Example 1:

1 Chronicles 21:1 - Then Satan stood against Israel and incited David to number Israel.

2 Samuel 24:1 - Again the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and he incited David
against them, saying, Go, number Israel and Judah.

Mr. Ahmed Deedat asks: who actually incited David against Israel? Satan or the Lord?

Source 1
Both statements are true. Although it was Satan who immediately incited David, ultimately it was
God who permitted Satan to carry out this provocation. Although it was Satans design to destroy
David and the people of God, it was Gods purpose to humble David and the people and teach
them a valuable spiritual lesson. This situation is quite similar to the first two chapters of Job in
which both God and Satan are involved in the suffering of Job. Similarly, both God and Satan are
involved in the crucifixion. Satans purpose was to destroy the Son of God (John 13:2; 1 Cor 2:8).
Gods purpose was to redeem humankind by the death of His Son (Acts 2:1439).
(Source: http://defendinginerrancy.com/bible-solutions/2_Samuel_24.1.php)

Source 2
The Hebrew verb wayyaset, translated moved (NKJV) or incited (NASV), is identical in both
passages. God and Satans actions are described using the same word. The difference lies with
the sense in which the word is used: Satan incited (or temptedcf. 1 Thessalonians 3:5) David
more directly, while God is spoken of as having incited David because He allowed such temptation
to take place. The Hebrews often used active verbs to express not the doing of the thing, but the
permission of the thing which the agent is said to do (Bullinger, 2898, p. 823, emp. in orig.).
Throughout the Bible, Gods allowance of something to take place often is described by the sacred
writers as having been done by the Lord.
(Source: https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=784)

Source 3
It should be noted that when God has a plan in mind, He will sometimes allow Satan and his
demons to do things they want to do (e.g., lie and cause disaster and death), while actually they
are working the will of God (who wanted to punish Israel for their idolatry and wickedness). A
couple of biblical examples include 2 Chronicles 18:1822, where God allows a demon to use the
false prophets to convince Ahab to go to battle and ultimately to his death, and Job 12, where
Satan persecutes Job.
The author of 2 Samuel (probably the prophets Nathan or Gad) chose to view this whole affair in
the ultimate sense of God being in control of all things, while the author of 1 Chronicles (probably
Ezra) wanted to showcase the satanic plot and how God used this as a tool for judgment. It is the
same account with a different point of emphasis.
(Source: https://answersingenesis.org/contradictions-in-the-bible/contradiction-who-incited-david-
to-count-the-fighting-men-of-israel/)

Conclusion:
This apparent conflict actually raises the question about who is in control of the events that happen
in this present world. Ultimately, the Lord (God) is in complete control of the events of this world
and therefore 2 Samuel 24:1 is correct in saying that the Lord incited David to number the Jews.
However, Satan is currently the ruler of this world (Ephesians 2:2) to the extent that God allows
him to be. As the source stated, since Genesis 3 and Gods promise of a deliverer from sin, Satan
has been working to wipe out the Jews, specifically the tribe of Judah, in order to stop the
Messiahs coming. So 1 Chronicles 21:1 is correct as well in stating that Satan stood against Israel
and incited David. There is no contradiction in the full understanding of the two passages.
Example 2:
1 Samuel 28:6 - And when Saul inquired of the Lord, the Lord did not answer him, either by
dreams, or by Urim, or by prophets.

1 Chronicles 10:14 - He did not seek guidance from the Lord. Therefore the Lord put him to death
and turned the kingdom over to David the son of Jesse.

So did Saul inquired of the Lord or did he not?

Source 1
It should be noted first that two different words with different meanings are used here. Samuel uses
the Hebrew word shaal, which usually means simply to ask, to consult, or to request. Chronicles,
however, uses the word darash which often means to search for, or to seek after. In other words,
Saul did not sincerely inquire of the Lord because He really wanted to know Gods will, but
because he was hoping God would agree with his will. Basically, Saul inquired casually but not
sincerely. He went through the ritual, but he was not seeking the reality.
(Source: http://defendinginerrancy.com/bible-solutions/1_Chronicles_10.14.php)

Source 2
This alleged contradiction is based on ignoring the context of the verses. You need to go back just
one single verse to get the entire context, and if you look at 1 Chronicles 10:13 you will read that
God is talking about Saul not enquiring of the Lord instead of going to the medium to talk to
Samuel. 1 Samuel is simply talking about Saul not enquiring of the Lord during his battle that lead
to his death. Thus, talking about completely different things, and taking out any possibility of there
being a contradiction.
(Source: http://www.thywordistrue.com/contradictions/38-did-saul-enquire-of-the-lord-or-not)

