While many atheists are quite reasonable and charitable when discussing religious matters, I think one of the strategies of the New Atheists is to run around with their Big Book O’ Atheist Sound Bites to distract you, waste your time and plant seeds of doubt with bad arguments. I addressed many of their standard lines in Poor arguments to make with theists. (In fairness, I had previously addressed Poor arguments to make with atheists, because theists also make poor and uncharitable arguments at times.)
If there were any legitimate objections in this list of 194 alleged contradictions that DJ Black Adam pointed me to then they were lost in their overly literal and transparently false interpretations. You don’t even need any Bible knowledge to debunk most of them. The skeptics just misread the text or read it out of context. I also think that their dictionary doesn’t contain the word paradox, though most of the items on this list don’t even approach that level of sophistication. I pray that they would take the text seriously and accept its life changing message.
Their conclusion starts with this charming, question begging personal attack:
Every one is aware that there are contradictions in the Bible, except for the fundamentalist idiots.
First, let’s recall the definition of a contradiction:
1. the act of contradicting; gainsaying or opposition.
2. assertion of the contrary or opposite; denial.
3. a statement or proposition that contradicts or denies another or itself and is logically incongruous.
4. direct opposition between things compared; inconsistency.
5. a contradictory act, fact, etc.
So mere differences aren’t contradictions. To be a contradiction something has to be the opposite.
Just for grins, I grabbed a few of the 194 “contradictions” to see how robust they were.
#4. The angel told Joseph. Mt.1:20. The angel told Mary. Lk.1:28.
Let’s look at the two verses in question:
Matthew 1:20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.
Luke 1:28 The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”
So the angel went to Joseph and to Mary. That is simply not a contradiction. Why they would include something like this is beyond me.
#11. Satan tempted Jesus. Mt.4:1-10; Mk.1:13; Lk.4:1,2. Satan had no interest in Jesus. Jn.14:30.
I agree that Satan tempted Jesus, so there is no need to review those verses. But let’s look at the second claim and see if it states that Satan had “no interest” in Jesus:
John 14:30 I will not speak with you much longer, for the prince of this world is coming. He has no hold on me,
The plain reading of the text shows that Satan has no hold on Jesus. It does not claim that he has no interest in Jesus. Why do they think that is a contradiction?
#27 The people were not impressed with the feeding of the multitude. Mk.6:52. The people were very impressed with the feeding of the multitude. Jn.6:14.
Mark 6:52 for they had not understood about the loaves; their hearts were hardened.
John 6:14 After the people saw the miraculous sign that Jesus did, they began to say, “Surely this is the Prophet who is to come into the world.”
At first glance the skeptics appear to have a point. After all, Mark 6:52 seems to indicate that they didn’t have a strong reaction. But did you notice that the first word of the verse isn’t capitalized? I wonder what the previous verse says and why it wasn’t included . . .
Mark 6:51-52 Then he climbed into the boat with them, and the wind died down. They were completely amazed, for they had not understood about the loaves; their hearts were hardened.
Ah! Maybe the skeptics left it out because it annihilates their “contradiction.” It turns out the people were impressed after all. You just have to go back one half sentence, or one word for that matter. So are these guys really that ignorant or are they truly deceptive? Do they just assume that people won’t open the book for themselves?
—–
Filed under: Apologetics, Bible | Tagged: Apologetics, atheism, Bible, contradictions Bible, God, Jesus, religion, skeptic
I would agree that one should use the same standards in judging the veracity or authenticity of Biblical accounts as one would use for any other ancient text. Most of us would reject any descriptions of supernatural events in an ancient text as mythological. Most of us would be skeptical about descriptions of events that cannot be corroborated by archaeological evidence or other unrelated texts. The specific examples you provide of alleged Biblical contradictions are among the weakest available. There are certainly others more convincing, but that is really not the point.
As with any text, we can assume that the Bible was written by individuals who had specific objectives in writing and a specific audience in mind. In the case of the gospels, the authors had an intent to spread their beliefs about Jesus and encourage those who already were part of the faith community. We can assume that they used the same literary conventions as their contemporaries (including the license to exaggerate or invent episodes that underscored their point) and that their descriptions of Jesus’ activities were intended not as literal history, but as encouragements to the faithful.
As with any ancient document, or any book for that matter, an honest study is thwarted when assumptions about the book are made prior to reading. If I assume that the Iliad is literally true, my analysis and understanding of the text is without merit. For the same reason, if I assume that the Bible or any part of it is literally true, any “study” I do of it is without merit.
“The specific examples you provide of alleged Biblical contradictions are among the weakest available.”
You complaint is with the maker of the list. I picked three at random. I could have come up with much harder texts myself. Perhaps that shows the motives of the authors.
