The "Brother" Ryan Hicks' Answers to the Contradictions Found in the Bible

It has recently been brought to my attention that someone thought so much of my list of contradictions that he set out to refute them one by one. He never notified me of this - possibly because he wanted to make sure that the completely ridiculous nature of his answers would remain unexposed. Well, one of the people that he has fooled tipped me off, and here we are to expose Brother Hicks for poor logic, backwards thinking, apologia to the utmost degree and a complete side-step from honesty and reality.

Enough said. Let's begin. My initial work is in plain text. Brother Hicks' work is in BOLD RED. My new work is in BOLD BLUE

Contradictions on God

The following 6 contradictions are verses that discuss the qualities of God.

1. How many Gods?

There is none other God but one.
- I Corinthians 8:4

And God said, Let us make man in our image.
- Genesis 1:26

Interpreted: In Corinthians, the author, Paul, is writing to the Church of Corinth. The issue he is discussing is sacrifice to idols and if the meat that is sacrificed can be eaten. He says in verse 4 that Idols are nothing for we have knowledge that there is only one God.

In Genesis 1, God is setting about the creation of man. Using the first person plural we see that the author viewed multiple Gods or a multiplicity to God.

[Take note that in Genesis 1:26 it DOES NOT say that there is more than one God. There is more than one Person that possesses deity, but not more than one deity! As I have explained it hundreds of times, there is only one substance that makes up human beings, and that is humanity. An animal does not have the same substance as humans, nor can it ever. There are many humans, but only one essence or substance that makes them alike. So it is with God. There is only one God (as in substance or essence), but more than one Person with that essence. There are Three to be exact (1 John 5:7).]

[As you will see later on, the arguments are almost generally straw men set up by the author and then knocked down as if they are triumphant. That is to say they make arguments about contradictions that cannot be seen by any fair reader, sinner or saint.]

It always saddens me when I see people willfully deny facts. Brother Hicks can read and certainly sees that Genesis 1:26 contains the word OUR. This indicates more than one. The only deity that can create is God. So... if God says, "Let US create..." that indicates that there are multiple gods.

Brother Hicks also willfully rejects science. Humanity is not something tangible that can be held in the hand. Humans, like all other living things on earth, are carbon-based. We share that in common with everything. Thus, Brother Hicks' statement that we do not have the same substance as animals is patently false.

I do not fault Brother Hicks for this, as it is purely a result of ignorance. Brother Hicks has apparently not had much of an education in science and as such does not understand how the real world works.

2. Who has seen God?

And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.
- Genesis 32:30

No man hath seen God at any time.
- John 1:18

Interpreted: Genesis 32 is the chapter where God changes Jacob's name to Israel. In verse 29 Jacob asks God for his name. God replies by asking where it was that Jacob was asking from. Jacob replied the above verse.

John 1:18 is pretty self explanatory. He is describing Jesus and how he declared the Lord God. He makes it clear that No man has ever seen God. I guess John was not familiar with the "Old Testament".

[This is typical. A lack of knowledge of the Bible and the English language on the reader's part causes them to see a contradiction. John was talking about Jesus declaring or explaining God. No man had ever had understood God at any time, but Jesus explained Him. The Greek word for "see" mean to see both visibly and with the mind. This is like me saying in response to your explaining something to me, "I see that now!" You are intelligent enough to know that I am talking about understanding it now, and not actually visibly viewing it.]

Unfortunately for Brother Hicks, there is no such euphemism in Greek. He really should have asked me what my understanding of Biblical languages was before he tried to tackle this one. I am almost fluent in Hebrew and I am more than familiar with Greek. His understanding is obviously not very good, though as there is no such euphemism in Greek equating see with understand. Further, there were plenty of men in the Old Testament who understood God as he supposedly gave them revelation. They are known as the prophets.

3. Who has seen God, again?

"Thou, Lord, art seen face to face."
- Numbers 14:14

"Not that any man hath seen the Father."
- John 6:46

Interpreted: Very similar to the previous contradiction, but this time we have Moses talking directly to God and Jesus speaking instead of John speaking for Jesus.

[No contradiction at all. Not any man hath seen (as in fully understood) the Father. Look at the context of this verse: "It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me. Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father" (John 6:45-46). The context is clear that Jesus was talking about fully understanding, and not visibly viewing.]

Again, Brother Hicks injects a modern English euphemism on the Bible to make this work for him. Jesus is clearly talking about physically seeing and all one needs to know to show this is the meaning of the Greek word. Here, and at 1:18, the author of the Gospel of John uses the Greek word HORAO (ho-rah-o). This word is Strong's Concordance number 3708 and is used 59 times in the New Testament. 51 times it means literally to see physically. 5 times it means to take heed or beware. 1 time it means to behold. 1 time it means to look.

As hard as Brother Hick's tries, this word just does not mean what he wants it to mean.

4. Who is punished for sins?

The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father.
- Ezekiel 18:20

... I the lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.
- Exodus 20:5

Interpreted:Here we have again two authors putting forth what they believe to be the word of God. These two so obviously contradict each other that an interpretation is almost unnecessary.

What is neccessary to point out is that both of these verses are God speaking. The first being God speaking through Ezekiel, and the second being God speaking directly to Moses.

[This proves that this person cannot find any real contradictions so they have to make up contradictions. The verse reads, "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me" (Exodus 20:5). They purposely leave out the last half of the verse because it would destroy their make-believe contradiction. This is found all throughout this list of supposed contradictions. It shows a desperate attempt to make up contradictions and also proves even more that the Bible is without contradictions. For why would the Bible's enemies, like this person, have to make up contradictions if it is full of them by itself?]

Funny. I left the last half of the verse off to save time and space. Whether you add on that God will only visit the iniquity of the fathers upon the children who dress in plaid, this god is still contradicting the verse in Ezekiel. The verse in Ezekiel states quite clearly that the son will not pay for the sins of the father. The verse in Exodus directly contradicts this. This is another case where an apologist (spit) avoids dealing with the real issue.

5. Who finds God?

Those that seek me early shall find me.
- Proverbs 8:17

Then shall they call upon me but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but shall not find me.
- Proverbs 1:28

Interpreted: The first is from Proverbs 8. It is God claiming who and what he/she is. Verse 8:17 says first, "I love them that love me".

The second verse is from an earlier Proverb and is saying that those who do not listen to God and go astray will suffer the consequences. The verse goes on to say that the later verse in Proverb 8 is incorrect.

[They think that Proverbs 8:17 is talking about God. This is simply ridiculous. Read Proverbs 8 and you will find that wisdom is personified here, and God is not being talked about. Proverbs 1:28 is the exact same thing. Wisdom is personified and is speaking, not God. There is no contradiction. In Proverbs 1:28 wisdom is talking about different people than in Proverbs 8:17. This is extremely simple.]

Whether this is God or Wisdom is totally irrelevant. In either case, this is a contradiction. It can be argued that Wisdom is from God and is therefore infinitely attached. This is another case where the Christian seeks to divert attention from the problem to focus on the lesser issue. Brother Hicks is showing himself to be a master apologist and thus, completely dishonest when it comes to objectivity. He can not separate himself from his faith long enough to see the simple truth that stands before him. I am sad for him and those like him.

6. Does God keep anger forever?

... for I am merciful, saith the Lord, and I will not keep anger forever.
- Jeremiah 3:12

Ye have kindled a fire in mine anger, which shall burn forever.
- Jeremiah 17:4

Interpreted: The first verse is in reference to the "backsliding Israel," telling them to mend their ways. It goes on to say that because the Lord is merciful, he will not keep his anger forever.

Apparently, the Lord was not so merciful with Judah for this second verse is aimed at them. They will not be given the chance to mend their ways and fly straight. Apparently, the author of this particular book was from the northern kingdom of Israel.

[Jeremiah 17:4 does not say that the Lord's anger shall burn forever, rather that the kindled fire shall burn forever. That is simple English grammar. Again, no contradiction.]

I am simply amazed. Brother Hicks knows full well that the fire is an analogy for the Lord's anger. This exact analogy is used in many other places in the Old Testament. I am only on number six and I am beginning to worry about those who read Brother Hicks' work. There are a lot of stupid people out there and a charlatan like him could swindle a lot of people.

Contradictions on Law

The following contradictions are those verses that instruct mankind how to behave and generally followed by a verse that contradicts either by a "rightewous" man acting differently or by a new instructor changing the law.

7. Is lying with your sister really bad?

Cursed is he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of his mother.
- Deuteronomy 27:22

And Abraham said... She is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.
- Genesis 20:11-12

Interpreted: The chapter of Deuteronomy 27 is Moses and the Levites giving the people the law of the Lord God. Verse 27 makes it quite clear that a man is cursed if he lie with his sister being the daughter of his father or his mother.

Genesis 20 is the telling of Abraham lying to Abimelech about Sarah being his sister and not his wife, much as he did in chapter 12 of Genesis. God came to Abimelech in a dream and told him that Sarah was actually Abraham's wife and when Abimelech confronted Abraham, he admitted that it was true. Abraham did go on to say that she was also his sister being the daughter of his father.

We know that Abraham was indeed not cursed, but one of the most beloved of God's men.

[There are numerous flaws with this logic, but first: the law of Moses was not in place for Abraham the hundreds of years BEFORE Moses he lived. Also, he married his step-sister, not full-blooded sister. This is like trying to hang someone for breaking a law before it was made.]

Poor Brother Hicks. I am now worried about his intelligence level. Let's start with the fact that Sarai was Abram's half-sister, not step-sister. And he deems himself a knowledgable man? Odd. Second, Brother Hicks and all good little Christians deem their god as eternal and never-changing. Simply because the law had not been given to humans yet would not have made it acceptable to this god. Apparently it wasn't so bad, though, as Abraham is considered one of the most righteous of men in the Old Testament.

8. Is it OK to kill?

Thou shalt not kill
- Exodus 20:13

Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side... and slay every man his brother...
- Exodus 32:27

Interpreted: Exodus 20 is the chapter with the Ten Commandments. Thou shalt not Kill is verse 13 and self explanatory.

12 chapters later the Ten Commandments have not been delivered and the people have grown restless. They make the infamous "Golden Calf", and worship it. Moses, infuriated, asks who is on God's side, and the sons of Levi respond. Moses then relates the words of God telling them to kill.

