The KJV is sufficient for me

[Joey M]

By: Thomas,
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Yes, please, DO THE MATH! I will make it real simple for you.
6+22+2+12=42

Just look at the house of Omri, from whom Ahaziah was descended through his mother. We find that Omri reigned 6 years (1King 16:23), Ahab his son 22 years (1Kings 16:29), Ahaziah his son 2 years (1Kings 22:51), and Joram his son 12 years (2Kings 3:1), for a total of 42 years (6+22+2+12). So a ‘son of 42 years’ could easily mean ‘a son of the dynasty 42 years old’, i.e. Omri, which he proves in verse three where Ahaziah ‘walked in the ways of the house of Ahab’ (the son of Omri). A clue to this is that his mother is called ‘the daughter of Omri’ in 22:2, though given the fact that Omri is dead almost 40 years, she is probably his granddaughter. Ahaziah, then, is called a true son of Omri, not only in descent but in morality, and the forty-two years here belong to that house, not his own life (for another description of how dynasty years can be used in place of personal years, see note on 2Chron 16:1).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I stand corrected and I thank God that I am.
I was asked this question a while back and I did read and read to seek an answer as I did not want to think the KJV was at error. After much searching I still could not figure it out. And so I finally concluded that the KJV must be wrong in this, though as you have pointed out and I have went back through the srciptures and it does make alot of sense.
Thank you Thomas for the help in this.


God speed.

 

[S. Baptist]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
Yes, please, DO THE MATH! I will make it real simple for you.

[ October 27, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OH, I understand what you are saying, It's the "others" who claimed 42 was his "age" when he began to reign, which would have made him 2 years Older than his Father.

It was the "interpretation" of 42 being his "Age" that caused may to see an "Error" in the Bible.

 

[Pastor Larry]

A couple of problems with this novel explanation:

1. The math is not quite that easy. Anyone familiar with the OT dating systems and the differences between the Kings and the Chronicles knows that you cannot simply add up the years to get a length of a dynasty or a concise chronological date for something. There are different reckoning systems used (accession year and non accession year; new year starting in Tishri (October) or Nisan (April)). Plus there are coregencies that are common. A king might have reigned for 20 years but 10 of those were with a coregent (like a son). His son might have reigned for 15 years but 10 of those were with the father. If you add the years together, you get 35 years. If you do it properly, you get 25 years. This are documented occurrences in Israel’s history. In most cases you cannot simply add them up.

Theile wrote a very good book attempting to sort out the problems of the dating in the historical books which is probably still the king of the books on that topic (The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. Unfortunately I don’t have it in front of me to know what he says about this time period.

To explain the differences briefly: In an accession year system, the year a king came to the throne is reckoned as the first year even if it is only 6 months. Then when the new year starts, it is his second year (though it might be only 1 year and 6 months). In a non-accession year system, the first year is not reckoned until the turn of the new year. Thus a king might be in office for a year and six months and it would still be his first year.

Case Study (using modern equivalent): King A comes to the throne of the NK in May of 2000.

1. In an accession year dating using a January new year, Jan 1 2001 is the beginning of his second year (though he has been in office only seven months).
2. In a non-accession year dating using a January new year, Jan 1, 2001 is the beginning of his first year (though he has been in office for 7 months).
3. In an accession year dating using a June new year, June 1, 2000 is the beginning of his second year (though he has only been in office one month).
4. In a non-accession year dating using a June new year, June 1, 2000 is the beginning of his first year, though he has been in office one month.

This problem gets more complicated when the NK uses one system and the SK uses another. Thus King B come to reign in the SK in the second year of King A. There are four different possibilities for when that is. Plus, in an accession year dating scheme, the year is counted twice -- once for the king of died (it was his last year) and once for the new king (it is his first year). If the outgoing king reigned ten years and the incoming king reigned ten years, you only have 19 years because year 10 and year 1 were the same year. There is evidence that the authors of Kings and Chronicles use different systems.

