Historical Errors and Contradictions in the Old Testament

Some believers would argue that the Bible is not a history book, and thus it does not matter if it contains historical errors. Still others will deny that any such errors exist at all. But regardless whether it is admitted or denied that the Bible contains historical errors, the reality is that the “word of God” certainly does contain such errors—statements that are presented as though they are true, yet they do not line up at all with what we now know to be verifiable historical facts. This presents a real problem for Bible enthusiasts—even those who try to brush the matter off. Why? Because, as we have just seen, this “sacred book” boasts that it is inspired by God, that it is “the truth,” and that it contains no errors and no human interpolations.

In the book of Daniel, the storyline of the prophet Daniel is shown to span the reigns of two Babylonian kings, Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar. In chapter 5 verse 2, it is clearly stated that Belshazzar was the son of Nebuchadnezzar who, says the book of Daniel, took the throne immediately after his father. But there is a very, very big problem here, since we now know definitively, from the archaeological record, that there were three full generations between Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar. The genealogical line of succession went like this:

1. Nebuchadnezzar
2. Amel-Marduk
3. Nergal-shar-usur
4. Labashi-Marduk
5. Belshazzar

So, the book of Daniel has a historical credibility issue. If it is wrong about Belshazzar being Nebuchadnezzar’s son, then it could be wrong about every other detail. How can it be trusted? For that matter, could not the same be said about the rest of the entire Bible? As long as there is just one error in it, is that not enough to disqualify the whole thing as the “infallible word of God?” After all, nothing can be called infallible that plays host to even one error. Obviously the book of Daniel must have been written, as most scholars now agree, long after the period of the Babylonian captivity, which began in the late seventh century BC. And its author must have been someone who was not very well informed about the sequence of Babylonian kingly reigns. But there is another contention with the book of Daniel. It turns out that there has never been any archaeological confirmation that there was a person named Daniel who resided in the royal court of King Nebuchadnezzar, let alone that he held the second highest position of authority during his reign. How could someone of such alleged great prominence not have his name mentioned anywhere in any court records from the most famous of all Babylonian kings?

“These are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom before any king reigned over the Israelites.”-Genesis 36:31. Do you see the problem here? How could this passage talk about the monarchal period of Israel centuries before it is said to have existed? This type of phenomenon is known as an anachronism—a situation where something is written about before its time, proving that the origin of the writing is not as archaic as it pretends to be. Not only is this Genesis passage completely out of its proper historical context, but it shows us that, contrary to what Bible believers allege, Moses could not have written it.

Moses could not possibly have written the book of Deuteronomy either, or at least the following passage from that book (Deuteronomy 34:5-7): “So Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the Lord. And he [the Lord] buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day. And Moses was an hundred and twenty years old when he died: his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated.” 

Moses plainly did not write this, since it talks about his death and burial. And please notice how whoever did write this was looking back to a much earlier period, since it says “unto this day,” which indicates the passing of much time since the era of Moses. Notice also how this passage says that “he” (the Lord) buried Moses. Does that really make any sense? And how would the author of this scriptural citation have known about that? The Bible believer would say that “the Lord” revealed it to him. But why did “the Lord” not also reveal where Moses was buried so that some kind of monument could be built on the spot? At any rate, are we really to believe that “the Lord” materialized and came down from “up there,” just to give Moses a proper burial? While we are on the subject of Moses’ death, here is another troubling passage to consider (this time from the New Testament, Jude verse 9): “Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, ‘The Lord rebuke thee.’”

From this verse we are to believe that, at some unknown time after Moses was buried, a contention arose between the devil and Michael the archangel over who would have “legal rights” to his body. Now why would that even matter? It was a dead body destined to become a pile of dust. Mere mortals might argue over the rights to a cadaver, but transcendent “spirit-beings?” 

A further good example of this is the fact that, in Genesis chapter 26, the Philistines are made mention of during the age of the patriarchs (around 1800 BC), which we now know did not emerge on the scene until the twelfth century BC. Blunders such as these force the inquirer to ask: “How can this book, the Bible, be called the word of God?” It should be painfully obvious that we are dealing here with a very human book. But we are only just getting warmed up here.

