Before I even get into this article, I'd like to link to a site that pretty much blows mine away and makes it nearly obsolete. It's the list of supposed discrepancies in the King James Bible that Will Kinney has put together and, wow, is it ever thorough. In fact, I encourage you to go to his website first and just read through all of the "discrepancies" he has searched out and found to not be discrepancies at all:
Will Kinney's incredible list of refuted allegations against the King James Bible
Ever heard of this scenario happening: Some young man is excited about doing work for the Lord and goes to seminary to learn how to be a pastor. Then he comes home depressed and seemingly disillusioned, eventually revealing to everyone that his faith and belief in God has been shaken to the very foundation because the theological professors at his college showed him all the "errors" in the King James Bible and convinced him that it couldn't possibly have been inspired by God. I have. I have no doubt that Satan has planted these people in these institutes to derail and injure people's faith in God. Why else would they be there? So, without wasting any time on a fancy introduction, let's address some of those supposed "contradictions" and "discrepancies" in the Bible. And, of course, this list will grow as I come across more "errors" and their solutions.
You're going to see why I only use a King James Bible as we go through this article. A lot of the "errors" that Bible skeptics say are in the King James Bible aren't errors at all, and the Vatican versions tried to "correct" these non-existent errors, thus filling their modern Bibles with errors, as you're going to see.
(1) Before or After?
Mark 16:1 says Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James bought spices AFTER the Sabbath, but Luke 23: 55-56 says they bought the spices and then rested for the UPCOMING Sabbath. Well, which was it? Was the Sabbath before or after Mary bought the spices? Answer: It was BOTH. There were TWO Sabbaths going on here, the weekly Sabbath (Saturday), and one of the seven annual Sabbaths, called "High Days," in this case, the Feast of Unleavened Bread.
(2) The "Missing verse" of Psalm 145?
Psalm 145 is an alphabetic acrostic, which means that the Hebrew alphabet in sequence makes up the first letter of every verse. However, there are only 21 verses in Psalm 145 and there are 22 letters in the Hebrew alphabet. The missing letter is 'Nun', pronounced 'noon,' which should have come at verse 14.
So why was the letter Nun skipped? In Hebrew the letters themselves have meanings, and Nun represents the humbled or bowing person being lifted up (James 4:10 - Humble yourself in the sight of the Lord and he shall lift you up). If you look at a picture of the way the letter Nun itself is spelled out, it is Nun -Vav - Nun, but the trailing Nun is written differently. Nun is one of 5 "Sofit" letters, which means that when it comes at the end of a word it is written (or drawn) differently than it normally is. In the case of Nun, it is normally bent down to look like it's bowing, but when it appears at the end of a word it is drawn standing straight up. So the letters of Nun would be a bowed down Nun, then Vav, then comes the "sofit" Nun, which is standing straight up (lifted up). 'Nun' is secretly embedded in the MEANING of verse 14, where Nun normally should have appeared. Look at the picture, and remember, Hebrew is read from right to left:
(Psalm 145:14)
The Lord upholdeth all that fall, and raiseth up all those that be bowed down.
This was probably just King David being clever. It wasn't the first time he did it. There are other alphabetic acrostics in Psalms in which David didn't perfectly follow the Hebrew alphabet, as well, such as Psalms 25 and 34.
And see, SATAN-inspired versions of the Bible, like the NIV, insert a verse here that starts with Nun, throwing everything off, and essentially being dishonest. And you better believe, the NIV, the NLT, the NAB, and so many other perverted versions of the Bible are the ones that Atheists and Bible-haters are going to use for reference.
(3) Passover or Easter?
Some people claim that Acts 12:4 in the King James Bible should say 'Passover' and not 'Easter.' Let's take a look at it:
(Acts 12:4)
And when he [Herod] 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.
What happened here is the King James translators actually knew what the Old Testament said and knew that the New Testament would not conflict with it, as it would have, had they used the word 'Passover' instead of 'Easter.' If you look at verse 3 right before, you'll see that these were the "days of unleavened bread."
(Acts 12:3)
And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)
The days of unleavened bread come AFTER the Passover, as shown in Leviticus 23:5-6 and Numbers 28:16-17.
