Current Issues
 Earnestly Contending
 The Sufficiency Of Christ
  Growth, Strength And Evidence
 Not Just Any Faith
 Statement of Faith
 About Us
 What We Believe
 Spring Revival


Apparent Contradictions

In “The Errors in the King James Bible” Peter Ruckman writes, that there are 31,000 apparent errors or inconsistencies identified by scholars {critics} relative to the KJV - Ruckman says, “at least 29,000 are deliberate creations invented by the imagination of the critic.  Of the 2,000 or more that remain, 1,600 can be explained by common sense without reference to a Greek or Hebrew lexicon or without attending a Christian school above the high school level.  Of the 400 that remain, only 20 would be called difficult problems and out of these twenty, only 5 could be classified as extremely difficult {which is less than .00033 percent … making the AV 99.9967 percent plain…(understandable).  Interestingly I did not find in the book all five of the “extremely difficult” referenced.


Ruckman goes on to site that according to the top twenty major commentators {Matthew Henry, Clarke, Lange, Delitzsch, Keil, Dummelow, Rendall, The Wycliffe Commentary, The New Bible Commentary, Ellicott …} something is either radically wrong or at least slightly wrong with … the KJV.”  And thus must be corrected.  It seems that because of a few difficult to reconcile scripture verses, that the imagination of many have seen error where none have existed which has led to doubting the reliability of God’s Word which has only been compounded by the numerous English translations that have sprung up {whose corrections are inconsistent in themselves - meaning that something that is corrected at one place is omitted at another within the same book}.


Ruckman sights that the Scripture many times gives a false doctrine because the speaker is mad, bitter or being sarcastic, examples: Psalm 14:1 “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.”  Job 12:6 “6The tabernacles of robbers prosper, and they that provoke God are secure; into whose hand God bringeth  abundantly.”  Amos 4:4, 5 4Come to Bethel, and transgress; at Gilgal multiply transgression; and bring your sacrifices every morning, and your tithes after three years: 5And offer a sacrifice of thanksgiving with leaven, and proclaim and publish the free offerings: for this liketh you, O ye children of Israel, saith the Lord GOD.”


In his book Ruckman appears to make some of the very errors that he accuses skeptics of making - taking the scripture out of its context and thereby supplying an answer which Scripture does not seem to support.  Meaning well but his logic falls short at times - so you must read his book with discernment.  He has an in your face writing style that in my opinion does not aid in rightly dividing the Word.  The vast majority of proposed errors by critics are not listed herein simply because of the volume of imagined errors.  Since critics do not believe that God has preserved His words and no one has access to the original writings, any attempt to fix what may not be broken is a fool’s errand.  Even if some chose to exercise their fertile imaginations into believing that something different was intended than that which was preserved, is not evidence of error.  This study will look at those scriptures which critics have identified as seeming to disagree within the KJV - It is my belief that the apparent errors of the KJV have by and large reasonable and proper solutions.  As a general rule in studying God’s word, the Bible should be studied line upon line and precept upon precept and when two verses appear to be irreconcilable than the text should be interpreted in the light of the whole revelation - at no time is lifting verses from the context a good practice for discerning the truth of God’s Word.


Of the two hundred and seventeen apparent errors listed, there are some which could be agrued to have questionable reasonable possibilities - but admitting that even one error exist, opens a Pandora’s box of implications that could lead to a shaking of ones faith if the believer were not careful (if even only one error existed how could anyone be sure that there weren’t more … if God allowed an error, than it doesn’t matter whether it was done by the original scribe or a copyist because ultimately God was not in control of every step of the way - the implications could go on and on) - ultimately everyone has a personal bias, unbelievers gravitate to man’s wisdom {science/the educated} as having the correct answers, to the Biblicist, it is God who has the correct answers - a bias {world view} is like faith, its value is directly related to the sureness of the foundation - man’s wisdom throughout it checkered history has vacillated, only God’s is the same yesterday, today and forever - there is a real temptation even for the best intended to be swayed by the apparent wisdom of the educated, the arguments can seems so persuading at times that compromising can seem to be the only reasonable solution.  Throughout human history some Christian have chosen this path, to the weakening of their and others convictions not to mention the feeding or strengthening the ways of the world.


The intent of this study is to “show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”  Ultimately even if all apparent errors can not be adequately resolved, the evidence abounds that the God of creation lives and acts in the lives of men, He has sent His Son, Jesus Christ to die for the sins of men and to reign in the lives of men through the presence of the Holy Spirit and it is in Him that we can be assured - though we may not understand every aspect of God’s Word, a lack of understanding doesn’t mean that a truth ceases to be a truth.  The premise {bias} of this study is that there are no scribble errors in any portion of the Bible, that God’s Word as preserved in the KJV is accurate in the smallest point - that reasonable possible explanations exist for these apparent error.  Matt. 5:18.  18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.  History has demonstrated that men’s opinions have changed in many areas, God should be given the benefit of the doubt even when we are tempted to think otherwise - All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and 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 Tim. 3:16, 17)


This study will list the apparent error in the order of first occurrences:


1)  Genesis 1:20 vs. 2:19

20And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 23And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

No error, an apparent error is perceived when read out of context thereby reading into the text more than is meant, the command does not and should not be seen to imply that the waters themselves produced marine life, but at the command of God, the existing waters suddenly teemed with life and at that very moment the “open firmament” (the lower heavens or atmosphere) were filled with fowl - this statement contradicts evolution but not God’s Word - isolating verse 20 from 21 thru 23 is an attempt at rewriting the Word of God - in Ecclesiastes 3:20, 21 we read, 20All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. 21Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?” - The implication is that all flesh came from dust in the creation process.


2)  Gen. 1:25, 26 vs. 2:18, 19

25And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.  26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

18And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. 19And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 

No error, the apparent error, the order of creation - there are two reasonable possibilities, the first suggest that a second creative act occurred to allow Adam to see the creative work of God; the second and more probable is a recap giving more information and by putting the both together the reader gets a clearer picture - on the sixth day of creation God created all the terrestrial (land) animals and two humans - man was unique to the animals and given dominion over the animals along with a responsibility for the animals and nature - Adam’s actions were far reaching - Adam’s helpmeet/partner was another human being formed from Adam.


3)  Gen. 1:26, 3:22, 18:1-3; 1 John 5:7 vs. Deut. 6:4

No error, the apparent error one God vs. a plurality of gods, while difficult to fully understand, the creator God is one in three persons - Father, Son and Holy Spirit - a trinity and yet one entity.


4)  Gen. 1:31 vs. 6:6

31And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

6And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

No error, this apparent error is a case of a “both/and” as apposed to a contradiction - something happened after Gen. 1:31 that caused God to respond as he did in Gen. 6:6, it is called the fall man who sinned exceedingly - the apparent error is a failure to understand the complexity of God’s nature - the holiness of God verses the compassion (love) the creator has for His creation - the total package of God’s nature/character which men fail to grasp.


5)  Gen. 3:8, 9 vs. Job 34:21, 22; Ps. 139:7-10 & Pro. 15:3

8And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.  9And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? 

21For his eyes are upon the ways of man, and he seeth all his goings. 22There is no darkness, nor shadow of death, where the workers of iniquity may hide themselves. … 8    If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. … 3The eyes of the LORD are in every place, beholding the evil and the good.

No error, God not only knew where Adam and Eve were but He knew their condition as well - the picture is of a merciful God allowing his creatures to confess their sin - to repent even though he knew that they wouldn’t - what may appear as some kind of a test is actually a tool to aid a hard hearted sinful race to grasp an awareness of its sinfulness and the need to repent by trusting in the finished work or Jesus Christ - there are many example of a test being used by God in the lives of men to bring them around to a proper understanding of his truths and will.


6)  Gen. 3:14

14And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

No error, Snakes taste the soil to sense their surroundings so while they don’t eat dust for food they certainly take it in making the statement an observational truth - the other possibility is that it is an analogy where the serpent represents Satan and the dust represents the frustrations from his fallen state that he experiences.


7)  Gen. 3:16; 1 Cor. 14:34; 1 Tim. 2:12; 1 Pet. 3:6 vs. Jgs. 4:4, 14, 15, 5:7; Acts 2:18, 21:9

No error, the apparent error, that the Bible both affirms and denies women’s rights?  Gen. 3:16 the curse on the woman (subject to the husband); 1 Cor. 14:34 woman shouldn’t speak in the assembly; 1 Tim. 2:12 woman not permitted to teach or exercise authority over a man; 1 Peter 3:6 like Sarah woman are to obey their husbands vs. Judges has Deborah judging Israel (no man would judge Israel); my Spirit poured out on handmaidens and they shall prophesy; four virgins who were prophets (prophecy was allowed for a time and then it ceased 1 Cor. 13:8) - while disputed by some there is no error, in 1 Tim. 3:2  we read that “a bishop is to be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober …”; in 1 Cor. 11:3 God gives the proper order for the church, Christ is the head of the man, the man is the head of the woman; the Father is the head of Christ (the teaching does not convey a superiority but a covering of ultimate love and honor in God’s order) - the world does not follow this pattern but it is not the church - God doesn’t say “your ways are not my ways” for nothing  - Scripture teaches to give honor to those who are over you so that would include having a woman boss/supervisor/teacher/police officer in a position of authority over men - the alternative is to remove yourself from the world - in short God honors and highly esteems women but has an order which He wants to see practiced in the lives of His children.


8)  Gen. 4:4, 5 vs. 2 Chron. 19:7

4And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering5But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.

7Wherefore now let the fear of the LORD be upon you; take heed and do it: for there is no iniquity with the LORD our God, nor respect of persons, nor taking of gifts.

No error, while the text does not say so in words, when read in its context including verses six and seven, it is understood that there was a particular format in the offering which Abel followed and Cain did not - the respect was not toward the individual so much as the obedience in the intent.


10)  Gen. 4:15 vs. 9:5, 6

15And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

5And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man’s brother will I require the life of man. 6Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. 

No error, the apparent error blood-shedders must not die/must die, chapter four is a special dispensation of grace given to Cain which covers vengeance (it was not a general principle) in chapter nine we see the establishment of government with the responsibility to deal out capital punishment.


11)  Gen. 6:5, 7 vs. 8:21

5And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. … 7And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

21And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake; for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

No error, the apparent error God is inconsistent, read out of context, no where in chapter eight does it say that the wicked will not be destroyed by God only that God will not again punish the whole earth because of men’s sins.


12)  Gen. 6:6 vs. Num. 23:19 vs. 1 Sam. 15:35 vs. Jonah 3:10

6And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

19God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

35And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death: nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul: and the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.

10And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not.

No error, the apparent error is whether God changes his mind and is a matter of view points, God’s verses man’s - in a sense God’s attitude toward man is conditional upon man’s attitude toward God and His ways - It appears on the surface that God is changing his mind when man changes his mind toward evil but there is more to the complex nature of God - mentioned earlier the nature of God is difficult to fully fathom from man’s perspective, God’s unchanging nature is all holy and all just as well as at the very same instance all loving and all merciful at all times and he cannot violate the tenants of his nature - man has no real ability to evaluate or appreciate such a nature - God had to make provisions to accommodate man’s vacillations because of his sinful nature - but more to the point, the words, are designed to convey a message to man that there is both a responsibility and a cost for his actions.


13)  Gen. 7:2 vs. 7:8, 9

2Of 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.

8Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, 9There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah. 

No error, the apparent error, were there 2 or 7 of each clean animal which went into the ark - this is more of a case of seeing error where it doesn’t exist, the key to properly understanding the text is not to overlook a small word, “of every clean beast … take to thee by seven, the male and the female… (“by” is a multiplier so that there were seven sets of two of the clean beast) the multiplier did not apply to the unclean beast and all went in two by two.


14)  Gen. 9:2 vs. Pro. 30:30

2And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.

30A lion which is strongest among beasts, and turneth not away for any;

No error, the apparent error, the fear of man upon every animal: a case of view point - God’s or mans, ultimately all beast even to this day still fear man - animal often attack as a response to their fear but wild beast are still wild and if the odd are in the animals favor or you push an animal too far you could become lunch or attacked - but even if a lion or other wild beast attacks it does not cancel the basic instinct of fear which all animals have toward men - and then there is the affect of sin on the animal kingdom.


15)  Gen. 9:3; Rom. 14:14; 1 Cor. 10:25 vs. Deut. 14:7, 8

No error, apparent error food, seeing error where none exist - Gen. 9:3 everything living shall be food; with the Romans the food was offered to idol and then re-sold it was not unclean; 1 Corinthians eat what is served without asking for conscience sake vs. the thing that were prohibit to the Jews as unclean (probably included some things that were best not eaten for health reasons as well ceremonial) - a case of difference dispensations and the liberty which the gospel of Christ brings to the Christian - Christ has fulfilled the letter of the law.


16)  Gen. 9:25; Lev. 25:45, 46; Joel 3:8 vs. Ex. 21:16; 22:21; Isa. 58:6; Matt. 23:10

No error, apparent error slavery/oppression ordained/forbidden - lifted out of context: Gen. 9:25 curse of Canaan which would in time bring the subjugation of some of the offspring; Lev. 25:45, 46 deals with those servants of the Egyptians who left Egypt with Israel and most likely wished to remain servants; in Joel we see God’s judgment of Israel because of sin - slavery was allowed but with specific conditions on how the slaves could be handled, while not God’s plan there were a variety of reason for slavery occurring (for some it was voluntary, others were slaves bought from someone else, some were due to being conquered, for some it was to settle a debt).


17)  Gen. 10:24; 11:12 vs. Luke 3:35-36 

24And Arphaxad begat Salah; and Salah begat Eber. … 12And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah:

35Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala, 36Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech”

Not necessarily an error, the apparent error is that Luke mentioned an individual which the Genesis account does not - the possible answers is that Cainan could have been a grandson or a son-in-law or that Moses simply didn’t mention him for whatever reason {there were a number of omission of names in Genesis - in which case you must conclude that either Luke made it up or the Holy Spirit filled in the apparent blank} - in truth we don’t know enough to dogmatically declare it an error and it is not uncommon for a biblical personage to have more than one name - while the exact case here is unclear it hardly proves error or a lack of clear understanding.


18)  Gen. 13:15 vs. Acts 7:5; Heb. 11:9, 13

15For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever.

5And he gave him none inheritance in it, no, not so much as to set his foot on: yet he promised that he would give it to him for a possession, and to his seed after him, when as yet he had no child.

No error, the apparent error is invented – first there is a matter of timing involved, secondly the promise to Abraham and to his children (is spiritual as well as physical) in that it has a future fulfillment (in Christ see Gal. 3:14) - it was partially realized by Abraham’s physical descendants even though Abraham never got to personally possess the land himself his inheritance will be in Christ at a future time - his descendents did posses, are partially possessing right now and will more fully possess the land in the Millennium.


19)  Gen. 17:10 vs. Gal. 5:2

10This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.

2Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.

No error, the apparent error circumcision instituted/condemned - one applied to the Jews the other Christians, Christians are not required to be circumcised to be justified before God the only requirement is to repent and accepted the finish work of Christ in your stead.


20)  Gen. 20:11, 12 vs. Deut. 27:22; Lev. 20:17

No error, the apparent error deals with marrying ones sister and is seen by taking the text out of its context:  Abraham married his half sister (hence allowed) but it is true that to marry one blood sister is against God’s will - the Scripture which the critics selected reveals just how little they know the word of God - they ignore an even closer relationship than Abraham’s, in Genesis 4:17 we read that Cain got married and knew intimately  17And Cain knew his wife … short of his wife being Eve it was one of his blood sister but there is still no problem for two reason no instruction against it had been given yet and the gene pool was a lot better than it is now or even four thousand years ago.


