I want to state from the outset, that the only purpose of this article is to demonstrate that there are errors in Bible Chronology. An internet search will turn up lots of sites demonstrating discrepancies in the Scriptures, and others offering defenses to such allegations.
I was looking at a site today that gave as one particular example of a discrepancy that in one verse Jesus was clothed in a Scarlet robe and in another verse it is recorded as a Purple robe. This type of claim of contradiction is childish to say the least. It's a nit picking belligerent type of exercise that derives from a mind with complete tunnel vision.
There are other claims that are successfully countered by demonstrating that an apparent discrepancy results from the complexities of translation. If you look in the New Testament you will find many references to the English word "Hell". But in fact, that English word stands in for a variety of different words used in the Greek, each carrying it's own significance.
Some types of 'contradiction' claims arise because the people making them are not skilled. So they can be forgiven. See: Alleged Discrepancies (The Event Could Have Happened Only One Way by Eric Lyons, M.Min.)
There are of course many other claims, the defense to which is best left to those who claim to know the answer. (Although some such defenses are very tenuous indeed.)
The type of 'contradiction' claims that I will deal with in this article,
Some of the claims of contradiction arise from the 'tunnel vision types', some come from the 'unskilled' group, others which seem legitimate are only apparently so, but not factually so; and finally, there are definitely some transcription errors, which inherently means that the Bible is not infallible.
Are there Real Contradictions in Bible Chronology?
The easiest way to answer this question is to look at three short charts which record the lengths of the reigns of the Kings of Israel and the Kings of Judah, and notice how the chronological record is different for each, despite referring to the exact same period of time.
In Chart One, We look at the period to elapse between Solomon's death, and when Jehu slew the kings of Israel and Judah within days of each other. Since we are measuring out the exact same period of time, the data for both kingdoms should be the same but they aren't. There is a 3 year difference.
In Chart No.2, we again begin at the time of Solomon's death and proceed to King Uzziah of Judah's 38th year, which was the last year of Jeroboam of Israel. The 3 year difference has now increased to 8 years.
In Chart Three, to compare the data again from the commencement of the Divided Kingdom, but this time to the final destruction of the Kingdom of Israel in 722 BCE during Hoshea's reign, at which time, according to the Bible, Hezekiah was in his 6th year. The difference in the data is now 19 years.
That there is something wrong with Biblical Chronology is only not obvious to the Biblical Infallibility crowd, and for them to claim that what is plainly written does not mean exactly what is says, is to say that one cannot trust what one reads. Catch 22!
To those who would inanely suggest that the discrepancy derives from the use of different recording systems, I would simply like to point out, that that is the whole point of the King's Calendar Research.
King's Calendar Premise.
The King's Calendar operates on three fundamental premises.
it is in fact a very difficult thing to ignore the evidence of archaeology and history, which demonstrates that the chronology of the Bible is incorrect
But what fascinates me, is that many 'fundamentalists', while publicly preaching the Bible to be the Word of God... maintain that biblical chronology is not important, saying "we don't feel that the historical information is important".
If the Bible was inspired and ordained by God, how dare anyone who holds to this position then maintain that God couldn't get the factual details recorded correctly. It is a blatant contradiction to that persons 'foundational faith', and in terms of psychology, is explained as 'compartmentalisation'.
we also have others who while maintaining that the Bible is inspired of God, have so sold out to 'academia', that they have given up even bothering to find the answer
I never expected that the religious communities would have so completely sold out to academia, or so completely retreated from reality, as to tell me that it doesn't matter that the historical details of the Bible are wrong.
Because the academic world cannot understand Biblical chronology, particularly the synchronous chronology of the Divided Kingdom period, they assume that the fault lies with the record, when in fact, the true fault lies with their simple inability to understand that chronological record.
The 'King's Calendar' contention is that the Biblical chronological details are not recorded in any system currently used or recognised. It is a system that has a specific origin, and that it was a very deliberate intent on the part of the ancients, to 'change or conceal' the true chronological history of Israel, substituting it with an 'artificial calendar'.
