Does the New Testament Contradict itself?

Does the New Testament Contradict itself?

Mike Wencel

The Law of Contradiction (also called the Law of Non‑Contradiction) is one of the foundational principles of classical logic. It states: “A statement cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same sense.”

Aristotle stated it thusly: “The same attribute cannot at the same time belong and not belong to the same subject in the same respect.”

To apply this law correctly, the following conditions must be met. If they are not, a legitimate rebuttal can be made to the alleged contradiction:

{A} Same Object/Person: The statements “The door is open” and “The door is closed” are not necessarily contradictory - the front door could be open and the back door could be closed at the same time.

But the front door (single object) cannot be both open and closed at the same time.

{B} Same Time/Event: The statements “My appointment is at 8:00” and “My appointment is at 7:00” are not necessarily contradictory, as I could have two different appointments or I could have just one appointment at 8:00 EST which could also be expressed as 7:00 CST.

{C} Same Place: The statements “The temperature is 70°” and “The temperature is 90°” are not necessarily contradictory, as it could presently be 70° in Tampa and 90° in Miami, but it cannot be both 70° and 90° simultaneously in either city.

{D} Same Sense/Context: The statements "The bank is 1 mile away," and “The bank is 2 miles away” are not necessarily contradictory because a river bank could be 1 mile away and a financial bank could be 2 miles away. For a contradiction to exist, the word "bank" must mean the same thing in both statements. A literal vs. a figurative or metaphorical expression would fall under this category, as would figures of speech. .

{E} Same Relationship: A loaf of bread can be "large" compared to an ant but "small" compared to an elephant. It is not a contradiction that something can be both small and large unless the point of comparison is the same. Thus, a loaf of bread cannot be large compared to an ant and also large compared to an elephant.

{F} Supplementary Information: One statement, while true, may not be complete and may be supplemented by another true statement: (1) John has a son. (2) John has a son and a daughter. Both statements are true, (2) merely has supplementary or additional information than what is stated in (1).

{G} Unprovable/Erroneous Assumptions or Interpretations: Many “discrepancies” are based on the critic’s assumptions or interpretations, but if they cannot be proven by reference to other supporting scriptures or historical documents, they must be dismissed as speculation.

{H} Same Definition of a Word: A more specific variation of {D} above, this condition demands the same definition of a word used in different passages. In many cases a single word can have multiple different meanings. For example, the word “set” has over 75 definitions! Assuming that a word means one thing when it can also mean something else, is a very poor tactic for proving a discrepancy.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTE: If there is any plausible way of explaining differences in scriptural accounts, a legitimate contradiction cannot be said to exist. A mere difference does not constitute a contradiction.

1

Matthew 26:29-34

Healing of Blind Men in Jericho

The case of the healing of the blind men near Jericho (recorded in Matthew 20:29-34, Mark 10:46-52, and Luke 18:35-43) has been highly criticized by skeptics through the years. While both Mark and Luke mention the healing of only one blind man, Matthew records the healing of two men as Christ made His way to Jerusalem for the final Passover. Also, Matthew and Mark indicate that the blind men were healed as Jesus was leaving Jericho whereas Luke suggests that a blind man was healed as the Lord came near to the city.

Just because Mark and Luke speak of only one blind man does not mean that they have at the same time denied that there were two blind men. Had Mark and Luke stated that Christ healed only one man, while Matthew then affirmed that more than one were healed, a contradiction would be apparent. But such is not the case. If one says, “Tim has a son,” he is not contradicted if someone else says, “Tim has a son and a daughter.” His statement was merely supplemented. There is no conflict, therefore, regarding the number of men involved. REBUTTAL: {F} Supplementary Information.

But how shall the second difficulty be resolved? Is there any logical reason as to why Matthew and Mark indicate that the blind men were healed as Jesus was leaving Jericho, while Luke mentions that a blind man was healed as the Lord came near to the city? There are at least two possibilities:

[1] Perhaps three blind men were healed in the vicinity of Jericho on this occasion. Or Luke’s account might have represented a different event than that recorded by Matthew and Mark.

[2] During Christ’s life there actually were two Jerichos – the Jericho of the Old Testament which was mostly ruins in the 1^st century, and south of it was the new Jericho built by Herod the Great. The Lord, therefore, traveling toward Jerusalem, would first pass through the Old Testament Jericho, and then, some two miles to the southwest, go through Herodian Jericho. Matthew and Mark could be referencing old Jericho, whereas Luke could be referencing newer Jericho. REBUTTAL: {C} Different Places

2

Matthew 27:5

How Did Judas Die?

Matthew records that Judas “went and hanged himself” after betraying Jesus for 30 pieces of silver (27:5), but Luke records that “falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out” (Acts 1:18). This scenario is not an either/or scenario. Judas did hang himself, and sometime later, his body fell headlong, causing his midsection to burst open. When a person dies, the body begins to decompose. If a dead body is left to itself, bacteria soon begins to break down various tissues. As a result, gases are released within the body, which in turn cause it to swell. A dead human body, which may have been swelling for a number of days, could have fallen a short distance from where it was hanging, and burst open when striking the ground. So Matthew recorded the method in which Judas attempted his death, while Luke reported the

end result.   REBUTTAL: {F} Supplementary Information

3

Matthew 26:74-75

How Many Times Did the Rooster Crow?

The passages in question are found in Matthew 26:34, Mark 14, Luke 22:34, and John 13:38. Matthew, Luke, and John all quoted Jesus as saying that Peter would deny Him three times before the rooster crowed. After the third denial actually took place, these three writers recorded that Jesus’ prophecy was fulfilled exactly the way He said it would be (Matthew 26:74b-75, Luke 22:60-61, John 18:27).

Mark 14:30 says otherwise: “Assuredly, I say to you that today, even this night, before the rooster crows twice, you will deny Me three times”. Following Peter’s first denial of Jesus, we learn that he “went out on the porch, and a rooster crowed” (Mark 14:68). After Peter’s third denial of Jesus, the rooster crowed a second time. Then Peter called to mind the word that Jesus had said to him, ‘Before the rooster crows twice, you will deny Me three times’ ” (Mark 14:72).

Mark differs from the other writers in that he specifies the rooster crowed once after Peter’s first denial and again after his third denial. But, do these differences represent a legitimate contradiction? No. No one should assume that, because three of the gospel writers mentioned one crowing while Mark mentioned two crowings, a contradiction exists. Realistically, there were two “rooster crowings.” However, it was the second one (mentioned by Matthew, Luke, and John) that was the “main” crowing. In the first century, roosters were accustomed to crowing at least twice during the night. The first crowing (which only Mark mentioned in 14:68 usually occurred between 12:00 and 1:00 AM. Relatively few people ever heard or acknowledged this crowing (Fausset’s Bible Dictionary). Likely, Peter never heard it; else surely his slumbering conscience would have awakened. The second crowing took place not long before daybreak—likely around 3:00 AM (Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary). It was this latter crowing that commonly was called “the cockcrowing.” Why? Because it was at this time of night (just before daybreak) that roosters crowed the loudest, which was useful in summoning laborers to work.

Just because Mark used greater precision in recording this event, doesn’t make it a contradiction to the other writers. REBUTTALS: {B} Different Time and {F} Supplementary Information

4

Matthew 27:5-6

Who Bought the Potter’s field?

Matthew 27:3-7 says the chief priests used the betrayal money that Judas threw on the temple floor to purchase the potter’s field, yet in Acts 1:18 Luke says that Judas purchased the field with the blood money. Obviously, Judas could not have purchased the field because he gave the 30 pieces of silver back to the priests before hanging himself. Thus, to say that Judas bought the potter’s field is incorrect…right?

If I say a father bought a car for his son, when in actuality the son purchased the car with $5,000 his father gave him, am I lying? No. Acts 1:18 simply informs us that Judas furnished the means of purchasing the field. One is not forced to conclude that Judas personally bought the potter’s field. Another example: Joseph spoke of his brothers as selling him into Egypt (Genesis 45:4-5), when actually they sold him to the Ishmaelites (who then sold him into Egypt). And when the Bible says, “Pilate took Jesus and scourged Him” (John 19:1), most people understand that he simply ordered Jesus to be scourged, not that he actually did the scourging himself. So Matthew and Luke are stating the same truth in different ways. REBUTTAL: {D} Different Sense

5

Matthew 27:37

What Was the Inscription on the Cross?

Did the gospel writers disagree as to what the sign that appeared on the cross above Jesus’ head said?

Matthew 27:37:           “This is Jesus the King of the Jews”

Mark 15:26:                 “The King of the Jews”

Luke 23: 38:                “This is the King of the Jews”

John 19:19:                 “Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews”

Consider an illustration. In telling my wife about an accusation I saw on a billboard, regarding a man who is running for city council. I say that the billboard said: “John Doe is a Thief.” Later that day, our niece, Sue, mentions that she saw a billboard which said “City Council Candidate John Doe is a Thief.” The next day, a friend, Sally says she saw a billboard which said “Montgomery City Council Candidate John Doe is a Thief.” Are the three of us in disagreement? No. We all truthfully reported the same accusation (“John Doe is a thief”), except that Sue and Sally supplied additional information.

Similarly, the accusation inscribed above Jesus on the cross is the same in all four narratives— “the King of the Jews.” John recorded the full inscription, while the other writers assumed that all would understand the personal name, and home town of the man hanging there. The charge levied against Jesus was that He was “the King of the Jews”—a title mentioned by all gospel writers.

Also it should be considered that the sign was written in three different languages, and translation issues may have occurred. According to John 19:20, the title was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. Pilate is said to have written the inscription (John 19:19), and he (or whomever he ordered to write the inscription) could have written a slightly different wording in each of the languages according to his proficiency in each language. Albert Barnes noted: “One man may have translated it from the Hebrew, another from the Greek, a third from the Latin, and one may have translated it a little differently from another”

REBUTTAL: Supplementary information and/or Translation Issue

6

Matthew 27:50-51

When Did the Temple Veil Tear?

Critics claim that Luke says the veil of the temple was torn in two before Jesus died on the cross and Matthew and Mark say it occurred after Jesus’ death.

Matthew 27:50-51 - And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit. Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom …

Mark 15:37-38 - And Jesus cried out with a loud voice, and breathed His last. Then the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom.

Luke 23:44-46 - Now it was about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour. Then the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was torn in two. And when Jesus had cried out with a loud voice, He said, "Father, 'into your hands I commit my spirit.' " Having said this, He breathed His last.

Do either of these accounts state specifically that the veil was torn before or after Jesus died? Luke did mention the rending of the veil before he recorded that Jesus died, and Matthew mentioned it after recording His death, but neither made any direct statements that would indicate exactly when the rending took place. Simply because one Bible writer recorded something before, or after, another writer does not mean that either writer is attempting to establish a chronological timeline. Unless the skeptic can point to a verse by both writers that says these events occurred in the precise order in which they are recorded, then the charge of contradiction is invalid.

Imagine also that you returned home after work one day and told your son some of the things you had accomplished at the office. Then, you told your spouse the same things you told your son, only in a different order. Would you be guilty of contradicting yourself? No. You could only be called contradictory if you had told both parties that every event you stated happened in the precise order in which you mentioned them. REBUTTAL: {G} Unprovable Assumptions

7

Acts 22:9

What Did Saul’s Companions See and Hear on the Road to Damascus?

In Acts 9:3-4 & 7 Luke writes: As he (Saul) journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him from heaven. Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?" [7] And the men who journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice but seeing no one.

But in Acts 22:9 as Paul gave his defense before the Jewish mob, he said: And those who were with me indeed saw the light and were afraid, but they did not hear the voice of Him who spoke to me.

How could Saul’s companions hear but not hear, and see but not see?

Whether skeptics want to admit it or not, people regularly talk of “seeing” and “not seeing,” as well as “hearing” and “not hearing” - even in reference to the same things at the same time. The difference is in the sense in which the words are used. A man with poor vision may say he is unable to “see anything.” But the same man may technically be able to “see something.” He can see light and darkness. He can see fuzzy figures. But he couldn’t identify a person from 15 feet away. Thus, in one sense the man can “see,” while in another sense “he can’t see”. Likewise, those accompanying Saul to Damascus “saw the light”, but they saw “no one”.

What about what the men heard? Did they stand speechless, “hearing a voice” as Luke recorded, or did they “not hear the voice of Him who spoke,” as Paul stated? The Bible writers often used words in a variety of ways. For example, a husband may “hear” everything his wife says, but not really “hear” anything she says. In a strictly literal sense, he could say, “I heard every word my wife said.” However, in a figurative sense, he could say, “I didn’t hear anything she said. (i.e. I didn’t retain, or give attention to anything she said)”

Interestingly, Jesus once spoke of those who, “seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand” (Matthew 13:13) describing ones who could literally see and hear Him, but who did not understand Him—they did not see and hear Him in the way that really mattered.

Regarding Acts 9:7 and 22:9, Saul’s men obviously heard a sound of some kind, yet they did not hear (i.e., understand) the voice of the Lord as did Saul.   REBUTTAL: {D} Different Sense

8

John 5:31

Was Jesus’ Witness True or Not True

Why did Jesus say in John 5:31, “If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not true”, but also say in John 8:14: “Even if I bear witness of Myself, My witness is true”? Was Jesus contradicting himself, or could He have been using these words in different senses?

In this chapter, Jesus defended His deity by pointing to several witnesses, including John the Baptizer, the Father in heaven, and the Scriptures (5:33-47). When Jesus conceded to the Jews the fact that His witness was “not true,” He was referencing a well-known law of His day. In Greek, Roman, and Jewish law, the testimony of a witness could not be received in his own case. The Law of Moses stated: “One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established” (Deuteronomy 19:15). The Pharisees understood this law well, as is evident by their statement to Jesus: “You bear witness of Yourself; Your witness is not true” (John 8:13). In John 5:31, Jesus points to the impossibility of anyone’s being accepted on the basis of his own word. He is asserting that if of himself he were to bear witness to himself, that would make it insufficient to establish truth.

