the Deuteronomic history are viewed as a result of some of the underlying sources being recensions, redactions, and different political spins of others.

===Chronicles and the deuteronomic history===
The [[Book of Chronicles]] and the Deuteronomic history both present an account of the same period of Israelite history, but contain what are apparently subtle discrepancies between them. In the [[Books of Kings]], the basin built before the [[First Temple|Temple]] has a volume of 2000 [[bath (measure)|bath]]s (a [[Hebrew measure]], approximately 32&nbsp;[[liter]]s or 8&nbsp;[[gallon|U.S. gallons]]), while the account in the [[Books of Chronicles]] cites a volume of 3000 baths. [[David]]'s census yields a result of 800,000 people in Israel and 500,000 in Judah, according to the [[Books of Samuel]], but 1,100,000 in Israel and 470,000 in Judah according to the Chronicler. (Apologists contend that the Samuel account was giving the number in "all Israel" capable of bearing arms, while the Chronicler deals with the number "in Israel" who actually ''did'' bear arms. Then, regarding the surplus in Judah in Samuel, it is proposed that these are the 30,000 men of 2 Samuel 6:1 who did not "draw the sword", but were still in the battle, as they were stationed at the frontier of Philistia and helped to carry away the Ark of the Lord.)

If one is willing to accept a small degree of inaccuracy in the text, there are a few easy solutions available; it is possible that the differences between the two accounts are related to the unofficial and incomplete nature of the census, or that the book of Samuel presents rounded numbers, particularly for Judah. Another solution, retaining a higher degree of biblical accuracy, is that one census included categories of men that the other had excluded, for example one could interpret "ready for battle" as a reference to being battle seasoned rather than simply to being of fighting age, and thus Samuel could be argued to refer only to those that had previously experienced battles. According to literalist Apologists, it would be reasonable to assume that there were an additional 300,000 men, almost half the size of the army again, in the reserves.<ref>Archer 1982:188-189 and Light of Life II 1992:189-190</ref>
Biblical criticism, in the main, views these, and other, discrepancies to be down to the two separate accounts being based on the same source, but subject to different political spins. There were two significant factions of the priesthood in pre-exilic Israel/Judah, namely those who claimed descent from Aaron and that only they could be priests, and those who opposed them. Chronicles is viewed as the pro-Aaronid response to the anti-Aaronid Deuteronomist, and, since in this view, Chronicles is over 100 years later, and updated its figures to take account of, for example, the population in ''its'' day.

===Jehoiakim contradictions===
Daniel 1:1 states that Nebuchadnezzar [[Babylonian Captivity|carried off into captivity]] the Jewish king Jehoiakim in this king's third regnal year. The third year of Jehoiakim's reign would be 605 BCE at which time [[Nebuchadrezzar II|Nebuchadnezzar]] was not yet king of [[Babylon]]. It was on March 16, 597 BC that Jerusalem was captured by Nebuchadnezzar. This is in apparent conflict with 2 Kings 24:12 which states that the siege occurred during Nebuchadrezzar's eighth year(597 BC) and 2 Kings 23:36 which states that Jehoiakim reigned in Judah for eleven years, meaning he could have been defeated by Nebuchadnezzar only in his 11th year(597 BC). 2 Chronicles 36:5-6 agrees with 2 Kings in claiming that Jehoiakim ruled for 11 years before being taken prisoner to Babylon. Apologists have tried to resolve the conflicts by positing an additional, otherwise unmentioned, [[siege of Jerusalem]] in 605 BCE, shortly after the [[Battle of Carchemish]]. They claim that Jehoiakim was carried off into Babylon after this hypothetical siege of 605 BC, later returned to power, and was taken again in the siege of 597 BCE.<ref>[http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/2001/4/014dan.html The Skeptical Review Online - Print Edition - 1990-2002<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> This however ignores the fact that Jehoiakim had died in 598 BCE before the [[siege of Jerusalem]] in 597 BCE (2 Kings 24:10), and it was his son King [[Jehoiachin]] who had ruled for only three months that was taken captive in the Babylonian siege of 597 BCE(2 Kings 24:6-12).

Other apparent inconsistencies concerning Jehoiakim include:
* his successor as King. 2 Kings 24:6 says he was succeeded as king by his son Jehoiachin. Jeremiah 36:30 says he had no one to succeed him.
* genealogy. 2 Kings 24:6 says Jehoiakim was the father of Jehoiachin/Jeconiah. Matthew 1 says Josiah is the father of Jehoiachin/Jeconiah. 1 Chronicles 3:15-16 says Josiah is father of Jehoiakim.
* manner of his death. According to 2 Kgs 24:5-6, he died peacefully and slept with his fathers whereas Jeremiah prophesied(Jeremiah 22:18-19) that no one will lament for Jehoiakim, and that with the burial of an ass he shall be buried, dragged and dumped beyond the gates of Jerusalem.
* place of his death. 2 Chronicles 36:5-6 say he died in Babylon whereas Jeremiah 22:18-19 says he died near Jerusalem.

===Ezra and Nehemiah===
Both Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7 list the sub-clans that returned from the [[Babylonian captivity]], and the number of people in each. In the [[King James Version of the Bible]], out of approximately thirty-five sub-clans listed, over half of the numbers differ between these two chapters. The sub-clans range from differing by 1, 4, 6, 9, 11, 100, 105, 201 to 300, and the largest difference is the figure for the sons of Azgad, with a difference of 1,100 between the accounts of Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7. The given totals however, agree:
:: Ezra 2:64: "The whole congregation together was 42,360"
::Nehemiah 7:66: "The whole congregation together was 42,360"

The sum of the figures listed in Ezra totals 29,818, which differs from the given total by 12,542. The sum of the Nehemiah's list gives a total of 31,089, differing by 11,271.<ref>[http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/kinney-bible-inerrant-ezra-2-nehemiah-7.html Is the Bible Inerrant?], The King James Bible Page</ref>

==New Testament==
===The Gospels===
In the Gospels, there are inconsistencies both among the three [[Synoptic Gospels]] ([[Gospel of Matthew|Matthew]], [[Gospel of Mark|Mark]], and [[Gospel of Luke|Luke]]), which provide similar narratives of the ministry of Jesus, but also contain significant differences; and between the Synoptic Gospels and the [[Gospel of John]], which provides a strikingly different description of Jesus' career.

====Synoptic Gospels====
{{main|Two-source hypothesis}}

One of the most substantial examples of inconsistency within the synoptic gospels is that of the two nativity stories, one in the Gospel of Matthew, and another in the Gospel of Luke. In some cases the inconsistencies take the form of contradictory details, but in other cases it is the absence of shared detail between the accounts that leads to criticism.

Both Gospels, for example, give a [[genealogy of Jesus]], but the names, and even the number of generations, differ between the two. Both accounts describe Jesus as being born in [[Bethlehem]], but while the Gospel of Luke account says that Jesus' parents travelled there to register for a census, the Gospel of Matthew implies that the family actually lived in Bethlehem. The Gospel of Matthew places the birth during the reign of Herod the Great, but while the Gospel of Luke implies that the conception of Jesus took place during the reign of Herod, the [[Census of Quirinius|census]] with which the events of the birth are linked is known to have taken place in 6 AD, ten years after the death of Herod.

In addition, most of the details are unique to each story. Matthew has the [[magi]], the [[Star of Bethlehem]], the [[Massacre of the Innocents]], and the [[Flight into Egypt|flight to Egypt]]; Luke mentions none of these, but mentions the census, the birth in a manger, and the shepherds, none of which appear in Matthew. In Matthew, an angel appears to Joseph; in Luke, an angel appears to Mary.

Another apparent conflict is between the following sayings attributed to Jesus in the [[synoptic gospels]]:

::{{bibleref|Matthew|12.30|RSV}}: "He who is not with me is against me."

::{{bibleref|Mark|9.40|RSV}}: "He that is not against us is for us."

::{{bibleref|Luke|9.50|RSV}}: "He that is not against you is for you."

::{{bibleref|Luke|11.23|RSV}}: "Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters."
The verse from Matthew and the second verse from Luke are often seen as being in opposition to other two, expressing an exclusive as opposed to inclusive attitude to following Jesus.

