Skwim
Veteran Member
Out of the 36 versions I checked 17 said 22 years and 19 said 40 years. So it's not a meaningful point you're making at all. But more importantly, and telling, is that if one looks at the translated Hebrew word for the number in question in a Bible like the ESV (English Standard Version), which says "22," Strong's gives h705 אַרְבָּעִים 'arba`iym, , the word for 40.It is not wise, IMO, to quickly assume the Bible is in error when seeming discrepancies are found. Many modern translations list Ahaziah's age at 22 in both Chronicles and Kings. Using a translation or version over 400 years old creates such confusion.
So, this is in the Bible? NOPE! Making up stories to explain discrepancies may be satisfying to the believer, but they hold absolutely no water for anyone who values reason and common sense.The traditional explanation about Michal is that Merab, Michal’s older sister, died early after having borne five sons to Adriel and that Michal thereafter undertook the bringing up of her sister’s five boys, thus resulting in their being spoken of as her sons.
And as I pointed out to Thana, "Ah ha, the old John Gill theory, which the ignores that fact that the Hebrew word, ילדה, which Gill claims to mean "brought up," everywhere else in the Bible means "gave birth to."---68 times alone in Genesis. Why this peculiar, one-time irrational translation here? Because it conveniently dispenses with the contradiction."Isaac Leeser’s translation reads at 2 Samuel 21:8: “And the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she had brought up for Adriel.” Michal herself had no children of her own, as ll Samuel 6:23 affirms.
Again, mere fictional supposition, "may indicate," and " it is possible" gets turned into certainty, establishing a basis for denying the contradiction. But as I said about the ridiculous claim about Merab, Michal’s older sister, making up stories to explain discrepancies may be satisfying to the believer, but they hold absolutely no water for anyone who values reason and common sense.Similarly, the numbers at 2 Samuel and Chronicles of Israels fighting men may indicate that Samuel omitted some men Chronicles included in the account. As Insight on the Scriptures explains: "The two accounts may have reckoned the number from different viewpoints. For example, it is possible that members of the standing army and/or their officers were counted or omitted. And different methods of reckoning may have caused a variation in the listing of certain men, as to whether they were under Judah or Israel. "
An accuracy you can't even begin to validate. You're just taking it on the basis that the Bible can't be wrong. You do realize that such an argument, Begging the Question, is fallacious don't you?I find amazing the Bible's accuracy in covering historical events spanning thousands of years.
Last edited: