Kent Hovind So Called Contradictions in Bible

Contradictions in the Bible?
Author: Dr. Kent Hovind
My friend Dave Woetzel (603-938-2695), got an email from a skeptic who posts on
talkorigins.com. Here are Dave's responses. I (Kent Hovind) differ with him on a few minor
points but there is much good info here. I do not think there are any poor KJV translations.
Dr. Kent Hovind
Supposed Contradiction # 1:
Gen. 1:11 has the trees made on day 3 before man;

Gen. 2:8 has the trees made on day 6 after man.
Gen. 1:20 has birds made out of the water on day 5;
Gen. 2:19 has birds made out of the ground (after man) on day 6.
Gen. 1:24, 25 has the animals made on day 6 before man;
Gen. 2:19 has the animals made on day 6 after man
Explanation of supposed contradiction:
Chapter 1 tells the entire story in the order it happened.

Gen. 2:4-6 gives a quick summary of the first five days of creation.
Gen. 2:7-25 is describing only the events that took place on day 6 in the Garden of Eden.
The trees described in Genesis 2:8 are only in the Garden (the rest of the world is already full of
trees from day 3). The purpose of this second creation of trees may have been to let Adam see
that God did have power to create, that He was not just taking credit for the existing world.
Notice that the second creation of trees was still on day 6 and was only those trees that are
"pleasant to the sight and good for food."
The birds created out of the ground on day 6 are only one of each "kind" so that Adam can name
them and select a wife. The rest of the world is full of birds from day 5.
Genesis 2:19 is describing only the animals created in the Garden, after man. The purpose of this
second batch of animals being created was so that Adam could name them (Gen. 2:19) and select
a wife (Gen. 2:20). Adam, not finding a suitable one (God knew he wouldn't), God made Eve
(Gen. 2:21-22).
There are no contradictions between these two chapters. Chapter 2 only describes in more detail
the events in the Garden of Eden on day 6. If ancient man had written the Bible (as some scoffers
say), he would never have made it say that the light was made before the sun! Many ancient
cultures worshiped the sun as the source of life. God is light. God made the light before He made
the sun so we could see that He (not the sun) is the source of life.
Supposed contradiction # 2:
How many chariot horses did Solomon have, 40,000 (I Kings 4:26) or 4,000 (II Chron. 9:25)?
I Kings 4:26 "And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve
thousand horsemen."
II Chron. 9:25 "And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve
thousand horsemen;"
Read the verses carefully and you will see that there is no contradiction. They had chariot teams
with ten horses and ten men per chariot in case you got a flat tire! If he had "four thousand stalls
for horses and chariots" he would need fourty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots. Many
modern versions of the Bible try to "fix" what they thought was a mistake and actually created an
error.
How many men did David kill, 700 (II Sam. 10:18) or 7,000 (I Chron 19:18)?
II Sam. 10:18 "And the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew the men of seven hundred
chariots of the Syrians,"
I Chron. 19:18 "But the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew of the Syrians seven thousand
men which fought in chariots,"
Since they had ten men per chariot both verses are fine.
How many died in the plague?
Numbers 25:9 "And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand." [24,000]
I Cor. 10:8 "Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day
three and twenty thousand." [23,000]
Obviously 1,000 died the next day! There is no contradiction.
How much gold did Solomon get from Ophir, 450 talents or 420?
I Kings 9:26-28 "And king Solomon made a navy of ships in Eziongeber, which is beside Eloth,
on the shore of the Red sea, in the land of Edom. And Hiram sent in the navy his servants,
shipmen that had knowledge of the sea, with the servants of Solomon. And they came to Ophir,
and fetched from thence gold, four hundred and twenty talents, and brought it to king Solomon."
2 Chronicles 8:17-18 "Then went Solomon to Eziongeber, and to Eloth, at the sea side in the land
of Edom. And 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."
This is talking about two different trips! We can see from other verses that obviously many trips
to Ophir were made! "For the king had at sea a navy of Tharshish with the navy of Hiram: once
in three years came the navy of Tharshish, bringing gold, and silver, ivory, and apes, and
peacocks." 1 Kings 10:22 "Even three thousand talents of gold, of the gold of Ophir, and seven
thousand talents of refined silver, to overlay the walls of the houses withal:" 1 Chronicles 29:4
Isn't "Easter" an error in Acts 12:4? Shouldn't pascha be "passover" like every other version has?
Acts 12:1-4 1Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the
church. 2 And he killed James the brother of John with the sword. 3 And because he saw it
pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened
bread.) 4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four
quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.
The word 'Easter' is the correct word and the KJV is the only version I have seen that gets it
right. Read Ex. 12 and Num. 28:16-17 and it will be clear that the Passover came before the days
of unleavened bread.
In fact, by translating "pascha" as "passover" in Acts 12:4 modern bibles have inserted an
ERROR that displays not only their lack of knowledge of Greek in context, but even more their
lack of knowledge of ENGLISH!
You see, the man who INVENTS a particular word is the world's foremost authority on that
word. In this case, the word "passover" was INVENTED by William Tyndale. Thus, William
Tyndale knew the CORRECT definition of "passover" since he INVENTED the word "passover"
in the first place.
Singular to relate, William Tyndale did NOT use the word HE INVENTED - "passover" - in Acts
12:4. Why? Why did William Tyndale not use the word HE INVENTED in Acts 12:4? Because,
as Dr. Thomas Holland demonstrated, the days of unleavened bread come AFTER Passover.
That's ONE reason Tyndale did not employ the word HE INVENTED in Acts 12:4. The second
reason, of course, is because Herod was looking forward to the pagan feast of Ishtar, from which
the word "Easter" is derived, and so Tyndale, who INVENTED the word "passover" did NOT
use the word "passover" in Acts 12:4 in HIS OWN TRANSLATION.
In summary, had modern translators bothered to learn ENGLISH etymology, they would have
discovered that the INVENTOR of the word "passover" declined to use the word HE
INVENTED in this verse, because the INVENTOR of the word "passover" did not want to
MISTRANSLATE the passage, as modern bibles have done.
An article which appeared in The Trinitarian Bible Society Quarterly Record states:
"When Tyndale applied his talents to the translation of the New Testament from Greek into
English, he was not satisfied with the use of a completely foreign word, and decided to take into
account the fact that the season of the passover was known generally to English people as 'easter'
... Tyndale has ester or easter fourteen times, ester-lambe eleven times, esterfest once, and
paschall lambe three times. When he began his translation of the Pentateuch, he was again faced
with the problem in Exodus 12:11 and twenty-one other places, and no doubt recognizing the
easter in this context would be an anachronism he coined a new word, passover and used it
consistently in all twenty-two places. It is, therefore, to Tyndale that our language is indebted for
this meaningful and appropriate word."
Some points to ponder about Easter:
The Passover was at night on the 14th day of April.

The seven days of unleavened bread always followed the Passover.
The pagan festival of Astart or Ishtar (Easter) was always held late in April to celebrate the earth
regenerating itself after winter. That is why rabbits (Playboy) and eggs, symbols of fertility are
used.
The feast days are never called the Passover anywhere in scripture.
Peter was arrested during the days of unleavened bread after Passover.
Herod wanted to kill him during his own pagan festival of Easter coming up in a few days.
KJV is the only version to get it right.
Did David pay 600 shekels in gold or 50 shekels in silver for the land?
2 Samuel 24:24 "And 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."
1 Chronicles 21:25 "So David gave to Ornan for the place six hundred shekels of gold by
weight."
There is no contradiction. 50 shekels of silver was paltry (reference Exodus 21:32) to pay for a
site that was later to become the temple mount. However, it might be an appropriate figure to pay
for a yoke of oxen. I Chronicles seems to indicate that the initial discussion was about the
property. Ornan then offered David the oxen too. David paid 600 shekels in gold for the land and
50 shekels in silver for the oxen.
Additional Information:
Contradictions in the Bible? (02)

Author: Dave Woetzel
- Dr. Kent Hovind ANSWERED CONTRADICTIONS IN THE BIBLE
If this is the best that Zathras can do, he should go pick up a hundred year old book on higher
criticism. At least those arguments against inspiration had some depth. This is too easy!
Genesis 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness.
Genesis 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day.
So what? God is light and He will be the light of heaven long after the sun is gone (Revelation
21:23). Obviously He could have created a stream of light before He made the sun. Dr. Russell
Humphrey's has suggested an intriguing explanation of the light God initiated on the first day. It
is detailed in his theory of White Hole cosmology 01.
Genesis 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.
Genesis 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.
Genesis 2:8-9 does not describe the creation of trees but the creation of the garden of Eden for
Adam to live in. In it God planted many trees, among them the tree of the knowledge of good
and evil and the tree of life.
Genesis 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.
Genesis 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.
Genesis 2:19 does not describe the creation of birds (which came out of the seas). Rather, God
made one more of each kind of creature from the ground directly before Adam, so that he could
name them. It was a second creative act, this one later in the day and only in the garden, that
familiarized Adam with all of the kinds of animals he was to rule over.
Genesis 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.

Genesis 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.
See above.
Genesis 1:28 God encourages reproduction.

Leviticus 12:1-8 God requires purification rites following childbirth, which, in effect, makes
childbirth a sin. (Note: The period for purification following the birth of a daughter is twice that
for a son.)
Baloney. Can't Zathras distinguish between being ceremonially unclean and sinning? I make my
son wash his hands after playing in the sandbox. Does that make him disobedient to play there?
A woman with an issue of blood was also said to be unclean, just a couple of chapters later. Does
that make her sinful?
Genesis 1:31 God was pleased with his creation.

Genesis 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation. (Note: That God should be displeased is
inconsistent with the concept of omniscience.)
God was pleased to give man a free will. He is not pleased when man uses that to rebel.
Genesis 2:4, 4:26, 12:8, 22:14-16, 26:25 God was already known as "the Lord" (Jahveh or
Jehovah) much earlier than the time of Moses.
Exodus 6:2-3 God was first known as "the Lord" (Jahveh or Jehovah) at the time of the Egyptian
Bondage, during the life of Moses.
Moses wrote (actually collected 10 eye witness accounts and edited) Genesis and used the name
for God that was revealed to him.
Genesis 2:17 Adam was to die the very day that he ate the forbidden fruit.
Genesis 5:5 Adam lived 930 years.
There is physical death (the separation of the soul from the body) and spiritual death (the
separation of the soul from God). In a physical sense, Adam BEGAN to die that day. In a
spiritual sense, which God consistently uses thereafter (see Ephesians 2:1 and John 8:51) Adam
died immediately; that is, his sin separated him from his Creator the instant he ate the fruit.
Genesis 2:15-17, 3:4-6 It is wrong to want to be able to tell good from evil.
Hebrews 5:13-14 It is immature to be unable to tell good from evil.
Your interpretation of Genesis 2 is totally screwed up. Their sin was disobedience (doing evil)
not wanting to know something.
Genesis 4:4-5 God prefers Abel's offering and has no regard for Cain's.
2Chronicles 19:7, Acts 10:34, Romans 2:11 God shows no partiality. He treats all alike.
God DOES treat all alike. Those that offer improper sacrifices (like Cain) are rejected. If Abel
had offered a bloodless sacrifice, he would have been rejected too.
Genesis 4:9 God asks Cain where his brother Able is.
Proverbs 15:3, Jeremiah 16:17, 23:24-25, Hebrews 4:13 God is everywhere. He sees everything.
Nothing is hidden from his view.
God gave Cain a chance to come clean. I ASK my boy if he took a cookie that I watched him
snitch for the same reason.
Genesis 4:15, Deuteronomy 32:4, Isaiah 34:8 God is a vengeful god.

Exodus 15:3, Isaiah 42:13, Hebrews 12:29 God is a warrior. God is a consuming fire.
Exodus 20:5, 34:14, Deuteronomy 4:24, 5:9, 6:15, 29:20, 32:21 God is a jealous god.
Leviticus 26:7-8, Numbers 31:17-18, Deuteronomy 20:16-17, Joshua 10:40, Judges 14:19,
Ezekiel 9:5-7 The Spirit of God is (sometimes) murder and killing.
Numbers 25:3-4, Deuteronomy 6:15, 9:7-8, 29:20, 32:21, Psalms 7:11, 78:49, Jeremiah 4:8,
17:4, 32:30-31, Zephaniah 2:2 God is angry. His anger is sometimes fierce.
2Samuel 22:7-8 (KJV) "I called to the Lord; ... he heard my voice; ... The earth trembled and
quaked, ... because he was angry. Smoke came from his nostrils. Consuming fire came from his
mouth, burning coals blazed out of it."
Ezekiel 6:12, Nahum 1:2, 6 God is jealous and furious. He reserves wrath for, and takes revenge
on, his enemies. "... who can abide in the fierceness of his anger? His fury is poured out like fire,
and rocks are thrown down by him."
2Corinthians 13:11, 14, 1John 4:8, 16 God is love.
Galatians 5:22-23 The fruit of the Spirit of God is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness,
faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.
God hates sin and evil and God loves goodness. So what is the problem? His holiness means He
must execute a just penalty for sin. God's love provides a means of forgiveness in Christ for all
who will avail themselves. There is no contradiction here.
Genesis 4:16 Cain went away (or out) from the presence of the Lord.
Jeremiah 23:23-24 A man cannot hide from God. God fills heaven and earth.
God took on a form to speak with Cain (much like Moses at the burning bush or Abraham at his
tent). Cain walked away from his encounter with God.
Genesis 6:4 There were Nephilim (giants) before the Flood.

Genesis 7:21 All creatures other than Noah and his clan were annihilated by the Flood.
Numbers 13:33 There were Nephilim after the Flood.
Some of Adam's descendants were giants. Some of Noah's descendants were giants. Some giants
have lived in recent history. So what?
Genesis 6:6. Exodus 32:14, Numbers 14:20, 1Samuel 15:35, 2Samuel 24:16 God does change
his mind.
Numbers 23:19-20, Isaiah 15:29, James 1:17 God does not change his mind.
God never changes. His actions towards us change as WE change (much as the sun changes
when I put on my shades).
Genesis 6:19-22, 7:8-9, 7:14-16 Two of each kind are to be taken, and are taken, aboard Noah's
Ark.
Genesis 7:2-5 Seven pairs of some kinds are to be taken (and are taken) aboard the Ark.
Zathras really stretches this time. If seven of *some* are taken, than two of *each* kind ARE
taken. There is no contradiction. A contradiction would require that two of some kind NOT be
taken!
Genesis 7:1 Noah was righteous.

Job 1:1,8, Job 2:3 Job was righteous.
Luke 1:6 Zechariah and Elizabeth were righteous.
James 5:16 Some men are righteous, (which makes their prayers effective).
1John 3:6-9 Christians become righteous (or else they are not really Christians).
Romans 3:10, 3:23, 1John 1:8-10 No one was or is righteous.
This is at least a reasonable objection...oft-refuted, but reasonable. God is totally, completely
spotlessly righteous. He alone is perfectly holy. When men are described as "righteous," it is
always in a comparative way (ie Job 2:3 "there is none like him on the earth"). Men can only
become guiltless before the bar of the Almighty by being pardoned through the blood of Christ.
Genesis 7:7 Noah and his clan enter the Ark.

Genesis 7:13 They enter the Ark (again?).
Come on! It is reiterating the event with a specific dating scheme in Noah's life.
Genesis 11:7-9 God sows discord.

Proverbs 6:16-19 God hates anyone who sows discord.
God did not sow discord (contention). He confused the languages. BTW, there are a lot of things
that God does that He forbids man to do. So what? That is only reasonable.
Genesis 11:9 At Babel, the Lord confused the language of the whole world.
1Corinthians 14:33 Paul says that God is not the author of confusion.
This is taken out of context. God is not the author of confusion IN THE CHURCH.
Genesis 11:12 Arpachshad [Arphaxad] was the father of Shelah.

