Bible Difficulties and Contradictions Solved

Date: Jan 26, 2009    Posted By: Tim Timbrook
www.muiczone.com

   Are you an unwilling skeptic?  Are you a person who'd honestly like to believe the Good Book, but you're having some problems with it?  If you don't want to believe the Bible,  I can't help you out of that dilemna you are in .  But if you'd sincerely like to believe, it may be easier than you think.  Help is on the way.  This article will show you how to definitely solve ten of the most famous Bible “contradictions,” (others will be added) and also provide you sure methods and resources for solving any others you may encounter.  I'm quite serious about this claim!

 

   Before we get off and running, I'd like to say a word about why we find difficult passages in the Bible.  I'm going to be very frank with you—I do believe God Himself spoke through the biblical writers.  But even so, in a book that long (and varied and ancient and foreign and spiritual) you're going to have places where it seems to conflict.  As I've read through my Bible over the years, I myself have found what appeared to be errors.  But every time I did, upon closer inspection, I always found the error to be my own!  This happened to me so many times.  I felt that I should share what I've discovered. So at the end of this article, I'll tell you exactly how I face those texts fairly and honestly and still remain a believer.  But before I tell you, please allow me and some other writers to show you.  Just watch as we demonstrate our (consistent hermeneutical) method on the Top Ten Most Mentioned “Discrepancies.”  You may be surprised at what you see!

 
 
The Top Ten Most Mentioned “Discrepancies”
 
 
   When people rattle off a long list like this, they usually do a countdown to the most popular “song” in the land.  That would be fun for us, I think.  But I feel ultimately you'll find my article more useful if we cover the passages in chronological order. So here we go.
  
 
*So-called “Discrepancy” Number One
 
Question: What are we to make of the two different accounts of the creation of man in Genesis 1 and 2?
 
 
*So-called “Discrepancy” Number Two
 
Question: Where did Cain get his wife? Other than Cain's mother, Eve, no women are named in the story of the first human family. We read only of Adam, Eve, Cain, and his dead brother Abel.
 
 
*So-called “Discrepancy” Number Three
 
 
Question: How many pairs of each animal did Noah take into the ark? Was it one pair of each animal (Gen 6:19), or seven pairs of each animal (Gen 7:2)?
 
 
*So-called “Discrepancy” Number Four
 
Question: Jesus says we should turn the other cheek. But Moses said, “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.” Which command are we supposed to follow?
 
 
*So-called “Discrepancy” Number Five
 
Question: If God is such a good God, why did He order the complete extermination of certain Canaanite cites?
 
 
*So-called “Discrepancy” Number Six
 
Question: How can it be fair for God to forgive some people for their major sins (David, Paul), while killing others for their tiny mistakes (Lot's wife, Uzza, Ananias and Sapphira)?
 
 
*So-called “Discrepancy” Number Seven
 
Question: Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel? Was it God (2Samuel 24:1), or Satan (1Chronicles 21:1)?
 
 
*So-called “Discrepancy” Number Eight
 
Question: Why does Luke present a different ancestral tree for Jesus than the one in Matthew? For instance, why does Luke 3:23 say Jesus' grandfather was Heli, and Matthew 1:16 says it was Jacob?  And why are there so many other differences?
 
 
*So-called “Discrepancy” Number Nine
 
Question:  How did Judas die? Was it by hanging himself (Matthew 27:5) or by falling on rocks and bursting open (Acts 1:18)?
 
 
*So-called “Discrepancy” Number Ten
 
Question: Why are there so many differences in the four Gospels' reports of Jesus post-Resurrection appearances?
 
 
*How to Handle Your Other Bible Difficulties!
  
 
So-called “Discrepancy” Number One
 
Question: What are we to make of the two different accounts of the creation of man in Genesis 1 and 2?
 
 
Answer:  We are to make sense of them!  Let's take a minute to expound them, rather than confound them.  The first account tells how the universe was formed and filled (Gen 1:1-2:4).  The second account zooms in on how the garden of Eden was formed and filled (Gen 2:5-25).  Chronologically, the second account overlaps the very end of the first account, and supplies important details about man's origin and original status.  The first account surely ends at 2:4.  That verse is a colophon, or concluding summary of what has gone before.  (A colophon is used to conclude some other sections of Genesis at 10:32; 25:16-18; 36:43.)  Further, 2:5 opens with the word vuh.  When a major section of Genesis begins, this word is normally used (3:1; 4:1; 6:1; 10:1; 11:1; etc.).  Vuh can mean “and,” but when there is any break in the storyline, or a contrast appears, it takes on the sense of “but” or “now”. And the New American Standard Bible correctly translates this first word of 5:1 as “Now”.  For here there is a contrast between God's country, which is wild, and man's country, that “walled” garden, which God lovingly planted and left only a little unfinished, to give man something to do. 
 
 
   As we proceed through the account, it is important to point out that we should understand the word “earth” to mean soil rather than planet!  The word eretz is most often used of limited land areas. Having established the local, limited scope of this account, then, we can easily clear away the usual objections to it.  The place where things were just starting to grow at this point, was the garden of Eden?  Not the globe or whole earth!  It's only in the garden of Eden that snakes didn't crawl, thorns and thistles didn't grow, and plants were watered with a mist and rivers instead of rain!  Truly this place is not to be confused with the rest of the planet.  It was the garden of God (Ezekiel 28:13), where He manifested His presence and supernatural influence (Gen 4:16). 
 
 
   And there's one more thing that needs to be clarified.  Genesis 2:19 does say that God formed the animals and brought them to man, so he could name them.  But please note, it does not say that God formed them at that moment!  He grabbed some of the animals He'd formed earlier, and brought them to the man.  It's only by assuming that God formed His very first animals (and trees) just then, that we could make this local creation account contradict the universal.  When we observe the scope of the passage, and pay attention to what's said, and what's not said, we find it harmonizes well with the earlier creation account. It actually rounds out its details very nicely.  And why wouldn't it?  Moses was not so stupid as to contradict himself on the next page!
 
 
So-called “Discrepancy” Number Two
 
Question:  Where did Cain get his wife? Other than Cain's mother, Eve, no women are named in the story of the first human family.  We read only of Adam, Eve, Cain, and his dead brother Abel.
 
