# Very specific biblical "discrepancies," need help



## he beholds (Mar 13, 2009)

A friend has asked me to defend the Bible concerning the following discrepancies. I was hoping someone could link me to an already compiled answer! I'm pretty sure his questions come from a book against Xianity, since I doubt he went through the whole Bible and compared names and dates, etc. That's why I have hope that these points are already countered here, or somewhere! 
I am going to look for these answers myself, but am hoping that a lot of them have been answered by brighter folks than me. 

Where is our Puritan Librarian when you need him?



Genesis 46:21 and Numbers 26:38-40
One has Naaman and Ard as the sons of Benjamin and one as the grandsons of Benjamin

Matthew 1:16 says Jacob was Joseph’s father. (Jesus’ dad). Luke 3:23 says Heli was Joseph’s father

In tracing the geneology of Jesus to Adam, Luke (3:35-36) gives us a different geneology than Genesis (11:12)

Genesis 7:21-23 says that all living things were destroyed in the flood. But the giants that are referenced in Genesis 6:4 (right before the flood) are referred to as having bared children who became mighty men of old. This same race of giants then also show up later in Numbers 13:33. Did they die or not? Also, why don’t we have any remains (archaelogically or otherwise of a race of giants)

James 1:13 says that god will not tempt any man, but in Genesis 22:1 God tempts Abraham

Matthew 27:5 and Acts 1:18 has different death stories for Judas. In one he hangs himself and in the other he falls down a hill.

Think about the logical inconsistency of the story of the ark. What did the animals eat once they got off the ark? Plants are dead and prey is gone. Also, run the math, but how does a group of nine turn into 7 billion in a few thousand years. It just doesn’t’ work.

1st Kings 22:23, 2nd Chronicles 18:22, Jeremiah 4:10 and 20:7, and Ezekial 14:9 all have verses where God explicitly tricks prophets and puts or “puts a lying tongue in their mouth” to deceive them. While Proverbs 30:5 explains that “every word of God is pure.” Which is it? And seems pretty hard to justify a loving god willingly and intentionally deceiving people.

Each gospel has a different number of women finding an empty tomb (1, 2, 3 and 5). They are greeted differently in each story as well. Mark (16:5) has women entering and meeting one man. Matthew (28:2) has an earthquake in which an angel appears and rolls away the stone. There are also guards there. Luke (24:2-4) has the women entering the tomb and 2 men appear. John (20:12) has the women not entering the has 2 angels sitting outside. After they hear in Mark (16:8) they keep quite and don’t tell anyone. This clearly contradicts Matthew (28:28) and Luke (24:9) when they go tell people. The end of Jesus’ life is not the only contradiction in the gospels either. They are many. Like how many times did the **** crow when Peter denied Jesus? Or why do 2 of the gospels feel the virgin birth is not important enough to mention? The gospels were written decades after Jesus’ death (that is undisputed by reputable scholars). Dead sea scrolls indicate that the resurrection was not even included in the Mark until 30 years after the original document.


----------



## Marrow Man (Mar 13, 2009)

Jessi, two sites I would recommend to you are Tektonics and CARM. The first guy isn't reformed and goes over the top sometimes, but he is a good researcher, In my humble opinion.

Also, Gleason Archer's _Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties_ and the (multiple authors) volume _Hard Sayings of the Bible_ tend to be good, though I wouldn't agree with everything therein.


----------



## JohnGill (Mar 13, 2009)

he beholds said:


> Genesis 7:21-23 says that all living things were destroyed in the flood. But the giants that are referenced in Genesis 6:4 (right before the flood) are referred to as having bared children who became mighty men of old. This same race of giants then also show up later in Numbers 13:33. Did they die or not?* Also, why don’t we have any remains (archaelogically or otherwise of a race of giants)*



We do have remains. But who said it was the same race?



> *1)* Genesis 46:21 and Numbers 26:38-40
> One has Naaman and Ard as the sons of Benjamin and one as the grandsons of Benjamin
> 
> *2) *Matthew 1:16 says Jacob was Joseph’s father. (Jesus’ dad). Luke 3:23 says Heli was Joseph’s father
> ...



1) As I remember it was common to refer to a grandson as a son of the grandfather.
2&3) I believe one is Joseph's & the other is Mary's.
4) Different usage. James is referring to the lusts of our heart. They tempt us to evil.
5) After he hanged himself his body fell. What else would happen to a rotting corpse?
6) Whoever did the math was wrong. Other people, scientists who are Christian, have also done the math and came up with a larger number. It accounted for the plagues et al.
7) Different context of usage.
8) There is no contradiction between the Gospel accounts. Each one covers a different perspective.

You might try http://www.icr.org


----------



## greenbaggins (Mar 13, 2009)

he beholds said:


> A friend has asked me to defend the Bible concerning the following discrepancies. I was hoping someone could link me to an already compiled answer! I'm pretty sure his questions come from a book against Xianity, since I doubt he went through the whole Bible and compared names and dates, etc. That's why I have hope that these points are already countered here, or somewhere!
> I am going to look for these answers myself, but am hoping that a lot of them have been answered by brighter folks than me.
> 
> Where is our Puritan Librarian when you need him?
> ...



On the first, what probably happened was the same thing that happened with Ephraim and Manasseh. Jacob adopted his grandchildren as his own. So also Benjamin adopted Naaman and Ard as his own children, even though, biologically, they were Bela's sons. 

On the second, the genealogy in Matthew records the royal line of succession, whereas the Lukan genealogy records the physical line of descent. So Joseph might have been the legal heir of Jacob while being the physical son of Heli. The word "son" has a far more flexible usage in the Bible than we use it today. 

On the third, genealogies are not always complete everywhere. Luke has Cainan inserted between Shelah and Arphaxad. Genesis might very well have a gap there. Not every name is important to every writer. This hardly constitutes a contradiction. 