[The command to not kill is clear; the idea is that of murder. It is not that of godly war or self-defense. God set up the death penalty for sin, both physical and eternal death, and can use whoever he wants to enforce it.]

While I agree with Brother Hicks that the word is used as murder, the majority of the time that it is used is to imply simple killing. The word in Hebrew is RATSACH (raw-tsach) and it is Strong's Concordance number 07523. However, Brother Hicks' explanation does not make a whole lot of sense.Whether Brother Hicks thinks that these murders commanded by his god are justified or not is irrelevant. Murder is murder and that is what happened in Exodus 32.

9. Is revenge OK?

... thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
- Exodus 21:23-25

... resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
- Matthew 5:39

Interpreted: Exodus 21 is more giving of law. Verses 23 through 25 are the famous "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" verses. Broken down, it is basically the golden rule reversed. Do unto another exactly as they have done to you.

Matthew 5 is part of the "Sermon on the Mount". Jesus says in verse 38 and 39 say that the author of "eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth" was wrong, and that to respond in this way is not to resist evil. Boiled down, this is Jesus saying that the Law of God is incorrect and he knows better.

[These are utterly erroneous assumptions. Jesus came to fulfill the old law and bring in a new law. He was not indicating a single problem with the Old Testament (Old Contract), rather was issuing His New Testament laws. It is not common for the Bible-hating sinners to find contradiction in the issuing of the New Testament. This is clear in itself and would only make them look more ignorant than they already do for questioning the Bible. This writer does not know these bounds.]

Brother Hicks completely failed to explain this problem. He claims that it is an erroneous assumption yet does not say how this is so. This is typical Christian apologia. Brother Hicks, like many other Christians who have bought into catch-phrases, claim that Jesus came to fulfill the laws from the Old Testament, but we can be sure that they would not know where to begin in explaining this.

Brother Hicks' comment, 'It is not common for the Bible-hating sinners to find contradiction in the issuing of the New Testament' is clearly false. Not only is it common for "Bible-hating sinners" but the norm. Brother Hicks seems to be quick with the label gun, but this is only another common apologist tactic. Brother Hicks looks to make me appear to be less of an authority to his readers by claiming that I hate the Bible or am a sinner when he does not know the first thing about me. Brother Hicks conveniently ignores Jesus' command to love his fellow man, showing that he does not care as much for the teachings of Jesus as he does for his own glory. This is patently obvious with a cursory glance at his website where he will ask for your cash.

10. Did God speak of attonement?

On the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a day of attonement; it shall be a holy convocation unto you; and ye shall afflict your souls and offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord.
- Leviticus 23:27

For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offering or sacrifices.
- Jeremiah 7:22

Interpreted:Leviticus 23:27 is part of the Holiness Code. It is the law given from God to Moses. There are 614 articles given ranging from what types of textiles can be used to make clothing to the method of punishment for adulterers. 23:27 is specific instructions for the day of atonement known as Yom Kippur. We clearly see God giving instructions for a burnt sacrifice to God.

Jeremiah 7:22 is God speaking his "word" through the prophet Jeremiah. Either God forgot something, or the author of Jeremiah never read Leviticus.

[Read Jeremiah 7:22. I think any fair atheist and God-hater can see that there is absolutely no contradiction. In Jeremiah 7:22 God is talking about His not commanding concerning burnt offerings and sacrifice "IN THE DAY THAT I BROUGHT THEM OUT OF THE LAND OF EGYPT!!" He was not saying, as can been seen by reading the verse, that he never commanded burnt offerings and sacrifices.]

Brother Hicks is wrapped up in the semantics of the Bible, which he obviously reads only in English. Were Brother Hicks familiar with Biblical Hebrew (as I am) he would know that the saying "in the day" means "in the time of". Many Christian apologists would do better to learn about the time, the culture and the languages of the Bible. If they were as familiar with these things as they are with attack tactics, they would take a step towards honesty and away from the deception of even themselves.

11. Is monetary wealth good or bad?

Blessed is the man that feareth the Lord... Wealth and riches shall be in his house...
- Psalms 112:1-3

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.
- Matthew 19:24

Interpreted:The first reference is in Psalms and can not be written off as spiritual riches for the chapter goes on to say that the man shall lend his riches and guide all of his affairs with discretion. This is clearly a reference to monetary wealth.

The Matthew verse is a quotation from Jesus, himself. He is telling the wealthy to sell all that they have, for the rich can not go to heaven.

[Utterly erroneous! The obvious point of Matthew 19:24 is that rich people have a hard time getting into the kingdom of God, generally because of their love of money (1 Timothy 6:10). Jesus is not saying that the rich cannot go to heaven, rather that it is hard for them to enter the kingdom of God. He even goes on to say, "With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible" (Matthew 19:26).]

Brother Hicks did not refute this contradiction. The point was (simply) that God does not love those who love money (the verse in Matthew), yet rewards with money those who fear him (the verse in Psalms). To the logical of mind, this is a contradiction in God's character. It is clear to me why Brother Hicks does not see the contradiction.

12. Is monetary good or bad again?

"The rich man's wealth is his strong city."
- Proverbs 18:11

"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God."
- Mark 10:25

Interpreted: This is quite easy to see. The first verse saying that a man's wealth is what will keep him safe, while the second verse says that this "safe" man will not gain entrance into Heaven.

[This is the same illogic as #11. Read both verses. Mark 10:25 is clearly not stating that this "safe" man will not gain entrance into Heaven, but that it is hard for the rich to enter into the kingdom of God. Jesus' disciples thought that Jesus was saying that the rich could not possibly enter the kingdom of God, but Jesus said, "With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible" (Mark 10:26). Note: The "eye of a needle" was a gate in Jerusalem where the camels had to crawl on their knees to be low enough to pass under it. It was a difficult task to get the camels to go through the eye of the needle, but it was possible.]

Lesson time for Brother Hicks. The word for "camel" in the Aramaic manuscripts is GAMLA which can mean "camel" but can also refer to a "large rope," which is certainly the meaning here. The saying, "camel through the eye of a needle" is completely ludicrous. Brother Hicks has obviously never been to Jerusalem. I have and I can tell you that all of the gates are either completely restored or can be seen for how they were 2000 years ago. None of them were too small that a camel had to crawl, a feat that I am not sure that they are capable of. But... these are little things that are called facts that are clearly unimportant to Christians. All that IS important is defending the faith at any cost - even if the cost is truth.

13. Salvation by faith or by works?

For by grace are ye saved through faith... not of works.
- Ephesians 2:8-9

Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
- James 2:24

Interpreted: Here we have Paul vs. James. Paul is clearly saying that all that is needed for salvation is faith, and that works are not the issue for he wanted no man to boast. He makes it clear that it is a gift from God based on simple belief.

James, on the other hand, was trying to get the message across that "faith without works is dead," thus faith was not enough. To get this message across he used the example of Abraham offering his son Isaac as a sacrifice to God.

[There is no Paul vs. James here. Paul is stressing that salvation is not earned. James is stressing that if you really have saving faith you will have works proving such. If you read v.10 of Ephesians 2 you will see that Paul stresses works also. James' only point is that "faith without works is dead." (See Faith Alone?)]

Brother Hicks apparently is incapable of even the simplest of logical problems. This is a straight "If A does not equal B, then B does not equal A." Paul writes quite clearly that faith alone is enough for salvation. He mentions that works are a way of life, but says quite clearly that works are not the key - so that no man may boast. James, on the other hand, states that faith will die if works are not acted on. While this is not a direct contradiction, this is not mentioned by Paul and was probably another source for the problems between Paul and the Pillars of Jerusalem (Galatians 2) other than the Jew vs. Gentile problem.

14. Is it OK to judge?

"In righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor."
- Leviticus 19:15

"Judge not, that ye be not judged."
- Matthew 7:1

Interpreted:Leviticus 19 is part of the Holiness Code, in which God tells Moses the laws that the people shall follow. The whole verse talks about how one should not respect the poor or honor the mighty.
The second verse is self explanatory. It is Jesus talking to his followers in the now infamous "Sermon on the Mount". Quite clearly a contradiction from the previous instruction given by God.

[This is typical for the God-haters. Matthew 7:1 is quoted out of context, thus rendering it void. Read Matthew 7:1-5. Jesus is clearly talking about not judging people for things you are doing yourself (see also Romans 2:1-2). That is why Matthew 7:1 reads, "Judge not, that YE BE NOT JUDGED" and not just "Judge not." If it only said to not judge then it would be a contradiction, but it does not. Jesus even said later, "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment" (John 7:24).]

I think that it is sad that Brother Hicks continues to claim that I am a "God-hater". I do not hate his god, because to do so I would need to believe that it exists. I don't. This is basic to the problem. Brother Hicks just does not have a good understanding of who I am because he has failed to investigate. JUST like he does not have a good understanding of the Bible because he has failed to investigate. I encourage you to go through his website and read some of the off-the-wall writings that are all too typical of "check-your-brain-at-the-door" Christians. I am not saying that this is who or what Brother Hicks is, but his writings left me with this feeling.

Now, the contradiction. Brother Hicks actually points out another contradiction between Matthew 7:1 and John 7:24 and for that I thank him. Jesus says in Matthew 7:1-5 that one should not judge in any way unless you can be sure that you hold nothing that can be judged by others. Since this is not the case with any human alive then or now, Jesus is clearly saying that you should not judge at all. Brother Hicks would have gotten this had he thought the entire issue through, but he hasn't. He only gleans what he knows will help his cause and ignores the rest. This is the beginning lesson for all would-be apologists.

Contradictions on Names & Numbers

The following are contradictions where a name, number or some other type of statistic is given and then a completely different name, number or statistic is later given.

15. Did Michal have children?

Therefore Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child unto the day of her death.
- II Samuel 6:23

The five sons of Michal, the daughter of Saul.
- II Samuel 21:8

Interpreted:Here we see an author who could not follow his own story line. These two verses are obviously from the same book, and are assumed to be written by the same author. I will not interpret this at all, for the absurdity of it shall be it's own interpretation. One note of importance is that the name Merab appears in some Bibles, but it does not appear in the Masoretic texts which are used by most Jews today. And Samuel is a Jewish book, after all.

[Once again only part of a verse is quoted, thus giving the appearance of contradiction. The full verse of 2 Samuel 21:8 reads, "8 But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite." Michal did not birth these five sons, but brought them up for Adriel, and they would thus be considered her sons by her raising of them. Thus the contradiction is only found when you purposely quote a part of a verse. You could make ANYONE contradictory that way.]

