Bible homework: Was Rehoboam a good king, or bad king??

Answer 1

During the reign of Solomon’s son Rehoboam, the nation was split into two kingdoms. The first king of the northern, ten-tribe kingdom, generally spoken of as Israel, was Jeroboam the son of Nebat of the tribe of Ephraim. (1Ki 11:26; 12:20) Disobediently he turned the worship of his people to golden calves. For this sin he came under Jehovah’s disfavor. (1Ki 14:10, 16) A total of 20 kings ruled in the northern kingdom from 997 to 740 B.C.E., beginning with Jeroboam and ending with Hoshea the son of Elah. In the southern kingdom, Judah, 19 kings reigned from 997 to 607 B.C.E., beginning with Rehoboam and ending with Zedekiah. (Athaliah, a usurper of the throne and not a king, is not counted.)

Answer 2

King Rehoboam

Answer 3

Rehoboam was a very very bad king

Answer 4

One person replied: "The KJV is a word-for-word translation of the original manuscripts. That makes it a bit clunky at times. " Absolutely NOT true. In fact, the KJV is probably the very most inaccurate of all popular translations. What part of the problem is,is that the KJV is a translation of the old Latin version which itself a translation from the Greek and Hebrew. What they did not have at that time were all the different old manuscripts that they have today. Also the translations today are also done with better scholarship. Furthermore, many additions and even changes had crept into the Bible over the centuries. Just a few examples, the following verses (for example) have been ADDED and did not exist in the very earliest manuscripts: John 5:4, Luke 22: 20, Luke 22: 44, Luke 16: 17-18, Luke Luke 24: 12, Luke 24:51, 1 John 5: 7, John 8: 7, John 8: 11, and a very famous one: "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against you." The word "rock" here is a play on the word "Peter" However this could not possibly have been the case in the original Aramaic, the language of the Apostles! The last problem is that people today deliberately mislead people by translations they WANT to see, rather then what is there. I will give just two of very many examples: There is one very famous verse which the KJV has as: "peace on earth, good will towards men." The problem here is that In the Latin version from which the KJV is translated from CAN be translated this way. It also can be translated: "Peace on earth to men of good will." Which is correct? IF we go back to the original Greek, we discover that "Peace on earth to men of good will." is the correct translation. Another good example is Colossians 3:22. The KJV translates it as "Servants obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart fearing." The much more accurate version is this: "Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything, not only while being watched in order to please them, but with a sincere heart, fearing the Lord." (Colossians 3:22) Another big problem is making the translations have concept in it which DID NOT EXIST when the Bible was originally written. IF you see a translation with the word "homosexual" in it, it can not be accurate since the very concept did not exist back then. Also if you see a translation like: "it is unnatural" be very careful. In almost ALL instances it would be more properly translated as "it is not the norm," a subtle but important distinction. And these are is only a few of thousands of inaccuracies in the KJV. (And even other translations) Instead of asking people who really don't know much about translations, please go to the actual Biblical scholars who have spent their entire lives translating the Bible. I also contend that those most adamant about using the KJV is fear. Fear that what they have come to so firmly believe to be true is in fact NOT true but based on faulty translation and faulty interpretation.

Answer 5

I had this last year, I am fairly confident that Rehoboam was a bad king. Hope you do well! :-)

Answer 6

He was a bad King because he split the nation of Israel, and he refused the good advice of some of his older councillors. But the 10 tribes that left were not harmed by him, because he obeyed God and left them alone. So, that was a good thing. One bad thing was, he allowed idol worship. So , I guess you could say he was a mixed bag of tricks.

Answer 7

He wasn't necessarily a bad king, just stupid. I guess you could say he was bad because of that.

Answer 8

He was an ugly king

Answer 9

It would depend on how you look at it. His father overtaxed the people and he had to deal with it. Most of the people he wared with were enemies his father created.

So the choice is how you look at history.

Answer 10

bad