God's family reaching up, reaching in, reaching out.

How do I answer skeptics’ questions about the Bible?

Q: I am having a problem with my faith and wanted to know if you could help me explain some of the info I have found on the internet. I have done some research about questions that have arisen after reading The Da Vinci Code and The Templar Legacy. I stumbled upon the following website (http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/central.html) and now I seriously doubt even the divinity of Jesus or the truth of the Bible.I have read Josh McDowell’s book explaining the fallacies of The Da Vinci Code (which I agree with), but all of the problems with the Bible as stated by the above website, I have confirmed with my Kings James Version of the Bible. I am a graduate of a large Christian University and have struggled with some questions of my faith since my freshman year. Now it seems as if a floodgate of information, that I have never heard discussed in any sermon, is disproving Christianity altogether. Since according to your beliefs you are Fundamentalist, please help me explain these discrepancies or point me in the right direction of proof.

A: Thanks for writing. I won’t be able to answer each and every objection on Paul Tobin’s web site. I just don’t have the time. But I will take some time to work through a few issues from his Bible contradictions section. Perhaps you will see a pattern in the issues he raises and how to deal with them that will help you think about the other issues that you are challenged by.

Let me start out by saying the author raises nothing new – that is, these issues have been brought up by skeptics for the past 150 years (at least) and there are good reasonable responses to each one. Of course, they are new to you and I’m sure that they seem overwhelming. Unfortunately you did not have the benefit of a church or college which talked about these issues. Please be reassured that you don’t need to give up your faith in the truthfulness of the Bible or the reality of who Jesus is. But, of course, you want more than simply my reassurance, so let me give you a sample of how a Christian can respond.

You mentioned about the truth of the Bible as being one of your most pressing issues. Here is a short response from his page of Bible contradictions (http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/internal.html). He deals with the following issues:

Creation account, plants and Adam – The author says there is a contradiction between Chapter 1 where plants are created before man & Chapter 2:4-7 which says plants had not been created, then goes on to describe God creating man.

Response: Genesis 2:5 doesn’t say simply “plants.” It says “plants of the field.” It’s not all plants that we are talking about, but cultivated plants, shrubs, and herbs = crops. The phrase “of the field” is repeated twice to separate it from the plants spoken about in Chapter 1. The author ignores this modifier and creates a false dilemma. One of the reasons that “the plants of the field had not yet appeared” was because “there was no man to work the ground” (2:5). The point being that there was no need for crops, because man had the whole uncursed world providing food for him (see 1:29) and even a garden where God made fruit trees grow out of the ground “which were good for food”(3:8-9).
But in Genesis 3:17-19 we find the curse upon Adam for his disobedience: “You will eat the plants of the field by the sweat of your brow.” Now because of the curse, Adam must till the land in order to get food. Note the repetition of the phrase “plants of the field” and God’s statement that now “you will eat the plants of the field” (3:18). No contradiction — in fact, it shows the unity between Chapters 1, 2, & 3. Chapter 1 talks about the creation of plants in general, which will serve for food for mankind. Chapter 2 is referring to crops that haven’t appeared because they aren’t needed until the fall of mankind. Chapter 3 talks about crops are being raised by man due to the curse. Perfect unity.

Creation account, animals and Adam – Similar to the previous issue, the author says there is a contradiction between Chapter 1 where birds and beasts are created before man and Chapter 2:19 where birds and beasts are created after man.

Response: Concerning the animals in 2:19, please note that it does not say that the animals were formed out of the ground on day 6. It only says that God formed them out of the ground. It’s a flashback to Genesis 1:24 & 1:21, setting the stage for Adam’s naming of the animals. It’s like me saying, “The terrorists flew the plane into the Pentagon and Secretary of Defense Rumsfield held a memorial service for the slain servicemen.” Is there anything in that sentence that demands that the day of the memorial service was also the same day as the plane flying into the Pentagon? Not really. The first sentence sets up the reason, justification or context for the second sentence. This is why the New International Bible translates “Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air.”
(By the way, these flashback sentences are typical of Hebrew writing style. They often give you a one sentence summary of a previous event in order to provide the context for the present event they are reporting. Examples: compare Genesis 1:27-28 with 5:1-2; compare Genesis 5:32 with 6:10; compare Genesis 8:18 with 9:18.)
You know, in order to believe that these are “contradictions,” you have to believe that whoever wrote (or, in the skeptic’s view, “edited”) these first two chapters of Genesis was a pretty sloppy writer. If someone was making this stuff up, don’t you think they would have noticed that they had God creating plants and animals TWICE?

