![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2023\/12\/Chaos10.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nChapter 5 of my book (available for free<\/strong>\u00a0online),\u00a0Inspired!: 198 Supposed Biblical Contradictions Resolved<\/em><\/a>. See the\u00a0Introduction<\/a>\u00a0and ch. 1:\u00a0How Do Atheists Define a \u201cBiblical Contradiction\u201d?<\/a>\u00a0All Bible passages RSV unless otherwise noted.<\/p>\n They both saw the\u00a0same thing<\/em>. So\u00a0what<\/em>? If my wife and I both see a meteor lighting up the night sky, that\u2019s somehow a \u201ccontradiction\u201d?! Remember, that\u2019s what\u00a0all<\/em>\u00a0of these are\u00a0supposed<\/em>\u00a0to be, according to our never-ending critics. A real<\/em> contradiction would be, for example, Matthew and Mark saying that only Jesus<\/em> saw this, and John stating that only John the Baptist<\/em> did.<\/p>\n This is ridiculous. Jesus merely notes in John that the devil had \u201cno\u00a0power<\/em>\u00a0over\u201d him. This has\u00a0nothing<\/em>\u00a0to do with whether Satan would try<\/em> to\u00a0tempt\u00a0him or not. He would and did because he is stupid, and doesn\u2019t know that he\u2019s completely out of his league, in trying to manipulate Jesus. Any being who is present with God in heaven and chooses to rebel and leave \u201cfor better things\u201d has to be absolutely the dumbest and most clueless and tragic creature imaginable.<\/p>\n Matthew doesn\u2019t specify sequence<\/em>. He writes: \u201cAgain<\/em>\u00a0[as opposed to \u201clater\u201d or \u201cafterwards\u201d], the devil took him to a very high mountain . . .\u201d (4:8). Nor does Luke indicate sequence. He says, \u201cAnd<\/em>\u00a0he took him to Jerusalem, and set him on the pinnacle of the temple . . . \u201d (4:9). Therefore, a contradiction of sequence cannot occur, since sequence isn\u2019t specified in the first place. Accounts mentioning multiple events in a single setting don\u2019t always indicate the order in which they occurred (nor are they obliged to). For example, if I say, \u201cI went to Burger King and I also went to the grocery store,\u201d this is not necessarily a declaration of exact sequence. But if I specified an exact time<\/em> for each visit and mixed them up in two different recollections, that<\/em> would be an actual logical contradiction.<\/p>\n Matthew 5:16 lays out the principle that good works are good in and of themselves and are a witness to Christianity; therefore, it\u2019s good that they are seen, so that people can \u201cgive glory to your Father who is in heaven.\u201d Matthew 6:1-4, on the other hand, refers to a more specific, internal thing: the mentality of pridefulness and doing works not simply because it is the right thing to do, but \u201cin order to be seen\u201d (6:1); in other words, an outlook of \u201clook how wonderful\u00a0I<\/em>\u00a0am, since I am doing all this good stuff. Come and praise\u00a0me<\/em>!\u201d In the first scenario, the intention is to glorify God; in the second, it is one\u2019s own inflated ego and pride. In Matthew 6:2 Jesus gives the example of people sounding trumpets when they give alms \u201cthat they may be praised by men.\u201d That\u2019s what he\u2019s talking about in that instance: pride when doing good works; being sure to be noticed and seen, out of a prideful motivation; not that good works should never be seen at all. It\u2019s two different topics, and so according to the laws of logic, it\u2019s no contradiction.<\/p>\n Luke 19:27 is a parable about the final judgment (which is God\u2019s sole prerogative). As such it has nothing directly to do with how we<\/em> should approach enemies in this life, with a loving and forgiving spirit. We\u2019re not anyone else\u2019s Creator or Ultimate Judge.<\/p>\n It looks like Jesus simply\u00a0repeated<\/em>\u00a0the prayer (no law against that!): seeing what importance it would have in the history of the Church, as\u00a0the<\/em>\u00a0collective Christian prayer: the most well-known of all. Repetition is a great teacher. In Luke, he taught it to his disciples in a shorter version. Luke 11:1-4 never states that he did so only<\/em> with them at this time. That is wrongly read into the passage by the skeptic who came up with this. Then Jesus expanded the Our Father<\/em> prayer and taught it to the \u201ccrowds\u201d (Matt. 5:1; 7:28) in the Sermon on the Mount. None of this is implausible or unlikely to the slightest degree, and it certainly<\/em> isn\u2019t a \u201ccontradiction.\u201d<\/p>\n Matthew 6:25-34 (Luke is a parallel passage) is about\u00a0anxiety<\/em>, and how God provides our basic needs, and it\u2019s very good, practical advice: especially \u201cLet the day\u2019s own trouble be sufficient for the day\u201d (Matt. 6:34). In other words: \u201cwe\u2019ll cross that bridge when we come to it\u201d or \u201cone day at a time.\u201d We can\u2019t worry about all the \u201cwhat ifs\u201d. That will drive us crazy. It\u2019s not a\u00a0denial<\/em>\u00a0that we should be responsible in providing a living for ourselves and our families. \u201cDon\u2019t worry\u201d is not the same thought as \u201cdon\u2019t provide\u201d or \u201cdon\u2019t work and be a lazy bum.\u201d Therefore, it\u2019s one of innumerable cases of \u201capples and oranges\u201d: as so many of these are. They have nothing to do with each other. It has to be the same subject matter to possibly be a contradiction. The first two passages simply don\u2019t disagree with the third, and Paul is quite firm about the wrongness of sloth and able-bodied people not working (2 Thess. 3:6-12).<\/p>\n Jesus and the disciples\u00a0first<\/em>\u00a0concentrated on the Jews, because they were God\u2019s chosen people, who had carried the message of his salvation for the previous 1700 or so years: since at least Abraham (and they were all Jews as well). Then the plan was for the gospel to be preached to all and sundry (Matt. 24:14; 28:19; Acts 10:34-35; Rom. 2:9-16; 2 Pet. 3:9).\u00a0But instructions to preach to the Jews only in one place and time (Matt. 10:5-6) are not logically antithetical to a later outreach to the Gentiles. And Jesus saying that he was \u201csent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel\u201d (Matt. 15:24) doesn\u2019t preclude or exclude his disciples later doing otherwise. Jesus in John 4:22 says, \u201csalvation is from the Jews\u201d: which has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Historically, it was indeed from the Jews, as God\u2019s chosen people. But that\u2019s a non sequitur<\/em> in relation to this attempted claim of contradiction. Moreover, Romans 11:26 states that \u201call Israel will be saved.\u201d The problem for our skeptic is that this is not to the exclusion<\/em> of the Gentiles, since the previous verse stated, \u201cuntil the full number of the Gentiles come in\u201d (i.e., are saved). This entire miserably failed attempt is shot-through with shoddy, sloppy, illogical thinking, as shown.<\/p>\n In Matthew 11:25 Jesus states: \u201cI thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes.\u201d Mark 4:11-12 is about Jesus\u2019 use of parables. He deliberately used them, knowing that those who don\u2019t\u00a0want<\/em>\u00a0to know the truth won\u2019t grasp them. Then he sarcastically decried the notion of their freely chosen obstinacy: \u201cthat they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand; lest they should turn again, and be forgiven\u201d (Mark 4:12). In Mark 4:22, on the other hand, Jesus teaches that the state of affairs just described will not be permanent; that one day \u201cthere is nothing hid, except to be made manifest; nor is anything secret, except to come to light.\u201d Thus, a temporary, limited \u201chiddenness\u201d simply isn\u2019t contrary to the idea that things won\u2019t\u00a0always<\/em>\u00a0be this way.<\/p>\n I tend to believe in an instance like this that there were two similar traditions in existence about one event (just as eyewitnesses in a court trial will differ on some details): one of them had one blind man and the other had two. But as far as contradictoriness goes, what we know<\/em> about this incident doesn\u2019t establish it, according to the laws of logic.