Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

AdamL

How to handle apparent discrepancies in the KJB

Recommended Posts

Let me start off by saying that I believe the King James Bible.  So for those of us that hold the position that the King James is the perfectly preserved word of God how do we handle apparent discrepancies?  I believe that if there is an apparent discrepancy we should seek to find the correct interpretation.

I will share a few and hopefully some of you will have answers to share.

 

II Chronicles 36:9 and II Kings 24:8.  II Chronicles says Jehoiachin began to reign as king when he was 8 years old but II Kings says it was when he was 18.

Acts 7:2-4 and Genesis 11:26-12:4

Stephen in Acts says that Abraham left Haran after Terah died.  But Genesis says Abraham left when he was 75 years old. It also says Terah had his sons or atleast started to when he was 70 and lived to be 205.  If Abram was born first that would only make Terah 145 at death, for it to add up Abram could not have been first born and would have had to have been born when Terah was 130. So the listing of Abram, Nahor, and Haran could not be in the order of birth but in some other order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I touched on this in another thread, but the 2 Chron 36 vs. 2 Kings 24 is easily explained by co-regency. It was normal practice in Judah for the king to designate and empower his heir early in his reign to ensure the desired passage of power. The two books are likely referencing these two start points.

On the Acts 7 vs. Genesis 11 issue, you just have to read a little closer. Genesis 11 states that Terah took his family from Ur to Haran after  his son Haran (who already had a full-grown son in Lot and daughter in Milcah). Additionally, it is likely that Haran was the firstborn since his daughter was old enough to be wed to his brother Nahor. What's not stated is anyone's age when they left Ur or how long they stayed in Haran before Terah died. 75 years is not an unreasonable amount of time for Terah to have three sons, at least one of which had two full-grown children, and for Sarai to have gone without children long enough to be declared barren.

The key to solving apparent discrepancies usually comes down to critical reading and stripping away assumptions in order to interact with the basic facts of the text before adding any suppositions.

 

 

Edited by TheSword
spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheSword said:

I think I touched on this in another thread, but the 2 Chron 36 vs. 2 Kings 24 is easily explained by co-regency. It was normal practice in Judah for the king to designate and empower his heir early in his reign to ensure the desired passage of power. The two books are likely referencing these two start points.

On the Acts 7 vs. Genesis 11 issue, you just have to read a little closer. Genesis 11 states that Terah took his family from Ur to Haran after  his son Haran (who already had a full-grown son in Lot and daughter in Milcah). Additionally, it is likely that Haran was the firstborn since his daughter was old enough to be wed to his brother Nahor. What's not stated is anyone's age when they left Ur or how long they stayed in Haran before Terah died. 75 years is not an unreasonable amount of time for Terah to have three sons, at least one of which had two full-grown children, and for Sarai to have gone without children long enough to be declared barren.

The key to solving apparent discrepancies usually comes down to critical reading and stripping away assumptions in order to interact with the basic facts of the text before adding any suppositions.

 

 

I appreciate your response to this.  I have heard the idea of co-regency before.  I do not see how this could be possible in this instance.  II Kings says he began his reign at 18 and 3 months later Nebuchadnezzar attacked Jerusalem.  II Chronicles says he began his reign at 8 and 3 months and 10 days later Nebuchadnezzar had him brought to Babylon and set up Zedekiah as king.

I can't see the coregency as plausible because both verses say after approximately 3 months of reigning in Jerusalem Nebuchadnezzar captured them and took them to Babylon.

I can see your point with Abraham. Haran would have to have been born first and Abraham most likely last.  Why do you think Abram would be listed first and Haran last?  Importance or significance of their lives?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AdamL said:

I appreciate your response to this.  I have heard the idea of co-regency before.  I do not see how this could be possible in this instance.  II Kings says he began his reign at 18 and 3 months later Nebuchadnezzar attacked Jerusalem.  II Chronicles says he began his reign at 8 and 3 months and 10 days later Nebuchadnezzar had him brought to Babylon and set up Zedekiah as king.