Flood account, pairs of animals – The author says there is a contradiction between God’s instructions to Noah in Genesis 6:19-20 (bring two of every kind) and God’s instructions in 7:2-3 (7 pairs of clean animals & birds).

Response: Throughout his web site, the author uses the word “contradiction” in an improper manner. In logic a contradiction is “A and not A” – in other words, I make a truth statement (A) and then I say that not A is also true. For example, “The wall is blue. The wall is not blue.” This is a contradiction. Both cannot be true at the same time.
For God to say, “Bring two of every kind” and then to be more specific and say, “Bring 14 of every kind of clean animal” is not a contradiction. This is what my college logic professor called a “contrary.” (Different people use different terms. Others say “paradox,” “antinomies,” “contingency,” or “alleged contradictions.” I’ll use my professor’s term just to be consistent.) Using our previous example, a contrary would be “The wall is blue. The wall is yellow.” Although it may not be clear to us at first how a wall can be both blue and yellow, it is not a contradiction. A little thought can get you to the point that you see, “Oh, the wall is both blue and yellow!” An important truth that must repeatedly be hammered home is this: a mere difference does not a contradiction make! Two statements can differ without being in contradiction.
For example, one witness in a court case might testify that he saw two people at a crime scene, Jake and Sam, while another witness may only testify to seeing Sam. These statements are not contradictory. In fact, in a court of law, these statements could be considered complementary. This is the nature of many of the alleged contradictions in the Bible. For instance, in Matthew, we read that Jesus met two blind men. In Mark and Luke, we only read about one blind man meeting Jesus. In Matthew and Mark, we read that Jesus went to pray alone three times in the Garden of Gethsemane, whereas, in Luke, we read that Jesus went alone to pray on one occasion. Under legal rules of evidence and the Law of Non-contraction, these aren’t contradictory scriptures, and yet they make all of the infamous lists. (For more on this subject see http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2174.)
You have the identical thing here with God’s instructions to Noah. By Noah taking 7 pairs of clean animals, is he still taking at least one pair? Sure he is. God hasn’t contradicted Himself. He has only added to it. It’s like your teacher saying to you, “I want you to do all the odd numbered problems on page 91.” Then a few minutes later saying, “I want you to do the first five even numbered problems.” Did your teacher contradict herself? Nope. She just added to your assignment.
In reading skeptics you will find that many, many of the “contradictions” they bring up are really contraries, not contradictions. A little thinking will get you to the point that you see how both can be true.
And reconciling the differences can often lead to insight. Why did God want Noah to take 7 pairs of clean animals? The “unclean” animals would only have to reproduce themselves after the flood, but the “clean” animals would be needed also for the offerings that Noah would sacrifice (Genesis 8:20) and would eat (Genesis 9:3).

The Conquest of Hebron – The author sees a “contradiction” over who conquered the cities of Hebron and Debir.

Response: Not to be derisive, but this issue is pretty lame. Again, there is no contradiction – just an contrary. Either Caleb was the principle commander under General Joshua who was responsible for capturing Hebron and Debir (Joshua 10:36-38) – therefore, Joshua 15:13-17 is a more specific explanation of how Joshua 10:36-38 happened – OR (as I think likely) Caleb’s conquest of Hebron and Debir is a explanation of what happened after the initial campaigns under Joshua. Chapter 15 is the allotment of the Promised Land to certain tribes and clans after the initial conquest. Caleb is from the tribe of Judah and his clan is allotted the southern area. It seems likely to me that Caleb is reconquering Hebron and Debir from Philistines that came in and resettled the area after the Canaanites had been exterminated by Joshua’s initial campaign. The quick resettlement of cities is something you see over and over again in the Bible.

I hope that you are picking up on some of the “tricks” used by skeptics to question the Bible. It is very common for skeptics to talk about “contradictions” when we are really dealing with contraries. Use this tool when thinking through the issues which the author raises about David’s Introduction to Saul; Michal’s Children (clue: she had another husband); Genealogical Contradiction, Joseph’s Father (solution: Matthew’s list is a royal, dynastic succession showing that Jesus is the descendant of King David; Luke’s is a biological list for either Joseph or possibly Mary’s ancestors); and The Death of Judas (clue: how does a person hang themselves? What happens to the body afterward?).

