I have some problems with some verses...

[Azad]

2 Chr 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 king 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.

How do you explain the 10 year difference, I am a bit comfused....

Also luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

What does he mean by hate?

Thanks for your help...

 

[Lotuspetal_uk]

I'm not sure about the first half of your question but I pray that I may be able to help you with the second half (Luke 14:26). It might be worth asking your first question on a Jewish site or within the Messianic forum area here. If you can track down the user, Stillsmallvoice here (he's an Othodox Jew) he may be able to shed some light on this for you.

IMO in terms of Luke 14:26, the answer first lies in the examples that Messiah lists afterwards (vv 28-32) and finally in verse 34.

He was addressing the cost of being His disciple, - the degree to which a person needed to commit to Him. A person needed to be 200% certain of following Him to the point of sacrificing all they have and all the relationships they have (family). They could not be half hearted about it and then change their mind afterwards. Before following Him they needed to give it some serious thought. What he meant by hate here was a loyalty thing rather than to literally hate one's family. In order to follow Him the person could not then run back to their family at a moments notice. They had to be certain that in their hearts they placed Y-shua first - even before their own family.

Be blessed and I hope this helps

LP

 

[Rafael]

The correct age of Jehoiachin was 18, not 8. Obviously, Jehoiachin was 18 when he began his rule since it says he did evil in the site of the Lord which suggests maturity and responsibility.
The discrepancy in ages is due to a copyist error. We can see that the difference in ages is 10 years. The system of number notation used by the Jews at the time of Ezra consisted of horizontal hooks that represented values of ten. http://www.carm.org/graphics/14_hook.gif would equal the number 14 where http://www.carm.org/graphics/24_hook.gif would be 24. If one or both of the hooks were smudged or flaked off of a papyri, then the dates would be off by values of 10 years.
Does this mean the Bible is not trustworthy? Not at all. Inspiration is ascribed to the original writings and not to the copies. Scribes made errors. However, the errors were very infrequent and from other information in the Bible, we can easily ascertain what the correct age is.

Lotuspetal is correct in her post that our most sincere desire in this life would be to love God. The way the word "hate" was used was in an idomatic way. We, today say we hate things in just this way when we are really using the word as a measure or degree of what we desire most. Ultimately, we have to come to grips with faith that goes beyond this life and death and into eternity. If we truly believe in Him for this, then the promise of eternal life carries hope for all of our loved ones too. I doesn't mean we are not love our families, but to love God the most of all.

 

[cybermaxx12]

The First part- I dont know what bible you have but mine says he was 18 in both verses.

 

[Svt4Him]

[2 Kings 24:8 KJV]:
​

"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 Chron 36:9 KJV]:
​

"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."
​

The more recent NIV has it differently based on manuscript evidence and an examination of that evidence on a case by case basis:
​

[2 Chron 36:9 NIV]:
​

"Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became King, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months and ten days, he did evil in the eyes of the Lord."
​

Manuscript evidence when correctly examined ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS and not on the basis of favoring the majority of one type manuscript over another due to the false presupposition that one type is always more reliable than another no matter what, will provide the best rendering of what the original text was. This process must be accompanied by the use of normative rules of language, (in this case the original Hebrew), and the rest of the H.I.C.E.E method of interpretation which is the self-evident method to be used with the words of God's Word:
​

[url]http://www.cybberramp.net/~ansbible/hicee_rules.htm[/url]
​

This procedure for interpreting/translating the words of God's Word from available manuscript evidence and from the best rendering into English leads in this case to the conclusion that Jehoiachin was 18 and not 8 so the correct rendering for 2 Chr 36:9 is 18 as rendered in the more recent NIV version. Manuscript evidence supports this: one Hebrew manuscript, a number of Septuagint manuscripts and Syriac show 18 years.
​

Consider this succinct statement re: this matter from THE NEW SCOFIELD STUDY BIBLE, NIV, Editor: C. I. Scofield, Oxford Univ. Press, 1984, pp. 414-5:
​

[size=+2]"In copying manuscripts, mistakes in numbers sometimes occur. Many disagreements between numbers in Samuel and Kings, and those in Chronicles, are alleged. Actually, out of the approximately 150 instances of parallel numbers in these books, fewer than one-sixth disagree. In two cases a different number is given for the age of a king at his accession (cp. 2 Chr. 22:2... with 2 Ki 8:26 and 2 Chr 36:9... with 2 Ki 24:8); in the other thirteen cases of this type, numbers agree. Certain disagreements are very small (cp. 1 Chr 21:5, as to Judah, with 2 Sam 24:9; 2 Chr 2:2, 17-18 with 1 Ki 5:15-16; and 2 Chr 8:18 with 1 Ki 9:28). Sometimes the apparent discrepancy disappears on careful study (cp. 1 Chr 21:25 with 2 Sam 24:24; 2 Chr 3:4 with 1 Ki 6:2). [/size]
​

 

[Kelly]

A biblical typo!

