Part 3

There are many odd, erroneous, contradictory, or inconsistent bits of the Bible that I just can't get excited about. No doubt you've heard other people raise questions about such passages, however, so we're going to look at a few of them.

There's some fairly odd geography here and there in the Bible. Some of it results from not having modern satellite imagery of the region, some results from the author's purpose in writing, some is metaphor. Probably some of the oddities arise from other causes, as well. Does geography save us? No?? Then why do we care?

You know that big rivers nearly always arise by the confluence of smaller streams and rivers, but Genesis 2:10 says that one river divided and became four rivers. The Tigris and Euphrates are two big, important rivers that run more or less parallel to each other and eventually discharge into the Persian Gulf. Both originate in the highlands well to the northeast of Israel, and their sources aren't all that far apart. If you'd never been there, I can see how you might be able to think that they had a common origin. The Pishon and Gihon have not been and probably will never be confidently located, if they even exist. I am bemused that both have been identified with the Nile, whose origin is in the opposite direction, way down south in Africa. Havilah hasn't been located confidently, and Cush has been confidently located in two different places.

So you know what? I'm not sure I believe in the four rivers coming out of Eden, but if you do, I won't argue, because it's really not worth arguing about. I think the writer's point is that rivers are good, and God is the creator of rivers. I think we can all agree that mountains don't sing, and that planets don't have corners. Can we spell "metaphor"? Or even "idiom"?

Genesis 4:1-18, Cain's wife (03/11/25)

The origin of Cain's wife seems to come up All. The. Time. Honestly, I never met the lady, so I can't tell you her genealogy, and I think maybe that's the point. The Old Testament is the history of the Jews and the story of their own origins and their own relationship with God. For some mysterious reason, it omits the history of the Gauls, the Navajos, and even the Ammonites. (Not to mention the ammonites.) No doubt Mrs. Cain belonged to one of these foreign groups (probably not the ammonites).

Asking for the origin of Cain's wife shows that we misunderstand the purpose of the authors of Genesis, which is to tell us that God created the universe, and in particular the earth, and in particular humanity, and in particular the children of Israel. Mrs. Cain wasn't an ancestress of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, so the writers couldn't be bothered with telling us where she came from.

2 Samuel 24:1-9 vs. 1 Chronicles 21:1-6, 27:23-24, Census counts (Different persons or things, or different aspects of the same thing; maybe Exaggeration for effect, or Rounding or approximation) (03/12/25)

I just can't get excited about conflicting census counts in the Bible when my own grandfather was counted twice in 1920, and a great grandfather and his brother were missed entirely in 1880, when they were 6 and 4 years old. The U.S. Census Bureau routinely announces that they know this group or that group was undercounted.

So yeah, there are 1,300,000 men in 2 Samuel 24:9 and 1,570,000 in 1 Chronicles 21:5. Ink has been spilled trying to reconcile the numbers by suggesting that they report different things, which could be true. Some people suggest that one or both numbers are rounded, approximated, or in error, and that could also be true, given the general difficulty of counting people. Others suggest that the numbers in Chronicles are exaggerated, and that too could be true, especially considering that the U.S., which is a whole lot bigger than David's kingdom, has only about 2.8 million active military personnel (again, counting totally different things).

I'm apathetic: I don't know, and I don't care.

Joab was angry with David because God promised Abraham to make his descendants uncountable (Genesis 13:16, 15:5). The writers of Samuel and Chronicles agreed with Joab that the census was a bad idea, and that fact is worth knowing.

Genesis 10:6, 10:20; 2 Samuel 5:13-16 vs. Matthew 1:1; Matthew 1:2-6, 16 vs. Luke 3:23, 31-34, 38, Differing genealogies (03/13/25)

I've been interested in genealogy since third grade, and I've been serious about it since 1972. A couple years ago, I gave my sister a 350-page family genealogy that I wrote for her (mumbleth) birthday. It has something like 700 footnotes full of references. But you know what? I just can't get excited about differing genealogies in the Bible. Why not? Washington, with no children, is the Father of His Country. Seretse Khama, with four children, is the father of Botswana. When I see that Ham is the father of Cush, Mizraim, Put, and Canaan, I figure we're talking roughly about Sudan, Egypt, Libya, and Canaan, particularly in light of Genesis 10:20, "These are the sons of Ham, after their families, according to their languages, in their lands and their nations." Four boys in the same family don't normally grow up speaking four different languages, and we saw a few weeks ago that sons and daughters can be distant descendants.

