CONTRADICTIONS IN THE KING JAMES VERSION?
Are there errors and contradictions in the KJV bible?
But now before dealing with any of the examples of ‘supposed errors’ that you cite, I want to say a few things about the overall issue of there being a number of differences between what is recorded in the Samuel/Kings account of things in Israel’s history and what is recorded in the Chronicles account of that same time. For some times folks fail to realize that they should actually expect differences to exist between the two accounts. Not because they are the result of ‘legitimate scribal errors,’ or anything like that. But because they are two purposely different accounts. So first of all it is important to realize and understand that there are reasons why God has two separate historical accounts of the time in Israel’s history that generally runs from the time David was given the throne to the time when Israel was removed from the land. The Samuel/Kings account and the Chronicles account are not simply duplicate accounts, nor are they supposed to be looked at as such, or treated as if they are duplicate accounts. God was not being redundant in having two accounts of the same time kept and recorded. Instead God had definite reasons for having two separate and sometimes differing accounts written, and as such they are especially designed to be complimentary accounts, with the information of both accounts being necessary in order to fully understand and appreciate the things that were going on during that time. In fact the two accounts look at the same period of time in Israel’s history from two separate and different perspectives, seeing that one is more or less purely historical, while the other is not.
Now this issue of a period of history being looked at and described from two different perspectives, or in two different ways, is the main issue that needs to be recognized and taken into account when it comes to dealing with the differences that you cite. Especially, for example, when we find differences in the ages of kings when they began to reign, or differences in the duration of their reigns, such as in what II Kings 24:8 says about Jehoiachin’s reign when compared with what II Chronicles 36:9 says about it. Moreover there is also the need to pay close attention to exactly what is recorded in the immediate, near, and remote contexts of each statement. For their respective contexts supply pertinent information that has a direct bearing upon why one account will say one thing and the other something else, even when they are both dealing with the exact same subject.
Therefore, (and to put it very simply), what needs to be understood first and foremost is that the Samuel/Kings account and the Chronicles account are deliberately separate and different accounts; and God has designed them to be so. The Samuel/Kings account comes first, with it being more or less purely historical in its rendering and reckoning, as it follows the arrival of, and development of, the contracted Courses of Punishment of the Law in Israel’s history. However the Chronicles account views the history and its events from the Divine viewpoint, and as such provides a particular and special type of commentary to the history that is significant in a number of ways. In view of this it makes sense for the Chronicles account to differ in some of its recorded details, seeing that God both can and does reckon time, generations, royal lines, and the like, differently than man does; especially if man is either ignoring or unable to reckon things as God does, and is therefore handicapped when it comes to perceiving things properly from God’s perspective. (In fact this is even true in the secular historic records of other nations down through time. The religious records and the civil records will often differ in what they say in their record-keeping, but not because one is wrong, or both are wrong; but because the two perspectives are different, and as such they sometimes use different criterion upon which they base how they keep track of time, or how they determine a ruler’s length of reigning, or how they describe a war’s duration, or an enemy’s siege, and other such things. In fact in records of royalty there can be differences between what can be called a ruler’s ‘royal age’ and his actual ‘physical or chronological age.’)
So first of all it is important to understand that since God has two separate and distinct records of this time in Israel’s history, differences are not only going to exist between the two accounts, but differences are supposed to exist. This is the main reason for having the two accounts in the first place. The differences exist for a reason, and they are designed to be complimentary. Furthermore the amount of information and the kind of information that is contained within the context of one account also has a direct bearing upon the kind of statement that the account will make. This is particularly true, for example, when dealing with a king and how long he reigned, or when it was that he began to reign; like Jehoiachin. Needless to say, therefore, it can require a patient and careful detailed examination of all of the recorded details in each account to begin to come to grips with all that was going on at a particular time in Israel’s history and to realize the effects of it all. Add to this the other reasons that God has for having two separate and distinct accounts of the ‘kingdom-time’ in His nation’s history, and it should be clear that differences in the accounts are going to exist. But they are not going to exist because of careless record-keeping, scribal errors, or anything like that. Instead differences are going to exist because the two distinct accounts serve two distinct purposes in God’s testimony, which requires at times differing (not contradictory at all, but actually complimentary) information to be presented, and differing systems of reckoning being used.
So then the problem of ‘supposed errors’ only exist if someone mistakenly assumes (1) that the two accounts are supposed to be identical; (2) that the situations in Samaria and Judah at the times in view could not produce reasons for needing to talk about a certain king’s reigning with respect to two different ages or periods of duration; and (3) that God does not have a significant reason for having two distinct accounts of the ‘kingdom-time’ in Israel’s program and history that might make it so that He wants certain rulers to have their periods of reigning looked at from two different perspectives. When these kinds of mistaken assumptions are not made, then the very idea of there being contradictions or problems in the two accounts can begin to vanish away. And then real understanding and edification about this time in Israel’s history and program can start taking place. And, by the way, not all of these ‘supposed errors’ are KJV problems at all. Many of them exist in all Bibles.
With all of this said, let’s look at two of the four examples you cited.
2Ki 8:25 In the twelfth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel did Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah begin to reign.
2Ki 8:26 Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.
2Ki 8:27 And he walked in the way of the house of Ahab, and did evil in the sight of the LORD, as did the house of Ahab: for he was the son in law of the house of Ahab.
Re: II Kings 8:26 compared with II Chronicles 22:2 — As I indicated earlier, the resolution to the ‘supposed problem’ here involves a very close and detailed examination of the people, events, and things that have been set forth, related, and described in the historical record (of both I and II Kings, and I and II Chronicles) leading up to the time of Ahaziah and also during his time. And as the accounts set forth, there is much complexity to what was going on in both Samaria and Judah, even to the point of Jehoshophat king of Judah ‘joining affinity’ with Ahab king of Israel, and Jehoshophat ending up being called “king of Israel” when he was the king of Judah. As even a cursory reading of the accounts show, there was a great deal of intrigue, collusion, plotting, subverting, and the like going on, with heirs being murdered, fathers and sons reigning at the same time, dying or dead sons replaced with others, etc. Needless to say, it takes a patient and careful detailed examination of the recorded details to begin to come to grips with all that was going on at this time and the effects of it all. Add to all of this the various reasons that God has for having two separate and distinct accounts of the ‘kingdom-time’ in His nation’s history, and it should be clear that if there is going to be a difference in the record-keeping of any ruler’s reign during this time in Israel’s history, then it is going to be the case with Ahaziah. But once again not because of careless record-keeping, scribal errors, or anything like that.
2Ch 22:2 Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.
2Ch 22:3 He also walked in the ways of the house of Ahab: for his mother was his counsellor to do wickedly.
2Ch 22:4 Wherefore he did evil in the sight of the LORD like the house of Ahab: for they were his counsellors after the death of his father to his destruction.
But because the two distinct accounts serve two distinct purposes in God’s testimony, which requires at times differing, (not contradictory at all, but actually complimentary), information to be presented, and differing systems of reckoning being used. To put it very briefly, my understanding of the reason for the differing ages of Ahaziah in the two accounts has to do with a precisely accurate accounting of the reigning in view of all the royal turmoil that is related in the two accounts. And in view of all that had taken place, it is necessary for both ages to be taken into account in order to understand exactly what happened at this time in Israel’s rapidly deteriorating history. Hence the truth of the record of both ages allow for two possibilities. First it allows for the possibility that Ahaziah had begun his reign in principle, so to speak, at the earlier age by right of ascendancy; but that he had not begun it in actuality, or legally, until the later age. This is the case with other ‘supposed discrepancies,’ and this is also commonly the reason why we also find differing ages being given for a ruler’s reigning in the records of many other nations down through history. Often times a ruler has the right to begin his reign in principle at a certain age, either by right of ascendancy, or by pronouncement by the former monarch; but then he is not spoken about as actually reigning on his own as the sovereign, until a later time when it is legally conferred upon him, etc.