 
Answer:  This was put most eloquently by R. A. Torrey:
 
   In almost every place that I have visited in going around the world I have given skeptics and others an opportunity of asking questions at one or two meetings.  I do not think that I have ever held a question meeting at which someone has not put in the question “Where did Cain get his wife?”  This seems to be a favorite question with unbelievers of a certain class.  I have also met young Christians who have been greatly puzzled and perplexed over this question.  But if one will study his Bible carefully and note exactly what it says, there is really no great difficulty in the question.  Unbelievers constantly assert that the Bible says that “Cain went into the land of Nod and took to himself a wife.”  In point of fact, it says nothing of the kind.  An unbeliever in Edinburgh came to me with the assertion that the Bible did say this, and when I told him it did not, he offered to bet me one hundred pounds that it did.  What the Bible does say is that “Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.  And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch” (Genesis 4:16-17).  What the Bible means by “knew” in such connection anyone can discover for himself by taking his concordance and looking it up.  He will discover that the word used in this connotation does not mean to get acquainted with, but is connected with the procreation of the species (see Genesis 4:1; Judges 11:39; 1 Samuel 1:19; Matthew 1:25).  Cain doubtless had his wife before going to the land of Nod [and certainly before murdering Abel!--T.T.] and took her there with him.
 
 
   But who was she, and where did he get her? In Genesis 5:3-4 we learn that Adam in his long life of 930 years begat many sons and daughters.  There can be but little doubt that Cain married one of those numerous daughters.  But someone will say, “In that case Cain married his own sister!”  Yes, that was a necessity.  If the whole Adamic race was to descend from a single pair, the sons and daughters must intermarry.  But as the race increased, it remained no longer necessary for men to marry their own sisters, and the practice, if continued, would result in great mischief to the race. Indeed, even the intermarriage of cousins in the present day can bring frightful consequences.  There are parts of the globe where the inhabitants have been largely shut out from intercourse with other people and intermarriage of cousins has been frequent, and the physical and mental results have been very bad.  But in the dawn of human history, such intermarriage was not surrounded with these dangers. [God had created Adam genetically perfect—Gen 1:27.]  As late as the time of Abraham, that patriarch married his half sister (Genesis 20:12).  But as the race multiplied and such intermarriages became unnecessary, and as they were accompanied with great dangers, God by special commandment forbade the marriage of brother and sister (Leviticus 18:6), and such marriage would now be sin because of the commandment of God; but it was not sin in the dawn of the race when the only male and female inhabitants of the earth were brothers and sisters.  Such marriage today would be a crime, the crime of incest, but we cannot reasonably carry back the conditions of today into the time of the dawn of human history and judge actions performed then by the conditions and laws existing today.
 
  
   If we were to throw the Bible account overboard and adopt the evolutionary hypothesis as to the origin of the human race we would not relieve matters at all, for in that case our early ancestors would have been beasts, and the father and mother of the human race would be descendants of the same pair of beasts, brother and sister beasts.  Take whatever theory of the origin of the human race that we may, we are driven to the conclusion that in the early history of the race, there was the necessary intermarriage of the children of the same pair.
 
 
*To sum it all up, Cain married one of the many daughters of Adam and Eve, and the so-called impenetrable mystery of where Cain got his wife is found to be no mystery whatever.
 
 
—R. A. Torrey. Difficulties and Alleged Errors and Contradictions in the Bible (Fleming H. Revell Company, 1907), pp. 37-39. Download his book for free here.
 
 
So-called “Discrepancy” Number Three
 
Question:  How many pairs of each animal did Noah take into the ark? Was it one pair of each animal (Gen 6:19), or seven pairs of each animal (Gen 7:2)?
 
 
Answer:  Noah brought in exactly what God commanded—one pair of each ordinary animal (6:19), but then six more pairs of any animals that were suitable for a blood sacrifice (7:2). He was told the reason for bringing in the male and female pairs, was to prevent their extinction (6:19b), and we know that the additional pairs of “clean” animals were for Noah to offer as a sacrifice to God, for this is exactly what he did (Gen 8:20).  It's easy to see that if Noah had sacrificed his only male or female of a species, he would have caused their extinction!  This is so obvious, in fact, I'm surprised anyone ever imagined a contradiction in this passage. In this case, God is clearly wiser than His critics.
 
 
   To make matters worse, one skeptic complained that after God had commanded Noah to load seven pairs of the clean animals, Noah disobeyed, and brought in only two of every kind (Gen 7:9). But this critic is also mistaken! Genesis 7:9 does not say Noah brought in “two” of each animal.  It says he brought in the animals “by twos,” (plural) which is true in every case. He brought in one pair of each unclean animal, and seven pairs of each clean animal. But all of them were paired, weren't they? (After all, taking along an equal number of males and females should have made their mating somewhat easier!) That Noah brought in the species “by pairs,” “in twos,” or “two by two” is evident, not only in the original Hebrew, but also in every English translation. All a man has to do with this verse, is read what it says, and not add his own pessimistic ideas.
 
 
   Again, it's ridiculous to suppose the compiler of Genesis, or his ancient editors, would be stupid enough to insert a contradictory report only four verses later! Ancient man was less informed than we are, but he was not less intelligent.  (If you don't believe that, please show me the modern equivalent to Aristotle.) It seems to me that skeptics have never really thought this through.
 
 
So-called “Discrepancy” Number Four
 
Question:  Jesus says we should turn the other cheek. But Moses said, “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.” Which command are we supposed to follow?
 
Answer:  Both. These commands concern different parties and subjects. Moses' command is to the institution of government. Jesus' command is to the individual. Moses tells courts how to handle assault. Jesus tells Christians how to handle insult. Personal revenge is consistently condemned from one end of the Bible to the other. But each of these two passages prevents revenge in a different way. 
 
 
   Moses is forbidding people to take matters into their own hands, and telling them to take their grievances to court and handle them reasonably.   Anyone who looks at the setting of the “eye for eye, tooth for tooth” passage (Exodus 21:23-25), will notice it is part of a code of civil laws. God is here imposing a statute of limitations. You can't kill somebody for putting out your eye, or cut off somebody's hand for stealing your ox, etc. Far from being barbaric, this legislation was brilliant. We should be thankful that our own civil laws had their ultimate origin in the Bible, rather than in the harsher codes of Hammurabi, or the Koran.
 
