Supposed Contradictions


Miscellaneous Other Contradiction Claims


Bible Rejecter’s Question # 1: Meek Moses wrote the Pentateuch?
Based on verses such as Jos.8:32, Ezra 6:18 and John 7:23 Christians claim that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible.
But.. .
1. Num.12:3 says "The man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth ".
Now if Moses wrote this, then he could not have been very meek. The verse itself refutes meekness. Would the meekest man in the world actually say he was the meekest man in the world? Moreover one can hardly call Moses meek when he also uttered the following prime examples of “meekness”:
Deut.34:10 "And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face ".
Num.31:17 "Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that has known man by lying with him ",
2. Exod.23:19 tells the Israelites to bring their first fruits to the House of the Lord. But what house? This could not have been written until God had a house, King Solomon’s Temple, around 400 years after the death of Moses. How could the Israelites of Moses time bring offerings to a house that did not exist. The “house” referred to cannot have been the Tabernacle because 2 Sam.7:6 make it clear that God did not consider a “tent” a “house”. Moses could not have written the verse. Gen.14:14 says that Abram pursued Lot’s captors to the city of Dan. But the city of Dan was not known as Dan until after the conquest of Canaan, when the Twelve Tribes had been allotted their territory after the death of Moses! The city of Dan was originally known as Laish and was not called Dan at the time of Moses (Juges 18:29).
Finally Deut.34:5-6 describes Moses’ death and burial! How could Moses have written that?

What Brian is not getting here is that; although men wrote the Bible, these men were not writing of their own accord or giving just “their own opinion”. Moses and the rest of the Old Testament authors were moved by the Holy Ghost to write what they wrote (2Pet 2:21), and he spoke through the authors (see Acts 28:25-26). Clearly God believed that Moses was meek and so inspired him to write such a statement in Num 12:3, but it is still God’s statement rather than Moses’. See below for details on Deuteronomy ch34. Also, in Num 31 Moses does not go against his meekness, just because a man commands something unpleasant (but right) does not mean he isn’t meek. Brian confuses “meek” with “weak”. Moses was a leader; he couldn’t afford his words to be gentle and sweet ALL the time. Jesus was also meek (Matt 11:29) but spoke some rough things to people at times too (Matt 23:33). In case one is wondering about the morality of Num 31:17, we ask that they read the previous verses (15-16).

2. First, to the “house” issue, this is nonsense. Whether the book of Exodus was written by Moses or not, the context of 23:19 shows that it is a recording of a command that God gave to MOSES (while he was alive) to give to Israel, while they were in the wilderness (see 20:22 where the passage begins). So the “house of the Lord” most definitely refers to the tabernacle. This tent is also referred to as a “house” throughout the Scriptures, (see 1Sam 1:24). Of course Brian (as we’ve seen he’s quite a hair-splitter when it comes to words – 1Tim 6:4) will now say that all this contradicts 2Sam 7:6 where God says He didn’t dwell in a “house”. Anyone without bias though will see that God means a literal solid building of stone in 2Sam 7:6, while when the author’s refer to the tent as a “house” (obviously not meaning a literal solid building of stone) they mean merely a “dwelling place” or a “home”. Same words can refer to different things (see our answer to “contradiction” no.41 in Section II) is not a problem either. Evidently the Israelites (including Moses) knew Laish as the city of Dan (see also Deut 34:1) before the Danites took it over in Judges 18:29. This may be because Dan the son of Jacob dwelt there himself for a period. The city was probably know generally as Laish but Dan only to the Hebrews before the Danites built a new city there and called it Dan in Judges 18:29. Lastly we do not contend that Moses wrote any of Deut 34:5-12, this is just the conclusion of the law and an introduction to the book of Joshua, it is a mere 0.53% of the Pentateuch. These verses were most surely written by Joshua (Deut 34:9, Josh 1:1).