Ultimately, we have to face the fact, that modern academics are involved in a deliberately deceptive manipulation of Biblical Texts, in order to get the gullible and the ignorant to accept their findings. If the Bible is a piece of 'rubbish' then academics should stop trying to manipulate people's religious beliefs, by quoting from it.
So on the one hand we have academics who maintain that the Biblical record is wrong, but use it anyway to support their theories, and on the other, fundamentalists who while saying that the Bible is infallible, either retreat from reality or hypocritically ignore chronological contradictions.
In this article I not only wish to demonstrate to you how the King's Calendar views certain Discrepancies, but in doing so I am going to draw your attention to The Skeptic's Annotated Bible(Contradictions in the Bible) Website, which lists hundreds of Bible Contradictions.
According to Scientific Methodological Principles, every theory must be tested again and again to see if it contains within it, some flaw. That process is called falsification. Religious people might not like reading about Biblical contradictions, but they err if their reaction is to bury their heads in the sand and pretend that there are none. They owe it to themselves to 'test the spirits' to use a New Testament term. They owe it to themselves to seek the truth, and that means subjecting their 'faith' to a test. If 'faith' is real (legitimate/valid) it will survive the test. Being ignorant of a fact can be excused. Refusing to examine the facts, is not only cowardice but a completely different type of ignorance.
The first thing I want to do in this article is look at some inane attempts on the The Skeptic's Annotated Bible website to discredit the Bible.
Part One.
Inane Objections.
1. Who Killed King Saul?
Under title number 305 at the Skeptics Website the following may be found to demonstrate the unreliability of the Bible. Their point? There are different accounts of who killed King Saul of Israel.
Saul committed suicide.
1 Samuel 31:4-6 : Therefore Saul took a sword, and fell upon it. So Saul died.
1 Chronicles 10:4 : Then said Saul to his armourbearer, Draw thy sword, and thrust me through therewith; lest these uncircumcised come and abuse me. But his armourbearer would not; for he was sore afraid. So Saul took a sword, and fell upon it.
Saul was killed by an Amalekite.
2 Samuel 1:8-10 : And he [Saul] said unto me, Who art thou? And I answered him, I am an Amalekite. He said unto me again, Stand, I pray thee, upon me, and slay me. So I stood upon him, and slew him.
Saul was killed by the Philistines.
2 Samuel 21:12 : The Philistines had slain Saul.
God killed him.
1 Chronicles 10:14 : So Saul died for his transgression which he committed against the LORD, even against the word of the LORD, which he kept not, and also for asking counsel of one that had a familiar spirit, to enquirer of it; And inquired not of the LORD: therefore he slew him, and turned the kingdom unto David the son of Jesse.
Because there is no accompanying apologetic, one is left to see these quotes as contradictory, but they are not.
According to 1 Samuel 31:1 the battle in which Saul died was fought against the Philistines. (He therefore died in a battle against the Philistines)
According to 2 Samuel Chapter 1 - An Amalekite claimed that King Saul, while dying from his suicide attempt asked the Amalekite to finish him off. We do not know if the claim is true, but the Amalekite was punished for his claim. What we do know for sure, is that, Saul committed suicide.
The reference provided by the skeptics in relation to 2 Samuel 21:12 is deceptive because in it is stated that King David took the bones of Saul and Jonathan from the men of Jabesh-gilead, who had stolen them from the place where the Philistines had hanged them, (Bones or Bodies) in the day that the Philistines slew Saul in Gilboa. (Though he killed himself, it was because of the Philistines.)
None of the statements are contradictory, because they are written accounts from different sources. God punished Saul, slaying him (allowing him to be slain) by suicide, and perhaps with the help of a stranger, and certainly as a result of the Philistine victory. It is all about the way people speak. It would be like reading that WWII was won by the USA.
The real problem with the Skeptic's approach, is that they have fallen into the same trap into which many fundamentalists have fallen; Biblical Infallibility. The skeptics arguments are designed to find fault with the Bible so as to prove that it is incorrect and therefore not infallible. The trap they fall into, is that only fundamentalists require the Bible to be infallible in order to believe that what is recorded therein is true. Errors of fact or transmission do not prove that a story is false.
