Biblical Translation Case Study: Ahaziah's Age

This year is the 400th Anniversary of the publishing of the Authorized Version, more commonly known today as the King James Version, of the Bible.

I wanted to take this opportunity to make a small case study on the subject of Bible Translation by looking at one of the more “difficult” sections for translators.

Ahaziah's Age

Compare II Kings 8:26 and II Chron 22:2 in any version you want.

In every single Hebrew manuscript, without exception, II Kings 8:26 states that Ahaziah was “22.” In every single Hebrew manuscript, without exception, II Chronicles 22:2 states that Ahaziah's age was "42."

So, when you look at II Chronicles 22:2 in your Bible, what does it say? Does it say “42” as in all manuscripts or does it say “22?”

If you're looking at the ESV, NLT, NIV, NASV, and many others, you will see "22" in this passage.

Why?

One of the primary stated reasons for all of the plethora of new versions is because they claim that they are trying to be "closer to the originals." Why then do most of them flatly contradict every single manuscript there is?

Why are the translators, that have claimed that those newer translations have been made to be more faithful to the manuscripts, not following the things they claim to love?

Many reasons are listed for this “error,” even some so absurd as a fly getting into the ink and blurring the line from the Hebrew symbol of 22 to that of 42, including diagrams of how it could have happened.

Some would say that these are not the same men in these two passages, but that doesn't match the exacting nature of the information that is given in both passages.

All of the argumentation and reasoning that they use misses the essential point: God's word is infallible! Every real Christian agrees on this. If the Bible is not infallible (free of error and lies), then there is no reason to follow any of it. If there is a single flaw, then who's to say that there aren't more?

God promised to preserve His word, that it would endure to all generations, and that His people would have it.

Is it truly a preserved word of God if there is error within every single sample of it?

There is a simple solution! These two verses containing two contradictory ages are not errors! There is a point being conveyed here that the modern translators have missed, and so they have tried to “fix” God's word for Him. That's more than a little presumptuous on their parts.

Why have they edited instead of faithfully translating the manuscripts?

It falls back on the entire modern approach to Bible translation. The modern way of approaching it, called Textual Criticism, is an entirely natural and scientific approach to looking at manuscripts. That approach, which works well with trying to find what ancient Greek philosophers or other ancient writings of men, is not appropriate or correct for the spiritual writings of God. It assumes the introduction of mistakes and errors in something God promised to protect and preserve. So, since they are used to assuming mistakes and “fixing” them, it should be no surprise that they assume these passages have an error (despite the fact that every manuscript agrees), and that they go ahead and “fix” this too.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, at this point I find it interesting to take a side trail and point out another issue with these same translators. They refuse to translate correctly what every manuscript says in II Chronicles 22:2, but when you go to Mark 1:2, they choose to take the text from a few manuscripts and use that, despite the fact that there is a contradiction there.

There is no verse in Isaiah that has those words (as they claim). They are found in Malachi. So, they will translate that correctly from their manuscripts, when it's obviously wrong (just use any concordance or online search and you will see), but they refuse to do the same in II Chronicles (which isn't really an error).

The difference in these two cases is that most manuscripts say in Mark 1:2 that those words are recorded in “the prophets,” and not in any particular one. The reason that these translators have chosen to use the incorrect manuscripts is because they, based on their approach of Textual Criticism, have claimed that those particular manuscripts are the “best” and “closest to the originals.”

This is by no means a singular example of how those same translators have made a mistake, based on their “best” manuscripts. There are dozens of others. But that thought is for another time.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a simple solution that makes both 22 and 42 work, and it resolves an "issue" that appears elsewhere in the Bible.

It is easy enough to see that 22 is Ahaziah's physical age when he became king, since his father was 40 at the time when he began to reign, eliminating 42 as a possible physical age. So, what then is the 42 there for?

Ahaziah was the son of Jehoram, king of Judah, and Athaliah, the daughter of Ahab and Jezebel. Ahab is the best known member of the family of Omri, king of Israel. Ahaziah followed in the footsteps of the wicked side of his family, Omri and Ahab. Jehu killed Ahaziah while he was killing off the house of Omri and Ahab, at God's command, because of their wickedness.

You can see by the judgment on Ahaziah (and his son and grandson), especially in conjunction with the judgment on Ahab's house, that God didn't consider Ahaziah or his descendants to be worthy of the line of David or the kingdom of Judah.

Then you do a little math. You find that if you take the times of the reigns from the house of Omri, they come to 42 years at the beginning of the reign of Ahaziah.

God just demonstrated, in multiple ways, that Ahaziah did not belong in the line of the good kings of Judah, so instead he placed him in the line of the evil kings of Israel, and showed such by giving his age as 42.

Now I know someone is going to think all of that's a stretch. That's where the second part comes in.

No one seems to be able to explain the missing portions of the lineage of Christ from Abraham. For those of you that have never noticed it, Jehoram did not beget Uzziah (Mt. 1:8), there are three generations missing in that space. Every single manuscript agrees in that statement as well, and every version agrees. So, why are those names missing?

The three generations missing are those of Ahaziah, his son, and his grandson.

God again demonstrated a point. Those three men were wicked in a way that lined themselves up with the house of Omri and Ahab, so they were not worthy to be listed in the line of Christ.

Further, this can be seen as a direct example of a Scriptural principle:

God promised to repay sins of parents on their children to the third and fourth generation (Exo 20:5, 34:7, Num 14:18) and to remove the remembrance of them from his people (Psalm 69:28, 109:13-15, Eze 13:9).

So, there we have two "errors" that explain one another by just a little looking. They fit together to show a spiritual lesson of how much God hates sin.

There is no need whatsoever for anyone to try and fix these passages. They are perfect. They demonstrate spiritual lessons that are valuable. It just takes spiritual eyes and a little bit of looking to see the point.

Here's the significance of all of this.

Can you really trust "translators" that will refuse to acknowledge what every single manuscript says, and choose to edit it instead, because they think God needs help? Will you trust men that can't explain these issues, so instead they try to make them go away?

I trust the KJV because its translators translated these texts faithfully and allowed the Bible to fix its own seeming "errors" rather than trying to fix things for the Bible and instead leaving errors with no answer.


____________________________________________

I will not claim credit for this article.
I merely took another persons work and put it into my own words.
You can find the original article here: http://www.letgodbetrue.com/bible/scripture/ahaziah-contradiction.pdf

Three and a Half Years

Yes, I am working on more posts for my blog. As I expected, I have a lot to say, not enough time to say it, and am having massive trouble filtering everything down to the level where I can make it all make sense and not go on forever.

That's all beside the point.

I wanted to take this time to deal with an important thing on my heart today.

Today marks three and one half years since I became a married man.
I still really don't understand how it happened. I don't know what possessed a wonderful, caring, beautiful woman like Angela to want to commit to spend the rest of her life with me. I can't comprehend what she sees in me that would cause her to smile when she sees me. I'm puzzled by her perseverance despite all of my eccentricities and failings.

I used to think that I understood what love was. Boy was I wrong.
It is so much more than I ever guessed, and I bet in another few years I'll look back at this and realize that I still had more to learn.
I knew that there was an element of choice in loving someone else, but I didn't understand just how rewarding that choice could be.
I thought I understood the power of the emotion that could be felt for someone, the deep longing to just see them and be with them, but that was so far less than what I experience now.

I just wanted to share my joy with all of you and publicly praise God for giving me such a wonderful gift.

What's in a Name?

The first question I had to resolve when I had decided to start blogging was a pretty tough one.

Everyone seems to have a creative blog name; so what could I use for mine?

This may seem like a fairly trivial thing, and maybe it is, but it's significant to me. Perhaps there's a level of vanity in it, but if I want to convey a message, I would prefer it to be consistent throughout the blog.

I wanted something that would reflect both me and what I was trying to show. I ran several ideas around in my head, but couldn't come to anything satisfactory.

I started with ideas based on my usual stance as the minority or dissenting opinion in most of my public discussions, but I didn't feel that such words really went very well with some of the spiritual lessons I wanted to convey.

I then decided that I wanted to use some portion of a Bible passage, but there are far too many good ones or ones that I like a lot for that to be an easy choice.

In the end I decided that the best option was one that reflected something that I believe in and covers a whole spectrum of life:

Romans 9: 16 - So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

These words are from what could be considered my favorite chapter in scripture, and what may be one of the most ignored. This verse in many ways could be considered to be a short synopsis of the point of Romans 9.

I picked it because it showcases one of the primary points of my blog, which is the total sovereignty of God. He shapes the course of the world, in every sphere, and at every level (no matter how high or low). That knowledge should change how we view and interact with the world. I am sure I will be dealing with this subject later, so I won't go into any more detail.

I hope I have now cleared up a question that no one has gotten around to asking yet!

I also hope that everyone now can see the major running theme of the blog.

It is possible that the name of the blog may change later, since that is an option, but it will only be to something that I think is more appropriate for what is covered than what it is now.

Why Blog?

As I begin this venture in Blogging, immediately the question should be asked: Why?

Its a valid question. So many people today are throwing their ideas out there into cyberspace. It seems to be a pretty evident case of a fulfilling of scripture:

Ecclesiastes 12:12 - And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh. (Underlined for Emphasis)

There is a lot of writing going on out there, and it really is wearying. There's so little of actual truth or real value being made out there.

Real truth is not a popular thing these days. Its largely not sensational, so it doesn't attract attention. It tells us that we need correction, so it makes people uncomfortable. It focuses on things that are contrary to what we want to think, most of the time, so it is easy to be distracted from.

Isaiah 59:14 - And judgment is turned away backward, and justice standeth afar off: for truth is fallen in the street, and equity cannot enter. (Underlined for Emphasis)

 I want to blog because I want to try and put out some of the things of truth and value, as I see them. I want there to be someone that's stating what's right, so that's what I will attempt to do.

I am not doing this on my Facebook profile, though it will be linked to this, because I want what I put here to be on a more serious level than the everyday fluff that is on Facebook.

This blog will deal with a number of topics.

Primarily it will fall into the religious category, since that is the most important and foundational. It touches every aspect of life, so it deserves the emphasis.

I'll also be dealing with politics, current events, nature, science, and whatever else strikes my fancy at the time, and can be dealt with in a meaningful way.

I hope, for those of you that know me already (I doubt many others would pay attention to this), that you will see a new and deeper side of me. I want to be able to state loud and clearly what I believe and why I believe it.

I will welcome comments, as long as they are reasonable and thought-out. If anyone ever wants me to touch on a particular topic, I will see what I can do.

Edit:

Just to make it clear, there will be some lighthearted and less serious topics discussed, this should provide some good enjoyment, at least I hope so, but accomplish positive things as well.