Update October 31, 2007: You are viewing the classic article style where all research relating to one article is
posted on one page. If you wish to read this article like a book (this will offer faster page loads for those with
slow internet connections), please click here.
Though the main purpose of the Bible is to reveal the plan of
salvation to mankind, under closer scrutiny there certainly appears
to be some problems within the text. In this section we will
examine these alleged Bible contradictions and difficulties.

The outline we will be following for this discussion is as follows:
1) Introduction
2) Translation Errors
3) Scribal Errors
4) Theological Conflicts
5) Literary Techniques
6) Contradictions Regarding Jesus
7) Messianic Genealogy Conflicts
8) Miscellany
9) Conclusion

As we have seen throughout this discussion, most contradictions are resolved upon examination of the original
Hebrew and Greek texts. Others need only to be read within their context. Scribal errors can be compared
against earlier texts to reveal the contradiction is indeed just that- a scribal error. So the next time you are faced
with verses that seemingly contradict each other, do some research and you will see that the majority of conflicts
can be resolved by simple and obvious methods.

Most Bible contradictions may be dismissed as translation errors as we will prove throughout this article with the
assistance of lexicons. Other difficulties are resolved once we explore the context of the conflicting passages,
examine older manuscripts which verify some contradictions as simple scribal errors, and apply logic to solve
philosophical dilemmas.

One thing I find in common with those who distribute Bible contradictions is their use of the 1611 King James
Bible. However, this is a 400 year old English translation- not an original Biblical language. Linguistic scholars
have learned a lot in regards to how the Bible should more accurately translate into English. Although the KJV
sufficiently gets the point of salvation across to the reader (the fundamental purpose of th Bible), I strongly
suggest using a more modern and accurate translation and the use of lexicons when examining the Bible in
depth. We will now answer some common criticisms of those who have answered Bible contradictions in the past.

TRANSLATION ERRORS Many Biblical critics do not reference the original Hebrew and Greek texts when
searching for errors. In my opinion, this is poor, irresponsible scholarship. Such critics fail to realize translation
difficulties are not exclusive to the Bible. Any text translated into another language will contain errors due to the
use idioms, archaic terminology, and puns that do not translate properly into other languages. In order to finally
resolve such errors, links will be provided to the original Hebrew/Greek throughout this article. Using this
method, we will find most alleged contradictions do not even exist.

SCRIBAL ERRORS Few critics are satisfied when a contradiction is explained as being a scribal error. However,
the Bible was obviously written long before electronic methods of reproduction. Scribes had no choice but to hand
write new copies, thus allowing room for human error. Furthermore, though a newer manuscript may reveal
conflicts, older manuscripts reveal the original correct text and answer the apparent contraction.

Skeptic Interjection: If the Bible truly is the Word of God, why doesn't He protect it from human error?
Answer: As with any gift God has given to humans, we have found a way to misuse it. But this does not mean
God will stop giving to His children! God created this earth but we waste its natural resources and pollute its
atmosphere. God sent prophets to the people and many were stoned. God sent His Son to earth and we
crucified Him! Likewise, God gave us His Scriptures knowing we would distort them from their original integrity
(either accidentally through scribal errors or intentionally by those who use His Word to further their own
agendas). Consider this analogy: I am the mother of a two-year old. When I buy my child a new toy, I know
eventually it will be covered in crayon or broken- yet I still give my child gifts knowing they will not remain in
pristine condition for long! Likewise, God gives us His message knowing our own fallibility will somehow distort it.

CONTEXT Many contradictions are explained once we examine the context of the conflicting passages. This is
another explanation I have seen skeptics criticize. But context is extremely important when dealing with any
text. When one passage is isolated it becomes vulnerable to manipulation. Isolated verses may seem
contradictory but become clear once the context is taken into consideration. Years ago I remember watching a
television special where a comedian was poking fun at awful movies that receive raving reviews. To emphasize
the importance of context, his routine went something like this (this quote might offend some readers but it is
simply that- a quote from his act):

"Have you ever seen an awful movie that received a great review like, '...the best movie ever!' It makes me
wonder what the rest of the comment was but I have a good idea: 'I thought this movie downright sucked but my
blind, deaf, and retarded neighbor thought it was the best movie ever!'"

