95 Supposed Contradictions
Cleared Up
Answering “101 Clear
Contradictions in the Bible”
Note: Since some
issues deal with the same subject, some have been combined.
1. Did Adam die
the same day he ate of the forbidden fruit (Gen.
2:17) or continue to live to the age of 930 years (Gen. 5:5)?
Both! The Bible uses the word death
in 4 ways: physical death, spiritual death, eternal death, and figure of speech
death. So, Adam died spiritually in Gen. 2:17, and later he died physically in
Gen. 5:5.
So, how are each of these
deaths defined or described?
Physical death is the
biological end of life, the end of human physical existence, the end of human
life on this earth, as exemplified in Deut. 21:22, 23; Gen. 25:8 ( 20
p. 408; 25 OT, p. 90; 12
p. 26). It’s the separation of the soul and/or spirit from the material
body, as exemplified in Acts 7:59, 60; Lk. 23:46; Gen. 35:18 (5 p. 72;
25 NT, p. 268).
Spiritual death is the
separation of man from (an intimate relationship with) God caused by sin, as
seen in Eph. 2:1; 1 Tim. 5:6; Rom. 6:23; 5:12; 1 Pet. 2:24 & 2 Cor. 5:21
with Matt. 27:46 (5 pp. 72, 73; 7 vol. 1, p. 128; 20
p. 409; 25 NT, p. 268).
Eternal death (sometimes
called the second death) is the
eternal separation of men from (an intimate relation with) God, which includes
eternal punishment in the lake of fire/hell, and is caused by never-dealt-with
sin. See Rev. 19:20; 20:10, 14; 21:8; 14:10, 11; Matt. 13:41, 42; 23:29-33;
25:41, 46; 2 Thes. 1:6, 9 (5 p. 73; 20
p. 409; 22 p. 302).
Figure of speech death has
various meanings. For example, in Lk.
So, Adam died spiritually in Gen. 2:17, as seen by his trying to hide
from God in 3:8, and by his being expelled from the Garden of Eden in
2. Did God
decide that the life-span of humans would be limited to 120 years (Gen. 6:3) or longer (Gen. 11:12-16)?
First, Gen. 6:3 does not state that the life-span of humans would be
120 years. It says, “Then the Lord said, ‘My Spirit shall not strive with man
forever, because he also is flesh; nevertheless, his days shall be one hundred
and twenty years.’” The meaning is that God’s Spirit won’t always judge (Heb. yadhon)
or aim to correct and check or work to reprove and restrain man’s strong
propensity toward evil because mankind had sunk to the level of “flesh” (Heb. baser), meaning morally weak and sinful stock, abandoned to a life of sin, or
morally degenerated extremely, incurably corrupt. So, God’s Spirit won’t
continue to strive with degenerated mankind to restrain them from their evil
ways. And the time limit before the Spirit would cease to strive with mankind, which
included Noah preaching righteousness (2 Pet. 2:5), would be 120 years. Then
the Flood would come as a judgment. The extent of man’s degeneration is seen in
Gen. 6:5-7.
Secondly, the context would support this interpretation. It says
that God had been patient with mankind’s evil being and doings for some time
(6:2-7) and that He would continue to be patient with them (1 Pet. 3:20) for
another 120 years (6:3) until the judgment by the Flood. So, Gen. 6:3 has
nothing to do with the length of man’s life-span. (3 p. 22; 4
vol. 1, pp. 30, 31; 7 pp. 254-256; 8 pp. 134-136; 33
p. 30; 12 p. 26).
3. Does God
change His mind (Gen. 6:7; Ex. 32:14; 1 Sam.
Not really! First, the Hebrew word niham is a word that has several
meanings, such as: grieve, regret, change
of mind, relent, console, comfort, etc. Second, God is all-knowing (e.g., Isa.
46:9, 10; Psa. 147:5; 139:2-4). Since nothing takes God by surprise, He already
knew that king Saul would disobey and rebel. Third, God had made it clear
through Jacob’s deathbed prophecy, hundreds of years
earlier (Gen. 49:8-10), that the tribe of
So, in 1 Sam. 15:10, 11, 35, the meaning of the Hebrew word niham is grieve or regret rather than changes
His mind, while in 15:29, the meaning is change His mind. Context is what determines the meaning of a word
that has multiple meanings.
As for Gen. 6:7, the meaning of niham is sorry. Sorry and regret express grief and pain tinged with emotion,
which is quite different than changing His mind.
As for Ex. 32:14, the expression changed
His mind is definitely an anthropomorphic usage and not a real change of
mind, for the reasons stated above. Instead, it has the meaning of relented (to embark on another course of
action; it suggests relief or comfort from a planned, undesirable course of
action). It’s an alteration in the course and method of God’s procedure. A
change in the character and conduct of those with whom God is dealing leads to
a corresponding change in His actions toward them, though God had already known
this would happen due to His omniscience. So, it’s viewed as a change of mind
though God knew all along it would happen. (1 OT, pp. 37, 156, 447; 2
pp. 82, 285; 3 pp. 22, 79; 4 vol. 1, pp. 31, 725; 5
pp. 80, 173, 174; 7 p. 261; 8 pp. 140, 225; 12
pp. 29, 30).
4. Did God tell
Noah to take 2 pairs of all living creatures (Gen. 6:19, 20) or 7 pairs (Gen.
7:2) of clean animals into the
This is not a contradiction but rather a misleading question to
begin with. God told Noah to take 7 pairs of clean animals and 2 pairs of
unclean animals (7:2). So, the general instruction to Noah was to take 2 pairs
of all living creatures (
5. Was the
father of Shelah, Cainan (Lk.
The genealogy in the
Massoretic (Hebrew) text of Genesis telescopes the generations (i.e., mentions
some and omits others) as does Matthew in his list in Matt. 1. But in the
Septuagint (the LXX or the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament in the
3rd century BC – The New
International Dictionary of the Christian Church, p. 897), the name Cainan is included as the father of Shelah.
Luke, writing in Greek to Hellenistic Jews, would have used the Septuagint as
his authority. So, there’s no contradiction. Cainan
was the real father of Shelah while Arphaxad was an ancestor/father of Shelah.
The term father can and does have the
meaning of ancestor, and is so used
in the Bible quite often – e.g., Jn.
6. Did the
Midianites sell Joseph to the Ishmaelites (Gen.
37:28) or to Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh (Gen. 37:36)?
The Midianites sold Joseph to Potiphar. The traveling merchants were
comprised of Ishmaelite and Midianite merchants. The words Ishmaelite and Midianite
are used interchangeably (see 37:25,27,28,36; Judg.
7. Did the
Ishmaelites (Gen. 37:28), or the Midianites (Gen. 37:36), or Joseph’s brothers (Gen. 45:4) bring Joseph to
Since the term Ishmaelite
became a general designation for desert tribes, Midianites were also known as
Ishmaelites. Both Ishmaelites (Gen. 16:15) and Midianites (Gen. 25:2) were
descendants of Abraham. So, the two terms are used interchangeably, as seen in
Judges 8:22, 24; Gen. 37:25, 27, 28, 36. Therefore, it was the
Midianite/Ishmaelites who physically and literally brought Joseph to
8. Did 70
members of the house of Jacob come to
Both, depending upon what angle one looks
at it from (2 p. 1136). The Hebrew text of Gen. 46:27 includes Jacob,
Joseph, and Joseph’s 2 sons (Ephraim and Manasseh) for a total of 70 people. But
the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew text done in the 3rd
century BC) omits Jacob and Joseph, but includes Joseph’s 7 grandchildren
(mentioned in 1 Chron.
Or, the extra 5 persons of Acts
9. How
could the Egyptian magicians convert water into blood (Ex.
Moses and Aaron did not convert all the available water into blood. There
was other water available (7:24), such as natural springs or water filtered
through the soil, or even a pot or bowl of water acquired from such sources, which
the magicians used as a sample to also demonstrate their powers (1
OT, p. 121; 8 p. 480; 12 p. 30).
10. Did 24,000
Israelites die in the plague in Shittim (Num. 25:1, 9), or was it only 23,000
Israelites (1 Cor. 10:8)?
It could be either or it could be both. The real number of those who
died may have been between 23,000 and 24,000, say 23,500. And when writing
generally where exact figures are not needed, one writer might give one rounded
figure, while the other writer gives the other rounded figure. This is not
uncommon in general writing or speaking when exact figures are irrelevant to
the point of the story (3 p. 1208; 29 p. 141; 30
p. 104).
