That "error", as you call it, is a common belief among Jewish and Christian denominations. Several examples were cited upthread: the Catholic church believes it happens at the end of your seventh year (this is explicitly stated in canon law); the Mormons believe it's age 8;

Indeed, many Christian churches do treat it as a universal, set-in-stone age. They are wrong. An error is an error, regardless of who is making it. I believe 8 years of age is generally accurate, a belief which is based on my own observations of myself and my four younger siblings as they grew up and matured. (The LDS Church, as least, treats 8 as a general guideline, not a set-in-stone rule.)

At any rate, you claimed that the verse you quoted flat-out contradicts the idea of an age of accountability, which is simply untrue. It merely disagrees with you about when a person might reach that age, so unless you're a seasoned developmental psychologist, I hope you'll forgive me for not giving your opinion much weight on that issue.

Perhaps an illustration will suffice. When I was five, I stole a pack of gum from a local grocery store. I was certainly aware that stealing is wrong, because once home I hid the stolen gum and did not reveal the theft to my parents. A child who does not know stealing is wrong would have no reason to hide the theft.

Interesting point, Dan. On the other hand, it's not just children who are capable of this. As any pet owner will tell you, dogs and cats will also sometimes act in ways that apparently show consciousness of guilt. If you came home to find your garbage can knocked over and its contents spewed all over the floor, and your dog whimpering and cringing in the corner or hiding under the bed, would you conclude that your dog understood the difference between right and wrong?

My contention is that children at a very young age (as well as pets) can understand the concept of punishment - stage 1 of Kohlberg's stages of moral development - and desire to avoid it. That would be sufficient to explain why you hid the gum from your parents. But that's not the same thing as having the reasoned, reflective understanding of morality that makes a person into a moral agent who can truly be credited or blamed for their actions. That understanding may indeed develop at different ages in different people, but eight years old is far too early for anyone to possess it.

More specifically, you've made the error of assuming that if there is an age of accountability, it must be a universal constant age that is applied to all people without exception.

That "error", as you call it, is a common belief among Jewish and Christian denominations. Several examples were cited upthread: the Catholic church believes it happens at the end of your seventh year (this is explicitly stated in canon law); the Mormons believe it's age 8; while most evangelical churches as well as Judaism (i.e., bar/bat mitzvah) believe that it's 12 or 13, the onset of puberty. If you think this uniformity is unreasonable, perhaps you should take it up with your fellow theists, rather than blaming me for accurately reporting a commonly held belief.

I do not dispute that the age of accountability is a good idea. It is indeed rational not to hold children to the same moral standard as adults. They have not yet reached that level of intellectual and moral development, and implying that they bear the same culpability or merit the same punishment as an adult is a cruel and monstrous idea. But despite its cruelty, this idea is implied by the Bible.

The verse you quote implies nothing of the sort.

You're assuming that because the bible mentions an 8-year-old that did evil, the bible must therefore completely contradict the idea of an age of accountability. In fact, it really only shows that either the age of accountability is less than 8, or Jehoiachin reached his age of accountability at that age.

More specifically, you've made the error of assuming that if there is an age of accountability, it must be a universal constant age that is applied to all people without exception. Even a cursory examination of psychological development should show why that is flawed. Different people develop at different rates. Different people learn how to distinguish between right and wrong at different points in their growth. A God who claims to judge us for our works would obviously take that into account. (And please don't pretend that Christians can only believe something if it is explicitly stated in the Bible.)

I contend that the verse you quoted is fully compatible with this idea.

How can an eight-year-old child do evil?

Perhaps an illustration will suffice. When I was five, I stole a pack of gum from a local grocery store. I was certainly aware that stealing is wrong, because once home I hid the stolen gum and did not reveal the theft to my parents. A child who does not know stealing is wrong would have no reason to hide the theft.

Is it your contention that I could not have known stealing was wrong? If you admit that I could have known stealing was wrong at age five, then you must also admit that it is possible for an eight-year-old to know the difference between right and wrong.

Is it wrong for a parent to hold a child accountable for doing something wrong, when the parent is sure the child knew it was wrong? If not, then why would it be wrong for God to do the same thing?

There are believers who identify as fundamentalists who accept that some minor copying errors do occur. I predict that their reaction would be that Jehoiachin was obviously either 8 or 18 and someone dropped (or added) a digit -- and would point out that the Holy Spirit made sure that The Truth was preserved - after all, the number was passed on correctly once. They might also point out that the actual age doesn't have bearing on any doctrinal questions. (There are entire sermons missing from some manusripts; surely the age of some minor king (no pun intended) is no big deal.)

As an atheist, I don't believe the doctrine in question, but I do still believe that it is a reasonable doctrine to hold, if one believes the Bible. No, it's not spelled out plainly, but it's hinted at enough (e.g. some statements by Jesus about little children and the Kingdom of God.) What should we think about Jehoiachin? If he was indeed 8, what does it matter that he did "that which is evil." The Bible (as far as I know) doesn't say that Jehoiachin went to hell.

When I was a believer, my understanding differed from what Ebon described above - on at least two points. First, there never was any set age of accountability; that it varied from child to child. Second, the test was not whether the child could sin or was tainted by Adam's sin, but whether they could understand the plan of salvation and accept Christ as their savior.

We may find these beliefs silly, false, or even dangerous, but I don't see why Jehoiachin is dragged into it as at all relevant.

By the way, when I considered myself a fundamentalist, I also believed that there was another kind of progressive accountability. In contrast to what Dave said, I believed that all would be "without excuse", and that everybody would have (at least one) chance to accept Christ as saviour. This includes people who live in some far off place where nobody knows the name Jesus.

I think it's true what Christopher posted -- that it's meant to make things more palatable, but even so, what's a believer supposed to do from a practical point of view? They don't have to make a firm decision about whether the doctrine is true, since either way, the goal will be to teach their children and have them make a "decision for Christ" as soon as possible.

I think the problem is general bible illiteracy by the various denominations. The modern fundamentalists movement falls in this category. They believe some very different things than the fundamentalist protestants in the reformation. This does not mean the bible speaks more than one thing when literally read. It means that someone is mistaken in what it actually says. Or flat out making things up, as is the case here.

Next, you can't argue the book isn't divine based on beliefs that don't come from it (or should). You assume that judgment is cruel without mentioning the reason, original sin which I believe is in the bible. You should address that not age of accountability, a belief that has not been historically held by the church.

The series' creators were asked about that here.

Ponder, which one's right? 8 years old? 18 years old?

According to a footnote in the NIV, one Hebrew manuscript and some later Greek manuscripts give Jehoiachin's age in Chronicles as 18, in line with Kings. Most Hebrew manuscripts, on the other hand, assert that he was 8, in contradiction with Kings. Most likely there was one scribe who noticed the discrepancy and was bothered enough to "correct" it, while most of them just happily copied the contradiction.

So in which parts of the supposed inerrant bible can I just make shit up and which parts are set in stone?

An easy question! The answer, as I have determined from observing Christian apologists, is that if you are one of the ones who believe in the Bible's inerrancy, you are apparently free to invent and add on to scripture to your heart's content. If you do not believe this, however, you place your eternal soul in dire peril by adding even one jot or tittle to the text. It's a very flexible standard that frees up fundamentalist Christians to obsess over many things that really are never even mentioned in the Bible.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, which you quoted earlier, the age of reason (i.e., age of accountability) is generally seven years, so saying an eight-year-old did evil doesn't contradict this belief.

The Catholic view on this matter is not definitive, of course. Most Christians believe it is not a fixed age but varies from person to person although, as I maintain, the idea of an eight-year-old bearing the moral responsibility of an adult strains all credulity. Evangelical Christian denominations often believe the age of accountability is around 12 or 13, for example, here and here.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01209a.htm

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.

Of course, the actual text says nothing of the sort. So in which parts of the supposed inerrant bible can I just make shit up and which parts are set in stone?

And again here they are making stuff up:

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.

There is no contradiction.

Yeah, right. There is no contradiction. Especially if you make the shit up as you go along.

BTW: I love the SAB version of the bible too. It doesn't outline all the contradictions and absurdities in this Bronze-Age relic, but it's a good starting point.