LITERALISM VS. METAPHORIC Some contradictions we will examine have erroneously been assigned literal
interpretations. When apologists explain such verses are actually poetic in context, their answer is not generally
accepted. However, critics fail to realize the Hebrew Tanakh (roughly the Christian Old Testament) is organized
into three divisions: The Law, The Prophets, and The Writings. Books such as Job, Psalms, Proverbs, and
Ecclesiastes are composed using poetic styles. Even Biblical books not classified as The Writings may still contain
literary styles just like The Writings may also contain prophecies. Don't automatically assume a literal
interpretation by default but instead use common sense and spiritual discernment.

DUALISM In some instances, two seemingly conflicting passages may both be correct. For instance, God is a
God of mercy but He is also a God of judgment. In a later section, we will explain how such terms are not
mutually exclusive.

HYPOCRITICAL BIAS I've heard it said Christians would dismiss any other text for containing the same errors
found within the Bible. Though this may be true to a point, (hopefully) they would take a less superficial
approach. One needs to take an impartial view when examining the facts. Many times a skeptic will point out a
verse to me as the ultimate proof that the Bible is a fraud. Unfortunately, they don't read the next two verses
that clearly explain their problem.

DEFENSIVENESS Some apologists have been accused of answering Bible contradictions because they feel
threatened. Though this is not true for everyone, I will expose my own humanity and admit that when I was a
"baby" Christian I was rather nervous when confronted with difficulties such as Bible contradictions and pagan
copy-cat allegations. I had to seriously consider the possibility my own beliefs were in error! I certainly didn't
want to be deceived so I did what any responsible investigator would do- I researched the claims for myself.
Hopefully the following information in this article will answer some nagging doubts for other believers.

DOES GOD TEMPT MAN?
(KJV) Contradiction 1: And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham... Genesis 22:1
(KJV) Contradiction 2: Let no man say when he is tempted, "I am tempted of God" for God cannot be tempted
with evil, neither tempteth he any man. James 1:13

(NIV) Accurate: Some time later God tested Abraham... Genesis 22:1

The Hebrew lexicon primarily defines the word nacah used in Genesis as to test, try, or prove in the sense of
putting someone to the test- not in the sense of tempting to do evil. On the other hand, the Greek lexicon
specifically states the definition of the word in Galatians (apeirastos) as cannot be tempted by evil or not liable
to the temptation of sin. The Hebrew word implies to test while the Greek implies what we understand to literally
mean tempt. The KJV uses the antiquated translation as tempt though this is not technically correct. This issue
has been debated to death so in order for our point to really hit home, let's use a few examples from the Old
Testament which use the term nacah as a reference to test/try:
  • Daniel 1:12,14 Please test your servants for ten days: Give us nothing but vegetables and water...
  • Ecclesiastes 7:23 All this I tested by wisdom and I said...
  • I Kings 10:1 When the queen of Sheba heard about the fame of Solomon and his relation to the name of
    the Lord, she came to test him with hard questions.
  • Judges 6:39 Then Gideon said to God... "Allow me one more test with the fleece."

If we replace the word test with the word tempt in the above passages, the verses would make no sense
whatsoever. Did the Queen of Sheba tempt Solomon's wisdom with difficult questions? Did Daniel ask the chief
official to tempt the effects of his requested diet on his body? Was Gideon wanting to make a tempt with the
fleece? When we examine other verses which use the word nacah, we can reach a logical conclusion regarding
the correct definition in Genesis.

