Here is one of those things that "at first read look contradicting":

2 Kings 8:26
Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign.


2 Chronicles 22:2
Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign.


Please use your powerful Holy Spirit understanding to tell me why this is not a contradiction.

Here is another reason to believe the Bible. Everything written was by an eye wittness or came from an eye wittness.

2 Chronicles 22:2 agrees with 2 Kings 8:26 in my Bible, Erik.

Check out this info at wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahaziah_of_Judah

I believe that the bible is the word of God with all my heart . But I did not always have this faith . God has answered so many things to me that I have given testimony about them many times in the past two years . God has outrightly gave me the very thing I needed so boldly there was no denying him. Now my faith grows stronger each day!!!!

Over the centuries, there have been more than 5000 manuscripts of the Bible discovered in both Hebrew and Greek. That is more than any other book. And the consistency is remarkable.

A strong indicator:
The transformed life of me and so many around us. 2 Corinthians 3:18 Colossians 2:6-7, 9-10
I went from a skeptic who believed the Bible was fabricated by men and was full of myths to a believer in my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ through the power of the Word of God. Praise His Name. Wasn't yesterday Glorious?

Ah, the "contradictions" always seem to reveal a lack of knowledge about the Bible, language, or style of writing.

I read a LOT of books. I've never come across a book so full of excellent advice. Advice that can benift the believer and unbeliver alike. Every subject is covered. Concepts that we now take for granted because they are so ingrained into our culture and social morality were brand new ideas when the Bible was written, many of them were radical at the time. Things like limited government, freedom of man, seperation of church and government, etc... The list goes on and on.

The historical accuracy of the Bible is unparralleled by any other ancient text.

The words of the Bible seem to speak to my heart. They do that to all of the believers that I know - every one of them. However, some hard-hearted people who reject God seem to be filled with hatred toward God's word. I would expect that reaction.

Sharon- you must not be using a King James Bible. I always use the King James, since it is the least accurate.

Excellent proof of the truth of the Bible and it's Author, who is God Himself, is in prophecy. Who but God could name King Cyrus and tell how he would release the Jewish captives, years before Cyrus was born! That's just one example.

I know that the Bible is the divine Word of God because I can be dealing with an issue in my life and pick up the Bible and ask the Holy Spirit to show me what it is that He wants me to learn or understand. I will open it at random( where the Holy Spirit directs)and begin reading. Without fail, I will in the course of my reading find Godly wisdom, understanding, or an answer to the problem I am dealing with. It may not always be the answer I wanted to hear, but I am always blessed by it in the end. It truly is the Living Word of God and He speaks clearly to us through it.

The Bible makes sense of the world and what we observe, such as the origin of the universe, which evidence shows began as the expansion of energy, matter, space and time out of nothing at a finite point in the past. It makes sense of the incredible fine-tuning of the universe that allowed for it and the planet we inhabit to be life-permitting. It makes sense of the origin of life and its complexity, including the written information contained in the "code" that is DNA, and the little "factories" we now know are in cells that can build a human being or other life form from a single cell based on those instructions. It makes sense of good and evil, and the objective moral grounding that we all recognize, whether or not we choose to live by that. It makes sense of consciousness itself, and the ability for us to communicate our ideas and thoughts. The Bible makes sense of itself -- a written document that has been passed down by a people that have been through no end of trouble, yet remained faithful in the task of transmitting God's word accurately. And that word itself, which contains a consistent message, and has been backed up by prophecy.

WITH EACH TIME I READ THE BIBLE I FIND THAT I SEE THINGS THAT I MISSED OR FIND A NEW UNDERSTANDING OF A PASSAGE THAT GOD WISHES FOR ME TO SEE.THE BIBLE IS A BEAUTIFULLY WRITTEN BOOK AND I THAT GOD FOR IT EACH DAY.

Erik,

These verses agree in my bible. Maybe you were looking in a non-Christian book or bible.

Also, I love you in the name of Jesus.

I hope everyone had a great Easter. It was great day of worship for me.

Scholars judge documents of antiquity to be more trustworthy when more ancient copies of manuscripts are available to review. Two other factors are how close in time the copy is to the original events, and how much disagreement there is among different copies. On all 3 of those measures, the Bible scores better than any other literary atiquity by a wide margin, and should therefore be judged to be most trustworthy.

Erik, still praying for you everyday.

Earl: As I already said above I am using a King James bible. I don't know if you consider that a Christian bible or not.

