unexplainable contradictions?

[adam00003]

i've heard plenty of times about the condradictions in the bible. most times i can see how bogus they are, ie trying to say its a contradiction that all foods are clean/some foods are unclean. i understand the idea of the OT vs NT and the changing of laws and what not. i understand some other ones about god being merciful/god being angry and destructive. again, these critics know not the content and know not the context and the circumstances. i consider all attacks like these just not worth the argument, considering that the critic must be involved in the content they attack, which they clearly are not and therefore, don't understand the teachings.

however, there are some proposed errors in the bible that seem to have absolutely no explanation? i'll list the ones currently on my mind

for the record, i believe in the bible and i believe it to be without error, the devine work of god. i just don't have an answer for someone when given these instances.

MAT 1:16 vs LUK 3:23
kinda hard to explain to an attacker how this is not a contradiction. it directly lists two seperate blood lines of joseph.

MAT 27:5 vs ACT 1:18
one says judas hung himself, one says he exploded... explanation?

MAT 27:9-10
there doesn't appear to be any mention of this in jeremiah. must have been refering to Zechariah 11:12-13, although even that would be a very loose interpretation of zechariah. confused...

2KI 6:23 vs 2CH 36:9
one states that Jehoiachin was 8 years old when began to reign. one states he was 10 years older...

1KI 16:6-8 vs 2CH 16:1
again, there seems to be a 10 year differnce in the timeline.

2KI 8:26 22 vs 2CH 22:2 42
and again, timeline contradictions

2CH 36:1 vs JER 22:11
Josiah's successor is Jehoahaz in one, Shallum in the other

Ezra and Nehemiah have differences in their census figures...

JOH 7:38
jesus quotes a scripture.. but that scripture appears to not be in the bible.

LUK 24:46, 1COR 15:3-4
both of these accounts again claim that scripture supports the rise of jesus on the third day.. where is that scripture?

MAT 2:23
again, mathew claims that this was fullfilment of a prophecy. however, there isn't even a reference in the old testament of nazareth or nazarene.

MAT 2:1 vs LUK 2:2
mathew claims that jesus was born in the reign of herod, while luke claims he was born during the syrian governorship of quirinius. this is extra suspicious considering that mathew is the only account that tells the story of herod's masacre of all the infants. i seems as though the other accounts knew that herod was not currently the man in charge. in fact, herod is said to be dead at 4 B.C. i can understand that history must be wrong and the bible right, after all, history is written by the victors.. but luke directly claims that jesus was born during the reign of quirinius, who didn't get appointed to the positions utill 6 A.D. according to history... i can understand history being written wrong, but there isn't just an inconsistency between history and the bible, this is an inconsistency between the two books in the bible.

2SAM 21:19 vs 1CHR 20:5
both disagree with each other on who Elhanan killed...

2SAM 24:13 vs 1CHR 21:11, 12
one says 7 years of famine, the other 3

2SAM 8:4 vs 1 CHR 18:4
again, numbers are different. it sure seems like 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles are regularly disagreeing with eachother! perhaps a bad copyer?

GEN 11:12 vs LUK 3:35, 36
the two acounts disagree on salah's father.

there are many more that i can't remember enough to directly quote them and apply a scripture as evidence, but i do remember many old testament prophecies that did not happen. and by not happen, i don't mean haven't yet happened. i mean they were direct prophecies for, say, a certain battle. that one side would prevail. and that side did indeed, not prevail. just confused and would love some good material to help defend the word of god.

thanks for any help

[Theophilus]

Rather than trying to answer all these, let me give you a place to start looking: http://carm.org/.

That's Matt Slick's website, and he's quite the Christian apologist. Look under the "Bible Difficulties" sub-group, which breaks up seeming contradictions based on books of the Bible.

Enjoy.

[Athanasius]

Which of those bother you the most, or do you find the most pertinent?

[divaD]

2SAM 21:19 vs 1CHR 20:5
both disagree with each other on who Elhanan killed...

2SAM 21:19 And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.


1 Chronicles 20:5 And there was war again with the Philistines; and Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear staff was like a weaver's beam.

I'm not quite following here? I don't get the point?

slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite
slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite

Why wouldn't these be the same? Just because one account didn't mention the name of the brother, and one did, what would make this a contradiction? Doesn't 1 Chronicles 20:5 tell us the name of the brother is Lahmi?

[divaD]

2SAM 8:4 vs 1 CHR 18:4
again, numbers are different. it sure seems like 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles are regularly disagreeing with eachother! perhaps a bad copyer?

