How Old Was Ahaziah?
How Old Was Ahaziah?
If you are still not convinced about the inconsistency regarding the bible’s corruption, maybe this could give you a little hint. In order to cover a contradiction in the bible, the translators will resort to lying. But truth will always stand out from faulty. So now to the question, Was Ahaziah 22 or 42 when he became king?
“Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem one year. His mother's name was Athaliah, a granddaughter of Omri.” (2 Chronicles 22)
“Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem one year. His mother's name was Athaliah, a granddaughter of Omri king of Israel.” (2 Kings 8:26)
As a matter of fact, let’s take a further look at several of the
translations of 2 Chronicles 22. (see here)
At face value, it seems to be splendid. On
the contrary, you will be in for a rude awakening.
(Click here) says forty-two.
(Click here) says twenty-two.
There
is no other alternative,linguistic or grammatical explanation. (2kings 8:26)
uses עֶשְׂרִ֨ים which means twenty while (2Chronicles22:2) uses אַרְבָּעִ֨ים which is forty.
You still believe you’re
not being lied to right before your own very eyes? I thought this was the “flawless words of Jesus”
Critics may raise the assertion that it could’ve been mistranslated. One can refute, how many other man mistakes are there in The Bible? Was God walking on water one of them?
Answ. 1. In the Hebrew it is, a son of forty-two years, &c., which is an ambiguous phrase; and though it doth for the most part, yet it doth not always, signify the age of the person, as is manifest from 1 Samuel 13:1, See Poole "1 Samuel 13:1". And therefore it is not necessary that this should note his age (as it is generally presumed to do, and that is the only ground of the difficulty); but it may note either.
Some acknowledge an error in the transcribers of the present Hebrew copies, in which language the numeral letters for twenty-two and forty-two are so like, that they might easily be mistaken. For that it was read twenty-two here, as it is in the Book of Kings, in other Hebrew copies, they gather from hence, that it is at this day so read in divers ancient Greek copies, as also in those two ancient translations, the Syriac and the Arabic, and particularly in that famous and most ancient copy of the Syriac, which was used by the church of Antioch in the primitive times, and to this day is kept in the church of Antioch, from which that most reverend, learned, pious, and public-spirited archbishop Usher did at his own great charge get another copy transcribed, in which he hath published to all the world that he found it here written twenty and two years old. for it seems unreasonable and uncharitable to think that all of them would have conspired to have changed the text, and put in twenty and two for forty and two, if they had so read it in their Hebrew copies.
Nor can this open any great door to those innumerable changes which some have boldly and rashly made in the Hebrew text without any such pretence of authority, as there is for this, which as they are affirmed without reason, or authority, or necessity, so they may as easily be rejected.
The Benson Commentary is one of few that
have faced this embarrassing issue by quoting the following:
Forty and two years old was Ahaziah — It is said (2 Kings 8:26) that he was but two and twenty years old when he began to reign; so that, it is probable, an error has been committed here by the copyist or transcriber. For some Greek copies have here twenty-two years old, and it is so in the Syriac and Arabic translations, and particularly in that most ancient copy of the Syriac, which was used by the church at Antioch in the primitive times, and to this day is kept in the church of Antioch, from which Archbishop Usher did, at his own great charge, get an exact copy transcribed.
Forty and two years old was Ahaziah — It is said (2 Kings 8:26) that he was but two and twenty years old when he began to reign; so that, it is probable, an error has been committed here by the copyist or transcriber. For some Greek copies have here twenty-two years old, and it is so in the Syriac and Arabic translations, and particularly in that most ancient copy of the Syriac, which was used by the church at Antioch in the primitive times, and to this day is kept in the church of Antioch, from which Archbishop Usher did, at his own great charge, get an exact copy transcribed.
Athaliah
the daughter of Omri — That is,
of Omri’s family; or, of Ahab, Omri’s son. Grand-children are often called sons
or daughters in the Scriptures.
Meanwhile, The Matthew Poole Commentary took a rather, desperate approach in order to reconcile with the apparent contradiction:
He was then only twenty-two years old, as is affirmed
2 Kings 8:26. Besides, Joram his father died in his fortieth year, as is twice noted, 2 Chronicles 21:5,20: how then can this be true?
Meanwhile, The Matthew Poole Commentary took a rather, desperate approach in order to reconcile with the apparent contradiction:
He was then only twenty-two years old, as is affirmed
2 Kings 8:26. Besides, Joram his father died in his fortieth year, as is twice noted, 2 Chronicles 21:5,20: how then can this be true?
Answ. 1. In the Hebrew it is, a son of forty-two years, &c., which is an ambiguous phrase; and though it doth for the most part, yet it doth not always, signify the age of the person, as is manifest from 1 Samuel 13:1, See Poole "1 Samuel 13:1". And therefore it is not necessary that this should note his age (as it is generally presumed to do, and that is the only ground of the difficulty); but it may note either.
Some acknowledge an error in the transcribers of the present Hebrew copies, in which language the numeral letters for twenty-two and forty-two are so like, that they might easily be mistaken. For that it was read twenty-two here, as it is in the Book of Kings, in other Hebrew copies, they gather from hence, that it is at this day so read in divers ancient Greek copies, as also in those two ancient translations, the Syriac and the Arabic, and particularly in that famous and most ancient copy of the Syriac, which was used by the church of Antioch in the primitive times, and to this day is kept in the church of Antioch, from which that most reverend, learned, pious, and public-spirited archbishop Usher did at his own great charge get another copy transcribed, in which he hath published to all the world that he found it here written twenty and two years old. for it seems unreasonable and uncharitable to think that all of them would have conspired to have changed the text, and put in twenty and two for forty and two, if they had so read it in their Hebrew copies.
Nor can this open any great door to those innumerable changes which some have boldly and rashly made in the Hebrew text without any such pretence of authority, as there is for this, which as they are affirmed without reason, or authority, or necessity, so they may as easily be rejected.
In conclusion:
Christians preaching to other Christians
in such a non-christian way by not being truthful? Under what basis are they even permitted to fool the readers by translating both verses as twenty-two? Not only is this not fair. But also unscholarly.
Whatever happened to the commandment which proclaims ''Do not steal. "'Do not lie. "'Do not deceive one another." (Leviticus 19:11) ??
Comments
Post a Comment