Erik,

I love you, man! God loves you, too!

WOW! You must have a collector's addition with a misprint. I wonder what it would bring on Ebay?

Earl: care to place a bet on whether I am correct?

I found the difference in the online King James. Beats me why the two books don't agree on the age of Ahaziah, but I suspect there are more important things to worry about. Could be that King Jimmy's writers copied the thing wrong.

Psalm 118:8 "It is better to take refuge in the Lord, than to trust in man." This is the exact middle verse of the Bible. Psalm chapter 117 is the shortest in the Bible; chapter 119 is the longest. There are 594 chapters before Psalm 118:8. There are 594 chapters after Psalm 118:8. 594 + 594 = 1188. No coincidences.

I'm sure that every translation has some grammatical or other slight errors. People painstakingly took their time in translating, but they were human. I feel sure the original hebrew or greek (whatever) said the same thing more than likely. I don't see the problem. It doesn't change the actual events that took place.

Even where the words are clear, each reader of a passage can find different meaning. The same reader can find one meaning when they are 25 and another when they are 50. That's why anyone who reads the Bible without the guidance of the Holy Spirit is vulnerable to error and misunderstanding.

Over the centuries, Bible passages have been mis-used to justify all manner of evil. In fact, one of Satan's favorite "tools" is to quote scripture. He even tried it on our Lord in the wilderness.

I always pray for guidance from the Spirit when I read my many different translations. The fact that there are so many translations by Bible experts is just further testimony to need to read with a prayerful heart.

OK Erik you are too smart for me. I'm going to be frank with you. I'm not going to bet with you and I don't really care about the possible contradiction you have brought up. You are not new or original. You are in a long list of men who have tried to disprove Jesus: Saul of Tarsus, Dr. Samuel Johnson, Alexander Pope, and Josh McDowell. Now you are new guy to add to list. But, be careful Erik. Because you know what happened to these men? They are came away discovering the opposite of what they intended to discover. Dr. Johnson discovered that Saul did have a conversion experience and that he did change he did become the Apostle Paul that preached about Jesus. Saul(Paul), Alexander Pope and Josh McDowell discovered that JESUS IS REAL and that HE DID RISE FROM THE DEAD.

P.S. - What you bring up is a miscalution in math, not a contradiction.

What are you saying, Earl? That God isn't good with math?

Chris Follower- I agree it's just a small little error. It's not really important at all. However let's both agree that contrary to what Bryant says above, the Bible does contain some errors, however small.

Erik sorry, but I'm afraid you misunderstood what I am saying. I am saying that the word of God has been translated many times and unfortunately even in some instances translations that have taken quite a few liberties. I've heard there is one translation that replaces the word He with the word She each time God, Christ, or the Holy Spirit is mentioned. I haven't actually seen it, but what my point is that the King James Version is just that, it's a translation of God's word from the original transcripts by sincere men that for the most part translated it very acurately from what has been observed from the original hebrew and greek. I haven't had time to research further the scriptures you mentioned, but I believe the website esword has the scriptures in hebrew & greek & what the translation should be. Perhaps you can check it out yourself. Don't try to twist my words around like satan would. I am plainly saying the word of God IS accurate & that maybe, just maybe there are minor errors in the King James version and maybe not. I haven't researched it fully enough to know.So do not twist my words to say that I mean in any way that the original word of God is inaccurate and if there are any small errors in the King James version that they in no way affect any event itself or the message of the word which is that God showed His plan throughout the Old Testament to bless all those who would listen & receive with His saving grace through His Son Jesus Christ.Again I'm praying for you EACH and EVERY DAY. Have a good night and God bless

Okay, my son who is much more the bible scholar than I am pointed me to an article in Wikipedia about Ahaziah of Judah. It explains that he took the throne at the age of 42 yrs. of the House of Ahab but was biologically 22yrs old and that sometimes this is mistaken for a copyist error. It goes into more detail which I'm not going to go into, but feel free to look it up on there yourself. I'm not not a biblical scholar by no means and certainly don't claim to be and it doesn't really matter that much to me either way. Like I said you can check it out yourself & you're going to believe what you're going to believe for now anyway. That's the last I'm saying on the subject. God bless

I am convinced the Bible is God's Word because it alone tells us the best way for us to live and only our Creator could know that. His divinely inspired message was recorded by His chosen manner which was through His creation and He has allowed His word to be translated by different groups which reach out by their style and wording to individuals He wants to reach at a particular moment in time. I am so thankful God has given us His word in the Bible. He did not leave us clueless and He gives us the opportunity to follow in His Way or else to depart from Him. Some people read the Bible to find the inconsistencies and others read the Bible to find God's love. It all depends on whether someone has a warm heart toward God or a cold heart. I choose to treasure God's Word in my heart and He blesses me eternally for Jesus says, "Heaven and earth will pass away but My Word will never pass away." (Mark 13:31) God's Word gives value and meaning to life. I can not imagine the emptiness I would feel without the richness of His Word invigorating me and supplying life abundant.

