Why Jesus Apologetics

16 They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world.  17 Sanctify them by the truth; Your word is truth.

John 17:16-17 (BSB)

At Why Jesus Apologetics, we are committed to equipping believers and addressing challenges to the Christian faith. One recurring challenge is the claim of contradictions in the Bible, circulated by atheists, Muslims, and even some confused Christians. These critics often misunderstand what constitutes a contradiction and the principles governing biblical interpretation, using these claims to question the Bible’s inerrancy and reliability. In this introductory blog post, we lay the foundation for a series that will tackle specific alleged contradictions, demonstrating how they can be resolved or understood as complementary. We will explore the definition of a contradiction, the law of non-contradiction, the concept of complementary accounts, the role of context (including cultural, historical, and geographical), the significance of biblical languages, the doctrine of inerrancy, common types of alleged contradictions, the importance of hermeneutics, critics’ assumptions, and practical tips for engaging with our series. Subsequent posts will apply these principles to specific examples, strengthening your confidence in God’s Word.

What Is a Contradiction?

A contradiction occurs when two or more statements assert opposing claims about the same subject under the same conditions, such that both cannot be true simultaneously. For example, claiming

“Person A was in Jerusalem on Monday” and “Person A was in Rome on Monday”

would be contradictory if referring to the same time and circumstances.

Scholar Norman L. Geisler defines it precisely:

“A contradiction occurs when one statement makes a claim that another statement denies, and both statements are referring to the same subject, in the same sense, at the same time”
(Geisler, Systematic Theology, Vol. 1, Bethany House, 2002, p. 118).

Many alleged biblical contradictions fail to meet these criteria, as critics often mistake differences in detail or perspective for contradictions.

The Law of Non-Contradiction

The law of non-contradiction, a cornerstone of logic, states that something cannot be and not be in the same sense at the same time. For instance, a door cannot be fully open and fully closed simultaneously. This principle is essential for evaluating claims of biblical contradictions.

Aristotle articulated this law in his Metaphysics:

“The same attribute cannot at the same time belong and not belong to the same subject and in the same respect.”
(Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book IV, 1005b19–20, trans. W.D. Ross).

For a biblical contradiction to exist, two passages must make opposing claims about the same event or fact in the same respect.

As J.P. Moreland notes,

“The law of non-contradiction is not merely a Western construct but a universal principle of reason. Without it, meaningful communication, including biblical interpretation, would be impossible”
(Moreland, Scaling the Secular City, Baker Books, 1987, p. 120).

Many alleged contradictions are differences in emphasis or perspective, not violations of this law.

The Concept of Complementary Accounts

Not all differences in biblical accounts indicate contradictions; many are complementary, providing additional details or perspectives that enrich the narrative. For example, Matthew 20:30 reports Jesus healing two blind men, while Mark 10:46 mentions only one. These accounts (as some scholars explained) are complementary, as focusing on one individual does not negate the presence of another.

Gleason L. Archer explains:

“Complementary accounts are those that supply additional information without negating the truth of the other. The Bible, written by multiple authors under divine inspiration, often presents events from different angles to provide a fuller picture”
(Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Zondervan, 1982, p. 19).

The resurrection narratives, for instance, vary in details like the women at the tomb, reflecting the authors’ theological priorities and audiences. Archer adds,

“The presence of complementary details is evidence of independent testimony, not collusion or error”
(ibid., p. 345).

The Importance of Context

Context—literary, theological, and broadly historical—is critical for resolving alleged contradictions. Without it, misinterpretations arise. For example, critics cite James 2:24 (“A person is justified by works and not by faith alone”) and Romans 3:28 (“A person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law”) as contradictory. However, James addresses the evidence of faith (works as fruit), while Paul emphasizes salvation’s basis (faith alone).

Craig L. Blomberg underscores this:

“No text of Scripture can be properly understood without attention to its context—literary, historical, and theological. Many alleged contradictions evaporate when the interpreter considers the author’s intent and audience”
(Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels, IVP Academic, 2007, p. 41).

Context also includes genre—history, poetry, prophecy, or epistles—each requiring distinct interpretive rules. Treating poetic language in Psalms as literal history, for example, can lead to false claims of contradiction.

The Role of Cultural and Historical Context

Beyond literary and theological context, the cultural, historical, and geographical settings of biblical events are vital for resolving alleged contradictions. The Bible was written in the Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) context, which differs significantly from medieval, premodern, or modern worldviews. For instance, ANE literature often used hyperbole or rounded numbers, which critics may misread as errors when viewed through a modern lens. Understanding the ANE’s cultural norms—such as oral traditions or communal identity—clarifies passages that seem inconsistent.

Historical context, including the political and social circumstances of the time, also matters. For example, differences in the accounts of the Israelite kings in Kings and Chronicles reflect their distinct purposes: Kings addresses a nation in exile, while Chronicles encourages a restored community. Geography, including the lands, locations, and places mentioned, further aids interpretation. For instance, knowing the proximity of Bethany to Jerusalem (John 11:18) resolves apparent discrepancies in Jesus’ travel itineraries.

John H. Walton and D. Brent Sandy note,

“The Bible’s meaning is rooted in its ancient cultural and historical setting. Ignoring this leads to anachronistic readings that fuel claims of contradiction”
(Walton & Sandy, The Lost World of Scripture, IVP Academic, 2013, p. 23).

Our series will apply these cultural, historical, and geographical insights to harmonize alleged contradictions.