The most famous genealogical inconsistency, of course, is between Matthew's and Luke's genealogies of Jesus, and much reconciling ink has been spilled without normally convincing anyone but the writer. I can't get excited about it, but I will point out that Matthew says that Jacob "begot" Joseph - was his biological father. Luke says Joseph was "of" Heli - his unspecified relative - even though it is very often translated as "son of." Consequently some of the ink has maintained (without any evidence that I'm aware of, although I suppose there could be some) that Luke's genealogy is actually for Mary, or alternatively that Heli is Joseph's adoptive father or something like that.

Several aspects of these two genealogies are interesting. Matthew's genealogy is stylized, with three (an important number) groups of fourteen (two times seven, another important number) generations. I've read that he double counts and omits to make that happen, but I've never checked that for myself. You do it and let me know. Matthew is all about proving that Jesus is the rightful king of Israel and the Messianic descendant of David. Naturally, he gets to David through Solomon and then takes the lineage back to Abraham, father of Israel.

Luke is a Gentile, writing for Gentiles. He takes Jesus' lineage to David through another son, Nathan, which doesn't bother me, since I'm descended from Robert Abernathy through two of his sons, David and Miles, and from Miles through two of his granddaughters. Luke goes all the way back to Adam, the father of all humanity, which clearly includes all the Gentiles.

So the writers of Genesis, Matthew, and Luke all had different purposes. In the case of Matthew and Luke, they may have been talking about different lines of Jesus' genealogy. And we always need to be alert for different ancient and modern uses of words like "father" and "son," especially in translation.

Exodus 1:1-5 (Jacob's sons); 1 Chronicles 27:16-22 (+Aaron, Ephraim, Manasseh; - Gad, Asher, Joseph); Revelation 7:4-8 (+Manasseh; - Dan), Different lists of the 12 tribes (03/14/25)

Somebody asked a while back about the 12 tribes, and here's the answer: I can't get excited about different lists of the 12 tribes. It's a hard and fast rule that there are always 12. For example, In Judges 19-21, we see that several tribes got together and essentially wiped out the tribe of Benjamin, and then they said, "Aaii! Why are there only eleven tribes??" (Judges 21:3). Because you killed them, you idgits! So they carried out a second slaughter to save Benjamin (Judges 21:10). A similar crisis occurred when the disciples lost Judas, and they immediately had to find a replacement, Matthias (Acts 1:15-26) (without slaughter). The number twelve is really important, but who gets included in any particular list of tribes (or disciples, as we saw before) is variable.

In theory, each of the sons of Jacob (a.k.a. Israel) gave rise to a tribe, and we see the original list in Exodus 1:1. Then Jacob adopted Joseph's sons (Genesis 48:5) and God took Levi in exchange for the firstborn (Numbers 3:12), so we would expect to see a list omitting Joseph and Levi and adding Ephraim and Manasseh. Sometimes that's what we do see.

Chronicles, as we've seen before, is really interested in the temple and the Levites, so Levi is back, and Aaron - which is part of Levi - is elevated to the status of a tribe! The writer kept Ephraim and Manasseh, so three have to drop out: Joseph, Gad, and Asher.

Revelation brings back Joseph and Levi but also includes Manasseh, which should be part of Joseph. Revelation does leave out Ephraim, so it only has to omit one tribe, Dan.

Joseph had 12 sons, and, by golly, there are 12 tribes in every list, but it's like the fine print: "Your results may vary." In most cases the differences can be explained by further reading that sheds light on the author's purpose.

