20
INTRODUCTION
If the Bible is the literal word of God, then God frequently contradicts Himself, makes mistakes that He later regrets, and has a poor grasp of dates and history. For those unwilling to accept the above description of God, a group that includes all Muslims, the conclusion is obvious. The Bible, as it currently exists, is not the word of God, although it may be a corrupted version of what once was the word of God. While the above may appear to be highly provocative statements, a little Biblical detective work provides the necessary proof to support the charges.
CONTRADICTIONS IN THE BIBLE
It is impossible to present all of the instances in which the Bible is self-contradictory within the short confines of this chapter. The following examples should suffice, however, to illustrate how self-contradictory the Bible actually is.
Can we see God? Exodus 33:20 and John 1:18 clearly state that no one has ever seen God and that no one can see God and still live. Yet, Genesis 32:30, Exodus 24:10, Job 42:5, and Isaiah 6:1 all proclaim that people have seen God and lived to tell about it.
What was the genealogy of Jesus Christ? In an implied refutation of the virgin birth of Jesus (both Muslims and Christians proclaim the virgin birth of Jesus), Matthew 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38 both trace Christ’s genealogy through Joseph, the reported husband of the Virgin Mary. Even more alarming, the two genealogies are in total disagreement with each other concerning the ancestry of Joseph, with Matthew saying that Jacob was the father of Joseph and Luke saying that it was Heli. If that weren’t enough, I Chronicles 2:1-15 contradicts Matthew’s account of the generations between Uzziah (Ahaziah) and Jotham by adding three generations (Joash, Amaziah, and Azariah) between the two. Further, I Chronicles adds the name of Jehoiakim between those of Josiah and Jechoniah. So, who is right concerning the father of Joseph? Is it Matthew or Luke? If Matthew is right, who is right concerning the extended genealogy? Is it Matthew or I Chronicles? If the Bible is the word of God, how could God have gotten so confused?
If the Bible is the word of God, why are there major counting irregularities?. In summing up the genealogy listed in Matthew 1:1-16, Matthew 1:17 says that there were 14 generations from Abraham to David, 14 generations from David to the deportation, and 14 generations from the deportation to Jesus Christ. A simple count of the generations provided by Matthew between Abraham and David and between Solomon and Jechoniah reveals 14 generations, but the count between Salathiel and Jesus is only 13 generations. 1
1 Some might insist that Matthew said 14 generations from the deportation to Jesus, so Jechoniah should be counted as the 14th generation in the second set and as the first generation in the third set, resulting in 14 generations in the third set. If that were the case, however, then David should be counted as both the 14th generation in the first set and as the first generation in the second set, resulting in 15 generations in the second set. There is just no way to make the math work out.
A second counting problem occurs in Matthew 12:38-40. In referring to the alleged crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, the passage indicates that Jesus would spend “three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” But, if Jesus were crucified on Good Friday and arose on Easter Sunday, concepts rejected by Islam, there is simply no way that he could spend “three nights in the heart of the earth.” At most, one has Friday and Saturday nights, and one plus one does not equal three.
There are numerous other number problems that occur in the Bible, as illustrated by the following examples. 1) Did David take seven hundred horsemen (II Samuel 8:3-4) captive from King Hadadezer of Zobah or seven thousand (I Chronicles 18:3-4)? 2) II Samuel 24:9 says that 800,000 men of Israel “drew the sword,” while I Chronicles 21:5 pegs the number at 100,000. (Other number discrepancies can be found between II Samuel 24:9 and I Chronicles 21:5.) 3) Did Solomon have 3,300 (I Kings 5:15-16) supervisors for his conscripted workforce or 3,600 (II Chronicles 2:2)? 4) Did Hiram, the bronze worker, make for the Solomonic Temple 2,000 baths (I Kings 7:26) or 3,000 (II Chronicles 4:5)? 5) Did two blind men (Matthew 20:30-34) beseech Jesus for healing of their eyes, or was it only one (Mark 10:46-52)? 6) In fighting the Syrians (Arameans), did David kill the men of 700 chariots (II Samuel 10:18) or 7,000 men who fought in chariots (I Chronicles 19:18)? The two numbers are mutually exclusive, as there was simply not enough room in a chariot to have 10 men per chariot; the typical number was three, as demonstrated in the figures of 4,000 chariots and 12,000 horsemen given in II Chronicles 9:25. 7) Were there 200 singers (Ezra 2:65) among the returning Israelite exiles or 245 (Nehemiah 7:67)?
Are “cavalry” and “infantry” the same? II Samuel 10:18 says that David killed 40,000 “horsemen” of Syria (Aramea) while I Chronicles 19:18 says it was 40,000 “footmen.”
How many children did Michal, the daughter of King Saul, actually have? II Samuel 6:23 states that Michal “had no child unto the day of her death.” But, II Samuel 21:8 credits her with having five sons. Which “word of God” are we to believe?
How did Judas Iscariot, the disciple who reportedly betrayed Jesus, actually die? Matthew 27:5 states that Judas committed suicide by hanging, while Acts 1:18 says that Judas disemboweled himself when he fell. If both passages are the word of God, how could God contradict Himself in such a blatant manner?
To this point, we have been confining our exploration of contradictions in the Bible to those found primarily by comparing one passage with another. However, there are also internal contradictions within a single passage. For example, was Joseph made captive and taken to Egypt by Ishmaelites (the descendants of Abraham’s son, Ishmael) who had purchased Joseph from his brothers or by Midianites (the descendants of Abraham’s son, Midian) who had pulled Joseph out of a pit? Genesis 37:12-36 swings back and forth in a seemingly unending stream of contradictions in attempting to answer these questions.
As a second example of internal contradiction within a single Biblical passage, consider Genesis 22:1-13. This passage states that the son Abraham was to sacrifice was “Isaac” and Abraham’s “only son”. Now, Genesis 16:15-16 states that Ishmael was born when Abraham was 84 years old, Genesis 21:5 claims that Isaac was born when Abraham was 100 years old, and Genesis 25:7-11 maintains that Ishmael was still alive at the time of Abraham’s death. Therefore, the only time Abraham had an only son was after the birth of Ishmael and before the birth of Isaac, making Ishmael, not Isaac, the intended sacrificial victim. (Attempts to resolve this contradiction by translating the Hebrew word yachiyd as “beloved,” as some versions of the Bible do, are specious. Yachiyd means “sole” or “only,” and it is only by being the “sole” or “only” that the word “beloved” can be implied.)
DOES GOD MAKE MISTAKES?
Almost all monotheists, whether Jews, Christians, or Muslims, would agree that God is perfect, which implies that God cannot make mistakes that he later regrets. Yet, Genesis 6:5-6 states that God regretted His having created mankind. This passage is so explicit in stating that God had erred and regretted his prior creation and so poignant in describing God’s grief over His mistake that it is worth quoting the verses in their entirety.
The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of man’s heart was continually only evil. The LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him in his heart.
If we accept this passage as the word of God, then God has told us that He makes mistakes, lacks foreknowledge of what will later transpire, and regrets and grieves over His prior mistakes. Such a picture of God is far from God being perfect in every way and is a portrayal that no Muslim can accept.
GOD AND HISTORY
Genesis 39:1-50:7 typically refers to the ruler(s) of Egypt at the time of Joseph, the son of Jacob, as being “pharaoh” (per-o, meaning “the great house”). In marked contrast, Qur’an 12:43-76 consistently refers to Prophet Yusuf’s Egyptian monarch as being a “king” (Al-Malik) and not a “pharaoh.” This is so even though the Qur’an parallels the Bible in referring to the ruler of Egypt at the time of Moses as being “pharaoh” (Fir’aun or Al-Fir’aun), not as “king” 2.
2 Qur’an 2:49; 7:103-104, 109, 113, 123, 130, 137; 8:54; 10:75, 79, 83, 88, 90; 11:97; 14:6; 17:101-102; 20:24, 43, 60, 78-79; 23:46; 26:11, 16, 23, 41, 44, 53; 27:12; 28:3-4, 6, 8-9, 32, 38; 29:39; 40:24, 26, 28-29, 36-37, 45-46; 43:46, 51; 51:38; and 79:17.
The title “pharaoh” came into common use in ancient Egypt about the beginning of the 18th Dynasty 3. According to the conventional chronology for ancient Egypt, the 18th Dynasty began circa 1,539 BCE, which suggests that the title “pharaoh” was in use by that time, but not much earlier than that. As such, Genesis appears to be placing Joseph after 1,539 BCE, an impossibly late date according to the Bible’s own chronology. (Almost all Biblical scholars place the start of the Solomonic Temple at around 966 BCE. I Kings 6:1 says that Israelite exodus from Egypt began 480 years prior to the start of the Solomonic Temple, i.e., circa 1446 BCE. Further, Exodus 12:40 says that the Israelites toiled in Egypt for 430 years, which would place the start of Joseph’s time in Egypt no later than 1876 BCE.)
3 Laughlin JCH: Pharaoh. In Mills WE et al. (eds): Mercer Dictionary of the Bible. Macon, Mercer University Press, 1997. Page 679.
So, why does God incorrectly refer to the ruler of Joseph’s Egypt as “pharaoh” in the Bible but correctly as “king” in the Qur’an? Is God guilty of committing historical anachronisms? If the Bible is the word of God, the Bible would appear to say He is.
As a second example of the Bible being in conflict with known history, consider the birth of Jesus Christ. According to Matthew 2:1-21, Jesus was born when Herod was king of Judea. This places the birth of Jesus at 4 BCE at the very latest, because Herod the Great, the only Herod to hold the title of King of Judea, died in 4 BCE. But, Luke 2:1-7 argues that Jesus was born during a universal census when Quirinius was governor of Syria. It is a point of historical fact that there was no universal census within the Roman Empire at this time. Now, there was a Palestinian census when Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was governor. But neither the Palestinian census nor the governorship of Quirinius existed prior to 6 CE, a discrepancy of at least 10 years with the account in Matthew.
THE FORMATION OF THE BIBLE:
How can one begin to explain the numerous contradictions within the Bible? How can the Bible be at variance with known history? The answers lie in understanding how the Bible was created.
