Typically when we atheists are pulling out biblical contradictions we pull verses from very different parts of the bible. It might be somewhere in the old testament versus a gospel, or a gospel versus an epistle, this post is going to be a little different.

I’m going to turn Paul against himself.

To be even more pointed, and to avoid the issues that might come if I pick verses from the books that most scholars think are pseudo-pauline I’m just going to stick to 1 book. The First Epistle to the Corinthians.

The first section:

1 Corinthians 11:5-16 (English Standard Version)

5 but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6 For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. 7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12f or as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. 13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.

A nice long ramble, the common thing that Paul would write, but the real key to my point is the first verse: “every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head”. This set of verses is the beginning of a large multi-chapter instruction on church worship practices. The obvious meaning to be taken is that if a woman is to pray or prophesy within a church service she is to do so with a head covering.

Now for comparison:

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 (English Standard Version)

34 the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. 35 If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

This comes from the end of the section on worship. It says quite the opposite from the first section, as now women are to keep silent in church.

WTF?

How can a woman be permitted to pray and prophesy, 2 of the main sections of the church worship in one verse, and be told they must shut up only a few pages later?

The “simple” answer, and the one that is accepted by non-evangelical theologians is that the second set of verses are a later addition by a scribe who wanted to further oppress women. Sure, both verses put forward a view of women that most modern westerners would call backward, but that is not the point.

The point is: how could an all-powerful God who gave us the Bible as his primary method of communication allow such an obvious contradiction into his inerrant word?*

* Answer: He didn’t, because he doesn’t exist, and the bible is just the frequently errant words of men**

Image from here