Open letter to Christians

[Nihilist Virus]

---

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.  

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.

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.

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.  

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?

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?

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.

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.

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

That burden of proof lies with you.

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

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.