The Bible as we currently know it evolved over the course of well over 1,000 years, and was frequently a cut-and-paste compilation from earlier and often discrepant sources. Along the way, different versions of the Bible emerged.
As an example, consider the Torah or Pentateuch, which is comprised of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Modern Biblical scholars have ascertained that these books are a cut-and-paste compilation from earlier written sources known as J, E, D, and P. The oldest of these sources, i.e., J, dates only to about 950 BCE. The newest of these sources, i.e., P, was composed during the fifth and sixth centuries BCE. Around 400 BCE, enterprising Jewish scribes combined these four sources and other unidentified material to create the Torah. Over the next few centuries, several different versions of the Torah emerged, including: the Palestinian text (fragments of which have been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls); the proto-Masoretic text (the text upon which the current Masoretic text used by Jews is based); the Alexandrian text (the text upon which the Greek Septuagint is based); and the Samaritan text (the text still used by a small group of existing Samaritans). The modern English translations of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy are based on the work of Biblical scholars who make use of all four texts, variously choosing this one or that one, based upon linguistic, historical, and “best guess” considerations. Yet, the differences that exist among these ancient texts can be illustrated by the fact that the Masoretic and Samaritan texts differ in some 6,000 places, with the Samaritan text agreeing with the Septuagint in about 1/3 of those places! Which text is to be believed?
After about 300 BCE, some consensus had arisen among the Greek-speaking Jews in Alexandria about which books belonged in the canonical scripture, giving rise to the Greek Septuagint as their authoritative book of scripture. But, the final decision on which books would comprise the canonical Jewish scriptures or Old Testament was not arrived at until the Council of Jamnia circa 90 CE. This gave rise to the Septuagint and the Masoretic text having two different sets of books included in them, most of which overlapped with each other, but some of which existed only in the Septuagint. Generally speaking, contemporary Roman Catholics follow the Septuagint while modern Protestants follow the Masoretic text, explaining why the so-called Roman Catholic Bible has additional books, known as the Apocrypha, which are not found in the so-called Protestant Bible.
Well, what about the New Testament? The 27 books comprising the New Testament represent those books of scripture that are exclusive to Christianity. Of these 27 books, one is an apocalypse (Revelation), one is an early church history (Acts), 21 are epistles of one sort or another, and four are labeled as being gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). It is highly doubtful that any of these 27 books was written by anyone who had first-hand contact with Jesus.
The canon of the New Testament evolved gradually over several centuries. During the first three centuries of the so-called Christian era, there was no concept of an authorized and closed canon of New Testament scripture. Various books were viewed as scriptural based upon their self-stated claim to being inspired and based upon their circulation and popularity among the various Christian churches. As such, what was regarded as scripture in one locality was not regarded as scripture in another locality. But, early in the fourth century, the situation began to change. In his Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius Pamphili, the fourth century bishop of Caesarea, proposed a canon of New Testament scripture. Of significance, this proposed canon omitted many books currently found in the New Testament, including James, Jude, II Peter, II John, III John, and Revelation. In 367, Athanasius, the bishop of Alexandria, circulated an Easter letter, which included the first listing of New Testament scripture to conform exactly to the current New Testament, although only a few years before he had still been championing The Shepherd of Hermas as being canonical scripture. This canon of New Testament scripture was later ratified at the Council of Hippo in 393, the Synod of Carthage in 397, and the Carthaginian Council in 419. But, there was not agreement with this proposed canon among the so-called Eastern churches until the sixth century, when the Syriac translation of circa 508 CE finally conformed to this canon.
As can be seen, it took three to five centuries after the completion of the ministry of Jesus before the early Christian churches had arrived at a closed canon of the 27 books presently comprising the New Testament. Along the way, the selection process was constantly being influenced by human, political, geographical, and theological considerations that had precious little to do with preserving the word of God. As an example, only four gospels found their way into the New Testament. However, over 40 gospels were known to have existed and to have been accepted as authoritative scripture by one or another of the early Christian churches. Additionally, examination of some of the earliest texts of these New Testament books reveals that editorial changes were being made in the texts throughout the early centuries of Christianity.
CONCLUSIONS
Does God contradict Himself, make errors in judgment that He later regrets, and make mistakes regarding the known historical record? Of course He does not. But men are highly fallible, and men do contradict themselves and make historical mistakes. As seen above, the formation of the Bible took place over a millennium of time. Editing and selection decisions were frequently based on human, political, and churchly considerations that trumped spiritual truth. Along the way, the literal word of God was slowly lost, and the reader of the contemporary Bible is left to sift through countless contradictions and historical impossibilities.
(Excerpt from book "Easily Understand Islam")
Click to read sample chapters from the book below
Table of Contents
Why is there Evil and Suffering?
Why I Believe in God — A Muslim Speaks
The Quran, Modern Science, and More
Islam & Racism
Islam: A Solution for America’s Social Problems?
Some Muslim Virtues (Sayings of the Prophet)
Section IV: Islam & Christianity
Common Ground: Judaism, Christianity & Islam