Apologists traditionally explain these as separate statements, the meaning of which needs to be understood from their different contexts: in this view, Mark and the first Luke reference describe the attitude listeners are to have to other possible disciples: when in doubt, be inclusive; Matthew and the second Luke reference, referring to a different incident, describe the standard listeners should apply to themselves: be in no doubt of one's own standing.<ref>D.A.Carson, Commentary on Matthew, Expositor's Bible Commentary CDROM, [[Zondervan]], 1989-97</ref> Sometimes they are considered together as declaring the impossibility of neutrality.<ref>See the commentaries by [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/mcgarvey/gospels.viii.xiii.html?scrBook=Mark&scrCh=9-9&scrV=40-40#viii.xiii-p0.1 McGarvey] on Mk 9:40, [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/johnson_bw/pnt.pnt0112.html Johnson] on Mt 12:30, and [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/jamieson/jfb.xi.i.xiv.html?scrBook=Matt&scrCh=12-12&scrV=30-30#xi.i.xiv-p55.1 Brown] on Lk 11:23.</ref>
This view was expressed by [[Dietrich Bonhoeffer]] in his 1943 book ''Ethics'': "in isolation, the claim to exclusiveness leads to fanaticism and slavery; and in isolation the claim to totality leads to secularisation and self-abandonment of the Church."<ref>Dietrich Bonhoeffer, ''Ethics'', page 58, quoted in Larry L. Rasmussen, ''Dietrich Bonhoeffer: Reality And Resistance'', Westminster John Knox Press (2005), page 35.</ref>

Modern New Testament scholarship tends to view these not as separate statements but rather one statement that has either been preserved in two different forms, or which has been altered by the Gospel writers to present a point of view expressing the needs of the Christian community at the time.<ref>R. Alan Culpepper, [[John, the Son of Zebedee: The Life of a Legend]], Continuum International Publishing (2000), pages 41-42.</ref> The Gospel of Mark, generally considered the earliest of the Gospels, presents the 'inclusive' formulation, in association with an account of Jesus rebuking his followers for stopping someone from carrying out [[exorcisms]] in his name. The Gospel of Matthew has the other, 'exclusive' version, preceded by a [[Parable of the strong man|story about a strong man]]; the Gospel of Mark also includes this story, but without the concluding observation. The Luke version presents both versions. There is still lively discussion about which version is the more authentic.<ref>R. Alan Culpepper, ''John, the Son of Zebedee: The Life of a Legend'', Continuum International Publishing (2000), pages 41-42; see also Ian H. Henderson, ''Jesus, Rhetoric and Law'', Brill (1996), pages 333-334; William David Davies, Dale C. Allison, ''A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew'', Continuum International Publishing (2004), page 333-334.</ref> See also [[You're either with us, or against us]].

====Synoptics and the Gospel of John====
{{seealso|Omissions in the Gospel of John}}
There are several apparent discrepancies between the [[Synoptic Gospels]] and the [[Gospel of John]]:

*In the Synoptic Gospels, [[Jesus and the Money Changers|Jesus' cleansing of the Temple]] occurs during his final week in Jerusalem before the [[Crucifixion]]; in John, it occurs at the beginning of his ministry, several years before the crucifixion.
*In the Synoptic Gospels, [[Sanhedrin Trial of Jesus|Jesus is tried before the whole Sanhedrin]]; in John, he is subjected only to a private interview with [[Annas]] and [[Caiaphas]].
*In the Synoptic Gospels, the Last Supper is a [[Passover]] [[Seder]], and Jesus is executed on the first day of the Feast of the Unleavened Bread (15 Nisan); in John, the Last Supper is not a seder, and Jesus is executed on the day of preparation, when the lambs were slaughtered for the Passover feast ([[Quartodeciman|14 Nisan]]).
*In the Gospel of John, Jesus stated that he spoke nothing in secret({{bibleverse||John|18:20}}). In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus spoke and did things secretively so that the multitudes should not understand him<ref>[http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq015.html Jews for Judaism FAQ<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>( {{bibleverse||Mark|4:10-12}}, {{bibleverse||Mark|8:29-30}}, {{bibleverse||Matthew|13:10-11}}, {{bibleverse||Matthew|16:20}},{{bibleverse||Luke|8:9-10}},{{bibleverse||Luke|9:20-21}}).
* In the [[Gospel of Mark]], [[Jesus]] refuses to give any sign that he is the [[messiah]], which is known as the [[Messianic Secret]], for example {{bibleverse||Mark|8:11-12}}. In the [[Gospel of Matthew]] and [[Gospel of Luke]], only the ''Sign of Jonah'' will be given ({{bibleverse||Matthew|12:38-39}},{{bibleverse-nb||Matthew|16:1-4}}, {{bibleverse||Luke|11:29-30}}). The Gospel of John on the other hand has Jesus providing many signs, such as {{bibleverse-nb||John|2:11}} and {{bibleverse-nb||John|2:18-19}} and {{bibleverse-nb||John|12:37}}, perhaps from a hypothetical [[Signs Gospel]] source.
* Jesus carried his own cross ({{bibleverse-nb||John|19:17}}); in the synoptics the cross was carried by [[Simon of Cyrene]] ({{bibleverse||Mark|15:21}}, {{bibleverse||Matthew|27:32}}, {{bibleverse||Luke|23:26}}).

====Order of events====
{{Unreferencedsection|date=December 2007}}
Taken strictly literally, it is difficult to reconcile the order of events between the Gospels concerning the [[Resurrection of Jesus]], supposedly events which happened in the first few days after Jesus' death. Some advocates of biblical inerrancy have offered harmonic accounts, producing a version that they say represents the truth of what happened ''on the third day'', asserting that these are not contradictions but merely differences in cultural understanding regarding reporting of events.

Some early Christians attempted to harmonize the Gospel accounts, the most notable example being [[Tatian]]'s second century ''[[Diatessaron]]''.

Christian scholars suggest that these variations are natural for different witnesses, each having limited information and reporting what they have ''heard''.{{Fact|date=September 2007}} [[C.S. Lewis]] argued that the inconsistencies even improve the credibility of the narratives, as they suggest that the narratives were written independently.{{Fact|date=September 2007}}
<center>'''Trial, Crucifixion, and Resurrection Chart<ref>http://www.outreachjudaism.org/crucifix.html</ref></center>
{| border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="border:1px solid #aaa; border-collapse:collapse;bgcolor="#FAF0E6""
|-
!
! '''Matthew'''
! '''Mark'''
! '''Luke'''
! '''John'''
|-
|The soldiers who arrested Jesus took him to which authorities? <ref name="austincline">[http://atheism.about.com/od/gospelcontradictions/p/TrialJesus.htm Atheism.about.com] </ref>

|Jesus is taken to Caiphas, the high priest, after he is arrested (26:57)

|
|Jesus is taken to Caiphas, the high priest, after he is arrested (22:54)

|Jesus is taken first to Caiphas’ son-in-law Annas, then to Caiphas (after an unknown time)(18:13-24)

|-
| When and with whom did Jesus have a hearing on the charges?<ref name="austincline"/>
|Jesus is charged on Passover eve and taken to Pilate in the morning (26:18-20, 57-68, 27:1-2)

|Jesus is charged on Passover eve and taken to Pilate in the morning (14:53-72)

|Jesus’ first hearing occurs on Passover morning (22:13-15, 54-66)

| Jesus’ first hearing occurs on the day before Passover(18:24;19:14)

|-
|Before whom was the trial held?<ref name="austincline"/>
|Jesus is tried by the whole Sanhedrin (26:59-66)
|Jesus is tried by the whole Sanhedrin (14:55-64)
|The Sanhedrin hold an inquiry about Jesus, but no trial (22:66-71)

|The Sanhedrin don’t even hold an official inquiry; Jesus just appears before Annas and Caiphas(18:13-24)

|-
|What is the nature of the interrogation at his trial?
<ref name="austincline"/>
|Jesus is asked if he is the Son of God and answers “You have said so.” (26:63)

