Bible Contradiction? Was Solomon David’s second or fourth son by Bathsheba?

 

For today’s post we will tackle the question the Skeptic Annotated Bible asked: Was Solomon David’s second or fourth son by Bathsheba?

Here are the two answers which the skeptic believes shows a Bible contradiction:

Second

“Then Nathan went to his house. Later the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s [a]widow bore to David, so that he was very sick…Then David comforted his wife Bathsheba, and went in to her and slept with her; and she gave birth to a son, and he named him Solomon. Now the Lord loved him,” (2 Samuel 12:15, 24)

Fourth

“These were the children born to him in Jerusalem: Shimea, Shobab, Nathan, and Solomon, four by Bath-shua the daughter of Ammiel;” (1 Chronicles 3:5)

(All Scriptural quotation comes from the New American Standard Bible)

Here’s a closer look at whether or not there is a contradiction:

1. When dealing with skeptics’ claim of Bible contradictions it seems one can never be reminded enough of what exactly is a contradiction.  A contradiction occurs when two or more claims conflict with one another so that they cannot simultaneously be true in the same sense and at the same time.  To put it another way, a Bible contradiction exists when there are claims within the Bible that are mutually exclusive in the same sense and at the same time.
2. One should be skeptical of whether this is a Bible contradiction given the Skeptic Annotated Bible’s track record of inaccurately handling the Bible.  See the many examples of their error which we have responded to in this post: Collection of Posts Responding to Bible Contradictions.  Of course that does not take away the need to respond to this claim of a contradiction, which is what the remainder of this post will do.  But this observation should caution us to slow down and look more closely at the passages cited by the Skeptic Annotated Bible to see if they interpreted the passages properly to support their conclusion that it is a Bible contradiction.
3. The skeptic tries to pit the passage 2 Samuel 12:15, 24 as affirming the claim “Solomon was David’s second son by Bathsheba” against 1 Chronicles 3:5 as affirming “Solomon was David’s fourth son by Bathsheba.”
4. Notice none of the passages cited by the skeptics actually use any numerical term such as “second” or “fourth” to describe the birth chronological order of Bathsheba’s sons.
5. From 2 Samuel 12:15, 24 it seems reasonable that “Solomon was David’s second son by Bathsheba.”  In the context after David lost his firstborn with Bathsheba the narrative mentioned the next child being born is Solomon.  
6. Yet even with point 5, I would not be dogmatic though I think it is reasonable to expect Solomon as the second son of Bathsheba.
7. 1 Chronicles 3:5 gives us a genealogy.  But there are instances in the Bible where genealogy mentioned names but not in birth order.
   1. With the Noahic genealogy Shem is mentioned first in in Genesis 5:32; 6:10; 7:13 and 1 Chronicles 1:4.  Yet Genesis 10:21 mentioned Shem has an older brother who was Japheth. 
   2. Jesus’ genealogy in Matthew 1 goes from the past to recent past as the way it progresses.  Yet in Matthew 1:1 it states Jesus as “the son of David, the son of Abraham.”  This order is the opposite of the rest of Matthew’s genealogy’s chronological order.  
   3. Given these examples, we need to be cautious with thinking 1 Chronicles 3:5 as a genealogy would have to be in chronological temporal order of birth.
8. The reason why 1 Chronicles 3:5 might have stated Solomon last among the sons of Bathsheba to give the other brothers prominence since Solomon is already well known as the king.  There’s a sense that though 1-2 Chronicles is about David’s house reigning in Judah yet the the first few chapter in 1 Chronicles gives us genealogies of others including Levitical priests before it got to David’s descendants.  So we should not be surprised that the most important person might not be the first focus in the beginning of the opening chapters in 1 Chronicles.
9. There is no contradiction here.  Seems the skeptic needs to learn of How to Handle Bible Contradictions.
10. We shouldn’t miss that worldviews are at play even with the skeptic’s objection to Christianity.  The worldview of the author of the Skeptic Annotated Bible actually doesn’t even allow for such a thing as the law of non-contradiction to be meaningful and intelligible.  In other words for him to try to disprove the Bible by pointing out that there’s a Bible contradiction doesn’t even make sense within his own worldview.  Check out our post “Skeptic Annotated Bible Author’s Self-Defeating Worldview.”
     
     

Advertisement