Jamal Badawi: Many Biblical scholars have addressed this in the Christian publication Awake, there are 50,000 errors in the Bible. Who provoked David to make a census? Satan or God? 1 Chron 21 and 2 Samuel 24. Duration of famine, 3 years or 7? 1 Chron 21 and 2 Sam 24. Number killed by David 700 chariots 7000 men, 7000 chariots 40,000 men 2 Sam 10 1 Chron 19. How old was 8 years old or 18? 2 Chron 56 2 Kings 24. Number of stalls of David 40,000 or 4,000 1 Kings 4 2 Chron 9.

Let us handle the first alleged discrepancy, that of 700 vs. 7000. The most probable solution is the standard one given: a transmissional corruption in the numbers. More likely the 7000 figure in 1 Chr is correct. But is it reasonable to assume a textual corruption in 2 Sam -- or is this what our subject cavalierly states as "the usual gimmick [for apologetics] in action -- the copyist excuse". However, Gleason Archer on page 60 of the Zondervan book Inerrancy states the well-known fact that "It is very easy to leave off or inadvertently add a `zero' when copying down a number in round figures. The ancient systems of numerical notation were susceptible to this kind of mistake, for they too used decimal notations that were as easily confused as Arabic or Roman numerals." And note that we here have a textual difference which is tantamount to the dropping (or the insertion of) an extra decimal place. There is nothing unreasonable at all in stating that it is much more likely that a transcriptional error has taken place than for an error in the autographs to go unnoticed by people for a long time.

Now the second alleged discrepancy that our subject brings up is the fact that the 2 Sam passage labels the 40,000 as horsemen/cavalry, whereas the 1 Chron 19 passages labels the 40,000 as footmen/infantry. Our subject quotes Arndt's solution found on p, 39 of Does the Bible Contradict Itself?, which states

our subject responds:

The fallacy in our subject's above reasoning is that a two-dimensional view of history is taken here. The battle was an event that occupied a linear interval of time, yet the accounts in both 2 Sam and 1 Chr present the action in a punctiliar fashion. our subject's case would be strong if he could prove or adduce reasonable evidence for the assertion that the terms "horsemen" and "footmen" in fact apply to 40,000 at the same instance in time. But such evidence is not presented, and our subject has engaged in the hidden premise that the same instance in time is being recorded. Remember that the 40,000 were not killed at once. It is reasonable (in my opinion) to state that the perspective of the author of 2 Sam views the 40,000 with respect to an early stage of the battle -- when they were on horse, while the Chronicler views the 40,000 with respect to a later stage of the battle, when they were on foot. I personally do not see how one could call such a solution unreasonable. Ask two people about, say, yesterday's football game. Is it not reasonable to assume that person A will probably be thinking about a different point in time for yesterday's game than person B?

Perhaps another example will clarify. You are fighting in a war. You shoot down a helicopter but the pilot escapes to the ground and comes at you. You shoot the pilot dead. What (or, more accurately, Who) have you killed? Some might say that you have killed the pilot (despite the fact that he is not piloting at this instant of time). Some might say that you have killed a soldier. Both accounts are correct: the former views the person you killed in a previous sense ("he was flying a helicopter") while the latter views the person you killed in a more immediate sense ("he was wearing a uniform and charging you on the ground"). I don't see how what is happening between 2 Sam and 1 Chr is any different here than in the two examples given.

Another possibility is that in the battle, some of the 40,000 were on horse, some were on foot. The 2 Sam author used the term "horseman" to denote the whole group, whereas the 1 Chr author used the term "footman" to denote the whole group. Again, this type of labeling is not unfaithful to idiomatic language. For another example of the flexibility of the Hebrew idiom for naming groups, see the discussion in section 13.

It should be kept in mind that round numbers are being given here, and so it is not reasonable to suppose that exact numbers and exact titles are used here. When this is kept in mind, the problem appears to be a non-issue except for those who do not understand basic textual criticism (700 vs. 7000) principles and for those skeptics who insist too dogmatically that the text be read in as wooden a fashion as they see fit.