WAS JESUS' FIRST SERMON ON A PLAIN OR ON A MOUNT?
(KJV) Contradiction 1: And seeing the multitudes, He went up into a mountain... Matthew 5:1
(KJV) Contradiction 2: And He came down with them, and stood in the plain... Luke 6:17

(NIV) He went down with them and stood on a level place... Luke 6:17

As the NIV more accurately explains, the Greek word used in Luke is pedinos which simply refers to a level or
flat place. All this fuss basically comes down to Jesus finding a flat surface on which to gain His footing! Skeptics
are assuming inclined areas contain no level places but this obviously is not so. A plateau, for instance, is a flat
area that may be found on higher ground.

DID THOSE AT SAUL'S/PAUL'S CONVERSION HEAR A VOICE?
(NIV) Contradiction 1: The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless. They heard the sound but did not
see anyone. Acts 9:7
(NIV) Contradiction 2: My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was
speaking to me. Acts 22:9

I must be missing something because I personally see no contradiction in the above verses. Both verses state
the men heard a voice but verse 22 expands on the incident by explaining the men did not understand what was
said. I'm assuming the problem comes from those referencing the KJV which states "they did not hear the voice."
But once we examine the original Greek, we see Luke uses the word akouo which can also mean to understand,
comprehend, or perceive (as the NIV explains).

CAN HUMANS ASCEND TO HEAVEN?
(NIV) Contradiction 1: As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses
of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind. II Kings 2:11
(NIV) Contradiction 2: No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of
Man. John 3:13

The Hebrew word used in Kings is shamayim which can either refer to the skies (primary) or the actual abode of
God (secondary). In Hebrew tradition, the meaning in this case is the skies. On the other hand, John uses the
Greek word ouranos which can also refer to either the skies or the actual abode of God. In this sense, tradition
states no man can physically ascend into Heaven. The dualism of the definitions offers us a reasonable answer
free of any contradiction.

CAN GOD BE SEEN?
(NIV) Contradiction 1: The Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend. Exodus 33:11
(NIV) Contradiction 2: No one has ever seen God... John 1:18

In the first verse, the Hebrew idiom for face to face translates into English as without a mediator. This verse does
not imply Moses physically seeing the face of God but that he was able to communicate with God as a man
speaks to his friend (as a true friend would not require a go-between for communication). This explanation is
given once we read the context:

Then Moses said, "Now show me your glory." And the Lord said, "I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of
you... "But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live." Then the Lord said, "There is
a place near me where you may stand on a rock. When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock
and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back.
But my face must not be seen." Exodus 33:18-23

God can appear to us as a physical manifestation but He does not appear to us in full glory. The original Hebrew
texts mostly differentiate between the type of presence God takes with either the use of the word Elohim (God's
glory) or Jehovah (God's literal name). Elohim is usually used in spiritual encounters while Jehovah is usually
used in physical encounters, thus eliminating any contradiction.

However, we seem to find ourselves in a bit of a predicament with the verse in Genesis 32:30: So Jacob called
the place Peniel, saying, 'It is because I saw God [Elohim] face to face, and yet my life was spared.' Again we
see the Hebrew idiom face to face referring to without a mediator. I also see the words "yet my life was spared"
as a possible reference to his struggle with God in Genesis 32:22-30 (and not necessarily a reference to him
seeing "God's glory"). Lastly, the context shows Jacob struggling with a manifestation of God and not God's
glory (Then Jacob was left alone, and a man (iysh) wrestled with him until daybreak).

WHO BOUGHT THE POTTER'S FIELD?
(NIV) Contradiction 1: With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field... Acts 1:18
(NIV) Contradiction 2: The chief priests picked up the coins and said, "It is against the law to put this into the
treasury, since it is blood money." So they decided to use the money to buy the potter's field as a burial place for
foreigners. Matthew 27:6-7

Once we examine the original Greek, we see Matthew and Luke differentiate between terms of ownership.
Matthew uses the word ajgoravzw (legal ownership) while Luke uses ktaomai (physical possession). In other
words, Judas purchased the field in his name and was therefore the legal owner, but after his death, the priests
obtained the field for communal use yet did not possess the legal rights to it. In layman's terms, The original
Greek states Judas purchased the field but the priest acquired the field after his death.