Or, the real number could be both. It’s 23,000 if Paul is talking
about those who died in just one day (1 Cor. 10:8), and 24,000 if Moses is
including those who died because of the plague on more than just that day, such
as the next day as well because of the plagues effects (2 p. 1246; 3
p. 1208).
11. Joshua and
the Israelites did (Josh.
He did not, and Josh.
12. Did David (1 Sam.
David did because of 1 Sam.
The Hebrew manuscript
from which the 2 Samuel copyist was reading must have
been blurred or damaged at this particular verse. What happened apparently was
the following: The sign of the direct object, which in Chronicles comes just
before “Lahmi”, was ‘t
; the copyist mistook it for b-t or b-y-t (Beth) and thus got Bethal-Lahmi (the Bethlehemite) out of it. Then the copyist misread the
Hebrew word for brother (‘-h) as the
sign of the direct object (‘-t) right before “g-l-y-t” (Goliath). Thus he made Goliath the object of killed (Heb. wayyak), instead of the brother of Goliath (as 1 Chron. 20:5
does). Also, the copyist misplaced the word for weavers (Heb. ‘-r-g-ym) so as to put it right after Elhanan (ben Y-’-r-y’-r-g-ym or ben ya’ erey
‘ore-gim – “the son of the
forests of weavers” – a most unlikely name for anyone’s father). In 1 Chron. 20:5,
the ’oregim
(weavers) comes right after menōr (a beam of) – thus making perfectly good sense (5 pp. 178,
179; 12 p. 30).
13. Was
the high priest Abiathar (Mk.
Ahimelech was the high priest at the exact moment when the bread was
given to and eaten by David. But Ahimelech’s son, Abiathar was there also when
this event took place (1 Sam. 22:20) and probably assisted in giving the bread
out, as they functioned as a family, and so the family was, therefore, killed
by king Saul because of it (22:15). Because Ahimelech was killed, Abiathar, who
escaped, functioned as the high priest (30:7).
So, when Mark records Jesus’ words, the bread eating event did take
place in the time of Abiathar, who did become high priest shortly after the
incident. And it is not at all unusual to designate a place or person by a name
which did not belong to it or him until later. A biblical example of this is
found in Gen. 12:8, where
14. Did Saul
take his own sword and fall upon it (1 Sam.
31:4-6), or did an Amalekite kill Saul (2
Sam. 1:1-16)?
Saul took his own life as 1 Sam. 31 states. The writer of 1st
& 2nd Samuel does not place any value on the Amalekite’s story of
taking credit for the killing of Saul. The writer simply records what the
Amalekite said. The Amalekite’s story seems fabricated because he says that he
just happened to be on
It is most likely that
the Amalekite found Saul’s dead body, took the crown and bracelet, and told
David a made-up story in order to get a reward. But even David saw through this
story, as he had the Amalekite, who thought he was bringing good news to David,
killed (2 Sam. 1:15, 16; 4:10). (1 OT,
p. 457; 2 p. 293; 3 pp. 228, 229; 4 vol. 1, p. 776; 12 p. 31).
15. Did
David bring the Ark of the Covenant to
David brought the Ark of the Covenant to
16. Did David
capture 1,700 (2 Sam. 8:4) or 7,000 (1 Chron. 18:4) of the king of Zorbah’s horsemen?
A scribal or copyist error exists here. And since 1st
Chronicles is the better preserved text, 7,000 would be the correct number. The
original biblical manuscript autographs are without error, as they are the
inspired words of God, but as the autographs were copied by hand and recopied
down through the centuries, a few copying errors of non-doctrinal issues were
made. And this is one of them. So it’s not really a contradiction, but a
recognized copy error. (1 p. 465; 5 p. 184).
17. Did the
chief of the mighty men of David lift up his spear and kill 800 men (2 Sam. 23:8) or 300 men (1 Chron. 11:11)?
A scribal or copyist error probably exists here because the Hebrew
numerical symbols 300 and 800 look a lot alike (1 OT, p. 604). Or, one
author may have only mentioned in part what the other author mentioned in full
(6 p. 187).
18. Does
God incite David to conduct the census of his people (2 Sam. 24:1), or does Satan (1
Chron. 21:1)?
Both, God
indirectly and Satan directly. In 2
Sam. 24, it says that God’s anger incited David against
19. Does
Both, depending upon what perspective it’s viewed
from. The difference in numbers can easily be reconciled if the 2 Samuel
account did not include the standing army of 12 units of 24,000 men each who
served the king (288,000 total, as seen in 1 Chron. 27:1-15) plus the 12,000
men especially attached to Jerusalem and the chariot cities (2 Chron. 1:14). When
these additional 300,000 standing army men are added to the 800,000 fighting
men recorded in 2 Sam. 24, the grand total of fighting men available is then
given in 1 Chron. 21 as 1,100,000. These 300,000 were probably not included in 2
Sam. 24 because they were already in the actual service of the king as a
regular militia, while 1 Chron. 21 joins them to the rest (the 800,000) by
saying “all those of
20. Does
First, it should be noted
that the author or one of the authors of 1st & 2nd
Samuel lived in the post-Solomonic era, after the
division of the kingdom between Israel and Judah (931 BC), as indicated by the
phrase in 1 Sam. 27:6, “Ziklag … has belonged to the
kings of Judah to this day” and by references to Israel and Judah in 1 Sam. 11:8;
17:52; 18:16; 2 Sam. 5:5; 11:11; 12:8; 19:42, 43; 24:1, 9.
Now, the differences in numbers can be explained in one of at least
two ways. Either the extra 30,000 men that 2 Sam. 24 records, and which 1 Chron.
21 doesn’t record, is the standing army of Judah (2 Sam. 6:1); or 2 Sam. 24 includes
the fighting men from the tribe of Benjamin, which 1 Chron. 21:5, 6 and 27:24
does not include in its census (1 OT, pp. 482, 610; 3 pp.
246, 305; 4 vol. 1, p. 1031; 5 p. 189).
21. Did God send His prophet to threaten David with 7
years of famine (2 Sam. 24:13) or 3
years (1 Chron.
The Hebrew text that we have in existence today of 2 Sam. 24:13 has “7”
years, but the Septuagint (the earliest translation of the OT into Greek, dating
in the 3rd century BC, – 35 p. 897) has/records 2 Sam. 24:13
as saying “3” years. So, the original Hebrew text apparently had “3” years, but
a scribe somewhere along the way made a copy error of the original Hebrew text
after the Septuagint was written that has been carried on into today’s existing
copies, while the 1 Chron. 21 passage of “3” years has been preserved
accurately. Also, logically, “3” years makes more sense in light of the other
two alternative punishments mentioned that use the word “three” (i.e., three
months and three days – 2 Sam. 24:13). (1 OT, p. 482; 2 p.
384).
22. Did Solomon have 40,000 (1 Kings
This is probably a
copyist error in transcribing the text, which actually read 4,000 as 2
Chronicles states (1 OT, p. 497; 3 p. 317).
23. Did Solomon
appoint 3,600 (2 Chron. 2:2) or 3,300
(1 Kings
Actually both, and then some for a grand total of
3,850. In 1 Kings
24. Did Solomon
build a facility containing 2,000 baths (1
Kings
It could very well be that the sea had a capacity of 3,000 baths, but
actually contained only 2,000 baths (1 OT, pp. 502, 623; 4
vol. 1, p. 1052).
Or, another explanation is that the 2 Chron. 4:5 passage (as
recorded in the KJV) includes not merely the quantity of water held in the
basin, but also that which was necessary to work it, to keep it flowing as a
fountain; that which was required to fill both the basin and its accompaniments,
as two verbs are used in the 2 Chron. 4:5 (KJV) verse, “received” and “held”, while
only one verb is used in the 1 Kings 7:6 verse, “held”. There is a difference
between “receiving and holding” (2 Chron. 4:5, KJV) as opposed to just “holding”
(1 Kings 7:6). (3 p. 313).
Or, another explanation is that this is a copyist error, as the
number in Hebrew lettering for 2,000 was confounded by the scribe with a
similar alphabetical number for the number 3,000 (2 p. 394).
25. Does everyone sin (1 Kings
Yes, every purely and only human being sins. However, the
possibility of not sinning anymore exists for some people, that is, for those
born of God or Christians. That is, if those who are born of God abide in (Gk. menon, meaning,
remain in close fellowship with and
dependence upon or obeys or lives by vital union the life of – 2
p. 1468; Wuest’s Word Studies in
the Greek NT, “1 John”, p. 116; 3 p. 1504) Him/Christ (1 Jn. 3:6),
then they won’t sin. But those who are born of God (Christians) don’t always abide in Christ, and therefore, they sin.