|Jesus is asked if he is the Son of the Blessed and answers “I am.” (14:61)
|Jesus is asked if he is the Son of God and answers “You have said so.” (22:70)

|Jesus is not interrogated by the High Priest
|-
|What role did Herod play in Jesus’ arrest and trial? <ref name="austincline"/>

|No mention of Herod
|No mention of Herod
|Pilate sent Jesus to Herod who questions Jesus then sends him back (23:7-11)
|No mention of Herod
|-
|What sort of robe was Jesus wearing and why? <ref name="austincline"/>
|Jesus is made to wear a scarlet robe by Roman soldiers as a symbol of infamy (27:28)
|Jesus is made to wear a purple robe by Roman soldiers as a sign of royalty (for which he is being mocked) (15:17)

|Jesus is given a robe by Herod and his soldiers, not by the Roman soldiers(23:11)
|Jesus is made to wear a purple robe by Roman soldiers as a sign of royalty (for which he is being mocked) (19:7)

|-
|How do Jesus's captors recognize him when they come to arrest him?<ref>Bibleblunders.com</ref>
|
|Judas gives Jesus a kiss (14:44-45)
|
|Jesus steps forward and identifies himself to the soldiers (18:4-5)
|-
|Barabbas, who was released by Pilate, was guilty of what crime?
|
|Insurrection and murder (15:7)
|Insurrection and murder (23:25)
|Robbery (18:40)
|-
|Who carried the cross?
|Simon of Cyrene (27:32)
|Simon of Cyrene (15:21)
|Simon of Cyrene (23:26)
|Only Jesus himself carried the cross. (19:17)
|-
|At what time was Jesus crucified?<ref>Some theologians claim that John is giving the hour in "Roman time," but the Romans reckoned time from sunrise, as did the Jews. So the "sixth hour" would mean the same for both. Also, there is no evidence in the gospel of John to support any theory that the author was counting the hours any differently from normal Jewish custom. The gospel of John was not written in Rome, nor for a Roman audience. For a more complete discussion, see Joseph Francis Alward, "[http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/Ancient_Rome.htm Reckoning Time in Ancient Rome.]" </ref>


|Not mentioned
|9:00 a.m. -- “It was the third hour when they crucified him.” (15:25)
|Not mentioned
|12:00 p.m. -- Jesus was not crucified until after the sixth hour! (19:14-15)

|-

|On which day of the month was Jesus crucified?<ref>[http://www.outreachjudaism.org/crucifix.html OutreachJudaism.org]</ref>

|On the first day of Passover, the 15th day of Nissan (26:20-30)

|On the first day of Passover, the 15th day of Nissan (14:17-25)

|On the first day of Passover, the 15th day of Nissan (22:14--23)

|On the day before Passover, the 14th day of Nissan. Jesus was already in custody on the day of preparation for the Passover (13:1, 29, 12:28, 19:14)

|-
|Did Jesus drink while on the cross?

|Yes

|No
|
|Yes


|-
|Did either one of the two thieves on the cross believe in Jesus?

|Neither one of the thieves believed in Jesus.

(27:44)

|Neither one of the thieves believed in Jesus.

(15:32)

|In Luke’s story only one thief does not believe, but the other thief does. (23:39-41)

|
|-
|What words were inscribed and hung over Jesus on the cross?

|"This is Jesus, the king of the Jews." (27:37)
|"The king of the Jews." (15:26)
|"This is the king of the Jews." (23:38)
|"Jesus of Nazareth, the king of the Jews." (19:19)
|-
|What were Jesus’ last dying words on the cross?

|“Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (27:46)

|“Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?” meaning, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (15:34)

|“Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.” (23:46)

|“It is finished.” (19:30)

|-
|When did Mary prepare the spices?

|
|Mary prepared the spices after the Sabbath was over. (16:1)

|Mary prepared the spices before the Sabbath started. (23:56)

|Nicodemus, not Mary, prepared the spices before the Sabbath. (19:39)

|-
|Had the sun yet risen when the women came to the tomb?

|It was toward dawn of the first day of the week. (28:1)

|Yes -- They came to the tomb when the sun had risen. (16:2)

|At early dawn they went to the tomb.

(24:1)

|No -- Mary came early to the tomb, while it was still dark. (20:1)

|-
|How many days and how many nights was Jesus in the tomb?<br>
Jesus had prophesied that he would be in the tomb for three days and three nights(Matthew 12:40)

|3 days and 2 nights (28:1)<br> although, he had prophesied in Matthew 12:40 that he would be in the tomb for three days and three nights(Matthew 12:40)


|3 days and 2 nights (16:2)

|3 days and 2 nights (24:1)

|2 days and 2 nights (20:1)

|-
|How many people came to the tomb Sunday morning following the crucifixion?

|Two (28:1)

|Three (16:1)

|More than four (24:10)

|One (20:1)

|-
|Who were the women who came to the tomb?

|Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:1)

|Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome (16:1)

|Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James, Joanna, and other women (24:10)

|Only Mary Magdalene came to the tomb (20:1)

|-
|Was the stone removed when the women arrived at the tomb?

|No -- After the women arrive at the tomb, an angel rolls back the stone. (28:1-2)

|Yes -- When they arrived, the stone had already been rolled away. (16:4)

|Yes -- When they arrived, the stone had already been taken away. (24:2)

|Yes -- When Mary arrived, the stone had already been taken away. (20:1)

|-
|How many angels were at the tomb?

|One (28:2)

|One (16:5)

|Two (24:4)

|Two (20:1-2, 12)

|-
|What was the angel (s) doing at the tomb and where was he (they)?

|He was sitting on the stone that he had rolled away from the tomb. (28:2)

|He was sitting on the right side, inside the tomb. (16:5)

|They were standing by the women, inside the tomb. (24:4)

|In the Book of John, there are no angels when Mary comes to the tomb. When Mary arrives at the tomb a second time, however, she finds two angels sitting inside the tomb. One is at the head and the other is at the feet (20:1-2, 12)

|-
|What were the angels’ instructions to Mary and the others* at the tomb?

|“He is not here; for he has risen . . . go quickly and tell his disciples he is going before you to the Galilee!” (28:6-7)<ref name="angels">Luke contradicts Matthew (28:16) and Mark (16:7), whose post-resurrection tale has the apostles depart Jerusalem, and going to the Galilee, which is about an 80-90 mile journey. Luke, on the other hand, insists that the apostles were never told to, and never did, leave Jerusalem and go to the Galilee-- Luke 24:5-7, 49; Acts 1:4</ref>

|“Do not be amazed . . . he has risen . . . tell his disciples and Peter he is going before you to Galilee!”<ref name="angels"/> (16:6-7)

|In Luke’s post- resurrection story (chapter 24), the women at the tomb are specifically instructed not to go to the Galilee, but to “Stay in Jerusalem!” (24:49)3

This is also the case in the Book of Acts, which was written by the author of Luke, where “He commanded them that they should not leave Jerusalem!” (Acts 1:4)

Luke’s post-resurrection story does not allow for any of Jesus’ followers to leave Jerusalem because Luke must have the apostles stay in Jerusalem for the Pentecost. (Acts 2:1)

|The angels only ask Mary “Why are you weeping woman?” As Mary responds, she turns around and sees Jesus, who she thinks is the gardener, standing there. Completely contradicting all three synoptic Gospels, John’s story (20:2) has Mary clueless as to what happened to Jesus’ body when she returns to the disciples after departing the tomb. There are no angels giving instructions to the Mary in John’s story. On the contrary, in the fourth Gospel, it is Jesus, not the two angels, who tells Mary about the resurrection. John’s post-resurrection narrative also lacks the Roman solders that Matthew places at the tomb. Without the presence of the guards at the tomb, John’s Mary concludes that Jesus’ body had been removed from the tomb. (20:13-17)

|-
|Does Mary wish to tell the disciples what happened?

|Yes -- “They departed quickly . . . and ran to tell the disciples.” (28:8)

|No -- “. . . they said nothing to anyone; for they were afraid.” (16:8)
|Yes -- “Returning from the tomb, they told all this to the eleven . . . .” (24:9)
|Yes -- Mary Magdalene tells the disciples, “I have seen the Lord.” (20:12)

|-
|After seeing the angels, whom does Mary meet first, Jesus or the disciples?

