Ahaziah's Age?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Y

Yiffzer

New Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2006
Messages
791
Reaction score
0
Note: Please refrain from attacks. Only post if you have certain knowledge. Do not make speculation. I request posters to please type clearly as possible; I do not appreciate condensed posts with no organization. I wish Atheists and Jordan (RITCount, SyrOrange, etc.) to not post in this thread. Thank you.

I wish to bring light to these verses that seem to contradict each other. Earlier today, someone brought these two verses to my eyes and I was smirking at how strange it is:

"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." (2 Chronicles 22:2)

"Two and twenty 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 king of Israel." (2 Kings 8:26)

I am not sure how to defend this other than to say it could've been a scribal error. I am giving it the benefit of doubt so would any Christians care to explain what may be going on? Thanks.

-Yiffzer.
 
Perhaps, they are different people at different times?

There are a lot of people who use the same name. :dunno:
 
Perhaps you'd like to read the verses again. They refer to the same exact person with the same exact purpose and relatives.
 
Kings is before Chronicles.

Suppose Chronicles is based on events that take place 40 years later. He's still there... so the time is longer?
 
Hmm, I'm not sure how that makes sense. One verse says 42 years old. The other verse says 22 years old (right?). Both said at those specific ages, Ahaziah will reign. If logic dictates that only one is true and the other is false, which one is it?
 
Yiffzer said:
Hmm, I'm not sure how that makes sense. One verse says 42 years old. The other verse says 22 years old (right?). Both said at those specific ages, Ahaziah will reign. If logic dictates that only one is true and the other is false, which one is it?
Click to expand...
Okay, I did some reading 1 King, 2 King, 1 Chronicles, and 2 Chronicles.

It seems that they are actually two different people in two different kingdoms.

One was the king of Israel from 850 BC to 849 BC and the other was the king of Judah from 843 BC to 842 BC.

Both kingdoms are in Jerusalem. The northern kingdom is Israel and the southern kingdom is Judah.
 
Interesting thread here... I love to learn more about this here. I hope this link will helps.

As to Ahaziah's age he was 22 as stated in 2 Kings 8:26. In 2 Chronicles 22:2 it states his age as being 42 which apparently is a copyist error. The Hebrew word for forty is very similar to the word for twenty. There is just a small particle added to the word for twenty that makes it read forty. It was quite easy for a copyist to make such a mistake. As the Michael having children she had none. In 2 Samuel 21:8 the name of Michael, which is in the text is either an error of memory or a copyist's mistake; for it was not Michael, but Merab, Saul's oldest daughter, who was given to Adriel the Meholathite as his wife and she is the one who had the five sons.
Click to expand...

God and the Bible
 
Liebling:-))) said:
Interesting thread here... I love to learn more about this here. I hope this link will helps.



God and the Bible
Click to expand...
If you read 2 Chronicles 21:2...

And he had brethren the sons of Jehoshaphat, Azariah, and Jehiel, and Zechariah, and Azariah, and Michael, and Shephatiah: all these were the sons of Jehoshaphat king of Israel.

It states that this person had 2 kids with the same name. Therefore, it's safe to say that the other verse was referring to a different person who happened to have the same name and happened to have a mother of the same name.

If you read 2 Chronicles 22:2...

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.

See the bold? Yep, it says "also"... which could means that it was referring to someone who happened to have the same name.

If you check the Biblical timeline, you'll see Ahaziah mentioned twice in two different cities under the same place of Jerusalem.
 
Copyist errors?

I don't know if this was a copyist error or if they are separate people. If this was a copyist error, I'm curious as to when it was.

For an interesting look, try this. The first published collection of William Shakespeare's works is referred to as the First Folio (1623). There are a few Folios published after as well. These are the earliest copies that scholars use to try and figure out what Shakspeare really wrote.

If you read the Folios, however, you'll notice there are abundant errors. Letters are switched (U and V, for example), there are multiple spellings for the same word, letters are flipped, and so on.

Printing errors are really common in the Folios. If you've ever tried typesetting, you'll know why. You need to put letters on the plate upside down and backwards. So when Shakespeare uses the word "Iudean" in the Tempest, does he mean Judean or Indian? Spelling standards were also not as rigid as they are. Shakespeare spelled his own name several ways.

The point is this: someone a few posts up mentioned that the Hebrew words for these numbers are pretty similar. It seems to me, supposing or not that typesetting was involved, a scribal error is a possibility. It is not the only possibility here -- maybe they were different kings, or maybe there is another explanation.
 
Here is what CEV translation says " Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he ruled from Jerusalem for only one year.. His mother was Athaliah, a granddaughter of King Omri of Israel." (II Kings 8:26)................ (II Chronicles 22:2) " He was twenty-two years old at the time, and he ruled only one year from Jerusalem."
 
