(February 1, 2016 at 5:57 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Ummm...sure. Why post an 'Open Letter to Christians' on an atheist forum? I mean there's only a few of us.

Because the Christian forums don't allow freedom of speech and they'd ban the shit out of me after taking down the post.

---

(February 1, 2016 at 6:29 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(February 1, 2016 at 5:57 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Ummm...sure. Why post an 'Open Letter to Christians' on an atheist forum? I mean there's only a few of us.

I thought the same thing. It might be more productive to post it on a Christian forum.

They let me get away with some stuff but they say I'm not allowed to refer to the writers of the Bible as racist, sexist, genocidal, slave-driving rapists.  I got a PM from a mod and all such posts were deleted.  I guess it's because it paints too clear a picture.

---

(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.  

(January 28, 2016 at 6:56 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: Anyway, you suggest that there are no contradictions in the Bible, or at the very least you are playing dumb with me.  Ok, I'll play along.

Here's a simple one:

2 Kings 8:26 vs 2 Chronicles 22:2.

---

Is a copyist error a contradiction?  This is why it is important to define terms.  Quoting from the first source:  "Supporting this answer [copyist error] to the “number problems” in Chronicles are various ancient manuscripts such as the Syriac, the Arabic, at least one Hebrew manuscript, and a few of the Septuagint manuscripts—all of which contain the correct ages for these kings in 2 Chronicles (22 and 18 rather than 42 and 8)."  What makes this interesting is that it is actually the multiple lines of transmission that allows us to recognize the copyist error for what it is.  I will also note that of the modern English translations only the KJV maintains the discrepancy.

The following sources all comment on the purposed contradiction.
First source
Second source
Third source
Haley, John.  Alleged Bible Contradictions.

---

(January 28, 2016 at 6:56 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: Here's a more complicated one:

---

1. Josiah had four sons, and they are listed in order of birth (1 Chronicles 3:15). In order, they are Johanan, Jehoiakim/Eliakim, Zedekiah, and Shallum/Jehoahaz.

1a. Jehoiakim=Eliakim (2 Kings 23:34, 2 Chronicles 36:4).

1b. Shallum=Jehoahaz (2 Kings 23:30,Jeremiah 22:11).

2. Jehoiakim had two sons (1 Chronicles 3:16), one of whom is named Zedekiah.

3. Note the important distinction which I will maintain: Zedekiah in bold is the son of Josiah, and Zedekiah with the underscore is the son of Jehoiakim.

"Zedekiah" was 21 years old when he became king and reigned 11 years (2 Kings 24:18). First assume this is referring to Zedekiah.

I. Jehoahaz is 23 years old when he begins to reign, and reigns for 3 months (2 Kings 23:31,2 Chronicles 36:2).

II. Jehoiakim succeeds Jehoahaz (2 Kings 23:33-34, 2 Chronicles 36:4).

III. Jehoiakim is 25 years old when he begins to reign, and reigns for 11 years (2 Kings 23:36, 2 Chronicles 36:5).

IV. Jehoiakim is succeeded by Jehoiachin, who reigns for 3 months (2 Kings 24:6-8, 2 Chronicles 36:8-9).

V. Jehoiachin is succeeded by Zedekiah (2 Kings 24:17, 2 Chronicles 36:10).

VI. Zedekiah was 21 years old when he became king, and reigns for 11 years. (2 Kings 24:18, 2 Chronicles 36:11).

VII. The chronological progression from I. to VI. tells us that Jehoahaz is 23 years old (I.) + 3 months (I.) + 11 years (III.) + 3 months (IV.) = 34.5 years old (or at least would be if he were alive) at the same time that Zedekiah is 21 years old. But 1. from the very top tells us that Jehoahaz is Zedekiah's younger brother. Therefore Zedekiah is younger than his younger brother, a contradiction.

Now assume it is Zedekiah that reigns.

Then this contradicts the prophecy given that Jehoiakim will have no offspring reign after him (Jeremiah 36:30), since Zedekiah is his son. And this is not a "bounce" on the throne because he reigns for 11 years.

By the way, it turns out that it is Zedekiah. Jeremiah 37:1 confirms this.

