Few topics have the potential to stir debate as intensely as the question of biblical discrepancies. Given what is at stake, we invited Kwabena Donkor, associate director of the Biblical Research Institute in the United States, to share his perspective on biblical discrepancies and their implications.
Dr. Donkor, are there discrepancies in the Bible or not?
K.D.: It depends on what we mean by “discrepancies.” I understand a discrepancy as an idea or statement that, on the surface, appears to be in tension with another idea in Scripture. If we define discrepancies this way, then yes, they do exist, because there are statements in the Bible that are not coherent with one another—but, I repeat, only at the surface level.
However, it is often said that since the Bible is inspired by a perfect God, it should reflect that perfection by containing no discrepancies. Can we expect this of the Bible?
K.D.: This reflects a misunderstanding of what the Bible actually is. It would take time to explain fully, but we must ask the following: yes, the Bible is inspired—so yes, it involves divine input—but what exactly is inspiration?
There are two processes through which the Bible came into being. One is revelation—through which God communicates directly to the mind of the prophet. The other is the process of illumination, which we call “communication.” In both processes, God works together with human beings, instructing them directly. And all of this serves a purpose. The Bible is not a “perfect” book in the way some esoteric texts claim to be. It is inspired with a purpose: to instruct human beings.
God is perfect, but He must communicate with imperfect beings. How does He do this? Let me offer an illustration. I have a child. When it comes to language, I am an adult with a broad vocabulary, capable of using complex grammar and syntax. Yet when it comes to communicating with my child, you might say, “You’re an adult, you know how to speak—you should be able to communicate perfectly.” And still, I do not use my full vocabulary. Instead, I speak at a level my child’s mind can understand. In the same way, because the Bible is a channel of communication between a perfect God and imperfect believers, it is not reasonable to expect it to be perfect in that sense. It is adapted to human needs.
At the same time, we must be careful about the terms we use. Even though it is adapted to human limitations and is not “perfect,” the Bible contains no errors. When I say that there are discrepancies in the Bible, I am not saying that it contains mistakes. The word “error” implies deception or falsehood.
It is true that there are imperfections—such as those some point to in the differences between the Gospels regarding the inscription placed above the cross on which Christ was crucified. Perfection might suggest that such accounts should overlap flawlessly. Yet these differing descriptions still achieve their purpose. From the standpoint of God’s intent, they are therefore perfect descriptions.
Let me offer another example. Suppose an accident has taken place nearby, and we both go to the scene to write separate reports. I can assure you that we will describe what we saw in different ways. But the fact that our reports differ does not mean the information is unreliable. When we seek to understand the Bible, we must first consider what the Bible itself says about inspiration.
Some will argue that this line of reasoning is circular. How can the Bible’s own statements about itself be trusted?
K.D.: Ultimately, this comes down to a matter of choice—whether one is a Christian or not. The Bible is the foundation of our faith. If someone tells me I must appeal to something external in order to prove the Bible’s authenticity, what guarantee do I have that such a standard is trustworthy? I may use one form of logic or another, but that would then place it as a judge above Scripture. The Bible is its own interpreter—“suis interpretis”. This is the principle of sola Scriptura. We do not allow any external authority to sit in judgment over the Bible.
When we approach Scripture, we must therefore accept its own claim: that it is trustworthy. Once that step is taken, we can move forward.
That said, beyond discrepancies related to differing accounts of details, there are other types of tensions. For example, the atheist Sam Harris has cited the Golden Rule and then pointed out that it appears inconsistent with the law in Deuteronomy 22, according to which a wife found not to be a virgin was to be stoned. How should one respond to discrepancies that go beyond numbers and into matters of substance?
K.D.: Such issues do exist in the Bible, and I cannot claim to have resolved all of them. But we should consider the broader picture. A critic who raises such questions needs to understand the phenomenon as a whole—to look at the way God guided the people of Israel, even in matters of great detail.
Let me add something else. Questions of this kind always carry a deeper implication. The underlying assumption is that if God is love, then there should be no suffering. That assumption is often left unstated. And we do not need to go only as far back as Deuteronomy 22 to encounter this difficulty. We can go all the way back to the Book of Genesis, where God sends a flood that wipes out an entire humanity. Then, in the Book of Revelation, we read that at the end of time, those who have not been faithful to the Lord will be destroyed.
In conclusion, our concept of “love” may be inadequate when measured against the broader perspective of God. If Scripture is its own interpreter, and God is love, then I must find a way to integrate events such as the Flood, the destruction of the wicked, and similar episodes into this understanding of love.
We do not have to understand everything—at least not now. This is part of the beauty of the Adventist theme of the Great Controversy. There are many things we do not fully grasp. But we hope that, at the judgment, even the wicked will come to understand and will recognise that God is just. In the end, all will acknowledge that God is just. What we cannot conclude, however, is that because an Israelite woman was unfaithful to her husband and was stoned, God is therefore not love.
Someone might reason as follows: if the Bible, because of human involvement in its writing, contains discrepancies demonstrated by the presence of seemingly contradictory verses, how can I be sure that, due to those same human limitations, it does not also contain other flaws, gaps, or incorrect information? How, then, can we define the infallibility of the Bible in light of its apparent discrepancies?
K.D.: We return, once again, to the issue of terminology. What do we mean by “defects”? We must first clarify what we are talking about. What counts as “incorrect information”? Numbers, figures, names? We theologians distinguish between essential information and details. Most of the Bible’s discrepancies concern matters of detail, and these do not affect the substance of its message.