The person who is born of God has God’s seed/nature abiding or remaining in him
(3:9). And if the born of God person lives/functions from that divine
seed/nature of God’s that is abiding/remaining in him (2 Pet. 1:4; 1 Jn. 3:6, 9),
then he won’t and can’t sin because God’s divine nature can’t sin. We see this
struggle in the life of Paul (Rom.
26. Did
Baasha, king of Israel, die in the 26th
year of Asa, king of
This is probably a copyist error of misreading the Hebrew figure of
16th for 36th in 2 Chron. 16:1. Up through the 7th
century BC, the letter yod
(=10) greatly resembled the letter lamed
(=30), except for two tiny strokes attached to the left of the main vertical
stroke (yod
was and lamed
was ). It
required only a smudge from excessive wear on the scroll-column to result in
making the yod
look like a lamed, with a resultant
error of twenty years. Therefore, Baasha did die in
the 26th year of Asa (1 Kings 15), but was
alive in the 16th, not 36th, year of Asa
(2 Chron. 16). (1 OT, p. 632; 5 p. 226;
8 Chronicles, pp. 366, 377).
27. Was Ahaziah
22 years old (2 Kings
Copyists were prone to making two types of scribal errors, one
dealing with proper names and the other with numbers. Ideally, we might have
wished that the Holy Spirit had restrained all copyists of Scripture over the
centuries from making mistakes of any kind, but this is not the way it worked
out. Yet, we may be sure that the original manuscript of each book of the Bible,
being directly inspired by God, was free from all errors. It is also true that
no well-attested variation in the manuscript copies that have come down to us
alter any doctrine of the Bible.
The discrepancy in age, here, has to do with the decade part of the
number. Fortunately, there is enough additional information in the biblical
text to show that the correct number is 22. In 2 Kings 8:17, it states that Ahaziah’s father Joram died at
the age of 40. Therefore, Ahaziah couldn’t have been 42 at the time of his
father’s death at age 40.
It is instructive to observe that the number notations used by the
Jewish settlers in the 5th century Elephantine Papyri, during the
time of Ezra and Nehemiah (from which this passage comes) evidences an early
form of numerical notation (and there is a large file of documents in papyrus
from this source). This notation consisted of a horizontal stroke ending in a
downward hook at its right end to represent the numbers in tens (two such
strokes would represent 20, etc.). Vertical strokes were used to represent
anything less than ten. Thus, 22 would be and 42 would be .
If, then, the manuscript
being copied was blurred or smudged, one or more of the decade notations could
be missed by the copyist. However, the Septuagint manuscript, Syriac, and one Hebrew manuscript contain the correct
numerical age of 22 for Ahaziah in 2 Chron. 22:2 (1 OT, p. 636; 2
p. 407; 4 vol. 1, p. 1082; 5 pp. 206, 207).
28. Was Jehoiachin 18 years old (2
Kings 24:8) or 8 (2 Chron. 36:9)
when he became king of
There has been a copyist error in one of the two passages. This type
of error occurs now and then because of blurring or surface damage in the
earlier manuscript from which the copy is made. A numerical system generally in
use during the 5th century BC (when 2nd Chronicles was
probably written) features a horizontal stroke ending in a hook at its right
end, as the sign for “ten”. Two of them would make the number “twenty”. The
digits under ten would be indicated by rows of little vertical strokes. Thus, would be 18 and would
be 8. Probably the decade hook mark was smudged out making the number look like
8. Other reasons to assume that the 2 Chron. 36 passage is the incorrect one is
because 8 years of age is unusually young to assume governmental leadership and
because (having ruled for only 3 months at the time of his surrender to the
king of Babylon) for him to be only 8 years old and yet have several wives already
(2 Kings 24:15) is highly unlikely, and because other manuscripts record 2 Chron.
36:9 as stating that he was 18 years old rather than 8 years old (1
OT, p. 648; 2 p. 420; 4 vol. 1, p. 1111; 5 p. 215).
29. Did king Jehoiachin rule over
It is common both in speech and in writing to approximate and/or
round off numbers when exact or specific numbers are not essential/necessary or
important to the issue being addressed by the speaker or author. This is both a
worldwide as well as a centuries old practice. The 2nd Chronicles
passage gives the exact time while the 2 Kings passage rounds off the number to
include just the months. Common sense would tell people that this is not a
contradiction, but a general way of communicating certain facts or issues that
don’t necessitate exact figures (12 p. 7).
30. Was
king Abijah’s mother Michaiah,
daughter of Uriel of Gibeah
(2 Chron. 13:2) or was she Maachah, daughter of Absalom (2 Chron.
Both! The word daughter
can and does at times have the meaning of
female descendant other than of the first generation (36 p. 257;
37 p. 242). So, 2 Chron. 13:2 is literally correct. But 2 Chron. 11:20,
21 is also correct when one realizes that Maachah is
a variant reading for Michaiah and that Maachah is Absalom’s
grand-daughter literally, but daughter
in the sense of a female descendant (Uriel being her father and Tamar being her mother, Absalom’s daughter). This was to indicate Maachah/Michaiah’s royal lineage (2 p. 400; 3
pp. 318, 319; 4 vol. 1, p. 1065).
31. Are
the numbers of Israelites freed from Babylon captivity correct in Ezra 2:6,8,12,15,19,28
or in Neh. 7:11,13,17,20,22,32?
In Ezra 2:3-35 and Neh. 7:8-38, there are about 33 family units that
appear in both lists. Of these 33, there are 14 that differ and 19 that are
identical in the two lists. Regardless of the date when Nehemiah recorded his
list (ca. 445 BC), his expressed purpose was to give the exact number of those
who actually arrived at Jerusalem under the leadership of Zerubbabel
and Jeshua back in 536 BC (Neh. 7:7). Nehemiah’s list
in chapter 7 reproduces the tally of those who actually arrived in Judea, which
was taken from a genealogical list he found in Jerusalem (7:7). Ezra, however, who
made up his register in Babylon in the 450’s BC, recorded the returnees numbers
(Ezra 2:1, 2) from an earlier list, apparently, of those who had originally
announced their intention to join the caravan of returning colonists to Judea
from Babylon. Death, sickness, business, or other reasons could have prevented
some from returning who had originally signed up to go back to Judea under Zerubbabel. In other cases, some last-minute recruits
probably joined the company of excited returnees after the official tally had
been taken, and were later counted in Nehemiah’s final list of those who
actually returned. At any rate, the differences in totals between the two
tallies should occasion no surprise. The same sort of addition and/or attrition
has featured every large migration in human history.
Another difference between the two lists is the difference in names
for/from the same family units. But remembering that according to Jewish custom,
some people are called by different names explains many of the differences of
names between the two genealogical lists. Examples of this are: Hariph (Neh. 7:24) is the same as Jorah
(Ezra 2:18); Sia (Neh. 7:47) is the same as Siaha (Ezra 2:44); Seraiah, Reelaiah, and Rehum (Ezra 2:2)
are the same as Azariah, Raamiah,
and Nehum respectively (Neh. 7:7). (1 OT, p.
656; 3 p. 349).
And, of course, there is also the possibility of some copyist errors
due to worn or smudged copies that make similar Hebrew numbers look alike, or
it can be due to other human mistakes, which are common in the copying of
ancient historical records (1 OT, pp. 656-658, 687; 3 pp.
338, 349; 4 vol. 1, p. 1116; 5 pp. 229, 230).
These possible scribal/copyist errors of differing numbers don’t
affect either the reliability of the historical events or any doctrine of the
Judeo-Christian faiths.
32. Though
both Ezra 2:64 and Nehemiah 7:66 agree that the total number of returnees from
the Babylon captivity back to Judea is 42,360, the individual lists from each
book when added up differ. In Ezra 2, it totals up to only 29,818 and in
Nehemiah 7 it totals up to only 31,089. So, which total of returnees is right:
29,818 or 31,089 or 42,360?
The larger number of 42,360 may include women and children, which
are not included in the smaller totals of just men only (1 OT, p. 658).
It may also include Jews from the 10 Northern tribes who might have joined the
remnant of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin (1 OT, p. 658; 3
p. 339; 4 vol. 1, p. 1117).
Or, it may be the result of copyist errors. However, we understand
the original biblical autographs were perfect, with no contradictions or errors,
and that any human errors in copying these texts over the centuries have not
changed or nullified any historical event or altered any doctrine/teaching of
the Judeo-Christian faiths (1 OT, p. 687; 2 p. 425).
