Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

SignUp Now!
  • Welcome to Talk Jesus Christian Forums

    Celebrating 20 Years!

    A bible based, Jesus Christ centered community.

    Register Log In

Biblical Contradictions (1-5)

Chad

Administrator
Staff Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2004
Messages
17,078
Answers to Biblical Contradictions, 1-5

By: Andrew Tong, Michael J. Bumbulis, MaryAnna White, Russ Smith, and others (1994-1995)

1. God is satisfied with his works

"God saw all that he made, and it was very good." [Gen 1:31]

God is dissatisfied with his works.

"The Lord was grieved that he had made man on earth, and his heart was filled with pain." [Gen 6:6]

This is an obvious case of both/and, for something occurred after Gen 1:31 and before Gen 6:6, namely, the Fall. Evil entered creation as a result of man's volition. One can argue the theological implications elsewhere, as the only relevant point is that this is not an obvious contradiction. When God created, all was good. After man rebelled, God grieved.

2. God dwells in chosen temples

"the LORD appeared to him at night and said: "I have heard your prayer and have chosen this place for myself as a temple of sacrifices.....I have chosen and consecrated this temple so that my Name may be there forever. My eyes and my heart will always be there." [2 Chr 7:12,16]

God dwells not in temples

"However, the Most High does not live in houses made by men." [Acts 7:48]

I fail to see the contradiction here. The claim that "my eyes and heart will always be there" appears to mean nothing more to me than the fact that the LORD would pay special attention to the temple and have a special affinity for it; the LORD would reveal Himself to His people through the temple. Stephen's speech in Acts merely highlights the transcendence of God. Put simply, if you put these together you arrive at the following truth - God is transcendent, yet He reveals Himself where He will.

3. God dwells in light

"who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light whom no one has seen or can see." [1 Tim 6:16]

God dwells in darkness

"Then spake Solomon. The Lord said that he would dwell in the thick darkness" [1 Kings 8:12]

"He made darkness his secret place; his pavilion round about him were dark waters and thick clouds of the skies." [Ps 18:11]
"Clouds and darkness are round about him." [Ps 97:2] The first thing I would point out is these are likely to be metaphors and it would seem unwise to take such language too literally when describing God. But what could such seemingly contradictory metaphors convey?
Note that in both cases there is the theme of the unsearchableness of God. That is, the light is unapproachable and the darkness is thick and covers a secret place. Thus, these verses could actually be teaching the same thing - simply that God is unapproachable.
One could also note that Paul's account is quite optimistic following from a consideration of Christ. Prior to the Incarnation, there was indeed a certain darkness associated with the hidden God. But the eyes of the blind have been opened!

Or it could be said that the verses in 1 Kings and Psalms need be nothing more than a description of God perceived through the memory of His interation with His people described in Exodus19:9.

4. God is seen and heard [Ex 33:23 / Ex 33:11 / Gen 3:9,10 / Gen 32:30 / Is 6:1 / Ex 24:9-11]

God is invisible and cannot be heard [John 1:18 / John 5:37 / Ex 33:20 / 1 Tim 6:16]

These "contradictions" are easily resolved if one accepts the Trinitarian view of God. Allow me to repost a reply which addressed a similar point, and in doing so, resolves this contradiction....

In a previous post, someone attempts to discredit the deity of Christ by appealing to John 1:18:

"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." (KJV)

He notes:

"If no man has seen God, then logically Jesus was not God, since there is no secular record of an outbreak of sightlessness in Judea in Jesus' time".

How shall the Christian respond? Well, let's consider the statement that "No man hath seen God." Consider the following verses from the Old Testament (OT):

Sarai says "You are the God who sees me," for she said,
"I have now seen the One who sees me" (Gen 16:13)

"So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, "It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared." (Gen 32:30)

"Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up and saw the God of Israel." (Ex 24: 9-10)
"they saw God" (Ex 24:11)

"We have seen God!" (Judges 13:22) Now while this person's logic seems to rule out that Jesus was God, it also means that the Bible contains a very significant contradiction. If no one has seen God, how is it that Sarai, Jacob, Moses et al, and Monoah and his wife are said to have seen God?

Actually, this is a problem only for those who deny the deity of Christ while claiming to follow the teachings of the Bible. Let's look again at John 1:18:

"No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only (or Only Begotten), who is at the Father's side, has made him known."

I think it is clear that John is speaking of the Father as the one who has not been seen. To paraphrase it, "No one has ever seen God, but the Son, who is at His side, has made Him known". This interpretation not only seems to follow naturally from this verse, but is also quite consistent with the Logos doctrine taught in John 1. Recall, it is the Logos who mediates between God and man, and who reveals God to man. Jesus would later say, "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father." Prior to the Incarnation of the Son, no one had seen the Father, for it is through the Son that the Father is revealed.

