Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

PROVEN: Biblical Inerrancy


Guest Mr. Thomas

Recommended Posts

  • Members

2 Kings 24:8 and 2 Chronicles 36:9, “The Two Reigns of King Jehoiachim”

Other Kings with Two Reigns in the Bible

1. King David was anointed king over Judah and reigned for seven years and six months (2 Samuel 2:11). “And the men of Judah came, and there they anointed David king over the house of Judah. And they told David, saying, That the men of Jabeshgilead were they that buried Saul.” 2 Samuel 2:4

King David then was anointed King over all Israel, which included Judah, and reigned for another 33 years, “So all the elders of Israel came to the king to Hebron; and king David made a league with them in Hebron before the LORD: and they anointed David king over Israel.” 2 Samuel 5:3

As with King Jehoiachim, King David has two different times listed in scripture as reigning as king.

“Thus David the son of Jesse reigned over all Israel. And the time that he reigned over Israel was forty years; seven years reigned he in Hebron, and thirty and three years reigned he in Jerusalem.” 1 Chronicles 29:26-27

2. King David and King Solomon. In 1 Kings 1:1-40 we have the story where King David anointed his son Solomon as King.

As we read further, in 1 Kings 2:10-11, after Solomon was crowned as King, we read that David is acting as a co-regent with King Solomon until the day of his death. And in 1 Kings 2:10-11 we read, “So David slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of David. And the days that David reigned over Israel were forty years: seven years reigned he in Hebron, and thirty and three years reigned he in Jerusalem.”

And, it was not until after the death of King David, that the scriptures state, “Then [after the death of King David in 1 Kings 2:11] sat Solomon upon the throne of David his father; and his kingdom was established greatly.” 1 Kings 2:12

"And did eat and drink before the LORD on that day with great gladness. And they made Solomon the son of David king the second time, and anointed him unto the LORD to be the chief governor, and Zadok to be priest." 1 Chronicles 29:22

3. The two reigns of King Nebuchadnezzar in Babylon as written in the book of Daniel. “And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams, wherewith his spirit was troubled, and his sleep brake from him.” Daniel 2:1

Even though King Nebuchadnezzar was warned by Daniel to have a humble spirit, because of his sinful pride, God took away the kingdom from Nebuchadnezzar until he humbled himself and knew that God, from His throne in heaven, reigned, as King, over the affairs of men on the earth. In Daniel 4:1-5:36 we have the recorded historical account of this true event.

After King Nebuchadnezzar humbled himself before God in heaven, his kingdom was restored to him. “At the same time my reason returned unto me; and for the glory of my kingdom, mine honour and brightness returned unto me; and my counsellors and my lords sought unto me; and I was established in my kingdom, and excellent majesty was added unto me.” Daniel 4:36

So, King Nebuchadnezzar, as King Jehoiachim, had two reigns.

Conclusion

After a careful study of the Bible, the two accounts, 2 Kings 24:8 and 2 Chronicles 36:9, are both correct as written in Authorized Version, or commonly called, the King James Version of 1611, King Jehoiachim had two reigns as other kings in the Bible has two reigns. For a person to say that these two passages of scripture, 2 Kings 24:8 and 2 Chronicles 36:9, are contradictory, and therefore the Bible is not inerrant, is a false teaching.

 

 

Edited by Alan
deleted doubled phrase added 1 Ch. 29:22
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

To Alan: If Jeroiachim had two reigns, don't you think both passages would have mentioned both reigns; instead of one mentioning one and the other supposedly referring to a second? As you demonstrated, other passages are very specific and do mention and distinguish when there are more than one reign or co-reigns. The same goes for Judas' death: if he both hanged himself and fell over in a field.If you hadn't already decided on the answer, that would have never been the interpretation you read into it. But worse than these inconsistencies comes from the gospels again when Matthew says Judas threw the 30 pieces of silver away, but Luke says he used it to purchase land and 'burst open' in it. That looks like a flat contradiction to me. Also, thanks for the response! I appreciate your time and you're laying your argument coherently and point-by-point.

To DaveW: Ok.

To Pastor Scott Markle: What's your opinion on the Mosaic vs Christian divorce laws I mentioned earlier? As a recap, Moses declared a set of divorce laws similar to what we have in law today. If a married couple wanted to split, they could so long as they signed a legally binding document to the effect, and they were free to remarry others afterwards. Jesus said something along the lines of 'Well, God told Moses give those laws because your ancestors couldn't handle the real law; which is that divorce is not to happen except for in cases of marital infidelity, and remarrying after a divorce is adultery." I think Jesus's law is better of course, and I think it's also more consistent with God's attitude towards marriage, even in the Old Testament. Now, suppose that a Jewish man in say 300 BC, read the Old Testament and logically concluded that Moses' divorce laws were not the true laws, and he derived the same laws Jesus later gave. Did our man do an ungodly thing by using his knowledge of God's character, his logic, and presumably the writings of contemporary scholars, to contradict the Bible as available to him at the time? Is is always wrong in any circumstances to contradict the Bible when God has a track record of reforming/changing laws as we grow 'less hard' than our ancestors?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
18 minutes ago, Guest Mr. Thomas said:

To Alan: If Jeroiachim had two reigns, don't you think both passages would have mentioned both reigns; instead of one mentioning one and the other supposedly referring to a second? As you demonstrated, other passages are very specific and do mention and distinguish when there are more than one reign or co-reigns.

 

Mr. Thomas,

God does not write the scriptures for your, or any man's, private thoughts on how, or what, or what dates, or times of reigns, should be mentioned. What you think and what I think should b e mentioned is immaterial. As I clearly brought out, the scriptures are very clear that King Jeroiachim had two reigns.  Therefore, it is abundantly clear that there is no contradiction between

2 Kings 24:8 and 2 Chronicles 36:9.

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Guest Mr. Thomas,

In the book, "godless" by Dan Barker, quoted below, he has a before and after statement when he discussed the preconceived discrepancy of 2 Kings 24:8 and 2 Chronicles 36:9, “The Two Reigns of King Jehoiachim.” I have listed the individual points that he mentioned in the before (10 points), and after statements ( 8points), below my signature in this post.

Can you please, by a clear yes or no statement, answer these before and after statements? The statements that do not require a yes or no answer can be answered by your own opinion. 

Thank you.

Alan

Dan Barker & King Jehoiachim. 2 Kings 24:8 and 2 Chronicles 36:9

Dan Barker, a renowned artiest, states out his chapter on, ‘Bible Contradictions,’ with this statement, “Paul said that “God is not the author of confusion” (1 Corinthians 14:33), yet never has a book produced more confusion than the bible. … The problem is not with human limitations. The problem is the bible itself. People who are free of theological bias notice that the bible contains hundreds of discrepancies. Should it surprise us when such a literary and moral mishmash, taken seriously, causes so much discord! Here is a brief sampling of biblical contradictions.” 1

Please note that Barker does not believe that the Bible is worthy of any respect, is written by man, is a fraud, full of myths, legends, mistakes, full of contradictions, and is inerrant. So, he does not capitalizes the word “bible,” unless it is a specific version of the Bible.

1. Is Barker correct when he, presupposes, that the Bible has contradictions?

2. Is Barker correct when he states that it is the Bible itself that causes confusion? Or is it man that causes the confusion?

3. Is Barker correct when he states that the problem is not with man but with God?

4. If the atheist is correct in their belief that there is no God; then how can God be the problem? or the cause of confusion?

5. Barker already stated that the problem is not with human limitations, but, in a glaring contradiction, he states that the Bible, written by man, is the problem.

6. ‘Hundreds of discrepancies?’ Not so. With a careful study of each supposed discrepancy, within the direct context of each verse in question, using correct logic and correct reasoning prowess, and a careful ‘rightly dividing the scriptures,’ the discrepancies are not discrepancies.

7. Barker assumes that all religious people have ‘theological bias.’ That is quite an assumption.

8. Is the Bible really a literary and moral mishmash?

9. If the Bible was taken seriously the moral, the confusion of the different denominations, would diminish.

10. It is man, and his rebellion against the written word of God that is causing discord; it is not the Bible.

In his list of supposed ‘contradictions,’ Barker does not list any possible answers to the supposed contradictions that have been set forth by men of faith. Nor does Barker quote the full scriptural passage of the supposed ‘contradictions. Nor, does Barker give the context of the supposed ‘contradictions.’ Nor does Barker give the Bible “the benefit of doubt” when the verse is taken in its historical setting, and not in our modern time setting.