33. Did 200
singers (Ezra 2:65) or 245 singers (Neh. 7:67) accompany the returning Jews
from the Babylonian captivity?
This is probably a copyist error. A scribe, in copying Neh. 7:67, may have inadvertently picked up the number 245 from
the next verse in Neh. 7:68, which was in reference to mules and then inserted
that number for the 200 singers (1 OT, pp. 658, 687).
34. Who
is a ransom for whom? How can the ransom which Christ, who is good, gives (Mk.
They are not the same, as they are two different types of ransoms. Jesus,
who is God in human form, and therefore sinless (Col. 2:9; 1 Jn.
Prov. 21:18, on the other hand, is talking
about a physical redemption or release. The wicked are sometimes made a ransom
or sacrificed/killed/caused to suffer in order for righteous/godly people to be
set free from the suffering they endured at the hands of the wicked. This is
seen in Isaiah 43:3, where Egypt is given as a ransom/sacrifice or made to
suffer so that God’s people, the Israelites could be set free or delivered to
go into the Promised Land (Ex. 11:1, 4, 5; 12:33; 14:30; Deut. 7:8). (1
OT, p. 951; 2 p. 574; 3 p. 469; 12 p. 21).
35. Did Jesus
descend from Solomon (Matt. 1:6) or
from Nathan (Lk.
Both! Jesus physically descended from Nathan, who is part of Mary’s
genealogical ancestry through her father Heli (Lk.
36. Was Joram (Matt. 1:8)
or Amaziah (2 Chron. 26:1) the father
of Uzziah?
Amaziah is the direct biological father of Uzziah, while Joram is Uzziah’s
great-great-grandfather. The line goes: Joram/Jehoram,
then Ahaziah (2 Kings
The term son in Matt. 1:8
is used in the sense of great-great-grandson
or descendant, which son can and does have as a
definition/meaning (20 p. 572; 36 p. 951). Another
example of this type of meaning is in Matt. 1:1, where it says that Jesus
Christ is the son of David, the son of Abraham. Son, here, is understood to mean descendant.
Matthew is telescoping Joseph’s genealogy, as his purpose is simply
to show the rout of descent of the promised Messiah and coming king (4
vol. 3, p. 3). Matthew comments in
37. Was Josiah (Matt.
Jehoiakim (1 Chron.
38. Would (Lk.
Since Matthew’s genealogy is that of Joseph’s (Matt. 1:16), it is
obvious from Jer. 36:30 that none of Joseph’s physical descendants were
qualified to sit on David’s throne as he himself was descended from Jeconiah. However, as Matthew makes clear, Jesus was not a
physical descendant of Joseph. After having listed Joseph’s genealogy with the
problem of his descendence from Jeconiah,
Matthew narrates the story of the virgin birth. Thus, Matthew proves how Jesus
avoids the Jeconiah problem and remains able to sit
on David’s throne. Luke, on the other hand, shows that Jesus’ true physical descendence was from David apart from Jeconiah,
thus fully qualifying Him to inherit the throne of His father David. The
announcement of the angel in Lk. 1:32 completes the
picture: “the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David”. (12 pp. 12, 13; 17 p. 12).
39. Was Jechoniah (Matt.
It is understood that two different genealogies are given from David
to Jesus, that of Joseph’s in Matt. 1 and that of Mary’s in Lk. 3 (3
p. 996; 4 vol. 3, p. 356; 5 p. 316; 9 pp. 223-226;
10 pp. 151-154; 11 p. 46). Therefore, we realize that
there are two different men by the name of Shealtiel,
which was a common Hebrew name. And therefore, they have different fathers. So,
both Matt. 1 and Lk. 3 are correct (1 NT, p. 18; 12 p. 11).
40. Which son of
Zerubbabel was ancestor of Jesus Christ, Abiud (Matt.
Since the Shealtiels in Matt. 1:12 and Lk.
3:27 are two different Shealtiels, due to two
different genealogies, (Joseph’s in Matt. 1 and Mary’s in Lk. 3), therefore, the
Zerubbabels in Matt. 1 and Lk. 3 are two different Zerubbabels also. So, Abiud was
Jesus’ ancestor on Joseph’s, His legal father’s, side, and Rhesa
was Jesus’ physical ancestor on Mary’s, His physical mother’s, side of the
family.
Just as there are two “Joseph son of Jacob” relationships mentioned
in the Bible (Gen. 37:2 and Matt.
The Zerubbabel in 1 Chron.
41. Were there
14 (Matt.
There were 14 generations listed from the Babylonian exile until
Christ. Jeconiah is counted as the first name in the
third set of 14 generations (
The reason for the 14 names in each of the 3 periods of national
history listed (though there are actually more ancestors in the genealogy than
those listed in Matt. 1:2-16) is because in the Hebrew language, each letter is
given a value, and the total value of the name David is 14, to underline Jesus’ position as a descendant of David
in line to be king of the Jews, through His legal father, Joseph (1
NT, p. 18; 12 p. 11).
42. Was Jacob (Matt.
Jacob is the father of Joseph, as Matt. 1:16 records, while Heli is the father of Mary, Joseph’s wife.
Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph, while Luke gives the
genealogy of Mary. Luke follows strict Hebrew tradition in mentioning only
males (3 p. 996; 4 vol. 3, p. 356). So, Mary is
designated by her husband’s name (a metonymy). This is supported by the fact
that every name in the Greek text of Luke’s genealogy, except for Joseph’s, is
preceded by the definite article e.g., the
Heli, the Matthat). Although
not obvious in English translations, this would strike anyone reading the Greek,
who would realize that it was tracing the line of Joseph’s wife, even though
his name was used. Other places in the Bible where metonymies are used are:
David is substituted for Rehoboam in 1 Kings
That Heli is Mary’s father is also
supported by the Jerusalem Talmud, a Jewish source, which recognizes the
genealogy to be that of Mary, daughter of Heli, as
found in Haghigha 2:4 (17 pp. 10-13), or Haghigha 77:4 (9 pp. 223-225).
Or, if the phrase “as was supposed of Joseph” in Lk.
43. Baby Jesus’ life was threatened in
Jesus’ life was not initially threatened in Jerusalem or Bethlehem
(Lk. 2:21-38), at least not for the first 40 days of His life (through His
circumcision and time of Mary’s burnt offering for her purification, as
prescribed in Lev. 12:1-8). Jesus is no longer living in a manger (Lk. 2:7, 16)
but in a house (Matt.
44. Did (Matt.
John the Baptist knew things about Jesus (apparently by Divine
revelation similar to Jn. 1:33), and who He’d be when He showed up to be
baptized. John the Baptist knew that Jesus was the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world (Jn. 1:29) and
that Jesus existed before him/John (Jn. 1:30), even though John the Baptist was
conceived 6 months before Jesus (Lk. 1:26-36); therefore, recognizing Jesus’
deity. What John did not know/recognize from personal observation (Gk. oida, meaning to perceive/know from observation – 25
p. 628) was that Jesus was God’s Son who would baptize in the Holy Spirit (Jn. 1:33,
34; Matt. 3:17). This was confirmed, however, by observing God’s involvement
(with the dove’s/Holy Spirit’s descent as God predicted and hearing God’s voice
from heaven) after Jesus’ baptism (4 vol. 3, p. 498).
45. Did
Jesus first meet Peter and Andrew by the
Jesus first met Peter and Andrew by the Jordan River (Jn. 1:28, 40-42).
They then followed Him to Galilee (Jn. 1:43) the next day, and then to Cana, in that region, a couple days later (2:1, 2). They
then went to Capernaum (2:12) for a few days, which is where these brothers
lived (Matt. 4:12-18). The brothers apparently went back to their house to fish
at this time. And this is where Matthew picks up the story. Jesus calls Peter
and Andrew to be His permanent disciples (Matt. 4:18-20), not just temporary
traveling observers, as they had been up to this point. Matt. 4:18-22 does not
say that Jesus first met the brothers at this time. So, there’s no
contradiction, only a continuation of a deeper commitment/relationship (12
pp. 13,14; 18 pp. 23-33; 19 pp. 21-32).
46. Did
the
The centurion sent elders and friends on his behalf, as if it was he
himself who went (1 NT, p. 222; 4 vol. 3, p. 373; 9
p. 375; 13 p. 395; 14 p. 65; 38 p. 89).
Notice in Lk. 7:6 that the centurion himself is represented in his
friends when they speak, as if it was the centurion himself speaking (11
p. 98).
To say that one person or
thing did something when it was actually another closely associated person, people,
or thing who/that did it is called a metonymy, a figure of speech. We find
other biblical examples of this: Jesus is said to be baptizing (Jn. 4:1) when
it was actually His disciples who were the ones baptizing (Jn. 4:2). Pilate is
said to have scourged Jesus (Jn. 19:1) when it was his soldier(s) who did it
(Mk.
47. Was
the man who Jesus saw sitting at the tax collector’s office whom He called to
be His disciple named Matthew (Matt. 9:9)
or Levi (Mk. 2:14; Lk. 5:27)?
Both! It was not unusual for people of this time to use more than
one name. For example, Simon/Cephas was called Peter
(Mk.
Also, Luke calls Levi a publican/tax-gatherer in Lk. 5:27, while
Matt. 10:3 calls Matthew the publican/tax man, thus giving added support that
they are one in the same. Also, Mark calls this follower/disciple of Jesus, Levi
in
48. When Jesus
met Jairus, had his daughter just died (Matt.
These two accounts along with Luke’s in
49. Was
the tenth disciple of Jesus in the list of twelve Thaddaeus
(Matt. 10:1-4; Mk.
Both! It was not unusual for people of this time to use more than
one name. For example, Simon/Cephas was called Peter
(Mk.
50. Did Jesus
allow (Mk. 6:8) or not allow (Matt. 10:9; Lk. 9:3) Hs disciples to
keep a staff on their journey?
The Greek word used in Mk. 6:8 is airosen meaning take,
while the Greek word used in Matt. 10:9 is ktesesthe meaning procure
or acquire. So, what Mark is saying
is that the disciples could take any
staffs they already had, while Matthew is saying that they couldn’t procure/acquire by purchase or otherwise
(Robinson, Lexicon of the New Testament)
any extra items they didn’t already have (1 NT, p. 42; 2
p. 946; 3 p. 917; 12 p. 14; 13 p. 458; 14
p. 79).
51. Did (Jn.
John the Baptist did recognize Jesus, as Jn. 1:29-36 makes
abundantly clear. John did know that Jesus was God’s Son and the Redeemer. But
like many Jews who were expecting the soon overthrow of the Roman government if
and when the promised Messiah-king and judge came to set up His kingdom and
judge wickedness and sin (e.g., Matt. 3:11, 12; Jn. 1:49), John the Baptist
began having doubts that Jesus was that One when these expectations didn’t yet
happen, and he was now already in prison (Matt. 11:2, 3). So, John did
recognize Jesus, but circumstances and expectations caused him to lapse into
some doubt, at least temporarily (1 NT, p. 43; 12 p. 15; 13
p. 483).
52. Was (Matt.
John the Baptist was Elijah the prophet to come, but only in spirit
and power (Lk.
53. Did Jesus
say everything openly (Jn.
It’s important to understand both the context as well as the gist of
what Jesus is saying in these passages. First, in Jn. 18:19, the high priest is
trying to determine whether Jesus is part of an insurrection or a secret
cult/organization. Jesus responded by saying that He taught in public or openly
for all to hear Him speak, and that He wasn’t teaching anything different (“nothing”
is an ellipsis, meaning “nothing different”) in secret/private (like plots
against the authorities). The text does not state that Jesus said “everything”
openly, but that He “spoke openly”. So, there’s no contradiction (1
NT, p. 336; 2 p. 1115; 3 p. 1068; 4 vol. 3, p.
682).
Secondly, Mk. 4:1-34 shows that Jesus was speaking/teaching publicly
to the crowds, but He privately explained His teachings to His disciples. So, there’s
no contradiction. Rather, the problem is in the incorrect phrasing of the
original question asked.
54. Did (Matt. 14:2; Mk.
First, Herod did not say in Lk. 9:9 that he didn’t think that Jesus
was John the Baptist. Rather, Herod simply asked a question. Then Herod answers
his own question in Matt. 14 and/or Mk. 6 by saying that Jesus is John the
Baptist raised from the dead ( 9 p. 475; 12
p. 14). So, there’s no contradiction.
55. Did (Matt. 14:5) or didn’t (Mk.
Yes, Herod wanted to kill John the Baptist, as Matt. 14:5 states, but
for a while he did not because he feared the multitude (Matt. 14:5) and because
he was afraid of John (Mk.
56. When
Jesus walked on water, did His disciples then worship Him (Matt.
Both! The disciples were initially frightened in both Gospel
accounts (Matt.
57. Did
Simon Peter find out that Jesus was the Christ by a revelation from heaven (Matt.
First, the Greek word apokalupto translated
uncover or reveal is used in both
a subjective and objective sense. Used subjectively, it means something is presented to the mind directly,
as in Matt. 11:25, 27; 16:7; whereas, when used objectively, it means something is presented to the senses, such
as sight or hearing, as in Gal.
58. Did Jesus
ride into
Mark, Luke, and John (
So why does Matthew say the colt and its mother were brought?
Matthew, an eyewitness, emphasizes the immaturity of the colt, too young to be
separated from its mother. As the colt had never been ridden, the probability
was that it was still dependent on its mother. It would have made the entry
into
59. When Jesus
entered Jerusalem, did He cleanse the temple the same day (Matt.
It was the next day, as Mk. 11 records. But this is not a
contradiction to Matt. 21 because Matthew often writes in a thematic or topical
order and in a synoptic style rather than a strictly chronological order, which
is more often characteristic of Mark and Luke. An example of Matthew’s thematic
style is seen in chapter 13 with the 8 parables on the kingdom of heaven, and
an example of his synoptic style is seen in his account of the death of Jairus’
daughter in
60. Did the fig
tree that Jesus cursed wither at once (Matt.
As Mk.
61. Did
Jesus move away from His disciples to pray 3 times (Matt. 26:36-46; Mk.
Three times. Just because Luke does not
mention the other 2 times does not mean that they didn’t happen. Luke does not
state that Jesus didn’t pray 3 times. Luke includes in his account what was
relevant to his purpose for writing. So, there’s no contradiction (12
p. 24).
62. When
Jesus went away to pray while in the Garden of Gethsemane, were the words in
His 2 prayers the same (Mk.
In Mk. 14:39, the term “words” is the Greek word “logon” (which is in the singular form) from the word “logos”, and is translated as “message” nine times and as “speech”
ten times in the NASB New Testament (New
American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, pp. 1449, 1664). Dr.
L. Richards’ Expository Dictionary of
Bible Words on page 634 states that the Greek term “logos” has many meanings, some of which are: speech, discourse, and subject matter. Drs. Vine, Unger, &
White’s An Expository Dictionary of
Biblical Words on page 1241 states that the Greek word “logos” can mean “sayings”, “message”, “discourse”, or “speech”.
And this is how the term “logon” is used in
Mk. 14:39. Jesus said/prayed the same “word” or “discourse/message/speech/subject
matter”, as Matt. 26:39, 42 rightly
shows. The petition, gist, content, or subject matter is the same (1
NT, p. 180; 4 vol. 3, p. 319; 21p. 590). So, there’s no
contradiction.
63. Did Jesus
pray (Matt. 26:39; Mk.
Jesus’ prayer in Matthew, Mark, and Luke takes place in the Garden
of Gethsemane after the last supper, Passover meal, on early Friday (Matt. 26:20-39;
Mk. 14:12-36; Lk. 22:1-42); whereas, Jesus’ prayer in John takes place way
before the Passover supper (Jn. 12:12-27; 13:1, 2). So, there’s no
contradiction since these are two different situations. And even in the 3 Gospel
accounts, Jesus actually prays for God the Father’s will, even if it meant not
preventing the crucifixion, which fits in with Jn. 12:27 anyway (12
p. 24). So, Jesus prayed both, in that sense.
64. Did (Matt. 26:48-50) or didn’t, because
Judas couldn’t get close enough, (Jn. 18:3-12)
Judas kiss Jesus?
Yes, Judas kissed Jesus (Matt. 26:49; Mk. 14:45). John does not
either state or imply that Judas did not kiss Jesus or that he wasn’t able to
get close enough to do so. Merely omitting a detail in a story that another
writer includes does not mean the detail didn’t happen. That is common even
among today’s reporters (12 p. 16).
65. Did
Jesus appear to 12 disciples after His resurrection (1 Cor. 15:5) or was it to 11 (Matt.
27:3-5; 28:16; Mk.