But why is it that Jesus later said to the Pharisees that His “witness is true” (John 8:14)? The difference is that, in this instance, Jesus was stressing the fact that His words were true. Jesus was telling the truth, because he is the Truth (John 14:6) and cannot lie (Titus 1:2). He then followed this pronouncement of truth with the fact that there was another witness—the Father in heaven Who sent Him to Earth (John 8:16-18). Thus, in actuality, His testimony was true in two senses: (1) it was true because it was indeed factual; and (2) it was valid because it was corroborated by a second unimpeachable witness - the Father.

God the Father, along with John the Baptizer, the miracles of Jesus, the Scriptures, and specifically the writings of Moses, all authenticated the true statements Jesus made regarding His deity.

REBUTTAL: {D} Different Sense

9

1 Corinthians 14:33

Is God the Author of Confusion or Not?

Since God confused the language of man at Babel (Genesis 11:1-9), then, allegedly, Paul’s claim that “God is not the author of confusion” (1 Corinthians 14:33) must be erroneous.

Certainly, God punished mankind for his disobedience at Babel by confusing their language (i.e., He brought into existence additional languages). At Babel, humanity rebelled against God’s will, saying, “And they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower whose top is in the heavens; let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth." (Genesis 11:4). Thus, God chose to “confuse their language” that they might be “scattered…over the face of all the earth” (Genesis 11:9).

This kind of confusion, however, was not the same kind that Paul had in mind when he wrote 1 Corinthians. When Paul wrote, “God is not the author of confusion” (14:33), he was addressing problems that the Corinthian Christians were having in the worship assembly. He gave specific instructions about how those with spiritual gifts should use them in an orderly way so as not to confuse others in the congregation or ruin the worship service. Paul concluded this section of his letter by encouraging the church to “let all things be done decently and in order” (14:40), which is the opposite of confusion.

Simply because God initiated confusion in one particular setting does not mean that His very nature is confused. Equating the dispersion God caused among sinful people at Babel with the confusion God condemned in Corinth is flawed.   REBUTTAL: {D} Different Sense

10

Hebrews 11:17

Was Isaac Abraham’s only begotten son?

Hebrews 11:17 (KJV) says “By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son. (other versions simply say “his only son)” In Genesis 16:16 we read that Abraham fathered Ishmael by Hagar more than a decade before the birth of Isaac. And following the death of Sarah, Abraham took Keturah as a wife, by which he begat at least six more sons (Genesis 25:1-2). These accounts wou0ld appear to be in conflict with each other.

In reading the book of Hebrews, one can see that the writer was a true Old Testament scholar. To assume that he thought that Abraham had only one son would be to attribute to the writer a grievous mistake.

Actually, the “problem” has to do with the translators of the Greek into English. In the Greek text of Hebrews 11:17, the word translated as “only begotten son” is monogenes. While this word could possibly be used to refer to an only child, that was not its only use. The Greek-English Lexicon by Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker explains that the word can be used to denote something that is “unique (in kind), of something that is the only example of its category”. This meaning fits perfectly the passage in Hebrews 11, where the writer was explaining that Abraham offered up his “only promised son.” Abraham had no other children that fit in the category of being promised by God. Isaac was the only “example of a category”—that category being a son who was promised to Abraham and Sarah. Although Abraham had many other children by other women, he had no other child “of promise.” Isaac was his unique son, the only one of promise.

REBUTTAL: {H} Different Definition of a Word

11

John 3:13

No One Has Ascended to Heaven?

in John 3:13, the apostle John recorded Jesus as having said to Nicodemus, “No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man”. But the Old Testament reveals that Elijah escaped physical death and “went up by a whirlwind into heaven” (2 Kings 2:11). Did Jesus forget about Elijah?

The words “heaven” or “heavens” appear in our English Bibles about 700 times. And yet, in many of the passages where “heaven(s)” is found, the inspired writers were not discussing the spiritual heaven with which we most often associate the word. The word “heaven” (Hebrew shamayim, Greek ouranos) is used by Bible writers in three different ways. (1) the atmospheric heavens in which the birds soar, and the clouds gather (2) the firmament where we find the Sun, Moon, and stars. (3) the spiritual heaven in which Jehovah dwells and where, one day, the faithful will live forevermore.

The context of John 3 clearly indicates that Jesus is referring to the spiritual heaven wherein God dwells.

