Abihail. Neither can ben, a son, be changed for bath, a daughter.

If the word Mahalath be an appellative, then the Hebrew will literally read-Mahalath ben Jerimoth ben David. i. e. Mahalath a son of Jerimoth a son of David.

It certainly appears in the common version, that Rehoboam took two wives here, viz. Mahalah, and Abihail; it is certain, that he is here said in the Hebrew to have taken only one, and that was Abihail.

The word Mahalath is not an appellative, it means that which is left, a remnant, a relict. See under the radix, chalah, or chalal. The name of this wife of Rehoboam was Abihail of the house of Eliab, the oldest son of Jesse, and she had been a wife of Jerimoth, a son or descendant of David; and consequently the words after her, refer to Abihail. The verse reads-" And Rehoboam took to him a relict of a son of Jerimoth, a son of David, to wife; Abihail, the daughter of Eliab the son of Jesse."

OBJECTION.

“2 Kings i. 7. says that Joram, the son of Ahab king of Israel, began to reign in the second year of Jehoram, the son of Jehoshaphat, king of Judah. The third chapter says it was in the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat.-But ch. viii. 16. is at variance with both these: it is there said, Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, began to reign in the fifth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel. Thus that Joram of Israel began to reign in the second year of Jehoram of Judah; and that Jehoram of Judah began to reign in the fifth year of Joram of Israel."

ANSWER.

We are told by these objectors, "that this is necessarily one of those demonstrations which convicts itself, as being impossible." This seems to be a paradox, nevertheless it was a literal fact as recorded, and the passages are truly translated in the common version.

Jehoshaphat king of Judah, in the 17th year of his reign, having determined to assist the king of Israel against the Syrians, appointed his son Jehoram to govern the kingdom,

in his absence, who continued to govern in conjunction with his father, as it was customary in those times; and in the second year of Jehoram's governing in Judah, the king of Israel died, and Joram, the son of the king of Israel, began to reign over Israel. Now when Joram had reigned five years over Israel, Jehoshaphat, king of Judah died, and Jehoram his son began to reign alone, in the fifth year of Joram of Israel. Consequently it is a truth, that Joram of Israel began to reign in the second year of Jehoram of Judah, and that Jehoram of Judah began to reign in the fifth year of Joram of Israel.

OBJECTION.

"We find a contradiction which no commentator, no translator has hitherto reconciled, and which no man can possibly reconcile. 1 Kings vii. 26. an account is given of the molten sea, where it is said, it held two thousand baths;' but the writer of the 2 Chron. iv. 5. says, 'it received and held three thousand baths.' Can such a book be, with any propriety, called the word of God ?"

ANSWER.

We have often been told, that this and such like passages abound in the Bible, that it is a proof of its deranged state, that it is impious to call it divine, or that any part of it was given by God. We shall find however that such remarks are frequently made in great ignorance of the narratives, even as they stand in the common version; a proof of which we have in the passages under consideration.

I acknowledge it to be as the objectors have stated, that commentators and translators may not have reconciled these passages; but it is presumption to say, as these writers have said, concerning many passages to which they have objected, that they cannot be reconciled; for as I have observed, it is but just to allow that in a work of such magnitude as that of a translation of the Bible, some errors or omissions may have been made. Considering the state of Hebrew literature in the time of King James, it is a wonder that we have the Bible in the state we have it at present. I

am surely of a very opposite opinion to these writers, who, not to mention their total ignorance of the original language in which the Bible is written, have very rarely given themselves time to read and understand the statements as even given by these same translators. And with regard to the passages before us, had the objectors read, and understood the following verse (the 6th) they would never have brought this forward as an objection.

It is said, "it received and held three thousand baths." The reader will observe that the word yaakil, is properly translated by held in this verse, as well as in the corresponding passage in Kings, and which word was applied to the quantity contained in the molten sea, even to the brim, which, as stated in Kings, was two thousand baths. But the writer of the book of Chronicles says, " it received and held three thousand baths ;" and the sacred writer proceeds to inform us how it was that the molten sea received a thousand baths more than is stated by the writer of the book of Kings. He says, that ten lavers of brass were made which were joined to the molten sea," five on the right hand, and five on the left, to wash in them: such things as they offered for burnt-offering, they washed in them; but the sea was for the priests to wash in." Hence it appears, that as the molten sea with its appendages, was for the general purposes of washings, and as it would have been improper for the priests to have washed in the same water in which the offerings were washed, the ten lavers, or external receptacles of water, which were supplied from the sea itself, "received one thousand baths." So that the writer of the book of Kings mentions only the molten sea without the lavers, while the writer, of the book of Chronicles mentions both. Consequently there is nothing objectionable, nothing contradictory in these passages.