After listing various supposed ‘contradictions,’ including “How old was Jehoiachim when he became King?”, Barker does not examine other stories in the Bible, nor history, when there was a father as King, and his son as King, in a co-regent status. Or, if King Jehoiachim actually had two reigns separate from one another.

Dan Barker, without even suggesting that there might have been a logical answer, such as a co-reign with his father at the time, or that in the scriptures a king can have two reigns, makes this conclusion, “Human beings make mistakes. The bible does contain some truth, but no honest person can pretend it is a perfect book. Combined with the exaggerations, scientific inaccuracies, borrowing from pagan sources, evidence of tampering and clearly irrelevant passages aimed at bygone, primitive, superstitious people, the contradictions underscore the fact that, on balance, the bible is not a reliable source of truth?”2

1. Barker presupposes that people who believe the Bible is perfect are not honest and are pretending it is true. Is this true?

2. Is the Bible full of exaggerations? If so, give us examples.

3. The ‘scientific inaccuracies that Barker is mentioning is the Darwinian theory of evolution. Barker stated, “Darwinism shows us that all living organisms are the result of a natural evolutionary process. We have been fashioned by the laws of nature.”3

4. Is Darwin’s theory of evolution true?

5. Is Barker correct when he said that the Bible is borrowed from pagan sources?

6. Is the Bible full of tampering and irrelevant passages?

7. Is the Bible still aimed at only bygone, primitive and superstitious people?

8. Is Barker correct in the assumption that the Bible is not a reliable source of truth?

 

1Barker, Dan godless, Ulysses Press: Berkeley, CA, 2008, p.222.

2Ibid, p. 242.

3Ibid. p. 219.

 

 

Edited by Alan
grammar added the 'opinion' statement spelling numbering
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

To Allen on "God does not write the scriptures for your...: This is not totally relevant to my point, but oh yes, he absolutely does write based on his audience. Who do you think is reading this? Angels? Lizards? And you don't have to take my word, take Jesus' on the divorce law stuff I mentioned in my last post. He explicitly said that God gave a different divorce law to a different people in the past on the basis of their specific inclinations. Also, why do you think that there are so many genealogies in the Bible, especially leading to Jesus? Most modern people don't really care one way or the other (how many times do you 'skim' or skip past the genealogies in your readings?), and God certainly doesn't need to prove it too himself. Presumably he included it because there existed certain past and perhaps future cultures that really buy into the 'sins of the father' type of worldview, where the children of bad people are thought less of even before they've done wrong themselves, so he established a longstanding genealogy of good men and women (Ruth).

On Dan Barker:

Stipulation: I haven't read or heard of this fellow before, so the answers I 'm about to provide are directed to your questions and not based on a review of his work. Effectively I'm answering as if you asked "Is it correct to presuppose that the Bbile has contraditions' and not 'Is Barker correct ...'. I can't speak to what I'm unfamiliar with, but I'll do the best I can.

Sidenote: I 'm sometimes inconsistent with my spelling of Bible with a capital. I mean no disrespect, you can assume I mean it to be capitalized.

Sidenote 2: I reordered your questions as a set of nineteen instead of two sets of ten and eight (you skipped the second 5).

1. In general, no. It seems to me that a presupposition isn't necessary or logical; you should start from a neutral position and attempt to prove both errancy and inerrancy. My preferred method is to argue against as many hardcore atheists as I can in favor of inerrancy, and as many fundamentalists as I can in favor of errancy, and see which side posses the truth by finding which has the strongest arguements.This duality is important. I'm sure you agree that the Catholics have often presented lies and obscenities (purgatory, indulgences, ect.) (Fun fact: the official position of the Catholic church today is that Mary not only was a virgin her entire life (what about her other kids mentioned in the Bible?), but was also in fact born of a virgin herself.) as truth, so the people they deceived would have done much better to verify the accuracy of their claims. And remember, the same idiots who pray to saints and elected a high priest after God ripped the temple veil had their hands on the Bible at one point too and determined what books and what passages went where. I trust God, but I think it's wise to verify everyone and everything else.

