Bible contradictions

[meforevidence]

Skeptic: Genesis 8:4 states that, as the waters of the flood receded, Noah's ark rested upon the mountains of Ararat in the seventh month, but the very next verse asserts that the tops of the mountains could not even be seen until the tenth month.

Genesis 8:13 states that the earth was dry on the first day of the first month, but Genesis 8:14 reports that the earth was not dry until the twenty-seventh day of the second month.

Text (LXX): 8:1 And God remembered Noe, and all the wild beasts, and all the cattle, and all the birds, and all the reptiles that creep, as many as were with him in the ark, and God brought a wind upon the earth, and the water stayed. 2 And the fountains of the deep were closed up, and the flood-gates of heaven, and the rain from heaven was withheld. 3 And the water subsided, and went off the earth, and after an hundred and fifty days the water was diminished, and the ark rested in the seventh month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, on the mountains of Ararat. 4 And the water continued to decrease until the tenth month. 5 And in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, the heads of the mountains were seen. 6 And it came to pass after forty days Noe opened the window of the ark which he had made. 7 And he sent forth a raven; and it went forth and returned not until the water was dried from off the earth. 8 And he sent a dove after it to see if the water had ceased from off the earth. 9 And the dove not having found rest for her feet, returned to him into the ark, because the water was on all the face of the earth, and he stretched out his hand and took her, and brought her to himself into the ark. 10 And having waited yet seven other days, he again sent forth the dove from the ark. 11 And the dove returned to him in the evening, and had a leaf of olive, a sprig in her mouth; and Noe knew that the water had ceased from off the earth. 12 And having waited yet seven other days, he again sent forth the dove, and she did not return to him again any more. 13 And it came to pass in the six hundred and first year of the life of Noe, in the first month, on the first day of the month, the water subsided from off the earth, and Noe opened the covering of the ark which he had made, and he saw that the water had subsided from the face of the earth. 14 And in the second month the earth was dried, on the twenty-seventh day of the month.


Response: The first part of the text above is a general statement made of what happened from when the rain stopped, the ark landed, the water subsided, and finally when the land was dry enough to actually walk upon. One of Noah's sons probably wrote this part of the text (see: http://specialtyinterests.net/Toledoth.html )
The author then goes into specifics. In the Seventh month, the ark landed (or hit) on one of the mountains of Ararat. This does not mean that the earth was dry yet. This is like a boat or ship hitting a sand barge that can not be seen because it is still under water. In fact, even though the ark had hit the mountain, chances are, it was still afloat and kept subsiding with the water as it continued to go down to flatter land. It was not until the 10 month, that the heads of the mountains could be seen. The whole reason Noah released the birds was because they still could not see enough land to go out upon. When a branch was brought back, it was some evidence that the water was low enough in part of the surrounding area that plants had grown and were above the water. Finally, in the first month, even though the water had subsided, the land was still too wet to walk upon and then in the second month, the land was dry enough to walk upon.
No Contradiction

[meforevidence]

John 19:17 states that Jesus carried his own cross. In contrast, Mark 15:21-23 says that a man called Simon carried Jesus' cross to the crucifixion site.

Peshitta (Etheridge V)
John 19:17 And they took Jeshu, and led him forth, bearing his cross to a place which is called A Skull, but in Hebrew is Gogultha: there they crucified him, and with him two others, one on either side, ”  and Jeshu in the midst.

Mark 15:21

AND they constrained one who was passing, Shemun Kurinoia, who was coming from the field, the father of Alexander and of Rufus, to bear his cross. And they brought him to Gogultha, a place which is interpreted a skull.

Response: John 19:17 states that “they” took Jesus, “led him forth” bearing his cross to a place which is called A Skull. This very likely implies that those who were with Jesus at the time are the ones who carried the cross. In this case, Simon of Cyrene.

Incidentally, It is believed that the ossuary of this Simon's son “Alexander” has been located. see: http://www.diggingsonline.com/pages/res ... samp73.htm and

http://www.facingthechallenge.org/cyrene.htm

[meforevidence]

Mark 16:2 says that on the day of the resurrection certain women arrived at the tomb at the rising of the sun, but John 20:1 states that they arrived when it was yet dark.

Luke 24:2 tells us that the tomb was open when the women arrived, but Matthew 28:1-2 indicates that it was closed.

Mark 16:5 states that the women saw a young man at the tomb, Luke 24:4 says that they saw two men, Matthew 28:2 alleges that they saw an angel and John 20:11-12 insists that they saw two angels.