“We can assume that they used the same literary conventions as their contemporaries (including the license to exaggerate or invent episodes that underscored their point) and that their descriptions of Jesus’ activities were intended not as literal history, but as encouragements to the faithful.”
I don’t see why you’d assume that. One of their teachings was about honesty, so you are accusing them of gross hypocrisy. And they don’t come across as hypocritical in the least to me.
“For the same reason, if I assume that the Bible or any part of it is literally true, any “study” I do of it is without merit”
I don’t follow. You don’t have to assume it is true, you can test the parts you have access to (historical and such) and assess the reliability of the authors, their motives, etc.
I love reading responses to contradictions because they just take them to pieces that is not even funny (though I do laugh sometimes).
for over 2000 years, great minds – friend and foe – had looked at the texts, and these ‘new atheists’ think they can do better?
If they’re so good, they should look at the HIV virus code and crack that instead of wasting their time with so-called Bible delusions.
O.K. Neil, I’m linking this one in the morning, VERY well written.
Neil,
Another great post showing the poor attacks on the Bible itself. Most of the supposed contradictions can be dismissed just in knowing that each author was writing to a different audience. But the naysayers are never interested in the truth, just attack it.
No contradictions? Are you kidding me Neil? Of course there are contradictions!
Man is the contradiction and if you look at all of the examples provided, man is the catalyst for all of the confusion. This is why it is vital you read the ENTIRE chapter when someone references scripture.
Questions: Why is the Bible the only book people start from the middle or end and then claim to know the whole thing?
Do you read any other book like this?
Edgar, DJBA & Timothy – thanks!
Hi Mizclark,
No, I am not kidding.
And no, I have not read any other book like the collection of books known as the Bible. As one might expect from the word of God, it is unique.
If your point was that people can misinterpret the Bible and that we must read in context (and carefully, for that matter), then I agree.
Neil,
Using the literary conventions of the time does not make the biblical writers dishonest. They are being honest about what they believe, not necessarily about the historical facts. The infancy narratives for example, were not intended to portray actual historical facts, they were told in order to convey the author’s ideas about Jesus – that he was the Messiah, that he came for gentiles as well as Jews, etc. The were honestly conveying their beliefs in order to inspire others to believe.
The problem I have with much so-called bible study is that before sitting down to read, some people make assumptions about the texts that they consider inviolable, and those assumptions overwhelm any serious scholarship about the texts they purport to study. For example, if I tell you that the works of Plato are literally true and consistent with one another and that they represent the words and thoughts of the one true god, then would you believe any conclusion I might draw from reading the Republic? I doubt it.
If I tell you I am going to study an early text of the Iliad and I read only the Iliad itself, not any of the scholarly works written about it that contradict my pre-conceived ideas about the text, then I am not engaging in study. I may be reflecting on the text, or meditating on the text but I am not studying it.
Hi DL,
That is your opinion, but not supported by the text. Read all the references to the virgin birth. They don’t even hint at being metaphorical. Luke specifically states that he was writing the facts.
I don’t follow your Plato example. Did his works claim to be the word of God?
I think you are assuming to much in thinking we don’t do robust Bible study. If you’ve never listened to John MacArthur you might like to check out his Podcasts. He preps about 20 hours per sermon and goes through multiple Bible versions, the original languages, and many commentaries.
[...] on his “4Simpson’s” blog has some good thoughts about an atheist’s list of so-called Bible contradictions. My thought: yawn. If [...]
Yes, Neil that is what I was trying to say. As far as the infancy gospels…whether true or not they offer a person the opportunity to seek truth.
This is a must to truly understand
No, but the works of Mohammed do, and the Quranic scholars make the same claims of it that you do the the bible.
Neil said: Right. So what do we do? Test the evidence. Example: The death of Jesus, his followers’ beliefs that He rose from the dead, the conversion and nearly all the writings of the Apostle Paul are historical facts, among other things. Jesus’ death on the cross, for example, was attested to by many.
Then we have Mohammad — just one guy — who gets a vision in a cave 500 years later and says Jesus didn’t die on a cross, and that it was Judas or a body double. He starts a religion with violence, he spreads it with violence and it has never stopped being violent and coercive. So you can decide which you think is more credible.
He also claims that Jesus is a prophet but that the Bible was changed. That is demonstrably false. Even textual criticism experts who are skeptics concede that we know with 99.5% confidence what the original writings of the Bible said. And no major doctrines are in question.
That is just for starters.
So you don’t sit down to study the bible, with the presupposition that it is the word of Yahweh?
Neil said: Now I “presuppose” it, after extensive study and realizing it is indeed the word of God.
Neil, of course the authors of Matthew and Luke did not tell their infancy narratives with little footnotes saying “I’m just making this up”. Their audience understood that these were not meant to be literal history, but were written to connect Jesus to the Jewish messianic tradition, and communicate other concepts that were developing at that time about Jesus.