If you have followed this far, the point is to caution that dates in the OT cannot simply be added up to arrive at a chronology. It may well be that 42 years is the age of the dynasty of Omri. However, it is not just as easy as adding up the numbers.

2. The bigger problem with the “house of Omri” idea is that Omri was a northern king (with a son Ahaziah) and the Ahaziah in view here was a southern king. Even if 42 years was the age of the house of Omri, Ahaziah was not technically in the house of Omri. Athaliah was a granddaughter of Omri but married Jehoram for political reasons most likely. Ahaziah’s right to rule did not come through his mother from Omri but through his father through Jehoshophat and Asa.

The “son of [years]” is the common OT way to indicate age of a person and there is no reason to take it any different here. In 2 Chron 22:2, 15 Hebrew mss and all the versions read the correct age of 22. These gymnastics around these problems usually create more trouble than they are worth.

[ October 29, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

[ October 29, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Plus there are coregencies that are common. A king might have reigned for 20 years but 10 of those were with a coregent (like a son). His son might have reigned for 15 years but 10 of those were with the father. If you add the years together, you get 35 years. If you do it properly, you get 25 years.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This is really funny! Let's see. King A ascended to the throne in 1950 and reigned 10 years. His son, King B reigned as co-regent from 1958, and was king from 1960, and he reigned for 10 years. In 1970 his son, King C reigned for 15 years. Now, let's see. 1950 to 1975. Uh, yep, 25 years! King A 10 years. King B 10 years. KIng C 15 years. Hmmmmm. Still equals 25 years! DO THE MATH RIGHT!

 

[Ernie Brazee]

If God can't give us a Bible without error how can He provide for our eternal salvatin? If there is one error in the Bible then the whole book is corrupt. How does one separate truth from error. This argument is ridiculous. Either you believe God or you don't.

I Kings 18:21And Elijah came unto all the people, and said, How long halt ye between two opinions? if the LORD be God, follow him: but if Baal, then follow him. And the people answered him not a word.

Seems like this is where we are today.

Ernie

[ October 29, 2001: Message edited by: Ernie Brazee ]

[ October 29, 2001: Message edited by: Ernie Brazee ]

 

[Pastor Larry]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
This is really funny! Let's see. King A ascended to the throne in 1950 and reigned 10 years. His son, King B reigned as co-regent from 1958, and was king from 1960, and he reigned for 10 years. In 1970 his son, King C reigned for 15 years. Now, let's see. 1950 to 1975. Uh, yep, 25 years! King A 10 years. King B 10 years. KIng C 15 years. Hmmmmm. Still equals 25 years! DO THE MATH RIGHT!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thomas, you know (or at least should know judging from your background) that OT regnal dates are not figured that way. For someone to have the amount of education you have, this should be old hat.

In the scenario you just presented, King A reigns from 1950 to 1960 for ten years. King B joins him in 1958 and goes to 1970 for 12 years, not ten. (Regnal dates are figured from the date of coregency at times and from the date of sole regency at others--see the example below). King C reigns from 1970 for 15 years. Now do the math: 10 + 12 + 15 = 27 ... except there are only 25 years.

It makes yet another difference if you figure by accession and non-accession years. Your scenario assumes a non-accession year dating system. However, in an accession year dating system, King A (50-60) reigned 11 years; King B (58-70) reigned 13 years; King C (whose dates you didn't give) reigned fifteen years. Now do the math: 11 + 13 + 15 = 29 years. In other words, your math is fine; your understanding of OT dating schemes appears to be faulty.

Surely with your background you are aware of this. If not, you should be. It is well documented. A time period that still has not been reconciled is the second half of the eight century BC, the reigns of Ahaz and Hezekiah. To illustrate consider the following (the dates given are not made up; they can be independently verified from a number of sources):

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>1. Ahaz ascended to the throne in the 17th year of Pekah (736/35BC) -- 2 King 16:1
2. The twelfth year of Ahaz is the year the Hoshea became king of Israel (732BC) -- (2 King 17:1).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now do the math: the 1st year of Ahaz is 736 and the 12th year is 732. Clearly there is a problem. The solution is a coregency of Ahaz with Jotham beginning in 743BC. Thus the 12th year is 732 (yes even though it looks like only 11 don't forget the 'fencepost' principle). 736/35 marks the first year of his supreme reign. There is a similar problem with Ahaz's son, Hezekiah that I will not get into here. This is sufficient to show the need to properly undestand dating systems before we simply "do the math."

Simply put, if you approach the OT with your system, you have too many years to fit history.

Ernie, this is not about errors in the Bible. THere is the appearance of an error as I demonstrated above if we do not understand the dating systems.

[ October 30, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

[DocCas]

Larry, I know you are desparate to prove the bible is in error. I don't know why, but your track record is pretty clear. Every major expositor of the bible, historically, has agreed with my position. It is only now, since the Modernist/Liberal invasion that "the bible must be wrong" interpretation has gained momentum. Sorry, but the bible is not wrong. If you don't understand what is being said, the error is yours, not the bibles.

 

[toolman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by superdave:
toolman,

When you make a statement like this.



You move dangerously close to a Hyles type form of Legalism. My faith is in the Blood of Jesus Christ and him ALONE, not through any version of the Bible.

The truth of the Gospel could be revealed to me through the words of a drunken bum on the street, and I could be saved through the working of the Holy Spirit, KJV notwithstanding. It has nothing to do with my salvation or my Faith in God.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ro:10:14: How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

I don't think God is talking about a bum when he is talking about a preacher here, do you?

How would you know anything about God without his Perfect Word?

That is what makes me sad to hear someone say that we do not have the Perfect Word of God. If we do not then we have no salvation, (as Ernie Brazee stated above.)

The Bible is our guide line, otherwise we have no foundation. I base my foundation on the Holy Word the KJV. I just want people to understand why I use the KJV and no other. I don't condemn anyone to hell that uses any other version, but I feel I have a duty to tell others why I do not agree with the modern versions and let God deal with the person later. I am not better than anyone because I use the KJV. I just can't find the words to say what I want here. I have tried over and over again, just to get blasted every time. I guess I need to let the Lord have it. The Battle is His. He can defend His Own Word.

PS: Jack Hyles, is not one of my most favorite people. I agree with a lot of what he believes, but don't like a lot of his evangelism teaching. Don't assume that all KJVO's fit into this category.

 

[Rockfort]

&lt; That is what makes me sad to hear someone say that we do not have the Perfect Word of God. If we do not then we have no salvation &gt;

Don't we? Going by your previous postings, the "Perfect Word of God" is the KJV. Therefore the biblical writers, all Christians for 16 centuries, all today who do not read English, and all illiterate people have no salvation. Even if you cancel this KJVO nonsense, that leaves the canon, and the earliest Christians had no salvation because it was decades from completion. BUT, if we do have salvation and the required Perfect Word of God, then the 'Perfect Word of God' refers to something besides the canon, and definitely something besides a particular translation thereof.

&lt; I don't condemn anyone to hell that uses any other version &gt;

Thank you. That is so kind and generous.

&lt; I am not better than anyone because I use the KJV. &gt;

What is this? Nobility Day, and I've never heard of it?

 

[toolman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rockfort:
&lt; That is what makes me sad to hear someone say that we do not have the Perfect Word of God. If we do not then we have no salvation &gt;

Don't we? Going by your previous postings, the "Perfect Word of God" is the KJV. Therefore the biblical writers, all Christians for 16 centuries, all today who do not read English, and all illiterate people have no salvation. Even if you cancel this KJVO nonsense, that leaves the canon, and the earliest Christians had no salvation because it was decades from completion. BUT, if we do have salvation and the required Perfect Word of God, then the 'Perfect Word of God' refers to something besides the canon, and definitely something besides a particular translation thereof.

&lt; I don't condemn anyone to hell that uses any other version &gt;

Thank you. That is so kind and generous.

&lt; I am not better than anyone because I use the KJV. &gt;

What is this? Nobility Day, and I've never heard of it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Obviously you and several others have never heard of the word noble!

Is this pick on the KJVO's day and I didn't know about it?

I believe that God preserved His Word in the KJV, it is not better than the originals, I believe it is better than the modern versions. I guess we need to say that a million times, since some are not picking it up. For years translators had to teach people because they did not have a Bible to read, just like some tribes of the world have to be taught by translators because they have no Bible in their language. They still have to HEAR from Gods Word to believe. I believe that is what many Christians had to do before the English versions were translated. I believe that God preserved His Word for many years, I don't believe that the modern versions are the complete Word, they have changed from the Scriptures that have stood the test of time. We don't need to read a re-done Bible we need to re-read the Word of God.

And again this proves that when you take a stand you will be blasted no matter how hard you try to make amends.

 

[superdave]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by toolman:


Ro:10:14: How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

I don't think God is talking about a bum when he is talking about a preacher here, do you?

How would you know anything about God without his Perfect Word?

That is what makes me sad to hear someone say that we do not have the Perfect Word of God. If we do not then we have no salvation, (as Ernie Brazee stated above.)

The Bible is our guide line, otherwise we have no foundation. I base my foundation on the Holy Word the KJV. I just want people to understand why I use the KJV and no other. I don't condemn anyone to hell that uses any other version, but I feel I have a duty to tell others why I do not agree with the modern versions and let God deal with the person later. I am not better than anyone because I use the KJV. I just can't find the words to say what I want here. I have tried over and over again, just to get blasted every time. I guess I need to let the Lord have it. The Battle is His. He can defend His Own Word.

PS: Jack Hyles, is not one of my most favorite people. I agree with a lot of what he believes, but don't like a lot of his evangelism teaching. Don't assume that all KJVO's fit into this category.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what you are saying is that I cannot be saved unless a "Preacher" saves me! This is getting scarier by the minute.

God's Work of Salvation is done in our lives by himself, and the truth of Salvation is revealed to us through the truths of the Word of God. A "preacher" could sermonize for 2 hours without even paraphrasing the Bible (much less quoting it), clearly communicate the truth of Salvation, and the Holy Spirit could use that to work in hearts and bring people to salvation.

That is why my faith is based on the Truth of Jesus Christ, not the version I happened to read when I discovered the truth.

I believe that God's Word has been preserved in the multitude of manuscripts that we have to evaluate the truth of the text. Textual critisizm in a responsible scholary way without subjective circular reasoning (I believe thus and so, so this particular text that agrees with me must be the correct reading) is appropriate and even prudent. I do not believe that the KJV is the "ONLY" preserved word of God. The majority of modern versions do not differ with the KJV in truth or doctrine, unless you (as was stated in several above posts) "invent a Biblical error" In fact, many times, the Modern versions present a more clear representation of the truth as compared to the meanings of the original manuscripts. Namely the NASB.

It is not "pick on anybody day" but I don't want to just assume that you understand the impact of some of your statements when it comes to what I view as important Biblical Doctrine. As in Election, and the Work of the Holy Spirit.

To be fair. You seem to be very reasonable in your purpose, maybe just getting too inflammatory in your support for the KJV, and implying things that you really don't mean. And you are by no means the most radical KJVO on the board. I was just concerned with the vehemence of your support for one version being the basis of your salvation.

And yes, I do think a drunken bum could present the Gospel clearly enough for a person to be saved. Even if he quoted from the NIV. The man is not important, it is the work of the Holy Spirit in hearts that "wins" souls, not the efforts of men, nor the eloquence of a Biblical translation.

"Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will"
Eph 1:5

 

[toolman]

superdave:

where do you find the Gospel of Christ?
Where do you find the plan of Salvation?
Were do you find the doctrine of Christ?

Do you just get it out of the air?
To me that is scary! Cults come from groups that don't base their belief on the whole truth and doctrine of the Scripture.

Joh:1:1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

You have to have His Word. I thank God that He provided me with a version of the Bible that I can read in my language. I do beg to differ with you on the issue that the modern versions are not different from the KJV. Over and over again Scripture and verse have been given to show where the modern versions have twisted, changed and left out verses. I don't think that clears anything up; only makes it more confusing.
I am saying that I take a stand. I could not feel right standing before a Holy God and saying I believe that your Word was only perfect for the Greek and the Hebrew speaking people and that You could not preserve Your Perfect Word for any other language. I can not believe that His whole Word is spread out in this version and that version. I stand on one, the KJV and I will not change.

 

[Ernie Brazee]

Perhaps Paul tells us the problem with thse who so viciously attack God's Word:

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. 16For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Ernie

 

[Rockfort]

The spiritual man receives the things of King Jesus, whose kingdom is not of this world. The natural man receives the things of King James, whose kingdom was of this world.

 

[Circuitrider]

Praise the Lord, God has preserved his word. History reveals there have been two kinds of Bibles, two texts and two ideas about the truth. There has been the bible of liberalism and the bible of bible believing Christians, there has been the preserved text used by biblical Christians throughout the church age and the manufactured text of the modern liberal movement, there has been the biblical idea that we have the Word of God in our day or that we cannot know for sure what God said (buts its out there somewhere in all the manuscript evidence).

This nine page thread simply reveals the fundamental lack of understanding of this vital issue by biblical Christians. Either God has preserved his Word, or he is unable to do so, and if uanble to do so, we might question his personhood as God. While God may sometimes allows a weak or even unworthy means for his truth to get out to a sinful man (a drunk speaking the truth or a weak modern version), yet we should not settle for a merely sufficient source of truth, but rather we should want the preserved truth of the Word of God.

My personal position on that issue after having been taught the other position(critical text)and holding to it for a number of years early in my ministry is that God has preserved his Word in the TR text which has been the bible of biblical Christians for almost all the years of the 2000-year church age. While the KJV version is an excellent translation in English, I would have no problem with updating or improving that translation for modern days. However, readability is not more important than truth, so I would not accept the "dynamic equivilence" of a paraphrase as a substitute for the truth.

If you want to read an excellent treatment of this biblical issue get Dave Sorenson's book, "Tough Not the Unclean Thing" just published by Northstar Baptist Ministries (davesorenson@juno.com). Its well worth your time and money.

Keep in the Word!!

 

[DocCas]

Circuitrider, you are my kind of guy!

I too was taught the superiority of the Critical Text at Central, but later, after many decades of study, came to the conclusion that the Byzantine textform is superior and has the stamp of approval of churches all down through the ages of church history.

By the way, I attended Seminary with Dave Sorenson's younger brother (although I am Dave's age, I didn't start Seminary until I was about 30. The biblical way! Luke 3:23 ), and Dave and I had a great time of fellowship together last July in Minneapolis at the Dean Burgon Society annual meeting.

 

[toolman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rockfort:
The spiritual man receives the things of King Jesus, whose kingdom is not of this world. The natural man receives the things of King James, whose kingdom was of this world.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't know that King James wrote the Bible, I thought he organized the translation. I guess I learn something new everyday

 

[Rockfort]

&lt; I guess I learn something new everyday &gt;

It appears you do. Never stop learning, boy; you'll find it worth your while.

 

[Pastor Larry]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Larry, I know you are desparate to prove the bible is in error. I don't know why, but your track record is pretty clear. Every major expositor of the bible, historically, has agreed with my position. It is only now, since the Modernist/Liberal invasion that "the bible must be wrong" interpretation has gained momentum. Sorry, but the bible is not wrong. If you don't understand what is being said, the error is yours, not the bibles. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Once again you err. However, I am not sure how to respond but you are not interacting with anything I say. I have taken considerable time writing this so as not to be unnecessarily confrontational or argumentative. However, there is only so many ways to avoid addressing the clear misrepresentations you have made. Hence, you have made it necessary to say somethings I wish I could say another way.

You are ignoring the issues to say whatever comes to your mind. It is very difficult to discuss things when one side will not address the issues. You have provided no support for your position. You have not given one source where I can look up that information – not a journal article, a book, an introduction, a commentary – not one thing. I have given sources and documentation for everything I said. You have not refuted or given any legitimate response to it.

1. I am not desperate to prove the Bible wrong. Far from it, I am showing how the Bible is not wrong. My record, as you say, is clear. You have simply misjudged it because of your prior biases. People are not dumb. They understand that the numbers don’t add up. In fact, just today I was reading an article in Archaeology magazine by a Jewish scholar who is doubting the OT records, partly because of dating issues I believe. He is arguing for a later date than the OT allows on the basis of archaeological evidence ("Archaeology" Sept/Oct 2001). I have shown how the OT can be reconciled using the published and well-recognized work of Edwin Thiele. I have no doubt about the truth of what it says. I have provided proof for everything I have said about this topic both from Scripture and from writers on Scripture. Have you read Thiele? Are you aware of the vast numbers of problems presented?

2. For you to associate me with the modernist/liberal position on Scripture is low and uncalled for. Unfounded guilt by association is a completely illegitimate method of argumentation. It is what those who don’t have any other arguments use. I could expect that coming from someone who simply didn’t have deeper resources to draw on. You have better tools and methods than to stoop to that. You know that position has no ground with me nor with other fundamentalists such as myself who hold the historic fundamental position on bibliology.

3. If every major expositor agrees with you, then you should have not trouble citing several so I can look them up. I have never seen any that support your position. You appear to have a habit of not supporting your statements for some reason. You seem to want to dodge legitimate issues. I recently asked you for support that all the manuscripts for 1 Tim 3:16 read the abbreviation for theos when read under a closer examination. You have yet to provide any. Then you make this statement. I will be very interested to see your support for this. All the expositor’s I have looked at admit that the KJV and its underlying mss are in error on this point because of a scribal error and there are manuscripts to support their position.

4. I agree that if I don’t understand what the Bible is saying, I am wrong. However, I understand very clearly what the Bible is saying. Plainly put, the first year of Ahaz cannot be both 743 and 736. There must be a way to clarify that. Ahaziah cannot be both 22 and 42 at the same time, nor can he be 2 years older than his father. He is not a member of the house of Omri because he is in the SK, the wrong kingdom. Furthermore, “son of” is an idiom for age of a person. Do you have any place where it is ever used of anything other than a person? You appealed to 2 Chron 16:1 as support; however, that passage does not support you because it uses a different phrase. It does not say "son of thirty six years" it says "in the thirty sixth year" (prefix preposition "b"). In short, you have cited nothing in your favor. Yet I believe there must be a way to clarify this situation because I do not believe the Bible is wrong. I have shown how it can be clarified here without the hermeneutical gymnastics you have suggested.

Ernie, You too err by attributing a false position to me. I do not doubt the Bible. I do not deny it. Far from it, I believe in the Bible and in what it teaches. I believe it is the final authority for faith and practice. That is why I reject the KJV Only position. It is unbiblical. Paul never held it; Peter never held it; Christ never held it. In fact, no Bible author held it and no one here has yet to produce a verse of Scripture in favor of it.

[ October 30, 2001: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
3. If every major expositor agrees with you, then you should have not trouble citing several so I can look them up. I have never seen any that support your position. You appear to have a habit of not supporting your statements for some reason.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
2. Forty and two years old = a son of forty-two years: ie of the house of Omri through his mother. E. W. Bullinger, page 593.

2. Forty and two years old (Compare 2Ki 8:26). According to that passage, the commencement of his reign is dated in the twenty-second year of his age; and, according to this, in the forty-second year of the kingdom of his mother's family. Jamieson, Fausset, Brown, Volume 1, Page 546.

JFB has a note to "see Lightfoot."