(February 25, 2016 at 11:10 am)Irrational Wrote:(February 25, 2016 at 4:07 am)Nihilist Virus Wrote: Don't let him fool you. The ISV says explicitly that the sons are listed in order, and orangebox21 has seemingly given up on the idea of defining what the Bible is after two subpar efforts. So if the ISV is indeed really a Bible, and if it says that the sons are given in order of birth, then the contradiction I proposed stands.
Not fooled at all. Just tired of dealing with the word games orangebox typically likes to play. He/she does that in every exchange I've had with him. There's no intellectual honesty.
I got a large dosage of his semantic gymnastics as well but managed to beat him at his own game.
When I used "contradiction" loosely so as to say that the violation of any logical law is a contradiction, he demands the definition of "contradiction" from me:
(February 1, 2016 at 4:03 pm)orangebox21 Wrote:(January 28, 2016 at 6:56 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: Am I talking to Bill Clinton? I'll do that for you... right after you define what you mean by 'define.'Any good debate or involved discussion should begin with the parties involved defining their terms. Define: Give a comprehensive and precise meaning of a word or concept.
Later when it's shown that at least one version of the Bible affirms my position and disputes his:
(February 24, 2016 at 1:29 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: ...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...
Jesus is like Pinocchio. He's the bastard son of a carpenter. And a liar. And he wishes he was real.