Tag: Southern Baptist Fundamentalism

Chapter 3 Response, Section 2: Two Case Studies in Contradiction

This post is part of an ongoing series analyzing Mark Clark’s book The Problem of God, which claims to present a case for Christianity in a skeptical age. Each entry evaluates a chapter or section of the book through a critical, secular lens—applying The God Question’s Core Philosophy: evidence over assertion, logic over tradition, and intellectual honesty over inherited belief. If you’re exploring or questioning Christian faith, this series is for you.

The Preacher’s Excuse

In this section of Chapter 3, Mark Clark tries to explain away contradictions in the Bible by telling a story from his days in Bible college. He recalls noticing discrepancies between the parable of the talents in Matthew 25 and the parable of the minas in Luke 19—stories that seem nearly identical but differ in key details. Alarmed, he approached his professor, who handed him recordings of Clark’s own sermons. Each sermon, the professor pointed out, used the same illustrations in slightly different ways.

The implication? Jesus did the same thing. Like any preacher, he reused parables and adjusted details for different audiences. So the Gospel contradictions aren’t real contradictions—they’re just variations of the same teaching moment.

It’s a clever move. But it’s also a dodge.

The Gospel writers never indicate that they’re recording multiple tellings of the same parable. They present these as historical, eyewitness events. And they differ not just in nuance—but in content, sequencing, and meaning. That’s not literary flexibility. That’s inconsistency.

This section continues with two of the most famous examples.

1. Judas’s Death: A Bloody Contradiction

Clark tackles the conflict between Matthew 27 and Acts 1 regarding how Judas Iscariot died.

  • Matthew: Judas returned the silver and hanged himself.
  • Acts: Judas bought a field, fell headlong, and burst open.

Clark’s defense? These are “complementary” accounts. He suggests Judas hanged himself, the rope eventually snapped, and his body fell and burst open.

But this isn’t explanation—it’s imagination.

The texts themselves say nothing about a fall in Matthew, or a hanging in Acts. In fact, Acts directly says Judas bought the field, whereas Matthew says the priests did, using the returned silver. These are not two versions of the same story. They are two conflicting stories.

Apologists often attempt to harmonize by inventing plausible scenarios—but these scenarios don’t exist in the text. If two court transcripts offered accounts this contradictory, no one would claim they “complement” each other. We’d question whether either could be trusted.

2. The Angels at the Tomb: Silent Subtraction

Next, Clark addresses the inconsistency between resurrection accounts:

  • Matthew says there was one angel.
  • John says there were two.

Clark insists there’s no contradiction—Matthew simply chose to focus on one angel, while John mentioned both.

But this isn’t how precision works.

Matthew doesn’t write, “one of the angels said…” He writes, “the angel said…”—as though there was only one. If two angels had been there and Matthew had simply chosen to omit one, it would raise the question: why omit half of the divine messengers at the most important event in human history?

This isn’t a minor discrepancy—it’s a detail that calls into question the accuracy of either (or both) accounts.

The Larger Problem

Clark closes by accusing skeptics of applying “a level of precision and perfection” to the Bible that we wouldn’t apply to any other ancient text.

But that’s the point.

Apologists claim the Bible is inerrant, God-breathed, and perfect—not just another ancient text. If the Bible is to serve as the foundation of divine authority, it must meet the higher standard that Christians themselves claim for it.

If it’s just human literature, then Clark’s excuse works.

But if it’s God’s Word, it doesn’t.

Are the Bible’s Errors Overblown? A Response to “Contradictions and Mistakes” in The Problem of God

In The Problem of God, Pastor Mark Clark attempts to calm concerns about biblical contradictions by calling them exaggerated and irrelevant—more the product of internet skeptics than serious inquiry. But brushing aside the issue with sarcasm and misdirection doesn’t make it go away. Chapter 3 of his book, titled “Contradictions and Mistakes,” invites a closer, more honest look—not just at the surface-level examples, but at the deeper implications they raise. If the Bible is God’s perfect Word, why are there inconsistencies at all? This post examines Clark’s apologetic claims and offers a critical response rooted in transparency, logic, and respect for the reader’s intelligence.

Are the Mistakes Just Typos?

Clark argues that the 400,000+ variants in the New Testament are largely insignificant—mere spelling errors or different wordings that don’t impact doctrine. And while it’s true that many variations are minor, what Clark doesn’t mention is that we don’t have the originals. All we have are copies of copies—with no way to verify what the authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John actually wrote.

And yes—some of the variants do matter:

  • Who was at the tomb? (Mark vs. Luke vs. John)
  • What did Jesus say on the cross? (compare all four Gospels)
  • How did Judas die? (Matthew 27:5 vs. Acts 1:18)

These are not “typos.” They’re incompatible eyewitness accounts—right where Christians claim we should see divine consistency.

“Only Two Disputed Passages”?

Clark also claims that only two passages in the entire New Testament are seriously disputed—Mark 16:9–20 and John 7:53–8:11. But that claim is misleading. Those two are the longest disputed blocks, but there are dozens of disputed and contradictory statements throughout the New Testament. They may not be flagged in your English Bible—but they are known to scholars.

Even minor contradictions cast doubt on the doctrine of biblical inerrancy—a core tenet of Southern Baptist fundamentalism. Once you admit that human error exists, the entire foundation of certainty begins to shake.

When Apologetics Avoids the Real Question

Rather than addressing the deeper issue—how can a perfect God allow imperfect transmission of His Word?—Clark spends most of this section trying to discredit Bart Ehrman and skeptical readers. He uses false equivalency (comparing Bible copies to book typos), rhetorical minimization, and selective framing.

But these tactics don’t answer the question.

In fact, they prove why The God Question exists in the first place: when belief is built on certainty, even small cracks must be ignored or explained away.