The problem of 2 Kings 24:8 and 2 Chron 36:9

[jonathan.borland]

2 Kings 24:8 (KJV): Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother’s name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.

2 Chronicles 36:9 (KJV): Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.

This appears to be a very ancient error that crept into the manuscript tradition of 2 Chronicles, yet in this case we have a pretty good idea what happened to create the discrepancy.

First, the single Hebrew word עשרה ("ten") that turns "eight" into "eighteen" dropped out by homoeoteleuton error, namely, the scribe wrote שמונה (eight) and then accidentally skipped the next word עשרה ("ten" or "teen") due to the identical ending of the words.

Second, a scribe corrected the error by adding עשרה ("ten") into the text in between the lines.

Third, a scribe copying from this manuscript mistook the added gloss עשרה ("ten") to go with the line below instead of the line above, and then adds the word ימים ("days") to make the gloss sensible in its new location.

Fourth, the final product is a text that removes the correction from the line above and implements it into the line below, thus the omission of "teen" from "eighteen" and the addition of "and ten days" in the Chronicler's manuscript tradition.

It is easy to see that the original, however, was not corrupt, but rather aligned perfectly with the account in 2 Kings. The corruption only occurred by the error of human scribes.

Jonathan C. Borland

 

[TomVols]

Interesting. You provide historical and textual evidence to support your thesis.

You know that's just not going to fly around here now, don't you? :laugh:

 

[RAdam]

You have no idea what happened to those manuscripts because you have no idea what was in the originals. Furthermore, if there is copyist error in the bible, then the bible is not inerrant and preserved.

It could be that the author of Chronicles is dating things differently than the author in Kings, which is very frequent. 8 years prior to Jehoiachin taking the throne was when Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came and took away the first captives. That was a huge year in Jewish history. That was the beginning of the 70 years of captivity. That was when the Jews became subject to a foreign power.

The author of Chronicles does a very similar thing in 2 Chronicles 22:2. He says Ahaziah was 42 years old when began to reign, though 2 Kings 8:26 says he was 22. The scholars cry error and proceed to fix it. However, if one instead looks at the history of the man in question, you will see something interesting. He, his son, and his grandson are cut out of the geneology of Jesus Christ in Matthew. His mother was the daughter of wicked king Ahab and Queen Jezebel of Israel. Ahab's father Omri was also wicked and his rule began an new dynasty. Ahaziah is said by the bible to follow, not the good rule of the kings of Judah, but the wicked rule of the kings of Israel. God counts him, not among the good kings of Judah, but among the wicked kings of Israel. Omri, Ahab, and Jezebel were so wicked that God raised up people to cut them off, and Ahaziah was counted among them and cut off as well. The reigns of Omri, Ahab, and Jehoram was 42 years long.

This kind of stuff is prevalent in Kings and Chronicles. 1 Kings 16:6-8 say that Elah the son of Baasha began to reign after his father died in the 26th year of Asa. Then 2 Chronicles 16:1 tells us that Baasha king of Israel came up against Judah and build Ramah in the 36th year of the reign of Asa. Now that doesn't work out, unless the Chronicles author is taking Asa's reign from the division of the kingdom. The reigns of Rehoboam, Abijam, and Asa to that point = 36 years.

Even if I am wrong about the reasons the Chronicles author gave us a different number, I'm right about this, and the history of english translations and Hebrew OT copies proves it: those numbers are supposed to be in there. Modern translators have no authorization to change them.

What is interesting is the Jews didn't change these numbers in their own copies (and they had to know the two texts didn't line up), neither did the translators for the Coverdale, Bishop's, Geneva, or KJ when translating to english. Surely they were all smart enough and dilligent enough to know the texts didn't have the same number. Why didn't they change it? Obviously they didn't believe it was something they needed to fix. A translators job is not to "fix" the bible, but rather to translate the bible from one language to another. Classic translators understood this, but the modern ones do not. Instaed

 

[jonathan.borland]

You deny that Hebrew and Greek manuscripts copied by humans over the course of 2000 to 3500 years might have some errors? For the OT, the Masoretic tradition is a rather late redaction and none of its manuscripts are older than a thousand years. It is based on older traditions but is also different from other older traditions. The Masoretes copied the newly redacted text very precisely, but this only preserved the late form of the text with all of its errors completely intact. It is true that they rarely presumed to try to correct the text. The errors I'm talking about predate the Masoretes by many hundreds of years.