 
   By the time of Jesus Christ, ignorant people had lifted Exodus 21:23-25 out of the civil code and applied it to their own personal vendettas. They took it that Moses was justifying personal revenge. Jesus naturally rejected that misinterpretation (Matthew 5:38), and reminded them of what God had said all along—personal revenge is forbidden.  (See Exodus 22:2-3; Leviticus 19:18; Deuteronomy 32:35-36; Proverbs 25:21-22; Genesis 50:15-21; 1Samuel 24:9-12 and many similar Old Testament passages.)  Jesus stated, “do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.”  He went on to say more things about this, such as “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matthew 5:39,44).  Note first, that His command is specifically directed to the individual. Neither Jesus nor His apostles ever required this of a government. And second, it is specifically directed to a person who is insulted—not one who is assaulted.  The person is slapped on the cheek, not punched in the teeth.  When physical assault occurs, the Bible clearly states that a person has the immediate right to defend himself or others—(Exodus 22:2, on defense of one's home; Deuteronomy 22:24-27, where the right to prevent rape is assumed; Psalm 94:16; Ecclesiastes 8:11; Luke 22:36)—and later on he can take the attacker to court as Moses prescribed.
 
 
   If you trace the history of legislation, you can thank Moses that we eventually outlawed “cruel and unusual punishments.” And you can thank Jesus Christ that we no longer allow people to duel in the street because someone insulted their momma. We were very slow to implement biblical principles that forbade revenge, or for that matter, the principles that undermined slavery (Deuteronomy 23:15-16; Mark 12:31). But they were there all along, pointing our way toward a better society. We certainly can't blame God that we were so stubborn.
 
 
   To sum it all up, then, the commands of Moses and Christ won't contradict, unless you choose to ignore what is being commanded, and of whom. And why would you want to ignore that?
 
 
So-called “Discrepancy” Number Five
 
Question: If God is such a good God, why did He order the complete extermination of certain Canaanite cites?
 
 
Answer:  It's precisely because He's a good God that He ordered their extermination. He wasn't merely thinking of the present, as man does. He was wisely determining the future course of our human race. Moreover, Yahweh's war was not a merciless and unlimited war, as some critics have slanderously suggested. These peoples were spared for as long as they could be, and only when it was clear that they would not change, God their Creator ordered their destruction. Even then, as many people as could safely be spared were allowed to live. (More on this below.) Further, total destruction was limited to some cities in Canaan, not all. It was not genocide, or racial cleansing, as some carelessly claim. And this was not to be an ongoing policy for all time. It was never issued to anyone except the generation of Joshua.
 
 
   The following are the top 11 reasons why God had certain Canaanite cities wiped out: (11) The Canaanites were orgiastic and grossly immoral—even sacrificing their own children to their gods. (10) God had given them 400 years to change their ways, but they hadn't (Genesis 15:16). (9) God was eliminating the diseases associated with their sin (Numbers 31:19-24). (8) God was destroying every trace of this evil religion to keep it from spreading any further. (If He hadn't done so, we would still consider orgies and child sacrifice normal today.) (7) God was preventing the women from leading more men astray with their ceremonial prostitution (Numbers 25:1-2). (6) God was preventing the children from avenging their guilty fathers. (5) God was preventing the children from following in the evil ways of their parents. (4) God was sending the children to heaven, rather than letting them become idolaters who would go to hell. (3) God was showing the Israelites (and ourselves) the guilt of sin. (2) God was establishing a holy nation, the only kind through which He could bless the world. (1) God is the Creator, and He has the right to unmake what He has made.
 
 
   It should not amaze us that a holy God wiped out such depraved people. What should amaze us, is that He stopped with them. What if He had gone on to avenge all greed, theft, lying, lust, adultery, murder, blasphemy and idolatry? Where would we be? Oneday He will avenge it all, and now is the time to make peace with Him through the blood of His Son.
 
 
   The Lord could have snapped His fingers, and those cities would have gone up in a poof of smoke like Sodom. But He chose to have the Israelites carry out their destruction, so they would learn to stand against idolatry and child sacrifice. Yet the Lord is a good God (as our skeptic friends are so fond of reminding us). So later on, when His own Jewish people themselves turned to these abominations, God justly ordered their destruction. And He'll do the same with us in our so-called “Christian” lands, where we venerate every god but Yahweh in the public forum, and slaughter our own unborn children on the altar of convenience. Truly “God is no respecter of persons” (Acts 10:34). So who is the guilty party, now—God or man?
 
 
IMPORTANT NOTE: In Genesis 6: 1-6, fallen angels had sexual relations with women on the earth and giants and other abnormalities came forth. If you look at the science of genetics various genes cause different physical characteristics in a child that is born. Many Bible Scholars say that the reason God has singled out some tribes to be totally annihilated was the fact the gene pool was defective in these tribes (namely 4) due to these sexual relations between angels and women on the earth. Not to get rid of them would have caused great difficulty to mankind and would have brought on greater rebellion towards God.  
 
 
   Ironically, the very critics who fault God and His people for killing Canaanites, will fault them for sparing some! They object because those who were spared were female. R. A. Torrey asks such critics to get their minds out of the gutter:
 
 
   The sneering objection is sometimes made by infidels to the sparing, in certain cases, of the women as recorded in Deuteronomy 20:10-15, and also the sparing of the women in Numbers 31:21-35,40. These critics claim that the women were to be spared for immoral purposes. One writer asks, “Am I to understand that God approved of taking as tribute in spoils of war, a number of virgins for a use that is only too obvious?” Words of similar import are to be found in a number of books. But to any fair-minded man who reads the actual Scripture account there is not the slightest intimation that the virgins were preserved for the use suggested. The whole context of the passage in Numbers 31, which is the one most frequently cited in this connection by unbelievers, is a solemn warning against immorality of this kind. Far from being a suggestion that God countenances acts of this character, it shows how sternly God dealt with this impurity. In Numbers 25:1-9 we are told how the men of Israel did give themselves up to impurity with the daughters of Moab, but how in consequence the anger of the Lord was kindled against them, and how God visited their impurity with the sternest judgment. In the very chapter in question every woman who had been guilty of impurity was slain (Numbers 31:17). In actual fact, it is suggested, at least by verse 18, that it was only the female children who could be spared. It was certainly an act of mercy on God’s part to deliver these “women children” from their evil surroundings and hand them over to Israel for training where they would be brought in contact with a pure religion and trained up to become pure women. According to the record, far from being handed over to the Israelites for immoral purposes, they were entrusted to them for the highest purposes.
 
 
—R. A. Torrey. Difficulties and Alleged Errors and Contradictions in the Bible (Fleming H. Revell Company, 1907), pp. 51-52. Download his book for free here.
 
 
So-called “Discrepancy” Number Six
 
Question: How can it be fair for God to forgive some people for their major sins (David, Paul), while killing others for their tiny mistakes (Lot's wife, Uzza, Ananias and Sapphira)?
 