|Jesus<ref name="mary">Entirely contradicting Luke’s post-resurrection story, Matthew, Mark, and John all insist that Mary met Jesus before she was able to tell any of the disciples what had happened (Matthew 28:8; Mark 16:9; John 20:14), whereas Luke asserts that Mary revealed all to the disciples before ever encountering Jesus! -- Luke 24:4-10</ref> (28:9)

|Jesus<ref name="mary"/> (16:9)

|The disciples<ref name="mary"/> (24:4-9)

|Jesus<ref name="mary"/> (20:14)

|-
|To whom does Jesus make his first post- resurrection appearance?

|The two Marys

|Only Mary Magdalene

|Cleopas and another

|Only Mary Magdalene

|-

|Where does the first post- resurrection appearance take place?<ref>The contradiction cannot be avoided by claiming that there were two meetings, one in Galilee and one in Jerusalem. Luke's account is clearly intended to describe the disciples' first encounter with the resurrected Jesus, and the disciples themselves are "startled and frightened" to see him. (Luke 24:37) After this meeting, the disciples follow Jesus out to Bethany, where he departed from them and "was carried up into heaven." (Luke 24:52) So there is no time when a meeting in Galilee can be squeezed into this timeframe. [http://bibleblunders.com/index.html]</ref>

|On the way to Jerusalem, after leaving the tomb. (28:9)

|Mark’s story does not indicate where this appearance takes place. It is quite clear, however, that it occurs sometime after Mary fled the tomb. (16:8-9)

|Emmaus<ref name="luke">Contradicting Mark, Luke maintains that when the two followers who met Jesus on the road to Emmaus returned to Jerusalem and informed the eleven about their encounter, the disciples declared, “It is true!” (Luke 24:34) whereas Mark insists that when the two reported their encounter, the disciples did not believe (16:13).</ref> (24:13, 12)

|At the tomb (20:1, 11-14)

|-

|Is Mary permitted to touch Jesus after the resurrection?

|Yes – “. . . they came and held him by his feet, and worshiped him.”
|
|YES -- “Behold my hands and my feet . . . handle me and see . . . .” (24:39; 1 John 1:1)

|No -- Jesus said to her, “Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father . . . .” (20:17)

|-
|How many times does Jesus appear after the resurrection?

|Two Times 28:9-10; 28:17-205
|Three Times 16:9;16:125;16:14-12
|Two Times 24:13-31;24:36-515
|Four Times 20:14-17;20:19-236;20:26-295;21:1-23
|-
|Before whom, and in what chronological order do these appearances take place?

|Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:9)

11 disciples (28:16)

|Mary Magdalene (16:9)

Two strolling followers 5 (16:12)

11 disciples<ref name="res">According to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus made this appearance to all the eleven surviving disciples. Paul has this event take place in the presence of all twelve apostles (Corinthians 15:5) although Judas had long since died, having committed suicide (Matthew 27:5; Acts 1:12). Contrary to all this, John’s story places only ten disciples at the scene, Thomas being absent! -- John 20:24</ref> (16:14)

|Cleopas and another unknown follower. (24:13)

Eleven disciples<ref name="res"/> “. . . and them that were with them.” (24:33)

|Mary Magdalene (20:14)

Ten disciples<ref name="res"/>
(Thomas was not there) (20:24)

Eleven disciples (20:26)

Peter, Thomas, the two sons of Zebedee (James and John), Nathaniel and two other disciples. (21:2)

|-
|Where do these appearances take place?

|Leaving the tomb, going to the disciples. (28:8)

On a mountain in the Galilee. (28:16)

(But some doubted it!) (28:17)

|After fleeing the tomb (16:8-9)

As they walked to the country (16:12)

At a meal (16-:14)

|Emmaus (24:13)

Jerusalem (24:33, 49),

|At the tomb (20:14)

In Jerusalem, behind closed doors. (20:12-29)

The Sea of Tiberias (21:1)


|-
|}


===The Acts of the Apostles===
''The Acts of the Apostles'', supposedly written by a single author, [[Luke the Evangelist|Luke]], who tells it in [[First-person narrative|first person minor]] point of view, features a glaring inconsistency:

:''9:7 "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man."''

:''22:9 "My companions saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who spoke to me." (both [[KJV]])''

Surely if this is the Luke who knew Paul actually writing, he would have been able to confer with Paul which version is correct, and certainly if it is truly the "word of God", the correct answer would be clear.

One solution to this problem is offered by Apologetics<ref>[http://www.lookinguntojesus.net/ata20020224.htm Answering The Atheist]</ref> as a similar occasion to the one mentioned in John 12:28-29, where it indicates that men heard the voice of God, but did not hear the words specifically. This is considered to apply in the Pauline case, as well. The men may have heard the voice, but not the words. As indicated by the first verse, then, it means (according to this point of view) that the men heard the sound of the angel's voice, and in the second verse it indicates that they did not hear the articulation of the voice, but rendering the situation as consistent and not contradictory. Another apologetics source<ref>[http://www.allabouttruth.org/bible-contradictions.htm Bible Contradictions - Appearance Or Reality]</ref> indicates that the Greek construction of the word, "to hear" in the two verses is different. One uses the genitive form, and indicates the reception of sounds by the ear. The other verse uses the accusative form, and indicates distinction of sounds into words. This Greek evidence gives much credence to the proposed solution. The [[New International Version]] of the Bible revises the texts according to this theory, an example of the factors that lead many to discredit that translation.<ref>[http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1994/1/1voice94.html The Skeptical Review Online - Print Edition - 1990-2002<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>

Another problem concerns the death of [[Judas Iscariot]]. The [[Gospel of Matthew]] (Matthew 27:3-8) tells the story of Judas returning the bribe he has been given for handing over Jesus; he throws the money into the temple and hangs himself . The temple priests, unwilling to return the money to the treasury, use it instead to buy a field known as the Potter's Field, as a plot in which to bury strangers. ''[[Acts of the Apostles]]'' (Acts 1:18) provides a different account: Judas does not return the money but instead uses it to buy the field himself. He later dies after he falls over in this field and his intestines burst out. There is no mention of suicide in the Acts account. [[Raymond E. Brown]] puts this forward as an example of an obvious contradiction: "Luke's account of the death of Judas in Acts 1:18 is scarcely reconcilable with Matt 27:3-10."<ref>Raymond E. Brown, ''An Introduction to the New Testament'', p.114. </ref> Various attempts at harmonization have been tried since ancient times,<ref>E.g. [[Alfred Edersheim]] concluded, "there is no real divergence." [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edersheim/lifetimes.x.xiv.html Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 5.xiv], 1883.</ref> although some conclude that these are unsuccessful.<ref>Charles Talbert, ''Reading Acts: A Literary and Theological Commentary'', Smyth & Helwys (2005) p. 15.</ref>

===Pauline epistles===
{{Unreferencedsection|date=December 2007}}
{{Main|Authorship of the Pauline epistles}}

Several significant technical discrepancies arise in [[textual criticism]] of the [[Pauline epistles]]. Questions concerning writing style, vocabulary and the historic circumstances of the epistles have, for one reason or another, led to there only being seven which are regarded as genuine by a clear majority of scholars. Various shades of opinion cover the authenticity of the remainder, with the [[Pastoral epistles]] being seen as being pseudonymous by a large majority. The authorship of the [[Epistle to the Hebrews]] has historically been questioned extensively, and since it is anonymous, even amongst most conservative religious groups, it is believed to have been written by someone other than [[Paul]].