I think that it is funny that Brother Hicks uses this argument here and down below claims that since Sarai only gave birth to Isaac that Abraham only had one begotten son. It clearly says that Michal had no child - meaning was childless. That would mean without sons or daughters. Why Brother Hicks does not see a contradiction here is only because he refuses to remove the log from his eye and see clearly.

16. Who commanded David to count the people of Israel?

And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel.
- II Samuel 24:1

And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.
- I Chronicles 21:1

Interpreted: Here we see a very interesting thing. This is not so much a contradiction as it is something to ponder. This is clearly the retelling of the same story. David was inspired by something to take a census of Israel and Judah. One verse here says it was God's anger and the other verse says that it was Satan. Can this possibly be the same thing?

There is no way to know who wrote these books. Whether they were written by separate people or the same person is unknown. I think a case can be made for two separate authors, though, for it would seem redundant for the same person to tell the same story twice.

[He admits this is not so much a contradiction. Good. This is simple Hebrew idiom. Just as in English one can be said to have done a thing, when really it was simply allowed by them. An example would be, "The President bombed that country today." The President was obviously not the one who actually did the bombing, rather he was the one who allowed it. Atheists trying to destroy the Bible do not normally question Hebrew idioms like this. Generally they try to avoid things that would bring their logic to question, which begs the question, " Why are you questioning the Bible then?"]

Poor Brother Hicks. He has again completely avoided the issue to state his feelings about Atheists. He has made the mistake of thinking that I am an Atheist, but this is due to ignorance (non-learned) and nothing more. I do not try to destroy the Bible for there are WAY too many Bibles in the world to do that. I am simply trying to show the simple people like Brother Hicks that this is not a book meant to be taken literally but shows the belief system of primitive men - otherwise known as mytholgy.

17. How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign?

Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign.
- 2 Kings 8:26

Fourty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign.
- 2 Chronicles 22:2

Interpreted:This is just poor reference. Nothing can explain this away, just like nothing could explain away the contradiction about the five sons of Michal. Just poor homework if it was two separate authors, or poor memory if it was just one author.

[No contradiction. 2 Kings 8:26 is referring to when Ahaziah began to reign with his father (as was extremely common for training). 2 Chronicles 22:2 is referring to when he began to reign alone. This is where it pays to study the Bible; thus you will not look like an idiot trying to assume there are contradictions.]

Again with the name-calling. Brother Hicks is either very young or just acts it. This is a clear contradiction as can be shown from a simple background check. If Brother Hicks had read 2 Kings 8, he would see that at verse 24, Ahaziah's father, Joram, died. So, Brother Hicks' saying that this is referring to when Ahaziah began to reign with his father is false. Funny that he says that this is where it pays to study the Bible - he is right and it shows that he needs to do some.

18. Just what was the population of Israel? And, how many fighting men did they have?

And Joab gave up the sum of the number of the people unto the king: and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men
- 2 Samuel 24:9

And Joab gave the sum of the number of the people unto David. And all they of Israel were a thousand thousand and an hundred thousand men that drew sword: and Judah was four hundred threescore and ten thousand men that drew sword.
- 1 Chronicles 21:5

Interpreted: There are two contradictions here!

[There are NO contradictions here. Read both verses. Where is the contradiction? 2 Samuel 24:9 is dealing with the count of the "valiant men that drew the sword," and 1 Chronicles 21:5 is just dealing with men in general "that drew sword." Read both verses again, and this truth makes itself abundantly clear.]

Ouch! Brother Hicks is apparently not long on the attention span. The verse in 2 Samuel 24 lists two numbers - the first is the number of fighting men in Israel (800,000) while the second is the number of the men (assumed to be fighting since this is reporting about a war between the two nations) from Judah (500,000). The second verse contradicts the first one twice listing the number of fighting men from Israel as a thousand thousand and an hundred thousand (1,100,000 or 300,000 more than the verse in 2 Samuel lists) and the number of fighting men from Judah as four hundred threescore and ten thousand men (470,000 or 30,000 less than the verse in 2 Samuel lists).

Brother Hicks really should pay more attention to these types of things so he does not look this bad when he is shown to be wrong. It is one thing to be wrong but to be SO wrong looks bad for one who claims to have ministries to lead others to the light.

19. How old was Jehoiachin when he began to reign? And, how long did he reign?

Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.
- II Kings 24:8

Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.
- II Chronicles 36:9

Interpreted: There's two contradictions here, too!

[See #17. Jecoiachin began reigning with his father when he was eight, but began reigning alone when he was eighteen. The full details are not given for the simple reason that it was common knowledge, as it is today, that the child destined to be king generally reigned with the king before he reigned by himself alone.]

Again, Brother Hicks makes the same mistake that he has made in contradiction #17. He has failed to research it thoroughly and looks bad when the truth is shown. 2 Chronicles 36 reveals: Jehoiachin's father's name was Jehoi'akim and he was a bad dude according to the Bible. The king of Babylon at this time was the infamous Nebuchadnez'zar and he was not pleased with Jehoi'akim's work and carried him away to Babylon. 2 Chronicles 36:8 then says that at this time Jehoiachin began to reign. The next verse says that he was 8. 2 Kings 24 tells a different and contradicting story, saying that Jehoiachin's father died and that is when he began his reign - at the age of eighteen. In either case, they both state that Jehoiachin reigned for three months - one from age eight and the other from age eighteen. Only one can be correct - a FACT that Brother Hicks would admit if he was interested in the truth. Clearly he is not.

20. How many stalls of horses?

And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
- I Kings 4:26

And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.
- II Chronicles 9:25

[The answer is forty thousand. Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses, or ten horses per four thousand stables (also called stalls). In the Hebrew for 2 Chronicles 9:25 the Hebrew letter "yod" is found. This letter is used in Hebrew for the number 10, thus it is four thousand stables of ten horses each.]

Brother Hicks is either making this up (lying) or has been fed false information. Here is a Christian website where you can learn the truth http://www.khouse.org/blueletter/tmp_dir/conc/924504993.html#25. This is the Blue Letter Bible - a site that Brother Hicks links to from his own site so we know that he acknowledges them as credible. A YOD looks just like an apostrophe. If you click on the above link, you will see that there is no single YOD in the Hebrew standing by itself. Brother Hicks is correct that the YOD does denote the number ten, but this letter does not appear by itself in this verse.

21. How many overseers?

And Solomon told out threescore and ten thousand men to bear burdens, and fourscore thousand to hew in the mountain, and three thousand and six hundred to oversee them.
- II Chronicles 2:2

Beside the chief of Solomon's officers which were over the work, three thousand and three hundred, which ruled over the people that wrought in the work.
- I Kings 5:16

[Please look carefully at these verses. I feel that this is so simple. In 2 Chronicles 2:2 the total of overseer's is given. In 1 Kings 5:16 only part of the overseer's are given. Beside the three hundred chief of Solomon's officers were over the work, three thousand three hundred overseers. Three hundred of the 3,600 of 2 Chronicles 2:2 are the chief officers or chief overseers, these three hundred are not counted in 1 Kings 5:16, only the regular overseers. It pays to believe what the text clearly states and not make it contradict itself by your own misunderstanding of the plain reading.]

Brother Hicks sees things that are not there. There is no indication that the number of chief of Solomon's officers was three hundred. I am not saying that this is not so, but the Bible is non-specific.

22. How many baths?

And it was an hand breadth thick, and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies: it contained two thousand baths.
- I Kings 7:26

And the thickness of it was an handbreadth, and the brim of it like the work of the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies; and it received and held three thousand baths.
- II Chronicles 4:5

[Read both verses. In 1 Kings 7:26 it says that it contained two thousand baths. In 2 Chronicles 4:5 it is said that it can receive and hold three thousand baths. 1 Kings 7:26 is talking about how much it had in it, and 2 Chroniciles is talking about how much it can hold.]

I am not sure which Bible Brother Hicks is reading. The verse above states quite clearly - "it received and held three thousand baths." There is no mention of potential in the 2 Chronicles verse, but Brother Hicks must see it so that he can hold onto his faith in an inerrant Bible. Of course, he loses credibility and any desire for honesty in the process.

23. How many freed Israelites?

Are the numbers of Israelites freed from Babylonian captivity in Ezra correct?
- Ezra 2

Or are the numbers of Israelites freed from Babylonian captivity in Nehemiah correct?
- Nehemiah 7

Interpreted: If you compare the totals of the numbers they do not match, nor do the numbers of people in the individual groups match. The totals do not even add up to the numbers that the authors say that they should! Both agree that the total was 42,360 (Ezra 2:64, Nehemiah 7:66), but they add up to 29,818 (Ezra) and 31,089 (Nehemiah).

[First, it should strike one as strange that both Ezra and Nehemiah come up with the exact same total of 42,360, but neither of their recorded numbers would add up to that total. It is because they were not trying to give a full list. For example, I could make a record and say:

At my house Friday there was a total of twenty people.
Of the Smith family: two people.
Of the Hicks family: one person.
Of the Jones family: three people.
The total there was 20.

I am not incorrect, I just did not choose to list all the families and people, but made up for this by giving the grand total. That would not change the accuracy at all. I am sure that you get my point.]

Yes, Brother Hicks. We get your point. Your point is that your faith is so insecure that you must ignore facts to preserve a faith in a book written by men that you claim is inerrant. You and inerrantists like you are a bad joke. You think you know WAY more than you do and end up looking really stupid when you try to tackle people who know more about the Bible than you do.

You will see it my way - through the use of your brain or through an ending that does not come as you expect it to. You will see it my way.

24. How many singers?

Beside their servants and their maids, of whom there were seven thousand three hundred thirty and seven: and there were among them two hundred singing men and singing women.
- Ezra 2:65

Beside their manservants and their maidservants, of whom there were seven thousand three hundred thirty and seven: and they had two hundred forty and five singing men and singing women.
- Nehemiah 7:67

Interpreted: While this contradiction belongs with the previous one, I wanted to point out that the numbers counted in the two lists were inclusive of both men and women, and not just men as some apologists have suggested.

[Read the two verses carefully. In Ezra 2:65 the two hundred singing men and women were AMONG the seven thousand three hundred and thirty seven servants and maids. In Nehemiah 7:67 the two hundred and forty-five singing men and singing women were counted separately.]

