Biblical Contradictions - Part 1 - The Atheist Blogger

Biblical Contradictions - Part 1

The following contradictions are taken from the New International Version of the Bible, although they can be found with a bit of searching (and often with different wordings) in all other versions. After doing a lot of research on these, I’ve found too many contradictions to go in one post so I’ll have to split them up, probably 10 at a time. This is part 1.

Biblical family history

the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Salmon,the son of Nahshon - Luke 3:31-32

and Jesse the father of King David. David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah’s wife - Matthew 1:6

One would have thought the Bible could at least have recorded the correct name of the King’s son…twice.

The divine conception

In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”

Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. - Luke 1:26-31

This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

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. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.” - Matthew 1:18-21

So, did the angel announce the pregnancy to Mary after she had become engaged to Joseph, or was Mary already pregnant before she met Joseph, and the angel visited Joseph to stop him divorcing her…it can’t be both ways.

Jesus’ potential

You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end. - Luke 1:31-33

When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you.”

“Why were you searching for me?” he asked. “Didn’t you know I had to be in my Father’s house?” But they did not understand what he was saying to them. - Luke 2:48-50

Both parents were aware of Jesus’ divinity before his birth (well at least one of them was…see “The divine conception”), and yet they didn’t understand that Jesus was in his father’s house? I guess he should have been a bit more specific…

The father of Joseph

and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. - Matthew 1:16

Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli - Luke 3:23

Two fathers eh? I guess Jesus wasn’t against Gay Marriage after all…

The temptation of Jesus

and he was in the desert forty days, being tempted by Satan. He was with the wild animals, and angels attended him. - Mark 1:13

Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil. After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.” - Matthew 4:1-3

Meh, it’s a minor point, but still a contradiction.

The further temptation of Jesus

Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written: ” ‘He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’ ”

Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’ ”

Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. - Matthew 4:5-8

The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. And he said to him, “I will give you all their authority and splendor, for it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. So if you worship me, it will all be yours.”

Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.’ ”

The devil led him to Jerusalem and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down from here. - Luke 4:5-9

Up and down and up again…but in which order exactly?

Jesus and John the Baptist

This all happened at Bethany on the other side of the Jordan, where John was baptizing. The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! - John 1:28-29

After Jesus had finished instructing his twelve disciples, he went on from there to teach and preach in the towns of Galilee. When John heard in prison what Christ was doing, he sent his disciples to ask him, “Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?” - Matthew 11:1-3

Seems like either John the Baptist knew who Jesus was and baptized him, or he was in jail at the time and didn’t even know who he was…

The formation of the ministry

and he was in the desert forty days, being tempted by Satan. He was with the wild animals, and angels attended him. After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. - Mark 1:13-14

After this, Jesus and his disciples went out into the Judean countryside, where he spent some time with them, and baptized. Now John also was baptizing at Aenon near Salim, because there was plenty of water, and people were constantly coming to be baptized. (This was before John was put in prison.) - John 3:22-24

Tut tut, and to think the formation of the ministry is something considered very important to Christians…the Bible can’t even decide when it happened.

The calling of the first disciples

As Jesus was walking beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon called Peter and his brother Andrew. They were casting a net into the lake, for they were fishermen. “Come, follow me,” Jesus said, “and I will make you fishers of men.” At once they left their nets and followed him. - Matthew 4:18-20

When Simon Peter saw this, he fell at Jesus’ knees and said, “Go away from me, Lord; I am a sinful man!” For he and all his companions were astonished at the catch of fish they had taken, and so were James and John, the sons of Zebedee, Simon’s partners.

Then Jesus said to Simon, “Don’t be afraid; from now on you will catch men.” So they pulled their boats up on shore, left everything and followed him. - Luke 5:8-11

The next day John was there again with two of his disciples. When he saw Jesus passing by, he said, “Look, the Lamb of God!” When the two disciples heard him say this, they followed Jesus. Turning around, Jesus saw them following and asked, “What do you want?” They said, “Rabbi” (which means Teacher), “where are you staying?”

“Come,” he replied, “and you will see.” So they went and saw where he was staying, and spent that day with him. It was about the tenth hour.

Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, was one of the two who heard what John had said and who had followed Jesus. The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, “We have found the Messiah” (that is, the Christ). And he brought him to Jesus.

Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter) - John 1:35-42

Eh? So did Jesus enlist Simon with his brother Andrew, OR Simon with the brothers James and John, OR did Andrew hear about Jesus, go fetch his brother, and then join up? Either way that is some messed up storytelling.

The feeding of the five thousand

Then he climbed into the boat with them, and the wind died down. They were completely amazed (at Jesus walking on water), for they had not understood about the loaves; their hearts were hardened. - Mark 6:51-52

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.” Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself. - John 6:14-15

Are we really supposed to believe that the closest followers of Jesus didn’t understand that the feeding was a miracle, and had to be convinced by Jesus’ walking on water? On the other hand, it seems that everyone did see the miracle…so maybe the walking on water was just another parlor trick?

I’d like to state that I know a lot of the Bible is down to how you interpret it, and a lot of the “contradictions” can be explained by just a lack of knowledge. The reason for me writing this (and for the future parts) is because “gospel” means “truth”, and for something to be true it can’t have contradictions. I just want to show how the gospels can’t all be “true” (if any of them are), because too many people like to take the Bible as literal truth, and when you read the Bible properly, you will understand how dangerous that is.

Possibly Related Posts:

Subscribe to my RSS Feed if you like what you read! - View blog reactions

Written by Adrian Hayter

April 8th, 2008 at 8:51 pm

Posted in belief, bible, christianity, god, religion

Tagged with belief, bible, christianity, god, religion

0 Blogs linking to this article »

Comments to “Biblical Contradictions - Part 1”

Tony Jacobson Says:
April 8th, 2008 at 9:24 pm (GMT)

So nice research, but who cares about little bits of information. Do you have anything of substance beyond word discrepancies? Like major theological concepts or premises?

Daniel Holter Says:
April 8th, 2008 at 10:02 pm (GMT)

@ Tony : call me crazy, but I’d like to think that a Divine Creator and All-Knowing, All-Powerful God could have written a book with no word discrepancies. I mean, it’s either the inerrant, infallible Word Of God… or it’s a book.

After being raised to believe the former, I now realize it’s the latter. And I’m much, much happier. And strangely, more spiritual and more loving.

Tony Jacobson Says:
April 9th, 2008 at 12:33 am (GMT)

Well said. But isn’t there another possibility that the Divine Creator and All-Knowing, All-Powerful God used some plain old human beings to write things down. It seems whether or not it’s inerrant and infallible isn’t that big of deal. The crucial questions are what is God like? What is his true nature? Does he really want to have a personal relationship with each person?

To me an example of something troubling about God is the following:
“Why is God so angry with us? What is it about sin that is so offensive to him? Why does our rebellion bother him so much? Is there an equivalent of feeling that I experience similar to God’s anger toward us? Maybe with my kids? I get very angry with them but I love them. I don’t ever really want to destroy them. So why does God want to destroy us without Jesus as a blockage?”

There seems to be a significant handful of elemental tension questions that seem so hard to come to terms with. I’m super curious if you have any thoughts on those types of things.

Adrian Hayter Says:
April 9th, 2008 at 1:33 am (GMT)

Tony,

They may be “little bits of information”, but since the entire basis of the Christian faith balances on “The Word” (i.e. the Bible), I think it is quite important to list all contradictions! It proves that if Jesus existed, the accounts of him weren’t maintained well at all. If John the Baptist really had such an important role in his life, why are there contradicting accounts where one suggests he doesn’t even know who Jesus is? The disciples were very important to the whole story, and yet there are 3 very different accounts of them joining.

You are right in saying there are many questions to do with God, but as an atheist they really don’t affect me personally. They are the kind of questions that theologians would be interested in, but not myself. To tell the truth, there is only one question about God that affects me, which is “Does God exist?”. I personally believe he doesn’t.

If you want to discuss those questions, the forums are probably the best place.

Ted Goas Says:
April 13th, 2008 at 9:22 pm (GMT)

Nice post and I agree that atheists shouldn’t always break down Bible discrepancies as small as individual words.