2. The Death of King Joash of Judah
In article number 210, the following information is provided:
2 Kings 12:20-21 Joash ... died; and they buried him with his fathers in the city of David.
2 Chronicles 24:24-25 Joash ... died: and they buried him in the city of David, but they buried him not in the sepulchers of the kings.
This is such a frivolous and puerile argument because it is ultimately based on a presumption of the prime importance of individual words in contradistinction to 'Primary Text' meaning. "I won the lottery!" can be translated as "I won first prize!" But perhaps I only won second prize. "But I still won the lottery!" (Some Biblical material whilst translated to carry 'Primary Text Meaning' doesn't translate Individual words precisely so as not to offend our modern day sensibilities.)
The two books cited, Kings and Chronicles, were written by two different sectarian groups who collated the historical data and gave it their own particular religio-political slant. See HERE for an article on Bible Development including the books of Kings and Chronicles.
Both references specify the main point, which was that the King's body was buried in Jerusalem, where the King's Ancestors were buried. One however provides additional information specifying that he was denied the actual sepulcher of the Kings. There is no reason to doubt the truth of the statement, but by including it, this point suited a particular religious perspective. This demonstration of contradiction is fallacious.
3. Where did King Josiah Die?
This example is similar to the last.
In Article No 214 our attention is drawn to two conflicting pieces of information.
2 Kings 23:29-30 And king Josiah went against him; and he slew him at Megiddo ... And his servants carried him in a chariot dead from Megiddo, and brought him to Jerusalem.
2 Chronicles 35:23-24 And the archers shot at king Josiah; and the king said to his servants, Have me away; for I am sore wounded. His servants therefore ... brought him to Jerusalem, and he died.
Again this is about the meaning of words and the intent of the sentence.
"slew him" and "Dead from Meggido" does not mean that he died either instantly or before the chariot left the battlefield at Meggido. We know from 2 Chronicles 35:23-24 that he was alive at the time he was transported from the battlefield.
"brought him to Jerusalem; and he died, and was buried" is again imposing a literal meaning onto a literary form. That he was carried to Jerusalem and was buried is literal fact, but the phrase "and he died" can as easily mean "and he died after he arrived in Jerusalem" as, "and he died on the way."
This is not nit picking. People who are killed in car accidents are usually pronounced dead either in the ambulance on the way to hospital or after they arrive. So which is correct? He died at the scene? - he died on the way to hospital? - or he died after he arrived at the hospital? It depends on who is writing the story and how they word it, as well as how we read it.
Take these for an hypothetical example: "My father was killed by the Japanese in WWII" "The Japanese shot and killed my father" The literal truth: My father was shot in the arm, fell down, knocked himself unconscious, and drowned. So who killed him? and Is there any contradiction to the original statement?
The real contradiction in this story as raised by some historians, is that the event did not take place at Meggido. For a variety of reasons discussed in the article entitled: The Death of King Josiah of Judah. The King's Calendar agrees with some opinion that the background to the story (that pharaoh attacked Josiah) is incorrect, and that Josiah was shot either accidentally by the Egyptians or shot by the Assyrians.
4. To Whom was the Patriarch Joseph sold into Slavery?
In Article Number 328 an attempt is made to prove inconsistency in the record.
Genesis 37:36 And the Midianites sold him [Joseph] into Egypt.
Genesis 37:28 Then there passed by Midianites merchantmen; and they drew and lifted up Joseph out of the pit, and sold Joseph to the Ismaelites for twenty pieces of silver: and they brought Joseph into Egypt.
Genesis 39:1 And Joseph was brought down to Egypt; and Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh, captain of the guard, an Egyptian, bought him of the hands of the Ishmaelites.
Judges Chapter 8 makes it plain that the two terms (Midianites and Ishmaelites) are interchangeable.
5. Did King Zedekiah see the King of Babylon?
From article number number 375, a pathetic attempt to prove something.
Jeremiah 34:3 Thine [Zedekiah's] eyes shall behold the eyes of the king of Babylon.
2 Kings 25:7 And they ... put out the eyes of Zedekiah, and bound him in fetters of brass, and carried him to Babylon.
This is an absurd attempt to prove a contradiction. There is no contradiction. Either it is an attempt to deceive readers or it is an example compiled by a quick reader hellbent on finding fault instead of using his own eyesight. Zedekiah escaped Jerusalem, was caught, was taken to Riblah where his eyes were put out in front of King Nebuchadrezzar, and then he was taken to Babylon.
6. Where was Jehoiakim of Judah Buried?
This Article, number 197 at first seems somewhat justified.
2 Chronicles 36:5-6 Jehoiakim ... did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord his God. Against him came up Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and bound him in fetters, to carry him to Babylon.
Jeremiah 22:18-19 Therefore thus saith the Lord concerning Jehoiakim .... He shall be buried with the burial of an ass, drawn and cast forth beyond the gates of Jerusalem. This is also a fallacious post. There is no record of Jehoiakim's actual death. Therefore both statements can literally be true. If he was taken alive as a prisoner to Babylon, he could also (as a King) have been returned to Jerusalem upon his death, but instead of being buried properly, was buried outside the city. If we want to take the prophecy literally, then wherever he was buried was more befitting of the burial of an ass than that of the burial of a king.
However, in their haste to debunk Scripture, the skeptics have failed to look further than their belligerent eyesight. Whilst both Scriptural references can be true, the fact is that Jehoiakim was never taken to Babylon. That is the real contradiction. See:How long did King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon Reign
7. Enoch the 7th Generation from Adam.
From Article number 121 : The purpose of this objection escapes me.
Perhaps the alleged discrepancy is that we would write that Enoch/Enos/Enosh was the 6th generation from Adam, or perhaps it is just the name spellings. I think that they call this a no boner.
Genesis 5:3-18
And Adam ... begat ... Seth....
And Seth ... begat Enos....
And Enos ... begat Cainan....
And Cainan .... begat Mahalaleel....
And Mahalaleel ... begat Jared....
And Jared .... begat Enoch.
1 Chronicles 1:1-2
Adam,
Sheth,
Enosh,
Kenan,
Mahalaleel,
Jered,
Henoch....
Lk.3:37-38
Enoch, which was the son of Jared,
which was the son of Maleleel,
which was the son of Cainan,
Which was the son of Enos,
which was the son of Seth,
which was the son of Adam
Jude 14: And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam
Part Two.
Some Legitimate Contradictions.
1. Was King Zedekiah of Judah the Uncle or Brother of King Jehoiachin?
Article Number 374 of the Skeptics articles introduces something interesting.
2 Kings 24:17
And the king of Babylon made Mattariah his father's brother king in his stead, and changed his name to Zedekiah.
2 Chronicles 36:10
And when the year was expired, king Nebuchadnezzar ... made Zedekiah his brother king over Judah and Jerusalem.
This is a real contradiction because there is no way (under normal circumstances) that my uncle can be my brother.
Note: Those who think that this verse refers to Nebuchadrezzar's Brother or Uncle need to look at the passages again.
This is a genuine contradiction and so proves that the Bible is not infallible. These two books were collated and compiled over a long period of time, presumably using some of the same materials.
The Books of Kings and Chronicles actually state that they are compilations of historical materials. They were not handed down by God. Obviously, one of the Redactors made a mistake.
But as to which statement is true, in Article Number 196 another contradiction is raised, that has bearing on the issue.
2 Kings 24:6
So Jehoiachim slept with his fathers; and Jehoiachin his son reigned in his stead.
Jeremiah 36:30
Therefore thus saith the Lord of Jehoiakim king of Judah; He shall have none to sit upon the throne of David.
The contradiction is that Jehoiakim's son Jehoiachin became king, despite Jeremiah's prophecy. That is true. But he was immediately removed and so did not reign. He didn't make it to being crowned king, which would have occurred in Nisan of the following year.
What is interesting however, is that if Zedekiah were also the son of Jehoiakim, then Jeremiah's prophecy is really off. However if 2 Kings 24:17 is correct in saying that Zedekiah was Jehoiakim's uncle, (not his brother) then the prophecy is correct, and we can assume that it is 2 Chronicles 36:10 which is incorrect. Zedekiah was Jehoiakim's brother and Jehoiachin's Uncle: 2 Kings 24:17
2. How old was King Ahaziah of Judah when he commenced to Reign?
From Article No. 17, a legitimate observation, which is just a transcription error. This validates the claim that the Bible is not infallible, because it does contain Human error. That Error does not however invalidate the Historical Record.See:Apologetics Press: Ahaziah
2 Kings 8:26
Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign.
2 Chronicles 22:2
Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign.
3. In Which year of King Asa did Baasha King of Israel die?
Another legitimate example of transcription error. From Article No. 40.
1 Kings 16:6-8
So Baasha slept with his fathers, and was buried in Tirzah: and Elah his son reigned in his stead.... In the twenty and sixth year of Asa king of Judah began Elah the son of Baasha to reign over Israel in Tirzah, two years.
2 Chronicles 16:1
In the six and thirtieth year of the reign of Asa - Baasha king of Israel came up against Judah, and built Ramah....
Baasha must have risen from the dead if we must accept every word as literally Dictated by God. That there is a transcription error does not invalidate the Historical truth.
The Soferim who around the 3rd Century BCE became responsible for the transmission and transcription process, are known to have believed themselves not authorised to correct obvious errors. (Modern translators share the same attitude.) The errors were however, "highlighted".
4. How old was King Jehoiachin of Judah when he commenced to Reign?
Another Legitimate contradiction from Skeptics Article number 195. Once again we have a transcription error.
2 Kings 24:8
Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months.
2 Chronicles 36:9
Jehoiachin was eight years old
The Books of Kings and Chronicles were a late compilation, and it is a pity that the soferim (or modern translators) did not simply correct these obvious transcription errors.
Part Three.
The King's Calendar Answer to some contradictions.
1. When did King Jehoash of Israel commence to Reign?
This is an apparent contradiction, but not a factual one.
In Article NO 194, the following references are provided.
2 Kings 13:1
In the three and twentieth year of Joash the son of Ahaziah king of Judah Jehoahaz the son of Jehu began to reign over Israel in Samaria, and reigned seventeen years. (Joash of Judah's 23rd year + 17 years for Jehoahaz of Israel = 40 years)
2 Kings 13:10
In the thirty and seventh year of Joash king of Judah began Jehoash the son of Jehoahaz to reign over Israel in Samaria. (37th not 40th)
Josephus Antiquities Book 9:8:6 states that Jehoash of Israel commenced in the 37th Year of Joash of Israel. This would be correct in Solar years.
In King's Calendar artificial years he commenced in the 40th year of Joash of Judah. If you add the 17 years of Jehoahaz of Israel's reign to the 23rd year of Joash of Judah, when Jehoahaz of Israel commenced to reign, then Jehoahaz' son Jehoash of Israel, ought to commence in the 40th year of Joash of Judah - but only in artificial years.
2. When did King Ahaziah of Judah commence to reign?
This is a fascinating question.
Raised in Skeptics article number 16, it provides apparently contradictory Bible references.
2 Kings 8:25
In the twelfth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel did Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah begin to reign.
2 Kings 9:29
And in the eleventh year of Joram the son of Ahab began Ahaziah to reign.
There are two ways to view these references
Either Both these references refer to the same year.
One is in the artificial calendar.
The other is in the true solar calendar.
Or
As per the chart below, one refers to the ascension year and the other refers to the 1st Regnal year.
However
Both are incorrect.
All Bible References to this period demonstrate that Ahaziah of Israel, who is said to reign after Ahab, actually co-reigned with him, and died before Ahab. We will discuss this shortly.
The following Chart demonstrates both how the Redactors saw the situation, and what the truth was.
In 1 Kings Chapter 22 and 2 Kings Chapter 1 combined with 2 Chronicles Chapter 22 you can read that:
Ahaziah son of King Ahab of Israel commenced his two year reign in the 17th of Jehoshaphat.
Ahaziah died in the 18th year of Jehoshaphat
Jehoram his brother commenced in Jehoshaphat's 18th year
Ahab died in the 19th year of Jehoshaphat
The redactors, thinking that Ahaziah reigned 2 years following Ahab, gave Jehoram a 12 solar year reign. Following the synchronisms however it is obvious that Jehoram son of Ahab of Israel reigned 14 solar years.
Therefore, both 2 Kings 8:25 and 2 Kings 9:29 are incorrect.
Someone is bound to argue that my figures include a faulty calculation for the reign of Ahab. So I would draw your attention to two points.
1. There are two contradictory references that synchronise the reigns of the two Jehorams.
2 Kings 1:17 Jehoram of Israel commenced to reign in the 2nd year of Jehoram of Judah. 2 Kings 8:16 Jehoram of Judah commenced to reign in the 5th year of Jehoram of Israel
The King's Calendar reconstruction synchronizes both and shows both to be correct. Jehoram of Judah was co-reigning with Jehoshaphat.
2. Jehoshaphat's Son and Grandson reigned a total of only 9 years. Therefore, if it will be argued that Jehoram of Israel reigned only the 12 Biblical Years recorded, then he must have commenced in the 3rd last year of Jehoshaphat ie: Jehoshaphat's 23rd year. Therefore Ahab died in Jehoshaphat's 22nd year.
Since Ahab reigned 22 years, both he and Jehoshaphat must have commenced at the same time - Yes? Go check the scriptures. Jehoshaphat commenced to reign in the 4th year of Ahab. 1 Kings 22:41 and Ahab commenced (ascended) in the 38th year of Asa 1 Kings 16:29.
The purpose of synchronisms is to synchronise. The following chart shows that the data does not synchronise and lists the Biblical Synchronisms is a variety of ways, but each time exactly according to the Bible.
Data by the Columns:
'A' = Counting the reign for Judah from Asa's 38th year when Ahab commenced.
'E' = Aligning the 1st year of Ahaziah of Judah with the 12th year of Jehoram of Israel. Each King reigns after the other But Ahab does not commence in the 38th of Asa.
'C' & 'D' = Commencing Ahab's Reign in the 38th of Asa as both the Ascension year and the First Regnal year.
'B' = Aligning the 17th to 19th year of Jehoshaphat with the reign of Ahaziah of Israel as per Columns 'C' & 'D' But the later synchronization falls apart.
Any Explanation must be consistent.
The King's Calendar is consistent!
Can you explain it away?
3. When was King Jehoiachin of Judah released from Prison?
This matter raised in Skeptics Article Number 217 has many ways of being explained, but the king's calendar has a unique perception.
2 Kings 25:27
In the twelfth month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, that Evilmerodach king of Babylon in the year that he began to reign did lift up the head of Jehoiachin king of Judah out of prison.
Jeremiah 52:31
In the twelfth month, in the five and twentieth day of the month, that Evilmerodach king of Babylon, in the first year of his reign, lifted up the head of Jehoiachin king of Judah, and brought him forth out of prison.
Both of these references refer to the exact same day. One is provided from a true solar year perception, and the other from the artificial calendar. Chapter Two Precis - TOC does deal with these references.
The artificial date of the 27th day of the 12th month of the 37th year, occurs Two (2) days before the 38th artificial New Year's Day. The 'King's Calendar' New Year is 20th March 561 BCE. therefore 2 Kings 25:27 refers to March 18th 561 BCE.
To also equate with the 25th day of the 12th lunar or Babylonian Calendar month, it must fall on the 5th day before the Babylonian New year. Therefore Nisan 1st in the Babylonian Calendar for 561 BCE ought to be March 23rd.
(This Nisan First date however has not been confirmed or rebutted.)
4. When was the Temple in Jerusalem Burned by King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon?
Like the previous issue in relation to Jehoiachin of Judah, the Skeptics article number 64 cites two contradictory Biblical references.
2 Kings 25:8-9
And in the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month ... burned the house of the Lord.
Jeremiah 52:12-13
Now in the fifth month, in the tenth day of the month ... burned the house of the Lord.
I deal with this issue in Chapter Two of the King's Calendar Chapter Precis - TOC. These dates are calculated from two different calendrical perspectives but relate to the same date. There are of course other Jewish ways of explaining it.
5. How long did Jotham son of Uzziah of Judah reign?
Just about everyone agrees that these Bible References are contradictory but the King's Calendar disagrees.
From Skeptics Article Number 216
2 Kings 15:30
... in the twentieth year of Jotham the son of Uzziah.
2 Kings 15:32-33
Jotham the son of Uzziah ... reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem.
