Featured I'm Not Attacking The Bible...

we're shy.

HankD

 

Example: Age of Ahaziah

2 Kings 8:26 "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..."

2 Chron 22:2 "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign."

Which verse is correct? In Kings he began his reign at 22 and in Chronicles he began his reign at 42.

Just one of many examples of errors in a translation. This happens to be the KJV.

Cheers,

Jim

 

http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/487-is-there-a-bible-contradiction-regarding-ahaziahs-age

 

I understand the error in a copy of scripture, and it is a copy, not the original. I believe this is the point to be made.

For most of us, we believe the original manuscripts to be absolute, but not the following copies.

Cheers,

Jim

 

"I'm not attacking the Bible, but that which I unequivocally profess is the Bible has errors in it."

The unequivocally professed existing Bible, even if the implied reference is the critical text, is indeed a copy made by men and therefore copyist errors exist even in it. Is it an attack on God's inspired Word to claim it has not been perfectly preserved? Nope, for the Bible tells us to speak truth, as we understand the truth. It is an attack on the man-made doctrine that modern copies are without error.

"I'm not attacking the Scriptures, but that which I unequivocally profess are the Scriptures is not given by inspiration of God."

The original scriptures were given by God's inspiration, including the very words written down. Therefore, this statement is an unequivocal attack on the Bible.

"I'm not attacking the Word of God, but that which I unequivocally profess is the Word of God is contaminated by human depravity."

The existing copy of God's inspired Word that I have on my desk, while containing corruptions, remains fully trustworthy and reliable and we can trust our very lives to its Truth.

"I'm not attacking the Bible, but that which I unequivocally profess is the Bible has obvious mistakes in it."

There are no mistakes in its message, no need to undercut its message by pointing out inconsistencies in math, grammar or spelling. The message has been preserved perfectly.

"I'm not attacking the Scriptures, but that which I unequivocally profess are the Scriptures is not perfect."

There are no mistakes in its message, no need to undercut its message by pointing out inconsistencies in math, grammar or spelling. The message has been preserved perfectly.

"I'm not attacking the Word of God, but that which I unequivocally profess is the Word of God has man made additions in it."

True, but none of the additions alters the message of the Bible. And modern translations have removed or bracketed many of the additions made by copyists.

"I'm not attacking the Bible, but that which I unequivocally profess is the Bible really should be abandoned by the churches of Christ."

Seem like the ship has left the dock of truth and sailed into oblivion.

"I'm not attacking the Scriptures, but that which I unequivocally profess are the Scriptures is not inerrant."

Again its message is inerrant, and the original autographs were the very words of God.

"I'm not attacking the Word of God, but that which I unequivocally profess is the Word of God has many portions that should not be considered as genuine."

"Many portions" undefined presents untruth because it suggests some parts present an errant message. Not so!

"I'm not attacking the Bible, but that which I unequivocally profess is the Bible is not the final authority in all matters of faith and practice."

Sadly, while nearly everyone pays lip service to scripture alone as the final authority in all matters of faith and practice, in reality, they allow the traditions of men to make scriptures to no effect.

 

May I ask where you found this? If it was on another forum, you can PM me the link. Thanks!

Same here...but in these last days, it is really no big surprise.

 

Amen! We need to ponder on this statement each time we find what seems contradictory in the Word of God. Most "contradictions" turn out not to be contradictions when one studies the Word diligently.

 

How can it be good when it actually attempts to misrepresent and distort and perhaps mock the views of believers who actually accept the inerrancy and inspiration of the Scriptures given to the prophets and apostles but do not accept the unproven claim of inerrancy or inspiration for one English translation--the KJV?

 

I agree that the Septuagint (LXX) had errors. Ironically, hough, there was a Septuagint Only movement back in the day that considered it to be an inerrant translation.

Actually, there were various Latin translations made possibly from shortly after the time of Christ. These are usually called the "Old Latin" (Vetus Latina in Latin) translations, and are prime representatives of what is called the Western Text in textual criticism. They had many errors, including many additions (typical of the Western text type). What Jerome did was a new translation based on these translations but done from what he felt were better Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. It was called the Vulgate (Common) translation, as you have said. And again ironically, the Catholic church especially considered Jerome's Vulgate to be an inerrant translation. :type:

 

Lawyers get really big bucks for the ability to take all the known facts and arrange them to demonstrate the truth or falsehood of an assertion. You can find several "explanations" that demonstrate the 42 and 22 are both correct, thus the KJV is inerrant. However, most modern scholars believe the 42 is a copyist error and that is why the NIV, ESV, NET, NASB, HCSB and YLT all read 22 with a footnote referring to the Hebrew 42.

And yes Jim, I can read and can see you said errors in a translation, not errors of translation.

 

Two plausible solutions:

SOLUTION #1

Ahaziah is literally 22 years old (2Ki 8:26) when he ascended to the throne of Judah. He was the actual son of Jehoram and Athaliah.

Ahaziah was co-Rex with his ailing father Jehoram (2Ch 21:18) for 1 year (2Ki 9:29--the 11th year of Jehoram of Israel) and sole king for 1 year (the 12th year of Jehoram of Israel—2Ki 8:25).