A few genuine contradictions, mostly recording very old dual traditions

Genesis 1 vs. Genesis 2 (selected verses), Two creation stories (03/17/25)

Now, so far we've seen that most so-called errors and inconsistencies in the Bible are pretty easily explained by further reading or by understanding the author's purpose. There are a few contradictions that are just there, however, and even though a very great deal of ink has been expended in trying to reconcile them, the fact seems to be that they are just there. It's a tribute to the honesty of the biblical writers that if they had two ancient traditions that couldn't be reconciled, they didn't reconcile them. They just put them both in. This week we'll look at five such pairs of stories. None of them affect the story of salvation, which is consistent throughout.

Two creation stories are found in Genesis 1 and 2. Actually, it looks to me (and not just to me) like Genesis 2:1-3 actually goes with Genesis 1, and the second creation story actually starts in Genesis 2:4, but that's not important.* Both stories say that God made everything; that's not in question. In Genesis 1, humanity is created last and thus is clearly the crowning glory of God's work! I think we can all (ahem, ahem) get behind that idea. The plants, the birds, the beasts - all those came before humanity, sort of a practice run, I guess, to the really important business of creating us. We're given dominion over everything, naturally.

In Genesis 2, unfortunately for our egos, not so much. In Genesis 2:4, God seems to make the heavens and the earth, but vs. 5 explicitly says there were no plants. Why? Because there's nobody to take care of them. So God makes a person before the plants, and then God plants the garden and puts the person there to tend it (2:15). So I'm sorry to tell you, boys and girls, that in the grand scheme of things in the second account, we're just the gardeners. After the person and the garden come all the animals, and then a second person.

The order of creation is just flat different in the two accounts, and our role is described differently as well.

Oh: two reader questions. Lilith is totally made up in Jewish folklore, or maybe adopted in from some other culture's folklore. She was reputed to be a demon. She was reputed to be Adam's first wife. She ain't anywhere in the Bible; she's totally made up. Forget Lilith.

The tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and the tree of Life seem to me to be metaphors intended to explain, first, how we got into the mess we're in, and second, why we die even though God himself breathed life into us. Hebrew and Hebraic thinking are very concrete.

They don't say, "The question of good and evil is a thorny one, but it appears that most human problems result from bad decision making." They say, "Adam and Eve ate the fruit in direct disobedience to God's command, and it got them cast out of the garden." I like the rabbinic idea that God prevented them from eating from the tree of Life in order to keep them from living forever in a state of sin.

I promise the study tips will get shorter, but maybe not until the next study. Sorry.

* Except that you should always read past the chapter or verse breaks, just to check!

1 Samuel 16:14-23 vs. 1 Samuel 17:12-19, 26-37, Two stories of how David came into Saul's service (03/18/25)

There are two stories about how David came into the service of Saul. In 1 Samuel 16, Saul (in my opinion) is going through one of his episodes of mental illness. His servants suggest getting a harpist - which seems to be good advice, by the way - and Saul says, "Yeah, get somebody." David goes directly from herding sheep (vs. 19) to bearing Saul's armor (vs. 21) to playing the harp for Saul (vs. 23). There's no mention of the Philistines in Ch. 15 or 16, but note that Saul likes him immediately (vs. 21).

In the very next chapter, 1 Samuel 17, David is reintroduced to the reader (vs. 12) and goes "back and forth from Saul to feed his father's sheep at Bethlehem" (vs. 15 ). Now, you can take this for what it's worth, but vs. 15 looks to me like an awkward attempt to reconcile the two stories, because when David's dad sends him to his brothers in Saul's camp, his oldest brother says, "Why have you come down? With whom have you left those few sheep in the wilderness?" (vs. 28). Does that verse, or vs. 26, sound to you like David has been going "back and forth"? David is indignant that no one is willing to go out and fight Goliath. When Saul hears that, he sends for David, but when he sees him, he says, "What? You're just a kid!" (vs. 33). If David had been his armor bearer, wouldn't he already have known that David was a kid? When David says he can do this, Saul says, "Fine. Give it a shot" (vs. 37). This whole episode has the flavor of a first meeting to me.

But if you like the transition in 1 Samuel 17:15 and think there's only one meeting, I'm not going to argue about it.