WHO WAS THE MOTHER OF ABIJAH?
(KJV) Contradiction 1: [Abijah's] mother's name also was Michaia... II Chronicles 13:1-2
(KJV) Contradiction 2: ...Maachah the daughter of Absalom; which bare him Abijah... II Chronicles 11:20

(NIV) Accurate: [Abijah's] mother's name was Maacah, a daughter of Uriel of Gibeah. II Chronicles 13:1-2
(NIV) Accurate: Then he married Maacah daughter of Absalom, who bore him Abijah. II Chronicles 11:20

Though the spelling differs in some versions, the KJV lexicon states both names refer to the same woman (See
here [note 6] and here [note 2]) Both are described as the wife of King Rehoboam and the mother of Abijah.
Though Maacah is her literal name, Michaiah (meaning depression) was a pun the author of Chronicles uses in
chapter 13 (with the humorous twist being lost in translation). On the other hand, various texts reveal the name
as Maacah in both verses.

Skeptic Interjection: How is this the same woman when one verse says she is Uriel's daughter while the other
says she is Absalom's?
Answer: This conflict has two possible solutions: Some believe Absalom was Maacah's father while Uriel was her
mother. Although Uriel's gender is not specified, most of my sources reveal Uriel was a man. This leads us to the
second and more likely possibility. The Hebrew word used in both verses is bath which is an ambiguous term
meaning daughter, granddaughter, daughter-in-law, etc. Basically, any female descendant- both immediate and
long term. If Uriel was indeed a man, he was most likely her immediate father while Absalom was one of her
ancestors, with his name being mentioned to reference her royal heritage. This explanation is reinforced by the
fact Maacah's name is not found in the list of Absalom's children mentioned in II Samuel 14:27 where we are told
his daughter was Tamar (not Maacah).

HOW MANY CHILDREN DID MICHAL (THE DAUGHTER OF SAUL) HAVE?
(KJV) Contradiction 1: Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no children. II Samuel 6:23
(KJV) Contradiction 1: ...And the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul... II Samuel 21:8

(NIV) Accurate: ...Together with the five sons of Saul's daughter Merab... II Samuel 21:8

I Samuel 14:49 reveals Saul had two daughters (Michal and Merab): The name of his older daughter was Merab,
and that of the younger was Michal. Some pre-Masoretic texts reveal Merab as the possible accurate daughter
mentioned in chapter 21.

Skeptic Interjection: But don't most Hebrew texts state the name as Michal?
Answer: Most Hebrew texts as well as some copies of the Septuagint use the name Michal. This causes some
skeptics to believe later scribes purposely changed the name to Merab in order to fix the contradictions. But the
name Merab is also used in some older manuscripts including two Hebrew texts, some copies of the Septuagint,
and the Syriac version.

RABBITS DO NOT CHEW CUD
(KJV) Contradiction: And the hare, because he cheweth the cud... Leviticus 11:6

The error in this translation is the use of the word cud from the Hebrew word gerah which basically means
partially digested material. Rabbits do alah (move) their gerah (undigested food) with the fact they eat their own
feces in order to reabsorb the nutrients of the undigested material. This process, known as refection (See: note
2a), differs from our modern definition of the process of rumination (See: note 2). In this case, the translators of
the KJV used the word they felt best suited this process although it technically is not what we know today as
chewing cud.