2 Samuel 8:4 And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven hundred(may-aw') horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: and David houghed all the chariot horses, but reserved of them for an hundred chariots.

1 Chronicles 18:4 And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven thousand(eh'-lef) horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: David also houghed all the chariot horses, but reserved of them an hundred chariots.

I don't see how a bad copier would explain it, since the same Hebrew word is not used in both passages. Had the same Hebrew word been used, then a bad copier would seem to explain it.

[petepet]

2 Samuel 8:4 And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven hundred(may-aw') horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: and David houghed all the chariot horses, but reserved of them for an hundred chariots.

1 Chronicles 18:4 And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven thousand(eh'-lef) horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: David also houghed all the chariot horses, but reserved of them an hundred chariots.

I don't see how a bad copier would explain it, since the same Hebrew word is not used in both passages. Had the same Hebrew word been used, then a bad copier would seem to explain it.

eleph does not only mean a thousand. It also, for example, indicated a military unit (also a wider family). Another name for a military unit is may-aw. Thus there is really no problem In both cases it is seven military units.

[jayne]

i consider all attacks like these just not worth the argument, considering that the critic must be involved in the content they attack, which they clearly are not and therefore, don't understand the teachings.

You are very correct here. I've seen this all over the internet for at least a decade and you do get the occasional person who is truly looking for answers and the truth about God's Word, but most of the time you are just getting someone who is only looking to discredit Christians and the Bible.

MAT 1:16 vs LUK 3:23
kinda hard to explain to an attacker how this is not a contradiction. it directly lists two seperate blood lines of joseph.

Matthew is writing to the Jews who need to see the "legal credentials" of the Messiah. He MUST be from Abraham and David's lineage. So He starts with Abraham and goes forward through the legal bloodline of the legal father - Joseph. Luke is talking to Gentiles who don't even understand about these Jewish things. They need to know that Jesus is GOD. So Luke starts with Jesus and goes backward all the way to Adam and God. Some scholars say that Matthew's genealogy is Joseph's and that Luke's is Mary's.

I tend to agree. Both Joseph, the legal parent, and Mary, the biological parent, are descended from Abraham and David. This takes care of the any prophecies from the Old Testament that anyone might squabbled over during Jesus' day.

If you look at the Matthew genealogy, it says that Abraham "begat" Issac and so on using the word "begat" all the throughout. That means these were the literal and biological children.

But Luke doesn't say "begat". He says this: "Joseph who was the son of Heli who was the son of Matthat....." Do you notice that "the son" is in italics? That means these words were added by the translators of the King James version for clarification's sake. Literally, it reads, "Joseph, who was of Heli who was of Matthat....."

Heli could have been Joseph's father-in-law. It doesn't say "begat" like Matthew.

And at the end of the Luke passage, it says, ".....Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God." Adam isn't the literally son of God. Jesus is the Son of God.

It just means that Adam is "of" God. Created by Him. So when it says that Joseph is "of" Heli - it's not saying "begat by".

It's a subtle distinction in the two genealogies, but it's there nonetheless. You will have Christians who disagree with everything I just said - and it's OK.

I believe this NOT because I am trying to force the issue of their being no contradiction. Forcing a square peg into a round hole still doesn't make them match. The peg and the hole still contradict.

It's just truly what I believe based on what I read.

MAT 27:5 vs ACT 1:18
one says judas hung himself, one says he exploded... explanation?

He did hang himself. And apparently no one cared to come and take him down and his body bloated and the either the rope or the limb gave way and his dead body fell to the ground and burst open.

Why didn't anyone come and take him down? I don't know. Maybe they didn't know he was there for a few days or maybe because it was a suicide they felt his body was unclean. Again, I don't know.

2KI 6:23 vs 2CH 36:9
one states that Jehoiachin was 8 years old when began to reign. one states he was 10 years older...

1KI 16:6-8 vs 2CH 16:1
again, there seems to be a 10 year differnce in the timeline.

2KI 8:26 22 vs 2CH 22:2 42
and again, timeline contradictions

Copyist error in translation. You'll find more than one of those. Has no bearing on the validity of the Word. In fact, some of these copyist errors are "fixed" in other translations other than the King James with marginal notes explaining the correction.

MAT 27:9-10
there doesn't appear to be any mention of this in jeremiah. must have been refering to Zechariah 11:12-13, although even that would be a very loose interpretation of zechariah. confused...

