Contradictions in Modern Versions

As Christians, we believe the Bible is the inerrant and infallible Word of God. Therefore, when a "contradiction" arises, we can, through careful study, see that no true contradiction exists within this divinely inspired Book.

If someone intentionally messed with the Bible, you would expect this congruity to be ruined, and this is exactly what we see. These modern translations of God's Word not only come from a corrupted source, but the way they've translated God's Word also causes contradiction.

As we look into this topic, it is important to define the two types of contradictions we see: textual contradictions and translational contradictions. Textual contradictions are those caused by the text underlying a particular translation whereas a translational contradiction is one which stems from a poor translation of a particular passage. We will take a look at both of these in this article.

Textual Contradictions:

As we begin, we will take a look at the Gospel according to St. Matthew. In Matthew 5:22 in the King James Bible, it says:

"But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment..." (KJV, emphasis mine)

The Greek underlying the phrase "without a cause" is εἰκῆ (eike). In the modern critical text, that word is not found. Thus, modern translations read this way:

"But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment..." (NIV)

"But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment..." (ESV)

"But I say, if you are even angry with someone, you are subject to judgment..." (NLT)

These are just a few examples, but we see here that these modern translations say not to even be angry. Yet in  Ephesians 4:26, this is what we read:

"“In your anger do not sin”: Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry," (NIV)

"Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger," (ESV)

"And “don’t sin by letting anger control you.” Don’t let the sun go down while you are still angry," (NLT)

So, is it wrong to be angry or not? The King James Bible has no issues as Jesus only says to not be angry without a cause, thus anger itself is not a sin. But these modern translations don't say that! The NIV itself takes it a step further by saying Jesus was angry in Mark 1:41.

"Jesus was indignant. He reached out his hand and touched the man. “I am willing,” he said. “Be clean!”" (NIV, emphasis mine)

If Jesus was indignant (which is another textual variant), but He said not to be angry, then Jesus is sinning, adding more contradiction into the Bible.

"God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." (2 Corinthians 5:21 NIV)

Moving on, we see another contradiction in Acts 25:6. In the King James Bible it reads:

"And when he had tarried among them more than ten days, he went down unto Caesarea; and the next day sitting on the judgment seat commanded Paul to be brought." (KJV)

The Greek phrase found in the Textus Receptus is "ἡμέρας πλείους ἢ δέκα" and translates to "more than ten days." However, in the critical text it reads "ἡμέρας οὐ πλείους ὀκτὼ ἢ δέκα," which translates to "not more than eight to ten days." The latter is contradictory. If it was not more than eight days, then how could it also be no more than ten days? Because eight days is the max, it cannot be "no more than" ten days.

When you mess with the text of the Bible, you are bound to cause problems.

Translational Contradictions:

When it comes to translational contradictions, many will appeal to the underlying texts. Obviously, this makes sense, however, if God were to give a perfect English Bible, it would have no contradictions in translation either.

Firstly, let's look at Genesis 12:7.

"And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the LORD, who appeared unto him." (KJV, emphasis mine)

"Then the LORD appeared to Abram and said, “To your descendants I will give this land.” And there he built an altar to the LORD, who had appeared to him." (NKJV, emphasis mine)

"Then the LORD appeared to Abram, and said, "To your descendants I will give this land." So he built there an altar to the LORD, who had appeared to him." (RSV, emphasis mine) 

You'll see I underlined "seed," "descendants," and "descendants." You should also notice that "seed" is singular, and "descendants" is plural. Now, let's look forward to the Epistle to the Galatians:

"Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ." (Galatians 3:16 KJV, emphasis mine)

"Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,” who is Christ." (Galatians 3:16 NKJV, emphasis mine)

"Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, "And to offsprings," referring to many; but, referring to one, "And to your offspring," which is Christ." (Galatians 3:16 RSV, emphasis mine)

The Apostle Paul quotes the Scripture in singular however the NKJV and RSV have Paul misquoting the passage as they put it in the plural. If the Old Testament passage is plural but Paul in the New Testament quotes it as singular, it is a contradiction.

 

Secondly, if we look over to Hebrews 3:16, it says:

"For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses." (KJV)

"Who were they who heard and rebelled? Were they not all those Moses led out of Egypt?" (NKJV)

"Who were they who heard and rebelled? Were they not all those Moses led out of Egypt?" (NIV) 

"For who were those who heard and yet rebelled? Was it not all those who left Egypt led by Moses?" (ESV)

"For who heard and rebelled? Wasn’t it all who came out of Egypt under Moses?" (CSB)

"For who provoked Him when they had heard? Indeed, did not all those who came out of Egypt led by Moses?" (NASB)

In the King James Bible it says that not all provoked that were led out of Egypt. However, modern translations say that all of them did. Is this important? Well, yes, it is. If we look to the Book of Numbers:

"For the LORD had said of them, They shall surely die in the wilderness. And there was not left a man of them, save Caleb the son of Jephunneh, and Joshua the son of Nun." (Numbers 26:65 KJV)

"Save Caleb the son of Jephunneh the Kenezite, and Joshua the son of Nun: for they have wholly followed the LORD." (Numbers 32:12 KJV) 

Joshua and Caleb did not provoke/rebel for they "wholly followed the LORD." However, these modern translations introduce a contradiction into the Bible by saying all rebelled when clearly not all did.

Speaking of Joshua, let's look at Joshua 19:2.

"[1] ¶ And the second lot came forth to Simeon, even for the tribe of the children of Simeon according to their families: and their inheritance was within the inheritance of the children of Judah. [2] And they had in their inheritance Beersheba, or Sheba, and Moladah, [3] And Hazarshual, and Balah, and Azem, [4] And Eltolad, and Bethul, and Hormah, [5] And Ziklag, and Bethmarcaboth, and Hazarsusah, [6] And Bethlebaoth, and Sharuhen; thirteen cities and their villages:" (Joshua 19:1-6 KJV)

In verse 2, it says "or Sheba," meaning "Beersheba, also called Sheba." We see support for this in Genesis 26:33:

"And he called it Shebah: therefore the name of the city is Beersheba unto this day." (KJV)

Now, let's look at what some of these modern translations say in Joshua 19:2.

"And they had for their inheritance Beersheba, Sheba, Moladah," (ESV)

"And it had for its inheritance Beer-sheba, Sheba, Mola'dah," (RSV)

"Simeon’s homeland included Beersheba, Sheba, Moladah," (NLT)

"and they have in their inheritance Beer-Sheba, and Sheba, and Moladah," (YLT)

They all list Sheba as a separate place. Why is this important? Well, let's count the cities.

1. Beersheba
2. Sheba
3. Moladah
4. Hazarshual
5. Balah
6. Azem
7. Eltolad
8. Bethul
9. Hormah
10. Ziklag
11. Bethmarcaboth
12. Hazarsusah
13. Bethlebaoth
14. Sharuhen

It says "thirteen cities" (Joshua 19:6) but lists fourteen! If you don't have Beersheba and Sheba listed as the same place, you have fourteen cities rather than thirteen, thus causing a contradiction.

One thing to note is that certain Oxford King James Bible editions say "and Sheba" rather than the standard Cambridge "or Sheba" reading. The Hebrew is וְשֶׁבַע (ve-sheva) and while the וְ can mean "and," it can (in some rarer instances) be translated as "or"—which the King James Bible does in this verse.