Reason Project

From BibleStrength
(Redirected from Reason Project)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The following is an as-yet incomplete list of alleged contradictions in the Bible from the interactive chart/list by The Reason Project (as listed on Patheos) and BibViz. The critic's words are italicized when quoted.

The following is just a concise summary of the refutations, for more detail see the pages for the Bible passages of the refuted claims.

Claims 1-10[edit | hide | hide all]

Allegation Solution
1. How many men did the chief of David's captains kill?

2 Samuel 23:8 These be the names of the mighty men whom David had: The Tachmonite that sat in the seat, chief among the captains; the same was Adino the Eznite: he lift up his spear against eight hundred, whom he slew at one time.

1 Chronicles 11:11 And this is the number of the mighty men whom David had; Jashobeam, an Hachmonite, the chief of the captains: he lifted up his spear against three hundred slain by him at one time.

There are two different individuals being referred to. 1 Chronicles 11:11 specifically mentions Jashobeam the Hachmonite as the one who slays 300, and does not even mention Adino until v. 42 as "Adina the son of Shiza the Reubenite, a captain of the Reubenites, and thirty with him."

However, 2 Samuel 23:8 specifically says the 800 were slain by Adino, not Jashobeam. Confusion may be caused by the phrase "chief among the captains; the same was Adino the Eznite" but it is just saying that Adino was also one of the captains like Jashobeam, not that they were one and the same.

2. Was Abraham justified by faith or works?

Romans 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

James 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

As mentioned by the Scofield Study Bible III, Ephesians 2:8-10 is the passage which brings both views together.[1] We are saved by faith, not works, it's God's gift not man's doing, lest anyone should boast.

However, we are created by Jesus to do good works and it is God's will that we do them. The works themselves do not save, but are the outward evidence to others, and to ourselves, that we have indeed undergone an inward redemptive process of salvation.

True saving faith will ultimately produce good works as the result of a changed heart and a new spirit. Thus if a person shows no interest in doing good works once becoming a Christian, and for years lives without any change, then as James points out, that faith without works is a dead faith and no faith indeed.

3. How many sons did Abraham have?

Hebrews 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

James 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

Genesis 22:2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

Genesis 16:15 And Hagar bare Abram a son: and Abram called his son's name, which Hagar bare, Ishmael.

Genesis 21:2 For Sarah conceived, and bare Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which God had spoken to him.
3 And Abraham called the name of his son that was born unto him, whom Sarah bare to him, Isaac.

Genesis 25:1 Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah.
2 And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah.

Genesis 4:22 And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain was Naamah.

The usage of the word "son" each time was in reference to an heir. This is apparent throughout both the Old and New Testaments. Sarah, because she was originally infertile, made the somewhat ill-advised decision to ask her maid to bear Abraham's children, which she quickly recognized had been a mistake afterward. (Genesis 16:1-6) Abraham had multiple children, but only one he considered "son" in the sense of being an heir. The other sons of Abraham were not considered sons but servants. (Galatians 4:30, Genesis 21:10) Thus, Abraham sent the illegitimate children away with gifts but the overall inheritance went to Isaac alone. (Genesis 25:5-6, 24:36)

James does not say Abraham had only one son, and the book of Hebrews uses the phrase "only begotten" (Greek word monogenes[2]) to reference inheritance specifically. As for Genesis 22:2, at the time Abraham had only two children, Isaac and Ishmael, and Ishmael had been sent away with Hagar for mocking Isaac (Genesis 21:9-21), effectively disinherited. Thus in Genesis 22 God referred to Abraham having only one son, given the disassociation of the other, and the fact that Isaac alone was considered an heir, the other a servant. Paul in Galatians 4 points to all of this, drawing a distinction between two covenants, the Law and that of faith, as symbolized by Ishmael and Isaac respectively.

4. Was Abiathar the father or the son of Ahimelech?

1 Samuel 22:20 And one of the sons of Ahimelech the son of Ahitub, named Abiathar, escaped, and fled after David.

1 Samuel 23:6 And it came to pass, when Abiathar the son of Ahimelech fled to David to Keilah, that he came down with an ephod in his hand.

