RationalWiki

The following is a complete debunking of the RationalWiki list of alleged Biblical contradictions. RationalWiki make the following comments (italicized). Please note that this is just a concise summary of all answers to the alleged contradictions, for more detail and sourcing please see the related pages.

RationalWiki List

Claims 1-9

Allegation	Solution
1. Creation Week The first example of this occurring in Scripture is Genesis 1 vs. Genesis 2. Any account of these contradictions is dutifully met with denial, slippery slope allegations and/or ignorance of the topic. When asked to provide a step-by-step "scientific" account of creationism, the fundamentalist generally launches into the account in Genesis 1 — but when asked about why Genesis 2 has the order of creation irreconcilably different, they appear to suddenly have an epiphany that the minor details that matter so much in discrediting science don't matter in cases where their factually accurate God happens to write down two very different accounts of the same story.	The Genesis 1 and 2 passages are of course not accounts of the same event with contradicting details. Rather, Genesis 1:1-2:3 is God's account of creation, and 2:4-4:27 is Adam's account of the Garden of Eden. Genesis 1:1-2:3 (1:1, an account of "In the beginning") is not the same account as Genesis 2:4-4:26 (2:4, "generations of the heavens and the Earth") - Genesis 1 relates God's account of how the Earth and creation were made, Genesis 2-4 relates Adam's account of God creating individual life in the Garden of Eden, including himself. Genesis 2:19 does not relate the original creation of cattle and birds, but recreation of more animals of the types already created to see what Adam will name them. Genesis 2 does not show an additional account of the original creation, which would make no sense, rather it starts with Day 6 and Adam's creation as told from his point of view, and relates God recreating animals already made in the Garden of Eden to see what Adam will name them. Genesis is actually subdivided into different accounts with the Hebrew word "towl@dah" meaning "generations" or "genealogy." For more on this, see the Wiseman Hypothesis, aka the Tablet Theory, the competing theory to the Documentary Hypothesis. This word marks the start of a new account in Genesis 2:4 just like it marks the beginning of accounts throughout the book of Genesis. Genesis appears to be a collation of different accounts by patriarchs like Adam, Noah, and Abraham that are each comprised of a genealogy and a narrative the same way ancient Mesopotamian family tablets are, with Moses the one who likely combined them.
2. Jesus' Genealogy Matthew's genealogy has Joseph descended from King David through King Solomon, and from thence to a man named Jacob. On the other hand Luke's has Joseph descended from David along a radically different line, through another son, Nathan, from thence to a man named Eli. Indeed, everything after this inconsistency is different between the two accounts. In addition, after the man named Hezron, Matthew lists the next in line as a man named Ram, but Luke claims it was Arni, who fathered Admin, who fathered the next person the two accounts agree upon. This isn't even to mention, of course, the contradiction in the fact that these geneaologies connect Jesus to figures like David and Solomon through Joseph, who the Bible claims was not even related to Jesus by blood, making his geneaology completely irrelevant.	Every person has two genealogies, one through their father, and one through their mother. As Halley's Bible Handbook points out: “ "The commonly accepted view is that Matthew gives Joseph's line, showing Jesus to be legal heir to the promises given to Abraham and David, and that Luke gives Mary's line, showing Jesus' blood descent: 'who as to his human nature was a descendant of David' (Romans 1:3). Mary's genealogy, in accordance with Jewish usage, was in her husband's name. Joseph was the son of Heli (Luke 3:23)-that is, Heli's son-in-law. Jacob was Joseph's father (Matthew 1:16)." -Halley's Bible Handbook ” This has been recognized since at least 1917 when the Scofield Reference Bible printed a similar explanation: “ "In Matthew, where unquestionably we have the genealogy of Joseph, we are told Matthew 1:16, that Joseph was the son of Jacob. In what sense, then, could he be called in Luke 'the son of Heli'? He could not be by natural generation the son both of Jacob and of Heli. But in Luke it is not said that Heli begat Joseph, so that the natural explanation is that Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli, who was, like himself, a descendant of David. That he should in that case be called 'son of Heli' ('son' is not in the Greek, but rightly supplied by the translators) would be in accord with Jewish usage.