minister turns atheist dot org

Below are some basic bible contradictions. Examine them
with as much honesty as you can. And may I say, therein is
the challenge - to answer them honestly! As a minister, I was
a master of using how-it-could-have-been scenarios to
explain away difficult passages. In fact, I could have
continued the ministry and kept on taking bizarre measures
to keep my bible looking factual. But there came a time when
I had to look myself in the eye and ask myself if I really
believed what I was teaching were the answers to these
contradictions. It took years of reflection to finally develop
the courage and honesty to admit I was wrong to defend
them as accurate.

I. Numerical contradictions (#1-4): These are your
basic, cut-and-dry bible contradictions that catch
god in the act of not preserving his book.

THE APOLOGISTS SAY: These are called numerical
contradictions because the discrepancies exist in the form of
mistakes in the translated biblical texts. The first line of
reasoning apologists use to explain texts like these is that
the mistakes were not in the original autographs but simply
copyist's errors of later, uninspired copies of holy writ.

MY REPLY: (1) Where is one shred of proof that any original
"inspired of God" manuscripts exist at all? Some manuscripts
exist from whence the bible came, but we have no reason to
assume that these would be infallible or divinely inspired. If
the theist wants to demonstrate that these mistakes are only
copyist errors of later translations, then let them show us
these error-free manuscripts, otherwise we are justified in
assuming that these allegedly accurate manuscripts are just
another desperate ploy for credibility. If believers could
produce these manuscripts, then they would. But they can't,
so we must assume that like all other known manuscripts in
existence today, these too are uninspired products of
human creation. The honest bible student must bend on this
point. There is none, no proof at all that inspired autographs
exist. If they existed, we would be able to go back to them
and determine the Bible's infallibly once and for all. Why
didn't God provide us with a means for everyone to verify
that these "copyist's errors" are just that??? (2) If indeed the
bible is the inspired, inerrant, and infallible word of god as
most Christians believe, then why did not an omniscient and
omnipotent god keep his word free from errors? An error in
transmission is as bad as an error at the source. Should
your phone have trouble with the microphone, your
message will not get to the other end, but if your phone has
a working microphone but a bad connection on the receiving
end, the message won't get there just the same! The fact is,
the Christian god did not give us a guide that is free from
errors. And yet, if his true intention was that we follow his
word as the central authority of the church, then he has left
his church with a terribly weak link to ensure that this will
happen.


#1) How many horsemen did David take?
- 700 or 7,000 horsemen? -

2 Samuel 8:4. "And David took from him a thousand
chariots, and seven hundred horsemen, and twenty
thousand footmen: and David hamstrung all the chariot
horses, but reserved of them for an hundred chariots."

Vs.

I Chronicles 18:4. "And David took from him a thousand
chariots, and seven thousand horsemen, and twenty
thousand footmen: David also hamstrung all the chariot
horses, but reserved of them an hundred chariots."


#2) Which day of the month did Nebuzaradan come
to Jerusalem?
- seventh day or the tenth day? -

2 Kings 25:8. "And in the fifth month, on the seventh day of
the month, which is the nineteenth year of king
Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, came Nebuzaradan,
captain of the guard, a servant of the king of Babylon, unto
Jerusalem."

Vs.

Jeremiah 52:12. "Now in the fifth month, in the tenth day of
the month, which was the nineteenth year of
Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, came Nebuzaradan,
captain of the guard, which served the king of Babylon, into
Jerusalem."


#3) How old was Jehoiachin when he began to
reign?
- 8 or 18 years old? -

2 Kings 24:8. "Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he
began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months.
And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of
Elnathan of Jerusalem."

Vs.

2 Chronicles 36:9. "Jehoiachin was eight years old when he
began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days
in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of
the Lord."


#4) How many valiant men drew the sword?
- 800,000 or 1,100,000? -

2 Samuel 24:9. "And Joab gave up the sum of the number
of the people unto the king: and there were in Israel eight
hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword; and the
men of Judah were five hundred thousand men."

Vs.

1 Chronicles 21:5. "And Joab gave the sum of the number
of the people unto David. And all they of Israel were a
thousand thousand and an hundred thousand men that
drew sword: and Judah was four hundred threescore and
ten thousand men that drew sword."

The typical explanation for these verses is that the author of
1 Chronicles is just rounding off the number of soldiers. To
this I reply that theists should try using a little common sense
once in a while: 800,000 is not rounded off to 1,100,000.
That would be more like 800,000-1,000,000. I am far from a
mathematician, but I can speak authoritatively here (as can
any half-way intelligent person). There is no reason to round
off 300,000 soldiers.

