Several errors in inspired KJV?

Which thread?

 

I have heard claims that the Jews corrupted the MT so the LXX is more accurate. Are you claiming this? The one reason I would think the LXX is sometimes closer to the NT quotes is because your comparing Greek to Greek so of course it will be closer! I have not been won over yet on the idea that the LXX is a better copy of the OT then the MT. That being said I know some Greek and for one of your examples in 2 Samual 21:8 the LXX supports the MT in that is uses the name Michal. So the LXX, MT and KJV agree on the name. From what I see NIV and some other translations choose to translate a word that isn't even in the manuscripts!

 

Paul, this may answer your questions about the OPs references:
Here are the passages and the translators notes in the NET Bible concerning these passages, they may help shed some light:

1) 2 Chronicles 22:2 Ahaziah was twenty-two3 years old when he became king and he reigned for one year in Jerusalem. His mother was Athaliah, the granddaughter4 of Omri
tc Heb "forty-two," but the parallel passage in 2 Kgs 8:26 reads "twenty-two" along with some mss of the LXX and the Syriac.

2) 2 Samuel 21:8 So the king took Armoni and Mephibosheth, the two sons of Aiah’s daughter Rizpah whom she had born to Saul, and the five sons of Saul’s daughter Merab10 whom she had born to Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite.
and the note: tc The MT reads "Michal" here, but two Hebrew manuscripts read "Merab," along with some LXX manuscripts. Cf. 1 Sam 18:19.

3) 2 Chronicles 36:9 Jehoiachin was eighteen12years old when he became king, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem.
and the note: tc The Hebrew text reads "eight," but some ancient textual witnesses, as well as the parallel text in 2 Kgs 24:8, have "eighteen."

As you can see not all MVs have perpetuated these problems.
There is textual evidence to show that God never contradicts himself. You just have to look further back than the KJV translators (and some MV translators did)

 

Actually most modern translations use just a select few older manuscripts to support their translation (the Critical Text). The Majority Text is used by only a handful of english translations and it is based off the Majority reading of all the manuscripts. The TR is closer to the Majority then it is the Critical Text but there are differences. The KJV and NKJV use the TR. As for the LXX question I would read my last post.

 

Thanks for the post. So it looks like some LXX and some MT manuscipts have the different wording but they certainly are much fewer then what most of them say. Remember that the NET commentaries are not inspired so we must always take it with a grain of salt as well.

 

Yes I understand that, and I disagree with the NET in a few places, but in these instances, the NET does answer the OP's Questions.

It seems to be a problem with the MT, not the KJV only.

 

I was reading John MacArthur's commentary and he took a different route with 2 Samuel. He thinks maybe they were adopted and considered hers.

 

There is the discrepancy: The thought that the KJV is "without error"...

The KJV is a faithful translation....but is not perfect. It is faithful to the MT the translators had available to them at that time.

All translations have their "problems" That is why we need to use multiple ones to get the sense out of them...

But doctrinally speaking, these "problems" don't mean anything, and I will not throw away my KJV.. I love it. I just am honest enough to admit that it is a "version" and not the "only inspired Bible"

 

I wonder where he gets the evidence for this...
If what he says is true, that would clear it up also.

 

I'm not sure, it could just be speculation. It's interesting to note that his favorite translation is the NASB which does use the other name. He may just agree though with the majority of the MT and LXX manuscripts so he figures there is a reason for the supposed contradiction. I have enjoyed this discussion but I'm off to bed. I have not looked to much into OT manuscripts variations so it has been a learning experience so far.

:wavey: :sleeping_2:

 

2 Chronicles 22:2 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.

The Hebrew literally reads “a son of 42 years.” It refers to Athaliah’s age. Ahaziah was 22 (compare to 2 Kings 8:17) to reign when his father was died at 40 (See 2 Chron. 21:20) and his mother, Athaliah, was 42.

 

In Michal's case, the KJV followed the practice of listing one's adopted child same as one's own birth child. this carries over into the NT where Mary calls Joseph Jesus' father, although she knew full well Jesus was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. I see no prob with the KJV's calling the sons of Adriel and Merab "Michal's children" as Michal was the one who apparently raised them-especially in the light that their natural parents are named.

BTW, Paul...Wanna tackle a REAL prob?

2 Kings 24:8
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
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.

WHICH IS CORRECT?

Both Kings & Chronicles go on to say that in the 37th year of Jehoiachin's captivity, Babylon's King Evilmerodach brought him outta prison & provided for his daily needs.