As believers in God and Messiah, we trust the entire Bible is the word of God and is therefore perfect and complete. However, people often point fingers at (or overlook) apparent discrepancies in the Bible.
An “apparent discrepancy” is something that seems to be different, a little off, or contradictory. We say the Bible has apparent discrepancies because it seems like a contradiction exists at a casual glance. When we come across apparent discrepancies, we must be able to test them to prove whether the discrepancy truly is apparent (merely seeming so on the surface) or real (the text is actually contradictory).
Sources of Apparent Discrepancies in the Bible
We generally encounter apparent discrepancies in the Bible from three sources:
External Sources: An antagonist of the faith points out an apparent discrepancy in the Bible in hopes of disproving the Bible.
Internal Sources: People inside the church highlight or take advantage of apparent discrepancies in the Bible to attack or defend a doctrine.
Personal Sources: People study the Bible on their own and come across portions of scripture that seem contradictory or difficult to interpret in relation to other portions of scripture.
Regardless of where or how we encounter an apparent discrepancy, we must resolve it with sound study method.
Rules for Testing Apparent Discrepancies in the Bible
Rule 1: Be Honest and Objective
When we examine and test apparent discrepancies in the Bible we must do so objectively and honestly. Our purpose for studying the scriptures is to seek truth and knowledge, not to force the Bible to conform to our doctrines.
If we study dishonestly, we will arrive at false interpretations of scripture.
If we present false interpretations of the Bible to other people, we will profane the name of YHWH by misrepresenting Him and His word.
Rule 2: Be Willing and Ready to Discard Doctrine
If an apparent discrepancy in the Bible is difficult to come to terms with because its resolution defies a deeply held doctrine, the doctrine could be false. Remember, our goal in study is to seek truth not to affirm doctrines. When truth conflicts with doctrine, doctrine cannot win.
Rule 3: Don’t be Dogmatic
Dogmatism is the antithesis of sound study. We cannot turn a blind eye to apparent discrepancies in the Bible; we must resolve them. Whether we refuse to acknowledge an apparent discrepancy or refuse to accept its logical conclusion, we are shutting off reason in favor of religion.
Basic Method for Resolving Apparent Discrepancies in the Bible
The method for resolving apparent discrepancies is the same basic study methodology taught by Bokim Ministries: Language, Context, Reasoning, and Testing.
Through language we establish the meaning of the original texts
Through context we understand the author’s intent
Through reasoning we approach the texts in a valid manner
Through testing we prove or disprove our reasoning
We continue the process with honesty and objectivity until we arrive at an answer.
And, of course, we pray for guidance and understanding along the way.
Example: Answering an External Attack
The following example of an apparent discrepancy is taken from atheists.org
The Power of God
“… with God all things are possible.” — Matthew 19:26
“…The LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.” — Judges 1:19
It seems the intent of this attack is to prove the Bible is contradictory when speaking of the power of God. It seems the antagonist’s argument is: The Bible says all things are possible with God in Matthew, but in Judges we’re told Judah could not succeed with God. Let’s reason through this perceived contradiction.
Let’s begin with context. Obviously, both quotes from the Bible are taken out of context. How do we test this and know?
1. The antagonist began each quote with ellipsis (three dots), indicating something was omitted before the dots. The antagonist was honest enough to indicate he didn’t provide the full verses, but he also makes it obvious he is not quoting the verses in their complete context.
2. The partial-quote from Judges is obviously part of a larger narrative. It’s obvious this partial-quote doesn’t contain the full narrative, because it references people, objects, and other details not contained in the quote. Who are the people Judah is trying to drive out? Why is Judah trying to drive these people out? Where is the mountain located? Where is the valley? What is the purpose of the narrative, and why is it important to the book of Judges?