II. Factual contradictions (#5-10): Contradictions of
a factual nature are abundant throughout the bible.
Christian scholars will bend over backwards to give
us all kinds of what-ifs and maybes all to no avail!
An honest and candid look at these texts reveal that
they are indeed contradictions, factual
contradictions that show that whoever wrote the
bible certainly was not omniscient.


#5) Did Asa remove or leave the high places in tact?

I Kings 15:14. "But the high places were not removed:
nevertheless Asa's heart was perfect with the Lord all his
days."

Vs.

2 Chronicles 14:3. "For he took away the altars of the
strange gods, and the high places, and brake down the
images, and cut down the groves."

One text says Asa did not remove the high places
(sanctuaries or places of pagan worship) and the other text
says he did! Which one is right? The justification that II
Chronicles chapter 15 explains that these high places were
not removed in Israel only is ridiculous in that Baasha ruled
Israelite territory, not Asa! Of course, the high places were
not removed in Israel! The writer(s) of Chronicles merely
inserted "in Israel" (II Chronicles 15:8-17) to ease the
discrepancy between the accounts of Kings and Chronicles.


#6) Did Jesus command the twelve to take staves or
no staves as they preached?

Mark 6:7-8. "And he called unto him the twelve, and began
to send them forth by two and two; and gave them power
over unclean spirits; And commanded them that they should
take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no
bread, no money in their purse."

Vs.

Matthew 10:7-10. "And as ye go, preach, saying, The
kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, cleanse the
lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have
received, freely give. Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor
brass in your purses, Nor scrip for your journey, neither two
coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is
worthy of his meat."

Vs.

Luke 9:3. "And he said unto them, Take nothing for your
journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither
money; neither have two coats apiece."

To be clear, Luke's words here are actually more damning
to Mark's than Matthew's, as the Greek has Luke saying,
"Do not take a staff" (singular). A casual reading of other
translations bears this out...

"He told them: “Take nothing for the journey–no staff, no
bag, no bread, no money, no extra tunic." (NIV)

"And He said to them, "Take nothing for {your} journey,
neither a staff, nor a bag, nor bread, nor money; and do not
{even} have two tunics apiece." (NASB)

"And he said to them, "Take nothing for your journey, no
staff, nor bag, nor bread, nor money; and do not have two
tunics." (RSV)

And many other translations back this up, leaving no doubt
of there being a contradiction here. Mark has Jesus
commanding to take a staff only. Luke clearly says not to!
The minuscule nature of this contradiction does not render it
useless, though I constantly get flack from Christians for
mentioning it. Matthew (written later than Mark) has Jesus
giving a point of instruction that is opposite of what Mark
says Jesus said. The claim sometimes used by Christian
apologists that Matthew is commanding each person not to
take more than one staff is ludicrous and false!

Is it necessary for Jesus tell the apostles that they should
only carry one staff a piece? This would be a very stupid
lesson -- it seems bizarre to imagine someone troubling
themselves to carry two staves at any one time! Again, why
would they take more than they need? The same problem
shines out when we consider how "shoes" are listed here as
well. Is Jesus telling his disciples not to take an extra pair of
shoes (sandals), like today we have a pair of Addidas, and
another of Reeboks, and maybe a pair of cowboy boots?
Certainly, he wasn't. This was a time when not everyone had
sandals. In many places, it was even against the law for
slaves to wear shoes. The disciples may or may not have all
had shoes, so it seems Jesus is telling his disciples that they
should not aim to take anything with them that they don't
already have. "The laborer is worthy of his hire," meaning
whatever they needed would be provided by whatever
household received them. But why did Jesus instruct them to
take a staff only in Mark? And why does Luke's account
specifically mention for it not to be taken? There is a conflict
here.

Some might argue that Matthew and Luke's reference to
taking "two coats apiece" might also apply to the taking of
staves. Even if it could be true, the text is silent on this, and
as we've already seen, the original language eliminates it,
but if it was true, we still would have to consider the fact that
the disciples were sent "two by two" into the heart of the
Jewish nation to proclaim the arrival of the son of God; if the
disciples were commanded not to take "two coats apiece," it
would be referring to the party of twos in which they traveled
(in other words, just as script, money, and food were not to
be taken, neither were tunics).