---

---

Here the contradiction is a fabrication from ignorance (an ignorance I shared prior to my research).  The contradiction isn't a contradiction at all, but is a result of improper hermeneutics, namely ignoring the historical context.  First note the text.  The word 'born' is only associated with the 'first' one in the list.  The rest are designated as second, third, and fourth.  Also note that the word 'younger' doesn't appear in the text either, it is inferred because Shallum is listed after Zedekiah and he is considered the fourth child.  There are two historical differences to note.  First, in our society we list children in the order they were born.  So given the list, my children are:  Jackey, Jim, Bill, and Nancy, we recognize this list as ordered chronologically.  So in our culture, the phrase "third child" means the third one born, and in this case would be Bill.  However in the Jewish culture, only the firstborn is noteworthy (due to the significance of the birth right), and when given a genealogical list, the first born is specified and the rest are listed in various orders depending upon the context.  Secondly, the word 'first born' doesn't necessarily mean the first one physically born.  Isaac was considered Abraham's 'first-born' even though he wasn't physically the first one born, but was the child who had the birth right (God's promise to Abraham would be through Isaac).  In this case of 1 Chronicles 3:15, the first born is specified, and refers to both physical birth and birth right, and the rest are listed in the order of importance relative to their reign over Israel.

Johanan the firstborn, the second Jehoiakim, the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum. I Chronicles 3:15.  After the firstborn, he list them in terms of importance as rulers in Israel.  The focus is on Jehoikim and his son Jehoichin who is in captivity.  Jehoiakim ruled 11 years and was the last king on the throne of David. The 70 yr captivity prophesied by Jeremiah began during his reign 605 BC (Jer 25:1-14).  None of his descendants ruled (the last two "kings" Jehoiachin, who was carried off into the captivity, and Zedekiah are merely appointments of Babylon).  But Zedekiah nevertheless was placed over Judah for 11 years, Shallum was in power for only 3 months.  After the firstborn  they are placed in order not of age but of significance. That often happens in genealogies.  

---

The foundational objection I have to the "the Bible is full of contradictions" argument is the [at least appearance of] ignorance of the narrative of argumentation that has been going on for generations.  John Haley captures the essence of this problem when he wrote, and I'm paraphrasing, "a skeptic will assert a Bible contradiction.  Someone will spend hours in research formulating a proper response.  Then, some time later, a person will assert the same contradiction as if no one has ever written anything on the subject."  That's the problem.  If you really think that your first example is a contradiction, shouldn't you have provided a counterargument as to why it isn't true that the inconsistency is due to a copyist error?  If you really think that your second example is a contradiction, shouldn't you have provided evidence to support the counterargument that no, in fact, Jewish genealogies are always ordered chronologically?  You're speaking as if no one has ever written anything on the subject.    

(January 28, 2016 at 6:56 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: Next you ask me for evidence that scribes prayed for God's help when translating or copying.  I have none.  But just so we're clear, you want me to believe that men who devote their lives to God and pray before eating a donut will not take the time to pray before transcribing the word of God?

Yes, especially because no scribe ate a donut.  Seriously though, you made a positive knowledge claim.  I'm asking you to defend the claim with evidence.  Certainly I find it reasonable to assume that scribes would pray for wisdom and guidance before embarking on such a meaningful task.  At the same time, when Jesus walked the earth who was he hard on?  Who killed him?  Wasn't it at least in part the teachers of the law and the scribes?  Didn't he call them snakes and sons of snakes?  The point here is that you've made a knowledge claim for something you admit to have no evidence of, and clearly the issue isn't as straight forward as you claim it to be.  

(January 28, 2016 at 6:56 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: You then ask for evidence that "without God's direct restraint everything would be under Satan's control.  Is that true?  Can you prove it?"  Yes I can prove it. Your Bible says that Satan is the god of this world. 2 Corinthians 4:4.

Yet God rules over Satan.  Does everyone act in accordance with God's prescriptive will?  Would everyone act in accordance with Satan's prescriptive will?

(January 28, 2016 at 6:56 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: I said I am assuming in the favor of Christianity that the errors are not contradictions in the original manuscripts but rather are transcriber errors.  Would you prefer we change this working assumption?

Then reconcile your quote in post #1 when your opening statement is:

"It is factual that the Bible contradicts itself."