1 Samuel 31:1-9 vs. 2 Samuel 1:1-16, Two stories of the death of Saul (03/19/25)

Here's a hint for assessing the mass of conflicting information that you are exposed to every day. First, not everybody knows what they're talking about,* so ask yourself, "Who is this guy, and how does he know? In particular, is he trying to sell me something?" If it turns out that several of the presenters do have some credentials and aren't trying to sell anything but their own idea, and they still disagree, then it's very likely that nobody knows for sure.** One of them may be right, but it's more or less an accident. Think for yourself! Don't take my word for anything!

Anyway, the bit about "who is this guy and what's he selling?" could be the reason we have two accounts of the death of Saul. 1 Samuel says that Saul killed himself, and 2 Samuel says a passing Amalekite killed him at Saul's own request. Battle is pretty busy, and it's hard to know exactly what happened, and that could account for the two stories. But notice in the second story that all we have is the Amalekite's word for it, and he's bringing Saul's crown and bracelet to David, probably in an attempt to curry favor. So maybe he's just lying. There's no way to know which story is true, so don't argue about it.

* In fact, I'm sorry to tell you that most people don't know what they're talking about most of the time. They're just repeating something they heard somebody else say, without even thinking about it.

** Now, if a whole lot of experts are saying the same thing, they could be right. Smoking really is bad for you.

John 13:1-2, 19:14-16, 31-35 vs. Mark 14:12-17 (see also Matthew 26:17, Luke 22:7), Different days for the Last Supper and crucifixion (03/20/25)

Something that really seems to bother a lot of scholars is that the Synoptic Gospels and John disagree on when Jesus held the Last Supper. Much energy has been expended trying to reconcile the two accounts, and it apparently just cannot be done.

Remember that the Jewish day goes from sunset to sunset. John says the supper was held the evening before the morning of Preparation Day, which is the day the Passover lambs are slaughtered. Passover begins the next day (which for us would be the evening of Preparation Day, but our opinion does not count). In John's account, Jesus was crucified on Preparation Day, and his body had to be removed from the cross before sunset.

In Mark's account, the disciples prepare for the Passover on Preparation Day, and that evening Jesus held the Last Supper, which should be the first day of Passover, as per Mark 14:12. Then it gets confusing, because after they eat, there's the betrayal, the trial, and the crucifixion, and then it's Preparation Day again! It has been suggested that this was just an ordinary preparation day for the Sabbath, but even if we grant that, the two accounts differ.

Some of the attempts at reconciliation notice that both versions have Jesus removed from the cross late on "Preparation Day," and they say that when Mark - and Matthew 26:17 and sorta Luke 22:7 - say "on the first day of unleavened bread" and "eat the Passover" they really don't mean "the first day of unleavened bread" and "eat the Passover." Unfortunately, Matthew adds "I will keep the Passover at your house with my disciples" in 26:18, and Luke says, "Tell the master of the house, 'The Teacher says to you, "Where is the guest room, where I may eat the Passover with my disciples?" in 22:11. I don't see how you can make that meal anything other than a Passover Seder.

Either that or John didn't mean "before the feast of the Passover," but since he specifically says that the trial was on Preparation Day, that doesn't fly, either.

There are two different days given for the Last Supper. Why? Possibly because John's purpose was to portray Jesus as the Passover lamb, since he, and not the others, mention that Jesus' legs were not broken (see Exodus 12:46). I don't know. Neither does anybody else. Deal with it, because the date isn't important. What is important that Jesus had a last meal with his disciples before his betrayal and death.

Matthew 27:1-10 vs. Acts 1:15-22, Two stories of the death of Judas (03/21/25)

Matthew says that Judas hanged himself, and the chief priests used his 30 pieces of silver to buy burial ground for foreigners, which is why the place is called the Field of Blood. Luke says that Judas himself acquired the field, and that he fell and all his bowels gushed out onto the ground,* which is why it's called the Field of Blood.** People have tried to reconcile these by saying that he hanged himself, and when his body fell to the ground, it burst open, which is not only gross but doesn't seem very likely to me. It also doesn't account for the two different origins of the name.

You know what? I think we just have two different stories. The disciples were hiding out from the law (John 20:19) and probably weren't able to conduct any forensic investigations on Judas's death. They had to rely on second-hand accounts, which varied.