2 Kings 2:11 is not as clear. That writer could have meant that the body of Elijah miraculously ascended up high into the air never to been seen by anyone on Earth again. We have no evidence that he was transferred to the actual throne room of God Almighty.

Or it could be referring to place where the spirits of the dead dwell - a place with two partitions referred to as paradise or “the bosom of Abraham” (Luke 16:22) and torments (Luke 16:23). Recall while Jesus was on the cross, He told the penitent thief, “Today, you will be with Me in Paradise” (Luke 23:43). Where was it that Jesus and the thief went? Neither of them went to heaven to be with God the Father on that very day, for in John 20:17 after His resurrection, Jesus reassured Mary that “He had not yet ascended to the Father”. Peter gave the answer to that question in Acts 2:27 where he states that God would not abandon Christ’s soul in hades, nor allow Christ to undergo decay. So, while Christ’s body was placed in a tomb for three days, Christ’s spirit went to hades. [NOTE: The word hades in the New Testament always refers to the unseen realm of the dead—the dwelling of disembodied spirits where all people who die await for the Lord’s return and judgment.]

So it is quite feasible that that the place Jesus mentioned in John 3:13 (God’s abode), is a different place than the hadean realm that 2 Kings 2:11 says Elijah went to. Thus, technically he did not ascend to the “place” whence Jesus came.   REBUTTAL: {C } Different Place

About Us

Sermons, Articles, Bible Classes

Bible Basics

1	Matthew 26:29-34	Healing of Blind Men in Jericho
The case of the healing of the blind men near Jericho (recorded in Matthew 20:29-34, Mark 10:46-52, and Luke 18:35-43) has been highly criticized by skeptics through the years. While both Mark and Luke mention the healing of only one blind man, Matthew records the healing of two men as Christ made His way to Jerusalem for the final Passover. Also, Matthew and Mark indicate that the blind men were healed as Jesus was leaving Jericho whereas Luke suggests that a blind man was healed as the Lord came near to the city. Just because Mark and Luke speak of only one blind man does not mean that they have at the same time denied that there were two blind men. Had Mark and Luke stated that Christ healed only one man, while Matthew then affirmed that more than one were healed, a contradiction would be apparent. But such is not the case. If one says, “Tim has a son,” he is not contradicted if someone else says, “Tim has a son and a daughter.” His statement was merely supplemented. There is no conflict, therefore, regarding the number of men involved. REBUTTAL: {F} Supplementary Information. But how shall the second difficulty be resolved? Is there any logical reason as to why Matthew and Mark indicate that the blind men were healed as Jesus was leaving Jericho, while Luke mentions that a blind man was healed as the Lord came near to the city? There are at least two possibilities: [1] Perhaps three blind men were healed in the vicinity of Jericho on this occasion. Or Luke’s account might have represented a different event than that recorded by Matthew and Mark. [2] During Christ’s life there actually were two Jerichos – the Jericho of the Old Testament which was mostly ruins in the 1^st century, and south of it was the new Jericho built by Herod the Great. The Lord, therefore, traveling toward Jerusalem, would first pass through the Old Testament Jericho, and then, some two miles to the southwest, go through Herodian Jericho. Matthew and Mark could be referencing old Jericho, whereas Luke could be referencing newer Jericho. REBUTTAL: {C} Different Places
2	Matthew 27:5	How Did Judas Die?
Matthew records that Judas “went and hanged himself” after betraying Jesus for 30 pieces of silver (27:5), but Luke records that “falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out” (Acts 1:18). This scenario is not an either/or scenario. Judas did hang himself, and sometime later, his body fell headlong, causing his midsection to burst open. When a person dies, the body begins to decompose. If a dead body is left to itself, bacteria soon begins to break down various tissues. As a result, gases are released within the body, which in turn cause it to swell. A dead human body, which may have been swelling for a number of days, could have fallen a short distance from where it was hanging, and burst open when striking the ground. So Matthew recorded the method in which Judas attempted his death, while Luke reported the end result. REBUTTAL: {F} Supplementary Information
3	Matthew 26:74-75	How Many Times Did the Rooster Crow?
The passages in question are found in Matthew 26:34, Mark 14, Luke 22:34, and John 13:38. Matthew, Luke, and John all quoted Jesus as saying that Peter would deny Him three times before the rooster crowed. After the third denial actually took place, these three writers recorded that Jesus’ prophecy was fulfilled exactly the way He said it would be (Matthew 26:74b-75, Luke 22:60-61, John 18:27). Mark 14:30 says otherwise: “Assuredly, I say to you that today, even this night, before the rooster crows twice, you will deny Me three times”. Following Peter’s first denial of Jesus, we learn that he “went out on the porch, and a rooster crowed” (Mark 14:68). After Peter’s third denial of Jesus, the rooster crowed a second time. Then Peter called to mind the word that Jesus had said to him, ‘Before the rooster crows twice, you will deny Me three times’ ” (Mark 14:72). Mark differs from the other writers in that he specifies the rooster crowed once after Peter’s first denial and again after his third denial. But, do these differences represent a legitimate contradiction? No. No one should assume that, because three of the gospel writers mentioned one crowing while Mark mentioned two crowings, a contradiction exists. Realistically, there were two “rooster crowings.” However, it was the second one (mentioned by Matthew, Luke, and John) that was the “main” crowing. In the first century, roosters were accustomed to crowing at least twice during the night. The first crowing (which only Mark mentioned in 14:68 usually occurred between 12:00 and 1:00 AM. Relatively few people ever heard or acknowledged this crowing (Fausset’s Bible Dictionary). Likely, Peter never heard it; else surely his slumbering conscience would have awakened. The second crowing took place not long before daybreak—likely around 3:00 AM (Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary). It was this latter crowing that commonly was called “the cockcrowing.” Why? Because it was at this time of night (just before daybreak) that roosters crowed the loudest, which was useful in summoning laborers to work. Just because Mark used greater precision in recording this event, doesn’t make it a contradiction to the other writers. REBUTTALS: {B} Different Time and {F} Supplementary Information