Skeptic Interjection: Rabbits do not chew their pellets- they swallow them whole.
Answer: The actual infinitive literally meaning to chew the cud is gerar (See: note 2) and is only used in
Leviticus 11:7 as a reference to cud chewing. Gerar is not the term used when referring to the refection process
of rabbits/hares in Leviticus 11:6. The word used in this case is alah which does not remotely mean chew
(though the translators of the KJV thought it did!). Alah encompasses many definitions referring to movement of
some sort (to ascend, to depart, to withdraw, etc.) but never as a reference to chewing. Critics view the English
translations which state chew the cud in both verses and think Ah ha! But they ignore the original Hebrew
which differentiates between the two processes. I cannot be anymore clear than this. Skeptics are trying to
correctly merge 17th century A.D. English definitions with 15th century B.C. Hebrew terminology but common
sense tells us there are many errors in this line of thinking.

BATS ARE NOT BIRDS
(KJV) Contradiction: And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls...and the stork,
the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat. Leviticus 11:13,19

The error in this translation is the use of the word fowls from the Hebrew word owph which literally refers to any
flying creature. The original Hebrew text is explaining what flying creatures were acceptable for consumption and
which ones were not. Because the bat is technically a flying creature, it was accurately included in this list.

Skeptic Interjection: Why didn't the Bible just classify the bat with other mammals?
Answer: At the time, the bat fit best under the classification of winged creatures. The extensive scientific
classifications we have today did not exist 3500 years ago. The Bible listing the bat with other winged creatures
was literally and technically correct. Just because modern definitions have changed does not make the 3500 year
old classification of winged creatures incorrect.

WHO SHOULD BEAR A MAN'S BURDEN?
(NIV) Contradiction 1: Carry each other's burdens... Galatians 6:2
(NIV) Contradiction 2: For each one should carry his own load. Galatians 6:5

These two verses are basically telling us to lend each other a helping hand but not to take advantage of those
who are willing to help. Upon examination of the original Greek, we can see two different words are used.
Galatians 6:2 uses baros which implies troubles/burdens we are to share with one another while Galatians 6:5
uses phortion which literally translates as the burdens of the conscience for which we are individually responsible.

Though the Hebrew scribes took tremendous care when copying the Scriptures, some mistakes should be
expected due to human error. Many languages of antiquity did not contain vowels, spacing, paragraphs, or even
punctuation. Whereas today we would write I love you very much this would be written in antiquity as
LVYVRYMCH. Naturally this became the cause of much confusion once vowels and punctuation were later added
into the texts as the written language progressed. It was at the scribe's discretion to best determine each word
and number. If a word was spelled BN, the scribes had to determine if this word was bone, ban, bane, etc.
Though the scribes could usually find their answer using tradition or context, this still left room for occasional
human error. If we pretend for a moment that 4 is a consonant and 0 is a vowel, should a certain number be
considered 4 thousand, 40 thousand, or 400 thousand? This was one of the difficulties scribes had to consider.

Throughout this section we will see that many of the older manuscripts do not even contain the errors of newer
texts (this gives us reason to believe some contradictions may logically be explained as transcription errors).
Other discrepancies are shown as they appear in the Masoretic text to demonstrate just how easy it was to
commit a scribal error.

YEARS OF FAMINE
(KJV) Contradiction 1: Choose thee either three years' famine... I Chronicles 21:11
(KJV) Contradiction 2: Shall seven years of famine come unto thee... II Samuel 24:13
(NIV) Accurate: Take your choice: three years of famine... I Chronicles 21:11
(NIV) Accurate: Shall there come upon you three years of famine... II Samuel 24:13

Though the Masoretic text shows conflicting amounts between three and seven years, the Greek Septuagint
reveals the possible accurate length of three years in both verses.

HOW OLD WAS JEHOIACHIN WHEN HE BEGAN TO REIGN?
(KJV) Contradiction 1: Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign... II Chronicles 36:9
(KJV) Contradiction 2: Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign... II Kings 24:8

(NIV) Accurate: Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became king... II Chronicles 36:9

Pre-Masoretic manuscripts record the presumably correct age as being 18 in both verses.