2 Samuel 8:17 And Zadok the son of Ahitub, and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar, were the priests; and Seraiah was the scribe;

1 Chronicles 18:16 And Zadok the son of Ahitub, and Abimelech the son of Abiathar, were the priests; and Shavsha was scribe;

1 Chronicles 24:6 And Shemaiah the son of Nethaneel the scribe, one of the Levites, wrote them before the king, and the princes, and Zadok the priest, and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar, and before the chief of the fathers of the priests and Levites: one principal household being taken for Eleazar, and one taken for Ithamar.

Ahimelech is mentioned first as Abiathar's father in 1 Samuel 21-30, but after 2 Samuel 8 begins getting mentioned as the son of Abiathar. Chronologies of David's life show that somewhere from 15-30 years passed between the time Ahimelech, Abiathar's father was killed in 1 Samuel 22, and the period in 2 Samuel 8:17/1 Chronicles 24 where Ahimelech is now mentioned as alive and the son of Abiathar.[3]

2 Samuel 2:11 mentions David reigning 7.5 years over Judah during part of this time. 2 Samuel 5:4 mentions that David was 30 years old when he began reigning and that he reigned 33 years. At any rate, 15-30 years is enough time for Abiathar to have had a son who became a priest like his father and grandfather (in those days, priesthood was restricted to the Levites, one of Israel's tribes, so it was a family profession).

Thus a strong possibility exists that Abiathar just named his son Ahimelech after the father who had been murdered by Saul. Given the extensive time difference between the passages where Abiathar is mentioned as the son of Ahimelech, and the passages where Ahimelech is mentioned as the son of Abiathar, it's quite possible Abiathar just had a son named Ahimelech in honor of his murdered father.

5. Who was Abijam's mother?

2 Chronicles 13:1 Now in the eighteenth year of king Jeroboam began Abijah to reign over Judah.
2 He reigned three years in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Michaiah the daughter of Uriel of Gibeah. And there was war between Abijah and Jeroboam.

2 Chronicles 11:20 And after her he took Maachah the daughter of Absalom; which bare him Abijah, and Attai, and Ziza, and Shelomith.
21 And Rehoboam loved Maachah the daughter of Absalom above all his wives and his concubines: (for he took eighteen wives, and threescore concubines; and begat twenty and eight sons, and threescore daughters.)
22 And Rehoboam made Abijah the son of Maachah the chief, to be ruler among his brethren: for he thought to make him king.

1 Kings 15:1 Now in the eighteenth year of king Jeroboam the son of Nebat reigned Abijam over Judah.
2 Three years reigned he in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Maachah, the daughter of Abishalom.

The Hebrew word translated son (Hebrew ben[4]) just meant descendant and could be used to refer to grandchildren and great grandchildren as well. "Son" and "daughter" are modern English terms, but the Bible was not authored in English. Translators like those involved with the KJV were actually translating Hebrew words thousands of years old, and trying to find English words (which themselves are now centuries out of date) to best translate them into. As correctly pointed out by Apologetics Press author Eric Lyons, the Bible authors frequently refer to descendants as the "son" or "daughter" of X descendant when they were in fact the grandson, great-grandson, granddaughter, great-granddaughter, or even further back.[5]

In other words, the verses complement one another, Abijah was the son of Maachah who in turn was called the descendant of both Absalom and Uriel of Gibeah. Both Absalom and Uriel are thus in her lineage. For example, if you've ever seen or read 'Narnia' you will observe they imitate the Bible's style of referring to individuals as "Son of Adam" or "Daughter of Eve". This is simply a stylistic language difference that can be readily observed in the Bible. As pointed out by Lyons the Bible authors were not confined by today's modern English style of writing.

6. How were Abijam and Asa related?

1 Kings 15:1 Now in the eighteenth year of king Jeroboam the son of Nebat reigned Abijam over Judah.
2 Three years reigned he in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Maachah, the daughter of Abishalom.

1 Kings 15:8 And Abijam slept with his fathers; and they buried him in the city of David: and Asa his son reigned in his stead.
8 And Abijam slept with his fathers; and they buried him in the city of David: and Asa his son reigned in his stead.
9 ¶ And in the twentieth year of Jeroboam king of Israel reigned Asa over Judah.
10 And forty and one years reigned he in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Maachah, the daughter of Abishalom.