It's accepted that there are copyist errors in the Bible. This does not mean the Bible cannot be inspired or without error in its original form. While we do not have the original copy of each book or letter (known as the autographa), we have many manuscripts that are copies of copies. In fact, there are many more biblical manuscripts than there are for other historical documents that historians take for granted, and they are much closer to the original source material in dating. It would be hard to trust anything from ancient history if we had to be concerned that small details in a copy were exact, and without copyist errors. Furthermore, with the number of biblical manuscripts we have, the documents can be compared, and through that comparison it can be known that nothing of consequence is different as far as doctrine. Where manuscripts do not agree, it is noted in some translations.

As far as the King James Bible, it was published around 1600. There have been many manuscripts found since then, including the Dead Sea Scrolls, which included a copy of the book of Isaiah that was older than any previously known copy, dated 100 to 200 BC. It confirmed the incredible accuracy of the texts we had previously, such as Isaiah 53, that predicts the suffering messiah who would be "despised and rejected by men....pierced for our transgressions,
...crushed for our iniquities..." who would be "oppressed and afflicted" and "led like a lamb to the slaughter". And, who would "justify many by his knowledge." Thank God "he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors."
One more reason I believe the Bible.

Christ Follower- I didn't mean to twist your words. It would take all of about 30 seconds for you to look up the information I've given you though and see that I am right, as others have said above.

RickY- you said it is accepted that there are copyist errors- accepted by whom? Certainly not by Bryant or the SBC who claim the Bible is "without any mixture of error." Why can't they just be as honest as you are and say that there is *almost* no error.
This is what turns people off to Christianity.

Beautifully said, Janice.

Erik,
Sorry I wasn't saying that there wasn't a difference between the the verses you mentioned, just that the wikipedia article seemed to explain that one so I didn't consider those verses to be an error. Again like I said before for me and I think most on this site aren't worried about minor copyist errors since they don't change the main message or event. I'm just saying that as far as I'm concerned there may be some mistakes in different translations or versions of the bible, but not the original. Hopefully I've made myself clearer and regardless I'm not going to go there anymore. God bless

That's a good joke! I like it!
You will have to ask God yourself if it was His miscalculation or just a little fun to see if anyone would notice.

Remember Erik, you are on a dangerous quest. Are you sure you are smarter than God?

Christ Followe: the Wikipedia article did not address the contradiction I cited.

Earl: I agree, truth is a very dangerous quest. It can even get you crucified.

Erik, In believe Bryant would make the same qualification about the Bible--that it is inerrant in its original form, and that the copies we have are accurate in the important doctrinal issues and accounts it presents, as well as in what it affirms as truth.

That is being honest. It would be dishonest for us to say the bible is "almost without error". That is not a true statement of what we believe. However, I can see how someone might misunderstand our position, and think we believe the copies are completely without error. Now that you understand, and since that is what was turning you off to Christianity, I am happy to welcome you on behalf of Jesus Christ and all of his followers.

Erik,
I don't really understand why you said it didn't address your contradiction. It mentioned the difference you noted in both the Kings and Chronicles verses. Anyway, the link is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahaziah_of_Judah Anyway if you would read the entire page including the chronogical notes at the bottom of the page. They were evidently concluding that he took the throne at 42 in the age of the House of Ahab, but was biologically only 22yrs. old. Something about the difference in the calender. Again I'm just quoting what they said & like I said whoever is right about the age difference it still doesn't change the events and message. As far as what you said to Earl, I admit you are right the days are coming where we very may have to give our lives for our faith, but if that is what is required in order to stand for what I know is true and to bring others to the saving grace of God, then so be it. His sacrifice & mercy is more than I deserve or could ever repay and no I don't expect you to understand at this point, but hopefully someday you will. I'm not sure what you'll get out of the wikipedia article, but that's truly all I have to say on the subject, because although we are still basically on the subject of the devotion I don't want to hijack this website with any arguments. Take care & God bless

Christ Follower: I honestly don't see that the wikipedia article addressed this- the chronological details section was addressing a different contradiction. The article mentioned that scholars believe the contradiction to be a copyist's error and that is exactly what I am asserting.

