Debate help...why is homosexuality wrong?

[Proselyte]

What bible?

There was no bible at that time.

Scriptures which we commonly refer to as the Bible...you know what I mean. Is that your only comment on the matter? My misuse of Bible instead of Scriptures?

 

[crumbs2000]

The Bible was writen to describe events that had happened in the past. If you don't want to see it as anything but a bunch of semantics on some parchment, that's your prerogative.

That's it, it describes events. It's not infallible and it's not inerrant.

Was the bible written by angels in the presence of God and was it handed down to the people?

No it wasn't was it. I don't deny it's a description of events. But to say that it doesn't contain errors or contradiction? Who's fooling who?

I still haven't heard any response to the post I made with a litany of bizarre mistakes in them

How about Genesis?

FACT: the world is at least 4.6 billion years old. The bible claims to be approximately 6,500. Christians try to argue this by saying the usage of the word “day” in genesis is actually a term for thousands of years in time. This rationalization, they believe can help evolution be accepted into the bible. In other words Christians are trying to say that the word “day” is not meant to be as a 24 hour period. This idea is COMPLETELY FALSE AND NOT PLAUSIBLE. All it takes is a little research into the meaning of the Hebrew word for day and the usage of it in consistency. Of course, it should be common knowledge that the first five books of the Old Testament were written in Hebrew. The Hebrew word for day used in the genesis is account is “yom”, which is a definite 24-hour period. Christians attempt to say that because there was no sun until the fourth day, that the word yom is null and void. This cant be, for the lord claimed there was light, a morning and an evening PRIOR to the sun being created, hence the sun was not even needed. (Also note another contradiction here, that Christians/Jews refuse to notice. They’ll claim the word yom is void because there is no sun, yet that would mean that there couldn’t have been light or a way to decipher between morning and evening. Obviously this is a MAJOR scientific blunder on the writers.)

 

[Proselyte]

That's it, it describes events. It's not infallible and it's not inerrant.

Was the bible written by angels in the presence of God and was it handed down to the people?

No it wasn't was it. I don't deny it's a description of events. But to say that it doesn't contain errors or contradiction? Who's fooling who?

I still haven't heard any response to the post I made with a litany of bizarre mistakes in them

How about Genesis?

FACT: the world is at least 4.6 billion years old. The bible claims to be approximately 6,500. Christians try to argue this by saying the usage of the word “day” in genesis is actually a term for thousands of years in time. This rationalization, they believe can help evolution be accepted into the bible. In other words Christians are trying to say that the word “day” is not meant to be as a 24 hour period. This idea is COMPLETELY FALSE AND NOT PLAUSIBLE. All it takes is a little research into the meaning of the Hebrew word for day and the usage of it in consistency. Of course, it should be common knowledge that the first five books of the Old Testament were written in Hebrew. The Hebrew word for day used in the genesis is account is “yom”, which is a definite 24-hour period. Christians attempt to say that because there was no sun until the fourth day, that the word yom is null and void. This cant be, for the lord claimed there was light, a morning and an evening PRIOR to the sun being created, hence the sun was not even needed. (Also note another contradiction here, that Christians/Jews refuse to notice. They’ll claim the word yom is void because there is no sun, yet that would mean that there couldn’t have been light or a way to decipher between morning and evening. Obviously this is a MAJOR scientific blunder on the writers.)

4.6 Billion eh? Why, because it fits man's convenient recent theories that are not PROVEN? You put your faith in that over God's Word?
I believe the Earth is young, and created as the Bible says it does. We look at things with human eyes. Would it really be so hard for God to create everything as it is written in the Bible? I don't support evolution, and am not trying to justify anything with translations of days or anything of that nature.

 

[GenemZ]

I still haven't heard any response to the post I made with a litany of bizarre mistakes in them

How about Genesis?

FACT: the world is at least 4.6 billion years old. The bible claims to be approximately 6,500.

The Bible does not make that claim. One person decided to try to figure out how far back we can determine Adam was created by backtracking the genealogies given in the Bible. They practice of skipping unimportant names is known. And, Jesus being called the "son of David" is evidence how the meaning of word usage has changed. This present creation can be traced back to being possibly around 30,000 years.