[baseless speculation]Also, he possibly could have reigned in name at 8, but really taken control at 18.[/baseless speculation]

 

[Pseud]

I remember reading that the word that translates to 'hate' in that verse can also translate to 'love less'. So the phrase is basically saying 'God comes first'.

 

[Serapha]

Hi there!


There is no contradiction between the 8 and 18 age specifications. They are different representations of Jehoiachin's reign.

Jehoiachin legally became king over Judah when he was 8 years old ( 1 Ch 36:9). However, his mother ruled for him (Jeremiah 13:18) until such time as he could ascend to the throne (age 18, 2 Kings 24:8)

There is no error there.


Thanks for the great question.

~serapha~

 

[Azad]

I don't see were in Jeremiah 13:18 does it say that his mother ruled for him...

 

[Kelly]

Jehoiachin legally became king over Judah when he was 8 years old ( 1 Ch 36:9). However, his mother ruled for him (Jeremiah 13:18) until such time as he could ascend to the throne (age 18, 2 Kings 24:8)

So my baseless speculation was right, wow!

 

[Svt4Him]

I don't see were in Jeremiah 13:18 does it say that his mother ruled for him...

Maybe it's because it says "say to the King and the King's Mother". If the King's Mother wasn't ruling, why would you say anything to her? Interesting theory, as this is the first I've seen it as well.

 

[Serapha]

Maybe it's because it says "say to the King and the King's Mother". If the King's Mother wasn't ruling, why would you say anything to her? Interesting theory, as this is the first I've seen it as well.

Hi there!




I should have added some historical perspective to the answer, but I was trying to give a "quick-fix" to the question.

Sometimes the reign of a king is dated from the beginning of a dynasty and sometimes the reign is dated from the time of ascension to the throne. I could find more examples if you are interested.


~serapha~

 

[Serapha]

Hello All,




I don't think there is any conflicting passage in the Bible that cannot be understood either in the context, historical reference, or the customs and traditions of the day.


The Bible is all truth.... no contradictions, no conflicts. God is not a god of confusion... that's someone else.

<grin>

~serapha~

 

[Azad]

I got quite satisfying answers to my first questions thanks for you input...

let me go on

1chron 21:12 : Either three years' famine; or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee; or else three days the sword of the LORD, even the pestilence, in the land, and the angel of the LORD destroying throughout all the coasts of Israel. Now therefore advise thyself what word I shall bring again to him that sent me.

and

2 sam 24:13 : So Gad came to David, and told him, and said unto him, Shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land? or wilt thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue thee? or that there be three days' pestilence in thy land? now advise, and see what answer I shall return to him that sent me.

why in one case 3 years and in an other 7??

is this a copiest error?

 

[Serapha]

I got quite satisfying answers to my first questions thanks for you input...

let me go on

1chron 21:12 : Either three years' famine; or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee; or else three days the sword of the LORD, even the pestilence, in the land, and the angel of the LORD destroying throughout all the coasts of Israel. Now therefore advise thyself what word I shall bring again to him that sent me.

and

2 sam 24:13 : So Gad came to David, and told him, and said unto him, Shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land? or wilt thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue thee? or that there be three days' pestilence in thy land? now advise, and see what answer I shall return to him that sent me.

why in one case 3 years and in an other 7??

is this a copiest error?

Hi there!



No it isn't an error.... John Gill explains it nicely...


and said unto him, shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy
land?
in (1 Chronicles 21:12) , only "three years" are mentioned, and so the Septuagint version here; but Josephus , the Targum, the Syriac and Arabic versions, have the number "seven"; three seems to be more agreeable to the numbers after mentioned, and no more as to come were designed, though seven are here expressed; for the reconciling of which let it be observed, that there had been three years of famine already on account of the sin of Saul, (2 Samuel 21:1) ; and in the current year, through the rains not falling in the proper time, the land was barren and unfruitful; or through the penury of the preceding years the famine would be continued at least until the harvest; and then three years more now proposed made seven years; or, if these three years would have immediately followed the other three, the following in course would be a sabbatical year, in which were no ploughing, sowing, nor reaping, or the current year was such an one: and the sense is, shall there be a continuance of seven years of famine, that is, three more added to what had been? which must be most dreadful to think of; but a learned writer



~serapha~