(CF) 1 Samuel 24:16 The conclusion is therefore inevitable that in Luke we have Mary's genealogy; and Joseph was 'son of Heli' because espoused to Heli's daughter. The genealogy in Luke is Mary's, whose father, Heli, was descended from David." -Scofield Reference Bible ” Per the Scofield, it accords with Jewish usage to present the mother's genealogy in the father's name, thus the confusion over two seemingly differing genealogies. It also explains why the Luke account begins with a focus on Mary, giving detail only she would know, detail specific to her life. Luke ch. 1 delves into the history of Mary's cousin Elisabeth and Elisabeth's child, John the Baptist, the angel's greeting of Mary, Mary's thanksgiving to God, and how Mary stayed with Elisabeth afterward. Luke 2:19 says, "But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart." Luke 2:34 records Simeon speaking to Mary specifically, while Luke 2:48 records her conversation with Jesus. In short, a logical reading of Luke shows the narrator of the early chapters appears to be Mary, not Joseph, and seems to be written from her point of view distinctly. Matthew 1, on the other hand, tells a more matter-of-fact account from Joseph's point of view, telling detail from his vantage point and only that pertaining to him. Just as Luke relates Mary's feelings and thoughts, so does Matthew's early account with Joseph. Matthew 1:19-20 describes Joseph's thought process to send Mary away privately, and his discussion with the angel that persuades him otherwise. Matthew 2:19-23 describe the angel's message to Joseph specifically that it's alright to return to Israel. Just as the early chapters of Matthew appear written from Joseph's view, so the early chapters of Luke appear clearly written from Mary's, and the genealogies in Matthew those of Joseph's while Luke records Mary's genealogy.
3. Cainan, Son of Arphaxad There is an inconsistency between Luke's genealogy and the Genesis account three generations below Noah. The Genesis account has it (ABC:Genesis 11:12) that Noah's grandson, Arphaxad, had a son named Shelah. However, Luke's genealogy (ABC:Luke 3:35) has it that Shelah is the grandson of Arphaxad and the son of Cainan. There is a very simple explanation for this, viz., that Luke derived his genealogy from the Septuagint, the contemporary Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. The Septuagint also contains the name of Cainan in Genesis 11, which is believed to have been slipped into the text to try and make the Deluge seem to have occurred earlier than it did. However, this also poses a problem for Biblical literalists. If the Septuagint was dodgy, that was no problem, since it was not an original manuscript. But since the Gospel of Luke contains the Septuagint's error in its original manuscript, it cannot be hand-waved away. Answers in Genesis is rather desperate about it, apparently, as they searched all the way back to 1809 to find a source that tries to pin the inconsistency on an unlikely "copyist error" that was later concealed by historical revisionism on the Septuagint, thus absolving the original manuscript from error. However, the Old Catholic Encyclopedia, written a century later, maintains that the error was in the Septuagint in Luke's time.	Interestingly, rather than proving the Bible is not inspired, this proves the books of Jubilees and 1 Enoch ARE inspired (and both are unusually well-preserved among the Dead Sea Scrolls when it comes to manuscript count). As pointed out by Stephen Pigeon and Cepher Publishing, Jubilees 8:1-5 records the existence of this second Cainan as being the son of Arphaxad and father of Shelah. Jubilees is an ancient book, like 1 Enoch (which is quoted in the book of Jude and referenced in Jubilees), dating before the time of Christ; and both should be considered scriptural. Jubilees preserves the evidence of Cainan as Arphaxad's son, showing that no contradiction exists.