Bible Rejecter’s Question # 2: Was Jesus qualified to be the Messiah?/ Contradictions in the genealogies?
2Sam7:12-13, Psalms 89:3-4 and 132:11 say that the Messiah HAD to be a physical descendent of King David. Romans 1:3, Acts 2:30 and 2Tim 2:8 all claim that Jesus was the fulfilment of God’s promise to raise up the Messiah from the “seed” of David, that of a human male (contrary to Gen 3:15 seed of a woman). 
2. But a close look at the genealogies of Jesus shows that there are serious problems with this claim. Matt 1:11 lists Jeconiah as an ancestor of Jesus, Jer.22:28-30 says no descendent of Jeconiah will ever sit on the throne of David. Jesus couldn't have been the Messiah as a descendent of Jeconiah.
3. Matt 1:11 says that Jesus was an ancestor of Jeconiah and 1 Chron,3: 16 says that Jeconiah was a descendent of Jehoiakim, consequently Jesus was a descendent of Jehoiakim, Jer.36:30 says that no descendent of Jehoiakim will ever sit on the throne of David. Jesus could not have been the Messiah as a descendent of Jehoiakim.
4. 1 Chron,22:9-10, 2 Sam,7:12-13 and 1 Chron,29:1 show that the Messiah had to be a descendent of King Solomon but Luke 3:31 shows that Jesus genealogy is traced through Solomon's brother, Nathan, Jesus couldn't have been the Messiah because he was descended from the wrong son of David.
5. Since the Messiah had to be a physical descendent of David and Joseph was supposedly not Jesus' biological father and Mary was of the Tribe of Levi (Luke 1 :5,36) not David's tribe of Judah, then the physical link to King David was broken, Jesus could not have been the Messiah because he was not of the seed of David!
6. Luke’s genealogy is not that of Mary; it doesn’t even mention her name nor is any woman mentioned in it! Luke 3:23 calls Joseph the “son of Heli” not son in law. Why not apply the genealogy in Matthew to Mary rather than the one in Luke because one is no more applicable than the other? In fact the Bible does not contain the genealogical record of any woman, in the Biblical worldview they are not important enough to warrant that kind of attention.
Even if it was Mary’s, Jesus would still be disqualified because it is traced through Nathan (as we have seen, the Messiah had to be a descendent of his brother, Solomon) and two men listed in Luke’s genealogy, Shealtiel and Zerubbabel (Luke 3:27) were descendants of the cursed Jeconiah (1Chron 3:17-19)! In addition as a woman Mary was not qualified to be heir to the throne and could not pass on what she could not possess.
So according to the Bible itself, both legally (his foster father was under a double curse of God and could not pass on to Jesus what he could not possess) and biologically (his mother was from the wrong tribe, he was descended from two cursed men, he was descended from the wrong son of David) Jesus could not have been the Messiah. All attempts to reconcile these problems basically amount to saying when you want a descendent to be a descendent the virgin birth makes no difference and when you want a descendent not to be a descendent, you say there was a virgin birth!
9. Not only do the genealogies preclude Jesus from being the Messiah, they contradict each other and the Old Testament. Was Joseph’s father Jacob (Matt 1:16) or Heli (Luke 3:23)? Was Jesus descended from Solomon (Matt 1:6-7) or Nathan (Luke 3:31)? Was Shealtel’s father Jeconiah (1Chron 3:17, Matt 1:12) or Neri (Luke 3:27)? Was Salah the son of Cainan (Luke 3:35-36) or Arphaxad (Gen 11:12)? Matt 1:11 omits Jehoiakim between Josiah and Jeconiah (1Chron 3:15-16) in an attempt to hide a cursed lineage (Jer 36:30) rendering Matthew’s generation count incorrect. Matt 1:13 says Abiud was the son of Zerubbabel, Luke 3:27 says Rhesa was the son of Zerubbabel but 1Chron 3:19 says neither were the sons of Zerubbabel!
Matthew has 28 generations from David to Jesus while Luke has 42 for the same period. Was Uzziah’s father Amaziah (2Chronicles 26:1) or Joram (Matt 1:8)?