Brother Hicks is seeing things that are apparently not there. There is nothing to indicate that there is any difference in how the lists were counted. Again, though, the purpose of this contradiction (which stands healthy) was to show that the typical apologist response to the above contradiction is null and void.

Contradictions Based on Different Authors

Many of the following contradictions are based on the gospels themselves and show how their are clear differences between the tales told. There are, however, some from the Old Testament and other New Testament books, showing that their was not always one clear teaching of an event.

25. How many animals?

And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.
- Genesis 6:19-20

Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.
- Genesis 7:2-3

[There is no contradiction. After Noah had done what was commanded in Genesis 6:19-20 (Genesis 6:22), the Lord further explained that He wanted Noah to take seven pairs of the clean beasts and fowls. Since when is it a contradiction to ask someone to do a little more after they have completed their original assignment?]

As soon as Brother Hicks can show that Noah was commanded to "do a little more," I will delete this contradiction. Since he knows and I know that this will not happen, I will let it stay. For those interested in the full run of contradictions due to the two different authors of the flood story, Click Here.

26. Who did the Midianites sell Joseph to?

Then there passed by Midianites merchantmen; and they drew and lifted up Joseph out of the pit, and sold Joseph to the Ishmeelites for twenty pieces of silver: and they brought Joseph into Egypt.
- Genesis 37:28

And the Midianites sold him into Egypt unto Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh's, and captain of the guard.
- Genesis 37:36

Interpreted: While these verses are only 8 verses apart, they are written by two different authors. The Documentary Hypothesis maintains that the first verse is written by the "J" (Yahwist) source and the second verse by the "E" (Elohist) source.

[What is the contradiction? Midianites and Ishmeelites are terms used interchangeably in this passage (cp. Gen. 37:25, 27, 28, 36; Gen. 39:1). I guess he is trying to say that the contradiction is that the Midianites sold Joseph to the Ishmeelites, and could not have taken him and sold him to Egypt. If this is what the author means then this is absolutely ridiculous. The ones that lifted Joseph out of the pit and sold Joseph for twenty pieces of silver were Joseph's brothers. The Midianites or Ishmeelites brought Joseph into Egypt and sold him to Potiphar.]

Poor Brother Hicks. He does not know what the Documentary Hypothesis is and so this clearly does not make sense to him. I would suggest to him and to the rest of the uneducated Christians like him to learn at least a little bit about modern Biblical scholarship. The reason that Brother Hicks sees these terms used "interchangeably" is because there were two authors to this chapter who have had their work cut and pasted together to make one story. Again, it comes with a little education on the Documentary Hypothesis, some of which can be found HERE.

27. What did Jesus drink on the cross?

They gave him vinegar to drink, mingled with gall.
- Matthew 27:34

And they gave him to drink, wine mingled with myrrh.
- Mark 15:23
(Him being Jesus in both cases)

Interpreted: This is two different authors account of the same event.... Jesus on the cross. The first is Matthew saying that they gave Jesus to drink vinegar (old wine) mixed with gall, which is a product that comes from the oak tree. It is used in inks and medicines.

The second verse is from Mark, and it says wine mixed with myrrh, which is a gum resin used in the making of incense. Mark clearly wrote his gospel first, and Matthew must have not been clear on what Mark meant.

[Read the context of both events and you will find absolutely no contradiction at all.]

Um... this is not a refutation. The contradiction stands as written above. When Brother Hicks has a good answer for this, we can discuss the details. Until then, he looks smarter silent.

28. Who can be forgiven?

He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness.
- Mark 3:29

And by him that believe are justified from all things.
- Acts 13:39

Interpreted: This first verse is Jesus speaking to his disciples. He is basically saying that the one thing that can not be forgiven is blaspheming against the holy ghost. He continues by saying that they run the risk of eternal damnation.

The second verse is from Acts, written by the same author who (apparently) wrote the Gospel of Luke. It is Paul addressing the congregation at Antioch. Paul is saying that through belief in Jesus the Christ, all things are forgivable. No exception is made, making me think that Paul was not aware of Jesus' teachings.

[This is simply sad! Childlike logic would tell you that there is no contradiction here. The fact is that someone who has blasphemed the Holy Ghost cannot be "justified from all things" because they are so hardened to God they will never believe. This is an effeminately weak attempt to dream up a contradiction where simple reasoning makes the two points clear.]

Unfortunately, Brother Hicks is not any more adept at the English language than he is at Biblical languages. The verse in Mark says "hath never forgiveness" which means "at no time" even if they repent and lead a pious life. The verse in Acts says that this is not true as all one needs to be forgiven is faith. Brother Hicks can not accept this very simple piece of reason as it would destroy his faith - a faith that appears to be bound with A LOT of scotch tape as it is.

29. Just what were Jesus' last words?

A Triple Contradiction:
The following are the supposed "last words" of the living Jesus.

"Eli, Eli, lama sabachtani?" that is to say, "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
- Matthew 27:46, & -Mark 15:34, though it is Eloi instead of Eli in Mark.

"Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit"
- Luke 23:46

"It is finished"
- John 19:30

Interpreted: What can I say here? There is not necessarily a contradiction here..... if you are so stubborn that you refuse to look at the Bible with open eyes. These verses are part of a supposed "divine inspiration". If God had inspired these four gospel writers, why did they God inspire them to record different words? And not just different words, but totally different concepts.

The obvious answer here is that these four mythmakers chose a different climax for their tales. Odd that John, who generally was the more poetic writer of the four, should choose to end his tale with an anticlimactic death.

Isn't Jesus supposed to be part of the Godhead? The mythical trinity? Why would God ask why God had betrayed God? And why would God commend God's spirit to God? Christian confusion of Christian mythology.

[Read Matthew 27:46-50 and Mark 15:34-37. Both Matthew 27:50 and Mark 15:37 would clearly take in both Luke 23:46 and John 19:30. Matthew and Mark just chose not to write the last sayings of Christ, possibly because they did not hear them and could only make out that He cried aloud. As for this person's remarks about the Godhead, I will leave them to themselves. ANYONE that has honestly studied the Godhead sees the utter foolishness in this man's statements.]

HAHAHAHA!!! Poor Brother Hicks. Here we see how painfully little he knows about the Bible. He is a phony and a fraud. He knows nothing about the Bible. He basically says that all four gospel authors were at the cross listening to Jesus' last words. Uh... no. Mark was a travelling companion of Peter's and never met Jesus. This is according to early Christian history. Luke also never met Jesus and says as much in the beginning of his gospel. Modern scholarship states that the Gospel of John was written at the end of the first century - making it WAY too late to have been written by anyone who knew Jesus. Matthew might have been written by someone who knew Jesus, but then one would have to explain how he came across all of the information prior to chapter 9 where he is called by Jesus. Brother Hicks is WAY out of his league. Even if they all were the disciples who knew Jesus, every gospel states quite clearly that they all ran away before the trial and were nowhere to be found during the crucifixion. Brother Hicks would know this - if he has ever read the Bible.

30. How did Judas die?

"Then Judas, which had betrayed him (Jesus), when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders. (4) Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that. (5)And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. (6) And the chief priests took the silver pieces and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood. (7) And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. (8) Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day."
- Matthew 27:3-8

"Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. (17) For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. (18) Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. (19) And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The Field of Blood."
- Acts 1:16-19

Interpreted: These two totally contradicting stories explain themselves. They both describe the demise of Judas..... the man who made the biggest sacrifice in this Christian myth. Afterall, if this story is true, Judas must surely have committed the largest sin in history by betraying the messiah. But I digress. The best explanation that any Christian has come up with that I am aware of is this:
Judas returned the silver to the priests who bought the land in Judas' name. He went there and hung himself, and hung for days and became swollen and bloated that when they cut him down he burst open.

Sometimes the explanation is almost as humorous as the fact that people actually believe the story in the first place... almost as humorous.

[The idea of Judas hanging for a couple of days and then bursting once he was cut down is ridiculous. I will not get into the details of hanging, but the fact is that people can be decapitated. This could have been Judas' case and would explain his bursting as his body hit the ground. That people believe this story is not humorous, but is a testimony to their sanity and intelligence. Those who do not believe it show the world that they have little to no ability to reason or think clearly.]

Brother Hicks is as uneducated a Christian as I have dealt with in a long time. Here he basically states that he can not answer this problem but those who believe the contradicting tales anyway are sane and intelligent. I am more and more convinced that Brother Hicks has had little or no formal training in logical thought, biblical studies or life. This is getting sad.

31. How long does it take Jesus to get to Heaven? Or did he know?

"For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."
- Matthew 12:40

Jesus, while hanging on the cross, speaks with one of the two criminals hanging on the crosses next to him. One criminal speaks to Jesus first.

And he said unto Jesus, "Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom." v. And Jesus said unto him, "Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in Paradise."
- Luke 23:42-43

Interpreted: Jesus is the speaker in both cases. The first has the author of Matthew speaking with the scribes and Pharisees who demanded a sign from Jesus. He responded by saying that he would show them a sign even better than the sign of Jonah.

The second verse is Jesus on the cross saying that he would be in Paradise (the Kingdom of God) that very day. This is a clear contradiction from the Matthean verse.

[First off, where this man came up with the idea that there were only two criminals hanging with Jesus, I do not know. If you read the Bible it reveals four in its simple fifth grade reading level English. As for the supposed contradiction, Jesus went to paradise with this man. HE DID NOT SAY HEAVEN! There are many paradises: Eden, the New Jerusalem, the Third Heaven, the captivity of the righteous until Christ's redemption, etc. He is assuming, rather poorly, that this paradise is Heaven. The truth is that Jesus descended into the lower parts of the earth and led the righteous in paradise (in the earth) to Heaven with Him upon His resurection (Ephesians 4:8-10).]

Brother Hicks can not back up any of these claims, but because he believes them you would prove your sanity and intelligence by doing the same. Of course, he has done much to convince me that his version of sanity and intelligence are not what the rest of the world considers them.

32. When was Jesus transfigured?

"Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom."
(17)And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart, And was transfigured before them:...
- Matthew 16:28 - 17:2a

"But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste death, till they see the kingdom of God."
And it came to pass about an eight days after these sayings, he took Peter and John and James, and went up into a mountain to pray. And as he prayed, the fashion of his countenance was altered, and his raiment was white and glistering.
- Luke 9:27-29

Interpreted: Both of these passages recount the time when Jesus' transfiguration occurred. We can clearly see that one of these is wrong.

