“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”
(2 Timothy 3:16)

Unfortunately, Christians who face those given to looking for contradictions and inaccuracies have a bigger problem in their witnessing than simply finding how the seemingly opposing Scriptures harmonize. The truth is, it is very seldom that a heart will be won for Christ through argument. Being proven “wrong” in no way convicts a person of sin, and in fact, may only cause an increase in defensiveness, and an even more energetic opposition to the Gospel.

However, by the same token, we will hardly be able to enter into intelligent discussion about faith and salvation with most people if they believe we are blindly following faulty doctrine and confusing, easily misinterpreted writings. Of course, there’s no sense in trying to establish that the Scriptures aren’t easily misinterpreted. They obviously have been time and again. Instead, I will attempt to show that this need not have been the case. The Bible is not always obviously clear, however they were never intended to be read in a cursory manner, but studied with great endeavor.

There have always been doubters, and to them, it is easy to pluck a stray verse here and there and make it look as if all the inspired writings of Yah have fallen apart from the foundation. Catholicism has long had a tradition known as “Apologetics,” in which they attempt to rationally explain their faith. In this area I applaud them, for it has long been my assertion that a faith that cannot be defended from an intelligent, rational viewpoint is certainly not a faith for which it is worth suffering persecution and death. The question must be asked of doubters, though, “Are you truly concerned about people who may be following an erroneous faith? Is that why you search the Scriptures for “proof” of their imperfection? Or are you seeking to justify something in your life that the Bible teaches us against?”

So then, I present a list of those scriptures which it has been claimed are in opposition to each other referred to as Citations (C), and my replies: Answers (A). These are, I am sure, not the exhaustive list. For this reason, I offer that any who read the site here and find that which they believe to be a contradiction not numbered among these, let me know, and I will append it. Also, if there is any disagreement with the way in which I approach the explanations, do email me so we can discuss it.

I will start out with one of the most popular ones I have found on the Internet:

C. “If I bear witness of myself, My witness is not true.” (John 5:31)

A. These words of Yahshua have commonly been quoted to show that He is casting doubt upon his own honesty. However – and this is a principle which you may hear me refer to time and again – remember that the Bible was not originally written with chapters and verses. It was meant to be read through, not broken up and looked at one sentence at a time. The Bible can be made to say just about anything if a verse is taken out of context. In order to clear this up, I need only write out the verse just before, and the verse just after: “I can, of mine own self, do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just, because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me. If I bear witness to myself, my witness is not true. There is another that beareth witness of me: and I know that the witness which He witnesseth of me is true.” (John 5:30-32)

Taken in context, this apparent discrepancy falls easily apart. Yahshua came to do the will of His Father, not Himself. He is saying that if He represents only Himself, His previous claims to be “sent from God,” are false. He goes on to state His claim yet again, that as He bears witness to the Father, so the Father bears witness of Him. A striking illustration of this is the voice from Heaven when He was baptized, declaring, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” (Matthew 3:17)

C. Here’s one from the very beginning of the Bible: Skeptics claim that inconsistent accounts of the creation of the world are depicted. They cite this example – Genesis chapter 1 tells us that man was made after the animals. However, Genesis chapter 2 states that the order is reversed: man and then the animals.

A. Yet another case were reading the Book itself would have prevented this from even becoming an issue. Admittedly, there are some cases where the contradictions do need some study to clear up. This is not one of them. Related to this one also is the idea of the trees. The two first chapters of Genesis seem to suggest two different times concerning the creation of plants and trees. As in my first example, we need only read the verses to understand. Dealing with the trees – “And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden (where SOME trees were already formed); and there He put man, whom He had formed. And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” (Gen 2:8&9) – Parentheses mine.

In regards to the animals, they were already created when Adam was place in Eden. However, let us read about the second formation of animals:
“And the Lord God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.’ And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.” (Gen 2:18-20)

A wonderful story, isn’t it? Rather than having Adam wander the entire earth looking for the animals so he could name them, Yah simply made an example of each out of the ground right before him in the garden. This was for two reasons – one, so he could name them, and two so that he could see if any would be a suitable companion for him. Of course, His Father already knew He would have to make one for him, but as He does with us, He let Adam himself come to the realization of why He did what He did. After seeing all the possible animals in creation, and realizing they were not his equal, Adam was supremely happy with Eve when she was created for him by his loving Father.