Here's something to chew on. (By Paul Taylor) It's just a suggestion, not a dogma.

This possibility is that Matthew is using a well-established rabbinical formula of referring to a collection of books by the name of the first book in the collection. Jesus used a similar formula in Luke 24:44, where He referred to the Writings section of the Old Testament as Psalms—even though this could include the other writings, such as Proverbs.

In the Jewish Tanakh, the prophetic books were in a different order then the order of the Christian Bible—even though they are all there. The first listed book in the collection of the Prophets was Jeremiah, not Isaiah. Therefore, a citation of Jeremiah could conceivably cover an actual quotation from Zechariah.

2CH 36:1 vs JER 22:11
Josiah's successor is Jehoahaz in one, Shallum in the other

Apparently, Jehoahaz's birth name is Shallum according to 1 Chronicles 3:15. They are the same person. He became Jehoahaz - "seized by God" when he became king.

"The sons of Josiah: Johanan the firstborn, Jehoiakim the second son, Zedekiah the third, Shallum the fourth."

Ezra and Nehemiah have differences in their census figures...

I haven't studied this one. I'll have to come back. Were they both counting both men AND women?

JOH 7:38 jesus quotes a scripture.. but that scripture appears to not be in the bible.

Could have easily been based on Isaiah 58:9-11

"Then you will call, and the LORD will answer; you will cry for help, and he will say: Here am I."If you do away with the yoke of oppression, with the pointing finger and malicious talk,

and if you spend yourselves in behalf of the hungry and satisfy the needs of the oppressed, then your light will rise in the darkness, and your night will become like the noonday.

The LORD will guide you always; he will satisfy your needs in a sun-scorched land and will strengthen your frame. You will be like a well-watered garden, like a spring whose waters never fail."

LUK 24:46, 1COR 15:3-4
both of these accounts again claim that scripture supports the rise of jesus on the third day.. where is that scripture?

Hosea 6:1-3

"Come, and let us return to the LORD; For He has torn, but He will heal us; He has stricken, but He will bind us up. After two days He will revive us; On the third day He will raise us up,
That we may live in His sight. Let us know, Let us pursue the knowledge of the LORD. His going forth is established as the morning; He will come to us like the rain, Like the latter and former rain to the earth."

How will He revive us and raise us up to live in His sight? Because of His rising on the third day. This is a Messianic passage.

Also the book of Jonah, specifically His being in the belly of the great fish for three days is Messianic. Jesus said so in Matthew 12.

I've got to take a break. I'll be back with the rest as best that I can. And I will study that Ezra/Nehemiah passage.

[petepet]

i've heard plenty of times about the condradictions in the bible. most times i can see how bogus they are, ie trying to say its a contradiction that all foods are clean/some foods are unclean. i understand the idea of the OT vs NT and the changing of laws and what not. i understand some other ones about god being merciful/god being angry and destructive. again, these critics know not the content and know not the context and the circumstances. i consider all attacks like these just not worth the argument, considering that the critic must be involved in the content they attack, which they clearly are not and therefore, don't understand the teachings.

however, there are some proposed errors in the bible that seem to have absolutely no explanation? i'll list the ones currently on my mind

for the record, i believe in the bible and i believe it to be without error, the devine work of god. i just don't have an answer for someone when given these instances.

MAT 1:16 vs LUK 3:23
kinda hard to explain to an attacker how this is not a contradiction. it directly lists two seperate blood lines of joseph.

I see no mention of blood lines. Matthew gives the line of royal descent. Where a king died without a son descent would pass to someone else. Luke gives the bloodline.
MAT 27:5 vs ACT 1:18
one says judas hung himself, one says he exploded... explanation?

Judas hung himself by tying a rope of a tree overhanging a drop. When he fell the rope broke and he hit the ground and 'burst open'.
MAT 27:9-10
there doesn't appear to be any mention of this in jeremiah. must have been refering to Zechariah 11:12-13, although even that would be a very loose interpretation of zechariah. confused...
Matthew is correct in referring to Jeremiah for he is referring to 'they gave them for the potter's field' an idea which comes from Jeremiah.
2KI 6:23 vs 2CH 36:9
one states that Jehoiachin was 8 years old when began to reign. one states he was 10 years older...