This, to me, seems to make more sense than Jesus having
to inform his beloved followers of a list of certain things not
to take, and then to warn them not to take two of one certain
item! This makes Jesus and his disciples as dumb as rocks,
but worse yet, it shows the incredible taking of dishonest
measures in trying to avoid this contradiction. In fact, these
scholar's "explanations" only make the contradiction stand
out more.


#7) In what city did Josiah die?

2 Chronicles 35:24. "His servants therefore took him out of
that chariot, and put him in the second chariot that he had;
and they brought him to Jerusalem, and he died, and was
buried in one of the sepulchres of his fathers. And all Judah
and Jerusalem mourned for Josiah."

Vs.

2 Kings 23:29-30. "In his days Pharaohnechoh king of
Egypt went up against the king of Assyria to the river
Euphrates: and king Josiah went against him; and he slew
him at Megiddo, when he had seen him. And his servants
carried him in a chariot dead from Megiddo, and brought him
to Jerusalem, and buried him in his own sepulchre. And the
people of the land took Jehoahaz the son of Josiah, and
anointed him, and made him king in his father's stead."

There is a difference in dying at Jerusalem and dying at
Megiddo. It will be argued that the more full account is 2
Kings and that actually Josiah died at Jerusalem and was
only seriously injured on the battle field. But the text refutes
this. "They brought him to Jerusalem and he died," the text
in 2 Chronicles says. 2 Kings says he was carried back "in a
chariot dead." If he's dead, he can't come back and die at
Jerusalem, can he? Plus, these verses contain two
contradictions. The second is whose' sepulchre he died in,
"one of the sepulchres of his fathers," or "his own
sepulchre." The bible contradicts itself twice here.


#8) Who provoked David to number Israel and
Judah?

2 Samuel 24:1. "And again the anger of the Lord was
kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to
say, Go, number Israel and Judah."

Vs.

1 Chronicles 21:1. "And Satan stood up against Israel, and
provoked David to number Israel."

Who moved David against Israel? Well, it depends which
account you believe. "He" - God moved David and not Satan
according to 2 Samuel 24:1. But "Satan stood up" and
"provoked David" according to I Chronicles 21:1. I reiterate
this so that apologists know they can't claim that God just
"allowed" Satan to move David to provoke Israel. Keep in
mind also, the fact that these texts were written by different
authors makes an airtight case that this is a contradiction.
Like I said, depends on which account you believe.


#9) Was the robe Christ wore before his crucifixion
scarlet or purple?

Matthew 27:28. "And they stripped him, and put on him a
scarlet robe."

Vs.

John 19:5. "Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of
thorns, and the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them,
Behold the man!"

Scarlet: not the same as purple. Purple: not the same as
scarlet. Could there have been two different coats worn at
different times? Sure, only that's ridiculous to put two
different coats on a man that's about to be executed. Plus,
the bible is silent about two robes. It only mentions one that
we know of. Even if scarlet and purple look the same from a
distance, the Holy Spirit should not have been this clumsy in
his description, especially when the faith of all humanity had
to be saved through belief in this word!


#10) Where did Jesus meet Bartimaeus?

Luke 18:35, "And it came to pass, that as he was come nigh
unto Jericho, a certain blind man sat by the way side
begging."

Vs.

Mark 10:46, "And they came to Jericho: and as he went out
of Jericho with his disciples and a great number of people,
blind Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus, sat by the highway
side begging."

The context of the text in Luke makes it clear that the "blind
man" was the same man as Bartimaeus in Mark. In one text,
Jesus is coming out of Jericho, and in the other, he is
approaching Jericho! Apologists think they are on safe
ground saying that Jesus was leaving the old Jericho (the
ruins from the time the city was conquered back in the days
of Joshua), and entering the new Jericho (outside of the
cursed ruins). Sounds good, aye? Only, we have to ask why,
with the similarity that both texts have in content, one text
would be describing the ruins, where few, if any people
would care to go! Strange, don't you think? Remember,
intellectual honesty! What's the obvious conclusion with
these two texts here? It's right before your eyes!

III. Principle contradictions (#11-12): Contradictions
in principle are the worst kind for apologists
because it is much more difficult to use smooth
words and emotional hooks to work out the wrinkles
between texts. One will eventually start to see the
inconsistent principles of the god of the bible with
contradictions like these! There is no where to run
for bible believers.


#11) Should we put away our swords or go and buy
one more?

Matthew 26:52. "Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy
sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall
perish with the sword."

Vs.

