The Bible contains hundreds of contradictions

The doctrine of biblical inerrancy holds that the Bible is entirely free from error. The 1978 Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, signed by nearly 300 evangelical scholars, declared that "Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching."¹ This article does not argue that the Bible contains contradictions. It places passages side by side and lets the reader compare them. All quotations are from the English Standard Version (ESV) unless otherwise noted.²

Direct verbal negations

The strongest form of contradiction is a direct verbal negation: one passage says X, and another says not-X about the same subject. In each example below, the two passages address the same topic and make claims that are logical negations of each other.^{3, 4}

Does God tempt people?

Genesis 22:1 states, "After these things God tested Abraham,"² while James 1:13 declares, "Let no one say when he is tempted, 'I am being tempted by God,' for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one."²

The Hebrew word in Genesis 22:1 is נִסָּה (nissah), meaning "tested" or "tempted." The KJV translates it directly: "God did tempt Abraham."⁵ The Septuagint — the Greek translation used by New Testament authors — renders this as ἐπείρασεν (epeirasеn), from πειράζω (peirazō). James 1:13 uses the same Greek root: "God cannot be tempted [ἀπείραστος, apeirastos] with evil, and he himself tempts [πειράζει, peirazei] no one." The same word family affirms the action in Genesis and denies it in James.^{3, 5}

Can God be seen?

Exodus 33:11 says, "Thus the LORD used to speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend."² Yet just nine verses later, Exodus 33:20 records God saying, "You cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live."² John 1:18 adds, "No one has ever seen God."²

These passages appear in the same chapter, nine verses apart. Both use the same Hebrew word: פָּנִים (panim), "face." Verse 11 says God spoke to Moses פָּנִים אֶל־פָּנִים (panim el-panim), "face to face." Verse 20 says "you cannot see my face [פָּנַי, panay], for man shall not see me and live." The same word describes what Moses did and what God says is impossible. John 1:18 adds the universal claim: "No one has ever seen God."^{3, 4} The standard harmonization — that "face to face" is figurative — requires reading one verse metaphorically and the other literally, despite both using the identical Hebrew noun.³

Who incited David's census?

2 Samuel 24:1 reads, "Again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, 'Go, number Israel and Judah,'"² while 1 Chronicles 21:1 states, "Then Satan stood against Israel and incited David to number Israel."²

Both passages use the identical Hebrew verb: וַיָּסֶת (vayyaset), from סוּת (sut), "incited." Same grammar, same action, same object (David). Only the subject changes: יהוה (YHWH, "the LORD") in 2 Samuel, and שָׂטָן (satan) in 1 Chronicles. Scholars widely recognize this as reflecting a theological shift: the earlier text attributed calamity directly to God, while the later text, composed after the Babylonian exile, introduced Satan as an intermediary under the growing influence of Persian dualistic theology.^{4, 6}

Are children punished for their parents' sins?

Exodus 20:5 declares, "I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation,"² while Ezekiel 18:20 states, "The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son."²

Both passages use the same Hebrew words. Exodus 20:5: פֹּקֵד עֲוֺן אָבֹת עַל־בָּנִים (poqed avon avot al-banim) — "visiting the iniquity [עָוֺן, avon] of the fathers [אָבֹת, avot] on the children [בָּנִים, banim]." Ezekiel 18:20 uses the same nouns to negate the claim: בֵּן (ben, "son") shall not bear the עֲוֺן (avon, "iniquity") of the אָב (av, "father"). Same words, opposite conclusions. Deuteronomy 24:16 agrees with Ezekiel: "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers." Yet 2 Samuel 12:14-18 describes God killing David's infant son as punishment for David's sin — a child dying specifically because of his father's iniquity.^{3, 4}

Is a person justified by faith or by works?

