30 Obvious Biblical Contradictions

Context is key here:

Exodus 33:17-23 tells us that God would not let Moses see him face to face or he would die.  So, the phrase "face to face" wasn't talking about physically but relationally.

John 1:14, 4:23-24.

1 John 4:14-16

1 Timothy 1:15-17

​

Genesis 1:2 says that the Spirit of God moved over the waters.  There are many other verses in Hebrew Scriptures that talk about the Spirit, including Psalm 33:6; Isaiah 40:13-14, 48:16.  A very interesting example of explaining who God is in Isaiah 9:6-7 also expresses him as the Everlasting Father and the son at the same time.

​

Other verses that would be important to answer this question is 1 Timothy 3:16; Romans 8:3; Isaiah 45:15-17, 49:6-26.

Context is key here:

With Ephesians 2:8-9 verse10 explains that there is a role of works in a follower of Jesus' life; it is not for salvation but because of it.

​

Proverbs 24:11 explains that this verse is about people who need to be warned about death being imminent.  Verse 12 says that asks if every person will be judged according to his works?

​

Matthew 16:24-26 explain that the believer in Christ has to deny himself and lose his life to become a follower of Christ so works cannot be in either of those.  Verse 27 itself never uses the word salvation or one of its derivatives.  It does give us a time, when the Son of man comes with his angels.  Later on Matthew addresses this time when the world would be judged; the whole book of Revelation discusses this time.  There we find that this judgment on those who reject Christ is about works because they rejected the one work of Christ that would free them from this.  For those who are true followers of Christ their works are judged to show praise and glory, not for salvation but because of it.

Romans 3:22-23 explains that every person is a sinner and there is nothing than can save them except the righteousness of Jesus Christ by faith to those that believe.

​

Galatians was a whole book written to explain how works was a part of a believer's life after faith saved them.  In chapter 5:4-6 we see that if we are justified by working to keep the law we fall from grace.  It continues that faith "works" or is energized, operates, and displayed by love.

 James 2:5 says that we are rich in faith because of a promise that was given by God for those who love him.  Faith and love must go hand-in-hand which is what is being said in verse 17.  If love is not displayed the faith is not real.  

Context is key here:

Psalm 91 is written from the specific point of view of King David.  It is includes a prophecy, which we find out that even Satan knew in Matthew 4:6.  This passage does not apply to all who worship God though there are some similar verses in the New Testament, like 2 Thessalonians 3:3; James 4:7.

​

A proverb by definition does not address every situation but is a common or generalized truth.  In the first line of Proverbs 12:21 we see that, "no evil shall happen to the just."  In English it looks like this is an outside force working against the just.  Yet, when we look back into the Hebrew language we have a word, "aven," that properly means to pant (hence, to exert oneself, usually in vain) according to the Strong's Concordance.  In the Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon we see a similar list of definitions starting with emptiness, vanity, falsehood, wickedness, misfortune, adverse circumstances, calamity.  Since I do not know the Hebrew language, I cannot say that the word was translated wrong, but that the modern English language doesn't seem to encapsulate the full breadth of the definition in this use of "evil."  Since the second line of the verse talks about the internal workings of the wicked, I would have to ask why this isn't a similar case in the first line and therefore a contrast? 

Yet, if the first line of Proverbs 12:21 does speak on outside "evil" acting on the just I would ask if there are any other Scriptures that particularly address this issue.   Its not hard to see this same concept searched out in the book of Job when his friends come to him, expressing that he must have sinned to have all those "bad" things happen to him.  The book is lengthy, philosophical, poetical, and full of questions, yet it shows that God's knowledge and wisdom may use suffering to help us learn and ultimately reveal himself in a way that wasn't known before.

​

Jesus told his disciples that those who followed him would suffer because he did (John 16:33).  Second Corinthians 1:3-11 explains an aspect of suffering being so that we will have the compassion to comfort and care for others who are also suffering.  Romans 8:25-35 tells us that God would use these "bad" things, times of suffering to help his followers become more like Christ.  ​

Ancient Hebrew is not English:

In Exodus 20:5 we find the Hebrew word "paqad" which is a primitive root that can be translated a few different ways.  In the KJV it is translated "visit."  In this context it can very well mean to pay attention to; observe.  This same word is used in Exodus 3:16, 4:31, and 13:19 when God viewed what was going on to Israel while they were in bondage to Egypt.  So, I ask with the flexibility of the word, why does God have to be punishing later generations for ancestors' sins?  Why cannot he be observing how children often commit the same sins as their parents and grandparents?  Couldn't a command like this function as a warning?