[They are both correct. Read the verses AGAIN. All these 70 supposed contradictions are solved by actually reading the verses and by being able to comprehend basic English grammar. Luke said it was ABOUT eight days. He did not say that it WAS eight days! All he gave was an estimate, while Matthew gave an exact number.]

Christian math. 3 parts=1god=3parts nonsense. 3days=1.5 days(parts of three days)=3days. I am amazed that Christians graduate from arithmetic. Brother Hicks believes that these people accompanied Jesus, but did not know the difference between 6 days and eight days. He reminds me that the education level in the US is extremely low, and the lower one goes in the continental US, the lower the intelligence goes. Brother Hicks is from Texas.

33. Who carried Jesus' cross?

... and led him out to crucify him. And they compel one Simon a Cyrennian, who passed by, coming out of the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus to bear his cross. And they bring him unto the place Golgotha, which is, being interpretted, The place of a skull. And they gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh: but he received it not. And when they had crucified him...
- Mark 15:20b-24a

Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus and led him away. And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha. Where they crucified him...
- John 19:16-18

Interpreted: Clearly some further differences in the respective fairy tales of the Jesus resurrection. Who carried the cross? Neither of the authors of these tales can say for sure because they were not there.

[Both authors were correct. Christ began bearing the cross, but the Jews compelled Simon to bear the cross. Jesus was still bearing the cross, but was helped by Simon.]

There is no attestation from either gospel that the other one can possibly be true. For Brother Hicks they have to be or his scotch-tape theology begins to crumble.

34. What time was Jesus crucified?

And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.
- Mark 15:25

And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he (Pilate) saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!
But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.
Then delivered he him over therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away.
- John 19:14-16

Interpreted: The third hour of the day was 9am and the sixth hour was noon. This is even spelled out in the NRSV Bible which gives the times and not the hour.

[Jesus was crucified about the sixth hour as Matthew 27:45, Luke 23:44, and John 19:14. Mark provides no disagreement. He says it was the third hour. While this may seem like a contradiction to those unfamiliar with Jewish time reckoning and culture, it is simple to explain. During the daytime there was four "hours," that is four periods of three hours. During the nighttime was also four periods of three hours. Many times the hours would be counted normally like the sixth hour of the day would be noon. At other times the hours would be roughly estimated and grouped as the four periods of three hours a day and the four periods of three hours a night. All Mark is saying is that it was the third hour or period of four hours. That is to say, it was anywhere from noon to three o'clock in the afternoon.]

Brother Hicks and his Christian math. He should get an accurate translation like the NRSV and he would understand why he is wrong. First, Jews did and still do break their days up into two parts - day and night. Day began at sunrise and night began at sunset. This has always been the case, regardless of what Brother Hicks chooses to believe to make his theology easier to swallow. The third hour of the Jewish day would have been 9am. Again, all that is needed is an education in the culture of the period, something that I have that Brother Hicks lacks. When he is ready for the truth, he will come around. No worries.

35. Who were Jesus' disciples?

And when it was day , he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles:
Simon, (whom he named Peter,) and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew,
Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called Zelotes,
And Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.
- Luke 6:13-16

Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus whose surname was Thaddaeus; Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.
- Matthew 10:2-4

Interpreted: The first list was more than likely written second but includes a second Judas. The second list has a Lebbaeus Thaddaeus and only one Judas.

[There is no contradiction here. Both Luke and Matthew list the same people. Matthew uses the nicknames and other names some of these men went by. In America many people are known by both their first and middle names. They may also have a few nicknames. Now, if you are to make two separate lists of twelve people and on one list you call people by their first names and then on the other list you call some of them by their middles names or nicknames are you being contradictory? Of course not! To assume such would be foolish, and so it is with the lists in the Scriptures above. An example could be President Clinton. He could be known by many names and still no contradiction would exist: Bill, William, Jefferson, Willy, Mr. Clinton, W. J. Clinton, W.J., Mr. President, the President, etc. If you used one of these names in separate lists would you be contradictory? No, and not one sensible person would even question the usage of different names. Such simple and normal human reasoning must be applied to the Bible, otherwise you would dream up contradictions where your own ignorance is the only thing causing a contradiction.]

Again, Brother Hicks views the Bible through spectacles of today. People in Judea were known by one name - their real name - and maybe a nickname which described a characteristic. Simon the Cannanite is one example. John the Elder is another. The two lists are clearly different from each other and show different people. Again, it is a matter of honesty and I am starting to doubt that Brother Hicks has much of that.

36. Who was Jesus' grandfather?

And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
- Matthew 1:16

And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
- Luke 3:23

Interpreted: Part of the contradictory genealogies of Jesus. A more in depth study of this can be found here.

[Read Luke 3:23-38. Notice especially the commas separating the thoughts in Luke 3:23. It is not saying that Joseph was the son of Heli, rather that Jesus was. Heli could be understood to be the father of Joseph by law, but this verse is not even dealing with that. The whole idea of these verses is to trace the lineage of Christ back from Heli. As is usual of Jewish language, Jesus is called his grandfather's son. The common tradition for relatives is to call someone in your lineage your father. In America we call the founders of our country "our founding fathers" and no one claims that this is a contradiction because it is a common title for our forefathers. For example see John 8:39, 53, 56; etc.]

I feel bad. More for the people that Brother Hicks is leading away from truth than for anyone else. That he has deluded himself or been deluded by another is a sad thing indeed, but this shyster has a website that might look convincing to the naive - a state many Christians obviously are in. It has a pretty background and appears to be packed with a lot of information and it would take a discerning individual a long time to go through it and show it for the fraudulent material that it is. The above paragraph is a great synopsis of the type of information that can be found there, though, showing that it is fluff... behind a very poor design.

37. Was John Elijah or not?

For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
And if ye will receive it, this is Elias*, which was for to come.
- Matthew 11:13-14

And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?
And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ.
And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias*? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.
- John 1:19-21

Interpreted: * translated as Elijah in most other versions of the Bible. Is this a contradiction... or was Jesus mistaken? One must be the true answer.

[This is another few verses where all it takes is reading the verses to understand the meaning. Notice Jesus' words in Matthew 11:13-14. John the Baptist would have been considered the Elijah that is to come if they would have received it. They refused John the Baptist and the Messiah and accordingly John the Baptist could not be considered Elijah. You cannot make up a contradiction out of a conditional statement. This assumes that the conditions are met properly when in this case they did not receive him.]

Apparently Brother Hicks is not paying attention. He did not notice that these two verses completely contradict each other. Either John is Elias or he is not. This is not a conditional statement, as John says as much in John 1:21.

38. Did Jesus, as God, punish himself?

He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David:
- Luke 1:32

And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:
- Matthew 1:11

PLUS

And the sons of Jehoiakim: Jeconiah his son, Zedekiah his son.
- I Chronicles 3:16

PLUS

Therefore thus saith the LORD of Jehoiakim king of Judah; He shall have none to sit upon the throne of David: and his dead body shall be cast out in the day to the heat, and in the night to the frost.
And I will punish him and his seed and his servants for their iniquity;
- Jeremiah 36:30-31

Interpreted: Here we can see that all of the seeds of Jehoiakim were to be punished. If Jesus was descended from Jehoiakim, then he must have been punished, as well. But if he was supposed to be God... he would have to punish himself, no?

[There is no reason to answer the question posed by this man, because the question is based on a fundamental flaw, Jesus did not descend from Jehoiakim's seed. He descended from Jehoiakim's seed legally through His foster father Joseph, but God promised to curse Jehoiakim. God kept His promise by fathering His Own Son, Jesus Christ, thus bypassing Jehoiakim's seed altogether naturally (as He promised), but accepting it legally.]

Exactly! It doesn't matter because Jesus did not descend from Jehoiakim's seed. Brother Hicks has stated it as succinctly as I possibly could. Since the Jewish scriptures state quite clearly that the messiah would need to be from David's line (thus descending from Jehoiakim's seed) Jesus was not the messiah. Pack the bags, Brother Hicks. Show's over.

39. Did John recognize Jesus before the baptism?

Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
But John forbade him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
- Matthew 3:13-14

And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
- John 1:32-33

Interpreted: The first verse indicates that John the Baptist recognized Jesus before the baptism and tried to resist doing it. The second verse says that John did not recognize Jesus for who he was until after the baptism when the Holy Spirit descended upon him.

[In John 1:32-33 John is saying he did not know who was the baptizer with the Holy Spirit. That is why he says, "I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost." John did not know who would be the baptizer with the Holy Ghost, but the Father gave him these indications so he would know who was the baptizer with the Holy Spirit. John knew Jesus was the Holy One of God when he spoke to Him, but obviously did not realize that He was also the baptizer with the Holy Ghost. One cannot expect a man to know all of the vast roles of Jesus Christ or every plan of God.]

Double-talk. I wonder where Brother Hick's gets all of this information. Brother Hicks conveniently ignores the simple fact that John did not recognize Jesus AFTER the spirit of god descended on Jesus and said so himself. As much as Brother Hicks wants to harmonize this, it is just not possible.

40. Did John recognize Jesus after the baptism?

And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
- John 1:32-33

Now when John had heard in the prison the works of Christ, he sent two of his disciples,
And said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?
- Matthew 11:2-3

[Here he gives no reason why he assumes there is a contradiction in theese passages of the Bible. John starts doubting about Jesus once he gets in prison. How does that make a contradiction? The Bible records the true record of John's acknowledgement of Jesus and his later doubting. This is 100% accurate to say the least.]

John was told quite clearly by god (supposedly) that Jesus was the one. There is no later doubting in the Gospel of John, so the contradiction lies with the fact that only Matthew and Luke report it.

41. Where did Jesus go after his baptism?

And immediately the spirit driveth him into the wilderness.
And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.
- Mark 1:12-13

The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me.
- John 1:43
AND
And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there;
And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage.
- John 2:1-2

Interpreted: This first verse is the beginning of the temptation of Jesus in the desert by Satan. This story does not even appear in John.

[Read all of John 1. It is clear that Jesus' baptism is not mentioned in the narrative. John testifies of his baptizing Jesus and his seeing the Spirit descend and remain on Him, but the actual baptism is not in the narrative. The reason I make that point is because that the baptism is in the narrative is the basis this man is using to make a contradiction. John 1:43 is AFTER the baptism and after the temptation in the wilderness. John 1:32-34 is not in the same time frame as the actual narrative of the event, because this is John's testimony of Jesus' baptism after the baptism had occurred.]

[That John did not record Jesus' temptation does not prove any contradiction either. John's gospel was the last to be recorded, and he did not mention a lot of things that were already recorded by the other gospel writers.]

I am amazed at how truly little Brither Hicks actually knows about this subject. Clearly he thinks that he knows his subject well, but he doesn't. First, Brother Hicks erroneously assumes that John knew the other gospels when he set out to write his work. This is patently false and rejected by a majority of modern scholarship. Second, the fact that the baptism does not appear in the Gospel of John is a moot point. Even if there was no reporting of the chronological order, there is not sufficient time for the 40 days to pass during Jesus' temptation in the desert.

42. Where did Jesus meet Simon Peter and Andrew?

And Jesus, walking by the sea of Galilee, saw two brethren, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother, casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers.
And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.
- Matthew 4:18-19

And he (Andrew) brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.
The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me.
- John 1:42-43

Interpreted: The first verse is Jesus meeting Peter and Andrew at the Sea of Galilee, and the second is him meeting them one day and then travelling to the Galilee area the following day.

[There is not even a seeming contradiction here.]

Of course not. Simply because Brother Hicks is not at all familiar with the geography (or anything else) of Israel. Learn and then you will turn.

43. Was Jairus' daughter alive or dead when he came to Jesus?

While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live.
- Matthew 9:18

And besought him greatly, saying, My little daughter lieth at the point of death: I pray thee, come and lay thy hands on her, that she may be healed; and she shall live.
- Mark 5:23

[Look at the wording "even now dead." He was assuming that his daughter must have been dead by the time he reached Jesus. I have no doubt that he did not say both things. It is common for people in desperate circumstances to repeat themselves and even reword their plead if they see need to do so. Jairus may have either been told after he said Mark 5:23 that his daughter was dead, or he simply stated the circumstance as he new it would be at this point. No contradiction is seen here.]

Of course there is no contradiction seen here by Brother Hicks because he refuses to see truth. We have seen ample evidence of this and should not be surprised any longer. Brother Hicks tells us that he has no doubt that Jairus did not say both things. For those who need some translation, this means that Brother Hicks believes that one of the gospels is wrong and either Mark or Matthew is lying. He is probably not saying this, but after seeing the level of his intelligence...

44. Did Jesus allow his disciples to carry a staff on their journeys?

And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse:
- Mark 6:8

And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece.
- Luke 9:3

[If you read both of these verses it becomes clear that there is, of course, no contradiction. There is a difference between the singular word staff and the plural word staves. Jesus did not want the disciples carrying too many supplies on their journeys, so one staff was enough. That is why He also told them not to have two coats apiece, for they only needed one. They did not need to be carrying more supplies than needed. This is godly wisdom, not a contradiction.]

Brother Hicks, your understanding of Jesus' parables is a unique one. Jesus says quite clearly - "Take nothing for your journey". This means - NOTHING. No staff and no staves. That you would like to twist it to fit your warped interpretation is not surprising, though dishonest. You are a liar and a hypocrite and just the type of charlatan that Jesus warned his followers about. Funny and sad at the same time.

45. How did Simon Peter learn that Jesus was the Christ?

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
- Matthew 16:17

He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ.
- John 1:41

[There is a difference between being told that someone is something and having it revealed to you. Having something revealed to you goes beyond the head-knowledge and goes right to a revealed heart-knowledge.]

Read it very slowly Brother Hicks. You just agreed with me. There is indeed a difference between being told and having it revealed. This is what I was pointing out. Thanks.

46. Who brought the Capernaum centurion's request to Jesus?

And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him,
- Matthew 8:5

And when he heard of Jesus, he sent unto him the elders of the Jews, beseeching him that he would come and heal his servant.
- Luke 7:3
Then Jesus went with them. And when he was now not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to him, saying unto him, Lord, trouble not thyself: for I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof:
- Luke 7:6

[It should be noted that Matthew did not record the event beginning with the servants, rather he took it up with Jesus already near the centurion's house. It must be stressed that it is not a contradiction to not explain every single detail that someone else does. If someone says that a man named George went to the Golden Warehouse Mall, and someone else says a man went to the mall, is either one contradictory simply because one gives more details than the other? We need to apply the same logic and fairness we do in everyday communications when we read the Bible.]

This tired old argument will not do in this case, I'm afraid. One account says that the centurion begged while the other says that first he sent Jewish elders and then friends. This is a direct contradiction and not a contradiction by omission which is what you thought it was. You should pay closer attention.

47. Was the man in the tax collector's office named Matthew or Levi?

And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him.
- Matthew 9:9

And as he passed by, he saw Levi the son of Alphaeus sitting at the receipt of custom, and said unto him, Follow me. And he arose and followed him.
- Mark 2:14

[This is the same illogic as in supposed contradiction #35. See the response on #35.]

Except this is not illogic. Both lists of disciples from contradiction #35 list Matthew as the publican's name. Now you tell us that his name was Levi, too? False. You will have to show that this is the case and not assume it. Your belief system appears to be made up of many such assumptions - assumptions that a logical and reasonable mind would not make.

48. Did Jesus speak openly to his disciples or in secret?

Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.
- John 18:20

And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
- Matthew 13:10-11

[What is supposed to be the contradiction here? Simply because some people are not given the ability to understand Jesus' teaching because they refuse to submit to God's calling does not make these verses contradictory. This, like all of these pretend contradictions, is cleared up with a little study and common fairness.]

Here we see more of Brother Hicks' dishonesty. The contradiction is so simple that it is amazing that one as simple as Brother Hicks does not get it. I will break it down for him. The verse in John has Jesus saying that he spoke openly so that all could understand. The verse in Matthew has Jesus saying that he speaks in code so that only the disciples may understand. Brother Hicks seems to have a limited level of intelligence but he should have been able to get this. Maybe I am still overestimating him?

49. Did Jesus ride into Jerusalem on one animal or two?

And they brought him to Jesus: and they cast their garments upon the colt, and they set Jesus thereon.
- Luke 19:35

And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon.
- Matthew 21:7

[This is another case of one writer giving more details than another and it being assumed that this constitutes a contradiction. Matthew does not state that Jesus rode into Jerusalem on two animals, rather that He was sat thereon. Thus, Matthew did not mention which animal Jesus was sat on for the whole ride, and Luke did. It may have been that Jesus was originally seated on the ass and then changed animals to set on the colt, this would not be contradictory at all. We must remember that a lack of detail by a writer DOES NOT constitute a contradiction. All the details are not always needed in every case.]

A contradiction, for Brother Hicks and others who do not know what one is, is when two accounts are given that can not both be true. A contradiction is also where an important detail is given by two sources and they are not the same. While Brother Hicks may not think that this is the case, he is undoubtedly unaware that this event was supposedly a messianic prophecy being fulfilled from Zechariah. Had Brother Hicks stopped long enough to read just two verses earlier in Matthew he would have realized the importance of Luke omitting this detail.

50. Did Jesus cleanse the Temple in Jerusalem on the first or second day?

And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,
- Matthew 21:12

And Jesus entered into Jerusalem, and into the temple: and when he had looked round about upon all things, and now the eventide was come, he went out unto Bethany with the twelve.
And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry
- Luke 11:11-12
And they come to Jerusalem: and Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves;
- Luke 11:15

[Note: He means to reference Mark 11:11-12, 15, and simply makes a mistake.]

He's correct, I did. My bad. I will make the necessary change.

[Where is the contradiction? Luke records something Matthew did not record; this does not make a contradiction. Jesus cleared the temple on the second day as Mark teaches, Matthew simply did not record the first day.]

What is funny is that after correcting me about this mistake, even Brother Hicks makes a mistake and says Luke. I would not have mentioned this, but for some reason, Brother Hicks has a hang up with perfection. He has gone out of his way on numerous occasions to point out a spelling or grammar mistake that I have made while ignoring the contradiction. This is a common apologist tactic and is found when the apologist has nothing better to go after. It is something of a second-to-last resort. Their last resort is generally calling names (like God-hater, idiot, ignorant as Brother Hicks has constantly done throughout this exercise).

As for the contradiction, Brother Hicks apparently thinks it unimportant that there is a day missing from Matthew's account. The thing that Luke recorded that Matthew did not was the passage of time. These things are said to have happened on two different days. Since we know that this event only occurred once, this is a contradiction.

51. Did the tree that Jesus cursed wither immediately or overnight?

And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away.
- Matthew 21:19

And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it
- Mark 11:14
And in the morning, as they passed by, they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots.
- Mark 11:20

[Read both accounts and you will see that there is no contradiction.]

No refutation. This is a contradiction and any that are a bit more with it than our fine-feathered friend Brother Hicks, here, will see that.

52. Did Jesus say that Peter would deny him three times before the cock crowed once or twice?

Jesus answered him, Wilt thou lay down thy life for my sake? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, The cock shall not crow, till thou hast denied me thrice.
- John 13:38

And Jesus saith unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this day, even in this night, before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice.
- Mark 14:30

[It is obvious that there is no contradiction. Would not before the cock crows be before the cock crows twice?]

The contradiction is in the words that Jesus spoke. Since our friend Brother Hicks believes the Bible to be perfect, Jesus' words would have been recorded perfectly. Here we see that this is not the case.

53. Where was Jesus on the sixth day of the crucifixion?

...And they that were crucified with him reviled him.
And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.
- Mark 15:32-33

And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!
But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him.
- John 19:14-15

[Here is another case where that simple little word "about" is ignored. John is talking about it being ABOUT the sixth hour, and Mark is talking about it being the sixth hour. John is giving an estimate by using the word "about."]

The problem is that estimating wouldn't include a three hour span. That is the difference in the two verses, leaving us with a contradiction.

54. What was written on the sign on the cross?

And the superscription of his accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS.
- Mark 15:26

And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
- Matthew 27:37

And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
- Luke 23:38

And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.
- John 19:19

Interpreted: Why would God inspire 4 authors to record different details? God wouldn't.

[I would like to answer his question: because it is talking about different events. You generally describe different events with different details, do you not?]

Hello? Earth to Brother Hicks... Is Brother Hicks saying that there were four different signs on the cross? Four different crosses? Four different crucifixions? I would like to know, but I do not have a clue where this guy is coming from. Left field seems too shallow.