3. If we go to the Bible and read the quoted verses, we see we were not given the full verses.
So, the antagonist’s entire premise is based on fallacious reasoning; he committed a contextual fallacy and only presented fragments of quotes that assert his intended conclusion. The antagonist omits relevant, or contradictory, information from his audience to lead readers to accept his slanted conclusion. We could stop here and reject the attack as fallacy, but let’s continue examining the verses.
First, let’s put Matthew in context:
And behold, a man came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” He said to him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not murder, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” The young man said to him, “All these I have kept. What do I still lack?” Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.
And Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly, I say to you, only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?” But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” (Matthew 19:16-26, ESV)
Now, I’m quoting the ESV whereas the antagonist used a KJV translation. One might argue the same translation should be used for comparison, but my method is to ultimately rely on context and original language rather than translation. The goal is to understand God’s word, not a specific translation, but please do go to the KJV if you think it necessary. I use the ESV in this lesson.
The overall context of the passage is:
1. A man comes to Jesus to ask how he can receive eternal life
2. Jesus tells the man to give up all worldly wealth and follow him
3. The man leaves, dejected, because he doesn’t want to give up wealth
4. Jesus teaches his disciples using a metaphor of a camel going through the eye of a needle
5. The apostles reason that nobody can possibly obtain salvation if it is so difficult
6. Jesus concludes that nothing is impossible for God
Next, let’s refer back to the original-language texts:
The word translated “with” in Matthew 19:26 is the Greek word παρὰ (Para). Para means “close beside” or “from close beside”; it indicates a nearness or intimate participation. Para is used in Matthew 19:26 as a preposition meaning “from” or “by”.
The word translated “possible” in Matthew 19:26 is the Greek word δυνατά (Dynata), which means to have the power or ability to be capable of doing something.
The word translated as “impossible” in Matthew 19:26 is the same word δυνατά (Dynata); it just has a negative prefix so that it means to not have the power or ability to be capable of doing something.
When Jesus said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” He meant:
1. Coming from or by humans, salvation is impossible. Humans do not have the power or ability to save anyone.
2. Coming from or by God, nothing is impossible. God has the power and ability to do anything.
Now, let’s put Judges in context:
The portion of Judges proof-texted by the antagonist at atheists.org is a single sentence fragment from a large narrative. The full narrative details Israel entering the promised land and driving out the Canaanites, and the narrative stretches across several chapters of the book of Joshua plus the first two chapters of the book of Judges. The narrative is long and detailed; in addition to crossing Joshua and Judges, it ties back to portions of scripture before Joshua. It’s beyond the scope of this lesson to fully put the narrative of the Israelites entering the promised land in its full context. So, let us consider an outline of the books:
Genesis – The book of Genesis details the creation of the world, the establishment of the covenant with Abraham, the rise of the nation of Israel, and the promises YHWH made (including giving the promised land to Abraham’s descendants). The book ends with Joseph leading Israel into Egypt to survive a great famine.
Exodus through Deuteronomy – Exodus picks up after Joseph’s death. The Israelites are still in Egypt, where they multiplied to great numbers. The Egyptians turned on the Israelites and enslaved them. YHWH called Moses to lead the people out of Egypt and to the promised land. Along the way, YHWH gave His Torah (teachings, instructions, and commands). Deuteronomy ends with the death of Moses, just before the Israelites were to cross into the promised land.
Joshua – Joshua begins after the death of Moses. Joshua, who was Moses’ apprentice, is appointed to leadership over Israel. Joshua leads the people into the promised land, where they begin destroying the Canaanite people. Israel sinned by making covenants and agreements with some of the Canaanites, intermingling with some of the Canaanites, and some of the tribes of Israel didn’t trust YHWH enough to move forward in claiming their inheritance. Because of the people’s sin, the Canaanites were not fully driven out and would continue to be a thorn in their side. The book ends with Joshua calling the people to repentance and renewed commitment to YHWH, then Joshua dies.