​

The Deuteronomy 23 passage points out the sins of the Ammonites and the Moabites.  (Both of these groups of people were ancestors of Lot, Abraham's nephew, and given special blessings though much different than the Israelites.)   We see after the Exodus that the Ammonites and the Moabites became express enemies of Israel in the book of Judges.   Yet, we have a very important example of how great mercy was shown to Ruth the Moabite in the book that bears her name, and even Matthew 1:5 points her out as being important in the lineage of Jesus' stepdad, Joseph.

​

Another thing that we have to carefully consider is that Israel is under a special covenant to bring the Messiah into the world so when the covenant was broken by Israel there was different weight applied to sins. We see this displayed when Jeremiah reminds the Israelites under captivity that they would stay under Babylonian rule for 70 years because of the way the covenant was broken so many times in their history (Jer. 29:10 & 2 Chron. 36:20-21)

Writing Style:

In chapter six we have an introduction to the following chapters about what will occur and why.  Chapter seven doesn't dismiss the two of every kind but adds to it.  The question that needs to be asked is why.  One of the reasons is apparent right away, God had a distinction between clean and unclean animals.  He is the one who sent them; Noah only brought them into the ark.  This character trait is very important because chapter 8 tells us that after the flood Noah sacrifices some of the clean animals to the LORD.  Sacrifice is an important element in Genesis introduced in chapter three, though a possible allusion could be considered in 2:21.

Context and language is key:

2 Samuel 6:23 is specifically talking about Michal's relationship with King David not producing offspring.  We know from earlier in the book she had another husband, but no mention of children is given.  The man mentioned in 2 Samuel 21:8 was not her husband, it was her sister's husband as is explained in 1 Samuel 18:19.  So, is the Bible not historically accurate?  Or maybe it's not explaining what we think because the word used for Michal's five sons is "yalad" which is a primitive root that may mean more than one thing.  It is translated as midwife in Genesis 35:17 and in Exodus 1.  So, we must ask ourselves, is it possible that Michal was at the birth of her sister's sons?  Even more so, could there have been a reason why they would be considered her sons?  Naomi in the book of Ruth claims Obed as her son (4:17) though she is biologically not related, and relationally would be considered her grandson.

Context & Language:

In Psalm 37 we see a few verses that don't give any details of exact time or how, but it does say that the "wicked are cut off (vs. 34).  It says "the transgressors shall be destroyed together: the end of the wicked shall be cut off (vs. 38)."  Also, it says that the righteous will have an inheritance and will live in the land forever (vss. 18, 29).  Clearly there is something going on here that doesn't make sense in our current state of being as all humans die, no matter how bad or how good.  Could it be prophetic/related to what many other Bible passages talk about as the end of the world (Isa. 66; Dan. 12)?

​

Psalm 104:5 specifically talks about the endurance of the "foundations of the earth," not the whole earth as it exists now.  

Ecclesiastes 1:4 is using a comparison between the length of the time that the earth has been around compared to the span of human life, specifically a generation.  This is using poetic verbiage not relating to whether the planet will ever be destroyed.

​

2 Peter 3:10-12 talks about the earth being burned up, dissolved, passing away, and melting.  We know from all the wildfires that happen, especially in the hot, dry Western Unites States, that when the forests burn it doesn't completely destroy everything.  Combustion is a complex chemical reaction, releasing energy, and forming new substance.  Yes, there are things that do dissolve and melt, some disappear forever.  Revelation 21:1 is talking about the same process, but goes even farther to say that the new earth will contain no more sea.  Earlier in the book of Revelation it talks about the way that the sea would begin to disappear... .

​

First John 2:17 isn't referring to the physical elements of the world. Verse 15 and 16 point to the "love of the world" being made up of "lust" of the flesh and eyes, plus the pride of life.  This has to do with the actual people that are rejecting God.  