Source 3
There are two different Hebrew words - shaal and darash - being used here for inquire. In the
Samuel passage shaal, meaning to ask or consult, is used (Strong's 7591). It refers to any kind of
inquiry of a more or less casual nature. However, 1 Chronicles uses the Hebrew word darash,
meaning to search for, resort to, or seek after (Strong's 1874). There is something much more
intense about it; there is a persistence or earnestness about it.
Earnest inquiry of the Lord was not the norm for Saul. As compared to David, Saul was not a man
after God's own heart (1 Sam. 13:14). He merely acknowledged God and was without intimacy
expressed in an intense Abba Father relationship (Rom. 8:14-17; Gal. 4:5-6). He was not like
Jesus in the Garden who said, "Abba, Father" (Mark 14:36). Psalm 1:1-2 states, "Blessed is the
man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat
of mockers. But his delight is in the law of the LORD, and on his law he meditates day and night."
Note the intensity, earnestness, and persistence in "meditates day and night." The psalmist's
picture is first of a godly relationship who, because of this relationship, is a godly person who
frequents and who treads habitually in the counsel of the Lord, and who purposely avoids all
influences of a contrary kind.
(Source: http://thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/40649)

Conclusion:
This apparent contradiction is merely a misunderstanding or lack of full context. The Hebrew words
here indicate that Saul neither faithfully or sincerely inquired of the Lord on whether he should go
to battle. Therefore 1 Samuel 28:6 is correct in stating that Saul inquired casually. 1 Chronicles
10:14 is also correct in that Saul failed to inquire of the Lord earnestly or with persistence. There is
no contradiction between these two verses.
Example 3:
1 Kings 7:26 - Its thickness was a handbreadth, and its brim was made like the brim of a cup, like
the flower of a lily. It held two thousand baths.

2 Chronicles 4:5 - Its thickness was a handbreadth. And its brim was made like the brim of a cup,
like the flower of a lily. It held 3,000 baths.

In reading these two verses about the same bowl, there is a contradiction of its volume.

Source 1
1) A scribal error in the figures may be involved since the manner of representing these two figures
looks quite similar in the Hebrew language (see Keil & Delitzsch, Commentary, Vol. 3, p. 104).
2) The passage in 1 Kings may denote the amount of water used in the Hebrew ceremonies,
whereas the verse in 2 Chronicles may depict the maximum quantity which the laver could contain.
3) It may be that the bath of Solomons day was of greater capacity than that employed much
later in the post-Babylonian period, from which era Chronicles is dated. Thus different standards of
measurement may be employed (see Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia, Vol. 5, p. 318).
(Source: https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/816-2-chronicles-4-5-the-capacity-of-the-laver)

Source 2
They tend to believe that the number 3,000 given in 2 Chronicles 4:5 has arisen from the confusion
of the letter gimel (Hebrew transliterated letter-number for 3) with beth (Hebrew transliterated
letter- number for 2). By a comparison of the two Hebrew letters, it easily is seen that their shape
is quite similar.
(Source: http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=742)

Conclusion:
This is the first of Mr. Ahmed Deedats critical analysis of the Bible in regards to numbering.
Whereas the first two examples had more spiritual implications or contextual omissions, this one is
questioning whether the authors of these books (both historical books in nature) were able to
accurately record the dimension/size of a large basin that was used for ceremonial washings. As
cited above, there are a number of views at why this volume could be recorded differently in two
different places. The general consensus though is that the number is a scribal error and the correct
number is unknown. While this may seem to be a major issue, in comparison to ancient texts
similar and in spiritual importance, it is not. We know that the basin held between 2,000 and 3,000
baths and that it was used for ceremonial purposes. It does not, however, hold any spiritual or
theological implications and scholars are content to leave the amount of baths unknown.

For further reading on scribal errors, I have included a couple links at the end of the next example.
Example 4:
2 Chronicles 9:25 - And Solomon had 4,000 stalls for horses and chariots, and 12,000 horsemen,
whom he stationed in the chariot cities and with the king in Jerusalem.