Bible-Believer’s response to 1-9 above:
Brian is correct in saying that the Messiah had to be a physical descendant of King David, which Jesus was. However he finds a contradiction with the Messiah having to be both from the seed of a man (Psalm 89:4) and the seed of a woman (Gen 3:15). This is not a hard concept to accept if we consider that Mary was of the literal “seed” of David and was the literal mother of Jesus hence making Jesus David’s literal offspring and “from the ‘seed’ of David” (a man). However just as prophesised in Gen 3:15 Jesus was of the seed of a woman too (Mary) because He was not put there by physical contact with a man. Jesus was her seed who was the seed of David. The New Testament writers did not see any contradiction in this at all as we see from a number of verses including Acts 2:30-31 where Luke writes about Peter’s declaring of Jesus as the fruit of David’s loins while at the same time he speaks of Jesus’ birth as having nothing to do with any man, in his gospel. See also Paul’s acceptance of the dual concept in Rom 1:3-4.
2. The word of God is ahead of all the scoffers here and demonstrates its great accuracy and depth. Jeremiah 22:28 says “wherefore are they cast out, he and his seed” Verse 30 says “for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David”. Only Joseph was descended from Jeconiah and Jesus didn’t come from Joseph’s “seed” (hence the virgin birth). Jesus was Mary’s “seed” not Joseph’s and hence not Jeconiah’s.
3. Again, God was careful to use the word “seed” (meaning Jehoiakim’s natural children). Jesus, being from Mary’s “seed” not Joseph’s (or Jehoiakim’s) escaped this curse too.
4. Jesus was indeed a descendant of King Solomon through Joseph by adoption (see Matt 1:7). Notice that none of the verses cited above say that the Messiah had to be of the “seed” (or natural child) of Solomon, again the Bible is plain to everyone who comes to it willing to understand. The very reason for the genealogy in Matthew is to show Jesus legitimate right to the Davidic throne by listing its former legitimate kings. Solomon’s line however had been corrupted by Jehoiachin and Jehoiakim hence the need for the Messiah to be descended naturally from Nathan’s line instead.
5. These issues are already answered at the beginning of the question above. And the Bible does not say that Mary was of the tribe of Levi. Brian cites for evidence the fact that Mary’s relative was from this tribe but forgets that the man she was marrying (Joseph) was from the tribe of JUDAH! And also misses Luke 1:27 which says that Mary was “…of the house of David…” See too Luke 2:3-5 and also Luke 1:32 where Gabriel announces that DAVID is the father of Jesus without Joseph’s involvement in the conception (verse 31) and BEFORE Joseph could have been Jesus’ father through adoption (Mary and Joseph weren’t even married at that point).
6. The view of Luke’s genealogy being that of Mary is also very reasonable for the following reasons,

·        Luke and Matthew give two completely different genealogies (as though they were for two different people).

·        If one of them were that of Mary it would seem reasonable that the author would use the name of the head of her household in the place of Mary’s name since as Brian himself points out (though we shouldn’t jump to his conclusions regarding this) it was unusual for a woman’s genealogical line to be given. This tradition is not unfounded in the Bible or in society, God made marriage to be a merging of two to become one person (Gen 2:24) and this new person is to take the husband’s name (Gen 5:2). From a Biblical perspective Mary and Joseph were ONE flesh called “Joseph” just like Adam and Eve were one flesh called “Adam” (Gen 5:2).

·        That Luke 3:23 puts Joseph’s name to designate Mary seems even more likely when we consider that in the Bible a son in law could be called a son (see 1Samuel 24:16 and 26:21 where David is called “son” by Saul who is his father in law) therefore Joseph could be rightly called the son of Heli.

·        Luke’s genealogy rather than Matthew’s would be that of Mary because Luke tells the story of Jesus’ birth from her perspective while Matthew tells it from Joseph’s perspective. Also Matthew’s genealogy tells us that Jacob “begat” Joseph, Jacob was definitely Joseph’s physical father. Also a Jewish source (Jerusalem Talmud, Hagigah 2:4) tells us that Mary’s father was indeed Heli.

