Tree of Life
Hide The Pain
It's only a contradiction if you insist on your interpretation. But your interpretation is not necessary. There are other ways of understanding the verse.
Upvote
0
Who was the last king of Judah?
- Thread starter Nihilist Virus
- Start date
It's only a contradiction if you insist on your interpretation. But your interpretation is not necessary. There are other ways of understanding the verse.
These so-called other ways are obviously ad hoc retreats from an imminent contradiction. You wouldn't be saying this if there was no contradiction.
Upvote
0
Chriliman
Everything I need to be joyful is right here
Anyone who thinks every word in the Bible is spoken by God has not read and understood every verse. For example: Paul explicitly states when he’s speaking his opinion and not the word of the Lord 1 Corinthians 7:12.
Don’t get me wrong, there’s certainly are verses spoken by God, but the above verse proves not all are, which means errors are possible.
Upvote
0
Tree of Life
Hide The Pain
*eye roll*
I think we're done on this one. Let me know when you find another "contradiction".
I think we're done on this one. Let me know when you find another "contradiction".
Upvote
0
I'm aware of that passage. I made this thread in response to someone who said that the Bible is inerrant.
Upvote
0
I think it would be more appropriate to call it a vassal name. They were vassal kings given new names because the emperor before whom they bowed down could not pronounce the Jewish name.
But to answer your question, no, that is not the source of confusion. We know for sure there were two Zedekiahs, and whichever one it was that was the last king of Judah will still result in a contradiction.
Upvote
0
Mediaeval
baptizatus sum
Greetings, NV. Since hearing your clever solution to the problem some time ago, I came upon another thinking out of the box: there was one Zedekiah, who was related to Josiah in two ways: 1) as a son of Jehoiakim through an illicit affair with Josiah's wife Hamutal and 2) as therefore also a grandson/stepson of Josiah. Though fathered by Jehoiakim, Zedekiah was considered a son of Josiah for purposes of the succession, the original order of which, as envisaged in the time of Josiah, being set forth in [1] Chron. 3:15.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Hi again.
Remind me, what solution are you talking about?
I think a problem with this approach is that a bastard would not be allowed to enter the temple, but the king must do so to become anointed. Also, pretty much everyone would deride him as the bastard king... especially when you consider that the kingdom fell under his reign.
Upvote
0
Mediaeval
baptizatus sum
A year or two ago, you had reasoned that, in view of the Shallum-Zedekiah age discrepancy, it must have been a different Zedekiah who became king, the one listed as Jehoiakim's son in 1 Chron 3:16. One can only add conjecture to conjecture, but perhaps Josiah's agreeing to include his stepson/grandson Zedekiah in the succession legitimized him, formally at least. In the eyes of "the people of the land" (2 Kings 23:30), however, Zedekiah's title to the throne was perhaps still dubious at best and he was, as you suggested, "derided as the bastard." This could explain why, upon Josiah's death, the people bypassed Jehoiakim and Zedekiah altogether and made Jehoahaz/Shallum king instead. Interestingly, if we go with this one-Zedekiah explanation, it would mean that Pharaoh and later Nebuchadnezzar effectively restored the succession as originally envisaged by Josiah when they set up Jehoiakim (2 Kings 23:34) and later Zedekiah (2 Kings 24:17) as kings.
Upvote
0
Either way you slice it there's an error in the text. Unavoidably. I believe you indicated, like many Christians, that you're "OK" with errors being in scripture... or if that's the wrong word then you're aware of it and you still believe. I've more or less moved on from this issue, and I made this thread because the user Tree of Life insisted that there are no substantial errors in the Bible. I think we can agree he's wrong on that, but he refuses to admit it. After taking several back-and-forths to even read what I said. A sad state of affairs, but nothing out of the ordinary here.
Upvote
0
Mediaeval
baptizatus sum
I would affirm with Tree of Life the inerrancy of Scripture, recognizing, as perhaps he does too, that the extant manuscripts are fallible, so that, as a practical matter, God is still conveying to us His infallible truth through fallible means, including our own fallible intellects. If the Scriptures did contain substantial error, God would in principle still be doing the same, conveying infallible truth to us through fallible means.
Upvote
0
So basically the Chicago statement. Documents which don't exist affirm your position. That about right?
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Mar 16, 2004
- 22,024
- 7,364
- 60
- Faith
- Calvinist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Hey this is a hail Mary but I wanted to ask you since I know you have done a lot of study. After the return to Israel were there any kings from the line of David? I mean to your knowledge, because I can't find anything on the subject.
Sorry to be off topic here but it's something that has bothered me for some time.
Grace and peace,
Mark
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
So you believe things about the Bible for which there is no evidence because Jehovah has made himself known? How? Did he make himself known just to you or can you share this information?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
