Questionable doctrines in the KJV

PM: It ain't gonna happen. Skan and Pastor Larry each just gotta get the last word.

 

Why does common sense tell us that every single manuscript of the Hebrew bible is wrong?

But what we do have is every single existing Hebrew manuscript reading the same. And, in fact, no manuscript anywhere reads "22" not even the LXX.

I disagree that the correlation between the evil of the house of Omri and the evil of Ahaziah is "logical gymnastics" and that the number 42 has to be wrong.

Really? Can you prove that? And what about 2 Chron 22:2. No manuscript anywhere, either Hebrew or Greek reads 22.

We have not yet conclusively established that "son of x years" always means "x years old chronologically from the time of his birth and nothing else."

I am not sure I understand your question. Could you rephrase it?

 

If you don't like the discussion please feel free not to read it. Just skip over the thread called "Questionable doctrines in the KJV" - but please don't try to censor the rest of us. Some of us actually think the issue of infallibility of the bible is important. Thank you.

 

2 Chronicles 22:2n KJV
Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.

This verse is a plain, straightforward statement. There's no mention of the age of Omri's dynasty whatsoever. The plain, undeniable fact is, someone somewhere, sometime, blew it.

 

roby:
The reigns of Omri, Ahab, Ahaziah, and Joram of Israel encompassed some 48 years.


Following the chronology thus given, making Ahaziah of Judah 42 yrs old would've made him older than his father! Joram of Israel died at age 40 and was succeeded by Ahaziah.

Skan:
That is why so many of us believe the reference is to the dynasty of Omri and not a reference to his chronological age.

But the Scripture says nothing about the age of omri's dynasty. If we make such an implication, are we not adding to God's word? The KJV Scripture being discussed straightforwardly says Ahaziah was 42 years old when he began to reign. There's no interregnum gap indicated between the death of Joram and Ahaziah's crowning.

Hey, I'm not trying to buy into y'all's discussion, but we must use a little common sense here.

 

This remind me of our media who says, "If you don't like our shows, just don't watch!" Okay, stoooopid thing to be reminded of. Skan, you are a smart man, no doubt, so you know what I meant, that this back and forth has gotten fruitless. You and Pastor Larry both believe the infallibility of the Bible, I'm in no doubt (I trust you're not accusing me of this sin ). Don't you think there comes a time in an argument where both sides will not yield so it's time to let it go, as P.L. said? Personally, I do not question either one of you as far as the infallibility of the Scripture. "Thank You"

 

Only if you assume that "a son of 42 years" must mean "42 years old since his birth and nothing else." That interpretation has yet to be conclusively proven.

 

Nobody has claimed that Ahaziah was 42 at the time of his ascension. I say that is a reference to the age of the evil influence which permeated his reign. Larry says that is a mistake in the bible and it should read 22 even though there is no manuscript evidence to support his claim.

The bible tells us Omri reigned 12 years, Ahab 22 years, and Joram 8 years, and all did evil in the sight of the LORD and they were Ahaziah's progenitors whose evil he followed.

No, we accept that each man reigned for the time the bible says they did and that 42 does not necessarily refer to his chronological age at the time of his ascension.

That is probably because there was no gap. What are you talking about?

 

You seem to have made the error of including Ahaziah of Israel in the descent of Ahaziah of Judah. Ahaziah of Israel was the brother of Athaliah, wife of Joram, and mother of Ahaziah of Judah and thus his uncle and not in his line of descent. We are descended from our parents, grandparents, great grandparents, but not from our uncles and aunts.

 

Skan:
"Only if you assume that "a son of 42 years" must mean "42 years old since his birth and nothing else." That interpretation has yet to be conclusively proven."

That's the way the Scripture is written, and therefore that's the way we must accept it unless we believe that someone somewhere blew it.

Not to be smart-aleck, but there's simply no basis found in Scripture for what you propose.

 

Yes, I know. It doesn't say "Ahaziah was 42 years old." If it did, that would be a different story. But, rather it says "a son of 42 years." That can be interpreted more than one way. And, of course, if, as you say, "that's the way the Scripture is written, and therefore that's the way we must accept it" then we must accept the 42 as correct for that is the way every single Hebrew manuscript reads.

The fact that his progenitors reigned for exactly 42 years, 12+22+8=42 is just to great a coincidence for me to blithely ignore.