Luke 3:35-36 Cainan was the father of Shelah. Arpachshad was the grandfather of Shelah.
Cainan was left out of Genesis. It is also possible that it was purposefully left out of this
genealogy. While this would appear unusual, there are a few kings left out in Matthew 1:8. It also
appears that in the Jewish tradition, the designation "son" was somewhat flexible. There are
multiple instances in the scripture where a grandson is called a son or a son in law is called a son.
Genesis 11:16 Terah was 70 years old when his son Abram was born.
Genesis 11:32 Terah was 205 years old when he died (making Abram 135 at the time).
Genesis 12:4, Acts 7:4 Abram was 75 when he left Haran. This was after Terah died. Thus, Terah
could have been no more than 145 when he died; or Abram was only 75 years old after he had
lived 135 years.
This is a decent point since it appears contradictory on the surface. However, Terah could have
STARTED bearing at age 70 (following the pattern of the genealogy in which the childless years
are mentioned first) and Abram could have been born last when Terah was 130. This is not
unreasonable since Abram himself bore children later than that. (Genesis 17:17 indicates he was
ten years older than Sarah. Genesis 23:1 says Sarah died at 127. Genesis 25:1-2 tells us that
Abraham was still bearing children with his subsequent wife several years later.) Furthermore,
Abraham's brother got married, had Lot, and died ALL before Abram got married. So Abram's
brother, Haran, would have been MUCH older.
Genesis 12:7, 17:1, 18:1, 26:2, 32:30, Exodus 3:16, 6:2-3, 24:9-11, 33:11, Numbers 12:7-
8,14:14, Job 42:5, Amos 7:7-8, 9:1 God is seen.
Exodus 33:20, John 1:18, 1John 4:12 God is not seen. No one can see God's face and live. No
one has ever seen him.
The amazing thing is that these verses resolve your confusion themselves! No one has seen God
in all his glory. In Exodus, God hid Moses from seeing his face. Isaiah, John, and others saw a
vision of God. God takes on a form (like a burning bush to Moses or a whirlwind to Job) before
conversing with man.
Genesis 10:5, 20, 31 There were many languages before the Tower of Babel.
Genesis 11:1 There was only one language before the Tower of Babel.
Genesis 10 is a genealogy that covers centuries. It includes the period before Babel when there
was one language (described in chapter 11) and continues well after Babel detailing the divisions
of languages that resulted from Babel.
Genesis 16:15, 21:1-3, Galatians 4:22 Abraham had two sons, Ishmael and Isaac.
Hebrews 11:17 Abraham had only one son.
The passage in Hebrews is being chopping off midthought to create a contradiction. "He that
received the promise offered up his only begotten son of whom it was said..." God had promised
Isaac. Abraham got Ishmael outside of God's will.
Genesis 17:1, 35:11, 1Chronicles 29:11-12, Luke 1:37 God is omnipotent. Nothing is impossible
with (or for) God.
Judges 1:19 Although God was with Judah, together they could not defeat the plainsmen because
the latter had iron chariots.
What is this supposed to mean?
Comments from Jonathan Sampson:
Let's look at the verse inwhich the Scoffer claims the contradiction sits:
Judges 1:19 (kjv)
And 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.
This is an observation that I made in reading this page. Notice the Word of God states "the
LORD was with Judah," not "the LORD was fighting along side Judah against the inhabitants of
the valley." While reading this page, I've seen that this particular Scoffer often takes things out of
context and omits valuable information in his/her postings. This seems to be another case. I did
not find in my Bible that the LORD was fighting along side Judah, but instead that the LORD
was with Judah. All through scripture it is made clear that trials, tribulation, persecution and
other things strengthen our relationship with God. We learn to depend on Him. God never
promised that life would be easy, to my knowledge, He only promised he would never leave us.
And He never has. I have experienced many trials in my life. I've "won some and lost some," but
the LORD has never left me. He's with me through thick and thin (Hebrews 13:5), victory and
defeat. I am sure this is the case with Judah as well. NO CONTRADICTION!
Genesis 17:7, 10-11 The covenant of circumcision is to be everlasting.
Galatians 6:15 It is of no consequence.
You are comparing the longevity of a covenant with its potency (apples and oranges).
Circumcision is an everlasting covenant. But it is of no value in taking away sin. It never saved
anybody.
Genesis 17:8 God promises Abraham the land of Canaan as an "everlasting possession."
Genesis 25:8, Acts 7:2-5, Hebrews 11:13 Abraham died with the promise unfulfilled.
Abraham was in possession of plenty of Canaan when he died. But you miss the point of the
verse. The promised was to be fulfilled in Abraham AND his seed. One of the most amazingly
fulfilled prophecies is the rebirth of the nation of Israel in their ancestral homeland.
Genesis 17:15-16, 20:11-12, 22:17 Abraham and his half sister, Sarai, are married and receive
God's blessings.
Leviticus 20:17, Deuteronomy 27:20-23 Incest is wrong.
So what? Good people can do wrong things. Besides, the laws you cite were not given till long
after Abraham had died. Ex post facto laws.
Genesis 18:20-21 God decides to "go down" to see what is going on.
Nothing is hidden from his view.
God went down to check out Sodom to give Abraham a chance to intercede for it, and to
demonstrate the wickedness of the Sodomites; not because he was unable to check it out from
heaven.
Genesis 19:30-38 While he is drunk, Lot's two daughters "lie with him," become pregnant, and
give birth to his offspring.
2Peter 2:7 Lot was "just" and "righteous."
Remember whenever "righteous" is used of man, it is comparative. Good people are not always
perfect. If your ONLY flaw was getting drunk for a couple of nights, I would say that you were
pretty righteous too.
Genesis 22:1-12, Deuteronomy 8:2 God tempts (tests) Abraham and Moses.
Judges 2:22 God himself says that he does test (tempt).
1Corinthians 10:13 Paul says that God controls the extent of our temptations.
James 1:13 God tests (tempts) no one.
Note Hebrews 11:17. A better translation of the Greek "peirazo" is "tried" (or proved, tested).
God examines us much like a master teacher...to demonstrate our faith (or lack thereof) and to
mature us. James uses it in this sense earlier in the chapter (James 1:2-3). There is a very
different Greek used in verse 13. "Peirasmos" means "a solicitation to do evil." It is based on our
lusts or on Satanic seductions.
Genesis 27:28 "May God give you ... an abundance of grain and new wine."
Deuteronomy 7:13 If they follow his commandments, God will bless the fruit of their wine.
Psalms 104:5 God gives us wine to gladden the heart.
Jeremiah 13:12 "... every bottle shall be filled with wine."
John 2:1-11 According to the author of John, Jesus' first miracle was turning water to wine.
Romans 14:21 It is good to refrain from drinking wine.
Once again you create a contradiction by screwing up the sentence. The point is not that there is
anything wrong with eating certain meats or drinking wine. The problem is doing things
needlessly that offend a Christian brother.
Genesis 35:10 God says Jacob is to be called Jacob no longer; henceforth his name is Israel.
Genesis 46:2 At a later time, God himself uses the name Jacob.
The Oriental tradition of changing names was to signify a watershed in someone's life. It was an
official change. The point is NOT that God forbids everybody from calling him Jacob (in fact he
is called Jacob just 4 verses later); rather the idea is that he would no longer be KNOWN as
"deceiver" (Jacob) but as "God's fighter" (Israel).
Genesis 36:11 The sons of Eliphaz were Teman, Omar, Zepho, Gatam, and Kenaz.
Genesis 36:15-16 Teman, Omar, Zepho, Kenaz.
1Chronicles 1:35-36 Teman, Omar, Zephi, Gatam, Kenaz, Timna, and Amalek.
Take the time to read the passage carefully and you might just answer your own question.
Genesis 36:12 adds Amalek (born by a concubine) to the list started in verse 11. You just plain
miss Gatam and Amalek in Genesis 36:16. Later in the passage (perhaps adopted as a son)
Timnah is added as a duke (Genesis 36:40). Therefore Genesis 36 matches Chronicles perfectly.
Genesis 49:2-28 The fathers of the twelve tribes of Israel are: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah,
Zebulun, Issachar, Dan, Gad, Asher, Naphtali, Joseph, and Benjamin.
Revelation 7:4-8 (Leaves out the tribe of Dan, but adds Manasseh.)
This is not a contradiction. It is a change. Some have postulated this change was because of the
idolatry that was started in Dan, which eventually caused Israel to be judged and to go into
bondage.
Genesis 50:13 Jacob was buried in a cave at Machpelah bought from Ephron the Hittite.
Acts 7:15-16 He was buried in the sepulchre at Shechem, bought from the sons of Hamor.
The sepulchre was a cave. (Note Genesis 23:6-9 where the original story is told.) Machpelah is
the region that became Shechem. Again from the original story, we see that Abraham bought it
from the sons of Hamor, specifically from Ephron who lived among them and had the field with
the sepulchre. When Jacob returned to his ancestral homeland (Genesis 33:17-19) he found that
children of Hamor had conquered and inhabited the region. He repurchased the field from
Shechem's dad, Hamor.
Exodus 3:1 Jethro was the father-in-law of Moses.

Numbers 10:29, Judges 4:11 (KJV) Hobab was the father-in-law of Moses.
Many OT figures had two names. This was particularly common in the ancient traditions when
one was leaving one clan to join another nation (Joseph in Egypt, Daniel in Babylon, etc.). Jethro
was a Midianite. Likely he was given a Hebrew name when he joined the Israelites.
Exodus 3:20-22, Deuteronomy 20:13-17 God instructs the Israelites to despoil the Egyptians, to
plunder their enemies.
Exodus 20:15, 17, Leviticus 19:13 God prohibits stealing, defrauding, or robbing a neighbor.
First, the rules of warfare are, and have always been distinct from the rules in society (shooting
down an enemy plane is morally different from shooting my wife amidst an argument).
Secondly, God made these laws for man, not for himself. He can take (or command to be taken)
whatever He wants, anytime He wants. He is God.
[since this same objection is repeated below ad nauseum, I will only say "dittos" from now on]
Exodus 4:11 God decides who will be dumb, deaf, blind, etc.
2Corinthians 13:11, 14, 1John 4:8, 16 God is a god of love.
Sickness, disease, suffering, and death are a result of sin and man's rebellion against God. God in
justice judged the world. God in love provides a means of salvation so that we can live in bliss
with Him. Perhaps YOU do not think that this is "loving" enough for you. But you are not a
HOLY God who has been offended by sin.
Exodus 9:3-6 God destroys all the cattle (including horses) belonging to the Egyptians.
Exodus 9:9-11 The people and the cattle are afflicted with boils.
Exodus 12:12, 29 All the first-born of the cattle of the Egyptians are destroyed.
Exodus 14:9 After having all their cattle destroyed, then afflicted with boils, and then their first-
born cattle destroyed, the Egyptians pursue Moses on horseback.
You first premise is wrong. The murrain was on the cattle and the horses (Exodus 9:3). No doubt
many of them died. However, verse six states that all the cattle died. It does not include the
horses, asses, camels etc.
Exodus 12:13 The Israelites have to mark their houses with blood in order for God to see which
houses they occupy and "pass over" them.
Nothing is hidden from God.
God does not say He needed the blood to SEE WHICH house was occupied by Israelites. He
promised that WHEN He saw the blood, he would pass by that house (including, no doubt, some
believing Egyptians).
Exodus 12:37, Numbers 1:45-46 The number of men of military age who take part in the Exodus
is given as more than 600,000. Allowing for women, children, and older men would probably
mean that a total of about 2,000,000 Israelites left Egypt.
1Kings 20:15 All the Israelites, including children, number only 7000 at a later time.
This is height of absurdity. First of all, the nation of Israel was split into two kingdoms at the
time of I Kings 20. Secondly, the context is that king Ahab was besieged in Samaria (capital of
the northern kingdom), and therefore could only count everybody in the city. Thirdly, he was
counting ALL the children of Israel available for battle (verse 14).
Exodus 15:3, 17:16, Numbers 25:4, 32:14, Isaiah 42:13 God is a man of war--he is fierce and
angry.
Romans 15:33, 2Corinthians 13:11, 14, 1John 4:8, 16 God is a god of love and peace.
God is characterized by both. So was Ronald Reagan. So what?
Exodus 20:1-17 God gave the law directly to Moses (without using an intermediary).
Galatians 3:19 The law was ordained through angels by a mediator (an intermediary).
Just because Exodus 20 does not mention angels does not mean they played no role. Nowhere
does it say he did not use an intermediary. (Note that the ten commandments in stone were said
to be literally etched by God's finger.)
Exodus 20:4 God prohibits the making of any graven images whatsoever.
Exodus 25:18 God enjoins the making of two graven images.
Yet again you stop mid-sentence, wrest it out of context, and manufacture a contradiction. Read
before and after in Exodus 20. God was not forbidding someone from whittling or doing
sculpture work! He is talking about making up a god, then engraving it, and then worshipping it.
Exodus 20:5, 34:7, Numbers 14:18, Deuteronomy 5:9, Isaiah 14:21-22 Children are to suffer for
their parent's sins.
Deuteronomy 24:16, Ezekiel 18:19-20 Children are not to suffer for their parent's sins.
You are confusing at least three different concepts. When a NATION had become so corrupt that
God was going to completely wipe it out (Isaiah 14) obviously all, young and old, would suffer
this judgment. Under the law of Moses, God (not society) would punish a HOUSEHOLD to the
third and fourth generation for the parent's sins. Perhaps this was a result of the way households
were structured and the collective way decisions were carried out. Ezekiel 18:1-3 indicates that
the SOCIETAL RULE was to be changed so that children would not die for the parent's sin. This
is not a contradiction. It is an attempt to change something that should not have been going on in
Israeli society (Deuteronomy 24:16).
Exodus 20:8-11, 31:15-17, 35:1-3 No work is to be done on the Sabbath, not even lighting a fire.
The commandment is permanent, and death is required for infractions.
Mark 2:27-28 Jesus says that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath (after his
disciples were criticized for breaking the Sabbath).
Romans 14:5, Colossians 2:14-16 Paul says the Sabbath commandment was temporary, and to
decide for yourself regarding its observance.
The disciples did not do work. They violated the Pharisees guidelines. Christ fulfilled the law,
and the ceremonial portions stopped being in effect at his death. This is the change Paul
references in Galatians 3:24-25. It is not a contradiction.
Exodus 20:12, Deuteronomy 5:16, Matthew 15:4, 19:19, Mark 7:10, 10:19, Luke 18:20 Honor
your father and your mother is one of the ten commandments. It is reinforced by Jesus.
Matthew 10:35-37, Luke 12:51-53, 14:26 Jesus says that he has come to divide families; that a
man's foes will be those of his own household; that you must hate your father, mother, wife,
children, brothers, sisters, and even your own life to be a disciple.
Matthew 23:9 Jesus says to call no man on earth your father.
You can still honor someone that you hate. So there is no contradiction even if one ignorantly
believes Christ is saying we are to dislike our parents. However, the English word hate poorly
captures the comparative nature of what Christ said. When considered next to our love for God,
our love for our parents (and even ourselves) should dim to nothing in comparison.
Exodus 20:14 God prohibits adultery.