The First Century readers of Matthew and Luke knew that those writers were not present at Jesus’ birth and most likely had no contact with anyone who was present. The stories themselves are clearly legendary – angels magically appearing, wise men following a star, etc. (The concept that Mary was a virgin came later). Obviously if these stories were literally true they would have been known to all the NT writers, but the first gospel, Mark, doesn’t mention them at all. The last, John, also doesn’t use these legends because his ideas about Jesus are meant to convince those familiar with Greek philosophy.
This is not to say that the stories have no meaning or are false. They truthfully describe what the authors believed about Jesus in a language that was clearly understood by their intended audience. They believed Jesus was the hoped-for messiah of Judaism, that he embodied God in a unique and special way, that his message was valid not only for Jews but Gentiles as well, etc.
If you begin with the premise that all of the Bible is literally true and internally consistent, it doesn’t matter how many versions of it you read or how many commentaries you read (written by people who share your premise), you are not engaging in the intellectual process of study and research. You are simply attempting to confirm ideas you already have. The fact that some parts of the Bible are clearly legend or tell historical tales that contradict known history doesn’t mean that the entire set of books are without merit or suspect. It’s just that their stories are much more complex than you may be willing to admit.
That sounds like pure speculation to me. Any evidence for that? The early church believed in the deity of Christ.
You make a common mistake in assuming that unless writer recorded something then it must not have really happened. But if they all included it you’d probably say they copied each other.
Your last paragraph is a straw man. If you want to know how I approach the Bible, just ask, or read more of the blog. When you say such things you just display your own prejudices.
Your claims of things “clearly” being legend or disagreeing with history are unfounded.
The deity of Christ is one thing, the infancy narratives quite another. In fact one of the purposes of the infancy narratives was to show that Jesus was divine. The literary devices they used conveyed that underlying message.
I take the position that stories that describe supernatural events are not historical, they are metaphorical. When a writer crafts a story designed to prove a point (i.e., ticking off the various messianic prophecies by inventing dramatic events), or injects supernatural elements like angels into a story, he is not providing us with history.
P.S. in the last paragraph I was not making a comment on your approach to the Bible. The “you” was meant in the common sense of anyone. Maybe I should have said “If one begins…”. Of course, if the shoe fits…
You haven’t offered any evidence as to why that was the motive of the authors, but even if it was their reasoning then it doesn’t mean it wasn’t true.
Thanks for conceding that you come to the text with a bias. Ironically, that is what you were accusing me of.
Question begging.
More question begging.
More question begging. You assume we have come to these conclusions without good reasons but you haven’t proved it.
DL
Dr’s Greg Boyd and Paul Eddy have dealt with all of your contentions quite effectively, in their books The Jesus Legend and Lord or Legend. As has Neil.
I tend to think that there’s too much emphasis on whether the Bible contains contradictions, and not enough on whether it contains errors. Two verses can be logically consistent, but still suggestive of error, and an error is just as fatal for biblical inerrancy as a contradiction.
The two accounts of the death of Judas, for example, don’t explicitly contradict each other, but it’s a bit of a stretch to believe them both. It’s simpler (and I suspect more faithful to the texts’ authors’ intentions) to believe that at least one text is in error.
Just focusing on explicit contradictions means ignoring this kind of evidence against biblical inerrancy, which (no matter which side of the debate you’re on) doesn’t do justice to the case for errancy.
Errancy,
This or any of the apologics sites in my links section will be helpful for those interested in addressing alleged errors — http://www.tektonics.org/index2.html. I see that you linked to Tektonics on your blog, which is good.
We’ve been answering these for a couple thousand years and a glance at your site didn’t highlight any new items to me. Seriously, the early church had many deep and careful thinkers and they pored over these words of life countless times, letter by letter. It isn’t like people just noticed the two descriptions in the 21st century.
I do encourage people to ask and investigate the answers to tough questions to see for themselves. This will strengthen their faith.
I find that statement to be somewhat ironic. Addressing the accounts about Judas’ death is like junior apologetics. It would be easy to say that I find it is simpler (and much more faithful to the skeptics’ intentions) to believe that their analysis is in error.
“A glance at your site didn’t highlight any new items to me.”
Understood; the site collects more than it invents. It’s also at a fairly early stage of development.
What is new about it (I think) is the rating system, which I hope will make it possible to identify which claimed errors are easily dismissed and which have a little more substance to them. (You’re very welcome to join and register your views, by the way.)
“It would be easy to say that I find it is simpler (and much more faithful to the skeptics’ intentions) to believe that their analysis is in error.”