 
Answer:    The problem is strictly one of perspective. Neither one of these actions is a stretch for God. These actions only appear extreme to us, because unlike God, we are finite, imperfect beings. As such, we may find it nearly impossible to identify with the actions of an infinite and perfect being. We might attempt to re-create Him in our imperfect image, or try to measure his infinite justice with our own three-foot ruler.   But it doesn't work. What we may feel is impossible (forgiving a murderer, perhaps), is quite easy for God, who is love personified. What we may feel is easy (say, letting an obstinate liar reside in heaven), is fully impossible for God, who is so utterly holy that He cannot approve the least wrongdoing.
 
 
   To be specific, God's “extreme” behavior is fair, because God is both infinitely merciful and infinitely holy. Because God's mercy is infinite, He has promised to always forgive anyone who sincerely repents, no matter how terrible their sin. That's just what we'd expect from an infinitely merciful being, isn't it?
 
 
   But because God's holiness is also infinite, He has promised He will never forgive those who refuse to repent, no matter how small their sin seems to unholy men. And that's consistent with what we'd expect of an infinitely holy being.   This extreme, hyper-dimensional, infinite holiness of God may pose a serious threat to you and me. And His mercy may seem a little much at times. But then, reality does not always conform to the way we wish it to be, does it? Neither will our Maker.
 
 
   Anyone who takes a science class quickly finds that nature is under no obligation to limit herself to what we're presently able to comprehend! The universe itself does not bother to operate on our current intellectual level, so why should its Maker?
 
 
   If a perfect being chose to become less than perfect, that would be extremely foolish. And a being that foolish would never have been perfect in the first place. That scenario would result in a contradiction. A Supreme Being can only will what is wise. To will foolishness would be a sign of weakness, not a display of omnipotence.
 
 
 Therefore, since God insists on being a wise being—God can't help it that He's so perfect! So what isn't fair, then, is that you blame Him for being who He is! What's He really supposed to do, anyway—become imperfect for our convenience? When He came to this earth in the person of His Son, and died a criminal's death on our behalf, that was just as low as He could reach toward us without ceasing to be God. He's not now going to condemn the repentant or forgive the unrepentant, just to meet your minute expectations or merit your approval! Just forget it.
 
 
   In short, God is infinitely merciful and infinitely holy, and there's nothing anyone can do to change this—not even God.
 
 
So-called “Discrepancy” Number Seven
 
Question:  Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel? Was it God (2Samuel 24:1), or Satan (1Chronicles 21:1)?
 
 
Answer:    It was both. The fullest and best explanation of this fact, is that given by Gleason Archer. For this reason, we would like to take the liberty to quote him at some length:
 
 
   Without being fully aware of what was going on in his heart, David had apparently been building up an attitude of pride and self-admiration for what he had achieved in the way of military success and economic expansion of his people. He began to think more in terms of armaments and troops than in terms of the faithful mercies of God. In his youth he had put his entire trust in God alone, whether he was facing Goliath with a slingshot or an army of Amalekites with a band of four hundred men. But in later years he had come to rely more and more on material resources, like any hardheaded realist, and he learned to measure his strength by the yardstick of numbers and wealth.
 
 
   The Lord therefore decided that it was time for David to be brought to his knees once more and to be cast on the grace of God through a time of soul-searching trial. He therefore encouraged David to carry out the plan he had long cherished, that of counting up his manpower resources in order to plan his future military strategy with a view to the most effective deployment of his armies. Quite possibly this would also afford him a better base for assessment of taxes. And so God in effect said to him: "All right, go ahead and do it. Then you will find out how much good it will do you."
 
 
   Though he was a hard-bitten and ambitious commander, General Joab felt a definite uneasiness about this whole project. He sensed that David and his advisors were becoming increasingly puffed up over their brilliant conquests, which had brought the Palestinian, Syrian, and Phoenician kingdoms into a state of vassalage and dependency on Israel. Joab was fearful that the Lord was displeased with this new attitude of self-confidence and self-esteem, and he tried to dissuade David from his purpose. First Chronicles 21:3 records Joab as saying, "The LORD make his people an hundred times so many more as they be: but, my lord the king, are they not all my lord's servants? Why then doth my lord require this thing?  Why will he be a cause of trespass to Israel?"  There is a definite sense in which Yahweh gave David a final warning through the lips of Joab, before David finally committed himself to the census.
 
 
   It was not that census taking was inherently evil. The Lord was not displeased with the two censuses taken in the time of Moses; in fact, He gave Moses positive directions to number all his military effectives (Numbers 1:2-3; 26:2), both at the beginning of the forty years' wandering in the desert and at the end of that period, as they were on the threshold of the conquest. The second census was designed to show that the total of Israel's armed forces was actually a bit less than it had been forty years earlier. And yet with that smaller force they would sweep all their enemies before them, rather than cowering in fear at the prospect of war as their fathers had done at Kadesh-Barnea. The second census would also serve a useful purpose as a basis for the distribution of the conquered territory among the Twelve Tribes. The more numerous tribes should be awarded the larger tracts in the apportionment of land. But this census on which David had set his heart could serve no other purpose than to inflate the national ego. As soon as the numbering was complete, God meant to chasten the nation by a disastrous plague that would cause a considerable loss of life and a decrease in the numbers of their citizens.
 
 
   But as we turn back to the opening verse in 1 Chronicles 21, we are faced with the statement that it was Satan who moved David to conduct the census even over Joab's warning and protest. The verb for "incited" is identical in both accounts (wayyaset). Why would Satan get himself involved in this affair if God had already prompted David to commit the folly he had in mind? It was because Satan found it in his own interest to do so.  The situation here somewhat resembles the first and second chapters of Job, in which it was really a challenge to Satan from God that led to Job's calamities. God's purpose was to purify Job's faith and ennoble his character through the discipline of adversity. Satan's purpose was purely malicious; he wished to do Job as much harm as he possibly could, and if possible drive him to curse God for his misfortunes. Thus it came about that both God and Satan were involved in Job's downfall and disaster.
 
 
   Similarly we find both God and Satan involved in the sufferings of persecuted Christians according to 1 Peter 4:19 and 5:8. God's purpose is to strengthen their faith and to enable them to share in the sufferings of Christ in this life, that they may rejoice with Him in the glories of heaven to come (4:13-14). But Satan's purpose is to "devour" them (5:8), that is, to draw them into bitterness or self-pity, and thus drag them down to his level and his baneful destiny. Even in the case of Christ Himself, it was Satan's purpose to deflect the Savior from His messianic mission by the three temptations he offered Him; but it was the Father's purpose for the Second Adam to triumph completely over the very tempter who had lured the first Adam to his fall.
 