Jesus appeared to “the twelve” disciples as that term/designation is
used of His disciples. “The twelve” was their ordinary appellation (technical
name – Lk. 22:3; Jn. 6:70; 20:24) even when their number was not full. Literally,
however, Jesus only appeared to eleven of them. So, there’s no contradiction (3
p. 1221; 4 vol. 3, p. 1061; 29 p. 202; 30 p. 176;
39 p. 188).
66. Did Judas
buy a field (Acts
Though Judas himself did not personally buy a field, he did so “indirectly”
through the priests who used Judas’ betrayal money in order to buy the field
(Matt. 27:6, 7), apparently in Judas’ name. So, Judas bought it via the Jewish
priests. This type of figure of speech is called a metonymy (where one person or thing closely associated with another
is used in its place). Examples of this are seen in: Jn. 4:1, 2 where Jesus is
spoken of in place of His disciples, or in 1 Kings
12:16, where David is spoken of in place of Rehoboam (12:12-17). Judas himself
did, however, throw the money into the temple. So, there’s no contradiction (1
NT, p. 356; 2 p. 1126; 4 vol. 3, p. 723; 12 p.
20; 23 p. 16).
67. Did
Judas die by hanging himself (Matt. 27:5)
or by falling headlong and bursting open with all his bowels gushing out (Acts 1:18)?
Neither passage states how he technically died. They just state what
happened to him, and both were true. Judas could very well have hung himself
over a cliff, and either the rope or the tree branch broke so that he fell
headlong to the rocks below and burst open. So there’s no contradiction (1
NT, p. 356; 12 p. 20; 23 p. 16; 26 p. 349).
68. Is
the field called the “field of blood” because the priest bought it with blood money
(Matt. 27:8) or because of Judas’
bloody death (Acts 1:19)?
It’s definitely because the field was bought with blood money, to
which even Acts
Or, the field is so named by some for both reasons rather than for
only the second reason (23 p. 17; 24 p. 45).
69. What
was the exact wording on the cross: “This is Jesus the king of the Jews” (Matt. 27:37), or “The king of the Jews”
(Mk.
First, Jn. 19:19 tells us that Pilate (whose native language was
Latin, but who also knew Greek, as the language he conversed in with all
non-Italians in Palestine, but would scarcely have been able to write in either
Hebrew or Aramaic) wrote the inscription. Second, Jn. 19:20 states that the
sign was written in Hebrew/Aramaic, Latin, and Greek So, the variations of
inscriptions could be from what each inscription said in the 3 different
languages used, and/or from a synopsis or brachylogy (summary or shortened
form) of what was written in any or all of the languages rather than an exact
translation of any one of them (1 NT, pp. 89, 188; 2 p. 983;
5 p. 346; 15 p. 427).
70. Did Jesus
say, “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?” in
Hebrew (Matt. 27:46) or in Aramaic (Mk.
Jesus most probably spoke
the words in Aramaic (i.e., “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabakthani?”) because
Aramaic was His mother tongue (as exemplified in: Mk.
So, the original
autograph of Matthew probably had the Aramaic (“Eloi”).
But if “Eli” (Hebrew) was in the original autograph of Matthew, then Matthew
may have simply used this closely related Semitic language of Hebrew for the
Aramaic (“Eloi”) for the sake of his Hebrew readers, as
Jesus was basically quoting Psa. 22:1, which has “Eli, Eli”.
Or, a later scribe could have changed or copied incorrectly Matt. 27:46
so as to correlate it with the Hebrew word used in Psa. 22:1. In any case, the
meaning is exactly the same, so there’s no contradiction.
71. Did Jesus
die before (Matt. 27:50, 51; Mk.
Actually, the curtain of the temple was torn at the same time as
(simultaneously with) the death of Jesus (Matt. 27:50, 51; Mk.
72. Did the
women visit the tomb “toward the dawn” (Matt.
28:1) or “when the sun had risen” (Mk.
16:2)?
Both! The women were on their way to the tomb toward the dawn (Matt.
28:1), and they actually arrived at the tomb when the sun had risen (Mk. 16:2).
No contradiction (1 NT, p. 192; 2 p. 1025; 5 p.
347; 12 p. 27; 14 p. 399; 21 p. 678).
73. Did
the women go to the tomb to anoint Jesus’ body with spices (Mk. 16:1; Lk.
This is a rather ridiculous “supposed contradiction”. The women
obviously went to anoint Jesus’ body with spices, as Mark and Luke state. Just
because John doesn’t specifically state a reason does not mean there was none. And
the fact that Matthew states that the women went to look at the grave does not
mean that they didn’t go to anoint Jesus’ body. If all four Gospels mentioned
every detail exactly the same, then there would be no need to have four Gospels,
one would suffice. Rather, each writer includes those details that are
necessary to communicate what God wanted him to convey in terms of the purpose
for each Gospel.
74. When
the women arrived at the tomb, was the stone “rolled back” (Mk. 16:4), “rolled away” (Lk.
24:2), “taken away” (Jn. 20:1), or
did they see an angel roll it away (Matt.
28:1-6)?
First of all, Matthew does not record that the women saw an angel
roll away the stone. Rather, it was already rolled away before the women
arrived, as John, Mark, and Luke all state. And the various expressions in John,
Mark, and Luke regarding the stone all mean the same thing. The stone was taken
away from the opening of the tomb by an angel rolling it back/away (12
p. 28). So, there’s no contradiction in the least.
75. In Matt. 28:2, 7; Mk. 16:5, 6; and Lk. 24:4,
5, 23, the women were told by either one or two angels that Jesus had risen
from the dead, while in Jn. 20:2, Mary was not told.
First, it’s important to know that none of the Gospels give all the
details of the resurrection period events. Some of the Gospels condense and/or
eliminate various events, while others expand on an event. Second, a more
complete picture is obtained by combining and harmonizing all four Gospels
rather than seeing them as contradictions, which they aren’t. So, what
happened? Well, the stone was rolled away by the angel who then sat on it while
the guards shook for fear, became like dead men, but then the angel disappears
and the guards leave to go back to Jerusalem (Matt. 28:1-4, 11). Then Mary
Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome come
to the tomb and see the stone rolled away. They then look inside the tomb, but
don’t see Jesus’ body (Mk. 16:1-4; Matt. 28:1; Lk. 24:1-3; Jn. 20:1). At this
point, Mary Magdalene runs to tell Peter and the other disciples that somebody
took Jesus’ body away and that they (these three women) didn’t know where Jesus’
body was laid (Jn. 20:2). Meanwhile, the other two women go into the tomb and
see a young man/angel sitting there, who tells them that Jesus was risen and
that they should go tell His disciples and Peter, and so they leave (Mk. 16:5-8).
This took some time, and on their way, they meet Jesus (Matt. 28:5-9). After
the two women leave, apparently Joanna and some other women arrive at the tomb,
and two men/angels talk to them and tell these women to go and report Jesus’
resurrection to the eleven apostles and others (Lk. 24:4-10). Soon after, Peter
and John come to the tomb and see it empty, and then go home (Jn. 20:3-10). Meanwhile,
Magdalene returns, looks inside the tomb and sees two angels sitting where
Jesus’ body once was. They talk to her, and then Jesus appears and talks to her
and tells her to go make an announcement to His brethren, to which she does (Jn.
76. Did
Mary Magdalene first meet the resurrected Jesus during her first visit (Matt. 28:9) or on her second visit (Jn.
First, it is important to know that none of the 4 Gospels give all
the details of the resurrection period events. Some of the Gospels condense
and/or eliminate various details or events, while others expand on them. So, a
plausible explanation will be given to show that no contradiction needs to
exist.
Matt. 28:9 does not say that Magdalene is included in this encounter.
More than likely, it was just Mary the mother of James and Salome because
Magdalene had already left the other two women in order to tell Peter about the
empty tomb (Jn. 20:1, 2) so that she did not meet the resurrected Jesus during
her first visit to the tomb. Rather, it’s when Magdalene returns to the tomb
(following Peter and John’s visit to the empty tomb) that she meets Jesus (Jn. 20:3-17).
And Magdalene’s second visit to the empty tomb precedes Jesus’ appearance to
Mary the mother of James and Salome in Matt. 28:9 based on Mk. 16:9, where it
states that Jesus first appeared to Magdalene. Since Jesus did not appear to
Magdalene in her first visit to the empty tomb, the second question, regarding
her reaction, becomes moot (12 p. 28; John Wenham, Easter Enigma, Paternoster Press, 1996).