8 years was Jehoiachin's age when he was appointed king as co-regent (a regular practise in Judah). 18 years was his age when his father died and he became sole king
1KI 16:6-8 vs 2CH 16:1
again, there seems to be a 10 year differnce in the timeline.
same reason
2KI 8:26 22 vs 2CH 22:2 42
and again, timeline contradictions
same reason
2CH 36:1 vs JER 22:11
Josiah's successor is Jehoahaz in one, Shallum in the other

Jehoahaz was his throne name. Shallum his given name
Ezra and Nehemiah have differences in their census figures...

JOH 7:38
jesus quotes a scripture.. but that scripture appears to not be in the bible.

the reference is to the idea as found in Ezekiel 47. Jesus saw the believer as His Temple.
LUK 24:46, 1COR 15:3-4
both of these accounts again claim that scripture supports the rise of jesus on the third day.. where is that scripture?
probably Hosea 6.2
MAT 2:23
again, mathew claims that this was fullfilment of a prophecy. however, there isn't even a reference in the old testament of nazareth or nazarene.

Scripture says 'He will be born a netzer (seen as Nazarene)'
MAT 2:1 vs LUK 2:2
mathew claims that jesus was born in the reign of herod, while luke claims he was born during the syrian governorship of quirinius. this is extra suspicious considering that mathew is the only account that tells the story of herod's masacre of all the infants. i seems as though the other accounts knew that herod was not currently the man in charge. in fact, herod is said to be dead at 4 B.C. i can understand that history must be wrong and the bible right, after all, history is written by the victors.. but luke directly claims that jesus was born during the reign of quirinius, who didn't get appointed to the positions utill 6 A.D. according to history... i can understand history being written wrong, but there isn't just an inconsistency between history and the bible, this is an inconsistency between the two books in the bible.

Quirinius was involved in Syria in one way or another from 11 BC onwards. There are good grounds for thinking that he held a 'governorship' in 3 BC which was the year in which the registration for the 25th anniversary of Augustus took place, the registration mentioned in Luke. The date of Herod's death is uncertain.
2SAM 21:19 vs 1CHR 20:5
both disagree with each other on who Elhanan killed...
see posting above

2SAM 24:13 vs 1CHR 21:11, 12
one says 7 years of famine, the other 3

2SAM 8:4 vs 1 CHR 18:4
again, numbers are different. it sure seems like 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles are regularly disagreeing with eachother! perhaps a bad copyer?

same explanation as above
GEN 11:12 vs LUK 3:35, 36
the two acounts disagree on salah's father.
it was quite normal in thise days for a grandfather to be seen as a man's 'father'
there are many more that i can't remember enough to directly quote them and apply a scripture as evidence, but i do remember many old testament prophecies that did not happen. and by not happen, i don't mean haven't yet happened. i mean they were direct prophecies for, say, a certain battle. that one side would prevail. and that side did indeed, not prevail. just confused and would love some good material to help defend the word of god.

lol you will have to give examples
thanks for any help

the answers above are brief a more detailed answer will be given on an individual problem if required

[jayne]

MAT 2:23
again, mathew claims that this was fullfilment of a prophecy. however, there isn't even a reference in the old testament of nazareth or nazarene.

I'm going to give you the abbreviated version of a very good commentary that I found by Dr. Bert Thompson. I'm sure that it's not a hill upon which to die, but it's good food for thought.

Here's the link to the entire thing. It's long! CLICK HERE

In a nutshell, Dr. Thompson says that you need to read verse 22 AND 23.

But because he (Joseph) heard that Archelaus was ruling over Judea in the place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. And being divinely warned in a dream, he withdrew to the region of Galilee. He went and dwelt in a town called Nazareth, so that what was spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled: He shall be called a Nazarene [Branch, Separated One].

Secondly, he says that this verse is NOT giving a direct quote. He says that because the word "prophets" is plural that it cannot be giving a direct quotation. He explains it very well.

Jesus lived in Nazareth not because the prophets had said that He would live in that specific city, but in order to fulfill additional specific things that the prophets had said about Him.

He says that many prophets spoke of the rejection that Jesus would suffer from His own people. Dr. Thompson says that all of this rejection is what was spoken by the prophets. And it was!

When Philip tried to tell Nathanael about Jesus of Nazareth, Nathanael said, "What good can come for Nazareth??" The people of Jerusalem were prejudice. And for good reason. It wasn't a pleasant place.

He WAS mocked and rejected merely FOR being a Nazarene in Acts 24:5. His was labeled as a troublemaker.

It WAS foretold by more than one prophet that Jesus would be rejected and a reproach to people. Matthew isn't quoting what prophets claimed Jesus would be called, but it giving a name to it.