* Hey! Did you see that a school district in Utah banned the Bible from elementary and middle school libraries because it's indecent and violent? I told you that parts of the Bible are R-rated!***

** Sounds to me like he fell on his sword, but I'm not aware that anyone else has suggested that, so you can just ignore it.

*** Further update: now they have unbanned it.

Contradictions resulting from God's continuing revelation

Exodus 20:1-3, Deuteronomy 6:14-15; Joshua 24:14-24 vs. Isaiah 43:10, 44:14-20, 45:21-22, 46:9 (03/24/25)

Last week we looked at some genuine contradictions that either certainly or probably arise from the existence of two very old traditions about the same event. That's a human thing. In this final week of our study of contradictions in the Bible, we're going to look at a few that arise from God's continuing revelation. God's message is big, and another human thing is that we can only learn a little bit at a time. It's like the difference between studying and doing homework all semester long and staying up all night cramming for the final, only to fall asleep during the test. God, knowing who we are, chose to reveal himself a bit at a time, giving us a chance to learn it and do the homework.

For example, God says at first that we shouldn't worship other gods. If God had said to the children of Israel immediately after they left Egypt, "I'm the only God there is," they would have fallen down laughing. They knew there were other gods! They had seen them in Egypt! Forty years later, Joshua offers them the choice of worshiping the Egyptian gods, the Amorite gods, or the LORD. Only much later, after they've gotten to know God and what he can do, does God say there are no other gods. The biblical contrast between many gods and one God is the result of continuing revelation.

A few days ago I watched a video on YouTube created by an actual biblical scholar. He said flat out that there is no monotheism in the Bible. I said, "Have you read the Bible??" (He didn't hear me.) True, the Jews as a whole weren't monotheistic until sometime during the Exile, but I don't see how you can read the prophets and come away with the idea that monotheism hadn't been proclaimed for hundreds of years before that. When Isaiah speaks for God and says, "Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me," how is that not monotheism?

Genesis 22:10-13; Leviticus 1:1-9 vs. Amos 5:21-27 vs. Psalms 40:6, 51:16-17; Hosea 6:6 (03/25/25)

Does God want blood sacrifices, or not? This is a really tricky one, especially in light of the continuation of the Jewish practice of animal sacrifice until the destruction of the temple in 70 C.E., and of the Christian position that Jesus' death was a sacrifice for sin.

Human sacrifice, if not actually the norm, was certainly a very widespread practice in all the ancient world. (If you don't believe me, just subscribe to National Geographic for a few years.) God outlawed it for the children of Abraham right from the get-go (Genesis 22) and substituted animal sacrifice. (Human sacrifice hung around until shortly before the Exile [2 Kings 21], which is one of the things God was angry about.)

It seems pretty clear that the Law of Moses, which Moses got from God, requires animal sacrifices for sin, unless the sinner is too poor to afford even the least animal, two turtledoves (Leviticus 5:11). So even early on, the rule doesn't seem to be, "You will give a blood offering for sin," but rather, "You will give the most expensive thing you own as an offering for sin." Sin is important. Sin is so important that it will cost you the most valuable thing you have, which in the vast majority of cases in the ancient world was going to mean an animal sacrifice.

Then we get to the prophet Amos, where God says, "I don't want animal sacrifices from people who intend to keep on sinning! Ew, that's disgusting." Sacrifices in no way make up for bad behavior. Hosea goes even farther, when God says, "I didn't want animal sacrifices in the first place! What I want is repentance!"

Then we come full circle, when Ephesians and Hebrews both state that Christ's death was a sacrifice for sin. For what it's worth, after the destruction of the temple, the rabbis studied scripture and decided that prayer and repentance are an acceptable substitute for animal sacrifice, based in part on some of the scriptures we read today.

If we just remember that sin is so important that it costs the most valuable thing we've got, maybe we'll be less inclined to sin in the first place, which I suspect is the main idea.

Leviticus 11:3-4, 11:9-10 vs. Mark 7:14-19; 1 Corinthians 10:23-11:1, Do some foods make you ritually unacceptable? (03/26/25)

At first, some potential foods are unclean; later, all foods are clean. As to why some potential foods were unclean in the first place, people have been debating that for a long time. The best actual answer I've ever heard was from a Jewish fellow grad student, who said, "Because God said so."