7. The Nathan/Solomon problem has been answered already. The Salathiel and Zerubbabel of Luke’s genealogy are clearly not the same as the Salathiel and Zerubbabel of 1Chronicles 3. The Salathiel and Zerubbabel of Luke 3:27 are descended from Neri not Jechoniah (compare Luke 3:27 and 1Chron 3:17). And also notice that the men of 1Chron 3:17-19 are sons of Solomon (1Chr 3:10-19) and are uncle and nephew unlike the two men of Luke 3:27 who are sons of Nathan and father and son! And to answer Brian’s last line above, Jesus was qualified to be heir to the throne not by Mary but through Joseph (hence Solomon) by adoption.
8. According to the Bible only His foster father’s NATURAL son would be cursed not an adopted son and biologically Mary WAS from the tribe of Judah, Jesus wasn’t descended naturally from two cursed men and the fact that He was descended from Nathan naturally makes no difference to His claim to be Messiah since He was an adopted son of Solomon. Brian claims we’re being inconsistent on the virgin birth issue but we are not. As we have already cleared up Jesus avoided the curse on Jehoiakim and Jeconiah’s NATURAL SONS (by the virgin birth) because God clearly said that only their seed were under the curse. Jesus didn’t need to be descended NATURALLY from Solomon, not one of the verses Brian cites claim that it had to be Solomon’s NATURAL SON that was to be the Messiah, we are not “basically amounting to saying” any such nonsense as he claims. 
9. Joseph’s father was Jacob, Matthew says he begat him, Luke only says Joseph was the son of Heli which means son in law as discussed above. Jesus was descended from both Solomon (by Joseph) and Nathan (by Mary) as we’ve also seen above. As aforementioned Matthew (and 1Chronicles) and Luke speak of different Shealtiels (Salathiel) which is why they have different fathers! Salah was the grandson of Arphaxad according to Luke 3:36 therefore there is no contradiction with Genesis 11:12 which says Salah was the son of Arphaxad. In the Bible grandsons are always called sons (see Gen 31:28) and are said to be “begotten” by their grandfathers. Genesis 11 does not mention Cainan between Arphaxad and Salah perhaps because Cainan (seeing Salah was born when Arphaxad was 35) would have had to beget Salah as a young teenager. If this were the case Arphaxad would have brought up Salah instead of Cainan, resulting in Cainan’s absence in the records until Luke mentions him.

If Matthew was trying to hide the cursed lineage then why would he mention the “CURSED” Jechonias (Coniah, Jehoiachin) in Matt 1:11 who Brian was discussing at the beginning of his question? See below for the generation count and generation skipping issues. The Zerubbabel of Matt 1:13 (the SON of Salathiel) is not the Zerubbabel of 1Chron 3:19 (the son of Pedaiah and NEPHEW of the Salathiel of Matt 1:12) so it’s no surprise they have different sons! And as we’ve already shown above the Zerubbabel of Luke 3:27 (the son of Neri) is related to neither the Zerubbabel of 1Chron 3:19 or the one of Matthew 1:13, Luke is discussing a completely different lineage.

10. Luke and Matthew have different generation counts for two reasons. The first is that they are different genealogies (as we have already explained). The second reason they have different generation counts is that Matthew skips generations in his genealogy while Luke includes every generation from David to Jesus. The purpose of Matthew’s gospel is to present Jesus as the rightful King of the Jews, and inheritor of the throne of David (that’s why he begins with David, and Luke goes all the way back to Adam). Matthew only records the LEGITIMATE inheritors of David’s throne because the point of his genealogy is to show Jesus as the legitimate Messiah, hence he skips the generations that were involved in the pollution of the royal line with the other idolatrous tribes in Israel (the kings that were illegitimate in God’s eyes) and picks it up again with kings that were rightful inheritors of the kingdom. Finally, Uzziah’s father was Amaziah, but Matthew skips Amaziah, Amaziah’s father Joash and Joash’s father Ahaziah in his genealogy, and goes all the way back to Ahaziah’s father Joram (Jehoram) for the reason we have mentioned above, these kings were not legitimate inheritors of David’s throne. Joram was still the “father” of Uzziah and can be rightfully said to have “begat” him. The term “father” is always applied to a man’s ancestor in the Bible, no matter how far back in the family tree he existed, as we’ve seen already (see Matt 1:1).


Bible Rejecter’s Question # 3: Super Christians?
Matt.17:20 "If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove: and NOTHING SHALL BE IMPOSSIBLE unto you".
Mark 9:23 "If thou canst believe, ALL THINGS are possible to him that believeth". But...
. No Christian can so much as move a pebble by commanding it to do so let alone a mountain! Jesus said NOTHING would be imposable to someone to believed in him. Mark 8:12 says that no sign would be given to that generation so these powers can't have been just for first century Christians. The obvious conclusion is that since Christians aren't omnipotent supermen then they don't even have as much faith as a mustard seed and they are not true believers at all. Either that or what Jesus said was false.

 2. Closely related to the false promises regarding special powers are the false promises regarding the efficacy of prayer. James 5:13-15 says prayer WILL heal the sick, Matt 7:7-8 says “everyone” that asks receives. Matt 2:18 says that when two Christians ask for something it will be done, Matt 21:21-22 says and Mark 11:24 say “all things” Christians ask for in prayer they shall receive, while John 16:23-24 says “whatsoever” Christians ask in Jesus name it WILL be done. But every Christian who is honest enough to admit it knows that each of these promises are utterly false. Besides obviously not working, prayer doesn’t make sense; if it changes God’s mind then he is not sovereign, if it does not change God’s mind then it is superfluous, and if God knew from all eternity whether or not your request would indeed be granted what difference is your prayer going to make? (See Question 2).


Bible Believer:
1. The concept in Matt 17:20 is explained clearer in Mark 11:23 “…whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe THAT THOSE THINGS WHICH HE SAITH shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.” In other words if one prays, believing that the mountain will be removed one can remove it. However having faith as a grain of mustard seed about moving a mountain isn’t easy, it involves no doubts whatsoever according to Mark 11:23. Mark 9:23 is speaking in the same context.

Notice that in Brian’s above comments on the verses, he mixes Matt 17:20 and Mark 9:23 together and conveniently adds in an “in him” to make his own verse! He then tries to convince us that Jesus said anything is possible to those who believe “in Him”. Mark 8:12 is referring to the fact that the Jews weren’t given any “sign” to “as an entire nation” apart from the resurrection (see our answer to contradiction no.22 in Section II). Miracles were done throughout the ministry of Jesus and His apostles (need we cite the verses?). Christians do not have access to “superman” powers today (1Cor 13:8-10) nor healing powers (2Tim 4:20).

What Brian is actually saying here is that Christians wouldn’t be true believers if they didn’t have faith (as a grain of mustard seed) enough to move a mountain! Keep in mind Jesus is talking to his disciples in the Matthew verse that Brian cites who were obviously “true believers”. And even if we “Christians” weren’t true believers, that certainly would not be a reason to disbelieve the BIBLE.

2. The funny thing is, each book Brian cites give specific criteria that has to be met before a prayer is answered. The book of James is filled with details on why prayer may NOT be answered (see James 1:6-7 and 4:3-4). And James 5:15 says the prayer of FAITH (condition) will heal the sick, not just “prayer”.

In Matt 7:8 is actually talking about ordinary life (in life people only get things if they ask) in order to encourage people to ask God for their needs. Nowhere does Jesus say that every request will be satisfied, but rather that God will acknowledge the request (answer it) by granting it or denying it. Regarding Matt 18:18-19’s promise to the apostles (not “Christians”), Jesus teaches them later (if Brian had read on) that there are actually some conditions to be met before an answer to any prayer. He told them a request must be in faith (Matt 21:21-22). He also taught that a request must be according to God’s will (Matt 26:39) by His own example.

Matt 21:21-22 and Mark 11:24 clearly state that a person must BELIEVE before any “things” can be received.

Now we come to John 16:23-24. This is not a blanket statement to “Christians”; John 15-17 is Christ’s last private meeting with His 11 apostles before His death. Christ has already explained in the same conversation (John 15:7) that IF the apostles abide in His word (condition) they will receive whatsoever they ask. He then explains in 16:24 how that the APOSTLES are now in a position to ask and receive anything (see the context 16:22-25). Nowhere does the Bible promise that every request “Christians” ask will be answered. Brian is wrong.


As for the philosophical mumbo-jumbo, prayer doesn’t have to change God’s mind. It merely seeks His intervention in a situation here on earth that He might have just let run its course if His intervention had not been sought and God’s allowance for free will doesn’t contradict His sovereignty. Brian’s argument that prayer is pointless goes along the lines of  “God knows the future anyway, it is fixed so why pray about it?” However the fact is that though God knows the future from all eternity, He also knew whether we would ask or not ask Him for things from all eternity. A certain part of God’s decisions of what to do or not to do in His earth (from all eternity) was evidently based on whether we would pray about certain things or not.