4. Faith vs. Works The following are Biblical contradictions cited by Martin Luther in his attempts to justify cutting four books of the New Testament out of the canon. James 2:20-21 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Rest of the New Testament, according to Luther; in particular Romans 4:1-2 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. James 2:12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty. Utterances of St. Paul calling the Mosaic Law one of slavery (Galatians 3:23), wrath (Romans 4:15), death (Romans 8:2), and sin (ibid.).	This is one of the most well-known claims of a contradiction in the Bible, and has been excellently debunked by the Scofield Study Bible III. “ "James in this passage uses the word 'faith' in the sense of intellectual orthodoxy (compare v. 19); Paul, when he uses faith in a personal sense, means trust in the atoning work of Christ to the extent of full commitment to Him. For James the word 'works' means the believer's works, the outward evidence of a saved life. On the other hand, Paul sometimes employs works to denote the deeds of the unsaved person whereby he vainly hopes to gain acceptance with God, while at other times he speaks of 'good works,' by which he means the fruit that the justified man must produce... Thus in their views of justification Paul and James complement one another (2:23); Paul stresses acceptance with God wholly by grace through faith, whereas James presents the continual evidence before men of the initial transaction. For the definitive N.T. statement on faith and works in which both views are brought together, see Eph. 2:8-10." -Scofield Study Bible III ” As mentioned by the Scofield Study Bible III, Ephesians 2:8-10 is the passage which brings both views together: “ Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. ” In other words, we are saved by faith, not works, it's God's gift not man's doing, lest anyone should boast. However, we are created by Jesus to do good works and it is God's will that we do them. The works themselves do not save, but are the outward evidence to others, and to ourselves, that we have indeed undergone an inward redemptive process of salvation. True saving faith will ultimately produce good works as the result of a changed heart and a new spirit. Thus if a person shows no interest in doing good works once becoming a Christian, and for years lives without any change, then as James points out, that faith without works is a dead faith and no faith indeed.
5. Women Allowed to Prophesy or Not? There is an inconsistency of sorts called out by John Calvin in a commentary on 1 Corinthians 11: 1 Corinthians 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 1 Timothy 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 1 Timothy 2:12 prohibits women from any sort of religious teaching, but 1 Corinthians 11:5 implies that women are allowed to make prophecies — and a prophet was counted among the highest religious teachers in those days — although they cannot do it without a head-covering on. Calvin acknowledges this implication, but says it is unintentional and that "the Apostle, by here condemning [prophesying without a head-covering], does not commend [prophesying with a head-covering]." This passes the strictest logical muster, but again conflicts with the literalists' idea of "clarity of scripture," especially since people's honor appears to hang in the balance.	First of all, cases of women prophesying and teaching throughout the Bible can be readily identified. The four widowed (Grk. parthenos) daughters of one man all prophesied, per Acts 21:9. Godly women throughout the Bible prophesied. Deborah, a leader of Israel, was also described as a prophetess in Judges 4:4; and prophesied in Judges 5 following a military victory in which she was aided by God. There are a number of cases where godly women prophesied upon giving birth, see Hannah (1 Samuel 2), Elisabeth (Luke 1:42-45), and Mary (Luke 1:46-55). There is also the case of Priscilla, who with her husband Aquilla, instructed Apollos, who with Paul was one of the greatest teachers of the early Church. (Acts 18:26) Priscilla is one of several women Paul describes as fellow helpers in Romans 16, indeed she and her husband stayed with Paul while all working together making tents (Acts 18:2,18); Paul also mentions Phebe, and urges the early Church to assist her in whatever business she is engaged in, (Romans 16:1) who sent the entire letter of Romans on Paul's behalf, and may have even transcribed it for Paul. (Romans 16:27; cp. Galatians 6:11) Secondly, if reading 1 Timothy 2 in context, Paul allows for exceptions (women prophesying) when it comes to women who have born children and met standards of holiness and righteousness. (v. 15) As such there is no contradiction, Paul also allows women to prophesy in 1 Timothy 2:15. Widows in particular were a revered group of leaders in the early church similar to Bishops and Deacons, so long as they met standards of holiness and righteousness. (1 Timothy 5:9; cp. 1 Timothy 3) As such, Paul's statement in Galatians 3:28 that all Christians are one in Christ Jesus, without divisions of Jew or Greek, slave or free, or male or female should be given emphasis. Thirdly, it should be observed that Paul in 1 Timothy was addressing a controversy in the early Church where younger widows were abusing their speech, gossiping behind the backs of others and living promiscuously. (1 Timothy 5:11-16) Paul urged that they not be accepted among the number of elderly widows who had over many years shown themselves faithfully righteous. (1 Timothy 5:9-10) The early Church provided for such widows and saw that they were specially honoured and provided for (1 Timothy 5:3,16); indeed one of the earliest recorded acts of the early Church was creating a 7-member council to oversee welfare for widows. (Acts 6:1-7) Fourthly, it should be pointed out that Paul was not advocating for a hijab, but for women to simply have long hair; which he considered more honorable and appropriate to the way they were made. Note 1 Corinthians 11:14-15, where Paul says that it is shameful for men to have long hair, but a glory for women to have long hair; Paul specifically says a woman's hair is her "covering" in v. 15. As such, the lack of female hair covering Paul addresses in vv. 5-6 appears to simply be short, man-like hair. Nonetheless, Paul refuses to enforce such a policy as God-given in v. 16, stating that there is no such official church policy, and he will not argue with those who insistently disagree; suggesting this was Paul's own opinion, not a commandment from God (cp. 1 Corinthians 7:6,25; 2 Corinthians 8:8).