He isn't making a direct quotation, but is summing up the prophets into the name that was actually giving Him in derision.

[petepet]

<p> ‘And He came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, that He should be called a Nazarene’ (2.23).
<p> The first thing to be noted here is that this is not a direct citation, and that it is referred to ‘the prophets’ as a whole. It is thus seen, not as a direct quotation, but as a general principle spoken of by the prophets which is to be ‘filled to the full’. Here the emphasis is on the significance of Jesus coming to live in Nazareth. The question is therefore in what way the prophets can have suggested that Jesus would be ‘called a Nazarene’.
<p> In fact the answer to that question would have been more obvious to the Jews of Matthew’s day than it is to us. Nazareth was in Galilee, and Galilee was despised by the people of Judah as ‘Galilee of the Gentiles’. While Jewish Galileans were accepted as being full Jews (although many of their fathers had been forced to become so by compulsory circumcision) they were seen as a little unorthodox, and even their Rabbis were not seen as quite as orthodox as they should be. Thus they were ‘looked down on’ by their more orthodox brethren in Judea and Jerusalem (see for example John 7.41, 52). But even more looked down on were the residents of Nazareth in Galilee. Nazareth was a smallish out of the way town in the hills, away from the main thoroughfares which it overlooked from a height, which had somehow gained a reputation for being a backward nonentity. Thus if Galilee was despised, Nazareth was even more despised, for it was despised even by those who lived in Galilee. It was the lowest of the low. Thus Nathaniel could say, ‘Can anything good come out of Nazareth?’ (John 1.46). And at the time that Matthew was written (whenever it was) the Jews looked down on Christians and called them ‘the sect of the Nazarenes’, which was intended to be upsetting and insulting (Acts 24.5).
<p> So Matthew’s point here is that quite deliberately Joseph and Mary went back to live in that unpretentious town in the hills where Mary at least had once had her home, thus fulfilling all the Old Testament prophecies which spoke of the Coming One as being the lowliest of men (see especially Psalm 22.6; Isaiah 53.1-5; Zechariah 9.12; 11.7-14). Here therefore ‘He shall be called a Nazarene’ indicates that ‘He would be seen as the lowest of the low’, as the Scriptures had declared would be the case.
<p> Matthew has previously not mentioned any connection with Nazareth, and that has been deliberate. For he had been concerned to emphasise the Davidic connection of Jesus, and His royal birth and treatment by the Magi, but now he also seeks to draw attention to His lowliness as He ‘returns from Exile’, thus filling in both aspects of Zechariah 9.12. The One Who was the Son of David, and honoured by the Magi, had like Israel of old fled to Egypt, and had now descended in status to lowly Nazareth.
<p> Other have connected the words with Isaiah 11.1, where the ‘branch’ is a ‘netser’. Thus ‘He will be called a netser’. However, the connection of this with Nazareth is tenuous, and if Matthew had intended that he would surely have drawn attention to the fact, for it is not obvious in the Greek. The same is true of interpretations that seek to connect the idea with Nazirites. But most of all they all also founder on the fact that Matthew referred it to ‘the prophets’ not ‘the prophet’. Thus the probability is that we are to see Matthew as reading into the words ‘He will be called a Nazarene’ all the contempt that was intrinsic in the idea of being an inhabitant of Nazareth.

[divaD]

eleph does not only mean a thousand. It also, for example, indicated a military unit (also a wider family). Another name for a military unit is may-aw. Thus there is really no problem In both cases it is seven military units.

That's interesting the way that works out. I do understand where you're coming from here. Makes perfect sense. Thanks for the insight.

[Butch5]

i've heard plenty of times about the condradictions in the bible. most times i can see how bogus they are, ie trying to say its a contradiction that all foods are clean/some foods are unclean. i understand the idea of the OT vs NT and the changing of laws and what not. i understand some other ones about god being merciful/god being angry and destructive. again, these critics know not the content and know not the context and the circumstances. i consider all attacks like these just not worth the argument, considering that the critic must be involved in the content they attack, which they clearly are not and therefore, don't understand the teachings.

however, there are some proposed errors in the bible that seem to have absolutely no explanation? i'll list the ones currently on my mind

for the record, i believe in the bible and i believe it to be without error, the devine work of god. i just don't have an answer for someone when given these instances.

MAT 1:16 vs LUK 3:23
kinda hard to explain to an attacker how this is not a contradiction. it directly lists two seperate blood lines of joseph.