(Leviticus 23:5-6)
5. In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the Lord's passover.
6. And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the Lord: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread.
(Numbers 28:16-17)
16. And in the fourteenth day of the first month is the passover of the Lord.
17. And in the fifteenth day of this month is the feast: seven days shall unleavened bread be eaten.
And since verse 3 tells us that those were the days of unleavened bread, we can know that the Passover had ALREADY passed. The pagan tradition of Easter is very much what the pagan Herod was waiting for, just as the King James Bible says.
Here's a link with a lot more info on this:
Easter or Passover?
(4) “Seven years” or “Three years”?
In 2nd Samuel 24:13, several translations (ESV, NIV) depart from the reading of "seven years" in the Masoretic text in order to avoid a supposed contradiction with “three years” in 1st Chronicles 21:11-12. However, a careful reading reveals that there is no contradiction as the words in question in both passages are not even from the same speaker.
1st Chronicles 21:10-12 says:
"Go and tell David, saying, Thus saith the LORD, I offer thee three things: choose thee one of them, that I may do it unto thee. So Gad came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee Either three years' famine; or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee; or else three days the sword of the LORD, even the pestilence, in the land, and the angel of the LORD destroying throughout all the coasts of Israel. Now therefore advise thyself what word I shall bring again to him that sent me."
2nd Samuel 24:12-13 says:
"Go and say unto David, Thus saith the LORD, I offer thee three things; choose thee one of them, that I may do it unto thee. So Gad came to David, and told him, and said unto him, Shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land? or wilt thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue thee? or that there be three days' pestilence in thy land? now advise, and see what answer I shall return to him that sent me."
The "three years" in 1st Chronicles 21:11-12 are the words of the LORD whereas the "seven years" in 2nd Samuel 24:13 are the words of the prophet Gad. Why did Gad speak of “seven years” after delivering the LORD’s word concerning three years of famine? The figure “seven years” spoken by Gad is not the number of years that the LORD will be adding in the future. The seven years is the COMBINATION of the four prior years of famine and the possible future addition of three years. Prior to this incident, in 2nd Samuel 21:1, the narrator says “Then there was a famine in the days of David three years, year after year.” And from the time of 2nd Samuel 21:1 to 2nd Samuel 24:13 we understand that there was a lapse of one year. Thus by the time the LORD gave David this dilemma in 2nd Samuel 24:13, there were four years of famine. Now, when Gad asked David, “Shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land?” Gad was basically saying, “Shall [a total of] seven years of famine (four previous years and three added years) come unto thee in thy land?” Seven years of famine would have been the ultimate result of receiving three more years of famine.
We can see the harmony of 1 Chronicles 21:10-12 and 2 Samuel 24:12-13 when we put them together:
"Go and say unto David, Thus saith the LORD, I offer thee three things; choose thee one of them, that I may do it unto thee. So Gad came to David, and told him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee Either three years' famine; or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee; or else three days the sword of the LORD, even the pestilence, in the land, and the angel of the LORD destroying throughout all the coasts of Israel. Now therefore advise thyself what word I shall bring again to him that sent me; and said unto him, Shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land? or wilt thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue thee? or that there be three days' pestilence in thy land? now advise, and see what answer I shall return to him that sent me."
The verbatim words of the LORD as recorded in 1 Chronicles 21:11-12 must fit in 2 Samuel 24:13 in between "and told him" and "and said unto him". Otherwise, the phrase "and told him, and said unto him" is very redundant. Thus the prophet Gad first "told him [David]" the verbatim words of the LORD as recorded in 1 Chronicles 21:11-12, and then "said unto him [David], Shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land?" Dynamic translations such as the NIV, NLT and CEV unfortunately remove the clause, “and told him". Translators of these translations apparently thought the words "and told him" were insignificant verbal surplusage. But this clause is the key to understanding the seeming discrepancy between the two accounts.
