Problem: For many people, the belief that the Bible contains contradictions and inaccuracies is an excuse for not believing.

A Christian talk radio show in America frequently broadcasts an advertisement for a product. In this ad, a young lady explains her take on Scripture: “The Bible was written a long time ago, and there wasn’t a lot of knowledge back then. I think that if you read between the lines, it kinda contradicts itself.” The show’s host replies, “Oh no, it doesn’t!” but nevertheless her view is a common view among many people.
Continue reading →

Problem: How can Jesus be the Messiah when he has both Moabite and Ammonite ancestry listed in his genealogies (per Deuteronomy 23:3)? Also did the author of Deuteronomy 23:3–4 “forget” that in Numbers 22:7 it was Midian and not Ammon who with Moab, hired Balaam to curse Israel. How can the Holy Spirit be “real” if it allowed Moses to err and write in Deuteronomy 23:3–4 that it was Ammon instead of Midian who with Moab hired Balaam to curse Israel? The Holy Spirit is not supposed to contradict itself and make mistakes, yet did here, unjustifiably cursing Ammon for all eternity for an action initiated by the “elders of Midian.” And why then were Midian’s descendants not cursed by God and forbidden to enter the Holy Congregation, but only Ammon and Moab are cursed?
Continue reading →

Problem: If a teenage boy whom you just met told you that his parents were “David and Marie,” but then a few minutes later you overheard him tell a county clerk that he was the son of “John and Joanne,” you might assume that the teen had lied either to you or to the county clerk. The fact of the matter is, however, the teen could be telling the truth. It may be that most people recognize his parents by their middle names—David and Marie, but for more official business his parents use their first names—John and Joanne. Or, perhaps the boy had been reared by his grandparents because his parents had died in a tragic car accident when he was an infant. The boy may refer to his grandparents as “mom” and “dad” since they were the only “mom” and “dad” he ever really knew (experientially). In turn, the grandparents may refer to him as their “son.” In most all unofficial documents and casual conversations the terms “mom,” “dad,” and “son” are used. For nearly all official documents and in most formal conversations, the terms “grandparents” and “grandson” are used. These are two very real possibilities as to why a teenage boy may refer to his parents by different names. Assuming and alleging the worst about the teen without knowing all of the facts would be unfair and inappropriate.
Continue reading →

Problem: One of the charges of contradiction brought by skeptics against the Bible is the surface appearance of contradiction between Matthew’s genealogical list (1:1-17) and the one provided by Luke (3:23-38). As is always the case, the charge of contradiction is premature and reflects an immature appraisal of the extant evidence. In every case of alleged contradiction, further investigation has yielded additional evidence that exonerates the Bible and further verifies its inerrancy. The alleged discrepancies pertaining to Matthew and Luke’s genealogies were explained and answered long ago (e.g., Haley, 1977, pp. 325-326; McGarvey, 1910, pp. 344-346; McGarvey, 1974, pp. 51-55; cf. Lyons, 2003).
Continue reading →

Problem: Immediately following Jesus’ baptism, Matthew, Mark, and Luke record how God the Father spoke from heaven. Most Bible students are familiar with the words, “My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” However, it may have never dawned on some that Mark and Luke’s accounts differ from Matthew’s in that they record God speaking directly to Jesus (“You are My beloved Son”—Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22, emp. added), while Matthew records the Father speaking to others, saying, “This is My beloved Son” (3:17, emp. added). Does this represent a legitimate Bible contradiction as some contend (cf. Wells, 2009; Ehrman, 2009, pp. 39-40), or is there a reasonable explanation to the different wordings?
Continue reading →

Problem: In his book The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy, skeptic Dennis McKinsey confidently asserts that the “contradictory” genealogies found in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 open up “a Pandora’s box that apologists would just as soon remained closed forever.”1 One “contradiction” he cited revolves around the father of Joseph.2 Whereas Matthew 1:16 states that “Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ,” Luke 3:23 says, “Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli.” How is it that Joseph could be the son of both Jacob and Heli? Is this a contradiction that Christian apologists prefer to keep under lock and key as McKinsey suggests? Not at all.
Continue reading →

Problem: Why does Joseph (Jesus’s supposed father) have two different fathers listed in Matthew 1:16 and Luke 3:23?

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

Luke 3:23
Now Jesus Himself began His ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli.
Continue reading →

Problem: Most people familiar with the few details given in Scripture about the early life of Jesus are aware of the fact that following the visit from the wise men, Matthew indicates that Joseph and Mary took Jesus and fled to Egypt at the command of God (Matthew 2:13-14). Later, after Herod’s death, Jesus’ family departed Egypt for Nazareth where they made their home (Matthew 2:19-23). According to some, however, Luke’s account of the early life of Jesus contradicts Matthew’s (Wells, 2011; cf. Ehrman, 2005, p. 10). Luke indicates that after Jesus’ birth, and once Mary’s days of “purification according to the law of Moses were completed” (2:22), which would have been about six weeks after Jesus was born (Leviticus 12:3-4), Joseph and Mary took Jesus to the temple in Jerusalem (Luke 2:22-38). The inspired physician then writes: “So when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own city, Nazareth” (Luke 2:39, emp. added). Since Luke mentions nothing about Egypt, and Matthew says nothing about a trip to Nazareth soon after Jesus’ birth, allegedly either Matthew or Luke is mistaken.
Continue reading →

Problem: The opening chapters of Luke’s gospel provide a classic account of Jesus’ birth with which we are all quite familiar: Mary and Joseph’s trip to Bethlehem for the census, Jesus placed in the manger, the angel’s appearance to the shepherds, etc. Yet just here, with the angel’s words, the attentive reader will discover a small but noteworthy difference between major Bible translations. The classic account, which contains those treasured words “goodwill toward men,” is found in the King James Version (as well as modern versions like the NKJV and MEV), and echoed in many of our hymns and Christmas traditions. It reads:
Continue reading →

Problem: According to the world’s most celebrated atheist, Richard Dawkins, “the gospels are ancient fiction” (2006, p. 97). They “[a]ll have the status of legends, as factually dubious as the stories of King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table”—full of “invented, made-up fiction” (pp. 96-97). Dawkins wonders why the “many unsophisticated Christians…who take the Bible very seriously indeed as a literal and accurate record of history and hence as evidence supporting their religious beliefs,” do not “notice those glaring contradictions” in the gospel accounts? (p. 94). What kind of “contradictions,” exactly? Consider the very first one that he mentions, regarding Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem.
Continue reading →

Problem: The precision with which Luke reported historical detail has been documented over and over again through the centuries by archaeologists and biblical scholars. In every instance, where sufficient archaeological evidence has surfaced, Luke has been vindicated as an accurate and meticulously precise writer. Skeptics and critics have been unable to verify even one anachronism or discrepancy with which to discredit the biblical writers’ claim of being governed by an overriding divine influence.
Continue reading →

Problem: It is a popular view these days. Many people have the impression that the Bible is simply an outdated book of fairytales and contradictions.

“You can’t trust the Bible! It’s full of contradictions!”
Continue reading →

Problem: In the prologue to Luke’s gospel narrative, he informed his readers that he sought to write “an orderly account” of the life of Christ (Luke 1:3). Based upon this statement, some tend to believe that everything in Luke’s narrative must have been recorded chronologically. Others have come to the conclusion that this statement must also mean that Luke’s account avoided the omissions that the other writers made from time to time. The evidence suggests, however, that though Luke’s account should be understood as being orderly to a degree, it is erroneous to contend that everything in Luke’s narrative is arranged in a precise chronological sequence.
Continue reading →

Problem: “These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover,” (Mark 16:17-18).

Some have claimed that this passage proves speaking in tongues to be a necessary sign of salvation. Following this logic, some small groups also include “snake handling” as part of regular worship, since picking up snakes is also something this passage seems to say that believers will do. All of this, however, misrepresents the passage’s actual meaning. The verses just before this say:
Continue reading →