Judges – The opening of the book of Judges is difficult to study and interpret, because it is not in a chronological form. Judges 1:1-3 opens by establishing that after Joshua’s death, the people asked YHWH who should lead the attack against the remaining Canaanites. YHWH specified the tribe of Judah is to lead the fight. This commences the book of Judges.
However, Judges 1:4 through Judges 2:10 retell events that occurred during Joshua’s lifetime and up to his death. Judges 1:4-26 is a re-telling of events recorded in Joshua 15. The retelling of events sets the background of the remainder of the book of Judges; it establishes why the Canaanites weren’t fully driven out, why God was not giving Israel complete victory in battle, and why the cycle of Judges came about. The opening of the book of Judges can be outlined as follow:
1. Joshua’s death left Israel without a leader
2. The people collectively asked YHWH who should lead the remaining war on Canaan
3. YHWH said Judah is to lead the offense
4. We then back up to what happened in Joshua’s lifetime leading up to the time of the Judges
5. Events from Joshua 15 through the end of Joshua are retold to establish background and context
6. Then, after retelling of Joshua’s death, the book of Judges continues forward
Now that we understand the contextual background of the book, we can consider the antagonist’s proof-text.
And YHWH was with Judah, and he took possession of the hill country, but he could not drive out the inhabitants of the plain because they had chariots of iron. (Judges 1:19)
Going back to the original language:
The word translated as “with” in Judges 1:19 is אֶת־ (Eth), which means “to accompany” or “be together with”.
Verse 19 is saying YHWH accompanied Judah. The verse is not a commentary on YHWH’s power, His ability to help Judah, or His ability to accomplish the impossible; it merely tells a narrative of YHWH accompanying someone to an event.
Now, let’s apply some reasoning:
God went together with Judah in the battle, and Judah received a partial victory but could not complete the task. The reason Judah failed to finish the fight isn’t that YHWH’s power failed but that He intentionally withheld complete victory from Judah due to Judah’s sin. This is confirmed in other verses such as:
Now the angel of YHWH went up from Gilgal to Bokim. And he said, “I brought you up from Egypt and brought you into the land that I swore to give to your fathers. I said, ‘I will never break my covenant with you, and you shall make no covenant with the inhabitants of this land; you shall break down their altars.’ But you have not obeyed my voice. What is this you have done? So now I say, I will not drive them out before you, but they shall become thorns in your sides, and their gods shall be a snare to you.” As soon as the angel of YHWH spoke these words to all the people of Israel, the people lifted up their voices and wept. And they called the name of that place Bokim. And they sacrificed there to YHWH. (Judges 2:1-5)
The correct interpretation of Judges 1:19 is:
1. YHWH went with Judah to battle the Canaanites
2. YHWH gave Judah victory in the hills
3. YHWH withheld victory in the plains
4. YHWH’s withholding of full victory was an intentional disciplinary action against Israel
So the anger of YHWH was kindled against Israel, and he said, “Because this people have transgressed my covenant that I commanded their fathers and have not obeyed my voice, I will no longer drive out before them any of the nations that Joshua left when he died, in order to test Israel by them, whether they will take care to walk in the way of YHWH as their fathers did, or not.” So YHWH left those nations, not driving them out quickly, and he did not give them into the hand of Joshua. (Judges 2:20-23)
Now that we’ve studied the two portions of scripture in the apparent discrepancy, we can see how they are not contradictory at all.
Let’s test the antagonist’s attack:
Matthew 19:26 is a statement that God has unlimited power to do all things, even things that are impossible for us to do.
Judges 1:19 is an account of an event where God accompanied Judah to battle, gave Judah a partial victory, but withheld complete victory from Judah as a disciplinary action.
There is no contradiction. Both sentence fragments the antagonist lifted out of context are describing completely different concepts and events. Although there is similar-sounding language in the English translations (both having a form of “with God” or “YHWH was with”), that is the full extent of the similarity between the two. The apparent contradiction only seems to exist if one reads the English translation, ignores context, and makes no effort to study or understand the text.