21)  Gen. 21:23, 24, 31, 31:53; Num. 30:2; Heb. 6:13 vs. Matt. 5:33, 34

No error, the apparent error deals with oaths: in the OT, it was a general customer of the nations which God allowed and even condoned - {God also made some oaths for the benefit of His listeners that they might have confidence, though sometimes God’s promises were conditional} - oaths were to be taken seriously and not made lightly because of the dangers associated with making oaths as was witness in Jgs. 11:30, 31 with Jephthah and so we see in Matthew Jesus teaching to not make oaths - there are many things that men do that God allows that he also warns against - the only error is on man’s part.


22)  Gen. 22:1 vs. James 1:12-13 vs. Heb. 11:17

1And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am. 

12Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him. 13Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:

17By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

No error - the apparent error here relates to the question does God tempt or not - Hebrew 11:17 clarifies the question by implying that “tempt” in the Bible has more than one meaning (to “test” and to “incite desire”) and so one must be read in it its context for its proper understanding.


23)  Gen. 22:12 vs. Ps. 139:2, 3; Acts 1:24

12And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.

2    Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my thought afar off.  3    Thou compassest my

path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways. …  24And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which

knowest the hearts of all men, show whether of these two thou hast chosen,

No error, this apparent error deals with God knowing or not knowing the hearts of men - similar to testing, while God knows the heart of men he nevertheless uses situations to reveal to men the content of their hearts, thus benefiting men or to put it another way the contents of the tea bag are not revealed until put in hot water and while God already knows the specific bent of man’s heart - men seem willfully ignorant to the true state.


24)  Gen. 23:16-17 vs. Acts 7:16  

16And Abraham hearkened unto Ephron; and Abraham weighed to Ephron the silver, which he had named in the audience of the sons of Heth, four hundred shekels of silver, current money with the merchant.17And the field of Ephron, which was in Machpelah, which was before Mamre, the field, and the cave which was therein, and all the trees that were in the field, that were in all the borders round about, were made sure

15So Jacob went down into Egypt, and died, he, and our fathers, 16And were carried over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor the father of Sychem.

Not necessarily an error, the apparent errors here relates to a name change of the location and the individual involved - a common sense answer is that over a period of time the place had a name change or two, which was common knowledge to the readers of Acts in Luke’s day; the reference to Ephron vs. Emmor has two possibilities, it is the same person who was known by more than one name or it is pointing to one of the relatives of Ephron.


25)  Gen. 26:2 vs. Ex. 33:11, 20, 23 vs. John 1:18 (see also 1 Tim. 6:16; Ex. 24:9, 10; Amos 9:1; John 14:9)

2And the LORD appeared unto him, and said, Go not down into Egypt; dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of:

11And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.  20And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.  23And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

18No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

No error - this apparent error has to do with how God is seen at times but not at other times, Scripture hints that God took a created form at times (angels) which allowed him to appear before men - while at other times the glory of God was not veiled and men would not be able to looked upon him lest they die.


26)  Gen. 26:34 vs. Gen. 28:9 vs. Gen. 36:2-3

34And Esau was forty years old when he took to wife Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Bashemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite:

9Then went Esau unto Ishmael, and took unto the wives which he had Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael Abraham’s son, the sister of Nebajoth, to be his wife.

2Esau took his wives of the daughters of Canaan; Adah the daughter of Elon the Hittite, and Aholibamah the daughter of Anah the daughter of Zibeon the Hivite; 3And Bashemath Ishmael’s daughter, sister of Nebajoth.”

No error, some suppose this to be an error, but there are a couple of logical probability, Esau could have had more that two wives before dying; some may have had the same name as another wife; some may have possibly been from the same family or perhaps the wives had additional names which they also went by.


27)  Gen. 35:18, 19 vs. 24-26 

18And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for she died) that she called his name Benoni: but his father called him Benjamin. 19And Rachel died, and was buried in the way to Ephrath, which is Bethlehem. vs.  24The sons of Rachel; Joseph, and Benjamin: 25And the sons of Bilhah, Rachel’s handmaid; Dan, and Naphtali: 26And the sons of Zilpah, Leah’s handmaid; Gad, and Asher: these are the sons of Jacob, which were born to him in Padanaram.

No error, this apparent error is related to the place where Benjamin was born and Rachel died, the first account doesn’t say that the place was Ephrath {Bethlehem} only that it was on the way to Ephrath so one would have to determine which route they took before an error could be sited {they journeyed from Bethal toward Ephrath - A map of the ancient world at the time of the Patriarchs depicts Bethel {slightly north-west approximately 10-15 miles} above Jerusalem {Bethlehem was just south of Jerusalem about 2 miles - if there was always only one Bethlehem} - Padanaram {a province covering a large area} is depicted above Bethel {further north-east} - Genesis 35:16 says that there was but a little way to come to Ephrath - unlike modern day maps which depict city, county and state boundary lines, ancient maps do not, so the exact distance Padanaram extended is not clear - one possible solution which has been suggested by Ruckman says that the “born to him” could mean that Benjamin was conceived in Padanaram though not physically born until later {the Scripture does not specifically say how much time went by from Bethel to Ephrath} - there are other examples in Scripture that would suggest that this answer is the case here though some will read this and see scribble errors, but that is a predisposition to one’s world view, just as much as “God rules and men drool.”


28)  Gen. 36:12 vs. 1 Chron. 1:36  also Gen. 38:2 vs. 1 Chron. 2:3 

12And Timna was concubine to Eliphaz Esau’s son; and she bare to Eliphaz Amalek: these were the sons of Adah Esau’s wife.

36The sons of Eliphaz; Teman, and Omar, Zephi, and Gatam, Kenaz, and Timna, and Amalek.”

No error, one time the name is used to indicate a female, the next a male - some consider this an error, but since we have names which could refer to either a male or female {Francis, Chris, Marion, Jean, Mickey, Bobby; Jackie} it should not seem strange that the Bible has similar examples.


29)  Gen. 41:56 vs. Gen. 43:11

56And the famine was over all the face of the earth: And Joseph opened all the storehouses, and sold (grain) unto the Egyptians; and the famine waxed sore in the land of Egypt.

11And their father Israel said unto them, If it must be so now, do this; take of the best fruits in the land in your vessels, and carry down the man a present, a little balm, and a little honey, spices, and myrrh, nuts, and almonds:”

No error - seeing error where none exist, when you read Genesis 41:55 you learn that it was a famine of bread / grain and technically people were not completely destitute - bread was the staff of life, unlike today when bread is stripped of its life sustaining ingredients - so people could have had some left over dried fruits, nuts and honey and even some water from wells.


30)  Gen. 46:26, 27 vs. Acts 7:14

26All the souls that came with Jacob into Egypt, which came out of his loins, besides Jacob’s sons’ wives, all the souls were threescore and six27And the sons of Joseph, which were born him in Egypt, were two souls: all the souls of the house of Jacob,(or of his loins) which came into Egypt, were threescore and ten (again excluding the wives).

14Then sent Joseph, and called his father Jacob to him, and all his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls.”

No error - the apparent scribble error {66 or 70 or 75} is another case of not reading the text in its context (Gen. 46:7-27) - the Genesis account refers two groups, the sixty-six of Jacob’s loins {children / grandchildren} the seventy included Joseph, his two sons (even though they were born in Egypt), Jacob and the sixty-six {no wives are included yet}; the Acts reference to 75 souls who came down into Egypt which accounts for Jacob, the sixty-six, and eight wives - Just as Rachel died prior to going to Egypt, so too did some of the other sons wives {In Genesis 38:12 we learn that Judah’s wife had previously died - the sixty-six are clearly identified in Gen. 5:22 thru 46:24 - none others are specifically mentioned so we can not be too dogmatic on whose wife was of the seventy-five}

Genesis 5:22    Jacob’s 11 sons & 1 daughter {12}

Genesis 46:9    Reuben’s sons {4}

Genesis 46:10  Simeon’s sons {6}

Genesis 46:11  Levi’s sons {3}

Genesis 46:12  Judah’s 3 sons & 2 grandsons {5}

Genesis 46:13  Issachar’s sons {4}

Genesis 46:14  Zebulun’s sons {3}

Genesis 46:16  Gad’s sons {7}

Genesis 46:17  Asher’s 4 sons, 1 daughter, & 2 grandchildren {7}

Genesis 46:21  Benjamin’s sons {10}

Genesis 46:23  Dan’s sons {1}

Genesis 46:24  Naphtali’s sons {4}


31)  Ex. 1:17, 20; Dan. 3:16, 18, 6:7, 9, 10 vs. Rom. 13:1-3, 6

No error, the apparent error deals with to obey/not obey rulers, an error is seen where none exist by ignoring the whole of Scriptural teaching: (the situations: The midwife did not obey pharaoh; Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego would not bow Nebuchadnezzar; Daniel worshipped God ignoring the decree of the king vs. the Roman’s account “to be subject to ruler”) - men should obey rulers unless it would dishonor God’s will, in which case do right and suffer the consequences is the course of action for the true believer in the Lord Jesus Christ.


32)  Ex. 1:18; Josh. 2:4-6; 1 Ki. 22:21, 22; James 2:25 vs. Ex. 20:16; Prov. 12:22; Rev. 21:8

No error, apparent error lying approved or sanctioned vs. forbidden - none of the verses site approval though allowed and good came out of it: in Kings it was a lying spirit who told the king what he wanted to hear; in Joshua, Rahab lied to protect the spies and her family’s life - she was justified for her actions; in Exodus the midwifes lied to the king of Egypt when he asked why they hadn’t killed the male Israelites {see Ex. 1:17}


33)  Ex. 2:14, 15 vs. Heb. 11:27

14And he said, Who made thee a prince and a judge over us? intendest thou to kill me, as thou killedst the Egyptian? And Moses feared, and said, Surely this thing is known. 15Now when Pharaoh heard this thing, he sought to slay Moses. But Moses fled from the face of Pharaoh, and dwelt in the land of Midian: and he sat down by a well.

27By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible.

No contradiction, when it came to choosing God’s ways over the worlds ways Moses held to his convictions even if it were to have meant his death - when Moses killed the Egyptian he knew that he was guilty of a crime that warranted death and he feared - two different situations but no error.


34)  Ex. 2:18 vs. 4:18 vs. Num. 10:29 vs. Jgs. 4:11

No error, an apparent error, multiple names for the same man - Reuel (a form of his given name meaning friend of God) vs. Jethro (associated with priestly office) vs. Raguel (a form of his given name also having the meaning of friend of God) vs. Hobab (personal name meaning beloved or cunning - but was also the name of the son of Raguel see Num. 10:29) - while the names differ the man is always identified as Abraham’s father-in-law - so we see cases of a man being known by multiple names.


35)  Ex. 3:21, 22; 12:35, 36 vs. Ex. 20:15; Lev. 19:13

No error, the apparent error robbery commanded/forbidden, seeing error where none exist: in chapter three and twelve God gave Israel favor with the Egyptians who gave the great wealth - chapter 20 part of the Ten Commandments (thou shalt not steal) - Leviticus says don’t defraud … neither rob.


36)  Ex. 4:21, 9:12 vs. Ex. 8:15

No error, the apparent error, who hardened Pharaoh’s heart? - Taken out of context - Pharaoh initially hardened his own heart and then it came to a point when God hardened Pharaoh’s heart so that Pharaoh could not have a change of heart - Pharaoh pushed it too far, to his own destruction.


37)  Ex. 4:31 vs. 6:9 vs. 12:28

31And the people believed: and when they heard that the LORD had visited the children of Israel, and that he had looked upon their affliction, then they bowed their heads and worshipped.

9And Moses spake so unto the children of Israel: but they hearkened not unto Moses for anguish of spirit, and for cruel bondage.

28And the children of Israel went away, and did as the LORD had commanded Moses and Aaron, so did they.

No contradiction, when viewed as a complete picture, the people’s trust/faith changed with the circumstances because they believed more in what they saw than in God’s promise.


38)  Ex. 7:10-12; Deut. 13:1-3; Luke 11:19 vs. Ex. 14:31; Matt. 11:2-5; John 3:2

No error, the apparent error concerns miracles, taking the verse out of their context - the tricks of Egypt were not miracles - miracles belong to God and those he empowers to do them.


39)  Ex. 9:6 vs. 9:16 

6And the LORD did that thing on the morrow, and all the cattle of Egypt died: but of the cattle of the children of Israel died not one.

19Send therefore now, and gather thy cattle, and all that thou hast in the field; for upon every man and beast which shall be found in the field, and shall not be brought home, the hail shall come down upon them, and they shall die.”

No error - this apparent contradiction has to do with all the cattle being killed and yet having some remaining - but if the chapter is read as a whole in its context the reader will find that in verse three, it is those animals in the field which are referred to in verse six, allowing for cattle / animals not in the field too have survived.


40)  Ex. 15:3 vs. Rom. 15:33 (also see Isa. 51:15 vs. 1 Cor. 14:33)

The Lord is a man of war … vs. Now the God of peace …

No error, two sides of the same coin, merely a failure to understand the complete attributes of the creator God.


41)  Ex. 20:4 vs. 25:18, 20

No error, the apparent error is the making of images is forbidden/commanded, is taken out of context: the first dealt with idol worship, the second did not and deals with the tabernacle and revealed a heavenly mystery to men.


42)  Ex. 20:5 vs. Rom. 2:11 (also see Ezek. 18:20)

“… 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.”

11For there is no respect of persons with God.

No error, this apparent error deals with the fairness of God - even though God is God and he has the right to do whatever he wants with his creation, his character, nature, his very essence dictate how he acts in the lives of men - what is at view here is a matter of perspective (God’s vs. man’s) similar to the relationship of a child to a parent correction seems harsh for a time, but the fruits of correction will win out - God loves even the unrepentant individual so his actions are never arbitrary.


43)  Ex. 20:8 vs. Rom. 14:5; Col. 2:16

No error, the apparent error deals with the Sabbath: Exodus explains that it was instituted for the Jews to follow - Romans and Colossians deals with the Christian church - while some feel that the church should only worship on Saturday and the vast majority of churches choose Sunday to worship marking the day of Christ resurrection - Scripture makes no mandate upon the church leaving it open - other verses in the NT show that some met daily while other met on Sunday.


44)  Ex. 20:12 vs. Luke 14:26 

12Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

26If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.”

No error - this apparent error is only understood correctly when the reader understands that the real issue is a matter of degree, when one puts Christ first in all decision making - this in no way takes honor away from parents … but if the desire to the parents … is placed before God than God is not honored.  Other loyalties must run second or third to our love for the Lord.  Otherwise the tail wags the dog.  Reading verse 27 helps to better define the intent of “hate” in verse 26 {See Matt. 6:24 and Gen. 29:30, 31}


45)  Ex. 20:13 vs. 32:27

13Thou shalt not kill.

27And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.

No error, the apparent error killing forbidden/commanded: Two different situations, the first is not taking it upon yourself to murder; the second was when God used them as a tool of his chastisement to destroy the wicked (which included battles / capital punishments).


46)  Ex. 20:14 vs. Hos. 1:2

14Thou shalt not commit adultery. vs. … And the LORD said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms: for the land hath committed great whoredom, departing from the LORD.

No error, this apparent error is seen because of lifting the text from its context - God has never approved adultery - the situation in Hosea is that God is using the actions of the prophet as a word-picture to witness against the sins of Judah - the purpose of the allegory to awaken Judah to it condition that it might repent and turn to God - as a nation they had already entered into adulterous relationship with false gods (idols) and had turned away from the creator God - again the purpose of God’s command is to shock them into right thinking even by using the actions of the sins to get their attention - in Hosea 2:1-3 we see the extent which God will go to save people (a picture of what Christ would one day do by dieing on the cross).


47)  Ex. 25:9 vs. 1 Cor. 10:8

No error, the apparent error how many died from the plague 24,000 or 23,000 - taken out of context, Numbers says that a total of 24,000 died while the Corinthians account says that 23,000 died in one day - it doesn’t occur to the critics that there is a possibility that some (1000) died a day later or a day earlier.