4	Matthew 27:5-6		Who Bought the Potter’s field?
Matthew 27:3-7 says the chief priests used the betrayal money that Judas threw on the temple floor to purchase the potter’s field, yet in Acts 1:18 Luke says that Judas purchased the field with the blood money. Obviously, Judas could not have purchased the field because he gave the 30 pieces of silver back to the priests before hanging himself. Thus, to say that Judas bought the potter’s field is incorrect…right? If I say a father bought a car for his son, when in actuality the son purchased the car with $5,000 his father gave him, am I lying? No. Acts 1:18 simply informs us that Judas furnished the means of purchasing the field. One is not forced to conclude that Judas personally bought the potter’s field. Another example: Joseph spoke of his brothers as selling him into Egypt (Genesis 45:4-5), when actually they sold him to the Ishmaelites (who then sold him into Egypt). And when the Bible says, “Pilate took Jesus and scourged Him” (John 19:1), most people understand that he simply ordered Jesus to be scourged, not that he actually did the scourging himself. So Matthew and Luke are stating the same truth in different ways. REBUTTAL: {D} Different Sense
5	Matthew 27:37		What Was the Inscription on the Cross?
Did the gospel writers disagree as to what the sign that appeared on the cross above Jesus’ head said? Matthew 27:37: “This is Jesus the King of the Jews” Mark 15:26: “The King of the Jews” Luke 23: 38: “This is the King of the Jews” John 19:19: “Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews” Consider an illustration. In telling my wife about an accusation I saw on a billboard, regarding a man who is running for city council. I say that the billboard said: “John Doe is a Thief.” Later that day, our niece, Sue, mentions that she saw a billboard which said “City Council Candidate John Doe is a Thief.” The next day, a friend, Sally says she saw a billboard which said “Montgomery City Council Candidate John Doe is a Thief.” Are the three of us in disagreement? No. We all truthfully reported the same accusation (“John Doe is a thief”), except that Sue and Sally supplied additional information. Similarly, the accusation inscribed above Jesus on the cross is the same in all four narratives— “the King of the Jews.” John recorded the full inscription, while the other writers assumed that all would understand the personal name, and home town of the man hanging there. The charge levied against Jesus was that He was “the King of the Jews”—a title mentioned by all gospel writers. Also it should be considered that the sign was written in three different languages, and translation issues may have occurred. According to John 19:20, the title was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. Pilate is said to have written the inscription (John 19:19), and he (or whomever he ordered to write the inscription) could have written a slightly different wording in each of the languages according to his proficiency in each language. Albert Barnes noted: “One man may have translated it from the Hebrew, another from the Greek, a third from the Latin, and one may have translated it a little differently from another” REBUTTAL: Supplementary information and/or Translation Issue
6	Matthew 27:50-51		When Did the Temple Veil Tear?
Critics claim that Luke says the veil of the temple was torn in two before Jesus died on the cross and Matthew and Mark say it occurred after Jesus’ death. *Matthew 27:50-51* - And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit. Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom … *Mark 15:37-38* - And Jesus cried out with a loud voice, and breathed His last. Then the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. *Luke 23:44-46 -* Now it was about the sixth hour, and there was darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour. Then the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was torn in two. And when Jesus had cried out with a loud voice, He said, "Father, 'into your hands I commit my spirit.' " Having said this, He breathed His last. Do either of these accounts state specifically that the veil was torn before or after Jesus died? Luke did mention the rending of the veil before he recorded that Jesus died, and Matthew mentioned it after recording His death, but neither made any direct statements that would indicate exactly when the rending took place. Simply because one Bible writer recorded something before, or after, another writer does not mean that either writer is attempting to establish a chronological timeline. Unless the skeptic can point to a verse by both writers that says these events occurred in the precise order in which they are recorded, then the charge of contradiction is invalid. Imagine also that you returned home after work one day and told your son some of the things you had accomplished at the office. Then, you told your spouse the same things you told your son, only in a different order. Would you be guilty of contradicting yourself? No. You could only be called contradictory if you had told both parties that every event you stated happened in the precise order in which you mentioned them. REBUTTAL: {G} Unprovable Assumptions