C. Genesis 1:2-3 states that God created light and divided it from darkness on the first day, but Genesis 1:14-19 says that the sun, moon, and stars were not made until the fourth day.

A. I’m sorry, I just don’t see the contradiction here. Nowhere does it say that the light came from these yet-to-be-created sources. Are we truly to limit Yah’s power to the laws of physics of which WE in our admitted limitations are aware? This is the same Almighty who fed 5000 people with 5 loaves of bread, who spoke demons and paralysis out of victims, who formed everything out of nothing, who caused three men to survive being thrown into a fiery furnace and fire to come down from Heaven to consume soaking wet sacrifices upon an altar, and to this day converts the heart of a penitent sinner. I think it’s safe to assume that if He wanted light, He could have it. It is funny logic indeed, which takes the very miracles our Father has provided us with as evidence of His divinity and uses them as proof of His non-existence.

C. Genesis 7:17 says that the flood lasted forty days, but Genesis 8:3 tells us that it lasted one hundred and fifty days.

A. Genesis 7:17 says, “And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.” Bold mine. Chapter 8:3 of the same book says, “And the waters returned from off the earth continually; and after the end of the hundred and fifty days, the waters were abated.” Forty days going up, 150 days going down. We didn’t even need any other verses for this one.

C. The Old Testament contains a significant contradiction in the story of the census taken by King David and God’s subsequent punishment of the Israelites. According to the story, God was so angered by the census that he sent a plague that killed seventy thousand men. II Samuel 24:1 says that the Lord caused David to take the census, but I Chronicles 21:1 tells us that David was incited by Satan to take the census.

A. Understanding THIS concept will knock away more than one apparent contradiction from the books of Job, Exodus, the prophets and even some of Paul’s epistles. Does Yah CAUSE people to sin, is what this question really asks. About this specific case, even the soldier Joab recognized what David did not, that it was a blatant lack of faith which led to the numbering of the Israelites. Yah had promised to keep the kingdom safe, yet David seemed insistent upon relying on his own might to protect that which he had been merely put in charge of. How often we see this scenario repeated even today. If we seek to do His will by our own power and authority, this is pride and self-idolatry of the worst kind. Of course we are to put earnest efforts into whatsoever we do, but there are some things about which He says, “I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.” (Gen 15:1)

Now, after that little sidebar, back to the issue at hand here. We see that the reason the census took place at all was because of a lack of faith. How could the Father ever encourage that? The matter before us is the viewpoints of the two books. Whereas 2 Samuel was probably written by the prophet Nathan, whose office was to reveal the will of Yah to the people, it has been shown that the book of Chronicles was written by someone (possibly Ezra) with more interest in the “priestly” and spiritual aspects of the events than the historical/moral books of Samuel and Kings. If it was indeed Nathan who said that Yah inspired the census, we can see that this is in keeping with his (Nathan’s) method of doing things, for he is the same one who sent an old woman to the king with a made-up story in order to reveal to him his sin concerning Bathsheba. (2 Samuel 12:1-13)

Whatever the exact specifics, we know this is not an unusual way of looking at events either, for it is said in Exodus that Yah “hardened his heart” in reference to the stubborn Pharaoh (Ex 10:1), but just above that in 9:34, this statement is explained. “And when Pharaoh saw that the rain and the hail and the thunders were ceased, he sinned yet more, and hardened his heart, he and his servants.” One is seen from the human point of view, and one from the divine. An even more clear example of this is the book of Job, wherein the veil between the spiritual and material world is shifted aside in a most clear fashion. With a human’s pain and confusion, Job declares, “Naked came I out of my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return thither: the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.” (Job 1:21)

Truly, Yah is all powerful, and so even the bad things that happen are allowed to occur, even if not directly inspired by His will. Were He to dictate individual behavior, we would all be slaves, and Yah would rather we suffer and die than be subject to His will without a conscious decision to do so. We see this principle acted out when in Chapter 2 the dialogue between Satan and Yah reveals just whose idea the human’s suffering was. “And the LORD said unto Satan, ‘Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.’” (Job 2:3)

If we selfishly believe that all of this is about US alone, we cannot understand how Satan could “move” Yah to do anything. Yet He allows certain things to happen so that both His righteousness and our faithfulness (if we are in tune His will) will be revealed to the world for the salvation of souls. What is earthly suffering compared to eternal joy or eternal death? If a little sting now can help to prevent a disaster later, Yah will surely do it to teach us and to hold us up as examples to others. Those who search the Scriptures only to justify their own earthly desires and practices will fail to see the beauty of this principle.

