Yuku free message boards

>QUESTION [Larry]: I also would like your comments on a question one of our members asked recently. It's about the age discrepancy of Ahaziah in 2 Chronicles 22:2 and 2 Kings 8:26. One says he was 42 and the other 22 when he began to reign. I read Lange's and K&D, but they both took the scribal error position. Could you please help me on this.

>ANSWER [Dr. DeVries]: This is a classic "boo-boo" that all of the profs at most "conservative" seminaries like to throw at the students in order to shake their faith in God's perfect Book. But, when serious study is applied (2 Timothy 2:15), as always, the King James Bible is proven INERRANT and its critics are shown to be liars and ignoramuses.

Well, at least we know he's not biased. :)

>This "contradiction" is found in every extant copy of the Masoretic Hebrew text. So it is not just a translation error. Those modern versions that would attempt to "correct" this "error" do so only by MISTRANSLATING the text! So much for their "loyalty to the original text."

I agree here. It is wrong for versions like the NIV, NASB, Darby, Young's, etc. to make this alteration on their own. they should have folled the example of more literal translaitons like the KJV, RSV, and NWT.

>What Lange and K & D could not figure out is well explained below:
Now there is an easy way out of the problem, which we will mention but will not adopt.

For a very personal reason, as it turns out.

>The easiest way out is to simply say that the forty-two years of 2 Chronicles is written with the word "was" in italics, so the forty-two 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).

>This would mean that Ahab [sic, surely he means 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 thirty-first to thirty-second year of the reign of Asa (1 Kings 16:23). It is exactly forty-two 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).

Certainly the "Ahaziah/Jehoahaz" seems true, although Azariah could have been a son taken away by the Philistines and ransomed after Jehoram's death.

>Now this 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.

No contradiction in the *Hebrew* text, perhaps, although not one translation seems to use the forty-two as the number of years since Omri. In fact, it does seem strange and unlikely, the start of the reign of a king in Judah is measured from the start of a reign of a knig or Israel.

However, the KJV is very clearly referring to Ahaziah's age. As a self-proclaimed KJV-inerrantist, Dr. DeVries of course can not accept this interpretation of the Scripture. This is the reason he contrives a different explanation..

>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. military ailirn

Ahaziah is said to be the "son of Jehoshaphat" by Jehu. Scripture accurately records Jehu's words, but this does not mean Jehu's words are inspired by God when he spoke them.

The verse at 2Ch 21:2 is interesting, indeed.

>2. In addition to being a "Son" of Jehoshaphat and Jehoram we read that Ahaziah was also "THE SON-IN-LAW" to the House of Ahab (2 Kings 8:27). Now, how does Ahaziah become a "son in law" to the House of Ahab when he married Zibiah of Beersheba (2 Chron. 24:1)? He didn't marry any of Ahab's daughters or Omri's daughters.

Of course, there is no reason Ahaziah should have married only one woman.

>3. In I 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 get killed (1 Kings 22:26, 28, 29, 34, 37). The boy is only a one-year old and he cannot ascend the throne until he is nearly eight (2 Chron. 24:1).

I check for Joash's name in Kings. The only mention of the name until after the death of Ahaziah son of Jehoram is in 1Ki 22:26, and nothing is said here about taking over either throne. Further, Ahab is still alive here, and is dead for eight years before Jehoram of Judah dies. Thus, this can not be the Joash of 2Ch 24.

>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 (1 Kings I), 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).

Certainly the Ahaziah who was king of Israel was not the same as the Ahaziah who was king of Judah. However, there is no reason to associate either of the Azariah's of 2Ch 21:2 with Ahaziah, especially since they are specifically called "brethren" of Jehoram, and are all killed before Jehoram dies.

> 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 when Jehoshaphat "joined affinity with Ahab" (2 Chron. 18:1), there was more involved than a military alliance.

Here Dr. DeVries ignores Scripture (1Ch 3:11, 2Ch 21:2, 2Ch 22:1) about Ahaziah's fatgher in favor of the uninspired utterance of Jehu. Not to mention
2Ch 21:4 says Jehoram slew *all* his brothers, which would certainly include both of the Azariah's.

> Jehoshaphat's title was King of ISRAEL (2 Chron. 21:2), signifying the ominous alliance, for Jehoram, his son, is said to have killed also "divers...of the princes of ISRAEL." To all purposes, if Ahab got killed, one of Jehoshaphat's kin folks could take over Israel; conversely, if Jehoshaphat died in battle, then one of Ahab's kinfolk 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 Jeho ram 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 supposes Ahaziah to be Jehoram's brother, not son, in which case he dies before Jehoram (2Ch 21:4).

> Now this reconciles everything except the statement that Ahaziah was Jeho ram's son. However, we have read enough Bible to know that a son-in-law can be a son (Luke 3:23, I 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 step-son. If both father (Jehoshaphat) and son (Jehoram) came in unto 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 step-son or a son-in-law at the most.

All you have to do to reach this conclusion is ignore Scripture.

> He was Omri's "pet" because his mother was Omri's daughter (not granddaughter, 2 Chron. 22:2). This means that he was twenty-two years old during the fifth year of the reign of Jehoshaphat, which would be the seventh to eighth year of the reign of Ahab, Omri's son. Omri 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, II). After the fourth year he joined affinity with Ahab" (2 Chron. 18:1). And it is at this point (the fifth to sixth year of Jehoshaphat and the eighth to ninth year of Ahab) that Ahaziah (Omri's grandson) is twenty-two 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 at 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 defunk 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 on the throne.

> Ahaziah then is anointed to be king of Judah at twenty-two years of age but fails to sit down on the throne until he is forty~two.

> One should never abandon the King James Text simply because one hundred percent of the "qualified" and "recognized" scholars have sat in judgment against it and given their "qualified opinions" in favor of Satan. If one hundred percent of the "good, godly, dedicated Fundamentalists" don't like the KJV text, they can go sit on a tack.

For example, we can agree with Dr. DeVries, who in his explanation to justify the 42 of 2Ch 22:2 has made a false statement of 2Ch 21:2.

Just another KJVO more concerned with proving his view than believing in the Bible.