his list has circulated on the Internet and is anonymous. But is precisely the type of non-thinking that goes on in informal Atheist or anti-Christian circles. I am not going to try to answer every “inconsistency” in the full list of 40. In the entire list, I only find one or two that are significantly hard. I'm just trying to show that a non-Christian, or modernist perspective does not necessarily guarantee validity of arguments. (This is perhaps one of the most common claims of “Rationalism”.)

A lot of objections here are merely wordgames—of the type of inside jokes that atheists pass about. Some are a case of “he said, He said”. It has been argued that God should be able to produce an authoritative work free from contradiction. To me, this is a naïve argument—especially when Deconstructionists argue that all works have inconsistencies. How could God present wholly consistent work to someone who accepts this concept?

Side Bar

Which Version?

ou’ll notice that I use the NIV in my quotes. I feel it would be more spurious to use different versions, which would sort of give the impression that I'm looking around for a interpretation that eliminates the contradiction.

However, it leaves open the question that interpretations were modified in the NIV to avoid the contradictions of the Bible. I could not authoritatively comment on that without reasonable knowledge of the translation process.

But the KJV version criticism of the NIV is that it is too scholarly in intent, with more focus being put on the translation than respecting the inspiration of the KJV. Also the NIV is not known as a natural language translation. This means that it is more concerned with capturing the original syntax then smooth flow in the receiving language. From the Greek that I know, both these reputations have been borne out by my experience.

• 70 AD is the date when the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed. No stone was left on another.
• he said, He said: Equating authoritative words of the bible author (arguably, the Holy Spirit) or Jesus with words of a principle of the Bible. Using the quotes of humans depicted in the bible you could say that the Bible says that Jesus cast out demons by the power of Satan (see Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit). Stupid.
• Context I'm sure that this is a new one for people who pass around this list, so I'm defining it: the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect. There’s a whole practice called "Reading for context", look into it.

I thank my Lord, Jesus Christ, for the wisdom and discernment that he has given me to make these arguments, in the most valid way possible.

1. God dwells in light (1 Timothy 6:16)/ God dwells in darkness, (1 Kings 8:12)

   

    dwell in the darkness. I dwell in the light—hmm, maybe that’s a conflict for me too!

   
   

   I simply cannot accept that these two statements are directly contradictory. The light in which God dwells in is described as “unapproachable”. A blinding light which none have seen or can see. The darkness is a cloud over the temple of Solomon. A prominent difference is Paul says “God dwells in light.” Solomon says—note here, not the scribe—“God would dwell in a dark cloud.” I don’t really want to get into the whole meaning of light in the Bible, and I just want to mention that dark, even in today’s speech can be used with times to indicate where God would dwell with us.

   One is absolute and continuous. “I dwell on the earth.” the other subjunctive “If offered, I would dwell in space.” No matter how long I would dwell in space (months at most), it would not contradict that I dwell on the earth. Kings gives no indication that the cloud stayed forever. One would wonder what God would be planning to do after 70 AD.

   Using similar logic, either one “contradicts” the omnipresence of God. But they are explained by it. God is everywhere. Therefore in Light and Dark. This brings up the Positivist/Naturalist argument that maybe the attributes of God are contradictions in themselves. But I may address that in a future essay.

   In both cases, God is concealed from view. They agree in that.

2. Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is unforgivable (Mark 3:29,Matthew 12:31)/
   Believers are justified in all things. (Acts 13:39)

   

   his is a definition thing, perhaps: Believers do not Blasphemy the Holy Spirit as they have accepted Jesus as God. The Pharisees were arguing the power of the Holy Spirit was the power of the Devil. Even so, Acts contrasts justification under the Law with justification of the Spirit. It may not be an absolute, just a comparison.

   Jesus, who would be the authority if the Bible is true, says All things will be forgiven except for blasphemy of the Holy Spirit. I am confused as to why Paul should mention this one sin, when talking about Law vs. Grace! Do the proponents of this inconsistency qualify their own statements that concern a vast majority of the cases with exceptions for special cases. When they mention rain in any context do they make sure that they specify water rain and not frogs or walnuts or apples? I doubt it. (All rains are historically recorded.)

   Again, the context is Law and Grace. My take is that Paul says that grace justifies believers from everything that cannot be justified under the Law. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit was introduced with Jesus, therefore, not a part of traditional law.

3. John the Baptist is Elias (Matthew 11:14) /John the Baptist isn’t Elias (John 1:21)

   

   o some degree case of he said, He said, but on a more interesting note....

   In Matthew 11:14, Jesus says “And if you are willing to believe it, [John the Baptist] is Elijah who has come.” (NIV) The answer in John, is given by John, who the Bible never claims to be infallible. As far as John knows, he is not Elijah. He doesn’t feel like Elijah.... He just thinks that he is the Voice in the Wilderness. He doesn’t necessarily know that God had meant him to the Elijah of the current age. There are NO contradictions between what God says on a metaphorical level, and John says on a personal level.

4. A brother will marry his brother’s widow (Deuteronomy 25:5) /
   Such a thing is unclean (Leviticus 20:21)

   

   ere is a good place for the clue: context. Leviticus says marrying your brother’s wife is wrong, Leviticus 20:19 says to not have sex with your sister (apparently there’s room in there for sex with your brother, though! Woohoo!) Leviticus 20:20 says don’t have sex with your aunt, then Leviticus says don’t marry your brother’s wife, I would take this to mean that you shouldn’t marry your living brother’s wife. I think there’s room for this argument.

5. I came not to send peace, but a sword. (Matthew 10:34 /
   ... all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. (Matthew 26:52, Revelations 13:10)

   

   othing shows that Jesus ever wielded a sword. So unless Jesus is wrong in the first instance it must be metaphorical. God wields such a sword in the Old Testament, as well.

   QED: Matthew and Revelation do not fear a metaphorical sword. (see Equivocation.)

   [Still, the implications are interesting even if Jesus spoke a metaphorical sword here. It has been the common assumption that Jesus brought a sword of division or judgement. Division fits in well with the “[not] peace, but a sword” theme.

   Surely Jesus did not come to divide people against each other, as he told his disciples to love their neighbors and their enemies. The common view is that Jesus came to divide the wheat from the tares, the sheep from the goats as in the day of judgement. Yet in order to save any of the His lambs, Jesus took all judgement and punishment upon himself on the cross. So yes, even Jesus was slain by the sword of His own Divine Judgement. (In a sense...)]

6. For wrath killeth the foolish man... (Job 5:2) /
   ... let not the sun go down on your wrath. (Ephesians 4:26)

   

   oes the bible say how long it takes wrath to kill you? Job gives no indication that it is overnight. Therefore, quite easily they do not conflict. These are complementary, not contradictory. A reason not to let the sun go down on your anger is that it kills you over a period of time. Sources other than the Bible confirm this, I think they would condone the practice of limiting your anger to a calendar day. I think they would condone the Bibles other statements on anger too, like being slow to become angry.

   In addition it says “wrath killeth a foolish man...” The possibilty exists that if you are not foolish, your anger won’t kill you. Is this not reasonable? In addition, one is a Hebrew word and the other is a Greek word in the original text. The Hebrew (ka’ac) word can also be used for spite, while the Greek form (parorgismos) can mean indignation or exasperation. Quite a difference between the two, isn’t there?

   So it’s kind of like “...spite (or rancor) killeth a foolish man” but “...do not let the sun set on your indignation or exasperation” (with your fellow man, one would guess).

7. And no man hath ascended up to heaven.... (John 3:13) /
   ...and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. 2 (Kings 2:11)

   

   don’t deny that this seems contradictory. I show the entire quote here to get a good grounding:

   I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have
   seen, but you people do not accept our testimony. I have spoken to you of earthly
   things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly
   things? No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—
   the Son of Man... (NIV)

   He talks about a witness to heavenly things. No man has gone up to heaven who can testify to heavenly things. This would mean that Elijah is ruled out, because he’s not there to witness. Jesus is not talking about the history of heavenly ascension but the ability of others to serve as a witness. Mentioning Elijah is a meaningless digression, and rather pedantic point.

8. If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. (John 5:31) /
   I am one that bear witness of myself... (John 8:18)

   

   gain, seemingly contradictory—and perhaps problematic. John 8:18 continues “...my other witness is the Father, who sent me.” (NIV) In both cases Jesus invokes the idea of testimony of two witnesses being valid, in both Jesus offers another witness. Also the first sentence does not make sense read in this way. My testimony to myself is characteristically untrue if I say it. Apparently, if the list’s compiler says that he’s read the Bible it may become untrue just because he says it. The NIV reads true as valid¹. This would synch with John 8:17, which reads “In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two men is valid” (NIV). In this case, it is obvious that if the testimony of two is valid, that Jesus may be saying that the testimony of one is not, by itself, valid.