Context is key:

Ecclesiastes is written with the view of "under the sun" or "under heaven."  This is expressed in almost every chapter showing that the context is earthly.  Verse 10 of chapter nine is surrounded by this/these phrases in verses 3, 6, 11, and 13, so it's not addressing any type of judgment in the afterlife.  The list includes work, device, knowledge, and wisdom, which are can bw both bad and good.

​

Romans 6:7 taken out of context as it's talking about baptism, which is a picture of Jesus Christ's death, burial, and resurrection.  It continues with how the believer should yield his life to Christ rather than to sin (vss. 8-13).

​

Even within the verses that are grouped within the "yes" we find that context does not say that all the dead will be "tortured."  Sometimes this idea of torture comes from a cultural construct and misunderstanding of what heaven actually is.  It is the place where God resides, not a place of harps and clouds.  God will not force people who reject him on earth to deal with him in heaven.  His characteristics of beauty, goodness, and peace are a part of heaven because it is a part of him.  So, hell is a place of separation without any of those things.  Thus, it is filled with bad and evil.  God made hell for the devil and his angels (Matt. 25:41) and does not desire any human to go there (Matt. 18:14; 2 Peter 3:9).

Context:

I cannot say that this question didn't give me pause for a couple of reasons.  Jesus Christ is considered the Passover Sacrifice given to take away the sins of all mankind, which is what the whole of the New Testament and even parts of the Hebrew Scriptures, especially Isaiah 53, are focused upon.  

​

In Genesis 22:12-14 we see that God provided a sacrifice for Abraham instead of his son Isaac and was intending to test him.  I do believe this "test" was a foretelling, a picture of Christ.

​

Exodus 13:12-15 tells us that God required the firstborn children of Israel to be sanctified (13:1-2), not sacrificed as a memorial of what occurred in Egypt.  The animals would be sacrificed, but as a man he bore the image of God, so a redemption was provided.

​​

Leviticus 27:28-29 is where I've wondered if Jephthah's vow (Judges 11) would be placed.  His vow was rash and I'm sure he didn't think of it including his daughter, but he says that he cannot go back on it which fits this Levitical passage.  Still, we know that in the 10 commandments given on Sinai murder isn't condoned at all, so I am wary of this passage's meaning.... I have read that it is dealing with a capital offender being sentenced by kings and/or judges, and not referring to a spiritual vow.  I like that idea better, but don't know enough about the Hebrew language to determine this.

​

Numbers 31 tells of the battle plan to avenge the LORD of Midian because those foreigners were leading Israel to sin against God.  Israel was not supposed to take captives.  Moses and the elders of Israel were wroth when the army did so.  So, dividing the people they didn't kill into portions is confusing (vss. 40-47). I don't think this is a clear yes for humans being sacrificed as much as this a way both to pass the judgment and to show mercy. 

Historical context:

Ancient Egyptian sources, like the Amenemope Cubit Artifact, show that there were two types of cubits in use, the "royal/black" and the "great" system.  Israel had lived within Egypt for 100s of years and were still influenced by them after they moved to the Promised Land.  Would it be such a far reach to say that Israel used the same, if not a similar way to measure?  

For two of the verses given the context of the verse is key to understanding the supposed contradictions.  The Judges verse is not referring to God, but to the tribe of Judah, as is made sure by the former verses, 17-18.  It says that Judah went with Simeon and took a coast.  The LORD was mentioned being with Judah because the promise given to Caleb needed to be kept (verse 20).

Matthew 19:26 is strictly talking about the salvation of humans.  No single human has the ability to save themselves as Romans 3:23 explains the cost of sin and 6:23 explains the gift of God.  Romans 10:9-11 explains that salvation comes from belief in the work of Christ; he will not force people to be saved.

Context:

Genesis 17:15-16, 20:11-12 identifies that Abraham and Sarah were half-siblings.  They are not the first family members to have entered a marriage relationship, if you understand the implications of a literal account for Adam and Eve's children and grandchildren.  There was never a command that they were transgressing by committing "incest."  In fact, they were following the command to "be fruitful, and multiply (1:28)."  Genesis 1-2 tell us that when God made the original command when there was no sin in the earth, in fact, all that he made was "very good (1:31)."  