6. Jehoiachin's Age at Royal Ascension In the books II Kings and II Chronicles we get two different ages for Jehoiachin when he ascended the throne of Jerusalem. 2 Kings 24:8 ¶ Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem. 2 Chronicles 36:9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.	Although at first glance this appears to be a case of scribal error, the reality is that both passages are correct. Jehoiachin actually began to reign in Judah at age 8 (2 Chronicles 36:9) and in Jerusalem at age 18 (2 Kings 24:8). For a more detailed (and excellent) explanation of this, see KJV Today. As KJV Today points out: “ "Jehoiachin’s co-regency of ten years corresponds perfectly with his father Jehoiakim’s reign of eleven years (2 Chronicles 36:5). Moreover, as soon as the Babylonian invasion looms into the picture, Chronicles begins to use the phrase, 'king over Judah and Jerusalem' (2 Chronicles 36:4, 10). The phrase is never used in Kings or in Chronicles prior to the Babylonian invasion. Prior to the Babylonian invasion, there was no need to differentiate the king of Jerusalem from the king of Judah. However, as the Babylonians came and instituted their rule, the king of Jerusalem was no longer the default king of the rest of Judah. Thus, Chronicles begins to use the phrase 'king over Judah and Jerusalem' to indicate a ruler who reigned over both Jerusalem and Judah. " -KJV Today ” This is a case of an apparent discrepancy being explained by a complex situation, with all the evidence coming together perfectly (as beautifully explained by KJV Today) to make crystal clear what was occurring.
7. How many horsemen did David capture? Between II Samuel and I Chronicles, the number of horsemen David takes changes tenfold. 2 Samuel 8:4 And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven hundred horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: and David houghed all the chariot horses, but reserved of them for an hundred chariots. 1 Chronicles 18:4 And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven thousand horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: David also houghed all the chariot horses, but reserved of them an hundred chariots.	When horses and chariots are involved, this ten-fold distinction appears repeatedly. (cp. 2 Samuel 10:18 and 1 Chronicles 19:18; 2 Chronicles 9:25 and 1 Kings 4:26) However, a comparison of 2 Samuel 10:18 and 1 Chronicles 19:18 reveals the key distinction: there are seven thousand men who fight in the chariots, but only seven hundred chariots/chariot drivers; or in other words a 10:1 ratio. Similarly in 2 Chronicles 9:25 and 1 Kings 4:26 there are "four thousand stalls for horses AND chariots" but "forty thousand stalls OF horses for his chariots." To a degree, the misunderstanding is caused by translating from ancient Hebrew into modern English; in 2 Chronicles 9:25 and 1 Kings 4:26 there are actually two different Hebrew words being translated equally as "chariots" by the KJV, merkab and merkabah. Whereas merkab is elsewhere translated as "saddle" or "covering" the other two times it is translated in the KJV, merkabah is always translated by the KJV as 'chariot' in all 44 cases where it is used in the Old Testament. Thus, 1 Kings 4:26 should mention forty thousand stalls of chariot horse saddles/riders, whereas 2 Chronicles 9:25 should mention there are four thousand stalls of chariots themselves. The Old Testament Hebrew manuscripts were originally written without punctuation (which ancient Hebrew lacked), which can allow for mistranslations into English; see e.g. the Dead Sea Scrolls. In 2 Samuel 8:4 and 1 Chronicles 18:4, there were seven hundred charioteers operating the charioteers, but seven thousand chariot horsemen, many if not all of whom likely rode on the horses pulling on the chariots. As Dr. Peter Ruckman concludes, "Obviously, the Syrians have ten horsemen per chariot. Observe exactly the same thing comparing 2 Samuel 10:18 and 1 Chron. 19:18; ten men per chariot." This is a so-called contradiction whose solution emerges only after carefully comparing all three sets of six passages carefully. In two of the three, the context/wording makes clear what is going on; which allows for resolving the final set (2 Samuel 8:4 and 1 Chronicles 18:4).