I can't see the coregency as plausible because both verses say after approximately 3 months of reigning in Jerusalem Nebuchadnezzar captured them and took them to Babylon.

You are still adding in an presumption regarding the immediacy of the narrative. Let's look at the text:

2 Chron 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.

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.

Here are the facts as presented:

1) Jehoiachin was 8/18 years old when he began to reign

2) He reigned in Jerusalem 3 months + 10 days

Here is what is NOT in the text: ...and Jehoiachin was 8/18 years in 3 months when Nebuchadnezzar rolled in from Babylon... (i.e. no indication that the second fact immediately follows the first on the timeline).

Here is what I find to be an intriguing clue. 2 Kings was written before the Exile and/or during the initial transition and was concerned with keeping accurate history. That is why you see more information about lineage. 2 Chronicles was written toward the end of the Exile or shortly after which is why you see more specificity that includes the totality of his time in power and length of his reign in Jerusalem as well as the focus on his failure that invited God's judgment.

1 hour ago, AdamL said:

I can see your point with Abraham. Haran would have to have been born first and Abraham most likely last.  Why do you think Abram would be listed first and Haran last?  Importance or significance of their lives?

Genesis, and the Pentateuch and OT generally, were about the lineage and descent of the Israelites. Therefore, the important figures in the lineage are given prominence. In a highly inflected language like Hebrew, emphasis is often given with word position rather than description. That Abram is listed first attests to his importance to the narrative. Nothing is actually said of his birth order. The only information is that given is that Terah had 3 sons and their names were Abram, Nahor, and Haran. It is an assumption to say that because Abram was listed first that he must have been born first, because the text does not demand it.

So I guess the short answer is yes, Abram's importance and significance to the purpose of Genesis would naturally put him first in any list, just as Shem is listed as first among Noah's sons. In every genealogy in Genesis, you'll find that the siblings of the lineage of importance are only mentioned when they are important to the narrative of that individual. Most instances just lists "sons and daughters" without specifying number or order.

Edited by TheSword

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheSword said:

You are still adding in an presumption regarding the immediacy of the narrative. Let's look at the text:

2 Chron 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.

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.

Here are the facts as presented:

1) Jehoiachin was 8/18 years old when he began to reign

2) He reigned in Jerusalem 3 months + 10 days

Here is what is NOT in the text: ...and Jehoiachin was 8/18 years in 3 months when Nebuchadnezzar rolled in from Babylon... (i.e. no indication that the second fact immediately follows the first on the timeline).

Here is what I find to be an intriguing clue. 2 Kings was written before the Exile and/or during the initial transition and was concerned with keeping accurate history. That is why you see more information about lineage. 2 Chronicles was written toward the end of the Exile or shortly after which is why you see more specificity that includes the totality of his time in power and length of his reign in Jerusalem as well as the focus on his failure that invited God's judgment.

I believe there is indication from the following verses in each passage that Nebuchadnezzar's arrival from Babylon was an immediate event.

9Jehoiachin 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.

10And when the year was expired, king Nebuchadnezzar sent, and brought him to Babylon, with the goodly vessels of the house of the LORD, and made Zedekiah his brother king over Judah and Jerusalem.

When the year was expired should follow from the same context as the previous time given of 3 months and 10 days.

8Jehoiachin 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.

9And he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD, according to all that his father had done.

10At that time the servants of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up against Jerusalem, and the city was besieged.

11And Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came against the city, and his servants did besiege it.

12And Jehoiachin the king of Judah went out to the king of Babylon, he, and his mother, and his servants, and his princes, and his officers: and the king of Babylon took him in the eighth year of his reign.

In this passage At that time in verse should follow the context of the 3 month reign.  In verse 12 the eighth year of his reign could refer to Jehoiachin making him 26 when the siege ended and he was taken to Babylon.  Or it could be the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar.  I am not for sure on that.

