In this episode of the Theopologetics Podcast I discuss several alleged contradictions in Scripture, pointed to by theological liberals as evidence against the inerrancy of Scripture, and by skeptics as evidence against the overall reliability of the Bible.
Music
Promoted Resources
- Ligonier Ministries, with Dr. R.C. Sproul
- Subscribe to the Renewing Your Mind podcast for free
Terminology
- Contradiction: In classical logic, a logical incompatibility between two or more propositions. As Aristotle’s law of noncontradiction states, “One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time.”
Biblical References
- Contradictory Accounts of Creation
- Genesis 1:25-27 vs. Genesis 2:18-19 (humans after animals, or animals after humans?)
- Genesis 1:27 vs. Genesis 2:18-22 (man and woman after animals, or man then animals then woman?)
- Genesis 1:11,26 vs. Genesis 2:5-9 (plants before humans or after?)
- Blog post refuting the alleged contradictions
- Contradictory Accounts of the Triumphal Entry
- Matthew 21:1-7 (cf. Zechariah 9:9)vs. Mark 11:1-7, Luke 19:29-36 and John 12:14-15
- Blog post refuting the alleged contradiction
- Contradictory Accounts of Paul’s Conversion
- Acts 9:7 vs. Acts 22:9 (companions heard or didn’t they?)
- Acts 9:7 vs. Acts 26:14 (they stood or they fell?)
- Acts 9:8 vs. 1 Corinthians 9:1 and 1 Corinthians 15:8 (Paul saw Jesus or didn’t see Jesus?)
- Blog post refuting the alleged contradictions
Poor Aristotle’s definition of contradiction is a Non sequitur.
Example:
Many hands make less work.
Too many cooks spoil the broth.
That is one of the major reasons why there is even an inerrancy debate among Evangelical Christians.
That’s a pretty silly thing to say re Aristotle. Clearly all of life’s wisdom isn’t going to be condensed to two statements.
Chris, just wondering how you would respond to Ehrman who argues harmonising the man/angel/two men at Jesus’ tomb with ‘two angels’ actually creates a fifth gospel account which none of the gospels enunciate?
Roy. Perhaps you would like to explain why refutation of Aristotle’s statement: ” “One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time.”, is ‘silly’ in your estimation, given my valid examples of two contradictory statements doing just that, whilst still both retaining their integral truths.
Roy. Perhaps you would like to explain why my refutation of Aristotle’s statement: ” “One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time.”, is ‘silly’ in your estimation, given my valid examples of two contradictory statements doing just that, whilst still both retaining their integral truths.