You have no idea what happened to those manuscripts because you have no idea what was in the originals.

I have a good idea what was in the originals based on its copies in a variety of different ancient traditions.

Furthermore, if there is copyist error in the bible, then the bible is not inerrant and preserved.

The statement is flawed, since the error would be man's and not God's. Thus the corruption would be in the copyist errors and not the Bible as it was given to mankind.

Your explanation of the origin of the discrepancy between 2 Kings 8:26 and 2 Chronicles 22:2 is not convincing (some would say absurd) when a simple scribal error of a single letter M for K is more probable (מב [forty-two] and כב [twenty-two]), especially when the two were written more similarly in the ancient script.

Jonathan C. Borland

 

[Dr. Bob]

See, you've hit on a "hot button". IF you say ANY MAN-MADE DOCUMENT has errors, then what happens to a worshiped translation that is man-made and held up as WITHOUT error?

It falls from its position as "only"?

 

[RAdam]

Again, I don't worship the KJ or hold that it is the only good english translation. You keep trying to put me in that box, and I keep referring to other classic faithfully translated bibles like the Tyndale or the Geneva. My problem is not with every other english translations, only the modern ones that aren't faithful to God's word.

Yes, I believe God preserved His word inerrantly. He said He would and I believe Him. If He allowed things like this to be messed up, how many other things have been messed up? How many errors are there in the bible? I take preservation seriously. Jesus said man should not live by bread alone but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. According to you, I can't do that because some words have been lost or altered.

The big question noone has answered is why noone before the modern english translators "fixed" this if it was an error? Why didn't the Jews? The Geneva translators? The KJ translators? Is it perhaps because they didn't believe it was an error? No, that couldn't be it, it must be a scribal error. Nevermind the fact that little differences like this happen sometimes in the Kings and Chronicles records. One writer is dating things one way, and the other is using a different method. No, that couldn't be, it must be an error.

This is an example of translators mishandling God's word.

 

[jonathan.borland]

I prefer rather to restore and uphold the perfect Word of God and to weed out and reject the manifest errors of human copyists. This is the crucial and fundamental work that must precede any exposition of the Word of God. We must strive to exposit the perfect Word of God and not the Word mingled with the intentional and unintentional errors of copyists. Of course this requires much study into the original languages and early versions of the Old and New Testaments, but those who persist will reap rich rewards.

Jonathan C. Borland

 

[TomVols]

I prefer rather to restore and uphold the perfect Word of God and to weed out and reject the manifest errors of human copyists. This is the crucial and fundamental work that must precede any exposition of the Word of God. We must strive to exposit the perfect Word of God and not the Word mingled with the intentional and unintentional errors of copyists. Of course this requires much study into the original languages and early versions of the Old and New Testaments, but those who persist will reap rich rewards.

Jonathan C. Borland

Amen and Amen! :thumbs:

 

[Winman]

What is interesting is the Jews didn't change these numbers in their own copies (and they had to know the two texts didn't line up), neither did the translators for the Coverdale, Bishop's, Geneva, or KJ when translating to english. Surely they were all smart enough and dilligent enough to know the texts didn't have the same number. Why didn't they change it? Obviously they didn't believe it was something they needed to fix. A translators job is not to "fix" the bible, but rather to translate the bible from one language to another. Classic translators understood this, but the modern ones do not. Instaed

I agree with RAdam, it is fantastic to believe that the Jews themselves would have not seen this and corrected it long ago if it were an error.

There have been several explanations offered for this, here is a brief article.

http://brandplucked.webs.com/jehoiachin8or18.htm

I do not know the answer to this question, but I trust as well that God has preserved his word inerrant as he promised. Some here just do not get it, we are to live by faith, not scholarly proof. Folks are still looking for Noah's Ark, but whether they find it or not I believe the account.

 

[Mexdeaf]

I agree with RAdam, it is fantastic to believe that the Jews themselves would have not seen this and corrected it long ago if it were an error.