Bible Rejecter’s Question # 4: The first or third cock crow?
John 13:38 says "The cock shall not crow till thou hast denied me thrice ".
Mark 14:68 says the cock crowed after just the first denial. Jesus' "prophecy" was incorrect.

Bible-Believer: This is pretty complicated but it is clear that the cock DID NOT crow till Peter denied Jesus three times. The fact that all the gospels seem to be telling a different story on the surface (just like honest eyewitnesses) is more evidence that the accounts are trustworthy. Some study will prove that Mark’s gospel doesn’t even record the “first denial”; not to mention saying the cock crowed after it. Neither does Luke or Matthew record the first one. John explains clearly that Peter’s FIRST denial of Christ that night was when he was just coming into the palace of the high priest (John 18:15-17), an incident Mark does NOT speak of. John also fills us in on the NEXT TWO denials (18:25 and 18:26-27), which the other three gospel writers don’t write about either (they weren’t eyewitnesses to these events).


The cock crowed for the first time after the third denial (only recorded by John in 18:27), so Jesus prophecy was correct. This was not the same cock crowing as recorded in Luk 22:60, Matt 23:74 or Mark’s second cock crow (14:73) because Peter doesn’t go out to weep on this crowing (as he does in Luk/Matt/Mark) there is no evidence to suggest that he even HEARD it, (it is more than likely he only heard the cock crow two times because in Mark’s gospel we find that Jesus also told Peter that “before the cock crow TWICE thou shalt deny me thrice”.) Also this crowing happened immediately after Malchus’ kinsman accuses Peter of being in the garden (unlike the crowing recorded in Luk/Matt/Mark which happened immediately after Peter was accused of being from Galilee). John’s account of this event is merely to show that Jesus’ prophecy came true, the cock DID NOT crow till after Peter denied Jesus THREE times.


When all four accounts are examined it must be concluded that John’s gospel and the other three actually speak of at least six separate denials that Peter made that night. Jesus’ prophecy in John 13:38 concerns only these first 3 denials and has nothing to say about the Peter’s remembrance of the prophecy. The “cock crow” of Jesus’ prophecy in John signals the first cockcrow of the morning and is meant to refer to a specific time very soon after Peter said he would never deny him. His prophecy doesn’t rule out that there would be more denials than three.


It is here that the other three gospels pick up the story, AFTER the third denial and first cock crowing. John’s gospel records none of denials 4,5 or 6. DENIAL 4 is when a maid interrogates Peter and he denies (Luk 22:56, Matt 26:69, Mar 14:66). Mark 14:68 mentions the cock crowing after this denial but it is clear from Mark’s gospel that Peter didn’t remember the prophecy on hearing this crowing since he didn’t react. This is now the SECOND cock crowing but probably the first that Peter hears. DENIAL 5 is when a man, a maid and them that stood by tell ask Peter at the porch and Peter denies Jesus again. Peter denies (Luk 22:58, Matt 26:71, Mar 14:69) Matthew, Mark and Luke could very well be referring to two different denials. But it makes no difference.
DENIAL 6 is when people standing by point out that Peter is a Galilean and it is after this accusation and subsequent denial that Peter HEARS the cock for the second time (although when the gospels are examined together it comes to three) and weeps (Luk 22:59, Matt 26:73, Mar 14:70).


Bible Rejecter’s Question # 5: Liberty or slavery?
2 Cor.3:17 "Where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty ".
Lev.25:45-46 "Of the strangers shall ye buy... they shall be your possession; they shall be your bondmen forever ".
Deut.15:17 "He shall be thy servant forever".
Exod.21 :20-21 ''If a man smite his servant or his maid with a rod... and he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money".
1 Tim.6:1-2 "Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour ".
1 Peter 2: 18 "Servants be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the forward".
Exod.21:4 ''If a master have given him (the slave) a wife and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's and he shall go out by himself". If the Bible is a source of absolute morality as Christians claim it is then why don't Christians own slaves today? Surely it is hypocritical of Christians to follow social conventions (which forbid slavery) rather than God's Word (which sanctions it)? As Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederacy during the American Civil War, Born Again Christian and hero of the Ku Klux Klan said of slavery: "It was established by decree of almighty God... it is sanctioned in the bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation ".

The Southern Baptist Convention was founded in 1845 to fight for the preservation of slavery, something for which it did not apologise for until the 1990's. Since their ideas were based completely on Biblical principles was that apology issued on God’s behalf too? If the Baptists were wrong about slavery what else are they wrong about? Clearly Biblical Christianity is a religion with a shameful history of white supremacist doctrines and practices. Christians try to wriggle out of the slavery issue in a number of ways. They claim Christians helped bring slavery to an end. True some Christians did, as did non-believers such as Thomas Paine. However Christian’s also helped establish the slave trade and those involved in its abolition did so in spite of Biblical pronouncements not because of them: Second, Christians claim that the theory of evolution also sanctions slavery. False! Firstly this is just a attempt to get away from the issue at hand (that the Bible sanctions slavery), second it is a transparent admission that the Bible does in fact sanction slavery (the word also) and third it is one of the many outright lies told by pastors and ministers about evolutionary theory. First a definition, evolution or transformation of species means that individual organisms fortuitously better adapted to their environment than others of their species stand a better chance of surviving and so of passing on their desirable characteristics to the next generation. This process has been called ‘the survival of the fittest’. In this way in the course of numerous generations, new species may arise. That’s it. Where does slavery and racism fit in there? It doesn’t. In fact the theory of evolution does not advocate any type of behaviour. Like all scientific theories it merely attempts to describe the way things are not how they ought to be. It is a descriptive not a prescriptive or normative discipline. This is known as the “is/ought” gap; the impossibility of learning how we “ought” to behave from the kind of statements of fact that are the domain of science.

Saying evolution sanctions slavery is like saying atomic theory sanctions rape or the theory of gravity sanctions beating up your granny i.e. it is pure nonsense. Saying ‘is it any wonder people treat each other like animals when they are taught they come from animals’ (evolution doesn’t say that, it says we had a common ancestor) is equivalent to saying ‘is it any wonder people treat each other like dirt when they are taught they come from dirt [Gen 3:19]!

Bible-Believer: Firstly 2Corinthians 3:17 says, “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty,” and obviously doesn’t imply that nobody can ever be in any kind of physical bondage where the Holy Spirit is. Even Paul himself who wrote this verse spent a lot of his years in chains! The verse speaks about spiritual liberty, of which many Old Testament slaves found in the true God when they were taken to Israel. There is no conflict with 2Cor 3:17 and Old Testament slavery. It is foolish for Brian or the Ku Klux Klan to think that Old Testament (Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy) instructions to JEWS in the THEOCRACY of ISRAEL apply to western European and American Christians under secular governments in the New Testament age. Christians are not disobeying God’s word by not having slaves. No New Testament passages even hint that Christians SHOULD/MUST take slaves but rather “whosoever will be chief among let him be your servant” (Matt 20:27). Notice the references Brian gives above are all spoken to encourage Christian servants. Paul actually encourages Christian servants to come out from under their masters if it is at all possible (1Cor 7:21,23).

And who ever said “the Baptists” are always right? We go by the Bible not by “the Baptists”. It’s funny how Brian says their ideas were based “completely” on Biblical principles without providing any verses to back up his case. Where in the Bible does God even hint that a white Gentile is better than a black Gentile? The Bible says we “should not call any man common or unclean” (Acts 10:28). Racism against black Americans by definition cannot be a part of the history of “Biblical” Christianity. Also, nobody said the theory of evolution sanctions slavery. And we will always freely admit that the Bible does advocate slavery (for Jews before A.D 33). Evolution is however a racist, pagan RELIGION that sanctions white supremacy, just ask evolution’s most devout follower Adolf “survival of the fittest” Hitler about it. Since Brian likes quoting “Christians”, we thought we’d quote ardent evolutionist Michael Ruse speaking about this topic, he says “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution today.” Evolution is a religion like Christianity and no scientist has ever given any evidence to the contrary. Besides every statement of fact is a statement about reality and every belief of a statement about reality will naturally result in an associated form of behaviour. If I believe that we are the children of Adam, we are under the curse of God we’re going to hell if we don’t accept Christ (statements about reality) then I’ll BEHAVE like that’s the case. If I believed that we came from millions of years of evolution, not under any curse and don’t have to worry about getting our sins removed (statements about reality) then I’d BEHAVE like THAT were the case. Atomic theory concerns atoms and matter, the theory of gravity concerns gravity so obviously these theories cannot be compared to the theory of evolution which, among other things, concerns HUMANS, and where they come from (an amoeba not the garden of Eden), hence it follows they no longer need to believe the Bible and don’t have to worry about giving an account to an Almighty God. Evolutionists teach that we just happened to come from animals through un-purposeful natural processes. Gen 3:19 teaches that God created man out of dust but with DESIGN and PURPOSE. Brian should see that there is a big difference.