Genesis 11:31 refers to “Ur of the Chaldeans.” But Ur, a city built by the Sumerians and later occupied by the Akkadians, was not in Chaldean hands until roughly 800 BC—well after both the time of Moses and, naturally, the much earlier period that was written about in Genesis 11. Thus, whoever wrote the book of Genesis (or at least chapter 11) had to have done so by no earlier than 800 BC. Not only does the Bible contradict the historical and archaeological records, but it even contradicts its own seeming historical accounts, some key examples of which we will now focus our attention on. 

The creation account in the first two chapters of Genesis is believed by most Bible adherents to accurately represent actual historical events. Unfortunate for such individuals, however, is the ugly reality (ugly for them) that this account cannot be relied upon. First of all, we need to understand that the creation record in these two chapters is not one continuous, seamless story, but two separate and contradictory depictions. For example, in Genesis 1:25, 26 we read: “And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.’”

Here the sequence of events is God creating the animals first, and then man. But in Genesis 2:18, 19 the very opposite order is given: “And the Lord God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.’ And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.”

For those who wish to insist that the Bible is relating actual historical events in the creation story (or stories), we have a serious dilemma here. Which account is the correct one? How about neither? Certainly there could not have been a “divine hand” behind such a careless rendition of what we are expected to accept as the story of our origin.

There are other problems with the creation narrative, of course—and worse ones, at that. For instance, in Genesis 1:20 birds are proposed to have been “brought forth” from the waters: “And God said, ‘Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.’” Yet, Genesis 2:19 has birds being formed from “out of the ground”: “And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.” On the first day of creation, as conveyed in Genesis 1:3, God said, “Let there be light.” But then we find out from Genesis 1:14-19 that God did not create the sun until the fourth day of creation. So we must  ask: What was the source of this light that God allegedly called forth on the first day, if the sun had not been created yet? The Bible believer might come up with a lame answer such as this: “The light was God’s own glory.”

Well, this actually creates more troubles than it seems to resolve. For it implies that this god did not have any glory, or failed to shine any light, until he called it forth, or created it, on the first creation day. It makes much more sense to conclude that we are dealing here with still another contradiction in this book that we would expect to be devoid of such things. Just in case you are in doubt that this really is a contradiction, here is some incontestable proof that the Bible is indeed contradicting itself in regards to the chronological sequence of the creation of the sun and the light it shines: In Genesis chapter 1 we discover these three expressions being made, successively, at the close of the first three days of creation: “…and the evening and the morning were the first day,” “…and the evening and the morning were the second day,” “…and the evening and the morning were the third day.” Should you fail to have noticed what is wrong with this picture, here is the explanation: We get our evening and morning from the sun setting and rising. The evening is the absence of the sun’s light, when it sets, while the morning is the arrival of its light, when it rises the next day. But how could there have been an evening and morning on the first three days of creation when the sun, we are informed, was not created until the fourth day? The enormity of this problem cannot be overstated. 

Yet, hold on to your hat, because we have only just begun to expose problems like this in the Bible. As with all the other biblical stories, the story of Cain and Abel, the two sons of Adam and Eve, is taken as a literal historical account by Bible proponents. But we find a contradictory glitch here as well. In Genesis 4:12 we have Yahweh thusly informing Cain of his punishment for killing his brother Abel: “When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.”

When we skip down just five verses later, however, to Genesis 4:17, we discover that Cain got married, had a son, Enoch, and built a city. Does this sound to you like Cain was unable to prosper, or that he lived out the rest of his life as a fugitive or a vagabond? Either Yahweh himself made a mistake, or else the writers of this account did. But no matter what, we have here another example of the untrustworthiness of scripture. There is a further contradiction with the Cain and Abel story. In Genesis 4:15 Yahweh took measures to ensure that no one would kill Cain out of revenge for him killing his brother: “And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.” But then we read these totally contradictory remarks just five chapters later (Genesis 9:5, 6) : “[…] Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.”

Why would Yahweh have prevented Cain, a blood-shedder, from having his blood shed, and yet later on state that blood-shedders were to have their blood shed? If we were to just read Genesis 7:2 by itself, we would assume that when Noah allegedly took the animals into the ark, he selected, at Yahweh’s command, seven pairs of clean animals, and only two pairs of unclean animals: “Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.” However, when we read just a half dozen verses later (Genesis 7:8, 9), we discover that there were only two pairs taken of both types of animals: “Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, there went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.” 