It would. In my case, I’m attributing to someone who says nothing about hanging but does say (to paraphrase) “Judas fell and his guts spilled out” the intention to describe how Judas died. I think that this is reasonable but not certain, and so I think it’s reasonable to believe that there’s an error here, but to be certain would be to go beyond the evidence.
If you have different standards of interpretation to me, or if you’re willing to suspend those standards of interpretation and make a special case of the Bible, then you needn’t judge that there’s an error here. I was just offering this as an example of a type of reasoning (inference to the best explanation rather than deduction) that is important but which is ignored when people focus just on whether two texts explicitly contradict each other.
Hi Errancy,
That is a reasonable paraphrase. Here are the NIV and NASB translations. I typically use the NIV but like to review the more literal NASB when discussing disputed passages (not much difference in this case).
Acts 1:18-19 (With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this, so they called that field in their language Akeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)
Acts 1:18-19 (Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out. And it became known to all who were living in Jerusalem; so that in their own language that field was called Hakeldama, that is, Field of Blood.)
So let’s say you didn’t have access to Matthew 27:5 (“So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.”). What would you infer from Acts regarding the nature of Judas’ death? Did he trip and fall and his “body burst open” so hard that “all his intestines spilled out?” That seems fairly remote and wildly coincidental, seeing as how in Luke’s view Judas just betrayed the Son of God.
Was it murder? No evidence of that.
So it seems to me it is unreasonable to assume an error here. When you consider the circumstances it seems like one could read Acts alone and see hanging and falling as a possibility.
And I haven’t even touched on the notion of how thorough and accurate Luke is on all things that can be verified. Seems like one could give him the benefit of the doubt that he knew how Judas died and didn’t mention the specifics.
Also, most experts I am aware of (liberal or conservative) hold that Acts was written after Matthew, so Luke may have had access to it.
I just don’t see why it is reasonable to assume an error in this situation.
What we might want to do to solve the question about how did Judas I. die is to ask some more questions. Since the scriptures were written in a culture different than ours, we might ask ourselves, What is meant by hanging in their culture? Are there any other scriptures that describe a suicide that the word “hang” could be used to describe some aspect of what happened? Or are there other methods of execution where hanging is used to describe some aspect of the means of execution that do not involve a noose of a rope from a gallows? Let’s look at these in reverse order. Jesus Christ death was described in Galatians 3:13, that he was hung on a tree. Was there a rope around his neck by which he was asphyxiated? No, the gospels are clear that he was nailed to a wooden object. ( a tree according to both Gal 3:13 and I Peter 2:24, ie, a stauros, a large wooden stake, called a cross. There may or may not have been a rope involved to help support his weight so that his flesh would tear through the nails. If so, it was probably tied around his waist. Was there any suicides that the word hang be applied. Yes Saul in the old testament committed suicide by falling on his sword. One way this would be done is by sticking the handle of the sword in the ground and then impaling himself on it. Unless the sword passed completely through his body, which could happen unless the sword was blocked by his rib cage or spine, his body would be hanging on the sword. Students of culture and customs in that time and area indicate that impaling oneself on a pointed object was one method of suicide. A noble man or a wealthy man who could afford a sword would use one, however, a man of lesser means could sharpen the end of a stout stick, or maybe sharpen the end of a stout sapling and fall upon it, at times disemboweling themselves. This information fits logically, physically and anatomically with the description in the record of Judas’ death. Thank you!
Neil,
I’m pretty sure you meant to say Acts was written by Luke.
Sorry if that wasn’t clear. I was trying to point out that Luke wrote Acts after Matthew wrote Matthew.
No Problem. That’s what I thought you meant
> What would you infer from Acts regarding the nature of Judas’ death? Did he trip and fall and his “body burst open” so hard that “all his intestines spilled out?”
I probably would, but I agree that this reading is somewhat awkward. I just find it even more awkward to imagine Luke knowing that Judas hanged himself but then failing to mention that when describing Judas’s fall as he does.
> Also, most experts I am aware of (liberal or conservative) hold that Acts was written after Matthew, so Luke may have had access to it.
I think the majority view is that Luke didn’t have access to Matthew (this is why Q is posited to explain their shared content that isn’t in Mark), but there is room for disagreement on this.
So if you didn’t have Matthew to color your thinking, what would you have inferred? Judas tripped and fell? Peter nailed him with a shotgun blast? Seriously, what would be the most likely inference?
> So if you didn’t have Matthew to color your thinking, what would you have inferred?
A nasty fall onto something that would cut him open, probably. Certainly nothing involving a noose.
see my stuff above, it is really quite simple.
If he just fall in a field and “burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out” that would be a “nasty” fall indeed.
Like I said, the passage is awkward. That helps the inerrantist case, because it makes us more ready to say “Ah, what it must be getting at is this: [insert useful addition to text]“. But I still think that inferring a hanging from a fall involves a bit of a leap (as it were).