\u00a0 Mark 10:46 and also parallel verse Luke 18:35 do indeed state that one blind man was healed. \u00a0But neither claim that \u201conly<\/em> one\u201d was (which would be required for a contradiction). \u201cOne\u201d doesn\u2019t logically exclude<\/em> a possible second man. \u201cOnly one\u201d does<\/em>. Elementary logical errors of this sort are annoyingly common in \u201catheist laundry lists\u201d of alleged contradictions. If atheists want to keep making these silly and embarrassing mistakes, apologists like myself will be all too happy to correct them. But it would be better for all if they would attempt to be rigorously logical and not so sloppy in their analyses. I\u2019m actually offering constructive advice for their future critiques throughout this book.<\/p>\n Bethany\u00a0and\u00a0Bethphage\u00a0are both located on the eastern slope<\/em> of the\u00a0Mount of Olives. They are only\u00a02.8 miles\u00a0from each other. In Matthew, it\u2019s reported that Jesus came through Bethphage, then down the western slope of the Mount of Olives to Jerusalem. That night (Palm Sunday), he went back up the mountain to lodge in Bethany. Mark adds that he\u00a0also<\/em>\u00a0went through Bethany on his way to Jerusalem (which is not a contradiction), and agrees that he stayed in Bethany overnight (11:11-12). So far so good. Luke agrees with how Mark describes the journey: Jesus went through both Bethany and Bethphage on the Mount of Olives, but doesn\u2019t include the detail of his staying in Bethany that night. None of this is contradictory in the slightest. Not every Gospel includes every detail of a story (or is logically required to). John\u2019s account mentions that Jesus went through Bethany\u00a0en route<\/em>\u00a0to Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, without also mentioning Bethphage, or the night spent in Bethany after he was in Jerusalem. But of course, this is not contradictory, either. All of the accounts complement each other. A\u00a0true contradiction<\/em>\u00a0would be something like, \u201cJesus went\u00a0only<\/em>\u00a0through Bethphage on the way to Jerusalem on Palm Sunday\u201d according to one account, and another Gospel saying \u201cJesus went\u00a0only<\/em>\u00a0through Bethany on the way to Jerusalem on Palm Sunday\u201d.\u00a0That<\/em>\u2018s a contradiction, but nothing like that is in the four Gospel stories of the same broad events. So, no dice. Sorry, skeptics! You try\u00a0so<\/em>\u00a0hard . . . A for effort, E for your conclusion.<\/p>\n To note that it wasn\u2019t the season for figs (Mark 11:13) is different from Jesus saying, \u201cMay no fruit ever come from you again!\u201d (Matt. 21:19) and \u201cMay no one ever eat fruit from you again\u201d (Mark 11:14); therefore, this is no contradiction. This objection is what is known in logic as a non sequitur<\/em> (Literally, \u201cit doesn\u2019t follow\u201d).<\/p>\n The objection itself doesn\u2019t accurately describe what these passages assert. Mark doesn\u2019t indicate when<\/em> the fig tree withered<\/em>, but informs us that the disciples saw it withered on the next day. Matthew, on the other hand, notes that it withered immediately, but doesn\u2019t specify exactly\u00a0when<\/em> the disciples saw<\/em> it. It provides no reference to time span. Therefore, we have no indisputable logical contradiction in this instance. It would be an example of \u201capples and oranges\u201d (or should I say, \u201capples and figs\u201d?).<\/p>\n It was \u201cfrom the beginning\u201d in the sense that God knew all about it and ordained it: being out of time and knowing all things. To \u201cprepare something\u201d when it is about to be implemented is not the same thing as having known about the thing for a long time beforehand. So, for example, one of my two granddaughters is having her first birthday party tomorrow. Her parents are busy preparing for it. They have known that there would be such a party (for whatever children they had) from the time even before she was born (and we knew it, too). It\u2019s not \u201ccontradictory\u201d to prepare for it when the time arrives. Another example would be King Charles III of England. He has known from birth that he would likely be king, and hence was \u201cprepared\u201d for that from the early 1950s. But now as I write he\u2019s actually preparing for it more specifically and tangibly in his upcoming coronation.