We see that Genesis 3 brings the first sin.  Later in Genesis 6 we see that the earth was so full of wickedness that it brought on a world-wide flood.  Still, we hear nothing about a command of incest, when it could very well have happened between siblings and cousins since the earth is back down to a family of eight.

Then we have the account of the tower of Babel in Genesis 11.  Again, God judged the people for their actions.  He changed their languages and scattered them throughout the world.  Still, no command about incest.

Many more years pass and then this command against incest is introduced.  What has changed?  The amount of sin has not stayed the same but increased.  This sin clearly affects/ed all aspects of life, the mental, emotional, and physical.  There are plenty of accounts in the rest of the Bible that talk of this (Romans 8).  In today's world there have been many medical studies where incest has proven to cause damage to the child born between family members too closely related.  This was a well-known problem within the royalty of Egypt and Europe....

Language & Viewpoints:

The Hebrew word "bo" which is translated "came" in both passages does not identify specifics.  It doesn't give us details about how they were to burn the temple and king's house.  The temple especially had a lot of wood pieces that were covered over with precious metals, so it wasn't going to burn as easily as a mostly wooden house.  Why wouldn't they need to make plans for how and when to remove all the precious metal for themselves?  Maybe the one account included the preparation time (the 7th day), and maybe the other started counting when the fire was actually introduced (10th)?

Immediately after John 6:44, in verse 45 we have the declaration that "all" will be taught of God.  Then in verse 47 it says that the person who believes has everlasting life.  So, verse 44 isn't referring to predestination, but that work that the Father does is to make sure people know who Jesus is before we can believe.

​

Romans 9:9-24 specifically deals with the covenant God made with Abraham so that Israel would fulfill the special task of bringing the Messiah into the world.  He would use other nations to carry out his will, like Nebuchadnezzar to punish Judah and then Cyrus to open the doors of restoration.  This is not referring to single believers or non-believers.  We know this because earlier in Romans 1:16 it says that salvation comes to everyone that believes.  After this 10:13 says that whosoever calls upon Christ's name shall be saved.  

Context again is key to understanding that Ecclesiastes is specifically dealing with life "under the sun" or "under the heaven", which is mentioned more than 10 times in the first two chapters.  Its purpose is NOT to discuss what comes after death, but what purpose is our lives upon this earth.

​

This section of Job doesn't show us what his views are about the afterlife.  Verse 7 and 16 of the same chapter actually mirrors what Ecclesiastes says more than 10 times about the vanity that is a part of life on earth.  And if that isn't enough 19:26 actually says, "And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:  Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me."  Sound like a resurrection to you?

There are numerous verses throughout the Bible including in the more famous 10 Commandments that say lying or bearing false witness i wrong.  The same thing is often spoken of from a positive perspective, like in Proverbs 23:23, saying to, "Buy the truth and sell it not..."  Jesus himself said that the truth would set us free in John 8:32.

​

1 Kings 22:23 is referring to a lying spirit.  This is a spiritual being, some might say a fallen angel, who has already chosen to be evil.  It would take a LOT MORE studying to explain how the LORD has authority over evil beings though they reject him as Ruler and King.   This is NOT saying that God encourages lying.  In 2 Thess. 2:11 we see that God sends a strong delusion, but it is in alignment with what the people already wanted as verse 10 says, "they received not the love of truth" and 12 says they will be damned for not believing the truth.  Also, it would be a good thing to look into the spiritual being(s) at work in this as Satan is mentioned in verse 9.  It's a lot more complex than if it's ok to tell a simple lie, white or otherwise. 

One of the most well-known parables that Jesus told was of the good Samaritan (Luke 10) who helped his enemy.  Jesus clearly taught more than once that we should love our neighbors and our enemies (Matthew 5:44; Luke 6:27, 35).  That fits with the Proverbs passage above.  So, what about this Psalm passage?   It isn't referring to a man's rejoicing, but that of God.  This is a prophecy that parallels Revelation 14:19-20, at the end of time.  Yet, God, as the ruler of the universe and perfect in justice has the power to do this before then as occurred in Ezekiel 28:20-23.  