There have been several explanations offered for this, here is a brief article.

http://brandplucked.webs.com/jehoiachin8or18.htm

I do not know the answer to this question, but I trust as well that God has preserved his word inerrant as he promised. Some here just do not get it, we are to live by faith, not scholarly proof. Folks are still looking for Noah's Ark, but whether they find it or not I believe the account.

Brandplucked and "scholarly" are antitheses. He is a parrot.

And perhaps the Jews had no answer to the question either, but decided to "trust as well that God has preserved his word inerrant as he promised." And He did by revealing the error by mss provided later.

"Faith" does not preclude using one's own brain and God-given common sense.

 

[Winman]

"Faith" does not preclude using one's own brain and God-given common sense.

I agree, but you and others are asking us to believe this "error" went unnoticed by the Jews themselves for centuries. Would you call that common sense?

And the fact that the KJV translators were faithful to the texts shows their honesty. They did not try to correct this "supposed" error.

 

[Mexdeaf]

I agree, but you and others are asking us to believe this error went unnoticed by the Jews themselves for centuries. Would you call that common sense?

And the fact that the KJV translators were faithful to the texts shows their honesty. They did not try to correct this "supposed" error.

No one here (I trust) doubts the honesty of the KJV translators. But KJVO's have placed a God-like trust in their work that not even they would care to bear. They had enough faith and God-given common sense to say so in their "Preface".

 

[Winman]

No one here (I trust) doubts the honesty of the KJV translators. But KJVO's have placed a God-like trust in their work that not even they would care to bear. They had enough faith and God-given common sense to say so in their "Preface".

Exactly. I do not put my trust in the KJV translators. Although they were very scholarly and experts in the original languages, they were still fallible men.

I will say it again, I believe God preserved the scriptures as he promised to do. Some here seem to believe that when God gave his final revelations to John on Patmos that he sat back and said, "Well boys, I've given you my word, it's all in your hands now."

You may not say that directly, but that is the argument being made. You and others are arguing that God is no longer engaged with the world and the affairs of man. But I know that is not so, and anyone who reads the book of Revelations can easily see that God is still working, and has much more work to accomplish in the future.

 

[RAdam]

I prefer rather to restore and uphold the perfect Word of God and to weed out and reject the manifest errors of human copyists. This is the crucial and fundamental work that must precede any exposition of the Word of God. We must strive to exposit the perfect Word of God and not the Word mingled with the intentional and unintentional errors of copyists. Of course this requires much study into the original languages and early versions of the Old and New Testaments, but those who persist will reap rich rewards.

Jonathan C. Borland

And this is exactly what is wrong with modern scholarship right here. What use, then, is an english translation. It cannot yield sufficient fruit according to your own argument. No, we must not trust the english but rather only trust the original languages, and even then we cannot trust them but must weed through them to reconstruct the originals.

Do you people even realize that 11 of the 12 apostles weren't scholars? They were considered ignorant and unlearned men by the scholars of their day. Nevertheless, they were chosen by God and fitted for the work they were called unto. They didn't have a degree but they certainly knew scripture. The only scholar among the bunch, the apostle Paul, tells us repeatedly that he doesn't use his scholarship to preach the gospel. His scholarship didn't gain him knowledge of Jesus Christ. Jesus told Peter that it wasn't flesh and blood that revealed Him unto him, but the Father in heaven. The scholars were ignorant of Jesus, God had hidden things from them, the wise and prudent. God revealed those same things unto babes. Many great baptist preachers of old couldn't read Greek or Hebrew, but they knew they had the word of God, they knew the word of God, they were greatly fitted to their work by God, and they did it. Too bad that, according to you, they really didn't know the bible.

You scholars have no faith in God's word, only your own scholarship.

 

[Winman]

And this is exactly what is wrong with modern scholarship right here. What use, then, is an english translation. It cannot yield sufficient fruit according to your own argument. No, we must not trust the english but rather only trust the original languages, and even then we cannot trust them but must weed through them to reconstruct the originals.