77. Did
Jesus instruct His disciples to wait for Him in
Both! The two passages mentioned above occur at two different points
of time during that resurrection Sunday. The Matt. 28 passage was to the women,
Mary the mother of James and Salome, who were on their way to talk to Jesus’
disciples, while the Jn. 20 passage was to just Mary, who was by herself by the
empty tomb. Also, Jesus does not mention when His ascension to His Father would
be. So, Jesus instructs both, which are not contradictory.
78. Upon Jesus’ instructions, did the
disciples return to
Neither! According to Lk. 24:10-13, 15, 29, 33, the disciples were
still in Jerusalem (because of their unbelief) the day after Jesus’
instructions, via the women (Matt. 28:7; Mk. 16:7), to go to Galilee were given
to them (Matt. 28:10; Mk. 16:9-14; Lk. 24:6-11; Jn. 20:19). And the disciples
are still in
79. Did
Jesus go immediately to the desert after His baptism (Mk.
Jesus went immediately into the desert after His baptism, as Mark 1
describes. The passages in John’s Gospel are not the immediate chronology of
what happened after Jesus’ baptism. Rather, this section in the apostle John’s
Gospel about Jesus’ baptism (Jn.
80. Was
Jesus crucified on the daytime after the Passover meal (Mk.
Jesus was crucified on the daytime after the Passover meal (Mk. 14:12-17;
Matt. 26:17, 21; 27:50; Lk. 22:7, 15; 23:46). The first day of Unleavened Bread,
when the Passover lamb was being sacrificed, is referring to Thursday (Josephus,
Antiquities II. 15:1 and 37
p. 354) beginning on the day of the Passover, Nisan 14. The Passover lambs
would have been killed in the late afternoon, Thursday (Ex. 12:6) and the
Passover meal eaten between sundown and midnight at the beginning of Nisan 15, or
Thursday evening modern/Roman time, which is the beginning of Friday Jewish
time. A new day starts at sunset by Jewish time-keeping; whereas, midnight
starts a new day by Roman or modern time. The chronology of events in the
Gospels is complicated partly because these two systems of reckoning time were
in use (1 NT, p. 174; 2 p. 1019; 4 vol. 3, p. 315;
10 pp. 551, 656, 659; 14 p. 381; 31 p. 566).
In Jn. 13:1, 2, “the supper” referred to is the Passover supper (on
Thursday night modern or Roman time, or the beginning of Friday, Jewish time – 4
vol. 3, p. 629; 10 p. 659; 15 p. 225), and the Passover
supper is already taking place, 13:2, 4. In Jn. 13:29, “the feast” refers to
the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which begins after the Passover meal and lasts
for a week – Lev. 23:5-8; Num. 28:16, 17; Deut. 16:1-8 (16 p. 245). The
Old Testament calls the Passover a feast of 7 days (Ezek. 45:21), and Lk. 22:1
applies the name Passover to the entire 7 day feast of unleavened bread. So, “the
feast” is the feast of Passover, the entire 7 day celebration, e.g., Jn. 2:23;
4:45; 6:4; 7:37; 11:56; 12:12 (15 pp. 226, 227, 248). The Feast of
Unleavened Bread, which followed immediately the Passover meal/supper, lasted 7
days and is also called the Passover or the Feast of the Passover (37
pp. 352-356). Jesus dies, is crucified, on Friday, the “preparation day” (Mk.
In Jn. 18:28, “the Passover” refers to the 7 days’ feast of the
unleavened loaves and especially to the sacrificial meals eaten during the
feast (Ezek. 45:21; 2 Chron. 30:21, 22). The feast as a whole was at that time
currently designated by the people as “the feast of the Passover” or merely “the
Passover” (e.g., Lk. 22:1). The “Passover” in this verse does not refer to the
Passover meal/supper, as it does in 13:2 (4 vol. 3, p. 684; 10
pp. 661-663; 15 p. 402; 16 p. 291; 42 pp. 565-568).
In Jn. 19:14, the phrase “day of preparation for the Passover” refers to Friday
of Passover Week, and the day before the Sabbath/Saturday of Passover Week (see
also vv. 31, 42; Mk. 15:42; Lk. 23:54 for the same use of the Greek word “paraskeue” for “Friday”). When the apostle John wrote this
Gospel, the Greek term was already the technical term used to indicate “Friday”.
It is the name for “Friday” today in
81. Did
Peter deny Christ three times before the cock crowed (Jn.
If Peter denied Christ three times before the cock crowed (and he
did, Jn.
But even if 14:68 did contain the words “and a cock crowed” in the
original autograph of Mark, it still wouldn’t be a contradiction, if one
realizes that the word “cockcrow” was a proverbial expression for “early
morning before sunrise”, 3 AM, the end of the third watch of the night, Jn. 13:35
(1 NT, p. 179; 2 p. 1018; 14 p. 383; 21
pp. 580, 619). And Peter’s three denials would have happened before sunrise
even if a cock had crowed once before his 3rd denial and a second
time after Peter’s 3rd denial. So, Peter’s three denials would
happen before sunrise, and the “cockcrowing” would be taken figuratively in one
sense (meaning “predawn”) and literally in another sense (meaning “before the
second crowing”). (1 NT, p. 184; 2 p. 1020;
21 pp. 618, 619).
82. Did (Mk.
This seeming contradiction can be explained away in one of two ways.
First, the word “those” in Mk. 15:32 is a synecdoche referring to just “one”
thief. A synecdoche is a figure of
speech, where a more comprehensive or inclusive term is used for a less
comprehensive or inclusive term – The
Oxford English Dictionary. An example of this is found in Matt. 22:19-21, where
the word “things” (plural) refers to “one” coin (singular) with Caesar’s
inscription on “it” (4 vol. 3, pp. 325, 478). Or, secondly, both of
the thieves initially mocked Jesus, but then one of them had a change of
heart/mind and repented, as evidenced by: his defending Jesus, admission of his
own sin, and then Jesus’ comment about this thief being with Him in Paradise, Lk.
23:41-43 (1 NT, p. 189; 3 p. 1022; 4 vol. 3, p.
478; 9 p. 1031; 11 p. 286; 12 p. 18).
83. Was Jesus on
the cross (Mk.
Both! Jesus was on the cross at the sixth hour by the Hebrew system
of time (which is noon by modern or Roman time), and He was in Pilate’s court
at the sixth hour by the Roman/modern system of time (which is 6 AM by our
modern or Roman time system).
Matthew, Mark, and Luke used a different system of numbering the
hours of the day (which was the traditional Hebrew system, where the hours were
numbered from sunrise, approximately 6 AM in modern time, or their first hour, thus
making the crucifixion to begin at about 9 AM modern time or the 3rd
hour Hebrew time) than John used. John used the Roman civil day system of time,
where the day is from midnight to midnight, as we do today. Pliny the Elder
describes the Roman civil day as such (Natural
History 2.77) as does Macrobius (Saturnalia 1.3). So, by John’s Roman
civil time, Jesus’ trial was in its end stages by the sixth hour (6 AM), which
is the same as the first hour, Hebrew time, as used by Mark. John’s reason for
using Roman time is because he wrote his Gospel from Ephesus, the capital of
the Roman province of Asia, in around AD 90, which was
several years after the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written. By
living in Ephesus, John would have been used to using Roman time. Further
evidence of John using Roman time is found in 20:19, where he records, “When
therefore it was evening, on that day, the first day of the week,…” This was Sunday evening, the day of Jesus’ resurrection.
In Hebrew time, it was already Monday, as the Hebrew day ends at sunset and the
next day immediately begins (37 p. 1098). So,
the “evening on that first day” in Jn. 20:19 would have to be talking about
Roman civil time, not Hebrew time (1 NT, pp. 188, 189, 339; 2
p. 1023; 4 vol. 3, p. 691; 5 p. 364; 12 p. 18;
15 p. 421; 16 p. 299).
84. When
Jesus dies, did the centurion say that Jesus was innocent (Lk.
Both! These passages are not contradictory, but complementary. Nowhere
in any of the Gospel narratives do the writers state that what the centurion
said was the only thing that he said and nothing else. So, the centurion
apparently said both things, and Luke records one of them and Mark records the
other (5 pp. 346, 347; 9 p. 1037).
85. Was
Jesus’ body wrapped in spices before burial in accordance with Jewish burial
customs (Jn.
Both! Jesus’ body was wrapped in spices before burial in accordance
with Jewish burial customs, and the women added extra spices to those that were
already there, as a final act of devotion. Since Jesus died around the ninth
hour (Mk.
86. Did the
women buy the spices after (Mk. 16:1)
or before (Lk.