48)  Ex. 25:15 vs. 1 Ki. 8:8

15The staves shall be in the rings of the ark: they shall not be taken from it.

8And they drew out the staves, that the ends of the staves were seen out in the holy place before the oracle, and they were not seen without: and there they are unto this day.

No error, once the Ark was in the temple, the staves {poles} were removed because the Ark was no longer going to be moved from place to place - so that the instructions were specific to the situation (see Ex. 25:14).


49)  Ex. 29:18, 36 vs. Lev. 1:9; 23:27

18And thou shalt burn the whole ram upon the altar: it is a burnt offering unto the LORD: it is a sweet savour, an offering made by fire unto the LORD. … 36And thou shalt offer every day a bullock for a sin offering for atonement: and thou shalt cleanse the altar, when thou hast made an atonement for it, and thou shalt anoint it, to sanctify it.

9But his inwards and his legs shall he wash in water: and the priest shall burn all on the altar, to be a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD…. 27Also on the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a day of atonement: it shall be an holy convocation unto you; and ye shall afflict your souls, and offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD.

No error, this apparent error results from taking the text out of it context - the teaching, God is not impressed with actions if the heart and will don’t support them - God is not fooled by man’s window dressing.


50)  Ex. 29:26 vs. Deut. 18:3

26And thou shalt take the breast of the ram of Aaron’s consecration, and wave it for a wave offering before the LORD: and it shall be thy part.

3And this shall be the priest’s due from the people, from them that offer a sacrifice, whether it be ox or sheep; and they shall give unto the priest the shoulder, and the two cheeks, and the maw.

No error, the breast were for the priest and later the shoulder, cheeks and maw (the fourth stomach) are mentioned but the breast is not - a logical possibility is that additional portions were added because the number of priest (families members) was increasing so more was needed than just the breast and it pieces were not wasted.


51)  Ex. 31:15; Num. 15:32, 36 vs. Matt. 12:1-3, 5; John 5:16

No error, the apparent error breaking the Sabbath, fails to understand Christ role: First Christ is the Lord of the Sabbath so he wouldn’t be subject; secondly Christ said that the Sabbath was given for man’s benefit and not the Sabbath’s benefit - thirdly Christ is a fulfillment of the Law/Sabbath - is resting from labor on Sunday a good thing? Duh!  Is it mandatory?  No, but it would be beneficial if Christians could avoid working on Sunday.


53)  Ex. 31:17 vs. Isa. 40:28

17It is a sign between me and the children of Israel for ever: for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day he rested, and was refreshed.

28Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding.

No error, this apparent error is resolved with an understanding of oriental customs and terms, to be “rested/refreshed is another way of saying that God ceased from the creative activity and surveyed the created work - but it also acts as a teaching tool for man’s benefit - God does not want men working 24/7 but designed them to rest once a week from labors and to consider the creation around them, that came into being by the creator God – the intent is acting as a means of drawing men to himself.


54)  Ex. 33:11 vs. 33:20; John 1:18

11And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.

20And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. …18No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

No error, this apparent error is perceived due to failure to fully understand the awesome holiness of God - God can not be directly looked upon accept by God (the God head consist of three persons as one God) - only when God partially conceals himself (through a cloud, fire, a cleft in a rock, an angel or in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ can men look upon the creator God - there are other scripture verse which also convey this truth.


55)  Lev. 11:6

6And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you. 7And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you. 8Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not touch; they are unclean to you.

Semi-difficult to difficult apparent error…the hare (rabbit) … cheweth the cud …” - rabbits don’t chew the cud - it is believed by some to have been an extinct animal similar to a rabbit that chewed the cud - the question which we do not have the answer to, was this animal in the hare family {the answer probably yes} and it happened to chew the cud which entitled it to the description? - If so, why was this animal’s digestive system different than other hares? Don’t know - Or is this chewing of the cud extended to eating ones dung? - One objection to this second possibility is found in verse 7, the swine cheweth not the cud though they are known to eat their feces - More information is needed but seeming a difference in how we describe things today verses how things were described then may very well play a large role in this apparent error - perhaps this difference in saying things is seen in the fact that while swine {which are omnivores - eat anything} do eat their feces {or the undigested food particles in the feces} they are not true grazing animals and as such do not chew the cud by biblical definition.


56)  Lev. 11:13 & Deut. 14:11 vs. Lev. 11:19 & Deut. 14:18

Semi-difficult to difficult apparent error:  This apparent contradiction has to do with referring to a bat (a flying mammal) as a fowl - two possibilities, either God is using language that his audience understood or God considers bats as a member of the fowl family (kind) - this would not be the first thing man was wrong on, something does not become wrong merely because men disagree.


57)  Lev. 11:21-23

Semi-difficult apparent error, four footed insects (locust): all known insects/locust have six or more legs - one possible way of understanding this is if the front legs were understood as arms it could have been considered as having only four legs? - Little to nothing is written on the topic so little is known for certain but it does not necessitate an error.


58)  Lev. 19:27 vs. 1 Cor. 11:14

27Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.

14Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

No error, the apparent error hair length, both deal with a cultural norm (at different times) that would not be cast in concrete and thereby open to change: In the Leviticus account God is giving Moses rules for the Israelites to follow that would distinctly mark them as separate and different from the surrounding heathen practices (Israel was to be set apart for God) while in the Corinthian account the teaching is to the church which included non Jewish believers and while the church was to be different from the world it was not in the outward ceremonial practices of the Jews (Christians aren’t Jews) but it was the norm and respectable thing to not have long hair.


59)  Lev. 20:21 vs. Deut. 25:5

21And if a man shall take his brother’s wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother’s nakedness; they shall be childless.

5If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her.

No error, the first applies to a living brother’s wife the second was in regard to a dead brother’s wife and was for establishing an inheritance.


60)  Lev. 23:18, 19 vs. Num. 28:17

18And ye shall offer with the bread seven lambs without blemish of the first year, and one young bullock, and two rams: they shall be for a burnt offering unto the LORD, with their meat offering, and their drink offerings, even an offering made by fire, of sweet savour unto the LORD. 19Then ye shall sacrifice one kid of the goats for a sin offering, and two lambs of the first year for a sacrifice of peace offerings. 

27But ye shall offer the burnt offering for a sweet savour unto the LORD; two young bullocks, one ram, seven lambs of the first year;

No error, this apparent error focus on the number of which animals for the burnt offering were offered - one bullock or two; one ram or two - as all feast were not the same so too were there different practices for burnt offering depending on the occasion - the Leviticus accounts dealt with the feast of harvest (a 50 day observance) while the Numbers account dealt with thankfulness for deliverance out of Egypt - so the actual sacrifices (burnt offerings) don’t have to agree.

Jason’s thoughts:  Lev. 23:18 vs. Num. 19:27 ---- These are speaking of two different aspects of the feast of weeks (Pentecost). One important phrase to consider in Leviticus is the prepositional phrase “with the bread.” Leviticus is speaking of a specific offering that was to be offered with a particular bread offering. In Numbers the context seems to lead to the idea that a different offering was to be offered on a daily basis throughout the duration of the feast. To see the context we need to note the word “daily” used in Num. 28:24 (speaking of the feat of unleavened bread) and the word “Also” in Num. 28:26 which ties the same idea to the feast of weeks.


61)  Lev. 25:32-34 vs. Num. 18:20, 24

32Notwithstanding the cities of the Levites, and the houses of the cities of their possession, may the Levites redeem at any time. 33And if a man purchase of the Levites, then the house that was sold, and the city of his possession, shall go out in the year of jubilee: for the houses of the cities of the Levites are their possession among the children of Israel. 34But the field of the suburbs of their cities may not be sold; for it is their perpetual possession. 

20And the LORD spake unto Aaron, Thou shalt have no inheritance in their land, neither shalt thou have any part among them: I am thy part and thine inheritance among the children of Israel. … 24But the tithes of the children of Israel, which they offer as an heave offering unto the LORD, I have given to the Levites to inherit: therefore I have said unto them, Among the children of Israel they shall have no inheritance.

No contradictions, the Levites had no inheritance of their own but were given a portion within the inheritance of the other tribes.


62)  Lev. 25:39-41 vs. Deut. 15:12

39And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant: 40But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubilee: 41And then shall he depart from thee, both he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return. 

12And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee.

No error - apples and oranges (two different things) the first dealing with lending practices the second deals with the special prescribed time (every 7 years) when the land would rest and debts would be forgiven - Jews became the property of other Jews at times for a variety of reason but there were marked ends when positions could be restored.


63)  Num. 4:43, 47 vs. 8:24 vs. 1 Chron. 23:24

43From thirty years old and upward even unto fifty years old, every one that entereth into the service, for the work in the tabernacle of the congregation, 47From thirty years old and upward even unto fifty years old, every one that came to do the service of the ministry, and the service of the burden in the tabernacle of the congregation,

24This is it that belongeth unto the Levites: from twenty and five years old and upward they shall go in to wait upon the service of the tabernacle of the congregation: 25And from the age of fifty years they shall cease waiting upon the service thereof, and shall serve no more: 

24These were the sons of Levi after the house of their fathers; even the chief of the fathers, as they were counted by number of names by their polls, that did the work for the service of the house of the LORD, from the age of twenty years and upward.

No error - the ages were adjusted to meat the needs of service.


64)  Num. 6:2-11 vs. Jgs. 13:5, 15:13-15 (Also see 1 Cor. 11:14)

“…a vow of a Nazarite, to separate themselves unto the LORD: 3He shall separate himself from wine and strong drink, and shall drink no vinegar of wine, or vinegar of strong drink, neither shall he drink any liquor of grapes, nor eat moist grapes, or dried. 4All the days of his separation shall he eat nothing that is made of the vine tree, from the kernels even to the husk. 5All the days of the vow of his separation there shall no razor come upon his head: until the days be fulfilled, in the which he separateth himself unto the LORD, he shall be holy, and shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow. 6All the days that he separateth himself unto the LORD he shall come at no dead body. 7He shall not make himself unclean for his father, or for his mother, for his brother, or for his sister, when they die: because the consecration of his God is upon his head. 8All the days of his separation he is holy unto the LORD.

No error, the apparent error, Samson a Nazarite from his mother’s womb killed many Philistines and yet never shaved his head until Delilah shaved his head and he lost his strength?  The possibilities are.  He wasn’t under the vow of the Nazarite at all times or he wasn’t a very good Nazarite and needed to repent - also the long hair of the Nazarite was a sign of submission to God and not the norm of the people in general.


65)  Num. 12:3 vs. 31:14, 17, 18

3(Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth.)

14And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle. 17Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. 

No error except in not understanding what meekness means - meekness is a personality trait of gentleness or humbleness but it doesn’t mean weakness or passiveness or ever loosing one’s cool.


66)  Num. 20:18-21 vs. Deut. 2:28, 29

18And Edom said unto him, Thou shalt not pass by me, lest I come out against thee with the sword. 19And the children of Israel said unto him, We will go by the high way: and if I and my cattle drink of thy water, then I will pay for it: I will only, without doing any thing else, go through on my feet. 20And he said, Thou shalt not go through. And Edom came out against him with much people, and with a strong hand. 21Thus Edom refused to give Israel passage through his border: wherefore Israel turned away from him.

28Thou shalt sell me meat for money, that I may eat; and give me water for money, that I may drink: only I will pass through on my feet; 29(As the children of Esau which dwell in Seir, and the Moabites which dwell in Ar, did unto me;) until I shall pass over Jordan into the land which the LORD our God giveth us. 

No error, the apparent error again deals with different names and the inclusion of meat in Deuteronomy so that one account gives more detail than the other - hardly an error


67)  Num. 25:4; 32:13; Jer. 17:4 vs. Ps. 30:5; 103:8

No error, this apparent error fails to consider God’s nature - while God is slow to anger/quick to forgive, his judgment when it comes is fierce on the unrepentant.


68)  Num. 33:37, 41-49 vs. 20:22 vs. 21:4, 10-20 vs. 22:1

No error, the apparent error is that the names of the locations don’t match because they had possibly changed or they were known by more than one name.


69)  Deut. 7:16; 1 Sam. 6:19, 15:2, 3; Jere. 13:14 vs. 1 Chr. 16:34; Ez. 18:32; Ps. 145:9 Lam. 3:33

No error, seeing error where none exist - the apparent error, God is merciful and unmerciful - what is being taught is that God has a judgment for those who reject his mercy.


70)  Deut 7:22 vs. 9:3

22And the LORD thy God will put out those nations before thee by little and little: thou mayest not consume them at once, lest the beasts of the field increase upon thee.

3Understand therefore this day, that the LORD thy God is he which goeth over before thee; as a consuming fire he shall destroy them, and he shall bring them down before thy face: so shalt thou drive them out, and destroy them quickly, as the LORD hath said unto thee.

No error, the promise to destroy the enemy was conditional but any victories would be because the Lord God was acting on their behalf.


71)  Deut. 12:30, 31 vs. Gen. 22:2; Jgs. 11:30-32, 34, 38, 39; 2 Sam. 21:8, 9, 14

No error, the apparent error human sacrifice - no where in Scripture does it teach that God desire human sacrifice from men - Christ was the only approved human/God sacrifice that was acceptable to God - the case with the daughter of Jephthah was not a case of human sacrifice but a fulfillment of foolish vow on Japhthah’s part.


72)  Deut. 14:27 vs. Num. 18:21

27And the Levite that is within thy gates; thou shalt not forsake him; for he hath no part nor inheritance with thee.

21And, behold, I have given the children of Levi all the tenth in Israel for an inheritance, for their service which they serve, even the service of the tabernacle of the congregation.

Only an apparent error, the Levi tenth was not theirs to do whatever they wanted, they could only use the portion of the total as it belonged to someone else - similar to say a parsonage, where a local assembly of believers owns the property/building but the pastor and his family can use it


73)  Deut. 20:19 vs. 2 Ki. 3:19

19When thou shalt besiege a city a long time, in making war against it to take it, thou shalt not destroy the trees thereof by forcing an axe against them: for thou mayest eat of them, and thou shalt not cut them down (for the tree of the field is man’s life) to employ them in the siege:

19And ye shall smite every fenced city, and every choice city, and shall fell every good tree, and stop all wells of water, and mar every good piece of land with stones.

No error, the first is a general rule, the second a specific situation that did not violate the general rule - there is a big difference between newly conquering a land and carrying on a battle from an established base which Israel was wise to follow.


74)  Deut. 24:16 vs. Isa. 14:21

16The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

21Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities.

No contradiction, in Isaiah, the sin of the children in Babylon was the same as the father - also they were (reaping the consequences) they were subject to the 70 years of captivity because of the greatness of sin in the land - 1 Chron. 9:1 says that Israel and Judah were carried away to Babylon for their transgressions, naturally it had an effect on the children - just as illegals who sneak into the U.S. and have children, who because they are born in America are citizens, when the parents are deported it effects the children or if a parent is arrested for a crime it effects the children - this is not God desire but sin has consequences.


75)  Josh 11:20; Isa. 63:17; John 12:40 vs. Luke 11:10; James 1:5

No error, again taking scripture out of it context can be made to say almost anything, the apparent error God withholds blessing and prevents men from receiving them - Scripture sites cases of God hardening men’s hearts but it always follows seasons (time) where men had refused God’s light since they were already acting in ways which was searing (hardening) their conscious - God eventual said enough is enough and finishes the job to the individuals destruction - the criminal brakes the law gets caught/punished and cries foul (go figure).


76)  Josh. 11:23 vs. 13:1

13But as for the cities that stood still in their strength, Israel burned none of them, save Hazor only; that did Joshua burn.

1Now Joshua was old and stricken in years; and the LORD said unto him, Thou art old and stricken in years, and there remaineth yet very much land to be possessed.