Romans 3:28 asserts, "For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law,"² while James 2:24 counters, "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."²

Both passages use the identical Greek verb δικαιοῦται (dikaioutai), "is justified," along with πίστις (pistis), "faith," and ἔργα (erga), "works." Paul: δικαιοῦται … πίστει χωρὶς ἔργων — "justified by faith apart from works." James: ἐξ ἔργων δικαιοῦται … καὶ οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως μόνον — "justified by works and not by faith alone." Same verb, same nouns, opposite conclusions. Martin Luther was so troubled by this that he called James "an epistle of straw" and questioned whether it belonged in the canon.^{3, 4, 7} The standard harmonization claims Paul and James use "justified" in different senses, but neither passage signals any such distinction.³

"With me or against me" versus "not against us is for us"

Matthew 12:30 has Jesus say, "Whoever is not with me is against me,"² while Mark 9:40 records him saying, "For the one who is not against us is for us."²

Both sayings use the same Greek prepositions: κατά (kata), "against," and μετά (meta)/ ὑπέρ (hyper), "with/for." Matthew: ὁ μὴ ὢν μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ κατ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἐστιν — "the one not being with me is against me." Mark: ὃς … οὐκ ἔστιν καθ᾽ ἡμῶν, ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐστιν — "whoever is not against us is for us." These are formal logical contradictions, not different ways of saying the same thing. The first treats neutrality as opposition; the second treats it as support. Applied to the same uncommitted person, they produce opposite classifications.³

Theological contradictions

Beyond verse-level negations, different biblical authors take opposing positions on fundamental questions about God's nature and behavior.^{3, 6}

Does God change his mind?

Genesis 6:6 states, "And the LORD regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart,"² and Exodus 32:14 says, "And the LORD relented from the disaster that he had spoken of bringing on his people."² Yet Numbers 23:19 declares, "God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?"² And 1 Samuel 15:29 affirms, "And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for he is not a man, that he should have regret."²

All four passages use the same Hebrew verb: נִחַם (nicham), "to regret, relent, change one's mind." Genesis 6:6: וַיִּנָּחֶם יהוה (vayyinnachem YHWH) — "the LORD regretted." Exodus 32:14: וַיִּנָּחֶם יהוה (vayyinnachem YHWH) — "the LORD relented." Numbers 23:19: לֹא … יִתְנֶחָם (lo … yitnecham) — "he does not change his mind." 1 Samuel 15:29: לֹא יִנָּחֵם (lo yinnachem) — "he will not have regret." The same root — נ-ח-ם (n-ch-m) — both affirms and denies that God changes his mind. Remarkably, 1 Samuel 15:29 appears in a chapter where, just six verses later, the same verb recurs: וַיִּנָּחֶם יהוה כִּי־הִמְלִיךְ אֶת־שָׁאוּל — "the LORD regretted that he had made Saul king" (1 Samuel 15:35). The same word, in the same chapter, affirming and denying the same action of the same subject.^{3, 8}

Is God the author of evil?

Isaiah 45:7 proclaims, "I form light and create darkness; I make well-being and create calamity; I am the LORD, who does all these things,"² while 1 John 1:5 states, "God is light, and in him is no darkness at all."²

The Hebrew word in Isaiah 45:7 is רָע (ra): בּוֹרֵא רָע (bore ra), "creates evil/calamity." The KJV translates directly: "I make peace, and create evil." The ESV softens this to "create calamity," but רָע (ra) is the same word used for moral evil throughout the Hebrew Bible — including in Genesis 2:9, where the tree is called עֵץ הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע (etz hada'at tov va-ra), "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."^{5, 6} Amos 3:6 reinforces the point: "Does disaster [רָעָה, ra'ah, same root] come to a city, unless the LORD has done it?" Yet 1 John 1:5 states "in him is no darkness at all," and James 1:13 says God "cannot be tempted with evil [κακός, kakos]." Isaiah and Amos describe a God who creates evil. John and James describe a God in whom no darkness exists.³

Narrative contradictions

When the Bible tells the same story in two or more places, the accounts frequently differ in ways that cannot be combined without inventing details found in none of the originals.^{3, 4}

How did Judas die?

Matthew 27:5-7 reports that Judas, "throwing down the pieces of silver into the temple, he departed, and he went and hanged himself. But the chief priests, taking the pieces of silver, said, 'It is not lawful to put them into the treasury' ... So they took counsel and bought with them the potter's field."² Acts 1:18, however, states, "Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness, and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out."²

The accounts disagree on three points: who bought the field (the priests or Judas), how Judas died (hanging or falling headlong and bursting open), and what happened to the money (returned to the priests or used by Judas to buy land).^{3, 4} The common harmonization — that Judas hanged himself, then the rope broke and his body fell and burst — invents details present in neither text. As Bart Ehrman has observed, this creates a fifth account that no biblical author wrote.³

What were Jesus's last words on the cross?

Mark 15:34 records, "And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, 'Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?' which means, 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?'"² Luke 23:46 gives different final words: "Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, 'Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!' And having said this he breathed his last."² John 19:30 offers yet another version: "When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, 'It is finished,' and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit."²

Each Gospel presents different final words, and each states that Jesus died immediately after speaking them. Mark's Jesus dies in apparent despair; Luke's dies in calm trust; John's dies with a declaration of completion. Ehrman has argued that these reflect fundamentally different theological portraits: Mark's Jesus dies in agony, while Luke's is "completely calm and in control," offering forgiveness and reassuring the thief beside him. These are not supplementary details — they are incompatible characterizations of the same moment.^{3, 9}

The two creation accounts

In Genesis 1:25-27, God creates animals, then creates male and female humans together.² In Genesis 2:7-22, God creates a man, then plants a garden, then creates animals (to find a companion for the man), then creates a woman from the man's rib.²

Genesis 1 gives the order: animals, then humans (male and female simultaneously). Genesis 2 gives: man, then animals, then woman. The sequences are incompatible. The two accounts also use different names for God — אֱלֹהִים (Elohim) in Genesis 1, יהוה אֱלֹהִים (YHWH Elohim) in Genesis 2 — and different verbs for creation: בָּרָא (bara), "created" (used exclusively of divine activity), versus יָצַר (yatsar), "formed," a craftsman's word like a potter shaping clay. Scholars have long recognized these as two separate creation traditions — the Priestly source (P) and the Yahwist source (J) — placed side by side by a later editor.^{6, 10}

Animals on the ark

Genesis 6:19 commands, "And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark,"² while Genesis 7:2 specifies, "Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and his mate, and a pair of the animals that are not clean."²

Genesis 6:19 uses שְׁנַיִם (shnayim), "two," with no qualification. Genesis 7:2, thirteen verses later, specifies שִׁבְעָה שִׁבְעָה (shiv'ah shiv'ah), "seven seven" (seven pairs) of clean animals. The first passage gives a universal rule; the second introduces a clean/unclean distinction absent from the first. Source critics attribute these to P and J respectively, noting that the clean/unclean category reflects the later Priestly concern with ritual purity.^{6, 10}

The resurrection narratives

The four resurrection accounts contain the most extensively documented contradictions in the New Testament, involving not peripheral details but central facts: who went to the tomb, what they found, whom they met, and what they did afterward.^{3, 4}

Resurrection details compared across the four Gospels^{3, 4, 11}

Mark, widely recognized as the earliest Gospel (c. 65-70 CE), originally ended at 16:8 with the women fleeing in fear and telling no one. The longer ending (16:9-20) is absent from the earliest and best Greek manuscripts and is widely regarded as a later addition.^{12, 13} Mark's original ending thus contradicts the other three Gospels, all of which report that the women did tell someone — a direct contradiction about whether the central message of Christianity was communicated or silenced.³

The location of Jesus's first appearance is also irreconcilable. In Matthew, the disciples travel to Galilee and see Jesus on a mountain (28:16-17). In Luke, they remain in Jerusalem, where Jesus explicitly tells them to "stay in the city" (24:49). Luke's narrative leaves no gap for a trip to Galilee — the appearances occur on the same day and the following weeks, culminating in the ascension from Bethany (24:50-51). Both accounts cannot be correct.^{3, 4}

Numerical contradictions

Numbers are either correct or incorrect, making numerical contradictions especially resistant to the "different perspectives" defense. The books of Samuel-Kings and their parallels in Chronicles report the same events with different numbers dozens of times.^{3, 4}

Selected numerical contradictions in parallel passages^{3, 14}

The case of Ahaziah's age is especially telling. 2 Kings 8:26 says he was twenty-two when he began to reign; 2 Chronicles 22:2 says forty-two — mathematically impossible, since his father Jehoram died at forty.¹⁴ Even conservative scholars acknowledge this as a scribal error. Modern translations including the NIV, ESV, and NASB quietly correct the Chronicles figure to "twenty-two," effectively conceding that the received Hebrew text contains an error.^{12, 14} If the transmitted text can contain errors in numbers, the claim that Scripture has been preserved without error is undermined by the text itself.

The crucifixion timing is a New Testament example. Mark 15:25 says Jesus was crucified at "the third hour" (about 9 AM). John 19:14 says at "about the sixth hour" (noon), Jesus was still before Pilate — placing the events at least three hours apart.^{3, 4}

The genealogies of Jesus

Both Matthew and Luke provide genealogies tracing Jesus's lineage through Joseph. The two lists diverge dramatically after King David and cannot be reconciled into a single family tree.^{3, 4}

Matthew 1:6-16 traces the line from David through Solomon to Jacob, "the father of Joseph." Luke 3:23-31 traces it from David through Nathan (a different son) to Heli, also identified as father of Joseph. Between David and Jesus, the two genealogies share only two names: Shealtiel and Zerubbabel.^{3, 11}

The most common harmonization proposes that Matthew gives Joseph's genealogy while Luke gives Mary's. But Luke explicitly identifies its genealogy as Joseph's: "Jesus... being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli" (Luke 3:23). Mary is not mentioned.^{4, 11} Raymond Brown, the eminent Catholic New Testament scholar, concluded that "the two genealogies are not reconcilable" and that attempts to harmonize them "are not convincing."¹¹

Further examples

The contradictions above are representative, not exhaustive. Further examples span different books and genres.^{3, 4}

The cleansing of the temple: The Synoptic Gospels (Matthew 21:12-13, Mark 11:15-17, Luke 19:45-46) place this event in the final week of Jesus's life. John 2:13-16 places it at the very beginning of his ministry, years earlier.³ Apologists sometimes propose two separate cleansings, but no Gospel mentions a second incident, and the scene is described with virtually identical details in all four accounts. Proposing two cleansings is itself an invention not found in any of the texts.³

Who bought the potter's field? In Matthew 27:6-7, the chief priests buy the field with the returned silver. In Acts 1:18, Judas himself buys it "with the reward of his wickedness."²

The Sermon on the Mount versus the Sermon on the Plain: In Matthew 5:1-2, Jesus goes "up on the mountain" to deliver his sermon. In Luke 6:17-20, Jesus comes "down with them and stood on a level place" to deliver what is largely the same sermon. Matthew's Beatitudes say "Blessed are the poor in spirit"; Luke's say simply "Blessed are you who are poor" — and Luke adds corresponding woes ("Woe to you who are rich") that Matthew omits entirely.^{2, 3}

When was Jesus born? Matthew 2:1 places Jesus's birth "in the days of Herod the king," who died in 4 BCE. Luke 2:1-2 ties the birth to "a census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria," which took place in 6 CE — at least ten years later. Both cannot be correct.^{11, 4}

Did Saul know David before the Goliath incident? In 1 Samuel 16:14-23, Saul summons David to his court as a musician and armor-bearer, and "loved him greatly." In the very next chapter (1 Samuel 17:55-58), after David kills Goliath, Saul asks "Whose son is this youth?" as if he has never seen David before.⁶

Number of direct contradictions by category (representative sample)^{3, 4, 15}

Steven DiMattei's Contradictions in the Bible identifies over 500 individual contradictions in the Pentateuch and historical books alone.¹⁵ Ehrman's Jesus, Interrupted documents dozens more in the New Testament.³ These are not obscure academic quibbles — they are plain-language disagreements any reader can verify by looking up the cited verses.³

The harmonization problem

Defenders of inerrancy employ a standard set of harmonization strategies. These strategies, while sometimes ingenious, are fundamentally unfalsifiable — and that matters.^{3, 4}

The "different perspectives" strategy. This approach argues that contradictory accounts simply reflect different witnesses reporting the same event from different vantage points. Applied to the resurrection narratives, for instance, it holds that one Gospel mentions one angel while another mentions two because each witness noticed different things.¹⁴

Consider a test: if two police reports say "the car was red" and "the car was blue," no investigator would accept "different perspectives" as a resolution. The car has one color. This strategy works when details are genuinely additive (one report mentions something the other omits), not when they directly contradict. When Mark says the women "said nothing to anyone" and Matthew says they ran with "great joy" to tell the disciples, these are opposite descriptions of what happened next.³

The "different contexts" strategy. This approach argues that apparently contradictory statements address different situations or audiences. "Whoever is not with me is against me" and "whoever is not against us is for us" are said to address different occasions and therefore do not conflict.¹⁴

Consider what this permits. If a document says on page 12 "the defendant was in New York on March 5th" and on page 47 "the defendant was not in New York on March 5th," the "different contexts" strategy could claim he was "in New York" in one sense (legal residence) and "not in New York" in another (physical location). A harmonization method that can resolve any possible contradiction is not testing whether contradictions exist — it assumes they do not and generates explanations to match. A hypothesis compatible with every possible observation is unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific.¹⁶

The "additive" strategy. This approach combines multiple accounts into a single master narrative, treating each account as a partial report. If Matthew mentions two women at the tomb and John mentions one, the additive approach concludes there were at least two women and John simply didn't mention the second.¹⁴

This works in some cases but fails in others. If Statement A says "he had no children" and Statement B says "he had three children," you cannot "add" them — A is not an incomplete report but a claim of zero. Similarly, when Mark says the women "said nothing to anyone" (Mark 16:8), this is not a report that omits whom they told — it is an explicit claim that they told no one. Adding Matthew's account does not supplement Mark; it contradicts him.³

The "inventing a fifth account" problem. When apologists propose that Judas hanged himself and then the rope broke, they create a story found in no biblical text. When they propose two temple cleansings, they invent an event no Gospel author describes. When they claim Luke's genealogy is actually Mary's, they contradict the text they claim to defend. Each harmonization adds information no biblical author provided in order to protect a commitment — inerrancy — that the texts themselves do not support.^{3, 4}

The unfalsifiability test. If the Bible did contain a genuine contradiction, what would it look like? If "the LORD incited David" and "Satan incited David" can be harmonized, if "said nothing to anyone" and "told the disciples" can be harmonized, if "22 years old" and "42 years old" can be harmonized — what conceivable pair of statements could not be? If the answer is "none," the method is unfalsifiable, and the claim of a contradiction-free Bible is not an empirical finding but a presupposition no evidence could challenge.^{3, 16}

Why contradictions exist

These contradictions are not random errors or scribal slips. They arise from a well-understood cause: the Bible is a composite work, written by dozens of authors over roughly a thousand years, reflecting different periods, theological commitments, and literary traditions.^{6, 10}

The documentary hypothesis, first formalized by Julius Wellhausen in 1883, identifies at least four major source traditions in the Pentateuch: the Yahwist (J), the Elohist (E), the Deuteronomist (D), and the Priestly source (P). These were composed over centuries and later combined by a redactor. The contradictions in Genesis — two creation accounts, two flood narratives with different animal counts, two versions of several stories — arise at the seams where these sources were joined.^{6, 10}

In the New Testament, most scholars hold that Mark was the earliest Gospel (c. 65-70 CE) and that Matthew and Luke independently used Mark along with a hypothetical sayings collection known as Q. This "two-source hypothesis" explains both the extensive verbal agreement among the Synoptics and their divergences: Matthew and Luke each modified Mark to suit their own theological purposes, sometimes in contradictory ways. John, composed later and independently, differs from all three in chronology, emphasis, and theology.^{4, 11}

Understanding the Bible as a collection of texts from different authors with different perspectives does not diminish its literary, historical, or theological significance. It does explain why these contradictions exist, and it demonstrates that the specific claim of inerrancy — a seamless, error-free document — cannot be sustained under examination of the texts themselves.^{3, 4, 6}