But when fundamentals take the Bible or other holy text word for word, it raises questions to some. If it is this easy to reveal fallacies in the Bible (referring to the original article above, and no offense to the author as the list likely involved a lot of research), how can someone not take a second look at the Bible’s contents?

Maybe a Bible can be one of several good references? Science, reason and logic have many, many sources of information. If one is revealed to contain inaccuracies, fault is usually admitted and corrected.

But the Bible is right no matter what? How does that work?

Adrian Hayter Says:
April 14th, 2008 at 12:38 am (GMT)

I think the main thing you have to understand is that if people don’t want to find flaws in the Bible, they won’t. They will have a lengthy list of explanations to put reasons to the many contradictions in it’s pages. Another reason is possibly the length of text that separates the contradictions. If one were to read the Bible from beginning to end you might not see as many contradictions because your brain forgets things along the way. Who can honestly say they have read a 500 page book and remember what happened on page 34 directly afterwards?

To be honest, after the research I did to write this article, it just made me feel amazed that people actually bought this load of crap. Some of the stories can make sense, but in a lot of them the contradictions are so vast you have to question the original sources.

The problem with Christianity is a lot of believers think the Bible is the inerrant word of the living God. If that’s the case, then God is either stupid or a drunk, because nobody could write something like this and expect to get away with it. Since it’s the word of God, it can’t be changed, and this thought leads to fundamentalism and the persecution of homosexuals. I strongly believe that given the chance, fundamentalist Christians would take on slaves if they were allowed to by law. The Bible says it’s ok, so what would stop them?

Michael Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 1:05 am (GMT)

Adrian,

I always find that which people call contradictions in the Bible is actually a lack of understanding on the part of those who are searching for them. For example, the “family history” one is explained by the fact that David had more than one wife: Michal being the mother of the first son mentioned and Bathsheba the mother of the second one mentioned. David also had several sons (I believe there were seven in all). The fact is that someone who really cared to know the facts would search them out. It is easy to simply criticize the Bible, especially if one is bent on putting it down, but it takes a bit more work to know the truth of it, which few are willing to do.

Michael Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 1:16 am (GMT)

A comment on Luke 3:23: The real father of Joseph was Jacob (Mat_1:16); but having married the daughter of Heli, and being perhaps adopted by him, he was called his son, and as such was entered in the public registers; Mary not being mentioned, because the Hebrews never permitted the name of a woman to enter the genealogical tables, but inserted her husband as the son of him who was, in reality, but his father-in-law. Hence it appears that Matthew, who wrote principally for the Jews, traces the pedigree of Jesus Christ from Abraham, through whom the promises were given to the Jews, to David, and from David, through the line of Solomon, to Jacob the father of Joseph, the reputed or legal father of Christ; and that Luke, who wrote for the Gentiles, extends his genealogy upwards from Heli, the father of Mary, through the line of Nathan, to David, and from David to Abraham, and from Abraham to Adam, who was the immediate “son of God” by creation, and to whom the promise of the Saviour was given in behalf of himself and all his posterity. The two branches of descent from David, by Solomon and Nathan, being thus united in the persons of Mary and Joseph, Jesus the son of Mary re-united in himself all the blood, privileges, and rights, of the whole family of David; in consequence of which he is emphatically called “the Son of David.”

As you can see, contradictions are not so much contradictions, with a little research, as they are a lack of knowledge on the part of the claimant. The Bible is factual to the letter.

Adrian Hayter Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 1:16 am (GMT)

Michael,

I don’t think that really counts as an explanation. If David had more than 1 son why wouldn’t all of them be put down in the family history? Why in one version does it name one son and yet in the same book name a different one. Perhaps not a contradiction as such, but certainly an inconsistency.

Since you seem to be in tune with “the facts” why don’t you sort out all the other contradictions I found? As I’ve said before though, people like yourself always seem to have handy answers to everything when really you are just ignorant from the truth.

Adrian Hayter Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 1:28 am (GMT)

Not that I really care about much of this, but I did some research on Heli and it turns out even Biblical scholars can’t decide what is going on with Heli.