Siege warfare is typically not a quick process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As TheSword has said...all that is said is that he was 8 when he began to reign, and he was 18 when he began to reign.

It then gives the length(s) of time that he reigned in Jerusalem.

Two sets of information.

1. His age(s)

2. How long he reigned in Jerusalem.

If he was 8 when he became co-regent...or...if some other process chose him at that age as the future king, he was seen as reigning.

I personally view it as somewhat similar to David. He was annointed king long before he actually held the position. I'm not saying that I'm right in that, but it is plausible...to me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, AdamL said:

I believe there is indication from the following verses in each passage that Nebuchadnezzar's arrival from Babylon was an immediate event.

9Jehoiachin 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.

10And when the year was expired, king Nebuchadnezzar sent, and brought him to Babylon, with the goodly vessels of the house of the LORD, and made Zedekiah his brother king over Judah and Jerusalem.

When the year was expired should follow from the same context as the previous time given of 3 months and 10 days.

8Jehoiachin 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.

9And he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD, according to all that his father had done.

10At that time the servants of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up against Jerusalem, and the city was besieged.

11And Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came against the city, and his servants did besiege it.

12And Jehoiachin the king of Judah went out to the king of Babylon, he, and his mother, and his servants, and his princes, and his officers: and the king of Babylon took him in the eighth year of his reign.

In this passage At that time in verse should follow the context of the 3 month reign.  In verse 12 the eighth year of his reign could refer to Jehoiachin making him 26 when the siege ended and he was taken to Babylon.  Or it could be the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar.  I am not for sure on that.

Siege warfare is typically not a quick process.

You're kind of double stating my point. The immediate nature of Nebuchadnezzar came at the end of the 3 month reign in Jerusalem. Both verses agree on that point. What is in dispute was whether that 3 months began when he was 8 or 18. My assertion is that he began to reign as co-regent when he was 8 and began to reign on his own from Jerusalem when he was 18. Truly, both passages even allow that he reigned by himself for a period of time in a place other than Jerusalem and then settled into the royal palace there at the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, TheSword said:

You're kind of double stating my point. The immediate nature of Nebuchadnezzar came at the end of the 3 month reign in Jerusalem. Both verses agree on that point. What is in dispute was whether that 3 months began when he was 8 or 18. My assertion is that he began to reign as co-regent when he was 8 and began to reign on his own from Jerusalem when he was 18. Truly, both passages even allow that he reigned by himself for a period of time in a place other than Jerusalem and then settled into the royal palace there at the end.

I don't see anything in the text to support a co-regency.  It is speculation at best on our part to think that may have happened based on our understanding of a ancient foriegn culture.

The facts are the both passages say he began his reign at a different age, 8 and 18.  From there both passages agree with what happened next, a 3 month reign in Jerusalem followed by the coming if Nebuchadnezzar.

7 hours ago, swathdiver said:

There are no apparent discrepancies, just my failure to understand.  That's how I have to see it to have complete and total faith in God's Word.

If things are not the same they are apparent discrepancies.  That does not mean it is an actual discrepancy.  We may not have a full understanding leading us to see a discrepancy that does not exist.

I believe we should diligently search to find the truth and show that there is no discrepancy.  In this scenario with Jehoiachin I have been unable to do so yet.  I am confident that because the KJB is the word of God that the answer will reveal itself and I came here to my brothers and sisters to seek there guidance and help in understanding the text.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, AdamL said:

I believe there is indication from the following verses in each passage that Nebuchadnezzar's arrival from Babylon was an immediate event.

9Jehoiachin 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.

10And when the year was expired, king Nebuchadnezzar sent, and brought him to Babylon, with the goodly vessels of the house of the LORD, and made Zedekiah his brother king over Judah and Jerusalem.

When the year was expired should follow from the same context as the previous time given of 3 months and 10 days.

8Jehoiachin 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.

9And he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD, according to all that his father had done.

10At that time the servants of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came up against Jerusalem, and the city was besieged.

11And Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came against the city, and his servants did besiege it.

