Inerrancy of the Bible: Jehoachin's age?

Question

In one of the scriptures it states that Jehoachin was 18 when he began to rule, the other states 8. This is not an attempt to nit-pick, it's what appears to me to be something that violates the law of contradictions. Is the bible we have nowadays prone to error in other sections as well? Is it possible that over centuries of time, errors were written into the bible by mere mortals? What happened to the divine guidance in the meantime?
2 Kings 24:8
2 Chronicles 36:9

Answer 1

In 2 Chrionicles a part of the Hebrew number is missing. The mention of Jehoiachin's wives (2 Kin. 24:15) and 2 Kin. 24:8 indicate his correct age to be 18.

Answer 2

The answer is simple. And no, contrary to some of your critics, it is not an error because there are no contradictions in the Bible at all. The problem is that people just assume that what they are reading is a contradiction. But time and time again, the Bible has been proven to be right, while man's opinion has fallen to the ground.

Now, the answer to your question is quite simple. They were two different people. There was one King Jehoachin that ruled in Israel from a very early age (8)and another King who was appointed as King over Israel by King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon when he came in and took over the land. He took all the people as slaves back to Babylon except for just a handful. And over those handful of people left behind, he appointed a young man over them as a Puppet King; therefore it was Nebuchadnezzar who changed his name to Jehoachin.

Hope that straightens out your confusion.

Dr. Larry King, DBS
Professor of Religion,
Emmanuel University

Answer 3

Why not nit-pick? When so many are going around calling the bible the absolute, inspired word of god and telling us it has no errors?

Yes, that is one of many.
Lots more:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html

Answer 4

Indeed. It makes one question the wisdom of relying upon the modern-day translation of the Bible as the sole explanation of God's will in our time. Considering how many different sects of Judaism and Christianity there are, I am forced to conclude that a second witness is necessary if one is to triangulate to the truth of the matter.

Answer 5

There are at least two possible explanations.

According to http://www.lookinguntojesus.net/ata20020728.htm this is answerea as follows:

"Let us look at the passages in question:
2 Chronicles 36:9
Jehoiachin was eight years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months and ten days. And he did evil in the sight of the LORD.
2 Kings 24:8
Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. His mother’s name was Nehushta the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.
Indeed, the texts identify two different ages at which Jehoiachin became king, a difference of 10 years existing between them. A likely explanation for this supposed discrepancy is that he began to reign along side his father at the age of 8, and then took complete control of the throne at the age of 18, reigning from that point onward for approximately 3 months time.
The texts agree on the general length of his reign, 2 Chronicles being more specific that 2 Kings, as it mentions 3 months and 10 days. Of his reign, we are told "...he did evil in the sight of the LORD..." (2 Chronicles 36:9), and again, "...he did evil in the sight of the LORD, according to all that his father had done." (2 Kings 24:9). It is very unlikely that these words are spoken of an 8 year old. However, as his father's apprentice for a 10 year period, no doubt he learned well the wickedness of his father, and repeated the same in his own short reign as king."

The web-site http://www.bible.ca/islam/islam-bible-contradictions-refuted.htm provides another answer.

They say, "Once again there is enough information in the context of these two passages to tell us that 8 is wrong and 18 right. The age of 8 is unusually young to assume governmental leadership. However, there are certain commentators who contend that this can be entirely possible. They maintain that when Jehoiachin was eight years old, his father made him co-regent, so that he could be trained in the responsibilities of leading a kingdom. Jehoiachin then became officially a king at the age of eighteen, upon his father's death.
A more likely scenario, however, is that this is yet another case of scribal error, evidenced commonly with numbers. It may be helpful to interject here that there were three known ways of writing numbers in Hebrew. The earliest, a series of notations used by the Jewish settlers in the 5th century BC Elephantine Papyri (described in more detail below) was followed by a system whereby alphabetical letters were used for numbers. A further system was introduced whereby the spelling out of the numbers in full was prescribed by the guild of so-perim. Fortunately we have a large file of documents in papyrus from these three sources to which we can refer.
As with many of these numerical discrepancies, it is the decade number that varies. It is instructive to observe that the number notations used by the Jewish settlers in the 5th century BC Elephantine Papyri, during the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, from which this passage comes, evidences the earlier form of numerical notation. This consisted of a horizontal stroke ending in a downward hook at its right end to represent the numbers in tens (thus two horizontal strokes one above the other would be 20). Vertical strokes were used to represent anything less than ten. Thus eight would be /III IIII, but eighteen would be /III IIII with the addition of a horizontal line and downward hook above it. Similarly twenty-two would be /I followed by two horizontal hooks, and forty-two would be /I followed by two sets of horizontal hooks (please forgive the deficiencies of my computer; it is not the scholar Dr. Archer is).
If, then, the primary manuscript from which a copy was being carried out was blurred or smudged, one or more of the decadal notations could be missed by the copyist. It is far less likely that the copyist would have mistakenly seen an extra ten stroke that was not present in his original then that he would have failed to observe one that had been smudged.
In the New International Version (NIV) of the Bible, the corrections have been included in the texts. However, for clarity, footnotes at the bottom of the page mention that earlier Hebrew MSS include the scribal error, while the Septuagint MSS and Syriac as well as one Hebrew MSS include the correct numerals. It only makes sense to correct the numerals once the scribal error has been noted. This, however, in no way negates the authenticity nor the authority of the scriptures which we have.
Confirmation of this type of copyist error is found in various pagan writers as well. For example in the Behistun rock inscription set up by Darius 1, we find that number 38 gives the figure for the slain of the army of Frada as 55,243, with 6,572 prisoners, according to the Babylonian column. Copies of this inscription found in Babylon itself, records the number of prisoners as 6,973. However in the Aramaic translation of this inscription discovered at the Elephantine in Egypt, the number of prisoners was only 6,972.
Similarly in number 31 of the same inscription, the Babylonian column gives 2,045 as the number of slain in the rebellious army of Frawartish, along with 1,558 prisoners, whereas the Aramaic copy has over 1,575 as the prisoner count."

I don't know which is the more accurate, or if another explanation is true, but this shows there are ways this verse can be reconciled.

Answer 6

the guidance comes from God direct to us the bible is only a tool.

Answer 7

yup

Answer 8

yes.