<\/p>\n I see no conflict here at all (apples and oranges). The proposed \u201ccontradiction\u201d isn\u2019t even coherent. It makes no sense, and reeks of desperation. The ones who persevere in good works (as a general proposition) will have eternal life, according to the context of Matthew 25. At the same time, salvation is difficult to attain (another general proposition).<\/p>\n Note that Mark\u2019s second crow is after a first one,\u00a0with a gap of time<\/em>. This is key to understanding the non-contradiction. RSV doesn\u2019t indicate when the first crow occurred, but KJV, utilizing a different (later, inferior) manuscript, has it after the first denial (14:68). Then after his third denial, the Gospel of Mark reads \u201cAnd immediately the cock crowed a second time\u201d (14:72). This alleviates any supposed difficulty, because it\u2019s not a matter of \u201cone crow only\u201d vs. \u201ctwo crows in a row at one time\u201d (after the third denial). Rather, we must note what each Gospel was specifically\u00a0referring<\/em>\u00a0to. Matthew, Luke, and John all refer to what Mark states is the second crow: that occurred after Peter\u2019s third denial. But none of the three states that this particular crow is the \u201conly\u201d one. Therefore, it\u2019s not contradictory. Nor does it become one simply because three Gospels didn\u2019t mention an additional earlier crow made after the first denial (argument from silence).<\/p>\n Matthew specifies \u201canother maid\u201d (26:71), and \u201cbystanders\u201d (26:73). In the latter instance, a direct quote is given, so it is likely from just\u00a0one<\/em>\u00a0of them, as they would not \u2014 obviously \u2014 all say in unison exactly the same words. In Mark it is \u201cthe maid . . . began again to say\u201d (14:69), and \u201cthe bystanders\u201d (14:70), again with a direct quote for the latter, suggesting that only one person said it. The only possible difference with Matthew is whether it was the same maid or a second one in the second instance.\u00a0\u201cAgain\u201d may have the meaning of \u201cin\u00a0addition<\/em>\u00a0to the first maid.\u201d Luke says it was \u201csome one else\u201d (22:58), and \u201cstill another\u201d (22:59). That\u2019s perfectly consistent with both Mark and Luke, provided my explanation for the \u201csecond maid\u201d in Mark is accepted.\u00a0John has \u201cThey\u201d (with an exact quotation: 18:25), which can be an unspecified second maid (per Matthew and Mark), and \u201cOne of the servants of the high priest, a kinsman of the man whose ear Peter had cut off\u201d (18:26). This is a specified person, which is consistent with a \u201cbystander\u201d (Matthew and Mark) and \u201cstill another\u201d (Luke). No undeniable inconsistency exists across the four accounts. Some descriptions are merely more vague. If I\u2019m called by four different people, \u201ca man\u201d, \u201ca Catholic apologist\u201d, \u201cDave\u201d, and \u201ca guy raised in Detroit\u201d this is not contradictory at all, as all four descriptions are true statements. The one point that might be suspected to be a contradiction (Mk 14:69) has a perfectly plausible explanation.<\/p>\n In Matthew 27:11, right before the passage above, Jesus answered Pilate\u2019s question: \u201cAre you the King of the Jews?\u201d by saying, \u201cYou have said so\u201d: which was another way of saying \u201cyes\u201d. Matthew 27 dealt with Jesus\u2019\u00a0second<\/em>\u00a0appearance before the high priest, scribes, and elders: on the morning of the day of his crucifixion. The previous meeting \/ monkey trial was the night before, and he definitely answered the question of the high priest (Matt. 26:63-64). But in the second meeting, he didn\u2019t answer them (27:12). Why bother<\/em>? They had already concluded He was a blasphemer, worthy of death, the night before. There was nothing left to talk about, from Jesus\u2019 perspective. Jesus had already said what he needed to say, to bear witness to himself. In Luke 23:9, we learn that Jesus didn\u2019t answer Herod.