Mr. Emmett F. Fields alleges that there are many contradictions in the Bible, and cites as examples six of these.  The purpose of this page is to explain these alleged contradictions that Fields has presented.  On another page, the larger issue of alleged contradictions will be explored.

Below please find the table indicating the passages Mr. Fields' pits against each other to establish his allegation that the Bible has contradictions, therefore the Bible cannot be the Word of God.

VERSE 1 VERSE 2 ALLEGED CONTRADICTION PROPOSED SOLUTION
Gen 2:16-17 Gen 5:5 God said Adam and Eve would die on the day they ate the forbidden fruit.  However, Adam live on after this event to be 930 years old. Adam and Eve died spiritually on that very day that they ate of the forbidden fruit.  See Eph 2:1; 4:18.1
Gen 2:16-17 Gen 3:22-23 God said they could eat of any other tree except the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.  However, God later says the tree of life was also forbidden. There was only one tree forbidden before Adam and Eve sinned.  Thereafter, the tree of life was forbidden also (Gen 3:24).
Ex 33:11 Ex 33:20 God says he spoke with Moses face-to-face (my note: for this concept, see also Gen 32:30; Ex 24:9-10; Judges 13:22; Isa 6:1; Daniel 7:9).  However, then God says that no one could see his face and live (my note: for this concept, see also Ex 33:23; Deut 4:15; John 1:18; John 5:37; 1 Tim 1:17; 6:16). In the cases of Isaiah and Daniel, theirs were visions, not of the eye, but of the soul.  In other cases something more objective seems to be meant, such as an angel sent from God, who acts as the proxy of God, or even Christ as the λόγος (logos), through whom God is seen.  Others are "theophanies," in which God transiently assumes.  But God in His very essence, is a Spirit, and as such cannot be seen by the carnal eye of man.  Face-to-face speaks primarily, then, of great familiarity.2  So, just as we cannot look directly at the sun without being blinded, we still speak of "seeing the sun" in an indirect manner.3
Matt 1:1-16 Matt 1:18 If Jesus was the son of Joseph as the genealogy in Matt 1:1-16 shows, then he could not have been born of a virgin as Matt 1:18 says. Joseph is not called, as are all others in the genealogy, "...the father of..." Jesus, but rather he is called "Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was born, who is called Christ."  However, the genealogy of Joseph is valid from a legal stance, just as a child adopted is considered a part of that adopting family, even though there is no blood relationship.  Note that this genealogy goes back to David by way of David's son, Solomon.
Matt 1:18 Acts 2:29-30 If Jesus was born of a virgin, then God lied to David, for it was in David's seed that the promised blessing would come. In the genealogy of Jesus in Luke 3:23-38, Luke describes Jesus as "...being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph...."  Thus, the genealogy also makes it clear that Joseph did not father Jesus.  In addition, the names of the descendents from David forward are completely different than the genealogy in Matthew.  This genealogy goes back to David by way of David's son, Nathan, instead of Solomon.  Thus, scholars agree that this is the genealogy of Mary instead of Joseph.  Therefore, according to prophecy, the Deliverer would come through the "woman's seed" (Gen 3:15), and her seed was biologically connected back to David.  Therefore, God did not in any way lie to David.

Now I feel certain that Mr. Fields has many more allegations that the Bible contradicts itself, and so the Bible can't be the Word of God according to Mr. Fields.  However, he didn't list any more that these, so we will have to be content with what he listed for now.

In addition to the cited books of Haley and DeHoff, Ted Stewart has two chapters in his book that deal with alleged contradictions in both the Old Testament and the New Testament.4  These resources, and others like them, are important to a Christian who believes that the Bible is the Word of God.  It is not only atheists and Muslims who try to lead young Christians away by alleging contradictions in the Bible.  Liberal Biblical Scholars do the same in an effort to show that the Bible is not reliable, so they also lead young Christians away into a mentality that we can live and worship in any way we please, and not according to what is prescribed in the New Testament.


ENDNOTES:
  1. Haley, John W.  An Examination of the Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible.  W. G. Holmes, Publisher, Andover, Mass.; Printed by W F Draper; Boston: Estes and Lauriat; Press, Rand, Avery & Co., © 1875, p 393.  (Available at www.amazon.com.)
  2. Haley, ibid., pp 73-76.
  3. DeHoff, George W.  Alleged Bible Contradictions Explained.  DeHoff Christian Bookstore, Murfreesboro, TN, © 1996, pp 54-55.  (Available at www.amazon.com.
  4. Stewart, Ted.  Apologetics II: New Discoveries that Confirm the Bible.  Sunset International Bible Institute, Lubbock, TX, © 2001, chapter 9 and 10, pp 67-84.