So which is it? Were there two pairs of one type and seven of another, or were they both in two pairs? 

We have another big dilemma with the story of Noah and the flood. In Genesis 7:13, 14 we find this utterly nonsensical account: “In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah’s wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark; They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort.”

Can you find the big blunder here? This passage says that Noah, his family, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth entered the ark in the selfsame day. Please understand that the Bible teaches, and most Bible enthusiasts believe, that Noah’s flood was global in nature, and that every species of animal alive today was represented on that boat, or else they would not have survived the flood. This means that, even with the most conservative estimate, there had to be at least a million animals on that vessel. We will not bother to ask how that many animals could have fit on a relatively small ship, or how they could have been provided for. Just take that very conservative figure: one million. In one day, including the nighttime hours, there are only 86,400 seconds. So, in order for one million animals to have boarded the ark in one day’s time, roughly 12 animals would have had to cross the  ark door’s threshold per second (we are told that the ark only had one door). It is not even worth the waste of ink to elaborate on how ridiculous this scenario is. One additional problem with the Noah story, which took place shortly after the ark was grounded, appears in Genesis 8:20: “And Noah builded an altar unto the Lord; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.”

Are we to understand from this verse that Noah actually sacrificed one of every single clean beast and bird that he allegedly had on the ark? This would have been tens of thousands of birds and animals. He sacrificed them all on this one altar? That must have been one big bonfire. But why would Yahweh require such a huge number of animal deaths (assuming this actually occurred)? Would not one or two have sufficed? And seeing that animals were supposed to have been in great shortage at this time, because of the flood, was this not an extremely impractical thing to do? From Genesis 10:5, 20, 31 we discover that, prior to the building of the Tower of Babel, the people and nations of the earth were divided up in accordance with the different languages they spoke: “By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations[…]These are the sons of Ham, after their families, after their tongues, in their countries, and in their nations….These are the sons of Shem, after their families, after their tongues, in their lands, after their nations.”

But we have a very serious troublesome issue here, because it is not until the next chapter, Genesis 11, that diverse languages are supposed to have first arisen, at the time of the construction of the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1, 5-7): “And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech[...]And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. And the Lord said, ‘Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech.’”

How could it be said that the people spoke only one language at this time, and that God confused their speech by creating multiple languages, when we just read from the previous chapter (Genesis 10) that all the nations were divided up according to their various differing languages?

In Genesis 11:27 we are informed that Lot was a nephew of Abram (or Abraham): “Now these are the generations of Terah: Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begat Lot.” But when we read Genesis 14:14, 16 we learn that Lot, instead, was Abram’s (or Abraham’s) brother: “And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan[…]And he brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people.”

Can trust be placed in a book that cannot get its stories straight? And yet, that is precisely what is done by many millions of people around the world. Here is another dispute with the story of Abraham: In Exodus 6:3 God said to Moses: “And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name Jehovah was I not known to them.”

However, in Genesis 22:14 we discover that Abraham named a place after Yahweh, or Jehovah, calling it “Jehovahjireh.” Also, in Genesis 15:7 we read: “Then he [God] said to him [Abraham], ‘I am the Lord [Jehovah] who brought you from Ur of the Chaldeans.’” 

So we see that the god of the Bible did indeed appear to Abraham under the name Jehovah, or Yahweh, completely contradicting what this same god told Moses in Exodus 6:3. 

Sarah laughed when she was told that she would supposedly bear a son at age 90, reads Genesis 18:10- 15. But Hebrews 11:11 paints an incompatible picture, saying that Sarah, through faith, received strength to conceive in her old age. How could she have faith in something that we are told she laughed about? Incidentally, why would Yahweh have intervened to miraculously give Abraham a son through his aged wife, when Abraham later took another, much younger wife, Keturah, who bore him six more children, as we read about in Genesis 25:1, 2? Interestingly enough, while Genesis 25:1 plainly states that Keturah was Abraham’s wife, 1 Chronicles 1:32 insists that she was merely his concubine. So which is it? In further regards to Abraham, the apostle Paul wrote in Galatians 4:22-25 that the story of this patriarch was a mere “allegory.” Could the same not be said for many other stories in the Bible that are taken literal by most Bible believers?

According to Genesis 37:28, Joseph wound up in Egypt because Ishmaelites brought him there. But Genesis 37:36 says that it was the Midianites who did this. Genesis 15:13 and Acts 7:6 both indicate that the Israelites were supposed to have spent 400 years in Egypt as slaves, until Moses allegedly emancipated them. However, Exodus 12:40 reveals that they were in this land for 430 years.

 The fifth plague that God poured out on Egypt, as described in Exodus 9:6, was a pestilence that killed “all of the cattle of the Egyptians.” However, a few days later the seventh plague of hail was delivered in order to destroy, says Exodus 9:18-21, all the cattle of Egypt in the fields. Do you see what is wrong here? All the cattle of the Egyptians were said to be dead already, from the fifth plague. In Exodus 25:8 we find God saying: “Then have them [the Israelites] make a sanctuary for me, and I will dwell among them.” In total conflict with this, however, Acts 7:48 says: “Howbeit the Most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands.” 

Aaron, in Exodus 32:2, 4, was the one credited with having created the golden calf that the Israelites worshipped while Moses was up on Mount Sinai. But in Exodus 32:8 Yahweh accused the Israelites themselves of making this idol. After Moses got angry and broke the two tablets that the ten commandments were written on (because he discovered that the Israelites had worshipped the golden calf), Yahweh told him (Exodus 34:1) “Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.” 

So Yahweh vividly stated here that he himself was going to write the commandments on the new set of tablets. Yet, when we read Exodus 34:27, 28, we discover that Yahweh did not actually do the inscribing himself—Moses did: “Then the Lord said to Moses, ‘Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.’ Moses was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant—the Ten Commandments.” Numbers 12:3 says: “Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which were upon the face of the earth.”

Compare this with what Numbers 31:15-17 says: “And Moses said unto them, ‘Have ye saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.’”

Could this be called meek at all, let alone meek above all the men upon the face of the earth? Moses called for the execution of “every male among the little ones,” along with “every woman that hath known man by lying with him.” Funny that this passage did not mention anything about killing every man that had known a woman by lying with her. But nevertheless, do we not have yet another major Bible contradiction here, regarding the portrayal of Moses’ character? Far from being meek, would you not instead call him an absolute monster? Notwithstanding, Bible advocates praise this individual as a wonderful “godly” man.

If we depend on Deuteronomy 10:1-3, Moses made the ark of the covenant. All the while, Exodus 37:1 informs us that it was Bezaleel who made this item. Surely both accounts cannot be right. In Exodus 33:2 and Deuteronomy 7:1 Yahweh promised to drive out the Canaanites, the Jebusites, and other groups of people from the “Promised Land.” But then, in Deuteronomy 7:24, Yahweh commanded the children of Israel to destroy these same people instead. And as if that is not contradictory enough (not to mention tyrannical), Deuteronomy 31:3 depicts Yahweh as promising to destroy these people himself, personally. But here comes the cherry on top: In the end, Yahweh did not drive out or destroy these people, nor did the Israelites destroy them, for we are told in Judges 1:21, 27, 34-36; 3:1-5 that these same people were still in Jerusalem generations later. Who would accept these types of unreliable historical recollections from a history book? And yet, this is supposed to be the “infallible word of God.” A book bearing this title should definitely be upholding a much higher standard than this, especially when it boasts that it is “the truth.”

Sisera was killed in his sleep, says Judges 4:21. But Judges 5:25-27 indicates that he was wide awake and standing when he was killed, since it says that he fell when struck. The Amalekites apparently had nine lives. First, in Genesis 14:7, we are informed that all the country of the Amalekites was conquered. 

Next, 1 Samuel 15:7, 8 says that all of these same people were “totally destroyed with the sword” by King Saul. Then we are told by 1 Samuel 27:8, 9 that King David smote them, leaving neither a man nor a woman alive. After this, says 1 Samuel 30:17, David smote all the Amalekites, except 400 young men who fled on camels. Finally, we discover from 1 Chronicles 4:43 that the rest of the Amalekites, who had escaped, were destroyed, seemingly once and for all this time. But was that not already supposed to have been the case in 1 Samuel 15, and again in chapter 27 of that same book?