9. A good man leaveth an inheritance to his children’s children... (Proverbs 13:22) / Sell that ye have... (Luke 12:33, Matthew 19:21)/ Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth (Colossians 3:2)

   

   t looks like there is a conflict. I might be mincing words here. But let’s take a look first. I think that Jesus, in Luke, agrees with Colossians. “Sell all that ye have” and “set your affection on things above…” seems to follow. So, we’re okay there.

   The difference is between the Old Testament and the New. Gasp! Well that cuts us Christians to shreds, who believe that the Old and New Testaments do not differ. …But wait, isn’t one of the main ideas running through Paul’s letters that there is a new covenant with God—that God has changed the way that he deals with Man?

   This conflict does not exist in Judaism, because they do not recognize the authority of Paul. This conflict does exist in Christianity but it deals with the difference between a Christian reading of the OT and the Judaistic reading of it.

   Congratulations, O Compiler of the List, you’ve just worked out that Christians find a difference between the Old and New Testaments. The unstated challenge here is that an omnipotant (etc.) God would not change anything. This is an argument not a rule. Therefore, these statements may conflict, but their conflict does not conflict with Christianity.

   But I'm not content to just leave it there. I direct your attention to items 10 and 11. There it says both that God gave instructions to burn sacrafices and yet desired obedience instead. This is the difference between the Old and New Testament.

   This, as briefly as possible is the idea: the Old Testament deals with God’s plan with a nation, through a people, in institutions and organizations, through leaders and in a very worldly fashion. The New Testament deals with God’s new plan. He abandons the structure and skips right to the heart of the matter. No more does he deal with one nation, no more kings are needed after he sends his Messiah, no more external organizations and leaders. The new plan is inward leading, it is not based on the wealth of family or nations but upon God’s power through the Holy Spirit.

   There is no more temple (a place), but the body (this is what “church” means). The body is the living Body of Christ, it is a massive organism which is fed by the Holy Spirit. “Christ is the head,” says Paul. We Christians are feet, hands, bladders. We may distract the head, but we do not affect the direction. We go where the head says.

   Now I can flesh out my reference to items 10 and 11. It refers to a statement by God that the shell of outward conformance is nothing. There are too many references to start quoting from the Old Testament that suggest that God wants inward change and does not want to work in appearances. This, among other things, is the whole book of Job. I may post my analysis of that book another time. (It is a fantastic book!) The three “friends” of Job look at appearances and see God’s judgement. God wants the heart.

   It makes sense that at a time when God worked through outward forms that a man is told to store up treasures for his children. Does that mean that he should not set his heart for the things above? Does that mean that he should not restrain himself for his affection for earthly possessions. Therefore in the same form as the following two, Colossians is an adjustment to the misapplication of Proverbs. But Proverbs says more it says that such behavior benefits ones children. This is the reason for doing this, it would be a mistake to accent on the material things. Therefore even Paul and Proverbs can agree.

   Therefore, we might have a disagreement between Jesus and Proverbs. But Jesus brought the new way, so that is somewhat understandable.

   But I think the largest mitigating factor for Matthew is that Jesus was speaking to a single man. “Sell all that you have” give it to the poor “and then come follow me.” There is not even a hint that the poor should then do the same. He could not be advocating it across the board, because doing as Jesus said would make him a poor person. So why should he sell all that he had? Shouldn’t he keep some money for himself, seeing that he would be poor if he followed this plan?

   But if he retained some, how could he comply with Jesus' wish? What is going on here?

   Quite simply, a young man was getting a comeupance. This sounds quite harsh to say so, but this is my reading. The young man seemed to want to impress Jesus with his goodness. Jesus started out with the more traditional stuff. “All this have I done,” he replied. But then he asked Jesus how he can get to the next level.

   Jesus lays a whopper on him. First, he called Jesus good, he asked Jesus what he must do beyond keeping the commandments, and when Jesus gives the answer, he goes away. He knew—or thought—that he had lacked something, he came to Jesus because he judged that Jesus could give him the answer, but instead “when the young man heard [what Jesus said], he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.” His love for his possessions outweighed his desire to fill the lack he felt.

   Jesus’ followers did not starve. He was not asking the young man to starve. Jesus asked the young man to become part of the great change that God was about to set in motion. But instead he chose to go away to preserve his posessions.