Hosea 1:2 God instructs Hosea to "take a wife of harlotry."
Hosea did not commit adultery (his wife had, but not him). Where is the contradiction?
Exodus 21:23-25, Leviticus 24:20, Deuteronomy 19:21 A life for a life, an eye for an eye, etc.
Matthew 5:38-44, Luke 6:27-29 Turn the other cheek. Love your enemies.
Please! How can Christ be more clear? He plainly is changing the law to initiate the age of grace
in which we now live. READ the whole passage.
Exodus 34:6, Deuteronomy 7:9-10, Titus 1:2 God is faithful and truthful. He does not lie.
Numbers 14:30 God breaks his promise.
God made a promise to bring the nation of Israel into Canaan. He took them up to the edge and
(with a couple of exceptions) they rebelled and decided not to go in. Therefore God fulfilled his
promise in the next generation. God never promised that EVERY individual that left Egypt
would get to Canaan. Many died for various reasons in the wilderness. Even Moses did not make
it in.
1Kings 22:21-23 God condones a spirit of deception.
God PERMITS evil spirits and evil men to do much harm. That does not mean he is untruthful or
condones their actions.
2Thessalonians 2:11-12 God deludes people, making them believe what is false, so as to be able
to condemn them. (Note: some versions use the word persuade here. The context makes clear,
however, that deception is involved.)
Since when have you become concerned about context? God's patience is long, but it has limits.
After several miracles in which Pharoah hardened his heart, God hardened Pharoah's heart so
that he COULD not repent (Exodus 10:1-2). The context clearly indicates that these people had
ample opportunity to repent; yet they had chosen the lie of Satan (vs 9) over the truth of God (vs
10 and vs 12). Therefore, in vs 11 God gives them over to a life of delusion. This is not God
lying to them or deceiving them. It is God permanently sealing the fate that THEY decided upon.
Exodus 34:6-7, Joshua 24:19, 1Chronicles 16:34 God is faithful, holy and good.
Isaiah 45:6-7, Lamentations 3:8, Amos 3:6 God is responsible for evil.
There are two senses in which evil is used in the KJV. One involves a moral failure on the part of
someone. The other is a misfortune that befalls someone. God causes the second to happen, but
not the first. Some have argued that God did wrong to even create the potential of evil. However,
it is not possible to make light shine without there being darkness. Similarly, it is not possible for
God to have created "good" without the potential for "evil." To do otherwise would have been to
create an amoral robotic machinery with no will.
Exodus 34:6-7, Hebrews 9:27 God remembers sin, even when it has been forgiven.
Jeremiah 31:34 God does not remember sin when it has been forgiven.
You once again confuse multiple issues. God judges sin. As Exodus 34 states, the consequences
do not stop just because the sin is forgiven (see also II Samuel 12:13-14). God knows everything
and never forgets as way we do. Yet, once sins are forgiven, He chooses to never again bring it
up to be used against the sinner.
The second issue is the difference between the way sin was treated under the law. It was never
wiped out and required annual sacrifices as a memorial of this limitation. Sin was merely
covered temporarily by the sacrifice of blood, awaiting the coming perfect sacrifice that would
wash away all sin. Jeremiah speaks prophetically of this time. (Read the beginning of the
chapter.) It was fulfilled in Christ. This difference is highlighted as Hebrews 10:3 is contrasted
with Hebrews 10:17.
Leviticus 3:17 God himself prohibits forever the eating of blood and fat.
Matthew 15:11, Colossians 2:20-22 Jesus and Paul say that such rules don't matter?they are only
human injunctions.
Neither Jesus or Paul discuss eating fat or blood. Christ was making the point that you do not get
sinful inside by eating with dirty hands. Sin starts in the mind and works out. Paul was
combating legalists and Judaizers that delighted in an ascetic lifestyle, adding a lot of
unnecessary man-made laws as a means of being more righteous.
Leviticus 19:18, Matthew 22:39 Love your neighbor [as much as] yourself.
1Corinthians 10:24 Put your neighbor ahead of yourself.
One is a heart attitude (love) and the other is the practical follow through of it (self-sacrifice).
Both go hand-in-hand.
Leviticus 21:10 The chief priest is not to rend his clothes.

Matthew 26:65, Mark 14:63 He does so during the trial of Jesus.
Bad chief priest! So what? (He did far worse than that in seeking to kill Christ.)
Leviticus 25:37, Psalms 15:1, 5 It is wrong to lend money at interest.

Matthew 25:27, Luke 19:23-27 It is wrong to lend money without interest.
In the ceremonial law instituted in the economy of Israel, God made interest on loans illegal. In
telling the parable of this austere lord, Christ never indicates whether charging interest is right or
wrong. However, the era of the ceremonial law ended (and with it the prohibition on charging
interest) after Christ.
Numbers 11:33 God inflicts sickness.

Job 2:7 Satan inflicts sickness.
So what?
Let's look at the two verses more carefully:

Numbers 11:33 (kjv)
And while the flesh was yet between their teeth, ere it was chewed, the wrath of the LORD was
kindled against the people, and the LORD smote the people with a very great plague.
Job 2:7 (kjv)

So went Satan forth from the presence of the LORD, and smote Job with sore boils from the sole
of his foot unto his crown.
This "contradiction" is a clear and precise example of how desperate Scoffers are to make the
Word of God look like anything less than Divinely-inspired material. Any rational person would
clearly understand that both of these passages are relating to specific instances by both entities.
God has indeed smote some people throughout history, and Satan has also smote some people.
It's important to state that neither of the two passages claim that ALL SICKNESS is from God,
nor does it state that ALL SICKNESS is from Satan. NO CONTRADICTION!
Numbers 15:24-28 Sacrifices can, in at least some case, take away sin.
Hebrews 10:11 They never take away sin.
See above. In the OT, forgiven sins were merely *covered* by a blood sacrifice in anticipation of
being taken away when Christ died.
Numbers 25:9 24,000 died in the plague.

1Corinthians 10:8 23,000 died in the plague.
Read the passages! 23,000 died in ONE DAY. 24,000 died in the entire plague. So 1,000 died
later, no contradiction.
Numbers 30:2 God enjoins the making of vows (oaths).

Matthew 5:33-37 Jesus forbids doing so, saying that they arise from evil (or the Devil).
Once again, Christ fulfilled and changed the OT law. He is very clear that He is making a
change. There is no contradiction.
Additional Information:
Search our site
Today is Sat, November 15 th
"Believe The Whole Bible!"

I have been an avid creationist ever since i first saw your seminar on tape over 7 years ago. I
used to believe that God and evolution walked hand in...
Deuteronomy 18:20-22 A false prophet is one whose words do not come true. Death is required.
Ezekiel 14:9 A prophet who is deceived, is deceived by God himself. Death is still required.
You misunderstand Ezekiel 14 just like you did II Thessalonians 2:11. Regardless, there is no
contradiction here. A contradiction would require God letting him off.
Deuteronomy 23:1 A castrate may not enter the assembly of the Lord.
Isaiah 56:4-5 Some castrates will receive special rewards.
So what? A guy with a machine gun is not allowed into the White House. Some guys with
machine guns got purple hearts from the president.
Deuteronomy 23:1 A castrate may not enter the assembly of the Lord.
Matthew 19:12 Men are encouraged to consider making themselves castrates for the sake of the
Kingdom of God.
You mischaracterize Matthew 19. But regardless, there is no contradiction.
Deuteronomy 24:1-5 A man can divorce his wife simply because she displeases him and both he
and his wife can remarry.
Mark 10:2-12 Divorce is wrong, and to remarry is to commit adultery.
Christ changed the law and was very clear that He was initiating a change. A change is not a
contradiction.
Deuteronomy 30:11-20 It is possible to keep the law.
Romans 3:20-23 It is not possible to keep the law.
Deuteronomy makes the point that the law is clear and plain so that we can understand and no
excuse not to keep it. It never says a man will be able to go through his whole life perfectly and
never break a single commandment. Paul's point is that no man has done that. Indeed, that is why
sacrifices are an integral part of the law.
Joshua 11:20 God shows no mercy to some.

Luke 6:36, James 5:11 God is merciful.
To the contrary, God had mercy on the Amorites for many years (Genesis 15:16) till their
iniquities reached a point that God determined to wipe them out (Joshua 11).
Judges 4:21 Sisera was sleeping when Jael killed him.

Judges 5:25-27 Sisera was standing.
It does not say that he was standing when she killed him. It only says that after she hit him in the
head (v25) he bowed, fell down, tried to rise again and fell again. Sounds like death throes to me.
Joshua 10:38-40 Joshua himself captured Debir.

Judges 1:11-15 It was Othniel, who thereby obtained the hand of Caleb's daughter, Achsah.
Does Zathras even try to understand the passage? Are these mistakes purposefully misunderstood
or just massive incompetence? Joshua made a pass through the land with his whole army, wiping
out all of the strongholds and destroying their cities. However, some of the cities were rebuilt by
the inhabitants and needed to be reconquered. This second conquest of a weakened Debir could
be performed by a small band led by Othniel. Judges starts off by saying that this event occurred
AFTER Joshua died. The parallel passage is Joshua 15:16, not Joshua 10:38-40. READ the
scriptures!
1Samuel 8:2-22 Samuel informs God as to what he has heard from others.
Proverbs 15:3, Jeremiah 16:17, 23:24-25, Hebrews 4:13 God is everywhere. He sees and hears
everything.
So what? God delights to hear from us just like I delight to have my little boy come running up
to me, exclaiming about something that I already know.
1Samuel 9:15-17 The Lord tells Samuel that Saul has been chosen to lead the Israelites and will
save them from the Philistines.
1Samuel 15:35 The Lord is sorry that he has chosen Saul.
1Samuel 31:4-7 Saul commits suicide and the Israelites are overrun by the Philistines.
First of all, God does not say Saul will save them from the Philistines; only that he was chosen to
do the job. I Samuel 14:47-48 and subsequent chapters indicate that for a considerable time he
was successful in performing this role. Ultimately, however, he fails to obey God and falls
himself to the Philistines. Is this supposed to be God's fault?
1Samuel 15:7-8, 20 The Amalekites are utterly destroyed.

1Samuel 27:8-9 They are utterly destroyed (again?).
1Samuel 30:1, 17-18 They raid Ziklag and David smites them (again?).
Firstly, I Samuel 15:9 indicates they were selective about their destruction, in disobedience to
God's command. Secondly, when a nation is "utterly destroyed" it does not mean that EVERY
person of that nationality (some of whom might not have even been in the area at the time) was
killed. Undoubtedly there were some few who escaped or were traveling elsewhere that over the
years returned and rebuilt their tribal homeland. In the first campaign they occupy a large
kingdom of many cities. In the second instance they are individual cities that are weak enough to
be conquered by David's outlaw band.
1Samuel 16:10-11, 17:12 Jesse had seven sons plus David, or eight total.
1Chronicles 2:13-15 He had seven total.
These were times of ongoing warfare and Jesse's sons were right in the middle of it. Is it any
surprise that he lost one by the time the genealogies were recorded in Chronicles?
1Samuel 16:19-23 Saul knew David well before the latter's encounter with Goliath.
1Samuel 17:55-58 Saul did not know David at the time of his encounter with Goliath and had to
ask about David's identity.
Saul saw David before the battle (I Samuel 17:38). Verses 55-58 do not say Saul did not know
David. It says Saul asked WHOSE SON David was. Likely he had forgotten Jesse?s name (even
though he had sent a couple of messages to Jesse in the earlier passage).
1Samuel 17:50 David killed Goliath with a slingshot.

1Samuel 17:51 David killed Goliath (again?) with a sword.
Any Sunday School kid could straighten you out on this one. Goliath fell face down and David
had to make sure he was dead by cutting off his head. It is called "finishing him off."
David was doing as he said in 17:46. Simply doing as he had promised Goliath.
1Samuel 17:46 (kjv) David speaking to Goliath:
This day will the LORD deliver thee into mine hand; and I will smite thee, and take thine head
from thee; and I will give the carcases of the host of the Philistines this day unto the fowls of the
air, and to the wild beasts of the earth; that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel.
1Samuel 17:50 David killed Goliath.
2Samuel 21:19 Elhanan killed Goliath. (Note: Some translations insert the words "the brother of"
before Elhanan. These are an addition to the earliest manuscripts in an apparent attempt to rectify
this inconsistency.) [Good reason to stick with the KJV!]
Since when have you become concerned about the original manuscripts? Clearly the giant of II
Samuel 21:19 is a different person since the timeframes are totally different and since the second
is called "the Gittite." Perhaps these four were sons of Goliath (seems to be implied in vs 22) and
one of them was named after his dad.
1Samuel 21:1-6 Ahimalech was high priest when David ate the bread.
Mark 2:26 Abiathar was high priest at the time.
Abiathar was the high priest. His dad, Ahimelech, is not called the high priest in I Samuel 21. At
that time, he is merely described as a priest. (He may have been the ex-high priest in an
arrangement like Caiphas and Annas at the time of Christ.)
1Samuel 28:6 Saul inquired of the Lord, but received no answer.

1Chronicles 10:13-14 Saul died for not inquiring of the Lord.
Saul is a perfect illustration of Proverbs 1:24-26. The I Chronicles passage says Saul died for
several things, including a pattern of not inquiring of the Lord. He did not change his ways until
it was too late and God's judgment was already at the door.
1Samuel 31:4-6 Saul killed himself by falling on his sword.

2Samuel 2:2-10 Saul, at his own request, was slain by an Amalekite.
2Samuel 21:12 Saul was killed by the Philistines on Gilboa.
1Chronicles 10:13-14 Saul was slain by God.
God directed the death of Saul, as we detailed above. God used the Philistines to carry out his
judgment. There is no contradiction to say "Saul was slain by the Philistines" since he committed
suicide just as they were closing in to wipe him out. I believe you erred in one of your reference.
Perhaps you meant II Samuel 1:2-10? Here the Amalekite lied through his teeth in hopes of a
reward.
2Samuel 6:23 Michal was childless.

2Samuel 21:8 (KJV) She had five sons.
Poor KJV translation. It was Michal's sister.
I disagree on the claim that this is a poor translation by the KJV. There is no contradiction here.
Michal and Merab (Michal's older sister) were both a part in this, obviously. Merab (the wife of
Adriel according to I Samuel 18:19) more than likely had the children with Adriel, and Michal
(who was in love with David according to I Samuel 18:20, and later married David according to
I Samuel 18:27) "brought up" (IISamuel 21:8) the boys just as the KJV says. My aunt brought up
my younger sister, although she was born by my birth mother.
2Samuel 24:1 The Lord inspired David to take the census.
1Chronicles 21:1 Satan inspired the census.
Again, poor KJV translation in II Samuel 24:1. God permitted it, but Satan inspired it.
2Samuel 24:9 The census count was: Israel 800,000 and Judah 500,000.
1Chronicles 21:5 The census count was: Israel 1,100,000 and Judah 470,000.
It could be that there were a few different numbers floating around wonder since I Chronicles
21:6 indicates that Joab purposely did a sloppy job and miscounted whole tribes since he found
the king's command abominable. But the discrepancy can be resolved if we consider what was
included and excluded in each count. Note that the 800,000 of Israel probably did not include the
standing army of 288,000 described in I Chronicles 27:1-15 or the 12,000 specifically attached to
the capital (II Chronicles 1:14). Conversely, the 470,000 count likely did not include the 30,000
in Judah's standing army (II Samuel 6:1).
2Samuel 24:10-17 David sinned in taking the census.