8. How many stalls did Solomon have for his horses? From II Chronicles to I Kings, Solomon experiences a tenfold increase in stalls. 2 Chronicles 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem. 1 Kings 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.	See previous answer.
9. How many animals were on the ark? God can make seven equal two: 2 of each animal [clean or unclean] into the ark. 2 of each kind of bird. Genesis 6:19-20 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive. Actually, make that 7 of each clean animal into the ark, 7 of each kind of bird, and 2 of each unclean animal. Genesis 7:2-3 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.	All animals were being brought in pairs of two except clean animals which were brought in pairs of 7 for purposes of food, though whether that was for Noah or the other animals is unclear. Thus 'clean' animals were the exception because more were needed as a food source. I'm sure any Jew familiar with kosher could have told the critics this as well. Critics who've claimed this as a contradiction are just entirely ignorant of the whole kosher concept of Judaism and what clean/unclean meant in the Torah. As seen from the Mosaic Law, clean animals were those allowed for eating. Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 are dedicated to explaining which animals specifically were considered clean and unclean. God declared some things clean and others unclean apparently for purposes of keeping Israel from infectious diseases by having them avoid animals and situations likely to cause diseases, e.g. not touching the blood of what is unclean or the clothing of infected people, even unclosed jars in diseased areas were considered unclean. (Leviticus 5:2, 7:26, 12:4-7, 13:59, 15:2-33, 19:14-15)

Claims 10-16

Allegation	Solution
10. Seeing God John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. Exodus 33:11 And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.	See also Christophanies The answer to this is really pretty simple, and contained in John 1:18 - none have seen God the Father, but God the Father has declared His Son, the Word, to be God as well. This answer is also provided by Jesus. Jesus claimed to have existed with God the Father before the world itself and to have shared His Father's glory. This is repeated elsewhere as well in the Bible. (Proverbs 8:22-31; Colossians 1:17; 1 John 1:1-3) Jesus in Revelation 1:7-8 is called "the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty." Isaiah 9:6 prophesied that His name would be "Wonderful, Counsellor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." Jesus was the Old Testament God of the Israelites. What many people don't realize is that when God spoke to Moses originally in the burning bush, to Abraham even earlier, and to Jacob, it was not God the Father speaking, but the 'Angel of the Lord' who spoke. See Exodus 3:2-4; Genesis 22:15-18; Genesis 31:11-13; Genesis 32:28-30; and Genesis 48:16. Thus, while people have seen Jesus, the Angel of the Lord, face to face, as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses all did, no human has ever seen God the Father. Furthermore, that it is God the Father being referred to in John 1:18 is apparent, since a distinction is made between God the Father, and Jesus, the Son of God, who God the Father has declared to be God as well.
11. Jesus vs. God John 10:30 I and my Father are one. John 14:28 ¶ Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.	Jesus and God the Father are one, but that does not mean they are the same being, contrary to the false teaching of the Trinity. Indeed, John 17 shows that God the Father and Jesus the Son of God are one with one another the same way that Christians are one with them (vv. 11, 21-22); through an indwelling of spirit. (v. 23; John 14:23) While Jesus is clearly superior in authority and power to everyone but God the Father (Colossians 1:12-17), and together with the Holy Spirit they form a Godhead of three (1 John 5:7) they are separate beings who should be worshiped and respected as individuals.
12. Fate of the righteous Psalms 92:12 The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree: he shall grow like a cedar in Lebanon. Isaiah 57:1 ¶ The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart: and merciful men are taken away, none considering that the righteous is taken away from the evil to come.	See also Satan World Ruler The obvious question to be asked is when the flourishing is to occur, this life or the next? If the next, there is no contradiction, the righteous perish in this life, but flourish in the next, and only the good die young. As Paul puts it, "If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable." (1 Corinthians 15:19) Jesus warned "in the world ye shall have tribulation." (John 16:33) Paul repeats this is in 2 Timothy 3:12 stating "Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution." When reading the passages in context, it is evident that Psalms 92 is referring specifically to the righteous flourishing at the end of time, not during this life. Note for example Psalms 92:7, which states that the wicked flourish for a time during this life, but will "be destroyed for ever." Note also Psalms 92:13, which shows the flourishing is to occur after a Final Judgment, in stating "Those that be planted in the house of the LORD shall flourish in the courts of our God." Had Psalms 92 been quoted in context, it would have been apparent that the passage is not referring to flourishing during this life but during eternity; and thus is consistent with passages like Isaiah 57:1 which show the wicked flourish for a time during this life because Satan, for the time being, is the "god of this world" who rules over the kingdoms of this Earth. Thus there is no contradiction. As Solomon points out, "there is a just man that perisheth in his righteousness, and there is a wicked man that prolongeth his life in his wickedness." (Ecclesiastes 7:15) However, as Solomon concludes in the final chapter of Ecclesiastes, God will bring all things into judgment at the end to set things right, at which time the righteous will flourish.
13. Last words of Jesus The last words of Christ: "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?". Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? The last words of Christ: "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit". Luke 23:46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost. The last words of Christ: "It is finished". John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.	None of the passages say what were Jesus' last words, the phrase "Jesus' last words" is an expression originated by Meritt and other critics, not the Bible. The passages all actually complement one another, since neither Matthew 27 or Luke 23 say what it was that Jesus cried. So presumably the cry of Jesus not specified in those passages included "It is finished" in Luke 23:46 and both "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit" and "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" in Matthew 27. As seen from the chronology of the passages, Jesus' first cry was "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46) He then cried out again with a loud voice (Matthew 27:50), a cry that apparently included "It is finished" John 19:30 and then "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit". (Luke 23:46) Since John 19:30 does not specify a loud cry, this statement presumably is the last of the three. For a more detailed explanation of what Jesus said during the Crucifixion, see the Scofield Study Bible III's note for Matthew 27:33.
14. Two deaths of Judas Matthew 27: Judas repents and accepts that Jesus was innocent, attempts to return the money to the priests but ultimately has to simply throw the thirty pieces of silver into the temple, and hangs himself (in an undisclosed location) out of shame. The priests, unable to put the "blood money" in the treasury, use it to buy a potter's field which is used to bury strangers. The field is named for Jesus' blood, because it was bought with the "blood money." Acts 1: Judas is not said to repent, goes away and buys a field with his "ill-gotten gain," but manages to "fall headlong" in such a way that his body bursts open and his intestines spill out. The field is named for Judas' blood which was spilled on it. While some inerrantists claim to "harmonise" this by stating that after his hanging, the rope snapped and Judas fell, this is not mentioned in Acts (which simply said he purchased the field and then fell and died in it) or in Matthew (which says he hanged himself and nothing else), and does not deal with the issue that the two accounts differ in almost every way (who bought the field, whether Judas died in the field, why it was called the field of blood, whether Judas was alive or dead when the field was bought, and whether or not Judas was repentant).	There is no reason the verses need to contradict. Judas could have hanged himself from a high area in the field. Hanging literally involves "falling down" after all. The rope could have broken from the stress or been cut after the hanging, so that his body fell onto some rocks and burst open. It could have been hanging there for weeks as it rotted until a buzzard perched on it and it fell apart onto the ground for all we know. Whatever the scenario was, the verses appear complementary in relating it with no clear reason for assuming contradiction. In essence Judas did purchase the field with the cost of his betrayal, he attempted to return the silver for Jesus' freedom, was refused, killed himself, and the Pharisees bought for his burial ground the place where he hanged himself. The Pharisees essentially bought the field on Judas' behalf, since they had refused his return of the silver. Ultimately speaking, Judas' reward for Jesus' betrayal ended up being a land where he killed himself and was buried, so in that sense he did purchase a field in exchange for betraying Jesus. RationalWiki argues that a contradiction should be assumed simply because Acts and Matthew fail to mention the explicit details. However, so long as a reasonable explanation exists by which the accounts can be harmonized, and indeed would have been a very likely occurrence, no contradiction should be inferred. Furthermore, the existence of differences between the two accounts by no means indicates the existence of a contradiction. Witnesses in court of law will not relate the exact details which occurred as they typically have different perspectives and vantage points of what happened. That does not change the truthfulness of their accounts. Indeed, there would be no point in having four Gospel accounts if they all related the exact same details; they would be the same account. The Gospels, along with the book of Acts, can each provide differing levels of detail according to the experiences of the authors, without being inaccurate or uninspired.
15. What is being cursed here? Genesis 3:14 ¶ And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: Job 1:7 And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it. Zechariah 3:1 ¶ And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him.	See also Satan World Ruler and Dinosaurs Satan can take the appearance of both an angel and a leviathan, a type of dinosaur (KJV dragon). (Revelation 12:9; 20:2; Isaiah 27:1; Ezekiel 29:3; Ezekiel 28:2) Thus as a fallen angel Satan can stand and walk. (Ezekiel 28:13-16) Nonetheless, the dinosaurs themselves, today's lizards, can still walk as well, but their hip structure has been changed, along with their stature, so that they now are a shadow of their former greatness. For example, the Triceratops had a neck frill like today's Horned Lizard and Frill-Necked Lizard. It had bony horns on its snout similar to those on the Jackson's Chameleon and Texas Horned Lizard. Spinosaurus and Dimetrodon had neural spine sails similar to that on today's Crested Chameleon. The Ankylosaurus had a bony, spiked Head very similar to that of the Short-Horned Lizard, Desert Horned Lizard, and Texas Horned Lizard. The Stegosaurus had a long row of bony spines or plates running down it's back that are extremely similar to those on the Green Iguana. Unlike the ancient dinosaurs, today's modern-day descendants, while showing the same anatomical features of the ancient dinosaurs, are so small that they now wallow in the dust, unlike their modern predecessors which towered over all life. Thus the dinosaurs were cursed for their relationship to Satan, but Satan may not be bound solely to dinosaur form.
16. Does fearing God make you wise? "The fear of the LORD is the begin of all wisdom. Knowing the holy one is insight. " Proverbs 9:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding. "Don't be too just and don't be too wise. You could end up being betrayed. But don't live bad and don't act like a fool. You could be death before your time has come. The best is to maintain the one while not losing the other. Who fears God maintains the middle ground between the two." Ecclesiastes 7:16-18 Be not righteous over much; neither make thyself over wise: why shouldest thou destroy thyself? Be not over much wicked, neither be thou foolish: why shouldest thou die before thy time? It is good that thou shouldest take hold of this; yea, also from this withdraw not thine hand: for he that feareth God shall come forth of them all.	The Bible makes clear that there is a godly wisdom which brings life, and a wisdom of this world that brings death. (1 Corinthians 1:20; 1 Corinthians 2:5-7; 1 Corinthians 3:18-19) I am not sure what Bible version RationalWiki is quoting from, as I can't find any version which reads this way. Had they quoted from the KJV (as is done with most other alleged contradictions mentioned on their list), it would have been apparent from Ecclesiastes 7:18 that the wisdom referred to in Ecclesiastes 7:16 is being contrasted with the fear of God in verse 18.

Sources

<metadesc>Alleged contradictions in the Bible answered. Debunking of American Atheists list of alleged Bible contradictions.</metadesc>