Pertaining again to the Amalekites, here is a really big blunder in the Bible: Recall how, just a moment ago, we cited Genesis 14:7 which talked about the first instance when these people were wiped out, or at least conquered. Well, we find out from Genesis 36:12—twenty-two chapters later—about the birth of Amalek, whom the Amalekites were named after. So the question is: How could his birth be announced generations after the time that his people first appear, in Genesis 14:7? From 2 Kings 8:25 we learn that King Ahaziah began to reign in the twelfth year of Joram. But then we are told in 2 Kings 9:29 that this same king started to reign in the eleventh year of Joram. Which passage has it right? Some would say that it makes no difference, since the matter at hand is of minor significance. Agreed. But we are still dealing with an error in a book that boasts of its infallibility. 

Numbers 25:9 talks about a plague that killed 24,000. But Paul, in 1 Corinthians 10:8, says that this same plague killed only 23,000. Turning to 2 Samuel 6:6 leaves us with the idea that Yahweh struck Uzza down at the threshing floor of Nachon, because he touched the Ark of the Covenant. But 1 Chronicles 13:9 says this event took place at the threshing floor of Kidon. Samuel, as we discover from 1 Chronicles 6:1, 27, was a Levite. But 1 Samuel 1:1, 2, 20 says that he was an Ephraimite. Solomon appointed 3,600 overseers for the construction of the temple, as recorded in 2 Chronicles 2:2. However, 1 Kings 5:16 says that Solomon appointed 3,300 for this purpose. Far lower numbers are given elsewhere: 550 says 1 Kings 9:23; 250 says 2 Chronicles 8:10. A facility was built by Solomon that contained 2,000 baths. At least that is what 1 Kings 7:26 says. But 2 Chronicles 4:5 tallies the number of baths to 3,000. Of the Israelites that were said to be freed from Babylonian captivity, conflicting numbers are given for those among this group that were alleged to be children of Pahrath-Moab: Ezra 2:6 says the number was 2,812, whereas Nehemiah 7:11 calculates it to be 2,818. Ezra 2:8 lists the children of Zatu as 945, while Nehemiah 7:13 gives us the number 845. Numerical discrepancies like this abound. Ezra 2:12 tells us that the children of Azgad numbered 1,222. But Nehemiah 7:17 says it was 2,322. We learn from Ezra 2:15 that the number of children of Adin was 454, but Nehemiah 7:20 says it was 655. The number of children of Hashum was 223 when we consult Ezra 2:19. Yet Nehemiah 7:22 assures us that it was 328.

In 2 Samuel 24:24 we see that David paid Araunah 50 shekels of silver for a threshing floor. Yet 1 Chronicles 21:25 gives the price as 600 shekels. As you can see, quite a few of these numerical discrepancies are completely off by huge margins, so they are not minor errors. But even if the errors were minor, there should be no errors at all in “God’s word.” Absalom’s daughter’s name was Maachah, proclaims 2 Chronicles 11:20. But this account totally conflicts with 2 Samuel 14:27, which says that her name was Tamar.

Most Bible believers have a profound respect, and even reverence, for King David, as though he was a most upright, respectable, “godly” person who was above reproach. And indeed, there are some passages in the Bible that support such a belief, which are surely the basis for so many affording him such respect. For instance, David is professed to have obeyed Yahweh’s commands and statutes in 1 Kings 3:14. In Acts 13:22 Yahweh is quoted as saying that David was a man after his own heart, and that he knew from the beginning that David would do everything that he wanted him to do. Furthermore, 1 Samuel 16:13 says that, from early on, David had the spirit of Yahweh powerfully upon him. This all sounds good. These passages seem to justify all the praise that has been heaped upon David over the centuries as an all-around great guy. But that is not the end of the story. As we should come to expect by now, the Bible also portrays David, in classic biblical contradictory fashion, as a vile criminal who did not in any way live an exemplary life. For instance, it turns out that David brutally tortured, enslaved, and / or slaughtered countless thousands of people in 1 Samuel 18:6, 7; 27:9; 2 Samuel 8:2-4; 12:31; and 1 Chronicles 20:3. We are also told that David fornicated with Bathsheba, Uriah’s wife, in 2 Samuel 11:2-4. Additionally, 2 Samuel 5:8 says that David hated “lame and blind” people. Second Samuel 6:20 tells us that he liked to trot about half-naked in front of the slave girls of his servants, and was rightly called a “vulgar fellow” for doing so. As if this is not enough, 1 Samuel chapters 26 and 27 disclose the fact that David fought for a time on the side of the Philistines against his own people, who were under Saul. So much was David a traitor to his fellow Israelites, in fact, that 1 Samuel 27:12 tells us: “Achish [the Philistine king] trusted David and said to himself, ‘He has become so obnoxious to his people, the Israelites, that he will be my servant for life.’” 