\u00a0Mark 14:61-62 records Jesus giving essentially the same answer to the high priest that Matthew records in 26:64. Thus far, no contradiction at all.\u00a0\u00a0John 18 is about Jesus\u2019 replies to Pontius Pilate. He responded with a rhetorical question regarding being King of the Jews, and then two \u201cstraight answers\u201d about the same thing, which are perfectly harmonious with Matthew 27:11. Where, then, is the\u00a0contradiction<\/em>?<\/p>\n Mark doesn\u2019t claim<\/em> that \u201conly<\/em> the chief priests\u201d persuaded the people. Thus the above characterization is a misrepresentation of the biblical text. Mark wrote that \u201cthe chief priests stirred up the crowd\u201d. Yes they did; so did the elders. The lack of an exclusive term like \u201conly\u201d in Mark accounts for the difference between a contradiction and two complementary statements. This is an example of the latter. Reading the three stories side-by-side, we see that the priests and elders seek to persuade the people to release Barabbas. Mark mentions only one (so what<\/em>?: it\u2019s an argument from silence). After that, (in Luke) Pilate calls them and the common people together to find out who they want released. It\u2019s all perfectly harmonious. Logic 0101.<\/p>\n Mark mentions that James and John were present, and so they\u00a0were<\/em>. Luke\u00a0doesn\u2019t<\/em>\u00a0mention that tidbit, but also doesn\u2019t\u00a0deny<\/em>\u00a0it. He doesn\u2019t write something like, \u201cJesus\u00a0alone<\/em>\u00a0entered . . .\u201d: which would be an\u00a0actual<\/em>, authentic contradiction. Hence, this is another always-lousy\u00a0argument from silence<\/em>, and in no way, shape, or form proven to be a logical contradiction.<\/p>\n This is untrue, and easily shown to be so. The two events took place in two entirely different locations, as the text states. The feeding of the 5,000 was near\u00a0Bethsaida,\u00a0which was on the north side of the Sea of Galilee (Mark 6:45; cf. Luke 9:10-17). The feeding of the 4,000, however, was a completely different story that occurred in a different place, in \u201cthe region of the\u00a0Decapolis\u201d (Mark 7:31), which was\u00a0east<\/em>\u00a0of the Sea of Galilee, and included the town of\u00a0Hippos. There is evidence\u00a0that the place where the feeding of the 4,000 occurred was near the\u00a0archaeological site of Kursi.\u00a0Immediately after the miracle, according to Matthew 15:39, the parallel verse, Jesus \u201cgot into the boat and went to the region of Magadan\u201d (another name for Magdala, where Mary Magdalene was from). That would have been directly across the Sea of Galilee. In any event, it\u2019s clearly two entirely different places being described in the stories of the two feedings. They are perfectly harmonious and non-contradictory (just as my eating breakfast at home and lunch at a restaurant is not a \u201ccontradiction\u201d).<\/p>\n Jesus could have simply communicated what he was praying to Peter, who passed it on to Mark. One long conversation in one evening by Jesus would contain far more words, by far, than all of his words recorded in Scripture. And he was constantly with the disciples for three years, day and night. Mark 6:34 notes in one instance, even with the crowds, not just the disciples: \u201che began to teach them many things.\u201d None of them are\u00a0recorded<\/em>. Mark 4:34 adds: \u201cprivately to his own disciples he\u00a0<\/strong>explained everything.\u201d Some of this \u201ceverything\u201d could have easily been what Jesus prayed. All Jesus had to do was tell Peter, \u201clast night I prayed [so-and-so]\u201d (maybe in response to the ever-zealous Peter asking him) just as we see instances where he revealed what he prayed in Scripture: \u201cI have prayed\u00a0for you that your faith may not fail\u201d (Luke 22:32; spoken to Peter). Then Peter could tell Mark about one of these prayers, or it could have entered oral tradition and eventually reached Mark. It\u2019s not rocket science to envision such a scenario, and absolutely not impossible. Much ado about nothing . . .