Ahaziah ascended to the throne 894 B.C. If we count backwards 42 years (to 936 B.C.) we come to the first year of Omri. In other words, Ahaziah was indeed 22 years old (as stated in Kings), but his reign is counted (in Chronicles) from the beginning of the evil dynasty of Omri. This is the Holy Spirit’s way of highlighting the wicked aberration in the royal Davidic line.

The phrase “Forty and two years” may then be taken as a Hebrew idiom for “A son of forty two years” - meaning that it was 42 years from the beginning of the dynasty founded by Omri.

Another similar explanation is that the 42 years was the age of his mother Athaliah. Since she was obviously the power behind the throne (2Ch 22:3), this expression is the Holy Spirit’s way of showing Ahaziah to be a puppet king.

SOLUTION #2

Ahaziah is literally 42 years old (2Ch 22:2) when he ascended to the throne of Judah. He therefore is not the literal son of Jehoram (who died at age 40), but a son in the sense of being a step-son. His mother was his father’s wife.

If we count back 20 years (to when Ahaziah was 22 years old—2Ki 8:26) we come to the year 914 B.C. which is the 8th year of Jehoshaphat. This was about the time that Jehoshaphat “joined affinity with Ahab”—2Ch 18:1, since we know that in the 3rd year of Jehoshaphat’s reign he instituted a revival in Judah (2Ch 17:7-9), following which his kingdom prospered (verse 12).

We are told in 2 Chronicles 18 that several years after this alliance was forged, Ahab and Jehoshaphat engaged in a joint military venture against Syria (verse 2). Both kings went into battle (verse 28) and Ahab was killed (verses 33,34). Prior to the battle the faithful prophet Micaiah is deported in chains to Amon where [the one-year-old] Joash is residing (1Ki 22:26). It is here, in this passage, we have a most revealing statement: Joash (the biological son of Ahaziah, 2Ch 22:11) is called the “king’s son”--—indicating that Ahaziah was already a king! How could this possibly be??? If, as part of the affinity Jehoshaphat made with Ahab, Ahaziah was anointed king at this time, the pieces of the puzzle begin to fit together.

In other words, Ahaziah was anointed king at age 22--—he finally sat on the throne of Judah 20 years later at age 42.

The Word of God does not give all the details of the affinity between the two monarchs. Evidently, it was far-reaching because in 2Ch 21:2 Jehoshaphat is given the title “king of Israel!” Furthermore, when Jehoshaphat’s son Jehoram finally gained sole rule over Judah, he not only murdered his brothers, but “divers also of the princes of Israel” 2Ch 21:4). Why would he do that if they were not a threat to the Judaean throne?

Not only that, but Ahaziah obviously felt “right at home” in the Israeli court- 2Ch 22:6c. Perhaps both kings were interested in reuniting the monarchy which had been divided for about 70 years--—undoubtedly with different motives. Ahab (or Jezebel!) conspired to install one of his own on the Judaean throne following the death of Jehoshaphat--—a move which would be accomplished by earmarking Ahaziah (whose mother was Ahab’s own daughter) ahead of time. When Ahab’s scheme to have Jehoshaphat killed in battle backfired (2Ch 18:29,31-33), Ahaziah had to wait 20 years to be enthroned

In this way, Ahaziah was both 22 and 42 when he began to reign--—22 when he was anointed, 42 when he was seated.

The only question which remains is: Who was his biological father? The affinity struck between Ahab and Jehoshaphat appears to be somewhat sordid--—a tangled web in fact! Consider that Ahaziah is said to be:

1. The son of Jehoram – 2Ch 22:1

Since Ahaziah was two years older than his ‘father’ Jehoram, he must have been his step-son - brought into that relationship with his mother Athaliah when she married Jehoram.

2. The son-in-law of the house of Ahab – 2Ki 8:27

This relationship would have been established by his marriage to Zibiah (2Ch 24:1), who must have been either a daughter or grand-daughter of Ahab.

3. The son of Jehoshaphat – 2Ch 22:9

It seems Ahaziah was given a decent burial only out of respect for the fact that he was a son of Jehoshaphat (2Ch 22:9). Could it be that in earlier times, Jehoshaphat followed the custom of cementing royal ties (1Ki 3:1) by going in unto Athaliah, Ahab’s daughter?? Perhaps it is at this point that the Biblical record ceases to give sufficient details for anyone to know for certain.

Almighty God is never pleased with unholy alliances – 2Co 6:14-17. The Lord never recognized the reigns of Jehoram and Azariah, who both sought to introduce Baal worship into Judaea -- along with Joash, they are omitted from the genealogy of the Saviour. When Ahaziah died, God Himself cut off the house of Ahab, 2Ch 22:7-9 from the royal line (Pastor Robert J. Sargent, Bible Baptist Church, Oak Harbor, Washington).

 

A plausible argument is one that seems reasonable on the surface, but is in fact intended to deceive, i.e. plausible deniablity.

There is a solid reason the modern translations go with concluding the 42 is a copyist error, rather than these pieces of legerdemain.

 

Any time! :wavey:

 

Did you know there was an early translation fight in Ireland between the OLT onlyists and the Vulgate 'modernists?'