7	Acts 22:9	What Did Saul’s Companions See and Hear on the Road to Damascus?
In Acts 9:3-4 & 7 Luke writes: As he (Saul) journeyed he came near Damascus, and suddenly a light shone around him from heaven. Then he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?" [7] And the men who journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice but seeing no one. But in Acts 22:9 as Paul gave his defense before the Jewish mob, he said: And those who were with me indeed saw the light and were afraid, but they did not hear the voice of Him who spoke to me. How could Saul’s companions hear but not hear, and see but not see? Whether skeptics want to admit it or not, people regularly talk of “seeing” and “not seeing,” as well as “hearing” and “not hearing” - even in reference to the same things at the same time. The difference is in the sense in which the words are used. A man with poor vision may say he is unable to “see anything.” But the same man may technically be able to “see something.” He can see light and darkness. He can see fuzzy figures. But he couldn’t identify a person from 15 feet away. Thus, in one sense the man can “see,” while in another sense “he can’t see”. Likewise, those accompanying Saul to Damascus “saw the light”, but they saw “no one”. What about what the men heard? Did they stand speechless, “hearing a voice” as Luke recorded, or did they “not hear the voice of Him who spoke,” as Paul stated? The Bible writers often used words in a variety of ways. For example, a husband may “hear” everything his wife says, but not really “hear” anything she says. In a strictly literal sense, he could say, “I heard every word my wife said.” However, in a figurative sense, he could say, “I didn’t hear anything she said. (i.e. I didn’t retain, or give attention to anything she said)” Interestingly, Jesus once spoke of those who, “seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand” (Matthew 13:13) describing ones who could literally see and hear Him, but who did not understand Him—they did not see and hear Him in the way that really mattered. Regarding Acts 9:7 and 22:9, Saul’s men obviously heard a sound of some kind, yet they did not hear (i.e., understand) the voice of the Lord as did Saul. REBUTTAL: {D} Different Sense
8	John 5:31		Was Jesus’ Witness True or Not True
Why did Jesus say in John 5:31, “If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not* true”, but also say in John 8:14: “Even if I bear witness of Myself, My witness is true”? Was Jesus contradicting himself, or could He have been using these words in different senses? In this chapter, Jesus defended His deity by pointing to several witnesses, including John the Baptizer, the Father in heaven, and the Scriptures (5:33-47). When Jesus conceded to the Jews the fact that His witness was “not true,” He was referencing a well-known law of His day. In Greek, Roman, and Jewish law, the testimony of a witness could not be received in his own case. The Law of Moses stated: “One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established” (Deuteronomy 19:15). The Pharisees understood this law well, as is evident by their statement to Jesus: “You bear witness of Yourself; Your witness is not true” (John 8:13). In John 5:31, Jesus points to the impossibility of anyone’s being accepted on the basis of his own word. He is asserting that if of himself he were to bear witness to himself, that would make it insufficient to establish truth. But why is it that Jesus later said to the Pharisees that His “witness is true” (John 8:14)? The difference is that, in this instance, Jesus was stressing the fact that His words were true. Jesus was telling the truth, because he is the Truth (John 14:6) and cannot lie (Titus 1:2). He then followed this pronouncement of truth with the fact that there was another witness—the Father in heaven Who sent Him to Earth (John 8:16-18). Thus, in actuality, His testimony was true in two senses: (1) it was true because it was indeed factual; and (2) it was valid because it was corroborated by a second unimpeachable witness - the Father. God the Father, along with John the Baptizer, the miracles of Jesus, the Scriptures, and specifically the writings of Moses, all authenticated the true statements Jesus made regarding His deity. REBUTTAL: {D} Different Sense*
9	1 Corinthians 14:33		Is God the Author of Confusion or Not?
