Open letter to Christians

[Nihilist Virus]

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.

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).

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.

I was left with the task of showing your logic is wrong.

What logical error have I made?

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.