On the fourth, the ESV study Bible has it right when it notices the exaggerated tone of the spies at the end of the verse. The spies are saying, in effect, "Man, these guys must have descended from the Nephilim of old." It is not meant as a statement about physical descent, but rather about resemblance. 

On the fifth, God does not tempt people to sin. He does try their faith. James refers to the former sense, Genesis to the latter. 

On the sixth, is there any reason why a hanged body could not fall down a hill? Especially if the knot wasn't quite tight enough to keep him in place? 

On the seventh, the dove found an olive branch. Obviously, the Lord God had caused vegetation to spring back out of the drowned earth. As to the numbers, it is ridiculous. When one considers how much longer people lived in those times, one family could become a million in a very short period of time, actually, especially if each family had 10 or more children (which is probably conservative). 

On the eighth, God uses evil to overturn evil. This question has its ultimate solution in the cross, for it is but a subset of the larger question of evil. 

On the ninth, those are simply not contradictions. Each writer recorded what he felt was important to emphasize. Differences are not contradictions. The examples given evidence an imposition of modern standards of historiography on an ancient text. This does not mean that the Gospel writers were careless of the truth. Far from it. But they did not tell history as if they were videotaping it.


----------



## August (Mar 13, 2009)

Those all seem to be from the The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy. CARM has those and many more all covered. Just remember that people who level these types of objections normally are not too interested in accepting explanations.


----------



## KMK (Mar 13, 2009)

August said:


> Those all seem to be from the The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy. CARM has those and many more all covered. Just remember that people who level these types of objections normally are not too interested in accepting explanations.



Exactly! I know you won't, but be careful not to answer a fool according to his folly. Some scoffers never run out of ammo until that appointed day.


----------



## Marrow Man (Mar 13, 2009)

August said:


> Just remember that people who level these types of objections normally are not too interested in accepting explanations.



Very true. Most often things like this are offered as rabbit trails (red herrings) that detract from actual gospel conversation. One way to turn this to your advantage is after offering the explanation on how these are not contradictions, ask the other party to give you the courtesy of allowing you the time to explain the gospel.


----------



## JohnGill (Mar 13, 2009)

Marrow Man said:


> August said:
> 
> 
> > Just remember that people who level these types of objections normally are not too interested in accepting explanations.
> ...



I would also recommend studying up on presuppositional apologetics to deal with their underlying philosophical assumptions and how their assumptions do not comport with reality.


----------



## Marrow Man (Mar 13, 2009)

JohnGill said:


> I would also recommend studying up on presuppositional apologetics to deal with their underlying philosophical assumptions and how their assumptions do not comport with reality.



Agreed. Since this person believes that the Bible has inconsistencies, that presupposes he/she believes in the laws of the logic. Asking them to prove where the laws of logic come from might be an interesting discussion! But do not get so caught up in apologetical discussions that the gospel is not explained.


----------



## Wannabee (Mar 13, 2009)

Perhaps you could find some answers here and on the web sites provided and submit them to your friend. Then I'd inform them that whether they believe or not is dependent upon whether they accept God as authoritative, or man. If they accept man's authority over God's then they are simply affirming what Scripture says about them, and proving God true. They will deny their Creator who made them, though they know in their hearts that He is, and forsake the truth in unrighteousness. 
Don't be surprised. But be urgent, that they would believe. May God open their eyes, quicken their spirits, show them their folly, crush their pride, drive them to their knees and work repentance in their hearts.

Blessings,


----------



## he beholds (Mar 13, 2009)

Thanks, friends! 
My friend has been allowing me the courtesy of sharing with him the truth, but he finally said that I'm not answering his questions.

He really has listened to my points from the beginning, even when I told him that I do not think that I could prove God's existence to him--he finally, though, decided that he wanted this proof anyway--that is where you guys come in!
I focused more on showing that if God is God, then there's no excuse not to believe him because he clearly tells us who he is in the Bible. (My friend thought it very unfair of God to exist and only let some know, I countered that that may be true if God was not the God of the Bible, but if He is, then we have no such excuse since we do have the Bible.)

Really, I thank you. Some of your answers are being paraphrased or copied, with no real credit given (just a general nod to my friends) and I have used both of those websites that Pastor Tim has recommended. 

I think I'm going to bow out of the debate with my friend though, after this, explaining that as I said in the beginning, I do not think that I can prove God and use this quote from Larryjf:"But manuscript evidence is not an obstacle in understanding the Gospel...the obstacle in understanding the Gospel is our heart of stone."


----------



## greenbaggins (Mar 13, 2009)

Jessica, here is the final trip you should take. He wants proof of the existence of God because, for him, God has to satisfy his criteria of what "rational" means. In other words, God is the one in the dock, as C.S. Lewis would say. Nothing else matters, as long as man is the judge, and God is the one in the dock. But as soon as you say "God is the judge, and you are the one in the dock," everything changes. God does not have to prove His existence to us. Everything in this world screams out His existence. That doesn't matter either, however, as long as this man is suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. The underlying principle here is that he thinks of himself as the judge of God.


----------



## August (Mar 13, 2009)

Marrow Man said:


> JohnGill said:
> 
> 
> > I would also recommend studying up on presuppositional apologetics to deal with their underlying philosophical assumptions and how their assumptions do not comport with reality.
> ...



I've also in the past asked them to explain their hermeneutical principles and then, based on that, the exegesis (with relevant scholarly works they consulted as well) that lead them to believe these were actual contradictions.

It's a good way to flush out that that these are just copy/paste objections, and begs the question as to why someone who is genuinely curious would be so intellectually sloppy.

Once you reach that point of the conversation, it's easier to move to epistemology and follow the presuppositional approach.


----------

