A contradiction is when two opposing statements are said to be true in the same sense at the same time. The second law of logic, the law of non-contradiction, says this is impossible. Thus, one of many arguments atheists attempt to make against the Bible is that it contains contradictions, and therefore cannot be true.
The above image is a mixture of two colours: Blue and red. Because the image is about even, it would be perfectly acceptable to describe it as red or blue. If one person said it was red, and another said it was blue, or even if the same person described it as either colour in different conversations, this would not be a contradiction.
This is because of the sense of the colour descriptions. The statement "the meme is blue" does not contradict the statement "the meme is red" because they do not say the meme is entirely blue, or entirely red.
Now let's imagine it was a gif. Every 30 seconds, it switches from blue to red. It would not be contradictory to say "the meme is entirely red", then describe it as entirely blue 5 seconds later. This is because although the sense is the same, the time is not.
In order for a true contradiction to occur, both the sense and the time must be identical. Yet, in amongst all the alleged contradictions atheists claim can be found in the Bible, no atheist has ever been able to demonstrate a Biblical instance of two opposing statements being said to be true in the same sense at the same time.
Let's take a debate I once had with an atheist as our demonstration. I asked him to provide his two best examples. It is absolutely vital to do this. Atheists tend to hurl elephants when it comes to the contradictions argument. Elephant hurling is a common fallacy in which a debater amasses large amounts of claimed evidence (in this case, examples of contradictions) without care for the strength of the examples, or an explanation as to why they support the point being made, especially to the point where it would be impractical to attempt to respond to them all. Put simply, you cannot refute all several hundred claimed examples. If you refute 5 random examples, the atheist can bring 10 more, but if you refute the few best examples (I'd recommend focusing on just two, never going beyond 5, and that only if you're feeling generous), logic dictates that the next 10 aren't going to be much better, so why bother?
Unfortunately, this atheist didn't see it this way. In his words, "Are they the best? No idea any contradiction does it for me". Nevertheless, while he didn't necessarily provide his two best, he did bring two.
The first he brought up is actually one I would consider the best. I've only seen it twice in my whole life, and I'm honestly surprised it isn't number one on all the lists. He half quoted Matthew 19:26: “… with God all things are possible.” Then he quoted Judges 1:19: “…The LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.”
The first problem is that Matthew 19:26 is the wrong verse to use here. Although no Christian, certainly not myself, would dispute that God is perfectly capable of overthrowing iron chariots (which I will get to), Matthew 19:26 specifically refers to salvation. This is seen by verse 25 (and the events prior) wherein the Apostles ask "then who can be saved?" Jesus' full reply was "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." Thus, the sense is obviously different in this particular verse. In Matthew, the sense in which all things are possible is the sense in that God provides a way for men to be saved where men cannot save themselves, whereas Judges 1:19 speaks of an entirely earthly event.
Now for Judges 1:19. It is significant that the atheist chose the KJV to cite, because this is the only mainstream translation I know that does not make it very clear that God was not the one who could not defeat the chariots of iron. Every other translation, or at least the ones I use for personal study, make it obvious that God was not struggling, Judah was. The erroneous assumption atheists make is that God being with someone necessitates they win every battle, overcome every foe, and do so very quickly. Exodus 23:29-30, however, tells us that God would not drive out the nations in a year, but little by little, until the Jews had become numerous, lest the land become desolate and filled with wild animals. Basically, by leaving the stronger armies (the weaker ones of course having less defence against the aforementioned wild animals, or even other invading human forces), God was giving the Israelites the time He promised to give them to grow in their number, which we've no reason to believe they had done by this point.
Thus, the so-called "contradiction" is eradicated by context. Ironically, having received this answer, the atheist claimed I was being inconsistent by ignoring scriptures. Judge for yourself: Which one of us was doing that? Me, who pointed to other relevant scriptures that give a good reason for the alleged "contradiction", or him, who needed to deliberately ignore Exodus 23:29-30 to make his case work?
The second contradiction is slightly more common, but significantly easier to refute. There is a question as to whether or not the women told anyone about their experience after the tomb. Matthew 28:8 and Luke 24:9 say they told the disciples, whereas Mark 16:8 allegedly claims they were so afraid, they went mute for the rest of their lives.
Ok, admittedly I jumped the gun in that sentence and answered the contradiction early, but I'm going to leave it in there. Let's read the verses side by side:
So, departing quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, they ran to tell His disciples the news. (Matthew 28:8)
Returning from the tomb, they reported all these things to the Eleven and to all the rest. (Luke 24:9)
So they went out and started running from the tomb, because trembling and astonishment overwhelmed them. And they said nothing to anyone, since they were afraid. (Mark 16:8).
At first glance, it is understandable that someone who wants to charge the Bible with contradiction would do so, and even that an honest reader would be confused. In Matthew and Luke's version, they ran and told the disciples, whereas in Mark's version, they said nothing. Ever? This is what I meant by Mark allegedly claims they went mute for the rest of their lives.
It is at this point I wish Facebook had the option to place grids in text, because that would be useful here. Alas, I am limited to plain text, and so I will try to articulate the solution without visual aid. The four Gospels all tell the same story from different perspectives. The different Apostles saw different things, or wanted to highlight specific details, and so the four Gospels are different.