On top of all this, 1 Kings 2:9 informs us that David’s dying wish to his son Solomon was for him to murder Joab. His exact words are given as: “Bring his gray head down to the grave in blood.”

David is also recorded in Psalm 137:9 as saying to his enemies, the Edomites: “Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.” 

Nice guy, that David. In spite of all the crimes and atrocities committed by David, 1 Kings 15:5 shamelessly declares:“For David had done what was right in the eyes of the Lord and had not failed to keep any of the Lord’s commands all the days of his life—except in the case of Uriah the Hittite.” 

What? Are we really to assume that all of the diabolical things David did amounted to keeping the Lord’s commands all the days of his life, except for what happened with Uriah the Hittite? That was David’s only wrong-doing? Nevertheless, David’s misdeed regarding Uriah was very bad. He first had an affair with Uriah’s wife, we are told, and then he had Uriah set up to be killed in battle by writing a letter to Joab, which stated (2 Samuel 11:15): “Put Uriah in the front line where the fighting is fiercest. Then withdraw from him so he will be struck down and die.”

If you picture Yahweh to be a loving god, does this David character really sound like someone who was a man after Yahweh’s own heart, or a man who followed Yahweh’s laws all the days of his life, except for the Uriah incident? There are other problems / inconsistencies with the story of David. 

In 1 Samuel 16:19-21 we see that Saul knew who David was when he first met him, having sent for him. But the story related in 1 Samuel 17:55-58—the very next chapter—indicates that Saul had positively no idea who David was when he first met him, and had to inquire about his identity. These two accounts are utterly incompatible and irreconcilable. We even find a discrepancy regarding the manner in which David allegedly killed Goliath. First Samuel 17:50 tells us that the deed was done with a slingshot, while in the very next verse (1 Samuel 17:51) we are told that he used his sword for the cause. Still another contradiction in the David narrative is the number of foreskins that he supposedly brought back from battle to offer Saul for his daughter’s hand in marriage. First Samuel 18:25-27 says that the number was 200, but 2 Samuel 3:14 says it was only 100. And do take notice of the fact that, aside from the numerical contradiction here, this whole story itself is quite gruesome. But this is nothing compared to some of the other horrific tales in the Bible that we will be examining later on.

Who was the high priest when David went to the “house of God?” Ask 1 Samuel 21:2 and you will be told that it was Ahimelech. But Jesus said it was Abiathar in Mark 2:25, 26. Was David by himself when he asked for the holy bread at Nob? Yes, says 2 Samuel 21:1, but no, says Matthew 12:3, 4, where Jesus was again speaking.

Who was the second son of David that was born in Hebron? Second Samuel 3:2-5 says that it was Chileab (or Kileab), whereas 1 Chronicles 3:1-4 says it was Daniel. Abiel was the father of Kish, as revealed in 1 Samuel 9:1. Yet 1 Chronicles 8:33 says his name was Ner. If we were to write a book on the supposed history of Saul, we would have a very difficult time addressing how he died. For we are actually given four different explanations as to how it happened. First Samuel 31:4 depicts Saul as pleading with his armor bearer to thrust him through with a sword, so as not to be tortured and killed by his enemies. However, when his armor bearer refused to comply, we are told that Saul used his sword to commit suicide. But then 2 Samuel 1:1-10 reveals that an Amalekite killed Saul. Still more confusion arises when we consult 2 Samuel 21:12, which says that the Philistines killed him. And, finally, in 1 Chronicles 10:13, 14 we are told that “the Lord put him to death.” The Saul story gets stranger still. In 1 Chronicles 10:6 we read: “So Saul and his three sons died, and all his house died together.”