 
   Also, at the Crucifixion it was Satan's purpose to have Jesus betrayed by Judas (whose heart he filled with treachery and hate (John 13:27); but it was the Father's purpose that the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world should give His life as a ransom for many--and this was symbolized by the cup that Christ was forced to accept at Gethsemane.  And in the case of Peter, Jesus informed him before his triple denial in the court of the high priest:  "Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat.  But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail.  And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers" (Luke 22:31-32, NIV).
 
 
   Here, then, we have five other examples of incidents or situations in which both Satan and God were involved in soul-searching testings and trials--God with a basically benevolent motive and a view to eventual victory and increasing usefulness for the person so tested, but Satan with an altogether malicious motive, hoping to so as much damage as he possibly can. Therefore we can say without hesitation that both accounts of David's incitement were correct. God incited him in order to teach him and and his people a lesson they needed to learn and to humble them in a way that would promote their spiritual growth. Satan incited him in order to deal a severe blow to Israel and to mar David's prestige before his subjects. As it turned out (and this is true of virtually all the other examples as well), Satan's success was limited and transient; but in the end God's purpose was well served and His cause was substantially furthered.
 
 
   In the aftermath of the plague, which cost the lives of seventy thousand Israelites (2 Sam. 24:15), the angel of the Lord designated the exact spot on Mount Moriah where the plague was stopped as the chosen spot for the future temple of the Lord (v.18). This structure was destined to bring much blessing into the lives of God's people for many generations to come. Once again Satan's malice was surpassed by the overruling grace of God.
 
 
—Gleason L. Archer. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1982). You can buy the latest edition of his work here.
 
 
So-called “Discrepancy” Number Eight
 
Question:  Why does Luke present a different ancestral tree for Jesus than the one in Matthew?  For instance, why does Luke 3:23 say Jesus' grandfather was Heli, and Matthew 1:16 says it was Jacob? And why are there so many other differences?
 
 
Answer:    It is hard to match for fullness and clarity the answer given by R. A. Torrey:
 
 
   A favorite point of attack on the Bible for those who deny its divine origin and inerrancy is the two varying genealogies of Jesus Christ. Not only is this a favorite point of attack by unbelievers, but it is also a point that often puzzles earnest students of the Bible. It is perfectly clear that the two genealogies differ widely from one another, and yet each is given as the genealogy of Christ. How can they by any possibility both be true? There is a very simple answer to this apparently difficult question.
 
 
1. The genealogy given in Matthew is the genealogy of Joseph, the reputed father of Jesus, his father in the eyes of the law. The genealogy given in Luke is the genealogy of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and is the human genealogy of Jesus Christ in actual fact. The gospel of Matthew was written for Jews. All through it Joseph is prominent, Mary is scarcely mentioned. In Luke, on the other hand, Mary is the chief personage in the whole account of the Saviour’s conception and birth. Joseph is brought in only incidentally and because he was Mary’s husband. In all of this there is a deep significance.
 
2. In Matthew Jesus appears as the Messiah. In Luke He appears as “the Son of man,” our Brother and Redeemer, who belongs to the whole race and claims kindred with all kinds and conditions of men. So in Matthew the genealogy descends from Abraham to Joseph and Jesus, because all the predictions and promises touching the Messiah are fulfilled in Him. But in Luke the genealogy ascends from Jesus to Adam, because the genealogy is being traced back to the head of the whole race and shows the relation of the second Adam to the first.
 
3. Joseph’s line in Matthew is the strictly royal line from David to Joseph. In Luke, though the line of descent is from David, it is not the royal line. In this Jesus is descended from David through Nathan, David’s son indeed, but not in the royal line, and the list follows a line quite distinct from the royal line.
 
4. The Messiah, according to prediction, was to be the actual son of David according to the flesh (2 Samuel 7:12-19; Psalm 89:3-4, 34-37; 132:11; Acts 2:30; 13:22–23; Romans 1:3; 2 Timothy 2:8). These prophecies are fulfilled by Jesus being the son of Mary, who was a lineal descendant of David, though not in the royal line. Joseph, who was of the royal line, was not His father according to the flesh, but was His father in the eyes of the law.
 
5. Mary was a descendant of David through her father, Heli. It is true that Luke 3:23 says that Joseph was the son of Heli. The simple explanation of this is that according to Jewish usage (as seen in Ezra 2:61; Nehemiah 7:63)  Mary’s name, being a woman, could not appear in the genealogy [as an actual link, that is—T.T.], males alone forming the line.  So Joseph’s name is introduced in place of Mary’s, he being Mary’s husband.  Heli was his father-in-law, and so Joseph is called the son of Heli, and the line is thus completed.  While Joseph was son-in-law of Heli, according to the flesh he was in actual fact the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16).
 
6. Two genealogies are absolutely necessary to trace the lineage of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, the royal and legal, and the natural and literal. We find the legal and royal genealogy in Matthew’s gospel, the gospel of law and kingship; the natural and literal in Luke’s, the gospel of humanity.
 
7. We are told in Jeremiah 22:30 that any descendant of Jeconiah could not come to the throne of David. Joseph was of this line, and while Joseph’s genealogy furnishes the royal line for Jesus, his son under the law, nevertheless Jeremiah’s prediction is fulfilled to the very letter, for Jesus (strictly speaking) was not Joseph’s descendant and therefore was not of the seed of Jeconiah. If Jesus had been the son of Joseph in reality, He could not have come to the throne, but He is Mary’s son through Nathan and can come to the throne legally by her marrying Joseph and so clearing His way legally to it.
 
 
   As we study these two genealogies of Jesus carefully and read them in the light of Old Testament prediction, we find that far from constituting a reason for doubting the accuracy of the Bible they are rather a confirmation of the minutest accuracy of that Book. It is amazing how one part of the Bible fits into another part when we study it thus minutely. We need no longer stumble over the fact of two genealogies, but discover and rejoice in the deep meaning of the fact.

 
—R. A. Torrey. Difficulties and Alleged Errors and Contradictions in the Bible (Fleming H. Revell Company, 1907), pp. 101-103. Download his book for free here.
 
 
Norm Geisler and Thomas Howe note some further details:
 
...that Luke would record Mary's genealogy fits with his interest as a doctor in mothers and birth and with his emphasis on women in his Gospel which has been called “the Gospel for Women.”
 
 
   Finally, the fact that the two genealogies have some names in common (such as Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, Matt. 1:12; cf. Luke 3:27) does not prove they are the same genealogy for two reasons. One, these are not uncommon names. Further, even the same genealogy (Luke's) has a repeat of the names Joseph and Judah (3:26,30).
 