1 Kings 4:26 - Solomon also had 40,000 stalls of horses for his chariots, and 12,000 horsemen.

Source 1
This is undoubtedly a copyist error. The ratio of 4,000 horses to 1,400 chariots, as found in the 2
Chronicles passage, is much more reasonable than a ratio of 40,000 to 1,400 found in the 1 Kings
text. In the Hebrew language, the visual difference between the two numbers is very slight. The
consonants for the number 40 are rbym, while the consonants for the number 4 are rbh (the vowels
were not written in the text). The manuscripts from which the scribe worked may have been
smudged or damaged and have given the appearance of being forty thousand rather than four
thousand.
(Source: http://defendinginerrancy.com/bible-solutions/1_Kings_4.26.php)

Source 2
Likely, respected biblical commentators Keil and Delitzsch were correct when they stated that the
forty thousand figure in 1 Kings 4:26 "is an old copyists error" (1996, p. 39). We learn elsewhere in
the books of 1 Kings and 2 Chronicles that Solomons chariots were but 1,400 (1 Kings 10:26; 2
Chronicles 1:14). It makes sense then that 40,000 horses could not possibly be required. In a way
of comparison, Albert Barnes indicated that the "Assyrian chariots had at most three horses
apiece, while some had only two. 4,000 horses would supply the full team of three to 1,200 and the
smaller team of two to 2000 chariots" (1997). The four thousand figure appears to be the more
probable of the two renderings.
(Source: http://helpmewithbiblestudy.org/5system_moses/dh13_copyistError.aspx)

Conclusion:
As stated in the two sources, this confusion comes from a scribal error. The correct number is
4,000 stalls of horses. 2 Chronicles 9:25 gets the number right while 1 Kings 4:26 exhibits a scribal
error. By comparing the verses, historical evidence, and standards of the day, we are able to
determine the correct number. Like the third example that Mr. Deedat raises, this number does not
affect any spiritual or theological understanding and scholars are content to list this as a scribal
error. As with other works of literature from ancient history there is an acceptance of small,
numerical or grammatical errors that can be present in a text without destroying the credibility of
the work. Because of this, this scribal error, like the one looked at before, does not prove that the
Bible is inaccurate or untrustworthy.

For an understanding of how there can be scribal errors in the Bible, please take a look at these
links:

http://www.tektonics.org/af/copyisterrors.php

http://helpmewithbiblestudy.org/5system_moses/dh13_copyistError.aspx
Example 5:
John 18:9 - This was to fulfil the word that he had spoken: Of those whom you gave me I have
lost no one.

John 17:12 - While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have
guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture
might be fulfilled.

I would also add to this another verse(s):

John 6:39-40 - And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has
given to me, but raise it up on the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who
looks on the Son and believe in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last
day.

In researching this supposed contradiction, it was a little harder for me to find sources as there are
very few people who have gathered around these verses presenting anything that contradicts.
There are some people who wonder if these verses indicate that Judas was later saved.

Source 1
Judas is the "son of perdition" (Jn.6:70-71), so that this verse qualifies the other two (Jn.6:39;
18:9). This is not any sort of a contradiction. What it means for the other two verses is that we as
readers of the Bible understand, from John 17:12 and elsewhere, that it goes without saying that
Judas is not one of those whom the Father "gave" to our Lord. The NIV translates "son of
perdition" as "the one doomed to destruction" and that is an excellent way to translate the Greek
phrase ho huios tes apoleias based upon the Hebrew idiom that lies behind it. This is the exact
same phrase which Paul uses for antichrist in 2nd Thessalonians 2:3. The meaning of the originally
Hebrew idiom "son of + a qualitative noun" is to make the very closest identification possible
between the individual and the quality the noun expresses. Hence "doomed to destruction" is an
excellent way to put it. No one would think of using this phrase for someone who was later saved.
Finally on this point, there had to be a traitor who was damned by his lack of faith and confirmed in
his damnation by his actions, for this was prophesied in the Old Testament (Ps.41:9; 55:13-14;
109:4-8).
(Source: http://ichthys.com/mail-gospel%20of%20Judas.htm)

Conclusion:
Basically, here is what happens. God has given Jesus his disciples and followers. Jesus early on in
his ministry states that all that the Gather has given him, he cannot lose. But he has not been given
Judas (in an eternal sense) because Judas was chosen beforehand as the betrayer and one
destined for destruction. Jesus is not saying that he has lost Judas. He knew all along that Judas
was going to betray him to the Jews.

Also note that the Apostle John, writing his gospel, is under no obligation in 18:9 to fully quote was
has just happened in 17:12. The reader has just read this verse and should have the full context.
Therefore, the exception being left out in 18:9 is not a contradiction but rather can be just a
shortening of what the gospel has already communicated. This is another way to understand the
two verses.

In researching this passage for contradictions, Mr. Deedat was the only one that I was able to find
who claims that this is a contraction. There are many people who seek to find holes in the Bible so
the fact that just one man tries to use this passage as proof of contraction shows that arguments
here are weak. The other examples that Mr. Deedat provides have been echoed by many other
sceptics - and also answered by many Christian apologists. I would also be happy to help further
explain this passage in person.