1Kings 15:5 David's only sin (ever) was in regard to another matter.
I Kings 15:5 does not say David sinned only once. It says he deliberately broke God's command
(likely referencing the ten commandments) only that one time.
2Samuel 24:24 David paid 50 shekels of silver for the purchase of a property.
1Chronicles 21:22-25 He paid 600 shekels of gold.
On the surface this certainly appears to be contradictory. However, consider that 50 shekels of
silver was paltry (reference Exodus 21:32) to pay for a site that was later to become the temple
mount. However, it might be an appropriate figure to pay for a yoke of oxen. I Chronicles seems
to indicate that the initial discussion was about the property. Ornan then offered David the oxen
too. II Samuel 24:24 says he bought the property and the oxen for 50 shekels of silver. Perhaps it
would be best rendered: David bought the property; and he also bought the oxen for an
additional 50 shekels of silver.
1Kings 3:12 God made Solomon the wisest man that ever lived, yet ....
1Kings 11:1-13 Solomon loved many foreign women (against God's explicit prohibition) who
turned him to other gods (for which he deserved death).
Having wisdom and deciding to use it to make the proper decision are two totally different
things. It is like having money and knowing how to invest it well. One of the perennial themes of
tragic drama is the character who knows better and makes the fatal mistake anyway.
1Kings 3:12, 4:29, 10:23-24, 2Chronicles 9:22-23 God made Solomon the wisest king and the
wisest man that ever lived. There never has been nor will be another like him.
Matthew 12:42, Luke 11:31 Jesus says: "... now one greater than Solomon is here."
Firstly, you are contrasting "wisdom" and "greatness" (apples and oranges). Secondly, there
never was another man as wise as Solomon. Christ was God in the flesh and cannot be
considered a mere man.
1Kings 4:26 Solomon had 40,000 horses (or stalls for horses).
2Chronicles 9:25 He had 4,000 horses (or stalls for horses).
Once again you fail to simply read scripture. Like anything else, this number changed over time.
The passage in Kings takes place before the temple is built while the passage in Chronicles takes
place many years later. The parallel passage to II Chronicles 9:25 is I Kings 10:26.
Comments from Dr. Hovind:
Many scoffers have cited I Kings 4:26 "And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his
chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen" and II Chron. 9:25 "And Solomon had four thousand
stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen" as a contradiction. There is no
contradiction. He had 40,000 stalls for horses yet only 4,000 stalls for the chariots. They had 10
men and 10 horses per chariot in case they got a "flat tire." See II Sam 10:18 "And the Syrians
fled before Israel; and David slew the men of seven hundred chariots of the Syrians," and I
Chron. 119:18 "But the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew of the Syrians seven thousand
men which fought in chariots," to show the same point. The men of 700 chariots would be 7000
men.
1Kings 5:16 Solomon had 3,300 supervisors.
2Chronicles 2:2 He had 3,600 supervisors.
The passage in I Kings specifically excludes the "chief officers" of which there were likely 300.
1Kings 7:15-22 The two pillars were 18 cubits high.

2Chronicles 3:15-17 They were 35 cubits high.
This would seem to be a pretty blatant mistake to make (getting the measurement wrong by
twice). Let's consider the wording carefully. The I Kings passage says that "he cast two pillars of
brass, of 18 cubits high APIECE..." The book of Kings further indicates at the time of the
destruction of the temple (II Kings 25:16) that "the height of ONE pillar was 18 cubits..." the
identical language is found in Jeremiah 52:20-21. II Chronicles uses slightly different language:
"he made before the house TWO pillars of thirty and five cubits high..." Perhaps the author
added them together to come up with a combined height. Since they were molten, formed from
clay casts in the ground, perhaps they originally were formed and measured end to end (I Kings
7:46).
1Kings 7:26 Solomon's "molten sea" held 2000 "baths" (1 bath = about 8 gallons).
2Chronicles 4:5 It held 3000 "baths."
Both are correct. It "received and held" up to 3000 baths (Chronicles). Kings says it "contained"
2000 baths. Apparently they did not make a practice of filling it to the top, perhaps keeping it
convenient for the washing.
1Kings 8:12, 2Chronicles 6:1, Psalms 18:11 God dwells in thick darkness.
1Timothy 6:16 God dwells in unapproachable light.
I dwell in New Hampshire AND in the United States AND in the world. Some of these places are
more or less bright. God dwells in heaven in unapproachable light. Between the third heaven and
earth is both a boundary of complete darkness so that no man would ever be able to see through
it and the darkness of outer space. A good illustration of how God dwells in intense light within a
protective sphere of darkness is Exodus 19:21, Exodus 20:21 and Exodus 24:15-18.
1Kings 8:13, Acts 7:47 Solomon, whom God made the wisest man ever, built his temple as an
abode for God.
Acts 7:48-49 God does not dwell in temples built by men.
But God did visit the temple in a special way. In the end, the temple was more a place for man to
go to commune with God than a house in which God could live on this earth. However, if I knew
that God would similarly visit a house that I built, I would happily spend the rest of my life
building it for Him.
1Kings 9:28 420 talents of gold were brought back from Ophir.
2Chronicles 8:18 450 talents of gold were brought back from Ophir.
There were MANY trips to Ophir to get gold. I Chronicles 29:4 indicates that 3,000 talents of
gold from Ophir were stored up just to prepare for the temple construction!
1Kings 15:14 Asa did not remove the high places.

2Chronicles 14:2-3 He did remove them.
The Chronicles passage describes his cleansing of the cities in Judah (see vs 5). In chapter 15 he
proceeds to cleanse Benjamin and portions of Ephraim of its idolatrous high places as well
(15:8). However, the chapter ends like the passage in I Kings. Verse 17 indicates that he did not
cleanse the remainder of the land. Perhaps he even permitted some to reappear in Judah by the
end of his reign. (They went up and down quite regularly in those days.)
1Kings 16:6-8 Baasha died in the 26th year of King Asa's reign.
2Chronicles 16:1 Baasha built a city in the 36th year of King Asa's reign.
In Jewish tradition there was no provision for a queen. Here, the queen-mother, Maachah, takes
on an important role when her son Abijam dies after reigning only 3 years. She adopts one of his
sons Asa (I Kings 15:10) apparently as a figure-head and actually reigns herself for the first 10
years (see II Chronicles 14:2). After this period, Asa wins a great battle, is encouraged by the
prophet in chapter 15, and takes over. He cleans the idols out of Judah AND Benjamin (as noted
above) and removes the idolatrous Maachah as queen (I Kings 15:13 and II Chronicles 15:16).
Likely this ten-year reign of the Queen mother alongside Asa is the reason for the ten-year
discrepancy in dating the Baasha event by how long Asa had ruled.
1Kings 16:23 Omri became king in the thirty-first year of Asa's reign and he reigned for a total
of twelve years.
1Kings 16:28-29 Omri died, and his son Ahab became king in the thirty- eighth year of Asa's
reign. (Note: Thirty-one through thirty-eight equals a reign of seven or eight years.)
Here we have a complex plot. Elah had become the rightful king. But one of his generals, Zimri,
conspired and killed him. Zimri, the traitor, begins to reign in the twenty-seventh year of Asa. He
rules for only seven days (I Kings 16:15) before being overthrown by Omri, the other general.
Omri immediately begins to reign but faces a rival king, Tibni (vs 21), who is supported by fully
half of the population of Israel. Over the years, Omri prevails. When his rival dies, he becomes
undisputed king over all Israel in vs 23. However, his total reign was from Asa's twenty-seventh
year to Asa's thirty-eighth year, or roughly twelve years.
1Kings 22:23, 2Chronicles 18:22, 2Thesalonians 2:11 God himself causes a lying spirit.
Proverbs 12:22 God abhors lying lips and delights in honesty.
This identical objection has already been answered above.
1Kings 22:42-43 Jehoshaphat did not remove the high places.

2Chronicles 17:5-6 He did remove them.
The Chronicles passage states that he took them out of JUDAH. No doubt he cleaned out the
region around the capitol. II Chronicles 20:33 confirms the Kings passage that he never swept
the whole land clean. Perhaps he also permitted some to crop back up by the end of his reign.
(They appear to come and go a lot during this time.)
2Kings 2:11 Elijah went up to heaven.

John 3:13 Only the Son of Man (Jesus) has ever ascended to heaven.
2Corinthians 12:2-4 An unnamed man, known to Paul, went up to heaven and came back.
Hebrews 11:5 Enoch was translated to heaven.
Your problem is with this interpretation of John. Christ is not saying that nobody had died and
gone to heaven. That would be preposterous. Look at the context (vs. 11). Christ is chiding
Nicodemus for doubting. If he did not believe Christ on earthly matters, which could be seen and
verified; how then could he believe heavenly things where no man is able to go up and verify?
Those that have seen heaven in the Scriptures have seen a vision (or have been brought there in
spirit alone). They did not decide to up and see God. No man in the flesh can see God and live (I
John 4:12), while obviously plenty have died and seen God. Incidentally, the event in II
Corinthians had not yet transpired when John was written.
2Kings 4:32-37 A dead child is raised (well before the time of Jesus).
Matthew 9:18-25, JN 11:38-44 Two dead persons are raised (by Jesus himself).
Acts 26:23 Jesus was the first to rise from the dead.
There are plenty of others that were raised which you do not cite (including by Paul himself).
There is a fundamental difference, however. They all died again. Paul is talking about the
resurrection to life (having a NEW body). See I Corinthians 15:20-23. Christ is the first with
each who believe to follow.
2Kings 8:25-26 Ahaziah was 22 years old when he began his reign.
2Chronicles 22:1 He was 42 when he began his reign.
II Chronicles 21:20 says that Ahaziah's dad began to reign at age thirty-two. He reigned for eight
years and then died (at age forty). Obviously his son could not have been forty-two at that time!
This could be a copying error such that forty-two was substituted for twenty-two in the original.
However, it is also possible that there were a couple of kings that reigned in quick succession
here (since Ahaziah only reigned one year). Supporting this idea is the confusion of names that
appear for the king at this time (Jehoahaz in II Chronicles 21:17 and Azariah in 22:6). Moreover,
Matthew 1:8 completely skips this part of the genealogy, further confusing the issue. It also
appears that Azariah was a VERY common name. Note in II Chronicles 21:2 that Ahaziah had
two uncles named Azariah! Perhaps one of them reigned briefly. The age difference would
certainly fit. Note also below.
2Kings 9:27 Jehu shot Ahaziah near Ibleam. Ahaziah fled to Meggido and died there.
2Chronicles 22:9 Ahaziah was found hiding in Samaria, brought to Jehu, and put to death.
It is very possible that we are dealing with two different individuals. In support of this, II Kings
describes how Jehu, after shooting Ahaziah, goes to Samaria and kills numerous other members
of the royal family (II Kings 10:12-14). Furthermore, the Ahaziah that is killed in II Chronicles
22:9 is said to be the son of Jehosophat (rather than grandson), and in II Chronicles 21:2 we note
that Jehosophat did have two sons named Azariah. Note also above.
2Kings 16:5 The King of Syria and the son of the King of Israel did not conquer Ahaz.
2Chronicles 28:5-6 They did conquer Ahaz.
It was not a black and white victory. The II Kings passage says that the Syrian/Israeli
confederacy besieged Jerusalem (into which Ahaz had retreated) but did not overcome it.
However, they did according to vs 6 take over large portions of Judah. The II Chronicles passage
details the defeat and ransacking of the region around Jerusalem. The end of this chapter makes
it clear that they did not capture Jerusalem or kill Ahaz (since the treasures were left intact).
2Kings 24:8 Jehoiachin (Jehoiakim) was eighteen years old when he began to reign.
2CH 36:9 He was eight. (Note: This discrepancy has been "corrected" in some versions.)
It is true that this is a discrepancy in our Hebrew texts. Some have suggested that he reigned
jointly with his father for ten years (but there is no evidence in the scripture for such an
explanation). Hebrew numbers were one of the biggest challenges for scribes that copied the
texts through the centuries. Hebrews used letters in the place of numerals. The letters from Koph
to Tau express hundreds up to four hundred. Five certain Hebrew letters written in a different
form, carry hundreds up to nine hundred, while thousands are expressed by two dots over the
proper unit letter (for example the letter Teht, used alone, stands for 9; with two dots it stands for
nine thousand). Error in transcription of Hebrew numbers thus becomes easy, preservation of
numerical accuracy extremely difficult.
2Kings 24:8 Jehoiachin (Jehoiakim) reigned three months.

2Chronicles 36:9 He reigned three months and ten days.
This is truly pathetic! If you complain that the Kings passage is incorrect because the Chronicles
passage is more precise, than you could never be satisfied. For example, I am sure that it was not
an exact ten days either. Probably it was three months, ten days, and some number of minutes.
2Kings 24:17 Jehoiachin (Jehoaikim) was succeeded by his uncle.

2Chronicles 36:10 He was succeeded by his brother.
Jehoiachin was son of Jehoiakim. Therefore he was brother to Jehoiakim and uncle to
Jehoiachin. Since the passage in II Chronicles 36:10 only briefly mentions Jehoiachin, it is easy
to think that they are the same person. Indeed, it is talking about Jehoiakim when it mentions him
as brother to Zedekiah. It is completely clear in I Chronicles 3:15 and Jeremiah 37:1.
2Chronicles 3:11-13 The lineage is: Joram, Ahaziah, Joash, Amaziah, Azariah, Jotham.
Matthew 1:8-9 It is: Joram, Uzziah, Jotham, etc.
I can not find your lineage reference in II Chronicles 3:11-13. II Chronicles does place Ahaziah,
Joash, and Amaziah between Joram and Jotham. Perhaps it was a copying error, of which we
have identified a few. It does not materially impact anything in the doctrine of the Faith. (None
of them do.) It is also possible that it was purposefully left out of this genealogy. While this
would appear unusual, comparing Genesis 11:12 with Luke 3:35-36 indicates that Cainan was
left out. It also appears that in the Jewish tradition, the designation "son" was somewhat flexible.
There are multiple instances in the scripture where a grandson is called a son or a son in law is
called a son.
2Chronicles 3:19 Pedaiah was the father of Zerubbabel.

Ezra 3:2 Shealtiel was the father of Zerubbabel.
II Chronicles 3:19 does not exist. Likely you are dealing with different individuals. For starters,
check the timeframes.
2Chronicles 19:7, Acts 10:34, Romans 2:11 There is no injustice or partiality with the Lord.
Romans 9:15-18 God has mercy on (and hardens the hearts of) whom he pleases.
This identical objection has been answered above.
Ezra 2:3-64 (Gives the whole congregation as 42,360 while the actual sum of the numbers is
about 30,000.)
I notice that you did not cite verse two which clearly specifies that the passage was only listing
the men. Note also 2:22-23 seems to list "men" synonymously. No doubt the difference is
because women were counted as part of the "whole congregation." While that would mean twice
as many men as women, one would expect that the act of rebuilding the homeland would attract
a number of single young men. Indeed, Ezra 9 describes a massive confrontation because the
Jewish young men took themselves Gentile women of the land in violation of God's law.
Job 2:3-6, 21:7-13, 2Timothy 3:12 The godly are persecuted and chastised but the wicked grow
old, wealthy, and powerful, unchastised by God.
Psalms 55:23, 92:12-14, Proverbs 10:2-3, 27-31, 12:2, 21 The lives of the wicked are cut short.
The righteous flourish and obtain favor from the Lord.
This paradox was the topic of Asaph in Psalm 73. Finally he understands by the end of the
chapter that there are two acts to the play of life. In act one, the first statement may well be the
Christian's experience. At other times, Christians may not be persecuted, but God always
chastises them if they disobey. The ungodly may well prosper for a time. During the second act,
Christians are always triumphant. The ungodly are always judged. A wise man once said, "Life
as it is on this earth is all the hell a believer will experience, and it is all the heaven an unbeliever
will experience."
Psalms 10:1 God cannot be found in time of need. He is "far off."