As proposed by Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsh, Maachah may have been Queen Mother similar to Queen Elizabeth in modern times, and mother was an honorary designation.[6] This argument is also made by the Institute for Creation Research[7] and C.J. Ball.[8] If so, Maachah would have been Asa's grandmother and just given an honorary title as the nation's mother, similar to Deborah. (Judges 5:7)

Because she was also directly descended from David as Absalom's daughter, like Rehoboam she would have been of royal descent herself, and thus once Rehoboam died have received more honor than the typical ex-Queen. Recourse may also be made to Proverbs 31 to show that Queen Mothers received honor during this time period. She would have in essence been the nation's matriarch, which would explain why she was still Queen while Abijah her son and Asa her grandson were Kings, and why her removal for idolatry was important enough for historical mention. (1 Kings 15:13, 2 Chronicles 15:16)

Furthermore, it is quite possible the passage is just using the Hebrew word translated mother, em[9], to refer to a grandmother rather than mother, which would be in line with how similar Hebrew words are used in relational terminology.[10] As a result the Common English Bible replaces mother with grandmother in the passage.[11] The New Living Translation translates the Hebrew word instead as "grandmother" and in the footnote for the verse states "d. 15:10 Or The queen mother; Hebrew reads His mother (also in 15:13); compare 15:2."[12]

7. How long was the ark of the covenant at Abinadab's house?

1 Samuel 7:1 And the men of Kirjathjearim came, and fetched up the ark of the LORD, and brought it into the house of Abinadab in the hill, and sanctified Eleazar his son to keep the ark of the LORD.
2 And it came to pass, while the ark abode in Kirjathjearim, that the time was long; for it was twenty years: and all the house of Israel lamented after the LORD.

1 Samuel 10:24 And Samuel said to all the people, See ye him whom the LORD hath chosen, that there is none like him among all the people? And all the people shouted, and said, God save the king.

2 Samuel 6:2 And David arose, and went with all the people that were with him from Baale of Judah, to bring up from thence the ark of God, whose name is called by the name of the LORD of hosts that dwelleth between the cherubims.
3 And they set the ark of God upon a new cart, and brought it out of the house of Abinadab that was in Gibeah: and Uzzah and Ahio, the sons of Abinadab, drave the new cart.

Acts 13:21 And 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.

The critic is incorrect that David was the first to remove the Ark of the Covenant. Saul actually removed it earlier as mentioned in 1 Samuel 14:18.

Apparently the Ark got returned again to Abinadab at some point by Saul, but there was definitely an intermediate period where it was with Israel and being moved about by Saul, though we aren't given details of this.

It is rather ironic that the skeptic in quoting 3 different books of the Bible missed the crucial verse just a few chapters away. There is no contradiction though, the critic was just ignorant of the fact the Ark of the Covenant wasn't at Abinadab's house the entire time.

8. How old was Abram when Ishmael was born?

Genesis 16:16 And Abram was fourscore and six years old, when Hagar bare Ishmael to Abram.

Acts 7:2 And he said, Men, brethren, and fathers, hearken; The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Charran,
3 And said unto him, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and come into the land which I shall shew thee.
4 Then came he out of the land of the Chaldaeans, and dwelt in Charran: and from thence, when his father was dead, he removed him into this land, wherein ye now dwell.

Genesis 11:26 And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran.

Genesis 11:32 And the days of Terah were two hundred and five years: and Terah died in Haran.

This allegation has been made for centuries, as has the answer.[13] Genesis 11:26 just shows the oldest son was born when Terah was 70 years old, not necessarily Abraham. Abraham is just mentioned first in the passage due to his importance to the Jewish people, not because he was born first. The evidence indicates Terah was likely born first, followed by Nahor. The three were not triplets.[14]

Abraham left Canaan at age 75 after his father died (Genesis 12:4) and Terah died at age 205, so Abraham was born when Terah was roughly 130 years old. Haran was the firstborn when Terah was 70 years old, so Haran would have been 135 years old by the time Terah died, had he lived that long. Haran actually died before their father Terah did, and before Abraham and Terah even left Ur. (Genesis 11:28)

Haran's son Lot appears to have been around Abraham's age, possibly even several decades older, and they traveled to the Promised Land together. (Genesis 12:4-5) At any rate, there is no contradiction, just a misreading of Genesis 11:26 by the critic. The evidence strongly supports Abraham having been born the youngest of his three brothers.

See #7 - the critic mistakenly repeated the same allegation twice.
10. When did Absalom rebel against David?

2 Samuel 15:7 And 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.

2 Samuel 5:4 David was thirty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned forty years.

At the end of David's life it is repeated that he reigned a total of 40 years (2 Kings 2:11). This was not just an "up to this point" number count in 2 Samuel 15:7, it was foreshadowing the total years David would end up ruling. That was actually done with the 7.5 year count as well, the year total was given throughout the narrative. (2 Samuel 2:11, 5:5; 1 Kings 2:11, 1 Chronicles 3:4, 29:27) Given the fact that the 40 year count was given at the end of David's life, AFTER he had started reigning again following Absalom's death, it thus may have included the years after Absalom's death that David reigned.

Claims 11-20[edit | hide]

Allegation Solution
11. The two contradictory creation accounts.

Genesis 1:25-26 And 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. And 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.

Genesis 2:18-19 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And 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.

This of course rests upon a rather silly presumption when you think about it, that Genesis 1 and 2 would relate duplicate accounts, with both chapters repeating the same story repetitively, yet with conflicting material; a completely illogical thought process. The simple and straightforward answer here is that Genesis 1:1-2:3 (1:1, an account of "In the beginning") is not the same account as Genesis 2:4-4:26 (2:4, "generations of the heavens and the Earth") -

Genesis 1 relates God's account of how the Earth and creation were made, Genesis 2-4 relates Adam's account of God creating individual life in the Garden of Eden, including himself. Genesis 2:19 does not relate the original creation of cattle and birds, but recreation of more animals of the types already created to see what Adam will name them.

Genesis is actually subdivided into different accounts with the Hebrew word "towl@dah" meaning "generations" or "genealogy."[15] For more on this, see the Wiseman Hypothesis, aka the Tablet Theory.[16]

12. Who was Achan's father?

Joshua 7:1 But the children of Israel committed a trespass in the accursed thing: for Achan, the son of Carmi, the son of Zabdi, the son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah, took of the accursed thing: and the anger of the LORD was kindled against the children of Israel.

Joshua 7:24 And Joshua, and all Israel with him, took Achan the son of Zerah, and the silver, and the garment, and the wedge of gold, and his sons, and his daughters, and his oxen, and his asses, and his sheep, and his tent, and all that he had: and they brought them unto the valley of Achor.

Joshua 22:20 Did not Achan the son of Zerah commit a trespass in the accursed thing, and wrath fell on all the congregation of Israel? and that man perished not alone in his iniquity.

Actually this is an excellent example showing the ancient Hebrew word ben translated son is not a direct match for our English version, and could refer to grandchildren as well. Note Joshua 7:1, it says that Achan was the son (Hebrew ben[4]) of Carmi, Zabdi, and Zerah. This wouldn't make sense in modern English usage, but the ancient Hebrew word fit perfectly.

Achan was descended from all 3, and in order he was the son of Carmi, the grandson of Zabdi, and the great-grandson of Zerah, ultimately descended from Judah. Achan's full genealogy was also repeated in Genesis 7:18 as well. However, it was wordy to keep calling him that, so at other times he is just referred to as the son of a well-known ancestor, Zerah.

C.S. Lewis' well-known book series Narnia imitated the Biblical style, referring to humans as "sons of Adam" and "daughters of Eve," the Bible word translated son simply had a broader meaning than our English word does.

13. How many of Adin's offspring returned from Babylon?

Ezra 2:15 The children of Adin, four hundred fifty and four.

Nehemiah 7:20 The children of Adin, six hundred fifty and five.

It's a little-known fact that the books of Ezra and Nehemiah were actually one book originally, just like the books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles originally were, and just got subdivided.[17] Thus it appears there were two censuses taken, with the author trying to perform his own census similar to the original census by re-counting the tribes once again.

The first census (Ezra's) appears to have been taken in the empire of Babylon, the most powerful in the world at the time, for the children of Israel leaving captivity, around 538 B.C. The second, on the other hand, appears to be an account years later by the Jewish immigrants attempting to rebuild their destroyed homeland, around 444 B.C., nearly a century later. So it depends on what period you're looking at, the original departure or the time of rebuilding the temple almost a century later.

See #13 - the critic repeated the same allegation twice.
15. How should adulterers be punished?

Leviticus 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

John 8:3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

This involves a distinction between the Old and New Testaments in who has the right to punish, not what the punishment should be. Observe that Jesus never said she wasn't worthy of death. The New Testament writers, particularly Paul, point out that while the Old Testament Law including Leviticus 20:10 was a just Law (1 Timothy 1:8, Romans 7:7) it declares everyone is guilty of death and by it none will be justified. (Romans 3:20)

As Paul says, the Law is just (Romans 7:7, 1 Timothy 1:8), but was just a schoolmaster to show us our faults (Galatians 3:24-25) that we might repent and turn from them (Romans 6:1-2, Galatians 6:7-8, Philippians 3:18-19), forgiving others as God wants so He can forgive us.

Thus there is no contradiction. Adultery like all sin is worthy of death, but God alone has the authority and position to render that judgment. Since we are all equally guilty of death, we should not sentence others to death unless sinless ourselves, which is all Jesus was pointing out. Notice that Jesus did not deny the adulteress was sinful or worthy of death, to the contrary, Jesus told her "go and sin no more." (John 8:11)

Rather than claiming the Old Testament Law's punishments were wrong, the New Testament seen in Romans 3 claims that all are guilty according to the Law, and that we must forgive others their violations of it if we want God to likewise forgive us. (Matthew 6:12, 18:35; Mark 11:25-26) The Law, including Leviticus, was just, but could not justify, and was given to show us our faults and sinfulness.

16. Is it wrong to commit adultery?

Exodus 20:14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Deuteronomy 5:18 Neither shalt thou commit adultery.

Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

Numbers 31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Hosea 1:2 The beginning of the word of the LORD by Hosea. 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.

Hosea 3:1 Then said the LORD unto me, Go yet, love a woman beloved of her friend, yet an adulteress, according to the love of the LORD toward the children of Israel, who look to other gods, and love flagons of wine.

First of all, the inference is that Moses' action in Number 31 was supported by God which is nowhere stated. Actually Moses by giving the commandment directly disobeyed God's original command not to make a covenant with the Midianites or have relationships with their descendants. (Exodus 23:32, 34:11-17; Deuteronomy 7:2-4, 20:16-18) For more on why this was necessary to stop the horrid Canaanite practice of cannibalistic child sacrifice, see Destruction of Canaanites.

Actually Moses' disobedience was so great that God shortly after this punished Moses by not letting him enter the Promised Land. (Deuteronomy 32:51) Moses similarly disobeyed God by allowing Israelites to divorce their wives, which as Jesus pointed out was contrary to what God intended. (Mark 10:4-12) Jesus if asked about this would likely have said the same thing, that this was a case of Moses disobeying God's commandments. Moses had a history of disobeying God as far back as the burning bush, when God repeatedly told Moses to go to Pharaoh, and Moses first complained that he was a nobody, then complained Pharaoh wouldn't listen, argued he couldn't speak well, and finally just told God to go bother someone else. (Exodus 3:11-4:14)

As for the Hosea passages, the Scofield Study Bible III has addressed this very well in its note for Hosea 1:2:

For an alternative view, Edward Ridenour of the Christian Post argues that Gomer wasn't originally an adulteress when Hosea married her, and points to Hosea 2:7 as evidence that Hosea was Gomer's first husband.[19]

17. Was Haman an Agagite?

Esther 3:1 After these things did king Ahasuerus promote Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, and advanced him, and set his seat above all the princes that were with him.

1 Samuel 15:2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt.
3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

1 Samuel 15:7 And Saul smote the Amalekites from Havilah until thou comest to Shur, that is over against Egypt.
8 And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword.

1 Samuel 15:32 ¶ Then said Samuel, Bring ye hither to me Agag the king of the Amalekites. And Agag came unto him delicately. And Agag said, Surely the bitterness of death is past.
33 And Samuel said, As thy sword hath made women childless, so shall thy mother be childless among women. And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal.

The critic is attempting to suggest that all Amalekites and Agagites were killed in 1 Samuel 15, which the passage does not say. It simply refers to a destruction of the Amalekites in that specific location. The critic omits the key verse 5 which when coupled with verse 7 shows these were only specific cities being destroyed, rather than all Amalekite cities. Indeed, that 1 Samuel 15:7-8 does not refer to the destruction of all Amalekites and Agagites is clear just from the next few verses which show Agag, himself an Amalekite/Agagite, had not been killed.

