A coworker hits you with a supposed Bible error, and you freeze. We’ve all been there. Being prepared is key to sharing your faith with confidence. This resource offers five critical bible contradictions explained in a way that is easy to understand and share. We are called to be ready with an answer for the hope within us. Read on to equip yourself with the knowledge you need for that next important conversation.
Addressing the Elephant in the Room
Let’s be honest: the Bible contains passages that, at first glance, seem to conflict. Skeptics point to these as proof of error, while believers can sometimes feel their faith shaken. But confronting these “contradictions” head-on is one of the best ways to build a robust and confident faith.
Instead of viewing these moments as problems, we can see them as invitations to dig deeper. Understanding context, genre, and purpose reveals a divinely inspired text that is more complex and beautiful than we imagined. These challenges strengthen our understanding, proving the Scripture’s reliability under scrutiny.
1. The Two Creation Accounts (Genesis 1 vs. Genesis 2)
A classic challenge is the claim that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 offer two conflicting creation stories. One seems chronological and broad, while the other appears to have a different order. But these are not two competing accounts; they are two complementary perspectives on the same event.
- Morris, Robert (Author)
- English (Publication Language)
Think of it like a wide-angle camera lens versus a zoom lens. Genesis 1 is the wide-angle shot, giving us the grand, seven-day sequence of “what” God created. Genesis 2 zooms in on Day Six, providing a personal, relational account of “how” God formed humanity and placed them in the Garden.
The first chapter reveals God’s power, while the second reveals His personal nature, even using different names of God to emphasize these different aspects.
Then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. — Genesis 2:7 (ESV)
2. The Differing Genealogies of Jesus (Matthew 1 vs. Luke 3)
Matthew and Luke both trace Jesus’s lineage, but the lists of names diverge significantly after David. This isn’t an error; it’s a purposeful difference to highlight two distinct, and equally valid, claims to the Messiahship.
The most widely accepted explanation is that Matthew traces Jesus’s royal lineage through his legal father, Joseph, establishing his right to the throne of David.
Luke, on the other hand, traces Jesus’s physical bloodline through his mother, Mary, showing his direct descent from Adam. Both genealogies work together to affirm Jesus’s identity as both the rightful King and the Son of Man. The biblical meaning of numbers and names in these lists adds even deeper layers of theological truth.
…the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. — Luke 3:38 (ESV)
3. The Death of Judas (Matthew 27 vs. Acts 1)
How did Judas die? Matthew says he “hanged himself,” while Acts says “falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out.” This sounds like a clear contradiction, but it’s easily harmonized when we realize they are likely describing two parts of the same event.
Judas hanged himself (Matthew’s account). In the process, or sometime after, the rope or branch broke, causing his body to fall, likely onto the rocky terrain of the area, and burst open (Luke’s account in Acts).
One author focuses on the cause of death (suicide by hanging), while the other describes the gruesome aftermath. They are partial reports, not conflicting ones, fulfilling the tragic prophecy about the betrayer.
And in his anguish he threw the silver pieces into the temple and departed, and he went and hanged himself. — Matthew 27:5 (ESV)
4. The Resurrection Accounts: A Key to Having Bible Contradictions Explained
The Gospels differ on details of the resurrection: How many angels were at the tomb? Which women went first? What did they see? Critics claim these variations prove the story was fabricated. In reality, they prove the opposite.
These variations are the hallmark of authentic, independent eyewitness testimony. If four witnesses see a car crash, they will all report the same core event but recall different details.
A perfectly synchronized, identical story would suggest collusion. The Gospels’ agreement on the essential facts—the tomb was empty, Jesus was risen, and He appeared to His followers—combined with their unique perspectives, creates a powerful, credible case for the resurrection. It’s an amazing testimony to the role of these women, who can serve as an inspiration for our own Christian affirmations today.
But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here, for he has risen, as he said.” — Matthew 28:5-6 (ESV)
5. Does God Change His Mind? (Exodus 32:14 vs. Numbers 23:19)
In one passage, we read “the LORD relented from the disaster that he had spoken of bringing on his people” (Exodus 32:14). In another, “God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind” (Numbers 23:19). So, which is it?
This requires us to understand the difference between God’s unchangeable character (His ontology) and His relational responses (His economy). Numbers 23:19 speaks to God’s essential nature: He is perfect, unchanging, and always faithful to His promises.
Exodus 32:14 uses human language (anthropomorphism) to describe God’s response to Moses’s intercession. God did not change His core character; rather, His actions changed in response to prayer, which is exactly how He designed the relationship to work. His response was consistent with His nature of being merciful and responsive to heartfelt prayer.
God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good? — Numbers 23:19 (NKJV)
Conclusion
Tackling apparent contradictions requires us to be faithful readers who consider context, genre, authorial intent, and perspective. These principles don’t excuse errors; they reveal a deeper consistency and trustworthiness in God’s Word. Having these common bible contradictions explained equips us not with clever arguments, but with a more profound confidence in the reliability of Scripture.
What is another supposed Bible contradiction that you have had to think through?
Leave a Comment