Both! The women prepared what spices and perfume they had before the
Sabbath (it doesn’t say when they bought these, Lk. 23:56), and then Mary
Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought (apparently still more
needed) spices after the Sabbath (Mk. 16:1) for the purpose of anointing Jesus’
body on Sunday (9 p. 1048; 10 p. 619; 11 p. 290;
14 p. 399; 32 p. 362).
87. Did Jesus
ascend to
First, Jesus ascended to Paradise in spirit the same day He died (Lk.
23:46), and then a few days later, He said that He was ascending to the Father
(Jn. 20:17, obviously in Paradise/heaven), but this time Jesus would ascend in
His resurrection body, as He did in Acts 1:9-11. So, there’s no contradiction (12
p. 19).
88. Were
the last words that Jesus spoke before He died, “Father, into Thy hands I
commit My spirit” (Lk.
John’s Gospel doesn’t say that Jesus immediately died upon making
this “It is finished!” statement or that these were Jesus’ last words; whereas,
Lk.
89. Apart from
Jesus, was there no one else (Jn.
Jesus does not mean that no one has ever literally ascended to
heaven. The context of verses 11 and 12 show what Jesus means here. Jesus is
saying that no one has ever ascended into heaven to see and know first hand the
heavenly things that Jesus was bearing witness to and then come back to speak
about them. This sentence construction is called an ellipsis, where a thought
is cut short in writing because its meaning is understood from the context. Both
the Bible as well as our everyday conversations are filled with such elliptical
expressions (1 NT, p. 281; 3 p. 1031;4 vol. 3,
p. 512; 12 p. 27; 15 p. 137; 16 p. 49).
90. Is Jesus’
testimony not true (Jn.
This is not a contradiction, but two angles of responses that deal
with a similar situation. In Jn. 5:31, Jesus is saying that if He bore witness
to Himself, His witness alone would not be accepted/admissible as legal proof by
the Jewish authorities (e.g., Matt.
91. Did
the voice tell Paul what he was to do on the spot (Acts 26:16-18), or was he commanded to go to
Paul was commanded to go to
92. When Paul was on the road to
In the original Greek, there is no contradiction. Greek makes a
distinction between hearing a sound as a noise (akouontes
men tes phones – in which case the verb “to hear” takes the genitive
case – Acts 9:7) and hearing a voice as a thought-conveying message (ten de phonen ouk ekousan – in which case it takes the accusative case – Acts
22:9). So, Paul’s companions heard the voice as a sound, but they did not hear
the message that it articulated; they did not understand the voice (1
NT, p. 376; 2 p. 1140; 3 p. 1093; 4 vol. 3, p.
780; 5 p. 382; 23 p. 118; 24 p. 185; 25
p. 534; 26 p. 359).
93. When
Paul saw the light and fell to the ground, did his traveling companions fall (Acts 26:14) or not fall (Acts 9:7) to the ground?
Acts 26:14 states that the initial falling to the ground occurred
when the light flashed around, before the voice was heard. Acts 9:7 says the
men “stood speechless” after the voice had spoken. There would be ample time
for the men to stand up while the voice was speaking to Saul, especially as it
had no significance or meaning to them. Saul, on the other hand, understood the
voice and its convicting message, and evidently kept him on the ground (24
p. 185; 26 p. 359). Or, the Greek word “histemi” (Acts 9:7) can also mean “fixed”, besides “stood”, as
it does in Acts 17:31, and so the men who fell were “fixed “ to the ground
speechless. They didn’t have to be upright on their feet (26 p. 359;
27 p. 211; 28 p. 1657).
94. Are we to
bear one another’s burdens (Gal. 6:2),
or are we to bear only our own burdens (Gal.
6:5)?
Both the context as well as the Greek words used in both verses for
the English word “burden” show that we are to do both and that there’s no
contradiction. First, the Greek word
in 6:2 is “barē”, meaning “heavy, crushing, oppressive
burdens”, and in context, it refers to temptations, trials, and spiritual
failures. And secondly, the Greek
word in 6:5 is “phortion”, meaning a “backpack” or “load”,
and in context, it refers to personal responsibilities or life work. So, we are
to help other Christians with their heavy, oppressive trials and afflictions, while
being diligent to carry out our own personal responsibilities that we are quite
capable of doing (1 NT, pp. 609, 610; 4 vol. 3, p. 1116; 31
pp. 232-235).
95. Is the law of Moses useful (2
Tim.
First, 2 Tim. 3:16 was
written for Christians (like Timothy), and therefore, all Scripture is
profitable for teaching so that the Christian/man of God may be adequate, equipped
for every good work. Second, the law
of Moses was specifically given/written for the Israelites to keep/obey (Ex. 19:1-6;
20:2, 22; 21:1; 24:3; Lev. 26:13-16; 19:1-5; Deut. 5:1-3; 2 Kings 21:8; Neh. 8:1;
Mal. 4:4) and not necessarily for everyone in the world (e.g., Deut. 14:21) to
have to follow. Third, the law of
Moses was meant to be temporary and was to end with the death of Jesus Christ
(Jer. 31:31, 32; Heb. 8:6-13; 10:1-9; 7:11-20; Lk. 16:16; Eph. 2:13-16; Gal. 3:16-19;
Rom. 10:4; 7:4, 6). Therefore, Christians can learn from the Old Testament and
the law of Moses various lessons to profit by (e.g., 1 Cor. 10:1-11), including
the fact that the law of Moses could never redeem/save anyone spiritually or
give them eternal life in heaven (Heb. 7:18, 19; 10:10-14; Rom. 8:1-4). The Law,
which included the regulations for the Levitical priesthood, stated that all
Jewish priests had to be descendants of Levi. But the Levitical priesthood was
imperfect and useless to make perfect (Heb.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Drs. J. Walvoord and R. Zuck, The Bible Knowledge Commentary, Old Testament and New Testament.
2. Drs. C. Pfeiffer and E. Harrison, The Wycliffe Bible Commentary.
3. Drs. R. Jamieson, A. Fausset, and D. Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible.
4. Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, vol. 1, 2, & 3.
5. Dr. G. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties.
6. The True Guidance, part 2.
7. Dr. H. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis.
8. Drs. C. Keil and F. Delitzsch, The Pentateuch.
9. Dr. W. Hendriksen, NTC – The Gospel of Luke.
10. Dr. N. Geldenhuys, The New International Commentary on the N. T. – The Gospel of Luke.
11. Dr. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament – Luke.
12. J. Smith, A. Chowdhry, T. Jepson, & J. Schaeffer, “101 ‘Clear’ Contradictions Cleared Up”.
13. Dr. W. Hendriksen, NTC – The Gospel of Matthew.
14. Dr. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament – Matthew & Mark.
15. Dr. W. Hendriksen, NTC – The Gospel of John.
16. Dr. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament – John.
17. A. Fruchtenbaum, The Vineyard, “The Genealogy of the Messiah”.
18. Dr. A. T. Robertson, A Harmony of the Gospels.
19. M. Cheney, The Life of Christ in Stereo.
20. Dr. L. Richards, Expository Dictionary of Bible Words.
21. Dr. W. Hendriksen, NTC – The Gospel of Mark.
22. Dr. J. D. Douglas, The New Bible Dictionary.
23. Dr. A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament – Acts.
24. Dr. F. F. Bruce, The New International Commentary on the New Testament – The Book of Acts.
25. Drs. W. Vine, M. Unger, & W. White, An Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words.
26. J. Haley, Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible.
27. Dr. W. Perschbacher, The New Analytical Greek Lexicon.
28. Dr. R. Thomas, New American Standard Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible.
29. Dr. L. Morris, 1st Corinthians.
30. Dr. C. Hodge, 1st & 2nd Corinthians.
31. Dr. W. Hendriksen, Galatians & Ephesians.
32. Dr. L. Morris, Tyndale NT. Commentary Series – Luke.
33. Dr. C. Pfeiffer, The Book of Genesis.
34. Dr. R. Lenski, Interpretation of St. Mark’s Gospel.
35. Drs. J. Douglas &
36. W. Halsey, Collier’s Dictionary.
37. Dr. M. Unger, Unger’s Bible Dictionary.
38. R. Tasker, The Gospel of Luke.
39. Dr. A. T. Roberts, Word Pictures in the New Testament – The Epistles of Paul.
40. Dr. A. Cole, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries – The Gospel According to St. Mark.
41. Dr. H. Halley, Halley’s Bible Handbook.
42. Dr. A. Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah.
43. Dr. H. Kent, The Epistle to the Hebrews.