But, that's only back to the time of Adam. This present creation is not the first rendition of life on this planet. Nor, is it to be the last.

Isaiah 65:17 niv
"Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind."


​

Just like this current creation was a replacement for the one prior with dinosaurs, etc. Genesis 1, does not teach about this creation being the first. In the beginning God created the Heavens and Earth. But, as we find in Genesis1:2, the earth was flooded and had become wreak and havoc... 'topsy turvy.' That is what the Hebrew reveals. But, usually not so readily revealed in most English translations.

Christians try to argue this by saying the usage of the word “day” in genesis is actually a term for thousands of years in time. This rationalization, they believe can help evolution be accepted into the bible.

That is only one school of thought on the subject. Its not provable by indication of what the Hebrew speaks of.

In other words Christians are trying to say that the word “day” is not meant to be as a 24 hour period. This idea is COMPLETELY FALSE AND NOT PLAUSIBLE. All it takes is a little research into the meaning of the Hebrew word for day and the usage of it in consistency.

Agreed... that's the problem.

Of course, it should be common knowledge that the first five books of the Old Testament were written in Hebrew. The Hebrew word for day used in the genesis is account is “yom”, which is a definite 24-hour period.

Is that the only alternative understanding you have been exposed to? Not the GAP understanding?

Christians attempt to say that because there was no sun until the fourth day, that the word yom is null and void. This cant be, for the lord claimed there was light, a morning and an evening PRIOR to the sun being created, hence the sun was not even needed. (Also note another contradiction here, that Christians/Jews refuse to notice. They’ll claim the word yom is void because there is no sun, yet that would mean that there couldn’t have been light or a way to decipher between morning and evening. Obviously this is a MAJOR scientific blunder on the writers.)

God provided the light himself for the first four days. And, he will do so again.

Revelation 22:5 niv
There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever.

​

The Hebrew does not say God created the sun, moon, and stars, in Genesis 1. It says, he made them to be light bearers. God caused pre-existing spheres to produce light. The first four days he provided the light personally.

I say these things only to defuse your false premise. This thread is not about the creation. Its about something else. Right?

So.... back to being on topic.

Grace and truth, GeneZ

 

[GenemZ]

Scriptures which we commonly refer to as the Bible...you know what I mean. Is that your only comment on the matter? My misuse of Bible instead of Scriptures?

Careful with legalists in word usage.

Call Scriptures the Bible?


And, they may throw the book at you!

Word police 101.....

GeneZ

 

[crumbs2000]

The Bible does not make that claim. One person decided to try to figure out how far back we can determine Adam was created by backtracking the genealogies given in the Bible. They practice of skipping unimportant names is known. And, Jesus being called the "son of David" is evidence how the meaning of word usage has changed. This present creation can be traced back to being possibly around 30,000 years.

But, that's only back to the time of Adam. This present creation is not the first rendition of life on this planet. Nor, is it to be the last.

Isaiah 65:17 niv
"Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind."


​

Just like this current creation was a replacement for the one prior with dinosaurs, etc. Genesis 1, does not teach about this creation being the first. In the beginning God created the Heavens and Earth. But, as we find in Genesis1:2, the earth was flooded and had become wreak and havoc... 'topsy turvy.' That is what the Hebrew reveals. But, usually not so readily revealed in most English translations.




That is only one school of thought on the subject. Its not provable by indication of what the Hebrew speaks of.



Agreed... that's the problem.




Is that the only alternative understanding you have been exposed to? Not the GAP understanding?





God provided the light himself for the first four days. And, he will do so again.

Revelation 22:5 niv
There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever.

​

The Hebrew does not say God created the sun, moon, and stars, in Genesis 1. It says, he made them to be light bearers. God caused pre-existing spheres to produce light. The first four days he provided the light personally.

I say these things only to defuse your false premise. This thread is not about the creation. Its about something else. Right?

So.... back to being on topic.

Grace and truth, GeneZ

No this is part of the topic. You literalist use the bible as the inerrant word of God to prosecute your case for saying that Homosexuals are condemned. Since the bible didn;t fall out of the sky from the heavens nor was it written by angels as scribes for God, I don't see it anymore than just a book which contains essences of Gods message intermingled with the bias and prejudice by generations of human writers. Put together as one would compile a greatest hits album, and yet people would profess it to be complete???