   Jesus did not start out wailing on this guy. He gave him the simple things first. Then he insulted God, he said that he had kept the Law from childhood. Even though noone can keep the Law, he claimed that he had. So what’s next? Sacrafice.

   Luke poses a larger problem. And I do not want to make too short work of it. In Luke, he addresses the multitude gathered with the story and the advice.

   A few quotes will help. First (Luke 12:1): “a crowd of many thousands had gathered…Jesus began to speak first to his disciples, saying: 'Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees…'” Jesus was telling them about the big picture: revelation, persecution, witness, the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

   Then someone from the peanut gallery interrupts this speech ot say “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.” Jesus was talking about right and wrong, wasn’t he? It’s wrong for his brother to hoard the inheritance, isn’t it? The man might have thought he was on topic, perhaps. But he was wrong. Jesus was talking about things larger than the oneself. This man wanted justice to bring him money.

   Jesus then makes a pratical objection: “Who appointed me an arbiter between you?” But next, Jesus reflects on the turn of the conversation. “Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a man’s life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.” He was speaking of larger things and someone wanted him to settle a financial squabble. Jesus' reply is that there are more important things than money and he was speaking about them previously. He tells the crowd a parable about a rich man who stored everything up in a barn only to die after he completed it. Think Larger.

   Then Jesus launches into the often quoted “lilies of the field” section. All of which is to illustrate that things are more important than money, and that was what he was talking about to his disciples before the other man spoke.

   Now the NIV has “Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will not be exhausted, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys.” This does not suggest everything.

   Still, it leaves a little to be resolved.

   Now, in proverbs it says to provide for your children. Jesus says to provide for the poor. This is perhaps in keeping with Jesus' teaching that we are all brothers. This is consistent as well with what I call the expansion of sympathy by the ministry of God. At first a brother cannot even believe that he should keep from killing his brother. “Am I my brother’s keeper?” asks Cain. Then families become embraced, then larger families, villages, towns, cities, nations, and finally Jesus says everybody. So you store up your treasures so that your children will not be poor, therefore care as much about the poor.

   As usual Jesus is the answer.

10. And the priest shall burn all on the altar to be a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savor unto the Lord. (Leviticus 1:9) /
    Your burnt offering are not acceptable, nor your sacrifices sweet unto me. (Jeremiah 6:20)

    

    eremiah, throughout, refers to the present generation of Israelites. God is saying that even though he has asked for burnt offerings. “Your sacrafices are not acceptable.” Even the Old Testament suggests that sacrifice is not all God wants. Normally, gifts are a sign of gratitude and are almost always acceptable. But if your children come at Christmas times with fancy gifts, even though you know in your heart they are waiting for you to die, the gift doesn’t do much, does it?

11. Ye shall afflict your souls and offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord.
    (Leviticus 23:27) / For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offering or sacrifices. (Jeremiah 7:22)

    

    ere, the NIV translation comes through again—and does much to add the argument above. Jeremiah 23:27:

    For when I brought your forefathers out of Egypt and spoke to them, I did not
    just give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices, but I gave them
    this command: Obey me, and I will be your God and you will be my people.

    Even if the bible were a total sham, you'd expect the Hebrews to do better than to deny what their history says. To me the NIV translation seems the logical juxtaposition of the clauses. “I didn’t command you about sacrafices...I commanded you 'Obey me.'” This is contrast, it is been in the rhetorical toolbox for ages. It is reasonable to expect an “only” or “in addition,” between those two phrases. But perhaps the idiom of Hebrews of the time was to use a sharper contrast and trust the hearer to figure out the connection, then to make sure of a smooth trasition between the two ideas. But to suggest that they absolutely conflict with each other just because we don't see the transition words we would expect in English is rather unreasonable.

    Why is it unreasonable? And why am I not being unreasonable it I ask the other side for a little more patience?

    Because we are dealing with strange minds, and with that, strange expressions and idioms. Ancients are not moderns. Hebrews are not melting-pot Europeans. The God, presented in the Bible—and even in the OT, does not think like we do. Thus, we have a possible number of levels of translation here.

    Of course, this distance is bridged by the New Testament which says that God has spoken mysteries hidden through the ages. Thus, some of what God and the prophets say in the Old Testament is only partly translated for the ears of its contemporaries. Part of it is hidden, to be revealed to people of the Gospel age. Thus, we don't expect that we can only understand it by going through all those levels.

    But we still need to realize that what is said to the the people of a time may have needed their