12And Jehoiachin the king of Judah went out to the king of Babylon, he, and his mother, and his servants, and his princes, and his officers: and the king of Babylon took him in the eighth year of his reign.

In this passage At that time in verse should follow the context of the 3 month reign.  In verse 12 the eighth year of his reign could refer to Jehoiachin making him 26 when the siege ended and he was taken to Babylon.  Or it could be the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar.  I am not for sure on that.

Siege warfare is typically not a quick process.

Without doing any serious study, a few things come up for consideration:

Why must the two accounts be of the same event? For instance, the first event you reference here records that from the time he began to reight at 8 years old, that his reign lasted 3 months 10 days and then at the end of that current year he was taken to Babylon and his brother was installed as king.

Then we come to the second account where he begins to reign from 18 years old and after three months the king of Babylon began to besiege the city. I guess after 8 years of seige he was again taken to Babylon.

Two separate events with his brother reigning in between.

Just thoughts based only on the presented passages, without referencing any further along.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The following is taken from "Things Hard to be Understood" by David Cloud (he quotes Robert Sargent) - Presented as information only....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.”

There is no contradiction between these accounts, as they refer to different aspects of Jehoiachin’s reign. “It is important to remember that with the biblical method of reckoning the beginning of the reign of a king may be given from his anointing or his accession—or both. Following the deportation of his father, Jehoiachin legally became king over Judah when he was 8 years old (2 Chronicles 36:9), but his mother ruled for him as queen (Jeremiah 13:18) until he was 18 (2 Kings 24:8). Three months later both king and queen mother were deported (2 Kings 24:12)” (Robert Sargent).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AdamL said:

I don't see anything in the text to support a co-regency.  It is speculation at best on our part to think that may have happened based on our understanding of a ancient foriegn culture.

The facts are the both passages say he began his reign at a different age, 8 and 18.  From there both passages agree with what happened next, a 3 month reign in Jerusalem followed by the coming if Nebuchadnezzar.

If things are not the same they are apparent discrepancies.  That does not mean it is an actual discrepancy.  We may not have a full understanding leading us to see a discrepancy that does not exist.

I believe we should diligently search to find the truth and show that there is no discrepancy.  In this scenario with Jehoiachin I have been unable to do so yet.  I am confident that because the KJB is the word of God that the answer will reveal itself and I came here to my brothers and sisters to seek there guidance and help in understanding the text.

It's not stated in those particular passages, no. However, taking in the context of the books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, the pattern of co-regency in Judah is easily established as is the chaotic power transitions of Israel. The precedent was established in David's line for the southern kingdom of Judah when he placed Solomon in power a substantial amount of time before his death (1 Kings 1-2). See also 2 Kings 8:16 where Jehoshaphat and his son Jehoram reigned together as well as 2 Kings 15:5 stating that Azariah and Jotham shared the throne.

The text certainly does not demand co-regency, but it does allow for it as a valid explanation. It also allows for the explanation given above by 1611mac, which doesn't actually contradict the co-regency explanation; it only changes the co-regent. Further, the contexts of 2 Kings, 2 Chronicles and the rest of the OT support that explanation. While it is not a concrete and unquestionable solution because neither singular verse makes it specific and clear, it is far from speculation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matthew 6:13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

James 1:12 Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.
James 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
James 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

Maybe tried cancels out the temptation, but its still weird we could receive a blessing from something we are praying against.

Also "the crown of life" isn't that salvation? And it looks like works kick in again with Revelation 2:10, but we know only grace can save.

~~~~~~~

Genesis 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
Genesis 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Genesis 3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
Genesis 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

Genesis 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
Genesis 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

Neither shall ye touch it, the woman added to God's word, yet it wasn't a sin. When she ate the fruit, then the sin entered in. Right? Why wasn't adding to God's word the sin?

On a personal note, I wish my hearing was better, so when I read the word, the Holy Ghost could explain all the mysteries. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 56 Guests (See full list)

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...