No error, except careless reading (sees error where none exist) - also possession does not mean to completely occupy - Israel had defeated the key cities and their forces - America is possessed by American’s but we still have a lot of illegal aliens within the borders and it is not an error to say that America is a nation of Americans.


77)  Josh. 21:22 vs. 1 Chr. 6:68

22And Kibzaim with her suburbs, and Bethhoron with her suburbs; four cities…

68And Jokmeam with her suburbs, and Bethhoron with her suburbs,…

No error - this apparent error occurs with not taking the care to understand that two different time periods are dealt with and assignments could have changed - the first was when Joshua was the judge the second was when David was king - even if the town was the same, the name could have changed or had been known by different name (Also see Josh. 21:25, 27 vs. 1 Chr. 6:70, 71 for similar situation - in 2nd Chronicles, chapter 20 two different names are given for the same wilderness, in verse 16 we see Jeruel while in verse 20 we see Tekoa - it is far more likely that there were two common names for the same place than for either the author or the scribe to write the wrong name down only a few [4] verses apart).


78)  Josh. 24:32 vs. Acts 7:16

32And the bones of Joseph, which the children of Israel brought up out of Egypt, buried they in Shechem, in a parcel of ground which Jacob bought of the sons of Hamor the father of Shechem for an hundred pieces of silver: and it became the inheritance of the children of Joseph.

15So Jacob went down into Egypt, and died, he, and our fathers, 16And were carried over into Sychem, and laid in the sepulchre that Abraham bought for a sum of money of the sons of Emmor the father of Sychem.

No error, seeing errors where none exist, the same place - the spelling of the name is change not the location, Abraham bought the cave for a sepulcher later Jacob bought a parcel of ground, the cave that Abraham bought was on the same parcel that Jacob bought and both purchases were from the same family.


79)  Jgs. 1:19 vs. Jer. 32:27; Matt. 19:26

19And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

27Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?... 26But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. {which not to say that God would do anything against his character and will just because he could}

No error, first, verse 19 has to be read without the predisposition to see error where none exist, besides the fact that the “he” refers to Judah and not God, there is another piece of information overlooked - isolating the {or any} verse from the surrounding verses and even the surrounding chapters can cause the reader to arrive at a wrong conclusion - Judges 2:20-22 provides additional back ground information to the whole story - ‘because of the transgression {sin} of Israel God would not help them to drive out all the inhabitants’ - the case is not that God could but that He wouldn’t - the result, God had and has a specific agenda in the world of men (he is not making it up as he goes along) often God works through the things of this world to bring about a desired result - the testing/proving has several benefits to mankind, besides helping man to be less clueless, man can also be matured through the process - the content of Israel’s heart was exposed or revealed that even they could not ignore their bent to evil.


80)  Jgs. 14:12 vs. 14:15 vs. 14:17

12And Samson said unto them, I will now put forth a riddle unto you: if ye can certainly declare it me within the seven days of the feast, and find it out, then I will give you thirty sheets and thirty change of garments: 13But if ye cannot declare it me, then shall ye give me thirty sheets and thirty change of garments. And they said unto him, Put forth thy riddle, that we may hear it. 14And he said unto them, Out of the eater came forth meat, and out of the strong came forth sweetness. And they could not in three days expound the riddle. 15And it came to pass on the seventh day, that they said unto Samson’s wife, Entice thy husband, that he may declare unto us the riddle, lest we burn thee and thy father’s house with fire: have ye called us to take that we have? is it not so? 16And Samson’s wife wept before him, and said, Thou dost but hate me, and lovest me not: thou hast put forth a riddle unto the children of my people, and hast not told it me. And he said unto her, Behold, I have not told it my father nor my mother, and shall I tell it thee? 17And she wept before him the seven days, while their feast lasted: and it came to pass on the seventh day, that he told her, because she lay sore upon him: and she told the riddle to the children of her people. 

No error, the apparent error regards a riddle put forth by Samson, in verse 12 Samson put forth a riddle to be deciphered within a seven days feast, verse 14 says that after three days they could not expound the riddle, verse 15 says that on the seventh day Samson’s bride was threatened to betray Samson, verse 17 says that she wept before Samson seven days attempting to obtain the answer to the riddle and on the seventh day he told her the answer and she told her people, verse 18 says that on the seventh day before the sun went down they revealed the answer to the riddle - the only possibility is that Samson’s wife started pestering Samson before she was threatened - a careful reading and a little common sense avoids this apparent error - people who want to see error even when none exist will see errors.


81)  1 Sam. 16:10, 11 vs. 1 Chr. 2:15

10Again, Jesse made seven of his sons to pass before Samuel. And Samuel said unto Jesse, The LORD hath not chosen these. 11And Samuel said unto Jesse, Are here all thy children? And he said, There remaineth yet the youngest, and, behold, he keepeth the sheep. And Samuel said unto Jesse, Send and fetch him: for we will not sit down till he come hither. 

13And Jesse begat his firstborn Eliab, and Abinadab the second, and Shimma the third, 14Nethaneel the fourth, Raddai the fifth, 15Ozem the sixth, David the seventh: 

No error, this apparent error has to do with whether David was the 7th son or not, 1st Samuel says that 7 sons of Jesse passed before Samuel and identifies David who was not there as the youngest while 1 Chr. identifies him as the 7th son - there are two reasonable solutions, either one of the sons was adopted or he was a relative who was called a son - there are many examples where the scripture does this.


82)  1 Sam. 16:18 vs. 1 Samuel 17:12

18Then answered one of the servants, and said, Behold, I have seen a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite, that is cunning in playing, and a mighty valiant man, and a man of war, and prudent in matters, and a comely person, and the LORD is with him.

12Now David was the son of that Ephrathite of Bethlehemjudah, whose name was Jesse; and he had eight sons: and the man went among men for an old man in the days of Saul.

No error, the apparent error creates an error where none exist and calls into question whether Jesse was a Bethlehemite or the Ephrathite - the answer is he was both - the first account refers to the city while the second refers to the tribe, the second son of Joseph was Ephraim


83)  1 Sam. 21:1-6 vs. Mark 2:25, 26

1Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech the priest: … give me five loaves of bread in mine hand, or what there is present. 4And the priest answered David, and said, There is no common bread under mine hand, but there is hallowed bread; … 6So the priest gave him hallowed bread: … 

25And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungered, he, and they that were with him? 26How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the showbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him? 

No error, the first account identifies the priest while the second account identifies the high priest - Jesus did not say that the high priest gave David bread only that in his days did David eat hallowed bread – Another apparent error which appears in 1 Sam. 21, is found in verse 1 vs. verse 4, 5, “…Why art thou alone, and no man with thee?” vs. “…Of a truth women have been kept from us about these three days, since I came out, and the vessels of the young men are holy…” – the logical explanation is that the young men who had accompanied David for about three days hung back while David went up to the priest, so it appeared at least initially that he was alone.


84)  2 Sam. 1:6 vs. 1 Chr. 10:4

6And the young man that told him said, As I happened by chance upon mount Gilboa, behold, Saul leaned upon his spear; and, lo, the chariots and horsemen followed hard after him.

4Then said Saul to his armourbearer, Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and abuse me. But his armourbearer would not; for he was sore afraid. So Saul took a sword, and fell upon it.

No error, the apparent error, did Saul die via a spear or a sword? - there are only two reasonable possibilities that would not constitute an error - Saul did not die from the sword even though the armor bearer thought that he did and later attempted death via a spear or the account by the young man was a total fabrication including the spear in the hope of being rewarded by David - while reasoning is speculative, one does not have to check their brain at the door when approaching apparently difficult passages - since no one today was there, it is only reasonable to allow for at least the possibility that the two different eye witnessed accounts are of the same event - both true accounts – while we can not be dogmatically sure, no error has been proven.


85)  2 Sam. 6:23 vs. 21:8

23Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.

8But 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:

No error, wanting an error in spite of the facts - taken out of context, reading verses 20-23 of chapter 6 puts the statement in perspective; Michal had no children with David.


86)  2 Sam. 8:4 vs. 1 Chron. 18:4

4And David took from him (Hadadezer) a thousand chariots, and seven hundred horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: and David houghed all the chariot horses, but reserved of them for an hundred chariots.

4And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven thousand horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: David also houghed all the chariot horses, but reserved of them a hundred chariots.

Semi-difficult apparent error (the same event) which at first glance appears that the most logical answer would be a scribble/copyist error - the commentators reviewed have either ignored this or assigned it as a copyist error - but a reasonable view could possibly be that the 700 was the number of the captains of the chariots while the 7,000 was the entire crew of the chariots - two observations, first these would have been very big chariots and secondly there were more chariots that captains.

Jason’s thoughts:  II Sam. 8:4 vs. I Chr. 18:4 ---- In apparent errors like this we need to turn back to a basic rule of interpretation.  The Bible is to be studied line upon line and precept upon precept.  If we cannot reconcile two verses we need to interpret them in the light of the whole of revelation.  The difference between 700 and 7,000 is a ratio of ten.  One Scriptural comparison is important to this problem.  In those days it was not uncommon to have ten men and ten horses assigned to one chariot, only one man would be the captain (Compare II Sam. 10:18 with I Chr. 19:18 and also I Kings 4:26 with II Chr. 9:25; the latter seems to indicate that Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses “for his chariots” and four thousand stalls of chariots.  That would agree with the former comparison of ten horses per chariot as well as solve another apparent contradiction).  So the writer of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles agree that ten horses and ten men were assigned to one chariot.  That ratio of ten is the exact difference of our texts in question.  It is entirely possible that of the 1,000 chariots surrendered 700 were surrendered with their full crews.  The historian that wrote the book of Chronicles counted all 7,000 men as horsemen and David’s contemporary who wrote Samuel only reported 700 individual chariot captains as horsemen.


87)  2 Sam. 12:29 vs. 1 Chron. 20:1

No error, David is given the credit for a war that he didn’t partake in - this is biblically common and is used even today


88)  2 Sam. 12:24, 25 vs. 1 Chron. 3:5, 6

No error, Solomon (Jedidiah) went by two names and Nathan is simply omitted in one of the accounts


89)  2 Sam. 14:27 vs. 18:18

No error, 3 sons vs. no sons = the 3 sons had died


90)  2 Sam. 15:7 vs. 1 Kings 2:11

7And it came to pass after forty years, that Absalom said unto the king, I pray thee, let me go and pay my vow, which I have vowed unto the LORD, in Hebron.

11And the days that David reigned over Israel were forty years: seven years reigned he in Hebron, and thirty and three years reigned he in Jerusalem.

No error, taken out of context, Samuel referred to Absalom’s age not the year of David’s reign


91)  2 Sam. 24:1 vs. 1 Chr. 21:1

1And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.

1And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.

No error, this apparent error who caused David to sin: we could say both or God because ultimately Satan can do nothing unless God allows but in this case the language leads us to believe that God had Satan (as a tool) cause David to number the people.


92)  2 Sam. 24:9 vs. 1 Chron. 21:5

9And 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.

5And 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.

A semi-difficult apparent error, Joab is reporting back to David with the count (“go number Israel”) - both accounts are a matter of perspective, Samuel a contemporary of David focused on the valiant men (referring to those who had proven themselves in battle) while the First Chronicle account focused on the total, the all, those who were battle experienced and those who were of age to raise the sword - the actual tallying was part of the kingdoms bookkeeping but not part of Scripture, rather we only find two accounts of what happened - again if refuting the claim of numerous “proven error” it is only needed to supply a reasonable or probable alternative than to assert that God lied.

Jason’s thoughts:  II Sam. 24:9 vs. I Chr. 21:5 ---- In the last apparent error we noticed a difference of an exact ratio.  An exact ratio difference appears again but more profoundly in this case.  The difference is between the count of Judah which is one tribe and the count of Israel which represents ten tribes. The difference in the count of the men of Israel is 800,000 according to the writer of Samuel and 1,100,000 according to the writer of Chronicles, which is a difference of 300,000. For Judah the writer of Samuel reports 500,000 and the writer of Chronicles reported 470,000 which is a difference of 30,000. And exact ratio of difference cannot be an accident. People today believe that if they hear a series of dashes and dots from space it would be sufficient to prove intelligence so this exact ratio is more so a proof of design. What seems to be the case is that one writer was reporting the actual military strength of Israel or Judah and the other only reported the active strength? At any given time it appears that the policy was to have 30,000 men per tribe off of active duty; probably for the purpose of caring for their homes. Since the difference of one tribe is 30,000 and the difference of ten tribes is ten times that, 300,000, this must be the case. The apparent contradiction only exists if it is assumed that each writer reported the entire report from Joab.


93)  2 Sam. 24:10 vs. 1 Ki. 15:5

“… And David said unto the LORD, I have sinned greatly …”

5Because David did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, and turned not aside from any thing that he commanded him all the days of his life, save only in the matter of Uriah the Hittite.

No error, the apparent error how many times had David sinned - seeing error where none exist - in Samuel that was David’s opinion and God did not count it against him, also interesting to note, in the Kings account it says that what God was looking at was all the things that God had commanded David to do, which could mean that God had warned David concerning the matter of Uriah and David didn’t heed the warning - since Scripture plainly teaches that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, David would most certainly have fallen into that all category and just as all who come to God through Jesus Christ have their sins forgiven so would have David - in verse 11 David asked God to take away his iniquity so it is very likely that God did.


94)  2Sam. 24:13 vs. 1Chr. 21:11

13So Gad came to David, and told him, and said unto him, Shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land? or wilt thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue thee? or that there be three days’ pestilence in thy land? now advise, and see what answer I shall return to him that sent me.

11So Gad came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee 12Either three years’ famine; or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies

Difficult apparent error - dealing with the years of famine {7 or 3} appears to be a possible scribble error - the verses give an account of the choices David had to choose from - 2nd Samuel gives a somewhat sketchy chronology of events, and it is difficult to precisely calculate the length / duration of time between the events - one suggestion put forth to explain the apparent contradiction, while not recorded, imagines Gad saying something like ‘what 3 or 4 years of famine wasn’t enough for you, you want to make it 7’ - prior to this above event, Israel experienced a 3 year famine as a result of Saul’s blood lust against the Gibeonites, David has some of Saul’s descendants {7} killed and buries the bones of Saul, Jonathan and his seven family members, after which God was entreated for the land (2 Sam. 21:14) {presumable the famine stopped for a time?} - sometime later a few wars with the Philistines broke out, one of which David is so old that he faints in the battle and he doesn’t go out anymore and then we come to the events leading to the choice of God’s punishment.  The context of chapters 21-24 of 2nd Samuel don’t lend very well to combining invents as an explanation for the apparent error - reading the text in context would appear to indicate separate events so the only reasonable possibility it to assume more was said than is recorded and that 2nd Samuel indicates that Gad may have been being a little sarcastic with David.

