I received an email from a Christian that simply repeated one of the contradictions to which I had referred and he
cited chunks of text from different sources that were presumably supposed to show that no contradiction arose. As can
by seen from the following, they do not achieve this and the writer apparently did not check this before emailing.
I had stated:
'Solomon's reign.
Acts 13:16-22 numbers the years from when the Hebrews left Egypt to
David beginning his reign as 40 (Wilderness) + 450 (Judges) + 40 (Saul) =
530 years. According to 1 Chron 29:27, David reigned 40 years, so Solomon
became king (when David died) 530 + 40 years (of David's reign) = 570
years.
040 - Wilderness (Acts 13)
450 - Judges (Acts 13)
040 - Saul (Acts 13)
040 - David (1 Chron 29:27)
-------------
570 years
-------------
However, 1 Kings 6:1 states Solomon's 4th year of rule (when he began the Temple building) was 480
years after the Hebrews left Egypt, i.e., he began his rule 476 years after the Hebrews left. Therefore there is a contradiction of
(570 - 476) 94 years.'
The Christian wrote:
'The following is from http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/comm_read/985574552.html
[This says 'from the Exodus to the building of the temple were five hundred ninety-two years [JOSEPHUS, Antiquities, 8.3.1]; deduct forty years in the wilderness; twenty-five years of Joshua's rule [JOSEPHUS, Antiquities, 5.1.29]; forty years of Saul's reign (Act 13:2); forty of David's and the first four years of Solomon's reign (1 Ki 6:1), and there remain, just four hundred forty-three years; or, in round numbers, 'about four hundred fifty years'].'
I replied:
'This lays out the chronology as:-
040 wilderness
025 Joshua (Per Josephus)
443 Settlement and Judges
040 Saul
040 David
004 Solomon
-------------
592 years (Agreeing Josephus)
-------------
How does any of this explain the 1 Kings 6:1 statement that Solomon's 4th year of rule (when he began the Temple building) was 480 years after the Hebrews left Egypt, i.e. he began his rule 476 years after the Hebrews left, resulting in a contradiction of
(592-4-476) 112 years?'
The Christian replied:
'The following is from http://www.hope.edu/academic/religion/bandstra/RTOT/CH7/CH7_3.HTM.
[This suggests: 'A reasonable estimate for the time span of the period of the judges is one hundred fifty years. Evidently, many of the judges actually lived and ruled contemporaneously'].'
I responded:
'All very fascinating but it simply says that the chronology is artificial which of course invalidates any claim that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Moreover, it says 'A reasonable estimate for the time span of the period of the judges is one hundred fifty years' thereby saying that Acts 13: is incorrect when it says the period of the judges was 450 years'.'
The Christian replied:
'The following is from http://www.hope.edu/academic/religion/bandstra/RTOT/CH7/CH7_1A.HTM.
[This provides information about the Judges, their background and their purpose].'
My response was:
'Again, all very interesting, but how does this actually affect the chronological anomaly set out above? The various different pieces of
material which are cited should include a clear chronlogical table, stating what the amount of time each period was, and the Biblical text which advises that time-period. The very fact they do not do this can only raise suspicions.
Finally, the conservative theologian Prof. F. F. Bruce in The International Bible Commentary: with the NIV, (Marshall,
Pickering/Zondervan, 1986) is unable to explain the chronology. For Acts 13:19, he says: 'The 450 years may extend from the patriarchs to the beginning of the Judges'.
And for 1 Kings 6;1, he remarks: 'The foundation of the temple is dated to the four hundred and eightieth year after the exodus. It is impossible to say how this figure is arrived at. K. A. Kitchen (Ancient Orient and Old Testament, 1966, pp.72-75) gives extended discussion and concludes that the 480 years is 'some kind of aggregate of overlapping periods which spanned the (approx) 300 years'.
In sum, there is no point in copying chunks of text from different sources, some of which is not even relevant, that fail to set out
how the chronological contradiction can be explained.'