Some of the less technical and more obvious examples of these discrepancies involve significant questions of theology and content:
*[[Old Testament#Christian view of the Law|What does the writer believe about the Law?]] (Seemingly ''abolished'' in Ephesians (see also [[Antinomianism]]), but apparently not in Romans)
*What is the main emphasis? (''faith'', in Romans and Galatians; however, proper behaviour, and ''works'', appear to be more encouraged in the Pastorals) (Apologists often see these as complementary positions, and not contradictory. Apologists often assert that both faith and works are important, and the different letters are merely emphasizing one of them, but not to the exclusion of the other. See also [[Epistle of James]].)
*Who was Jesus? (Some believe that the epistles range from [[docetism|docetic]] viewpoints, asserting that ''the flesh is dead'', to views suggesting a concrete historic figure)
*[[Second Coming|Is Jesus returning soon?]] (1 Corinthians 7:29, Romans 13:11-12 and 1 Thessalonians 4-5 seems to say yes; 2 Thessalonians 2:2 seems to say that it may not necessarily be so soon)
*Are the leaders of the church important? (Some think Galatians seems to disparage church leaders; 1 Timothy appears to teach that bishops and deacons are important)

==Old Testament verses New Testament==
===General disparity of content===
{{seealso|Biblical law in Christianity|Christianity and Judaism}}
{{Unreferencedsection|date=December 2007}}

According to many commentators, several of them Christian, God in the [[Old Testament]] is often vengeful, taking abrupt and often merciless action upon his enemies. In contrast, the New Testament appears to present a much lighter deity, declaring that God is love. In the early days of Christianity, this apparent contradiction led to, or was a result of, the [[Gnostic]]s, but most significantly, [[Marcion]]. On the other hand, most would consider the New Testament to teach a doctrine of eternal hell, which is nowhere to be found in the Old Testament. However, passages such as [[Isaiah]] 66:24, Daniel 12:2 and various others in the Old Testament refer to eternal torment of the wicked, which many apologists have taken as referring to torment in hell.

Some Christians proclaim that, due to the stain of an [[original sin]], mankind was prey to passion and instinct, angering God, until mankind learned control—at which point God's mercy shone through resulting in [[Jesus]], thus explaining the behaviour discrepancy. The vast majority of Christians, nevertheless, do not see a ''complete'' rupture between the two parts of the Christian Bible, though many advocate some form of [[supersessionism]].

Nonetheless, some aspects of God's attitude are the reverse of this apparent general trend. It is in the New Testament that Jesus talks about hell and how God gets angry regarding men's moral failings, whereas it is in the Old Testament that God is described as ''kind and merciful, slow to anger''. This Old Testament claim about God's attitude is one that appears to conflict with the demonstrated behaviour, an apparent inconsistency that Jews have claimed to address by stating that God is angered by sin and evil, even though he loves humanity and desires the good for them.