Jason’s thoughts:  II Sam. 24:13 vs. I Chr. 21:11 ---- There are three possibilities in this text.  One possibility is that Gad the Seer spoke to David on two separate occasions which would explain the difference in wording between the two separate accounts.  It could never be proved that this was not the case. {Regardless of how many times Gad spoke to David would not align the numbers, something else is required - if this is meant to say that one time Gad said 7 years and another time 3 years, than as a prophet of God he should have been stoned / prophets of God are not allowed oops / errors} Another possibility is the reference to seven years of famine specifically in “thy land” referring to Judah.  This could be coupled with the first possibility {Gad said more than indicated}.  The famine then would affect all of Israel for three years but for seven years in particular for the land of Judah {Highly unlikely since David was king over all of the tribes of Israel and when coupled with 2 Sam. 24:1 & 1 Chr. 21:1 where we are told that the numbering of Israel was initiated because of God’s anger with Israel, it becomes impossible} (see Gen. 41:54).  The third possibility is probably more accurate.  The contemporary of David who wrote Samuel quoted Gad as asking David a question “Shall seven years … come unto thee in thy land?”   In the context of David’s life Israel had just come through three years (plus several months to round up Saul’s offspring and hang them) of famine due to Saul’s sin against the Gibeonites (II Sam. 21:1, 10, 11).  It is also speculated that a general famine had already been going on from the time of the command to go out and number Israel and the point where Gad confronted David.  All in all a threat of three extra years of famine would add up to seven total years of famine experienced by David in his land.  So one writer (the contemporary) reflected the context of a question and one writer (the historian) simply recorded the actual choice. {Both “shall and choose” carry the same meaning, ‘David it is your call’ - whether the sentence should be understood as a question or a statement doesn’t change the components of the written text, something else must be assumed - also it should be remembered that David didn’t choose but trusted in the mercy of God, God did not choose a famine, God sent pestilence, so you still have a case where two scribes record differing facts for the same event}


95)  2 Sam. 24:24 vs. 1 Chron. 21:25

24And the king said unto Araunah, Nay; but I will surely buy it of thee at a price: neither will I offer burnt offerings unto the LORD my God of that which doth cost me nothing. So David bought the threshingfloor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver.

25So David gave to Ornan for the place six hundred shekels of gold by weight.

Difficult apparent error, the apparent error, silver vs. gold - at first glance a problems appears but a reasonable possibility is that there were two separate purchases made, 50 shekels of silver for the threshing floor and oxen, while 600 shekels of gold for the place - the two different names, either the person was known by different names or two people were being dealt with (perhaps a son and father or two brothers or two family members) - I choose to give the Bible and God the benefit of the doubt since I wasn’t there and don’t know for sure.



96)  1 Ki. 4:26 vs. 2 Chr. 9:25

26And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.

25And 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.

Semi-difficult apparent error, 40,000 stalls of horses for his chariots vs. 4,000 stalls for horses and chariots: There are some reasonable solutions - first it should be noted that the 1 Kings accounts doesn’t actually reference a point in Solomon’s reign when he had the 40,000 stalls of horse so that the view or perspective is likely after a longer period of time - next it should be noted that the 2nd Chr. account has verse 24 preceding verse 25, if kept in context, the gifts including horses was rate year by year so that the 4,000 grew to 40,000 - the stalls were in different locations so the reference to 12,000 horsemen in both accounts is not necessarily a problem since the horsemen didn’t have to increase to match the increased ratio of horses {there are a number of reasonable explanations of how the 12,000 horsemen were utilized over whatever length of time the two accounts reference}.


97)  1 Ki. 5:11 vs. 2 Chr. 2:10

Possible difficult apparent error, two apparent errors, 20 measures vs. 20,000 baths - the question is what is the volume of a measure verses a bath & one account omitted the wine while the other account gives more detail - insufficient info to declare an error.


98)  1 Ki. 5:15, 16 vs. 2 Chr. 2:2

15And Solomon had threescore and ten thousand that bare burdens, and fourscore thousand hewers in the mountains; 16Beside 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. 

2And 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.

No error, the apparent error is the number of officers - the key is found in verse 16 of 1 Kings “Besides the chief of Solomon’s offices” so that 300 + 3300 = 3600.


99)  1 Ki. 7:24 vs. 2 Chr. 4:3

No error, the knobs were shaped to resemble oxen in this case - the shape didn’t make it any less a knob.


100)  1 Ki. 7:26 vs. 2 Chr. 4:5

26And it (the sea) 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.

5And the thickness of it (the sea) 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.

Difficult apparent error, 2,000 baths vs. 3,000 baths - possible scribble error - one explanation might be that it could have held 3,000 baths but that they only filled it to 2,000.


101)  1 Ki. 7:48 vs. 2 Chr. 4:19

48And Solomon made all the vessels that pertained unto the house of the LORD: the altar of gold, and the table of gold, whereupon the showbread was,

19And Solomon made all the vessels that were for the house of God, the golden altar also, and the tables whereon the showbread was set;

A semi-difficult apparent error – the apparent error one table verses multiple tables - one suggestion put forth, has Solomon making numerous tables upon which showbread could be placed but only one was generally used, Solomon knew that more were available if needed for special occasions and thus the numerous tables – another explanation put forward is that the multiples tables were not all located in the same room - 1 Chr. 28 records the steps David took in preparing for the temple, verse 16 records that “he gave gold for the tables of showbread” revealing that it was commonly understood that within the “house of God” there were multiple tables {also see 1 Chr. 4:8} – one further explanation and most likely correct  is that the 1 Kings account conveys more of a metaphor {a type} than a literal number – so that “the table” could actually mean tables.  This usage is fairly common in Scripture; an additional example is Isaiah 62:25, where the definite article is used, the meaning is clearly understood to apply to wolves, lambs, lions, serpents…  So it would not be a stretch that 1 Kings 7:48 carries that meaning.  While we can not be absolutely sure which was meant to be the proper meaning, it has been demonstrated that an absolute error or typo has not been proven.


102)  1 Ki. 8:9 vs. Heb. 9:4

9There was nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone, which Moses put there at Horeb, when the LORD made a covenant with the children of Israel, when they came out of the land of Egypt.

4Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant;

No error, apples and oranges, the two verses cited are talking about different things.


103)  1 Ki. 8:12; Ps. 8:12, 18:11 vs. 1 Tim. 6:16

“…dwell in thick darkness…” “He made darkness his secret place” vs.  “… who lives in light …”

No error, this apparent error concerns the perceived dwelling place of God but a careful reading reveals the unsearchable character of God or how much above angel and humans God is - the angels have to cover their eyes with their wings in his presence, how much more puny and insignificant is man though made in the image of God - God is unapproachable if not for the intermediary, Jesus Christ - perceiving an error where none exist.


104)  1 Ki. 8:46; Pro. 20:9; Eccl. 7:20; Rom. 3:10 vs. 1 John 3:6, 8, 9

No error, the apparent error Christians can’t sin: fails to account for the two natures - the new man (spiritual) is of God (sins not) the old man (the flesh) is not of God and is prone to sin so long as the mortal body lives - Scripture teaches that the body must be beaten into submission by resisting the desires of the flesh (the beating is saying no to those things which do not honor God)


105)  1 Ki. 9:23 vs. 2 Chr. 8:10

23These were the chief of the officers that were over Solomon’s work, five hundred and fifty, which bare rule over the people that wrought in the work.

10And these were the chief of king Solomon’s officers, even two hundred and fifty, that bare rule over the people.

No error, talks about two different groups of people - the second group in Chronicles is numbered after the building of the temple.


106)  1 Ki. 9:28 vs. 2 Chr. 8:18

28And they came to Ophir, and fetched from thence gold, four hundred and twenty talents, and brought it to King Solomon.

18And Huram sent him by the hands of his servants ships, and servants that had knowledge of the sea; and they went with the servants of Solomon to Ophir, and took thence four hundred and fifty talents of gold, and brought them to king Solomon.

A semi-difficult apparent error, while some see a scribble error {420 vs. 450 talents of gold}, a careful look at the wording shows a subtle difference – fetched from Ophir and took thence - the two accounts seem to convey two amounts of gold which eventually were brought to Solomon or another possible reasonable solution is of the 450 talents sent by Huram, 30 were spent in Ophir for something brought to Solomon thus leaving only 420 talents – while no one can be 100 percent sure which is the exact situation, it has been demonstrated that a reasonable doubt exist which disproves that an error necessarily exist.


107)  1 Ki. 11:3 vs. Song of Solomon 6:8-10

3And he (Solomon) had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.

8There are threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and virgins without number. 9My dove, my undefiled is but one; she is the only one of her mother, she is the choice one of her that bare her. The daughters saw her, and blessed her; yea, the queens and the concubines, and they praised her. 10Who is she that looketh forth as the morning, fair as the moon, clear as the sun, and terrible as an army with banners?

No error, the number of wives changed between the two accounts because of the time period.


108)  1 Ki. 12:8, 13 vs. 2 Chr. 13:7

No error, Rehoboam was 41 years old when he began to reign (1 Ki. 14:21) and yet he was considered young and tender hearted - he wasn’t mature even though he was 41 years old - sad but it doesn’t constitute an error.


109)  1 Ki. 12:18 vs. 2 Chr. 10:18

No error, Adoram vs. Hadoram the spelling changed between the two writings but it is still understood to be the same person.


110)  1 Ki. 15:2, 10 vs. 2 Chr. 13:2

No error, the apparent error is that the two names don’t match - Maachah vs. Michaiah there are a couple of reasonable possible answers for this - (see 1 Ki. 12:18).


111)  1 Ki. 15:9, 10 vs. 16:29 vs. 22:41

No error, Jehoshaphat {Judah - son of Asa} began to reign in the 4th yr of Ahab {Israel} reign - Ahab began to reign in the 38th year of Asa’s 41 years - the key here is to understand that the 1st and 4th year were not full 12 month years but it was in those years that the event occurred.


112)  1 Ki. 15:14 vs. 2 Chr. 14:3-5

No error, initially the high places had not been removed but later they again set up idol worship all over the land - each king chose to do something about the idol worship or not.


113)  1 Ki. 15:16, 32 vs. 2 Chr. 15:19

16And there was war between Asa and Baasha king of Israel all their days. … 32And there was war between Asa and Baasha king of Israel all their days.

19And there was no more war unto the five and thirtieth year of the reign of Asa.

Semi difficult, the apparent error deals with whether they were warring or not - Baasha began to reign in the 3rd of Asa’s reign (1Ki. 15:28) they warred all their days until the 27th year of Asa’s reign when Baasha died during his 24th year of reign - the peace realized was in Asa 35th year - the word “unto” can have two meanings and here it does not mean until but at that point peace happened.


114)  1 Ki. 22:23; Ez. 14:9; 2 Thes. 2:11 vs. Heb. 6:18

23Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee. (King Ahab who did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord and would not repent - God decided enough is enough and decided that Ahab would die in battle - according to verse 22 God allowed a lying spirit {perhaps Lucifer} to deceive Ahab’s prophets thereby deceiving Ahab)

9And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel. (unrepentant idol worshipers seek a prophet to hear from God - God will use the prophet to deceive them in their folly)

11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: (because they received not the love of the truth)

18That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:

No error, the apparent error God can/cannot lie, lifted from the context of the passages thereby attempting to erase the law of reciprocity (reaping what is sowed) - as people continue to reject God they will become further estranged and at some point God will give them over to seducing spirits to their destruction - God will utilize even the fallen to accomplish his perfect will.


115)  1 Ki. 22:42 vs. 2 Chr. 21:2

42Jehoshaphat was thirty and five years old when he began to reign; and he reigned twenty and five years in Jerusalem (Judah).

2And he had brethren the sons of Jehoshaphat, Azariah, and Jehiel, and Zechariah, and Azariah, and Michael, and Shephatiah: all these were the sons of Jehoshaphat king of Israel.

Difficult apparent error, Jehoshaphat who was the king of Judah is identified as the king of Israel - there may have been a more serious pact between the two kings - the commentators that I am familiar with, either avoid covering this or declare it as evidence of a scribble error - a reasonable answer is that the reference views Jehoshaphat as one of the kings of the nation of Israelites as opposed to just the ten tribes - scripture does not specifically say whether Jehoshaphat had married a woman from Israel so the reference is unclear as to the specific intent – perhaps it was an honorary title given when a throne was set up next to Ahab in his court.


116)  2 Ki. 2:11 vs. John 3:13

11And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.

13And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

No error, John is referring to under one’s own power no one has gone to heaven except Jesus Christ - God has taken two other individuals to heaven but they didn’t go there on their own.


117)  2 Ki. 8:25 vs.  2 Ki. 9:29

25In the twelfth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel did Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah begin to reign.

29And in the eleventh year of Joram the son of Ahab began Ahaziah to reign over Judah.

No error, this apparent difficult error is a case of joint rule / solo rule, Ahaziah’s one year of reign started in the 11th year of Joram (the king of Israel) with his father Jehoram who died shortly after - Ahaziah began a solo reign in the twelfth year of Joram, until his death.


118)  2 Ki. 8:26 vs. 2 Chr. 22:1, 2

26Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.

1And the inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah his youngest son king in his stead: for the band of men that came with the Arabians to the camp had slain all the eldest. So Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah reigned. 2Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri

A difficult apparent problem, was Ahaziah 22 or 42 when he began to reign? - The age of 22 is preferred by most scholars.  Ahaziah’s father Jehoram {the son of Jehoshaphat} (2 Chr. 21:1) was 32 years old when he began his eight year reign (2 Chr. 21:5 & 20) - he began to reign while his father was still alive in the 5th year of Joram the son of Ahab (2 Ki. 8:16, 17) - {Jehoram death & 8th year of reign fell in the 12th year of Joram the son of Ahab} -

because of his sin, God stirred up some nations to attack him, carrying away his substance and his sons save Jehoahaz, the youngest - after all this the Lord smote Jehoram with an incurable disease … his bowls fell out … he died (2 Chr. 21:16-19) - Ahaziah began to reign in the 11th year Joram the son of Ahab (2 Ki. 9:29) since his father didn’t die until the 12th year of Joram, Ahaziah co-reign with his father Jehoram part of the 11th year, and in the 12th year of Joram with the death of his father, Ahaziah began to solo-reign finishing his one year reign – Also Ahaziah was the son-in-law of the house of Ahab (2 Ki. 8:27) which would require a blood daughter of Ahab, Athaliah was the daughter or grand-daughter of Omri king of Israel and is identified as the mother (2 Ki. 8:26 - Also see 2 Ki. 11:1; 2 Chr. 22:2, 10)


At this point we still have not  dealt with the apparent age difference - if Ahaziah was a blood son of Johoram and he began his reign when he was 42 years old than he was 2 years older than his father {which is simply not possible} - if he was an adopted son and he really began to reign when he was 22 years old and then again when he was 42 years old than he would have had to co-reign in Jehoshaphat’s 14th year of reign, during the 18th year of Ahab king of Israel - since Ahaziah was the youngest of the son, than none of Jehoram’s son could have been blood sons; also his mother would have been his step mother - this would also mean that he co-reign twice with only the 2nd time being hinted at.  Of course we would have to lift the text from its context to come to this view and the question still begs to be answered - is a scribble error the only solution?  Jones in his Chronology of the Old Testament presents another view which gives a reasonable solution - a careful comparison of the two passages reveals in 2 Chr. 22:2 that the word “was” is in italics indicating that it is not present in the Hebrew Text and was added by translators in an attempt to make the rendering smoother and clearer.  Ahaziah was in the direct lineage of both the dynasties of Israel and Judah - so that the context of the Chronicler’s record refers to Ahaziah as being a son of the dynasty of Omri which was in its 42nd year {929 B.C. - 887 B.C.} - Putting the two scriptures together would reveal that Ahaziah was 22 years old when he began to reign during the 42nd year of the dynasty of Omri - the Holy Spirit inspired the Chronicler to identify Ahaziah as a “son of Omri” - since the Messiah was foretold as being “the son of David” and not the “son of Omri,” Ahaziah’s name was deliberately omitted in the official genealogy of Christ Jesus (Matt. 1:8) because of his relationship to Ahab and Jezebel’s wicked daughter Athaliah.  {Joash, Ahaziah’s son and Amaziah, Joash’s son have been judicially removed in Matthew for the same reason}


119)  2 Ki. 13:7 vs. 2 Chr. 25:6

No error, the apparent error here is where the army which had been destroyed came from - the answer, some amount of time went by and another army was raised


120)  2 Ki. 15:30 vs. 33 vs. 17:1

30And Hoshea the son of Elah made a conspiracy against Pekah the son of Remaliah, and smote him, and slew him, and reigned in his stead, in the twentieth year of Jotham

33Five and twenty years old was he (Jotham) when he began to reign, and he reigned sixteen (solo) years in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Jerusha, the daughter of Zadok.

