Contradiction: How old was Ahaziah?

Skwim · Sep 11, 2019

SA Huguenot said:
Realy.
So, if the maths shows 22 years, and a lot of manuscripts does say 22, isnt it obvious 22 years?

"Obvious"? Not at all. Here, let me show you something; a few of the many translations of 2 Chronicles 22:2 that say Ahaziah was 42 years old when he began to rule.

GW
Ahaziah was 42 years old when he began to rule, and he ruled for one year in Jerusalem. His mother was Athaliah, the granddaughter of Omri.

BRG
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.

MEV
Now Ahaziah was forty-two years old when he began to reign, but he only reigned one year in Jerusalem. The name of his mother was Athaliah, a granddaughter of Omri.

CJB
Achazyah was forty-two years old when he began his reign, and he ruled for one year in Yerushalayim. His mother’s name was ‘Atalyahu the daughter of ‘Omri.

DRA
Ochozias was forty-two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem, and the name of his mother was Athalia the daughter of Amri.

WEB
Ahaziah was forty-two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.

NOG
Ahaziah was 42 years old when he began to rule, and he ruled for one year in Jerusalem. His mother was Athaliah, the granddaughter of Omri.

AMPC
Forty-two years old was Ahaziah when he began his one-year reign in Jerusalem. His mother was Athaliah, a granddaughter of Omri.

WYC
Ahaziah was of two and forty years, when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem; the name of his mother was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri.

GNV
Two and forty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.

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.

JUB
Ahaziah was forty-two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri.

AKJV
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.

LEB
Ahaziah was forty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And the name of his mother was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri.

And, why should I believe you unless you show me the evidence? So, the ball's in your corner. What ya got? Show us these "lot of manuscripts."

Out of all your posted contradictions, this is the tread you are danglin on hoping to save face for the absurd claims you attempted to throw at a Christian.
Remember how cocky you were in referring you to posts #39 and #40?
How sure you were in posting "evidence" that the Bible is one huge contradiction?

My, my quite the hyperbolist. But how about forgetting the ad homs and simply address the issue.

Show us why "Ahazia was 22" is a fact. That's all.

. . . . . . . . . . . Although, we know why you don't; it's because you can't.

.

Tumah · Sep 11, 2019

SA Huguenot said:
I learned that the Hebrew numbers was written in Hebrew numerals, similar as would Roman numbers be written by I, X, V, L, M etc.

Although this is a common practice in non-Scriptural texts, I have not seen any Scriptures with this. The Isaiah Scroll of the DSS does not do this even one time. Do you have any proof that this was done in these scrolls?

In Hebrew the number 22 is “KAF+BEIT” and 42 is “MEM+BEIT”.
If I have it correct, this is how it will appear. ב+נ and מ+נ.

You actually wrote BEIT+NUN and MEM+NUN in the Hebrew part. What you wanted to write was כ+ב and מ+ב.

Skwim · Sep 11, 2019

Tumah said:
Although this is a common practice in non-Scriptural texts, I have not seen any Scriptures with this. The Isaiah Scroll of the DSS does not do this even one time. Do you have any proof that this was done in these scrolls?

You actually wrote BEIT+NUN and MEM+NUN in the Hebrew part. What you wanted to write was כ+ב and מ+ב.

Ah yes,

"A little learning is a dangerous thing ; Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring : There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, And drinking largely sobers us again.

--Alexander Pope--

.

SA Huguenot · Sep 12, 2019

Tumah said:
Although this is a common practice in non-Scriptural texts, I have not seen any Scriptures with this. The Isaiah Scroll of the DSS does not do this even one time. Do you have any proof that this was done in these scrolls?

I was informed that this was the way numbers were written after 400BC.
And I must confess, I am not a manuscript reader, nor do I read hebrew and I appreciate the correction of my Microsoft simbols which I had to choose.
Anyhow, the Manuscripts we had when the KJV was translated dated from dated from 900AD, and it would not have the fully written word for the numerals.
But, I will take some time next week and will propperly investigate into this info.
I appreciate your constructive critisizm.
Thank You.

SA Huguenot · Sep 12, 2019

Nowhere Man said:
Well its not exactly rubbish in my case. When I die I won't need it anymore. The teachings are only a raft for this lifetime. It's all they are. Nobody is going to remember them once death occurs. So yes you're right , it's rubbish in the end.

And Yes, this is total ZEN, but on what grounds do you lay your beliefs if it is not recorded in any written form?
Who do you trust that you will attain everlasting life?
What is the falsification test, as you so vehemently challenges the Bible on?

SA Huguenot · Sep 12, 2019

Nowhere Man said:
I'm sure you're aware of the Skeptics Anointed Bible?

Skeptic's Annotated Bible - RationalWiki

There's enough material in there to last for years. Suffice to say, I go for the more direct contradictions.

One is Pauline Christianity where Paul claimed to have met Christ on the road to Damascus in direct contradiction to Matthew 24:23. It's a fatal flaw in my opinion.

Another would be the Phantom camels for which camels were touted to be used in the Bible long before they were actually introduced into the region. There is no room for argument on this one , as it's already been established by scientific community that it was the case and the Bible is completely off base with this one.

Thanks for the matt 24:23.
We will get there also.
its not a contradiction.
What is this about camels?

Twilight Hue · Sep 12, 2019

SA Huguenot said:
Thanks for the matt 24:23.
We will get there also.
its not a contradiction.
What is this about camels?

Domesticated Camels Came to Israel in 930 B.C., Centuries Later Than Bible Says

University of Tel Aviv .....

TAU scientists find Israel's first domesticated camels

Twilight Hue · Sep 12, 2019

SA Huguenot said:
And Yes, this is total ZEN, but on what grounds do you lay your beliefs if it is not recorded in any written form?
Who do you trust that you will attain everlasting life?
What is the falsification test, as you so vehemently challenges the Bible on?

Zen Buddhist don't have those concerns. Writings are taken on a provisional basis "Thus I have heard".

BilliardsBall · Sep 12, 2019

SA Huguenot said:
Here is another "Contradiction" by the Atheist:

How old was Ahaziah when he began to rule over Jerusalem?
(a) Twenty-two (2 Kings 8:26).
(b) Forty-two (2 Chronicles 22:2).

Answer:
I learned that the Hebrew numbers was written in Hebrew numerals, similar as would Roman numbers be written by I, X, V, L, M etc.
In Hebrew the number 22 is “KAF+BEIT” and 42 is “MEM+BEIT”.
If I have it correct, this is how it will appear. ב+נ and מ+נ.
Now, anyone that would like to call this a contradiction should first take the following into consideration.
The books of Chronicles were written on either Papyri or parchment and the ink was hand mixed. Both the ink and writing materials was highly degradable and taken into account that these passages were written between 930 BC and 440 BC, it passed through many scribes and copyists to what leftover manuscripts we have today.
Conclusion.
The possibility that one manuscript in a lineage of hundreds had some damage, or the ink smudged is almost certain, no, not “almost”, but certainly to have occurred. Look at what an insignificant change in the Hebrew of say, Ezra, or Nechemia’s time could have resulted in writing a MEM in stead of a KAF.
Most manuscripts of the Septuagint have the number twenty, and one has twenty-two. Twenty-two is also reflected in the Syriac and the Arabic versions.
Therefore, to have a lineage of at least 200 consecutive copying, with such an insignificant error is actually incredible to say the least. Think of this, the copying of the Bible was done for at least 2400 years, and the copyists who re wrote this incorrect number had such a lot of respect for the Bible, they did not even attempt to change this small fact of their history. Now that’s what I call inherent honesty.
Another surprise hit the Atheists in 1935 when the Tel Dan stelae was discovered at Lachish and on it we have Hazael bosting he killed both Jehoram and his son Ahaziah.
Damn but the Bible is trustworthy!
For the record, Ahazia was 22.

There are 3,116,480 letters in the Bible. Congratulations on having proved the Bible the most reliable book of ancient history, by taking years and some intensive mental effort and Hebrew study to find one wrong letter! Good job!

1:3,116,480

Well done!!

Jayhawker Soule · Sep 12, 2019

SA Huguenot said:
I was informed that this was the way numbers were written after 400BC.

In the Tanakh? Informed by whom?

SA Huguenot said:
But, I will take some time next week and will propperly investigate into this info.

I'll be interested to see what you feel constitutes a proper investigation.Meanwhile, the following is the Masoretic Text of II Chronicles 22:2

בֶּן־אַרְבָּעִ֨ים וּשְׁתַּ֤יִם שָׁנָה֙ אֲחַזְיָ֣הוּ בְמָלְכ֔וֹ וְשָׁנָ֣ה אַחַ֔ת מָלַ֖ךְ בִּֽירוּשָׁלִָ֑ם וְשֵׁ֣ם אִמּ֔וֹ עֲתַלְיָ֖הוּ בַּת־עָמְרִֽי׃

SA Huguenot · Sep 12, 2019

Nowhere Man said:
Domesticated Camels Came to Israel in 930 B.C., Centuries Later Than Bible Says

University of Tel Aviv .....

TAU scientists find Israel's first domesticated camels

And I read your link and found a lot of "propably's"
Archaeologists have established that camels were probably domesticated in the Arabian Peninsula for use as pack animals sometime towards the end of the 2nd millennium BCE. In the southern Levant, where Israel is located, the oldest known domesticated camel bones are from the Aravah Valley, which runs along the Israeli-Jordanian border from the Dead Sea to the Red Sea and was an ancient center of copper production. At a 2009 dig, Dr. Ben-Yosef dated an Aravah Valley copper smelting camp where the domesticated camel bones were found to the 11th to 9th century BCE. In 2013, he led another dig in the area.
...
The few camel bones found in earlier archaeological layers probably belonged to wild camels, which archaeologists think were in the southern Levant from the Neolithic period or even earlier. Notably, all the sites active in the 9th century in the Arava Valley had camel bones, but none of the sites that were active earlier contained them."

Conclusion.
This gentleman are making assumptions on camel bones he found in "Digs dating from the 9th century". He found camel bones dating from the 9th century.
Ok???
So how does diging in a place of 900BC and finding camel bones from 900 BC century, claims that camels were not in palestine in 2000 BC?
And why all the assumptions?
I find these statements suspicious and will "dig further".

SA Huguenot · Sep 12, 2019

Nowhere Man said:
Zen Buddhist don't have those concerns. Writings are taken on a provisional basis "Thus I have heard".

So how do you know there is an everlasting afterlife?

Jayhawker Soule · Sep 12, 2019

SA Huguenot said:
And I read your link and found a lot of "propably's"

While you apparently prefer a fragile chain of "possibly's".

Twilight Hue · Sep 12, 2019

SA Huguenot said:
So how do you know there is an everlasting afterlife?

There isn't.

Consider this the afterlife for as long as it lasts.

leov · Sep 12, 2019

SA Huguenot said:
Here is another "Contradiction" by the Atheist:

How old was Ahaziah when he began to rule over Jerusalem?
(a) Twenty-two (2 Kings 8:26).
(b) Forty-two (2 Chronicles 22:2).

Answer:
I learned that the Hebrew numbers was written in Hebrew numerals, similar as would Roman numbers be written by I, X, V, L, M etc.
In Hebrew the number 22 is “KAF+BEIT” and 42 is “MEM+BEIT”.
If I have it correct, this is how it will appear. ב+נ and מ+נ.
Now, anyone that would like to call this a contradiction should first take the following into consideration.
The books of Chronicles were written on either Papyri or parchment and the ink was hand mixed. Both the ink and writing materials was highly degradable and taken into account that these passages were written between 930 BC and 440 BC, it passed through many scribes and copyists to what leftover manuscripts we have today.
Conclusion.
The possibility that one manuscript in a lineage of hundreds had some damage, or the ink smudged is almost certain, no, not “almost”, but certainly to have occurred. Look at what an insignificant change in the Hebrew of say, Ezra, or Nechemia’s time could have resulted in writing a MEM in stead of a KAF.
Most manuscripts of the Septuagint have the number twenty, and one has twenty-two. Twenty-two is also reflected in the Syriac and the Arabic versions.
Therefore, to have a lineage of at least 200 consecutive copying, with such an insignificant error is actually incredible to say the least. Think of this, the copying of the Bible was done for at least 2400 years, and the copyists who re wrote this incorrect number had such a lot of respect for the Bible, they did not even attempt to change this small fact of their history. Now that’s what I call inherent honesty.
Another surprise hit the Atheists in 1935 when the Tel Dan stelae was discovered at Lachish and on it we have Hazael bosting he killed both Jehoram and his son Ahaziah.
Damn but the Bible is trustworthy!
For the record, Ahazia was 22.

OT is not History book, it uses Gematria and it means any numbers in the text can not be taken at straight value.

SA Huguenot · Sep 13, 2019

Nowhere Man said:
There isn't.

Consider this the afterlife for as long as it lasts.

OK, so when you attain enlightenment, youre a gonner forever!

SA Huguenot · Sep 13, 2019

leov said:
OT is not History book, it uses Gematria and it means any numbers in the text can not be taken at straight value.

This is an interesting claim.
Funny that when Napoleon in 1799 went through the Levant, he could not find 24 Biblical cities.
Over the last 200 years Archaeology found over 3 000 topographical places referred too only in the Bible and perhaps Josephius' works.
People, Kings, empires nations, all who Bible critisizers claimed never to have existed, was proven correct.
The history of Shalmanezzer, Nebuchadnezzar and so many more was discovered not only to have existed, but the Biblical events was described only in the Bible for over 2 000 years, and no where else.
If you BELIEVE the OT not to be a book of history, your religion should shape up a bit I BELIEVE.

Twilight Hue · Sep 13, 2019

SA Huguenot said:
OK, so when you attain enlightenment, youre a gonner forever!

Yep thats pretty much it.

SA Huguenot · Sep 13, 2019

Nowhere Man said:
Yep thats pretty much it.

And how do you know this is the true reflection of what will happen?

Twilight Hue · Sep 13, 2019

SA Huguenot said:
And how do you know this is the true reflection of what will happen?

Because there's nothing else that indicates otherwise.

Contradiction: How old was Ahaziah?

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.

Veteran Member

-- untitled --

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

-- untitled --

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.

Well-Known Member

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.