2. Pretty much ditto. The question is whether the whole Bible is God-breathed or if some of it has been edited. If the Bible was tampered with by ancient Catholics, then that would explain the confusion on both counts.

3. No, I would take as granted that God acts both benignly and without error.

4. I don't think that is an atheist argument. I think there is a distinction in their minds between God the person, in whom they disbelieve, and god the concept, in which they observe but disdain.

5. Again, pretty much ditto. I think here they distinguish between oppressed and oppressing humans. To atheists, Biblical authors are oppressors who attempt to enforce imperfect systems out of madness or for material gain, and that rejection is a perfect reaction to imperfect deception.

6. I'm not sure there's a question there, but ok. I agree that there aren't many full-on errors, but there is tons of stuff that, in order to make sense, you have to take strange liberties with the original wordings. You have to read them in ways that you wouldn't have read them the first time. But you don't need a swarm, even one full error is sufficient to prove errancy.

7. I think that's pretty accurate. Sometimes people insist on things not because they really believe them but because they're psychologically adverse to anything else for one reason or another. That's one reason why I love truth and logic. If something is logical, then all people have something to really believe in and not just pretend. If I can find a logical backing to Biblical claims, then not only does it help me, but you can effectively 'save' all the people who just were just fake-believing up to this point. I'm sure you've seen, there's lots of people who are just halfway believers; who think they are but really aren't. Those guys are the hardest to truly save, because they only have enough Christianity to vaccinate them from the real kind. When you have logical proofs you don't need to believe something just because you want to, you can really have faith because you can feel the rocks under your feet.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Thank you for informing me that I skipped number 5 on the second set of questions.

Thank you also for answering the answers as requested. Now I think I know you better.

I will wait for your complete answers before I make any further comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. If you speak English, you need a KJV. All other English modern versions are false bibles. You know that you have a false bible if 1 Corinthians 1:18 reads "are being saved". If it says that, throw it out. Otherwise, you don't even put a high standard on the word of God yourself, so don't expect one to be kept. If you believe that rendering, get saved so that you can understand scripture, because it is spiritually discerned.

Secondly, do yourself a favor, and quit quoting the Greek unless you can speak common Greek and read the received text for yourself. Otherwise, you are a poser and don't know what you are saying. 

If you don't have faith, you will not receive the answers, even when the work is done for you by other people. God puts stumbling blocks in your path to test your faith. That's when you get to work, or make a decision for faith. Jesus Christ is a stumbling block to the unbelieving, Christ rejecting Jews. If you fail the test of faith on verses in 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles, then go do something else, such as decide whether you want to burn in hell, or put your "faith" in the Word of God, because you can't deny the Word and be saved. 

Some save with fear, which seems like what you need. You certainly don't need any sugar coating on your bible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
8 hours ago, Guest Mr. Thomas said:

To Allen on "God does not write the scriptures for your...: This is not totally relevant to my point, but oh yes, he absolutely does write based on his audience. Who do you think is reading this? Angels? Lizards? And you don't have to take my word, take Jesus' on the divorce law stuff I mentioned in my last post. He explicitly said that God gave a different divorce law to a different people in the past on the basis of their specific inclinations. Also, why do you think that there are so many genealogies in the Bible, especially leading to Jesus? Most modern people don't really care one way or the other (how many times do you 'skim' or skip past the genealogies in your readings?), and God certainly doesn't need to prove it too himself. Presumably he included it because there existed certain past and perhaps future cultures that really buy into the 'sins of the father' type of worldview, where the children of bad people are thought less of even before they've done wrong themselves, so he established a longstanding genealogy of good men and women (Ruth).

On Dan Barker:

Stipulation: I haven't read or heard of this fellow before, so the answers I 'm about to provide are directed to your questions and not based on a review of his work. Effectively I'm answering as if you asked "Is it correct to presuppose that the Bbile has contraditions' and not 'Is Barker correct ...'. I can't speak to what I'm unfamiliar with, but I'll do the best I can.

Sidenote: I 'm sometimes inconsistent with my spelling of Bible with a capital. I mean no disrespect, you can assume I mean it to be capitalized.

Sidenote 2: I reordered your questions as a set of nineteen instead of two sets of ten and eight (you skipped the second 5).

1. In general, no. It seems to me that a presupposition isn't necessary or logical; you should start from a neutral position and attempt to prove both errancy and inerrancy. My preferred method is to argue against as many hardcore atheists as I can in favor of inerrancy, and as many fundamentalists as I can in favor of errancy, and see which side posses the truth by finding which has the strongest arguements.This duality is important. I'm sure you agree that the Catholics have often presented lies and obscenities (purgatory, indulgences, ect.) (Fun fact: the official position of the Catholic church today is that Mary not only was a virgin her entire life (what about her other kids mentioned in the Bible?), but was also in fact born of a virgin herself.) as truth, so the people they deceived would have done much better to verify the accuracy of their claims. And remember, the same idiots who pray to saints and elected a high priest after God ripped the temple veil had their hands on the Bible at one point too and determined what books and what passages went where. I trust God, but I think it's wise to verify everyone and everything else.

2. Pretty much ditto. The question is whether the whole Bible is God-breathed or if some of it has been edited. If the Bible was tampered with by ancient Catholics, then that would explain the confusion on both counts.

3. No, I would take as granted that God acts both benignly and without error.

4. I don't think that is an atheist argument. I think there is a distinction in their minds between God the person, in whom they disbelieve, and god the concept, in which they observe but disdain.

5. Again, pretty much ditto. I think here they distinguish between oppressed and oppressing humans. To atheists, Biblical authors are oppressors who attempt to enforce imperfect systems out of madness or for material gain, and that rejection is a perfect reaction to imperfect deception.

6. I'm not sure there's a question there, but ok. I agree that there aren't many full-on errors, but there is tons of stuff that, in order to make sense, you have to take strange liberties with the original wordings. You have to read them in ways that you wouldn't have read them the first time. But you don't need a swarm, even one full error is sufficient to prove errancy.

7. I think that's pretty accurate. Sometimes people insist on things not because they really believe them but because they're psychologically adverse to anything else for one reason or another. That's one reason why I love truth and logic. If something is logical, then all people have something to really believe in and not just pretend. If I can find a logical backing to Biblical claims, then not only does it help me, but you can effectively 'save' all the people who just were just fake-believing up to this point. I'm sure you've seen, there's lots of people who are just halfway believers; who think they are but really aren't. Those guys are the hardest to truly save, because they only have enough Christianity to vaccinate them from the real kind. When you have logical proofs you don't need to believe something just because you want to, you can really have faith because you can feel the rocks under your feet.

 

The bolded part of the quote says everything that needs to be said.

This man ahs done this on several occasions: he quotes a part of a statement and then answers something that was not actually posed.

Here is the actual post that Alan made, to show that this guys answer is a false accusation against Alan, for Alan never posed such as this guy suggests. This is plain misrepresentation.

12 hours ago, Alan said:

Mr. Thomas,

God does not write the scriptures for your, or any man's, private thoughts on how, or what, or what dates, or times of reigns, should be mentioned. What you think and what I think should b e mentioned is immaterial. As I clearly brought out, the scriptures are very clear that King Jeroiachim had two reigns.  Therefore, it is abundantly clear that there is no contradiction between

2 Kings 24:8 and 2 Chronicles 36:9.

Alan

He is not here to get an answer for his supposed troubles.

If he was he would not misrepresent people, and he would not introduce side issues to cloud the discussion, such as why he introduced the discussion about divorce aimed particularly at SAB, because he knows that it is something that SAB is passionate about. Thankfully everyone has ignored this attempt at causing division.

His misrepresentation of people, his disdain for the Word of God, his constant uplifting of man's word over God's, including the words of some men who are absolutely ungodly, and his baiting with side issues, all add together to prove that this man is not here for any purpose other than to cause trouble and division.

He is "nicer", and he is more measured, but the evidence is there.

If he was genuine he would stick to his first purpose - the veracity of the Word of God.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
10 hours ago, Guest Mr. Thomas said:

My preferred method is to argue against as many hardcore atheists as I can in favor of inerrancy, and as many fundamentalists as I can in favor of errancy, and see which side posses the truth by finding which has the strongest arguements.This duality is important.

So...you argue for both sides...inerrancy and errancy.

When joining an atheist forum, do you say that you need help, because you're starting to believe that God's word is true?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...