Psalms 145:18 God is near to all who call upon him in truth.
The Psalmist here does not make a statement. He cries out in a rhetorical question because God
does not seem to be answering him. It is an experience that many can relate to. Sometimes it
seems that God does not hear us. By vs 17 he had assurance that God had heard his prayer. Luke
18:7 says that God does hear, though at times he "tarries" to test our mettle.
Psalms 22:1-2 God sometimes forsakes his children. He does not answer.
Psalms 46:1 God is a refuge, a strength, a very present help.
Same as above.
Psalms 30:5, Jeremiah 3:12, Micah 7:18 God's anger does not last forever.
Jeremiah 17:4, Matthew 25:46 It does last forever. (He has provided for eternal punishment.)
The difference here is not God, it is the object of His anger. He is angry with His children when
they disobey, but willing to forgive them when they repent. He is eternally angry at those who
rebel against Him and scorn His mercy.
Psalms 58:10-11 The righteous shall rejoice when he sees vengeance.

Proverbs 24:16-18 Do not rejoice when your enemy falls or stumbles.
These are two different sets of circumstances. In the first passage it is wicked people. Christians
rejoice to see a serial murderer get caught and bear his just punishment. The second case is an
adversary or competitor who falls into misfortune. We are not to gloat.
Psalms 78:69, Ecclesiastes 1:4, 3:14 The earth was established forever.
Psalms 102:25-26, Matthew 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33, Hebrews 1:10-11, 2Peter 3:10 The
earth will someday perish.
The Hebrew word used both in Psalm 78 and the Ecclesiastes passages is "olam." It can mean
"forever" (infinite) or "ongoing" (comparatively perpetual). Obviously the second meaning is
intended in these passages. To see other usages of this word in a comparative sense, see Job 41:4
and Psalm 119:98.
Proverbs 3:13, 4:7, 19:8, James 1:5 Happy is the man who finds wisdom. Get wisdom.
Luke 2:40, 52 Jesus was filled with wisdom and found favor with God.
1Corinthians 1:19-25, 3:18-20 Wisdom is foolishness.
This is an amazingly blatant attempt to mischaracterize the passages in Corinthians. Both are
clearly speaking of the world's wisdom, as opposed to God's wisdom. Look at I Corinthians 4:10.
Psalm 111:10 says that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. How much fear of the
Lord is in the wisdom of the world?
Proverbs 12:2, Romans 8:28 A good man obtains favor from the Lord.
Timothy 3:12, Hebrews 12:6 The godly will be persecuted.
You are comparing the disfavor of men (persecution) with the favor of God (apples and oranges).
Proverbs 14:8 The wisdom of a prudent man is to discern his way.

Matthew 6:25-34 Take no thought for tomorrow. God will take care of you.
"Take no thought." in Matthew can be better translated, "Do not worry." It is not God's desire
that we stop making plans
Proverbs 14:15-18 The simple believe everything and acquire folly; the prudent look where they
are going and are crowned with knowledge.
Matthew 18:3, Luke 18:17 You must believe as little children do.
1Corinthians 1:20, 27 God has made the wisdom of the world foolish so as to shame the wise.
Proverbs 16:4 God made the wicked for the "day of evil."
Matthew 11:25, Mark 4:11-12 God and Jesus hide some things from some people.
John 6:65 No one can come to Jesus unless it is granted by God.
Romans 8:28-30 Some are predestined to be called to God, believe in Jesus, and be justified.
Romans 9:15-18 God has mercy on, and hardens the hearts of, whom he pleases.
2Thessalonians 2:11-12 God deceives the wicked so as to be able to condemn them.
1Timothy 2:3-4, 2Peter 3:9 [Yet] God wants all to be saved.
This takes the cake for being the biggest hodge podge of unrelated assertions. What is the
supposed contradiction here? It seems that most of these points are made elsewhere, so I will
endeavor to answer them where the "discrepancy" is clear, rather than trying to guess what is
intended here.
Proverbs 8:13, 16:6 It is the fear of God that keeps men from evil.
1John 4:18 There is no fear in love. Perfect love drives out fear.
1John 5:2, 2John 1:6 Those who love God keep his commandments.
The Christian's relationship with God is a complex one. There is an element of godly fear
(reverence, respect, and great concern about offense) along with love. But it is not the fear that is
discussed in I John 4:18 (a foreboding, tormenting fear of the future). There is also a maturing
aspect that is involved in the relationship. As a little boy, I feared my dad's discipline if I
disobeyed and played in the street. As our relationship matures and I came to understand the
reasons for my dad's rules, I kept them out of love and respect.
Proverbs 26:4 Do not answer a fool. To do so makes you foolish too.

Proverbs 26:5 Answer a fool. If you don't, he will think himself wise.
Don't get into a prolonged argument with a fool, lest you stoop to his level and OTHERS see you
as foolish too; but don't let him off without a retort either, lest HE get conceited and think you
are unable to respond.
This is a tough balancing act and I frequently come back to these verses for wisdom when I am
engaged in a debate that fits the bill.
Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God proves true.
Jeremiah 8:8 The scribes falsify the word of God.
Jeremiah 20:7, Ezekiel 14:9, 2Thessalonians 2:11-12 God himself deceives people. (Note: Some
versions translate deceive as "persuade." The context makes clear, however, that deception is
involved.)
It does not appear that your Jeremiah 8:8 reference is correct. There is no falsifying the word.
God says the law was in vain and His preservation of it was to no avail since the people were
hearing but disregarding His commandments.
The fact that some scribes might twist, distort, or misinterpret the scriptures has nothing
whatsoever to do with their being true. The silly notion of God deceiving people was dealt with
above.
Search our site
"Believe The Whole Bible!"

I have been an avid creationist ever since i first saw your seminar on tape over 7 years ago. I
used to believe that God and evolution walked hand in...
Isaiah 3:13 God stands to judge.

Joel 3:12 He sits to judge.
It would seem that God does both, depending on what He chooses at the time.
Isaiah 44:24 God created heaven and earth alone.

John 1:1-3 Jesus took part in creation.
Jesus is God.
Isaiah 53:9 Usually taken to be a prophecy re: Jesus, mentions burial with others.
Matthew 27:58-60, Mark 15:45-46, Luke 23:52-53, John 19:38-42 Jesus was buried by himself.
My grandfather is buried in a crowded cemetery. Is he buried by himself or with others? Both.
Similarly Christ was alone in the tomb but was buried with the rich (wealthy gardens and
sepulchers).
Jeremiah 12:13 Some sow wheat but reap thorns.

Micah 6:15 Some sow but won't reap anything.
Matthew 25:26, Luke 19:22 Some reap without sowing.
2Corinthians 9:6, Galatians 6:7 A man reaps what he sows.
"Sowing and reaping" can describe a literal planting and harvesting of grains or it can be an
agricultural metaphor, applied in various ways under different circumstances to make a point.
Jeremiah and Micah both use it in the first sense, describing how Israel had come to a place of
judgment for sin (as predicted in Deuteronomy 28). Matthew and Luke both describe a ruthless
lord who was wealthy and living off the efforts of others. II Corinthians 9:6 uses the phrase as a
metaphor in the area of charitable giving; Galatians 6:7 uses it as a metaphor in the area of good
deeds; and I Corinthians 3:6 uses it as a metaphor in the area of missions. The fact that different
people in differing circumstances reap different results for their investment into different areas is
no contradiction.
Jeremiah 32:18 God shows love to thousands, but brings punishment for the sins of their fathers
to many children.
2Corinthians 13:11, 14, 1John 4:8, 16 God is a god of love.
This same argument is answered above.
Jeremiah 34:4-5 Zedekiah was to die in peace.

Jeremiah 52:10-11 Instead, Zedekaih's sons are slain before his eyes, his eyes are then put out, he
is bound in fetters, taken to Babylon and left in prison to die.
The promise is not that he would live a wonderful life. It was that he would die in peace rather
than in war by the sword. Note the context of the passage in Jeremiah 34.
Ezekiel 20:25-26 The law was not good. The sacrifice of children was for the purpose of
horrifying the people so that they would know that God is Lord.
Romans 7:12, 1Timothy 1:8 The law is good.
The verse in Ezekiel is being terribly misinterpreted. Just a few verses down (vs 31) God
reiterates his wrath at giving the firstborn to the fire. When God says he "gave them" in this
passage, it is used in the same sense as Psalm 81:12 and Romans 1:24. God stopped trying to
change them and gave them over to their wickedness.
Ezekiel 26:15-21 God says that Tyre will be destroyed and will never be found again.
(Nebudchanezzar failed to capture or destroy Tyre. It is still inhabited.)
It utterly astounds me that Zathrus should have the gall to cite this passage as evidence against
the Bible's accuracy since Ezekiel's message against Tyre is one of the most dramatic evidences
we have of fulfilled prophecy!
Nebuchanezzar failed to totally subdue Tyre because the inhabitants of this seacoast city all
abandoned Tyre proper to escape to a large island fortress off the coast. Nevertheless,
Nebuchanezzar's siege and looting of the seacoast city was praised and actually rewarded by God
(Ezekiel 29:18-20). His destruction of mainland portion of Tyre certainly fulfills verses 7-11
which apply to him.
However, verse 3 stipulates that multiple nations would be involved in the ultimate destruction
of Tyre. Some have said that there is no marvel in seeing such prophecy of a city's demise come
true since every ancient capitol fell prey at one time or another. The significance of Biblical
prophecy is that its proclamations are VERY specific and differ by the city. Notice the
specificity:
Vs 3 multiple nations involved.

Vs 4 walls and towers were to be broken
Vs 4 dirt was to be scraped off the area revealing the underlying rock
All the debris of the city was to be dumped in the water
Vs 14 It would be a place of fishermen spreading their nets.
The site would never be rebuilt.
The dramatic fulfillment of the prophesied judgment was not completed in Nebuchanezzar since
the inhabitants outlasted Nebuchanezzar on their Alcatraz-like island. When Alexander the Great
came through conquering the city of Tyre, the citizens tried the same trick...evacuating for the
island fortress. Alexander took a cue from the failure of Nebuchanezzar. He took ALL of the
debris from the city of Tyre (literally scraping it bare), built a causeway out to the island, and
proceeded to destroy Tyre. The modern city called Tyre was NOT constructed on this ancient
site. In fact the ancient plot is largely barren rock (somewhat inland from the modern
construction), and has quite literally been used by local fishermen to lay out their nets!
Daniel 5:1 (Gives the title of "king" to Belshazzar although Belshazzar was actually the
"viceroy.")
Big deal. Maybe in Chaldean or Hebrew these two were the same word. Maybe he was referred
to as king when he was acting ruler, in his dad's absence.
Daniel 5:2 (Says that Nebuchadnezzar was the father of Belshazzar, but actually, Nebonidus was
the father of Belshazzar.) (Note: Some versions attempt to correct this error by making the verse
say that Nebuchadnezzar was the grandfather of Belshazzar.)
It appears that in the Jewish tradition, the designation "son" was somewhat flexible. There are
multiple instances in the scripture where a grandson is called a son or a son in law is called a son.
There are also many instances when ALL of the descendants are collectively called "sons" (ie
Genesis 23:3-5).
Zechariah 11:12-13 Mentions "thirty pieces" and could possibly be thought to be connected with
the Potter's Field prophesy referred to in Matthew.
Matthew 27:9 Jeremiah is given as the source of the prophesy regarding the purchase of the
Potter's Field. (Note: There is no such prophesy in Jeremiah.)
It does appear to reference the quote in Ezekiel. Possibly the three books (Jeremiah,
Lamentations, Ezekiel) were bound together at that time and called "Jeremy" much as the books
the Pentateuch were bound together and called the Book of Moses.
Matthew 1:6-7 The lineage of Jesus is traced through David's son, Solomon.
Luke 3:23-31 It is traced through David's son, Nathan. (Note: Some apologists assert that Luke
traces the lineage through Mary. That this is untrue is obvious from the context since Luke and
Matthew both clearly state that Joseph was Jesus' father.)
It clearly states nothing of the sort. Luke 1:27 and 34-35 go to great pains to make clear that
Joseph was NOT Jesus' biological father. He was Jesus' earthly adopted father. That is why Luke
3:23 adds the all-important phrase "as was supposed." This genealogy traces the biological
ancestry through Mary
Matthew 1:16 Jacob was Joseph's father.

Luke 3:23 Heli was Joseph's father.
Heli was Mary's dad. He was Joseph's FATHER-in-law.
Matthew 1:17 There were twenty-eight generations from David to Jesus.

Luke 3:23-38 There were forty-three
There are, as was noted above, several generations left out of Matthew's genealogy. However,
since Luke's genealogy traces a separate lineage, there is no need to have the identical number of
generations.
Matthew 1:18-21 The Annunciation occurred after Mary had conceived Jesus.
Luke 1:26-31 It occurred before conception.
The angel appeared to Mary before conception and to Joseph afterwards.
Matthew 1:20 The angel spoke to Joseph.

Luke 1:28 The angel spoke to Mary.
The angel came to both in turn.
Matthew 1:20-23, Luke 1:26-33 An angel announces to Joseph and/or Mary that the child (Jesus)
will be "great," the "son of the Most High," etc., and ....
Matthew 3:13-17, Mark 1:9-11 The baptism of Jesus is accompanied by the most extraordinary
happenings, yet....
Mark 3:21 Jesus' own relatives (or friends) attempt to constrain him, thinking that he might be
out of his mind, and....
Mark 6:4-6 Jesus says that a prophet is without honor in his own house (which certainly should
not have been the case considering the Annunciation and the Baptism).
It is unclear if any of Christ's family was present at the baptism. It is also unclear which members
of the Lord's family thought he was out of his mind (or exactly why). However, history is replete
with examples of great figures being scorned by their own family. Some may have been skeptical
of His miracles, embarrassed by His claims, or jealous of the crowds that followed Him.
Regardless of the reason, there is no contradiction here.
Matthew 1:23 He will be called Emmanuel (or Immanuel).