Why did Gad speak of “seven years” after delivering the LORD’s word concerning three years of famine? The figure “seven years” spoken by Gad is not the number of years that the LORD will be adding in the future. The seven years is the COMBINATION of the four prior years of famine and the possible future addition of three years. Prior to this incident, in 2 Samuel 21:1, the narrator says “Then there was a famine in the days of David three years, year after year.” And from the time of 2 Samuel 21:1 to 2 Samuel 24:13 we understand that there was a lapse of one year. Thus by the time the LORD gave David this dilemma in 2 Samuel 24:13, there were four years of famine. Now, when Gad asked David, “Shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land?” Gad was basically saying, “Shall [a total of] seven years of famine (four previous years and three added years) come unto thee in thy land?” Seven years of famine would have been the ultimate result of receiving three more years of famine.
(5) 23,000 or 24,000?
1st Corinthians 10:8 in the Scofield. Some people have said this verse contradicts Numbers 25:9. But this verse gives a number that fell in a day, and Numbers 25:9 gives a number that fell by the plague, altogether. The Apostle Peter, who read Paul's epistles thoroughly, would have, of course, mentioned this difference, had it actually been an error, but Peter put Paul's epistles on par with the Old Testament in 2nd Peter 3:16. He knew that Paul was referring to the number of people that had fallen in one day, whereas Moses was giving the number that had fallen altogether.
(6) How many people have ascended into heaven?
John 3:13 says only one person has ascended into heaven, that being Jesus:
John 3:13
And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.
But Bible-haters say that that verse is contradicted by several other verse such as 2nd Kings 2:11, 2nd Corinthians 12:2, Genesis 5:24 along with Hebrews 11:5, etc...
2nd Kings 2:11
And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.
2nd Corinthians 12:2
I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such an one caught up to the third heaven.
Genesis 5:24
And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.
Hebrews 11:5
By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.
The difference in language should be obvious, but won't be to those desperately hoping for any indictment against the Bible they can find. Only Jesus ASCENDED to heaven on his own accord and by his own power. In all of the other cases, the person was CAUGHT UP by God into heaven., and that includes Moses and Elijah when they are caught back up to heaven during the time of Jacob's trouble:
Revelation 11:12
And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them.
Thus, there is no contradiction.
(7) How many men did David's chief captain kill?
Supposedly there is a contradiction between 1st Chronicles 11:11 and 2nd Samuel 23:8 as to how many men David's chief captain killed:
1st Chronicles 11:11
And this is the number of the mighty men whom David had; Jashobeam, an Hachmonite, the chief of the captains: he lifted up his spear against three hundred slain by him at one time.
2nd Samuel 23:8
These be the names of the mighty men whom David had: The Tachmonite that sat in the seat, chief among the captains; the same was Adino the Eznite: he lift up his spear against eight hundred, whom he slew at one time.
It's not hard to see the error the Bible-skeptics are making here. David didn't have just ONE chief captain during his time as king; there were many. Bible skeptics think these two verses are talking about the same person. They're only half right. The first half of 2nd Samuel 23:8 is talking about the same Tachmonite chief captain that 1st Chronicles is talking about, true. But look at the wording. It says he was the chief of the captains then starts talking about an Eznite named Adino who was ALSO a chief among the captains, thus the reason it says "the same was Adino the Eznite." It simply meant that he was a chief among the captains too. He was a different person and he killed a different number of people (800 to Jashobeam's 300, in this case.)
(8) The circumference of Solomon's "Molten Sea."
Solomon built an elaborate pool that was circular in shape. The problem that Bible skeptics have with this pool is its circumference. The Bible says that the pool was 10 cubits in diameter and 30 cubits in circumference. Anyone who knows their math formulas knows that the circumference of a circle is 2 x Pi x the radius of the circle, which means that this pool should be 31.4 meters in circumference. So, let's look at the description of this pool to see if we can figure out what's going on here:
1st Kings 7:23-26
23. And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.
24. And under the brim of it round about there were knops compassing it, ten in a cubit, compassing the sea round about: the knops were cast in two rows, when it was cast.
25. It stood upon twelve oxen, three looking toward the north, and three looking toward the west, and three looking toward the south, and three looking toward the east: and the sea was set above upon them, and all their hinder parts were inward.
26. And it was an hand breadth thick, and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies: it contained two thousand baths.