(January 28, 2016 at 6:56 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: So evidence is not required for the claim that a being with infinite knowledge exists? Yet you are grilling me here on every fine little detail.

That's a misrepresentation of what I said.  I did not say evidence is not required for the claim that a being with infinite knowledge exists.  I asked you, in response to what you wrote, if it was possible to use our intellect to determine the truth value of each claim in the Bible.  Namely, how would you use your intellect to determine the truth value of the statement that "God is all knowing?"

(January 28, 2016 at 6:56 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: Cute.  I was referring to Joshua.  Still playing dumb I see.

Initially you wrote:  "the Bible and the Declaration of Independence - were written by racist, sexist, conquesting, genocidal, slave-driving rapists," and your claiming the meaning of that statement is:  "the parts of the Bible that Joshua wrote and the Declaration of Independence- were written by racist, sexist, conquesting, genocidal, slave-driving rapists."

(January 28, 2016 at 6:56 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: Do you have any intention of reading Mein Kampf to see if there is a deity speaking through the author?  After all, let's not jump to conclusions about Hitler.  He didn't even commit as many war crimes as the authors of the Bible.

Doubling down on the fallacy then?

Woah boy... you really fall flat on your face here.

Firstly, you seem to be perfectly fine with copyist errors.  You show something is copyist error and then act as though you're claiming victory.  Well, this means that God allows the Bible to be corrupted.  Note that we humans have corrupted it accidentally while trying our hardest to preserve it.  Then there's Satan... the Bible goes out of its way to commend him for being crafty and clever.  He is malicious towards God.  Yet he is unable to match our blunders?  Explain this, please.

"The foundational objection I have to the "the Bible is full of contradictions" argument is the [at least appearance of] ignorance of the narrative of argumentation that has been going on for generations."

Are you sure about that?  2000 years, less the time before the printing press, less the time before printed and non-Latin Bibles were common, less the time before you could openly question the Bible without being tortured and executed.  Exactly how many generations?

And let's take a look at your answer that has been brewed over hours of work.  I'm going to obliterate it in a couple seconds.  "Johanan the firstborn, the second Jehoiakim, the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum. I Chronicles 3:15.  After the firstborn, he list them in terms of importance as rulers in Israel."  OK... so please explain why the least important on the list was the first to succeed Joisah on the throne.

Contradiction stands.

Quote:I said I am assuming in the favor of Christianity that the errors are not contradictions in the original manuscripts but rather are transcriber errors.  Would you prefer we change this working assumption?

Then reconcile your quote in post #1 when your opening statement is:

"It is factual that the Bible contradicts itself."

Reconciliation of these two is not very hard.  The Bible contradicts itself because there are copyist errors which give contradictory accounts.  Duh?  What we know is that EITHER these contradictions were in the original or else they propagated later... but they are still contradictions.  The Bible contradicts itself and that is a fact.

Oh right, but I have to define "contradiction" for ol' Slick Willy here.  OK let's see.  A contradiction is a violation of the law of noncontradiction but also may loosely be applied to a violation of any other logical law.


"That's a misrepresentation of what I said.  I did not say evidence is not required for the claim that a being with infinite knowledge exists.  I asked you, in response to what you wrote, if it was possible to use our intellect to determine the truth value of each claim in the Bible.  Namely, how would you use your intellect to determine the truth value of the statement that 'God is all knowing?'"

We can't know that.  Hence atheism.


"Initially you wrote:  "the Bible and the Declaration of Independence - were written by racist, sexist, conquesting, genocidal, slave-driving rapists," and your claiming the meaning of that statement is:  "the parts of the Bible that Joshua wrote and the Declaration of Independence- were written by racist, sexist, conquesting, genocidal, slave-driving rapists.""

Yeah.  The authors of the Bible are lumped together.  They stand or fall together.


"Doubling down on the fallacy then?"

I'm not even committing the genetic fallacy.  I'm not saying the Bible is false because it was written by racist, sexist, conquesting, genocidal, slave-driving rapists.  I'm saying we should at least raise an eyebrow when such people draft a system of morality.