==Specific textual inconsistencies==

Many critics of Christianity point to the Bible's apparent contradictions when debating the merits of its divine inspiration. The following are English passages that are apparently in conflict.
{| border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="border:1px solid #aaa; border-collapse:collapse"
|- bgcolor="#cccccc"
! '''Verse 1'''
! '''Verse 2'''
! '''Christian and Critics response'''
|-
|''"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him."'' (Proverbs 26:4)
|''Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit."'' (Proverbs 26:5)
|'''Christian response:''' The writer of this passage seems to have intended both statements to indicate the same truth, which is why they are placed in juxtaposition with one another. I.e., he is not actually giving contradictory advice, but is showing that there is no correct thing to do in that situation; it is a [[catch-22]].
|-
|''"Again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, ‘Go, count the people of Israel and Judah.’"'' (2 samuel 24:1)
|''"Satan stood up against Israel, and incited David to count the people of Israel."'' (1 Chronicles 21:1)
|'''Christian response:''' Satan is the agent in the Chronicles account in accordance with a later and more sophisticated theological approach.<ref>J. Blenkinsopp, "1 and 2 Samuel, A New Catholic Commentry on Holy Scripture, Neslon, 1969.</ref>
|-
|''If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.'' (John 5:31)
|''Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true.'' (John 8:14)
|'''Christian response:''' In the broader contexts of both passages (5:31-39 and 8:13-18 respectively), Jesus tries to show that his testimony is backed up by more than himself. The difference is that the second time he was ''challenged'' to give his answer. In response, he said that his testimony of himself is true because it is backed up by his Father. In the first instance, he said the same thing the opposite way: his testimony of himself is not valid of itself, but it is validated by the corroborating testimony of others.
|-
|''God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all... God is love...[Love] thinketh no evil'' (John 1:5b, John 4:16, 1 Corinthians 13:5d)
|''I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. ...Do they not err that devise evil?...I know that thou [God] canst do all things.'' (Isaiah 45:7 Proverbs 14:22a and Job 42:2)
|'''Christian response:''' The word translated in Isaiah 45 as "evil" is translated elsewhere as "calamity" (e.g. 1 Chronicles 7:23). The context supports this alternative translation (used in the KJV and the NIV), because in it opposites are contrasted (e.g. light vs. darkness), and the opposite of "peace" is calamity, not evil.<br>
'''Critics response:''' The Hebrew word for evil in Isaiah 45:7 is "ra" and literally means "bad" and is used consistently as the opposite of "good" (tov in Hebrew).<ref>[http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/1_faqs.html Frequently Asked Questions<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>
|-
|''Love is not jealous or boastful'' (1 Corinthians 13:4)<br>''...God is Love''(1 John 4:16)
|''I the Lord your God am a jealous God ... for the Lord, Whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God'' (Exodus 34:14 and 20:5)
|'''Christian response:''' The semantic domains of the Hebrew and Greek words that have both been translated into English as "jealous" do not overlap at all points. Strong's Greek/Hebrew Dictionary gives different definitions for the Greek word [http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/2206.htm] and the Hebrew word [http://strongsnumbers.com/hebrew/7065.htm].
|-
|'' (Love) is not arrogant or rude ... it is not irritable or resentful'' (1 Corinthians 13:5)
|''He is a jealous God, He will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins. If you forsake the Lord, then He will turn and do you hurt, and consume you... To him belong both mercy and anger, and sinners feel the weight of his retribution ... All life belongs to me; the father's life and the son's life, both alike belong to me. The man who has sinned, he is the one who shall die.'' (Joshua 24:19, 20; Ecclesiasticus 5:6; and Ezekiel 18:3-4 )
|'''Christian response:''' The semantic domains of the Hebrew and Greek words that have both been translated into English as "jealous" do not overlap at all points. Strong's Greek/Hebrew Dictionary gives different definitions for the Greek word [http://strongsnumbers.com/greek/2206.htm] and the Hebrew word [http://strongsnumbers.com/hebrew/7065.htm]. Furthermore, Eccl 5:6 simply states "Rather fear God!" Lastly, God has the authority to judge the living and the dead. He gave people free will to engage in whatever they pleased. Because of this, God is kind and not rude. For those who choose to do good, they are rewarded while (according to Jos 24:19-20) those who engage in evil actions will receive evil in return.
|-
|'' There is no such thing as...male and female, for you are all one person in Christ Jesus.'' (Galatians 3:28)<ref> For further reading see ''Her Share of Blessings: Women's religions among Pagans, Jews, and Christians in the Greco-Roman World.'' Ross Kraemer, New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.</ref>
|''Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. It was not Adam who deceived; it was the woman, who, yielding to deception, fell into sin...Man is the image of God, and the mirror of his glory, whereas a woman reflects the glory of man. ...man was not created for woman’s sake, but woman for the sake of man... Women should keep silent at the meeting. They have no permission to talk, but should keep their place... If there is something they want to know, they can ask their husbands at home...'' (1 Corinthians 11;2-10; 14:34-35; 1 Timothy 2:11-14.)
|'''Christian response:''' I appears that 1 Cor 14:34-26 was added to Paul's original letter by a later writer. Perhaps someone copying Paul's letters needed to show that Christianity was not a movement that would disrupt the social order by allowing women to speak in public. This is revealed by Paul's statements in 1 Cor 11:5 where he implies that women can pray and prophesy in church. Throughout his life, Paul supported and worked closely with many different women (Acts 16:14-15; 18:1-26; Rom 16:1-16).
|-
|''If someone slaps you on the right cheek, turn and offer him your left. If a man wants to sue you for your shirt, let him have your coat as well.'' (Matt 5:38)
|''Whoever strikes another man and kills him must be put to death... When anyone reviles his father and his mother, he must be put to death. Since he has reviled his father and his mother, let his blood be on his own head...But when injury ensues, you are to give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn... If anyone injures and disfigures a fellow-country man, it must be done to him as he has done... You must show no mercy... Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones'' (Exodus 21:12 23-25; Leviticus 20:9 24:19; Deuteronomy 19:21 and Psalm 137:9 )
|'''Christian response:''' This may simply be an example of a distinction between the Jewish "Old Covenant" and the Christian "New Covenant". Since these two teachings occurred at different times, directed at different groups, they do not necessarily violate the [[law of non-contradiction]].<br>
'''Critics response:''' If God changed his mind and decided that an abomination and sinful act was no longer a sin(''e.g. [[kosher]]'') or a command no longer applies today(''e.g. genocide''), then this God practices [[moral relativism]]. (''see also:'' [[Euthyphro dilemma]])
|-
|''And now, O Father, glorify Thou Me with the own self glory I had with Thee before the world was'' (John 17:5)
|''I am Yahweh, that is my name- and my glory to another will I not give'' (Isaiah 42:8 )
|'''Christian response:''' It is one doctrine of mainstream Christianity that Jesus and His Father are the same being. So in Christian tradition, this cannot be considered a contradiction because Yahweh would not be giving his glory to "another".
|-
|''The man and his wife [Adam and Eve] heard the sound of the Lord God walking about in the garden... The Lord God called to the man, "Where are you?"'' (Gen 3:8-9)
|''But Jesus knew what they were thinking... he knew what was in their minds...For Yahweh is an all-knowing God...and Jesus knew what was going on in their minds.'' (Luke 5:22; 6:8; 9:47 and 1 Sam 2:3).
|'''Christian response:''' God's question in the first passage may simply be rhetorical.
|-
|''Love your enemies and pray for your persecutors...There must be no limit to your goodness, as your heavenly Father's goodness knows no bounds.'' (Matthew 5:44-48)
|''Go now, fall upon the Amalekites, destroy them, and put their property under ban. Spare no one; put them all to death, men and women, children and babes in arms, herds and flocks, camels and donkeys... I [God] polluted them with their own offerings, making them sacrifice all their firstborn; which was to punish them, so that they would learn that I am Yahweh.'' (1 Samuel 15:3; Ezekiel 20:25-26)<br>
''Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. But it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment than for you. And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades. He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.''(Luke 10:13-17)
|'''Christian response:''' In such wars of extermination (as described in 1 Samuel 15), all things (men, cities, beasts, etc.) were to be bottled out; nothing could be reserved for private use. The interpretation of God's will here attributed to Samuel is in keeping with the abhorrent practices of blood revenge prevalent among pastoral, seminomadic peoples such as the Hebrews had recently been. The slaughter of the innocent has never been in conformity with the will of God. Ezekiel 20:25-26 is simply a statement by God which explains that He allowed the people mentioned to engage in such sinful activities for the sake of free will. It was by their own choices that they doomed themselves. Furthermore, God and Jesus alone are to judge the living (and the dead); meaning that if God so wishes to condemn someone, it is within His power and authority to do so whereas humans are taught not to judge (Matthew 7:1). Luke 10:13-17 is simply another example of God (in this case God the Son, Jesus Christ) making condemnations. Particularly, this passage of Luke is addressed to those who hear the Word of God and reject it.
|-
|''...it is not your heavenly Father’s will that one of these little ones should be lost.'' (Matt 18:14)
|''If you still defy me and refuse to listen...I shall send wild beasts in among you; they will tear your children from you... I shall bring the sword against you to avenge the covenant...and you will be given into the clutches of the enemy.'' (Leviticus 26:21-27 )<br>
''...put away from among yourselves that wicked person.''(1 Corinthians 5:13)
|'''Christian response:''' There is a distinction in Christian theology between two levels of God's will: the permissive will and the active will. So the loss of children he would permit as an exercise of our own free will, but without actively willing it himself.<br>
'''Critics response:''' There are many examples in the Bible where God interferes with human free will in order to accomplish his purpose(John 12:39-40, Isaiah 6:9-10, Romans 9:15-21, Romans 11:7-8, Isaiah 45:13, etc). According to Mark & Luke, Jesus tells parables "so that...lest..." (hina in Greek) people outside his immediate circle will not understand his message and be saved. He told them, "Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them. "(Mark 4:10-12).<ref>In Mark, the the logic of the grammatical syntax ["so that...lest..."] makes the cautionary clause refer to the Jesus' motive for speaking in parables rather than to the stubbornness of the audience. Taken literally Mark 4:12 seems to say that Jesus composes parables that hide his message of God's kingdom from outsiders in order to prevent them from repenting & being forgiven. From the perspective of a Christian who knows Jesus' message of forgiveness, the logic of Mark 4:12 makes it one of the most difficult & perplexing passages in the NT. So, it is not at all surprising that Luke has no parallel to the cautionary clause in Mark.[http://virtualreligion.net/primer/secret_2.html]
</ref>
|-
|''Be on your guard against those dogs, those who insist on mutilation-'circumcision'...No man whose testicles have been crushed or whose organ has been cut off may become a member of the assembly of the Lord...'' (Philippians 3:2 Deuteronomy 23:1)
|''Circumcise yourselves, every male among you. You must circumcise the flesh of your foreskin, and it will be the sign of the covenant between us... On the journey, while they were encamped for the night, the Lord met Moses and would have killed him, but Zipporah picked up a sharp flint, cut off her son's foreskin, and touched Moses' genitals with it, saying, 'You are my blood-bridgegroom,'...'Blood-bridgegroom by circumcision.'... The battle went hard for Saul and when the archers caught up with him they wounded him severely. He said to his armour-bearer, 'Draw your sword and run me through, so that these uncircumcised brutes may not come and taunt me and make sport of me.' But the armour-bearer refused...Thereupon Saul took his own sword and fell on it'' (Genesis 17:10-11; Exodus 4:24-25; and 1 Samuel 31:3-4)
|'''Christian response:''' This may be yet another example of a distinction between the Jewish "Old Covenant" and the Christian "New Covenant". In mainstream Christian theology, customs required by the Jewish Law - such as circumcision - are not binding upon the (non-Jewish) Gentiles, who Paul was writing to. Thus there is no contradiction; circumcision was requisite for Jews only.
|-
|''Do you not see that nothing that goes into a person from outside can defile him, because it does not go into the heart but into the stomach, and so goes out into the drain? By saying this he declared all foods clean. '' (Mark 7:18-19)
|''All creatures that swarm on the ground are prohibited; they must not be eaten... Anything on which the dead body of such a creature falls will be unclean... The bread you are to eat is to be baked like barley cakes with human dung as fuel, and you must bake it where people can see you.'' (Leviticus 11:1-29 and Ezekiel 4:12)<br>
For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things, that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. (Acts 15:28-29)
|'''Christian response:''' This may be yet another example of a distinction between the Jewish "Old Covenant" and the Christian "New Covenant". Jesus "declared" that this Jewish law was no longer binding.<br>
'''Critics response:''' Eating of blood was prohibited by the Mosaic law (Le 17:14 De 12:16,23), but this prohibition is still binding to Gentiles.
|-
|''If a man looks at a woman with a lustful eye, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes your downfall, tear it out and flint it away; it is better for you to lose one part of your body than the whole of it to be thrown into hell.'' (Matthew 5:28-30)
|''When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails; And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.''(Deut 21:10-14)
|'''Christian response:''' Duet 21:10 does not describe any sort of lustful action. It regulates the method in which one can take a woman captive as a wife. To "take" a woman as a wife is misinterpreted here to mean that the woman is forced into marriage; however, this would contradict the traditional Hebrew matrimonial process as it requires the couple to be mutually consentful. This idea of consent is reflected in the Bible when it states in Duet 21:10 that "you may give her her freedom, if she wishes it (New American Bible Revised)." The sexual relations mentioned here is also taken out of context. In the Hebrew traditions and laws, sexual relations must only occur with the intention of producing a child; Duet 21:10 simply draws the line in respects to how early one may engage in such relations with a depressed captive. The portion mentioning the shaving of the head and paring of nails is in reference to the method of purification of those times; it was often implemented on gentiles and is used here to make the transition from a mourning woman to a wife acceptable to have relations with. Therefore, the woman may only be taken as a wife or released upon her consent, she must be treated with respect, and sexual relations with her are limited and only for the point of making a child.<br>
'''Critics response:''' In Deut. 21:14, the Hebrew verb (עָנָה, ’anah) translated "humiliated” or "humbled"(in some translations) is commonly used to speak of rape (cf. Gen 34:2; 2 Sam 13:12, 14, 22, 32; Judg 19:24), likely has sexual overtones as well<ref>http://www.enetbible.com/net/deu21_notes.htm</ref>. According to the Bavli sages in Kiddushin 21b, the permission offered to the soldier in this case is an accommodation to lust. The captive woman then becomes the vehicle for the satisfaction of his evil inclination. In bHullin 109b it is explained that the Torah forbids a man a non-Jewess, but permits him the captive woman. Not only is she the vehicle by which he releases his lust, she is not even his first choice. The captive woman can be described as a consolation prize.<ref>Deuteronomy 21:10-14: The Beautiful Captive Woman, Pearl Elman</ref>