Luke 22:36. "Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath
a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that
hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

Peter gets ready to defend Jesus. He takes out his sword
and slashes off the high priest's servants' ear. Jesus says
no. Why does Jesus say no? You might think that Jesus is
trying to make Peter understand that the salvation of all the
world is at stake, and that the act of his death on the cross
must commence, and so logically, Jesus instructed Peter to
put away his word, but that's not what Jesus says. He tells
Peter that those who live by the sword will die by the sword!
In Luke's account, however, he seems to be changing his
tune a little. Why would Jesus command his apostles to buy
swords? Didn't he just get through saying that those who live
by the sword will die by it? Is Jesus telling the disciples to
buy swords to defend against wild animals when fleeing from
Jerusalem in the great siege of A.D. 70? Or maybe Jesus is
teaching militia action, like the radical anti-government
groups of today suggest. Or maybe Jesus is telling the
church to resist persecution by the sword? Or maybe Jesus
is secretly teaching lessons on self-defense and gun control
for when these issues would pop up in the twentieth and
twenty first century????

Well, unfortunately, all these fanciful and silly explanations
fail in light of a number of facts...

(1) The idea of having weapons to fend off wild animals
doesn't hold water because a well guarded and populated
area like Jerusalem and round about communities like
Bethany and the Mount of Olives, keeps it separated from
the wild pretty good. The chances of getting attacked by an
onslaught of bears or lions was pretty low, so low that only
an simpleton would have his disciples buying weapons for
animal attacks when the odds of that happening are
insignificant when compared to being killed by primitive
religious fanatics! This idea is silly on the face of it.

(2) The idea that Jesus is teaching action against
government is self-refuting. Jesus had every opportunity to
rebel against his government, but he never did, nor do we
have record of such incidents anywhere in religious
traditional stories, and much less secular history. This is all
but to admit that Jesus gave a contradictory message to the
one in Matthew.

(3) The idea that Jesus was teaching self defense here is
equally idiotic. Jesus could have defended himself when
being attacked by his persecutors and never did. The
disciples or church fathers never made note of such
lessons. To apply the issue to modern issues like gun
control and self defense is to ask the text a question it is not
meant to answer. These words were pronounced in primitive
times and in primitive contexts. If you ask a text a
question it was not meant to answer, you will get a
wrong answer! Plus, the bible doesn't teach such a
doctrine. James 4:6 says, "Ye have condemned and killed
the just; and he doth not resist you." James says the
Christian man does not resist violence with violence!

So, when all the chips fall, Jesus contradicted himself in
principle. He taught pacifism and diligently lived it according
to one gospel, but contradicted this message according to
another. This is hardly the work of a god when a blatant and
raging contradiction such as this exists.


#12) Was Paul guided by inspiration before
Ananias?

Matthew 10:18-20. "18. And ye shall be brought before
governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against
them and the Gentiles. 19. But when they deliver you up,
take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be
given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. 20. For it is
not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which
speaketh in you."

Vs.

Acts 23:1-5. "1. And Paul, earnestly beholding the council,
said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience
before God until this day. 2. And the high priest Ananias
commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the
mouth. 3. Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee,
thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law,
and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law? 4.
And they that stood by said, Revilest thou God's high priest?
5. Then said Paul, I wist (knew) not, brethren, that he was
the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of
the ruler of thy people."

Here, we have the awkward situation where the apostle Paul
admits he was wrong in speaking against the high priest.
The Holy Spirit certainly did not come through for Paul here!
He was not guided by God on what to say to Ananias, and
evidently Luke didn't catch the difficulty of letting this slip
into his writing of Acts. Had the Holy Spirit been divinely
inspiring Paul's words, as Jesus promised, Paul would not
have made such a careless mistake.

The apostle is before a ruler and has every opportunity to
establish the word of God before his hearers. Yet, out of
unguided and typical human ignorance, he ruins the
opportunity! If only Paul had been told by the Holy Spirit that
he was facing a high priest there would have been no
problem here! What happened to the promise of being given
the right words to say before rulers?

Authors can and do embellish stories with human faults.
Whether this piece of information was a mere story, or if it
really happened, it shows that God did not do what he said
he would do with those who spoke his word! This
contradiction is a good example of just how the bible writers
let things slip into the text that they didn't realize could be so
damning. This problem is a contradiction of a hallmark
principle of apostleship -- divine guidance! We would expect
oversights and mishaps like this in a book written by men.
We can also expect loudmouthed theologians to cover their
tracks and avoid admitting to embarrassing discrepancies in
their most holy of books.

(JH)