Other passages show that other groups of Amalekites still existed, possibly including descendants of Agag (Agagites) as well. (e.g. 1 Samuel 27:8; 30:1; 2 Samuel 1:1; 1 Chronicles 4:43) Ironically, Saul in disobeying God and sparing some Amalekites may have ultimately caused his own death, as it was an Amalekite who claimed to have killed him. (2 Samuel 1:8-13)

18. Was Ahaz buried with his fathers?

2 Kings 16:20 And Ahaz slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David: and Hezekiah his son reigned in his stead.

2 Chronicles 28:27 And Ahaz slept with his fathers, and they buried him in the city, even in Jerusalem: but they brought him not into the sepulchres of the kings of Israel: and Hezekiah his son reigned in his stead.

There is no contradiction between the two passages. The first passage says Ahaz was buried with his "fathers" or ancestors in the city of David (Jerusalem). The second passage says Ahaz was buried with his fathers as well, but specifies that this wasn't with the Kings of Israel. Ahaz's wickedness was so great that while he was buried in Jerusalem, he was given a common burial rather than in the tombs of royalty.

The Reason Project carelessly puts the wrong verse reference on their chart, and incorrectly cites 2 Chronicles 16:20 instead of 2 Chronicles 28:27. This carelessness continues in their reasoning, because both passages clearly state Ahaz was buried with his fathers. Their implication otherwise is frankly ridiculous.

19. When did Ahaziah begin to reign?

2 Kings 8:26 Two 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.

2 Chronicles 22:2 Forty 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.

Although other explanations exist, the most likely appears to be that posed by AiG's McKeever and Hodge of scribal error since older texts of 2 Chronicles 22 like the Syriac and Arabic actually have the correct number of 22, not 42. As pointed out by McKeever and Hodge:

Because other ancient texts have the correct number of 22, it appears a scribe simply made a mistake which crept into the Masoretic Text considered authoritative by many translators. However, the original text clearly did not have such a discrepancy/contradiction.

20. How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign?

2 Kings 8:26 Two 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.

2 Chronicles 22:2 Forty 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.

Although other explanations exist, the most likely appears to be that posed by AiG's McKeever and Hodge of scribal error since older texts of 2 Chronicles 22 like the Syriac and Arabic actually have the correct number of 22, not 42. As pointed out by McKeever and Hodge:

Because other ancient texts have the correct number of 22, it appears a scribe simply made a mistake which crept into the Masoretic Text considered authoritative by many translators. However, the original text clearly did not have such a discrepancy/contradiction.

Claims 21-30[edit | hide]

Allegation Solution
21. Did the city of Ai exist after Joshua destroyed it?

The city of Ai was destroyed, but the land of Ai was reinhabited by the Israelites, as with other areas like Jericho and Bethel. God specifically stated that the land of Ai was being given to the Israelites, and it apparently kept that name afterward.

Thus Jeremiah spoke afterward about how Ai was to be spoiled. It had become inhabited by the Israelites and bore its former name of Ai. The original city of Ai was destroyed, but the name of Ai itself had not fallen out of use in referring to the land.

22. What tribe was Aijalon from?

ABC:Joshua 21:23 And out of the tribe of Dan, Eltekeh with her suburbs, Gibbethon with her suburbs,
24 Aijalon with her suburbs, Gathrimmon with her suburbs; four cities.

ABC:1 Chronicles 6:66 And the residue of the families of the sons of Kohath had cities of their coasts out of the tribe of Ephraim.
67 And they gave unto them, of the cities of refuge, Shechem in mount Ephraim with her suburbs; they gave also Gezer with her suburbs,
68 And Jokmeam with her suburbs, and Bethhoron with her suburbs,
69 And Aijalon with her suburbs, and Gathrimmon with her suburbs:

At first glance, this would appear to be a contradiction. However, as pointed out by Limestone Church of Christ, the books of Joshua and 1 Chronicles were authored almost 1,000 years apart (1370 B.C. and 450 B.C. respectively).[22] The simple solution is that the city was originally given to the tribe of Dan, but the Danites failed to conquer the city, resulting in its being allotted to the tribe of Ephraim instead. This is excellently summarized by the Jewish Virtual Library:[23]

Thus Aijalon was given to two different tribes at two different times as seen from Judges 1:34-35. Dan's failure to stabilize the land intended for them resulted in Ephraim instead taking control of it.