Do you people even realize that 11 of the 12 apostles weren't scholars? They were considered ignorant and unlearned men by the scholars of their day. Nevertheless, they were chosen by God and fitted for the work they were called unto. They didn't have a degree but they certainly knew scripture. The only scholar among the bunch, the apostle Paul, tells us repeatedly that he doesn't use his scholarship to preach the gospel. His scholarship didn't gain him knowledge of Jesus Christ. Jesus told Peter that it wasn't flesh and blood that revealed Him unto him, but the Father in heaven. The scholars were ignorant of Jesus, God had hidden things from them, the wise and prudent. God revealed those same things unto babes. Many great baptist preachers of old couldn't read Greek or Hebrew, but they knew they had the word of God, they knew the word of God, they were greatly fitted to their work by God, and they did it. Too bad that, according to you, they really didn't know the bible.

You scholars have no faith in God's word, only your own scholarship.

Right on!

1 Cor 2:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

And one thing these scholars seem to conveniently overlook is that most of Jesus's disciples did not speak Greek. So, the scriptures in Greek are a translation themselves. If a translation cannot be inspired as some here falsely argue, then most of the NT is not inspired, because it is a translation.

The scriptures themselves show it is a translation.

Matt 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

So, if a translation cannot be inspired and must contain error as some here teach, then the Greek texts were full of error and not inspired.

And what about Moses? When Moses went down to Pharaoh, do you think they spoke in Hebrew? Of course not, that would be ridiculous, when Moses spoke to Pharaoh he spoke Egyptian. So, all of the conversations between Moses, Aaron, and Pharoah were a translation.

 

[Trotter]

Well, yee-haw! Let's all go waller in our ignorance so that God will be glorified in it! Burn all them thar pesky old books and hun'erds o' years of studyin' and research 'cause it ain't worth nuthin'! An' furget all that Greek an' Hebrew junk 'cause we dun got God's purfect word in the good ol' King James. Why, it was authorized by God Hisself and was good enough for Paul, Peter, an' John! What more do ya need?

[/sarcasm]

That pretty much sums up your argument, Winman and most of RAdam's. It's called "willful ignorance" and it is a shame and disgrace to Christianity.

Why go back to the Greek? Because many more manuscripts have been found since the KJV was penned. Why work on reconstructing them to as close to the original as we can get? Because we would rather have God's pure word and not pious additions made by well-intentioned people.

Do we have God's perfectly preserved word? Yes, we do. It is within the manuscripts, even with the extra stuff. If you can't wrap your head around that then I pity you.

And your delusion about the bible itself being a translation is crazy. So I guess God wasn't really in control of its writing after all? Or that the writers of the NT could only speak Aramaic when almost everyone in that day and age spoke two or three languages (Aramaic in conversation, Greek for business, and Latin for interacting with the government [few common folk spoke it, but almost everyone in an office did]).

You are welcome to your delusions. The rest of us are fine without them.

 

[Winman]

Well, yee-haw! Let's all go waller in our ignorance so that God will be glorified in it! Burn all them thar pesky old books and hun'erds o' years of studyin' and research 'cause it ain't worth nuthin'! An' furget all that Greek an' Hebrew junk 'cause we dun got God's purfect word in the good ol' King James. Why, it was authorized by God Hisself and was good enough for Paul, Peter, an' John! What more do ya need?

[/sarcasm]

That pretty much sums up your argument, Winman and most of RAdam's. It's called "willful ignorance" and it is a shame and disgrace to Christianity.

Why go back to the Greek? Because many more manuscripts have been found since the KJV was penned. Why work on reconstructing them to as close to the original as we can get? Because we would rather have God's pure word and not pious additions made by well-intentioned people.

Do we have God's perfectly preserved word? Yes, we do. It is within the manuscripts, even with the extra stuff. If you can't wrap your head around that then I pity you.

And your delusion about the bible itself being a translation is crazy. So I guess God wasn't really in control of its writing after all? Or that the writers of the NT could only speak Aramaic when almost everyone in that day and age spoke two or three languages (Aramaic in conversation, Greek for business, and Latin for interacting with the government [few common folk spoke it, but almost everyone in an office did]).

You are welcome to your delusions. The rest of us are fine without them.

Look, you have been debating with RAdam and myself for sometime, do we really come across like ignorant, backwoods hicks to you?