THE AMOUNT OF KING SOLOMON'S HORSES & STALLS
(KJV) Contradiction 1: Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots... I Kings 4:26
(KJV) Contradiction 2: Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots... II Chronicles 9:25

(NIV) Correct: Solomon had four thousand stalls for chariot horses... I Kings 4:26
(NIV) Correct: Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots... II Chronicles 9:25

The Septuagint states the possible correct amount as being 4,000 in both verses.

To demonstrate how easily a scribal error could be committed, I listed the text below as it appears in the
Masoretic Text and highlighted the discrepancies in red font. If anyone notices any errors in my Hebrew, please
let me know! :-)
KING BAASHA BATTLED ASA IN THE 36TH YEAR OF HIS REIGN BUT DIED DURING THE 26TH YEAR
(KJV) Contradiction 1: So Baasha slept with his fathers...in the twenty sixth year of Asa... I Kings 16:6,8
(KJV) Contradiction 2: In the six and thirtieth year of the reign of Asa... II Chronicles 16:1

Now that we understand the basic principles behind scribal errors, here are a few other contradictions that may
be resolved through the same means:

THE AMOUNT OF GOLD TALENTS SOLOMON RECEIVED
(KJV) Contradiction 1: [They] fetched from thence gold, four hundred and twenty talents, and brought it to
king Solomon... I Kings 9:28
(KJV) Contradiction 2: [They] took thence four hundred and fifty talents of gold, and brought them to king
Solomon... II Chronicles 8:18

THE AGE OF KING AHAZI'AH WHEN HE BEGAN HIS REIGN
(KJV) Contradiction 1: Two and twenty years old was Ahazi'ah when he began to reign... II Kings 8:26
(KJV) Contradiction 2: Forty and two years old was Ahazi'ah when he began to reign... II Chronicles 22:2

THE AMOUNT OF SUPERVISORS FOR SOLOMON'S TEMPLE PROJECT
(KJV) Contradiction 1: Solomon's officers were... three thousand and three hundred... I Kings 5:16
(KJV) Contradiction 2: Solomon told...three thousand and six hundred to oversee them... II Chronicles 2:2

THE AMOUNT OF ARAMEAN CHARIOTEERS KILLED BY DAVID
(KJV) Contradiction 1: David slew the men of seven hundred chariots... II Samuel 10:18
(KJV) Contradiction 2: David slew of the Syrians seven thousand men in chariots. I Chronicles 19:18

IS GOD MERCIFUL?
(NIV) Contradiction 1: The Lord is good to all. He has compassion on all he has made. Psalms 145:9
(NIV) Contradiction 2: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them. Jeremiah 13:14

Critics often ask how God can be both a God of mercy and judgment. Though God is absolutely merciful when
we are willing to accept His mercy, He is also a just God who promises consequences for sin. Throughout the
Bible we see the wicked being warned before judgment occurs. Only after they refused to come to repentance
did God send judgment.

Modern Analogy: Imagine one of your loved ones being brutally murdered. The perpetrator is arrested and
found guilty by a jury. Now imagine the criminal in a hands of a judge who releases him without issuing any
sentence. Would this be considered just? Would this even be considered mercy? Not in the opinion of the victim's
family or anyone with half a brain! In short, mercy and judgment are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

IS GOD A GOD OF WAR OR PEACE?
(NIV) Contradiction 1: The Lord is a warrior. The Lord is his name. Exodus 15:3
(NIV) Contradiction 2: The God of peace be with you all. Amen. Romans 15:33

Again, God is both. God can be moved to righteous anger just like we as people can be moved to righteous
anger. God desires peace but if He is truly a just and holy God, He would not tolerate wickedness.

Modern Analogy: Imagine a peaceful Utopian society being invaded by a hostile enemy. Should this society sit
back while its people are mercilessly slaughtered or should they stand up and confront the threat? Would they be
considered warmongers for defending themselves and not tolerating evil?