However, a couple of other ideas appeal to me. First, the children of Israel needed to learn obedience, and a food check list was a simple way to start, because there are no gray areas. Second, it was important for the infant nation to be separate from the surrounding peoples. They were a small minority and in great danger of assimilation, so not being able to eat any of the same foods could have been a tool to promote separation. I made both of these up, so you should probably go with "God said so."

Later though, Jesus says that what you eat doesn't matter. The Council of Jerusalem decided in 60 C.E. that it doesn't matter much (note the distinction there) for Gentile Christians, but they didn't say it didn't matter for Jewish Christians (Acts 15:19-20). Paul says it doesn't matter, providing you know it doesn't matter, but if a fellow Christian thinks it does, then you should respect that when you eat with them.

So the biblical position has changed because of continuing revelation, but it's still murky. Personally, I'm allergic to pork. Consequently, I pay more attention to that particular prohibition than all but the most observant of Jews, and when my friends eat with me, they don't eat pork either. Kindness is always a biblical position.

Deuteronomy 7:1-10 vs. Zechariah 8:20-23; Acts 10:34-36, 44-45, 11:17-26, 18:1-4, Does God love the chosen people, or all people? (03/27/25)

Spoiler alert: God loves everybody.

A fellow reader asked not long ago whether God loves only the chosen people, or all people, because the Bible seems to say both. I think the answer is that God has always loved everybody, and that's why he chose the children of Israel to be a holy people - that is, separated for a lot of specialized love and attention. It's really hard to change whole cultures by showing up and saying, "You know all those gods you've been sacrificing to? They aren't real. I'm the only one who's real. Be my people." That wouldn't have worked.

Instead, God selected one family, paid really close attention to them, and built them into a whole new nation. Only then did they have both the characteristics God was looking for and the numbers to spread those characteristics to others rather than to be diluted by others. Not that we've done such an awesome job of that yet, but God is still working with us, because God loves us all. Love God; love your neighbor.

Deuteronomy 30:9-10, 15-20; Nehemiah 9:29-31 vs. John 3:14-17, 15:9-10, 16:25-27; Romans 5:6-8; 1 John 4:7-12 (03/28/25)

Are we supposed to obey the Law of Moses, or can we get by with just loving God? A superficial reading of the Bible seems to show that the Old Testament is all about the Law, and the New Testament is all about love. Nah. The most common description of God in the OT is "gracious, merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love." Jesus often says in the NT, "You know the Law; do it" and "If you love me, you will obey my commandments."

Yeah, the emphasis probably does change from law to love from the OT to the NT. One way to get people to start loving one another is to require them to stop stealing from each other. "Don't have any gods before me" is clearly a prerequisite for "Love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength," and "Don't murder" is essential to "Love your neighbor as yourself." Obedience to God's commandments and living in God's love are part of God's expectations in the OT and the NT. Obey God's law; love God; love your neighbor.

More Contradictions in the Bible?
Contradictions in the Bible? - Part 1
Contradictions in the Bible? - Part 2

Opinions expressed on this page are solely those of the author, Regina Hunter, and may or may not be shared by the sponsors or the Bible-study participants. Thanks to the Holy Spirit for any useful ideas presented here, and thanks to all the readers for their support and enthusiasm. All errors are, of course, the sole responsibility of the author.

Our Sponsors:

St. John's United Methodist Church, "Transforming Lives Through Christ."
2626 Arizona NE, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87110

St. John's Music Ministries now has a YouTube channel, bringing you free concerts and choral music. Check it out!

Traditional worship services are held Sundays at 8:15 and 11:00 a.m. in the sanctuary. Casual worship services are held Sundays at 9:30 a.m. in the Family Life Center. Jazz Vespers are held monthly on the second Saturday at 5:00 p.m. in the sanctuary. St. John's feels especially called to the worship of God and to the service of our neighbors through our music program.

This website is supported in part by the generosity of Mrs. J. Jordan.

Part 3

Contradictions in the Bible?

Things I just can't get excited about: Genesis 2:8-14; Isaiah 11:10-12, 41:8-10, 55:9-13, Odd geography (03/10/25)