Ah, so it was an error? And it's prevalent in every Bible. :X Only one translation got it right. How can we trust the Bible doesn't make any more mistakes like these (if you get my gist...).
 
Yiffzer said:
"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." (2 Chronicles 22:2)
Click to expand...
The Hebrew reads, "a son of 42 years." 42 refers to Athaliah's age. Look at Psalm 127:4.
"Two and twenty 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 king of Israel." (2 Kings 8:26)
Click to expand...
When Ahaziah began to regin, he replaced his father who died at 40 (II Cron. 21:20) and his mother, Athaliah, was 42.
 
Many sites say it was 22. Now you insist it's 42. Haha. I'm using the KJV Bible. Many Christians wish not to deviate from the KJV Bible so I will stick with that.

I prefer the NIV translation though because it's clearer (and accurate). Here's NIV:

"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 2:22)

"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 2:26)

No, ma'am. I do not think you really understand what these verses are saying. These two verses clearly point out the same age and person. Why is it that other translations can not get it right (or is it wrong? ;))? It goes to show that the Bible or perhaps its translations aren't so accurate.
 
Yiffzer said:
Many sites say it was 22. Now you insist it's 42. Haha. I'm using the KJV Bible. Many Christians wish not to deviate from the KJV Bible so I will stick with that.

I prefer the NIV translation though because it's clearer (and accurate). Here's NIV:

"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 2:22)

"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 2:26)

No, ma'am. I do not think you really understand what these verses are saying. These two verses clearly point out the same age and person. Why is it that other translations can not get it right (or is it wrong? ;))? It goes to show that the Bible or perhaps its translations aren't so accurate.
Click to expand...
Did you check the timeline?
 
VamPyroX said:
Check these timelines.

Timeline - Biblical History
Timeline of the Bible

Do a search for "Ahaziah". You'll see it mentioned twice. If you check the second link, you'll see two different cities with kings of the same name.
Click to expand...

Umm, I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

In year 853, Ahaziah becomes king of Israel and during that same year, Jehoram becomes king of Judah. Twelve years later in 841 Jehu takes over Ahaziah's throne as king. Ahaziah leaves to reign over and effectively become king of Judah. With that history, adding to these two verses speak of the same exact location and significant relatives, it is not difficult to conclude it is really the same person.
 
Yiffzer said:
Umm, I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

In year 853, Ahaziah becomes king of Israel and during that same year, Jehoram becomes king of Judah. Twelve years later in 841 Jehu takes over Ahaziah's throne as king. Ahaziah leaves to reign over and effectively become king of Judah. With that history, adding to these two verses speak of the same exact location and significant relatives, it is not difficult to conclude it is really the same person.
Click to expand...
Check this out...

Ahaziah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Yiffzer said:
Ah, so it was an error? And it's prevalent in every Bible. :X Only one translation got it right. How can we trust the Bible doesn't make any more mistakes like these (if you get my gist...).
Click to expand...

(sorta) off topic but I thought you'd might find this interesting, considering this is about mistranslation.


Philippians 3:8- But indeed I also consider everything to be loss on account of the surpassing knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, on account of whom I forfeited all things; and I consider them shit so that I may gain Christ...
Click to expand...

This link explains why the word "shit" will not be found in any english bible.
 
I don't know enough about this topic. I have also read that it is two different people, that it is an error in the copy, etc, etc.

It is more than obvious that whether it is 22 or 42 is not the important issue for you. The issue is:
(and I will quote you)

Ah, so it was an error? And it's prevalent in every Bible. :X Only one translation got it right. How can we trust the Bible doesn't make any more mistakes like these (if you get my gist...).

First, I will point out that God has obviously preserved his word by allowing us to recognise when one or more of our recent translations has made an error.
In fact, it is individuals such as yourself who will ensure that the Bible is double, triple, and even quadruple checked.

Secondly, and personally, whether it is 22 or 42 does not critically damage my faith or what I believe. If it truely is an error, it has been made evident, and effects me how? It effects the very foundation of my faith how? The fact is, it can now be corrected, or at least people can be informed about it, and ensures that the truth is brought to light.

Third, I think out of Thousands of copies, over thousands of years, I find it extremely remarkable that one of the most obvious mistakes is over a single didgit. Thousands of copies, over thousands of years, and you point out a number. Not a paragraph, not a sentence, but a number. Could you imagine if our history books were held to such standards? You wouldn't believe anything that happened in the past.

As for the Philippians 3:8, that's not mistranslation
Junk, Rubbish, Garbage, Poo, Waste, Sludge, Sh**...
That is a question of meaning, and the english language has many words to choose from that are all relatively close.

:)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top