[Post publication note: This article was originally a Facebook post. Because it is now a Wix blog post, I do have the option of adding a diagram, which I plan to do at some point in the future. For now, I have opted to leave the above paragraph unaltered.]
As a side note, there is an equal and opposite argument in play here. Matthew, Mark and Luke are called the "synoptic Gospels", because they are similar to the point where some atheists claim they may all just be plagiarising each other, or maybe there is a secret, undiscovered document called "Q", from which the three synoptic Gospels are derived. The fact that atheists can't make their mind up whether the Gospels are so identical that there must be a conspiracy to make false stories line up, or so different they blatantly contradict each other left, right and centre, should raise a few eyebrows. In fact, ironically, we may say that the contradictory Gospels argument is a contradiction in atheistic apologetics.
Anyway, I digress. Because the story is told from different perspectives, it is understandable that they would highlight different aspects. In Matthew's version, the women flee quickly with fear (common element with Mark) and joy, telling the disciples (common element with Luke). Luke's version does not mention the journey from the tomb, recording only that the disciples were told. What of Mark? Mark's version reveals that they started running, but told no one anything because they were afraid. Does Mark tell us that they never said anything to anyone? Were they so afraid that they never said a word for the rest of their lives? All it takes is for us to make the perfectly reasonable assumption that they said nothing to anyone until they reached the disciples. Then they spoke.
Perhaps you've had a similar experience in your life. I know I've had several experiences where, whether through shock or for joy, I have been too overwhelmed to explain to even those who ask what's going on. How many of you can resonate with this? I'm willing to bet at least half of my readers will, regardless of your faith.
The atheist had a very interesting response, which I think says everything we need to know about this particular person:
"- Contradictions – Sorry, your refutation isn’t accepted. If you are going to accept the bible you accept it all, not try to wiggle out of it by trying to fit your interpretation into the words.
- Interpretation – ok, lets get this straight, you are arguing that the bible is 100% truth and that it can’t be misinterpreted. This means you can’t argue that it is missing information when there is a contradiction because it is 100% true. I on the other hand am not arguing that it is true so I don’t add any missing details and can stop you from adding them."
For added context, I did include the controversy over the ending of Mark, specifically referring to Bruce Metzger's theory that the original ending may have been lost, which I won't get into here. Let's grant him that and assume that verse 8 is exactly where Mark always ended, and was always intended to end.
First, the atheist pulled the usual "your interpretation" nonsense that most people use when they're losing an argument. What he doesn't realise (or isn't willing to admit) is that his attempts to force a contradiction on the Bible are his interpretation. The absolute best he can say, then, is that it's a draw (which, fair play to him, he eventually did). Alternatively, he could try to show that his interpretation is superior. However, his interpretation is demonstrably incorrect. Even excluding Metzger's theory that the original ending to Mark's Gospel may have been lost, we're dealing with 2,000 years of history here. 2,000 years, plenty of (failed) attempts to meddle with the text, plenty of (failed) attempts to alter the canon, not one Christian throughout history attempted to resolve the alleged contradiction through dishonest means? The reason for this is obvious: No one thought to interpret it this way. Mark's Gospel wasn't written to contradict, but complement the others, and as such, it should be interpreted in their light.
Second, notice how he claimed he can stop me from "adding" details. "No no no, Mr. Christian, you may not use evidence to refute my bad argument. The Bible contains a contradiction, and no amount of logic or reason will convince me to stop preaching this lie."
There are plenty of other alleged contradictions in the Bible. Some atheists may disagree with the two examples discussed here. They may believe they can do better. Even the original atheist admitted these may not be the best examples he could give. But suffice to say, even the "best" examples of contradictions in the Bible are just as weak as these two, if not weaker. There are no examples of a true contradiction in the Bible, because there are no examples of opposing truth claims which are said to be true at the same time and in the same sense.
In reality, scripture is consistent from start to finish. Some opposing statements are said to be true in the same sense, but at different times. Some are said to be true in a different sense at the same time. Either way, the Bible is 100% consistent throughout, with most alleged contradictions being easy to solve, often even by looking just at the verse references. Some atheists claim contradictions that are a verse or two apart. Apparently, 2,000 years of assault on Christianity failed to reveal such blatant contradictions.
In the past, I have seen atheists pick up arguments I have refuted, only to repeat them elsewhere. It occurs to me that this is particularly easy to do in this case, as I mentioned how I am surprised at the rarity of the first example. If you are an atheist who is tempted to do this, stop and think for a moment. Is this not dishonest? If you are truly an atheist, why are you like this? Let your conscience speak to you. It will testify that you have either lied, or are tempted to lie, and that this is wrong.
There is good news, though. Whether you're an atheist like those I described above, or just a regular atheist who nevertheless knows you are a sinner, the acknowledgement of your sin is the first step to having them forgotten. See, the consistent testimony of scripture is that God loves you enough to forgive your sins. There's a catch, of course. It's not a big catch. You don't have to donate money or get circumcised or abstain from certain foods. In fact, the entire cost of your eternal inheritance has been paid. Jesus came to Earth, lived a perfect life, and died on the cross. The catch is that you must repent of your sin, confess Him as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead.