Open letter to Christians

[drfuzzy]

He has an autographed, personally signed copy.  GAWD told me that he wrote the book personally, and my mommy and daddy told me so too!!! The book is HOLY.  The book is SPECIAL!!  And so am I, and all of you who don't agree are big poopy-heads. 
The canon of God.  It's the ultimate canon of bullshit.

Two questions.  First, why are you lying?  Second, what did you think Christians meant by the terms 'the word of God' and 'revelation?'

 

---

  #1   
The canon of God.
You follow up your applaudable exegesis with this.  Like you stuck the landing and then tripped during your walk off the mat.
Good thing there's no deductions for that.
See, if you define the Bible as the canon of God, you are not eliminating the Koran, the book of Mormon, and etc.  Perhaps you also hold these dear, and your gymnastics in their defense are equally or even more bizarre. But I don't think you intended for those things to be in your canon.  Even if you want to say that Allah is not Jehovah, I don't see how you exclude Joseph Smith's contributions.
Furthermore, there are no instructions in the Bible on how to canonize the Bible. This makes it a canonization of men.  But even if I am to be very charitable, and I just wink wink and say that I know what you are trying to say, you still lose the argument.  In no way have you shown (or even attempted to show) that the ISV is a rejected version of the Bible.  Recall that it portrays 1 Chronicles 3:15 as,
Josiah’s descendants included Johanan his firstborn, his second born Jehoiakim, his third born Zedekiah, and his fourth born Shallum.
Regardless of the fact that Jews did not always list sons in order, it is plain that the ISV affirms that 1 Chronicles 3:15 does give a chronological order.  You cannot lawyer your way through this one.  The best you can offer is that the ISV has a transcriber error here, which will shift the focus to transcriber errors - provided,  of course, that you can define the Bible for us.

#3
The list in 1 Chronicles is one of heredity.
By saying this you are conceding the entire debate because I asked for an explanation of the ordering of the sons. At best this answer is simply irrelevant and nonsensical.
The list takes the effort to give the sons an ordering.  You deny that it is a chronological ordering despite making no attempt whatsoever to debunk the ISV or even define what is or isn't a Bible.  Your claim that it is an order of importance was debunked as it used a false premise, was vacuous in terms of evidence, and was nonsensical because it lists two vassal kings as more "important" than a legitimate successor to the throne because the vassal kings ruled longer... but OF COURSE they ruled longer - they were bowing down touching the head to the ground before emperors and surrendering goods as tribute.  To say that such kings are revered more than Shallum - even if he actually was a usurper - is going to require evidence.  Also note that Jehoiakim was cursed by God (Jeremiah 22:18-19), yet according to you he is listed first among his brothers in terms of importance.

---

---

Ultimately this boils down to a few things.  First, the definition of 'Bible' is completely irrelevant to the argument as to whether the two propositional statements, "the third Zedekiah and the fourth Shallum" and "Shallum is older than Zedekiah," is a violation of the law of non-contradiction.  It only has bearing upon the truth value of the two propositions, but for the sake of argument we've assumed these propositional statements are true.  Secondly I have provided you with an example of a genealogy given out of chronological order.  You should therefore either concede that the list in 1 Chronicles is not in chronological order, or interact with the evidence given.  Lastly, question three is a continuation of argumentation of both a straw man and irrelevant thesis as pointed out in the last two paragraphs I wrote in post #48.  While it may be fun to speculate on the order of the list, or whether the list has a categorical order at all, this line of argumentation is irrelevant to the original thesis.          

I have in the past had no problem answering these questions for the sake of conversation.  I did so in the good faith that you can recognize that they are irrelevant to, and therefore illogical for, the sake of our argument.  At this point, within this thread, if you continue to conflate our 'conversation' with our 'argumentation', then I will have to answer only the questions for the sake of argumentation.  Otherwise you are asking me to provide illogical arguments to support my position.  Can we agree that asking me to provide illogic to support my position is foolishness?

---

"Two questions.  First, why are you lying?"   I could ask you the same thing.   "The canon of god."  Moronic supercilious bullshit.
"Second, what did you think Christians meant by the terms 'the word of God' and 'revelation?' "  I was raised fundamentalist, and xtian for 46 years.  "The Word of God" means "a preacher told me that this book is really holy and special, and all the words in the book were given by god as a revelation to whoever wrote it down".  Which transforms a bunch of ridiculous evil fables cobbled together by a bunch of bronze-age goat herders into something preachers can use to gain power of the poor idiots that believe what they are told.
I really can't believe that anyone who has studied this shit-pile evil badly-written mishmash of supposed literature would EVER be quoting it to anyone. (And I have most of it memorized, I'm horrified to admit.)  Much less think that it is worth studying as something other than an obviously fallible bunch of absurd myths.