However a close examination of all that was going on leading up to the time of Ahaziah tends to indicate that this is not the exact reason for the difference when it comes to Ahaziah. In fact the information about his mother, (not only in the two verses in question, but also in the contexts of both verses), indicates something else. Simply put, as the presence of the word “also” indicates in the II Chronicles 22:2 statement regarding his mother’s name, the original Ahaziah was probably replaced with another of his mother’s sons; and in so doing he bore the same name, or was given the same name, as is not uncommonly done in royal lines, especially when there is a challenge to the right of ascendancy. What’s more, the royal turmoil, as I call it, at this time in Israel’s history certainly allows for this.
2Ki 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.
2Ki 24:9 And he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD, according to all that his father had done.
Re: II Kings 24:8 compared with II Chronicles 36:9 — This ‘apparent contradiction’ is easily resolved by what I just mentioned could have been the case with Ahaziah. For the context of these verses, plus another testimony later on, makes it evident that God recognizes both a king and a queen at this time. Wherefore there is a need to discriminate between ruling by heirship and ruling as sovereign. Since later on Jeremiah is dealing with a king and a queen when Nebuchadnezzar gets ready to come into the land, as is described in Jeremiah 13:18; and seeing that Jehoiachin’s mother is particularly spoken about in II Chronicles, not only in 36:9 but also among those who go out with the royalty when Nebuchadnezzar finally comes; my understanding is that she is the “queen” who co-reigned with him, and would naturally do so if she either considered him too young, or she herself wanted to reign, when he became active heir to the throne. My understanding is that he became active heir when he was eight, as II Chronicles declares; co-reigned with his mother as queen until he was eighteen; and then reigned on his own for the short span of time related in the verses. Actually it is also interesting to note that the Chronicles account has an additional 10 days to his reign in Jerusalem.
2Ch 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.
Obviously not just a copyist’s oversight, or some other scribal glitch, that someone wants to say is the reason for the many differences in the Kings and Chronicles accounts.
Once again what people need to understand is that in view of the Divine viewpoint and commentary that the Chronicle accounts are designed to supply, (with the Kings accounts being more or less purely historical as they follow the courses of punishment), it only makes sense for the Chronicle accounts to differ in details, seeing that God often reckons time, generations, royal lines, and the like, differently than man does. Especially is this so in Jehoiachin’s case in view of Judah’s earlier good king Josiah, who also had a reputation at both age “eight” and “eighteen.” But Josiah’s record and reputation were for righteousness, not evil. And in connection with this. God is making the contrast plain and clear as part of His Divine commentary.
Re: II Samuel 8:4 compared with I Chronicles 18:4
2Sa 8:4 And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven hundred horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: and David houghed all the chariot horses, but reserved of them for an hundred chariots.
It is my understanding that the difference between the 700 horsemen and the 7000 horsemen is attributed to the fact that the Chronicles account is taking into account the total number of horsemen that David took from Hadadezer after David had dealt with Hadadezer’s complete exploits at the Euphrates river. And the reason why I say Hadadezer’s “complete exploits” is because there is a notable difference between what II Samuel 8:3 says that Hadadezer was doing “at the river Euphrates” and what Chronicles 18:3 says that he was doing there. As II Samuel says, he “went to recover his border at the river Euphrates”; but in I Chronicles it says that he “went to stablish his dominion by the river Euphrates.” The difference may not seem that great, but militarily-speaking it can be descriptive of two aspects of a campaign, with the I Chronicles account describing the total result after the two aspects of Hadadezer’s campaign had been successfully dealt with by David.
1Ch 18:4 And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven thousand horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: David also houghed all the chariot horses, but reserved of them an hundred chariots.