 Our Bible Rejecter Concludes...

There are literally hundreds more contradictions and scores of other problems which plague the Bible but by now I'm sure you get the point. Since the Bible clearly contradicts itself the unavoidable conclusion is that the Bible contains mistakes and if the Bible contains mistakes it simply cannot be the Word of a Perfect Divine Being.


An Important Note on the Originals/Greek and Hebrew/ Copyist Error Arguments:
Many Christians admit that modem versions of the Bible contain errors and mistakes but declare that if you go back to the original manuscripts you will find that the Bible is totally consistent. But this theory is wholly without merit. Nobody today has the original manuscripts because they no longer exist. How can one honestly contend that an unread, unseen Bible is the Word of God? If you have never seen or read a book how can you know what it really says? If only the originals were the inerrant Word of God then the true Word of God has perished and nobody today has an inerrant Bible and you are saying that God has failed to perfectly preserve his Word! If you have never seen the original how can you be sure that something was copied incorrectly? If you say you believe in the inspiration of the original Bible then you believe in nothing for no such book ever existed; there was no such thing as the Bible when Paul wrote Corinthians and Ephesians. If you have to go back to the original Hebrew and Greek then why do experts who know Hebrew and Greek fluently still disagree? Because that doesn't solve the dilemma that's why. Besides, what chapter or verse in the Bible says that a knowledge of the original languages is necessary to understand the Word of God?
When you purchase a Bible, any Bible, be it the AV, the NIV, the ASV or whatever, you are buying a writing that was put together by a group of scholars who went through some old manuscripts that purportedly are accurate representations of the alleged originals which no longer exist and no one can prove existed in the first place! Don't be fooled by people who tell you "you have the Bible ".


Bible-Believer's Final Conclusion:

Our Bible Rejecter has spent an awful lot of time trying to collate a bunch of what he hopes are strong arguments against the Bible being inerrant with the hope that people would dump God's word, for materialism and the worship of THEMSELVES. Well, as we have seen, the list of "problems" that Brian and others have with the Bible are problems not with the Bible itself, but first and foremost problems with God! Just because something at first glance looks "hard to be understood" doesn't mean it is a contradiction. Brian wouldn't last 30 seconds in a court of law with his kind of detective work. He hasn't even scratched the surface of what the evidence proves. Almost all of his problems with the Bible are easily answered in 10 seconds or less, and the other ones take a bit longer only because the subject matter is more in-depth.


What the Bible believer, and truth seeker should take note of is that the Bible was written to be able to stand up to human scrutiny, but still requires a person to have faith in the Author when things don't make sense - THAT'S LIFE! Not everything makes sense, but the Creator knows what He is doing, and the subject of the Bible is God's Problem With MAN! We had better seek for a "fix" to OUR problem instead of always trying to find problems with the God who loved us enough to enter our world, and die for us AT OUR OWN HANDS!!!

As far as "the original languages" and so on, the Bible Believer admits NONE of the above - we admit that there are NO errors in the "original manuscripts" and that God has preserved His word just as He promised in Psalms 12:6,7 and Matthew 24:35. The “original” documents that were hand penned by the prophets and the apostles are gone. Copies by the thousands were made, and because of God's promise to preserve His word, we have exact copies of God's words just as if they were the original. Let me illustrate: If I type the following word:



And then copy that word...






The copies are JUST AS VALID as the original - the same goes with the Greek and Hebrew texts from which we get our English Bible. There is SO MUCH EVIDENCE PROVING that the copies we have today are EXACT and ACCURATE that it would take years for anyone to accumulate and study all the evidence. Just some links for you to be able to begin the study of the preservation of God's words:


·         Is the Bible THE Word of God?

·         Evidences of Supernatural Inspiration

·         The Bible Version Debate