 
The two genealogies can be summarized as follows:
 
         MATTHEW                                       LUKE
 
              David                                            David
                  |                                                       |
            Solomon                                       Nathan
                  |                                                       |
          Rehoboam                                   Mattathah
                  |                                                       |
             Abijah                                            Menan
                  |                                                       |
                Asa                                              Melea
                  |                                                       |
       Jehoshaphat                                     Eliakim
                  |                                                       |
               . . . . .                                              . . . . .
                  |                                                       |
              Jacob                                         Heli———
                  |                                                        |
Joseph—Mary—legal wife       Joseph—Mary—actual mother
           (legal father)                                (legal husband)?
                   |                                                       |
                   |                                                       |
               Jesus                                            Jesus
 
—Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe. When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1992), p. 386. You can purchase the latest edition of their handbook here.
 
 
So-called “Discrepancy” Number Nine
 
Question:  How did Judas die? Was it by hanging himself (Matthew 27:5) or by falling on rocks and bursting open (Acts 1:18)?
 
 
Answer:  Both are fully true.
 
As Geisler and Howe state:
 
 
   These accounts are not contradictory, but mutually complementary. Judas hung himself exactly as Matthew affirms that he did. The account in Acts simply adds that Judas fell, and his body opened up at the middle and his intestines gushed out. This is the very thing one would expect of someone who hanged himself from a tree over a cliff and fell on sharp rocks below.
—When Critics Ask, p.361
 
 
Gleason Archer adds more:
 
   Acts 1:18 goes on to state: "And he, falling headlong, burst asunder, and all of his inwards gushed out." This indicates that the tree from which Judas suspended himself overhung a precipice. If the branch from which he had hung himself was dead and dry—and there are many trees that match this description even to this day on the brink of the canyon that tradition identifies as the place where Judas died—it would take only one strong gust of wind to yank the heavy corpse and split the branch to which it was attached and plunge both with great force into the bottom of the chasm below. There is indication that a strong wind arose at the hour Christ died and ripped the great curtain inside the temple from top to bottom (Matthew 27:51).  This was accompanied by a rock-splitting earthquake and undoubtedly also by a thunderstorm, which normally follows a prolonged period of cloud gathering and darkness (Matthew 27:45).  Conditions were right for what had started out as a mere suicide by hanging to turn into a grisly mutilation of the corpse as the branch gave way to the force of the wind and was hurtled down to the bottom.
—Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties
 
And John Haley reconciles the passages as follows:
 
 
   Neither of these statements excludes the other. Matthew does not deny that Judas, after hanging himself, fell and burst asunder; Peter does not assert that Judas did not hang himself previous to his fall. Probably the circumstances were much as follows: Judas suspended himself from a tree on the brink of the precipice overhanging the valley of Hinnom, and the limb or the rope giving way, he fell, and was mangled as described in Acts.
 
 
   Prof. Hackett, who recently visited the supposed scene of this tragic event, deems the above explanation “entirely natural.” As he stood in the valley, and looked up to the rocky terraces which hang over it, and which he found by measurement to vary from twenty-five to forty feet almost perpendicular height, he felt “more than ever satisfied” with the solution just given. He speaks of trees as still growing upon the margin of these precipices, and of a rocky pavement at the bottom of the ledges, upon which the traitor would be crushed and mangled, as well as killed, in his fall. The Professor suggests that Judas may have struck upon some pointed rock, which entered his body, and caused his bowels to gush out.
 
 
   Besides, we do not know how long Judas remained suspended, nor how far decomposition was advanced when he fell. Professor Gaussen, exemplifying different versions of the same affair, mentions a man who, having determined to commit suicide, placed himself upon the sill of a lofty window, and aimed a pistol at his head, then discharged the pistol, and leaped at the same instant. Now, it might be said, with sufficient accuracy, that the man took his life by shooting, or by throwing himself from a height. So, in the case in question, Matthew gives one aspect of the affair, and Peter another, yet there is no contradiction between them.
 
 
—John W. Haley. An Examination of the Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible (Andover: Warren F. Draper, 1876),pp. 349-350. You can download his book for free here.
 
 
Paton Gloag clears two other difficulties that people have had with the story of Judas:
 
 
   [In Acts] We are...informed that Judas purchased a field with the wages of his crime; whereas Matthew informs us that the chief priests and elders purchased the field with the money which Judas restored.
 
 
   [This] first difference is easily removable. When Peter says that Judas purchased a field with the wages of his crime, he employs a common rhetorical expression [metonymy of the effect—T.T.] applied to a fact well known to his hearers, meaning that the field was purchased with the money of Judas, the verb being used in a causative sense; in a somewhat similar manner as a man is said to build a house, although actually the house was not built by him, but with his money. In reality, the field was not purchased [directly] by Judas, but by the priests with the money which they paid to him. [Thus Peter only means that Judas was the landowner.—T.T.]
 
 
   [Another] difference is the reason assigned for the peculiar name of the field. According to Peter, it was called "the field of blood" on account of the violent death of Judas; and according to Matthew, because it was purchased with the price of blood. Some suppose that there are two "fields of blood,"—the one purchased by the price of blood, and the other that where Judas met his death. But only one field is here alluded to, and it is not intimated that Judas met his death in it. There is no improbability in the supposition that the field received its name for a twofold reason; both because it was purchased by blood-money, and because the traitor employed came to a violent end. Meyer observes that there is nothing improbable in the the supposition that the name Akeldama was, soon after the death of Judas, formally given by the Sanhedrim to the field purchased by them for a public benefit.
 
 
—Paton J. Gloag. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles (Edinburgh: T and T Clark, 1870), Volume I., pp. 59-60. Download Volume I of his commentary for free here.
 
 
So-called “Discrepancy” Number Ten
 
Question:  Why are there so many differences in the four Gospels' reports of Jesus' post-Resurrection appearances? 
 
 
Answer:    Ironically, the reason these reports are so different, is to prove their authenticity!
 
R. A. Torrey has put this well:
 
 
...these apparent contradictions are themselves proof of the truth and the accuracy of the accounts. It is evident that these four accounts are separate and independent accounts. If four different persons had sat down to make up a story in collusion of a resurrection that never occurred, they would have made their four accounts appear to agree, at least on the surface. Whatever contradictions there might be in the four accounts would only come out after minute and careful study. But just the opposite is the case here. It is all on the surface that the apparent contradictions occur. It is only by careful and protracted study that the real agreement shines forth. It is just such a harmony as would not exist between four accounts fabricated in collusion. It is just such an agreement as would exist in four independent accounts of substantially the same circumstances, each narrator telling the same story from his own standpoint, relating such details as impressed him, omitting other details which did not impress him but which did impress another narrator and which the other narrator related. Sometimes two accounts would seem to contradict one another, but the third account would come in and unintentionally reconcile the apparent discrepancies between the two.
 