Response:

see chart at: http://www.geocities.com/bkitc/GospelChronology.doc

1. While it was the early morning of the first day of the week in daylight and Roman time, it was the evening of the Sabbath in the religious Jewish time. The sun had risen some but was very low in the horizon and so it was still dark (like at sunset). There is no contradiction.

2. On their way to the sepulchre, an angel appeared on tomb stone, the guards became afraid, the stone was already rolled away when the women reached the tomb. Mary of Magdala saw the stone rolled away (and perhaps the youth sitting on the stone) and that the body was not there and she turned and ran to tell Simon and (possibly John). She did not hear the message the angels gave about the Lord being raised from the dead. When she got to Peter and (John). She simply said, "they have taken the Lord's body away and I don't know where they have laid him."

Meanwhile, back at the tomb: The women went inside the sepulchre and another angel was inside the tomb (sitting on the right). So one is inside, one was at the entrance thus, two angels. No contradiction.

The women were afraid and left to tell the disciples but did not say anything to anyone on the way.

They met Mary of Magdalah after she saw Jesus and went with her to tell the disciples later.

Earlier we read Mary of Magdala ran from the empty tomb and did not hear the message the angels had to give to the other women. She found Peter and (possibly John) and they three returned to the tomb. Peter and John returned to their place, but Mary of Magdala stayed at the tomb.


Mary remained behind and the Lord appeared to her first. Then she ran to tell the other disciples.
On the way to tell the other disciples, Mary of Magdalah met the other women and declared what she heard and saw.
Jesus then appeared to the women with Mary of Magdalah and after this, they went with Mary Magdalah to tell the disciples.
The women (names given) told the disciples but the disciples did not believe them.

Peter went back to the tomb again after all of the women came and told the dsciples that Jesus arose. On the first time, he went with John and Mary of Magdalah just because he was told by Mary of Magdala that the Lord's body was missing, but the secong time, he went alone. Perhaps this is also when the Lord appeared to Simon Peter before appearing to the other disciples.

The first Sunday, the Lord appeared to two men who were telling what the women stated they saw and about the crucifixion.

That same evening was the first time Jesus appeared to His disciples. This was not when he met the "eleven" since Thomas was not present at this time.

The next Sunday ("eight days later") Jesus met with the disciples but this time, it was twith he eleven since Thomas was present. Jesus showed Thomas the nail prints in his hands and feet.

The third time Jesus met with his disciples at the Sea of Tiberius, in Galilee at a place called "Bethania" or as some older texts say “Bethabara” He then ascended up to Heaven.
Like many other cities (some of which have been found withing the last few centuries), this city has been lost and although many people believe the city was near Jerusalem or beside the Jordan, this particular text places it far north at the sea of Galilee / Tiberius.

[meforevidence]

Skeptic: Both genealogies list Jesus' father as being Joseph

Response: Luke 3:23 does not actually say that Jesus"was the son" of Joseph. It reads that he was "supposed as being" or "was allowed" to be as a son of Joseph. See below:

Vaticinus: "And he was the Jesus about years thirty, beginning, being , as was allowed, a son of Joseph, of the Heli"

Sinai Text: "And Jesus himself was, when he began his ministry, about thirty years old, being as was supposed, the son of Joseph, son of Heli"

Aramaic Peshitta (English Translation) "NOW Jeshu himself was as a son of thirty years, and was considered the son of Jauseph bar Heli"

Secondly, Matthew 1 does not really state Joseph begat Jesus or was teh father of Jesus, but that Joseph was the "husband of Mary" of whom Jesus was born. It reads: (Peshitta Old English Etheridge v.) And after the exile of Bobel Jukania begat Shalathiel, Shalathiel begat Zurbobel, Zurbobel begat Abiud, Abiud begat Aliakim, Aliakim begat Ozur, Ozur begat Zoduk, Zoduk begat Akin, Akin begat Aliud, Aliud begat Aliozar, Aliozar begat Mathan, Mathan begat Jakub, Jakub begat Jauseph (Joseph) , husband of Mariam (Mary) , of whom was born JESHU who is called the Meshicha.

The lineages are of two different parents. More than likely, Mary was the sister of Zecharia the priest (John the baptist's father). The lineage which lists Mary in Matthew 1 speaks of a decending from Abijah (King Solomon's grandson). In Luke chapter 1, Zecharia was also of the house of Abijah / Abia (Luke 1:5).


Also see:
(Difficulties of the Bible/R.A. Torrey) A favorite point of attack on the Bible, for those who deny its divine origin and inerrancy, are the two varying genealogies of Jesus Christ. Not only is this a favorite point of attack by unbelievers, but it is also a point that often puzzles earnest students of the Bible. It is perfectly clear that the two genealogies differ widely from one another, and yet each of them is given as the genealogy of Jesus Christ. How can they both possible be true?
There is a very simple answer to the question. The genealogy given in Matthew is the genealogy of Joseph, the reputed father of Jesus, and His father in the eyes of the law. The genealogy given in Luke is the genealogy of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and is the human genealogy of Jesus Christ in actual fact. The gospel of Matthew was written for Jews. All through it, Joseph is prominent, and Mary is scarcely mentioned. In Luke, on the other hand, Mary is the chief personage in the whole account of the Savior's conception and birth. In all of this, there is a deep significance. In Matthew, Jesus appears as the Messiah. In Luke He appears as the “Son of Man.” The genealogy in Matthew descends from Abraham to Joseph and Jesus, because all the promises touching the Messiah are fulfilled in Him. However in Luke, the genealogy ascends from Jesus to Adam, because the genealogy is being traced back to the head of the whole race, to show the relation of the Second Adam to the first. Joseph's line is the strictly royal line from David to Joseph. In Luke, though the line of descent is from David, it is not the royal line. In this, Jesus is descended from David through Nathan, David's son indeed, but not in the royal line, and the list follows a line quite distinct from the royal line. Mary was a descendant of David through her father, Heli. It is true that Luke 3:23 says that Joseph was the son of Heli. The simple explanation of this is that, Mary being a woman, her name according to Jewish usage could not come into the genealogy. Males alone formed the line, so Joseph's name is introduced in the place of Mary's. He being Mary's husband, Heli was his father-in-law; and so Joseph is called the son of Heli, and the line is thus completed. While Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli, according to the flesh he was in actual fact the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16).
Two genealogies are needed to trace the lineage or Jesus. One was legal and the other was natural.

Secondly, the lineages in Matthew and Luke are from two different sons of David.

[August]

Hey, this is becoming a great reference tool. Keep up the good work!

[Canuckster1127]

Hey, this is becoming a great reference tool. Keep up the good work!

I think so too. Is it original with you, meforevidence?

[meforevidence]

Yes, as a former skeptic, I had a hard time finding some answers in the mainstream texts. I do credit the original authors or make reference to them if I quote them.

[meforevidence]

• Genesis 1 tells us that the first man and the first woman were made at the same time and after the animals. However, Genesis 2 states that the order of creation was as follows: man, then the animals and then woman.
• Genesis 1 sets forth six days of creation, but Genesis 2 speaks of the "day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens."
• Genesis 1 states that the fruit trees were created before man, but Genesis 2 indicates that the fruit trees were created after man.

First, may I strongly suggest that you read the following article in order to get a better understanding of a proper division of the Genesis texts? It is put out by the California Institute of Ancient History.

See: http://specialtyinterests.net/Toledoth.html .

This theory also refutes the documentists theory. It shows the sign of early dating of Genesis and how it was not taken from Babylonian / Assyrian myths. It also points out that even though Moses compiled the books, that more than likely, the patriarchs actually were the original authors of the book(s) of Genesis (for nowhere in the Bible do we actually see that Moses wrote Genesis).

Genesis 2:8 begins the Generations of Adam book. In other words, this tablet was written by Adam himself. Notice it starts with specifics such as “Eastward” “Edom” (LXX) or Eden (MSS), the rivers have names, etc.
Adam starts by telling about the garden that was planted (that he has already lived in). He has names for the rivers. God says it is not good for man to be alone so he calls for the animals (even outside of the garden) and none of them were “suitable” mates. God then formed woman.

In both accounts, God created in the following order:
1. Animals
2. Man
3. Woman

Adam was not saying that God formed the animals “after” he formed man. He simply was stating that the animals formed by God further out were called to him. The LXX states:
“God formed yet farther out of the earth all the wild beasts of the field, and all the birds of the sky, and he brought them to Adam, to see what he would call them…”
As for Genesis 5:2, there remains no contradiction. Man and Woman were both made on the 6th (same) day.


Trees and Plants:
Again, according to the Toledoth thesis, there is no contradiction. Genesis 2:5 is still part of the “books of the Generations of Heaven and Earth” it is the final conclusion of the creation. The writer writes:
This is the book of the generation of heaven and earth, when they were made, in the day in which the Lord God made the heaven and the earth, 5 and every herb of the field before it was on the earth, and all the grass of the field before it sprang up, for God had not rained on the earth, and there was not a man to cultivate it. 6 But there rose a fountain out of the earth, and watered the whole face of the earth. 7 And God formed the man of dust of the earth, and breathed upon his face the breath of life, and the man became a living soul. (End of Tablet).


As the writer concludes his book, he ends it by reiterating when Heaven, Earth, and every herb was created. It seems that the herbs and grass/plants were still seeds because it was before “they sprang up.” There was no rain or cultivator yet but God made a fountain to come forth to water the plants. Then he made man. Again, there is no contradiction. Reiterating the “book of the generations of Heaven and Earth,” the order of creation is:
1. Plants
2. People

One mistake often made even by theists is that instead of starting and ending with each “book of Generations” we start and end with each chapter.

[meforevidence]

Who was the high priest and was Abiathar Ahimelech's son or was Ahimelech Abiathar's son?

Note: Ahimelech is also translated into Abimelech.

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?

First, let's deal with who was the High Priest.

In Mark 2:25 Jesus states that Abiathar was the High Priest when David went to the house of God and did eat of the showbread. When one goes back to the story in 1 Samuel chapter 21.

It reads: 21: 1 Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech the priest (not "High Priest") : and Ahimelech was afraid at the meeting of David, and said unto him, Why art thou alone, and no man with thee? 2 And David said unto Ahimelech the priest, The king hath commanded me a business, and hath said unto me, Let no man know any thing of the business whereabout I send thee, and what I have commanded thee: and I have appointed my servants to such and such a place. 3 Now therefore what is under thine hand? give me five loaves of bread in mine hand, or what there is present. 4 And the priest answered David, and said, There is no common bread under mine hand, but there is hallowed bread; if the young men have kept themselves at least from women. 5 And David answered the priest, and said unto him, 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, and the bread is in a manner common, yea, though it were sanctified this day in the vessel. 6 So the priest gave him hallowed bread: for there was no bread there but the shewbread, that was taken from before the LORD, to put hot bread in the day when it was taken away.

It may look like a contradiction at first since a man was to be a High Priest until his death. It seems that Ahimelech should have been High Priest (even though the text does not call him that). However, there are a few things to consider about the text.

1. It was possible for a man who was the High Priest to also have his son anointed and the two be called High Priest while the younger would perform the ceremonies of the High Priest. One example of this is found in the book of Zecharia.
a. Zechariah 3:1 - And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him.
b. Zechariah 3:8 - Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they are men wondered at: for, behold, I will bring forth my servant the BRANCH.

c. Zechariah 6:11 - Then take silver and gold, and make crowns, and set them upon the head of Joshua the son of Josedech, the high priest;

2. There were also rules for priests (including the High Priest) that if there was any blemish (whether born with it or later in life) that they were not to bring an offering or come to into the vail or unto the alter. The blemishes included:

Leviticus 21: 18 For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, 19 Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, 20 Or crookbacked, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken; 21 No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God. 22 He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy. 23 Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the LORD do sanctify them. 24 And Moses told it unto Aaron, and to his sons, and unto all the children of Israel.

Although the original Patriarch would remain as High Priest until he dies (according to the law) he would pass the services on to his son who would then perform the services as the High Priest.

3. It may also be possible that the High Priest was not Ahimelech but was simply a priest as stated in the text. Abiathar may have been the son-in-law of the High Priest and could have been anointed into the office as happened in the New Testament with Annas and Ciaphas. Annas was the father-in-law of Ciaphas. Both were considered as High Priest.

Conclusions:
1. Jesus did not say that David met with Abiathar when he first came to the house of God. He said that David went to the house of God when Abiathar was High Priest. Just because David met Ahimelech in one text does not make it a contradiction.

2. The High Priest could pass his Priestly duties on to his son (or son-in-law) if he had no son while he himself remained alive. This would mean that they both were considered High Priests.


Now, lets find out if Abiathar was the father of Ahimelech (Abimelech) or if Ahimelech was the father of Abiathar.

Here are verses which state Abiathar was 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.

1 Samuel 30:7 - And David said to Abiathar the priest, Ahimelech's son, I pray thee, bring me hither the ephod. And Abiathar brought thither the ephod to David.


Here are the verses that state that Ahimelech was the son of Abiathar.

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.


Actually, at first glance it looks puzzling, but when one takes the time to read the contexts of the different books, they will find that Ahimilech fathered Abiathar and then Abiathar fathered at least two sons. One of his son's names was Jonathan and the other was Ahimelech. They were also both priests.
Jonathan: 2 Samuel 15:27
And
Ahimelech (or Abimelech) as stated in 1 Chronicles chapters 18 and 24.

Conclusion: When reading the contexts, one will see the time frame of the second Ahimelech was much later then both the first Ahimilech and Abiathar.
Again, there is no contradiction.

[meforevidence]

Aramaic Peshitta reads:

John 7:
01 After these things Jesus walked in Galilee, for he would not walk in Judaea, because the Jews sought to slay him.
02 And the Jewish feast of tabernacles drew near.
03 And the brothers of Jesus said to him: Leave here, and go into Judaea; that thy disciples may see the works thou doest.
04 For there is no one who doeth any thing in secret, while he wisheth to become public. If thou doest these things, show thyself to the world.
05 For even his brothers did not believe in Jesus.
06 Jesus said to them: My time hath not yet come: but your time is always ready.
07 The world cannot hate you, but me it hateth; because I testify of it, that its deeds are evil.
08 Go ye up to the feast; I do not go up to this feast now, because my time is not yet completed.
09 These things he said, and remained still in Galilee.
10 But when his brothers had gone up to the feast, then he also went up, not openly, but as it were secretly.
11 And the Jews sought for him at the feast; and they said, Where is he?

Notice the following things:

1. Jesus and his brothers were in Galilee when having the discussion about the upcoming feast. The area of Galilee that Jesus was in was close to 70 miles away from the place of the feast (Jerusalem) in Judea.

2. The feast was still not going on but "drew near" when Jesus and his brothers were having the discussion.

3. The Feast was a seven day feast. It was the feast of Tabernacles (Leviticus 23:34).

4. Jesus stayed in Galilee when they left for the feast.

Since the feast was a seven day feast, there would be no contradiction when Jesus said "I do not go up to this feast now" but later he was at the feast. He left after his brothers did. They could have been well on their way or even there since they "had gone up to the feast". Then Jesus left in secret. They traveled close to seventy miles and by the time they got to Jerusalem, the feast had started. The brothers of Jesus could have journeyed the day after the discussion or even the later but Jesus himself did not leave exactly the same time that his brothers did. The text specifically states that he remained in Galilee immediately after the dicussion. He must have arrived about 2 days later since the journey itself was about 70 miles.

[meforevidence]

Aramaic Peshitta reads:

John 7:
01 After these things Jesus walked in Galilee, for he would not walk in Judaea, because the Jews sought to slay him.
02 And the Jewish feast of tabernacles drew near.
03 And the brothers of Jesus said to him: Leave here, and go into Judaea; that thy disciples may see the works thou doest.
04 For there is no one who doeth any thing in secret, while he wisheth to become public. If thou doest these things, show thyself to the world.
05 For even his brothers did not believe in Jesus.
06 Jesus said to them: My time hath not yet come: but your time is always ready.
07 The world cannot hate you, but me it hateth; because I testify of it, that its deeds are evil.
08 Go ye up to the feast; I do not go up to this feast now, because my time is not yet completed.
09 These things he said, and remained still in Galilee.
10 But when his brothers had gone up to the feast, then he also went up, not openly, but as it were secretly.
11 And the Jews sought for him at the feast; and they said, Where is he?

Notice the following things:

1. Jesus and his brothers were in Galilee when having the discussion about the upcoming feast. The area of Galilee that Jesus was in was close to 70 miles away from the place of the feast (Jerusalem) in Judea.

2. The feast was still not going on but "drew near" when Jesus and his brothers were having the discussion.

3. The Feast was a seven day feast. It was the feast of Tabernacles (Leviticus 23:34).

4. Jesus stayed in Galilee when they left for the feast.

Since the feast was a seven day feast, there would be no contradiction when Jesus said "I do not go up to this feast now" but later he was at the feast. He left after his brothers did. They could have been well on their way or even there since they "had gone up to the feast". Then Jesus left in secret. They traveled close to seventy miles and by the time they got to Jerusalem, the feast had started. The brothers of Jesus could have journeyed the day after the discussion or even the later but Jesus himself did not leave exactly the same time that his brothers did. The text specifically states that he remained in Galilee immediately after the dicussion. He must have arrived about 2 days later since the journey itself was about 70 miles.

[meforevidence]

Who killed Goliath?

Some skeptics point out that there is a contradiction in the Bible about who killed Goliath. Admittedly, there is an error made even in the Septuagint which is the Oldest Old Testament text we have today that contains books other then the Torah. However, when one reads each text, it is easy to see that a simpl copyist error was made and it can be shown to be corrected.
I prefer to use the LXX for this lesson.

Here are the verses:

1 Samuel 17:
4 And there went forth a mighty man out of the army of the Philistines, Goliath, by name, out of Geth, his height was four cubits and a span. ** 5 And he had a helmet upon his head, and he wore a breastplate of chain armour; and the weight of his breastplate was five thousand shekels of brass and iron. 6 And greaves of grass were upon his legs, and a brazen target was between his shoulders. 7 And the staff of his spear was like a weaver's beam, and the spear's head was formed of six hundred shekels of iron; and his armour-bearer went before him. 8 And he stood and cried to the army of Israel, and said to them, Why are ye come forth to set yourselves in battle array against us? Am not I a Philistine, and ye He brews of Saul? Choose for yourselves a man, and let him come down to me. 9 And if he shall be able to fight against me, and shall smite me, then will we be your servants: but if I should prevail and smite him, ye shall be our servants, and serve us. 10 And the Philistine said, Behold, I have defied the armies of Israel this very day: give me a man, and we will both of us fight in single combat.
Vs. 12-31 are not found in the LXX but are in the Masoretic Text.

1 Samuel 21: 7 And there was there on that day one of Saul's servants detained before the Lord, and his name was Doec the Syrian, tending the mules of Saul. 8 And David said to Abimelech, See if there is here under thy hand spear or sword, for I have not brought in my hand my sword or my weapons, for the word of the king was urgent. 9 And the priest said, Behold the sword of Goliath the Philistine, whom thou smotest in the valley of Ela; and it is wrapt in a cloth: if thou wilt take it, take it for thyself, for there is no other except it here. And David said, Behold, there is none like it; give it me.


1 Samuel 22: 9 And Doec the Syrian who was over the mules of Saul answered and said, I saw the son of Jessae as he came to Nomba to Abimelech son of Achitob the priest. 10 And the priest enquired of God for him, and gave him provision, and gave him the sword of Goliath the Philistine.

2 Samuel 21: 15 And there was yet war between the Philistines and Israel: and David went down and his servants with him, and they fought with the Philistines, and David went. 16 And Jesbi, who was of the progeny of Rapha, and the head of whose spear was three hundred shekels of brass in weight, who also was girt with a club, even he thought to smite David. 17 And Abessa the son of Saruia helped him and smote the Philistine, and slew him. Then the men of David swore, saying, Thou shalt not any longer go out with us to battle, and thou shalt not quench the lamp of Israel.
18 And after this there was a battle again with the Philistines in Geth: then Sebocha the Astatothite slew Seph of the progeny of Rapha.
19 And there was a battle in Rom with the Philistines; and Eleanan son of Ariorgim the Bethleemite slew Goliath the Gittite; and the staff of his spear was as a weaver's beam. 20 And there was yet a battle in Geth: and there was a man of stature, and the fingers of his hands and the toes of his feet were six on each, four and twenty in number: and he also was born to Rapha. 21 And he defied Israel, and Jonathan son of Semei brother of David, smote him.
22 These four were born descendants of the giants in Geth, the family of Rapha; and they fell by the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants.

1 Chronicles 20: 4 And it came to pass afterward that there was again war with the Philistines in Gazer: then Sobochai the Sosathite smote Saphut of the sons of the giants, and laid him low.
5 And there was war again with the Philistines; and Eleanan the son of Jair smote Lachmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, and the wood of his spear was as a weavers' beam.
6 And there was again war in Geth, and there was a man of extraordinary size, and his fingers and toes were six on each hand and foot, four and twenty; and he was descended from the giants. 7 And he defied Israel, and Jonathan the son of Samaa the brother of David slew him. 8 These were born to Rapha in Geth; all four were giants, and they fell by the hand of David, and by the hand of his servants.


Now when reading the above verses, it is obvious that David killed Goliath and this was before he became king. The Priests, when delivering the sword of Goliath to David confirm that David killed Goliath with that sword. The latter battle occurred after David became king. This is when the second Giant was killed. 1 Chronicles corrects the copyist's mistake by telling the exact story using the same names but has correctly added
"Lachmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite"
There are different giants listed that decended from "Rapha." All but one of them are named. They are: Goliath, his brotehr Lachmi, Jesbi, Seph, a giant with six fingers and toes, Saphut.
Given that the time frame is different, one can see that throughout time, once copyist error continued until now, but one can also see the full story given in 1 Chronicles along with the other texts to show that David killed Goliath, and his Eleanan killed "Lachme" the brother of Goliath.

** The LXX agrees with the Dead Sea Scrolls as well as Josephus with the height of Goliath which is roughly 6'8" to 6'9" instead of the traditional 10 feet tall Goliath of the Masoretic Text.

[meforevidence]

Darius or Cyrus?
In Isaiah chapters 44 and 45, it is prophesied that Cyrus would conquer Babylon, yet when one reads the
Hebrew version of Daniel, King Darius conquers it and enters the city.

Response: The fact was, they both conquered the city
together. It can easily be unified when one reads the following historian's writings.

Josephus: But now, after the death of Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-Merodach When Evil-Merodach was dead, after a reign of eighteen years, Niglissar his son took the government, and retained it forty years, and then ended his life; and after him the succession in the kingdom came to his son Labosordacus, who continued in it in all but nine months; and when he was dead, it came to Baltasar, (24) who by the Babylonians was called Naboandelus; against him did Cyrus, the king of Persia, and Darius, the king of Media, make war; and when he was besieged in Babylon, there happened a wonderful and prodigious vision. Now, after a little while, both himself and the city were taken by Cyrus, the king of Persia, who fought against him; for it was Baltasar, under whom Babylon was taken, when he had reigned seventeen years. And this is the end of the posterity of king Nebuchadnezzar, as history informs us; but when Babylon was taken by Darius, and when he, with his kinsman Cyrus, had put an end to the dominion of the Babylonians, he was sixty-two years old. He was the son of Astyages, and had another name among the Greeks. Moreover, he took Daniel the prophet, and carried him with him into Media, and honored him very greatly, and kept him with him; for he was one of the three presidents whom he set over his three hundred and sixty provinces, for into so many did Darius part them.

According to history, Cyrus the Great was actually Cyrus the Second. He was related to Darius the Mede (also Persian King) and not to be confused with other men in the Bible named Darius. Cyrus was an uncle and father in-law to Darius according to the Greek Historian Xenophon (who studied under Socrates)

Dan 6:28 So this Daniel prospered in the reign of Darius, and in the reign of Cyrus the Persian.

[Christian2]

I am so very pleased to find this topic of Bible difficulties/contradictions all in one place because I need some help with some and because solving these difficulties strengthens one's faith. Good job by everyone.

I need help because I am debating a very surly Muslim and he has posted quite a list of so-called contradictions. I'm doing OK on my own with various websites that do have answers, but once in a while I get stumped.

Can anyone help me with this one:

(4)The infant Christ was taken into Egypt
Matt 2:14,15,19,21,23

The infant Christ was not taken into Egypt
Luke 2:22, 39

I've read through the Scriptures and Luke does not say that Jesus was taken into Egypt, but I don't think that means that He wasn't, it is just that Luke doesn't report it.

Can anyone think of a better answer?

Thank you.

[Canuckster1127]

I am so very please to find this topic of Bible difficulties/contradictions all in one place because I need some help with some and because solving these difficulties strengthens one's faith. Good job by everyone.

I need help because I am debating a very surly Muslim and he has posted quite a list of so-called contradictions. I'm doing OK on my own with various websites that do have answers, but once in a while I get stumped.

Can anyone help me with this one:

(4)The infant Christ was taken into Egypt
Matt 2:14,15,19,21,23

The infant Christ was not taken into Egypt
Luke 2:22, 39

I've read through the Scriptures and Luke does not say that Jesus was taken into Egypt, but I don't think that means that He wasn't, it is just that Luke doesn't report it.

Can anyone think of a better answer?

Thank you.

That's the best answer I know of. The absence of evidence (or in this case reference) is not evidence of its not having taken place.

Textually, if you follow the literary theory of Marcan Priority in the Synoptics, this demonstrates a source for Matthew that Luke did not share.