The author of this Skeptics notation did not do a good job of pointing out contradiction, for as anyone who has read this portion of history knows, Jotham reigned as Governor for his father for an undetermined period of time, before he commenced his own 16 year reign. The simple answer is, that the 20 years referred to in 2 Kings 15:32-33 include that Governorship.
There were so many other ways to point out contradiction for this period of time. For example, Samaria fell in 722 BCE during Hezekiah's 6th year, but 701 BCE was his 14th year.
Most academics have to play a lot with the Biblical Narratives at this point in history, because they can't work out the chronologies for Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah. They are totally screwed up. Chart 3 at the beginning of this article demonstrates how skewed the synchronisms must be if by the time of Hezekiah's 6th year, the Kingdom of Israel / Samaria has accumulated 19 more years than for the same time in the Kingdom of Judah.
The King's Calendar maintains that the names of Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah were misidentified. See:
6. God's Promise to Abraham : How long were the Israelites in Egypt?
From Skeptics article NO 70
Genesis 15:13
And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them, and they shall afflict them four hundred years.
Exodus 12:40
Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years.
Galatians 3:17
The law, which was four hundred and thirty years after.
This question is quite interesting.
In Solar years, back dating from the Exodus, neither 400 nor 430 years are viable in relation to Abraham because they result in the years 1849 BCE and 1879 BCE; both falling before Abraham left Mesopotamia.
In Artificial years, the 400 years dates back to the 5th year of Isaac and the 430 years dates back to the 75 year of Abraham. Neither of these is satisfactory. The promise of an heir and mention of sojourning in a foreign land, occurs after Abraham left Mesopotamia and before Isaac was born.
However The assumption of the King's Calendar is that the artificial calendar is a conversion of History made by Essenes and that within the divided kingdom period there is a 13.5 year overlapping of reigns.
If an ancient record or calculation was available by which to date when the promise was given to Abraham, and if the first artificial calculation included the divided kingdom period, then the calculation would have a 13.5 year excess. It is possible therefore that when the total calculation was divided to provide just the date from the Promise to the Exodus, that the 13.5 years excess was included in that portion. (We saw this with Josephus' calculations)
If we withdrew the 13.5 year assumed excess, we would arrive at two possible options.
A. The 400 years changes to 386 years to arrive at 1321 BCE in Isaac's 19th year
B. The 430 years changes to 416 years to arrive at 1351 BCE at Abraham's 89 year.
Both of these options are viable because:
A The promise to Abraham may in fact have been made at the time of the 'Isaac Sacrifice' (Jewish tradition supports such an age - 19 years old)
B The promise was made to Abraham a long time before Isaac was born - 11/12 years
If you read Exodus 15, you note that Ishmael had not yet been born when the promise of a son was made to Abraham. This would tend to support position B. above.
As for 400 versus 430? perhaps no one was sure which was correct, or one was a generalisation and the other a specific date.
Exodus 12:40 makes it appear that the Sojourn in Egypt was 430 years, but this is not correct. The Sojourn lasted 215 years. The 430 years mentioned above does not specifically relate to the Egyptian Sojourn, which for the most part did not involve slavery; nor did the Mosaic bondage last that long. The reference is to the fact that Abraham's descendants would not be their own masters.
7. Other Contradictions Discussed at King's Calendar.
Both those who totally believe in a literal textual Biblical infallibility and those skeptics who have a need to constantly search to disprove Biblical infallibility, share the same problem. Neither have any real faith in God himself.
Those with a Biblical infallibility dependency need the literal words to Justify their faith in the reality of God, while those who constantly fight against Biblical Infallibility, need to disprove Biblical Infallibility in order to Justify their lack of Faith in the reality of God.
In the end, both miss the point. God's existence is not dependent on the words of a Book. God is, no matter what you believe!
There were many other Points that could have been included in this Article.
If there is any Chronological Issue involving Contradictions that you wish me to discuss,
Do not hesitate to write me.
For both a Funny and a Serious Look at Skepticism.
For those who seek some rational explanation for Biblical passages that confuse by reason of the apparent literal sense in which they written, take a look at the following site. It is fun and funny but the important parts to read are the included links. Extremely informative.