The first aspect of Hadadezer’s campaign was to attempt “to recover his border at the river Euphrates,” which is what II Samuel specifically records. And this naturally would have been the major aspect of his campaign, which would have been brought to a halt, so to speak, when David “smote” him and took from him “a thousand chariots, and seven hundred horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen.” But that would not have been all of Hadadezer’s army, for militarily-speaking he would have had troops in reserve for various purposes, including mounting another offensive if things went bad. And, of course, things did go bad for him. Wherefore based upon what I Chronicles 18:3 says about him attempting to “stablish his dominion,” his campaign included mounting another offensive. And that additional offensive involved sending in a great number of “horsemen” by which he hoped to “stablish his dominion” after having lost it to David in the first offensive. But this attempt also failed, with an additional 6300 “horsemen” being taken by David, seeing that I Chronicles now says that “seven thousand horsemen” were taken by David. As I pointed out at the beginning of the last email, often times the Chronicles account is complimentary to the Samuel/Kings account, (and God designed it to be so), as it supplies additional or further information in a number of different ways and for a number of different reasons; and thereby it provides for the full reckoning, so to speak, of things during this particular time in Israel’s history. And this is an example of this ‘complimentary’ information.
Re: II Samuel 10:18 compared with I Chronicles 19:18
2Sa 10:18 And the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew the men of seven hundred chariots of the Syrians, and forty thousand horsemen, and smote Shobach the captain of their host, who died there.
‘Complimentary’ information is also involved in explaining the reason why these two verses differ in their reckoning, but there is also the issue of a common false assumption that causes people to think that there is an error here. First note the common false assumption. In II Samuel it says that “David slew the men of seven hundred chariots of the Syrians,” while in I Chronicles it says that “David slew of the Syrians seven thousand men which fought in chariots.” The assumption is that there was only one man per chariot, therefore there should only be seven hundred men slain. But that is a false assumption, which is not only borne out by the testimony of the Scriptures in other places, but by secular history itself. The militaries of many nations using chariots typically had several men per chariot, including 10 men per chariot, and some times even more. In fact later on we are told that Solomon’s armies had ten horses assigned to each of the chariots, which indicates that he used the 10 men per chariot system.
1Ch 19:18 But the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew of the Syrians seven thousand men which fought in chariots, and forty thousand footmen, and killed Shophach the captain of the host.
So with the false assumption of one man per chariot dismissed, it is easy to that when II Samuel says that “David slew the men of seven hundred chariots” that this does not tell us exactly how many men were slain. It just says that all the men who were associated with those 700 chariots were slain. However the Chronicles account does relate the number of the chariot men who were slain, for it says that “David slew of the Syrians seven thousand men which fought in chariots.” So as was commonly the case, the Syrians had several men assigned to each chariot. And since David slew 7000 of the men who fought in chariots, and there were 700 chariots, then there were 10 men per chariot. And with this, once again, the Chronicles account ‘compliments’ the Samuel/Kings account. And the same is true with respect to the “forty thousand horsemen” of II Samuel, and the “forty thousand footmen” of I Chronicles. This too is designed to be taken as ‘complimentary,’ as the surrounding context to each verse shows. For example, as II Samuel 10: relates, the children of Ammon “hired” certain Syrian “footmen” and other men for the battle. But as I Chronicles 19:6–7 also relate, the children of Ammon also sent and hired “chariots and horsemen” from Syria, as well as from other places.
So then when it comes to tallying up the full account of the battle, so to speak, there is the need between both accounts to deal with both the “horsemen” and the “footmen.” And this is what both accounts do when they are allowed to complement each other and thereby supply the full reckoning. Once again none of these ‘supposed errors’ are errors at all, and neither are any of the others that are commonly cited by people who think that there are errors in the Bible. More times than not their thinking is based upon ignorance and false assumptions.
Keith Blades
Enjoy The Bible Ministries