DOES GOD CHANGE HIS MIND?
(NIV) Contradiction 1: He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind. I Samuel 15:29
(NIV) Contradiction 2: When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he had
compassion and did not bring upon them the destruction he had threatened. Jonah 3:10

Throughout the Bible we can see God threatening judgment until the people repented. In other words, the people
were given an "either/or" option: Either they continue in their sin and come under judgment, or they come to
repentance and are spared.

Modern Analogy: A parent who is concerned with their child's poor grades at school warns the child they will be
punished if they bring home another failing report card. The child studies every night and eventually brings home
a report card showing all A's. The parent is so proud that they go out for pizza. Does this mean the parent lied or
changed their mind? Not at all- the child was given a warning which would be followed by consequences. If
anything, such passages reveal God's mercy.

SHOULD WE JUDGE OTHERS?
(NIV) Contradiction 1: The spiritual man makes judgments about all things... I Corinthians 2:15
(NIV) Contradiction 2: Do not judge, or you too will be judged. Matthew 7:1

I'm not exactly sure why these two verses are presented as contradictions. It is not a matter of one verse telling
us to judge while another verse is telling us not to. When we read the context of Corinthians, we see the concept
of "judging others" isn't even the focus of discussion- the chapter is referring to wisdom (good "judgment")! It
would be like a parent telling their child, "Use good judgment today!" On the other hand, the verse in Matthew is
telling us to check our motives when we correct others and to work out our own faults before we judge others.

SHOULD WE PERFORM GOOD WORKS IN FRONT OF OTHERS?
(NIV) Contradiction 1: But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is
doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.
Matthew 6:3-4
(NIV) Contradiction 2: In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds
and praise your Father in heaven. Matthew 5:16

The focus of these two verses is not the performance of good works but the intent behind our actions. Matthew 6
tells us when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do... to be honored
by men. Jesus is pointing out the hypocrisy of those who do good deeds solely for the purpose of being esteemed
in the eyes of the public. On the other hand, Matthew 5 has Jesus comparing Christians to city lights used for
illumination. He is telling us not to hide our Christian convictions from others. The comparison to lights is
symbolic once we realize their function and purpose: A light meekly shines and performs its function regardless
of whether or not others notice. Likewise, Jesus is telling Christians to set a example and not to seek praise.

Modern Analogy: A person is riding in a car with friends when they see a beggar on the street corner. Should
the Christian decide not to help the man because others are around or could they hand the man a few dollars
and explain (humbly) to their friends (if asked) that they did this because the Bible tells them to assist the poor?
The moral of the story is God doesn't only consider our actions but our intent.

IS IT GOOD TO BE WISE?
(NIV) Contradiction 1: Wisdom is supreme therefore get wisdom. Though it cost all you have, get
understanding. Proverbs 4:7
(NIV) Contradiction 2: For with much wisdom comes much sorrow. The more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes 1:18

These verses don't necessarily contradict each other inasmuch as they capture a predicament. Just as we have
sayings along the lines of Ignorance is bliss and The truth hurts, the Bible also relays the dilemma between the
truth's ability to both enlighten and distress. We also see an allusion to the negative side-effects of knowledge in
the verse that is apparently endorsing wisdom (...though it cost all you have). In summary, no contradiction
really even exists between these two verses.

Modern Analogy: A loved one is missing and a concerned relative begins a search to uncover the truth. At the
moment, this person can accept the possibility that their beloved is alive and starting a new life somewhere. But
one day the police inform them their loved one's body was discovered and that the suspect is in custody. On one
hand, this person has received closure and can now work on finding justice for their loved one. On the other
hand, they are in agony when thinking of what their loved one had to endure in their last moments.

WHO IS ON GOD'S SIDE?
(NIV) Contradiction 1: He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.
Matthew 12:30
(NIV) Contradiction 2: For whoever is not against us is for us.