 
   The more one studies the four accounts of the resurrection, the more he will be convinced, if he is candid, that they are separate and independent accounts, and a truthful narration of what actually occurred. They could not have been fabricated in collusion with one another—the very discrepancies urged prove this. Much less could they have been fabricated independently of one another. Four men sitting down independently of one another to fabricate an account of something that never occurred would have agreed with one another nowhere, but in point of fact the more we study these four accounts the more clearly we discover how marvelously they fit in with one another.
 
 
—R. A. Torrey. Difficulties and Alleged Errors and Contradictions in the Bible (Fleming H. Revell Company, 1907), pp. 87-88. Download his book for free here.
 
 
Josh McDowell and Don Stewart concur with this. Then they go on to prove that the two differing details most talked about, are not contradictory—they are actually complementary:
 
 
...these apparent differences ultimately confirm the truthfulness of these accounts, rather than refute them.
 
 
   If all four Gospels gave exactly the same story, in exactly the same order, with exactly the same details, we would immediately become suspicious. We could also wonder why all four writers did not simply attach their names as co-authors of one account. Obviously, this is not the case. None of the four Gospels gives all the details of what transpired.
 
 
   Matthew is the only writer who records the first appearance to the women, while only in Luke do we find the account of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus. The appearance [to] Mary Magdalene is omitted by both Matthew and Luke. Only John records the appearance of our Lord in the upper room, when Thomas was absent[,] and the appearance on the sea of Galilee.
 
 
   It is quite clear that all of the Gospels relate their portraits of Jesus differently. This is what we should expect. No four witnesses (or news reporters), all of whom witness a series of events, will write them up in exactly the same way, detail for detail.  If they did, there would be obvious collusion.  If the differences concerned the main parts of the story, then there would be justification for doubt, but when the salient points are agreed upon by every witness, insignificant differences add to, rather than subtract from, the validity.
 
 
   It should be noted, too, that none of the details necessarily flatly contradicts any others, but in some plausible way they correlate together to supply the larger picture. The variations in detail the different writers chose to include in the resurrection narratives consist of incidental things which in no way jeopardize the main plot of the story.
 
 
   One of the seeming contradictions that bothers people concerns the time the women came to the tomb, related differently by John and Mark. Mark's account has the women coming to the tomb at the rising of the sun, while John states that Mary Magdalene came to the tomb when it was dark.
 
   This difficulty is solved when it is realized that the women had to walk quite some distance to reach the grave, since they stayed in Jerusalem or Bethany. It was dark when they left the place in which they were staying, but when they arrived at the tomb the sun was beginning to shine. Therefore, Mark is speaking of their arrival, while John refers to their departure.
 
 
   The area which has generated the most discussion concerns the angels who were at the tomb of Jesus. Matthew and Mark relate that one angel addressed the women, while Luke and John say that two angels were at the tomb. This seems to be a discrepancy, with Matthew and Mark knowing of only one angel while Luke and John speak of two. However, Matthew and Mark do not say that there was only one angel at the tomb, but that one angel spoke to the women.
 
 
   This does not contradict Luke and John, for Matthew and Mark specify that one angel spoke, but they do not say there was only one angel present or only one angel spoke. Quite possibly one of the angels served as the spokesman for the two, thus he was emphasized.
 
 
—Josh McDowell and Don Stewart. Answers To Tough Questions Skeptics Ask About the Christian Faith (San Bernadino, CA: Here's Life Publishers, Inc., 1980), pp. 52-53.
 
 
   Concerning these angels, Norm Geisler likes to say, “...wherever there are two, there is always one; it never fails! The critic has to add the word 'only' to Matthew's account in order to make it contradictory. But in this case, the problem is not with what the Bible actually says, but with what the critic adds to it.” (When Critics Ask, p. 365.) As a professor, Gleason Archer taught a few classes where there were only two students, and forever after, he could distinctly recall only “the more brilliant and articulate of the two.” He thinks it's for the same reason, that a Gospel writer may have recollected only the meaner of the two demoniacs, the louder of the two blind men, or the angel that talked or did the most.
 
 
   Besides their number, its important that we also say a word about the angels' appearnace. Throughout the Bible angels tend to appear as young men.  And while the biblical writers may sometimes choose to refer to them as what they are—angels—they may often refer to them as what they appear to be—young men. We cannot understand the reports of Jesus' post-resurrection appearances without also understanding this terminology.
 
 
Concerning the four evangelists, Rene Pache states:
 
 
   The critics have given them a hard time, especially because the various personages are not presented as immobile, set in one spot like statues. The facts are that the women saw an angel and then two angels—first seated, then, apparently, standing. The women fled, met Jesus, and informed the disciples. Peter and John ran to the sepulcher. Mary Magdalene stayed in the garden weeping, and there she saw the Lord. These facts in no way contradict one another. Their very differences show that each of the evangelists recounted what had struck him the most forcibly. Their testimonies, considered together, are far more true to life and far more convincing than a word-for-word, stereotyped recital would be.
 
 
—Rene Pache. The Inspiration and Authority of Scripture (Chicago: Moody Press, 1969), p. 151.
 

   Antony Flew once remarked that no amount of good will could ever reconcile the conflicting reports of Christ's resurrection appearances. We have found this to be an exaggeration. The reports of Christ's appearances have been reconciled numerous times. From ancient times until now, scholars have been producing “harmonies of the Gospels.” They are readily available. Also, many people today like to read through their Bible in chronological order. For them, there are special Bibles available that synchronize the overlapping portions of Scripture into one continuous narrative. This includes a retelling of the four Gospels as one story. If such a harmonization were impossible, how could these books exist? I myself read through a chronological Bible once each year, and have never noticed any glaring problem with the sequence.
 

   To close this subject, we will present Gardiner's summary of the events following the resurrection. Full details are provided in his book itself, and in others like it, which are available in both Greek and English.
 