Then there's this stuff you said which I'm not sure fits in anywhere:

"Yes, especially because no scribe ate a donut.  Seriously though, you made a positive knowledge claim.  I'm asking you to defend the claim with evidence.  Certainly I find it reasonable to assume that scribes would pray for wisdom and guidance before embarking on such a meaningful task.  At the same time, when Jesus walked the earth who was he hard on?  Who killed him?  Wasn't it at least in part the teachers of the law and the scribes?  Didn't he call them snakes and sons of snakes?  The point here is that you've made a knowledge claim for something you admit to have no evidence of, and clearly the issue isn't as straight forward as you claim it to be. "

OK... show me where the actual knowledge claim is.


"Yet God rules over Satan.  Does everyone act in accordance with God's prescriptive will?  Would everyone act in accordance with Satan's prescriptive will?"


What does this have to do with Satan altering the Bible?

Still don't understand what the purpose is of posting a letter to Christians on an atheist forum...

(February 2, 2016 at 3:41 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Still don't understand what the purpose is of posting a letter to Christians on an atheist forum...

Because Christians are here. This is the Christianity subforum. You came here either because you want to argue with atheists or because you are experiencing a crisis of faith. In either case, my letter is directed at you.

Yeah... like, 5 of us.

(Btw, I am not here for either of those reasons.)

(February 2, 2016 at 4:55 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Yeah... like, 5 of us.  

(Btw, I am not here for either of those reasons.)

Why are you here then?

(February 3, 2016 at 3:56 pm)orangebox21 Wrote:

---

(February 2, 2016 at 2:36 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: Oh right, but I have to define "contradiction" for ol' Slick Willy here.  OK let's see.  A contradiction is a violation of the law of non-contradiction but also may loosely be applied to a violation of any other logical law.

The law of non-contradiction states that something cannot be both true and not true at the same time and in the same context.  Therefore to prove the Bible has contradictions, one needs to provide two scriptures, one claiming X is true, and another claiming X is not true at the same time and in the same context.  

(February 2, 2016 at 2:36 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: I said I am assuming in the favor of Christianity that the errors are not contradictions in the original manuscripts but rather are transcriber errors.  Would you prefer we change this working assumption?
Reconciliation of these two is not very hard.  The Bible contradicts itself because there are copyist errors which give contradictory accounts.  Duh?  What we know is that EITHER these contradictions were in the original or else they propagated later... but they are still contradictions.  The Bible contradicts itself and that is a fact.

You've claimed that the errors are not contradictions but rather transcriber errors.  So you differentiate that a transcriber error is not a contradiction.  You then go on to claim that because there are transcriber errors (not contradictions) the Bible has contradictions.

(February 2, 2016 at 2:36 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: Firstly, you seem to be perfectly fine with copyist errors.  You show something is copyist error and then act as though you're claiming victory.  Well, this means that God allows the Bible to be corrupted.  Note that we humans have corrupted it accidentally while trying our hardest to preserve it.  Then there's Satan... the Bible goes out of its way to commend him for being crafty and clever.  He is malicious towards God.  Yet he is unable to match our blunders?  Explain this, please.

A copyist error does not violate the law of non-contradiction.  By definition, a copy of something that is different from the original is a different something.  Two different things compared cannot violate the law of non-contradiction.  Therefore a copyist error is not a contradiction.

(February 2, 2016 at 2:36 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: Are you sure about that?  2000 years, less the time before the printing press, less the time before printed and non-Latin Bibles were common, less the time before you could openly question the Bible without being tortured and executed.  Exactly how many generations?

Generations being defined genealogically.  

(February 2, 2016 at 2:36 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: And let's take a look at your answer that has been brewed over hours of work.  I'm going to obliterate it in a couple seconds.
OK... so please explain why the least important on the list was the first to succeed Joisah on the throne.  Contradiction stands.

Are you then conceding your argument that the list is in the order of birth?

(February 2, 2016 at 2:36 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: We can't know that.  Hence atheism.

Then why claim we need to use our intellect to determine the truth value of each claim in the Bible when you've admitted we can't?

(February 2, 2016 at 2:36 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: Yeah.  The authors of the Bible are lumped together.  They stand or fall together.

