kazadoom said:
bluesinG said:
Still nope. The interpretation offered by the document you are now citing contradicts your previous interpretation. Previously, you argued that Ahaziah was "made king" at the age of 22 years-from-birth but not "confirmed king" until the age of 42 years-from-birth. I offered quotes from 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles to illustrate how that interpretation was not possible. The new document states that, in both 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles, Ahaziah was made and confirmed king at the age of 22 years-from-birth. Before I address this new interpretation, are you now admitting that your original interpretation was incorrect, and that Ahaziah was made and confirmed king at the age of 22 years-from-birth? |
no, I did not offer the second as a new interpretation, but another one. Both of them could be right. I never said that Ahaziah became king right after his father died and there is nothing that says that he had to. There were many times that Israel went without a King for a time. Therefore he could have been confirmed King 12 years after his father's death. I am fine with either because to me both make sense. I have a preconceived notion that the Bible is true and you have one that the Bible is false. Therefore it does not matter what you say or what I say for I do not care what you opinion is neither do you care what mine is. I see no need to continue this. You can believe what you like and try to keep proving the Bible to be wrong, but in the end you will find out sadly that you were the one that was wrong when you stand begore the God of the Bible.
|
I very much see a point to continuing this. You asked for one example of a concrete contradiction in the Bible, I've worked to present one, and we should see it through.
You have presented two interpretations of the Ahaziah issue:
The first (from the 1599 Geneva Bible) assumes that Ahaziah was "made king" (in 2 Kings) at the age of 22 years-from-birth but not "confirmed king" (in 2 Chronicles) until the age of 42 years-from-birth.
The second (from letgodbetrue.com) assumes that Ahaziah was both made and confirmed king at the age of 22-years-from-birth, and that the age of 42 years stated in 2 Chronicles was not Ahaziah's age-from-birth.
These two interpretations cannot both be correct, because Ahaziah could not have been both 22 years-from birth when confirmed king and 42 years-from-birth when confirmed king. So which is it? Was Ahaziah 22 years-from-birth or 42-years-from-birth when he was confirmed king?