|-
|''No one has ever seen God'' (John 1:18-31)
|''I [Jacob] have seen God face to face yet my life is spared...Then I [God] shall take away my hand, and you [Moses] will see my back'' (Genesis 32:30-31 and Exodus 33:23)
|'''Christian response:''' It may be that the passage in John was using the title "God" in its restrictive sense, referring only to God the Father. The other passages which speak of "seeing God" may be using the term in its broader sense, which can include angels and even humans. If that is so, then they could be referring either to an angel with whom Jacob wrestled or to the Son of God demonstrating His Human nature.
|-
|''You shall not Kill'' (Exodus 20:13)<br>
''If anyone takes the life of a human being, he must be put to death.''(Leviticus 24:17)
|''Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey''(1 Samuel 15:3)<br>
'' If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you.''(Deuteronomy 13:7-12)

''They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men''(Numbers 31:7)
|'''Christian response:''' Many commentators believe the word "kill" is better translated "murder",<ref>Expositor's Bible Commentary CDROM, Commentary on Exodus 20:13</ref> as in the [[NIV]] and [[New Revised Standard Version|NRSV]], and does not necessarily forbid war or capital punishment.<br>
'''Critics response:''' The Hebrew word for kill in Exodus 20:13 is "ratsach, רָצַח". The word ratsach doesn not mean "murder" exclusively. In the KJV the word ratsach is translated as "slay" 23 times, "murder" 17 times, "kill" 6 times, and 'be put to death' once.
The word ratsach is used of unintentional slaying in Deut. 4:42 and 19:3, and Num 35:11. In Numbers 35:22-24, ratsach is used to describe an accidental killing and in verse 27 it is used to describe a justified killing(by vengeance). In Proverbs 22:13 it is used in reference to being killed by an animal. In Leviticus 24:17 it says "And he that killeth(nakah) any man shall surely be put to death(muth)." Also, in Exodus 21:12, just twenty one verses after the 10 Commandments, it says "He that smiteth(nakah) a man, so that he die, shall surely be put to death." But Joshua nakah'ed the people of Ai (Joshua 8:21), and David nakah'ed Goliath (1 Sam 19:5), even though nakah was expressly forbidden. If Joshua and David are not
criminal, then the bible is again proved contradictory.<ref>Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist" by [[Dan Barker]], pg. 207-209</ref>
|-
|''Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour's wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbour's.''(Deuterononmy 5:21)
|''And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword. But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee. ''(Deuteronomy 20:13-14)
|'''Christian response:''' It may be that there was a distinction in Jewish Law between one's "neighbor" and one's "enemy", as Jesus seems to indicate in Matthew 5:43, where he qualifies that Leviticus 19:18 ("love your neighbor") allowed for the Jews to "hate" their enemies.
|-
|''Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?'' (1 Corinthians 11:14)
|''You shall not shave around the sides of your head, nor shall you disfigure the edges of your beard.'' (Leviticus 19:27) <br>''Speak to the children of Israel, and say to them: ‘When either a man or woman consecrates an offering to take the vow of a [[Nazirite]], to separate himself to the LORD... All the days of the vow of his separation no razor shall come upon his head; until the days are fulfilled for which he separated himself to the LORD, he shall be holy. Then he shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow.'' (Numbers 6:3, 5)
|'''Christian response:''' 1 Cor 11:14 is almost immediately followed by the verse 1 Cor 11:16 which states, "We have not such a custom, nor do the churches of God." Therefore the church does not necissarily hold such views mentioned in 1 Cor 11:14.
|-
|''The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.'' (Ezekiel 18:20)
|''you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me'' (Exodus 20:5)
''Prepare slaughter for his children because of the iniquity of their fathers, Lest they rise up and possess the land, And fill the face of the world with cities.''(Isaiah 14:21)