Your initial claim is that the Bible was written by racist, sexist, conquesting, genocidal, slave-driving rapists.  You did not write that some of the Bible was written by racist, sexist, conquesting, genocidal, slave-driving rapists therefore the entire Bible is written by by racist, sexist, conquesting, genocidal, slave-driving rapists because the authors of the Bible are lumped together, namely they stand or fall together.  If you want to revise or amend your argument, no problem.  But to provide justifications after the fact as if you had claimed them initially is at best logically inconsistent.

(February 2, 2016 at 2:36 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: I'm not even committing the genetic fallacy.  I'm not saying the Bible is false because it was written by racist, sexist, conquesting, genocidal, slave-driving rapists.  I'm saying we should at least raise an eyebrow when such people draft a system of morality.

While it is true you're committing the genetic fallacy, it is also true that your reasoning for rejecting this moral system is your bare assertion that the Bible is written by racist, sexist, conquesting, genocidal, slave-driving rapists.  So you're poisoning the well, with a bare assertion.  

You're also committing the fallacy of composition.  You've claimed that because the Bible was written by racist, sexist, conquesting, genocidal, slave-driving rapists we shouldn't trust their system of morality (genetic fallacy).  Therefore the entirety of the Bible (including subjects not involving a system of morality) is false.

(February 2, 2016 at 2:36 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: OK... show me where the actual knowledge claim is.

That burden of proof lies with you.

(February 2, 2016 at 2:36 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: What does this have to do with Satan altering the Bible?

It is a line of argumentation that began with your assertion in post#1

Quote:If, on the other hand, God allows anything to happen to the Bible, and does not interfere, then you can be assured that the Bible says exactly what Satan wants it to say.

If you're having trouble following multiple lines of argumentation then perhaps just pick one, and let's discuss it.  That would be my preference anyway.

---

If you're having trouble following multiple lines of argumentation then perhaps just pick one, and let's discuss it.  That would be my preference anyway.


A thinly veiled insult to my intelligence. Thanks, but that doesn't change the fact that I am sawing your head off and drop kicking it in this debate.

So to indulge you let's stick to the Zedekiah contradiction. Yes I said contradiction. Deal with it. You said this:

Are you then conceding your argument that the list is in the order of birth?

You amaze me. I utterly destroyed your argument and you come back asking me if I concede a point. I suspect you're trying to draw attention away from your miserable defeat so I'll paste it again here. You are in bold:

And let's take a look at your answer that has been brewed over hours of work. I'm going to obliterate it in a couple seconds. "Johanan the firstborn, the second Jehoiakim, the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum. I Chronicles 3:15. After the firstborn, he list them in terms of importance as rulers in Israel." OK... so please explain why the least important on the list was the first to succeed Joisah on the throne.

Contradiction stands.

Are you then conceding your argument that the list is in the order of birth?

You seem to be unaware that the two methods of defeating an argument are to either show the facts are wrong or else show the logic is wrong. Not knowing ancient Arabic, I was left with the task of showing your logic is wrong. In order to do so, I must assume some of your premises. Upon doing this, you claim victory because your premise is being assumed. Pardon me whilst I expel a hearty laugh at your expense.

(February 3, 2016 at 7:33 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote:

(February 3, 2016 at 3:56 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: If you're having trouble following multiple lines of argumentation then perhaps just pick one, and let's discuss it.  That would be my preference anyway.

A thinly veiled insult to my intelligence.  Thanks, but that doesn't change the fact that I am sawing your head off and drop kicking it in this debate.

Can you know my heart's intent that I meant to insult your intelligence?  Isn't it equally possible I was speaking as a matter of fact?  

Furthermore, claiming victory without engaging the argument is a cheap debating tactic.

(February 3, 2016 at 7:33 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote:

(February 3, 2016 at 3:56 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: Are you then conceding your argument that the list is in the order of birth?

You amaze me.  I utterly destroyed your argument and you come back asking me if I concede a point.  I suspect you're trying to draw attention away from your miserable defeat so I'll paste it again here.  You are in bold:

And let's take a look at your answer that has been brewed over hours of work.  I'm going to obliterate it in a couple seconds. "Johanan the firstborn, the second Jehoiakim, the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum. I Chronicles 3:15.  After the firstborn, he list them in terms of importance as rulers in Israel." OK... so please explain why the least important on the list was the first to succeed Joisah on the throne.