RickY- your answer is the best one. Which is why I know some churches add that extra "in their original manuscripts" bit. But that is very important. Since we do not have and never will have any originals you can make any claim you want about them and it can never be refuted.

This statement that BW makes (because he is a Baptist and essentially has no choice) that the Bible has "no mixture of error" is not the whole truth. I'm sure there are people reading this devotion right now who never knew about the contradiction I pointed out and now they are probably wondering what else they have been told isn't exactly the whole truth.

My Bible says he was 22 in both books. (The New American Bible. They obviously corrected the error for Americans who might get upset about contradictions). Either way, it’s a small error and really, it's not going to make any difference to what my opinion is about the Bible.

My opinion is this: It was clearly written by man. Not only was this book man's first attempt to explain his surroundings, it was also early man's way in which to control people while teaching them a few morals at the same time. Of course you aren’t going to get people to listen to you unless you put the “fear of God” in people, and thus the supernatural element to the whole entire book. So is book the words of a supernatural being? No it is not. Therefore, I couldn't care less what scripture says. (Or the Koran, or any other holy text).

Since faith works outside the bounds of reason, it attempts to find knowledge in unreasonable sources. I think the Bible, and the Koran for that matter, are very ambiguous books that both preach peace and at the same time, violence. And it all depends on what you are looking for when you open the book. It's like any book that you might be reading in that you'll always find something new with any subsequent pass through it. I'm actually re-reading 1984 for the third time, and yet again, I'm thinking about new things. The Bible doesn't have a monopoly over this phenomenon.

If you choose to read the Bible or the Koran literally, you have a charter for barbarism. But if you approach them as the inspirational texts they were doubtless meant to be, then you can access a world of some subtlety and wisdom. But unfortunately too many people prefer dogma to enlightenment. They'd rather use their holy books to re-enforce their own narrow prejudices, and then impose them on everyone else.

For me, this is the most depressing thing about the Holy Scriptures.

Didn't Jesus say, don't pray in public?

JCO I am still praying for you everyday.Having said that though, God will not force you to believe, but hopefully some day your heart & mind will be opened to accept his saving grace through Christ.As far as praying in public He was referring basically to the attitude of the pharisees who prayed publicly to glorify themselves & not God. Jesus himself prayed before others. He just wants us to do whatever good works we do in a way that does not glorify us but instead glorifies Him and to not do it for the praise & adoration of others. I left my last comment to Erik & this is my last one to you on this devotion as to not start a lot of vain disputes. I basically only wanted to remind you of my prayers for you. God bless & goodnight.

Has anybody seen Jerry? Surprised he hasn't commented. I hope he's ok.

Hi Eric,
I am okay thanks for asking,but sometimes I choose to pick my battles. But in reference to the scriptures that you picked out it needs to be understood that the age in 2 Chron, this is not the age of Ahaziah that is spoken of in this verse. He was the age recorded in 2Kings. His Father was forty years old when he died and his Mother was Forty two years old. In the original text it said that-- he was the son of forty two years-- this meant his Mothers age was recorded. He bascially just had the title of king only. The evil that was recorded was attributed to him but in all reality his Grandfathers evil ways was attributed to him. (Matthew Henry's Commentary. Not allways did a persons age or name get entered into the scriptures as we would write it today. I have said many times that we try to understand things in today's culture but we need to understand the customs and culture of that day to better understand what was happening. In that day the most a days journey was, was a few miles but today it can be thousands of miles. See the difference?
Have a blessed evening

I'm glad you are still around, Jerry. Your answers never cease to amaze me.

May the gods bless you as well.

I don't understand WHAT Jerry said...

JCO,
According to the Matthew Henry Commentary the age recorded in II Chronicles was the age of his Mother, she was forty two years old. He had the title of King but everyone did as she said to do. This seemed to be a custom in that day. If that is wrong then he was wrong and I imagine Matthew Henry was smarter than any of us are when it comes to the Bible. This is not my own thoughts but this is what I was able to find. His greatgrandfather was a very evil man and the evil ways seemed to have been handed down to this king also. I hope this sounds better, when I re-read my comment I wondered what I was writing also.