And that is a slight to the vast majority of people in the world. Book knowledge is not everything, I have known people with PhDs that had not one bit of common sense and ended up working at McDonalds. And I knew a fellow that quit school in the 10th grade, we all thought he was a big dummy. He started his own construction company, and by the time he was in his early twenties was a millionaire and married one of the prettiest girls in town.

No one here is against knowledge, we are told to study the scriptures. But we are also told to believe the scriptures.

But RAdam was correct. The only real scholar Jesus chose as his disciple was Paul. Peter was a fisherman, these fellows are not generally known for their scholarship. He did quite well considering his low station in life.

You know, it has been shown that generally the more education a person has, the more likely they are to be an athiest.

6. Of 43 studies carried out since 1927 on the relationship between one’s religious belief and intelligence/education level, all but 4 showed an inverse correlation. That is, the higher the education/intelligence level, the less one is likely to be religious or ‘hold’ any beliefs of any kind. (Source: Paul Bell, Mensa 2008)

7. A survey by the Tearfund Organization (Europe) showed that 65% of people that ended their education at age 15 believe in God. Of those whose education ended at 16-19, 49% believe in God. And of those that ended their education at 20+, 45% believe in God.

As I said, no one is against education, I went to college myself. But when a person attempts to prove the scriptures by scholarship they are circimventing faith in my opinon. I do not know how Jesus defied the laws of nature when he walked on water, and I am not going to do a scientific study to figure it out, I am just going to believe it.

 

[Winman]

Do we have God's perfectly preserved word? Yes, we do. It is within the manuscripts, even with the extra stuff. If you can't wrap your head around that then I pity you.

Well, obviously you define preserved differently than I do. God did not just say he would preserve his words, he said his word is pure, which means uncorrupted. You also seem to fail to see that your very statement is a contradiction of itself.

Psa 119:140 Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.

Pro 30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Psa 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.

Here God says his law is perfect and his testimonies sure. But according to you this is not true, men have perverted his word and we must sort it out.

1 Pet 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

There are many other scriptures besides these where God promises to preserve his word.

 

[Trotter]

But when a person attempts to prove the scriptures by scholarship they are circimventing faith in my opinon. I do not know how Jesus defied the laws of nature when he walked on water, and I am not going to do a scientific study to figure it out, I am just going to believe it.

Actually, I do not think either of you are unintelligent. I was taking the statement to a ridiculous extreme to show how it sounded. I, too, have been to college and have a degree that does me no good in this present economy, but I did learn a lot about critical thinking while I was there. That has helped me a lot in my study of the scriptures.

For me, scholarship is used to back up the scriptures, not prove them. Science was brought about to try to figure out how God did stuff but modern man has perverted it into something that tries to disprove the existence of God, completely corrupting it.

I have completely faith in the scriptures as they are God's word. I do not hold to any one translation as being "the one" but that is my preference. I started out as a KJVO even though it wasn't taught in my church, but I discovered other translations that I could more readily understand and that these translation were used by bible teachers and preachers I trusted.

I have never had a problem accepting these translations as the word of God. Part of this could be that I was not raised in church and did not have a foundation built upon a single translation. For me it was all new. I was given a KJV when I was saved and was told that it was God's only true word and I believed them because I was freshly saved and thought they were mature Christians. Looking back I realize these "mature" Christians were not mature at all and those still alive remain babes in Christ who never crack open a bible. that's not to say that everyone who holds to KJVO is immature, but these people are/were.

I don't have an easy answer for why these two passages (2 Kings 24:8 and 2 Chron 36:9) are different. I read the link you posted by brandplucked, but Mexdeaf is correct in saying he is a parrot (he was on the BB a while back and could have been carved out of Ruckman's (and Ripplinger's, etc) butt). This is one of those things that we will find out abut when we get to heaven as I doubt we will find out in this life.

 

[Trotter]

Well, obviously you define preserved differently than I do. God did not just say he would preserve his words, he said his word is pure, which means uncorrupted.

Psa 119:140 Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.

Pro 30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Psa 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.

Here God says his law is perfect and his testimonies sure. But according to you this is not true, men have perverted his word and we must sort it out.

1 Pet 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

There are many other scriptures besides these where God promises to preserve his word.

Please point out to me God's pure, preserved word. It's not the KJV since it is based off of these impure manuscripts and is a translation written by imperfect men. So... where is it?