So for the Trinitarian, there is no Bible contradiction. No one ever saw God the Father, and what Sarai, Jacob, Moses, etc saw was God the Son. This can be seen from many perspectives, but let's simply consider one from Isaiah 6. Isaiah "saw the Lord" (v 1). Seraphs were praising the "Lord Almighty" (v 3). Isaiah is overwhelmed and responds, "Woe to me, I am ruined. For I am a man of unclean lips [this rules him out as the servant in Isaiah 53], and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty" (v 5). Later, we read:

"Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" (vs. 8).

Again, the plurality of God is implied. Isaiah asks God to send him, and then God gave him a message to preach.

Now it's time to jump to John 12:37-41. John claims that the peoples failure to believe in Jesus was a fulfillment of these teachings Isaiah received from the Lord in Isaiah 6. Then note verse 41.

"Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus' glory and spoke about him".

Here is a clear example where John equates Jesus with the Lord Almighty seen by Isaiah! This all fits together beautifully. Isaiah sees the Lord Almighty, yet he sees Jesus' glory. Jesus speaks as a plural being (who will go for US). It is the Son who is seen, not the Father.

Thus, John 1:18 does not mean that Jesus was not God, it only means He is not the Father. This verse presents no problems for the Trinitarian, and in fact, when studied, serves as a great launching point for finding Christ in the OT. Prior to the Logos dwelling amongst us and revealing the Father to us, no one had seen the Father. But because of the Incarnation, we can now cry, "Abba, Father"
(Romans 8:15) and "Our Father who art in heaven"! Those who see the Son can see the Father.

5. God is tired and rests

"In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed." [Ex 31:17]

God is never tired and never rests

"The everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary." [Is 40:28]

According to Haley, and many others, the term "rested and was refreshed' is simply a vivid Oriental way of saying that God ceased from the work of creation and took delight in surveying the work.
 
Yep!

I'm glad you're tackling the "contradictions" in the Bible. With people out there who are nitpicking the Bible to death looking for "errors" it's good to have diligent Christians pointing out the clarity and truth of God's word (if for no other reason than that one has to *read* the Bible to be able to argue it hehe).

#1 - This is my understanding too. God is timeless and everlasting, always the same. But He created us to move through linear time, and as such we can change in ways that would bring God grief. But note -- *knowing* how filthy and evil mankind was and would continue to be, He *still* sent us Jesus...He *could* have just wiped us all the way out and started over, but He didn't...because *His* Love is constant and eternal.

#2 - Also note that in the first verses, God *Himself* chose the place for the Temple, while in the second set of verses, we are told the Lord does not dwell in temples *built by men*.

#3 - There are various Hebrew words used whenever the NIV (and sometimes even the KJV) describe "darkness." Sometimes they mean night time - or a physical absense of light. Sometimes they mean chaos - a darkness of the mind or a confusion. Sometimes they mean mystery - that "darkness" that makes the Father unapproachable without the intersession of Christ.

But to our Lord God, nothing is ever "dark" or hidden. Hence David explaining in Psalm 139:12 "even the darkness will not be dark to you; the night will shine like the day, for darkness is as light to you"

#4 - Just beautiful! The more I seek Jesus, the more I find Him ever-present in the OT.

#5 - Yep...and the language in Isaiah implies that God never "loses" strength (such that He would *have* to stop doing something), while the other verse, as you said, just implies a decision to "take a step back" and admire a completed thing.

I look forward to other articles like this. If the skeptics can put out their own "bible" full of "contradictions, it's certainly good for Christians to respond with a little more wisdom ;)

God bless,
Janette
 
That's always what I hear from my husband.
'sure the Bible contridicts itself'
him who has never read any of it.

The usually thing he'll come up with is one that gets noised abroad,
'an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth'
then it'll be, but then it says, 'you should turn the other cheek'

what they don't realize is the first one is O.T. and the other being N.T.
Jesus teaching.

but then's that's just quoting what they've heard noised, and proves
they've not studied it for themselves.

It's easier for the unbeliever to say the Bible is full of condrictions,
it's their famous argument.
 
This makes me think:


"Then spake Solomon. The Lord said that he would dwell in the thick darkness" [1 Kings 8:12]

Was there after light in the darkness when God was dwelling in there?
So that the light of God is seen even in the thickest darkness.
 
This makes me think:


"Then spake Solomon. The Lord said that he would dwell in the thick darkness" [1 Kings 8:12]

Was there after light in the darkness when God was dwelling in there?
So that the light of God is seen even in the thickest darkness.

Did God not create the darkness (a dark cloud) to visibly show Himself to His people? Something to give the people assurance and incentive for obedient and holy living is how my NKJV puts it.

I don't think it was like a complete absence of light. God chose to be present in His holy house (the temple).

** Good post by the way! Thank you.
 
Last edited:
Posted wrong reply here, sorry.
I have moved it to were it should be.
sorry again.
 
Last edited:
what an interesting section!

wow! it's only now I come across this section after clicking the archive. hehe. This will help me a lot.