There are two examples in the Old Testament of men who have not died, Enoch (Gen. 5:23-24) and Elijah (2 Kings 2:11-12).  So, what causes the rest of us to die?  Romans 6:23 says that sin causes it.  Yet, it gives us the solution as well, the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus.  This is what the John verse mentioned above is talking about, not a physical death.  Earlier in John 3 we see verses 15-16 and 36 talk of eternal or everlasting life.  Even before then verse 3 says that if we want to see God, we have to be born again.  This is a spiritual birth.  There is a physical and a spiritual death, which is what Romans 5 talks about.  This more spiritually focused death is called a second death, which is mentioned four times in the book of Revelations (2:11, 20:6, 14, 21:8).

There is nothing distinctly in these two verses that contradict each other.  The problem some people have is with the mention of Cyrenius/Quirinius, governor of Syria, because the only dated evidence we have of him being in office is after Herod's death.  There are many people who try to "fix" this by saying that maybe Josephus recorded the wrong date as we know is very possible because he wrote with biases and consistencies to please himself or Roman patrons.  Yet, it is possible that he actually ruled twice as a tombstone in Tivoli shows occurred with an unknown ruler; maybe the use of "the taxing was first made (2:2)" points to this.  Looking into the Greek language the word used for our English governor is "hegemoneuo," which actually means he was acting with authority in some capacity, but did not have to mean he had to be a governor.  The word itself has origins related to politics, economic, and military exertions.

Language-

It is evident from reading both Matthew 1 and Luke 3 that the genealogies are more different than just the paternal grandfather.  Luke's words in parenthesis tip us off to why, "being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph."  This is translated from the Greek words, "hos nomizo," which means to hold by custom or usage; to deem, think, or suppose.  Since Mary was a virgin and conceived Jesus by the Holy Ghost, Luke's passage seems more likely to be tracing her lineage.

This is the one set of supposed contradictions that I would almost agree with people about.  Still, we have a context and the context is specifically the 12 disciples, not Christians in general.  Mark was the first gospel written and so I look there to see a positive possibility of carrying a staff, but also to be shod with sandals (vs. 9).  This passage also gives us a detail that the other two passages don't, verse seven says that they were sent forth by two and two.  

​

Matthew 10:9 provides us with the word, "Provide," which means to get or acquire.  Some people say the problem is solved with this, that the one passage is referring to what they already had and the other to what they would want to acquire.  While it sounds like something that I would want to agree with, I think that the passage in Luke causes a problem as the verse does not include this word, though agrees with the negative outlook.  Another thing to consider that may have some bearing on this issue is that Matthew includes a lot more discourse than the other two books.

​

The Luke passage as already pointed out is similar to Mark in the length of the command, but opposite in outlook regarding the staves/staff and sandals.  Some say that the original meaning for the Greek word for staves/staff is flexible enough to have other meanings so there should be no direct contradiction.  While I would agree this is possible, I think that the biggest answer to our question relates back to the detail given in Matthew.

​

If the disciples were sent out by two and two, we are able to consider another possibility.  Jesus could have given a general overview of the mission to all of the disciples at once before changing, adding or subtracting things to each team.  Why would he do such a thing?  The terrain could have been different as they were commissioned to go to all the cities of Israel.  The ages of the disciples were probably different so some might have needed a little extra attention to their health (feet and strength).  It could even be that Jesus was thinking about who he was actually reaching, some might not receive a person without any shoes... .

In Matthew 10 Jesus is speaking of the sword as a picture of the Word of God wielded by the Holy Spirit (Hebrews 4:12; Ephesians 6:17). 

​

The Matthew 26 and Luke 22 events are both at the end of Jesus' life and they both are dealing with the apostles specifically and have different purposes.  The Matthew passage was a warning that fighting with a sword wasn't necessary to save him, if that was what he wanted.  The Luke passage was preparing them for the ministry that was to come as Jesus referred back to what they had already participated in (verse 35).  In context neither verses specifically place a constraint on Christians in general.