Paul wrote that we are to be thinking always of the salvation of others, and not merely our own comfort. He says that we should be “giving no offence in any thing, that the ministry be not blamed: but in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses, in stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings;” and so on. Not that we should enjoy the sufferings, but that we be secure in the knowledge that others will be eternally saved by them. We are to have a heart that beats in resonance with Him by whose stripes we are healed. This is truly loving one’s neighbor as one’s self. I know I have taken some time on this one, but upon this principle of selfless love hangs “all the law and the prophets.” (Matthew 22:40)

C. There is a contradiction regarding the question of whether God punishes children for the sins of their parents. At Ezekiel 18:20, the Lord states: “The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father....” However, in Exodus 20:5, God says: “...I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.”

A. You will notice that just about all of the book of Proverbs is written to a “young man,” and this is quite an important point. If PARENTS realized their responsibilities to their children’s future well being, not only on this earth, but for all eternity, there would be a lot more praying and a lot less violence in the schools. Looking again at the books concerning David’s reign we see that his children were rebellious, incestuous, clandestine and violent. And why? Because of HIS mistake. After the stumbling monarch’s offence and repentance, the prophet Nathan said to him, “The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die. Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.” (2 Sam 12: 13:14)

But it didn’t just end there. Although David had been forgiven, the consequences of the sin remained. His children could no longer be disciplined with fitting force, for until the end of his life, the king felt keen guilt over his transgression. (2 Sam 23:5) Not only did his son by Bathsheba die, but due to the evil which had seeped into the family, his son Amnon raped his daughter Tamar, a child by another of his wives. He (Amnon) was then killed by David’s other son Absalom who fled the area and later returned to lead a rebellion which claimed many more lives. All of this from the natural result of the father’s error. He could not be the parent he was supposed to have been, and the children suffered for it. Violence and sexual immorality were the very core of David’s error, and through his children they were seen before all the world as evidence.

It is not that Yah will punish children for the actual sins of their parents, but if a father or mother is in error and will not repent of it AND take drastic measures to ensure that their lives are in order and their children unaffected by it, they will also naturally follow the bad example before them and fall into the disfavor of Heaven. Parents’ responsibility over the souls (and even earthly happiness) of their children is a most humbling one, worthy of the greatest care.

C. There are contradictions between the genealogy of Jesus as set forth in the first chapter of Matthew and the genealogy given in the third chapter of Luke. Both genealogies list Jesus’ father as being Joseph, but whereas Matthew has Joseph’s father being Jacob, Luke says that his name was Heli. Also, Matthew tells us that there were twenty-six generations between Jesus and King David, but Luke reports yhat the number of such generations was forty-one. In addition, Matthew alleges that Jesus’ line of descent was through David’s son Solomon, but Luke asserts that it was through David’s son Nathan.

A. Well finally :) Here is an answer that actually requires some reading of the Bible in places other than the immediate area. In fact, I think I am going to give the reply to this one its own page. The response is rather involved but you can read it here.

C. In the story of the birth of Jesus, Matthew 2:13-15 says that Joseph and Mary fled to Egypt with the baby Jesus immediately after the wise men from the east had brought their gifts. However, Luke 2:22-40 indicates that, after the birth of Jesus, Joseph and Mary remained in Bethlehem for the time of Mary’s purification (which was forty days, under the Mosaic law), then brought Jesus to Jerusalem “to present him to the Lord,” and then returned to their home in Nazareth. Luke makes no mention of a journey into Egypt or a visit by wise men from the east.

A. First of all, no single Gospel book mentions all the events before and during Yahshua’s life. According to John, “there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.” (John 21:25) Mark’s gospel, in fact, doesn’t SAY that Yahshua was born! But we can assume He did, for He’s the subject of the book, as are the other three.

Now about the scriptures above which seem to conflict... The writer of this citation made an assumption. Luke’s passage does not in fact state that Joseph and Mary stayed in Bethlehem. It merely says that “when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought Him to Jerusalem, to present Him to the Lord.” (Luke 2:22) Luke’s main focus in HIS book was to show Christ and His works as both the “Son of man” and the Messiah. In Yahshua’s early life, Luke wrote about the events that showed Him as the fulfillment of signs given to various people, and naturally, most of these took place in Judea.

Therefore, though Joseph and Mary DID flee to Egypt to escape Herod (as Matthew rightly records), Luke picks the story back up when they return and He is presented to the Temple in Jerusalem. It was in this place, and thereafter, that it really became apparent to both His parents and those who were close to Him in His infancy that this was a very special child, for after the incident in the Temple when He was twelve it says, “but His mother kept all these sayings in her heart.” Luke (2:51) This was the focus of the third gospel. Understanding that the four Gospels DO focus on different aspects, and therefore will emphasize some things and ignore others, is another one of those “keys” to understanding the full harmony of all the written Word.

C. As to the death of the disciple Judas, Matthew 27:5 states that Judas took the money that he had obtained by betraying Jesus, threw it down in the temple, and then “went and hanged himself.” However, Acts 1:18 reports that Judas used the money to purchase a field and “falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.”

A. From what height would a human body need to fall that it should “burst asunder?” There is no contradiction here at all either. It seems pretty apparent to me, even with no further reading, that poor Judas did indeed hang himself and, after his death, his corpse, swollen with the gasses of decay, and already having been subjected to the “rigors” of “mortis,” fell to the earth and made a mess. Please don’t let your faith be short-circuited by something as easily explained as this. There are more worthy questions upon which to hang your desire for doubt.

C. In the New Testament, the conflicting accounts of the conversion of Paul can be cited. Acts 9:7 says that when Jesus called Paul to preach the gospel, the men who were with Paul heard a voice but saw no man. However, Acts 22:9 asserts that when Paul received his calling, the men who were with him saw a light but did not hear the voice that spoke to Paul.

A. Well, the person that found this “discrepancy” surely doesn’t want the Bible to be true! But we can figure this one out without breaking too much of a sweat also. Acts 9:7 says that the men that were with the apostle “stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.” In Acts 22:9 Paul recounts his conversion, and says of this event, “but they [the men] heard not the voice of Him that spake to me.” Well, the answer to this lies in the wording used, once again.

Surely one can hear “a voice” without what that voice is saying. To hear “the voice” of someone, as Luke uses the term, is to be conscious of what the person’s words are and what they mean. The manifestation, the “sounds” of the voice were conveyed to the bystanders so that Paul would be given some evidence that he was not merely suffering from a delusion, but at the same time, the message itself was for him alone. If you stand in a crowd, and someone is speaking in low tones, you can hear a voice, this is true. But, can you really say that you have heard the voice of any one specific person? It’s just playing with terms, and that is not going to rip down anyone’s faith who is already grounded in the Word.

C. Does the Bible teach that we should kill? Exodus 20:13 says, “Thou shalt not kill.” In Exodus 32:27, however, we find, “Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.’” Then of course there are the records of punishments for various sins, such as Numbers 15:36, “And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the LORD commanded Moses.”

A. It is important to note, first of all, that not everything the Bible records is what the Bible condones. One man, so eager for blessings from Yah, made a vow to sacrifice the first thing that came out of his front door as a burnt offering. His desire for triumph was a holy one, so his request was granted, but at what foolish cost! When he returned home, his daughter was the first to run out and greet him... having made a vow, he had no way to back out of the arrangement, but this was certainly not something that Heaven was pleased with. This is all recorded in Judges 11:29-40.

Now about the commandment, that is a binding and everlasting principle. We are never to take the life of someone, including ourselves. That is the ultimate robbery, the utmost infringement upon another’s freedom. Not only does a killer steal from the individual, but also from the Most High, for Scripture says to each of us, “For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.” (1 Cr 6:20) The only times the Bible records the taking of a life as a favorable thing is when it was done not only to spare many others from physical and/or spiritual death, but it was at the express command of the Throne.

Yah alone knows when a human soul is so beyond mercy that like Judas, Achan, Korah, they are beyond the light of redemption. At that point, their lives would only be a misery to themselves and a danger to others. Those who have habitually, willfully rejected His grace make themselves puppets to His enemy, and for the sake of His other, faithful children, the danger must be removed. But He ALONE is the one with the wisdom and authority to make that call. We of ourselves should never take a life, but there were times when humans were instruments in Yah’s hands for such unpleasant work. Examples of this are the punishment of sins, and also military movements such as are recorded in 1 Sam 17:46, Jer 29:21, Eze 25:14 and some other places.

C. Is jealousy a sin? Verses like Exodus 20:5 attributes such characteristics to God Himself “...for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God...” Others, however, such as Galatians 5:19-20 lists it among things we should not possess as His children, and is also warned against in 2 Cor 12:20.

A. Well, I have checked the verses cited above, and in all the versions I own, KJV, NIV, NRSV, a few more arcane ones, the word used in Galatians and 2 Corinthans is “envy” not jealousy, whereas the word in Exodus 20:5 is indeed “jealousy,” which has very different connotations indeed. Isn’t there a “holy jealousy?” Would any husband be pleased to have his wife go spend the night in the home of a male friend that he doesn’t know, for example? Even the very liberal should feel some sense of unease about this, shouldn’t they? To “envy” someone else for his bride or possessions seems to me quite a separate thing.

Marriage is an illustration that Yah commonly uses to demonstrate His love and protective feelings towards His people. As I will reemphasize in the question below about idols, He knows that He is the only one who can protect and save us, therefore it is quite in keeping with His love that He would desire that we serve Him exclusively. He is “jealous” for our attention and our love, not because of any benefit to Him, who is “able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.” (Mat 3:9, Luke 3:8), but because it is the only way we will become free from the curse of death. Shall we fault Him for desiring this for us?

C. Can we steal? Exodus 20:15 explicitly states, “Thou shalt not steal,” a sentiment echoed in Leviticus 19:13 and other places. Exodus 3:22 seems to contradict this with the promise, “And ye shall spoil the Egyptians.” which was fulfilled in Ex 12:35-36.

A. The proverb goes, “He that oppresseth the poor to increase his riches, and he that giveth to the rich, shall surely come to want.” (Pro 22:16) Of the riches of those who have aquired wealth by unjust means (such as the Egyptians), James writes, “Behold, the hire of the labourers who have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth: and the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord of sabaoth.” (James 5:4) The word “saboath” here means “armies” or “hosts” indicating military power. The riches of the unjust are an offense to the aspect of Yah that is Justice.

It is the faithful who would do the best good with the riches, and therefore the Father makes a way by which the funding falls into the hands of those who would do honor to Him on the earth with it. This has, at times, needed to be accomplished through saboath, or armies. Be very careful with this, however, for just as with the “thou shalt not kill” specification spoken of before, it is Yah alone who has the right to declare when such extreme measures are to be exercised.

C. Exodus 20:4 says, “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.” Leviticus 26:1 reads, “Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the LORD your God.” Yet in some places, the creation of statues and images is specified, such as in Exodus 25:18, “And thou shalt make two cherubim of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat.”

A. This would mean, then, that the sin lies not in the creation of the images, but in their worship. In the Leviticus passage this is explicitly said in the added “to bow down to it.” However, what of the Exodus reference, that doesn’t specify, does it? Well, actually it does. Reading on to Verse 20:5 we hear, “Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.” Okay, I added 20:6 so it wouldn’t end on such a down note, but the idea comes through clearly enough. The sin condemned is idolatry, for if Yah is the only God who can save, how can He be pleased if we bow down to other imagined or imposturous deities to offer them service?

In fact, ALL the references to “graven images” in Scripture refers specifically to idols, objects of worship (Eg. Deuteronomy 5:8,9). Statues or carvings are never condemned for their own intrinsic evil. In fact, Yah Himself uses statues for His purposes, for example the above mentioned Cherubim, the human-shaped statue in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream and so on. In Deuteronomy 16:8, where it says only, “Neither shalt thou set thee up any image; which the LORD thy God hateth,” with no following verse to clarify it, we need only look at the one before it, wherein the warning is given also against planting “groves” which were well known areas for the worship of nature spirits. The connection is ALWAYS made very clear.

C. Are we saved through works or by grace? Ephesians 2:8&9 reads, “For by grace are ye saved through faith, not of works.” Romans 3:20,28 and Galatians 2:16 have similar sentiments. James 2:24, however states, “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.”

A. We read in the Bible that without faith it is impossible to please Yah (Heb 11:6), yet faith ALONE is not enough, for “the devils also believe, and tremble.” (James 2:19) There are many things that we will do as followers of Christ. They are not things we do in order to BECOME His followers, but we do them BECAUSE we are. This is an important distinction. When one is in Union with the Son, and we begin to understand the things of Heaven, such principles as unconditional love, true charity, forgiveness of enemies and so on begin to make sense.

We then begin to do the things Yah commands, not because we want to make Him “like us,” but because we see the common sense it in most of the time. When we have faith, we DO these things and show our justification. By doing good things, and not doing bad, we reveal that we have overcome the temptations of the world, and now walk in the light of Heaven as renewed and redeemed children of the Most High. It is a union of the two, works done BY faith that merit the approval of Heaven. If you want it put clearer than that, just read the entire second chapter of James, focusing on the second half. It isn’t very long at all.

C. Does God change his mind? Malachi 3:6 reads, “For I am the Lord; I change not.” Num 23:19 declares, “God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that He should repent.” Exodus 32:14 records this, though, “And the Lord repented of the evil which he had thought to do unto his people.” Similar sentiments are expressed when He “repented that He had made man” in Gen. 6:6, changed His mind about destroying Nineveh in Jonah 3:10 and so on.

A. There was a question before about whether or not Yah causes human beings to reject His ways, thereby causing sin. In my answer to that, I said that applying the principle stated there would answer many of the apparent contradictions in Scripture, and this is one of those. There are some verses where Yah is anthropomorphized more than others. That is to say, in some places, He is interpreted in “human” terms, and in others He is spoken of from a more divine standpoint.

The example quoted above from Exodus is concerning the people of Israel and the sin of worshipping the golden calf. Yah told Moses that He would destroy them all, but the patriarch interceded on their behalf, and He turned away His anger. This was done for a specific reason, it was to present to the Israelites two principles. Firstly, that sin was destructive, and could not be condoned by their Father who wanted only their best good, and secondly that Moses was the one that He had placed in charge of them, interceding just as Christ does even now for the Church.

Moses, who had already come so far in his understanding of the Father’s will, would not stand aside and let them be wiped out without first being given an opportunity to repent. He was in harmony with Yah regarding this action, to stand even against the proposed destruction, for the Father’s purpose towards His children did not truly change at any time, only needed to be revealed in different ways. One, the more human standpoint, and two, the true divinity of His being.

C. Has anyone seen God? John 1:18 states, “No man hath seen God at anytime.” So do other verses such as Exodus 33:20, 1 Tim 6:16;,John 6:46 and 1 John 4:12. In Genesis 32:30, however, Jacob declares, “I have seen God face to face.” This is said also of Moses in Exodus 33:11. Isaiah and some of the other prophets also saw Him in His glory (Isa 6:1)

A. Exodus 33:20 reads, in its entirety (along with verses 21-23), “And He said, ‘Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.’ And the LORD said, ‘Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock: and it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by: and I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.” In the case of Moses, Yah made it clear that His face was the part of Him which no man could bear to look upon and live.

But this is just a partial answer, for the phrase “face to face” is used several times, speaking of Jacob, Moses and Isaiah. The answer for these is partly contained above – Yah’s face cannot be seen in its true and glorified state. In His true form, the Father is Spirit (John 4:24), and a consuming fire (Deuteronomy 4:24, Hebrews 12:29), but just as clear is the fact that He does have other forms.

In Christ, He was “the Word made flesh,” the human representation of all of His perfection and holiness. Yet the worst of men could view Yahshua’s face and not suffer any destruction. This is clearly stated when He said to His disciples, “he that hath seen me hath seen the Father.” (John 14:9) Those who looked upon Christ were, in a sense, seeing the Father, but again, and as He appeared to Abraham as a man (Gen 18:2,3), and Jacob (mentioned above) as an angel (Hosea 12:4), He was in a form they could withstand.

In another, less tangible way, Yah is also manifest to and IN each Christian. He is called “Christ in you, the hope of glory,” (Col 1:27) or more commonly, the Holy Spirit.

C. Concerning vengeance, is the New Testament in opposition to the Old? “And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.” Exodus 21:23-25 “But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” Matthew 5:39

A. In a very real way, this goes back to what I had been saying about Yah alone being qualified to measure a man’s guilt and judge him worthy of death. In the time of Israel’s wanderings, God Himself led the community, and was an ever-present entity, whether by cloud, fire, or speaking through Moses. By the time of Christ, Israel had given much of its power over to secular organizations, and was no longer a strict “Theocracy.”

But there is a deeper answer here as well. Even back when such harsh laws were given, they were admittedly not the ideal. When explaining many of the earlier injunctions, and using divorce as an example, we see this: “And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.” (Mark 10:5) He says a few verses later, “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Mark 10:9) True, this refers specifically to marriage, but how much more should it apply to human life! For “Did not He that made me in the womb make him [who is a servant]? and did not One fashion us in the womb?” (Job 31:15)

Yah in His graciousness allowed the Israelites many things, which were not in best keeping with His ways, as He was aware they had just come from centuries of slavery in a highly idolatrous nation. Even many years later, polygamy was still not frowned upon, though Christ said , “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.” (Mark 10:6-8)

Yahshua’s purpose on earth was to make the will of the Father clear as never before, and of the verses quoted above specifically, He said, “Ye have heard that it hath been said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:’ But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.” (Mat 5:38,39) He was not contradicting the earlier principle, but saying that those who would be free in Him should move past that stage. Even in the old days this was so, unless explicitly commanded by the Father, for He also said, “To me belongeth vengeance, and recompense,” (Deuteronomy 32:35)

C. “Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of this mother. And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’” (Deuteronomy 27:22) “And if a man shall take his sister, his father’s daughter, or his mother’s daughter...it is a wicked thing.” (Leviticus 20:17) Yet of Abraham, who married his sister, his father’s daughter, it is recorded: “And God said unto Abraham, ‘As for Sara thy wife...I bless her, and give thee a son also of her.’” (Genesis 17:15-16)

A. An interesting question, and it has an interesting answer, for involved in it is one the atheist’s favorite questions, “Where did Cain get his wife from?” Well, the answer to all of these is the same... mankind has not always been in this stage of corruption. Consider the fact that Adam, who had children with Eve, was not introducing NEW genetic material into the population with his wife, for she was made from his very body. In the same way Cain, Seth and their other sons had to take brides from among their immediate family. And does the Bible record that the first pair had daughters too? Certainly – it’s just that only the males seem to be mentioned by name, and not all of THESE either. Genesis 5:4 states, “And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters.”

Notice also the amount of years! Human beings were once very different than you see them today, they were much more in the image of Yah than now. In Genesis 6:3 He said, “My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.” That’s quite a reduction from Adam’s day. And it has gotten worse. Back in the time of Greece, if you lived into your mid 30s you were considered lucky. By science mankind has managed to recapture some of this time, but we have a long way to go before we can put our life spans back in the 900s.

Basically, genetically speaking, we have been getting farther and farther away from the ideal. First our life expectancy began to decline, then our physical height and strength, then our internal workings (which is why health/diet reform is becoming such an important issue for both the church and the world in general). By the time of Moses, when Leviticus and Deuteronomy were written, our decline had made it so that we could no longer combine genes with close relatives to produce healthy offspring, and therefore the rules cited above were put in place. Abraham may have been closer to that time than Adam and Seth, but apparently it wasn’t a significant danger even then.

C. The commandment says, “Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.” (Exodus 20:12) But Christ said, “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” Luke 14:26

A. I think anyone reading that verse in Luke with an earnest desire to know what it says, keeping in mind the character of Yahshua, will pick up only too easily on the intent of those words. For those who want to split hairs, though...

The Greek word for hate is “miseo,” and according to Vine’s Concise Dictionary of The Bible, it has three shades of meaning. The first is the one we all are familiar with – unnatural dislike, great animosity. This meaning is used in such verses as Matthew 10:22. The second is something of a “holy anger,” such as a true follower will feel towards sin and injustice. Jude 23 has an instance of when this is used. The third is the least intense of the three, and speaks of preferring one thing to another. It’s the same principle as “one cannot serve two masters, but will love one and hate the other.” (Mat 6:24) This is the one found in Luke 14:26.

Well, as I said in the beginning, this is by no means to be taken as anything approaching an exhaustive list. If anything, I hope to have given a fair representation of the kinds of charges that are leveled against Scripture, and the simple yet effective means by which they are resolved. It really is just that easy: READ, and when in doubt, ask a few people.

The invitation is open, of course, to anyone who wants to contact me (FlyingCreature@Hotmail.com) for discussion of a difficult passage either by email or the forum that has been set up on this site, and when I do come across one of the more informative or interesting challenges to Scriptural accuracy, I will be sure to add it to the list above.

David.

Home | Contact | More Articles