1In the twelfth year of Ahaz king of Judah began Hoshea the son of Elah to reign in Samaria over Israel nine years.

A difficult apparent error dealing with the chronological order of certain kings - first it should be remembered that the reign of kings frequently overlapped - secondly a partial year could be counted as  a year - thirdly each king could choose the method of numbering his reign - (either accession year dating or non-accession dating - a non-accession year was when the last year of one king was the first official year of his successor, hence the same year could be counted twice) - also different kings shared the same name of another king of a slightly different time - to put it simply care must be taken so as to not arrive at the wrong conclusion.  Comparing verse 30 of chapter 15 with verse 1 of chapter 17 reveals a suspension of Israel’s monarchy due to the Assyrians of about 10 years (cities fell captives were taken) - Verse 5 of chapter 15 informs us that Jotham co-reigned with his father when Uzziah was a leper - Jotham at the age of 25 years old became the king of Judah for 16 years in the 2nd year of Pekah’s 20 year reign (2 Ki. 15:32) - verse 38 of chapter 15 says that Jotham slept with his fathers and Ahaz his son reigned in his stead, also Pekah had dealings with Ahaz (who ruled the SK after Jotham - Isa. 7:1), so the question is how did Pekah die in the 20th year of Jotham?  One possible answer to this apparent dilemma is, since scripture does not specify the age of Jotham when he died, it is reasonable to believe that he lived four years beyond his reign during which time his son reigned so that Pekah died in Ahaz’s 4th year of reign.  It is said of Ahaz (2 Chr. 28:19) that he was the king of Israel, perhaps during Israel suspension of the monarchy by the Assyrians, Ahaz acted as king of all of Israel (all twelve tribes) or perhaps this is a generic term similar to Jehoshaphat.


121)  2 Ki. 18:15, 16 vs. Isa. 39:2

No error - Not all the treasure was given the first time or an additional treasure was raised through taxes - the populist hadn’t given away their personal treasure - the king had given his


122)  2 Ki. 20:12 vs. Isa. 39:1

12At that time Berodachbaladan, the son of Baladan, king of Babylon, sent letters and a present unto Hezekiah: for he had heard that Hezekiah had been sick.

1At that time Merodachbaladan, the son of Baladan, king of Babylon, sent letters and a present to Hezekiah: for he had heard that he had been sick, and was recovered.

Semi-difficult apparent error, the apparent error, the names are spelled differently - “B” instead of “M” - historians identify Merodachbaladan as the correct name because it is found in the Assyrian inscriptions - since the names are so close except for the first letter you might expect a minor scribble error, but a lot would depend on which language the different passages were originally written in - as there are example in the Old Testament, such as in the Book of Daniel, where a portion was written in Hebrew and another portion was written in Aramaic because of two different audiences - you also have the case of different translations, since the KJV came from a variety of available trusted sources {translations - some fragmented} there might just be a different spelling and still be ok - simply believing something to be a scribble error doesn’t make it one.


123)  2 Ki. 24:8 vs. 2 Chr. 36:9

8Jehoiachin 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.

9Jehoiachin 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.

A difficult apparent error which has to do with the age of Jehoiachin - was he 8 or 18 - some have speculated that he was anointed king by his father Jehoiakim when he was 8 years old (similar to the case with King David) possibly to keep the weaker Zedekiah from the throne, but that Jehoiachin didn’t actually begin to reign until he was 18 years old and reigned only 3 months and 10 days or rounding off the time, 3 months - a problem with this view is realized because it must be read out of its context to arrive at this conclusion - verse 10 of 2 Chronicles 36 says, 10And when the year was expired, king Nebuchadnezzar sent, and brought him to Babylon, with the goodly vessels of the house of the LORD, and made Zedekiah his brother king over Judah and Jerusalem.” - The preferred reasonable solution is similar to the Ahaziah apparent error - a literal translation of 2nd Chr. 36:9 would read that Jehoiachin was “a son of eight years” referencing that 8 years had elapsed during which he was a vassal prince under the feudal lord Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, thus marking the 8th year of dominion as the year Jehoiachin succeeded his father on the throne.


124)  2 Ki. 25:27 vs. Jere. 52:31

27And it came to pass in the seven and thirtieth year of the captivity of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the twelfth month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, that Evilmerodach king of Babylon in the year that he began to reign did lift up the head of Jehoiachin king of Judah out of prison;

31And it came to pass in the seven and thirtieth year of the captivity of Jehoiachin king of Judah, in the twelfth month, in the five and twentieth day of the month, that Evilmerodach king of Babylon in the first year of his reign lifted up the head of Jehoiachin king of Judah, and brought him forth out of prison,

A semi-difficult apparent error, the 25th or the 27th day - a reasonable solution to this apparent error is that on the 25th the edict went out, Jehoiachin then spent 2 days washing and cleansing himself for his admittance before the king on the 27th.


125)  2 Chr. 7:12, 16 vs. Acts 7:48

No error, God is transcendent he can dwell where ever he wants - in Acts we have Stephen setting straight the wrong beliefs of the Jews in Jerusalem who believed that just because they had the temple and they were of Abrahams seed that God was with them in spite of their sins - they were wrong and so are those who point to this as evidence for an error in Scripture.


126)  2 Chr. 28:19

No error, see 2 Ki. 15:30, 31


127)  Job 2:3, 7; Heb. 12:6 vs. Prov. 12:21; 1 Pet. 3:13

No error, the apparent error, evil happening to the godly - does/won’t: on the surface this looks to be a problem but there are a couple of ways to view the evil that comes upon Christians - the first is that the evil isn’t from God, the second is that no matter how much turmoil (human evil) a believer experiences in this life, this life is but a vapor and it seem as nothing; a third possibility is that our flesh may experience evil but the new man is above these earthly evils.


128)  Job 7:9, 10; Eccl. 9:5; Isa. 26:14 vs. Luke 20:37; 1 Cor. 15:16, 52; Rev. 20:12, 13

No error, the apparent error the resurrection of the dead: there are no contradictions in any of the referenced Scripture verses - there is no reincarnation so short of a miraculous act of God none of the dead are coming back to life - one day the dead in Christ will be physically raised to a resurrected body to be ever with the Lord - the dead without Christ will also be raised but to a judgment.


129)  Job 11:7; Isa. 40:28 vs. Rom. 1:20

No error, the apparent error, we can/cannot discover God’s attributes, taken out of context, Job ask can you know the Almighty unto perfection; Isaiah says don’t you know that God fainteth not, neither is weary - there is no searching to his understanding - which goes to show that critics believe if you tell a lie long enough some will believe it - which is the case of this fabrication.


130)  Job 21:7, 8; Ps. 17:14; Ecc. 8:12; Isa. 65:20 vs. Job 36:14; Ecc. 7:17, 8:13; Ps. 55:23; Prov. 10:27

No error, the apparent error longevity of the wicked: this is a matter of view points, God’s or mans - in this life all rate about the same blessings/cursing regardless of being wicked or good but after this life is another story, the perishing then is separation from God into a place called hell where torment awaits the wicked.


131)  Job 21:24

24His breasts are full of milk, and his bones are moistened with marrow.”

No error, a figurative statement that is not to be taken literally - though I don’t know what to make of it - I am at a lost as to why it might be an error except that some are grasping at straw and thus find an error where none exist.


132)  Job 26:7 vs. 38:4

7He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.

4Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

No error, the foundation in scripture can have different meanings depending on how it is used in the passage - the critic wants to see an error where none exist.


133)  Job 26:11

11The pillars of heaven tremble and are astonished at his reproof.

No error, while something is not fully understood, it hardly qualifies as an error.


134)  Psa. 58:8

No error, “As a snail which melteth …” - snails don’t melt but the trail of one could give the appearance of melting hence the reference (speaking to a particular unlearned audience?) - Not an error.


135)  Psa. 92:12 vs. Isa. 57:1

12    The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree: he shall grow like a cedar in Lebanon.

1The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart: and merciful men are taken away, none considering that the righteous is taken away from the evil to come.

No error, a matter of view points, God’s vs. man’s and timing perhaps – certainly depending on the circumstance that effect us all - both statements are true.


136)  Psa. 104:5; Eccl. 1:4 vs. Heb. 1:11; 2 Pet. 3:10; Rev. 20:11

No error, the apparent error the destruction of the earth: while the foundation of the earth will remain God will be dealing with its surface harshly with a variety of pestilences (fire) which in a sense will destroy the existing earth - the good news is that God is not going to leave it that way the earth is also going to be healed through the power of God. 


137)  Psa. 104:15; Prov. 31:6, 7; 1 Tim. 5:23 vs. Prov. 20:1, 23:31, 32

“… wine that maketh glad the heart of man …”; “… strong drink unto him … perish and wine unto … heavy hearts….”; “…use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake and thine often infirmities.” Vs. “1Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.”; “Look not upon wine … it biteth like a serpent…”

No contradiction hence no error, though to him who it is sin it is sin (Rom. 14:23) - this is not to say the drinking is wise - sin can effect adversely not just the one who drinks but any who witness it and it effects them to sin - some believe and choose alcoholic drink (though not required) as allowed as long as not done to excess - while Scripture does not condemn the practice and indicates that Christ drank on occasion (Christ was accused of being a drunkard inferring that he most likely had an alcoholic beverage on occasion) it also warns vehemently of the dangers - some say that Scripture does not support any drinking of alcohol but that is a personal bias (opinion) screening the text and seeing what it ‘should say’ rather than what it does say.


138)  Psa. 126:5, 6 vs. Gal. 6:7

No error, this apparent error is seen to be a violation of the law of sowing and reaping because it is not read in its context - in short you always reap more than you sow but the two passages are talking about different things, where the account in Psalms is talking sowing/working even in tears will reap a joyous reward; while Galatians is about sowing to the flesh and the reaping will not be joyous nor will you get away with it.


139)  Psa. 145:9 vs. Jer. 13:14

The Lord is good to all … vs. … I will dash one against another …

No error, there are a few ways this can be viewed: first it helps when read it in its context (two different situations; in Psalm 145, man is speaking and in Jeremiah God is speaking, when God speaks to the prophet in Jeremiah it is because of Judah’s sinning - certain things are going to happen to them - a good parent will punish a wayward child)


140)  Prov. 1:28 vs. Matt. 7:8

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

8For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

No error, taken out of context the “then” in Proverbs followed verse 25 which clarifies verse 28 - they had set at nought God’s counsel and ignored his reproof - the idea here is that there is a time limit with God’s grace and mercy, so don’t blow it.


141)  Prov. 4:7 vs. Ecc. 1:18 vs. 1Cor. 1:19

No error, the apparent error wisdom is it folly or not: The answer is both, if it is godly wisdom then great but if it is man’s wisdom than it has proven folly more than wise14:12 and 16:25)


142)  Prov. 22:1; Eccl. 7:1 vs. Luke 6:26

No error, the apparent error is an invention, taken out of context - a good name is preferred vs. Jesus words about false praise.


143)  Prov. 22:15 vs. 27:22

15Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.

22Though thou shouldest bray a fool in a mortar among wheat with a pestle, yet will not his foolishness depart from him.

No error, the apparent error the remedy for foolishness - taken out of context - one deals with the foolishness of a child the other deals with the foolishness of an adult - children may be guided into wisdom / foolish adults usually suffer the consequences and continue in being foolish.


144)  Prov. 22:24; Ecc. 7:9; James 1:20 vs. Eph. 4:26

24Make no friendship with an angry man; and with a furious man thou shalt not go: … 9Be not hasty in thy spirit to be angry: for anger resteth in the bosom of fools. … 20For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God. Vs. 26Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:

No error, the apparent error concerns anger disapproved/approved - initially many would say that anger is wrong but God was angry and yet without sin - it would appear that anger in and of itself is not the issue but how the anger is handled hence the warning regarding angry people - anger can fester into a wrong spirit so the admonition is deal with it before it gets out of control - anger on man’s part is usually manifested in the wrong way but there is such a thing as righteous anger which is not sin.


145)  Prov. 26:4 vs. 26:5

4Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. 5Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

No contradiction when the situations are understood - first note that to proposed difference is side by side indicating that we do not have an “either/or” statement but a “both/and” statement - if answering a fool is going to cause people to be confused about your position than make a line of distinction between you by avoiding the foolish argument or if you do engage don’t use the same tactics of the fool; on the other hand if the fool is wise in his own conceit than show why he is an idiot with the obvious weaknesses of the fools arguments.


146)  Ecc. 1:4 vs. Matt. 24:35 (see also 2 Pet. 3:10-12)

No error, Ecc. 1:4 is Solomon’s opinion - Matthew and Peters accounts is what God is going to do


147)  Eccl. 9:5 vs. Luke 16:22-24

5For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.

22And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; 23And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. 24And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. 

Possible difficult apparent error, do the dead experience their conditions or not: it could be saying nothing more than only the living can experience the grace of God the dead are beyond that - so that this may not be evidence of an error.


148)  Isa. 2:4 vs. Joel 3:9, 10

No contradiction, two different situations - the tribulation and the millennium


149)  Isa. 40:22 vs. Matt. 4:8

22It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

8Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

Not necessarily an error, the apparent contradiction, the shape of the earth:  Matthew doesn’t describe the earth, the referencing to the kingdoms of the world being seen doesn’t have to imply that the world is flat, it might be the devil projected the kingdoms of the world before Jesus (something like a video) - we certainly don’t understand the full powers of angels and what God gives them license to do and since we were not there, we should give God the benefit of the doubt.


150)  Isa. 45:7; Jer. 18:11; Lam. 3:38; Ez. 20:25; Amos 3:6 vs. Deut. 32:4; 1 Cor. 14:33; James 1:13

No error, this apparent error deals with God being the author or evil and not the author of evil - first God is just and to best evaluate who the real author of evil is we must look back to Genesis, when God had conclude creating everything He said everything was very good until Lucifer (the serpent) lied to Eve and sin entered the world - the wickedness of man’s sins have reaped certain evil consequences which God works through to restore man to a relationship to God.


151)  Isa. 53:2 vs. Song of Sol. 5:16

2For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.

16His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.

No error, this apparent error is a case of “in the eye of the beholder” - Isaiah is giving a description of how the world views Jesus while Solomon gives a description of a loved one’s view of Jesus.


152)  Isa. 53:7 vs. Acts 8:32

7He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

32The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:

No Error - the order of sheep / lamb is reversed but the meaning remains the same.


153)  Dan. 1:1-2:3 vs. 2:4-7:28 vs. 8:1-12:13

No error, this apparent error is two fold, the first part looks at the fact that the Book of Daniel was written in two languages {Hebrew and Aramaic} - the first and last division indicated above, are written in Hebrew and the middle section in Aramaic - therefore it could not have been written by the same author - but it could have been, there is no reason why Daniel didn’t know both languages, but more to the point the first section relates to the fall of Jerusalem at the hands of Babylon and the deportation of the Jewish people; the second section records those details and events which have to do chiefly with the Gentile rule, tracing out the history of the Gentiles - the Aramaic being the popular language of the day would enable even the Chaldeans to read and understand the message; the third section for the most part deals with the Jewish people and their place in God’s prophetic plan - the second objection by critics is that the book in not in a chronological order - a chronological order of the chapters would be 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 5, 9, 6, 10, 11 & 12 - but this does not constitute an error, the fact that the Holy Spirit prompted Daniel to write the book in this order shouldn’t bother anyone - all that is required is to understand that it was.


154)  Dan. 1:21 vs. 10:1

21And Daniel continued even unto the first year of King Cyrus.

1In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a thing was revealed unto Daniel, whose name was called Belteshazzar; and the thing was true, but the time appointed was long: and he understood the thing, and had understanding of the vision.

