ABC:1 Chronicles 1

From BibleStrength

Verse 36 claims the Bible is wrong about the following passage, and makes the following comments:[1]

This is one of those cases where the critics just doesn't understand the Bible wasn't written in modern English, but that the Old Testament was written in ancient Hebrew. We translated the Hebrew word ben as "sons" but it's not used the way we would use it today. The following is the interlinear showing the ancient Hebrew words as seen in manuscripts like the Dead Sea Scrolls.

By that I mean it simply means any male children descended from the person in question, not necessarily members of one's direct family. When C.S. Lewis (a Christian apologist) wrote the "Chronicles of Narnia" he actually followed the Biblical example of referring to the human children as "sons of Adam" and "daughters of Eve."[2] probably intentionally omitted the crucial next verse showing this was what was occurring. If they had quoted v. 12 and not just v. 11 it would have been very clear that Amalek was indeed descended from Eliphaz, just not a son, but rather a grandson.

Timna was actually the name of Eliphaz' wife, but it appears a later descendant was named after her, probably in her honor, as seen from both passages. Since it was a female name, it may be that Timna was actually a daughter yet considered a ruler or "Duke" (Hebrew alluwph[3]) nonetheless because of her heritage, and counted as a Canaanite ruler.

At any rate, there is no contradiction. The critic just didn't realize that the Hebrew word translated "sons" is closer to our word "descendants" than "sons" in modern English.


  1. TheThinkingAtheist. Bible Contradictions. Retrieved from
  2. Human. WikiNarnia. Retrieved from
  3. Brown, Driver, Briggs and Gesenius. Hebrew Lexicon entry for 'alluwph. The KJV Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon. Retrieved from