 
   For the convenience of the student, the following synopsis of the events is given, so far as the points of difficulty extend. The resurrection itself occurred at or before the earliest dawn of the first day of the week (Matthew 28:1; Mark 16:2; Luke. 24:1; John 20:1.  The women coming to the sepulchre, find the stone rolled away and the body gone. They are amazed and perplexed. Mary Magdalene alone runs to tell Peter and John (John 20:2).  The other women remain, enter the tomb, see the angels, are charged by them to announce the resurrection to the disciples, and depart on their errand. Meantime Peter and John run very rapidly (vs. 4) to the sepulchre. (A glance at the plan of Jerusalem shows that there were so many different gates by which persons might pass between the city and the sepulchre that they might easily have failed to meet the women on their way.) They enter the tomb and are astonished at the orderly arrangement of the grave-clothes, and then return to the city. Mary follows to the tomb, unable quite to keep pace with them, and so falling behind. She remains standing at the entrance after they had gone; and looking in, sees the angels. Then turning about, she sees Jesus himself, and receives his charge for the disciples. This was our Lord's first appearance after his resurrection (Mark 16:9).
 
 
   To return to the women who were on their way from the sepulchre to the disciples: They went in haste, yet more slowly than Peter and John. There were many of them, and being in a state of great agitation and alarm (Mark 16:8), they appear to have become separated and to have entered the city by different gates. One party of them, in their astonishment and fear, say nothing to anyone (Mark 16:8); the others run to the disciples and announce all that they had seen, namely, the vision of the angels (Matthew 28:8; Luke 24:9-11).
 
 
   At this time, before any report had come in of the appearance of our Lord himself, the two disciples set out for Emmaus (Luke 24: 13).  Soon after, Mary Magdalene comes in, announcing that she had actually seen the risen Lord (Mark 16:10-11; John 20:18).  While these things are happening, the first-mentioned party of the women are stopped on the way by the appearance of the Lord himself, and they also receive a charge to his disciples (Matthew 28:9-10).
 
 
   Beyond this point there is no difficulty in the narrative, and the course of events will, it is hoped, be sufficiently clear in the Harmony itself.
 
 
—Frederic Gardiner. A Harmony of the Four Gospels in Greek (Andover: Warren F. Draper, 1893), pp. 253-254. Download his book for free here.
 
 
How to Handle Other Bible Difficulties!
 
   Was your Bible problem not on that list?  No problem.  Whenever you encounter another so-called “mistake” or “contradiction” in the Bible, I challenge you to face it squarely, the way I and those other writers did. “This too shall pass.”
 
 
   R. A. Torrey, who was himself a skeptic for many years, suggests we should deal with the difficulties of the Bible (1) honestly (2) humbly (3) determinedly (4) fearlessly (5) patiently (6) Scripturally, and (7) prayerfully.  Another thing that helps, is hermeneutics. Herman who? That's the science of interpreting literature. It helps you find out what a writer himself meant, instead of reading your own ideas into his work. It's essential to know something of biblical hermeneutics if you're dealing with the difficult passages of the Bible.  If you want to download a whole book on the subject, click here. Otherwise, the following paragraph should get you started.
 
 
   Here are 17 sound rules for interpreting the Bible. When a critic finds a "contradiction" in the Bible, you can be sure that he is violating one of these rules:   (1) Do not assume that what is not explained cannot be explained. It is very likely that someone before you has already solved your problem. And if no one has solved it yet, perhaps someone will. (2) Consider the Bible innocent until proven guilty. We don't assume the newspaper is lying until we can prove each statement. Certainly a book as magnificent as the Bible is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. (3) Do not confuse your interpretation of the Bible with the Bible itself. (4) Pay close attention to the context. What is being said? To whom? Under what circumstances, and for what reason? Most Bible difficulties would disappear if we would follow this rule. (5)Interpret difficult passages in the light of clear ones. (6) Do not base a teaching on an obscure passage. (7) Remember that the Bible was written in human language, and often expresses human perspectives, thought patterns, emotions, and interests. (8) Do not assume that a partial report is a false report. (9) Do not demand word-for-word quotations of the Old Testament by New Testament writers. People in ancient times did not quote as we do.   (10) Do not assume that different accounts are false ones. If you examine them, you will find that they are complementary rather than contradictory. Eyewitnesses in court always report different details if they are telling the truth and not conspiring. (11) Do not presume that the Bible approves of all it records. Psalm 14:1 contains the words "There is no God." But these are said to be the words of a fool. (12) Remember that the Bible uses non-technical, everyday language. The newspaper tells us the sun will rise at 8:02 A.M. We do not accuse the paper of teaching us that the sun hides underneath the earth. We should allow the Bible the same right to use terms loosely as well. (13) Do not assume that round numbers are false. (14) Pay close attention to figures of speech. (15) Remember that there are minor variations in our handwritten copies. It is the original that is without error, not the copies. (16) Remember that many biblical principles allow for exceptions. (17) Remember that a later statement can supersede a former one. This is a change, but not an error. You let your son eat with his fingers when he is a child, but when he is grown you make him eat with a fork.
 
 
   Amateur skeptics scoff at this idea of hermeneutics, or the science of interpreting biblical literature, suggesting it was simply contrived to explain away biblical difficulties. But more experienced critics recognize that there are standards of literary criticism, to which we must adhere to avoid reading our own nonsense into other people's documents. This holds true for all literature, from personal letters to Shakespearean sonnets. We did not make up the interpretive rules, but discovered them, just as we discovered the rules of logic upon which they are based. If you ever find yourself on trial, you'd better pray your judge interprets laws according to the strict literary conventions I've just outlined!
                                      
Resources
Websites
Bible Difficulties from the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM). A sizable list of solutions, following the order of the books of the Bible. To access their whole list, you'll need to look at the navigation bar on the left, and scroll halfway down.
Tektonitron Encyclopedia Apologetica is a drop down list and search engine that links you to a treasure trove of articles (1,600) on how to resolve specific Bible difficulties. James Patrick Holding may be the most prolific Bible “contradiction”-refuter on the web. He's also the funniest. A less important work of his on Bible difficulties, would be his Skeptics' Overrated Bible. That's his response to the people who take cheap shots at the Bible over at the Skeptic's Annotated Bible (SAB), a website whose fame outshines its intellect.
Alleged Discrepancies is a collection of some 140 articles over at Apologetics.org. It may take you a bit longer to find the exact item you're looking for, but there's a lot of good information in there.
gotquestions.org. At the time I'm writing this, they offer answers to 167,460 Bible questions. This is not a misprint! They have included a response to the Skeptic's Annotated Bible section on Cruelty in the Bible.
 
 
Books
As you may have observed throughout this article, there are many fine books dealing with this subject. Scroll back up there and get them. The best is When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties, by Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1992). It solves all sorts of "unsolvable" problems. Any skeptic who reads through it will have to say, "It ain't those parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand.”