Matthew 1:25 Instead, he was called Jesus.
He had a great many names. One of them was the Son of God. Immanuel means "God with us."
Matthew 2:13-16 Following the birth of Jesus, Joseph and Mary flee to Egypt, (where they stay
until after Herod's death) in order to avoid the murder of their firstborn by Herod. Herod
slaughters all male infants two years old and under. (Note: John the Baptist, Jesus' cousin, though
under two is somehow spared without fleeing to Egypt.)
Luke 2:22-40 Following the birth of Jesus, Joseph and Mary remain in the area of Jerusalem for
the Presentation (about forty days) and then return to Nazareth without ever going to Egypt.
There is no slaughter of the infants.
The reason that there are four gospels is that they complement each other. Each one fills in
events and perspectives that are not detailed in the others. The fact that Luke picks up the story
some time after the birth and does not record the slaughter of the innocents or flight to Egypt is
not a contradiction. In all likelihood, John the Baptist was not killed because he was not in the
region of Bethlehem at the time.
Matthew 2:23 "And he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said
through the prophets: He will be called a Nazarene.'" (This prophecy is not found in the OT and
while Jesus is often referred to as "Jesus of Nazareth", he is seldom referred to as "Jesus the
Nazarene.")
Possibly it references Isaiah 11:1, which uses the word "branch" (Hebrew "Netzer") out of
David. The Greek in Matthew 2:23 is "Nazoraios."
Matthew 3:11-14, John 1:31-34 John realized the true identity of Jesus (as the Messiah) either
prior to the actual Baptism, or from the Baptism onward. The very purpose of John's baptism
was to reveal Jesus to Israel.
Matthew 11:2-3 After the Baptism, John sends his disciples to ask if Jesus is the Messiah.
Neither the passage in Matthew 3 or John 1 indicate that John was decided on the fact that Christ
was the Messiah (as opposed to a great prophet). Even if he had realized it, the incident in
Matthew occurred while John was in jail. Possibly some rumors or misinformation had reached
him concerning Jesus' preaching and he sent some disciples to find out whether Jesus was indeed
claiming to be the Christ or had said something to the contrary.
Matthew 3:12, 13:42 Hell is a furnace of fire (and must therefore be light).
Matthew 8:12, 22:13, 25:30 Hell is an "outer darkness" (and therefore dark).
God can make a fire without light. God can also blind the inhabitants so that they are in complete
darkness.
Matthew 3:16, Mark 1:10 It was Jesus who saw the Spirit descending.
John 1:32 It was John who saw the Spirit descending.
Both did.
Matthew 3:17 The heavenly voice addressed the crowd: "This is my beloved Son."
Mark 1:11, Luke 3:22 The voice addressed Jesus: "You are my beloved Son...."
What if the voice said, "Behold my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased." Who was
addressed? Obviously both. This nit-picking is meaningless to the story or the understanding of
the point made.
Matthew 4:1-11, Mark 1:12-13 Immediately following his Baptism, Jesus spent forty days in the
wilderness resisting temptation by the Devil.
John 2:1-11 Three days after the Baptism, Jesus was at the wedding in Cana.
This passage in John never mentions the baptism!
Matthew 4:5-8 The Devil took Jesus to the pinnacle of the temple, then to the mountain top.
Luke 4:5-9 First to the mountain top, then to the pinnacle of the temple.
Luke does not use chronological language to describe this event; but merely states: Satan did
this, and this, and this.
Matthew 4:18-20, Mark 1:16-18 (One story about choosing Peter as a disciple.)
Luke 5:2-11 (A different story.)
John 1:35-42 (Still another story.)
These are different events. For some time, the disciples did not stay with Christ full time. Peter
met Christ initially and went back to fishing. Again he followed Christ for a few days and went
back to his work. Later he abandoned the family business and followed the Lord full time.
Matthew 5:1 - 7:29 Jesus delivers his most noteworthy sermon while on the mount.
Luke 6:17-49 Jesus delivers his most noteworthy sermon while on the plain. (Note: No such
sermons are mentioned in either Mark or John and Paul seems totally unfamiliar with either the
sermon on the mount or the sermon on the plain.)
Jesus was an itinerant preacher who no doubt gave this message many times as He traveled
about. Paul was not a Christian at the time Jesus preached. Later, however, he specifically
reference Christ's message and then draws a distinction where he augments it (I Corinthians
7:12).
Matthew 5:16 Good works should be seen.

Matthew 6:1-4 They should be kept secret.
Again, you confuse two separate issues. In Matthew 5, Christ encourages his followers to live a
good life so that their works will draw people's attention to God. However, Christians are not to
blow a trumpet before themselves to draw attention to their benevolence (Matthew 6). One
passage deals with making sure you do good deeds, another deals with HOW you do the good
deeds.
Matthew 5:17-19, Luke 16:17 Jesus underscores the permanence of the law.
Leviticus 10:8 - 11:47, Deuteronomy 14:3-21 The law distinguishes between clean and unclean
foods.
Mark 7:14-15, Mark 7:18-19 Jesus says that there is no such distinction.
Titus 4:1-4 All foods are clean according to Paul
There are two aspects to the law: ceremonial and moral. The ceremony ceased upon Christ's
completed sacrifice. The moral code still applies to point people to their need for a Savior
(Galatians 3:24-25).
Matthew 5:17-19, Luke 16:17 Jesus did not come to abolish the law.
Ephesians 2:13-15, Hebrews 7:18-19 Jesus did abolish the law.
See above.
Matthew 5:22 Anyone who calls another a fool is liable to Hell.

Matthew 7:26 Jesus says that anyone who hears his words and does not do them is a fool. (Note:
The translation now prevalent, "like a foolish man," in MT 7:26 is a dishonest attempt to
alleviate the obvious inconsistency here in that the oldest Greek manuscripts use the same Greek
word translated "fool" in MT 5:22 and "like a foolish man" in MT 7:26.)
Matthew 23:17-19 Jesus twice calls the Pharisees blind fools.
Matthew 25:2, 3, 8 Jesus likens the maidens who took no oil to fools. (Note: Again, this is the
same Greek word translated "fool" in MT 5:22 and MT 23:17-19.)
1Corinthians 1:23, 3:18, 4:10 Paul uses fool with regard to Christians becoming fools for Christ.
(Note: Again, this is the same Greek word translated "fool" in MT 5:22 and MT 23:17-19.) dittos
(Paul does not call anyone, "Thou fool!")
Matthew 5:22 Anger by itself is a sin.
Ephesians 4:26 Anger is not necessarily a sin
You completely misquote Matthew 5:22. It says, "Whosoever is angry with his brother without a
cause shall be in danger of the judgment." Certainly anger without proper justification is a sin.
Matthew 5:22 Anger by itself is a sin.

Matthew 11:22-24, Luke 10:13-15 Jesus curses the inhabitants of several cities who are not
sufficiently impressed with his mighty works.
Matthew 21:19, Mark 11:12-14 Jesus curses a fig tree when it fails to bear fruit out of season.
Mark 3:5 Jesus looks around "angrily."
See Above.
Matthew 5:32 Divorce, except on the grounds of unchastity, is wrong.

Mark 10:11-12 Divorce on any grounds is wrong.
Matthew uses the famous "exception clause" as a justification for divorce but does not legitimize
remarriage. Mark 10:11-12 DOES NOT say "divorce on any grounds is wrong." It condemns the
act of remarriage as adultery (as does Luke 16:18).
Matthew 5:39, Matthew 5:44 Jesus says: "Do not resist evil. Love your enemies."
Matthew 6:15, 12:34, 16:3, 22:18, 23:13-15, 17, 19, 27, 29, 33, Mark 7:6, Luke 11:40, 44, 12:56
Jesus repeatedly hurls epithets at his opponents.
Dittos (Note that Christ never resisted authorities and, while angry at sin and false teaching,
always acted in love.)
Matthew 5:39, Matthew 5:44 Do not resist evil. Love your enemies.
Luke 19:27 God is likened to one who destroys his enemies.
Dittos.
Matthew 5:39, Matthew 5:44 Do not resist evil. Love your enemies.
John 1:9-11 Shun anyone who does not hold the proper doctrine.
Matthew 5:43-44, Matthew 22:39 Love your enemies. Love your neighbor as yourself.
Matthew 10:5 Go nowhere among the Gentiles nor enter a Samaritan town.
This is inordinate stretching to try and concoct a contradiction. Christ desire that his disciples
FIRST call on Jews (see Acts 1:8). The apostles message in II John 9-11 (not John 1:9-11) is
certainly not motivated by hate. While a Christian must oppose anyone that is fighting against
Christianity, one can still be loving.
Matthew 5:45, 7:21 God resides in heaven.

Mark 13:32 The angels reside in heaven
Acts 7:55, Hebrews 12:2 Jesus is at the right hand of God, in heaven.
1Peter 1:3-4 Believers will inherit eternal life in heaven.
Matthew 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33 Heaven will pass away.
When it does, God will replace it with a new heaven and a new earth and live there (Revelation
21:1).
Matthew 6:13 God might lead us into temptation and it is better avoided.
James 1:2-3 Temptation is joy.
It is not wrong for Christians to pray to be delivered from trials. However, if God brings them
our way, we are to maintain a joyful disposition.
Matthew 6:13 Jesus' prayer implies that God might lead us into temptation.
James 1:13 God tempts no one.
This same objection is answered above.
Matthew 6:25-34, Luke 12:22-31 Take no thought for tomorrow. God will take care of you.
Titus 5:8 A man who does not provide for his family is worse than an infidel. (Note: Providing
for a family certainly involves taking "thought for tomorrow.")
"Take no thought." in Matthew can be better translated, "Do not worry. It is not God's desire that
we stop making plans!
Matthew 7:1-2 Do not judge.

Matthew 7:15-20 Instructions for judging a false prophet.
The second passage does not even use the word "judge." Again, we have a balance in scripture.
Christians are not to pass judgment of their own accord (since we all are sinners before God).
However, we ARE to declare God's judgment. We ARE to be discerning of false doctrine that
would destroy the Faith and harm people (John 7:24) and apply God's Word to them. This is not
judging people. Rather, it is making people aware of the judgment God has already rendered in
His Word.
Matthew 7:7-8, Luke 11:9-10 Ask and it will be given. Seek and you will find.
Luke 13:24 Many will try to enter the Kingdom but will be unable.
The first passages are directed to believers with regard to having your prayers answered. The
scripture in Luke 13 describes those that come to the judgment (note vs 25) and want to change
their mind. See also Matthew 7:21 and 25:40-46.
Matthew 7:21 Not everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.
Acts 2:21, Romans 10:13 Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.
Acts 2:39 Those God calls to himself will be saved.
See above.
Matthew 7:21, Luke 10:36-37, Romans 2:6, 13, James 2:24 We are justified by works, not by
faith.
John 3:16, Romans 3:20-26, Ephesians 2:8-9, Galatians 2:16 We are justified by faith, not by
works.
The passages in Matthew say that those who do what God wants will get into heaven. Doing
what God wants requires, first and foremost that one has faith in God (Hebrews 11:6). The
citation in Luke has nothing to do with justification. Romans, likewise, does not refer to
justification, but to the degree of judgment or reward (after the eternal destiny has already been
decided).
We have in James an oft-misunderstood passage. It is actually a simple concept. Romans views

justification from God's perspective (Romans 4:9). James views it from man's perspective. Men
can not see a person's heart like God can. The only way we can evaluate if a man is justified is
by the works that result. Someone put it well: "Faith alone saves, but the faith that saves is never
alone." Works demonstrate saving faith (James 2:18). James? argument was against those that
gave a mere intellectual assent of Christianity (just like the demons in vs 19) without ever
coming to a life-changing decision.
Matthew 8:5-12 The centurion himself approaches Jesus to ask to heal his servant.
Luke 7:2-10 The centurion sends elders to do the asking.
Matthew does seem to imply that the centurion comes in person. However, the language does not
preclude him from speaking through an emissary. Indeed that is what happened in Acts 10:30-33
with the centurion Cornelius (and the language is similar). This type of phrasing was customary
at that time. It is not unlike a spokesperson today speaking for a head of state.
Matthew 8:16, Luke 4:40 Jesus healed all that were sick.
Mark 1:32-34 Jesus healed many (but not all)
It says He healed many with various diseases and cast out many demons. While it does not say
that He healed all, it certainly does not preclude it.
Matthew 8:28-33 Two demoniacs are healed in the Gadarene swine incident.
Mark 5:2-16, Luke 8:26-36 One demoniac is healed in this incident.
If there were two demoniacs (Matthew), then Mark and Luke are correct in saying there was one.
They would only be a contradiction if they said ONLY one was healed. The demonic had
multiple personalities (Note in vs 9 "We are many!") which may have confused the situation.
Matthew 9:18 The ruler's daughter was already dead when Jesus raised her.
Luke 8:42 She was dying, but not dead.
You characterize NEITHER passage correctly. In Matthew, they thought she was dead, but Jesus
declared she was merely in a coma (vs 24); in Luke, they also informed Him that she had died
before he gets there (vs 49) and Christ informs them she is only in a coma (vs 52). There is no
contradiction.
Matthew 10:1-8 Jesus gives his disciples the power to exorcise and heal...
Matthew 17:14-16 (Yet) the disciples are unable to do so.
This is a ridiculous mischaracterization. The disciples do a great deal of healing and perform
exorcism throughout the gospels and Acts. To claim that they were unable to do so because of
this one instance of failure on their part is like saying Michael Jordan was unable to play
basketball because he missed a key shot and lost a game.
Matthew 10:2, Mark 3:16-19 The twelve apostles (disciples) were: Simon (Peter), Andrew his
brother, James the son of Zebedee, John his brother, Philip, Bartholemew, Thomas, Matthew the
tax collector, James the son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus (Labbaeus), Simon, and Judas Iscariot.
Luke 6:13-16 The above except that Thaddaeus (Labbaeus) is excluded, and Judas the son of
James is added (and Judas Iscariot remains).
Acts 1:13, 26 Same as Matthew and Mark except that, like LK Thaddaeus (Labbaeus) is
excluded, Judas the son of James is included, and Mathias is chosen by the others to replace
Judas Iscariot
Both Matthew and Luke were written by a disciple. It is hard to believe that either of them would
forget the name or would misname one of the twelve who lived, ate slept, and suffered together!
Even if these books were merely casual diaries and not holy scripture, one could not imagine
such a blatant mistake being among the various errors that could crop up. It is far more likely
that this is the same individual. Many of the disciples had multiple names. Perhaps he had three:
Thaddaeus, Labbaeus, and Judas. The order in which the names are given (next to James) in each
account would also seem to indicate this.
Matthew 10:2, 5-6 Peter was to be an apostle to the Jews and not go near the Gentiles.
Acts 15:7 He was an apostle to the Gentiles.
He was to go first to the Jews and later to the Gentiles (Acts 1:8).
Matthew 10:10 Do not take sandals (shoes) or staves.

Mark 6:8-9 Take sandals (shoes) and staves.
These are two different mission excursions in which Christ was traininghis disciples for their
future ministry. For a clearer example ofhow these unique requirements only applied to a specific
mission trip, see Luke 22:35-36.
Matthew 10:34, Luke 12:49-53 Jesus has come to bring a sword, fire, anddivision--not peace.
John 16:33 Jesus says: "In me you have peace."
He brought both, depending on the individual's response to Christ. The passage in John 16 was
addressed to the disciples who believed on Him.
Matthew 10:22, 24:13, Mark 13:13 He that endures to the end will be saved.
Mark 16:16 He that believes and is baptized will be saved.
John 3:5 Only he that is born of water and Spirit will be saved.
Acts 16:31 He that believes on the Lord Jesus will be saved.
Acts 2:21 He that calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved.
Romans 10:9 He who confesses with his mouth "Jesus is Lord" and believes in his heart that God
raised him from the dead will be saved.
1John 4:7 He who loves is born of God (and presumably will be saved.)
Where is the supposed contradiction? I could see that there wouldbe one if Romans 10 said that
one must confess and believe, rather thancalling on the name of the Lord. Instead, that passage in
verse13 mentions calling on the name of the Lord, indicating it issynonymous with confessing
and believing. Furthermore, any personthat does believe and call on God, will be born of the
Spirit(simultaneous with being saved) and will endure to the end. Theonly passage that is slightly
different from the others is I John, since it is not talking about what is required for salvation. Itis
discussing evidence of salvation (after-the-fact).
Matthew 10:28, Luke 12:4 Jesus says not to fear men. (Fear God only.)
Matthew 12:15-16, John 7:1-10, 8:59, 10:39, 11:53-54 Jesus hid, escaped,went secretly, etc.
Was Christ motivated by fear or a desire to avoid a physical confrontation before the appropriate
time? John 7:6 and Matthew 26:18 indicates that Jesus was very concerned about the timing of
His sacrifice. When that time came, He predicted His betrayal anddeath, offered no resistance to
his arrest and gave no defense toPilate?certainly not the actions of a fearful man.
Matthew 11:7-15, 17:12-13 Jesus says that John the Baptist was a prophet, and more.
John 1:21 John himself says that he is not a prophet, nor is he Elijah.
John does not say that he was not A prophet. Rather he denies that he is THAT prophet which
they were referencing.
Matthew 11:25, Mark 4:11-12 Jesus thanks God for hiding some things fromthe wise while
revealing them to "babes." He says that he uses parables so that the meaning of some of his
teachings will remain hidden to atleast some persons, and specifically so that they will not turn
and be forgiven.
Mark 4:22 Jesus says that all things should be made known.
Christ does not declare that all things SHOULD be made known, but thatall things would
eventually BE made known. Indeed, after his death and ascension, the specifics of his life were
made known to all who would listen, being preached throughout many countries in theancient
world.
Matthew 12:30 Jesus says that those who are not with him are against him.
Mark 9:40 Jesus says that those who are not against him are for him. (Note: This puts those who
are indifferent or undecided in the "for him" category in the first instance and in the "against
him" category in the second instance.)
There is no in-between; it is black and white; you are a child of God or a child of the devil;
bound for heaven or bound for hell. If you consider yourself indifferent or undecided towards the
perfect Son of God who died for you, then you are against Him. You can change from one camp
to the other, but you cannot hide in-between the two.
Matthew 12:39, Mark 8:12, Luke 11:29 Jesus says that he will give no "sign."
John 3:2, 20:30, Acts 2:22 Jesus proceeds to give many such "signs."
The context of these passages makes the answer clear if it were read. Note in Mark 8:11 that the
Pharisees were wrongly motivated. Christ does not perform a miracle on a whim to satisfy his
enemies. His statement in Matthew 12:39 is that wicked people would only get one sign?His
resurrection. He did many miracles to help people in need and to validate His message before
those who were sincere.
Matthew 13:34, Mark 4:34 Jesus addresses the crowds only in parables, so that they would not
fully understand. He explains the meaning only to his disciples.
John 1:1 - 21:25 (Throughout the book of John, unlike the other Gospels, Jesus addresses the
crowds in a very straightforward manner. He does not employ parables.)
The book of John does not contain all the public sermons that are in the other gospels. However,
there are still some parables (John 10:6).
11/21/07 - Leftover Turkey? Turn It Into Oil!

Author: Creation Science Evangelism
In 1971 scientists learned how to turn sewage into oil in just twenty minutes using heat and
pressure. Now, a lab in Texas shows that even the scraps from your Thanksgiving turkey is a
great way to make oil in just half an hour.
Evolutionists suggest that oil comes from organic material, such as dinosaurs, that were buried
and compressed for millions of years under immense pressure. However, more laboratory
research continues to prove that it can be formed in much shorter amounts of time.
Creationists agree that oil came from organic material, but it was during Noah's Flood that
billions of plants and animals were buried by mud and water squishing them into oil. This
happened just 4,400 years ago, not millions of years ago.
The presence of oil in the earth is just more proof that the Bible is scientifically accurate, and
that the evolution theory is last century's "leftovers." For many more evidences check out our
DVD on The Age of the Earth.
Search our site
"Solidifying My Faith!"
I recently stumbled upon your 'speech' "100 Reasons Why Evolution is Stupid" and I have to tell
you that I think it was not a coincidence that I did. I've been...
Discover Magazine Juggles With Bad-science
Author: Jonathan Sampson
�� our bodies are littered with parts we don�t need."
These words are found not in an old Scopes Trial transcript, but the June 2004 Discover
Magazine publication entitled, �Useless Body Parts�, by Jocelyn Selim. Selim is a brilliant
contributor to the scientific community, as she has shown time and time again, however, I feel
she has leapt over the deep end with her recent submission in Discover Magazine.
In 1925 the Scopes Trial took flight with a list of over 150 so-called �vestigial� structures
found in the human body. Fortunately, science has made many great leaps since 1925, now we
are sure of the many functions that we were previously ignorant of. Today, this list has dissipated
to practically nothing.
Jocelyn Selim has made it her duty to resurrect the idea that humans are sloppily designed, which
isn�t true. The Bible says we are fearfully and wonderfully made. The idea of vestigial
structures is actually a promotion of bad science. If a muscle is labeled as �vestigial�, this will
conclude secular studies on the function of that muscle, thus promoting bad science. Fortunately,
Christians know that God created us by his infinitely brilliant ability, and we know that if God
creates something, it�s for a purpose. If God created man with a little toe, then there�s a
purpose for a little toe, regardless if we understand it or not. It is, in all honesty, impossible to
demonstrate the non-functionality of any structure in the human body. This is to say, proving a
negative; much like me asking any atheist to �prove to me God doesn�t exist.� It cannot be
done.
Another thing we must take into consideration is that we are dealing with the fallen human state.
When God created man, we know that he was created �very good.� Unfortunately, compared
to the first created man, we stand as the equivalent of a junkyard and a car factory. Imagine if
you will a pickup truck, with a damaged bumper. Would it be logical to write Ford Motors and
ask why the truck was built with a damaged bumper? Absolutely not! Similarly, we cannot
attribute a fallen creation as the initial product of a Flawless Creator. Consider wingless beetles
on windy islands. Due to the loss of information, or anatomical extremities, these organisms are
better off for the time being.
In opening this article, the author comments on Darwin�s Book, �Descent of Man�. The
author moves on to explain that Darwin had �roughly a dozen� traits that he thought were
useless. The aforementioned traits include such things as the coccyx, the appendix, and also
wisdom teeth in humans. Darwin is quoted in claiming that because something is rendered
useless, it is no longer subject to natural selection. This doesn�t comply with common sense.
Lets equate this with the supposed evolution of whales. It�s said that Ambulocetus and
Rodhocetus evolved into modern day whales via evolution and natural selection. On face value
this idea has many serious problems, but for the sake of this topic I will refrain from going on a
tangent for now. Whales are said to have lost their posterior extremities due to the lack of use in
their new aquatic environment. Many nonfunctional extremities can be a severe hindrance on
survival, thus, to be helpful, natural selection would need to select against these structures.
If these legs were indeed useless or nearly useless, they would not be subject to natural selection,
according to Darwin. However, their nonexistence is explained away as being due to their lack of
usefulness. Certainly this is in opposition of what Darwin stated in Descent of Man.
One must ask the question, �How do you know they were useless?� To which the evolutionist
will most likely respond with, �Because they are no longer present.� However, if you change
the question to be, �Why are they no longer present?� The evolutionist may reply with,
�Because they were not useful.� The tautological nature of this argument is scientifically
unacceptable.
The publication, �Useless Body Parts�, has given us a handful of supposed anatomical failures
to consider; including many oft-repeated examples that we will address, as well as many that
serve well-known functions. Lets go through and touch on some of the points.
Wisdom Teeth
�Early humans had to chew a lot of plants to get enough calories to survive, making another
row of molars helpful. Only about 5 percent of the population has a healthy set of these third
molars.�
There are many factors that need to be considered when discussing the topic of wisdom teeth.
Just as the author says, some people actually have no problem whatsoever with their wisdom
teeth. This fact would seem to indicate that the problem is due to something other than
evolutionary extractions. In the book "Vestigial Organs" Are Fully Functional, Drs. Bergman and
Howe cite the following quote,
"It is generally held that diet and the amount of breast-nursing a child has during infancy have a
lot to do with the development of the jaw and teeth. Only some people have impacted wisdom
teeth. There are many of us who have good functioning wisdom teeth." Allford (1978)
It is commonly known that poor diet and health can cause slower bone growth in children, which
could partly be the cause of dentition problems. The substance being consumed is also an
important factor. As the author stated, our diets have changed somewhat, which has led to more
dentition problems. We have slowly geared away from the nuts, seeds, and fruits etc. that our
ancestors (From Adam down) ate, into a slow moving line at papa�s pizza for a slice and a
coke! Another thing to take into consideration is that man was considerably larger in pre-flood
times. The issue of dentition could also be explained via the fall of man, thus our degenerate
physical makeup could not contain certain physical traits.
Many have claimed that the lack of space for wisdom teeth is due to a shrinking jawbone, via
evolution. This has been thoroughly discredited by many scientists including Harris in 1965 who
studied ancient mans jaw as well as mummified Egyptian jaws said to date back 6,000 years,
even up to 80,000 years according to evolutionary thinking.
The idea of a shrinking jaw offers no reasonable explanation, and also finds its roots within
discredited Lamarckian evolution - the idea that physical traits are acquired, whereas it is
genetics instead. It is also interesting that very few animals have compacted teeth due to
evolutionary drop-downs. Many animals are said to have gotten smaller through the years,
however today they are virtually untouched regarding problem teeth. This seems to indicate that
it�s mainly an issue with Humans, and mainly caused by our new soft diets.
Subclavius Muscle
"This small muscle stretching under the shoulder from the first rib to the collarbone would be
useful if humans still walked on all fours. Some people have one, some have none, and a few
have two."
A quick breeze through General Practice records would show that the Subclavius Muscle does
indeed serve a purpose, and should not be included in a list of �useless body parts�. Notice
what the following � found on General Practice Notebook (GPN) � says regarding this
muscle,
"Its action is to stabilise the clavicle during movements of the pectoral girdle. It acts to depress
the lateral end of the clavicle and pull it slightly anteriorly. Its presence may provide protection
to the subclavian vein - which lies deeply - when the clavicle is fractured. Loss of subclavius
function rarely produces clinical features." GPN (2004)
I would also like to comment on another statement found in the preceding explanation put forth
by the Discover article author. The statement that this muscle would be useful if humans still
walked on all fours, comes with a built-in assumption that humans did indeed walk on all fours
at one point or another. This is equivalent to me saying, �My friend�s tall height would still be
useful if humans climbed trees for bananas like our ancestors.� By that logic, he could merely
reach up and grab a banana, minimizing the need for excessive exercise. Such a statement is
pointless and scientifically unsound.
Male Nipples
"Lactiferous ducts form well before testosterone causes sex differentiation in a fetus. Men have
mammary tissue that can be stimulated to produce milk."
Nipples on males were one of Darwin�s evidences for descent with modification, however it
wasn�t too commonly spoken of for a while until recently. Now, it seems that everywhere I go,
I hear, �Why do males have nipples?� Along with many other �evidences� put forth by the
author, this does not affect creation theory, but instead, is actually predicted. Contrary to
common belief, a baby growing in its mother�s womb does not start out as a female; however,
it does start out very similar to males and females, in that it is sexually dimorphic.
Nipples on males are one example, amongst many, of design economy and efficient
embryological development. Another example would be the development of both the m�llerian
duct system (female) and the wolffian duct system (male). This is due to both sexes having the
same genetic information for these structures. The differences are only a product of designed
chemical signals later on in development.
Nipples may pose a problem for evolutionists. They are easily explained within the creation
model, but how so in the evolution model? The evolutionist has a few options to select from, but
all are very unsupported. Suppose the male used to suckle the young, and this explains the
lactiferous ducts. But, why would this have changed? How could this have changed? Perhaps the
male is evolving the ability to suckle young, and the nipples are merely nascent structures that
will be beneficial in the future. Well, if they serve no purpose, as the evolutionist says, then they
will not be subject to natural selection (as previously stated in Discover magazine) and will not
be effected, thus, a discontinuance of evolution.
There�s also the idea that we (males) attained our nipples as a derivation of common ancestor;
via the phylogenic tree of life - from reptiles to mammals and so forth. However, if this is the
case, then our nipples are still evolving into something that we can use, as stated in the previous
possibility. This option as well offers no clue as to the evolutionary origins of male nipples, and
no evidence of the future ability to suckle young. Concluding this argument, nipples are not
evidence for evolution, nor are they evidence against special creation.
Appendix
"This narrow, muscular tube attached to the large intestine served as a special area to digest
cellulose when the human diet consisted more of plant matter than animal protein. It also
produces some white blood cells. Annually, more than 300,000 Americans have an
appendectomy."
I feel I need to address one issue that we have seen and will continue to see in these
explanations. Notice how the author speaks with such certainty; as if evolution is a well-known
fact and that we know absolutely, beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are littered with useless
body parts. This is the nature of modern arguments, but shouldn�t be. Many evolutionists
define �vestigial structures� as remnants left over from common descent. Then, they attempt
to use these �vestigial structures� as evidence for common descent. This argument is as
fallacious as the argument from homology; it�s merely circular reasoning masquerading as
science.
The knowledge of a functioning appendix has been present even since 1976,
"The appendix is not generally credited with significant function; however, current evidence
tends to involve it in the immunologic mechanism."
Henry L. Bockus, M.D., Gastroenterology, 2:1134�1148 (chapter �The Appendix� by
Gordon McHardy), W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia, Pennslyvania, 1976.
Ken Ham and Dr. Carl Wieland had this to say,
"The appendix, in conjunction with other parts of the body which also contain cells called B-
lymphocytes, manufactures several types of antibodies:
IgA immunoglobulins, involved in surface or mucosal immunity. These are vital in maintaining
the protective barrier between the bowel and the bloodstream.
IgM and IgG immunoglobulins, which fight invaders via the bloodstream.
The appendix is in fact part of the G.A.L.T. (Gut Associated Lymphoid Tissue) system. The
lymphoid follicles develop in the appendix at around two weeks after birth, which is the time
when the large bowel begins to be colonized with the necessary bacteria. It is likely that its major
function peaks in this neonatal period."
Creation Magazine Volume 20, Issue 1

Published December 1997
It has been well known for decades now that the appendix is indeed a functional structure, which
also has a rich blood supply; something we wouldn�t expect to see in a useless vestige. As the
previous �evidences�, this should not be labeled �useless�, nor should it be used as
evidence for evolution. Hopefully Discover Magazine will understand this, as other secular
science journals (such as Scientific American) are already admitting its function.
Plantaris Muscle
"Often mistaken for a nerve by freshman medical students, the muscle was useful to other
primates for grasping with their feet. It has disappeared altogether in 9 percent of the
population."
As with the Subclavius, a cursory browsing of modern medical material would give the clear
function of the Plantaris muscle. It is true that this muscle serves a minor function, but there is a
function nonetheless. It is known to flex the knee joint as well as plantarflex the ankle joint. The
function is so minor that the long tendon is often harvested and used elsewhere. This doesn�t
negate the fact that it was created in the first place. Simply because you can live without
something doesn�t mean you do not need it. As with the appendix, you can live without both of
your eyes, ears, lips, arms, legs and so forth; but that doesn�t mean you don�t need them.
With the plantaris muscle we see a structure that�s function is minimal. But this still doesn�t
negate the fact that it was intelligently designed. Today, we have many luxury cars, motorcycles,
and even roller-skates that have many things added in to make them even more enjoyable, or
effortlessly controlled. Many small and minimal things add nothing to the main usability of the
structure itself. One could say, we�re luxuriously made!
Darwin's Point
"A small folded point of skin toward the top of each ear is occasionally found in modern humans.
It may be a remnant of a larger shape that helped focus distant sounds."
Many of you are thinking, �what�s Darwin�s point?� Just as the author says, there�s a
small fold of skin at the top of certain people�s ears that creates a point, or a bud. This is
thought to be a relic of our ancestral lineage through lower life forms up to our current state.
Other such examples of this underdeveloped structure are dog-ears, rabbit ears, and many others,
due to their ability to freely move their ears in many directions. Contrary to what evidence
should demonstrate, even �lower evolved� creatures often times do not have this trait. The
bud is merely an example of the immense variation that rests within the potential of human
characteristics.
Many evolutionists consider the possibility that we had much larger ears in the past, however this
would not be necessary due to our free mobility of the head. It is also known that the shape of the
outer ear is designed precisely to gather sound greatly. If humans had larger ears like dogs, ear
damage would be much more common and even more serious than it currently is. Dewar, in
1957 also noted that many breeds of domestic dogs do not even show a remnant of this trait.
It�s almost humorous to see what evolutionists will scrounge up to place on a pedestal as
evidence for their religious paradigm.
Palmaris Muscle
"This long, narrow muscle runs from the elbow to the wrist and is missing in 11 percent of
modern humans. It may once have been important for hanging and climbing. Surgeons harvest it
for reconstructive surgery."
Like the Subclavius and the Plantaris, the function of this muscle is minimal, yet certainly
present when the muscle is present. Also, as with previous examples of minimally functioning
muscles, a quick cursory browse through probably any anatomy book, or medical dictionary will
inform you of its purpose. The following explanation was found on the GPN,
"The action of palmaris longus is to flex the wrist and tense the palmar aponeurosis." GPN
(2004)
Of course the palmaris longus muscle enables us to flex our wrist, thus giving us a stronger grip.
And thanks to its connection with the palmar aponeurosis, which accentuates the ridges on your
palm, we have more friction in our grip on objects.
Erector Pili
"Bundles of smooth muscle fibers allow animals to puff up their fur for insulation or to
intimidate others. Humans retain this ability (goose bumps are the indicator) but have obviously
lost most of the fur."
I couldn�t imagine using my goose bumps as a mechanism to intimidate anybody, but so be it!
It is actually well known that the event of goose bumps actually stimulates movement of the
body, thus creating friction, which in return creates heat. When a person is cold the body warns
them by delivering a slight shaking. If the person doesn�t fix the heat loss problem quickly, a
heavier degree of shaking will take place to create more heat. So you see, goose bumps actually
serve two important functions already, sort of like an automatic thermostat.
Body Hair
"Brows help keep sweat from the eyes, and male facial hair may play a role in sexual selection,
but apparently most of the hair left on the human body serves no function."
Human body hair, which covers almost the entire body, has a functional advantage over other
mammal hair in that it has a high degree of touch perception, which occurs when a hair is moved
or bent. Due to the nerves at the base of the hair, we know when a hair is being moved via our
nervous system. R. Harris, in 1982 supplied examples of why this would be beneficial. Examples
included the ability to tell if a small insect is crawling across your skin, which would be a great
benefit especially if the insect is potentially dangerous.
Other human hair plays important roles as well. Such as the hair on top of your head that covers
the spot where about 40% of heat dissipates. This is a great retainer to keep needed heat within
the body. If you don�t fully understand, shave your head sometime and run around in the snow.
Fine body hair also plays an important role by extending the boundary layer. The boundary layer
is a small and still layer just above any surface. This is demonstrated when cumulative dust on
top of a car doesn�t blow off completely when the car is traveling.
Not only is body hair useful for containing heat, it�s also useful for cooling the body. When you
perspire, or sweat, the hairs grasp the sweat and keep it near you. This will keep your body
cooled. Notice also that man has more body hair then women, usually. This is because man,
being larger, sweats more and thus requires more cooling -- even more evidence of our
wonderfully designed vessels.
Conclusion
The nature of this article clearly demonstrates the nature of �evidence� the ardent naturalist is
willing to invoke in support of their religious paradigm. Anything from body hair to goose
bumps, small muscles to small jaws, it�s all too frivolous. It�s also amazing how flexible this
theory is in its evidential relationships. Just about anything on the human body can be
misconstrued to demonstrate a relationship to any creature in the world.
Evolutionary theory is a dying religion, supported only by tax dollars. As we have seen this in
the article published by Discover magazine, the evidences used to support this idea are silly and
unconvincing.
Scientific American, Giving Up?

Author: Dr. Kent Hovind
Over the years, Scientific American has published some ridiculous articles belittling creation and
extolling the virtues of evolution. Of all the articles I have seen, this one (April 2005, p. 10,
�Okay, We Give Up�) has to be the dumbest.
There�s no easy way to admit this. For years, helpful letter writers told us to stick to science.
They pointed out that science and politics don�t mix.
Science and politics don�t mix. This is a ridiculous statement. Most scientists know full well
their paychecks come because of the political system. Research and Grant Money is often rolled
out only because of the politics of those moments.
They said we should be more balanced in our presentation of such issues as creationism, missile
defense and global warming. We resisted their advice and pretended not to be stung by the
accusations that the magazine should be renamed UnScientific American, or Scientific
Unamerican, or even Unscientific Unamerican. But spring is in the air, and all of nature is
turning over a new leaf, so there�s no better time to say: you were right, and we were wrong.
In retrospect, this magazine�s coverage of so-called evolution has been hideously one-sided.
With this statement, I would have to agree. The magazine treats evolution as if it is a part of
science, when there�s nothing further from the truth. It is a religion, masquerading as science.
But there is no scientific evidence that would tell us a dog produced a non-dog, let alone that a
dog came from a rock 4.6 billion years ago.
For decades, we published articles in every issue that endorsed the ideas of Charles Darwin and
his cronies. True, the theory of common descent through natural selection has been called the
unifying c oncept for all of biology�
Who cares that the theory of evolution has been called, �the unifying concept for all of
biology.� The theory of evolution has also been called one of the dumbest ideas in the history
of man and science. The fact that some people are very dedicated to this theory to the point of
revering Charles Darwin above all others, has nothing to do with the validity of the theory itself.
�and one of the greatest scientific ideas of all time�

Who cares if some people think it is the greatest scientific idea of all time. Nearly all polls show
the majority of America (somewhere between 55 and 60%) does not believe it is a legitimate
idea, and think there�s probably nothing scientific about it. It�s also interesting here that the
writers never define what they mean by �Evolution�. They need to watch my video number
four where we show the six different meanings of the word �evolution�. Only number six
(microevolution) is actually scientific � the first five are religious. This is explained in further
detail on our website.
�but that was no excuse to be fanatics about it. Where were the answering articles presenting
the powerful case for scientific creationism?
A quick search of the record will show major scientific magazines, especially Scientific
American, do not publish articles that even hint a favor of creation. Even if articles were
submitted, it would be a waste of time on the part of the author.
Why were we so unwilling to suggest that dinosaurs lived 6,000 years ago�
There�s actually overwhelming evidence that dinosaurs have always lived with humans. We
simply called them dragons. Man killed most of them, and there may be a few still alive today.
The editors of Scientific American need to watch our video number three (Dinosaurs and the
Bible) for more about this topic.
�or that a cataclysmic flood carved the Grand Canyon?

As for the flood carving Grand Canyon, why don�t they explain to us why the top of the
Canyon is 4,000ft higher than where the river (Colorado River) enters the canyon? Why don�t
they explain to us how rivers miraculously flowed up-hill for millions of years to finally cut the
groove deep enough so they could flow downhill? It is obvious to anybody who studies Grand
Canyon that it could not have been made by the Colorado River. There were two large lakes,
named Grand Lake and Hopi Lake, which over-flowed and carved Grand Canyon very fast �
probably in a matter of weeks. These editors need to watch our videotape number four (Lies in
the Textbooks) to learn the truth about Grand Canyon.
Blame the scientists. They dazzled us with their fancy fossils�

Fancy fossils? I don�t know any creationist who would doubt the existence of fossils. We have
a huge fossil collection at our Dinosaur Adventure Land, in Pensacola. Fossils don�t speak, nor
do they come with a tag on them when they are taken from the ground. There�s no such thing
as a �fossil record�; there are simply fossils in the dirt. This is much more evidence for a
worldwide flood than for a slow, gradual, evolutionary change over time. None of the fossils
found so far have shown any evidence for the evolutionary theory. They only show evidence of
rapid burial, often in mass graves of millions of fossils, indicated the Biblical flood story is the
most likely explanation for their existence.
�their radiocarbon dating�

Radiocarbon dating was invented a hundred and twenty years after they began teaching the earth
was millions of years old. Radiocarbon dating gives wild numbers as anyone who has studied it
will attest. The editors should see our video number seven, Questions and Answers, for more on
carbon dating.
�and their tens of thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles.

Peer-reviewed journal articles? Try to get a creationist article into a magazine like Scientific
American, and see what happens. Ten years ago if a professor in the Soviet Union tried to submit
an article to any Soviet magazine claiming that communism didn�t work, and capitalism is a
better system, he would be shipped off to Siberia if he survived. Today, if a teacher in a public
university, or a writer at any major science magazine (such as Scientific American) dares to
suggest that evolution is not true, and maybe Creation is true, he will be sent to academic Siberia
in a heart-beat. The fact that peer-reviewed journal articles support evolution is no more
surprising than all soviet magazines and newspapers ten years ago supported communism.
As editors, we had no business being persuaded by mountains of evidence.

Mountains of evidence? No one has ever offered any evidence to demonstrate that a dog can
produce a non-dog, let alone that a dog can come from a rock 4.6 billion years ago. We�ve been
offering $250,000 to see this evidence for over ten years. Where is this �evidence� they talk
about?
Moreover, we shamefully mistreated the Intelligent Design (ID) theorists by lumping them in
with creationists. Creationists believe that God designed all life, and that�s a somewhat
religious idea. But ID the orists think that at unspecified times some unnamed superpowerful
entity designed life, or maybe just some species, or maybe just some of the stuff in cells. That�s
what makes ID a superior scientific theo ry: it doesn�t get bogged down in details.
Details? Just exactly how does the evolutionist explain the details behind the origin of life; or the
origin of sexual reproduction; or the origin of time, space, and matter; or the origin of the
incredible genetic code? All they do is give fuzzy and philosophical musings on the subject. No
hard evidence is ever given � certainly no empirical evidence. It�s the editors of Scientific
American that don�t like to get bogged down with the details, like sticking to real science.
They�re too busy promoting their religion of evolution on the pages of this magazine. Can you
believe they cut down a tree to print this page? Where�s Al Gore when you need him!
Good journalism values balance above all else. We owe it to our readers to present everybody�s
ideas equally and not to ignore or discredit theories simply because they lack scientifically
credible argum ents or facts.
This would be true if they were talking about the evolution theory. I can�t believe these guys
think there are scientifically credible arguments for the idea that all life came from nothing, 18
billion years ago. What are they thinking?
Nor should we succumb to the easy mistake of thinking that scientists understand their fields�
The truth is that many scientists have come to understand who butters their bread. They have to
support the evolution theory or lose their grant money. Ask any number of scientists who have
not kissed the sacred cow of evolution and have lost their job, grant money, or position at a
university. The list grows every day. See video number 7 for much more on this.
�better than, say, U.S. senators or best-selling novelists do. Indeed, if politicians or special-
interest groups say thing that seem untrue or misleading, our duty as journalists is to quote them
without comme nt or contradiction. To do otherwise would be elitist and therefore wrong. In that
spirit, we will end the practice of expressing our own views in this space: an editorial page is no
place for opinions.
Get ready for a new Scientific American. No more discussions of how science should inform
policy. If the government commits blindly to building an anti-ICBM defense system that can’t
work as pr omised, that will waste tens of billions of taxpayers’� dollars and imperil national
security,�
I agree that science should inform policy, but evolution has nothing to do with science. And what
on earth does the evolution theory have to do with a missile defense system? There�s nothing
of value in the field of science that has come because of the evolution theory. Even if the theory
were true, it�s absolutely useless as far as science is concerned.
�you won�t hear about it from us. If studies suggest that the administration�s antipollution
measures would actually increase the dangerous particulates that people breathe during the next
two decades, t hat�s not our concern. No more discussions of how policies affect science either
� what if the budget for the National Science Foundation is slashed?
Here�s their altar call. If we don�t teach evolution it will waste billions of dollars and we will
all be vulnerable to attack from the bad-guys. So, these editors are setting themselves up as the
saviors of the nation by presenting their one-sided elitist and idiotic view of evolution. Slash the
budget? Excellent idea! If the National Science Foundation truly dealt with science instead of
defended this evolution theory with religious fervor, I�d be in favor of supporting it. Their main
goal seems to be defending their dogma against the infidels, the creationists.
This magazine will be dedicated purely to science, fair and balanced science, and not just the
science that scientists say is science. And it will start on April Fools� Day.
Excellent day for an atheistic evolutionist to begin looking at what he really believes. The Bible
says, �Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.� Anyone who believes they came
from a rock is a fool. Tell the editors, or any other evolutionist for that matter, I�d be honored to
debate them in front of any university with half of my brain tied behind my back. Call our office
to schedule a time; I�I’ll even take on ten at a time.
They may want to watch some of our previous debates before they agree to such an event. I�ve
had ninety debates now, and have won them easily every time. Not because I�m smarter; but
because I�m right and they�re wrong. Check out the debates for yourself.

Kent Hovind So Called Contradictions in Bible

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Kent Hovind So Called Contradictions in Bible

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Contradictions in the Bible?

Author: Dr. Kent Hovind

Dr. Kent Hovind

Gen. 1:11 has the trees made on day 3 before man;

Explanation of supposed contradiction:

Chapter 1 tells the entire story in the order it happened.

How many died in the plague?

Obviously 1,000 died the next day! There is no contradiction.

The Passover was at night on the 14th day of April.

Contradictions in the Bible? (02)

Genesis 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.

Genesis 1:28 God encourages reproduction.

Genesis 1:31 God was pleased with his creation.

Genesis 4:15, Deuteronomy 32:4, Isaiah 34:8 God is a vengeful god.

Genesis 6:4 There were Nephilim (giants) before the Flood.

Genesis 7:1 Noah was righteous.

Genesis 7:7 Noah and his clan enter the Ark.

Genesis 11:7-9 God sows discord.

Genesis 11:12 Arpachshad [Arphaxad] was the father of Shelah.

Comments from Jonathan Sampson:

Exodus 3:1 Jethro was the father-in-law of Moses.

Exodus 20:14 God prohibits adultery.

Leviticus 21:10 The chief priest is not to rend his clothes.

Leviticus 25:37, Psalms 15:1, 5 It is wrong to lend money at interest.

Numbers 11:33 God inflicts sickness.

Comments from Jonathan Sampson:

Let's look at the two verses more carefully:

Job 2:7 (kjv)

Numbers 25:9 24,000 died in the plague.

Numbers 30:2 God enjoins the making of vows (oaths).

Search our site

Today is Sat, November 15 th

"Believe The Whole Bible!"

Joshua 11:20 God shows no mercy to some.

Judges 4:21 Sisera was sleeping when Jael killed him.

Joshua 10:38-40 Joshua himself captured Debir.

1Samuel 15:7-8, 20 The Amalekites are utterly destroyed.

1Samuel 17:50 David killed Goliath with a slingshot.

Comments from Jonathan Sampson:

1Samuel 28:6 Saul inquired of the Lord, but received no answer.

1Samuel 31:4-6 Saul killed himself by falling on his sword.

2Samuel 6:23 Michal was childless.

Comments from Jonathan Sampson:

2Samuel 24:10-17 David sinned in taking the census.

Comments from Dr. Hovind:

1Kings 7:15-22 The two pillars were 18 cubits high.

1Kings 15:14 Asa did not remove the high places.

1Kings 22:42-43 Jehoshaphat did not remove the high places.

2Kings 2:11 Elijah went up to heaven.

2Kings 24:8 Jehoiachin (Jehoiakim) reigned three months.

2Kings 24:17 Jehoiachin (Jehoaikim) was succeeded by his uncle.

2Chronicles 3:19 Pedaiah was the father of Zerubbabel.

Psalms 10:1 God cannot be found in time of need. He is "far off."

Psalms 58:10-11 The righteous shall rejoice when he sees vengeance.

Proverbs 14:8 The wisdom of a prudent man is to discern his way.

Proverbs 26:4 Do not answer a fool. To do so makes you foolish too.

Search our site

Today is Sat, November 15 th

"Believe The Whole Bible!"

Isaiah 3:13 God stands to judge.

Isaiah 44:24 God created heaven and earth alone.

Jeremiah 12:13 Some sow wheat but reap thorns.

Jeremiah 34:4-5 Zedekiah was to die in peace.