5. Is pi, the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle, equal to 3.0, as is implied by I Kings 7:23 and II Chronicles 4:2, or is it equal to about 3.1416, as all mathematicians agree?
Academics have for a long time been Shifting Previous Historical Perspectives, trying to establish themselves in one way or another. For a variety of reasons they would rather not give credit where it is due; not admit that which they know to be true; not wanting to delve too deeply into something that might show them up for what they are.
The worst of the bunch however, are those who prefer to rewrite history to suit their own political ideologies. In that endeavour, it makes no 'nevermind' whether it is Islamic rewriting of history, or the secularist anti-God, anti-Judeo/Christian who does the writing. The end result is the same: We are deceived about our own history, and our faith is undermined.
Fortunately for us, someone comes along now and then and proves these liars wrong. But instead of always waiting for the 'hard evidence' to turn up and PROVE them wrong, maybe we should be asking them to provide the hard evidence that proves them right.
Bibliography and References:
Apologetics Press
Alleged Discrepancies (The Event Could Have Happened Only One Way by Eric Lyons, M.Min.)
The Premise: Between the 5th and 3rd centuries BCE (but continuing down to at least 104 BCE), Sectarian redactors transcribed the legitimate 'solar year' chronological records of Israel and Judah, into an artificial form, with listed years as each comprised of 12 months of 4 weeks of 7 days, or 336 days per year, thus creating a 13th artificial year where 12 solar years existed.
When the Synchronous Chronological Data provided in the Books of Kings and Chronicles for the Divided Kingdom Period are measured in years of 336 days, the synchronisms actually align. [Refer to Appendix Five to see how it synchronises the Divided Kingdom Period]
General formula for Biblical Data conversion:
The formula for constructing the artificial calendar was:
'X' times 364 equals 'Y' days
'Y' days divided by 336 equals 'Z' artificial years.
Values are:
'X' = any given number of 'real/solar' years
364 = perceived days in the sectarian calendar
'Y' = number of days calculated
336 = number of days in an artificial year
'Z' = artificial years = 1.083'X' and represents the original number of the converted years plus 8%.
To reverse the process by hand:
'Z' years times 336 equals 'Y' divided by 364 equals the Number of 'X' years converted.
To see how effective this method is, SEE:Appendix 5:Diagrammatic Reconstruction of Israelite History from 936 to 586 BCE:
The Principle of Linear Causality
The King's Calendar is a very simple approach to Biblical Chronology. It substitutes a value of 336 days for every year listed in Scripture. As far as the Divided Kingdom is concerned, when you use this 336 day year value, the synchronisms actually work. To see how effective this method is, SEE:Appendix 5: Diagrammatic Reconstruction of Israelite History from 936 to 586 BCE
Because it is a mathematical system, the King's Calendar must abide by certain mathematical rules, the most important of which, is that if you change any date for any day, month, or year every other day, month, or year is effected and must also change. It's like a 'domino effect'. Chronological references cannot be 'forced' to fit, and nor can they simply be ignored or 'compressed' as is the usual case with historians and archaeologists.
If any King's Calendar chronological determination disagrees with anything in the history books, it must argue the case as to why the history books are wrong, or why the evidence for an assertion is untrustworthy. If the King's Calendar successfully defends its' position, then the history books cannot be treated as definitive, and if the King's Calendar is 'proven' wrong, then every other chronological reference it provides is also wrong.
Because of this, the King's Calendar Chronological Reconstruction of Israel's history is unique, in that its' methodology can be scientifically (mathematically) tested and demonstrated to be either true or false. Its' chronological predictions are able to be 'proved' or 'disproved'.
R.P.BenDedek is from Brisbane Australia and is the author of 'The King's Calendar: The Secret of Qumran' at http://www.kingscalendar.com His academic articles set forth Apologetics for and results of his discovery of an "artificial chronological scheme" running through the Bible, Josephus, the Damascus Documents of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Seder Olam Rabbah.
He writes photographic 'Stories from China' and social editorial commentaries, both at KingsCalendar, and as a contributing newspaper columnist. He currently teaches Conversational English in China and in addition to his English Lessons at KingsCalendar, he has created specific sites for Students of English.