1

This mode of expression has also been condemned by objectors, who say, "to hold, and to receive, are the same; if a vessel hold, it must necessarily receive." The word macheazik, is rendered received, but a more proper word might have been chosen. This word means strength throughout the Scripture; see Dan. xi. 6. in the Hiphil conjugation, strengthened her-2 Chron. xxvi. 8. he strength

ened, &c. &c. Hence from strength, it means, in the verses under consideration, to support, to urging, constraining; 2 Kings iv. 8-to helping, relieving; Lev. xxv. 35-to fortifying; Nah. iii. 14. and thus to supplying for to help, support, fortify, relieve, &c. must be to supply. So that the molten sea which was constantly supplied with running water, was the great reservoir in the temple, which supplied the ten lavers, as above. The clause in Chronicles reads critically correct as follows. "It supplied

and contained three thousand baths."

Thus we find that the ancient Hebrews were well acquainted with the measurements of the conductors proper to keep the molten sea constantly full to the brim, and to supply the quantity for the lavers, which water, after the offerings were washed, ran off, and thus the water was kept pure.

"2 Samuel xxi. 19. 'And Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlemite, slew Goliath of Gath.' But in 1 Chron. xx. 5. · And Elhanan the son of Jair, slew Lahmi, the brother of Goliath, the Gittite.' But Goliath the Gittite was slain by David."

ANSWER.

Nevertheless this is true. Neither the writer nor the translators have erred, but the objectors have not, as usual, understood the subject. The word Goliath, means a taker of captives; it was a title given to the sons of that family, when they became in succession, commanders in the army. It would seem equally as contradictory to an Asiatic to read, according to our customs-the Admiral was killed, while another writer said respecting the same circumstance, it was Nelson; as for the writer of Samuel to say, it was Goliath; while the writer of Chronicles says, it was Lahmi, the brother of Goliath.

OBJECTION.

"On the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, the DEIST says;

"But in matters of historical record, neither of those writers are to be depended on. Ezra begins his enrollment ch. ii. 3. and in the 64th verse makes a total, and says 'The whole congregation together was 42,360.' But whoever will take the trouble of casting up the several particulars, will find that the total is but 29,818; so that the error is 12,542.

"Nehemiah in like manner gives a list of the returned families, ch. vii. 8. and in ver. 66. he makes a total, and says, as Ezra had said, the whole congregation together was 42,360.' But the particulars of this list make a total but of 31,089; so that the error here is, 11,271. What certainty then can there be in the Bible for any thing?"

ANSWER.

Opposers who for many ages have brought this objection forward as unquestionable evidence against the Bible, are not the only persons who have supposed that the two books contradict each other. Many learned English commentators, and the theologians of other nations, have been driven to conclude, that on account of the similarity that there is between some of the Hebrew letters, which are used for numerals, the beth might be mistaken for a caph, and thus that a 2 might have been written for 20-the gimel for a nun, or a 3 for 50-the daleth for a resh, or a 4 for 200 -the teth for a mem, or a 9 for 40. And thus that an error must have been committed by transcribers, and have left it involved in greater difficulty than they found it.

These writers have supposed that the numerals in the Hebrew Scriptures are written after the manner of arithmetical figures, as 2, 3, 4, &c.: but it is not so; they are as they always have been, written at full length, as one, two, three, &c. so that such a mistake could not possibly be made. Therefore it is evident that this could not be the reason why there is so great a difference in the numbers given by Ezra and Nehemiah, of those who returned from the captivity. Both Ezra and Nehemiah give the same families, as objectors say, and it appears to them very obvious, that the writers ought to agree in their numbers; we shall however find more truth and exactness than they are aware of.