The slaying of Goliath issue is a probably a copyist misread. When we talk about inerrancy of the Bible, we mean and have always meant that the original written documents are without error, not every subsequent copy of the original. The author of the web site is being completely devious when he writes: “This inconsistency was so obvious to the translators for the King James Bible (or “The Authorized Version”) that in an act of dishonest piety they actually rewrote the verse in II Samuel 21:19.” Even the most superficial study on this passage makes it clear that the Hebrew for “Lahmi the brother of” (1 Chronicles 20:5) is very similar to the Hebrew for “the Bethlehemite.” If the author of the web site has studied this passage at all, he must know this. The King James translators did not make it up! Somewhere along the line it seems likely that a copyist of 2 Samuel copied it incorrectly and subsequent copiers (attempting to be faithful in handing down the word of God as they received it) continued to faithfully record the error. You can argue that the King James writers should have footnoted their decision, but you can’t say they were being “dishonest” or simply “rewrote the verse.”

Since the author raised a charge of “dishonesty,” I am led to make a comment about honesty and skeptics. It is certainly true that Christians are not always honest people. We are sinners who can and do lie for many reasons. However, we are people committed to Truth and believe that God commands us to be truthful in our dealings with others, even when this puts us at a disadvantage.

Skeptics don’t believe in anything called the Truth (with a capital ‘T’) and being truthful is usually a situation ethic for them – that is, it depends on the situation. Hence, my personal experience with skeptics is that they will sometimes play fast and loose with the truth in order to tear down a Christian’s faith. So take what is written by a skeptic skeptically and be sure and check what they tell you the Bible says with what the Bible actually says. Of course, this is a good rule for anything you read.

The “problem” of “Matthew’s Mistaken Reference” is an example of pure dishonesty. The author must know as well as anyone else who has studied the verse, that Matthew is a combined quotation of BOTH Zechariah 11:12-13 AND Jeremiah 19:1-13; 18:2-12; 32:6-9. Matthew mentions only the major prophet. In addition, Matthew uses the idea of “fulfillment” differently. A repetitive pattern found in the Old Testament and then repeated in the life of Jesus is also a “fulfillment” in Matthew’s way of thinking. For example, see Matthew 2:15 where he quotes Hosea 11:1. This was a typical way of thinking about “fulfillment” among the Jews of Jesus’ day. Matthew’s gospel is written for Jews, so it’s completely legitimate.

I could go on and on, but I’m afraid I might be wasting time responding to issues that aren’t really the “big” issues. Let me make a few suggestions:

Learn how to think and reason. Skeptics take advantage of the lack of training that Christians have in thinking through and dealing with challenges to our faith. We don’t know the difference between contradictions and contraries. Robert is rich. Robert is poor. Do these statements contradict one another? The answer is-not necessarily! First, two different people named Robert could be under consideration. Second, two different time frames might be in view; Robert could have been rich but, due to financial disaster, he became poor. Third, the terms “rich” and “poor” might have been used in different senses; Robert could be spiritually rich, but economically poor.
Christians also don’t catch common logical fallacies such as equivocation (changing the meaning of a word in the middle of the argument), circular reasoning, and loaded questions. For more on this you might want to get a copy of the wonderful books The Thinking Toolbox and The Fallacy Detective by Nathaniel Bluedorn & Hans Bluedorn. The books are easy, but invaluable, reading on reasoning and logical fallacies.

Don’t panic when you hear a challenge to your faith. Proverbs 18:17 says, “The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him.” Although this or that “problem” may be new to you, no skeptics are coming up with new problems that haven’t been raised before. These “problems” have been around for years – we even have some of them recorded for us in the early Christian writings of debates with Roman skeptics. There is nothing new under the sun. Some brother or sister in Christ has responded to the “problem” before. In spite of these “problems” reasonable men and women have still believed that the Bible is true, that Jesus Christ was and is and will be the LORD of all, and that it makes sense to put your faith and trust in Christ for your life.
I recommend the purchase of two books: Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties by Gleason L. Archer and Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible by John W. Haley (first written 1874, which shows again that there is nothing new under the sun). In addition, most evangelical commentaries will provide answers to alleged problems in particular verses.