55. Who annointed Jesus' dead body with spices... and when?

And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.
Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.
- John 19:39-40

And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
- Mark 16:1

[This is typical. Mark 16:1 says nothing at all about Mary Magdalene and Mary the Mother of James and Salome annointing Jesus' body. He said they came "that they might come and anoint him." That was their purpose in coming. Read Mark 16:1-8. They did not anoint Jesus for He was risen from the dead! Hallelujah!]

The only thing that is typical is Brother Hicks' avoidance of truth.

56. Did the women buy the spices to annoint Jesus' body before the sabbath or after?

And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the sabbath day according to the commandment.
Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.
- Luke 23:56 - 24:1

And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
- Mark 16:1

[The spices that they prepared before the first day of the week were not necessarily SWEET SPICES as the ones they bought on the first day of the week were. They very well could have ran out of spices in their preparation, but could not buy anymore until the first day of the week, because of the Jewish law against working on the Sabbath.]

Here we see Brother Hicks floundering in the dark doing all that he can to not bump into the truth. This is clearly a contradiction. The verse in Luke clearly says that the women brought the spices that they had prepared before the sabbath. He uses sayings like "not necessarily" in an attempt to convince himself that he is working on the side of the truth, but he knows better. Such displays of a lack of conviction show his true heart.

57. Is all scripture ptofitable?

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
- II Timothy 3:16

For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
- Hebrews 7:18

[The idea of Hebrew 7:18-19 is that the law is unprofitable to make one perfect in itself. It is a part of Scripture and thus makes up the "all scripture" that is profitable "for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" (2 Timothy 3:16-17).]

Double talk. Double talk. I wonder if Brother Hicks has a mantra that he says every time he picks up his Bible: "I will ignore all of those things that force me to question my faith. I will ignore all of those things that force me to question my faith. Om. Om."

Contradictions that are Just Silly

These contradictions defy explanation. They just do not fit into any other category and can not be explained away through any use of anything resembling logic or reason.

58. Did Jesus bring peace or warfare (spiritual or otherwise)?

Think not that I come to send peace on earth: I come not to send peace, but a sword.
- Matthew 10:34

... all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
- Matthew 26:52

Interpreted:This is interesting. The first verse is Jesus saying that he has come to shake things up, and that it is going to be violent. Surely, Jesus was using the sword metaphorically.

The second verse is not used metaphorically, but figuratively. He is saying that all who use the sword will die this way. The author of Matthew should have probably chosen another word in one of these words so it does not make Jesus look like a fool. Clearly, the author wrote these two verses some time apart.

[On his interpretation he is close, but he is not using "anything resembling logic or reason" to prove a contradiction. Take his interpretations at face value and you have no contradiction. Thanks for proving it for us sir :-)]

Brother Hicks agrees with me... and then thanks me. Cool... or should I be worried. Of course, he does not see the contradiction, but I wonder if he sees anything that makes him uncomfortable or if he has trained himself to block all such things out. Things like truth...

59. Is Jesus in danger of hellfire?

Whosoever shall say Thou fool, shall be in danger of hellfire.
- Matthew 5:22

[Jesus said] Ye fools and blind.
- Matthew 23:17

Interpreted: Whoops! Again we see the author of Matthew suffering from confusion. These are both attributed to Jesus by the author, and again the author makes Jesus look like a fool. Whoops, I should be careful.

[The whole idea of Matthew 5:22 is about rashness in judgment. Jesus was not being quick to judge in Matthew 23:17 for He had been longsuffering with them.]

The verse says, very succinctly, that anyone who calls another a fool is likely to go to Hell. Then Jesus calls someone a fool, tempting God. There is no such stipulation as Brother Hicks creates, but we should assume that Brother Hicks does so to not have to view his hero as an idiot. Again, this is dishonesty, but Brother Hicks has demonstrated that honesty is not as important as maintaining the faith is.

60. Did Jesus teach his followers to do their deeds openly or in secret?

Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works.
- Matthew 5:16

Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them.
- Matthew 6:1

Interpreted: This first verse is Jesus telling his disciples to let all see their good works that they may serve as an example to others.

The second verse is Jesus talking to his disciples, telling them to be careful not to do their charity in front of men for to do so is not meritting of entrance into Heaven.

Poor Jesus! Having to be written about by a man like this. That people are confused about Jesus is no wonder.

[If these two verses confuse you it is probably because you cannot read them. The point of both is etremely clear. You do not do your good deeds with the purpose of being seen by men, but you also do not hide them. If your good work is something that will be noticed of all then let your light shine! Only do not set out with the purpose to be seen of men.]

What was Brother Hicks saying about spelling? 'etremely'? What the hell is that?!?

Also, I wonder if Brother Hicks read his response before submitting it. He wrote - do good deeds in public if they can be seen by others, but don't do them so that other can see them - or some such nonsense. I know what he was after, but Jesus simply did not say this.

61. Is Jesus to be trusted?

If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.
- John 5:31

I am one that bear witness of myself...
- John 8:18
(Jesus speaking in both quotes)

Interpreted: Here we have another author making a fool of Jesus. The first verse is Jesus speaking to the Jews who would persecute him. He says that he does the will of his father. The second verse is Jesus saying that he bears witness of himself and his father.

[In John 5:31 Jesus is talking about how His witness cannot be true if He is His only witness. In John 8:18 Jesus is responding to the Pharisees. They had told Him that His testimony was not true because He testified of Himself. Jesus tells them that the law says that two men's testimony is true. Thus He says that He is one that testifies and His Father is the other. This is another on the surface contradiction only seen due to the inability to reason out and/or read the plain meaning of the text.]

Here Brother Hicks speaks about the "plain meaning of the text" and then proceeds to interpret that plain meaning to make it mean what he wants it to mean. Due to a pathological lack of honesty, Brother Hicks does not realize the two faces that he must wear to make this work for him. We will leave him with it and hope that he will come around on his own or if he will have to die to learn that he has it all wrong. I hope that he will come around on his own because I would not want to meet god after blaspheming god the way that Brother Hicks and other Christians do.

62. Did Jesus think that he was God?

I and my father are one.
- John 10:30

... I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
- John 14:28
(Jesus speaking in both quotes)

Interpreted: Poor Jesus. The first verse is John recording that Jesus equated himself with God, his father. The second verse is John recording that Jesus said that his father (God) is greater than he. Simple math proves that these two verses can not co-exist, and yet...here they do.

[That must be some real simple math, for it proves nothing. Jesus is one in unity with God the Father as He taught in John 10:30; 17:11, 21-23; etc. Yet, the Father is greater in position than the Son. The Son is submitted to the Father as far as position goes (John 14:28; 1 Corinthians 11:3; etc.), but He is 100% equal in His Deity (John 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:16).]

Here is more faulty Christian math. Here we have Brother Hicks saying that the Father is greater (meaning more than) Jesus and yet he is equal. I feel bad for the people who have to deal with Brother Hicks in things like money. It must be a very frustrating experience to deal with someone who is so bad at math.

63. Did Paul's travelling companions see and hear correctly?

And the men which journyed with [Paul] stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
- Acts 9:7

And they that were with me [Paul] saw indeed the light and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.
- Acts 22:9

Interpreted: Again, the same author as the Gospel of Luke. This first verse is Luke relating the story of Paul's encounter with the spirit of Jesus that caused his conversion. The second is Paul relating this story to some men that had been beating him. The first says the men heard a voice but saw no man, while the second says that they saw a light but did not hear a voice.

[In Acts 9:7 the men heard a voice but did not see any man. The voice they heard was that of Paul. In Acts 22:9 it states that they did not heard the voice that spoke to Paul, and not that they did not hear a voice, the voice of Paul saying, "Who art thou, Lord" (Acts 9:5).]

Unfortunately for Brother Hicks, there is nothing in Acts 9 that indicates that the voice that Paul's companions heard was his own. I am not sure where Brother Hicks gets this information, but his interpretation is certainly a unique one. If the men heard Paul's voice the text would have indicated as much instead of leaving it an ambiguous "a voice." Brother Hicks knows this inside but is simply too dishonest to admit it out loud.

64. How many children did Paul think that Abraham had?

Abraham had two sons; one by a bonds-maid, the other by a free woman.
- Galtians 4:22

By faith, Abraham when he was tried offered up Isaac... his only begotten son.
- Hebrews 11:17

Interpreted: These two epistles (letters) are supposedly written by Paul, though there is some controversy over who wrote Hebrews and when it was written. In the first verse, Paul related that Abraham had had two sons, one of a slave, and one of a free woman.

The second verse, however, says that Abraham was tested and offered up his only begotten son, Isaac. Paul clearly knew that Ishmael was also begotten by Abraham, but must have forgotten it when he wrote this letter. Or maybe this is further proof that Paul did not write this.

Or maybe they did not know their Torah very well:

Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah. And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah.
- Genesis 25:1-2

[How many children did Abraham have by Sara? The answer is only one, thus Isaac was his only begotten son of Sara. Paul was not forgetful, not was he ignorant of the Torah, he simply did not feel he had to explain every little thing, because some things are so simple they do not need explaining. That Abraham only had one son by Sara should not need any explaining to anyone who has read the Bible.]

Please see the contradiction about Michal's daughters where Brother Hicks gives us one more contradiction - this one within his reasoning.

65. Who has ascended to heaven?

"And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into Heaven"
-II Kings 2:11......and:
Also Enoch was taken bodily to Heaven at the age of 365.
-Genesis 5:24

"No man hath ascended up to Heaven, but he that came down from Heaven, even the Son of Man."
-John 3:13

Interpreted: Here we see that either the author of John had very little knowledge of early scripture or Jesus did. If it was the author of John, we can write it off to poor myth-making. If it was Jesus, then we can assume that Jesus is either not part of the all-knowing trinity or said trinity is not all-knowing.

[As usual the verses say something totally different than he believes they say. Read both of them again. In Genesis 5:24 and 2 Kings 2:11 Enoch and Elijah WERE TAKEN to Heaven. Neither ascended by their own power. No man hath ascended up to heaven of his own power except Jesus Christ.]

Semantics. The verse in John says that no man has ascended into heaven when this is clearly not true. It does not say that no man has ascended into heaven on their own power. This is another case where Brother Hicks dishonestly adds a condition to the text to make it mean what he needs it to mean.

