DOES THE BIBLE CONTAIN CONTRADICTIONS?— Three of a Seven-part Series — Different Names Given To Same Item

Contradictions can also be erroneously claimed by regarding one item as two different items. Two men had a never-ending argument over the authorship of Tom Sawyer. One claimed it was Mark Twain. The other insisted it was Samuel Clemens.
When a Bible character (as well as a place or event) has more than one name, the reader ought to check to see if the two passages are using different names of the same person before he calls it a contradiction. One Bible character had the names: Joseph, Barsabas and Justis. Another was called: Simon, Simeon, Simon Bar-jona, Simon son of Jonas, Simon Peter, Cephas and Peter. The two men who argued over the authorship of Tom Sawyer would have room for five more when considering the writer of First and Second Peter.
This explains the apparent contra-dictions in the four listings of the Apostles (Matt.10:2-4; Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:13-16; Acts 1:13). It answers why the same area was called the country of the Gergesenes (Matt. 8:28) and the country of the Gadarenes (Mark 5:1). It explains why the woman was a Canaanite in Matthew 15:32, but a Syro-phenician in Mark 7:26. No, there are no contradictions in these verses or verses like them. They are simply cases in which one item has two or more names.
Under A Different Covenant
Recognizing that the people in the four Gospels and the people in Acts to Revelation were living under two different covenants will clarify some supposed contradictions. It is not a contradiction to say that Mr. Smith legally drives on both sides of the road – – if Mr. Smith frequently travels to and drives in London (a nation with a different traffic law).
Jesus’ crucifixion made the law of Moses (under which Christ lived) old (Heb. 8:13). Thus, it is not a contradiction for Jesus to have observed the Passover and the Sabbath when Colossians 2:16 makes clear that such is no part of Christianity. This principle also explains why Hebrews 7:19 states “the law made nothing perfect,” while James 1:25 mentions “the perfect law.” The first was the old law and the second was the new. The principle of “different laws” also explains why the Jews said “by our law he ought to die” (John 19:7) and “it is not lawful for us to put any man to death” (John 18:31). The first refers to the Mosaic law, the second to the restrictions of the Roman law.
We would pray that our religious friends would apply this crucial principle of “different covenants” to the thief on the cross. He lived under a different law than those who received the instructions of the necessity of baptism for salvation (Acts 2:38; 22:16; et.al). To claim that the case of the thief on the cross proves that baptism is not essential, is to make the Bible contradict itself – – which would imply that the Bible is not inspired.
Gary Henson