If the Bible were “factual to the letter” there wouldn’t be any argument over who Heli is in relation to Joseph, but there clearly is (just like all the other arguments about Biblical factuality)

Daniel Holter Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 1:28 am (GMT)

@Michael :

you wrote “The fact is that someone who really cared to know the facts would search them out.”

I find statements such as yours to be quite naive and arrogant.

I really REALLY did care to know the facts, and I really REALLY did search them out… and believe me when I tell you my search did NOT lead me deeper into the loving arms of a good shepherd.

And when partaking on such an adventure and philosophical search means the end of life as one has known it for the first 30 years of one’s existence and the near-total ostracization from friends and family, well, I dare say it’s not “easy to simply criticize the Bible.”

A more honest discourse is only possible if fundamentalists (such as, I suspect, yourself) are willing to talk about what THEY believe to be true - instead of insisting that everyone else believe the exact same things.

Daniel Holter Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 1:29 am (GMT)

One other thing…

most of us who have deprogrammed ourselves from the fangs of our spiritual upbringing are NOT arguing for odd birth orders or genealogical discrepancies… when we can start discussing how believers can swallow as Immutable Truth the far-fetched fables of Noah and the flood, then maybe we can really TALK… :)

Adrian Hayter Says:
June 24th, 2008 at 1:36 am (GMT)

I agree with Daniel. I too used to be a Christian so your supposing that I didn’t read the Bible is unfounded. In fact, I did “care to know the facts” and managed to see the Bible for what it really was, just a bunch of fairy stories designed to lull people into a false sense of security about death. Such people are easily controllable as I suspect you are. You would do anything the Bible commanded because it is “factual” and since written by your God you can’t ignore it.

As Daniel pointed out as well, we aren’t about arguing over small discrepancies. This article was merely for amusement / interest over the things that are often overlooked in the Bible. People who think it can be true even if it is wrong on some things (Evolution etc) can see the contradictions within it’s pages for themselves.

Jon Says:
September 2nd, 2008 at 4:32 am (GMT)

Wow. Adrian and Daniel… do you two have any understanding of the Bible at all?

I’m guessing not based on what you have written. The Bible is not just “a book”: it is a collection of many books written by different men. Discrepancies with names and such come from the different authors and who they chose to use or omit. Heres a situation:: I have a brother named Michael and a father named Greg (I really do). Depending on who you asked, you could have someone saying that 1)Greg is the father of Michael or that 2)Greg is the father of Jon or that 3)Greg is the father of both. In the end, they are all right.

Another thing, if you take the Bible out of context, then you, as the reader, are sure to misinterpret what is going on (in this case, you have greatly done so). You cant just go picking out passages that fit your argument. If you can do that to justify your views, then so could murderers, thieves, and other bad people in this world. There are single verses that can justify just about anything you want it to IF you ONLY read that verse. Read each of the stories and their surrounding and corresponding verses to get the full picture of whats going on before you jump to conclusions. It mill make you look less like a fool.

I do agree that some Christians know nothing about their religion other than thats what they grew up as but they cant be allowed to represent the rest of us. Just because you didnt understand the Bible or Christianity growing up, doesnt mean that because you think something is a flaw, that it actually is.

I’ll leave you on this note… grow a pair and get over yourself. I’m best friends with an atheist and he understands the Bible way better than your writing suggests you have. He doesnt see anything wrong with the Bible. He just doesnt believe in it.

Daniel Holter Says:
September 2nd, 2008 at 5:32 am (GMT)

@Jon :
ahhh… I *did* state in my followup comment that we “are NOT arguing for odd birth orders or genealogical discrepancies,” so your opening gambit referring to your brother Michael and your father Greg is rendered moot.

I really do mean no offense by this, but if this relatively simple exercise in reading and comprehension elicited such an inadequate response from you, it is of no surprise to me that you find perfection and truth in a (”collection of”) book(”s”) that has been proven time and again to have little of either.

Regarding your second point about taking “the Bible out of context,” it has been my experience that the vast majority of out-of-context Biblical interpretations have been perpetuated by Christians in their attempts to get others to believe exactly as they do - not by those shining the light of reason into the abyss of religion.

