Factual Errors and Internal Contradictions in the Bible

Jump to:

Introduction
Internal Contradictions
Factual Errors
Unfulfilled Prophecies
Conclusions
KJV vs. NIV
On Dragons and Cockatrices

Introduction

I don't have the incentive to properly study the historical evidence for the existence of Jesus and the occurance of his miracles. This would entail learning Aramaic, Greek, and Hebrew and studying the ancient texts (at least). I say this because we must take the word of "experts" with a big grain of salt because they have a high chance of being biased. In other words, I would rather find out as much as possible for myself.

The Bible is believed by Christians to be the Word of God, as recorded by men. And as such, is absolutely free of errors or contradictions. Further, the discovery of errors in the Bible would seem to cast doubt upon the whole work of the Bible. But it is important to realize that this would not "prove" that Christianity is untrue. This subject seems tractable to me, as far as I can go with the current English translations.

In my studies of the Bible, I've come across some contradictions that I find difficult to reconcile. Henry M. Morris takes the viewpoint that there are what seems to be contradictions, but upon closer scrutiny they can be resolved. He goes a little further in also saying that God put them there in order to inspire discourse and study of the Bible.

There is no doubt, however, that it is easily possible to find a great number of apparent discrepancies in the Bible. Critics have been discovering and exploiting these for many generations. Most of these problems have been explained and reconciled long ago by conservative scholars, but the answers are commonly ignored and the same old supposed contradictions continue to be paraded by such critics.

Since the Bible is indeed the inspired Word of God, and since there really are many of these superficial contradictions, it seems evident that God must actually have had reasons for allowing them in the Scriptures...

Certain possible reasons can be suggested. In the first place, the existence of so many apparent discrepancies certainly disproves the notion of collusion or intentional deception on the part of the writers... Real people, separated by great spans of time or distance, simply don't write of their own volition in concert such as this, and perfect agreement would naturally generate suspicion.

But, furthermore, they also stimulate Bible study!... (Henry M. Morris, Ph. D. Many Infallible Proofs, Evidences for the Christian Faith 1974 Creation Life Publisher, Inc. pp. 212-213.)

Morris' advice for resolving alleged contradictions is as follows: (1) read the passages in context with regard to the time and circumstances, (2) understand that the Bible uses parabolic language and figures of speech (Psalms is written in poetry, for example), (3) make sure that the passages do not emphasize smaller but different aspects of a much larger concept, (4) critically examine the particular translation one is using ("Thou shalt not kill" in Exodus 20:13 should have been rendered "Thou shalt not murder"), (5) realize the Bible was not written for scientists, and often uses approximations and common terminology. A good example is I Kings 7:23, which seems to say that pi is three.

I've placed apparent contradictions next to each other, with comments and possible explanations below them. Note that all quotations are from the New International Version of the Bible, except where noted.

Internal Contradictions

According to Morris (Many Infallible Proofs p. 62) it is Jewish custom to consider one's father-in-law as a father, which would explain Joseph's two fathers. I find this somewhat lacking, however, because we see that the lineage converges further up at King David, which would indicate that Joseph and Mary were related.

I've also heard that one of the lineages describes the line of Mary, while the other describes the line of Joseph. Strangely, though, they both end in Joseph.

One reconciliation of these passages is that he tried to hang himself, but was unsuccessful, so he jumped off a cliff that was on his property. (Or that he hanged himself near a cliff, and the rope broke.) But the first passage doesn't say that he tried to hang himself, and mentions nothing of his body bursting open. Likewise, the second passage says that he fell head first in a field, not down a cliff.

I have heard the explanation that a person who is harmed should not harm another in return, but rather the community should serve the punishment. And the Romans commandment is for personal affairs, while Exodus is a community law. But the second passage makes no qualifications. I can think of another simple command: "...love your neighbor as yourself..." (Leviticus 19:18). Can this statement also be conditional?

One possible solution to this problem would be to assume there were two giants named Goliath, one of whom was slain by David. The other was then slain by Elhanan, who also slew his brother. There were two Elhanans of Bethlehem (II Samuel 23:24), so why not two Goliaths of Gath? ... It has been argued very effectively by Old Testament scholars that the apparent discrepancy in this case with II Samuel 21:19 arose by a copyist's error in the latter. One other possibility, with some support in Jewish tradition, is that Elhanan was another name for David and Jair another name for Jesse. In any case, there is certainly no proof of a contradiction. (Morris Many Infallible Proofs pp. 225-226)

Christian response: Finish the second quote "...before its appointed time." These two can be reconciled as, "The spiritual man judges all things, but not before their appointed time."

Factual Errors

A bat is not a bird. Note that this isn't just an arbitrary classification that the Western and European world has created. A bat is a bird as much as a Cocker Spaniel is a cat.

These are the birds you are to detest and not eat because they are detestable: the eagle, ... any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat (Leviticus 11:13-19)

You may eat any clean bird. But these you may not eat: the eagle, ... any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat. (Deuteronomy 14:11-17)

Rabbits do not chew their cud (bring up previously swallowed food to chew). They do eat their own dung, but I have heard that there is a Hebrew word for that which would have been used if that was the meaning.

The rabbit, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; ... (Leviticus 11:6)

Insects, as part of their definition, have six legs. (Spiders are arachnids, not insects.)

All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: ... Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket, or grasshopper. (Leviticus 11:20-22)

Snakes don't eat dirt.

So the Lord God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, ... You will crawl on your belly and you will eat dust..." (Genesis 3:14)

Camels have split hooves.

There are some that only chew the cud or only have a split hoof, but you must not eat them. The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you. (Leviticus 11:4)

However, of those that chew the cud or that have a split hoof completely divided you may not eat the camel, the rabbit or the coney. [1] Although they chew the cud, they do not have a split hoof; they are ceremonially unclean for you. (Deuteronomy 14:7)

The earth isn't stationary as once thought.

... The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved. (Psalms 93:1)

... The world is firmly established; it cannot be moved. (1 Chronicles 16:30)

He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved. (Psalms 104:5)

Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel: "O sun, stand still over Gibeon, O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon. (Joshua 10:12)

Note that the first reference to "world" may mean "the way things are", and that in the last reference "earth" may mean "land". In the context the writer discusses clouds, winds, waters, and mountains, which seem to support this view.

The earth is not flat, as once thought. It has no corners at all, and "ends of the earth" is not typically interpreted as from outer space. (Besides, what would be the ends? Why should the magnetic poles be "ends" as opposed to the axis of rotation?)

... he will assemble the scattered people of Judah from the four quarters of the earth. (Isaiah 11:12)

After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, ... (Revelation 7:1)

Oh Lord, ... to you the nations will come from the ends of the earth... (Jeremiah 16:19)

... and there before me stood a tree in the middle of the land. Its height was enormous. The tree grew large and strong and its top touched the sky; it was visible to the ends of the earth. (Daniel 4:10-11)

The first quotation is rendered as "four corners" in the King James Version. I have heard that this is a mistranslation of the original Greek.

Diseases are not caused by demons, unless medicine is exorcism.

• A mute could talk after having the demon driven out (Matthew 9:32).
• A "demon-possessed" man who was blind and mute is cured by Jesus (Matthew 12:22).
• A demon caused seizures (epilepsy) in a boy (Matthew 17:14-18).
• A group of spirits caused a man to be insane (Mark 5:1-13).
• A spirit crippled a woman (Luke 13:11).

One viewpoint is that Satan is the root cause of bad things such as disease. But it is quite apparent that at least in these cases demons were the actual cause.

Prayer does not cure sickness, or we would have no need for doctors.

Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up... (James 5:14-15).

Unfulfilled prophecies

God promises that the Jews will never lose their land or be disturbed again.

And I will provide a place for my people Israel and will plant them so that they can have a home of their own and no longer be disturbed. Wicked people will not oppress them anymore, as they did at the beginning and have done ever since the time I appointed leaders over my people Israel. I will also give you rest from all your enemies... (2 Samuel 7:10-11)

And I will provide a place for my people Israel and will plant them so that they can have a home of their own and no longer be disturbed. Wicked people will not oppress them anymore, as they did at the beginning and have done ever since the time I appointed leaders over my people Israel. I will also subdue all your enemies... (1 Chronicles 17:9-10)

God promises that David's throne will be established forever.

"Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever." (2 Samuel 7:16)

"I will set him over my house and my kingdom forever; his throne will be established forever." (1 Chronicles 17:14)

"And I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel forever." (1 Chronicles 22:10)

Christian response: In the context of 2 Samuel 7:16 and 1 Chronicles 17:14, David's throne refers to Jesus, who is from the line of David. In this sense, God's throne is established forever.

No uncircumcised man will ever enter Jerusalem again.

Awake, awake, O Zion, clothe yourself with strength. Put on your garments of splendor, O Jerusalem, the holy city. The uncircumcised and defiled will not enter you again. (Isaiah 52:1)

Christian response: Here Jerusalem refers to the Kingdom of God, as evidenced in Revelation 3:12, where it says that New Jerusalem (Kingdom of God) will come.

Conclusions

But what does all this mean? It does not mean that Jesus didn't exist, or that the God of the Bible is false. It only casts doubt upon the literal veracity of the Bible, and therefore also the statements that it makes about God. It's also important to note that the extent of the Bible's inaccuracy seems limited, casting only a little doubt on its overall truth.

From what I understand, its is believed that the original texts of the Bible were "written" by God through men. The Council of Nicaea in 325 AD first began to select which texts to include in the Bible, and I hear that the Western version dates to about 392 AD. (What were their criteria? Were the other works less divine?) Since then, the book has been translated into several versions, of which the King James and the New International versions are most widely accepted. In 1250 AD it was divided into chapters by Cardinal Hugo de Sancto Caro, and in 1550 AD the chapters were divided into verses by Robert Stevens, a printer in Paris.

• "Septuagint", about 285 BC 70 men translated the Hebrew into Greek.
• "Peshito", 2nd century AD translated for the Syrians.
• The Vulgate, about 400 AD translated into Latin for the common people. (The Standard for the Roman Catholic Church.)
• King James 1607-1611, revised in 1881 in order to remove errors.
• Red Letter Bible, 1901, same as King James, but Christ's words are in red.
• New International Version, 1966.

So how can the above inacurracies and contradictions be explained? The Bible says: "... his work is perfect..." (Deuteronomy 32:4), and that "All scripture is God-breathed..." (2 Timothy 3:16). The most liberal viewpoint is that the original texts were free of errors, and that these inconsistencies have been introduced by the numerous translations and copies made over the years (and fixed in later translations). The preface to the New Revised Standard Version has an interesting discussion of this, and we can see some evidence of corrections between the King James and New International versions of the Bible: (The King James passages on the left are contradictory, while the New International Version's passages are not.)

Note here that the number of stalls was corrected, and horsemen was changed to horses. The NIV footnote for 1 Kings 4:26 says, "Some Septuagint manuscripts (see also 2 Chron. 9:25); Hebrew forty".

In the Hebrew Bible, I'm told that 1 Kings 5:6 says clearly 40000 (the last five verses in the fourth chapter are given to the fifth). "Four thousand" in modern Hebrew is "arba elef" (aleph, reish, beth, ayin), and "forty thousand" is "arba'im elef" (aleph, reish, beth, ayin, yud, mem-sofit). Different spellings are used depending on the gender of the noun. The difference between the 4000 and 400000 is two missing letters.

Here the fowl have been corrected to indicate that they came from the ground, not the water. Also note the change in tenses from "formed" to "had formed", which causes the order of creation to match in both accounts. In this case the King James version is definitely mistaken. In Hebrew, formed and had formed are represented the same way, so the translators must have chosen the wrong one.

Here "seven years" became "three years". I've been told that in this context, the modern Hebrew for "seven" is "shiva shanim" (shin, beth, ayin; shin, nun, yud, mem-sofit), and that "three" is "shiv'im shanim" (shin, beth, ayin, yud, mem-sofit; shin, nun, yud, mem-sofit). Different spellings are used based on the gender of the noun. The difference is two letters.

I've been told that the Hebrew Bible has Michal (mem, yud, chaf, lamed), and that a possible spelling of Merab is mem, resh, beth or mem, reish, vaf. There are different letters after the first, but note also that a chaf looks like a reish with an extra stroke at the bottom.

"Eight" was corrected to "eighteen".

Which translation is more accurate?

Snails do not melt.

How close are the Hebrew words for snail and slug? Are there unique words for these two creatures? Does the original text actually say "melt"?

An all-knowing God would never have to repent.

Morris says that God is immutable, and can not change his views regarding sin and righteousness. But his outward appearance as interpreted by man can be seen as "repentant". (Morris Many Infallible Proofs p. 218.)

I've been told that the ancient meaning of repentant was not the same as it is today. One can see this in the differences between the translations of the following:

There are obviously differences between the King James and New International versions. Further, many of the differences seem to resolve contradictions from the older King James translation. I don't know Hebrew, but would be curious as to how the words appear in the original text (four vs. forty, slug vs. snail, three vs. seven, Michal vs. Merab, etc.).

I would suspect that some if not all of the discrepancies are a result of poor translation in the King James version, which brings up an interesting point. Are the translations "God-breathed"? What about copies of the original works? How do we know that all surviving copies are accurate reflections of the original?

It is not possible that every contradiction is a result of mistranslation of the surviving texts. Take for example:

The Hebrew Bible has four letters for God (yud, hei, vaf, hei) in 2 Samuel, and three letters for Satan (shin, tet, nun-sofit) in 1 Chronicles.

One must conclude that the original texts contradict each other to some extent.

On Dragons and Cockatrices

In the King James version, there is frequent mention of dragons and cockatrices, as well as a reference to a unicorn. As far as I could tell, all but one of these instances was revised in the NIV Bible to refer to animals that actually exist. (In that one case, the dragon was the devil.)

A dragon is usually thought of as a large reptile with scales, claws, a tail, and wings, often said to breathe fire. A cockatrice is a snake with the power to kill with a glance, hatched from a cock's egg. A unicorn is a horse with a single, straight horn, often having a goat's beard and a lion's tail.

Did the original texts actually describe these fearsome creatures? Or is there a generic word for "really scary and unusual creature"? Are there Hebrew words for lion, viper, jackal, etc.? The frequent use of dragon seems to imply a common Hebrew word in the original text.

Last changed March 23 2024 22:20:53. David Coppit, david@coppit.org