Read original sources. There was a lot of hype about the “Gospel According to Judas” when it came out. I dare say, probably not one news reporter spent any time reading the actual “gospel.” I went on line to the National Geographic website where they provided a link to an English translation. It’s very BORING stuff! Ridiculous Gnostic mythology about emanations and aeons. The writing is anti-Semitic too. According to this “Gospel,” the Jews stupidly worship a lesser god, evil and corrupt, who created the material world in which we live. Jesus laughs at the other disciples because they pray to the false god of this world. I urge every Christian to read the “Gospel According to Judas” rather than what people are writing about it. This “gospel” isn’t even in the same league (no, the same planet) as the gospels in the New Testament.
You have a similar situation on the web site you’ve been reading. The author has a number of sections on how the Genesis record of creation, the garden of Eden and the Flood were copied from Sumerian and Babylonian myths. These myths (such as the Epic of Gilgamesh) have been translated into English and you can find them on line. Read through them yourself and compare them to what you see in Genesis. Make a list of the similarities and differences. I think that you will be more surprised by the differences (not the similarities). Then begin to ask some questions: (1) Does similarity mean borrowing? What are all the options in terms of similarity? And if there is borrowing, then who borrowed from whom. In other words, is the Biblical account a reflection of the myths or are the myths a reflection (perhaps degeneration) of the Biblical account? Or is similarity due to similar content? (2) Can the similarities be explained in any other way than some Israelite copying the myths? Could Moses (or God) have another reason for some of the similarities? An apologetic one perhaps?

Learn how to weigh evidence. Think of yourself in a courtroom hearing testimony. Let’s take the example of The Da Vinci Code’s assertion that Jesus married Mary Magdalene. Dan Brown writes that “80 other gospels competed for inclusion in the New Testament” (which is a complete lie – I dare anyone to list the names of 80 gospels!). But okay, let’s go with that. How many of these competing gospels talk about Jesus marrying someone? NONE. I repeat… NONE. Even the Gnostic “Gospel of Mary Magdalene” says not a thing about Jesus marrying her or any one else.
The only gospel that comes even close to linking Jesus and Mary is the Gnostic gospel of Phillip (written between A.D. 180 – 250). This writing talks about Mary being Jesus’ companion – a Coptic word with the same vast range of meaning as our English word. There is also a reference to Jesus “kissing her” more than the other disciples, so the disciples ask, “Why do you love her more than all of us?” That hardly points to marriage, since the disciples wouldn’t ask the question, if Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene. So for the prosecution we have one reference to kissing written 150 years (at the earliest) after Jesus’ crucifixion.
What do we have for the defense? Four gospels, numerous letters from Paul and the other apostles, the writings of Josephus and other secular historians (written between A.D. 48 – 95) containing eyewitness and second hand testimony that Jesus was celibate, didn’t have a special relationship with Mary Magdalene, died, (and was raised).
Please tell me. How would the court rule? It wouldn’t even be a contest. It has been my experience that if you weigh the evidence like this in questions raised by skeptics, Christianity always comes out ahead.

Ask questions in return. I do NOT think that it is fair that skeptics get to raise all the questions. Quite frankly, it’s pretty easy for skeptics to raise questions because Christians have an ancient document which we claim to be a revelation from God written over a span of 1,600 years containing 66 books written by 40 authors. Just from the standpoint of size, scope, and antiquity that’s a pretty big target. Skeptics have no such target, but we can and should still raise questions. If skeptics are going to raise issues with Christianity, then it’s only just that we get to return the favor.
For example, it seems fair to me to ask, “If the Bible isn’t true, then what is?” Most skeptics are atheists (or agnostics, which in my opinion is just a nice way of saying ‘practical atheist’). “If there is no God, can we really speak of ‘truth’ at all? How can there be something called right or something called wrong?” I’ve never had an atheist be able to explain that to me. “Where do morals come from or are they just preferences?” And if you believe that morals are just preferences, I’m not sure that you’re somebody I can trust (Romans 1:28-32).
“If we are just highly evolved animals, then what is the purpose of living? Continuing the evolution of the species? Why should I care if the species survives or not?” As one skeptic wrote: “I think you just cease to exist, like the mosquito you swatted yesterday.” So I ask, “If we just cease to exist, then why bother continuing to live now? Why not just end it all now? What’s the difference?”
And I’m always curious about the motive of a site like “A Skeptics Guide to Christianity.” It seems to me that skeptics take great delight in tearing down Christians beliefs, but why bother? They have no good news. “If we are all simply moving to annihilation, then why not leave Christians in their delusions, if it makes them happy? What’s the motive? Feeling intellectually superior? Who will care that you were intellectually superior when you cease to exist?”
“Or is the motive a need to keep convincing yourself by convincing others? Or does the Bible have it right that this isn’t about convincing Christians at all? Is it really about mocking and ridiculing God – Romans 1:19? Is it an active desire to suppress the Truth (Romans 1:18)?”
So don’t be afraid to ask questions of skeptics. When all is said and done, I just find a lot more “problems” with being a skeptic than with being a Christian. Skeptics have nothing to offer… but skepticism. It’s not a good trade.

Hopefully these tools will be helpful to you as you wrestle with issues raised by skeptics.

Sincerely yours in Christ Jesus,

Dennis Rupert