Contradiction stands.

Because I said that they are listed with the first born first and then in order of importance.  Your question is why the least important on the list was the first to succeed Josiah on the throne.  You've asserted that the standard by which importance is measured is by succession.  You've asserted an argument, namely that the most important person is the next one in succession and shown how that is inconsistent with the order in 1 Chronicles 3:15.  And I agree, it is.  However that isn't the argument I proposed.  I never asserted the order was by succession, I asserted the order is of importance.  Asserting an argument different from the one provided in order to argue against it is by definition a straw man.  That is what you have provided here, a straw man argument.

While your argument is a straw man, I will for the sake of those interested, propose what the author's standard of importance may be (a summation from post #35).  Johanan was listed as the first born physically and having the birth right.  Next in importance is Johoiakim because he ruled for 11 years and was the last official king on the throne of David.  Third in importance is Zedekiah because while he ruled for 11 years over Judah, his appointment did not relate to the throne of David, but rather he was appointed there by Babylon.  Least important was Shallum, because his rule was a result of usurping the throne and only lasted 3 months.  This list is exactly as we see it in 1 Chronicles 3:15 (Johanan the firstborn, the second Jehoiakim, the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum).

(February 3, 2016 at 7:33 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote:

(February 3, 2016 at 3:56 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: Are you then conceding your argument that the list is in the order of birth?

You seem to be unaware that the two methods of defeating an argument are to either show the facts are wrong or else show the logic is wrong.  Not knowing ancient Arabic,

The Old Testament was written in Hebrew not Arabic.  Furthermore, you do not need to understand ancient Hebrew in order to understand the historical context as it relates to lists of genealogy.

(February 3, 2016 at 7:33 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: I was left with the task of showing your logic is wrong.

What logical error have I made?

(February 3, 2016 at 7:33 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: In order to do so, I must assume some of your premises.  Upon doing this, you claim victory because your premise is being assumed.  Pardon me whilst I expel a hearty laugh at your expense.

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.

(February 4, 2016 at 12:38 pm)orangebox21 Wrote:

(February 3, 2016 at 7:33 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: A thinly veiled insult to my intelligence.  Thanks, but that doesn't change the fact that I am sawing your head off and drop kicking it in this debate.

Can you know my heart's intent that I meant to insult your intelligence?  Isn't it equally possible I was speaking as a matter of fact?  

Furthermore, claiming victory without engaging the argument is a cheap debating tactic.

(February 3, 2016 at 7:33 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: You amaze me.  I utterly destroyed your argument and you come back asking me if I concede a point.  I suspect you're trying to draw attention away from your miserable defeat so I'll paste it again here.  You are in bold:

And let's take a look at your answer that has been brewed over hours of work.  I'm going to obliterate it in a couple seconds. "Johanan the firstborn, the second Jehoiakim, the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum. I Chronicles 3:15.  After the firstborn, he list them in terms of importance as rulers in Israel." OK... so please explain why the least important on the list was the first to succeed Joisah on the throne.

Contradiction stands.

Because I said that they are listed with the first born first and then in order of importance.  Your question is why the least important on the list was the first to succeed Josiah on the throne.  You've asserted that the standard by which importance is measured is by succession.  You've asserted an argument, namely that the most important person is the next one in succession and shown how that is inconsistent with the order in 1 Chronicles 3:15.  And I agree, it is.  However that isn't the argument I proposed.  I never asserted the order was by succession, I asserted the order is of importance.  Asserting an argument different from the one provided in order to argue against it is by definition a straw man.  That is what you have provided here, a straw man argument.

While your argument is a straw man, I will for the sake of those interested, propose what the author's standard of importance may be (a summation from post #35).  Johanan was listed as the first born physically and having the birth right.  Next in importance is Johoiakim because he ruled for 11 years and was the last official king on the throne of David.  Third in importance is Zedekiah because while he ruled for 11 years over Judah, his appointment did not relate to the throne of David, but rather he was appointed there by Babylon.  Least important was Shallum, because his rule was a result of usurping the throne and only lasted 3 months.  This list is exactly as we see it in 1 Chronicles 3:15 (Johanan the firstborn, the second Jehoiakim, the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum).