66. Who was King Abijah's mother?

He reigned three years in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Michaiah the daughter of Uriel of Gibeah. And there was war between Abijah and Jeroboam.
- II Chronicles 13:2

And after her he took Maachah the daughter of Absalom; which bare him Abijah, and Attai, and Ziza, and Shelomith.
- II Chronicles 11:20

[The answer to #35 would apply here.]

See my response to Brother Hicks' non-refutation on #35.

67. How many generations were there between the Babylonian exile to the birth of Jesus?

So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; and from David until the carrying away into Babylon are fourteen generations; and from the carrying away into Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.
- Matthew 1:17

And after they were brought to Babylon, Jechonias begat Salathiel; and Salathiel begat Zorobabel;
(13)And Zorobabel begat Abiud; and Abiud begat Eliakim; and Eliakim begat Azor;
(14)And Azor begat Sadoc; and Sadoc begat Achim; and Achim begat Eliud;
(15)And Eliud begat Eleazar; and Eleazar begat Matthan; and Matthan begat Jacob;
(16)And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ
- Matthew 1:12-16

Interpreted:Poor Matthew. He was a very poor mathmetician.

[Count up the generations yourself. They equal fourteen generations. If you refuse to count the living generation from Babylon (Jechonias), then you would count wrong and only come up with thirteen. Maybe this is why this person thinks this is a contradiction.]

Yes.. please count them. Please do not use Christian math.

68. When Paul saw the light and fell to the ground, did his travelling companions also fall?

But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;
(17)Delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto whom now I send thee,
(18)To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.
- Acts 26:16-18

And I said, What shall I do, LORD? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do.
- Acts 22:10

[I find no contradictions at all here. The singular thy, thee, thou, and I are used indicating nothing of the others traveling with him. There is no contradiction here except in the mind of the one who thought up this contradiction.]

Of course he doesn't. By this point, though, we see that Brother Hicks is not really much of an authority on the Bible. He has a primitive faith that reminds me much of a child's faith in Santa Claus. No matter what his older sibling (truth) may say, he is going to believe anyway. This will change as Brother Hicks matures.

69. Who killed Saul?

Then said Saul unto his armourbearer, Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and thrust me through, and abuse me. But his armourbearer would not; for he was sore afraid. Therefore Saul took a sword, and fell upon it.
- I Samuel 31:4

And he (Saul) said unto me, Who art thou? And I answered him, I am an Amalekite.
(9)He said unto me again, Stand, I pray thee, upon me, and slay me: for anguish is come upon me, because my life is yet whole in me.
(10)So I stood upon him, and slew him, because I was sure that he could not live after that he was fallen: and I took the crown that was upon his head, and the bracelet that was on his arm, and have brought them hither unto my lord.
- II Samuel 1:8-10

[Read the two accounts. 1 Samuel 31:4 is the Biblical account of what happened. 2 Samuel 1:8-10 is a young man lying to David. The Bible accurately records this man's lie, but it does not approve of it. You could build an argument out of any recorded saying of men that is no truth, but is accurately recorded in the Scriptures. Everything in the Bible is truly stated (i.e. it is recorded just as it was stated), but not everything is a statement of truth (i.e. it is a statement containing truth). For example, in Genesis 3:4 it reads, "And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die." It is truly stated that the serpent said this, but this statement is not a statement of truth.]

Blah, blah, blah. Apparently, Brother Hicks has not read the accounts listed above or he would not argue this point.

Below I have the part of this man's site about "Bible errors." It is short and erroneous. I will include it between the bars below with my response in bold red and in brackets []. Enjoy! :-)

And I will show that ignorance is definitely bliss in Brother Hicks' case.

Biblical Errors

On this page, I will point out some very fundamental problems of the Bible for which there can be no answer. In other words, Biblical errors.

1. Paul on Jesus

Acts 20:35 - I have shown you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, "It is more blessed to give than to receive."

The only problem with this is that Jesus did not say this anywhere in the New Testament. We can know that Paul never met Jesus while Jesus was alive as a human. We can also know that from Jesus and Paul's interchange on the road to Damascus that Jesus never spoke these words. (Acts 9:4 -16). The only other possibilities would be someone telling Paul that Jesus spoke them, which would be hearsay, or Paul making up words for Jesus. The latter is clearly the case as can be seen in how common of a practice this was from the varying accounts in the Gospels.

[This is the usual type junk that the unbelievers have to confuse to make an error, and the error always lies solely in their own ignorance and lack of education. John said, "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written" (John 21:25). This rules out the idea that everything that Jesus ever said must be in the New Testament. Also, the man said, "The only problem with this is that Jesus did not say this anywhere in the New Testament." Really? Then why is it recorded right here in Acts 20:35 which is part of the New Testament? Paul received his revelation directly from Jesus Christ (Galatians 1:12), and Jesus said many things to him and others after the resurrection.]

Anyone who has a red-letter KJV knows that Jesus does not speak in the book of Acts. This is not a refutation from Brother Hicks but a square dance. The lesson taught by Paul is clearly a plea from him to help him and those who travel to preach the word because they were poor. Paul made this up. Had Jesus said something like, "It is better to give than to receive," it would have been recorded in every gospel, canonical or non-canonical. It appears nowhere else besides here. Brother Hicks flounders and falls - again.

2. The Messiah or the House of David

Verse 1 of Matthew 1 says that it is the Book of Generations of Jesus Christ who is the son of David and Abraham. It then proceeds to list the geneaology of Jesus back to Abraham. David is included. A completely different geneaology of Jesus is found in Luke, chapter 3 but also contains David, King of Israel. A comparison of the two geneaologies can be found here. Both list Joseph as the father of Jesus.

Ancient Israel in the time of Jesus was a patriarchal society and all geneaologies were handed down through the male parent. So, if Jesus were to have a geneaology that does not go up one level to God and then stop, he could not be the son of God in the sense that he would be the Messiah or the Christ.

A much stronger case can be made that the Christian myth-makers went after a very common theme in the Greco-Roman world at the time. Octavius Caesar became Augustus (revered one) Caesar in 27 C.E. He claimed for himself the all-powerful title, "Son of God".

The apologetic stance that one of the geneaologies belongs to Mary is easily disproven. Matthew 1:16 mentions Mary as the mother of Jesus but only as the wife of Joseph. Luke 3 never mentions Mary's name, but says that Jesus was supposedly the son of Joseph.

[Read both of these lists. Neither list Joseph as the father of Jesus. Where is the supposed error here?]

Brother Hicks should read his Bible.

Luke 3:23 - "Jesus was about 30 years of age when he began his work. He was the son of Joseph..."

Seems pretty clear to me. Of course, Brother Hicks can't see this because it is simple.

3. Jesus on Scriptures

Here we see the author of John pulling a common trick on his reader. That is the one of inventing scripture.

The erroneous verse is found in chapter 7 of the Gospel of John.

John 7:38- He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of flowing water.

Unfortunately, the words, "out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water" are not found anywhere else in the Bible. This poses two immediate problems.

The first problem is this begs the question as to whether there was some scripture in Jesus' time that it not in our canonized Bible or not. If there was and it is no longer in scripture then it goes against Revelation 22:19 which says that any man who subtracts from scripture would be subtracted from the Book of Life.

The second problem with this is the one of addition to scripture and the penalty for such an act. If Jesus added the verse which is not found then he is guilty. If it was John who ascribed the words to Jesus then it is John who is guilty. Revelations 22:18 states, "If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book."

[This would be laughable if it was not so blasphemous and idiotic. Read John 7:38. The idea is not that the Scripture said, "Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water." Maybe it can be cleared up if the grammar is considered. Read only the first portion of the verse (i.e. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said...). What the Scripture said was to believe on Him, as He was clearly saying. Only a misunderstanding of the English language could misunderstand this.]

Here is a free grammar lesson for Brother Hicks. To say what Brother Hicks wants this to say the comma would have to be removed. As it is,

He that believeth in me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly...

He that believeth in me as the scripture hath said, out of his belly...

What is funny is that Brother Hicks is apparently not smart enough to even get this basic piece of English and yet he criticizes me for my lack of understanding... sad.

4. Jesus was the messiah that Isaiah prophecied?

Isaiah 7-9 is supposedly the telling of the coming messiah. While it is my opinion (and that of many other more learned people than I) that the famous "virgin prophecy" of Isaiah 7:14 and the following chapter and a half are about a child of Isaiah's time, that is not the common Christian belief.

The common Christian belief in regards to these chapters is that they are messianic prophecy. They believe that the mistranslation of the hebrew word almah in chapter 7 means virgin, when in fact it means young woman. The hebrew word for virgin is betulah. For all of the trouble that this creates, there is something more that can not be explained away.

Isaiah 9:6-7 says:

{6}For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. {7}Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to estacblish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.

What we see here is that this Prince of Peace, the Messiah, will bring with him endless times of peace. Needless to say, there was not a time of endless peace when Jesus made his first appearance on earth.

According to Revelations, the messiah will return at the end of time accompanied by an army to wage the worst imaginable war. Clearly this contradicts the notion that the Messiah of Isaiah and the Messiah of Revelations are one and the same guy.

[I do agree with him that the Messiah of Isaiah is not the Messiah of Revelations. The reason being because there is no book of Revelations in the Bible. He most likely means the book of Revelation (singular, NOT plural).]

So, Brother Hicks closes by agreeing with me and yet digging in on a grammatical error. Please note that this is a diversionary tactic as stated above and only goes to show that we have an apologist all out of ammo.

As can be easily seen by reading the above attempts at discrediting the Holy and True Word of the Living God, a vast lack of study and immense illogic can cause one to doubt the authority of the Bible. This mixed with a devilish hate for God can cause anyone to be blinded by the devil into seeing contradictions where it is obvious no contradictions exist. All of these supposed contradictions and errors could have easily been understood if only a little study and fairness was put forth.

What amazes me is that Brother Hicks was willing to put himself out there without having much of an understanding of several key things. He does not understand how much I know about the Bible. He does not understand Biblical languages. He does not understand the culture from the time of the Bible. He does not understand the geography of Israel. Most importantly, Brother Hicks has little understanding of love and respect for his fellow humans. He has little understanding of the teachings of his deceased hero, Jesus. I find this sad.

The type of logic, if it can be called such, is all too common among the atheists and others who vainly attempt to discredit the Bible. If this illogic and failure to understand pla