Oftentimes, when reading the Bible, I do encounter contradictions though it is not always my intention to find them. lol.

Just like these passages in Romans 6 :1-5 special note on verse 2 & 5. LOL they almost preceded each other.:shade:

<sup class="versenum" id="en-KJV-29190">1</sup>Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.

<sup class="versenum" id="en-KJV-29191">2</sup>Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.


<sup class="versenum" id="en-KJV-29192">3</sup>For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself.


<sup class="versenum" id="en-KJV-29193">4</sup>But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another.


<sup class="versenum" id="en-KJV-29194">5</sup>For every man shall bear his own burden.

Sometimes these contradictions confuse me every time and make me also wonder on God when the mystery is unlocked by diligent searching on what is really conveyed on the Scriptures. Amen!

I thank God, I can run here (lol. Amen) for insight asking questions to some Bible Teachers here and Spirit - filled members:wink:. Praise God. Amen

Thanks bro. for this site. Indeed its a great blessing to us.


God bless TJ!


Sister Reymielin
 
Last edited:
EDIT: deleted post

Sorry, didn't know this was for "resolved" contradictions.
 
Last edited:
Just in the future, how about giving a thread like this a title like:
Biblical Contradictions Resolved.
 
Hi, Question...I was brought this one...any light shed on it?

Matthew 27: 5-8
"And he threw the pieces of silver into the temple sanctuary and departed; and he went away and hanged himself. The chief priests took the pieces of silver and said, "It is not lawful to put them into the temple treasury, since it is the price of blood." And they conferred together and with the money bought the Potter's Field as a burial place for strangers. For this reason that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day.


Acts 1:18-19
"For he[Judas] was counted among us and received his share in this ministry." (Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out. And it became known to all who were living in Jerusalem; so that in their own language that field was called Hakeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) "

These two accounts seem to Contradict each other...could someone explain these?
 
Hi, Question...I was brought this one...any light shed on it?

Matthew 27: 5-8
"And he threw the pieces of silver into the temple sanctuary and departed; and he went away and hanged himself. The chief priests took the pieces of silver and said, "It is not lawful to put them into the temple treasury, since it is the price of blood." And they conferred together and with the money bought the Potter's Field as a burial place for strangers. For this reason that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day.


Acts 1:18-19
"For he[Judas] was counted among us and received his share in this ministry." (Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out. And it became known to all who were living in Jerusalem; so that in their own language that field was called Hakeldama, that is, Field of Blood.) "

These two accounts seem to Contradict each other...could someone explain these?

Where is the contradiction? Judas hung himself (suicide) and he fell (rope broke perhaps?).

This should help you
Apologetics Press - How Did Judas Actually Kill Himself?

Clip Portion of the article:

Some have used this difference in the accounts to suggest a contradiction exists. Matthew states clearly that Judas “went away and hanged himself ” (27:5). On the other hand, Luke records in Acts 1:18 that “falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.” Matthew mentions only a hanging; Luke mentions Judas falling headlong (i.e., headfirst) and bursting open in the middle (i.e., at his midsection). Is there, then, a contradiction here? “Matthew records the mode in which Judas attempted his death by hanging. Peter [sic] speaks of the result
 
wow! it's only now I come across this section after clicking the archive. hehe. This will help me a lot.

Oftentimes, when reading the Bible, I do encounter contradictions though it is not always my intention to find them. lol.

Just like these passages in Romans 6 :1-5 special note on verse 2 & 5. LOL they almost preceded each other.:shade:

<sup class="versenum" id="en-KJV-29190">1</sup>Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.

<sup class="versenum" id="en-KJV-29191">2</sup>Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.


<sup class="versenum" id="en-KJV-29192">3</sup>For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself.


<sup class="versenum" id="en-KJV-29193">4</sup>But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another.


<sup class="versenum" id="en-KJV-29194">5</sup>For every man shall bear his own burden.

Sometimes these contradictions confuse me every time and make me also



Sister Reymielin
I think they appear confused for many reason.
1 is he doesn't want us to have formulas, but to get his directions everytime.
2 because all the works of his spirit are different kinds or degrees of dichotomy on which we have to hold them both as truth and operate equally from both.. it is greek thought that makes us only have to choose one good and one bad way... but HOLDING up as HIS TRUTH these His Spirit's dichotomies is what creates the cross in us on which we die to our own ideas and live in his ideas.
3 probably some more but I can't think of any more right now but the contradictions are there for a reason. we don't have to choose between "good and evil".. we have to choose life from his concepts of LIFE.
 
The important "contradiction" to note here is not necessarily how he died, but this:

The book of Matthew states that Judas returned the silver and repented. The Religious leaders then took the money and used it to buy "The Potters Field" where Judas hung himself to death.

In the book of Acts, Peter claimed that Judas used the money himself to buy the field where he exploded. This account states that the religious leaders had nothing to do with the incident.

I personally do not know what to think of this matter as I am still trying to understand it in full.
 
Back
Top