23. Does God want some to go to hell?

God wants everyone to go to heaven.

1 Timothy 2:3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

God wants some to go to hell.

Proverbs 16:4 The Lord hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

John 12:40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

Romans 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

2 Thessalonians 2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

John 12:40 like Romans 9:18 is referring to the Jews, how God has hardened their hearts and blinded their eyes. However, Paul specifically addresses this in Romans 11, stating that it is NOT God's intention that they should fall, but rather that through their hard-heartedness salvation might come to the Gentiles as well, that God might have mercy upon everyone.

This is consistent with the Old Testament (Ezekiel 18:31, Ezekiel 33:11). God's righteousness rejected leads to God's wrath and hardening of hearts (or as the Scofield Study Bible III puts it, "Light rejected, rightful obedience refused, inevitably hardens conscience and heart."[24]), but it is still God's intention that the wicked repent like Nineveh did. That is why God pleads with Israel to turn from their wickedness so they will not die.

So what about the other two passages? With 2 Thessalonians 2:12, when reading in context it is plain that God gave the wicked ample opportunity to repent, and they refused to repent and follow the Truth, Jesus. God did not set them up to fail because He did not want them to find eternal life, they deliberately rejected the truth of the Gospel in favor of lies and the deceptive pleasures of evil pleasures. Thus God in His wrath finally damns them by allowing them to pursue the lies that they prefer.

To put it bluntly, God does want everyone to become saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. God has given everyone enough knowledge that they are inexcusable. Romans 1:18-32 shows the pattern. God has shown mankind enough that they should recognize His power and authority and glorify Him. Instead, people choose vain imaginations over God. God in His wrath then allows them the consequences of their evil desires, lusts which enslave and destroy them. If God hardens their hearts, He nonetheless provides key opportunities for them to repent and forgives and heals those who do, like Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 4:34).

The Hebrew word ma'aneh is usually translated "answer" in the KJV, indeed 7 out of 8 times it is translated that way. Only in Proverbs 16:4 did the KJV translate it differently, instead as "for Himself."[25] Thus if translating the passage consistently with the rest of the Bible, God creates the wicked TO ANSWER to Him, not simply as evil. God is not the author of evil, as mentioned by the Scofield Study Bible III (see also Lamentations 3:38).[26]

24. Did Jesus tell his disciples everything?

Jesus told his disciples everything.

John 15:15 Henceforth 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.

There were some things that Jesus didn't tell them.

John 16:12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

John 15:15 does not say that "Jesus told his disciples everything." The critic is simply misreading the passage. What Jesus actually said was that He'd told His disciples everything His Father had told Him. Thus, things not told to Jesus by His Father, such as things He'd learned from His own experience (possibly about the disciples because of His time with them) would not have been included, and could very well be what He was referring to in John 16:12. Thus there is no contradiction, simply faulty reading comprehension on the part of the critic.
25. Was David alone when asking for the holy bread at Nob?

He was alone.

1 Samuel 21:1 Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech the priest: and Ahimelech was afraid at the meeting of David, and said unto him, Why art thou alone, and no man with thee?

He was with others.

Matthew 12:3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;
4 How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?

Mark 2:25 And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?
26 How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?

Luke 6:3 And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was an hungred, and they which were with him;
4 How he went into the house of God, and did take and eat the shewbread, and gave also to them that were with him; which it is not lawful to eat but for the priests alone?

Eric Lyons points out the truth of this case in his article for Apologetics Press, "Was Jesus Mistaken?"[27] As seen from the context of 1 Samuel 21 which the critic sneakily omits (considering they quoted multiple verses in the other passages), David was visiting on behalf of his soldiers.

David mentions that his warriors are waiting for him elsewhere (v. 2), and have not been engaging in sexual promiscuity. (vv. 4-5) As pointed out by Lyons, "Consider the situation where a colonel in the army might visit a general’s quarters 'alone' to discuss provisions for his men, while instructing his men to wait for him at a nearby designated location. In one sense, the colonel was alone with the general, yet in another sense, the colonel and his men had traveled to the general’s location in order to request essential provisions that would have been used for both the colonel and those who were with him."[27]

Jesus is correct. There were people with David and David took the shewbread to give to them. The critic wants to incorrectly argue that Jesus was saying David's men were with him when he received the shewbread, but that is not what Jesus said. David was acting in concert with his servants who were waiting elsewhere for him, they were hungry like he was, and the priest recognized the bread was intended for all of them, not just David, which is why he asked if David's men had been sexually promiscuous. David replied that women had been kept from "us." (v. 5)

See #17 - the critic repeated the same allegation twice with different wording.