No error, verse 21 of chapter one does not say that Daniel died in the first year of Cyrus - looking for an error where none exist.


155)  Dan. 5:2

No error, critics see an error in identifying Belshazzar as the son of Nebuchadnezzar because they fail to take into account the multiple meaning in the Babylonian language {and Arabic} - the word “son” can have 12 different meanings while the word “father” can have seven different meanings.


156)  Zech. 11:12, 13 Matt. 27:9, 10

12And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver. 13And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD.

9Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value; 10And gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord appointed me.

A semi-difficult apparent error, Jeremiah also purchased a field but for a different indicator (Jer. 32:6-9) - why is Matthew quoting the wrong prophet or is he and why say Jeremy - is this evidence for a scribble error?  One explanation put forward by many indicates that Matthew was quoting from the head of a section of the prophetic books - Jeremiah was the primary prophets and thus headed the section.  No one I researched discusses why Matthew would say Jeremy when he meant Jeremiah.

Jason’s thoughts:  Matt. 27:9, 10 vs. Zech. 11:12, 13 ---- just as with Enoch as quoted by Jude it is possible that Jeremiah “spoke” these words but they were not recorded in his book but were later recorded by Zechariah.  Many oral traditions are like that.  For any to claim that this is certainly an error would also mean that they know beyond all reasonable doubt that Jeremiah never “spoke” these words.  Being that Jesus claimed that he did, who are we to argue, especially since we do not know the oral traditions of the first century Jews. One other example is this. Jude almost directly quotes Peter at the end of his book (Jude 1:17, 18) but he attributes it to all of the apostles not just Peter.


157)  Matt. 1:2-6, 12-16 vs. Matt. 1:17

17So 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.

No error, this apparent error deals with the number of generations - David is counted twice at the end of the first list and the beginning of the second list - at about the time being carried away into Babylon Jechonias is born and is counted once: Reading Matt. 1:2-16 we see Abraham (1) begat Isaac (2) who begat Jacob (3) who begat Judas (4) who begat Phares (5) who begat Esrom (6) who begat Aram (7) who begat Aminadab (8) who begat Naasson (9) who begat Salmon (10) who begat Booz (11) who begat Obed (12) who begat Jesse (13) who begat David (14) - the second list starts with David (1) who begat Solomon (2) who begat Roboam (3) who begat Abia (4) who begat Asa (5) who begat Josaphat (6) who begat Joram (7) who begat Ozias (8) who begat Joatham (9) who begat Achaz (10) who begat Ezekias (11) who begat Manasses (12) who begat Amon (13) who begat Josias (14) about the time they were carried away to Babylon Jechonias is born (1) who begat Salathiel (2) who begat Zorobabel (3) who begat Abiud (4) who begat Eliakim (5) who begat Azor (6) who begat Sadoc (7) who begat Achim (8) who begat  Eliud (9) who begat Eleazar (10) who begat Matthan (11) who begat Jacob (12) who begat Joseph (13) the husband of Mary of whom was born Jesus (14).


158)  Matt. 1:16 vs. Luke 3:23

No error, this supposed error deals with Joseph’s father (Jacob or Heli) or both - we have seen several times that individuals were known by more than one name so it should not seem to strange if this is the case here.


159)  Matt. 1:18 vs. Acts 2:20

18Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

20The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come:

No error, this apparent error has to do with the coming of Christ and is either an invention of the critic or is where 1 Cor. 2:14 applies, But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” - two separate events - the first dealing with the physical birth through Mary after the Holy Spirit had come upon her {hence Jesus was fully human and fully God} while the second deals with a future event when Christ returns to judge the earth and to establish His millennial kingdom.


160)  Matt 2:14 vs. Luke 2:22

14When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt:

22And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;

No error, the apparent error Jesus going to Egypt: yes after being warned by an angel (Matt. 2:12) they went to Egypt and yes when Jesus was eight days old they brought him to Jerusalem which took place prior to going to Egypt - neither Matthew or Luke give a day by day break down of all of the events, there are gaps and they each gives some high points with times passed in between - Luke lets us know that when Jesus was eight days old he went to the temple and then to Jerusalem while Matthew lets us know that when Jesus was born wise men came looking for him - they were with the king in Jerusalem for {an unknown amount of time} - then they continued to follow the star to Jesus and found the child and his mother in the house {not the manger - where was the house? - we are not told} where ever they were, we next revealed event was that the child was in danger and the angel warned them to go to Egypt - this is nothing more than critics wanting to see an error and fabricating one to meet the desire.


161)  Matt. 4:18; Mark 1:16-18 vs. Luke 5:1-11 vs. John 1:40-42

18And 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. 19And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men. 20And they straightway left their nets, and followed him. 

16Now as he walked by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew his brother casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers. 17And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men. 18And straightway they forsook their nets, and followed him. 

1And it came to pass, that, as the people pressed upon him to hear the word of God, he stood by the lake of Gennesaret2And saw two ships standing by the lake: but the fishermen were gone out of them, and were washing their nets3And he entered into one of the ships, which was Simon’s, and prayed him that he would thrust out a little from the land. And he sat down, and taught the people out of the ship. 4Now when he had left speaking, he said unto Simon, Launch out into the deep, and let down your nets for a draught. 5And Simon answering said unto him, Master, we have toiled all the night, and have taken nothing: nevertheless at thy word I will let down the net. 6And when they had this done, they enclosed a great multitude of fishes: and their net brake. 7And they beckoned unto their partners, which were in the other ship, that they should come and help them. And they came, and filled both the ships, so that they began to sink. 8When Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus’ knees, saying, Depart from me; for I am a sinful man, O Lord. 9For he was astonished, and all that were with him, at the draught of the fishes which they had taken: 10And so was also James, and John, the sons of Zebedee, which were partners with Simon. And Jesus said unto Simon, Fear not; from henceforth thou shalt catch men. 11And when they had brought their ships to land, they forsook all, and followed him.

40One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. 41He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ. 42And he 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.

A semi-difficult apparent error, the apparent error deals with when was Simon Peter called - this apparent error is two fold, exactly where were they and when did the event occur - as with most things the opinions differ with who you research and their personal bias - maps of the area identify the same body of water as both the Sea of Galilee and the lake of Gennesaret {perhaps because of its size} - the second dealing with the time is more complicated - some believe that this was all talking about the same event {hence an error} while others believe that it may have been multiple events - both because of the gaps between the factual event have merit {personally I learn to the latter scenario} - but how might the first scenario possibly play out - starting with John’s account Andrew and some unidentified apostle {possibly John} meet Jesus, a day later while walking along the lake/sea, Andrew seeing his brother Simon Peter, and the others casting their nets into the water to wash them, runs ahead to fetch Simon to bring him to Jesus {perhaps they are slightly off shore}, they come to shore where Jesus joins them and teaches, next that catch a large number of fish and Peter begins following Jesus - the second scenario which has Matthew and Marks event occurring at the same time; Luke’s account occurring at another time and John’s account yet another event, is more probable based on some other information which the Scripture reveals {which event may have occurred first is not known} - a real possibility would be that Peter {and some of the others} returned to fishing after the first 2 meeting, which might explain the manner in which Jesus dealt with Peter as recorded in John 21:15-19 - Peter had made such a big deal of his faithfulness to Jesus even if it meant his death, that Jesus may have been pointing back to Peter’s start up as a means of telling the disciples to not to rely upon their own strength - Peter may not have only denied Jesus three times but may have returned to fishing after the initial introduction.  While no one can be absolutely certain it is at least a possibility - Also see Mark 3:13-19 and Luke 6:13-16, Jesus called and ordained the twelve for service whom He named apostles - which may very well indicate a more consistent following by the twelve from that point on - the number of reasonable possibilities dismiss the charge of absolute error.


162)  Matt. 5:1, 2 vs. Luke 6:17, 20

1And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: 2And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying, {The Beatitudes}

17And he came down with them, and stood in the plain, and the company of his disciples, and a great multitude of people out of all Judaea and Jerusalem, and from the sea coast of Tyre and Sidon, which came to hear him, and to be healed of their diseases; {The Beatitudes}

Not necessarily an error, perhaps Jesus spoke the same message on two different occasions in two different locations - neither passage says that this was Jesus first message, it is only assumed and the assumption could be wrong - another possibility could be that the plain was up in a mountain making the statements a both/and as apposed to an either / or.


163)  Matt. 5:16 vs. 6:1

16Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

1Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.

No error, the apparent error deals with good works and sees an error where none exist - verse 16 teaches that believers are to give the credit to God through their actions while verse one of chapter six deals with the hypocrite who show actions to receive the praise of men (they only do things to be seen) - two totally different intents.


164)  Matt. 5:17-19 vs.  Luke 16:16; Rom. 7:6; Eph. 2:15

No error, this apparent error deals with the law, Matthew teaches that Christ did not destroy the law but fulfilled it, He revealed the full tenants of the law, He kept the law perfectly, and He fulfilled the requirement of the death penalty for us - Luke teaches that the law and the prophets were until John the Baptist and that since then the kingdom of God is preached; Romans teaches that those who are in Christ are delivered from keeping the letter of the law to be justified before God; instead because they are justified in Christ, they should serve in the newness of the spirit fulfilling the moral law in God’s power; Ephesians teaches that Christ abolished the law of ordinances (dietary regulations, the Sabbath, the feast days …) - when a person comes to Christ the purpose of the law was fulfilled.


165)  Matt. 5:39; 26:52 vs. Luke 22:36; John 2:15

Matt. 5:39 turn the other cheek; those who live by the sword die by the sword vs. Luke 22:36 buy a sword; John 2:15 Christ drove the money changers from the temple.

No error, the apparent error nonresistance vs. physical resistance - the various pictures add up to a “both/and” depending on the situation, as a general rule violence begets violence, but there may be occasions when self defense is required; then there are the times when others should be allowed to take advantage of the rights of the Christian thus witnessing to the love of God in the believers life and finally there will be times when the believer must stand for what Christ would stand for and suffer the consequences willingly and cheerfully – the picture is complex and variable but it does not constitute an error.


166)  Matt. 6:13 vs. James 1:2

13And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

2My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations3Knowing this, that the trying of your faith worketh patience. 

No error, this apparent error deals with temptation - fails to understand the different ways which the Bible uses the word “temptation” but more to the point, isolating the verse from the surrounding context gives the appearance of an error - the Matthew account describes biblical attributes, verse 9-15 specifically describe the manner/attitude of a believers prayer; James while also giving biblical traits for the Christian life, is dealing with those who were experiencing persecution for their faith and is admonishing his readers to patiently endure through it, that they could actually count it a joy {for the fact that God makes all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are called according to his purpose (Rom. 8:28); Christ was abused, Christians should not think it strange that his followers would be treated any differently} - James wasn’t teaching the Christians to go out and seek it or even to desire temptation but since it will come, there is an upside, the Christian can grow through the experience because of the fact that the Holy Spirit dwells within believers changing them into the image of Jesus Christ.


167)  Matt. 7:1, 2 vs. 1 Cor. 5:12; 6:2-4

1Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 

12For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? ... 2Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?

No error, this is probably the most often sited apparent error of critics - judging: but it is a case of not taking the whole of scriptural teaching and arriving at a wrong conclusion - in the world people (non Christians) judge all the time as they interact with others, it is the most common of practices to evaluate the actions and possible intent - in Matthew the Scripture is dealing with hypocritical judging - judging others by standards that the one doing the judging doesn’t live by - 1 Cor. 5:12 & 6:2-4 teaches that Christians are to currently hold fellow believers to God’s standard for holy living and non-believers to God’s holy standard so that they might understand their need to repent and to call upon Jesus Christ to save them from their personal sin {while people don’t like to be reminded of their personal sin, they are going to dislike an eternity in hell a whole lot more and since everyone should  at least be given an opportunity once, Christians need to witness even if they appear or are accused of be judgmental - people may like to beat this horse but that doesn’t make it a genuine error.


168)  Matt. 10:34 vs. Luke 2:14

34Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

14Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

No error, the apparent error deals with Christ and peace:  In Matthew we learn that there will be division in some families because the message of Christ and yet Christ did bring peace with God to the world through His death, burial and resurrection, even though everyone will not avail themselves of it - Christ message will either result in repentance and peace with God or it will be resisted and hated.


169)  Matt. 11:14 vs. John 1:21

14And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.

21And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.

No error, the apparent error was John the Baptist, Elias or not, while not the physical Elias he was the figurative Elias in the fulfillment of his ministry - the Malachi prophecy which is alluded to covers two events Christ earthly ministry and Christ second coming, the future “great and terrible day of Jehovah” (this is confirmed in Matt. 17:10-13 and Rev. 11:3, 4).


170)  Matt. 11:28-30 vs. John 16:33; 2 Tim. 3:12; Heb. 12:6, 8

No error, the apparent error the yoke of the Christian easy/not:  it is not God who causes difficulties for his children even when chastising (correcting) but the unbelieving world often causes hardship but even then the Holy Spirit within the believer is help them to endure all things.


171)  Matt. 12:40 vs. Mark 15:25, 42, 44, 45, 46, 16:9

No error, the apparent error deals with Christ being in the grave three days: an oriental reckoning of days is seen here (and else where in Scripture) where any part of a day counts as a whole day so that one entire day and two partial day/night periods would count as three days (this method also applied to years - see Judges and Kings).


172)  Matt. 15:22 vs. Mark 7:26

22And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.

26The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by nation; and she besought him that he would cast forth the devil out of her daughter.

No error, the apparent error the nationality of the women when Jesus went into the border of Tyre and Sidon: Mark informs us that she was of the Phoenicians which are descendants of the Canaanites, she was also identified as Greek indicating that at some point she moved from or was taken from Greece and now lived in Syrian coast near Tyre and Sidon or perhaps her parents gave her the combinations sited in the Scriptures by moving and genes.


173)  Matt. 20:20 vs. Mark 10:35

20Then came to him the mother of Zebedee’s children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him.

35And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, come unto him, saying, Master, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall desire.

No error, the apparent error is that Matthew could be saying that the mother asked Jesus as opposed to the sons but Matthew doesn’t say who did the asking, perhaps they all did, but they each worshipped and perhaps desired a certain thing?


174)  Matt. 20:30 vs. Mark 10:46 (Same situation as Mt. 8:28 vs. Mark 5:1-3 also see Luke 18:35, 38)

30And, behold, two blind men sitting by the way side, when they heard that Jesus passed by, cried out, saying, Have mercy on us, O Lord, thou Son of David.

46And they came to Jericho: and as he went out of Jericho with his disciples and a great number of people, blind Bartimaeus, the son of Timaeus, sat by the highway side begging.

No error, the apparent error one or two blind men, there are two possibilities either these are similar but not the same story or those who identified one possibly knew one of the two blind men and identified that individual though there was actually two.


175)  Matt. 24:36; John 14:28 vs. John 10:20; Phil. 2:5

No error, this apparent error deals with whether Christ is equal with God or not: based in a limited understanding of the Trinity and the steps Christ went through to redeem man - Christ took on humanity and followed the will of the Father - regarding the Matthew account it was most likely meant that the exact day and hour were not necessary for Christians to know (it wasn’t revealed to the angels) so it was not God’s will to reveal the day and hour - as for John 14:28 it echoes the mission of Christ to become man while in the mortal body, the Father was above the Son though they were equal - in the future (millennium and future eternity) Christ will be preeminent in the Godhead.


176)  Matt. 27:5-7 vs. Acts 1:18

5And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. 6And 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. 7And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter’s field, to bury strangers in. 

18Now 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.

A semi-difficult apparent error, the apparent error, the money that purchased the field was Judas’ whether he personally went out and bought the land - since the Jewish official didn’t want the trader-money back with the temple funds, perhaps no one would buy the lot where the trader died and the Jewish leaders chose to purchased it for the poor – could the author of Acts or a copyist have taken liberty?  Yes but there is not proof that this is an actual error but is only surmised.


177)  Matt. 27:44; Mark 15:32 vs. Luke 23:39, 40

No error, the apparent error did both or only one thief revile Jesus: critics love the “either/or” analysis but initially this was a case of both, and at some point in the ordeal one of the thieves became convicted by Christ’ actions and demeanor on the cross and rebuked the other thief.


178)  Matt. 27:46, 50 vs. Luke 23:46 vs. John 19:30

46And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, EliEli, EliEli, lamalama sabachthanisabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? 50Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.

46And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

30When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

Not necessarily an error, Luke and John record Jesus’ last words, while factual the eye-witnessed accounts are slightly different perhaps the whole sentence was something like ‘it is finished, Father into thy hands I commend my spirit’ - the critic sees an error because he wants too - just as there are different writing styles so too there are some omissions that others include.


179)  Matt. 28:1 vs. Mark 16:1 vs. John 20:1 (see also Luke 24:10)

No error, in fact I find it squirrelly that anyone would see a possible error except that the three accounts told by three different people, differ slightly: Matthew mentions Mary Magdalene and the other Mary - Mark agrees and explains who the other Mary was and also mentions another women (Salome) was there - John’s account only mentions Mary Magdalene - a logical and legitimate reasoning is that the three accounts were not written at the same time and perhaps the women mentioned by Mark were not still living when Matthew and John wrote their accounts.


180)  Matt. 28:2, 5 Luke 24:4 (See also Mark 16:5 vs. John 20:11, 12)

No error, the apparent error how many angels were at the sepulcher: a couple of reasonable conclusions, different reports from those women who went to the tomb, those who went into the tomb saw all of the angels and those who were too timid and remained outside saw only the angel outside the tomb or perhaps the writers of the gospels highlight true but slightly different details.


181)  Matt. 28:10 vs. Luke 24:49

No error, this apparent error is invented; in chapter twenty-eight of Matthew Jesus is talking to the woman who met him as they left the tomb - the message I will meet the disciple in Galilee go tell them - later that same day Jesus came across two of his follows (one was Cleopas) who had went to a village called Emmaus, a short distance from Jerusalem - the resurrected Jesus according to Scripture could get places quickly and effortlessly (mortals were to match) these two were commanded to tarry at Jerusalem until they would be empowered from on high (the Holy Spirit) - no conflict, two different groups in different parts of the country given specific directions effecting just them.


182)  Matt. 28:16, 17 vs. Luke 24:33, 36, 37; John 20:19

No error, another case of inventing an apparent error - the Matthew account says the disciples went into the mountains of Galilee where Jesus had appointed them (presuming this was the instructions that the women brought them) - Luke accounts deals with the two followers (one was Cleopas) - John accounts doesn’t identify when or where this meeting occurred only that the disciple were meeting together for the fear of the Jews.


183)  Matt. 28:18; John 3:35 vs. Mark 6:5

No error, the apparent error God is and is not all powerful: Mark’s account deals with unbelief and consequently an unwillingness to come to Christ which resulted in Christ not doing many works amongst them.


184)  Matt. 28:19, 20 vs. 1 Cor. 1:17

19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

17For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

No error, a failure to understand the purpose / intent of baptism, which the believer enters into as a sign of being placed into the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ - an outward sign of what Christ through the Holy Spirit is working inside the believer - further Paul remarks that his particular calling was not as a baptizer but as a preacher.


185)  Mark 1:12, 13 vs. John 1:29, 35, 2:1, 2

11And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 12And immediately the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness….13And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.

29The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. … 35Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples;… 1And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: 2And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. 

No error, neither Mark’s or John’s accounts are a daily chronology but have gaps of time between the events and cover different periods of time so that they kind of dove-tail each other - a careless reading allows for a perceived error where none exist - though verse 29 of John’s account gives the impression that something missing preceded “the day” - John’s account was written long after the facts and appears as a general outline of events and not a detailed outline - again we do not have enough facts to be sure an error exist - Scriptures says that Jesus was tempted in the wilderness and does not say anywhere in Scripture that he wasn’t - it is pure imagination of the skeptic to see error here.


186)  Mark 1:14 vs. John 1:43, 3:22-24

14Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God,

43The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me.

No error, the apparent error assumes that these passages deal with the same period of time - in Mark some amount of time went by between verse 13 and 14 (forty day and night in the wilderness plus Jesus attended a wedding, began to select disciples and preach, healing through out Galilee - how many times and for how long in not clear) - seeing an error where none exist.


187)  Mark 1:21, 29 vs. John 1:44

21And they went into Capernaum; and straightway on the sabbath day he entered into the synagogue, and taught….  29And forthwith, when they were come out of the synagogue, they entered into the house of Simon and Andrew, with James and John.

44Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter.

Not necessarily an error, did Simon (Peter) and Andrew ever move from Bethsaida to Capernaum, did they hang their hat at more than one house - the two towns are across from each other on opposite sides of the Sea of Galilee about five miles apart.


188)  Mark 3:29 vs. Acts 13:39

29But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:

39And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

No error, to blaspheme the Holy Spirit is rejecting the gospel message (which the Holy Spirit brings) until the heart is hardened and the individual ultimately rejects Christ with such finality that no future repentances is possible because there is no longer any saving belief.


189)  Mark 4:34 vs. John 18:20

34But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to his disciples.

20Jesus 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.

No error, when read in its context, the Jewish leaders were looking for an excuse to have Jesus killed for things that he taught in public - he never hid the fact that he claimed to be God or that he came from heaven - in private with his disciples he expounded upon his teachings for the benefit of the disciples.


190)  Mark 15:25 vs. John 19:14, 15

25And it was the third hour, and they crucified him.

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

No error, the apparent error what time was Jesus crucified: a case of two different time scales (clocks) being used for two different audiences - Mark speaking to a Jewish audience used the Jewish classification, the 3rd hour after sunrise or 9:00 a.m. that Jesus’ crucifixion started - John who wrote his account sometime later was speaking to a gentile audience used the Roman classification with the day starting at midnight so that at 6 a.m. Jesus was standing before Pilate (Matthew, Mark, Luke and Acts use the Hebrew times scale).


191)  Luke 12:4 vs. John 7:1

4And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do.

1After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him.

No error, the apparent contraction fear - seeing error where none exist: In Luke 12, we find a generalized teaching to not fear those who can only kill the body but to fear God while John is not about fear but timing - Christ did not fear dying but knew that there was an exact time when it would occur, so he avoided the Jews until the time was right.


192)  Luke 14:26 vs. Eph. 5:25, 29, 6:2

No error, the apparent error hating ones family, not read in context, see Ex. 20:12.


193)  Luke 22:3, 4, 7 vs. John 13:27

No error, the apparent error, when did Satan enter Judas before or after supper - most likely as with Saul, the devil kept coming upon Judas as he felt necessary.


194)  Luke 24:50, 51 vs. Acts 1:9, 12

No error, an invented apparent error, Bethany is on the eastern slope of Mount Olivet - you would think that someone who proposes a geographical contradiction would look at a map.


195)  John 5:33, 34 vs. John 15:27

33Ye sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth. 34But I receive not testimony from man: but these things I say, that ye might be saved. 

27And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.

No error, this apparent error, an invention deals with Jesus and men’s witness:  Jesus acknowledged that John the Baptist witness was true but He had another witness which was greater then the testimonies of men so that He did not have only rely on the testimony of men - His actions testified of who he was (see verse 36) - further on in chapter fifteen Jesus went on to confirm that others would testify about Him as the Christ in the future {the Holy Spirit and His disciples} - a case of wanting to see an error even when it doesn’t exist.


196)  John 1:11; 15:13 vs. Rom. 5:10

No error, the apparent error did Christ lay down his life for friends or enemies, Scripture teaches both - Christ died for even those who would reject him (men are without excuse).


197)  John 10:28; Rom. 8:38, 39 vs. Heb. 6:4-6; 2 Pet. 2:20, 21

No error, though some may call this a semi-difficult apparent error, the apparent error, falling out of grace - can’t/can: John 10:28 says never perish neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand; Rom. 8:38, 39 says neither death, life, angels, principalities, powers, things present or to come … can separate us from the love of God while Hebrews says if you could fall away, nothing would redeem you certainly not the Jewish traditions; 2 Pet. 2:20, 21 teaches you will not be a happy camper living in sin - as the saying goes you may fall all around grace but you will never fall out of grace- failing to understand that no individual has saved themselves so consequently no one couldn’t keep themselves saved, along with understanding that it is all Christ from start to finish, has kept many from being sure of their salvation as well as has kept many from truly coming to faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ.


198)  John 10:30 vs. 14:28

No error, the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ) and the Holy Spirit are all equal and yet at times in history preeminence is given to one particular part of the God-head


199)  John 15:15 vs. 16:12

15Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.

12I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

No error, Jesus had shared everything regarding his personhood and his earthly ministry but there were things that the Holy Spirit would teach them when they could receive it.


200)  John 20:22 vs. Acts 1:5, 8

22And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

5For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. … 8But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

Not an error, the account in John deals with a possible pledge of authority of the Holy Spirit (a symbolic act) while the account in Acts deals with the power of the Holy Spirit coming upon the disciples - the power would be more than just a dynamic preaching style, it would involve boldness, abundant grace, the wisdom of God as apposed to man’s and a manifestation of the fruit of the Spirit in ones life.


201)  Acts 9:6 vs. 26:16

6And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

16But 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;

No error, the first account gives each detail while the second account to Agrippa gives the highlights of the encounter


202)  Acts 9:7 vs. 22:9

7And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

9And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

Not necessarily an error, what may be indicated is that they heard something which they didn’t understand, except for Saul who understood the words of Christ.


203)  Acts 13:17

17The God of this people of Israel chose our fathers, and exalted the people when they dwelt as strangers in the land of Egypt, and with an high arm brought he them out of it. 18And about the time of forty years suffered he their manners in the wilderness. 19And when he had destroyed seven nations in the land of Chanaan, he divided their land to them by lot. 20And after that he gave unto them judges about the space of four hundred and fifty years, until Samuel the prophet21And afterward they desired a king: and God gave unto them Saul the son of Cis, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, by the space of forty years. 22And when he had removed him, he raised up unto them David to be their king;

Difficult apparent error, the perceived error deals with the time span of “about 450 years” between the dividing of the land and Saul being made king - one quickly sees that the 450 years could not be remotely possible since the total time to the start of building of the temple by Solomon was in the 480th year from the exodus - leaving a difference of 30 years which could not accommodate the 40 years of wandering in the wilderness, the 6 years of war and the 80 plus years of three kings {Saul, David and Solomon} the actual time of the judges is closer to 349 years, so the question is, why did Paul an intelligent and well versed student of the Bible say about 450 years - the fact that the Jewish calendar had 360 days years could not make up for the almost 100 years difference - critics will argue that this is proof of a scribble error - but the fact is we have no proof that Paul didn’t say “about 450 years” as recorded though wrong.


204)  Acts 16:6 vs. 19:8-10

6Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia,

8And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of God. 9But when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus. 10And this continued by the space of two years; so that all they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus, both Jews and Greeks. 

No error, seeing an error where none exist, the apparent error preaching in Asia {forbidden/heard} - there are several possibilities, the first is that these are two different periods of time so that for a time they were forbidden and later they weren’t; the second is that the God’s word drifted in to Asia on the lips of converts or letters.


205)  Acts 26:20 vs. Gal. 1:22

20But showed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.

22And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ:

No error, the Galatians accounts is lifted out of its context by starting in verse seventeen, Damascus is sighted as the first place that Saul was before going off to Jerusalem or any place else.


206)  Rom. 2:13 vs. Gal. 2:16

13(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

16Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

No error, the first speaks of the life of a believer while the second addresses the life of a none believer


207)  Rom. 4:5 vs. James 2:24 (see Ro. 3:20, 4:2; Gal. 2:16, 3:11, 12 vs. Rom. 2:13; James 2:21, 24)

5But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

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

No error, again it depends on the individual whether saved or not saved that defines the meaning - none are righteous enough of themselves to please God, it takes Jesus Christ payment to make one righteous - once saved the believer is expected to live righteously because he is no longer his own


208)  Rom. 4:9 vs. James 2:21

9Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.

21Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

No error, the apparent error relates to works, faith came first but then Abraham acted upon his faith thus proving to himself and others that his faith was genuine {faith without works is a dead faith}.


209)  1 Cor. 7:6, 12; 2 Cor. 11:17 vs. 2 Tim. 3:16

6But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment…. 12But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away…. 17That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting.

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

No error, the apparent error is all Scripture inspired or not: Paul though inspired by God to write what he wrote gave some things that though not commandments per-say was good advises under the unction of the Holy Spirit, 1 Cor. 2:4 says 4And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: 5That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.” - the idea is in additions to God giving specific commands, He gave principles that the believers should live by thus making it all profitable for instruction in righteousness.


210)  1 Cor. 7:23 vs. 1 Pet. 2:18

23Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.

18Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.

No error, this apparent error is perceived by not keeping the text in its context, in Corinthians the admonition is to live for God regardless of the circumstances that you find yourself and not to become slaves - living to please (serve) men so that they will like you - in Peter, the lesson is regardless of the situation, honor God by being the best worker (servant) or citizen {obey the laws} even when the rules seem foolish or you might personally disagree with - the exception of course is when the rule or law would cause you to violate God will and teaching, in which case you would follow God and suffer the consequences.


211)  1 Cor. 8:4 vs. 2 Cor. 4:4

No error, the apparent error, one God vs. more than one - Satan along with money may be considered by some to be their god but at the end of the day there is still only one true God {in three persons - Father, Son and Holy Spirit}


212)  1 Cor. 10:33 vs. Gal. 1:10

33Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.

10For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

No error, an apparent error is invented/perceived by not reading the text in context, Paul said that the words of the gospel were foolishness to those who were perishing and it did bother him that some might consider him foolish, if some might be saved - Paul knew his audience and spoke the truth to Gentiles differently than he would have to Jews, the two audience had two different starting points there both were lead to the same truth - Christ died for the sins of men because all are perishing and no one goes to the Father except through Jesus Christ - at no point did Paul speak out both side of his mouth.


213)  Gal. 6:2 vs. 6:5

2Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ. vs. 5For every man shall bear his own burden.

No error, while ultimately every individual must bear his own burden the law of Christ was that in love all Christians are to minister to the brethren - sharing burden, meeting needs for the sake of spiritual growth in Christ.


214)  1 Thes. 2:2 vs. 2:17, 18

No error, the apparent error deals with the strength of God verse Satan {who is stronger?} - Invents an error where none exist - Satan like a cold may have hindered, but Paul continued on in the Lord - God rules Satan drool - even though he is allowed temporally to rule within the earth to a limited degree.


215)  James 4:5

5Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?

No error, critics presume that James is making a word for word quote from the OT and not pointing to an implied truth


216)  2 John 1:10, 11

No error, some critics read into the text what is not there {‘anyone who even greets an unbeliever shares in his wickedness’}, by ignoring the difference in custom from John’s day to today they read into the text thus lifting it from it context


217)  Rev. 8:7 vs. 9:4

No error, this apparent error is perceived because it is presumed that the event are listed chronologically - they aren’t, also some are past historical events and some and prophetic future events.

 In This Section:

 Helps For The New Christian
 Rules For Christian Living
 Another Gospel
 When Christians Sin
 Helps For Witnessing
 The Logic Of Biblical Creation
 Living Purely In An Impure World
 Miracles Of The Bible
 Bible Prophecies Fulfilled
 Archaic Words And KJV
Apparent Errors & The KJV
 Lift Up Your Eyes
 Election And Freewill
 Peace: A Fact & A Feeling
 Levels of Faith
 Love Not The World
 Biblical Chronology

Top powered by DRV-ZONE eXTReMe Tracker LOGIN