The Significance of Biblical Languages

Translations make the Bible accessible, but they are not perfect. The original languages—Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek—carry nuances that translations may obscure. For instance, the Hebrew word yom in Genesis 1 can mean a 24-hour day, an indefinite period, or a significant event, depending on context. Critics relying solely on English translations may miss these distinctions.

Daniel B. Wallace emphasizes:

“The original languages of Scripture are the final court of appeal for understanding the text. Translations, while valuable, are interpretations that can lose subtleties of the Hebrew and Greek.”
(Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Zondervan, 1996, p. 25).

Textual variants—minor differences in manuscripts—also require attention but do not undermine inerrancy. Bruce M. Metzger notes,

“The vast majority of textual variants are minor and do not affect doctrine. By comparing manuscripts, scholars can reconstruct the original text with high confidence.”
(Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, Oxford University Press, 1992, p. 186).

What Is Biblical Inerrancy?

Biblical inerrancy holds that the Scriptures, in their original manuscripts, are without error in all they affirm, whether matters of history, theology, or morality. This does not mean the Bible provides exhaustive detail or that every account must be identical in perspective. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy declares,

“Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, but this does not mean that it provides exhaustive detail or that every account must be identical in perspective.”
(Article XIII, Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, 1978).

Inerrancy allows for literary devices, approximations, and differing emphases, which critics often misinterpret as contradictions. Our series will show how alleged contradictions align with this doctrine when properly understood.

Common Types of Alleged Contradictions

Critics point to several types of alleged contradictions, which we will address in this series:

• Numerical Discrepancies: Differences in numbers, such as the number of angels at Jesus’ tomb (Matt. 28:2 vs. John 20:12). These are often resolved by recognizing one account may focus on a subset of details.
• Differing Details in Narratives: Variations in Gospel accounts, like the number of blind men healed (Matt. 20:30 vs. Mark 10:46), which reflect complementary perspectives.
• Theological Tensions: Apparent conflicts in doctrine, such as faith versus works (Rom. 3:28 vs. James 2:24), which context and intent clarify.
• Historical Claims: Alleged conflicts with external history, often due to incomplete archaeological data or misinterpretation.

William Lane Craig notes,

“Most alleged contradictions are not logical inconsistencies but differences that can be harmonized with proper hermeneutics.”
(Craig, Reasonable Faith, Crossway, 2008, p. 374).

Our series will tackle these categories systematically.

The Role of Hermeneutics

Hermeneutics, the science of biblical interpretation, is essential for resolving alleged contradictions. It involves understanding the text’s genre, intended audience, and author’s purpose. For example, recognizing that Chronicles emphasizes priestly concerns while Kings focuses on political history explains differences in their accounts. Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart state,

“The aim of good interpretation is simple: to get at the plain meaning of the text. This requires attention to its literary and historical context”
(Fee & Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, Zondervan, 2003, p. 18).

Our series will apply these principles to show how alleged contradictions often stem from improper hermeneutics.

Understanding Critics’ Perspectives

Critics often claim contradictions to challenge the Bible’s divine inspiration or historical reliability. Some approach the text with preconceived skepticism, assuming errors without exploring resolutions, while others lack training in biblical interpretation. John H. Walton observes,

“Many who find fault with the Bible do so because they approach it with modern expectations rather than seeking to understand it on its own terms”
(Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament, Baker Academic, 2006, p. 19).

Our series will engage these challenges charitably, offering resolutions that honor the text’s integrity while addressing genuine questions.

How to Engage with This Series

To get the most out of our series, we encourage you to:

• Read the Passages: When we discuss specific alleged contradictions, read the cited verses in your Bible to see the context for yourself.
• Use a Study Bible: Resources like the ESV Study Bible or NIV Study Bible provide notes on historical and cultural context.
• Consult Original Languages: Tools like Strong’s Concordance or online resources (e.g., BlueLetterBible.org) can help you explore Hebrew and Greek terms.
• Approach with Humility: As Peter writes,

“Always be prepared to give an answer… but do this with gentleness and respect”

(1 Pet. 3:15, NASB).

R.C. Sproul advises,

“The Bible is a book to be studied, not merely read. Engaging with it deeply will reveal its coherence and truth”
(Sproul, Knowing Scripture, IVP Books, 2003, p. 34).

What to Expect in This Series

In the coming posts, we will address specific alleged contradictions, such as differences in the Gospel accounts of the resurrection or numerical variations in Old Testament records. Each post will apply the principles outlined here—context (including cultural, historical, and geographical), hermeneutics, original languages, and the law of non-contradiction—to show how these passages harmonize or complement one another. We’ll start with well-known examples to build your confidence in the Bible’s reliability.

As Norman Geisler assures,

“Every difficulty in Scripture has a resolution when studied with care and humility”
(Geisler, When Critics Ask, Victor Books, 1992, p. 15).

Conclusion

Alleged contradictions in the Bible often stem from misunderstandings of inerrancy, the law of non-contradition, complementary accounts, context (literary, theological, cultural, historical, and geographical), or the nuances of biblical languages. By grounding our study in sound hermeneutics and addressing critics’ assumptions, we can resolve these challenges and affirm the Bible’s reliability. In this series, we’ll tackle specific examples, equipping you with tools to study Scripture confidently. Join us with an open heart, as Peter urges: “Sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense” (1 Pet. 3:15, NASB). As we explore these issues together, may your trust in God’s inerrant Word deepen.