These two verses are in the same sermon and are not referring to exactly the same thing so there is no contradiction.  Matthew 6:1 uses a special word here, "eleemosyne," which means "alms, charity, a benefaction, donation to the poor."  This is specifically giving money to help others; it's not about the person who gives it as verses 2-4 explain, but about truly caring for them.  This shows up earlier in the message, often called the Beatitudes (5:3-12). 

​

Matthew 5:16 is coupled with another metaphor that follows these "Beatitudes."  The very first four of these show some character traits that most people don't want anything to do with, to be "poor in spirit," to "mourn," to be "meek," and to be "hungering and thirsting after righteousness."  If we skip a few, we also find ones that say the people who are "persecuted," and "reviled..." for Christ's sake are blessed.  They are followed with an encouraging word to rejoice for their reward is in heaven, not in people's praise.

​

So, when we see that the good works are done before others, like a candle, it's not for our praise, but to break the darkness and point to Jesus and the Father.  The three beatitudes we skipped over say the "merciful" shall receive mercy, the "pure in heart" will see God, and the "peacemakers" are called the children of God.  Heaven is all about God!  He showed us great mercy and so we should want to share him with others, be his candle!

This one question has major ramifications for Christendom, for Jews, and really the whole world.  There is archaeology supporting that the earliest of churches believed Jesus was God (see the Megiddo mosaic).  The biggest problem I hear is that Jesus never specifically says, "I am God."  Yet, he does use the name, "I am," as given to Moses before the Exodus (3:14) in John 8:58 when he refers to himself as being older than Abraham.  Some scholars say that there are seven "I am" statement in the Gospels to back up this claim.  I am not writing to look into those, but it may be something to reaally consider.

​

The "yes" and "no" list provided above both use the book of John, two of these instances being very close together (1:1 and 1:18).  The first thought is that verse 18 doesn't literally say Jesus isn't God but must base it on assumption that Jesus is only and can only be a man.  To do such would require that it has to count out what verse 14 says about the Word taking on flesh, bearing the glory of the Father.  It's not totally clear as to why 14:28 is included, though I'm thinking possible the word, "greater."  I'll leave it for now.

​

The Hebrews' passages also do not intrinsically have anything that say that Jesus cannot be God.  The introduction of the book sets the tone for who Jesus is and how he can be both the priest and the sacrifice that is mentioned in chapters seven and nine.  In 1:2-3 it says, "Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;"  Compare what Isaiah 44:24 says, "Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;"

In Hebrews 8:1 we have a bold statement from God the Father saying, "But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever:  a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of thy kingdom."  Compare what 43:10-11 say, "Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.  I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God."

​

The 1 Corinthians passage from above would have problems in context if it proved Jesus wasn't God because verse 47 says when comparing Adam and Jesus that, "The first man is of the earth, earthy:  the second man is the Lord from heaven."  This comparison between the physical and the spiritual go on for several verses.  Other 1 Corinthians passages to consider are 8:6 where it says, "But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."  Again we can look at what Isaiah says about this matter or creation.  Then in 1 Corinthians 10:4 & 7-9 we have Jesus Christ being the Rock in the wilderness with Israel during the Exodus.  He provided spiritual drink, but then they "tempted" him with their idolatry and fornication. 

Luke 23:6-14 records that Jesus was taken to see King Herod after first being brought before Pilate.  Then after Herod's soldiers mock him, Jesus is taken back to Pilate.  As John did not record Herod's trial it could very well have been that Jesus spoke with Pilate in one of the encounters and not the other.  There isn't a contradiction, just different perspectives, so different details are included or left out.

There have been many articles, chapters of books about the timing of the Passion Week.  One of the most common problems I've seen is that the Western, modern mindset doesn't view the evening and morning schedule that God introduces in Genesis to the rest of Jewish history.  Of course, it is very evident that the Jews didn't and don't always keep the Torah as written.  So, we have to look both at the Scripture and what resources we have from that time period.  

​

Biblical scholar Dr. Harold W. Hoehner describes this problem in his book Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ as being “a puzzling problem that has set many pens in motion.”  There are a couple of Jewish sources, Zeitlin and Vaux, who measure the day as sunrise to sunrise.  There are also a number of biblical references where the day is listed before the night.

