Yes, having two sets of verses with errors now. There's probably more. I'm confused. How could a divinely inspired book have errors.
"...
[page 248] 2 Chron 22:2; 2 Kings 8:26 (cited).
This is the classic "boo-boo" of the
King James bible, which is also shared by the official Masoretic Old Testament text of orthodox Judaism. All attempts to lay the devilment at the feet of the
AV translators is useless, for they translated,
exactly, the official received text of
every orthodox Jew from Moses to David Ben Gurion.
Now, there is an easy way out of the problem, which we will
mention but will not
adopt. The easiest
[page 248-249] way out is to simply say that the 42 years of 2 Chronicles is written with the word
"was" in italics, so the 42 years is the Hebrew idiom for "a son of forty-two years" (note the outrageous mangling of the Hebrew idiom in 1 Samuel 13:1 by the
New Scofield Reference Bible and the grossly corrupt "
New American Standard Hashbrown Potatoes").
This would mean that Ahaziah ascended the throne the forty-second year of
Omri's kingdom. Omri's kingdom (which included
"the house of Ahab") comes in during the twenty-seventh year of the reign of Asa (1 Kings 16:15-16). It is exactly
42 years from that time to the eighth year of Jehoram (2 Kings 8:16), if Jehoshaphat and Jehoram are consecutive. If the text is taken in that fashion, then Ahaziah is the literal "youngest son" of Jehoram (2 Chron. 22:1), and his other name is
"Jehoahaz" (2 Chron. 21:17), and another name (!) is Azariah (2 Chron. 22:6). In such a case, his mother was the GRANDDAUGHTER of Omri (2 Chron. 21:6),
NOT the DAUGHTER of Omri (2 Chron. 22:2).
That is the easy way out. If "push came to shove," any Bible believer could resort to the method above, and no one alive or dead could prove that there was a genuine contradiction in the text. However, there are some interesting "addendas" to the account that will complicate matters considerably.
Observe:
1. Ahaziah is said to be the
"son of JEHOSHAPHAT" (2 Chron. 22:9), and Jehoshaphat is said to be
"the king of ISRAEL" (2 Chron. 21:2). This is a remarkable turn of events, for Jehoshaphat was King of JUDAH--not
Israel.
2. In addition to being a "son" of Jehoshaphat and Jehoram, we read that Ahaziah was also
"THE SON IN LAW of the house of Ahab" (2 Kings 8:27).
Now, how does Ahaziah become a
"son in law of the house of Ahab" when he married Zibiah of beer-
[page 249-250] sheba (2 Chron. 24:1)?
He didn't marry any of Ahab's daughters or Omri's daughters.
3. In 1 Kings 22:26 is one of the most remarkable statements in the Bible. It is a statement that the KING's SON named
"Joash" is waiting back in Israel to take over one of the tribes of the dual kingdom if Ahab or Jehoshaphat gets killed (1 Kings 22:26,28-29,34,27). The boy is only a one year old, and he cannot ascend the throne until he is nearly eight (2 Chron. 24:1).
In their mad haste to rid themselves forever of the hated
King James text, the born-again Fundamentalists and Evangelicals, who believed in the "verbal, plenary inspiration of the 10 o'clock newscast," forgot to study
the Bible. They were no more "serious" about their Bible
studies than the members of the
New Scofield Reference Bible or the Lockman Foundation. Ahaziah had given birth to Joash before he (Ahaziah) ever sat on the throne of Judah. You see, when Ahab was killed,
a different Ahaziah took over the throne of Israel (2 Kings 1), not the Ahaziah whose mother was
"the daughter of Omri" and who was said to be
"the son of JEHOSHAPHAT"--not of Ahab (2 Chron. 22:9). Even his other name (Azariah) appears in the list of
Jehoshaphat's "sons" (2 Chron. 21:2).
Obviously then, the Ahaziah of our problem was not Jehoram's
literal son, and obviously (or not so obviously if you are looking for alibis to reject authority), he was intended to be put on the southern throne (Judah) many years
before he finally got there. His mother was Athaliah, who was
Omri's daughter; that is, she was Ahab's SISTER (1 Kings 16:29). If Ahaziah was her son and Jehoshaphat was his father, then Jehoshaphat
"joined affinity with Ahab" (2 Chron. 18;1), there was more involved than a military alliance. Jehoshaphat's title was King of ISRAEL (2 Chron. 21:2), signifying the ominous alliance, for Jehoram, his son, is said to have killed
"divers also [page 250-251] of the princes of ISRAEL." To all purposes, if Ahab got killed, one of Jehoshaphat's kin folks can take over Israel; conversely, if Jehoshaphat died in battle, then one of
Ahab's kinsfolk can take over Judah when Jehoram is through. He does: Ahaziah (after the death of Jehoshaphat) is
Ahab's nephew and a son-in-law to his household.