As with many of these numerical discrepancies, it is the decade number that varies. It is instructive to observe that the number notations used by the Jewish settlers in the 5th century BC Elephantine Papyri, during the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, from which this passage comes, evidences the earlier form of numerical notation. This consisted of a horizontal stroke ending in a downward hook at its right end to represent the numbers in tens (thus two horizontal strokes one above the other would be 20). Vertical strokes were used to represent anything less than ten. Thus eight would be /III IIII, but eighteen would be /III IIII with the addition of a horizontal line and downward hook above it. Similarly twenty-two would be /I followed by two horizontal hooks, and forty-two would be /I followed by two sets of horizontal hooks (please forgive the deficiencies of my computer; it is not the scholar Dr. Archer is).

If, then, the primary manuscript from which a copy was being carried out was blurred or smudged, one or more of the decadal notations could be missed by the copyist. It is far less likely that the copyist would have mistakenly seen an extra ten stroke that was not present in his original then that he would have failed to observe one that had been smudged.

In the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible, the corrections have been included in the texts. However, for clarity, footnotes at the bottom of the page mention that earlier Hebrew MSS include the scribal error, while the Septuagint MSS and Syriac as well as one Hebrew MSS include the correct numerals. It only makes sense to correct the numerals once the scribal error has been noted. This, however, in no way negates the authenticity nor the authority of the scriptures which we have.

There are a number of ways to answer these puzzling differences. The most plausible is analogous to what we found earlier in challenge numbers five and six above, where the decadal number has been rubbed out or distorted due to constant use.

Others believe that the stalls mentioned in 2 Chronicles were large ones that housed 10 horses each (that is, a row of ten stalls). Therefore 4,000 of these large stalls would be equivalent to 40,000 small ones.

Another commentator maintains that the number of stalls recorded in 1 Kings was the number at the beginning of Solomon's reign, whereas the number recorded in 2 Chronicles was the number of stalls at the end of his reign. We know that Solomon reigned for 40 years; no doubt, many changes occurred during this period. It is quite likely that he reduced the size of the military machine his father David had left him.

1. Matthew said that Jesus is a descendent of David through Solomon, Luke said it is through Nathan, both cannot be correct.

Jamal Badawi: The synoptic Gospels say that Jesus will return to rule in the present generation Mt 10:16,24 Mk 15, Lk 21. We all know that this didn't happen. Mt 19:27-29 Jesus prophesied that each of the 12 would rule over Israel, this has not happened and one of the 12 was Judas. Muslim respect Jesus and believe that he did not say it.

take no bag for the journey, or extra tunic, or sandals or a staff; for the worker is worth his keep......" A student is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master.

"I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

Jamal Badawi: It is the extent that a document has been preserved over time. A document can be authentic but not authoritative. Shakespeare's works are preserved but they are not the word of God. The Suras in the Qur'an, we are given evidence that it is authoritative and cannot be the words of Muhammad, how it was written and memorized during the life of the Prophet.

Jamal Badawi: It centers around version vs transmission. It is possible to have different translations, but when we speak of translations we are talking about different spelling, the Bibles are different versions. The Catholic Bible has 73 books and the Protestant Bible has 66 books. Which is the word of God? The KJV and RSV are very different. John 3:16 there is a difference, the RSV drops begotten. 1 John 5:7 is not is the RSV, it is inauthentic. Mark verse 9-20 is in the KJV and not in the RSV. We have no copy of the New Testament in the language that Jesus spoke, the Qur'an is in Arabic which Muhammad spoke. There is no evidence that any such manuscript existed. No one knows how the four Gospels were chosen. In Encyclopedia Americana, there is an indication of this difficulty "we have no certain knowledge as to how or where the Canon was formed". We are not sure if they are the exclusive works of the authors. Rev Conner says that if you examined the texts, there is a lack of literary unity so others wrote it. Most of the New Testament was written by people who were not witnesses.

who is he? The letters of James and Peter are less than 4%. The manuscripts of the same Gospels have problems.