​

As far as Passover, specifically, in Mishna Pesachim 4 & 5 it says that in Judea “people would perform labor on Passover eves until midday”  (sunset to sunset).  In Galilee “people would not perform labor on Passover eve at all.”  (sunrise to sunrise).  Another thing to consider is the "Laws of Yom Tov," which were introduced because the Jewish month is based on lunar cycle, 29.5 days, some months have 30 days and some 29.  In ancient days the Mitzva testimony came to testify about seeing the new moon after the lunar conjunction, a new month was sanctified, and messengers sent to all parts of Eretz Yisrael.  The Diaspora communities often wouldn’t receive messengers before the holidays.  On account of this uncertainty of dates the Diaspora were commanded to keep each holiday for two days.  As Jesus came from Galilee of the nations (Isaiah 9:1) he could have taken advantage of this Law to celebrate Passover one day earlier.  Matthew (the disciple) was from Capernaum which was a part of Galilee.  He could very well have written from the perspective of the Diaspora celebrating Yom Tov when John wrote from that of Jerusalem.

It is a very natural thing for two witnesses of the same events to have differing perspectives of what occurred.  As is stated Mark mentioned the third hour.  Both Matthew and Luke mention that darkness was upon the face of the earth while Jesus was already on the cross from the 6th to the 9th hour.  John 19 says it was "about" the 6th hour which according to the Greek does not indicate a specific time, but anywhere near it.  Since people did not have watches/clocks at the time, they would have needed to at the location of the sun.  Buildings and other things blocking the viewpoint of the sky could possibly distort someone's view of time.   Some may express that there were sundials and even the case that there could have been priests blowing trumpets to indicate certain times.  While this is true to one degree or another the level of noise from an already crowded Jerusalem and an angry mob calling for Jesus' death may have distorted the understanding.  This does not make the Bible have errors, but gives it authenticity; some people just aren't as concerned with the timing of events as others.  

For this supposed contradiction a person should look back into the Greek.  Mark 16:1-2 uses the words, "lian proi," which respectively mean "much, greatly, very chief, exceeding" and "at dawn, at daybreak, in the morning, early."  None of this indicates that the sun had already arose.  So, we see a little later in the verse the Greek word, "anatello," which means to "rise or cause to rise".  The English versions do not agree on the exact wording to be used in this verse, some say "at the rising/at sunrise (KJV, CSB, NET, YLT, WEB)" and others "when the sun had risen (ESV, NASB, AMP, RSV."  From this verse alone I would be inclined to say either is possible. 

​

Yet, John 20:1 was given as the contradiction.  So, it also uses the Greek word "proi."  Yet, it goes on to say "eti skotia," which respectively means "yet, more, still, further, longer" and "darkness, dark."  So, it seems to me that this verse would indicate that the above verse takes the side of the English versions that say "at the rising/at sunrise."  Daybreak can still be dark for a good amount of western landscape, though it's possible to see sun rays invade the eastern sky.  

These two verse don't contradict each other as Acts 1:18 does not say that Judas jumped or was jumping in any English version.  They use falling/fell headlong, falling/fell headfirst.  The next question becomes, can someone both hang himself and fall in the same suicide event?  A few major factors need to be taken into consideration:   1) what rope, clothes or other item was used to do the hanging?  2) On what tree, rock, or other item was the hanging done from?  3) Could the person have already been near the point of death before the fall which made sure there was no way to recover?  Does this last factor make much difference?

Obviously, Mark 16:8 tells us that the women left quickly out of amazement and told no one out of fear.  It doesn't say how long this fear lasted or what they did until then. 

Luke 24:9 tells us that the women returned to tell the "eleven," but it doesn't say how quickly it happened.  Verse five does line up with Mark because it records their fear.  

​

Matthew 28:8 tells us that the women departed quickly with fear, again, but also great joy.  On their way back Jesus met them.  They worshipped him, but he addressed their fear (9-10).  

​

It appears that a timeline of events can be used by placing Mark 16:8 first, then Matthew 28:8 including verse 9-10, and finally Luke 24:9.  They don't share all the same details, but the fear that each writer records lets us know that there were more than just material facts going on here.