<\/p>\n Matthew has him answering the maid, while others nearby\u00a0also<\/em>\u00a0hear. We would expect this, since it was within a group of people, including \u201cbystanders\u201d (Matt. 26:73; Mark 14:70) and \u201cservants and officers\u201d (John 18:18). He wasn\u2019t responding to\u00a0them<\/em>, but to the maid.\u00a0If I was talking to my wife (say about some car repairs) and one or more of my four children (or now, grandchildren) are also listening, no one would say that I was replying \u2014 or talking to \u2014 to\u00a0all<\/em>\u00a0of them, when I was responding only to my wife. Nor if I were riding a bus with a friend and rather vehemently stated, \u201cI\u2019m not a Democrat!\u201d others will\u00a0also<\/em>\u00a0hear, but nevertheless, it\u2019s silly to think that I was replying to\u00a0them<\/em>. That\u2019s how foolish and desperate this so-called \u201ccontradiction\u201d is.\u00a0But in fact, Mark, Luke, and John also make it apparent that others heard, too (while they weren\u2019t being replied to). They all mention that Peter was by a fire warming himself, with others, when he replied to the first maid. Obviously, then, the others around the fire would also have\u00a0heard<\/em>\u00a0his reply. Matthew is the only one that didn\u2019t mention the fire. But none of this is a contradiction in the slightest. Much ado about nothing.<\/p>\n John writes, \u201cJesus and his disciples went into the\u00a0land of Judea<\/em>\u201d (3:22) and specifies that \u201cJohn had not yet been put in prison\u201d (3:24). Mark simply doesn\u2019t\u00a0state<\/em>\u00a0that he began<\/em> his ministry in his first chapter. He says, rather, \u201cafter John was arrested, Jesus\u00a0came into Galilee<\/em>, preaching the gospel of God\u201d (1:14). The emphasis was on\u00a0location<\/em>. This claim is a bare assumption made about what simply isn\u2019t in the text: an argument from silence. Apples and oranges; no \u201ccontradiction.\u201d<\/p>\n It\u2019s not \u201cthe people\u201d referred to in Mark, but rather, the\u00a0disciples<\/em>\u00a0(see 6:45, 51-52). They \u201cdid not understand\u201d the miracle of loaves and fish because \u201ctheir hearts were hardened\u201d (Mark 6:52). But John 6:14 refers to the crowds (\u201cthe people\u201d) being impressed and believing that Jesus was a \u201cprophet.\u201d Therefore, because it\u2019s two different sets of people being referred to in these two passages, no contradiction exists.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n ***** Photo Credit<\/strong>: soundlessname<\/span><\/a> (9-16-23)<\/span> [Deviant Art<\/em><\/a> \/ Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License<\/a>]<\/p>\n Summary<\/em>: Ch. 5 of Dave Armstrong\u2019s book, \u201cInspired!\u201d: in which he examines 198 examples of alleged biblical contradictions & disproves all of these patently false claims.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Chapter 5 of my book (available for free\u00a0online),\u00a0Inspired!: 198 Supposed Biblical Contradictions Resolved. See the\u00a0Introduction\u00a0and ch. 1:\u00a0How Do Atheists Define a \u201cBiblical Contradiction\u201d?\u00a0All Bible passages RSV unless otherwise noted. ***** Did Jesus (Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:10) or John the Baptist (John 1:32) see the Holy Spirit descending like a dove at his baptism? They both […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":78191,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[31],"tags":[3979,18233,18236,18245,18239,18242],"class_list":["post-78188","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-bible-and-tradition","tag-biblical-contradictions","tag-biblical-exegesis-logic","tag-biblical-hermeneutics-logic","tag-inspiration-of-the-bible","tag-logic-christianity","tag-reasonableness-of-christianty"],"yoast_head":"\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n*<\/p>\n