''One of illegitimate birth shall not enter the assembly of the Lord; even to the tenth generation none of his descendants shall enter the assembly of the Lord.''(Deuteronomy 23:2)
<br>''Their children also will be dashed to pieces before their eyes...And their wives ravished.''(Isaiah 13:16)
|'''Christian response:''' While the former passages speak of the "guilt" of the fathers, the latter ones speak of the inherited ''effects'' of sin: e.g., the sons may have inherited a violent trait from their violent fathers, and so in anticipation of the violence they are killed.<br>
'''Critics response:''' It doesn't explain why innocent infants were punished by God for their father's wrongdoing.( 1 Samuel 15:3, Hosea 13:16).
|-
|''If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband's brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her.''(Deuteronomy 25:5)
|''If a man takes his brother’s wife, it is an unclean thing. He has uncovered his brother’s nakedness. They shall be childless. ''(Leviticus 20:21)
|'''Christian response:''' The former may be speaking of a specific allowance for deviance from the general rule of Leviticus 20. Unless the Levitical law is an absolute - which is not indicated in the text - then there is no contradiction.
|-
|''But Pharaoh hardened his heart at this time also; neither would he let the people go.'' (Exodus 8:32)
|''For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.”Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens. You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?'' (Romans 9:17-21)<br>
''And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.''(Exodus 4:21)
|'''Christian response:''' In mainstream Christian theology, God's foreknowledge of an event is influenced by the free choices of the individuals. Thus the sacred writers can speak of God hardening peoples' hearts - referring to his foreknowledge - or to the individuals hardening their own hearts - referring to their free choice.
|-
|''As it is written: There is none righteous, no, not one'' (Romans 3:10)
|''There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah. His wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.'' (Luke 1:5-6)
|'''Christian response:''' The words of Romans 3:10 are a quote from Psalms 53 - which restricts that clause to atheists. Paul applies the words of this Psalm to unconverted Jews and Greeks, which does not include Zacharias and Elizabeth.<br>
'''Critics response:''' <ref>[http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/Pauls_doctrine.htm The Law stands<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>
|-
|''Jesus said to him, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.”'' (Matthew 22:37-40)
|''For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.'' (Galatians 5:14)
|'''Christian response:''' Here in Gal 5:14, Paul is simply restating Jesus' commandment. It is either in his opinion that the law can be summarized in that commandment, or he simply felt that loving God infinitely was not necessary enough to be mentioned as most followers of Christ indeed love God, but not always their neighbors.
|-
|''Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.'' (Matthew 5:17)
|''...having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace'' (Ephesians 2:15)
|
|-
|''Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?'' (James 2:22)
|''For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.'' (Romans 4:2)
|
|-
|''And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men'' (Acts 1:24)
|''God left him, to try him, that he might know all that was in his heart'' (2 Chronicles 32:31)
|
|-
|''And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and the cattle after their kind ... And God said, Let us make man ... So God created man in his own image.'' (Genesis 1:25-27)
|''And the Lord God said it is not good that man should be alone; I will make a help-meet for him. And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them.'' (Genesis 2:18-19)
|This was not a new creation of animals. Here the Lord God was calling attention to the fact that He created them "out of the ground" as He did man, but man, who was a living soul in the image of God was to name them, signifying his rule over them.<ref>MacArthur Study Bible</ref>
|-
|''And David went and took the bones of Saul and the bones of Jonathan his son from the men of Jabeshgilead, which had stolen them from the street of Bethshan, where the Philistines had hanged them, when the Philistines had slain Saul in Gilboa'' (2 Samuel 21:12)
|''Then said Saul unto his armourbearer, Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and thrust me through, and abuse me. But his armourbearer would not; for he was sore afraid. Therefore Saul took a sword, and fell upon it.'' (1 Samuel 31:4-6)
|'''Christian response:''' The word "slain" used in 2 Sam 21:12 may be in reference to what occurred in 1 Sam 31:9-10 ("They cut off his head and stripped off his armor, and they sent messengers throughout the land of the Philistines to proclaim the news in the temple of their idols and among their people. They put his armor in the temple of the Ashtoreths and fastened his body to the wall of Beth Shan.")
|-
|''But the LORD said to Samuel, “Do not look at his appearance or at his physical stature, because I have refused him. For the LORD does not see as man sees;[a] for man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.''(1 Samuel 16:7)
|''No man of your descendants in succeeding generations, who has any defect, may approach to offer the bread of his God. For any man who has a defect shall not approach: a man blind or lame, who has a marred face or any limb too long, a man who has a broken foot or broken hand, or is a hunchback or a dwarf, or a man who has a defect in his eye, or eczema or scab, or is a eunuch. No man of the descendants of Aaron the priest, who has a defect, shall come near to offer the offerings made by fire to the Lord. He has a defect; he shall not come near to offer the bread of his God. He may eat the bread of his God, both the most holy and the holy; only he shall not go near the veil or approach the altar, because he has a defect, lest he profane My sanctuaries; for I the Lord sanctify them. '' (Leviticus 21:17-23)
|
|-
|'' He commanded them to take nothing for the journey except a staff — no bag, no bread, no copper in their money belts — but to wear sandals, and not to put on two tunics.''(Mark 6:8-9)
|''Provide neither gold nor silver nor copper in your money belts, nor bag for your journey, nor two tunics, nor sandals, nor staffs; for a worker is worthy of his food. ''(Matthew 10:9-10)
|
|-
|''In the twelfth year of Joram son of Ahab king of Israel, Ahaziah son of Jehoram king of Judah began to reign.''(2 Kings 8:25)
|''And in the eleventh year of Joram the son of Ahab began Ahaziah to reign over Judah.''(2 Kings 9:29)
|
|-
|''But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.''(Galatians 5:22)
|''And when he came unto Lehi, the Philistines shouted against him: and the Spirit of the LORD came mightily upon him, and the cords that were upon his arms became as flax that was burnt with fire, and his bands loosed from off his hands. And he found a new jawbone of an ass, and put forth his hand, and took it, and slew a thousand men therewith.''(Judges 15:14-15)
|
|-
| ''for I am merciful, declares the LORD, I will not be angry forever.''(Jeremiah 3:12)
| ''for ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn for ever.''(Jeremiah 17:4)
|
|-
|''With God all things are possible.''(Matthew 29:26)
|''And the Lord was with Judah, and he drove out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.''(Judges 1:19)
| '''Christian response:'''The "he" is likely Judah, not the Lord (as translated in the [[NIV]]).
|-
|''Therefore Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child unto the day of her death.''(2 Samuel 6:23)
|''The five sons of Michal, the daughter of Saul.''(2 Samuel 21:8)
|'''Christian response:''' Some texts give "Merab" rather than "Michal" in 2 Samuel 21:8. Both NIV and [[New Revised Standard Version|NRSV]] prefer "Merab".<ref>NIV and NRSV footnotes to 2 Samuel 21:8</ref>
|-
|''Arphaxad lived thirty-five years, and begot Salah.''(Genesis 11:12)<br>
''And Arphaxad begat Salah.''(Genesis 10:24)
| ''which was the son of Sala, Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad''(Luke 3:35-36)
|
|-
|''And as it is appointed unto men once to die. ''(Hebrew 9:27)<br>
|''Women received their dead raised to life again''(Hebrews 11:35)<br>
''By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him''(Hebrew 11:5)
|
|-
|''Then Peter opened his mouth and said: “In truth I perceive that God shows no partiality.''(Acts 10:34)<br>
''For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality nor takes a bribe.''(Deuteronomy 10:17)<br>
''For there is no partiality with God.''(Romans 2:11)
|''The LORD delighted only in your fathers, to love them; and He chose their descendants after them, you(Israel) above all peoples, as it is this day.''(Deuteronomy 10:14)<br>
''For you(Israel) are a holy people to the LORD your God, and the LORD has chosen you to be a people for Himself, a special treasure above all the peoples who are on the face of the earth.''(Deuteronomy 14:2)<br>
''The woman was a Greek, a Syro-Phoenician by birth, and she kept asking Him to cast the demon out of her daughter. But Jesus said to her, “Let the children be filled first, for it is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs.''(Mark 7:26-28)
|
|-
|''Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does He Himself tempt anyone.''(James 1:13)
|''And it came to pass on the morrow, that the evil spirit from God came upon Saul, and he prophesied in the midst of the house''(1 Samuel 18:10)<br>
''And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.And David's heart smote him after that he had numbered the people. And David said unto the LORD, I have sinned greatly in that I have done: and now, I beseech thee, O LORD, take away the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly.''(2 Samuel 24:1,10)<br>
''Then God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech''(Judges 9:23)

|
|-

|}

==See also==
*[[Biblical cosmology]]
*[[Biblical criticism]]
*[[Biblical literalism]]
*[[Criticism of the Bible]]
*[[Criticism of Christianity]]
*[[Science and the Bible]]
*[[Criticism of the Qur'an]]
*[[Criticism of Islam]]

==Offline references==
===Pro-errancy===
*[[Thomas Paine|Paine, Thomas]], ''[[The Age of Reason]]'', (orig. 1794), Prometheus Books, 1984 edition: ISBN 0-87975-273-4 [The text is available online at Project Gutenberg [http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=6967&pageno=8]; the discussion of contradictions begins on page 64 [http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=6967&pageno=64] ]

==External links==
===Pro–errancy===
* [http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.shtml Biblical Inconsistencies]
* [http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html The Skeptic's Annotated Bible]
* [http://www.greenwych.ca/bible-a.htm The "Holey" Bible]
* [http://members.aol.com/ckbloomfld/ Dennis McKinsey's Biblical Errancy]
* [http://www.awitness.org/contrabib/history/unrely.html Historical contradictions in the Bible]
* [http://answering-christianity.com/contra.htm A Muslim view of how the Bible was corrupted]
* [http://www.outreachjudaism.org/questions.html A Jewish view of the errancy of the New Testament Canon]

===Pro–inerrancy===
*[http://www.apologeticspress.org/allegeddiscrepancies/details Apologetics Press]
*[http://www.carm.org/bible_difficulties.htm CARM.org Bible Difficulties section]
*[http://www.tektonics.org/index2.html Biblical Inconsistencies Answered]
*[http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/bible.html Monergism.com links] to articles on Scripture from a conservative Calvinist perspective
*[http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/bbwauthority.htm The Authority and Inspiration of the Scriptures] by [[B. B. Warfield]]
*[[s:Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy|The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy]] (wikisource)
*[http://www.fwponline.cc/v16n2reasonera.html Defining Biblical Inerrancy] by Dr. Vic Reasoner, — a conservative [[Arminian]]/[[Methodism|Wesleyan]] perspective
*[http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_inerrancy_kantzer.html "Evangelicals and Inerrancy"] by [[Kenneth Kantzer]]

==Notes==
{{reflist|colwidth=70em}}

[[Category:Biblical criticism]]

[[it:Errori attribuiti alla Bibbia]]
[[nl:Bijbelse tegenstrijdigheden]]
[[fi:Raamatun ristiriidat]]
[[zh:聖經的內部矛盾]]

Revision as of 13:59, 15 March 2008

IN MARK 4:20, JESUS CLAIMS TO LIKE MTV WHEN IT SUCKS

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Internal_consistency_of_the_Bible&oldid=198406995"