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.

Ponder, which one's right? 8 years old? 18 years old? SAB, I love you.