Yet look at what 2 Samuel 2:7, 8 says: “Now then, be strong and brave, for Saul your master is dead, and the people of Judah have anointed me king over them. Meanwhile, Abner son of Ner, the commander of Saul’s army, had taken Ish-Bosheth son of Saul and brought him over to Mahanaim.” 

The first passage clearly posited that Saul, his three sons, and all his house died together. However, the second passage we just read declared that Saul’s son, Ish-Bosheth, was still alive after Saul had died. Moreover, the next verse says that he was made king over Gilead. So what we have here is still another impossible-to-salvage incongruity.

We are given three different names for the father of Heman: Mahol (1 Kings 4:31), Zerah (1 Chronicles 2:6), and Joel (1 Chronicles 6:33; 15:17). Who was the father of Zerubbabel? Well, in typical biblical fashion, it depends on which passage you look up. If you inspect 1 Chronicles 3:19, the answer you get is Pedaiah. But Salathiel (or Shealtiel) is the answer you come up with when you consider passages like Ezra 3:2; Nehemiah 12:1; Haggai 1:1; Matthew 1:12; and Luke 3:27. Was Mahli a son of Levi? Yes, if we trust Ezra 8:18, but no, should we place our confidence in Genesis 46:11 and 1 Chronicles 6:1, 16; 23:6, which list the sons of Levi without mentioning Mahli at all. Two different options are given to us as to who the father of Elhanan was: Jair, says 2 Samuel 21:19 and 1 Chronicles 20:5, or Dodo, says 2 Samuel 23:24 and 1 Chronicles 11:26. The father of Bathsheba could either have been Eliam, as we see from 2 Samuel 11:3, or Ammiel, if we go by 1 Chronicles 3:5. Genealogical aberrations in the Bible can be found everywhere, beginning in the book of Genesis. For example, Genesis 28:5 says that Laban’s father was Bethuel, while Genesis 29:5 claims, instead, that his father was Nahor. Is it not disturbing how the Bible spends a great deal of time on genealogies, and yet there are so many contradictions with who begat who? Why were they even listed at all when they cannot be trusted? Surely an “all-wise god” would never have allowed such unreliable records of descent to wind up in the Bible if he was overseeing its assemblage. Since we are on the subject of untrustworthy genealogies, it simply must be pointed out that the apostle Paul, in 1 Timothy 1:4, said to avoid “fables and endless genealogies”—the very things that a large percentage of the Old Testament is comprised of. 

How many carved pomegranates did Solomon’s temple have? If you believe the account in 1 Kings 7:20, it had 200. Or, if you accept what 2 Chronicles 3:16 says, the number was 100. Did Asa remove the high places? The answer given in 1 Kings 15:14 and 2 Chronicles 15:17 is no, while the answer provided by 2 Chronicles 14:2-5 is yes. Were the high places removed by Jehoshaphat? No, says 1 Kings 22:42, 43 and 2 Chronicles 20:31-33, but yes, says 2 Chronicles 17:5, 6. Was Asa faithful to Yahweh? According to 2 Chronicles 15:17 he was “fully committed to the Lord all his life.” But 2 Chronicles 16:7 says that he “relied…on the king of Aram and not on the Lord…”

Who was the father of Zechariah? Reading 2 Chronicles 24:20 would convince us that it was Jehoiada the priest. However, Jesus said in Matthew 23:35 that it was Barachias (or Berekiah). You might want to make note of the fact that there is no mention anywhere in the Old Testament of a person called Barachias (or Berekiah).

When did Elisha receive Elijah’s cloak? It could have been before Elijah was “taken up to heaven,” as we read in 1 Kings 19:19, or after Elijah was “taken up to heaven,” as we read in 2 Kings 2:11-13. 

The manner in which Ahaziah died amounts to still another serious contradiction in the Bible. Second Kings 9:27 tells us that he fled to Meggido and later died there. But 2 Chronicles 22:9 says that he was brought to Jehu and slain. Josiah’s cause of death is also portrayed in two conflicting ways. Second Kings 23:29, 30 says that Pharaoh Necho killed him, but the story provided in 2 Chronicles 35:23, 24 is that he was slain by archers.

Some Bible believers would not take issue with admitting that the Old Testament has historical contradictions and inconsistencies, claiming that the New Testament is all that really matters, and that this last part of the Bible is devoid of such predicaments. But they could not be more wrong, as the next Article will demonstrate.