Alleged Biblical Contradictions

Alleged Biblical Contradictions


Alleged Biblical Contradictions

Alleged Biblical Contradictions


Alleged Biblical Contradictions

Alleged Biblical Contradictions


Sources[edit | hide]

  1. Scofield, Cyrus I. (2003). The Scofield Study Bible III. pg. 1625. Oxford University Press.
  2. Thayer and Smith. Greek Lexicon entry for Monogenes. The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon.
  3. TimeLine of King David.
  4. 4.0 4.1 Brown, Driver, Briggs and Gesenius. Hebrew Lexicon entry for Ben. The KJV Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon.]
    Brown-Driver-Briggs. 1121. Ben: often plural with name of ancestor, people, land, or city, to denote descendants, inhabitants, membership in a nation or family, etc. BibleHub.
  5. Lyons, Eric (2004). Who was Abijah's Grandfather? Apologetics Press.
  6. Keil, Carl Friedrich, & Delitzsh, Franz (1857-78). Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament. At
  7. Maachah the Mother of Asa. Institute for Creation Research.
  8. Ball, C.J. (1883). An Old Testament Commentary for English Readers by Various Writers, Edited by Charles John Ellicott. Vol. III. pg. 379. Cassell & Company, ltd.
  9. Brown, Driver, Briggs and Gesenius. Hebrew Lexicon entry for 'em.' The KJV Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon.
    Brown-Driver-Briggs. 517. Em. BibleHub.
  10. Brown, Driver, Briggs and Gesenius. Hebrew Lexicon entry for 'ab.' The KJV Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon.
    Brown-Driver-Briggs. 1. Ab: 4 Ancestor. BibleHub.
  11. Common English Bible (2011). 1 Kings 15-17.
  12. New Living Translation (2013). 1 Kings 15. Tyndale House Publishers Inc.
  13. Hewlett, John (1811). The Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testament, and Apocrypha, Volume III. Chronological Index, 1996. Longman, Hurst, Reese, Orme, & Co.
    Bellamy, John (1818). The Holy Bible: Newly Translated from the Original Hebrew: with Notes Critical and Explanatory, Volumes 1-3. pg. 59. Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown.
    Eyre, George E., & Spottiswoode, William (1882). Aids to the Student of the Holy Bible: The Handy Book for Bible Readers. pg. 125. The Religious Trace Society.
  14. 'How old was Abram when Ishmael was born?'
  15. Brown, Driver, Briggs and Gesenius. Hebrew Lexicon entry for Towl@dah. The KJV Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon.
  16. Sewell, Curt (1994). The Tablet Theory of Genesis Authorship. Bible and Spade (7)1.
  17. Marcus, David (2008). Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. Encyclopaedia Judaeica.
  18. Scofield, C.I. (2006). The Scofield Study Bible III. p. 1145.
  19. Ridenour, Edward (2011, January 17). God Told Hosea To Do What? The Christian Post.
  20. McKeever, Stacia & Hodge, Bodie (2008, December 15). Contradictions: Two Ages At Once. Retrieved from
  21. McKeever, Stacia & Hodge, Bodie (2008, December 15). Contradictions: Two Ages At Once. Retrieved from
  22. (2014, June 1). Cities of Aijalon and Gathrimmon.
  23. Encyclopaedia Judaica (2008). Aijalon. Jewish Virtual Library.
  24. Scofield, C.I. (2006). The Scofield Study Bible III. p. 92. Oxford University Press. Retrieved from
  25. Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Lexicon. Ma'aneh.
  26. Scofield, C.I. (2006). The Scofield Study Bible III. p. 934. Oxford University Press.
  27. 27.0 27.1 Lyons, Eric (2006). Was Jesus Mistaken? Apologetics Press.

<metadesc>Alleged contradictions in the Bible answered. Debunking of Reason Project's list as commonly seen at Skeptic's Annotated Bible and BibViz.</metadesc>

Sources[edit | hide]