Open letter to Christians

[Nihilist Virus]

Then the Bible, by definition, does not exist.  The books that were written by the authors you are presumably referring to no longer physically exist, nor are there accurate replicas.

So you concede the argument then?  If something doesn't exist then it can't have contradictions.  Is this the kind of foolishness you would like us to converse in?

If you are citing the point in question as an example for your case, then I can only take this as an indication that you are no longer interested in serious debate - presuming, of course, that you ever were.

 
Back to your cheap debate tactics again?  Do you find it necessary to undermine a person's intellectual integrity with speculation?  You asked for a Biblical example of Jewish genealogy that is not chronological.  I provided one.  You reject it.

The point here is simple, your criteria puts you in an illogical position.  1 Chronicles 3:15 gives a list of sons.  2 Kings gives a chronology of those sons.  The list in 1 Chronicles 3:15 is in a different order than the chronological order of the sons (from 2 Kings).  Let's say I provided you a list of sons in one passage of scripture and a chronology of those sons in another passage of scripture.  Let's say the order of the chronology doesn't match the list.  Why wouldn't you claim another contradiction?  This would be logically consistent with your position.  Why would two 'contradictions' change your mind to think that neither one is a contradiction?  The criteria that you are asking for is exactly the same criteria I am providing to assert that 1 Chronicles 3:15 is not a chronological list.  If you don't accept my reasoning in our current example you cannot remain logically consistent to accept the second example as proof that either list isn't in chronological order.  This is why the criteria should be an examination of your presupposition, namely that a list of genealogy is necessarily chronological.      

You didn't abandon your proposal, but you stopped discussing it and have chosen to offer a different one?  It seems your semantic gymnastics are lacking on this one, chap.

And again the condescension intended to taint my intellectual integrity.  The reason I did this is clearly stated in post #48.  I'll copy it here.

---

Assuming my premise undermines your initial argument.  If you are assuming they were listed in order of importance then they are not [necessarily] listed in order of birth.  So our argument has changed from determining the truth value of the premise "they are listed in order of birth" to "they are listed in order of importance".  These are not mutually exclusive claims.  Therefore, proving the second one false does not prove the first one true.  Claiming it does, as you have, is illogical.

The premise of the argument is that the order in 1 Chronicles 3:15 is not the birth order but rather some other order (here I proposed listed as the first physically born first, and then by order of importance relative to Israel).  The historical context of the Jewish culture is that only the first born was noteworthy as [generally] the first born physically because they had the birth right.  The Jews were very loose with how they listed genealogies.  This is the premise you need to engage to refute the argument because it is essential to your argument.  If the order in 1 Chronicles 3:15 isn't chronological then this verse isn't saying that Shallum is the younger brother of Zedekiah.  Attacking the premise that they were listed in order of importance to Israel is irrelevant to the foundation of the argument as explained above.

---

 
Furthermore it is entirely reasonable within an exchange of ideas to abandon a weaker line of reasoning to a stronger one so long as the argument doesn't change.

Also, what is the alternative that you offered?  I did not see it.

The list is one of heredity.

We represent their ages with numbers.  Let n represent Zedekiah's age and m represent Shallum's age.  According to 1 Chronicles 3:15, n>m.

No, you've begged the question.  You've assumed the list is given chronologically in order to prove the list is chronological in order to prove a violation of the law of non-contradiction.  You have yet to prove that the propositional statement:  "the third Zedekiah, and the fourth Shallum" is synonymous with "Shallum is younger than Zedekiah."  It is factual that the brother's are listed.  The criteria by which the brother's are listed isn't explicit.

So you concede the argument then?  If something doesn't exist then it can't have contradictions.  Is this the kind of foolishness you would like us to converse in?

I concede nothing because I don't agree with your half-baked definition. I was already too lenient on you before.  As you defined it, a Bible is ANY "collection of 66 books written by about 40 authors, in three different languages, on three different continents, and over approximately 1,600 years."  I can include Shakespeare and unicycle assembly instructions so long as I meet your criteria.  If you are going to grill me on what a contradiction is and then demonstrate that you've given no thought to the definition of what I can only assume is the most important book on earth in your eyes, then I cannot help but perceive you as a clown.

Also, the Bible is not 66 books because 1 Samuel through 2 Kings is one book.

Back to your cheap debate tactics again?  Do you find it necessary to undermine a person's intellectual integrity with speculation?  You asked for a Biblical example of Jewish genealogy that is not chronological.  I provided one.  You reject it.

The point here is simple, your criteria puts you in an illogical position.  1 Chronicles 3:15 gives a list of sons.  2 Kings gives a chronology of those sons.  The list in 1 Chronicles 3:15 is in a different order than the chronological order of the sons (from 2 Kings)...


...You have yet to prove that the propositional statement:  "the third Zedekiah, and the fourth Shallum" is synonymous with "Shallum is younger than Zedekiah."  It is factual that the brother's are listed.  The criteria by which the brother's are listed isn't explicit.

It seems you will be satisfied that a contradiction exists so long as I can prove that 1 Chronicles 3:15 lists the sons in chronological order.

The ISV says,

Josiah’s descendants included Johanan his firstborn, his second born Jehoiakim, his third born Zedekiah, and his fourth born Shallum.

Here is a link provided for your convenience:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=ISV