(February 3, 2016 at 7:33 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: You seem to be unaware that the two methods of defeating an argument are to either show the facts are wrong or else show the logic is wrong.  Not knowing ancient Arabic,

The Old Testament was written in Hebrew not Arabic.  Furthermore, you do not need to understand ancient Hebrew in order to understand the historical context as it relates to lists of genealogy.

(February 3, 2016 at 7:33 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: I was left with the task of showing your logic is wrong.

What logical error have I made?

(February 3, 2016 at 7:33 pm)Nihilist Virus Wrote: In order to do so, I must assume some of your premises.  Upon doing this, you claim victory because your premise is being assumed.  Pardon me whilst I expel a hearty laugh at your expense.

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.

Fascinating. You've come closer than anyone to solving this without admitting a contradiction. Bravo.

However, you said this:

Least important was Shallum, because his rule was a result of usurping the throne and only lasted 3 months.

This is false. Read 2 Kings 23:29-33. From this it appears Shallum was the legitimate successor, not a usurper, and was not a vassal king either. This would make him a more important ruler than the vassal king, Zedekiah (how do you determine importance in this context?). Even if Shallum was a usurper, being installed via shady Jewish politics would presumably make him more of a legitimate king than any vassal king. Vassal kings bow down and touch their head to the ground. How do you place 11 vassal years over Shallum's 3 months of sovereign reign? Can you show the ancient Jews were inclined to do this?


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 this is the case then it would already be understood that the sons listed after the first are not necessarily given in chronological order, so it would be tacitly assumed that they are being listed in order of importance. Why, then, in this rare occasion are we given clarification of who was second, third, and fourth? Is it being redundant? Also can you provide evidence of any of your assertions about the language and culture being described, or are you of the belief that I need to know Hebrew to claim there is a contradiction?

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.

Correct me if I'm wrong but Isaac was not Abraham's first born son. Yet Isaac had the birth right. So the father of the Jews already is an exception to your generality. Also the Bible is pretty clear on the order of the patriarchs' births so it would be inconsistent to not give the order of birth of kings. Evidence required for your claim.

(January 25, 2016 at 4:19 am)Nihilist Virus Wrote: It is factual that the Bible contradicts itself.  These errors are either part of the original documents, or else are transcriber errors.  Since this is unknown, we assume in the favor of Christianity that these are transcriber errors.

It seems, then, that you believe two things: first, that a group of men who were doing all that they could to prevent the Bible from accumulating errors were unable to find assistance from God in this matter (John 14:13) and ultimately failed at their task; and second, that an ancient being who is described as clever at every opportunity and who is malicious to the gospel is somehow unable to at least match the blunders of the men who were doing their best to prevent errors from accumulating.  If God allows men to corrupt the Bible, but prevents Satan from doing so, then it is natural to believe that God is impeding Satan's free will to the point that Satan can only do what God wants him to do, which is to say that Satan acts on God's behalf.  If, on the other hand, God allows anything to happen to the Bible, and does not interfere, then you can be assured that the Bible says exactly what Satan wants it to say.

At the very least, we know we should treat the Bible like you would treat any document that is confirmed to contain both true and false claims: you have to meticulously comb over every claim and consult your own intellect to determine the truth value of each claim.  Because with contradictions, you lose the "because it's in the Bible" defense.  Why do you believe in the Flood?  Because it's in the Bible?  Well, contradictions are in the Bible, do you believe those are true, too?  Clearly not, so you cannot use "because it's in the Bible" as an answer for belief.  On some level you must use your own reasoning.  Does your own intellect tell you it is reasonable to believe in talking donkeys?

There is another issue you really ought to use your own intellect on.  It is regrettable and also somehow amusing to me, as a US citizen and former Christian, that the two documents I used to revere the most - the Bible and the Declaration of Independence - were written by racist, sexist, conquesting, genocidal, slave-driving rapists.  The Declaration of Independence, though, does not claim divine authority - or if it does, I think we tend to ignore that.  So why, when you understand that a group of ancient savages drafted a system of morality and a proposed method of atonement, do you believe that adherence to these principles is in any way reasonable?

This should be fun. :: gets popcorn::