Aha! In verse 26 we see that not only was the wall of this pool a hand's width thick (about 4 inches or so), but it also had a brim like a cup, which meant it would have turned out a bit at the top. And we can see from verse 23 that the diameter is indeed being made from brim to brim. Factoring in a hand's width for each side of the bath would mean taking 8 inches out of the diameter, which would put the circumference at about 30 cubits exactly.
(9) And just how much water did this Molten Sea pool hold?
There's another supposed contradiction with this pool. In 1st Kings 7:26 above we see that this pool contained 2,000 baths (a "bath" being a measure of about 8 gallons). But 2nd Chronicles 4:5 says that the pool could hold 3,000 baths? Which one's right? They both are. The pool could hold a maximum of 3,000 baths, but in 1st Kings 7:26 the bath is only two thirds full. In fact, that was probably the customary amount of water to put in it.
How many horses did Solomon have?
1st Kings 4:26 says that Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, but 2nd Chronicles 9:25 says that he had only four thousand stalls for horses and chariots. Whoa! That's a difference of thirty five thousand! Pretty big mistake, right? Well, not really. Again, we have to look carefully at the wording here, so let's look at these two verses:
1st Kings 4:26
And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
2nd Chronicles 9:25
And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.
Does 1st Kings 4:26 tell us how many chariots Solomon had? No, it only tells us how many horses he had for his chariots (In this case, forty thousand). 2nd Chronicles 9:25, however, tells us how many stalls Solomon had for his horses AND chariots when they were TOGETHER. Can you guess how many horses were attached to each chariot? Yep! Ten. These weren't the small, one-man chariots you see in Ben Hur movies. These chariots were like rolling fortresses. They were huge. Can you see what's going on with these verses now? Solomon had forty thousand horses, each in their own stall, and then he had four thousand stalls for the chariots, each of them with ten horses. And, by the way, you'll see the proof that ten men rode in each chariot with the next supposed contradiction we cover.
(10) How many men did David kill?
2nd Samuel 10:18 says David killed seven hundred Syrians but 1st Chronicles 19:18 says he killed seven thousand. Here, again, the problem is a matter of Bible skeptics not being able to figure out how many men rode in a chariot (ten, as we said just above).
2nd Samuel 10:18
And the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew the men of seven hundred chariots of the Syrians, and forty thousand horsemen, and smote Shobach the captain of their host, who died there.
1st Chronicles 19:18
But the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew of the Syrians seven thousand men which fought in chariots, and forty thousand footmen, and killed Shophach the captain of the host.
Well, which is it? Seven hundred or seven thousand? Read the two verses carefully. 2nd Samuel 10:18 tells us how many CHARIOT LOADS of men that David slew, in this case, seven hundred. Now, given that there were ten men per chariot, that would mean that he slew seven thousand men, which is what 1st Chronicles 19:18 tells us directly. Simply put, 2nd Samuel 10:18 gives us the chariot count, 1st Chronicles 19:18 gives us the man count.
By the way, the King James Bible got all of the above accounts right, of course. If you have an NIV lying around, go check it and see if IT got any of the above accounts right.
(11) Did they hear a voice or did the NOT hear a voice?
King James Bible haters allege that there is a contradiction between Acts 9:5-7 and Acts 22:8-10. The two passages are describing the scene when Paul was on the road to Damascus and Jesus appeared as a bright light and spoke to Paul. Well, one of the passasges (Acts 9:5-7) says that Paul's traveling companions heard a voice, but Acts 22:8-10 says that the companions did NOT hear the voice of him who spoke to Paul.
So, let's take a look at the two passages in the King James Bible and see what's there:
Acts 9:5-7 (KJB)
5. And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
6. And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.
7. And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.
Acts 22:8-10 (KJB)
8. And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.
9. And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.
10. And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do.
Is there a contradiction? Is the King James Bible flawed? Ooooh, does this mean that there is no perfect copy of God's word in the world? Oooooh, does that mean we can sin and blame it on an imperfect Bible when we get to heaven?
Nope.