MAT 27:5 vs ACT 1:18
one says judas hung himself, one says he exploded... explanation?

MAT 27:9-10
there doesn't appear to be any mention of this in jeremiah. must have been refering to Zechariah 11:12-13, although even that would be a very loose interpretation of zechariah. confused...

2KI 6:23 vs 2CH 36:9
one states that Jehoiachin was 8 years old when began to reign. one states he was 10 years older...

1KI 16:6-8 vs 2CH 16:1
again, there seems to be a 10 year differnce in the timeline.

2KI 8:26 22 vs 2CH 22:2 42
and again, timeline contradictions

2CH 36:1 vs JER 22:11
Josiah's successor is Jehoahaz in one, Shallum in the other

Ezra and Nehemiah have differences in their census figures...

JOH 7:38
jesus quotes a scripture.. but that scripture appears to not be in the bible.

LUK 24:46, 1COR 15:3-4
both of these accounts again claim that scripture supports the rise of jesus on the third day.. where is that scripture?

MAT 2:23
again, mathew claims that this was fullfilment of a prophecy. however, there isn't even a reference in the old testament of nazareth or nazarene.

MAT 2:1 vs LUK 2:2
mathew claims that jesus was born in the reign of herod, while luke claims he was born during the syrian governorship of quirinius. this is extra suspicious considering that mathew is the only account that tells the story of herod's masacre of all the infants. i seems as though the other accounts knew that herod was not currently the man in charge. in fact, herod is said to be dead at 4 B.C. i can understand that history must be wrong and the bible right, after all, history is written by the victors.. but luke directly claims that jesus was born during the reign of quirinius, who didn't get appointed to the positions utill 6 A.D. according to history... i can understand history being written wrong, but there isn't just an inconsistency between history and the bible, this is an inconsistency between the two books in the bible.

2SAM 21:19 vs 1CHR 20:5
both disagree with each other on who Elhanan killed...

2SAM 24:13 vs 1CHR 21:11, 12
one says 7 years of famine, the other 3

2SAM 8:4 vs 1 CHR 18:4
again, numbers are different. it sure seems like 2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles are regularly disagreeing with eachother! perhaps a bad copyer?

GEN 11:12 vs LUK 3:35, 36
the two acounts disagree on salah's father.

there are many more that i can't remember enough to directly quote them and apply a scripture as evidence, but i do remember many old testament prophecies that did not happen. and by not happen, i don't mean haven't yet happened. i mean they were direct prophecies for, say, a certain battle. that one side would prevail. and that side did indeed, not prevail. just confused and would love some good material to help defend the word of god.

thanks for any help

Hi David,

There is most likely an explanation for each of these, I don't have the answer to all of these, however, for the ones you say are not mentioned in the OT let me ask you if you have checked the Apocrypha. The Apocrypha was part of the OT in the time of Christ. It was part of the OT in the original King James, however, I beleive it was the reformers who removed it, but I 'm not certain. As far as time lines, check the source of both time lines, sometimes they are starting at different points in history.

[crawfish]

I thought these were a great treatment of the differences between Kings and Chronicles:

http://biologos.org/blog/the-problem...-chronicles-1/
http://biologos.org/blog/the-problem...-chronicles-2/
http://biologos.org/blog/the-problem...-chronicles-3/

[adam00003]

2SAM 21:19 And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.


1 Chronicles 20:5 And there was war again with the Philistines; and Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear staff was like a weaver's beam.

I'm not quite following here? I don't get the point?

slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite
slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite

Why wouldn't these be the same? Just because one account didn't mention the name of the brother, and one did, what would make this a contradiction? Doesn't 1 Chronicles 20:5 tell us the name of the brother is Lahmi?

made me go studying through my different versions! in the NIV and NASB they say goliath, not his brother, in the 2SAM one. in the KJ, the words "the brother of" are added to the text. they do not appear in the original hebrew. i think the KJ version is the only one that fixed that problem. however, the idea of "correcting" seems wrong. aren't we meant to take it as the word of god? just find it strange.

[adam00003]

2 Samuel 8:4 And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven hundred(may-aw') horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: and David houghed all the chariot horses, but reserved of them for an hundred chariots.

1 Chronicles 18:4 And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven thousand(eh'-lef) horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: David also houghed all the chariot horses, but reserved of them an hundred chariots.

I don't see how a bad copier would explain it, since the same Hebrew word is not used in both passages. Had the same Hebrew word been used, then a bad copier would seem to explain it.

thank you, never saw that.