Since God confused the language of man at Babel (Genesis 11:1-9), then, allegedly, Paul’s claim that “God is not the author of confusion” (1 Corinthians 14:33) must be erroneous. Certainly, God punished mankind for his disobedience at Babel by confusing their language (i.e., He brought into existence additional languages). At Babel, humanity rebelled against God’s will, saying, “And they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower whose top is in the heavens; let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth." (Genesis 11:4). Thus, God chose to “confuse their language” that they might be “scattered…over the face of all the earth” (Genesis 11:9). This kind of confusion, however, was not the same kind that Paul had in mind when he wrote 1 Corinthians. When Paul wrote, “God is not the author of confusion” (14:33), he was addressing problems that the Corinthian Christians were having in the worship assembly. He gave specific instructions about how those with spiritual gifts should use them in an orderly way so as not to confuse others in the congregation or ruin the worship service. Paul concluded this section of his letter by encouraging the church to “let all things be done decently and in order” (14:40), which is the opposite of confusion. Simply because God initiated confusion in one particular setting does not mean that His very nature is confused. Equating the dispersion God caused among sinful people at Babel with the confusion God condemned in Corinth is flawed. REBUTTAL: {D} Different Sense
10	Hebrews 11:17		Was Isaac Abraham’s only begotten son?
Hebrews 11:17 (KJV) says “By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises* offered up his only begotten son. (other versions simply say “his only son)” In Genesis 16:16 we read that Abraham fathered Ishmael by Hagar more than a decade before the birth of Isaac. And following the death of Sarah, Abraham took Keturah as a wife, by which he begat at least six more sons (Genesis 25:1-2). These accounts wou0ld appear to be in conflict with each other. In reading the book of Hebrews, one can see that the writer was a true Old Testament scholar. To assume that he thought that Abraham had only one son* would be to attribute to the writer a grievous mistake. Actually, the “problem” has to do with the translators of the Greek into English. In the Greek text of Hebrews 11:17, the word translated as “only begotten son” is monogenes. While this word could possibly be used to refer to an only child, that was not its only use. The Greek-English Lexicon by Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker explains that the word can be used to denote something that is “unique (in kind), of something that is the only example of its category”. This meaning fits perfectly the passage in Hebrews 11, where the writer was explaining that Abraham offered up his “only promised son.” Abraham had no other children that fit in the category of being promised by God. Isaac was the only “example of a category”—that category being a son who was promised to Abraham and Sarah. Although Abraham had many other children by other women, he had no other child “of promise.” Isaac was his unique son, the only one of promise. REBUTTAL: {H} Different Definition of a Word
11	John 3:13		No One Has Ascended to Heaven?
in John 3:13, the apostle John recorded Jesus as having said to Nicodemus, “No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man”. But the Old Testament reveals that Elijah escaped physical death and “went up by a whirlwind into heaven” (2 Kings 2:11). Did Jesus forget about Elijah? The words “heaven” or “heavens” appear in our English Bibles about 700 times. And yet, in many of the passages where “heaven(s)” is found, the inspired writers were not discussing the spiritual heaven with which we most often associate the word. The word “heaven” (Hebrew shamayim, Greek ouranos) is used by Bible writers in three different ways. (1) the atmospheric heavens in which the birds soar, and the clouds gather (2) the firmament where we find the Sun, Moon, and stars. (3) the spiritual heaven in which Jehovah dwells and where, one day, the faithful will live forevermore. The context of John 3 clearly indicates that Jesus is referring to the spiritual heaven wherein God dwells. 2 Kings 2:11 is not as clear. That writer could have meant that the body of Elijah miraculously ascended up high into the air never to been seen by anyone on Earth again. We have no evidence that he was transferred to the actual throne room of God Almighty. Or it could be referring to place where the spirits of the dead dwell - a place with two partitions referred to as paradise or “the bosom of Abraham” (Luke 16:22) and torments (Luke 16:23). Recall while Jesus was on the cross, He told the penitent thief, “Today, you will be with Me in Paradise” (Luke 23:43). Where was it that Jesus and the thief went? Neither of them went to heaven to be with God the Father on that very day, for in John 20:17 after His resurrection, Jesus reassured Mary that “He had not yet ascended to the Father”. Peter gave the answer to that question in Acts 2:27 where he states that God would not abandon Christ’s soul in hades, nor allow Christ to undergo decay. So, while Christ’s body was placed in a tomb for three days, Christ’s spirit went to hades. [NOTE: The word hades in the New Testament always refers to the unseen realm of the dead—the dwelling of disembodied spirits where all people who die await for the Lord’s return and judgment.] So it is quite feasible that that the place Jesus mentioned in John 3:13 (God’s abode), is a different place than the hadean realm that 2 Kings 2:11 says Elijah went to. Thus, technically he did not ascend to the “place” whence Jesus came. REBUTTAL: {C } Different Place