We also distinguish between biblical genres. There are narrative, poetic, wisdom, and prophetic books. A parable, for instance, is never to be treated in the same way as a narrative text. A classic example is the parable of the poor Lazarus. If we interpret it as we would a narrative account, we may arrive at contradictory conclusions.
A parable has a purpose—it is meant to convey a message. We should not force every detail within it to carry independent meaning.
We must also take into account that ancient Hebrew writing often employed hyperbole, a tendency that persists to this day. Expression in exaggerated terms is part of the linguistic and cultural framework, and it is present in Scripture as well. God works with human beings as they are, yet does not permit the transmission of deceptive errors. Discrepancies arise at the level of form or from the characteristics of a given genre.
When these principles are taken into account, careful exegesis will demonstrate the coherence and truth of the Bible.
At the same time, truth must also be considered from the standpoint of correspondence—that is, the expectation that what is written in the Bible should align point by point with what actually happened. Here, matters can become more complex. When people judge the Bible for not conforming to this model of correspondence, the question remains: who can truly have the final word on what actually took place?
Reality is a continuous process of discovery. We do not fully understand what “facts” truly are. That is why we should be cautious when revisiting biblical data and attempting to reshape it according to what we think it ought to say.
We need to proceed carefully. There will be aspects we must accept as challenges. The Bible states that Jonah was swallowed by a great fish and remained in its belly for three days and three nights. Is this biologically possible? No. This is one of the cases often cited as contradicting established facts. We know that a human being cannot survive in a whale’s belly for three days. But do we really know that with certainty?
The reason I suspend my logical judgment and reasoning is that I must also take into account another dimension of Scripture: the involvement of God in its formation—a God who does not lie. The Bible itself claims to speak the truth. Therefore, I would hesitate before concluding that it contains falsehoods.
A nonbeliever might object to this suspension of logic and reserve the right to do the same, but within a scientific rather than a religious framework, arriving at an entirely different conclusion. In essence, the “battle” takes place at the level of these foundational beliefs from which the discussion begins.
K.D.: Yes, that is precisely how we think, and it cannot be otherwise. We always reason from within certain worldviews, and overarching narratives tend to remain internally consistent.
However, when we as Christians expect or hope that someone will abandon their perspective, we are effectively asking them to do something for which they may have no logical basis.
K.D.: I believe there is a basis. A person’s outlook on life provides a guiding philosophy. The Christian worldview offers a particular perspective on life, and everything we do as Christians is shaped by that perspective. Beyond these beliefs, however, there are also their practical consequences at the level of lifestyle. Even from this standpoint alone, it becomes evident that the Christian perspective has certain advantages.
If we limit the discussion to competing worldviews, we have no solid philosophical grounds to claim that one system is superior to another, since each is internally coherent. But when we shift our attention to lifestyle, the picture begins to change. People can then look at how we live and choose, on that basis, to become Christians themselves. This is also Peter’s counsel—to let others observe our lives and be drawn to what we have.
Let me offer an example. What philosophical reasons would someone who lives according to a secular value system have to avoid a promiscuous life, to refrain from engaging in sexual relationships with any partner they find suitable? None. Ultimately, such a framework often prioritizes the maximization of personal pleasure. Yet we can see the effects this has on society. If everyone were to live this way, what would become of society? By contrast, the Christian perspective—centered on monogamy and faithfulness to one’s partner—brings stability and strength to society. There is, therefore, something within the Christian way of thinking that serves as its own endorsement. As Christians, our strongest argument is not that we possess better doctrines, but that we embody a different way of life. As Christ Himself said, “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” He did not say, “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you can prove the accuracy of my philosophical system.”
A mind filled with theories and doctrines that fail to transform the heart is of little value. But when the Christian vision of life is truly lived out, it becomes something others desire. The same was true of ancient Israel: people came to them saying, “We want to be like you.” This is the strength of the Christian faith and lifestyle. While the truths we hold do matter, it is our way of life that proves most compelling to others.
Returning now to the issue of discrepancies, do you believe there is also a positive aspect to their presence in the Bible?
K.D.: Some might wonder what there is to appreciate about discrepancies. For me, however, they are a mark of authenticity. They show that God worked with human beings at the level they were at.
What steps should someone take when they encounter a contradiction or discrepancy in the Bible? Should they seek the help of a theologian? And what if that is not an option?
K.D.: When we come across something that appears discrepant in Scripture, we need to examine the evidence carefully. For someone without theological training, such issues often stem from the translation of the Bible. My advice would be to consult multiple versions and pay close attention to the translation you choose for study. Biblical commentaries can also be helpful, as many others may have faced—and resolved—the same questions.
For ordinary readers without theological training, does the presence of discrepancies increase the risk of losing confidence in the Bible?
K.D.: It all depends on how one understands the Bible. If it is seen as a manual that must be flawless in order to function, then difficulties will arise. We must constantly keep in mind the Bible’s purpose: to transform hearts and bring people closer to God. The discrepancies we are discussing concern details that do not affect the core message of Scripture—its power to convict and to save. On these essential matters, the Bible is clear, whether it is read by a theologian or by someone without formal training.
In the end, how should we approach discrepancies?
K.D.: We begin with the premise that Scripture is, as it claims, trustworthy. This is a foundational pillar of Christian faith. At the same time, once we accept this, we should not be naïve or ignore passages that are difficult to understand. We must hold these matters in a creative tension: to trust that the Bible is truthful, while also seeking to resolve what may appear otherwise through prayer, study, and comparison with the insights of others. If, even then, understanding remains elusive, we can set such discrepancies aside for the time being and return to them later. The essential point to remember is that these issues concern details, not the central purpose of Scripture—the presentation of salvation.