One last suggestion… when using phrases like “It will make you look less like a fool,” you may want to see if maybe you have, in your haste, misspelled a word and left in question who the fool might be in this exchange.

Daniel Holter Says:
September 2nd, 2008 at 5:35 am (GMT)

@Jon :
Your fine reproach “grow a pair and get over yourself” is comically hypocritical in its arrogance… coming from someone who claims exclusive knowledge regarding Absolute Truth.

Jon Says:
September 2nd, 2008 at 3:22 pm (GMT)

@ Daniel,

Alright it was late so please excuse the spelling mistake.

Im not only using my family example for genealogical disputes. I’m saying that its two different perspectives but they both are right. A concept that applies to all of the Bible and not just when it comes to talking about genealogy.

If you believe that the Bible is one book, whether you are Christian or not, then, with no offense intended, ignorant of what the Bible truly is. Each book has a different author recalling what he remembered and thought was most important about his dealings with God and Jesus.

Also, I never claimed to have “exclusive knowledge” regarding Absolute Truth. Anyone who can read and interpret something (within its context) has access to such knowledge. My question to you is, how has the Bible been proven to have little truth or perfection in it?

I will agree that a lot of Christians have taken the Bible out of context because they dont understand it nor do they know how to interpret it in context but that doesnt change the fact that you didnt understand or interpret it correctly. (and that applies to all fields of life… people twist meanings to gain support)

At your response to my closing, how would it be hypocritical? Hypocritical is saying one thing but doing the opposite (ie. saying fighting is wrong then picking fights with people). I have not said that I cant say that to you or believe I shouldnt say that to you.

I dont want you to think I’m some crazy mega Christian or something radical either. I dont know everything about the Bible but I have experienced many different views (Atheism, Christianity, Transcendentalism, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism), and for me, Christianity is what I believe is right. I just want you to have an open mind about the religion you seem to be bashing on. You dont have to agree with it and become a Christian. Like I said, my atheist friend agrees that a lot of what the Bible says makes sense from a logical perspective but he just doesnt buy into what its all about.

Daniel Holter Says:
September 2nd, 2008 at 3:51 pm (GMT)

@Jon : you are correct, the Bible is a collection of books. I wasn’t refuting that notion, I only meant to use the term ‘book’ in a generic sense, or in the sense that the Bible has been referred to as a ‘Holy Book’ or ‘The Good Book.’

I believe a comment like “get over yourself” deserved one in kind. It implies that *I* am the one with humility issues, and I merely wished to point out that the view/interpretation of the Bible shared by the vast majority of Christians (that no one comes to the Father but through me [Jesus]) is one that makes an implicit and exclusive claim about Absolute Truth.

Even your comments about correct interpretation of scripture come off as arrogant… as if YOU are the one that FINALLY got it right, after all these years and misguided interpretations.

I’m not bashing a religion I know nothing about… I was raised a fundamentalist evangelical and all of my responses (attempt to) come from a place of humility, honesty, and occasionally humor. :)

Let’s all aim for actual TRUTH and not worry about the answers we find along the way.

Jon Says:
September 2nd, 2008 at 4:12 pm (GMT)

@ Daniel

Alright I see what you are saying and I wasnt trying to come off like that. If you ever met me, you’d know I’m extremely open minded and not arrogant (sometimes I come off as arrogant and for that, I’m sorry and didnt mean it). Also, nothing against you, but from my experiences, fundamentalist evangelicals really dont know much about what the Bible says (once again, from MY experiences with that denomination around my areas). I actually just became a God follower about 2 years ago so I definitely dont know that much about Christianity and I dont try to act highly about it either.

I actually thank you for your comments. Our convo has helped to challenge me and grow spiritually. Lets find the truth like you said. Its all that matters.

Daniel Holter Says:
September 2nd, 2008 at 6:46 pm (GMT)

@Jon :

Also, nothing against you, but from my experiences, fundamentalist evangelicals really dont know much about what the Bible says…

Well, no offense taken. At all. I agree completely! However, they claim to know exactly what was meant by the words in the Bible, and that’s precisely the problem, imho.

The spirit of your last comment gives me hope for genuine conversation and insight - that’s all I ask, and hope my responses are in the same spirit always.