There are many things that are totally absurd science in the bible. I've posted it ad nauseum please read it and you can try and explain. I can post it again if you want.

The whole Genesis book is plagued with errors.

The Genesis 1 creation account conflicts with the order of events that are known to science. Genesis 1:1 The earth is created before light and stars, birds and whales before reptiles and insects, and flowering plants before any animals. From science, we know that the true order of events was just the opposite.

“And God said, Let there be light” (Genesis 1:3) and “. . .And the evening and the morning were the first day” (Genesis 1 :5), versus “And God said, ‘Let there be light in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night....’ “And God made two lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also… And the evening and morning were the fourth day” (Genesis 1 :14-19). These violates two major facts. Light cannot exist without a sun, and secondly, how can morning be distinguished from evening unless there is a sun and moon?

God spends one-sixth of his entire creative effort (the second day) working on a solid firmament (Genesis 1:6-8). This strange structure, which God calls heaven, is intended to separate the higher waters from the lower waters. This firmament, if it existed, would have been quite an obstacle to our space program.

Plants are made on the third day (Genesis 1:11) before there was a sun to drive their photosynthetic processes (Genesis 1:14-19).
“And God said, ‘Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind… ‘And the evening and the morning were the third day” (Genesis 1:11-13), versus “And God said, ‘Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life… And God created - great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly… And the evening and the morning were the fifth day” (Genesis 1:20-23). Genesis says that life existed first on the land as plants and later the seas teemed with living creatures. Geological science can prove that the sea teemed with animals and vegetable life long before vegetation and life appeared on land.
“And God said, ‘Let the water bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven” (Genesis 1:20). Birds did not emerge from water.

"And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, the beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made…every thing that creepth upon the earth after his kind…" (Genesis 1:24-25). Science contends that reptiles were created long before mammals, not simultaneously. While reptiles existed in the Carboniferous Age, mammals did not appear until the close of the Reptilian Age.

“So God created man in his own image,...male and female created he them” (Genesis 1:27), and “the evening and the morning were the sixth day” (Genesis 1:31). If Adam was created on the 6th day, approximately 6,000 years ago (Bishop Usher’s calculations), then nobody lived before 4,000 B.C. Prehistoric men would be fictitious. By tracing the genealogy of Jesus back 77 generations to Adam, the third chapter of Luke also supports belief in a very young earth. If each man had lived approximately 100 years, then the world would be no more than 9,684 (7,700 + 1984) years old. If each of Jesus’ ancestors had lived to be 1,000 years old (an age not even reached by Methuselah), the earth would still be only 78,984 (77,000 + 1984) years old, according to creationists.

"And to every beast of the earth, and every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so” (Genesis 1:30). Carnivorous beasts and fowl do not eat green herbs, nor were all animals originally herbivores. Simply consider tapeworms, vampire bats, mosquitoes, barracudas, tigers, etc.

In Genesis 1, the entire creation takes 6 days (Genesis 1:31), at the end of which the earth and its living things are pretty much as they are today. But we know from modern science that the universe (including the earth and life on earth) evolved slowly over billions of years.

In Genesis 2:7 humans are created instantaneously from dust and breath, whereas they actually evolved over millions of years from simpler life forms. Science can in fact trace back human evolution CONCLUSIVELY 3 .2 million years.
God makes the animals (Genesis 2:18) and parades them before Adam to see if any would strike his fancy. But none seem to have what it takes to please him. After making the animals, God has Adam name them all. The naming of several million species must have kept Adam busy for a while, why Adam would still have to be living for we haven’t even discovered nor named all the species. Also consider the idea of every living creature being brought to the Middle East, that would have killed many animals due to climatic changes.
God curses the serpent, making him crawl on his belly and eat dust (Genesis 3:14). One wonders how he got around before -- by hopping on his tail, perhaps? But snakes don’t eat dust, do they?

“There were giants in the earth in those days.” Genesis 6:4 But there is no archaeological evidence for the existence of these giants. Also there is a reference to the “Nephilim” being on the earth. Which is a term used for half angel, half human. Why is there no archaeological evidence for the existence of the Nephilim either?

Noah is told to make an ark that is 450 feet long (Genesis 6:14-15). The largest wooden ships ever built were just over 300 feet, and they required diagonal iron strapping for support. Even so, they leaked so badly that they had to be pumped constantly. Are we to believe that Noah, with no shipbuilding knowledge and no shipbuilding tradition to rely upon, was able to construct a wooden ship that was longer than any that has been built since?

Whether by twos or by sevens, Noah takes male and female representatives from each species of “every thing that creepeth upon the earth” (Genesis 7:8). Now this must have taken some time, along with expert knowledge of taxonomy, genetics, biogeography, and anatomy. How did Noah manage to collect the endemic species from the New World, Australia, Polynesia, and other remote regions entirely unknown to him? How, once he found them, did he transport them back to his Near Eastern home? How could he tell the male and female beetles (there are more than 500,000 species) apart? How did he know how to care for these new and unfamiliar animals? How did he find the space on the ark? How did he manage to find and care for the hundreds of thousands of parasitic species or the hundreds of thousands of plant species? (Plants are ignored in the Genesis account, but the animals wouldn’t last long if the plants died in the flood.) No, wait, don’t tell me, a miracle happened, millions of them.
All of the animals boarded the ark “in the selfsame day” (Genesis 7:13-14). Since there were several million species involved, they must have boarded at a rate of at least 100 per second. How did poor Noah and his family make sure that the correct number of each species entered through the door and then get them all settled into their proper living quarters so efficiently? I wish the airline companies could do as well!

The flood covered the highest mountain tops (Mount Everest?) with fifteen cubits to spare (Genesis 7:20). Where did all the water come from? Where did it all go? Why is there no evidence of such a massive flood in the geological record?
When the animals left the ark (Genesis 8:19), what would they have eaten? There would have been no plants after the ground had been submerged for nearly a year. What would the carnivores have eaten? Whatever prey they ate would have gone extinct. And how did the New World primates or the Australian marsupials find there way back after the flood subsided?
Noah kills the “clean beasts” and burns their dead bodies for God (Genesis 8:20). According to Genesis 7:8 this would have caused the extinction of all “clean” animals since only two of each were taken onto the ark. So why is it that we still have “clean” animals?
God is filled with remorse for having drowned his creatures in the flood. He even puts the rainbow in the sky so that whenever the animals see it they will remember God’s promise not to do it again (Genesis 9:13). But rainbows are caused by the nature of light, the refractive index of water, and the shape of raindrops. There were rainbows billions of years before humans existed.

“The whole earth was of one language” (Genesis 11:1). But this could not be true, since by this time (around 2400 BCE) there were already many languages, each unintelligible to the others.
(Genesis. 11:4) According to the Tower of Babel story, the many human languages were created instantaneously by God (Genesis 11:9) But actually the various languages evolved gradually over long periods of time.

(Genesis 14:14) Abram goes into pursuit looking for his captive relative in the city of Dan. The problem here is that the city of Dan did not exist until over 300 years after Moses died. How is it that Abram could enter the city of Dan, when the city did not even exist?

Jacob displays his (and God’s) knowledge of biology by having goats copulate while looking at streaked rods. The result is streaked baby goats (Genesis 30:37). The author of Genesis (God?) believed that genetic characteristics of the offspring are determined by what the parents see at the moment of conception. This is a laughable belief. Ask any animal husbandrist.

Camels don’t divide the hoof (Leviticus 11:4).

The bible says that hares and conies are unclean because they “chew the cud” but do not part the hoof (Leviticus 11:5-6). But hares and coneys are not ruminants and they do not “chew the cud.”

Bats are birds to the biblical God (Leviticus 11:13-19 & Deuteronomy 14:11-18).

Some birds have four feet (Leviticus 11:20-21).

Unicorns have never existed, yet they are said to in Deuteronomy 33:17. 32)

Fiery serpents have NEVER existed yet Numbers 21:6 claims they do.

 

[No Swansong]

Okay 1 quick question for you. 1 Cor 6 was written by Paul, but Paul is not God - he was a human. In fact it was made very clear to us in Systematic Theology (taught at a Catholic Sem) that Paul was really the 1st systematic theologian.

While his word counts for something, in reality it is not the word of God and should NEVER be taken as such. If you want the word of God, look to the OT or the Gospels (even then a literal interpretation was frowned upon).

To say that Paul is speaking the word of God, would in fact be making him a God in his own right... that my friend is idolatry.

If you would like to debate the meaning of 1 Cor 6 based on what was written in Greek and Hebrew AND based on the cultural context in which it was written, I am happy to do that (but not today - a nice pub awaits... time with friends )

So you deny that Paul was divinely inspired? Why in the world accept the Gospels, the OT and not Paul's writings? How do you define what is divinely inspired and what is not? I have not read anywhere that the Catholic Church (also have a Catholic Education) denies Divine inspiration in Paul's writings.

 

[artybloke]

So you deny that Paul was divinely inspired?

Inspired - yes. Always right - no.

 

[intricatic]

That's it, it describes events. It's not infallible and it's not inerrant.

Was the bible written by angels in the presence of God and was it handed down to the people?

No it wasn't was it. I don't deny it's a description of events. But to say that it doesn't contain errors or contradiction? Who's fooling who?

I still haven't heard any response to the post I made with a litany of bizarre mistakes in them

How about Genesis?

FACT: the world is at least 4.6 billion years old. The bible claims to be approximately 6,500. Christians try to argue this by saying the usage of the word “day” in genesis is actually a term for thousands of years in time. This rationalization, they believe can help evolution be accepted into the bible. In other words Christians are trying to say that the word “day” is not meant to be as a 24 hour period. This idea is COMPLETELY FALSE AND NOT PLAUSIBLE. All it takes is a little research into the meaning of the Hebrew word for day and the usage of it in consistency. Of course, it should be common knowledge that the first five books of the Old Testament were written in Hebrew. The Hebrew word for day used in the genesis is account is “yom”, which is a definite 24-hour period. Christians attempt to say that because there was no sun until the fourth day, that the word yom is null and void. This cant be, for the lord claimed there was light, a morning and an evening PRIOR to the sun being created, hence the sun was not even needed. (Also note another contradiction here, that Christians/Jews refuse to notice. They’ll claim the word yom is void because there is no sun, yet that would mean that there couldn’t have been light or a way to decipher between morning and evening. Obviously this is a MAJOR scientific blunder on the writers.)

Oh, no, because they use parabolic language and we use definitive language, it must mean that the account was absolute! Whatever shall we do!



Dude, is the Bible a scientific account of creation, or is it a theological / religious account of it?

 

[intricatic]

I think the one who needs to be more careful is someone like yourself. For? If you read this part carefully?

​

You would have seen the "like." Just as in.... he was "like a braying donkey." Does that mean he is a literal donkey?

Be more careful! And you won't come up with such a silly nonsubstantiated illustrations next time.

Just trying to be helpful..... Like a helper.


In Christ, GeneZ

Hello. Did you not see the post I was responding to? I was using this as an example of faulty reasoning.
Thanks.

 

[crumbs2000]

Oh, no, because they use parabolic language and we use definitive language, it must mean that the account was absolute! Whatever shall we do!



Dude, is the Bible a scientific account of creation, or is it a theological / religious account of it?

Well there it is...by your own admission. How can you then take the bible literally when it isn;t even accurate in it's account. How can it be accurate with many other things?

 

[intricatic]

Well there it is...by your own admission. How can you then take the bible literally when it isn;t even accurate in it's account. How can it be accurate with many other things?

Do I have to explain to you a second time what literalist means?

 

[intricatic]

Psalms 1 [NIV]
1 Blessed is the man
who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked
or stand in the way of sinners
or sit in the seat of mockers.

Psalms 1 [KJV]
1
Oh, the joys of those
who do not follow the advice of the wicked,
or stand around with sinners,
or join in with scoffers.

Psalms 1 [YLT]
1O the happiness of that one, who Hath not walked in the counsel of the wicked. And in the way of sinners hath not stood, And in the seat of scorners hath not sat;

Oh no, my faith in the Bible has been shattered! I thought there was only one English translation!

Nobody is ignorant enough to claim that the english translations are going to be 100% accurate to what the Hebrew language is trying to portray; there are going to be errors transcribing what the language is trying to convey because of the nature of the language, and the nature of the men and women transcribing it. That's not what literalism implies or there would only be one or two English translations. But don't try to apply your own cognitive dissonance to the passages you look at because it'll make it even harder for you to understand.

 

[Colabomb]

What bible?

There was no bible at that time.

Indeed there was. The Jews had the Scriptures, the Septuagint Translation of the Old Testament.

 

[intricatic]

Also; Please see This Passage from The NIV - look at the bottom of the page and tell me, what does the long list of notes imply?

 

[Colabomb]

Actually they do fall under the same biases. Anything not written at the time by the actual people, which are translations of oral stories are subject to bias and errors.

Okay then.

Tell me how you believe in the Crucifixion.

 

[crumbs2000]

Psalms 1 [NIV]
1 Blessed is the man
who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked
or stand in the way of sinners
or sit in the seat of mockers.

Psalms 1 [KJV]
1
Oh, the joys of those
who do not follow the advice of the wicked,
or stand around with sinners,
or join in with scoffers.

Psalms 1 [YLT]
1O the happiness of that one, who Hath not walked in the counsel of the wicked. And in the way of sinners hath not stood, And in the seat of scorners hath not sat;

Oh no, my faith in the Bible has been shattered! I thought there was only one English translation!

Nobody is ignorant enough to claim that the english translations are going to be 100% accurate to what the Hebrew language is trying to portray; there are going to be errors transcribing what the language is trying to convey because of the nature of the language, and the nature of the men and women transcribing it. That's not what literalism implies or there would only be one or two English translations. But don't try to apply your own cognitive dissonance to the passages you look at because it'll make it even harder for you to understand.

You know I'm not talking about different translations. You still haven't nor has proselyte (well he did advice I take it up with someone more scholarly to refute my claims) addressed the galring contradictions which I have posted. Go back some pages and address them if you may.

The translators of the NIV translation of the Bible, all of whom are certified evangelicals, go through a lot of trouble to try to evade contradictions to validate the inerrancy of the bible.

For example, although all Hebrew manuscripts containing 2Ch 22:2 cite Ahaziah's age when he began his reign to be 42, the NIV translation of that verse gives the age as 22, to bring it into conformity with 2Ki 8:26. They justify this on the grounds that the Septuagint and some Syriac manuscripts give the figure as 22. But in just about all other cases they rely on the Hebrew manuscripts. It seems to be a departure from the task of translating from the Hebrew into English (which presumably is the translators' task) to engage in such juggling of the texts.

Just look at all the unfulfilled prophecies in the bible - so what of them? Surely the bible doesn't have any unfulfilled prophecies? right? WRONG

When you look at them, they look a lot like contradictions, contradictions you could not explain away.

 

[Colabomb]

“A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this.” Deuteronomy 22:5

Last I checked, Pants are not considered Men's Clothing.

 

[Colabomb]

As already noted…You have presented a false dilemma. It is a logical fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy





Back to this “gay lifestyle” you keep brining up… is it anything like the “black lifestyle”?

Last I checked, the Scriptures did not condemn Skin tone. However they do condemn Homosexual sex.

 

[intricatic]

You know I'm not talking about different translations. You still haven't nor has proselyte (well he did advice I take it up with someone more scholarly to refute my claims) addressed the galring contradictions which I have posted. Go back some pages and address them if you may.

The translators of the NIV translation of the Bible, all of whom are certified evangelicals, go through a lot of trouble to try to evade contradictions to validate the inerrancy of the bible.

For example, although all Hebrew manuscripts containing 2Ch 22:2 cite Ahaziah's age when he began his reign to be 42, the NIV translation of that verse gives the age as 22, to bring it into conformity with 2Ki 8:26. They justify this on the grounds that the Septuagint and some Syriac manuscripts give the figure as 22. But in just about all other cases they rely on the Hebrew manuscripts. It seems to be a departure from the task of translating from the Hebrew into English (which presumably is the translators' task) to engage in such juggling of the texts.

Indeed, because the Hebrew and Aramaic languages have words that are ambiguous when transcribed to English, and numbers are the most highly proned parts of any transcription to fall into error over time; but they're nonessential parts of scripture as they generally don't alter the message in any way; the Bible has been maintained over the years with a massive quality of accuracy, more so than any other work transcribed over time in a similar way.

And I have addressed them, your own cognitive dissonance is the only thing blinding you to the obvious answers.