Now, the only way he can be a
"son in law" is by marrying one of Ahab's daughters or
granddaughters. However, we must never forget that
Jehoram was in Ahab's "house". If Ahaziah married any of Jehoram's daughters,
he would be son-in-law to the house of Ahab.
Zibiah (2 Chron. 24:1) is bound to have been one of Jehoram's daughters. This reconciles everything except the statement that Ahaziah was Jehoram's
son. However, we have read enough Bible to know that a
son-in-law can be a son (Luke 3:23; 1 Sam. 24:16). We also learned that Ahaziah could not have been Jehoram's
literal son, for he was older than his father when his father died (his father was forty years old.) There is even a third possibility open: Jehoram could have married
Athaliah after she gave birth to Ahaziah. This would have made Ahaziah Jehoram's
stepson. If both father (Jehoshaphat) and son (Jehoram) came in to the same woman (Athaliah), the glaring omission of Ahaziah, Uzziah, and Azariah in Christ's genealogy is perfectly explainable (Exod. 20:5);
for this violates the Law of Moses (Lev. 18:8),
and this time it is a violation in the Messianic line that leads to the throne of David.
We have old "Ahaziah" spotted. He is not Jehoram's literal son;
he is a stepson or a son-in-law at the most.
He was Omri's "pet" because his mother was Omri's daughter (not granddaughter, 2 Chron. 22:2). This means that he was
22 years old during the
ninth year of the reign of Jehoshaphat, which would be the twelfth year of the reign of Ahab, Omri' son. Omri
[page 251-252] undoubtedly aspires to put him on the throne of Judah. Ahab begins the long string of diplomatic exchanges, summit conferences, and "Camp David" bull sessions, which are to bring this about. In Jehoshaphat's
THIRD year (2 Chron. 17:7), he prospers and rises to a powerful position in Palestine (2 Chron. 17:10-11). After the fourth year, he
"joined affinity with Ahab" (2 Chron. 18:1). It is at this point (
the ninth to tenth year of Jehoshaphat and the twelfth to thirteenth year of Ahab) that Ahaziah (Omri's grandson)
is 22 years old.
Since arrangements are made for him to succeed Jehoshaphat on the throne of Judah, he probably, like David, was anointed on the spot. Jehoshaphat is given the title of the "King of Israel" in case Ahab dies. As it works out,
Ahab dies, and since Ahaziah (Omri's grandson) was cut out for the southern tribe, Judah, the inheritor of Israel (the northern tribes) is another Ahaziah who begats another Jehoram (2 Kings 1:17).
When Jehoshaphat dies, Ahaziah is destined to take over the throne of Judah, which he does. Jehoram's reign, then, of eight years must be a
joint reign with Jehoshaphat during the latter's military alliances with Ahaziah (Ahab's son) and his defunked ship building operations (2 Chron. 20:35,37). This means that Ahaziah (Ahab's son, Israel) had a joint reign with Ahab beginning in Ahab's seventeenth to eighteenth year, and Jehoram (Ahab's grandson, Israel) had a joint reign with Ahab the nineteenth year of Ahab's reign: THREE KINGS AT ONE TIME--
one sick, one in battle, and one of the throne.
Ahaziah then is anointed to be King of Judah at 22 years of age but fails to
sit down on the throne until he is 42.
This tallies with all the Hebrew, Greek, and English texts unless they have altered the God-given text in order to add converts to the greatest Cult in the world, the Alexandrian Cult of educated shysters.
One should never abandon the
King James text
[page 252-253] simply because
100% of the "qualified" and "recognized" scholars have sat in judgment against it and given their "qualified opinions" in favor of Satan. If 100% of the "good, godly, dedicated Fundamentalists" don't like the
AV text, they can go sit on a tack. ..."
- The "Errors" in the Kings James Bible, formerly titled "Problem Texts", by Dr. Peter S. Ruckman, B.A., B.D., M.A., Th.M., Ph.D. President and Founder of Pensacola Bible Institute, BB Bookstore; P.O. BOX 7135; Pensacola, FL 32534. Copyright 1980, Revised 2013. ISBN 1-58026-098-5; pages 248-253.