Sorry, King James Bible haters, but there is no contradiction between Acts 9:5-7 and Acts 22:9 in the King James Bible. It's important to remember that the companions traveling with Paul saw the light too (Acts 22:9) and were probably at least partially as blinded by the light as Paul was (which is why they saw no man). Then they hear a voice say, "Who art thou, Lord?" (Acts 9:5, 22:8) and "What shall I do, Lord?" (Acts 22:10), which was Paul, of course. Notice that it says they only heard ONE voice. Jesus then answers Paul, which was the voice the companions did NOT hear. So, they DID hear a voice, which was Paul's, and they did NOT hear a voice, which was Jesus'. Once again, the King James Bible gets it right, and the NIV, NASB, NET Bible etc, all fail again when they try to correct the inspired KJB.
The way that the NIV, NASB, and NET Bible try to "correct" the King James Bible is by changing the word "heard" in Acts 22:9 to "understand," and their argument is that the Greek word "ηκουσαν" could be translated as either "heard" or "understand," and the King James translators just picked the wrong one. But the King James translators knew what they were doing (being inspired by God probably had something to do with that), and they knew that the word should be "heard." To change the word "heard" to "understand" in Acts 22:9 implies that Paul's companions HEARD the voice of Jesus but just didn't understand it. That's wrong in 2 ways. Not only do we know that they only heard ONE voice (that of Paul), but Acts 26:14 shows us that Jesus spoke to Paul in Hebrew, which his companions would have understood.:
Acts 26:14
And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
(12) "Replenish" or "Fill"
There are some people who say that the word "replenish" in Genesis 1:28 of the King James Bible should instead read "fill," as modern Bibles do, because the word "replenish" implies that the world was once populated, then was no longer populated, and that God is replacing the world with the new animals in Genesis 1:28, giving credibility to Theistic Evolution.
I searched this matter out and found out why the King James Bible translators used the word "replenish" instead of "fill." First off, they used the word "fill" only 6 verses before Genesis 1:28, so we know they were aware of the word "fill":
Genesis 1:20-22
20. 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.
21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
22. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and FILL the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.
Six verses later, of course, they use the word "replenish." Verse 28 is the target verse, of course:
Genesis 1:24-28
24. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
28. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it:
The difference here lies in what God's creations do to the waters and what they do to the earth. Apparently, they only fill the waters, but they ~replenish~ the earth. Now look at what it says in Psalm 104:24-30. It agrees. God's creatures fill the waters but renew the face of the earth:
Psalm 104:24-30
24. O Lord, how manifold are thy works!
in wisdom hast thou made them all:
the earth is full of thy riches.
25. So is this great and wide sea, wherein are things creeping innumerable,
both small and great beasts.
26. There go the ships:
there is that leviathan, whom thou hast made to play therein.
27. These wait all upon thee;
that thou mayest give them their meat in due season.
28. That thou givest them they gather:
thou openest thine hand, they are filled with good.
29. Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled:
thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust.
30. Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created:
and thou renewest the face of the earth.
Verses 24 and 30 let us know that this is talking about a time of creation, but note that the creations (and that includes man) are used to "renew" the face of the earth. Also, note that we renew the earth, but not the water.
And now look at this. A lot of the Bibles that anti-King James onlyists offer up as viable substitutes for the King James Bible say the same thing for verse 30:
Psalm 104:30 (NKJV)
You send forth Your Spirit, they are created; And You RENEW the face of the earth.
Psalm 104:30 (ESV)
When you send forth your Spirit, they are created, and you RENEW the face of the ground.
Psalm 104:30 (NIV)
When you send your Spirit, they are created, and you RENEW the face of the ground.
Psalm 104:30 (NASB)
You send forth Your Spirit, they are created; And You RENEW the face of the ground.
All living things on the earth were made from dust, not from water, and when we multiply we renew the dust that was used. There is no need to renew the waters, therefore we only fill the waters. I imagine it may have taken quite a bit of dust to make all of the first forms of life, seeing as how they have blossomed into all of the life we have on the earth today.
It would appear that out of all those Bibles, only the King James Bible has scripture that actually agrees with itself (Genesis 1:28 and Psalm 104:30). (Thus, the reason King James' lingual scholars decided to use the word "fill" in Genesis 1:22 when he was talking about water, but "replenish" in Genesis 1:28 when he was talking about earth.)
I'll say it again: When you try to "correct" the edges of the sword known as the King James Bible, you're going to get cut and humiliated.
